Chapter XVI: Front Matter (16)

Gentlemen tell us we ought not so closely to scrutinize the conduct of the Legislature of South Carolina. I am, said Mr. L., far from scrutinizing in this instance the conduct of that State. I respect the people of South Carolina. Their situation may, perhaps, be such as in a great measure to justify their conduct, though I am far from saying that I approve it. But when we lay a tax on the importation of slaves, it is a sufficient reply to such remarks to say that the tax is not laid exclusively on slaves admitted into South Carolina. It does not therefore apply to South Carolina alone. That State has an undoubted right to admit the importation; but Congress have also an undoubted right of taxing them. The resolution, therefore, does not encroach on the rights of that State. The United States and South Carolina form two bodies politic, both of which are possessed of constitutional rights. To the one belongs the right of importing, to the other, the right of taxation; and this last right may be exercised without involving any censure of the State of South Carolina. The only necessary inquiry is, whether the proposed tax will be oppressive or unjust. I believe it will be universally agreed that an imported article worth four hundred dollars will not be taxed high compared with other articles, when it pays a duty of ten dollars. As to the constitutionality of the tax not a word need be said; that has not and cannot be disputed.

WEDNESDAY, February 15.

_Importation of Slaves._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on Mr. BARD’s resolution to impose a tax of ten dollars on every slave imported into the United States; the debate on which occupied the remainder of the sitting.

Mr. LUCAS supported, and Mr. HOLLAND opposed the resolution.

Mr. EARLE moved that the committee rise and report progress. His reason for this motion was, that, from information received from South Carolina, on which he placed much reliance, it was expected that the Legislature would meet in April, and would then repeal the act admitting the importation of slaves. Should the committee rise, he would move a postponement of the consideration of the resolution to the first Monday in May.

Mr. GREGG.--I hope the motion for the committee to rise will prevail; and that any further proceeding on this subject will be postponed for the present. It has been said by the gentleman from South Carolina who made the motion, and I have heard it mentioned by others, that a considerable ferment has been excited in that State by the passage of the law authorizing the importation of slaves, and that it is highly probable the Legislature, at its next session, will repeal that law. That session, it is expected, will be held in April, the Governor having it in contemplation to convene the Legislature at that time for the purpose of submitting to their consideration the proposed amendment to the constitution.

Let it not, Mr. Chairman, be inferred, from what I have said, that I am in principle opposed to the effect which I am confident the mover of the resolution expected it would produce. No member of this House is, or can be, more decidedly opposed to slavery than I am. In the State from which I come slavery is scarcely, if at all, known. I do not know whether, at this moment, it has any existence there. However the inhabitants of that State may differ on other points, on the subject of slavery we are all united. All parties have joined in abolishing it. I sincerely wish that Congress possessed a constitutional power to abolish it, or at least to check its further progress in the United States. If they did possess such power, I would most cordially concur in putting it into operation. Instead of ten dollars, I wish the constitution would warrant us in imposing a tax of one hundred, or of five hundred dollars on each imported slave. I would willingly vote for that sum, because it would amount to an entire prohibition of such importation, and effectually destroy the traffic which I consider highly impolitic, as well as contrary to the principles of justice.

When the present constitution was adopted, there were no laws in several States to prohibit the importation of slaves. It is but a few years since such a law was passed by the State of Georgia. During all that period money was much wanted. The revenue was not adequate to the demand. Government was compelled to have recourse to loans, and in some instances had to submit to a heavy interest; yet in all that time the idea, I believe, was never suggested in Congress of supplying the deficiency by imposing a tax on slaves, although numbers were then imported. From this it may be inferred, that at that time the power vested in Congress by the constitution of imposing a tax of ten dollars on each person imported into any of the then existing States, agreeably to its laws, was not considered as given for the purpose of raising revenue. It was given, it may be presumed, for the purpose of being used as a check to the trade, and at the time the constitution was adopted, the exercise of that power might have contributed to produce such effect. The price of slaves was then low; their labor was not so productive to their owners, and, of course, ten dollars in addition to the then current price might, in some measure, have checked the spirit of purchasing. But soon after that period, by the introduction of the cultivation of cotton, the labor of slaves became more valuable, and their price enhanced in proportion. Ten dollars then bore some proportion to the price of a slave, but at this time it is comparatively as a cipher. A planter who can find his advantage in giving four hundred dollars, which is said to be the present current price of a good negro, will think but little of ten additional dollars. In the present state of things, therefore, I take it the proposed tax cannot effect the object contemplated by the mover of the resolution--it can neither prevent nor remedy the evil; and as it has the appearance of giving legal sanction to the trade, and may have an influence on the Legislature of South Carolina, inasmuch as it is an implied attack on their sovereignty, and a censure on them for passing an act which, however important it may be in our view, the constitution certainly did authorize them to pass, I think the further consideration of the subject had better be postponed for the present; perhaps always, until Government may have it in its power to adopt measures calculated to produce an entire prohibition of the trade.

Mr. HUGER said the arguments urged by the friends of the motion were two-fold. One class of gentlemen say they are not in favor of this tax for purposes of revenue, but to manifest the opinion of the National Legislature; while another class declares their only reason for laying it is the revenue it will bring into the Treasury. A decision, therefore, by the House, will settle no principle; for supposing that a majority of the members shall be found in favor of the tax, one-half of them will vote for it on one principle and one-half on another. Under these circumstances, he appealed to gentlemen inclined to favor the resolution, whether it would not be the best policy to wait until the Legislature of South Carolina had an opportunity of repealing the obnoxious law. Is it a pleasant thing to any gentleman on this floor to throw a stigma upon a State? And will not gentlemen from the Middle and Eastern States recollect that the situation of South Carolina is very different from that of their States? Let them, then, do as much good as they can at home; but let them, in God’s name, permit us to act for ourselves. It is a very easy thing to make some harsh remarks on the conduct of particular States, even of the State of Pennsylvania, much as that State is deservedly respected. Mr. H. said he did not believe that State stood one iota higher than other States in the Union. For he believed that peculiar interest operated there as well as in other States.

Mr. H. said, from what had been expressed to-day, he did not believe the people of South Carolina friendly to the act admitting the importation of slaves. Every Representative of that State on this floor wished, he believed, that it had never been passed. But as it had passed, they conceived it to be their duty to resist a measure which went to censure the State for the exercise of an undoubted right.

Mr. STANTON.--Mr. Speaker: I am highly gratified to find honorable members in every part of the House who reprobate the infamous traffic of buying and selling the human species. On this occasion but a few remarks are necessary, if morality, humanity, and justice, are conducive to the happiness of society. It is not my duty nor intention to criminate the State of South Carolina, whose late conduct has created serious and well founded alarm. It is a duty I owe to my constituents and myself not to connive at a measure that, in my humble opinion, goes to shake the pillars of public security, and threatens corruption to the morals of our citizens, and tarnishes the American character. Sir, while I deprecate the repeal of the non-importation act of South Carolina, I console myself with the pleasing expectation that the State will retract the error they have recently and unguardedly fallen into, and I cannot doubt but the honorable members from that State, on this floor, will lend their aid to effect so desirable a measure--to enact again the prohibitory statute. We are told if the House adopt the resolution, it will irritate South Carolina, notwithstanding the opposers of the resolution confess the impolitic conduct of South Carolina. I wish not to offend any of our sister States, much less, that important State whose wisdom, virtue, and patriotism, have been conspicuous on every other occasion. The opposers of the resolution inform us its adoption will both encourage and sanction the importation, and that they have a constitutional right to import until 1808. I grant it, but I hope better things of that State; and things that accompany reformation. She has recently, with other States, emancipated herself from tyranny and oppression, and will she sully her fair fame by commencing tyrant herself? Sir, the speakers from the State of South Carolina, and particularly the honorable member who offered a resolution as a substitute for the one under consideration, delivered himself in sentiments of the most admirable humanity, and constitutional love and zeal for his country; and, if he were a member from any other State in the Union, I should have the honor, I make no doubt, of voting with him for the resolution on your table. Sir, I am sensible the General Government cannot prohibit the traffic previous to the year 1808. This is one of the most humiliating concessions made by that venerable convention which framed the constitution, and we are bound by it. I ask, is the policy of the measure embraced by the resolution sound? I believe it is. I consider slaves a luxury--they are considered by the constitution, three-fifths of them, to give a Representative, and I ask why not tax them? It is a sound maxim that representation and taxation should go hand in hand. To lay a tax being the only constitutional power the General Government possesses, I think it good policy to exercise it.

The State of Rhode Island, from whence I came, passed a law declaring negro children born posterior to 1784, as free as white children. Mr. Speaker, I mention this statute merely to obviate the erroneous impression, that otherwise might be made with a view to mislead the public mind, that the citizens of Rhode Island are disposed to favor the villanous traffic. I wish not to egotize, but I can assure the House this traffic has been abhorrent to me upwards of forty years, and if I should live to see 1808--that auspicious period in our national compact which shall be exonerated from the tragic feature that has cast a shade on that valuable instrument--if the important acquisition of Louisiana gave ample cause for festivity, still greater cause shall we have when the glorious period shall arrive of 1808. That shall be my jubilee.

After a few further remarks, by Mr. HUGER and Mr. LUCAS, the question was taken on the rising of the Committee, and passed in the negative--yeas 58, nays 60. When the resolution was agreed to.

The committee rose and reported their agreement to the resolution, which the House immediately took into consideration.

Mr. WYNN moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution till the first Monday in January, and required the yeas and nays.

The question was then taken on the postponement, by yeas and nays, and passed in the negative--yeas 54, nays 62, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, George Michael
Bedinger, Silas Betton, William Blackledge, Walter Bowie,
John Boyle, William Butler, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Thomas
Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts,
Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dawson, William Dickson,
Thomas Dwight, John B. Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot,
William Eustis, John Fowler, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger
Griswold, Samuel Hammond, Wade Hampton, Seth Hastings, Joseph
Heister, James Holland, Benjamin Huger, Michael Leib, Thomas
Lowndes, Matthew Lyon, Andrew McCord, David Meriwether, Thomas
Moore, Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, John Randolph, John
Rhea of Tennessee, Thomas Sanford, Tompson J. Skinner, John
Cotton Smith, James Stephenson, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher,
Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, Lemuel
Williams, Richard Wynn, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Isaac Anderson, John Archer, Simeon Baldwin, David Bard,
Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Chamberlin,
Clifton Claggett, Matthew Clay, Frederick Conrad, Ebenezer
Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Gillespie,
Peterson Goodwyn, Gaylord Griswold, John A. Hanna, William
Helms, William Hoge, David Holmes, David Hough, John G.
Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Joseph
Lewis, jr., Henry W. Livingston, John B. C. Lucas, William
McCreery, Samuel L. Mitchill, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah
Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin, Beriah
Palmer, Thomas M. Randolph, Jacob Richards, Cæsar A. Rodney,
Erastus Root, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan,
John Smilie, John Smith of New York, John Smith of Virginia,
Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart,
Samuel Taggart, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
Philip Van Cortlandt, Isaac Van Hornee, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg
Wadsworth, Matthew Walton, Marmaduke Williams, and Joseph
Winston.

And then the main question being taken that the House do agree to the said resolution, as amended to read as follows:

_Resolved_, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed on every slave
imported into any part of the United States:

It was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 71.

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

FRIDAY, February 17.

_Importation of Slaves._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, viz: “What day should be made the order to the Committee of the Whole to consider the bill laying a tax of ten dollars upon every slave imported into the United States.”

Mr. LOWNDES moved that the further consideration of the bill should be postponed till the first Monday in December.

Mr. LOWNDES.--In moving a postponement of the bill to the first Monday in December next, my object is to get rid of it altogether. Gentlemen have supported the resolution upon which this bill is founded, upon such a variety of, and contradictory grounds, that their arguments are not very susceptible of a reply. I am, however, very glad that it has been conceded by every gentleman who has spoken upon the subject, that this tax, if laid, would not have the effect of diminishing the number of Africans imported into the country. When it was admitted that the object for which the resolution was avowedly brought forward, would not be obtained, I did hope that the resolution itself would not have been persevered in. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG,) to whose arguments I generally listen with pleasure, has told us that he would not for the world give his vote for this tax, for the purpose of raising revenue; but that he would be obliged to vote for the resolution, to show his disapprobation of the trade. The gentleman did, however, manifest a disposition to get rid of the question, without taking a direct vote upon it. Another gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SMILIE) has told us, that he too is averse to this tax with a view to revenue, but that he must vote for it, for if he does not, it will be an admission, on his part, that Congress is favorable to the trade. What am I to infer from this observation? Am I to infer that Congress until this time has been favorable to the trade; and am I to infer that the gentleman himself, who has for so long a time been an active member of Congress, has also been favorable to it? This trade has from the adoption of the constitution until a few years ago, when it was first prohibited by Georgia, been carried on; and yet Congress have never exercised their power of imposing any tax, nor have I heard that the gentleman did ever bring forward a resolution for the purpose. There is another description of persons imported into the United States--I mean those bound to serve for a term of years. The comparison I admit is not analogous throughout, but it is to a certain extent. These persons are chiefly introduced into the States of Pennsylvania and New York; none, or at least very few of them, into New England. Were it proposed to embrace them by this tax, would the Representatives from those States be satisfied with the arguments that it was a tax upon merchandise, and a general one, and therefore fair? Their discernment would quickly point out to them, that whatever was the appearance, it was a tax principally falling upon those States, and they would resist.

Entertaining the opinions which I have expressed against the principle of the bill, and wishing to get rid of it in a manner most agreeable to those gentlemen who feel a difficulty of voting directly upon it, I move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed until December next.

Mr. BEDINGER said he felt the greatest veneration for the honorable mover of the resolution, as he thought it proceeded from the purest motives. But as he thought the slave trade was but little better than murder, he felt a difficulty in his mind as to the propriety of admitting one shilling of it into the treasury of the United States, lest those traders should think themselves entitled to protection; but as the mover and many others declare their assent towards the appropriation of said tax hereafter to humane purposes, he believed he should vote for a bill, if drawn in correspondence with such principles.

Mr. FINDLAY observed that it was not his wish to go into a lengthy argument on this subject; but merely to observe that this was the first instance of a law prohibiting the importation of slaves being repealed, and that it might not be the last; and that, therefore, if the argument advanced by gentlemen was good against taking it up in the first instance, it would be equally good against taking it up in case all the States should repeal their prohibitory laws. He also wished gentlemen to consider that the friends of the motion were conscience-bound as well as they, and that they considered it a moral duty to restrain, as far as they could, the continuance of the slave trade. As, however, a question of expediency was involved in this measure, he entertained no desire to hasten its decision; on the contrary, his wish was to allow ample time for considering its merits. He should therefore vote against the postponement to December; but would move a postponement to the 2d Monday of March, not with the view of getting rid of the subject altogether, but to allow an opportunity of considering it fully.

Mr. HUGER did not rise with the view of going into the merits of the bill, but to impress the propriety of agreeing to the postponement. It was a painful subject, which necessarily excited unpleasant feelings. He thought, if gentlemen suffered it to lie over to the next session, there was a probability that by giving the Representatives of South Carolina an opportunity of returning home and expressing the sentiments of Congress, the Legislature of that State would repeal the law; whereas, should the tax be laid, it would prevent this desirable effect. Where we differ, said Mr. H., it is proper for us to accommodate--to meet each other half way.

Mr. EPPES, believing that either motion of postponement would defeat the main measure, said he should vote against both. It was not his wish to erect the Government of the United States into a national tribunal to censure the proceedings of the Legislature of South Carolina, or to wound their feelings; but he was not prepared to say that Congress, in exercising a constitutional right, erected such a tribunal. It was in some respects immaterial whether they interfered or not, so long as the world knew that a Legislature of a respectable State, in the eighteenth century, passed an act allowing the importation of slaves. That Legislature ought not to complain if the United States availed themselves of the measure to raise revenue from it. According to the estimate of some gentlemen, there would probably be an importation of one hundred thousand in four years, which if this tax shall be laid, will produce a revenue of a million of dollars. And yet we are entreated by the gentleman from South Carolina not to molest the trade. Mr. E. said he was not surprised at this anxiety, as, by gaining a delay of one year, that State might be saved from the payment of above one hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. E. said he came from a Southern country, where slaves were as much a subject of taxation as lands; and he did not know that the statute books of Virginia or South Carolina were stained by imposing taxes upon them. He believed them as fair a subject of taxation as any other species of property. He believed it as fair to lay taxes upon them as to make the poor pay a tax upon brown sugar and other articles of the first necessity. For these reasons he was against the postponement either to December or March.

Mr. R. GRISWOLD considered a postponement till December as destructive to the bill. He said he would as soon meet it on its merits, but being prepared, as far as his vote went, to reject the bill, he should vote for what he considered equivalent, a postponement to December. He did not think it proper for the House to go into the measure contemplated by the bill. There were but two principles that would justify the laying a duty on imported articles: the one to discourage the importation of particular articles, and the other with a view to revenue. As to the first principle, under the constitution as it at present stood, Congress had no right to interfere; as the States had an undoubted right to admit the importation of slaves until the year 1808. The constitution, on this point, had gone so far as to restrict the right of the General Government to a tax not exceeding ten dollars upon each slave imported. This would not amount to a prohibition or prevention of the importation. Congress was, therefore, precluded the right of taxing, with this view, until the year 1808. This part of the argument, on which gentlemen support the measure, must be laid, therefore, out of view. The question then recurs, whether we shall lay this tax for purposes of revenue? For one, (said Mr. G.,) I am unwilling to do this. I abhor the slave trade as much as any member on this floor, and therefore I will not consent to give it a legislative sanction. For this measure will certainly be viewed in that light by the people of this country and by the civilized world. It will appear to the world that Congress are raising a revenue from a commerce in slaves. I am not for introducing such a law, calculated to have this impression, on our statute book. Were it in our power to prohibit the trade, there is not, I trust, a member on this floor that would not unite in the prohibition. But on this point our hands are tied.

Mr. GREGG observed, that when this subject was on a former day before the House, he assigned his reasons at some length, in favor of a postponement. The same reasons would influence his vote this day, and he should not trouble the House with a repetition of them. He only rose to suggest to his colleague that, by attending to one consideration, he would be induced, he thought, to change his opinion, and to vote for the most distant day to which it was proposed to postpone this subject. It had been stated by a gentleman from South Carolina, and he believed correctly stated, that by the law lately passed in South Carolina, a considerable ferment had been excited in that State, and that it was probable that the Legislature would, at their next session, repeal it. If it were probable that they would repeal this law in April, it appeared to him improper to pass an act that would operate as a censure upon the conduct of that State.

Mr. ALSTON was surprised how it was that he and his worthy friend from Virginia (Mr. EPPES) differed so widely upon the present occasion, living, as it were, in the same country, and owning property of the same kind, and pursuing the same means of obtaining a living. My friend advocates the resolution for laying a tax of ten dollars on each slave imported into the United States, because a considerable revenue will be derived from such a tax; it is for that very reason that he opposed it, because he would not consent to pass a law which had for its operation a partial effect. Can it be right to pass a law which will impose a heavy tax upon one part of the community, and not a cent upon the other? No State in the Union would be affected except South Carolina. Gentlemen ought to take care how they acted towards a sister State, and a respectable one too.

Mr. RODNEY said, he should not have troubled the House with any remarks on the present occasion, had he not made up his mind to vote differently from the vote which he had before given. He said he had before voted against the postponement of the consideration of this subject; he should now vote in favor of a postponement; and he would, in a few words, assign his reasons. When the resolution for imposing a tax on imported slaves was first laid on the table, he was of opinion that he could not vote for it without sanctioning the practice it was meant to censure. Reflecting further, he afterwards got his own consent to vote for it. First thoughts were frequently best; we sometimes miss the mark by taking sight too long. In this instance, after a more mature consideration, his mind inclined to his original opinions, for reasons which he would assign.

It was agreed, on all hands, that the conduct of the Legislature of South Carolina was such as to merit the disapprobation of the members of that House. On many occasions there were political dissensions within these walls. But he rejoiced that, when questions of this kind presented themselves, they were sure to find us unanimous. Inhumanity was considered as a common enemy, and so inhuman a practice was justly reprobated by all. Every gentleman from the South, as well as the East, deprecated the act and lamented its existence.

After a few additional remarks from several gentlemen, the question was taken by yeas and nays on a postponement to the first Monday in December, and passed in the negative--yeas 55, nays 62.

Mr. FINDLAY moved a postponement to the second Monday in March; which, after some debate, prevailed--ayes 56, noes 50.

[To prevent an erroneous impression being made on the public by the above proceedings, it is proper to remark that, during the whole discussion, not a single voice was raised in defence of the act of the Legislature of South Carolina, allowing the importation of slaves; but that, on the contrary, while by some of the speakers its immorality and impolicy were severely censured, by all its existence was deprecated. A large number of those who voted for the postponement, advocated it on the express and sole ground that it would give the Legislature of South Carolina an opportunity, which they believed would be embraced, to repeal the act.]

MONDAY, February 20.

_Georgia Claims._

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said, the House would recollect that he had, on a former day, offered a resolution barring any claims derived under any act of the State of Georgia passed in the year 1795, in relation to lands ceded to the United States. It was not his purpose in rising at this time to trespass on the patience of the House; nor did he know that he should in future offer any remarks additional to those he had already made. But he conceived it his duty to place the subject in such a point of light that every eye, however dim, might distinctly see its true merits. For this purpose he withdrew the resolution which he had before offered, and moved the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That the Legislature of the State of Georgia were,
at no time, invested with the power of alienating the right of
soil possessed by the good people of that State in and to the
vacant territory of the same, but in a rightful manner, and for
the public good:

That, when the governors of any people shall have betrayed
the confidence reposed in them, and shall have exercised that
authority with which they have been clothed for the general
welfare, to promote their own private ends, under the basest
motives, and to the public detriment, it is the inalienable
right of a people, so circumstanced, to revoke the authority
thus abused, to resume the rights thus attempted to be
bartered, and to abrogate the act thus endeavoring to betray
them:

That it is in evidence to this House, that the act of the
Legislature of Georgia, passed on the seventh of January,
one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, entitled “An act
for appropriating a part of the unlocated territory of this
State, for the payment of the late State troops, and for other
purposes,” was passed by persons under the influence of gross
and palpable corruption, practised by the grantees of the lands
attempted to be alienated by the aforesaid act, tending to
enrich and aggrandize, to a degree almost incalculable, a few
individuals, and ruinous to the public interest:

That the good people of Georgia, impressed with general
indignation at this act of atrocious perfidy and unparalleled
corruption, with a promptitude of decision highly honorable to
their character, did, by the act of a subsequent Legislature,
passed on the thirteenth of February, one thousand seven
hundred and ninety-six, under circumstances of peculiar
solemnity, and finally sanctioned by the people, who have
subsequently ingrafted it on their constitution, declare the
preceding act, and the grants made under it, in themselves
null and void; that the said act should be expunged from the
records of the State, and publicly burnt; which was accordingly
done; provision at the same time being made for restoring
the pretended purchase-money to the grantees, by whom, or by
persons claiming under them, the greater part of the said
purchase-money has been withdrawn from the treasury of Georgia:

That a subsequent Legislature of an individual State has an
undoubted right to repeal any act of a preceding Legislature,
provided such repeal be not forbidden by the constitution of
such State, or of the United States:

That the aforesaid act of the State of Georgia, passed on
the thirteenth of February, one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-six, was forbidden neither by the constitution of that
State, nor by that of the United States:

That the claims of persons derived under the aforesaid act
of the seventh of January, one thousand seven hundred and
ninety-five, are recognized neither by any compact between the
United States and the State of Georgia, nor by any act of the
Federal Government: Therefore,

_Resolved_, That no part of the five millions of acres reserved
for satisfying and quieting claims to the lands ceded by the
State of Georgia to the United States, and appropriated by
the act of Congress passed at their last session, shall be
appropriated to quiet or compensate any claims derived under
any act, or pretended act, of the State of Georgia, passed,
or alleged to be passed, during the year one thousand seven
hundred and ninety-five.

On considering the resolutions, the House divided--ayes 53. Carried.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH then moved their reference to the Committee of the Whole on the bill providing for the settlement of sundry claims to public lands lying south of the State of Tennessee. Carried--yeas 50, nays 30.

WEDNESDAY, February 22.

_Naval Peace Establishment._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill supplementary to an act providing for a Naval Peace Establishment.

[This is the bill introduced at the instance of Mr. NICHOLSON, with a view to a more economical and beneficial arrangement in relation to the national ships laid up in ordinary.]

Mr. LEIB moved an additional section, virtually abolishing the office of Lieutenant Colonel Commandant of the Marine Corps, and authorizing the President to make such other reductions of the subordinate officers as he may think fit. The object of the bill being a reform of the expenses attending the Naval Establishment, the measure contemplated in the amendment was, in his opinion, a very proper one to be answered by it. The bill, he said, contemplated an annual saving, in the single article of provisions, of $7,000. By abolishing the office of Lieutenant Colonel Commandant, a saving of sixty thousand dollars in addition might be made. This officer made, it appeared, all the contracts, and it would be seen by documents before the House, that while the price of the ration in the War Department was fifteen cents, that fixed by this officer was twenty cents--the difference made the sum of $3,750 a year. It would also be seen that exorbitant sums were expended in postage and fuel. In the single article of postage, $150 had been expended within three months. The amendment was then agreed to--yeas 62.

Mr. EUSTIS moved a new section, for the allowance to captains, holding themselves in readiness to enter the service, of the same rations they are entitled by law to receive when in actual service. Disagreed to--yeas 37, nays 45.

The committee rose, and the House agreed to the amendment of Mr. LEIB without a division.

Mr. JACKSON moved a new section, for the allowance to captains, required to hold themselves in readiness for service, of the same rations they are entitled to receive when in actual service.

Mr. NICHOLSON supported the amendment, to which the House agreed--yeas 44, nays 40; when the bill was ordered to a third reading to-morrow.

On motion, the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, February 24.

_Contested Election._

Mr. FINDLAY, from the Committee of Elections, to whom was referred a memorial of Andrew Moore, of Virginia, respecting the election of THOMAS LEWIS, a sitting member, made a report, which, after stating the bad votes given for each of the candidates, concludes with the opinion that THOMAS LEWIS is not, and that ANDREW MOORE is entitled to a seat in the House. The report is as follows:

“That, at an election held on three several days, in the month
of April, in the year one thousand eight hundred and three,
directed by the law of the State of Virginia, for a member
of the House of Representatives of the United States for the
district composed of the counties of Botetourt, Rockbridge,
Kenawha, Greenbriar, and Monroe, in the western district of
Virginia, it appears--

“That, of the polls taken in the county of Botetourt, Thomas
Lewis had one hundred and fifty-five votes, and Andrew Moore
had three hundred and five votes; that, out of the persons
who voted for Thomas Lewis, twenty-three were unqualified to
vote; and that out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore,
twenty-eight were unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Rockbridge, Thomas Lewis had
sixty-five votes, and Andrew Moore had three hundred and
twenty-one votes; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas
Lewis, there were four persons unqualified to vote; and out
of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore, there were twenty
persons unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Kenawha county, Thomas Lewis had
one hundred and sixty-one votes, and Andrew Moore had one vote;
that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis there were
ninety persons unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Greenbriar, Thomas Lewis had
five hundred and thirty-nine votes, and Andrew Moore had one
hundred and three votes; that out of the persons who voted for
Thomas Lewis two hundred and two were unqualified to vote; and
out of the persons who voted for Andrew Moore thirty-two were
unqualified to vote.

“That, of the polls taken in Monroe county, Thomas Lewis had
eighty-four votes, and Andrew Moore had one hundred and two
votes; that out of the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis
thirty-six were unqualified to vote; and out of the persons who
voted for Andrew Moore, forty-four were unqualified to vote.
Hence it appears--

“That all the persons who voted for Thomas Lewis in the several
counties aforesaid, which compose the western district of the
State of Virginia, were one thousand and four; and that all the
persons who voted for Andrew Moore in the said counties were
eight hundred and thirty-two.

“It further appears, on a deliberate scrutiny, that, of the
above votes, three hundred and fifty-five persons voted for
Thomas Lewis who were unqualified to vote, and that one hundred
and twenty-four voted for Andrew Moore who were unqualified to
vote; and that, by deducting the unqualified votes from the
votes given for each of the parties at the elections, Thomas
Lewis has six hundred and forty-nine good votes, and Andrew
Moore has seven hundred and eight good votes, being fifty-nine
more than Thomas Lewis. Whereupon,

“Your committee are of opinion that Thomas Lewis, not being
duly elected, is not entitled to a seat in this House; and
they are further of opinion that Andrew Moore, who has the
highest number of votes, after deducting the before-mentioned
unqualified votes from the respective polls, is duly elected
and entitled to a seat in this House.”

_Ordered_, That the report be committed to a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next.

TUESDAY, February 28.

_Louisiana Territory._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill sent from the Senate, entitled “An act erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof.”

The fourth section being under consideration, as follows:

“SEC. 4. The Legislative powers shall be vested in the
Governor, and in thirteen of the most fit and discreet persons
of the Territory, to be called the Legislative Council, who
shall be appointed annually by the President of the United
States, from among those holding real estate therein, and who
shall have resided one year at least in the said Territory,
and hold no office of profit under the Territory or the United
States. The Governor, by and with advice and consent of the
said Legislative Council, or of a majority of them, shall have
power to alter, modify, or repeal the laws which may be in
force at the commencement of this act. Their Legislative powers
shall also extend to all the rightful powers of legislation:
but no law shall be valid which is inconsistent with the
constitution and laws of the United States, or which shall
lay any person under restraint, burden, or disability, on
account of his religious opinions, professions, or worship;
in all which he shall be free to maintain his own, and not
burdened for those of another. The Governor shall publish
throughout the said Territory all the laws which shall be made,
and shall from time to time report the same to the President
of the United States, to be laid before Congress; which, if
disapproved of by Congress, shall thenceforth be of no force.
The Governor or Legislative Council shall have no power over
the primary disposal of the soil, nor to tax the lands of the
United States, nor to interfere with the claims to land within
the said Territory. The Governor shall convene and prorogue
the Legislative Council, whenever he may deem it expedient. It
shall be his duty to obtain all the information in his power
in relation to the customs, habits, and dispositions of the
inhabitants of the said Territory, and communicate the same,
from time to time, to the President of the United States.”

Mr. LEIB observed that he did not like the provisions of this section, and least of all that which gave the Governor the right of proroguing the Legislative Council. It appeared to him that that body was the most dependent thing of its nature in the United States; and when the power of prorogation vested in the Governor was considered, it seemed to him that the people would do much better without any such body. This was a royal appendage which he did not like. He, therefore, moved to strike out the words “and prorogue.”

Mr. GREGG said he was not only in favor of the motion of his colleague, but against the section generally. It would require much further amendment to induce him to vote for it. He was opposed to the power it gave the President to appoint the members of the Legislative Council. It appeared to him a mere burlesque to say they shall be appointed by the President. How is the President to get information of the qualifications for office? This could only be obtained from the officers appointed by him, and principally from the Governor, who will not fail to recommend to the President the appointment of persons favorable to his own views. Mr. G. said that they would, therefore, rather vest the appointment of the members of the Legislative Council in the Governor; the mode pointed out in the bill was only calculated to rescue the Governor from the responsibility attached to his office, by dividing it among others.

Mr. LEIB said his amendment did not in the least interfere with that of his colleague, with whom he fully accorded in sentiment.

Mr. VARNUM was of opinion that the section in the bill provided such a kind of Government as had never been known in the United States. He thought sound policy, no less than justice, dictated the propriety of making provision for the election of a legislative body by the people. There was not only the common obligation of justice imposed upon Congress to do this, but they were bound by treaty. The treaty with France expressly says:

“The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated
in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon
as possible, according to the principles of the federal
constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages,
and immunities of citizens of the United States.”

The treaty makes it obligatory on the United States to admit the inhabitants of Louisiana, as soon as possible, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. In order to decide the principle of this section of the bill by an expression of the sense of the committee, he would move that the committee should rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, with the view of refusing them leave, and afterwards referring the bill to a select committee to receive a modification in conformity to the opinions of the House.

Mr. HUGER trusted the committee would not rise. He knew not the impressions on this subject on the minds of other gentlemen; but the information lately received from Louisiana convinced him of the propriety of proceeding with the bill immediately. In addition to the principles contained in the section under consideration, there were others of great importance. He thought it would be most advisable, in a future stage of discussion, to commit the bill to a select committee, if any material alterations should be made in it. It was best, at present, to deliberate fully on the several provisions of the bill, and for gentlemen to make an interchange of opinions. Were the bill now committed, the report of the committee would not advance the business in the least, as that report might be as objectionable to the House as the bill from the Senate.

Mr. ELLIOT, for like reasons assigned by the gentleman from South Carolina, and for other reasons, hoped the committee would not rise. He did not believe the section under consideration was, in its present form, consistent either with the spirit of the constitution or the treaty; but he believed that, by the introduction of a small amendment, the section might be rendered perfectly consistent with them, and the passage of the bill be greatly accelerated. He preferred a middle course between the existing section and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Whatever amendments were necessary would be easily offered and discussed at present; whereas no desirable object could be effected by a reference.

Mr. GREGG said it also appeared to him that no valuable purpose would be answered by referring the bill to a select committee. What can such a committee do? There exists no diversity of sentiment in the House on principle. Some are for giving to the people of the Territory, instead of the President, the power of electing members of the Legislative Council. Here, then, are two distinct principles, and unless the House determine which of them it will adopt, a select committee can do nothing. Let us settle the principle of the bill first, and then refer it to a select committee, to modify it in correspondence with them.

Mr. EUSTIS said this subject was, in his opinion, inferior to no other discussed this session. With regard to the provisions of the section under consideration, it was to be expected that there would be a diversity of opinion. Gentlemen inimical to them had taken different grounds. One gentleman desires the power of the Governor to prorogue the Council to be rescinded; another gentleman wishes an entire change in the formation of the Council; and a third is in favor of the committee rising, that the bill may go to a select committee to report different provisions for the government of the people of Louisiana from those contained in the bill before us. This motion necessarily brings the principle on which the Council is organized by the bill before us.

According to this bill, the Governor and Council are to make the laws. Suppose the Council is in session, and the Governor possess no power to prorogue them. Suppose they should engage in acts subversive of their relation to the United States. Would not this power be of essential utility? It appears to me indispensably necessary that a vein of authority should ascend to the Government of the United States, until the people of the Territory are admitted to the full enjoyment of State rights. From that knowledge of this people which I have been able to acquire, I have formed an opinion that authority should be constantly exercised over them, without severity, but in such a manner as to secure the rights of the United States and the peace of the country.

The government laid down in this bill is certainly a new thing in the United States; but the people of this country differ materially from the citizens of the United States. I speak of the character of the people at the present time. When they shall be better acquainted with the principles of our Government, and shall have become desirous of participating in our privileges, it will be full time to extend to them the elective franchise. Have not the House been informed from an authentic source, since the cession, that the provisions of our institutions are inapplicable to them? If so, why attempt, in pursuit of a vain theory, to extend political institutions to them for which they are not prepared? I am one of those who believe that the principles of civil liberty cannot suddenly be ingrafted on a people accustomed to a regimen of a directly opposite hue. The approach of such a people to liberty must be gradual. I believe them at present totally unqualified to exercise it. If this opinion be erroneous, then the principles of the bill are unfounded. If, on the contrary, this opinion is sound, it results that neither the power given to the President to appoint the members of the Council, nor of the Governor to prorogue them, are unsafe or unnecessary.

Mr. LUCAS was against the rising of the committee, inasmuch as the bill under consideration offered the widest field of discussing the subject before them, and inasmuch as it was proper, that the principles of it should be settled by a majority, to enable a select committee to collect the sense of the House. When this decision should have taken place, he should have no objections to a recommitment for the purpose of modifying the bill in consonance with it.

It was known, by the treaty, that the United States are bound to secure to the people of Louisiana as large a portion of liberty and security of rights, as though they remained under the Government of France and Spain; and he trusted the bill as it stood secured to them much more. As an instance, it might be mentioned that the privilege of habeas corpus had never been enjoyed by them while they were connected with either Spain or France. An argument was drawn from the treaty, that these people are to be admitted to the absolute enjoyment of the rights of citizens; but gentlemen would not deny, that the time when, and the circumstances under which this provision of the treaty was to be carried into effect, were submitted to the decision of Congress. It has been remarked, that this bill establishes elementary principles of government never previously introduced in the government of any Territory of the United States. Granting the truth of this observation, it must be allowed that the United States had never before devolved upon them the making provision for the government of people under such circumstances. Governors must not rest on theory, but must raise their political structures on the state of the people for whom they are made. Mr. LUCAS said, that without wishing to reflect on the inhabitants of Louisiana, he would say that they are not prepared for a government like that of the United States. Governed by Spanish officers, exercising authority according to their whim, supported by a military force, it could not be said that a people thus inured to despotism, were prepared on a sudden to receive the principles of our Government. It was questionable whether there was a nation in Europe whom these principles would be so advantageous to as they are to us. It would be recollected by gentlemen, who so strenuously advocated the abstract principle of right, that the people of Louisiana have not been consulted in the act of cession to this country, but had been transferred by a bargain made over their heads. It was a proof this act had not been received with approbation by them, that when they saw the American flag hoisted in the room of the French, they shed tears; this was a proof that they were not so friendly to our Government as some gentlemen imagined. He was persuaded the people of the Mississippi Territory would not have acted in this manner. There is no doubt but that after they shall have experienced the blessings of a free Government, they will wonder at their having shed tears on this occasion; but they must, in the first instance, feel these blessings.