Chapter IX: Front Matter (9)

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) had said that no answer had been given to his objections against an additional tax on salt. He should not enter into a dispute with that gentleman upon what might be deemed an answer; but he believed many members of that House would remember that an answer was given, and probably they might also think it a satisfactory one; at least it was so to one person. The objections brought against this tax would be well-founded, if the whole revenue was proposed to be raised from it; or if it were intended as a substitute for a land tax, or any other great object; if two or three millions were wanted from it, then it might be objected to upon good ground; but when one hundred thousand dollars only were proposed to be drawn from this source, he did not think the objections would hold. Admitting, said Mr. H., that there was some inequality in the operation of this tax, those persons upon whom it fell heaviest were exonerated from many other taxes which other parts of the country had to pay. They had, for instance, just agreed to increase the duty upon a certain species of cotton goods, of which they would not purchase a single yard. The present revenue was six millions four hundred thousand dollars, of which salt pays near three hundred thousand dollars. The people on the frontier, who pay for salt, are in a great measure exempt from other articles taxed; they purchased neither foreign wines nor spirits, high priced dresses nor furniture; all they wanted was corduroys, &c., which was very unfrequent. If five cents per bushel was laid on salt, those persons would have about a dollar a year more to pay, and nine-tenths not half a dollar. What could be more easy? Indeed, except the people were told of the duty they would not know it, as its effects would be so trifling.

With respect to the price of salt at Fort Pitt, as a gentleman had observed, it might be high, but was this occasioned by a duty? No, but by the situation of the country. Ought they not, then, he asked, to devise some species of tax by which to draw some part of the revenue from the inhabitants of the back country? He thought so far from this being wrong, that justice required it. This subject did not address the understanding, but the sensibility of the House, or perhaps the sensibility of those out of the House.

The objections against the tax which had been urged, he thought, ought not to have any weight, since it would operate with the greatest equality upon the whole, and there would be safety, propriety, and justice, in making the augmentation in question. Suppose two cents were put, instead of five; this would raise a good sum, and be very easy.

Mr. S. SMITH moved that the committee rise; which was negatived--there being only twenty-five in favor of it.

Mr. W. SMITH said the question had best be taken on blank cents, then five, four, or any number of cents could afterwards be added.

The question was then put, and lost--yeas 41, nays 48.

SATURDAY, February 18.

_Naval Appropriation._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill granting an appropriation for finishing the three frigates, and also upon the bill repealing that part of the act which provided for the officering and manning the frigates, both having been committed to the same Committee of the Whole. That for repealing a part of the former law came first under consideration.

Mr. W. SMITH said he could not abandon the idea of our some time becoming a naval power; he very much disliked the repealing this act; in order, however, to make the bill more palatable, and to remove some of the embarrassments which the Senate would otherwise have to encounter, he would move to substitute, instead of the word "repeal," the words "suspend for ---- years."

Mr. COIT thought the very beginning of the frigates a wild notion, and hoped the most distant idea of manning them would not enter gentlemen's minds; he should therefore oppose the motion.

Mr. VENABLE said, it seemed the gentleman who moved the amendment did not think it necessary the ships should now be manned. The operation of the amendment appeared to put it in the power of one branch of the Legislature, at a future day, to man the ships, and send them to sea. He was surprised at the changeableness of the gentleman who moved and favored the equipment. When a naval armament was first proposed, it was objected to, as looking like forming a Naval Establishment. They then told us it was expressly to repel the encroachments of the Algerines; and that, as soon as peace was obtained with that power, the building of them was to stop. Now they come forward, and avow a desire to have a Navy Establishment. Thus originate evils which if not stopped early, would spread and become dangerous. The only fair argument they have on the subject is, that a Navy is now become necessary. Certain it is, that, if they intend to have a Naval Establishment, to protect our commerce and repel our injuries, three frigates will be very incompetent to the object. He should not object to finishing them, and only because so much had been expended on them already, but should ever oppose fitting them for sea.

Mr. SWANWICK asked the gentleman what security there was in a peace with Algiers? Could he say we were at peace with them now? Certainly we are in a worse situation with that power now than then; we are parting with our cash, (which makes it such a scarce article,) and yet we have no benefit. Now it is said it is altogether a vision--a fancy or a dream. Then gentlemen get up and ask what we are to do with three frigates? He would answer, that so far as they went, they gave stability and protection to our commerce. True, they were not thirty frigates, but he believed, few as they were, they would save more than five times what they cost in only one year. The richest ships we have are now taken and robbed by every picaroon and pirate infesting the seas, because we have no security; and he was surprised it was not worse. He had no doubt but it would be an emolument; it would be a protection to the great revenue we enjoy. That very trade, he said, which was subject to spoliation from such petty robbers, paid into the revenue five or six millions of duty annually. If this was still permitted to be encroached on, it was an error, and it would soon be seen; and this was by a people called "free and enlightened." He had no doubt they would soon be enlightened enough to see they had done wrong. If gentlemen are against finishing these frigates, why do they not come forward and declare it? Let us sell them, said he, at public auction. What will be the effect if we have it told at our wharves that we object to man them, because we have peace with Algiers? He hoped they would be manned, or else have tacked to the bill, that, when finished, they were to be sold for East Indiamen or something. If that were gentlemen's wish, this was the time to come forward and say so, and let it be put in the bill. He would ask, Was there any thing in the name of Government, if it operated in this manner? It was extraordinary conduct, indeed.

Gentlemen say they will not vote to finish these frigates, except the repeal for manning is included. When it goes up to the Senate, may they not say they will not vote to finish, except it be to man them? But, Mr. S. said, he supposed gentlemen depended upon negotiation, if any thing was wrong. What were the consequences of our late negotiation? We have two things before us--treaty or ships. As for treaty, we have seen our money sent across the Atlantic, and scattered a thousand ways: this was throwing it into the ocean. He had heard of a Doge of Venice throwing a ring into the sea to marry it: it seemed this money was gone for the same purpose, and its use would be no better than the Doge's ring. He thought the most complete treaty was, power to resist aggression. This business of negotiation is very unprofitable. You may obtain fair promises from foreign ministers, but very poor redress, if any.

The question on the amendment was put and lost--ayes 30, noes 51.

Mr. HARRISON moved for the committee to rise and report the bill without amendments.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, it seemed that gentlemen were making a new business of this. At the time it was brought forward, gentlemen voted in favor of it, because the law was to be repealed. He voted to separate the bills, because he conceived it would not be right to say to the Senate, You shall do two things together, or neither. He hoped the committee would rise, that the House may not have such power over the business as to keep it back. If the other bill pass the Senate, said he, we can take up this, and pass it in a short time.

Mr. PARKER thought this a most extraordinary procedure, to say we will not pass the appropriation bill till we know the Senate have agreed to that for repealing. He thought the Senate had as great a right to exercise their discretion as that House. He never expected to have heard such expressions. This was holding out a _dictum_ for their conduct: this he thought neither fair nor proper.

Mr. VENABLE thought the bills were connected. He wished to vote merely for finishing the frigates. He hoped the committee would not rise, but that it might be so amended as to add the other bill to it. When he voted for the appropriation, he said, he voted for it only in such a manner as should be reconcilable with his judgment. If the gentleman would waive his motion, and the House would so connect it, he should be gratified.

Mr. HARRISON said, as the last gentleman's ideas were fully to his purpose, he should withdraw his motion.

On motion being made for connecting the bills--

Mr. BUCK hoped it would not prevail. The only reason he saw to object, (and he thought that very forcible,) was, that it discovered a jealousy in that House of another branch of the Government, which he thought very unjustifiable. He had voted for the repeal, but should not vote for the appropriation. He thought they ought to act for themselves, without reference to the other branch. Any member may vote which way he pleased, but to say he would not vote for one without they go to the other, was unfair. He could see no justice in such a mistrust from this branch of the Legislature. Suppose, he said, the bills go to the Senate separately, they may concur in the appropriation, and reject the appeal. Even in that situation, were it to be left, the Executive could not man the frigates, unless they could obtain further appropriations--to obstruct which would be preferable, and would put it out of the power of the Senate to embarrass the House.

Mr. VENABLE said his vote was given without any relation whatever to the Senate. He thought any act passed by this House could not, when sent up to the Senate, be termed disrespectful, for each branch had a right to act for themselves. He was surprised to hear the gentleman last up say he should not vote this appropriation; for he had heard him say, on a former occasion, that he would vote an appropriation for any treaty, law, or whatever should exist to call for it. Mr. V. confessed himself to be of a very different opinion; for he always thought the House had a discretionary power to grant it or not, but that gentleman had long said it had none.

Mr. BUCK said, as his doctrines had been called in question, he must beg indulgence to explain. He never said that the House had not a right to judge on the propriety of appropriation in an existing law. He conceived a treaty quite another thing. The PRESIDENT and Senate have a constitutional power to make a treaty; in that, he said, he did advocate that that House had no right to withhold appropriations; but in laws, where the power of making appropriations rests partly in that House, they had a right to grant or withhold. This, he said, he had always held.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, this appeared to him a very unreasonable clamor in behalf of the Senate. The gentleman last up seemed very careful not to awaken the jealousy of the Senate. How could he know what part would awaken that idea of disrespect? He had formed his mind to vote on the subject, and surely every member might do so, without a fear of showing disrespect to another branch. The gentleman had said that this House may refuse to appropriate for a law. Now, suppose the Senate refuse to repeal without we appropriate, we are then forced to choose one of two evils. Very often, Mr. N. said, the House were obliged to appropriate for a law, it may be, so far executed that they could not refuse. Suppose the PRESIDENT should, after this, appoint officers to enlist men for the frigates, how could the House refuse to pay them? While a law existed to man these ships, it would be difficult to prevent it: it would enable those who were friendly to the measure to carry it into effect. He hoped, therefore, the House would not run the risk by leaving it open to such possible intrusion.

Mr. S. SMITH thought this was a very unfair way of doing business, but he had been used to such things. He thought this form of _tacking_ was very improper and unfair. It had been observed that we were the most free and enlightened people, but he thought those who advocated these measures proved the very contrary.

Mr. SWANWICK said, it appeared to him a kind of Legislative stratagem. The whole intention of the business could be easily discovered. If there was nothing improper, why should they fear to trust the Senate with it? Having the yeas and nays on both bills, gentlemen could not easily excuse them for voting for the repeal, as it would go out into the country that many had voted contrary to their arguments. Thus we are forced to vote against our own opinion, or not have the frigates finished. He could plainly see that gentlemen meant to defeat the object, and, he thought, in a very unfair way.

Mr. W. LYMAN spoke much of the impolicy and impropriety of the measures of those gentlemen who supported naval preparations. Some time back, he said, those very gentlemen were advising us to cultivate our land, and not regard commerce--it was a broken reed to depend on; but now, they want to put the nation to an enormous expense to protect that commerce they thought so lightly of! The frigates would cost more than double the money which was at first estimated: this would be a disgrace to any nation. The whole process of the business had been bad, and he had no doubt but the estimate now before the House would be found deficient. Though he thought a small Navy would be useful, yet, until he saw its process conducted more fairly, and with more discretion, he should not vote a shilling to it: for the waste of money which had been discovered in this, had given him a distaste to it.

A remark having fallen from Mr. L., on the constitutionality of this appropriation--

Mr. W. SMITH said, that, what the gentleman observed, only respected an Army. The constitution says, an appropriation for the Army shall not be made for more than two years, but it said not a word about restricting a Navy; and it is certain that the framers of the constitution had a view to a Navy, as in three different parts it makes mention of it. [Here Mr. S. read those parts from the constitution.] The question was not whether to repeal the law or not, but whether the appropriation bill was to be _tacked_ to the repeal. When before taken up, a majority voted for two bills, and they are accordingly reported, and now the two are to be united. This, said he, is directing the Senate to vote a certain way, because this House saw it right. This was a kind of coercion which would oblige them (if they support their independence, which they certainly will) to reject the repeal. This, he said, was a spirit which every gentleman in the House felt. He therefore hoped there would be two bills.

Mr. GALLATIN did not conceive this a question on the constitution; it was not on the power of the House as to the subject of appropriation, but merely on connecting the two bills. He conceived it perfectly right and proper to connect them, because the subject of them was the same. It was not novel: appropriation and repeal had before been connected. Indeed, he thought it improper to hold the Senate in any consideration at all. He should not be guided by any apprehensions of what they would do. The gentleman last up had said, it was unfair to connect them, as it would oblige members who opposed one to vote for both. Now, a majority will always decide, and those in the minority will always be affected. That gentleman would rather take a question on each; but Mr. G. said he would rather on both together. But both will not be material, more than in a certain degree. He further observed that a decision had been come to to keep the subjects apart. This, Mr. G. said, was only in order to give leave to the committee to report one or two bills. But that could not now affect the decision. The House might now do as they pleased. He looked upon the first act of the law as rather explanatory of the other. A law passed last year for the equipment of the frigates. The first law expired as to the manning them. It is therefore only for fear the word "equipment" should be so construed as to mean "manning," that we wish a connection of these bills.

He thought it more candid and fair to have both the objects before the Senate at one time than to separate them. If they think it an attack upon their privileges they would act consistently therewith.

Mr. WILLIAMS could not see where the difference was, whether the bills were apart or not. He was sorry any jealousy should be discovered towards another branch; if the amendment were to go to the Senate they had power to reject any part. The next Congress would take a view of the subject, and do what they thought right, as the frigates would not be fit to be manned till then.

Mr. BUCK again repeated his objections to uniting the bills.

Mr. N. SMITH thought there could be no good reasons for uniting the bills. There had not yet been any appropriation made, and the money was nearly expended; he thought the appropriation should be passed immediately, as he had no doubt but both Houses would ultimately unite in this object. If, therefore, any money was to be appropriated, let it be done, and then if the House thought proper to agree to the repeal, it could be done, as no delay ought to be made.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) said the other day, that he would not, under any situation, vote the supply until he knew whether there was any intention to fit them for sea or not. This, Mr. S. thought the principal point; but except that gentleman, with others, thought the ships were to remain in the same situation as at present, it certainly was necessary to agree to the appropriations; this was voted on all hands, though some could not agree to go all lengths. He did not believe many could be found in the House who would wish them to remain and rot on the stocks; but for gentlemen to say they would not agree to grant the supply except the other part was repealed, he thought wrong. It was true, they had the power to withhold even appropriations for the PRESIDENT's salary, Senate, &c., but if such opposition was supported, Government could not long exist. That House had power over the Senate, and, _vice versa_, the Senate over that House--each had a right to think and do as they pleased, but it would be wrong in one to curtail the privilege of the other by an ill-timed opposition; this was merely to show a spleen which could not but be to the detriment and delay of business.

Mr. W. SMITH rose to answer some observations made by Mr. GALLATIN and Mr. VENABLE, and proceeded to show the impropriety of tacking the bills; he said it would produce insurmountable difficulties. He never could agree to this _tortus discordans_ being sent up to the Senate.

Mr. VENABLE answered. The question was then put for tacking the two bills, and carried, ayes 41, noes 36.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments reported by the Committee of the Whole. Whereupon, the first amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole House, for adding a new section, to be the second section of the said bill, being read, in the words following, to wit:

"_And be it further enacted_, That the sum of ---- dollars
be, and the same is hereby appropriated for the purpose of
finishing the frigates now building, called the United
States, Constitution, and Constellation; and that the same
be paid out of the surplus of revenue and income, which may
accrue to the end of the year one thousand seven hundred
and ninety-seven, after satisfying the objects for which
appropriations have been heretofore made."

Mr. W. SMITH said, as the question would first be taken on the amendment and then upon the resolution as amended, a member who wished to vote for the finishing of the frigates, but not for the repeal, would not have an opportunity of showing his sentiments by the yeas and nays. In order that members who thought with him might have an opportunity of showing their vote, he called for the previous question upon the proposition.

The SPEAKER declaring that this motion was not in order, Mr. W. SMITH called for the yeas and nays upon the amendment.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, rather than not obtain an appropriation for finishing the frigates, he should vote in favor of the amendment, though he was of the same opinion with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. W. SMITH) as to the unfairness of the proceeding.

Mr. DENT was of the same opinion.

Mr. MUHLENBERG said as the amendment stood annexed to the other bill, he should vote against it; though, if the subject had continued in a separate bill, he should have voted in favor of it.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and decided in the affirmative, 59 to 25, as follows:

YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard,
Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William
Cooper, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, William Findlay, Jesse
Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel
Gilbert, James Gillespie, Henry Glenn, Christopher Greenup,
Andrew Gregg, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N.
Havens, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera,
George Leonard, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Samuel
Lyman, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James
Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John
Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, John Patton, John
Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Samuel
Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah Smith, Israel
Smith, Isaac Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg,
Zephaniah Swift, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
Abraham Venable, John Williams, and Richard Winn.

NAYS.--Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Samuel W. Dana,
James Davenport, George Ege, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
Thomas Hartley, John Heath, William Hindman, Francis
Malbone, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray,
Josiah Parker, John Read, Samuel Sewall, Nathaniel Smith,
Samuel Smith, William Smith, John Swanwick, George
Thatcher, and Peleg Wadsworth.

The bill was then recommitted to a Committee of the Whole, in order to have the blank for the sum to be appropriated for finishing the vessels inserted, and was filled with $172,000.

TUESDAY, February 21.

_Negotiation with the Mediterranean Powers._

Mr. W. SMITH moved that the House should go into a committee on the business, which would require the galleries to be closed; the SPEAKER accordingly put the question for going into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to authorize a negotiation with the Mediterranean Powers, which, being carried, the galleries were cleared accordingly.

After the galleries were cleared, the bill was agreed to with amendments, and ordered for a third reading to-morrow.

On motion that the House come to the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy upon the
members of this House, so far as it relates to that part of
the communication made by the President, by his Message of
January 9, which has been printed, be taken off, and that
all future debates and proceedings thereon be had with open
doors."

A motion was made to insert, after the words "be taken off," "together with the letter of Messrs. Barlow and Donaldson, of April 5, 1796." The question on the amendment was taken by yeas and nays, and lost--yeas 19, nays 65.

The main question was then taken by yeas and nays, and resulted--yeas 53, nays 36.

Reports of the Secretary of State, relative to the present
situation of affairs with the Dey and Regency of Algiers,
accompanying the following confidential Message from the
President of the United States, received the 9th of
January, 1797:

_Gentlemen of the Senate, and of the House of
Representatives_:

Herewith I lay before you, in confidence, reports from the
Departments of State and the Treasury, by which you will
see the present situation of our affairs with the Dey and
Regency of Algiers.

G. WASHINGTON.

UNITED STATES, January 9, 1797.

_To the President of the United States, the Secretary of
State respectfully makes the following brief representation
of the affairs of the United States, in relation to
Algiers_:

When Colonel Humphreys left America, in April, 1795, he was
accompanied by Joseph Donaldson, Esq., who had been
appointed Consul for Tunis and Tripoli; and him Colonel
Humphreys was authorized to employ in negotiating a Treaty
with Algiers, while he should proceed himself to France,
for the purpose of obtaining the co-operation of that
Government in this negotiation.

They arrived at Gibraltar on the 17th of May. Colonel
Humphreys concluded that it was expedient for Mr. Donaldson
to go first to Alicant, rather than Algiers, in order to be
near at hand, to ascertain facts and profit of occasions.
He gave him instructions accordingly; and having also
instructed Mr. Simpson, our Consul at Gibraltar, to renew
our peace with the Emperor of Morocco, Colonel Humphreys
sailed from Gibraltar the 24th of May, and arrived at Havre
de Grace on the 26th of June; from whence he set off
immediately for Paris. The object of his mission was
communicated by our Minister, Colonel Monroe, to the
Committee of Public Safety. On the 1st of July he had
received only a verbal answer, that the French Government
was disposed to interest itself, and to do every thing in
its power, to promote the accomplishment of our wishes on
the subject in question. On the 28th, assurances were
received that immediate measures should be taken for giving
particular instructions to the agents of the Republic, to
use its influence in co-operating with us. The multiplicity
of affairs with which the officers of Government were
occupied, and the getting from London a sum of money
necessary to purchase the usual peace presents, prevented a
conclusion of this arrangement at Paris until September. It
had been judged expedient, by Colonel Humphreys and Colonel
Monroe, that Joel Barlow should be employed in the
negotiation with the Barbary States, and his consent had
been obtained. By the 11th of September, all the writings
on the part of Colonel Humphreys were prepared for Mr.
Barlow, to proceed with the instructions and powers from
the Government of the French Republic to its agents in
Barbary, in favor of our negotiation.

Colonel Humphreys left Paris the 12th of September, and
reached Havre the 14th, where he found the master and mate
of the United States brig Sophia, both sick with fevers.
While waiting there impatiently for their recovery, he
received intelligence from our Consul at Marseilles, that
Mr. Donaldson had concluded a Treaty of Peace with the Dey
of Algiers; nevertheless, Colonel Humphreys thought it
expedient that Mr. Barlow should proceed with the presents
prepared and preparing at Paris; for, if not needed at
Algiers, they would be wanted in the negotiation with Tunis
and Tripoli.

About the 5th of October, Colonel Humphreys sailed from
Havre, and after a stormy passage of more than forty days,
arrived at Lisbon on the 17th of November. There he found
Captain O'Brien, who had arrived about the 1st of October,
with the Treaty with Algiers.

On the 3d of September Mr. Donaldson arrived at Algiers,
and on the 5th the Treaty was concluded, and the peace
presents immediately given, by a loan. Mr. Donaldson,
knowing that funds had been lodged in London to answer his
stipulations, engaged to make the payments in three or four
months.

Colonel Humphreys had received advice, under date of the
30th July, from the Messrs. Barings, in London, to whom the
funds had been remitted, that, having made progress in the
sales of the United States' stock, they should hold, at his
disposal, the whole of the value of $800,000, meaning to
furnish, by anticipation, the value of that part which
remained unsold, if the service of the United States
required it. Colonel Humphreys, counting on the money as
always ready after this period, sent Captain O'Brien from
Lisbon to London, in the brig Sophia, to receive it. Owing
to contrary winds, she did not leave Lisbon till the 24th
of December. The other details, relative to the pecuniary
transactions, appear in the report of the Secretary of the
Treasury.

The disappointments in the pecuniary negotiations, put the
Treaty in jeopardy; the Dey threatened to abandon it, and
it was with extreme difficulty that it was prevented. Mr.
Barlow did not arrive at Alicant until February, 1796,
where he proposed to wait the arrival of the funds: but,
after a little time, his intelligence from Algiers showing
that our affairs were in a critical situation, he
determined to go thither immediately, with the hope of
soothing the Dey. He arrived there the 4th of March; they
had before prolonged the time to the 8th of April for the
payment of the stipulated sums. On the 3d of this month the
Dey declared what should be his final determination--that
in eight days Mr. Barlow and Mr. Donaldson should leave
Algiers; and if, in thirty days after, the money was not
paid, the Treaty should be at an end, and his cruisers
should bring in American vessels. Under these
circumstances, and as the last hope of saving the Treaty,
they were induced to offer the present of a frigate--this
fortunately succeeded. For the particulars of this
transaction, the Secretary begs leave to refer to the
enclosed letter from Messrs. Barlow and Donaldson.

Colonel Humphreys not deeming himself authorized to confirm
this promise of a frigate, referred the matter to the
Executive of the United States; and for this end despatched
Captain O'Brien, in the brig Sophia, to America. There was
evidently no alternative; and the promise was confirmed.

The frigate is now building in Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
and is expected to be finished in the spring. Captain
O'Brien returned to Lisbon, where he arrived on the ---- of
July. Colonel Humphreys had advantageously negotiated bills
on London for $225,000. This sum was embarked on board the
Sophia, and, on the 3d of August, Captain O'Brien set sail
for Algiers. He has not since been heard of, and there is
room to fear that some misfortune has befallen him. The
money was insured at a small premium, against the danger of
the seas; against all risks they demanded so high a premium
as Colonel Humphreys judged it inexpedient to give, seeing
the Sophia was a vessel of the United States, having a
special passport from the President, as well as a passport
in the Turkish language, under the seal of the Dey of
Algiers.

Such arrangements have been made by Mr. Barlow and Mr.
Donaldson, at Algiers and Leghorn, as will doubtless insure
the payment of the $400,000 originally expected from the
latter place; and the same house have become engaged to the
Dey and Regency for the residue of the money due as the
price of peace, without which he would not agree to the
redemption of the captives.

The Secretary of the Treasury estimates
these further sums to be provided to fulfil
the terms of the Treaty $255,759
For two years' annuities to the Dey 99,246
To which are to be added the 10,000
sequins promised by Mr. Barlow and Mr.
Donaldson, mentioned in their letter 18,000
And the expenses of the captives performing
quarantine at Marseilles, and transporting
them to America, estimated by
the Consul at Marseilles, at about 6,500
-------
379,505

On the 31st ultimo I received a letter from Mr. Barlow,
dated the 13th of July, informing that the agent, Mr.
Famin, at Tunis, who had been recommended to him by the
French Consul Herculias, had concluded, with the Bey of
that Regency, a truce for six months, from the 15th day of
June last, and that without any presents.

TIMOTHY PICKERING,
_Secretary of State._

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, January 6, 1797.

WEDNESDAY, February 22.

_Mediterranean Powers._

The bill for making appropriations to defray the expense of negotiations with Mediterranean powers, was also read the third time. The provisions of this act, (which has been the subject of the various discussions which have lately taken place with closed galleries) are to the following effect:

"That the President of the United States be, and he is
hereby authorized to apply a sum not exceeding 255,759
dollars and three cents, to the expenses which may have
been incurred in any negotiations with Mediterranean
powers, beyond the sums heretofore appropriated; and that
the said sum of 255,759 dollars and three cents, be, and
the same is hereby appropriated for that purpose; and that
a further sum not exceeding 96,246 dollars and 63 cents,
be, and the same is hereby appropriated for discharging the
two first years' annuity to the Dey and Regency of Algiers,
pursuant to treaty, in addition to the gum appropriated for
that purpose by the act of the sixth of May, 1796."

On the question being put that the bill do pass, Mr. GREENUP said he never liked the bill in any shape whatever; he would therefore express it now. He then called for the yeas and nays, which were taken, and stood ayes 63, noes 19, as follow:

YEAS.--Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Theophilus Bradbury,
Nathan Bryan, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
Claiborne, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, William Cooper, James
Davenport, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, George Ege, William
Findlay, Dwight Foster, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman,
jr., Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N. Havens,
Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, John
Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Matthew Locke, Samuel
Lyman, James Madison, Francis Malbone, John Milledge,
Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John Nicholas,
Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Elisha R.
Potter, John Richards, Robert Rutherford, John S.
Sherburne, Samuel Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah
Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Richard
Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah Swift, George
Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
Williams.

NAYS.--David Bard, Thomas Blount, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel
Christie, John Clopton, James Gillespie, Christopher
Greenup, John Hathorn, John Heath, James Holland, Andrew
Jackson, George Jackson, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay,
Nathaniel Macon, William Strudwick, John Swanwick, Abraham
Venable, and Richard Winn.

On motion of Mr. GALLATIN, the title was changed to "a bill to authorize the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to apply further sums to defray the expenses of the negotiation with the Dey and Regency of Algiers."[11]

_John Cleves Symmes._

On motion of Mr. GALLATIN, the House took up the bill in addition to an act for granting certain lands to John Cleves Symmes and his associates; when

Mr. COIT moved to strike out the first section. His object, he said, was to gain information, particularly with respect to the survey.

Mr. GALLATIN (who was Chairman of the Committee which made the report) gave a concise history of the business; which satisfied Mr. COIT, who withdrew his motion; and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

The particulars of this case are as follows:

John Cleves Symmes and his associates entered into a contract with the United States in the year 1787, for a million acres of land in the North-western Territory, at a time when the geography of that country was not well understood. The tract was to extend twenty miles up the Great Miami to the Little Miami; but when this line came to be measured, it was found that it cut the Little Miami in several places on land which had been reserved by Virginia at the cession of this Territory to the United States. Mr. Symmes was down in the country before he knew the line thus drawn would thus cut into the lands of Virginia. The first thing he did was to take possession of the country which is between Fort Washington and the Little Miami, and to sell as much as he could of it. General St. Clair, the Governor of that Territory, threatened to drive Mr. Symmes and the settlers off this territory to which he had no right. The innocent settlers, who had purchased the land of Mr. Symmes, sent forward representations of their case to the PRESIDENT, which, together with the representations of the Governor, produced an act to change the boundary line of the purchase, which was passed April 12, 1792. This act describes the boundary line of the tract of land to be between the two Miamis and the Ohio. Mr. Ludlow was sent to survey it in 1793, when it was found, that instead of there being one million of acres, there were only five hundred and forty-three thousand nine hundred and fifty, which was duly surveyed, and the survey lodged in the Treasury Office on the 10th of January, 1794. Here arose the first difficulty. The act passed to change the boundary line could not take place without the consent of Mr. Symmes. In consequence, the law was said to be enacted at the request of Mr. Symmes. In 1794, Mr. S. had not made any request, consequently the law was a nullity. He might at that time have said, he would not have the land upon any other than the original contract, and that it was the business of the United States to make up the deficiency; and, if he had so acted, it is probable Congress would have been obliged to have found him one million of acres of land, agreeably to his contract; but, at that time, lands were not raised to so high a price as they were now, and Mr. S. did not think it necessary to avail himself of his contract. On the 11th April, 1792, a petition was presented in his name, stating, that from an advance in the price of certificates, resulted the impossibility of fulfilling his contract, and prayed that an abatement might be made in the price of the land. On the 27th September, 1794, instead of saying he would not abide by the new boundary, he requests an alteration may be made in the boundary. Notwithstanding this request, Mr. S. now says, he did not know any thing of the survey, though more than nine months since it was made. At first sight, it would be supposed the contract was void for want of fulfilment; but as he says he never received from the public a counterpart of the contract (though it is generally supposed he had in some way got possession of a copy, but no proof existing of it,) the claim was not forfeited. A circumstance was mentioned which seemed to convey a strong supposition that Mr. S. was acquainted with the survey. The day following the request he had made for the new boundary, was issued to him a patent for three hundred thousand acres, referring to that survey. Mr. S. now objects to the releasement which was given of his first purchase as not being complete. It was stated that he had taken possession of land to which he was no way entitled. The necessity of the act being immediately passed appeared from an advertisement (which Mr. GALLATIN read from a newspaper of that country) inviting persons to come and purchase, under an assurance that his original purchase would be completed. Mr. G. said that he had been offered some part of the land at a dollar an acre; he was informed that it would sell for two to settlers. Mr. G. said he knew it to be very capital land; and if the four hundred and fifty thousand acres which remained would sell for nine hundred thousand dollars, while he only gave three hundred thousand for the whole, he would have made a good bargain.

THURSDAY, February 23.

_Direct and Indirect Taxes._

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.

Mr. GALLATIN hoped that the motion would not prevail. He believed he was the only person who had said, that he was not desirous that the bill laying a direct tax should pass this session. For it was true, that, although he was a strong advocate for a direct tax--although he thought a sufficient permanent revenue could not be drawn from any other source, yet he did not wish the law to pass during the present session; and the reason was, because he had not a sufficient reliance upon his own opinion, to wish a subject of this sort to come into being against the opinion of so many members of this House as appeared to be opposed to it. When the United States shall think it necessary to go into the measure, he trusted it would pass with great unanimity. At present, he doubted whether a majority of the country was not against the measure, especially when he not only saw so great a division in that House, but apparently a local division, as he believed only four members East of Hudson's River, and but five South of Virginia had voted for the measure, by which it appeared to be a mode desired only by the Middle States. Until, therefore, gentlemen from those parts had returned home and consulted their constituents upon the subject; until he knew that the law could be carried into effect with more unanimity than at this time appeared, he did not wish to press it. He was willing, therefore, to take all the blame which was imputable to this circumstance upon himself. He never wished the powers of Congress to be exercised in a way which should not meet with pretty general concurrence. Yet, had he thought the situation of the United States had been such, that additional revenue was absolutely necessary to support the public credit, and it could not have been conveniently raised from any other source, every other consideration would have given way to that necessity. But he did not think that any thing which had been said by the gentleman from South Carolina showed that there would be any deficiency in the revenue for the present, which would require additional taxes to supply it.

He would just observe, that the great argument in favor of direct taxes--an argument which had almost wrought conviction upon the mind of the gentleman from South Carolina himself--was the uncertainty of a revenue derived from commerce; and yet, from this circumstance, the friends of indirect taxes wish to extend that plan to the utmost, and raise every thing from it. He should have drawn different conclusions; and from that uncertainty, he should have wished never to have gone beyond those bounds which they knew were safe.

As to the receipts of 1797, Mr. G. said, we had well ascertained them, because they arose from the importations of 1796, which they knew amounted to 6,200,000 dollars, and which sum, with the internal duties, would be fully adequate to the expenses of the Government for this year. Yet some gentlemen thought the calculation too close, and therefore the additional duties before them had been consented to, which he believed every one must acknowledge would be fully equal to any deficiency that could possibly arise. The arguments of the gentleman from South Carolina applied to the year 1798. He said we did not know what might be the amount of the importations of the present year; that it might be less than last year, and therefore, that revenue ought to be provided to supply the deficiency, if there should be any. The arguments would be good, if the gentleman's data were true; but he had forgotten that the expenses of 1798 would be less than those of the present year by 700,000 dollars, including not only the current expenses, but the instalment of the Dutch debts, which in that year would only be 100,000 dollars. The instalment this year is 400,000, so that in this item there will be a difference of 240,000 dollars; in the next place, the 280,000 dollars which this year has been agreed to be paid to the Dey and Regency of Algiers, will not occur again; and also, the 180,000 dollars appropriated for finishing the frigate, would not be to provide another year. These three items made the 700,000 dollars which he had mentioned. In addition he would add, that this year there had been a charge of 200,000 dollars for the defence of the frontier in 1795; but perhaps something might be wanted in that quarter another year, and therefore he would pass over that sum. But he thought there could be no danger of a want of revenue in the year 1798.

Mr. G. said, he would not pretend to say that it would not be desirable to increase the revenue, in order that they might pay a part of such instalments of the foreign debt as would become due after the year 1801. Certainly the sooner our debt could be paid, the better; but he meant only to show that there was no necessity for increasing the revenue for 1798. If it were necessary to raise additional revenue, it would be for two principal objects, the payment of the Dutch debt and the eight per cent. deferred stock; but as these did not become due till the year 1801, they were not under the necessity of providing the means for it at present.

During the next session, Mr. G. said, they should have time to compare the two systems of taxes together, and to discover which offered the best and most permanent sources of revenue. For the reasons he had given, he should be opposed to the motion.

Mr. W. SMITH said, he should not adduce many arguments to show the propriety of advancing the duty upon this article any more than that upon any other; but he wished to bring before the committee a true statement of the receipts and expenditures of the United States, in order to show what sum of money would probably be wanted to answer the demands of the United States. As he differed considerably from the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to our real wants, he considered it as his duty to lay this statement before the committee. He had investigated the subject with as much accuracy as possible. He had attended to the documents which had been laid before them, to the laws which would probably pass this session, and to the probable increase of revenue. The result of this examination was, that there would be a deficiency of about a million of dollars. To what the additional imposts already agreed to would amount, he could not say, but he believed they would make 200,000 dollars, which would leave a deficiency of 800,000 dollars. He made the following statement:

_Expenses of 1797._

Civil list, $634,322 Military and Naval Establishment and pensions, 1,284,532 Deficiency of 1796, 201,000 Algerine appropriation, 376,500 Interest of Domestic Debt, 3,471,972 Interest on Dutch debt, 614,241 Instalments do do. 1797, 400,000 Premium remitt. &c. 50,000 Appropriations for frigate, 171,000 --------- 7,213,567 =========

_Revenues of 1797._

Impost, $5,588,961 Internal revenues, 337,255 Post Office, 35,000 Bank stock, 150,000 Stock redeemed, 88,636 Sundries, 746 --------- 6,200,598 Additional imposts in 1797, 200,000 --------- 6,400,598 Probable deficiency of revenue, 812,969 --------- 7,213,567 =========

It would be observed, Mr. S. said, that the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Maryland, had calculated the impost at 6,200,000 dollars, whilst he made it only at 5,588,961, which he took from the Secretary of the Treasury's statement, and he believed this was the safest calculation. He would not go into any very long argument on this subject, because it had frequently been under discussion.

Mr. GALLATIN inquired from what document Mr. SMITH took his calculations?

Mr. W. SMITH answered, from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, which was calculated upon a permanent plan. In calculations on the subject of revenue, the largest amounts should not be taken. It was not policy in gentlemen to adopt that plan; they should make allowances for deficiencies and accidents. The situation of this country at present required it, and it would be safe, prudent, and discreet, to do so. The Secretary of the Treasury had estimated the internal revenue at 337,255 dollars, while those gentlemen made it 469,579. This they stated from the revenue of last year, which it was probable would be considerably more than this. He thought there was as much reason for taking one as the other statement; and the Government would be exposed to hazard and danger, unless allowances were made for deficiencies.

The deficiency, according to his calculation, was 1,012,969 dollars, and after deducting from that sum 200,000 for the additional duties in the bill before them, there would remain a balance of 812,969 dollars. Admitting the gentleman's own statement to be true, there would still be a deficiency of 100,000 dollars, and this without making any allowance whatever for accidents and occurrences which will always happen, without making any provision for the purchase of the public debt, which might at this time be purchased to great advantage. If there had been money in the Treasury for the purpose, instead of paying the debt at par, it might have been bought up at 16 or 17s. in the pound. And he was of opinion, from the present situation of things, the public debt would remain low, and that a surplus in the Treasury might be well employed in purchasing it.

So much for the revenue and expenses of the present year. With respect to 1798, there was no necessity to go much into that subject. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had estimated the instalment of the Dutch debt, payable in this year, at 160,000 dollars only; but he asked whether it would be wise to pay only that sum? And whether it had not been in the contemplation of that gentleman, as well as others, to pay as much as they could yearly? He knew they should not be obliged to pay more; but he believed it would be a wise policy to pay an equal sum every year. That gentleman made another deduction of 280,000 dollars, which had been granted to the Dey and Regency of Algiers this year; but might they not expect items which they did not contemplate, to this amount? Contingencies, he said, occurred, which always swelled the expenses greater than were contemplated. There was always something of an extraordinary nature occurring to call for money; either an Indian war, or insurrection, depredations of foreign powers, or attacks by the Algerines. There was no guarding with certainty against them. The next deduction was 100,000 dollars for the frigates. Whether this would be saved or not, was uncertain. The next House might agree to go on with the frigates.