Chapter M: X. again called upon us. He said M. Talleyrand was (34)

If likely to be carried into effect, the next question is, as to the time when it will be carried into effect. When these two inquiries were solved, another naturally offered itself: Is France to take the province subject to existing treaties, or as she shall receive it at the time of delivery? All these circumstances it was necessary for Congress to know, before they could act correctly.

What necessity there was for secrecy in the discussion of this resolution, Mr. HEMPHILL could not conceive. All the information we have on the subject is contained in the President's Message, which every person in the United States knows as well as we do. It appeared to him that when their deliberations turned on facts which every body knew, they ought to be public. His ideas of secrecy were these: that policy might require certain facts to be kept secret for a time; but, when made known, their arguments on them ought not to be secret. In this opinion he was strengthened by the rule of the House. [Mr. H. here read the rule on that point, which prescribes that the galleries shall be cleared whenever a confidential communication shall be received from the President, or whenever the Speaker or any other member shall inform the House that he has communications to make which he conceives ought to be kept secret.] Mr. H. asked on which branch of this rule could the arguments of gentlemen be predicated? The President had not sent them a confidential communication, nor had any member said he had communications to make which he conceived ought to be kept secret. The information referred to in the rule meant facts, and not arguments drawn from facts. He concluded by saying he saw no occasion whatever for discussing this proposition with closed doors.

Mr. DAWSON.--The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) says there is a material connection between the shutting the port of New Orleans and the cession of Louisiana. After, then, that part of the discussion which related to New Orleans had been ordered to be conducted with shut doors, how proper was it in him to introduce into debate a subject intimately connected with it? His opposition to the present motion did not arise from an indisposition fully to discuss the subject to which it referred; but from an indisposition to delay the discussion of the motion offered by his colleague. Against the present motion he should vote, because it promised nothing useful, and might be mischievous. We have been told that this subject is important and pressing. That it was important he felt; but he did not believe it was pressing. He could say, if the time should ever arrive when it became that House to act, this was not the time. When the time did arrive, he was prepared to act. Gentlemen were very anxious on this subject. He rejoiced to witness their anxiety. But he and his friends were not now to hear who were the friends of the Western country. The people of that country doubted not the protection of the Government. They were warmly attached to the Government, and knew that every thing would be done, that ought to be done, to protect and defend their rights.

Mr. BACON said, if he understood the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. HEMPHILL,) he perfectly agreed with him in opinion, that this resolution was connected with the subject of New Orleans. He agreed with him as to their inseparable connection. But the only difference was that they inferred opposite consequences from the same premises. He, Mr. B., contended that the resolution made a part of the same general subject, and ought not to be divided from it. They say it ought to be divided.

Mr. HEMPHILL, replied that he had spoken as plainly as he could. He had said the subjects were distinct.

Mr. GODDARD.--The gentleman from Massachusetts yesterday told us the call for information ought to be public, though the information itself should be secret. This reasoning had been satisfactory to him then; he had hoped it would have also proved so to-day. But it appears that he is now for sending us to a secret committee. Mr. G. said in his opinion, the call ought to be public, whatever the nature of the information might be. This information gentlemen will either deny or grant. They say it is not to be denied. Why then go into a committee? And if granted, why not grant it without assigning reasons, as well as with assigning them? Are we to be told by the gentleman from Virginia, there is no occasion for this call; that we have information enough? How does that honorable gentleman get his information? If from the cabinet, are we, the representatives of the people, to obtain it from him? Surely this will be degrading to our characters. We may believe it is true as coming from him, but, as representatives, we should spurn at receiving it in such a channel. We want official information, but gentlemen say they want to go into secret committee on this resolution. What will be the good of this? Though he could not say what was done in secret yesterday, he might say what had not been done. They had done nothing; and if they went into secret session again, the consequence would be the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH felt extremely reluctant to rise in this stage of the discussion, but he deemed it time to repel insinuations so frequently thrown out as perhaps to gain some credit, if they were permitted to pass entirely unnoticed. We are averse to take up the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut, and wherefore? Because, as our opponents would fain have it believed, we are insensible to the vast interest affected by the obstruction of the Mississippi? No, sir, because we are alive to this delicate and momentous subject; because we wish to act upon it; because we wish to go into committee on the confidential Message of the Executive; because the information required by the motion before you is not necessary to determine us in the course which we ought, and, I trust, will pursue; and because these preliminary questions, whatever be their object, are, in effect, only calculated to retard and to embarrass the decision of this House on this great question. Sir, I am content that gentlemen should repeat after each other the trite observations which have been so often reiterated of the magnitude of the object in question. I am content that they should make the best possible display of their ardor on this occasion. But wherefore this exhibition of a zeal so inordinate as to arrogate to itself all sensibility to the national welfare? Since gentlemen insist upon it, since they provoke the discussion, I must request to be indulged in some remarks on the history of this subject. And in reply to the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. GODDARD,) I must be permitted to observe that such of my information as may have been derived from the Executive is equally accessible to every member of this House, and I believe to every reputable citizen in the Union, who chooses to apply for it. That, however, which I am about to present, is derived from a source accessible to the whole world. It is to be found in a document of inestimable value, (the debates of the Virginia Convention in 1788,) and might truly be said to be official. It is an account given in his official character of member of Congress, and under the old confederation, by that able and eminent man, that faithful and illustrious public servant, the late Governor of Virginia, to the Convention of that State, at their requisition. At his own suggestion the Legislature of the State had declined to insist upon it. To the Convention it was given, (however reluctantly,) as to a paramount authority. [Here Mr. E. read Mr. Monroe's speech.][73]

"After some desultory conversation, Mr. MONROE spoke as
follows: Mr. Chairman--My conduct respecting the
transactions of Congress upon this interesting subject,
since my return to the State, has been well known to many
worthy gentlemen here. I have been often called upon before
this, in a public line, and particularly in the last
Assembly, whilst I was present, for information in regard
to these transactions; but have heretofore declined it, and
for reasons that were held satisfactory. Being amenable,
upon the principles of the Federal compact, to the
Legislature, for my conduct in Congress, it cannot be
doubted, if required, it was my duty to obey their
directions; but that honorable body thought it best to
dispense with such demand. The right in this Assembly is
unquestionably more complete, having power paramount to
that; but even here I could wish it had not been exerted as
I understand it to be, by going into committee for that
purpose. Before, however, I enter into this subject, I
cannot but observe, it has given me pain to hear it treated
by honorable gentlemen in a manner that has appeared not
altogether free from exception. For they have not gone into
it fully, and given a proper view of the transaction in
every part, but of those only which preceded, and were
subsequent to that, which had been the particular object of
inquiry; a conduct that has seemed too much calculated to
make an impression favorable to their wishes in the present
instance. But, in making this observation, I owe it to
those gentlemen to declare, that it is my opinion such
omission has proceeded, not from intention, but their
having forgotten facts, or to some cause not obvious to me,
and which I make no doubt they will readily explain.

"The policy of this State, respecting this river, has
always been the same. It has contemplated but one object,
the opening it for the use of the inhabitants, whose
interest depended on it; and in this she has, in my
opinion, shown her wisdom and magnanimity. I may, I
believe, with propriety say, that all the measures that
have at any time been taken by Congress for that purpose,
were adopted at the instance of this State. There was a
time, it is true, sir, when even this State, in some
measure, abandoned the object, by authorizing its cession
to the Court of Spain. But let us take all circumstances
into view, as they were at that time, and I am persuaded it
will by no means show a departure from this liberal and
enlightened system of policy, although it may manifest an
accommodation to the exigencies which pressed on us at the
time. The Southern States were overrun, and in possession
of the enemy. The governments of South Carolina and Georgia
were prostrate, and opposition there at an end. North
Carolina made but a feeble resistance; and Virginia herself
was greatly harassed by the enemy in force at that time in
the heart of the country, and by impressments for her own
and the defence of the Southern States. In addition to
this, the finances of the United States were in a
deplorable condition, if not totally exhausted; and France,
our ally, seemed anxious for peace; and as the means of
bringing the war to a more happy and speedy conclusion, the
object of this cession was the hopes of uniting Spain in it
with all her forces. If I recollect aright, too, at this
moment, the Minister of the United States, at the Court of
Madrid, informed Congress of the difficulty he found in
prevailing upon that Court to acknowledge our independence,
or take any measure in our favor, suggested the jealousy
with which it viewed our settlements in the Western
country, and the probability of better success, provided we
would cede the navigation of this river, as the
consideration. The latter circumstances were made known to
the Legislature, and they had their weight. All inferior
objects must yield to the safety of the society itself. A
resolution passed to that effect. An act of Congress
likewise passed; and the Minister of the United States had
full authority to relinquish this valuable right to that
Court, upon the condition above stated. But what was the
issue of this proposition? Was any treaty made with Spain
that obtained any acknowledgment of our independence,
although at war with Great Britain; and such acknowledgment
would have cost her nothing? Was a loan of money
accomplished? In short, does it appear that even Spain
herself thought it an object of any importance? So soon as
the war ended, this resolution was rescinded. The power to
make such a treaty was revoked. So that this system of
policy was departed from, only for a short time, for the
most important object that can be conceived, and resumed
again as soon as it possibly could be.

"After the peace, it became the business of Congress to
investigate the relation of these States to the different
powers of the earth, in a more extensive view than they had
hitherto done, and particularly in the commercial line; and
to make arrangements for entering into treaties with them
on such terms as might be mutually beneficial for each
party. As the result of the deliberations of that day, it
was resolved, 'That commercial treaties be formed, if
possible, with said powers, those of Europe in particular,
Spain included, upon similar principles; and three
Commissioners, Mr. Adams, Mr. Franklin, and Mr. Jefferson,
be appointed for that purpose.' So that an arrangement for
a treaty of commerce with Spain had already been taken.
Whilst these powers were in force, a representative from
Spain arrived, authorized to treat with the United States
on the interfering claims of the two nations, respecting
the Mississippi, and the boundaries, and other concerns,
wherein they were respectively interested. A similar
commission was given to the honorable Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, on the part of the United States, with these
ultimata, 'That he enter into no treaty, compact, or
convention whatever, with the said representative of Spain,
which did not stipulate our right to the navigation of the
Mississippi, and the boundaries as established in our
treaty with Great Britain.' And thus the late negotiation
commenced, under auspices, as I supposed, very favorable to
the wishes of the United States; for Spain had become
sensible of the propriety of cultivating the friendship of
these States. Knowing our claim to the navigation of the
river, she had sent a Minister hither principally to treat
on that point; and the time would not be remote when, under
the increasing population of the country, the inhabitants
would be able to open it without our assistance or her
consent. These circumstances being considered, was it not
presumable she intended to make a merit of her concession
to our wishes, and to agree to an accommodation upon that
subject, that would not only be satisfactory, but highly
pleasing to the United States? But what was the issue of
this negotiation? How was it terminated? Has it forwarded
the particular object in view, or otherwise promoted the
interests and the harmony of the States, or any of them!
Eight or ten months elapsed without any communications of
its progress to Congress. At length a letter was received
from the Secretary, stating that difficulties had arisen in
his negotiation with the representative of Spain, which, in
his opinion, should be so managed as that even their
existence should remain a secret for the present; and
proposing that a committee be appointed with full power to
direct and instruct him in every case relative to the
proposed treaty. As the only ultimata appointed in his
instructions respected the Mississippi and the boundaries,
it readily occurred that these occasioned the difficulties
alluded to, and were those he wished to remove. And, for
many reasons, this appeared, at least to me, an
extraordinary proposition. By the Articles of Confederation
nine States are necessary to enter into treaties. The
instruction is the foundation of the treaty; for if it is
formed agreeable thereto, good faith requires that it be
ratified. The practice of Congress has also been always, I
believe, in conformity to this idea. The instructions under
which our commercial treaties have been made, were carried
by nine States. Those under which the Secretary now acted
were passed by nine States. The proposition, then, would
be, that the powers which, under the constitution, nine
States only were competent to, should be transferred to a
committee, and the object thereby to disengage himself from
the ultimata already mentioned in his existing
instructions. In this light the subject was taken up, and
on these principles discussed. The Secretary, Mr. Jay,
being called before Congress to explain the difficulties
mentioned in his letter, presented to their view the
project of a treaty of commerce, containing, as he
supposed, advantageous stipulations in our favor, in that
line; in consideration for which we were to contract to
forbear the use of the navigation of the river Mississippi
for the term of 25 or 30 years, and earnestly advised our
adopting it. The subject now took a decided form; there was
no further ambiguity in it, and we were surprised, for
reasons that have been already given, that he had taken up
the subject of commerce at all. We were greatly surprised
it should form the principal object of the project, and
that a partial or temporary sacrifice of that interest, for
the advancement of which the negotiation was set on foot,
should be the consideration proposed to be given for it.
But the honorable Secretary urged, that it was necessary to
stand well with Spain; that the commercial project was a
beneficial one, and should not be neglected; that a
stipulation to forbear the use contained an acknowledgment,
on her part, of the right in the United States; that we
were in no condition to take the river, and therefore gave
nothing for it; with other reasons which, perhaps, I have
forgotten; for the subject in detail has nearly escaped my
memory. We differed with the honorable Secretary, almost in
every respect. We admitted, indeed, the propriety of
standing well with Spain, but supposed we might accomplish
that end, at least, on equal terms. We considered the
stipulation to forbear the use, as a species of barter,
that should never be countenanced in the councils of the
American States, since it might tend to the destruction of
the society itself; for a forbearance of the use of one
river, might lead to more extensive consequences; to that
of the Chesapeake, the Potomac, or any other of the rivers
that emptied into it. In short, that the councils of the
confederacy should be conducted with more magnanimity and
candor, should contemplate the benefit of all parts upon
common principles, and not the sacrifice of one part for
that of another. There appeared to us a material difference
between stipulating by treaty to forbear the use, and not
being able to open the river. The former would be
considered by the inhabitants of the Western country as an
act of hostility; the latter might be justified by our
inability. And, with respect to the commercial part of the
project, we really thought it an ill-advised one on its own
merits solely.

"Thus was this project brought before Congress, and so far
as I recollect, in this form, and upon these principles. It
was the subject of tedious and lengthy discussion in that
honorable body. Every distinct measure that was taken I do
not now remember, nor do I suppose it of consequence. I
have shown the outlines of the transaction, which is, if I
apprehend rightly, all that the committee wish to possess.
The communications of the Secretary were referred to a
Committee of the whole House. The Delegates of the seven
easternmost States voted that the ultimata in the
Secretary's instructions be repealed; which was reported to
the House, and entered on the journal by the Secretary of
Congress, that the question was carried. Upon this entry, a
constitutional question arose to this effect: 'Nine States
being necessary, by the Federal Constitution, to give an
instruction; and seven having repealed a part of an
instruction so given, for the formation of a treaty with a
foreign power, so as to alter its import, and authorize,
under the remaining part thereof, the formation of a
treaty, on principles altogether different from what the
said instruction originally contemplated, can such
remaining part be considered as in force, and
constitutionally obligatory?' We pressed on Congress for a
decision on this point often, but without effect.
Notwithstanding this, I understood it was the intention of
the Secretary to proceed and conclude a treaty, in
conformity to his project, with the Minister of Spain. In
this situation I left Congress. What I have since heard,
belongs not to me to discover. Other gentlemen have more
ample information of this business, in the course it has
taken, than I can possibly have been able to obtain; for,
having done my duty whilst there, I left it for others who
succeeded me to perform theirs, and I have made but little
further inquiry respecting it. The animated pursuit that
was made of this object, required, and, I believe,
received, as firm an opposition. The Southern States were
on their guard, and warmly opposed it. For my part, I
thought it my duty to use every effort in Congress for the
interest of the Southern States. But so far as it depended
on me, with my official character, it ceased. With many of
those gentlemen, to whom I always considered it as my
particular misfortune to be opposed, I am now in habits of
correspondence and friendship; and I am concerned for the
necessity which has given birth to this relation.

"Whether the Delegates of those States spoke the language
of their constituents; whether it may be considered as the
permanent interest of such States to depress the growth and
increasing population of the Western country, are points
which I cannot pretend to determine. I must observe,
however, that I always supposed it would, for a variety of
reasons, prove injurious to every part of the Confederacy.
These are well understood, and need not be dilated on here.
If, however, such should be the interest of seven States,
let gentlemen contemplate the consequences in the operation
of the Government, as it applies to this subject. I have
always been of opinion, sir, that the American States, to
all national objects, had, in every respect, a common
interest. Few persons would be willing to bind them
together by a stronger or more indissoluble bond, or give
the National Government more power than myself. I only wish
to prevent it from doing harm, either to States or
individuals; and the rights and interests of both, in a
variety of instances, in which they are now left
unprotected, might, in my opinion, be better guarded. If I
have mistaken any facts, honorable gentlemen will correct
me. If I omitted any, and it has not been intentional, so I
shall be happy with their assistance to supply the defect.

"Mr. Monroe added several other observations, the purport
of which was, that the interest of the Western country
would not be as secure under the proposed constitution as
under the Confederation; because, under the latter system,
the Mississippi could not be relinquished without the
consent of nine States, whereas by the former, he said, a
majority of seven States could yield it. His own opinion
was, that it would be given up by a majority of the
Senators present in the Senate, with the President, which
would put it in the power of less than seven States to
surrender it. That the Northern States were inclined to
yield it. That it was their interest to prevent an
augmentation of the Southern influence and power; and that
as mankind in general, and States in particular, were
governed by interest, the Northern States would not fail of
availing themselves of the opportunity given them by the
constitution of relinquishing that river, in order to
depress the Western country, and prevent the Southern
interest from preponderating.

"Mr. HENRY[74] then rose and requested that the honorable
gentleman (Mr. Monroe) would discover the rest of the
project, and what Spain was to do on her part, as an
equivalent for the cession of the Mississippi.

"Mr. MONROE.--Mr. Chairman, I do not thoroughly recollect
every circumstance relative to this project. But there was
to be a commercial intercourse between the United States
and Spain. We were to be allowed to carry our produce to
the ports of Spain, and the Spaniards to have an equal
right of trading hither. It was stipulated that there
should be a reciprocity of commercial intercourse and
benefits between the subjects of Spain and the citizens of
the United States. The manufactures of Spain were to be
freely imported and vended in this country, and our
manufactures to be carried to Spain, &c., without
obstruction, and both parties were to have mutual
privileges in point of commercial intercourse and
connection. This, sir, is the amount of the project of
Spain, which was looked upon as advantageous to us. I
thought myself that it was not. I considered Spain as being
without manufactures, as the most slow in the progress of
arts, and the most unwise, with respect to commerce, of all
nations under the sun, (in which respect I thought Great
Britain the wisest.) Their gentlemen and nobles look on
commerce with contempt. No man of character among them will
undertake it. They make little discrimination with any
nation. Their character is to shut out all nations, and
exclude every intercourse with them, and this would be the
case with respect to us. Nothing is given to us by this
project, but what is given to all other nations. It is bad
policy, and unjustifiable on such terms to yield that
valuable right. Their merchants have great stocks in trade.
It is not so with our merchants. Our people require
encouragement. Mariners must be encouraged. On a review of
these circumstances, I thought the project unwise and
impolitic."

Haying completed the reading, Mr. R. resumed his remarks. I have, said he, to ask pardon of the House for detaining them with the reading of so lengthy a document. That it contains perhaps the only correct historical detail extant of this truly curious transaction, must constitute my apology.

I will now ask, Mr. Speaker, who ever have been, and still are, the unshaken friends of the navigation of the Mississippi, and of the Western interests of this Union? It is not my wish, sir, on this occasion, to cast gentlemen opposed to us into the shade--to throw them into the background. All we ask is an equal share of confidence in our zeal to assert this great right, until we shall have proved ourselves unworthy of it. What is there then exhibited from the earliest period of our history? What fact has transpired which renders us undeserving of that confidence, or which entitles gentlemen on the other side of the House exclusively to it? Shall we then silently submit to the intolerant assumption on their part of all feeling for this important right, involving the vital interests of our country? Shall we sit down contented under the imputation of lukewarmness in this cause? or, shall we tell those gentlemen that under every circumstance, and in all situations, with closed doors, as well as with open doors, we have been, are, and ever will be, the unalterable supporters of the free navigation of the Mississippi?

The sentiments which have been displayed in the course of this proceeding, present a phenomenon in the history of what are termed regular Governments. When an Administration have formed the design of subverting the public liberties--of enriching themselves or their adherents out of the public purse, or of crushing all opposition beneath the strong hand of power--war has ever been the favorite ministerial specific. Hence have we seen men in power too generally inclined to hostile measures, and hence the opposition have been, as uniformly, the champions of peace--not choosing to nerve with new vigor (the natural consequence of war) hands, on whose hearts or heads they were unwilling to bestow their confidence. But how shall we account for the exception which is now exhibited to this hitherto received maxim? On the one part the solution is easy. An Administration under which our country flourishes beyond all former example--with no sinister views--seeking to pay off the public encumbrances, to lessen the public burdens, and to leave to each man the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor, are, therefore, desirous of peace, so long as it can be preserved consistently with the interests and honor of the country. On the other hand, what do you see? Shall I say an opposition sickening at the sight of the public prosperity, seeking through war, confusion, and a consequent derangement of our finances, that aggrandizement which the public felicity must for ever forbid? No, sir, my respect for this House and for those gentlemen forbids this declaration, whilst, at the same time, I am unable to account on any other principle for their conduct. Mr. R. concluded by saying, that he had forborne these observations until they were extorted from him. He had hoped that gentlemen would have let the business take its course, after the decision of yesterday, and that the House would have gone into committee on the confidential Message; but gentlemen had insisted on discussing the merits of the navigation on a preliminary question. The business having taken that turn, he thought it due to himself and friends to repel the odium which it was endeavored to attach to them.

Mr. DANA thought it was not necessary on this subject to enter into a history of political parties in this country. And when the gentleman from Virginia undertook to give a history, he had no idea that he was about giving details of secret history. He had supposed he was about offering a general view of the subject. He did not know that it was to be stated who were friendly or unfriendly to the rights of our Western citizens, much less that there was an established hereditary hostility to them. He had supposed that all the gentlemen on that floor had expressed the wishes of the people; he had supposed there was but one opinion; he had heard of no insinuation of difference. The only difference which he had thought existed was as to the means to be used, and the time when those means should be carried into effect. But as to the natural right, and the ultimate enjoyment of the nation to the free navigation of the Mississippi, he asked what gentleman had charged another with any doubts on that? And when we all agree in this, whence the necessity of calling up the animosities of party? May not gentlemen express their opinions in favor of decided measures, when the voice of the nation had been so audibly expressed, without such expression being construed into a censure upon others? When, too, the opinions of other gentlemen on fundamental points coincided with your own? Is it necessary, when the whole nation is alive, to be moderate in the expression of our ideas? If we do not come from that part of the Union more immediately affected by the late measures at New Orleans, are we therefore to be indifferent and unconcerned spectators of events? If, standing here as Representatives of the United States, we are not at liberty to attend to any thing not confined to the trifling district of country we may each of us represent, miserable is the ground on which we stand, and humble indeed our condition! But let me say, even on this ground, the ship-owners and the merchants on the Atlantic are deeply interested. Our Western citizens are certainly more deeply interested in the freedom of the Mississippi; but it goes to the great interests of navigation generally. They feel it most; but we feel it much.

This is all I deem it necessary, said Mr. D., to observe on the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia on his historical detail. Sir, this ought not to be made a party question. With respect to the motion before the House, my colleague has drawn it in terms the most respectful. Gentlemen propose to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. To this we object, because we want the information promptly. But the votes of gentlemen prevail, and it is referred. Our next step is to refer it immediately, to avoid delay. To obtain information, full and prompt, is the end of our endeavors. Why are we told of the inconsistency of our means? The course we pursue is plain and direct; that which carries us steadily to our obtaining information; and if the House will not give it to us in the way we wish, we are for taking it in the best way we can. Let it be remarked, that, if no obstacles had taken place at New Orleans, the subject of the cession of Louisiana is referred to in the Message of the President. Is not the information, we ask, important, in the general view, of who are to be our neighbors; where, from the dispersed population of our citizens, the Union is most vulnerable? And in this light it would have been proper to get the information, even if the measures at New Orleans had not occurred. It makes no difference whether those measures are the measures of Spain or of France. The two points were not necessarily connected, though I admit that the proceedings at New Orleans have a bearing on the general subject. With regard to the measures at New Orleans, we have information, and have obtained it. That information has been referred to a Committee of the Whole. We now ask information respecting the cession; and having got it, let us refer that also, and deliberate on the measures proper to be taken. Cannot the logical talents of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) distinguish between information and measures? Will he say that premises and conclusions are the same thing? This information is that on which we are to deliberate. I had supposed facts necessary to legislate on. I had thought there was, to be sure, a connection between one step and another which follows. But will the gentleman say, that whenever we ask information, we conclude upon measures?

The yeas and nays were then taken on the call of Mr. GRISWOLD, on going into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, which was lost--yeas 38, nays 48, as follows:

YEAS.--Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, John Campbell,
Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T.
Davis, William Dickson, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard,
Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William
Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin
Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon,
Samuel L. Mitchill, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Elias
Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John
Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney,
Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham,
Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel
Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas
Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard
Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, Edwin
Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William
Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael
Leib, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas
Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jun.,
John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of
Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard,
Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jun., John Stewart, John
Taliaferro, jun., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram
Trigg, John Trigg, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum,
Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. GRISWOLD said, that notwithstanding the unfortunate situation they were placed in by the refusal of the House, he still deemed it his duty to move other resolutions, which he would read, and move to be referred to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. G. then moved the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That the people of the United States are
entitled to the free navigation of the river Mississippi.

_Resolved_, That the navigation of the river Mississippi
has been obstructed by the regulations recently carried
into effect at New Orleans.

_Resolved_, That the right of freely navigating the river
Mississippi ought never to be abandoned by the United
States.

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire
whether any, and, if any, what, Legislative measures are
necessary to secure to the people of the United States the
free navigation of the river Mississippi.

Mr. DAWSON asked if these resolutions were not necessarily connected with a subject which the House had determined should be discussed in private? If, by this arrangement, other gentlemen had been precluded from offering resolutions, he would ask if it were right in the gentleman from Connecticut to violate a general injunction laid upon all the members?

Mr. GRISWOLD.--There is a Message from the President, of the 22d of December, on this subject that is publicly entered on the journals.[75] It is on this Message that these resolutions are predicated. I trust I understand the rules of the House well enough to know that I am not to bring forward what it has been enjoined shall be secret.

The question was then taken without further debate, on taking up the above resolutions for consideration, and lost--yeas 32, nays 50.

Mr. RANDOLPH then called for the consideration of the President's confidential Message, when the galleries were cleared.

FRIDAY, January 7.

_Navigation of the Mississippi._

(SECRET SESSION.)

On a motion made and seconded, the House was cleared of all persons present, except the members and the Clerk: Whereupon,

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, and the documents transmitted therewith; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and Mr. VARNUM reported that the committee had again had the said Messages and documents under consideration, and come to a resolution thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where the same was read as follows:

"_Resolved_, That this House receive with great sensibility
the information of a disposition in certain officers of the
Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the
navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the
United States by the most solemn stipulations.

"That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought
ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United
States have always professed to be governed; willing, at
the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the
unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than
to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic
Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the
vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the
issue of such measures as that department of the Government
shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating
the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their
duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable
determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of
navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as
established by existing treaties."

The House proceeded to consider the said resolution at the Clerk's table: Whereupon, so much as is contained in the first clause thereof, being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"_Resolved_, That this House receive with great sensibility
the information of a disposition in certain officers of the
Spanish Government, at New Orleans, to obstruct the
navigation of the river Mississippi, as secured to the
United States by the most solemn stipulations."

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the same; and resolved in the affirmative.

The last clause of the said resolution being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"That, adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought
ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United
States have always professed to be governed; willing, at
the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the
unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than
to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic
Majesty; and relying, with perfect confidence, on the
vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the
issue of such measures as that department of the Government
shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating
the injuries of the United States; holding it to be their
duty, at the same time, to express their unalterable
determination to maintain the boundaries and the rights of
navigation and commerce through the river Mississippi, as
established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put to amend the said last clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the words following, to wit:

"And relying, with perfect confidence, on the vigilance and
wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such
measures as that department of the Government shall have
pursued for asserting the rights, and vindicating the
injuries of the United States:"

It passed in the negative--yeas 30, nays 53, as follows:

YEAS.--Thos. Boude, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John
Davenport, John Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold,
William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill,
Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger,
Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R.
Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John
Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton,
Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George B. Upham, Killian K.
Van Rensselaer, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas
Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard
Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas
Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray,
Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms,
William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson,
Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas
Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph
H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith,
(of New York,) 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, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Another motion was then made, and the question being put, to amend the said last clause of the resolution, by striking out therefrom the word "vindicating," next before the words "the injuries of the United States," and inserting the word "redressing," in lieu thereof, it passed in the negative.

The question was then taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the whole House in their agreement to the said last clause of the resolution, and resolved in the affirmative.

A motion was then made and seconded that the House reconsider their decision on the said last clause of the resolution; and the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

A division of the question was then called for: whereupon the first member of the said last clause of the resolution being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"That adhering to that humane and wise policy which ought
ever to characterize a free people, and by which the United
States have always professed to be governed; willing, at
the same time, to ascribe this breach of compact to the
unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than
to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic
Majesty:"

The said division of the question was objected to, as not being in order, and the SPEAKER having decided the same was in order, an appeal was made to the House from the decision of the Chair; and on the question, "Is the decision of the Chair in order?" it was resolved in the affirmative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said first member of the last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the affirmative, to wit:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
Bailey, Thomas Boude, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William
Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John
Condit, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John
Dawson, John Dennis, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,
Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray,
Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A.
Hanna, Seth Hastings, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Joseph
Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, William
Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Samuel
Hunt, George Jackson, Michael Leib, Thomas Lowndes,
Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill,
Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Anthony New, Thomas Newton,
jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater,
John Randolph, jr., Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John
Smilie, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, (of New York,)
Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard
Stanford, John Stanley, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stratton,
John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, David
Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Killian K.
Van Rensselaer, and Thomas Wynns.

The third member of the said last clause of the resolution being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"Holding it to be their duty, at the same time, to express
their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries,
and the rights of navigation and commerce through the river
Mississippi, as established by existing treaties:"

A motion was made, and the question being put, to amend the same by striking therefrom the words "existing treaties," and inserting the word "treaty" in lieu thereof, it passed in the negative.

On the question that the House do agree to the said third member of the last clause of the resolution, it was unanimously resolved in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the affirmative.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the said resolution, as reported from the Committee of the whole House, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 50, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus
Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas
Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard
Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph,
Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg,
John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge,
James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib,
David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony
New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John
Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,)
Josiah Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph
Stanton, jr., John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R.
Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Thomas Boude, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John
Dennis, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings,
Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger,
Samuel Hunt, Thos. Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R.
Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John
Rutledge, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton,
Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
and Lemuel Williams.

_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy upon the members of this House, so far as relates to the resolution last recited, and the proceedings of the House on the Messages from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the twenty-second and thirtieth ultimo, be taken off.

MONDAY, January 10.

Another member, to wit, JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

A new member, to wit, PETER EARLY, returned to serve in this House, as a member from the State of Georgia, in the room of John Milledge, who hath resigned, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Monuments to Generals, and to the Captors of Andre._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress, for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven," to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

The said bill was read twice and committed to the committee appointed the fourth instant, to prepare and bring in a bill for erecting a monument to the memory of General Herkimer, pursuant to a resolution of Congress, passed the fourth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven.

Sundry motions being made and seconded, that the House do come to the following resolutions respectively, to wit:

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
Major General Joseph Warren, who was slain on Bunker's Hill
on the seventeenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred
and seventy-five; and that the sum of ---- be appropriated
therefor.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
General Hugh Mercer, who was slain at Princeton, on the
third day of January, one thousand seven hundred and
seventy-seven; and that the sum of ---- dollars be
appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
General Francis Nash, who was slain at the battle of
Germantown; and that the sum of ---- dollars be
appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
General Richard Butler, who was killed gallantly fighting
in an action with the Indians, on the fourth day of
November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one; and
that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to the memory of
General Nathaniel Woodhull, who commanded the militia on
Long Island, in the year one thousand seven hundred and
seventy-six, and was then taken prisoner and most cruelly
put to death by the enemy; and that ---- dollars be
appropriated for that purpose.

_Resolved_, That a monument be erected to commemorate the
virtuous and patriotic conduct of John Paulding, David
Williams, and Isaac Van Wert, who, on the twenty-third day
of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty,
intercepted Major John Andre, Adjutant General of the
British Army, returning from the American lines in the
character of a spy; and that the sum of ---- dollars be
appropriated for that purpose.

_Ordered_, That the said motions, severally, be referred to the committee to whom was this day committed the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson and Scriven."

_National University._

Mr. VAN NESS presented a representation from Samuel Blodget, on the subject of a National University, as follows:

"The memorial of Samuel Blodget, late Supervisor of the
City of Washington, represents that, owing his appointment
chiefly to his zeal in forming several probationary plans
for a National University, he conceived it an indispensable
duty, after the death of WASHINGTON, to follow the
commanding advice and noble example of the common Father of
his Country, so irresistibly portrayed in his Farewell
Address, and in the clause of his will annexed to his
liberal donation therefor. In thus calling, most
respectfully, the attention of your honorable body to this
part of the will of WASHINGTON, he fulfils a promise made
in behalf of more than one thousand subscribers to the same
object, whose respectable names accompany this memorial,
with a request that a committee may be appointed to
consider what portion of the public lots and lands in the
Western Territory of the United States, shall be
appropriated by Congress to this important institution, in
addition to the contents of either of the sites already
contemplated therefor within the City of Washington, by
WASHINGTON himself, and by the Commissioners thereof. And
further to consider the expediency (should it comport with
the monumental plan to be adopted) of erecting the statue
of 1783, or in lieu thereof an appropriate and
characteristic equestrian statue of the original founder of
the National University, as a beautiful centre-piece for
the entire plan, to be surrounded by halls and colleges as
they may be built in succession, by the fund to which the
whole people of America are now so liberally and so
honorably contributing by voluntary subscriptions from
Maine to Georgia inclusive; thus virtually following the
ancient custom of the original Americans, who, men, women,
and children, carried a stone to the monumental pile of a
beloved chief."

The memorial was accompanied by a plan of the Equestrian Statue of Washington, surrounded by halls and colleges regularly arranged, the whole to be styled the Monument to Washington. Referred to a select committee--ayes 42, nays 27.

The following members constitute the committee: Mr. VAN NESS, Mr. TALIAFERRO, Mr. HILL, Mr. ELMENDORPH, and Mr. CUTLER.

TUESDAY, January 11.

The House proceeded to consider the amendment proposed by the Senate to the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Hyde;" Whereupon,

_Resolved_, That this House do agree to the said amendment.

_Cession of Louisiana to France._

Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, intending, should he succeed, to call up his resolution presented on the 5th instant, viz: