Chapter LXIX: Introduction (68)

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH had never been much in favor of the Mint, nor had experience increased his good opinion of it. But passing this appropriation bill would not prevent a full investigation of this subject hereafter. He was for deferring any proceeding about the Mint till the select committee made their report. He opposed the motion.

Mr. SEDGWICK thought that the course which the gentleman is pursuing had never been adopted before. It is incorrect to discuss the merits of the Mint in passing this bill. We might as well take up the salary of the Chief Justice, or any other article in the bill, as the Mint. We never should have done, at this rate. We are now only to vote for the bill, as agreeable to the laws already made. Mr. SEDGWICK said that if the gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) would bring forward any proposition for the regulation, or even the abolition of the establishment of the Mint, if it could be proved productive of public benefit, he, with every other gentleman, would give him their aid to effect the object; but that now, he conceived, it could not regularly be brought forward. He thought an appropriation bill should be conformed exactly to the state of the public engagements, and that where establishments had been formed and salaries provided, the amount of them should be the principle of calculating the amount of appropriations; and that the House ought not, by withholding appropriations, to break in upon and destroy establishments formed by the whole Legislature. That these observations had hitherto been sanctioned by the practice on this subject. He observed, that if the House was to investigate, in the discussion of an appropriation bill, the amount of salaries and the legal establishments of Government, the public service would be dangerously destroyed. He remarked, that it was to be observed that no appropriation was made, for any purpose, since the commencement of the year.

Mr. GALLATIN felt alarmed at the principle advanced by Mr. SEDGWICK, for, if admitted, it might be applied in future on some other and important occasion. The motion made by the member from New York ought not, perhaps, to be adopted; but there was certainly a discretionary power in the House to appropriate or not to appropriate for any object whatever, whether that object was authorized by law or not. It was a power which, however inexpedient on the present occasion, was vested in this House for the purpose of checking the other branches of Government whenever necessary. That such a right was reserved by this body, appeared from their making only yearly appropriations for the support of the Civil List and of the Military Establishment. Had they meant to give up the right, they would have such appropriations _permanent_. There was one instance in which this House had thought it proper to abandon the right. In order to strengthen public credit, they had consented that the payment of interest on the debt should not depend on their sole will, and they had rendered the appropriation for that object not a yearly, but a permanent one. Whenever that was not the case, and the right had been reserved, it was contradictory to suppose that the House were bound to do a certain act, at the same time that they were exercising the discretionary power of voting upon it.

Mr. SEDGWICK said that he certainly had no intention to have given occasion to the observations which had been made; but, as the general principle which he had laid down had been denied, and as it had some relation, either intimate or remote, to the subject before the committee, he would take the liberty to repeat the principle, and say a few words in support of it.

The principle, then, which he had assumed, was, that when legal establishments were made, it was the duty of the Legislature to make appropriations conformably to the public engagements; and that neither branch had a right to withhold its assent. He observed that the whole Legislature, and not a part, were competent to form contracts, and to establish and alter compensations and salaries. The Legislature, and not either branch of it, had the power of expressing the public will, and pledging the public faith; that when a salary is ascertained, the public faith is pledged that it shall be paid, according to the stipulation; and that, therefore, the public credit is involved in making the necessary appropriations, without which it could not be paid. He asked, if, in such a case, it was competent to the House rightfully to withhold the means necessary for the performance of the public engagement?

He said he had always supposed that the power of the House, in the case of appropriations, did not give a power to yield or withhold assent on such a subject. He believed, in every such instance, the exercise of discretion was restrained. To illustrate his ideas, he could mention a similar instance. The constitution had declared that the PRESIDENT should receive a stated compensation for his services, to be ascertained by law, which could neither be diminished nor enlarged during the term for which he should have been elected. Here was a duty imposed on the Legislature, with the performance of which they could not, they had no power to dispense. Yet, after the compensation was stated, no payment could be made in consequence of appropriating. He asked, if, in this case, when the public will was expressed, the engagement and the national faith pledged, the Legislature could of right withhold the necessary appropriation? The same observations might, he said, be applied to every instance where public contracts were formed. The public faith was pledged, the necessary appropriation must be made to prevent a violation of it; and if withheld, such violation might justly be charged on the Legislature.

Mr. NICHOLAS was for the resolution. It had been urged that the House were to pass the appropriation bill as a matter of course. He thought otherwise. The House, in enacting a law, were entitled to consider all its consequences.

Mr. GILES adverted to a fact stated by Mr. WILLIAMS, viz: that the cents are issued from the Mint at a cheaper rate than the price of the copper itself; so that, if a person chooses to melt down a pound weight of cents into a lump of copper, and takes this lump back again to the Mint, he will receive more money for it than what it was worth in cents. Thus the whole expense of workmanship is cast away. Mr. GILES described the ridiculous and wasteful effects to be looked for from such a way of coining money.

The amendment of Mr. WILLIAMS was agreed to by a very large majority.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out some of the subsequent clauses, for payments to mechanics, for stationery, &c.

Mr. ISAAC SMITH wanted to know if it was meant to stop the whole operations of the Mint.

Mr. PAGE objected to dispersing the workmen, who could not easily be collected again; at least it would require an immense expense to re-assemble them. It has been stated, in the course of this discussion, that _every cent coined in the Mint_ has cost the public TEN; but if the workmen are to be dispersed, and if at any future time assembled again, the cents may come to cost _A HUNDRED CENTS_ apiece. Mr. P. recited various reasons for hoping that the business of the Mint will in future be conducted with more expedition, economy, and success. He stated the immense benefit arising to the country from the plenty of copper money, and especially to the poorer classes of people. A Mint was of more consequence than gentlemen seemed to think it was. He said that private mints were reported to be setting up. He wished to refer the amendment of his colleague from Virginia to the third reading of the bill. By that time the House would be better informed.

Mr. NICHOLAS did not wish to abolish, but merely to suspend the operations of the Mint till nearer the end of the session. This amendment was negatived.

The committee rose, the Chairman reported, and the House took up the bill as reported.

The House adhered to the amendment of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. LIVINGSTON next moved that the whole appropriation for the Mint should be struck out.

Mr. MURRAY said, that had the gentleman from New York moved for delay, for the purpose of introducing a motion to repeal the law which rendered this appropriation necessary, he would not have troubled the House with a single remark; but his motion to strike out an appropriation for the purpose of bringing the policy of the law itself into discussion, contained a principle in his mind so repugnant to the great Legislative duties of the House that he would oppose it. The object of the appropriation is not a temporary one, but a part of the machinery of our Government, under the express authority of the constitution by law. The doctrine now contended for by the gentlemen from New York and Pennsylvania (Mr. LIVINGSTON and Mr. GALLATIN) was that this House have a discretionary power of appropriating or not. To this doctrine, taken in the extent which he conceived they contended for, he could not give his support. On the contrary, he thought that in all cases where an appropriation flowed from a law to make good a contract, or to erect a permanent organ in the Government, and from any law whose object was permanent, the true doctrine was, that it was the duty of the House to vote an appropriation. A law is the will of a nation. The same powers only that formed it can repeal it. If it be a constitutional act, no power can lawfully obstruct its operation or its existence. But attending to the doctrine maintained to-day, it would follow, that though this House had not the power of repealing a law made by all the branches of Government, it may obstruct its operations and render it a dead letter; though it cannot repeal, it may do what shall amount to a repeal, which is the assumption of a power almost equal to that of exclusive legislation. He thought he saw in this an evil of great extent, and an anarchy of theoretic principles. It appeared to him that though we originate money bills, we had no right to refuse an appropriation to existing laws that either secured a debt or any contract, or that related to objects permanent by the law that created or acknowledged them, as long as the law itself remained unrepealed. We had but a share of Legislative power. Where a law relative to such objects as he had alluded to existed, from which an appropriation followed, till the law ceased by repeal or by other constitutional means, it was obligatory upon us as well as upon our constituents, and the only powers we could exercise of a discretionary sort resolved themselves either into this mode of making good the appropriation, or of voting for its repeal. The other branches would then judge of the propriety of our proceeding; but till they who assisted in its enacting, judged with us the necessity of doing it away, a duty resulted that we should give it the energy intended by its enaction.

Mr. DAYTON conceived the question brought under discussion of too delicate a nature to be decided at the present time. He, however, expressed it as his opinion that the power of making appropriations was intended and ought to be a check on establishments.

Mr. NICHOLAS conceived the House bound to weigh the merits of every law when an appropriation was to be passed to carry it into effect, and no appropriations should obtain the sanction of the House, unless they were convinced of the propriety of the law.

Mr. GILES said he did not expect to hear a doctrine so novel broached in the House as that advanced by the member from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK.) He had declared that he conceived the House could exercise no discretionary power when about to pass an appropriation bill.

Mr. SEDGWICK rose to explain. The principle he advocated was, that when a law was made pledging the public faith, the House had no discretion to withhold, or not, an appropriation; at least as long as common honesty was more than a name.

Mr. GILES said that if this doctrine was admitted in its full latitude, the House would become a mere office for the registering of edicts. He contended that the House had a right, by withholding appropriations, to put an end to an institution without the concurrence of the Senate. He would not say that the present was a case that called for the exercise of that right, but they had in all cases of this nature a right to exercise their discretion.

Mr. MURRAY considered the laws of the land as depending upon two other branches of the Government besides this House, and conceived it highly improper in the House to attempt to obstruct them by withholding necessary appropriations. What would be the effect of a contrary doctrine? It must contain the seeds of governmental anarchy. While a law remained in force it was the duty of the House to do what was needful to carry it into operation. He made some allusion to the British House of Commons, who, by privilege, contend for the right of withholding supplies to be a check on the patronage of the Crown. But such a principle, he contended, could not apply here; our Government could not proceed if it were admitted. As long as a law exists, it is the duty of the House to make the needful appropriations. The whole wisdom of the Government is not in this House. The same power is required to repeal laws as to make them. It is true the constitution has given to the House the more immediate command of the purse-strings; but they were under an obligation to open them when necessity required. There is a constitutional way of repealing laws; but the House has no right to obstruct their operation while in force. A member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GALLATIN,) he observed, appeared on a former occasion to coincide with his opinions on this subject; for he argued that the House was bound to pass such an appropriation, as a law existed giving the salary to the officer which it was meant to provide for.

Mr. GALLATIN said, in answer, that his observation had simply been, that the Committee of Ways and Means, and not the House, conceived itself bound to report an appropriation for an item established by law; but he never doubted the power of the House to pass, or not, an appropriation. In such cases the line of duty must remain to be drawn by opinion. With what degree of consistency can the House be called on for a vote if, as some members contend, they cannot have an opinion? Why are they called upon to say, yea or nay, if they are obliged to say yea?

Mr. MURRAY conceded that a member might say yea or nay, but his duty must in cases of this nature clearly point to one of the two; for he could not mistake the black and white marks in the court of conscience. He has the physical power to say yea or nay; but if he does his duty he must say yea. The contrary principle would go to this, that the House had a right to refuse an appropriation to pay a just debt.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, in reply, that each member will be the sole judge whether it was or was not his duty to say yea, or the contrary. The constitution, he said, declared that no money should be drawn from the Treasury but by appropriations made by law: this did not look as if the voting of appropriations was intended to be merely a matter of form. In the second place, the constitution declares, that no appropriation for the support of an armed force shall be made for more than two years. Thus, though a Military Establishment may be formed by enlistments for three or more years, yet the constitution provides that the question shall be submitted to the House every two years; and this surely is not as a matter of form; but in order, at such short periods, by voting on an appropriation bill, to determine whether such an establishment should exist longer or not. He conceived the power which he advocated as residing in the House of great consequence, and to be used on important occasions only.

Mr. NICHOLAS, who had risen at the same time with Mr. GALLATIN, and had given way to him, observed, that when he first rose, he was going to read the clause of the constitution which the member last up had referred to. As to the black and white marks the member from Maryland spoke of, they were differently placed in different persons; in matters of opinion men will differ; but the constitution is a guide not to be departed from. The power of appropriation was vested by that instrument chiefly in the House, and no power on earth would prevent his exercising his discretion when that power was to be put in activity.

Mr. GILES observed, that the member from Maryland had got into the doctrine of checks, and seemed to think that if the House exercised its constitutional check it would produce governmental anarchy.

Mr. MURRAY explained. He had alluded to the mode of getting rid of an establishment by refusing appropriations to carry it into effect. The constitutional mode of procuring the repeal of the law should always be had recourse to; but he insisted that the House could not, as they were bound by their duty, obstruct a law in force by refusing an appropriation.

Mr. GILES conceived that the checks provided by the constitution might be used by each of the powers of government to their full extent, limited in every particular case only by their own discretion. If the harmony of the branches was to be made an argument to prevent the exercise of checks, what, he asked, became of the checks provided by the constitution? Each branch of the government (if he understood what was meant by constitutional checks) was to exercise its own opinions and use its discretions within constitutional limits, without a reference to the opinions of other branches. He next adverted to the powers of appropriation, which he contended were in a greater degree vested in the immediate representatives of the people, to be a wholesome check. In case of an army establishment, for example, suppose the PRESIDENT or Senate were to refuse their assent to the repeal of a law establishing it? Will it be said that the clause of the constitution empowering the House to make a biennial appropriation for the object, does not vest in them a discretionary power in such instances of overturning the establishment by its own will? for it cannot be kept up without an appropriation. Is the House to be told that, for the sake of harmony, they must give up their own powers and opinions? He maintained that, in cases of appropriations, they had a discretionary power, to be exercised, as in all cases, discretionarily. Was one branch to be judges of discretion for another? No; each should judge for itself.

Mr. MURRAY said, it was known to every one that an appropriation for the support of a military establishment could not be made for a longer term than two years; but that case was widely different from the present. It was known that, by the constitution, a military appropriation cannot exist more than two years; but the doctrine he supported was in cases of debt or obligation under a law; and, in such cases, he still contended that, though the House had the physical power to refuse an appropriation to satisfy a claim thus founded, they had not the right.

Here the debate was interrupted by a motion for adjournment; which was carried, and the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, January 20.

_Appropriations for 1796._

The amendments from the committee being thus gone through, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.[66]

SATURDAY, January 30.

_Stenographer to the House._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the report from the stenographical committee. The report was read.

Mr. SWANWICK: then rose for the sake of asking information. He inquired whether the House were to sanction and authorize the reports of the proposed stenographer? He had very considerable apprehensions about the propriety of entering into the subject in any mode.

Mr. W. SMITH replied, that the gentleman engaged by the committee had undertaken to have his reports ready for Mr. Brown, printer of the Philadelphia Gazette, in the morning of the succeeding day.

Mr. SWANWICK rose again. He observed, that to give universal satisfaction was impracticable. So many gentlemen were to be satisfied, that it never could be accomplished. He observed that one of the principal causes of complaint against reporters was of a nature that did not admit a remedy. Gentlemen rose, in the ardor of discussion, and suffered many remarks to escape from them, which, neither in thought nor expression, were perfectly correct. If the reporter, as was his duty, took them down, and stated them exactly, gentlemen were irritated by seeing themselves exhibited in this shape, and then blame was cast on the reporter. Every degree of praise was due to the editor of a Philadelphia daily newspaper, whom Mr. S. named, and who had not only done every thing in his power to obtain the debates of the House at full length, but had frequently advertised, that if errors were committed by his reporter, they should, on application, be instantly rectified. More than this it was impossible to desire, for no mode of conduct could be more liberal or candid. But Mr. S. did not see the propriety of blending the House of Representatives and the editor of a newspaper in this business. The stenographer is to be called an officer of the House, while he receives eleven hundred dollars from the printer of a Philadelphia newspaper. He is thus also the officer of the printer, as well as ours. If we give the gentleman the proposed salary, we are to depend on him alone, whereas at present we have different reporters, and two or three of them frequently and mutually both corroborate and correct each other. What has escaped one reporter, or what he has misunderstood, is often observed by his competitor. The error is amended, or the defect supplied. Mr. S. farther observed, that as far as he had read or heard of, such an institution as the one now proposed, was never known under any Government, or in any country, that had hitherto existed. [It was observed, in some part of the debate, that an attempt of this kind was once made by the National Assembly of France.] Mr. S. expressed himself warmly against Government making any composition of the nature now proposed with a printer, and against any attempt for giving one newspaper an advantage over another, by any preference as to the copy. If Mr. S. wanted any person to be sure of dismission and disgrace, he could not name any other situation where that dismission and disgrace were so absolutely certain, as to a person accepting the proposed office of stenographer. If he did his duty, gentlemen would frequently not like to see their speeches exactly as delivered. If he altered them, his utility was at an end. It would therefore be much better to let the gentleman stay at his own business.

Mr. GILES objected particularly to the opposition made in this late stage of the business. He admitted that it was a delicate step, but he complained in strong terms of the inaccuracy of the reports now given. He observed that the object was not merely to find a stenographer who would satisfy the members of that House, but who would also give satisfactory information to the public at large.

Mr. SHERBURNE agreed with the gentleman last up, that the object of the resolution could not be merely to give satisfaction to members, but information to the public; though if it was important that the public should be informed of what was said in that House, the proposed resolution would be inadequate to its objects. But he conceived it more important for the public to be informed of what was done, and that, he observed, was not always to be inferred from what was said; as (the mind being always open to conviction) it had not been unusual in a former--he would not say the present--House, for gentlemen to argue one way, and vote another. As therefore, no certain inferences of the conduct of members would be drawn from their speeches, and as the public were more interested in their actions than their sayings, (a knowledge of which the present resolution was not, in his opinion, calculated to promote,) it would not meet his concurrence. But, Mr. S. further observed, that if the speech was to be considered as the infallible _inditium_ of the subsequent conduct, as the avowed object of the resolution was to diffuse, through the various parts of the States a knowledge of that conduct, he should oppose it from a conviction that the means were not competent to the end. The resolution proposed a publication of the debates in a daily Philadelphia paper. These debates would necessarily be so voluminous as to engross the greater part of such a publication. Except in Philadelphia, New York, and one or two other large cities, there were no daily papers; in all other places, they were not published oftener than once, or, at most, twice, a week. The daily papers, in comparison with others, were few. If, therefore, a daily paper was engrossed by a detail of the debates, when would the public arrive at a knowledge of them through the more common medium of a weekly paper? The inhabitants of this, and a few other large towns, might be gratified, perhaps benefited, by a speedy perusal of them; but when would the citizens of more distant parts of the Union, through their usual weekly channels, be indulged with the like opportunities? The difference would be as one to six; and what the inhabitants of Philadelphia might become acquainted with in one year, the people of New England and Georgia would not be informed of in six years, unless they relinquished their own weekly publications for a Philadelphia paper.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that he would candidly confess that the House had put itself in a delicate situation on this subject; yet if, on the whole, gentlemen be of opinion that the measure was improper, it ought not, by reason of any antecedent conduct, to be now further pursued to the public detriment. It was also but just to say, that if the measure was proper, a more competent and more impartial agent than the one proposed could not be obtained. He said that the printers had much merit from their endeavors to communicate to the public the debates of the House, yet it must be allowed that their endeavors had been too unsuccessful; that, in consequence, much injury had been done, not only to the characters of gentlemen as men of talents, but also in some instances, to the motives which had produced public measures. These were evils to which a remedy should be applied, if it did not involve those which would be more injurious. It ought to be remembered that the man appointed would be an officer of the House, responsible to it for his fidelity and accuracy. The debates would then be published under authority of the House, and it of consequence was responsible for his precise execution of the trust. It was impossible to conceive that at some times, with the best intention, he should not mistake, and of course misrepresent. The member in such a situation, would feel the injury, but redress would be obtained only by the interposition of the House. This would afford ground for numerous appeals, and endless litigation; and, in the end, might be ruinous to many valuable and respectable characters. It was of importance that no constraint should exist which would prevent gentlemen from expressing freely and without fear their own feelings and opinions and those of their constituents. How far the fear of misrepresentation, and the difficulty of correcting it, under such a system, would produce such an effect, gentlemen he hoped would consider before they assented to this proposition.

There was one other consideration, which had great weight on the mind. Whatever opinion we might entertain on the subject at present, all would remember the powerful influence of party and faction, and their intimate connection with free governments. From hence it might be easy to conceive, that hereafter this might be rendered the most powerful engine of an unprincipled majority, to overawe and to prostrate and destroy a virtuous minority. For no character was so established as to withstand for any length of time constant misrepresentation supported by the authority of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SEDGWICK, who, immediately after he began speaking, observed that the gentleman had mistaken his meaning. Mr. H. said that he perfectly understood the member, and proceeded to recommend the object of the report. He gave credit to the present reporters for diligence and good intention, but thought them far inferior to what might be done. Great attainments had been made, he admitted, but more might be done. He thought it of the highest consequence that the speeches of members should be correctly published and disseminated among the people. As to the sum now proposed, a London newspaper would give, he had no doubt, five thousand dollars a year for such a reporter. He questioned not that Woodfall would receive ten thousand pounds a year from the printer for his reports. It had been objected that daily papers alone could hold such debates; but weekly and semi-weekly papers could select the most interesting passages of them from the daily papers. Mr. H. recommended either that this report or a similar one should be adopted, or that the business of reporting should at once be put to an end. He spoke of _atrocious_ mistakes. The debates, as now published, held up the House to the scorn of the world. He would rather have the doors shut up altogether. He would, if the present resolution was rejected, make a motion to that effect. He was sorry to learn that the debates had been collected into a book, entitled "The Political Register," of which he doubted not that immense numbers would be sent to Europe, and this book he reprobated in the strongest terms.

Mr. SEDGWICK observed, if gentlemen were misrepresented, in one of the newspapers, where debates were reported, the editor of that paper had advertised that he was ready to publish any corrections which might be offered. This notice had been long and frequently given, and gentlemen had it in their power to do themselves justice.

The first resolution in the report was then read, and the question going to be put, when

Mr. BALDWIN said, that the more the House advanced into this affair, the greater was the number of difficulties which occurred. The resolutions had the less weight with him because they were hurried through at the close of last session. The institution was unprecedented in any other Government. He knew that members might be misrepresented, but this scheme would not cure the evil. He repeatedly declared, that on all great questions, where talents found an object worth exertion, the debates in that House were very well represented. He had seen many speeches, sketched by printers in this city, that he would not wish to see better done. He did not know of any recent or particular complaints about inaccuracy. We have now been in session for seven or eight weeks, and there has not occurred much interesting matter, to make any remarkable debate out of He said that the debates, if taken at full length, would far exceed the limits of any newspaper. As to the expense of printing, that of the laws of this session would cost twenty thousand dollars, and he conjectured that to print the speeches, would require a hundred thousand dollars; and even after they were printed, it would be necessary to pay people for being at the trouble to read them, for otherwise nobody would go through a perusal of every word spoken in the House.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, that the reports at present published were full of notorious falsehoods, and the characters of members with their constituents would have been sunk, if it had not been known that this kind of things deserved no credit. He was in favor of the report. He complained that even when pieces were sent to the printers, they were embodied in the sketch, by Which means the reporter got the full credit of them, which had pernicious consequences. One of his objections to the present mode of reporting was, that the speeches of members were often much improved. He mentioned an instance from his own experience. A speech was once made for him by a person who reports in this House, and who has a very good style of writing. The style, said Mr. N., was above mine. There was not a sentiment in it which I would have disavowed. It was a better speech than mine; but, in an entire column, there was nothing that I said. As for sending corrections to the printers, Mr. N. was above it.

Mr. HILLHOUSE was against the report. The loss of four thousand dollars would be a much greater harm to the public than any injury arising from inaccurate reports. He did not see that the characters of members with their constituents depended on these publications.

Mr. SWANWICK.--The gentleman from Virginia last up has suggested that the House have somehow committed themselves to appoint a stenographer, by their previous resolution on this subject; but that resolution goes only to the committee receiving proposals. It therefore remains with this House whether to accept them or not when made. As to the gentleman who is the subject of the resolution, if I have more strenuously than usual opposed the motion, it is from a desire to keep him from quitting the lucrative situation he is said to find himself in, to embark on the stormy sea he is contemplating. To be the organ of the members of this House to their constituents is indeed a very delicate task; one for which, considering the danger he might be in of an Orpheus's fate--that of being torn to pieces--the salary is but a poor compensation. He is to do justice to the eloquence of some members; he is to clothe in an elegant dress the uncouth, yet well-meaning expressions of others; but what will he do with the silent members, who never speak at all? What will their constituents think of them? Indeed, sir, if he has the idea I have formed of his danger, he will not undertake it at all. Faction and party have been mentioned: happy stenographer, if he can keep clear of these! If he fall into their power, insensibly he will represent one side in clouds and darkness, the other as ornamented with the brightest beams of light. How will he please both? Misrepresentation is complained of: alas, sir, how quick is error--how slow is the progress of truth in almost all things! Our stenographer must indeed be a wonder-working man, if he can revert this tide, and make every where light and correct reasoning prevail. The best mode of informing our constituents is, by the yeas and nays on our acts; this truly shows, as a gentleman from new Hampshire has observed, our doings, which are much more interesting to them than our abstract reasonings; these our constituents will easily form to themselves ideas of, when they know our votes; as the celebrated Dr. Johnson is said to have written speeches for members of Parliament whose general political sentiments he knew; by knowing these he applied arguments pretty accurately, as he supposed them to bear on every question offered. But, it has been observed, if we do not agree to have an official stenographer, a motion will be made to clear the House of those who now take down debates. These persons are tolerated only on the principle that our galleries are open. Woodfall, a celebrated printer, took down debates from memory: could we prevent this being done here? Or should we drive all printers from us who take notes, for the inaccuracies of some? I hope not. The liberty of the press has great title to respect. How can we agree by a miscellaneous union, the most strange, to commute with Mr. Brown, the printer, the salary of four thousand dollars, so as to possess him first of the proof-sheets, without supposing other printers will become rivals of this business, and complain if they are thwarted in an equal pursuit of their own livelihood? The best way is, to leave this business, like others, to regulate itself. Mr. Brown, by his labor in this way, has already widely extended the circulation of his paper--evident in his present overture--and, by the by, this is no mean proof of correctness on the whole in his success; he or others will still go on to improve the business, if left to themselves. If he or they fall into errors, they are their own. Members may correct them, or write their own speeches out, if they please. But what has the House to do with this; or why should it become the censor and promulgator of the speeches of its own members? Our time is wasted often, already, by too many long discussions on unimportant objects; but what would it be if we were to be every morning saluted with motions to correct the performances of the stenographers of the preceding day? All the advantage of the motion is to obtain more accuracy; but, it is said, the House means not to pledge itself for this accuracy: if so, why employ an officer under its authority for this purpose? On the whole, sir, we shall in vain seek to escape abuse and misrepresentation; these are by far too much in vogue. All the consolation left is, what I usually apply in such cases--that is, the consciousness of not deserving them.

Mr. GILBERT was against the report. He thought the publication of the laws and the yeas and nays, a sufficient means to communicate the proceedings of the House.

Mr. WM. LYMAN said that the debates in one of the newspapers (he either named or plainly alluded to the Philadelphia Gazette) had, for the two last sessions, been altogether exceptionable. He was sorry to learn, that these debates had been collected by a person who comes here, so that they would now, perhaps, descend to posterity. If they were as incorrect in the volume (the Political Register) as they were in the newspaper, they were a libel on that House, and would disgrace it with the world. If this resolution was rejected, it would be advisable to send all the printers to the gallery.

Mr. KITCHELL was entirely against the object of the report.

Mr. GILES said, that he might have taken up wrong impressions, but he thought the matter worth trying. It was a thing of experiment, by which he believed that the printer would make money. He acknowledged that, for some time past, several of the reports had been pretty correct. It is better to let them go out as they are, than to stop them altogether. He would not wish to press the motion, if it was to meet with opposition from several gentlemen who had this day spoken against it. He moved that the committee should rise, and the further consideration of the report be deferred till Monday.

Mr. W. SMITH said, it was admitted on all sides, that it was highly important for the people to receive the most accurate information of the proceedings of the House, and that the debates were, in general, extremely misrepresented. Was it not, then, the duty of the House to remedy this evil, and to adopt such measures as would transmit to the people in every part of the United States the most accurate information of the conduct of their Representatives? The House had now an opportunity of obtaining the services of a gentleman peculiarly distinguished for the rare talent of reporting with accuracy public debates; the compensation which would be adequate to such useful and laborious service, was beyond the ability of any printer; the House ought therefore to contribute towards it; the sum required was a trifle, when compared with the advantages; it was no object. The only question, then, was, whether the stenographer ought to be an officer of the House; in that capacity he certainly would be more easily restrained from the commission of any wilful misrepresentation. Mr. S. did not feel the force of the objections against the report. It had been said that, although the members were now misrepresented, yet, they had it in their power to publish corrections; but these corrections were often overlooked, while the misrepresentation was operating very injuriously to the character of the member; this was generally the case in places remote from the seat of Government; the mangled account of a debate was republished in a distant paper, and the correction, if it reached the distant printer, was generally disregarded. Among the opponents to this report, Mr. S. said he was surprised to find the gentleman who represented this city, (Mr. SWANWICK,) who, more than any other member, should have withdrawn his opposition to the measure proposed; that gentleman's constituents had it in their power, at any time, to hear the debates of Congress; they were on the spot; ought he not, then, in candor, to assist in facilitating to the remote citizens the means of obtaining the best knowledge of the proceedings, and the most correct statement of the discussions of the House? Ought they, from their remoteness, to be kept in the dark, or to be furnished with such light as would only mislead? Had they not a claim on the House to adopt such means as would enable the citizens in every State to judge of the propriety of public measures? The member from this city had another exclusive advantage; if misrepresented, he could correct the error, and the correction would be read; that was not the case with the members from the remoter States, whose reputation might be injured by misrepresentation, without a similar advantage: the member from this city was in the midst of his constituents; he had daily opportunities of setting right any misstatement by personal explanation.

Mr. SMITH said, he did not agree with some gentlemen, that it was sufficient for the people to know what laws were passed, without knowing the previous discussions; he thought, on the contrary, the favorable or unfavorable impression of a law on the public mind, would depend, in a great degree, on the reasons assigned for and against it in debate, and the people ought to know those reasons. When a law passes, imposing a tax, would not the people be reconciled if they saw, from the discussions of the House, that such tax was unavoidable, and that the particular mode of taxation was the best which could be devised? And ought this information to depend entirely on the caprice or convenience of the reporters, who attended when it pleased them, and who published just as much of the debate as they found leisure or patience to accomplish? Mr. S. said he was convinced that the errors which had excited so much complaint, were not the effect of design, but merely of inadequacy to the task. Very few were competent to such a business, which required peculiar skill in stenography, very laborious application, and a clear comprehension of the subject-matter of debate. It could not be expected that persons thus qualified would devote their whole time to this business, without an ample reward. The report was objected to because there was novelty in the plan; it was true the House of Commons of England had no such officer, but their practice was not a fit precedent for us on this occasion, for they admitted no person to write down, in the House, their proceedings; their debates were taken from memory. This House, on the contrary, had, from its first institution, facilitated, by every accommodation, the reporting their proceedings. The thing was not altogether, however, without precedent. During the existence of the National Assembly of France, there were officers of the House who composed a daily work called the Logography, which was an exact account of the debates of that body. It had been asked, what control the House were to have over this officer? He answered that the stenographer would be liable to be censured or displaced, if he should be guilty of wilful misrepresentation. It would be always easy to discriminate between a casual inadvertence and a criminal misstatement; the officer's character and talents, his responsibility to the House, and his oath to report with impartiality, would be a sufficient pledge of his accuracy. Mr. S. seriously believed that the character of the House had suffered from the erroneous statements which had gone abroad. He wished to guard against this evil in future; he was willing, for himself, that every syllable he uttered within those walls should be carried to every part of the Union, but he deprecated misrepresentation. He was anxious that the truth should be known in relation to every act of the Government; for he was as satisfied that the affection and confidence of the people in this Government would increase with the promulgation of truth, as that whatever it had lost of that affection and confidence, was owing altogether to the propagation of detraction and calumny. It was under these impressions that he had originally brought forward the proposition and that he now recommended the report, and having heard no reasons to change his sentiments of the expediency of the measure, he should persist in supporting it.

The motion by Mr. GILES was agreed to. The committee rose, and, a few minutes after, the House adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, February 1.

_Indian Trading Houses._

The engrossed bill for establishing trading houses for the Indian tribes was taken into consideration. The first blank was for the gross sum to be appropriated for the general objects of the bill. It was moved to fill this blank with $150,000.

Mr. WILLIAMS spoke in favor of the bill.

Mr. PARKER supported the general provision of the bill, and urged the necessity of an immediate attention to the subject. He calculated on a surplus in the appropriation for the War Department to provide for this object.

Mr. HARPER moved that the bill should be recommitted. He then entered into a general consideration of the principles of the bill, which he reprobated altogether. Alluding to the general objects of commerce, he said that public bodies never manage these matters without loss. He adverted to the repairs of roads, construction of canals, &c.; all these objects prosper under private individual direction, but when entered into by public bodies nothing is ever brought to perfection, and the public money is lost. He applied these ideas to the plan of the bill. Persons at fifteen hundred or two thousand miles distance, are to be intrusted with public property to a large amount. It is not in human wisdom to guard against frauds and impositions; no check or control can be devised which will be found adequate to repressing private rapacity. Mr. H., therefore, wished the bill recommitted, for the purpose of an entire new modification. If the motion should obtain, he should then move a resolution providing for a loan to individuals for the purpose.

Mr. SWANWICK supported the general principle of the bill, and reprobated the idea of loans to individuals; he considered such a plan as one of the worst kind of sinking funds. The plan is an experiment; it is not, perhaps, possible to predict what will be the result; but the object is worth the trial and worthy the attention of the Legislature. He considered the objections against the plan of the bill as applying with greater force against the proposed substitute.

Mr. S. SMITH said, when the gentleman from South Carolina made his motion for a recommitment, he had supposed he would have accompanied the motion with some reasons; but since he had heard what he offered as reasons, he found himself confirmed in his opinion of the inexpediency of his motion. Mr. S. said, the only reason for the commitment was, that the principle of the bill might be changed, by individuals being substituted for the Government, that is, by loaning the money to private persons for the purposes of the trade. He was entirely opposed to this principle. Public debtors are the worst kind of citizens. These persons, after having expended or lost the money, will be coming forward with their petitions to be released from their bonds. He did not wish to increase the business of the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SWIFT enlarged on the idea suggested by Mr. HARPER. He thought it infinitely preferable to leave the business to the enterprise and resources of individuals.

Mr. HARPER rose in reply to Mr. SMITH. He entered into a further consideration and defence of the plan he had proposed as a substitute.

Mr. DEARBORN objected to Mr. HARPER's idea; he saw no sufficient reason to support the preference that gentleman gave to a loan to individuals. He was in favor of the general principle of the bill; he thought it economical to appropriate money for the object of cultivating good understanding and harmony with the Indians, but should vote for the bill only on the condition of a reduction of the Military Establishment.

Mr. GILES entered more largely into a consideration of the principle of the bill. He had no opinion of governmental bargains--he believed they always turned out losing bargains.[67] The clause which provides that the original stock shall not be diminished, he conceived, would operate against the general object of the bill, if adhered to; but this he did not contemplate; he supposed that it would terminate in an annual provision. Mr. G. alluded to the PRESIDENT's Speech, a clause of which had been recited; he did not consider that, or a former recommendation of this matter, as binding on the House. If the PRESIDENT's Speech is considered as the political Bible of the Government, the case is different; but he presumed no person was disposed to assert this. He considered the House as perfectly free to adopt or reject the proposition. With respect to the effects of the measure, gentlemen had differed in their predictions. Predictions which were the nearest to the effects produced, may be considered as the result of the greater political sagacity. He would venture to predict that the whole sum proposed to be appropriated would be sunk in three years. With respect to the fund contemplated from the surplus of the War Department appropriation, he considered it as altogether illusory; there is no such surplus, none had heretofore been found, and he presumed none ever would. For though the number of troops voted had never been raised, yet the whole of the money appropriated was always expended.

Some further remarks were made by several members, and then the motion for recommitting the bill being put, was lost--52 to 34.

Mr. SWIFT then renewed his motion for a postponement. This, after a few remarks from that gentleman, and a short reply from Mr. GILBERT, in support of the bill, was negatived.

The motion for filling the blank with $150,000, was then put and agreed to, fifty-six members rising in the affirmative.

On reading the section in which the blank for the penalty is included, Mr. VENABLE moved for a partial recommitment of the bill, for the purpose of new-modifying the section. This motion gave rise to a variety of observations, in the course of which the motion was extended to a general commitment. This motion being put, was lost.

The motion then was, to recommit the second, fourth, and sixth sections. The second section was recommitted. The fourth section provides that the capital stock of the United States embarked in this business shall not be diminished. Mr. VENABLE's object was to have the section so modified as to blend the interest of the individual who is to conduct the business with that of the public. Mr. S. SMITH said the motion went to destroy the bill, for no person would engage in the business on such a plan. The motion for committing the fourth section was lost. The sixth section assigns the sum of $150,000 to be appropriated for the general objects of the bill. The motion to recommit this section was negatived.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the second section, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair.

Mr. VENABLE moved that the section should be altered to read, that the agent should give bonds to the amount in value of the goods committed to his charge.