Chapter M: X. again called upon us. He said M. Talleyrand was (28)

As to the remarks made by the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. G. said he was extremely glad that gentleman was for giving to the Territory the right of a State. If, however, he had attended to the report, he would have found that his calculation of numbers was incorrect. The population of five thousand had been deducted by the committee, and after that deduction forty-five thousand remained. Though the numbers in the Territory proposed to be formed into a State amounted, a year ago, to no more than forty thousand, yet it might be stated upon strong ground, that, before the new government can get into operation, there will be a sufficient population to demand admission as a matter of right. By attaching the inhabitants on the north of the line to the Indiana Territory, they will remain in the same grade of government they now are, and not be degraded, as stated by the gentleman from Delaware, to a lower state. This disposition appeared to Mr. G. the best that could be made. But if, when gentlemen came to the details of the bill, it should be thought best to introduce into the new State the population north of the line, he said he might have no objection.

Mr. FEARING stated the great inconveniences that would be felt by the inhabitants north of the line, if attached to the Indiana Territory. He considered the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. GILES,) respecting the participation of this description of citizens in forming a constitution for others, as entitled to little weight. Such a measure was by no means uncommon. It had been done in the case of Kentucky, and other States.

Mr. F. conceived that the people of the Territory had all equal rights under the ordinance; they had been virtually promised that they should not be attached to any other Western Territory, and Congress had only reserved to themselves the right of admitting them into the Union as States. More they could not do, without their consent.

Mr. BAYARD moved to strike out of the resolution the words that fix the boundary, for the purpose of introducing words that should prescribe that the new State be circumscribed by the original boundaries of the Eastern State, referring to Congress the right of making one or more States in said State at any future time.

Mr. GILES said that the State, as formed in the report, was one of the most compact and convenient in the Union. The amendment would materially change its character. Besides, it would in fact impair the right of Congress to accommodate the boundaries to future circumstances. It was well known, and sensibly felt, that there were many inconvenient boundaries to several of the States now in the Union; yet so great was the difficulty attending their alteration, that they could not be changed.

Mr. BAYARD was not so sensible of the difficulty of altering the boundaries as the gentleman from Virginia, who had stated that Congress would not have power to alter them when once fixed. This difficulty might exist as to the States now in the Union, because Congress had not the constitutional power to alter them without the consent of the adjacent States. But if this power be referred to Congress, which will be a disinterested tribunal, there will be no difficulty in varying the boundaries as circumstances shall dictate.

Mr. B. asked, if, while gentlemen are attending to the interests and wishes of one part of the people, they are disposed to disregard the interests and wishes of another part? If they were not, they ought to admit the section, proposed by the resolution to be cut off, to a participation in State rights.

Mr. BACON objected to the amendment. He said that Congress were vested by the constitution with certain powers which they cannot increase, or diminish, or delegate. By the constitution likewise, the several States are vested with certain powers which they cannot increase, diminish, or divest themselves of. By the third section of the fourth article of the constitution, "new States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union." This act proposes to make this Territory a State with State powers under the constitution. How, then, can these people, once a State, divest themselves of these powers. This is a question that does not interest simply the State proposed to be formed, but every State in the Union. All are equally interested in preserving the powers vested in them by the constitution.

Mr. BAYARD said he did not see any occasion for striking out the proviso. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) goes on the principle that Congress has only a right to admit, without any reservation. Mr. B. said he had always believed the greater included the smaller. If you are vested with the greater power of admitting, you have certainly the minor powers included in the greater power. From the nature of the ordinance, it constitutes the fundamental principle on which the States are admitted--they are not admitted under the constitution. They are to be admitted exclusively under the provision of the ordinance. You may, therefore, say that you will not now exercise the whole power committed to you, but reserve the right of exercising it hereafter.

Mr. SMILIE did not consider the principle laid down by the gentleman from Delaware as constitutional. We must be governed by the constitution. If the Territory be admitted as a State into the Union, when admitted it must be bound down by the constitution, which says the boundaries of States shall not be altered but with the express permission of the State.

Mr. GILES--The gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. GRISWOLD,) affects lately to have discovered a great deal of disguise in the proceedings of this House. What disguise? What were the committee to do? This country is placed in a certain peculiar situation. We have waters running to the East--then to the West; and the committee thought it was desirable to connect these by good roads. With the committee, State principles or interests had no influence--they were governed entirely by general principles and the common interest.

The gentleman has also insinuated that the Secretary of the Treasury holds lands that will be benefited by these roads. It may be so. Mr. G. had not inquired; but he supposed he did not hold all the lands. Congress may lay out these roads as they please. He could foresee how Congress would lay them out, and it is a million to one that they will not touch his lands.

The United States are about making a new contract. These propositions are made as additional securities for the national property. The Secretary of the Treasury having estimated the annual product of these lands at four hundred thousand dollars, Mr. G. said, as chairman of the committee, he had applied to him to know his opinion of the manner in which this sum could be best secured, and he gave his opinion that this provision would be most likely to effect that object. This is all the mystery and disguise attending the resolution.

Mr. SMILIE said when gentlemen charge particular States with injustice, they ought to be prepared to prove what they advance. If there had been any co-operation between the delegations of Virginia and Pennsylvania on this occasion, he had never heard of it. The fact was, that no peculiar good could result to Pennsylvania from this measure. The great object was to keep up that intercourse which will attach the people of the Territory to you. When the Territory shall become a State, she will have a right to tax your lands. This benefit, together with the salt-springs, as I understand, is proposed as a substitution far the relinquishment of those rights.

Mr. FEARING said he considered a part of the rights of the Territory given up by this resolution; and though the Territory would be highly benefited by the projected roads, and the cession of the salt-springs, yet he conceived they would be much more benefited by laying out the roads within the Territory.

Mr. GRISWOLD said he was glad the honorable gentleman from Virginia had assured the House there was no disguise in this business. If the object be to make an advantageous contract with the Territory to secure our Western lands, let us offer them five per cent. of the proceeds of those lands, to be paid into their treasury. If they shall be disposed to make roads through Pennsylvania and Virginia, he should have no objection.

He was as sensible as the gentleman from Virginia, that whatever improves a part of the Union improves the whole; though this was undoubtedly the case, he was not of opinion that a sum of money should be taken from the public treasury, and specially applied to local purposes. Under this resolution, according to the calculation of the Secretary of the Treasury, forty thousand dollars was the smallest sum that would be annually applied to the laying out of those roads. Mr. G. said he thought the sum too large to be withdrawn from the national treasury, and directed to local objects.

The allusion of the gentlemen to light-houses raised on the Connecticut shore does not apply. There was but one light-house in Connecticut, ordered to be built by this House, for which the _enormous_ sum of twenty-five hundred dollars had been appropriated. Yet this solitary measure had been rejected by the Senate. This is the great boon given to Connecticut!

For these reasons Mr. G. hoped the article would be stricken out, and that, if it was necessary to make terms with the new State, they might receive five per cent. on the receipts of the land, to be paid into their own treasury, disposable by themselves as they saw fit.

Messrs. R. WILLIAMS, JACKSON, and HOLLAND, said a few words in favor of retaining the article; when the question was taken on striking it out, and lost--yeas 17.

Mr. FEARING, wishing that half the proceeds of the Western lands should be laid out on roads within the Territory, made a motion to that effect; lost--yeas 25.

The report of the select committee, without further amendment, was then agreed to, and a bill ordered in conformity thereto.

WEDNESDAY, April 7.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Thomas K. Jones was read the third time, and passed.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying his report on the memorial of Fulwar Skipwith, referred to him by order of the House on the nineteenth of January last; which were read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

Mr. JOHN C. SMITH, from the Committee of Claims, to whom was recommitted, on the fifteenth ultimo, their report on the memorial of Paul Coulon, a French citizen, made a supplementary report thereon; which was read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House to-day.

On motion it was _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to examine and report the state of the office of the Clerk of this House.

_Ordered_, That Mr. CLAY, Mr. HUGER, and Mr. SOUTHARD, be appointed a committee pursuant to the said resolution.

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee to whom were referred, on the fifth instant, the amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act for revising and amending the acts concerning naturalization," reported that the committee had had the said amendments under consideration, and directed him to report to the House their agreement to the same.

_North-western Territory._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to enable the people of the eastern division of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes.

Mr. FEARING moved to amend the bill so as to embrace the population of the eastern division as bounded by the articles of the ordinance, the effect of which motion would be to include about thirty thousand inhabitants of that division, that are excluded by the provisions of the bill, and respecting whom it is provided in the bill, that they may hereafter be added by Congress to the new State, or disposed of otherwise, as provided by the fifth article of the compact.

This motion gave rise to a debate of considerable length, in which Messrs. FEARING, BAYARD, GRISWOLD, GODDARD, HENDERSON, and RANDOLPH, supported; and Messrs. GILES, BACON, and R. WILLIAMS, opposed the amendment.

Those who supported the amendment contended that the exclusion of that portion of territory occupied by about three thousand inhabitants was both unconstitutional and inexpedient. On the ground of constitutionality, they contended, that under the articles of the compact, which were to be considered as the constitution of the territory, Congress had only the right of forming the eastern division into one, two, or three States; and that under this power, no right existed to form one part of the division into a State, and leave the remaining section in a Territorial condition; that the rights of the whole of the inhabitants of the eastern division were equal, and if one part was, so also must the remaining part be, admitted to the privilege of a State.

On the ground of expediency, it was contended that the situation of the excluded inhabitants would be peculiarly hard; that, if attached to the Indiana Territory, they would be placed two or three hundred miles from it; that they would be furthermore degraded from the second to the first branch of Territorial government, and that they would be deprived, by the reduction of their numbers, from the prospect of being admitted for a great number of years, to State rights.

On the contrary, the opponents of the amendment contended that the provisions of the bill were both constitutional and expedient; that under the compact the right was given to Congress of admitting the eastern division into the Union, in the form of one, two, or three States; that this right involved a discretion to admit a part of that division at one time, and the remaining part at a subsequent period; that if the whole division were once admitted into the Union, Congress would be prohibited from dividing hereafter, when it was acknowledged such division would be expedient, the said division into two or more States, without the consent of the State now formed.

That, as to considerations of expediency, the hardships likely to be felt by the excluded inhabitants were such as arose, not from the provisions of the bill, but from their local situation; and that it was not true that they would be degraded by annexation to the Indiana Territory; to a lower grade of Territorial character than they at present enjoyed--the grade being the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH supported the amendment on peculiar ground, declaring that if the amendment should not prevail, he would still vote for the admission. He declared himself in favor of the amendment, principally from a desire to avoid the introduction of too many small States into the Union.

The question was then taken on Mr. FEARING'S amendment, and lost--yeas 34, nays 38.

Mr. FEARING moved so to amend the bill as to leave to the new State the right of naming itself. Agreed to.

After some discussion of the details of the bill, the committee rose and repeated the bill, with amendments.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, do lie on the table.

THURSDAY, April 8.

Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jun., from the committee to whom was referred, on the fifth instant, the petition of sundry citizens of Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, with instruction to report thereon by bill or otherwise, presented a bill to incorporate the Directors of the Columbian Library Company; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. DENNIS, from the committee to whom was referred, on the fifth of February last, a motion, in the form of two resolutions of the House, "respecting the adjustment of the existing disputes between the Commissioners of the City of Washington, and other persons who may conceive themselves injured by the several alterations made in the plan of the said city; also, relative to a plan of the said City of Washington, conformably, as nearly as may be, to the original design thereof, with certain exceptions," made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. JOHN TALIAFERRO, Jun., from the committee appointed, presented a bill to incorporate the inhabitants of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing a statement prepared by the Register, of the application of the appropriations made by Congress for clerk-hire, in the several offices of the Treasury Department, specifying the names of the persons, and the salaries allowed to each, for the three last years, in pursuance of a resolution of this House, of the twenty-fifth ultimo; which were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompanying two statements, marked A and B, relative to expenses incurred by the United States in the exercise of jurisdiction over the territory of Columbia, since the assumption of jurisdiction by Congress, prepared in pursuance of a resolution of this House of the first instant; which were read, and ordered to be referred to the committee appointed, on the eighth of December last, to inquire whether any, and, if any, what alterations or amendments may be necessary in the existing government and laws of the District of Columbia.

The House proceeded to consider the report of the select committee to whom were referred, on the fifth instant, the amendments of the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act for revising and amending the acts concerning naturalization," which lay on the table: Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this House doth agree to the said amendments, with amendments, to the section proposed to be substituted by the Senate in lieu of the first and second sections of the original bill.

Mr. NICHOLSON, from the committee appointed on the second instant, presented a bill to abolish the Board of Commissioners in the city of Washington, and to make provision for the repayment of loans made by the State of Maryland for the use of the city; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. NICHOLSON, from the committee appointed, presented a bill to provide more effectually for the due application of public money, and for the accountability of persons intrusted therewith; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the supplementary report of the Committee on Claims, of the seventh instant, to whom was recommitted, on the fifteenth ultimo, their report on the memorial of Paul Coulon, a French citizen; and after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported a resolution, which was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That there be paid to Paul Coulon, as agent for the captors of the ship Betty Cathcart and brig Aaron, prizes to the French privateer La Bellone, out of any moneys in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated, the sum of six thousand two hundred and forty-one dollars and forty-four cents, being the amount retained by the Treasury Department, from the sales of the ship Betty Cathcart, and for duties on the cargo of the brig Aaron.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said resolution; and that the Committee on Claims do prepare and bring in the same.

_North-western Territory._

The House proceeded to consider the amendments reported yesterday from the Committee of the Whole to the bill to enable the people of the Eastern division of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes, which lay on the table; and the same being severally twice read, were, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House.

A motion was then made, further to amend the said bill, at the Clerk's table, by striking out, in the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth lines of the second section thereof, the following words: "and on the north, by an east and west line, drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan, running east, after intersecting the due north line aforesaid, from the mouth of the Great Miami, until it shall intersect Lake Erie or"--and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "to."

It passed in the negative--yeas 27, nays 44, as follows:

YEAS.--James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, John
Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Ebenezer Elmer,
Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William
Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H.
Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris,
James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Cotton Smith,
John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas
Tillinghast, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown,
William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew
Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John
Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Eustis,
John Fowler, William B. Giles, John A. Hanna, Daniel
Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George
Jackson, Charles Johnson, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore,
Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John
Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel
Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John
Taliaferro, jr., Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John
Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

Mr. JOHN C. SMITH moved further to amend the bill, by striking out the third section thereof, in the words following, to wit:

_And be it further enacted_, That all male citizens of the
United States, who shall have arrived at full age, and
resided within the said Territory at least one year
previous to the day of election, and shall have paid a
territorial or county tax, and all persons having, in other
respects, the legal qualifications to vote for
Representatives in the General Assembly of the Territory,
be, and they are hereby, authorized to choose
Representatives to form a Convention, who shall be
apportioned amongst the several counties within the Eastern
division aforesaid, in a ratio of one Representative to
every ---- inhabitants of each county, according to the
enumeration taken under the authority of the United States,
as near as may be, that is to say: from the county of
Trumbull, ---- Representatives; from the county of
Jefferson, ---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be
elected within what is now known by the county of Belmont,
taken from Jefferson and Washington Counties; from the
county of Washington, ---- Representatives; from the county
of Ross, ---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be
elected in what is now known by Fairfield County, taken
from Ross and Washington Counties; from the county of
Adams, ---- Representatives; from the county of Hamilton,
---- Representatives, ---- of the ---- to be elected in
what is now known by Clermont County, taken entirely from
Hamilton County: and the elections for the Representatives
aforesaid, shall take place on the second Tuesday of
October next, the time fixed by a law of the Territory,
entitled "An act to ascertain the number of free male
inhabitants of the age of twenty-one, in the Territory of
the United States north-west of the river Ohio, and to
regulate the elections of Representatives for the same,"
for electing Representatives to the General Assembly, and
shall be held and conducted in the same manner as is
provided by the aforesaid act, except that the
qualifications of electors shall be as herein specified.

The motion to strike out was supported by Messrs. JOHN C. SMITH, GODDARD, FEARING, and HENDERSON, and opposed by Messrs. GILES, MITCHILL, R. WILLIAMS, ELMER, and HOLLAND, on the ground that the right of the United States to admit necessarily involved the power of prescribing a convention.

The yeas and nays were taken, and it passed in the negative--yeas 26, nays 48, as follows:

YEAS.--Thomas Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John
Davenport, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,
Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson,
Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Thomas Morris, Thomas
Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith,
John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, George B.
Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel
Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel
Bishop, Richard Brent, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell,
Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas T.
Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,
Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, William B. Giles, Edwin Gray,
John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, William Hoge,
James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Charles
Johnson, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott,
Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John
Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah
Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,
Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr.,
David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

Mr. FEARING said he was of opinion that some provision ought to be made for the inhabitants excluded from the new State, and the continuance of suits from the old to the new Government; for these purposes he moved the recommitment of the bill. Lost.

Mr. DANA proposed so to amend the fourth section, as that a majority of the whole number of delegates elected in the Convention, instead of a majority of those present, should first determine whether it be or be not expedient to form a constitution, &c.

The yeas and nays were called, and the motion carried--yeas 38, nays 33, as follows:

YEAS.--Thomas Boude, William Brent, John Condit, Manasseh
Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis,
Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Abiel
Foster, John Fowler, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Roger
Griswold, John A. Hanna, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald
Henderson, William Hoge, Benjamin Huger, Lewis R. Morris,
Thomas Morris, James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read,
William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, Henry Southard, Richard
Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Stratton,
Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, John Trigg, George B.
Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, and Lemuel Williams.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Robert
Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,
Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Richard Cutts, John Dawson,
William Dickson, William B. Giles, William Helms, James
Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Charles Johnson,
Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas
Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel
Smith, John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel Smith, John
Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram
Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert Williams.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.

FRIDAY, April 9.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill, entitled "An act to amend the Judicial System of the United States;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

[The chief alterations made from the old system consist in the holding the Supreme Court only once a year by four justices, and the establishment of six circuits, within each district of which circuit courts are to be holden twice a year, composed of one justice of the Supreme Court and the judge of the district, in which said court is held.]

The bill was read twice, and referred to a select committee.

_Ohio State Government._

An engrossed bill to enable the people of the Eastern division of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes, was read the third time, and the blanks therein filled up: And, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 47, nays 29, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Richard Brent, Robert Brown,
William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew
Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John
Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer,
William Eustis, John Fowler, William B. Giles, William
Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Samuel
L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas
Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel
Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel
Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart,
John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson,
Abram Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne,
and Robert Williams.

NAYS.--Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel
W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin
Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth
Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin
Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris,
Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Cotton
Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Thomas
Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

MONDAY, April 12.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Theodosius Fowler, was read the third time, and passed.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of Paul Coulon, which was reported without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed and read the third time to-day.

Mr. S. SMITH, from the committee appointed, presented a bill for the relief of Lewis Tousard; which was read twice and committed to the Committee of the Whole for to-morrow.

Mr. CLAY, from the committee appointed on the seventh instant, to examine and report on the state of the office of the Clerk of this House, made a report: which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to provide for the establishment of certain districts, and therein to amend an act, entitled "An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage," and for other purposes; and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported several amendments thereto; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House.

_Ordered_, That the said bill, with the amendments, be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Secretary of State, of the seventh instant, to whom was referred, on the nineteenth of January last, the memorial of Fulwar Skipwith; and after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported two resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, for the
payment of four thousand five hundred and fifty dollars,
unto Fulwar Skipwith, (which sum was advanced by him to the
United States,) with an interest of ---- per centum, from
the first of November, one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-five.

_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, for
compensating the said Fulwar Skipwith, for his services
from the first of November, one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-six, to the first of May, one thousand seven hundred
and ninety-nine, at the rate of ---- dollars, per annum.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said resolutions; and that Mr. DAWSON, Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, and Mr. STANTON, do prepare and bring in the same.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee of the twenty-second of January, on the petition of Sarah Fletcher and Jane Ingraham, referred to them on the tenth of December last, and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported several resolutions thereupon; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to grant to the widows and
children, as the case may be, of the officers, seamen, and
marines, who were lost at sea, on board the ship Insurgent
and brigantine Pickering, lately in the service of the
United States, four months' pay of their respective
husbands or fathers.

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to provide by law for the
payment of five years' half pay to the widows and children,
as the case may be, of such officers in the naval service
of the United States as shall be slain in battle, or die,
when in the actual line of their duty.

_Resolved_, That the widows and children of those officers
who were lost at sea in the ship Insurgent and brigantine
Pickering, shall be entitled to this provision.

_Ordered_, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said resolutions; and that Mr. EUSTIS, Mr. GODDARD, and Mr. STANTON, do prepare and bring in the same.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Paul Coulon was read the third time and passed.

Mr. S. SMITH, from the committee appointed the ninth instant, on the part of this House, jointly, with the committee appointed on the part of the Senate, "to consider and report what business is necessary to be done by Congress in their present session, and when it may be expedient to close the same," made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill for the relief of sick and disabled seamen.

Mr. EUSTIS moved to strike out the first section which forms the moneys devoted to the above object into a general fund, to be applied according to the discretion of the President, instead of suffering it to remain, as heretofore, applied to the particular ports, (or those in the vicinity,) from which the moneys are derived.

This motion was supported by Messrs. EUSTIS, MITCHILL, and DANA, and opposed by Messrs. S. SMITH, MILLEDGE, DAVIS, MACON, and HUGER.

The question was then taken on striking out the first section, and lost; when the committee rose, and reported the bill with amendments.

MONDAY, April 19.

_Navy Pensions._

An engrossed bill for the relief of widows and orphans of certain persons who have died, or may hereafter die, in the naval service of the United States, was read the third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 34, nays 29.

_Compensation of Collectors._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to amend the act fixing the compensation of officers employed in the collection of duties on imposts and tonnage.

This bill allows certain compensations to collectors of ports, provided the clear annual receipt does not exceed $5,000. A motion was made to strike out $5,000, for the purpose of introducing $4,000.

It was contended that this latter sum was sufficient compensation to any collector; that it greatly exceeded most of the compensations allowed to the Federal officers; and that as money was appreciating, it became necessary to reduce the salaries of officers generally.

In reply it was observed that very few collectors would receive so large a sum as $5,000--none other than those of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and perhaps Charleston; that the responsibility attached to these officers was greater than that attached to any other, as in some instances two million of dollars passed through their hands; that the temptation to violate duty was proportionably great; and that, from these considerations, it became the Government to afford them a liberal compensation; and that the sum was considerably below that heretofore allowed.

The question was taken on striking out $5,000, and lost--yeas 26.

Mr. STANLEY moved to strike out that part of the bill which deducted from the compensations made to the collectors of Newbern and Edenton, the sum of $250, heretofore allowed beyond their fees.

For this motion he assigned several reasons: among which were the inadequacy of the compensations, viz: about $1,600 to the duties performed, which were, notwithstanding the small amount of duties, very burdensome, owing to the smallness of the cargoes imported, and theirs being greatly inferior to the compensations allowed to the collectors of Wilmington and Petersburg.

Mr. S. SMITH informed the committee that the principle on which the several compensations had been graduated was, that when the gross emoluments exceed $2,000, the salary heretofore allowed by law, in addition to the emoluments, should be withdrawn. This was the fact in relation to the ports of Newbern and Edenton; and as the duties in each of these ports did not exceed $45,000, the compensation seemed adequate; he was, however, far from being tenacious, and would have little objection to a vote of the House which should increase it. Motion lost--yeas 25.

The committee rose, and reported the bill without amendment.

Mr. SOUTHARD renewed the motion to strike out $5,000, for the purpose of inserting $4,000, (the same motion made in committee,) and assigned substantially the same reasons above stated.

Messrs. STANLEY, BACON, and SMILIE, delivered a few observations for, and Mr. HUGER against the motion, which was taken by yeas and nays, on the call of Mr. SOUTHARD, and lost--yeas 31, nays 40.

THURSDAY, April 22.

_French Spoliations._

Mr. GILES, from the committee appointed on the fifth of February last, to whom were referred the memorials and petitions of sundry citizens of the United States, and resident merchants therein, praying relief in the case of depredations committed on their vessels and cargoes, while in pursuit of lawful commerce, by the cruisers of the French Republic, during the late European war, made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

FRIDAY, April 23.

_Judiciary System._

The question was then put on the passage of the bill.

Mr. BAYARD called for the yeas and nays, which were taken, and stood--yeas 46, nays 30, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Walter Bowie, Richard Brent, Robert
Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, William
Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, William B. Giles,
Edwin Gray, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms,
James Holland, David Holmes, Michael Leib, John Milledge,
Anthony New, Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel
Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of
Virginia,) Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,
Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr.,
Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van
Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne, and Robert
Williams.

NAYS.--James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, John Campbell,
Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T.
Davis, John Dennis, Ebenezer Elmer, Abiel Foster, Calvin
Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, Archibald
Henderson, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris,
James Mott, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Stanley, John
Stratton, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Thomas
Tillinghast, George P. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel
Williams, and Henry Woods.

TUESDAY, April 27.

_Naval Sites._

UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASES.

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee appointed on so much of the President's Message as relates to naval sites, &c., made a further report. The report concludes as follows:

"The committee find that, prior to the fourth of March,
1801, the sum of one hundred and ninety-nine thousand and
thirty dollars, and ninety-two cents, has been expended in
purchasing navy yards and making improvements upon them,
without any law authorizing the purchase, or any
appropriation of money, either for purchase or
improvements."

WEDNESDAY, April 28.

_Sedition Act._

PETITION OF THOMAS COOPER.

A petition of Thomas Cooper, of the county of Northumberland, in the State of Pennsylvania, was presented to the House and read, setting forth that, in the month of April, eighteen hundred, he was tried and condemned at Philadelphia, before Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, judges of the circuit court of the United States there sitting, for having written and published a libel upon the political character and conduct of John Adams, the then President of the United States; and was thereupon adjudged to pay a fine of four hundred dollars, and to suffer an imprisonment of six months; which punishment he accordingly underwent; that he apprehends the said trial, condemnation, and punishment, were unjust: first, because the law, commonly called the Sedition law, under which he was indicted, was passed in direct opposition to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the United States; and secondly, because the said judges did not only take for granted the constitutionality of the said law, but did unjustly and improperly refuse to grant him a _subpoena ad testificandum_, directed to the said John Adams; and therefore praying such redress as the wisdom of Congress shall deign to bestow.

Mr. GRISWOLD moved to reject the prayer of the petition.

Mr. GILES moved to postpone the consideration of the petition till the third Monday in November.

On this motion a debate ensued, in which Mr. GILES and Mr. RANDOLPH supported, and Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. BAYARD opposed the motion.

The question on postponement was carried, by a large majority.

SATURDAY, May 1.

_Disbursement of Public Moneys._

UNAUTHORIZED PURCHASE OF NAVY YARDS.

Mr. GRISWOLD.--Again, the committee say that four navy yards were purchased without authority, and the money misapplied which was paid for them. In my judgment, this is one of the most extraordinary opinions ever pronounced. The facts which gave rise to the purchase of the navy yards were as follows: In the year 1799, Congress authorized by law the building of six 74-gun ships, and one million of dollars was then appropriated for that object, and for building six sloops-of-war. The Secretary of the Treasury found that the committee ought to have understood that ships could not be built either in the air or upon the water, and as he was directed to build the ships, that he must, of course, procure land to place them upon, and that the land must be either purchased or hired. He found that there was not a navy yard within the United States calculated for building ships-of-the-line, and that the expense of preparing yards upon private property would be lost the moment the ship was launched, and of course that this would be bad economy. Experience had likewise taught him, that the better mode would be to purchase the ground, as it would then remain at the control of the Government, so long as it was wanted, and the improvements would be saved. This course was accordingly pursued, and I believe that few gentlemen, except the committee, will conclude that it was not the wisest and best. But whether it was the best course or not, it was certainly authorized by law, because it can never be seriously doubted, whether a law which directs a thing to be done, does authorize the agents to be employed to do every thing which becomes necessary for accomplishing the object. The laws which have authorized the building of ships have certainly empowered the public agents to purchase timber, copper, cordage, and every other necessary material, and yet no law for those objects has ever named any one of those articles. On the same principle, the law which directed the building of these particular ships, necessarily authorized the public agent to procure the ground to place them upon, although it was not said, whether the ships should be built upon the water or upon the land.

But there has been one omission in this part of the report, which, on every principle of fairness ought to be connected with it, and for which purpose the report ought to be recommitted: the omission of the letter of Mr. Stoddert, late Secretary of the Navy, explanatory of the purchase made by him of the navy yards, addressed to the committee, in answer to an application made by them upon this subject. This letter contains, in my opinion, a complete justification of that transaction, and was so viewed by the minority of the committee, who urged that it might, at least, be included in the report; but, to our astonishment, the minority refused this justice to the man whom their report had implicated. This opinion of the majority, in respect to the propriety of including Mr. Stoddert's letter, I must believe, will remain a solitary one, for I can scarcely imagine it possible that any other gentleman in this House would have refused, when they presented a charge against this gentleman with one hand, to offer with the other his vindication, written at their own request. If, however, the motion to recommit should prevail, I will then move an instruction to the committee, which will produce Mr. Stoddert's letter.

What renders the report of the committee still more extraordinary, both in respect to erecting the buildings, and also the purchase of navy yards, is, that another subject, resembling these in principle, was before the committee, and on which they refused to report. This was the erecting of the extensive navy stores in this place by the present Administration.

The present Secretary of the Navy was requested to inform the committee when those stores were erected, and from what fund the money had been taken. His answer satisfied the committee that the stores had been erected by the present Administration, and that the money, if I recollect correctly, had been taken from an appropriation for the 74's, navy yards, and docks. The minority of the committee believed, what I trust will be generally believed by those who examine the question, that this was (to say no more of it) at least as doubtful an expenditure as that for the purchase of navy yards, or for erecting the buildings on the Schuylkill. If an authority to build 74's, to complete navy yards and docks, gave an authority to erect stores for the accommodation of the navy, it was thought that an authority to build ships, necessarily included a power to procure the land to place them upon; and that an authority to purchase military stores and to manage the affairs of the army necessarily included a power to furnish, at the public expense, buildings to cover the stores, and for other necessary military purposes, at the discretion of the officers intrusted with those concerns. The minority of the committee, therefore, urged to include this transaction in the report, together with the letter of the Secretary of the Navy, but the request was rejected by the majority. We believed that the cases were precisely similar in principle, and that it was not conducting with impartiality to include the one without the other; and we have thought that when it was discovered that the present Administration was conducting on principles precisely similar to those of their predecessors, it would greatly tend to satisfy all parties that the conduct of the Government had been correct. I feel no hesitation in declaring that, in my judgment, the present Administration were authorized to erect the navy stores, although I believe that the power may be better questioned than it could be in the other cases. These navy stores, I presume, are useful both for receiving the necessary materials for ship building, and securing the stores of the public ships laid up in ordinary; and although not expressly authorized by the words of the law, may very well be considered as a proper appendage to a navy yard, or as buildings rendered necessary in the finishing of the 74's; and as to the extent of the buildings, I am content to leave that point to the Department to which it has been confided. The propriety, however, of including this statement in the report (I trust) will be apparent to the House, and it will not in this place be thought correct to confine our criticisms exclusively to the past Administration. I therefore urge this as a further reason for recommitting the report.

Mr. NICHOLSON had very little inclination, at this time, to enter into an explanation of this subject, which had been so misunderstood by the gentleman just up, on account of indisposition, nor was he very anxiously opposed to the recommitment, but he could perceive not a shadow of reason why the report should be recommitted.

The gentleman had grounded his motion upon the opinion, that all the necessary facts had not been stated. It was, to be sure, a very late period of the session, and the discussion would therefore consume much precious time; but notwithstanding that, if it should appear that any material facts had been suppressed, there would be good ground for recommitting the report. He should therefore think it necessary to test the grounds advanced, to prove the necessity of the recommitment.

As to the navy yards, the committee having been appointed "to report whether moneys drawn from the Treasury have been faithfully applied to the objects for which they were appropriated, and whether the same have been regularly accounted for;" and knowing that six navy yards had been purchased, very naturally inquired under what authority these purchases had been made, and how they were paid for. They referred to the law authorizing the building of six seventy-fours and six sloops-of-war. The committee submitted an inquiry to the former Secretary of the Navy, (Mr. Stoddert,) directing him to inform the committee as to the purchase. Mr. Stoddert answered that a law had passed, appropriating one million of dollars for building the seventy-fours and sloops-of-war, and that fifty thousand dollars were also appropriated for two dock-yards; and also that two hundred thousand dollars were appropriated for the purchase of timber, or land clothed therewith; and that he thought himself authorized to purchase six navy yards, wherein to build the seventy-fours. To these several laws the committee referred for the authority under which the Secretary acted, but they could find no such authority; they could find no other, than authority to purchase two dock-yards, wherein to repair the ships. Now, although not stated in the report, there is very good reason to believe that the fifty thousand dollars never was laid out upon the two dock-yards, but that this sum was cast into the surplus fund. Whether Mr. Stoddert's opinion was correct or not, that it would be more economical to build the seventy-fours in public yards, than in private yards at rent, they were not appointed to inquire; it was their business to say whether he was authorized to act so, let his private opinion be what it might. The committee were clearly of opinion, that he was not authorized to take money appropriated for one purpose and make use of it for another.

As to the reason, why the gentleman wishes the report recommitted; to wit, to insert Mr. Stoddert's answer with the report; it is true a motion for the insertion was made. But the committee thought that letter was addressed to them, and not to the House; that it was to inform their minds, so as to enable them to make the report. They paid due attention to the reasoning of the letter, but it did not convince them that Mr. S. acted authoritatively. Mr. Stoddert's reasoning upon the subject could not form a part of the report; the committee were called upon to form an opinion, and not to substitute that of any individual. They were to inquire whether moneys appropriated were used to the purposes for which they were appropriated. They thought it was not, because it was appropriated to build ships, and to purchase land with timber on it, or timber alone. The question then is, whether six navy yards are six seventy-four gun ships, and whether six sloops-of-war are lands with timber growing on it or not? If Mr. Stoddert's reasoning had been adopted by the committee, it would have become their reasoning, and except it should be theirs, it would have had no business in the report. If a disposition of vindication could have been admitted, Mr. Stoddert might have been permitted to have appeared with counsel before the committee, but facts alone were required, and facts the committee state. Ships had been built for the public before, but the idea never was entertained to build docks for them. No measure different from those taken in the building of the frigates, except by legal authority, ought to have been taken with the seventy-fours.