Chapter XI: Front Matter (11)

Mr. GALLATIN observed there were two motions before the committee: one to fill the blank with four hundred and forty-six thousand dollars, the other with three hundred thousand. He would observe that one of the items in this estimate, viz., that for the fortifications of West Point, ought not to be included under this head; but, as to the other items, he would mention, in answer to what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. VENABLE) what was the reason which had induced the committee to put them in one sum, which was to obtain the very object he had in view in wishing to have all the items stated separately.

It would be recollected that they had had a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, in which he said, "that the appropriations for the Military and Naval Establishments were considered as general grants of money; and, though they were to be accounted for according to law, yet it was the practice of the officers of the Treasury not to consider each appropriation as specific, but the whole as a general grant of money." This practice was making the law a mere farce, since the officers of the Treasury did not consider themselves as at all bound by the specific sums. He therefore concluded it to be proper to pass the law in such a manner as to confine the expense to the appropriation for the different items. It was said to be impossible to carry the law into execution on this principle. It was said there were a number of contingent expenses which could not be exactly ascertained, and that therefore it was necessary the officers of the Treasury should have a certain discretion given them to make use of the surplus of any item for which more than was necessary had been appropriated. He believed the uncertainty here mentioned existed, and therefore it had been concluded to be best to put the contingent articles together in one sum, in order to give bounds to the discretion of the Department.

Having given the reasons which caused the bill to be brought in in this shape, Mr. G. said he would mention the items upon which the sum he had proposed to fill up the blank was composed. For defensive protection, sixty thousand dollars; for the Quartermaster's Department, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. This latter sum has been estimated at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but upon what ground he was at a loss to know. The Army would now be fixed in garrison, and would not have to march from post to post. None of the reasons given last year for this expense would now apply; and he thought it unreasonable that the same sum should be allowed for this item which was allowed at the time when they were engaged in an Indian war.

In 1789, when we had eight hundred men in garrison, the expenses of this department was $11,076 In 1790, he did not recollect the number of troops, but not more, he believed 45,763 In 1791 92,223 In 1792 (in the height of the Indian war) 206,510 In 1793 178,602 In 1794 263,000 In 1795 317,647

What would be the expense of 1796, could not be exactly ascertained. It appeared by the statement which they had received that upwards of two hundred and four thousand dollars had been expended. Whether there were any further demands unsettled, he could not tell. It appeared, therefore, that the expense of that Department had increased from eleven thousand to three hundred thousand dollars. This had been owing to two causes--the increase of the Army, and by the Indian war. There had also been a great loss of horses from having forage to fetch great distances.

Mr. DEARBORN could see no reason for making the appropriation so large as had been proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina. It must be recollected that the Army was in garrison, where there were barrack-houses convenient for the officers and men, and contracts had been entered into for delivering provisions at the different forts, and there would therefore be a great deduction on account of the transportation, in which seven or eight hundred horses had been used up, and the horses on hand might also be sold. Camp equipage was a heavy article of expense, but which would not be wanted whilst the troops were in garrison. These two articles would of themselves make a very considerable part of the whole item. There would also be a saving in the purchase of horses, as the cavalry made more than half the expense. He did not think more than one hundred thousand dollars could be wanted under this head, except it were wanted for making new forts or fortifications. There would now be no necessity for building officers' houses, and huts for the soldiers for winter quarters. All these circumstances considered, he thought the sum he had mentioned would be sufficient.

The question for filling the blank with four hundred and forty-six thousand was put and negatived, there being only thirteen votes in favor of it. The sense of the committee was then taken upon three hundred thousand, and carried--there being 51 votes in favor of it.

Mr. W. SMITH then moved to add to the bill, "For the repairs of the fortifications of West Point, twenty thousand dollars."

Mr. COIT inquired if there was any estimate of this item.

Mr. GALLATIN said there was no estimate respecting West Point.

Mr. W. SMITH said there was an estimate for Niagara, Oswego, Detroit, &c., which might include West Point, he proposed therefore to change the motion, and insert "Niagara, Oswego, Detroit, &c.," which would include West Point, if necessary.

Mr. GALLATIN wished the gentleman from South Carolina to say whether he had any information with respect to West Point.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he had no particular information on the subject, but as it was of importance the works there should be very complete, he thought it prudent to grant something for that object.

Mr. GALLATIN hoped the proposition would be rejected. There was no necessity for repairing the fortifications of the posts mentioned more than any other of the forts upon the Lakes. They knew nothing of them, but that they were too large for the garrisons in them; but he believed if they once begun to appropriate money for this purpose, it would become a yearly expense, And whilst they had been parsimonious with respect to the ports and harbors of the United States, having only appropriated twenty-four thousand dollars to that purpose, he could see no reason for granting twenty thousand dollars for repairing the forts of Niagara, Oswego, and Detroit, against a few Indians; as it was well known that a block-house was as good a fortification against the Indians as any other. When the regiment was raised to go and take possession of that country, they built all their forts as they went along, without any expense, except the price of a few tools. He hoped, therefore, they should not by voting for this sum, introduce a new item of expense into their annual appropriations.

Mr. W. SMITH agreed with the gentleman last up, that enough had not been appropriated for the defence of the ports and harbors of the United States; but if they had done wrong in one instance, it was no rule why they should continue to do so. He thought it very important that the forts he had mentioned should be so secured at least as that they should not go to ruin. Under this item was included West Point, which was a fort of great consequence; and he would rather forty thousand dollars were appropriated than twenty thousand for this purpose.

Mr. DEARBORN said, as far as the proposition related to Niagara, Oswego, and Detroit, he thought it improper to appropriate money for their defence. He believed it would require a year or two to know what was necessary to be done there. At Niagara, the works were large enough for six or seven thousand men, and it would become a question whether they should be reduced, or kept up as they were; at Oswego, nothing more could be necessary than a block-house. It was true, there were considerable works there, but until it was decided what they should do with them, it would be improper to appropriate money for their repair. The same thing might be said of Detroit. He had no idea that the PRESIDENT could have information from those places of what was necessary. Whatever temporary repair might be required there, the troops themselves would be able to effect. As to West Point, he did not know any thing about it, except that it was a place of consequence; he also knew that a great deal of money had been laid out upon it. He hoped they should get into a new system with respect to the defence of our ports and harbors; and until that was done, he should be against granting any considerable sum for this purpose. If gentlemen were in possession of any information on the subject, he perhaps might be induced to vote for a small sum: but not until he knew more of the matter.

Mr. LIVINGSTON spoke of the importance of the fort at West Point, and of the necessity of keeping it in proper repair.

Mr. COIT said, the question seemed to have taken a new turn. He presumed that West Point was not in the idea of the Secretary of War when he made the estimate upon which this bill was founded. If it had been, it would have been very improper to have begun with Oswego, and include West Point in the _et cetera_. In June, 1796, 20,000 dollars, he said, were appropriated for the repairs of this fort, and they had not been informed that it had been expended.

Mr. GALLATIN said, there had been 7,000 dollars expended at West Point; the other 13,000 dollars were not intended for that fort. The present appropriation was doubtless intended for the forts mentioned, and those in the same quarter. If any thing was wanted for West Point, a distinct proposition should come before them for that purpose.

Mr. W. SMITH observed that the gentleman last up had stated that only 7,000 dollars had been expended at West Point; that was only the amount which had been expended at the time the estimate was made; but the whole might have been since laid out, as then only 520,000 dollars of the appropriation of the Military Establishment had been expended.

Mr. GALLATIN said, that the total expenditure of the estimate alluded to was 1,280,479 dollars.

The question was put and negatived, there being only 19 votes in favor of it.

The committee then rose and had leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, February 28.

_Algerine Captives: Ransom._

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the petitions of George Smith and John Robertson, who prayed for a repayment of the money which they had themselves paid for their ransom from Algerine slavery, reported that the ransom of George Smith cost $2,426, of which Colonel Humphreys had paid $1,526, and George Smith the remainder; that by the late return of our citizens from Algiers, the expense attending the redemption of each man was ascertained to be $2,396, independent of the expense of the general negotiation, and allowing for small inaccuracies on account of some expenses which could not at present be ascertained. He recommends, therefore, that George Smith have paid him $873, which, with the sum paid by Colonel Humphreys, would make about $2,400. John Robinson paid for his own ransom $1,518, the interest upon which came to $516; the Secretary therefore recommends that $2,034 be paid to him.

On motion of Mr. SWANWICK, this report was referred to a select committee, viz: Messrs. SWANWICK, BLOUNT, COIT, SEWALL, and PARKER.

_General Appropriation Bill._

The amendments from the Senate to the bill making appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1797, were taken up and agreed to, as also those to the bill laying additional duties on sundry articles of impost. The amendments which were agreed to were to add to white cotton goods, "velvets and velverets, whether printed, stained, colored, or otherwise, and all muslins and muslinets, two and a half per cent." And also a new section, enacting that an addition of 10 per cent. should be laid upon these articles when imported in ships or vessels not of the United States. The duties are to take place after the 31st of December next.

_Military and Naval Appropriations._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Military and Naval Appropriations; when, the pay and subsistence of three captains in the Naval department being under consideration--

Mr. SWANWICK thought it would be necessary to have a laborer or two employed to take care of the vessels and materials.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the estimate for the captains was $4,200; if the sum was made $5,000, there would be sufficient for the payment of any laborers which might be necessary. Agreed to.

The blank for the payment of Military Pensions was agreed to be filled with $96,350.

And for making good the deficiencies of the Military Establishment of 1796, $76,312.

Also, for the payment of the expedition of General Sevier into the Cherokee nation, $22,816.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

_Executive Veto on the Army Bill._

The following Message, in writing, was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, containing his objections to the bill for fixing the Military Establishment:

_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

Having maturely considered the bill to alter and amend an
act, entitled "An act to ascertain and fix the Military
Establishment of the United States," which was presented to
me on the twenty-second day of this month, I now return it
to the House of Representatives, in which it originated,
with my objections.

_First._ If the bill passes into a law, the two companies
of light dragoons will be, from that moment, _legally_ out
of service, though they will continue afterwards _actually_
in the service; and for their services during this
interval, namely, from the time of _legal_ to the time of
_actual_ discharge, it will not be lawful to pay them,
unless some future provision be made by law. Though they
may be discharged at the pleasure of Congress, in justice
they ought to receive their pay, not only to the time of
passing the law, but at least to the time of their actual
discharge.

_Secondly._ It will be inconvenient and injurious to the
public to dismiss the light dragoons as soon as notice of
the law can be conveyed to them, one of the companies
having been lately destined to a necessary and important
service.

_Thirdly._ The companies of light dragoons consist of one
hundred and twenty-six non-commissioned officers and
privates, who are bound to serve as dismounted dragoons
when ordered so to do. They have received, in bounties,
about two thousand dollars; one of them is completely
equipped, and above half of the non-commissioned officers
and privates have yet to serve more than one-third of the
time of their enlistment; and, besides, there will, in the
course of the year, be a considerable deficiency in the
complement of infantry intended to be continued. Under
these circumstances, to discharge the dragoons does not
seem to comport with economy.

_Fourthly._ It is generally agreed that some cavalry,
either militia or regular, will be necessary; and,
according to the best information I have been able to
obtain, it is my opinion that the latter will be less
expensive and more useful than the former in preserving
peace between the frontier settlers and the Indians, and,
therefore, a part of the Military Establishment should
consist of cavalry.

G. WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, _February_ 28, 1797.

On motion,

"_Resolved_, That to-morrow be assigned for the
reconsideration of the said bill, in the mode prescribed by
the Constitution of the United States."

The question to concur was put and carried--40 to 37.

WEDNESDAY, March 1.

_Military Establishment._

Mr. GALLATIN wished the bill for fixing the Military Establishment, which had been returned by the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with his objections, to be taken up.

Mr. W. SMITH hoped this subject would be taken up, but before it was entered upon, he wished the Committee of the Whole to be discharged from the consideration of it, as he found, in a former instance of a similar kind, the business had been settled in the House. The committee was accordingly discharged. The House then proceeded to reconsider the bill, agreeably to the direction of the constitution. The bill was first read, and then the objections of the PRESIDENT.

The SPEAKER then read the clause in the constitution which directs the proceedings on such an occasion, and which says, that in case two-thirds of the House wherein it originated shall be in favor of passing the bill, it shall be sent to the other, and if two-thirds of that House be also in favor of it, it shall become a law. The votes of both Houses to be determined by yeas and nays.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, he meant to vote against the bill, but he did not wish to stand charged with refusing to pay the men for the time they were in service. He thought this bill was by no means liable to a charge of this kind; as it could scarcely be supposed that, at the time they were making a voluntary gift of $100 to every officer discharged, the Legislature meant to defraud the men of their pay.

Mr. W. SMITH did not see any necessity for the observations of the gentleman from Virginia. There was nothing in the Message of the PRESIDENT which charged that House with an intention to defraud the men of their pay. Whatever was the design of gentlemen, this was not the charge. But certain it was that this would be the result of the bill, and it would be six weeks or two months before they could be notified that the act was passed. It was the legal opinion of the Attorney General, therefore, that they would not be entitled to pay during that time.

Mr. NICHOLAS was sorry that the gentleman from South Carolina and he did not think alike on the subject; he thought the objections he had made were necessary, and he had made them for the purpose stated. He thought the PRESIDENT ought not to have doubted their willingness to have allowed the pay in question. He was of opinion the House had given some extraordinary proofs of their liberality this session; amongst other proofs of this, they had determined to appropriate money for the building of a thirty-six gun frigate, which he had caused to be built without authority. But the pay of these men was so much a point of law, that he believed the men would have been entitled to pay.

Mr. W. SMITH said, their having agreed to give each of the officers $100, without mentioning the men, rather went against the gentleman's conclusion; because, if any thing had been intended to have been given to them, they would also have been mentioned.

Mr. WILLIAMS was sorry that some things had not been more attended to, when that bill was under consideration; and, although there would be a difficulty respecting the Brigadier General and Staff, yet he thought the objections well founded, and would vote against the passing of the bill, in order that a new one might be brought in to avoid the objections, from the demands lately made for the protection of the frontiers of Georgia and Tennessee, which amounted to upwards of $300,000; he fully agreed with the PRESIDENT that it would be less expense to keep up the two companies of dragoons than to employ militia horse.

The yeas and nays were then taken, and stood 55 to 26.

The bill being accordingly lost, Mr. NICHOLAS moved that a committee be appointed to bring in a new bill, which being agreed to, a new bill was reported (exactly the same as the former, except an omission of the parts objected to by the PRESIDENT.) It was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and afterwards passed.

_Case of Hanging Maw._

Mr. BLOUNT called for the order of the day on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of the widow of the late Scollacuttaw, or Hanging Maw. The House accordingly went into a committee thereon, when the report was read, as follows:

"That the complaints against the conduct of one John Beard,
and a number of armed men, who, she states, in the year one
thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, contrary to law
and the good faith of Government, attacked the
dwelling-house of the petitioner and husband, killed and
wounded a number of well-disposed Indians; burnt, and
destroyed, and carried away their property, and wounded the
petitioner. She now prays that some provision may be made
for her.

"After examining the statement made by the petitioner, and
the facts upon which she rests her present application, the
committee have found some difficulty in deciding what
measures would be most advisable for the House to adopt.

"Previous to the attack on the Hanging Maw, the frontier
settlers of Tennessee and the Indians in that quarter had
been guilty of mutual acts of aggression and hostility. A
party of the Indians had killed some settlers; their trail
was discovered, conducting across the Tennessee--this
circumstance induced a belief in their pursuers that the
Hanging Maw had been concerned in that business, and
occasioned his being wounded, and the misfortunes
complained of by his widow. The general opinion, however,
represents the Hanging Maw as having been uniformly
friendly to the settlers; as vigilant to apprise them of
the approach of banditti; and constant in his exertions, on
all occasions, to compose difficulties between them and his
nation; and, withal, as possessing considerable influence
over the Indians. The same disposition is also attributed
to his widow, the present petitioner; who, instead of
exciting her people to acts of retaliation, has abated
nothing in her friendship to the white people.

"All these circumstances seem to countenance, if not to
require for her a pension from the Government, or some
other relief from the Legislature. Such a provision might
also be considered as extending its influence beyond the
particular object; or, as an inciting cause to other
Indians to pursue a similar line of conduct, under
circumstances alike cruel and distressing, should they
happen.

"But, on the other hand, it is to be considered that there
are citizens on the frontiers who have suffered injuries as
cruel, and deprivations as severe by the Indians; and who
have been thereby left in situations of distress that would
equally call for assistance from the Legislature. Questions
arise whether both descriptions of sufferers ought not to
be provided for? Whether the abilities of Government would
be competent to meet all possible claims of this nature?
And whether help can be extended by law to the one, and
consistently refused to the other?

"It may be said that those who settle on the frontiers
voluntarily assume all the risks and dangers attached to
that position; and, therefore can have no just claim upon
the Government for consequences resulting from their
choice; whilst, on the contrary, policy requires that the
minds of the Indians, who may be roused to hostility by
acts of the settlers, should be quieted by small pecuniary
interpositions.

"Under these views of the subject, the committee have
hesitated what report to make; but, upon the whole, as the
authority vested in the Executive Department is competent
to meet this claim; and should the petitioner, from her
sufferings and her attachment to the United States, appear
to the Executive to be entitled to any annual relief, as it
may be afforded out of the appropriations for contingent
expenses in the Indian Department, without any interference
of the Legislature, and as this mode will probably involve
the fewest difficulties, the committee think she should
apply to that department; and that the prayer of her
petition ought not to be granted."[12]

The committee reported their agreement with the resolution reported from the Committee of Claims.

The question was taken, that the House do agree with the Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the said report, and resolved in the affirmative.

THURSDAY, March 2.

The bill for the relief of American seamen was read the third time and passed.

_Military Appropriations._

On the motion of Mr. W. SMITH, the House went into a committee of the Whole on the bill making appropriation for the Military Establishment, when the following items were agreed to without debate:

For the payment of the army, $256,450 For the subsistence of the officers, 47,395 For the subsistence of the non-commissioned officers and privates, 245,283 For forage, 14,904 For clothing, 83,050

Mr. W. SMITH then proposed to insert a new item, in consequence of the bill just passed, "For the purchase of horses and the equipment of the cavalry, $16,085."

Mr. GALLATIN said, the items which had been agreed to were upon the ground of an increase of 126 dragoons which was not in the former bill. The item now under consideration went to provide horses and equipments for an additional company of cavalry. It appeared that this company was heretofore without either, so that they must have been employed as dismounted dragoons; and if they now appropriated the sum before them, they would, in fact, add a company of horse to the establishment. He believed it to be the general opinion that they had cavalry sufficient at present; indeed, it was the opinion of a large majority of that House that none were necessary; but if they did appropriate for any, he thought they ought not to go beyond the present establishment.

Mr. W. SMITH said, if they refused to make the appropriation under consideration, they declared that one of the two companies of cavalry should act as infantry. By the bill passed yesterday, it was left altogether to the option of the PRESIDENT to employ them either as cavalry or infantry: but if this appropriation was withheld, he would be under the necessity of employing them as infantry only, and this House would now exercise a discretion which only yesterday they had vested in the Executive.

It would be observed, that, in the message of the PRESIDENT, he had fully stated the reasons why dragoons would be requisite. The business upon which one of the companies was at present employed was to escort the Commissioners employed in running the boundary lines betwixt the territory of the United States and the Indians; the other was indispensable for the protection of the frontiers.

What, Mr. S. asked, would be the consequence of refusing this appropriation? One of the companies of dragoons would be obliged to act as infantry, and Government would be compelled to employ militia-horse at a great expense. If this was economy, he was mistaken in his ideas of economy. The sum was conformable to the estimate which he had received from the War Office.

Mr. HARTLEY was in favor of the appropriation, that the PRESIDENT might be at full liberty to employ the troops on foot or on horse-back, according as the service might require.

Mr. NICHOLAS thought, while they were making appropriations, this subject might as well be included. If these men were to be kept, they ought to be properly equipped. He said it was the opinion of the PRESIDENT and the Secretary of War that cavalry was necessary, and therefore he had concluded it would be proper, and wished them to be kept up, so as to be called into service whenever necessary.

Mr. MILLEDGE thought there was great need of cavalry; it would be an object of policy, as, by information he had received from the Governor of Georgia, (which he had in his hand, and which was corroborated by a late Governor,) horse were absolutely necessary--he thought three companies--on the frontier. He therefore was in favor of the appropriation.

Mr. VARNUM had no doubt but the gentleman from Georgia, and every gentleman in the House, would be glad to have horse and infantry too kept up in their State: every part would be glad to have the public money expended upon it. He could not see why a body of cavalry should be kept up in a time of peace. He thought the Legislature had as good a right to judge as any person, notwithstanding the authorities produced to sanction the appropriation. Mr. V. had no doubt, if this was granted, that application would soon be made again for a similar purpose. He hoped this appropriation would not take place; it would be a small saving, and might as well be made, as there was so much want of it. He could have wished the troops reduced to two regiments, which he thought quite sufficient for a Peace Establishment. He hoped the PRESIDENT's ideas on the subject would not obtain to govern the decisions of the House, as we have the power, said he, to withhold appropriations; and what gentlemen who were locally concerned should say, he could not be guided by; as soldiers would consume their produce and spend money amongst them, consequently they were interested.

Mr. CRAIK really lamented that the gentleman had not been in the House yesterday, at the time the subject was more under consideration: he might then have inveighed against the PRESIDENT. The observations might have come with more propriety, if they had been made before the bill passed, and when under discussion; but, after a law has passed the proper authorities--after it has been resolved to have these troops of horse--to say, we will not appropriate money to carry it into effect, is strange conduct. If the determination of the gentleman was to oppose the bill, he should have used every means to that purpose, and if not effectual, at least to suffer others to enjoy their will--especially a majority. For the sake of consistency, he hoped the gentleman would withdraw his opposition, and not in this side-way try to defeat the operation of a bill which has passed. The cavalry were voted because they were supposed to be necessary, and now a gentleman comes forward, endeavoring to excite the jealousy of the House on the Executive's meddling with the Military Establishment. Mr. C. said he was pleased that the PRESIDENT had refused it, if it was only to convince some gentlemen that he had power to refuse that or any other bill. [Here Mr. DENT asked the gentleman if he was in order.] Mr. CRAIK said he only wished to prove the inconsistency of the member's conduct. He thought the House should not betray a want of consistency. He believed, from the statement of the member from Georgia, and the reasons of the PRESIDENT, that horse were necessary, and he therefore should wish the appropriation to be passed.

Mr. KITCHELL said, gentlemen seemed to be mistaken; they were continually alluding to the law passed yesterday. There was not a word about two troops of horse yesterday. All we then said, was, that we would not say there should not be two troops of horse; the Message of the PRESIDENT did not say that two troops should be mounted, nor do I say, said Mr. K., that horse are not necessary; I think some are necessary; but the inquiry seemed to be, now, whether the House were to vote for more.

Mr. W. SMITH said, the gentleman's observations were very extraordinary; he surely could not have attended to the subject, to say that the House had not passed the law authorizing two troops of horse. We have a law in force, said he, to ascertain and fix the Military Establishment, in which we authorize the PRESIDENT to employ the two troops of dragoons, to serve either on horse or foot at his discretion. The bill we sent up yesterday does not repeal that law, and yet gentlemen would now come forward to oppose the appropriation, and determine they shall act on foot. He could not think with what propriety the restriction could be made as the gentleman from Massachusetts wishes, nor could he think how the gentleman from Jersey had attended. Should we now say they should be at our direction, and that we would not grant money without? This would be strange conduct--an assumption of power which he hoped the House would never arrogate.

Mr. KITCHELL said his meaning was, that the horse were not established yesterday, but before.

Mr. HARTLEY said it appeared, from good testimony, that the troops were requisite to save the people on the frontiers from the depredations of the Indians; he thought, therefore, that they having been established before, the House were bound to make the appropriation to give effect, or show the great inconsistency.

Mr. NICHOLAS said it was not his intention to vote for these men at all; but if they must have them, perhaps it would be most economical to equip them. With respect to their power of withholding the appropriation, he had no doubt; and though they had yesterday passed a law establishing two companies of cavalry, it was in the power of that House, of the Senate, or of the PRESIDENT, to refuse an appropriation. This was the sense of the constitution. When the bill came before the House, he should give his negative to the additional horse; for, if they were always to keep up the same number of men, whether in war or peace, except two-thirds of both Houses were found to oppose the will of the PRESIDENT, they might bid adieu to all restraint upon Executive power, and count upon a military Government, if ever an Executive should be found whose will it should be to make it so. If these were to be kept up, he would still say the House had better go to $100,000 expense to mount them on horse-back.

Mr. VARNUM said it was observed by gentlemen that those troops were not mounted; if so, there must have been a very lavish waste of money. However that might be, gentlemen who state this matter ought to state it fairly. They ought not to say that two companies of cavalry were yesterday voted. No, they were part of the old War Establishment. It was true, the House had not the power to repeal the law; but one thing was in their power, and that they ought to do, if they see this part of the standing army necessary. The constitution returns the power to act on it once in every two years to each branch of the Legislature. The House, he thought, had good right to exercise their own opinion on the necessity of mounting these men. It was not in the power of one branch to repeal the law which keeps these men, but we ought to consider whether they are to be put in the same situation as in time of war. Mr. V. said he discharged his duty in voting against this appropriation. The House had a right to judge, and it was not in the power of the PRESIDENT to act for them.

Mr. HEATH said that the subject had been fully discussed, and therefore he should only observe, that, from the authority which had recommended the mounting of these cavalry, he should vote for the appropriation.

Mr. MILLEDGE repeated his arguments on the local situation of the country, and asserted the absolute necessity of the troops.

The motion was put and carried--there being 56 in favor of it.

_Naval Appropriations._

Mr. W. SMITH then proposed to add $172,000 for finishing the frigates United States, Constitution, and Constellation.

Mr. NICHOLAS said he should be against appropriating so large a sum for this purpose. It was the sense of the House, on a former occasion, that it would be proper to appropriate such a sum as should put them in such a situation as to secure them from injury, but to stop short of making them fit for sea, that the expense of manning them might be avoided.

Mr. SWANWICK said a new view of the subject seemed to be brought forward at present. Before, they had determined to finish the frigates; but now, they were not to finish them, lest they should be manned, but to finish them in part only. A gentleman yesterday said, when speaking on the subject of the PRESIDENT's Message, that he could not suppose they would have refused to pay the soldiers, though there might be some deficiency in the expression of the act; and might he not suppose, said Mr. S., if the frigates were so nearly finished, he might go on to finish them, and trust to the Legislature to furnish the money? These frigates, he said, were a very extraordinary concern. It seemed as if it was only when it was to be made a present of to Algiers, that a frigate could be finished, and not when it was for the protection of our own commerce. He trusted, however, that there would not be a majority found in that House who would vote against finishing the frigates: as to manning them, that would remain for a future consideration.

Mr. PARKER said, it would require all the money which had been named for finishing the frigates, without rigging, though there would be a considerable quantity of materials left on hand. There need be no apprehension of their being manned, whilst seamen's wages remained at the price they were, because men could not be got on the terms stipulated in the law for this purpose. If a smaller sum than was mentioned were to be granted, they might as well give nothing.

Mr. SITGREAVES supposed the blank was now proposed to be filled with the same sum which had been agreed upon on a former occasion. If this were the case, it ought to dissipate the fears of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS,) as it was well known that the sum was predicated upon a supposition that the frigates were not to be manned. If they were to be manned, a further appropriation would certainly be necessary.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, it appeared to him that if all gentlemen were agreed that this business should go no further than the building of the frigates, they could have no hesitation to leave undone some of the internal finishing work of the vessels; if they did not wish to put them into such a situation as that they might force them into service upon the spur of an alarm, they could have no objection to their being left in such a situation as to be perfectly secure, but not finished fit for sea.

Mr. SITGREAVES said this subject had heretofore undergone a very full discussion. A motion was then made merely to finish the hulls, which was negatived. It was then said that contracts were made for all the materials, and that except the frigates were finished, the engagements which had been entered into could not be fulfilled. But there was another security against the danger apprehended. They had lately come to a determination to make all appropriations specific and particular. What was the language of the present appropriation? It was for finishing the frigates, not for manning them. If it had been said to be for carrying into effect the law for the Naval Establishment, there might have been some little ground for apprehension; but, as it now stood, the Executive could not proceed to man the vessels.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, when they voted the sum now asked for finishing the frigates, the expenditure was accompanied by a law to repeal the manning clause of the former act. He had made inquiries respecting contracts, and found the money in hand was equal to the fulfilment of them; if there had been any others, he supposed they should have heard of them. He again said there were many ornamental parts of the vessels which might be as well thrown upon the expense of next year as of this.

Mr. SWANWICK said, if Government could have had foresight sufficient to have known that there would have been any objections made to the finishing of the frigates, they would certainly not have entered into any contracts to that extent, but they could not possibly do this. He wished, if gentlemen were determined the frigates should not be made use of, that they would say at once they should be sold on the stocks. With respect to manning of them from the money proposed to be appropriated, that was impossible, and he saw no reason for making the business _doubly sure_ by any other precaution.

Mr. HOLLAND said it was, with great propriety, intended by many members in the House to keep the frigates in such a state as to prevent their being manned. If we appropriate to finish them, said he, we shall be exposed to all the difficulties depicted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania; for some way would be devised to procure and pay men, if the House put it in the power of the Executive to do it: therefore he hoped, to avoid all that trouble and expense, they would not vote to finish them. For what purpose, said he, should they be finished, unless it were intended to man them? To avoid every danger of that kind, he should vote against the sum proposed.

Mr. HARTLEY said, that last year the six frigates which had been before voted for were reduced to three, with intent to complete them. Was it not probable then, he would ask, that the PRESIDENT would proceed to complete those frigates, according to the power given him? Was it not to be supposed that contracts were entered into for that purpose? No person could suppose but contracts were made. Then certainly the House ought not to expose the Executive to the ridiculous situation of receding from his contracts! They would not be finished before next session, and therefore no danger of equipping could be apprehended. It may be necessary to use them, but at any rate it would be running no risk to have them finished, as they could not be manned by this appropriation.

Mr. GALLATIN said, there seemed to be involved in the present consideration the question whether or not we should have a Navy. As to himself, he should vote against the present appropriation, because if the frigates were completely finished, he should fear they would get to sea. When they had on a former occasion consented to finish them, it was under the condition of the law for manning being repealed; but they now stood upon new ground. Mr. G. said he had been charged with inconsistency of opinion, from having before said that he thought the PRESIDENT would not be authorized to proceed in the manning of the vessels under the present law, whilst he was now apprehensive that he might do so. He wished to be on sure ground. He did not know but the PRESIDENT might put a different construction upon the law from him. Indeed, from the experience they had had of Presidential discretion, they need not be surprised if the vessels were sent to sea, though no appropriation was made for the purpose, should the PRESIDENT suppose there was any plea for doing so. As a proof of this power having been exercised heretofore, Mr. G. referred to the Western insurrection. In that case, he said, no appropriation was made for the expense; but the law authorizes the PRESIDENT to call out the militia when he shall see occasion to do so; he called them out, and got money from the Treasury. Indeed, the building of a frigate for Algiers, without any authority, and the pledging of the faith of the nation to pay the expense of the law-suits of our citizens in London, were strong proofs of what the Executive could do.

Mr. G. said he did not mean to bring into view any arguments relative to the propriety of establishing a Navy in this country. He should vote against the present motion, because he did not wish to see the frigates at sea, and because he conceived a Navy to be prejudicial to the true interests of this country. Something had been said about contracts, but he did not believe any existed. They had last year been told the same thing. Any person reading the statements which had been furnished to them, would perceive that the business was not done by any contract, but that men were employed by Government, and regular wages paid to them. The frigate which had been built for Algiers had been built by contract, they had an estimate of it at so much a ton, but this was not the case with respect to any other of the frigates.

Mr. W. SMITH did not wish to go into a long debate on the subject, when they had so much business before them, in order to show whether it was proper for this country to have a Navy or not; the only question now was, whether they ought to appropriate money for finishing the three frigates. If they did not do it, all the money which had been already expended would probably be lost. The only objection to the doing of this seemed to arise from a fear that the vessels would be manned, though when this subject was before them, the other day, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) moved to postpone the bill relative to the repealing or suspending the law for manning the vessels till next session, from an opinion that, by the present law, the PRESIDENT was not authorized to man them. That gentleman seemed now, however, in contradiction to himself, to fear the PRESIDENT would put a different construction upon the law: if he did not believe the PRESIDENT would violate the law, he could not account for his refusing now to vote the money which was merely necessary to finish the vessels. Mr. S. read an extract from the report of the Secretary of War, to show the forward state in which the vessels were, and added, that they were bound in duty to finish them, were it only to prevent the loss of the money already expended upon them.

Mr. DEARBORN observed, that if he was convinced, from the documents which had been laid before them, that the sum now asked for was necessary merely to finish the frigates, he should not hesitate to vote for it; but it was not a little extraordinary that the gentlemen on that committee (not even the Chairman, who seemed to have the business so much at heart) could not say whether this sum was necessary for finishing and rigging, or finishing without rigging, or for finishing, rigging, and manning. The frigate building in this city, the captain had told him, was calculated in point of size to carry 62 guns, instead of 44; which was one of the reasons they had cost so much more than they had been estimated at. Mr. D. said, he suspected that the sum proposed would not only be sufficient to finish the hulls, but to rig and fit the vessels for sea, and until he had more satisfaction on the subject he could not consent to give his vote for it.

Mr. KITTERA observed, that gentlemen first said, that under the present law, the PRESIDENT could not proceed to man and send the vessels to sea, but now they were apprehensive this might be done, though no appropriation was made for the purpose. This, he thought, somewhat inconsistent; but he believed whilst thirty dollars a month was given to seamen by merchants, and their law only authorized eleven to be given, there was not much to be feared on this head.

Mr. AMES said, that gentlemen opposed to the finishing of the frigates, seemed to be also opposed to all ideas of this country ever becoming a naval power; the necessity of this, he was persuaded, would ere long appear. It was not to be supposed that a nation whose commerce was greater than that of any other, except Great Britain, should go on long without a naval protection; and he believed the more strenuous the opposition shown against this measure, the sooner it would be accomplished; he was not therefore displeased to see the present violent opposition to every thing which looked towards this object.

It was not enough, Mr. A. said, for gentlemen to discourage the building of ships, they would also discredit the administration of Government; and nothing was more natural than that those who thought so ill of it themselves should endeavor to spread those opinions. This was done continually. With respect to the building of the frigates, he thought it was a wise step; and as to the extra expense and delay which had attended the business, he believed, gentlemen might take a share of the blame upon themselves, on account of the versatility which had been shown upon the occasion in this day agreeing upon one thing, and that upon another. It was true, that another cause of extra expense was owing to a resolution which had been taken to make the ships much larger than was contemplated by the House; the vessel building here, he believed, was nearly 1,600 tons. He was glad that this alteration of plan had been adopted; not because more money would be expended on this account; not because contrary to the direction of the Legislature, but because true wisdom required it; they would now be an overmatch for any frigate, or any vessel which the Algerines could send out against them. These, he believed, were the views of the Executive in having them built of the size they were. The number of the frigates agreed to be finished had been reduced to three; and these they last session passed a law to finish. But what was now to be done? It was said they should not be finished. Who said this? Did the people? did the Government say it? No; that House alone said it: so that that House were about to usurp the supreme authority. We are the Government, we are the people, we are every thing.

But, if there be a law which says that these three frigates should be built and equipped for sea, was it not necessary, before it was concluded that they should not be so built and equipped, that this law should be repealed by all the branches of the Legislature? No, say gentlemen, we can appropriate or not, according to our sovereign will and pleasure. If they possessed the power to nullify what was enacted by all the three branches of Government, it was greatly to be lamented. But if they could appropriate according to their will, they were bound to do it also according to their consciences too. It was not only a weapon, but a shield, which it was their duty to use with great caution, and according to law; for, if they were to use it contrarily, it would be to make that House the supreme power, it would be to usurp the supreme authority.

Mr. COIT believed the only real question before them was, what sum they would appropriate for this object; he wished the mover would consent to leave the item blank.

Mr. W. SMITH had no objection to its being left blank.

Mr. VENABLE said, if this was a mere question of expense, it was very extraordinary that it should have called forth such a philippic from the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. AMES,) who had charged the House with arrogating to itself all the powers of Government; as being omnipotent. Upon what ground could he found such charges? If it were a question of expense merely, there could certainly be no ground for such charges; but if it were to be considered as a question of power, if they were to be told they dared not to withhold the appropriation in question, here he would intrench himself as a Representative of the people; he had a right, as a member of that House, to vote against the expense which he thought improper, and he would exercise that right. Every branch of Government had the same right, and he wished them to exercise it. And he would not be told, when he was about to exercise this right, that he was arrogating to himself all the powers of Government. He was determined to exercise his discretion on every question which came before him for decision, and he would vote against this expense.