Chapter X: Front Matter (10)

Upon the whole, Mr. S. said, it would be prudent to provide a sufficiency of revenue, and there was no prospect of getting it from any other than the objects contained in the bill before them. A land tax was agreed to be laid aside for the present, as gentlemen from the Eastward seemed wholly against it, and those of the Middle States seemed to have grown lukewarm upon the subject. The duty on stamps, which would have provided considerable revenue, was also laid aside. They had agreed to lay low duties upon distilled domestic spirits; no increase could therefore be expected from that quarter. They could, then, only resort to such articles of impost as would be likely, from their general demand and other circumstances, to produce additional revenue. As, therefore, no prospect appeared of getting other revenue than by the article before them, he should be compelled to agree, though with reluctance, to the advance of the duty on sugar.

With respect to their lands, they had authorized public stock to be received in payment; and, though he thought this a very valuable regulation, both for facilitating the sale of the land, and for paying off the debt, the lands, on this account, would not produce much cash into the Treasury.

Mr. S. SMITH said, very early in the present session, he read, with some attention, the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of direct taxes. He cast his eye upon certain articles which he thought proper subjects upon which to raise further sums from indirect sources, among which were salt, sugar, tea, and the whole of the 10 per cent. class of goods; he communicated his sentiments to other gentlemen, and they had been brought forward.

He supposed the House would have gone into a system of direct taxes. This he had always considered as a difficult subject, and he never could, himself, form a plan adequate to effect it; but he was desirous that the subject should have been taken up, that in case of extremity it might be called into operation. He did not think any immediate wants of the revenue required this tax to be put into execution, but he wished to take it into consideration, to see what could be done with it. He had still his doubts whether it could be carried into execution; if it could, it would doubtless form a valuable source of revenue, which could not be injured. He had no doubt, however, of the present revenue being equal to our present wants. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. W. SMITH) had taken his calculations from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury; but the Secretary went into a permanent calculation for a period of 18 years, in the course of which he calculated the sinking of the whole debt.

The trade of 1796, Mr. S. said, would give nearly a million of dollars; of course there could be no apprehensions upon the minds of gentlemen that the receipts of 1797 would not be equal to the wants of Government. The tax upon sugar would produce 300,000 dollars. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) was correct on this subject.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. W. SMITH) had said, it was not wise to calculate upon the highest returns; but Mr. S. SMITH said it was right to calculate upon a preceding year, and when they knew that there would be received in this year from 700,000 dollars to one million, there could be no doubt of the year 1798 falling far short of that sum. For he was not one of those who thought the revenue arising from this year would be much inferior to that arising from the last.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) had supposed that the British spoliations had not affected our revenue, but that those of the French would be severely felt. He saw no difference between them, and believed they would be felt alike in proportion to their extent. [Mr. HARPER explained.] He believed the United States would only consume a certain portion of the goods imported; the rest would be re-exported, and the drawback received upon them; and, as he did not believe the consumption of the United States had been lessened, it would follow that it had been the re-exportation which had been diminished, and, of course, that it would not be the duties which would be decreased, but the drawbacks. This being the case, little was to be apprehended from a defalcation of the revenue this year.

Indeed, he was of opinion, that the revenue arising from the present year, would be equal to any preceding year. The expenses of 1797 would be as follows:

ESTIMATE FOR THE YEAR 1797.

Instalment due on part of the Dutch debt, with interest
on the whole debt, together about $ 992,000
Annual 8 per cent. and 6 per cent. stock, 2,324,175
Annual interest on 3 per cent. do. 587,926
Ditto on 5-1/2 per cent. do. 101,689
Ditto on 4-1/2 per cent. do. 7,920
Ditto on supposed unfunded debt, 78,261
Ditto on Bank loans, 372,200
-----------
4,463,971
Internal expenditures (as below) 2,255,255
-----------
$6,719,226
===========

Civil List, Mint, and Diplomatic, (agreeably to the
Secretary's report, estimated on the session of six
months,) $564,753
Deduct savings arising on the session of
four months only, 52,800
-----------
511,953
Bill for foreign intercourse, 40,000
Light-houses, 45,647
Miscellaneous claims, 12,000
-----------
$609,600
===========

MILITARY DEPARTMENT.

Pay of four regiments and artillery corps, $256,450 Subsistence, 236,900 Clothing, 75,000 Bounties, 16,000 Hospital Department, 25,000 Ordnance 40,000 ----------- 649,350

Amount brought forward, $649,350 Two instructors, 1,450 Quartermaster's Department, 150,000 Defensive protection, 60,000 Indian Department, 90,000 Contingencies of War Department, 15,000 Repairing fortifications, 20,000 Military Pensions, 93,350 Naval Department, 190,000 Balance due on Algerine business, 376,505 ---------- Internal expenses of 1797, $2,255,255

The expenses of the Quartermaster's Department would in future be considerably lessened; for, said Mr. S., heretofore great expense had been incurred by land carriage, which in future would be avoided, as the forage would all be conveyed by water. Indeed it had not been an unusual thing for the horses employed in conveying forage from one post to another, to eat the whole of it in their journey to and from their destination, and some horses had been known to die from want on the road. The conveyance being now by water, a great destruction of horses would be prevented, and he doubted not that one hundred thousand dollars would be saved under this head.

FRIDAY, February 24.

_Amy Dardin._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Claims, of the sixth ultimo, to whom was referred the petition of Amy Dardin, which lay on the table; whereupon, the said report was read at the Clerk's table, in the words following, to wit:

"That the most important, and all the material facts
respecting this claim, are stated in the former report of
the committee appointed to consider the said petition. To
that report the committee now ask leave to refer. Whatever
justice there might originally have been in this claim
against the United States, it is now, and for many years
past has been, as clearly within the statutes of
limitation, as a multitude of others, which have been
rejected. The committee regret that no relief can, with
propriety, be granted to the petitioner, upon her
application. So many evils would result from a suspension
of the limitation act, for the admission of claims similar
to the one under consideration, the committee cannot
recommend that measure to be adopted. They are of opinion
the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted."

The question was taken that the House do agree to the said report, and passed in the negative--34 to 27; when Mr. GALLATIN moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a bill in favor of the petitioner. This motion occasioned some debate.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he rejoiced in the vote which had passed in respect to the report before them, as it was a precedent against the act of limitation. When a claim was clear, it was a denial of justice not to pay the debt. He did not think it was more justifiable in a Government to refuse to pay its debts, than it was in individuals to do so. Though an act of limitation had been passed, they ought only to consider it, in a modified sense, as a guard against fraud; but, in cases where they were convinced a debt was justly due, he did not see upon good principles they could refuse to pay it. He was sure there was not a member on that floor that would do so in his individual capacity. Nor did he believe they needed to be operated on by the fear of a number of these claims being brought: he believed their number was small. But, said he, shall we fear that we shall be called upon to pay a few more just debts? He trusted so unworthy an apprehension would not prevent them from doing what was right. The act of limitation was produced, he said, by an incapacity to pay the claims which were made upon Government, and now they took advantage of that capacity, by refusing to pay the just demands which were made upon them. The certificates which had been given, not worth more than one-eighth of their nominal value, had been scattered all over the United States, and the distance from the seat of Government had been the reason application had not been made for payment. He spoke from his own knowledge. He had some of them put into his hands. Some of them he was fortunate enough to get paid before the act of limitation passed; others were yet unsettled. It was only since the erection of this Government, which had given them the ability to pay, that these claims were brought forward; for six or seven years every kind of claim was mustered, and the public debt was considerably swelled by them, but now a contrary extreme was observed, and no claim, however just, had a chance of being satisfied. He had never troubled the House on a subject of this kind before, but he had taken advantage of the fortunate decision of this morning to say a few words on the subject.

Messrs. HEATH, MACON, WILLIAMS, and D. FOSTER, were against a committee being appointed to bring in a bill; they hoped no partial regulation would take place, but that if any exception was made, from the operation of the act of limitation, it would be done in a general way, as there was a great number of claims equally well entitled, with Mrs. Dardin's, to payment. Indeed, Mr. D. FOSTER, Chairman of the Committee of Claims, (who was not present when the question was taken upon the report,) said, if this claim was granted, it would bring forward a thousand others.

The report, petition, and papers, were committed to the whole House on Monday.

SATURDAY, February 25.

_Suability of States._

On motion of Mr. HARPER, the House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of the select committee on the resolution sent from the Senate, authorizing the PRESIDENT to make inquiry of certain States whether they had adopted the proposed amendment to the constitution with respect to the suability of States.

The select committee did not confine themselves to this single amendment, as reported from the Senate, but went back to the year 1789, when twelve amendments were proposed by Congress; for though they state eleven States out of fourteen had ratified ten of these amendments in the year 1791, yet they were of opinion that a doubt might arise whether eleven States ought to be considered as the three-fourths of fourteen; they therefore wished the PRESIDENT to be requested to make inquiry also from the non-ratifying States on the subject of these ten amendments.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, the resolution of itself was only exceptionable as it had connection with the statement which went before it, in which it was made a question whether the ten last amendments of the twelve proposed by Congress to the States in March, 1789, were ever made part of the constitution. He did not wish a doubt to be expressed on this subject. This doubt, in the opinion of the committee, it seemed, rested on a supposition that eleven were not three-fourths of fourteen. He could not conceive how any doubt could arise on this subject, since it must be acknowledged by every one that eleven was more than three-fourths of fourteen. If the objection arose from fourteen not being divisible in equal fourth parts, it was an objection to the constitution as originally made. It was formed by thirteen States, which was no more divisible into fourths than fourteen. On this ground, an amendment could never have been made to the constitution. He hoped the Chairman of the committee would give them some information on the subject.

Mr. HARPER said, it was not of much importance whether the committee had doubts, or whether those doubts were well founded. The committee stated they had these doubts. He had them; not whether eleven was three-fourths of fourteen, according to arithmetical calculation--every school boy knew, that, in that view, eleven was more than three-fourths of fourteen; but it was, whether you could make a division of States. He believed it could not be done; he believed there must be twelve ratifying States to be three-fourths, as intended by the constitution, because that number would be three-fourths of sixteen, which was the nearest number to fourteen capable of four equal divisions. Whether this doubt was well founded or not, there could be no harm in directing the inquiry to be made; it would be made as soon for thirteen amendments as for one, and if any other State should have ratified the ten amendments in question, all doubt would be removed. Mr. H. noticed an error or two which had escaped the committee in their report.

Mr. GALLATIN said, the resolution under consideration went to direct the PRESIDENT to apply to all those States, by whom, as far as can be known from the official documents heretofore transmitted, all or any of the amendments at any time proposed by Congress still remained to be ratified. There could be no occasion to make the inquiry with respect to all these amendments, unless it were taken for granted that none of them had yet been ratified. He was, therefore, of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, that such an application would be very improper, as bringing the ten last amendments into doubt, which he believed to be as much a part of the constitution as any other article in it; he also thought them a very valuable part, and not to be trifled with.

But, upon what ground, said Mr. G., do the advocates of this report prove that 11 is not three-fourths of 14? The idea was so novel that he could scarcely understand what principle they adopted in order to create a doubt on their minds on this subject. To him the position that 11 was more than three-fourths of fourteen appeared to be one of those self-evident axioms which hardly admit of a proof. The principle on which the doubt arose must be so very nice, so abstract, that he did not know whether he was capable of comprehending it. Anxious as he was to avoid saying any thing which might be construed as misstatement, he would, however, attempt to analyze what he conceived to be the ground of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER.)

It appeared to him that that gentleman thought three-fourths in itself was not a fraction of the unit, was not a number conveying to the mind the simple idea of a fraction; but that it was a compound of fractions, and that the only way by which the idea of three-fourths could be conceived was by a decomposition. Because the idea of three-fourths was by our numerical arithmetic expressed by the two figures 3/4, that gentleman was unable to conceive what it meant except by decomposition, by dividing the unit into four equal parts and multiplying the result by 3. And if that idea of three-fourths had happened to be expressed by the fraction nine-twelfths, (which was the same thing as three-fourths,) that gentleman could not have conceived it except by dividing in the first place the unit into twelve parts and then multiplying the result by nine. In fact he denied the existence of any number, part of a unit, except as it consisted of an aggregate of such parts as the unit could exactly be divided into.

Thus, when speaking of fourteen States, although he (Mr. GALLATIN) could at once understand that three-fourths of fourteen was ten-and-a-half, and, therefore, (admitting, as he did together with that gentleman, that the vote of a State was indivisible) that eleven States were more than three-fourths of fourteen, the gentleman from South Carolina proceeded in a different way. The fourth part of fourteen being three-and-a-half, he says that, as a State cannot be divided, you must take four States instead of three-and-a-half for the fourth part of fourteen, and then multiplying these four States by three, in order to get the three-fourths, he concludes that twelve States are three-quarters of fourteen--that the twelve States out of fourteen are necessary to ratify the amendments. He believed the gentleman would allow that he had not misstated his opinion.

Let us now see, said Mr. G., how this doctrine will operate. It would go to prove, in some instances, that three-fourths of a number is greater than the whole. Suppose, for instance, the case of five States. One-fourth of five is 1-1/4; but as the vote of a State cannot be divided, you must call it two; or, as the gentleman expressed it, five not being divisible into four equal parts, you must take the nearest number to five capable of such division, that is to say 8, the fourth part of which is two; two, therefore, must be considered as the fourth part of five States, and as three multiplied by two is six, it follows, according to that gentleman's doctrine, that the three-fourths of five is six! Suppose that, in the constitution, instead of the expression three-fourths, it had been said that nine-twelfths were necessary. The number of States when the constitution was framed was thirteen. In that case one-twelfth of thirteen being one and one-twelfth, you must, the vote of a State being indivisible, call it two; so that in that way of reckoning, nine-twelfths (which is the same thing as three-fourths) of 13 is 18! Consequently, the consent of eighteen States would have been necessary in order to ratify any amendment to the constitution of a nation consisting only of 13 States.

Let us, said he, examine a little farther. The same part of the constitution which provides for amendments of the constitution, says, that an amendment shall be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress; but he supposed the vote of a man was no more divisible than that of a State. He wished to know, therefore, how the gentleman would, on his principle, calculate what were two-thirds of the members present when their whole number was not divisible by three?

In making treaties he wished to know what was meant by two-thirds of the members of the Senate present? If the number present happened not to be divisible by three, would that gentleman say, that, in that case, the next number above the number present must be taken, which would be divisible by three, and that if two-thirds of that number did not concur in the vote for the treaty, no treaty should be ratified? On that principle, in some instances, a greater proportion of the Senate would be necessary to ratify a treaty than had been usually understood, according to the generally received opinion of the sense of the constitution in this respect.

Upon the whole, he believed it would be best to reject the report, as, besides the objections alluded to, it was confessedly inaccurate in some of its parts, and adopt the resolution sent from the Senate, which applied only to the amendment respecting the suability of States. If the House meant to go any further, they might introduce the first and second amendments proposed at the same time with the other ten, but which had not yet been ratified.

Mr. HARPER said, he would add a word or two to what he had already offered on this subject. He did not know whether the House thought with him on this subject, that it was a doubtful point whether the ten amendments in question had been ratified according to the sense of the constitution. If they did, they would of course, vote for the report. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, he acknowledged, had not only shown his knowledge in arithmetic, but also his wit, which had not until now been brought before them. In the enjoyment of the last he had participated in common with the House.

Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) was in favor of rejecting the resolution reported by the select committee, as it embraced too many objects, and held out a kind of invitation for States to come forward and propose amendments to the constitution. He trusted the first of the amendments, proposed in 1789, relative to the proportion of representation, never would be agreed to, as it would have extremely mischievous effects. Indeed, if any thing were done with respect to that amendment, he should think it ought to be to request those States which have not adopted it, not to do it, and those who have agreed to it, to revoke their vote in favor of it.

The question was then taken on the resolution reported, and negatived, without division.

The resolution was as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to apply, as speedily as may be, to all those
States, by which, as far as can be known from the official
documents heretofore transmitted, all or any of the
amendments, at any time proposed by Congress, still remains
to be ratified; and to obtain from them authentic
information of the proceedings had by them, respectively,
on the subject of those amendments, or any of them."

The question was then taken on the resolution of the Senate, and agreed to. It was as follows:

"_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
the President be requested to adopt some speedy and
effectual means of obtaining information from the States of
Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina, whether they have
ratified the amendment proposed by Congress to the
constitution, concerning the suability of States: If they
have, to obtain the proper evidences thereof."

_Accommodation of the President._

On motion of Mr. GALLATIN, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to accommodate the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; when

Mr. HENDERSON said, he wished for information on this subject, as he had not sufficient to convince him of the propriety of granting 14,000 dollars, in addition to the furniture now in possession of the PRESIDENT; he therefore moved to strike out the 14,000, for the purpose of inserting 5,000. The bill informed them that this sum, in addition to what might arise from the sale of such of the present furniture as may be decayed, out of repair, or unfit for use, was to be laid out in furnishing the household for the PRESIDENT. It was very lately that they had received a proposition from the Senate to advance the salary of the PRESIDENT 5,000 dollars; the bill was rejected by that House. It appeared to him that this bill went to effect the same thing in a different way. If the object was merely to furnish the household of the PRESIDENT, he thought a much less sum would be adequate to that purpose. He thought 5,000, with the proceeds of the sale of such of the present furniture as was unfit for service, might be sufficient. He had no doubt that the sum would make the furniture of the PRESIDENT for four years to come equal to what it had been for four years past.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished the gentleman would leave the sum blank, instead of inserting 5,000.

Mr. HENDERSON consented.

The question was taken, and negatived--42 to 39.

The committee then rose, and the House having taken up the subject--

Mr. NICHOLAS said, as a majority of the House was against striking out this sum, he wished to have some information why this sum was fixed upon, and for what purpose it was to be applied. No one wished more than he did to place the PRESIDENT in a situation conformable to his station; but according to his information, this sum was more than was given to the present PRESIDENT on his entering upon the office, though there remained the whole of the furniture, most of which was worth as much at this time as it was when first purchased.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he would give to the gentleman all the information which he had on the subject. In the year 1778 or 1779, by a resolution, of the old Congress, an household was established for the PRESIDENT of Congress. This remained until the present Government went into operation in the year 1789. It was then resolved, that Mr. OSGOOD should be requested to fit up the House in a proper manner for the reception of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. In that year the law passed for compensating the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, which enacted that a salary of 25,000 dollars should be allowed him, together with the use of the furniture then in his possession belonging to the United States. This furniture cost the United States 13,657 dollars, 83 cents. During the period from 1779, when the household was first established until 1789, when the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES entered upon his office, the furniture which had been purchased for the PRESIDENT by Congress, was so much decayed, that it required nearly 14,000 dollars to replenish it. It was the opinion of the joint committee, therefore, that in a lapse of eight years, viz: from 1789 to the present time, the furniture then purchased must have experienced equal dilapidation and decay, and that a sum at least as large as was then allowed (particularly when it was considered that the price of goods was very much advanced since that time) should now be allowed for putting the present household upon the same footing of respectability and convenience with that at New York in 1789. Mr. S. did not know that he could give any further information on the subject. It was a matter of notoriety that a great part of the goods then purchased were worn out and destroyed; such as the household linen, crockery ware, &c., and that the PRESIDENT had renewed them at his own expense; insomuch that if he were to take out of the House the furniture which he had supplied, there would little remain in it besides tables, chairs, bedsteads, and a few such articles; since all the carpets and ornamental furniture of the House had been purchased by himself.

Whilst he was up, he would wish to obviate the only objection which had been adduced to this bill. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HENDERSON) had supposed that this allowance was meant to carry into effect what had been rejected in another way, alluding to the proposed advance of salary. That gentleman might see a very obvious distinction between the two things. If $5,000 had been added to the salary of the PRESIDENT, he could have disposed of it as he pleased; but the money now proposed to be granted, was to be employed in the purchase of furniture, &c., which would remain the property of the United States, and would devolve upon the next PRESIDENT. Mr. S. said, he would add, that in the joint committee there was not a dissenting voice to the proposition, and he hoped there would not be one in the House.

The question was put for engrossing the bill for a third reading, and carried, there being fifty votes in favor of it. This day and Monday were mentioned for the third reading; the question was carried for the most distant day, 40 to 35.

MONDAY, February 27.

_Accommodation of the President._

The bill to accommodate the PRESIDENT was read the third time; when Mr. HEATH moved to have the bill recommitted, for the purpose of striking out $14,000 to insert $8,000. He thought $14,000 too large a sum to be given to purchase new furniture; $8,000 he thought would be a sufficiently handsome sum for the purpose. They were apt to be too lavish with the public money on some occasions, and too sparing on others. He had not been satisfied with the reasons which had been given by the Chairman of the committee for giving the sum now in the bill. At a time when our Treasury was so much in want of money, he did not wish so large a sum to be given for this purpose; nor did he think it necessary, except it were to put our PRESIDENT in the style of a potentate or prince. And this he was sure the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES would not wish, as he believed he was a gentleman of great economy, and would spurn at any thing like tinsel or expense. Five thousand dollars had been thought a sufficient sum for this purpose, but he was willing to give $8,000. He hoped the bill would therefore be recommitted, and this sum be inserted.

Mr. MACON seconded the motion for recommitting the bill. He was against it altogether. He did not see why they should furnish the house of the PRESIDENT any more than that of any other of their officers. He thought the thing improper at first, and that it was wrong to continue the practice. If the salary was not large enough, it should be made larger, though he thought it sufficiently large.

Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred with his colleague, Mr. HEATH. It was necessary, he said, that Republicans should be consistent. If we thus give away the people's money, said he, shall we not be charged with rapaciously putting our hands into their pockets? Have we not, he added, refused to redress grievances and injuries, and to do justice to many deserving and distressed citizens, because our Treasury is low? And shall we now, when there is no right reason for it, lay hold of the public Treasury, and lavish away $14,000? For what? For adding new furniture to the house of the PRESIDENT. No; he was willing to render him all possible respect; he remembered well his letter to our sister Republic of Holland. He had a pretty good memory. He remembered well his patriotism; but he saw no reason to give him $14,000. He would give him $8,000, which he thought would be a very pretty compliment; but to give $14,000 would outrage every idea of that economy and Republican simplicity which ought to characterize the American nation. Why, said he, shall we, who are a Confederacy of the Democratic Republicans, everlastingly keep our eyes upon the pageantry of Eastern Courts? Let us rather attend to our own character than that of any despotic nation upon earth. He hoped the bill would be recommitted.

The question for recommitting was carried--45 to 40.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill, when--

Mr. HEATH moved to strike out $14,000 and insert $8,000.

Mr. GILLESPIE called for the estimate, which he understood was in possession of the committee.

Mr. SITGREAVES said there was no estimate before the House or committee. All that he had seen was a list of the furniture which had been purchased for the PRESIDENT in 1789. He himself had not had patience to go through it; but if the gentleman wished it, it might be read to the House.

Mr. HARTLEY hoped there would have been no objection to this appropriation. He thought the Chairman of the committee had fully shown the propriety of granting the $14,000 to the PRESIDENT, who was not merely an officer of the Government, but a branch of it. It was not giving the money away, but merely advancing it on account of the United States. He was not in favor of high salaries, but he wished the situation of the PRESIDENT to be made comfortable and respectable.

Mr. HEATH said, he believed a great part of the furniture which was purchased in 1789, was at present as good as when laid in; this was particularly the case with respect to the mahogany furniture; and he thought the $8,000 would be a sufficient sum to replace all articles of a perishable nature, such as carpets, linens, &c.

Mr. HOLLAND was in favor of striking out, because it was only necessary to appropriate as much as might be necessary whilst Government remained here, as, when it should be removed, the furniture now used might not be suitable for the house at Washington. At that time, he supposed a further sum would be called for, and therefore he thought a less sum than $14,000 would be sufficient for the present purpose.

Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of the bill as it stood. He had been told that it was the intention of the State of Pennsylvania to make an offer to the PRESIDENT of the house which had lately been erected in this city; if so, perhaps the furniture which might be purchased for it would be suitable for the house in the Federal City. He had before said that he thought it would have been better to have augmented the salary of the PRESIDENT, and let him purchase his own furniture. But as that had not been agreed to, he wished the committee now to rise and report progress, that information might be gained on the subject; because he thought if he was to have that house, that sum would not be too large.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, he did not know whether the Legislature of this State would conclude to make the PRESIDENT the offer which the gentleman last up had mentioned; but of this he was sure, that if they did, he could not afford to accept of it. For, if this bill passed, he was certain that, under such circumstances, he could not remove into that house, because he would not be able to furnish it.

Mr. S. said, he was surprised the House should so suddenly change their opinion. He thought he had given sufficient information on the subject to have shown the necessity of the grant. [Mr. S. here repeated what he had before noticed respecting what had been allowed on a former occasion.] When gentlemen entered minutely into the subject, they seemed to have information which was not very correct. He believed the sum mentioned in the bill not more than sufficient. The decay which had taken place in the PRESIDENT's household would require that sum to make it good. The gentleman from Virginia supposed there were many articles, not perishable in their nature, which could not have been injured by their use. He was mistaken. There was nothing but about $800 worth of plated ware and the mahogany furniture which could at all come under this description. Indeed, any gentleman who was in the habit of paying his respects to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES must have seen with regret that the appearance of his furniture was so far inferior to that which was to be found in the houses of any of our wealthy citizens, or even of those in moderate circumstances. When this was a notorious fact, what ground, he asked, could gentlemen have for comparing the household of the PRESIDENT to the pomp and splendor of Eastern Courts? On the contrary, he thought there was a humility of appearance in the house of the PRESIDENT, which he would not say was a disgrace to the country, but which at least proved its rigid economy.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he voted for going into Committee of the Whole on this subject from an idea that the sum proposed to be given to the PRESIDENT was larger than was necessary, though he confessed he could not say what that sum ought exactly to be; he was for giving enough and rather too much than too little. Indeed, when he considered that the whole sum was not to be expended, except it should be found necessary, and that a certain style was expected to be observed in this station, he was not for stinting the sum to what he thought just enough for purchasing furniture. If the whole of the money granted must of necessity be expended in furniture, he should have had more hesitation on the subject; but as the expenditure would be left to the discretion of the PRESIDENT, he could not suppose, from the well-known habits of economy of that gentleman, it would be improperly disposed of. He therefore felt no difficulty in agreeing to the sum in the bill; for though he thought the sum too large, yet he would not so confine the appropriation as to oblige their officer to go about the streets to look out for cheap purchases of furniture.

Mr. BUCK said, previous to these measures being brought forward, they had decided against any advance to the salary of the PRESIDENT. All that time a committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the PRESIDENT's household, and to report whether any, and what, further accommodation was necessary to be afforded. He conceived that it was the wish of that House that the gentleman who was coming into office should have accommodations equal to those which had been given to the gentleman who was leaving it. The committee had examined into facts, made a report, and a bill had been brought in accordingly. The committee had informed them upon what principles they had acted; and it did not appear that they either intended to increase the splendor of the household of the PRESIDENT, nor to add to his salary. If any member could come forward and show that the report of the committee was erroneous, they should have some ground upon which to reject it. He had heard no man say this, and therefore all that had been offered on the subject ought not to weigh against that report. When the bill was before them on Saturday, there was a considerable majority in favor of it, and as they had no new information on the matter, he saw no reason for a change of opinion.

Some members, Mr. B. said, had held out an idea that they were about to give this money away, to enable the new PRESIDENT to live in the style of foreign Courts. If the inhabitants of this city had adopted this style, then it would be chargeable against the PRESIDENT, but not otherwise, since it was acknowledged he had not kept pace with them in this respect. The appropriating this money would only be converting it into so much public property; for, when his term of office should expire, he could not carry away a single article. It was not, therefore, giving away a farthing, but merely providing for our own convenience to enable the PRESIDENT to fill the office with comfort and reputation; and as they had nothing before them to show the sum too large, he saw no propriety in rejecting it, for the purpose of inserting any other.

Mr. RUTHERFORD said, if the House had committed an error one day, it would be well for them to correct it another. If they were to give $14,000 away on the present occasion, he thought they would commit a very serious error. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SITGREAVES) had said many of the citizens of Philadelphia lived in a superior style to the PRESIDENT. If so, he would say they were very bad citizens, since it was proper that the citizens of this rising Republic should cultivate a simplicity of living and of manners.

Mr. MACON thought some of the arguments introduced on this occasion were very improper; such as the habits of economy or private fortune of the gentleman who was to succeed to the Presidential chair. They were about to settle a permanent principle, which it was proper to do at this time, before a new Presidency commenced. He knew nothing of the private property of the person who was to fill the office, nor had it any thing to do with the matter. The question was, whether they were to go over the same ground every four or eight years of furnishing the house of a new PRESIDENT? He did not wish that it should be so; he wished the salary to be the only consideration which the PRESIDENT should receive for his services. If it had not been settling a permanent principle, he should not perhaps have opposed it.

It had been said that the old PRESIDENT of Congress had a household furnished him, but he received no salary from the United States except his household. He considered this sum as an advance upon the salary paid to the PRESIDENT by the different States, and before any salary was fixed by the United States; but now, as an ample salary was paid to the PRESIDENT, he did not think such a provision should be continued. It was sometimes said that it was no matter what sum was appropriated, as, if it was not wanted, it would not be expended; but, he believed, whatever sum was appropriated would be expended; for he was not one of those who thought that revenue could not be found. He believed if the money was granted, it would be both found and spent.

Mr. SITGREAVES wished to correct the gentleman last up with respect to one fact. He had said the PRESIDENT of the old Congress had no salary. It was true that he did not receive any thing under that name, but there was a provision, not merely for the furniture of his house, but for the constant provision of it; and this was so considerable that from 1778 to 1779, in one year, eighty-three thousand dollars were paid for that purpose.

Mr. MACON wished to know what sort of money this was; he supposed it was in depreciated paper.

Mr. SITGREAVES was not certain what kind of money was meant.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, in settling an affair of this kind, it was proper to have respect to the office, and not to the man who was to fill it. He could himself consider the establishment of the PRESIDENT's household in no other light than in the nature of a compensation for his services, in the same way that he considered the privilege of franking, stationery, and newspapers, allowed the members of both Houses, to be such; because, if they were not allowed to them, they would have to purchase those articles themselves; and if furniture was not provided by Government for the house of the PRESIDENT, he must himself furnish it out of his salary, or from his private purse. To refuse to provide the necessary furniture would therefore be to reduce his salary; for it was true that this plan of presenting furniture to the PRESIDENT was adopted before the salary was fixed, so that it must have been considered as being additional to the salary. And was that salary, he asked, near so valuable now as it was when fixed? Certainly not. He trusted, therefore, they should not reduce it.

This sum, Mr. S. said, was mentioned, from a consideration that four years hence the seat of Government would be removed, and that then the furniture would be in a great degree useless. They, therefore, only recommended such a sum as they thought would be sufficient to put the furniture in a proper state for that term. He believed that fourteen thousand dollars would not do more than that.

Mr. MACON said he was always opposed to the privileges allowed to members of franking, &c. Gentlemen talked about a statement; he did not know what that might contain, he had not seen it; but he did not know how it could require fourteen thousand dollars to repair furniture which at first cost only thirteen thousand.

Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, the gentleman last up was inaccurate in his statement. The thirteen thousand dollars which were allowed for furniture for the late PRESIDENT, was in addition to the furniture which had already been in possession of the PRESIDENT of Congress.

Mr. SHERBURNE said, the question was with respect to the quantum of money to be granted, as every one seemed to allow that a certain sum was necessary. By having recourse to what was done for other officers of the Government, they might, perhaps, form an estimate of what would be reasonable on the present occasion. A practice had been established of allowing our Ministers to foreign countries a sum as an outfit equal to one year's salary; so that nine thousand dollars were allowed a Minister for this purpose, though it might happen that he would not be employed more than a few months in the service. He thought, therefore, that fourteen thousand dollars could not be thought too large a sum for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, whose term of service was for four years, and which would go to his successor in office; whereas, the nine thousand dollars allowed to a foreign Minister were entirely at his disposal, though he might not be in the service more than a month.

Mr. AMES said, it appeared to him that it would be desirable to proceed according to precedent, as nearly as they could. It was not desirable to innovate or change the established order of things, except strong reasons existed for the change. On inquiring what had been the practice heretofore, they found the PRESIDENT of the old Congress, as well as the PRESIDENT now going out of office, had establishments made for their household similar to that now proposed. If they looked forward to that period when the seat of Government was to be removed, and considered the furniture which would be necessary for the house in the Federal city, it would be seen that there would be a necessity for a new establishment at that time, as it was evident that the present furniture or what might be purchased with the sum now contemplated, would be wholly inadequate to the furnishing of that house. He supposed an additional grant of twelve or fifteen thousand pounds would be necessary for that purpose.

We have chosen an elective Government, said Mr. A., and if it were meant to be kept pure, they must encourage the people to make choice of such men, without respect to fortune, as they think will serve them best, but if instead of providing a suitable household for the PRESIDENT, they left him to provide for himself in this respect, men of large fortune only could engage in this part of the public service. And would this, he asked, be doing honor to the Republican Government? He thought not.

The question for striking out was put and negatived--55 to 36. The committee then rose, and when the question was about to be put in the House--

Mr. GALLATIN said, the provision of the bill left it to the discretion of the PRESIDENT whether he would expend the whole of the money, or not. His opinion was, that the sum was too large; but the question for striking it out having been negatived, the expenditure must be left to the discretion of the PRESIDENT. He did not mean to go into any detail. He did not wish to place the gentleman coming into office in a worse situation than that of him who was going out; and as he felt no objection to leave it to the PRESIDENT to make use of the whole or a part of this money, as his discretion should direct, he should vote for the bill.

Mr. CLAIBORNE said, as provision had been made for furniture for the gentleman now in office, he was inclined to vote for the fourteen thousand dollars proposed now to be granted for the same purpose to the gentleman who was to succeed him.

Mr. HENDERSON wished to give his reasons for voting against this bill. He wished to place the PRESIDENT coming into office in as comfortable circumstances as he who was going out; but it appeared to him that the sum proposed was larger than necessary for this purpose. Indeed, said Mr. H., when he read an article of the constitution touching this subject, he had his doubts with respect to the constitutionality of the proceeding. That article said, "that the PRESIDENT should receive a compensation which should neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he should have been elected; and that he should not receive within that period any other emoluments from the United States, or any of them."

Mr. SITGREAVES believed there could be no doubt as to the constitutionality of the proposed grant of money, as the clause ran, "during the period for which he should have been elected," which would not prevent them from passing any number of acts before he went into office.

The question on the passing of the bill was then taken by yeas and nays, and stood 63 to 27, as follows:

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin,
Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
Claiborne, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, William Craik,
Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, George Dent, George Ege,
Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Nathaniel Freeman, junior,
Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry
Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove,
Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley,
William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard,
Edward Livingston, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, James
Madison, Francis Malbone, Andrew Moore, Frederick A.
Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Nicholas, John Page,
Josiah Parker, John Patton, Elisha R. Potter, John Read,
John Richards, Samuel Sewall, John S. Sherburne, Samuel
Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel
Smith, Isaac Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, Richard
Sprigg, junior, Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, Zephaniah
Swift, George Thatcher, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams,

NAYS.--Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell,
Gabriel Christie, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Jesse
Franklin, James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, Andrew
Gregg, Wade Hampton, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John
Heath, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, Andrew Jackson,
George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel
Macon, John Milledge, Anthony New, Alexander D. Orr, Robert
Rutherford, William Stradwick, and Richard Winn.

_Military and Naval Appropriations._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on this subject, when, after some discussion respecting the price of rations, Mr. GALLATIN insisting upon seventeen cents being a sufficiently high calculation, and Mr. W. SMITH abiding by the estimate of the War Department at twenty cents; the latter was agreed upon thirty-six to thirty-four, and the pay and subsistence of the Army was settled, but which has since undergone an alteration, owing to the two companies of cavalry being added by a new bill. The sum for forage and clothing was also agreed upon, but which afterwards, of course, from the above alteration, underwent an augmentation. The hospital department being under consideration,

Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank with thirty thousand dollars.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill it with ten thousand. He said, they had this year had a statement of the expense of the Military Establishment, by which they found that the hospital department had cost six thousand nine hundred and five dollars. It had been the uniform practice of the House to appropriate from thirty to forty thousand dollars under this head, though the expense had never exceeded seven thousand; and to apply the surplus to other purposes. He thought it wrong to appropriate four times the sum necessary, and had therefore proposed to fill the blank with ten thousand dollars, which was fifty per cent. more than had ever been expended for the purpose.

Mr. PARKER believed than ten thousand dollars would be enough to pay for physic for the Army. Indeed he believed it was generally expended in wine and luxuries by the officers, and that little of it went to the use of the subordinates.

The question for ten thousand dollars was put and carried.

The blank for the Ordnance Department was filled with forty thousand dollars; and that for the fortifications of the ports and harbors of the United States with twenty-four thousand dollars.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill the blank for the Quartermaster's Department, the Indian Department, the defensive protection of the frontiers, bounties, and all the contingent expenses of the War Department, with three hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. VENABLE said, if the sum necessary for each of the above items could be specified, he would rather have it so expressed than have the whole in one sum.

Mr. W. SMITH said it would come to the same thing, if the several items were voted in an aggregate sum, as they were all contingent expenses. He should move to have the blank filled with four hundred and forty-six thousand dollars.