Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (19)

A memorial of the inhabitants of the town of Salem, in the State of Massachusetts, signed by a committee, in behalf of the said inhabitants, was presented to the House and read, setting forth that they have beheld, with the deepest regret and anxiety, the aggressions committed on the commerce of the United States, and the consequent violation of neutral rights, under the new assumed principles and adjudications of the maritime courts of Great Britain; that they view with equal abhorrence the impressment of our seamen, the violation of our jurisdiction by captures at the mouths of our harbors, and the insulting treatment of our ships on the ocean, by the same nation, not less hostile than the conduct of other nations, by piratical depredations, and the lawless plunderings of privateers on our coasts; that, while they ask for no measure but what justice approves and reason enforces--claiming merely to pursue a fair commerce, with its ordinary privileges--wishing for peace, for honorable peace, and to support the independence of their country by the acquisitions of lawful industry, they pledge their lives and properties in support of the measures which may be adopted to vindicate the public rights and redress the public wrongs. Referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following letter from the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the House:

SIR: In obedience to the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 27th instant, directing the Secretary
of the Navy “to lay before the House a report on the condition
of the frigates, and other public armed vessels, belonging to
the United States, distinguishing the frigates fit for actual
service; distinguishing such as require repair, and the sum
necessary for repairing each; and distinguishing also such
as it may be the interest of the United States to dispose of
rather than repair,” I have the honor to state--

That the frigate Constitution is now in a state of thorough
repair, and in all respects prepared for service.

That the frigate Chesapeake has lately been repaired and is fit
for service.

That the frigates Adams, Essex, and John Adams, are also fit
for service.

That the brigs Syren, Hornet, Argus, and Vixen, the schooners
Nautilus and Enterprise, the bombs Spitfire and Vengeance, and
all the gunboats are fit for service.

That the frigates President, United States, Congress,
Constellation, New York, and Boston, required to be repaired;
but it is utterly impossible to form an accurate estimate of
the “sum necessary for repairing each.”

I know of no vessel belonging to the navy, which I consider
it would be “the interest of the United States to dispose of,
rather than repair.”

On the motion of Mr. J. Randolph, the first and third sections of the bill to repeal so much of an act as authorizes the evidences of the public debt to be received in payment for public lands, and for other purposes, was referred to a Committee of the whole House.

The discussion which ensued on the details of this bill occupied nearly the whole of the residue of the day.

The committee having reported the bill, with sundry amendments, it was ordered to a third reading to-morrow.

_Neutral Rights._

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said it would be recollected that, very early in the session, so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the invasion of neutral rights by belligerent powers, had been referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. It would also be recollected that another Message on the same subject, or on one connected with it, had been referred to the same Committee of Ways and Means. I understand, said Mr. R. (for my indisposition has not permitted me for some days past to attend to the duties of my seat) that a motion has prevailed to discharge the Committee of Ways and Means from the consideration of that subject. Inasmuch as this discharge may have been effected under an impression that the committee, have been delinquent in executing the duty devolved upon them, I feel it my duty before I surrender the papers connected with this subject, to give some account of the proceedings of the committee. On the eleventh of December the committee instructed their Chairman to write a letter to the Secretary of State, which I will read. Mr. R. here read the letter as follows:

COMMITTEE ROOM, _Dec. 11, 1806_.

SIR: The Committee of Ways and Means have instructed me to
request you will cause to be laid before them such information,
on the subject of the enclosed resolution, as the Department of
State can furnish.

The peculiar objects of our research are--

1. What new principles, or constructions, of the law of nations
have been adopted by the belligerent powers of Europe, to the
prejudice of neutral rights?

2. The Government asserting those principles and constructions?

3. The extent to which the commerce of the United States has
been thereby injured?

I am, with very great respect, sir, yours,

JOHN RANDOLPH.

The SECRETARY OF STATE.

On Saturday night the 25th instant, the Committee of Ways and Means received an answer to this letter, which I will deliver to the Clerk, in order that it may go to the new committee, to which this business has been referred. It is unnecessary for me to add any thing more. The House must be sensible that while the Committee of Ways and Means were in the dark they could not proceed in the discharge of the duties assigned them, and that after receiving information from the Secretary of State so late in the day, it was impossible for them to have made a report by this day; and if I am not mistaken, the motion to discharge the Committee of Ways and Means was made before the answer of the Secretary of State was received.

The Clerk accordingly read the letter of the Secretary of State, as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _Jan. 25, 1806_.

The Secretary of State presents his respects to Mr. Randolph,
and has the honor to transmit him a copy of a report this
day made to the President of the United States, respecting
interpolations by foreign powers, of new and injurious
principles in the law of nations. This report, which the
communications made by the President to Congress, particularly
that of the 17th instant, will, it is hoped, afford the
information requested, for the Committee of Ways and Means, by
Mr. Randolph’s letter of the 11th ultimo.

When, on motion of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, the papers laid by him on the table were referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

FRIDAY, January 31.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM BLACKLEDGE, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Bridge across the Potomac._

The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution in favor of authorizing the erection of a bridge across the Potomac.

Mr. LEWIS.--Mr. Chairman: There is but one point to which, in my opinion, the attention of this committee ought to be directed: Will the erection of the contemplated bridge injure the navigation of the river Potomac? This is the only question applicable to the subject, and the only pivot upon which it ought to turn. Let us, Mr. Chairman, examine the objections and reasoning of the anti-memorialists upon this point. They say in their memorial that “they consider their natural and political rights will be infringed by the adoption of this measure, as the navigation of the river will be injured and obstructed thereby; that from the meeting of the stream and tide-water, at the place where the bridge is contemplated, a tendency will be produced in the impeded stream-water to deposit the earthy particles with which it is charged in time of freshes, and by which they apprehend the present, entire, main and deep channel may be divided into many small and narrow passages, to the great injury of the navigation.” This, sir, is the bare assertion of the counter-memorialists; they have not deigned to state one single fact, or adduce the smallest proof in support of a result which they have taken for granted will be inevitable. Although the proof rests upon the opponents to this measure, and not upon its friends, yet I am willing and prepared to prove, by the best evidence the nature of the case will admit, that the navigation of the Potomac, instead of being injured, will be greatly benefited by the erection of this bridge. Sir, the evidence I shall offer is drawn from experience. It is known that in Europe, as well as in this country, piers have been sunk for the express purpose of deepening the channel, and improving the navigation of rivers, and if this experiment has succeeded in all other countries and rivers, surely it will not fail in the Potomac. It is not to be believed that the Potomac is unlike every other river in the world. But, sir, if we had not the aid of experience before us, common sense and common reason would revolt at the idea of injuring the navigation in the manner stated by the counter-memorialists. If you oblige vessels of all descriptions to pass through your draw and of course pursue the same channel, will it not have a tendency to deepen and clean the channel, by agitating the sediment which may have settled there, and which will by that means be swept away by the current? and instead of a number of small channels, will it not have the opposite effect of improving and deepening the only main channel? Surely this must be the effect. But, Mr. Chairman, whilst I am unwilling to believe that the erection of this bridge can in any manner whatever injure the navigation of the Potomac; yet I will candidly admit that the vessels passing to and from Georgetown will experience some little inconvenience at the draw; but that inconvenience will be so very trifling that it will be entirely lost in a comparison with the great general good which will result to the community. Having proved, as I trust, satisfactorily, that the navigation of the Potomac cannot possibly be injured by the adoption of this measure, let us now examine the inconvenience to which vessels passing the draw will be subjected, for this appears now to be the only remaining ground of investigation. We have been told by gentlemen on this floor well acquainted with the building of bridges and of their effects, that little or no detention is experienced in passing the draws. That it frequently happens that vessels pass through without lowering a sail or being detained a single instant when they have a fair wind, and that at no time is it necessary to detain them longer than from five to fifteen minutes. If this information is correct, (and we cannot possibly doubt it,) where, let me ask, is the very great injury to the very few vessels that will have to pass this draw? When I say very few, Mr. Chairman, I have reference to the statement made the other day by my honorable colleague, the chairman of the committee, whose report is now the subject of discussion. He then told us that his statement was taken from absolute entries made at the collector’s office at Georgetown for the last seven years, and in that time only twenty-one ships, six brigs, one hundred and thirty-two schooners, and fifty-two sloops had been entered there, making in the whole two hundred and eleven vessels of all descriptions. My colleague at that time omitted to mention, or was not apprised of the fact, that of the vessels entered at Georgetown, a very considerable proportion never went there, but were destined for, and actually loaded at the Eastern Branch. It is very well known that within the last seven years a number of large vessels were loaded at the Eastern Branch by Mr. Barry alone, who was at that time engaged in making large shipments of flour and biscuit to the West Indies; yet all these vessels, as well as a great number employed in removing from Philadelphia the furniture of Congress, of the President, and of the public officers, together with those employed in bringing stores, &c., for the navy yard on the Eastern Branch, were all entered at Georgetown, that being the only port of entry for Georgetown and the city of Washington, thereby giving to Georgetown an appearance of commerce which she is not really entitled to. I have ascertained that some years ago several foreign vessels resorted to the port of Georgetown to carry away the tobacco of that town and Bladensburg, and that the ships used to lie in the Eastern Branch to obtain their cargo from both places. That this trade has declined cannot be denied, for it is an incontrovertible fact that the only ship destined for Georgetown last year, called the William Murdock, Captain Tom, was loaded at Barry’s wharf, on the Eastern Branch, because there was not sufficient water over the bar below Georgetown to admit her passage to and from that place. Now, sir, from the whole number of vessels of all descriptions entered at Georgetown for the last seven years, we may fairly deduct one-fourth for those which never went there; there will then remain 158 as having actually passed up the river to that place during that time; which, divided by seven, will be something less than twenty-three vessels in each year, and not quite one for each fortnight. Thus, then, sir, this mighty obstacle--these great delays by a drawbridge--after investigation become very inconsiderable. Indeed, the first is proven to be nothing, and the last too trifling to deserve serious consideration. But, Mr. Chairman, in order to remove every objection, or even doubt, which can possibly exist with any part of the committee, I am willing to insert a clause in the bill obliging the Bridge Company to compensate for any loss by detention at the draw.

We have been told by the counter-memorialists, and it has been reiterated here, “that natural advantages ought not to be injured by artificial means.” Upon this subject, Mr. Chairman, the people of Georgetown ought to have been silent; they are not aware of a retort which this objection will force upon them. Will they recollect, sir, that to artificial means alone they are indebted for the greatest part of their commerce? Will they recollect that from artificial means alone the towns of Baltimore and Alexandria have been deprived of their natural advantages to the exclusive benefit of Georgetown? Do they not know that the improvement of the Potomac above them has diverted from its natural course a commerce which belonged to others and which now enriches them? And will they permit me to remind them that even to the erection of a bridge they owe no inconsiderable share of their commerce? Yes, sir, I will remind the people of Georgetown of advantages from artificial means which they ought not to have forgotten, because to them, in a great measure, they owe their present commercial standing. The bridge below the Little Falls, at the head of the navigation of the Potomac, has given to Georgetown a considerable quantity of produce from Virginia which must otherwise have gone to Alexandria. I am very far from objecting to the means by which the importance of Georgetown has been acquired. I was pleased with the erection of a bridge at the Little Falls, because it was a convenience generally, and particularly so to that part of the country from which I come, and from the same principle I should be glad to see a number of other bridges erected, both above and below the Falls. I have always thought, and still think, there ought to be a bridge at Georgetown, and if the people of that place are of the same opinion, and will propose it, I will promise to vote for it. Is it necessary already to remind the people of Georgetown that for their exclusive benefit one arm of the river Potomac has been entirely closed, by authorizing a dam from Mason’s Island to the Virginia shore, which gives to them, in some measure, a monopoly of the flour which comes down the Potomac? and are we now to be told by the same people that we possess no constitutional right to authorize a bridge across the Potomac for the public good, even with a free passage to vessels of all descriptions, and that even if we possess the right, it would be a wanton and cruel exercise of it? The erection of the dam will certainly prevent flour boats from going to Alexandria at particular seasons of the year, when high winds are frequent, as they will be obliged to go a considerable distance round Mason’s Island, exposed to a wide and unprotected sheet of water, which will subject them to considerable danger, even when the wind is moderate; but before the erection of this dam, the boats could go down to Alexandria at almost any season, and with almost any wind, as they could, and did, always keep close to the Virginia shore, and covered by its banks were perfectly secure. This measure, as well as the erection of the bridge at the Falls, was evidently injurious to the interests of Alexandria. Yet, sir, had we any complaints from that quarter? Were our rights questioned by them, and our motives censured? Were we told by them that “no place should calculate on artificial advantages, which cannot be afforded without depriving other places of their natural advantages?” No, sir, they were silent; not even a murmur escaped them; they had no wish to deprive their neighbors of any advantages they could derive from “artificial means,” although their interests should in some measure be affected by it; they felt none of those jealousies which appear now to influence their neighbors. It is well known that at the last session of Congress I was in favor of the causeway from Mason’s Island to the Virginia shore. I did not believe at that time it could do any injury to the public, and as the people of Georgetown supposed it would benefit them by reclaiming a channel considerably injured by natural causes, I could have no reasonable objection to the experiment, and of course gave to it my support.

Mr. QUINCY supported; and Messrs. DAWSON, G. W. CAMPBELL, MAGRUDER, VARNUM, and MASTERS, opposed the resolution; when the question was taken, and the resolution carried--yeas 60, nays 51. The committee immediately rose and reported their agreement to the resolution. The House took the report into consideration. On concurring in the resolution the yeas and nays were called; and were--yeas 61, nays 49, as follows:

YEAS.--Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger,
Silas Betton, William Butler, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden,
John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Frederick Conrad, Orchard
Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Ezra Darby,
Elias Earle, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, James Fisk, James
M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Silas Halsey, Seth Hastings,
Wm. Helmes, David Hough, Walter Jones, James Kelly, Thomas
Kenan, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jun., Henry W. Livingston,
Matthew Lyon, David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas
Moore, Jonathan O. Mosely, Thos. Newton, jr., John Pugh, Josiah
Quincy, Thomas M. Randolph, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter
Sailly, Martin G. Schuneman, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford,
Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel
Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson,
Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg
Wadsworth, Eliphalet Wickes, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson,
Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, junior, Isaac Anderson, John Archer,
David Bard, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount,
Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, George W. Campbell, John Campbell,
John Chandler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jun., John
Dawson, Peter Early, James Elliot, John Fowler, Charles
Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, John
Hamilton, James Holland, David Holmes, Patrick Magruder, Robert
Marion, Josiah Masters, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Jeremiah
Nelson, Roger Nelson, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John
Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Thomas Sanford,
James Sloan, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, O’Brien Smith,
Samuel Smith, Samuel Tenny, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton,
John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, and
Marmaduke Williams.

_Ordered_, That a bill, or bills, be brought in, pursuant to the foregoing resolution; and that Mr. THOMPSON of Virginia, Mr. CAMPBELL of Maryland, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. MAGRUDER, and Mr. BUTLER, do prepare and bring in the same.

MONDAY, February 3.

A memorial of the merchants of the town of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, was presented to the House and read, stating that they have witnessed, with mingled feelings of indignation towards the perpetrators, and of commiseration for their unfortunate countrymen, the insults and barbarities which the commerce of these States has sustained from the cruisers of France and Spain; but that it is their object, in the present memorial, to confine their animadversions to the more alarming, because more numerous and extensive detentions and condemnations of American vessels, by Great Britain, and to advert to the principles recently avowed and adopted by her courts, relative to neutral trade in articles of colonial produce: principles which, if admitted, or practised upon in all the latitude which may fairly be inferred to be intended, would be destructive of the navigation, and radically impair the most lucrative commerce of our country; and praying that such measures may be adopted, by negotiation, or otherwise, in the wisdom of the Government, as will tend to disembarrass our commerce, assert our rights, and support the dignity of the United States.--Referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

_Intercourse with Great Britain._

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said the House would recollect better than he did, for he was not present at the time, the very important resolution referred on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG,) whom he saw in his place, to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. It was no part of his purpose at this time to discuss the merits of that resolution, and it was still further from his purpose to throw any impediment, or create any delay in bringing forward that discussion; the more so, as he considered the whole country south of the seat of Government, and more particularly that part of the country in which he resided, decidedly interested in a speedy and prompt reception or rejection of the proposition. Indeed, such was his opinion of the necessity of its being speedily acted upon, that as soon as he saw the resolution which had been offered, which was not until Friday, when it was laid on their table, the first suggestion of his mind was to move the going immediately into a Committee of the Whole on it; as those gentlemen with whom he had the honor of holding personal and political intercourse would testify. But a more mature reflection had convinced him that before the resolution could receive that ultimate decision which he trusted it would receive, the House stood in need of material information, which, however it might be in the possession of this or that individual, was not possessed by the body of the House. His object in addressing the House was to obtain this information from the proper authority, from the Head of a Department, which was the only way in which information of a satisfactory nature, such as ought to influence the decision of the House, ought to be obtained. Mr. R. then submitted the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to
lay before this House a statement of the exports and imports
of the United States, to and from Great Britain and Ireland,
and the American colonies of the same, for the two last years,
distinguishing the colonial trade from that of the mother
country, and specifying the various articles of export and
import, with the amount of duties payable on the latter.

Mr. SMILIE expressed himself in favor of the resolution, and observed that the species of information called for, had not been received by the House later than 1803.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD was of opinion that it would be best to extend the resolution so as to embrace the British Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the provinces beyond the Cape of Good Hope.

A conversation of some length ensued between Messrs. CROWNINSHIELD, BIDWELL, and ALSTON, on the one side; and Messrs. J. RANDOLPH and J. CLAY, on the other, on amending the resolution. The former gentlemen were for amending the resolution so as to embrace a period of peace as well as war, and to obtain information from “all the dependencies of Great Britain,” which the latter gentlemen opposed on various grounds, one of which was, that if this additional information were desirable, it could be obtained by a distinct resolution.

On Mr. CROWNINSHIELD’s motion to amend the resolution, so as to extend it to “British dependencies,” generally, the House divided--ayes 43, noes 67.

Mr. NICHOLSON suggested the propriety of adding the following words to the resolution, in which the mover acquiescing, they were incorporated into it:

“And also a statement showing in detail the quantity and value
of the like articles of import brought into the United States,
from other nations respectively, with the rate and amount of
duty thereon.”

The resolution, thus modified, was agreed to without a division.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD then moved the following resolution. He said, in substance it was the same with the amendment which he had proposed to the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia:

_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to
lay before this House a statement of the amount of the exports
and imports to and from the British dependencies, other than
those of America, for the last two years.

This resolution was likewise agreed to without a division.

WEDNESDAY, February 5.

_Non-Intercourse with Great Britain._

Mr. CLAY.--The gentleman from Massachusetts having laid on the table a resolution arising out of the present state of our foreign relations, and as that subject is one on which I think there cannot be too much deliberation before we act, or of which too many views cannot be taken, I will take the liberty of submitting some resolutions which I have drawn up, and to which I ask the attention of the House. In the present state of our relations with foreign powers, it appears to me that a system of commercial regulations, mild and yet firm, one which can be carried into permanent effect without much inconvenience to ourselves, will be more effectual than any temporary expedients. If we are disposed to adopt such a system, it will be looked upon by foreign nations as one in which we are likely to persevere. They will consider its probable effects in time of peace upon their colonial possessions, and they may be induced to enter into permanent regulations opening to us a trade with their colonies. The distinction attempted to be made between a war trade and an accustomed trade will be destroyed, and with it the only pretext upon which are founded the vexations and depredations committed on American commerce. The present is a favorable moment for the adoption of such a plan. At this time the ports of the belligerent powers are open, and the effect of the measures, which I am about to propose, will not have an immediate distressing effect upon the West Indies. If these measures are taken, the powers of Europe will find that, unless they admit our ships into their colonial ports in time of peace, the trade between their colonies and us will be cut off by a system which will be but slightly injurious to ourselves. I think, I repeat it, that a permanent system, mild but firm, will be more likely to induce Great Britain, in particular, to recede from the unjust pretensions she has set up, than more violent and extreme measures, which, from their very nature and their injurious consequences to ourselves, must be necessarily temporary.

Mr. C. concluded, with offering the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- next, no trade or
intercourse in any ship or vessel owned in whole or in part
by any citizen or subject of any foreign Government, shall be
permitted between the United States or their Territories, and
any port or place in the colonies or dominions of any European
power, which trade or intercourse is not permanently permitted
by the laws or regulations of such European power, to be
carried on in ships or vessels of the United States.

_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- aforesaid, no
goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be exported from the United
States or their Territories, in any ship or vessel owned in
whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign
Government, to any port or place in the colonies or dominions
of any European power, the importation of which into such
port or place, in ships or vessels of the United States, is
not permanently permitted by the laws or regulations of such
European power.

_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- aforesaid, no
goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be imported into the United
States or their Territories, in any ship or vessel owned in
whole or in part by any citizen or subject of any foreign
Government, from any port or place in the colonies or dominions
of any European power, the exportation of which from such
port or place, in ships or vessels of the United States, is
not permanently permitted by the laws or regulations of such
European power.

_Resolved_, That, after the ---- day of ---- aforesaid, no
goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be imported into the United
States, in any ship or vessel owned in whole or in part by
any citizen or subject of any foreign Government, excepting
articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the
colonies or dominions of such foreign Government, unless such
importation be expressly permitted by treaty between the United
States and such foreign Government, or unless during a war in
which the United States may be a party.

The House immediately considered these resolutions, and referred them to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

_Importation of Slaves._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill imposing a duty of ten dollars on every slave imported into the United States.

Mr. JACKSON offered a new section, the object of which was to prohibit the importation into the United States of all slaves, brought either from abroad or from any State, except, in the latter case, by citizens of the United States removing to a Territory, to settle therein.

Mr. JACKSON viewed this provision as necessary, in consequence of a legal construction given to an act of the last session, which allowed the importation of slaves from abroad into Louisiana.

This motion was opposed by Messrs. ALSTON, ELY, MORROW, SPALDING, and SLOAN, who either viewed it as inexpedient in itself, or as proper to be introduced into a distinct bill.

Mr. JACKSON said, as it was the wish of his friends, he would withdraw the motion, and offer it on another occasion.

No farther amendments having been offered the committee rose, and reported their agreement to the bill.

The House immediately considered the report.

The amendment limiting the imposition of the tax to the first day of January, 1808, was disagreed to; and the other amendments agreed to.

Mr. JACKSON inquired what the effects would be of the forfeiture of the cargo, in case slaves were smuggled into the United States? Would they be kept in the service of the United States? He did not wish to have any thing to do with them.

Mr. JOHN C. SMITH said, he had voted for the resolution; but the defects in the details of the bill were so glaring, that he hoped it would be referred to a select committee, that it might be so modified as to cure these defects; or, that in case it were found insusceptible of modification, it might be rejected. Mr. S. accordingly moved the recommitment of the bill to a select committee.

Mr. JACKSON advocated this motion, and remarked that the proviso of the bill that declared the duty should not be construed as giving a sanction to the importation of slaves, offered an additional reason for either rejecting or recommitting it. How could this language be used with propriety in a law, when the constitution, the highest authority, authorized the trade?

Mr. QUINCY spoke to the like effect, and further inquired, whether it was the intention of gentlemen to apply the provisions of the bill to slaves navigating the ships of the United States.

Messrs. HASTINGS and SLOAN defended the provisions of the bill as perfectly correct. They observed that slaves were considered as property, as merchandise, and could only, therefore, in the bill be treated as such.

The motion to recommit was lost--ayes 39, noes 61.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD spoke against the bill, and moved its postponement to an indefinite day.

Messrs. JOHN C. SMITH, TAGGART, and RHEA of Tennessee, supported; and Messrs. SLOAN, ELMER, and SMILIE, opposed the motion; when the yeas and nays were called on it, and were--yeas 42, nays 69, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton,
Phanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, Joseph Bryan, William
Butler, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, Christopher Clark,
Matthew Clay, Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Samuel
W. Dana, John Davenport, junior, John Dawson, Elias Earle,
Peter Early, James Elliot, James M. Garnett, Edwin Gray, James
Holland, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Robert
Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, David Meriwether,
Thomas Moore, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Thomas M. Randolph, John
Rhea of Tennessee, Thomas Sanford, O’Brien Smith, Thomas
Spalding, Samuel Taggart, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas
W. Thompson, David R. Williams, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Isaac Anderson, John Archer, Joseph Barker, John
Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, John Chandler, John
Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Leonard Covington, Richard Cutts, Ezra
Darby, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William
Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Andrew
Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, Seth
Hastings, David Holmes, David Hough, Nehemiah Knight, John
Lambert, Michael Leib, Joseph Lewis, junior, Matthew Lyon,
Patrick Magruder, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan
O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Thomas Newton, junior, Joseph H.
Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, John Rea of Pennsylvania,
Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons,
Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie,
John Cotton Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard,
Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, Lewis B. Sturges, Philip R.
Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph
B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill,
Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander Wilson, and
John Winston.

Mr. JACKSON moved to strike out the proviso of the bill, which motion was disagreed to; when the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow--ayes 69.

THURSDAY, February 6.

Another member, to wit, from South Carolina, RICHARD WYNN, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

FRIDAY, February 7.

_Non-Importation of Slaves, into Territories._[32]

On motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS the House came to the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether
any, and if any, what additional provisions are necessary to
prevent the importation of slaves into the Territories of the
United States.

A committee of five members were appointed.

_Removal of Federal Judges on the Address of Congress._

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH, agreeably to notice given by him yesterday, made the following motion:

_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds
of both Houses concurring_, That the following article
be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States,
which, when ratified and confirmed by the Legislatures of
three-fourths of the said States, shall be valid and binding as
a part of the Constitution of the United States:

The Judges of the Supreme, and all other courts of the United
States, shall be removed from office by the President, on the
joint address of both Houses of Congress requesting the same.

The House having agreed to consider the motion, it was, at the instance of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH gave notice that he should call up this motion on Thursday.

_Naval Peace Establishment._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill relative to a Naval Peace Establishment.

Mr. GREGG explained at some length the provisions of the bill. The bill, he said, corresponded with the intimations of the President relative to giving an opening to the promotion of several officers who had greatly distinguished themselves in the Mediterranean service. He stated that the bill contemplated giving the President power to keep in service nine hundred and twenty-five able and ordinary seamen and boys, making two-thirds of the full complement of six frigates, two of forty-four guns, two of thirty-six, and two of thirty-two; that it contemplated the increasing the number of captains from ten to thirteen; the creation of nine masters-commandant, and the increase of lieutenants from thirty-six to seventy-two. This arrangement was proposed, in order to give to the young officers in the navy that rank and reward merited by them, and to enable the doing this, without interfering with the rules of promotion usual in the naval service.

Mr. LEIB spoke against the feature of the bill that augmented the number of officers. It appeared to him, indeed, a pension bill, and to make large allowances without services rendered. It also contemplated the keeping six frigates in service, and provides for them thirteen captains, nine masters-commandant, and seventy-two lieutenants. He did not consider the Treasury in such a state of overflow as to justify this liberality.

Mr. GREGG said the gentleman had misunderstood his remarks as well as the nature of the bill, which, so far from directing six frigates to be kept in actual service, repealed that part of a former law which contained this provision.

No motion having been made to amend the bill, the Chairman proceeded in the reading of the remaining sections; when

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH expressed his opinion that the bill required considerable amendment, and that he had understood from the Secretary of the Navy that its provisions were not consonant to that system which he considered the most conducive to the public service. With a view to obtain fuller information relative to the subject, he moved that the committee should rise and ask leave to sit again.

This motion obtained, without opposition, when the committee rose and received leave to sit again.

MONDAY, February 10.

Another member, to wit, DUNCAN MCFARLAND, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

_Importations from Great Britain._

Mr. NICHOLSON said he wished to lay on the table a resolution relative to the subsisting differences between the United States and Great Britain, on which several resolutions had already been offered.

Mr. N. said he had seen two propositions, neither of which he liked. One was a resolution offered by a gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG.) When he considered that our importations from Great Britain amounted annually to about twenty-five millions of dollars, and that the whole of this trade was, according to the proposition of the gentleman, to be prohibited; and it was also considered that the average amount of duties on articles imported from Great Britain was twenty per cent., it would at once be seen that the measure would affect the revenue to the amount of five millions annually.

Nor did it, in offering these resolutions, appear to have been taken into view, that while the measure had a very material effect on the revenue, it had likewise an immediate effect on the habits of our citizens who consumed goods imported from Britain. With regard to the single article of cotton, its prohibition would operate in three different ways. In the first place, the wants of our people will be increased in proportion to the prohibition of cotton goods; in the second place, the revenue would be affected by it; and in the last place, it was extremely probable that the foreign demand for the raw material we furnish would be considerably diminished. A single fact would evince this with some force. In the year 1791, there were exported to Liverpool 64 bales of cotton; and in the first nine months of 1805 there had been exported to the same place 93,000 bales. This would show what the effect might be of the prohibition of the importation of articles manufactured from cotton in Great Britain on the demand for the raw material we furnish.

Mr. N. then submitted the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That, from and after the ---- day of ---- next,
the following articles, being of the growth, or manufactures
of Great Britain or Ireland, or of any of the colonies or
dependencies of Great Britain, ought to be prohibited by
law from being imported into the United States, or into the
territories thereof, viz:

All articles of which leather is the material of chief value;
all articles of which tin or brass is the material of chief
value, tin in sheets excepted; all articles of which hemp or
flax is the material of chief value; all articles of which silk
is the material of chief value; woollen cloths, whose invoice
prices shall exceed ----; woollen hosiery of all kinds; window
glass, and all other manufactures of glass; silver and plated
wares; paper of every description; nails and spikes; hats;
clothing ready made; millinery of all kinds; playing cards;
beer, ale, and porter; and pictures and prints.

This resolution was immediately considered by the House, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

_West India Trade._

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD said, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. NICHOLSON) had offered several resolutions prohibiting the importation of sundry articles of British manufactures into the United States. Mr. C. observed that he had another project which he wished to submit, relative to our trade with the British West Indies. He did not mean at this time to discuss the subject, either so far as it was connected with the propositions of the gentleman from Maryland, or with that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, which went to a much greater extent. But with regard to one idea expressed by the gentleman from Maryland, he thought it proper to say a few words. That gentleman had observed that the proposition offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would affect the revenue to the amount of five millions of dollars; and therefore impressed upon the House the duty of being extremely cautious in taking such a step. Mr. C. said he did not believe the adoption of that proposition would affect the revenue to any such extent. He did not believe it would affect the revenue to the amount of a million of dollars. Because, although we should prohibit the importation of British goods, we could get most of the same articles from other countries. We get salt from Cadiz, and Lisbon, and from several other places. Rum could be got from every island in the West Indies; and if we should not be able to get a sufficient quantity to supply our wants, we could import from France brandies, which will be a good substitute. We may also get woollens from the continent of Europe, and every article on the list, perhaps at higher prices. It was not, however, Mr. C. said, his object at this time to discuss the merits of either proposition. His chief object was to offer his own project, which related to the West Indies. Every one knows that those islands are dependent on the United States for the necessaries of life; that they cannot get many important articles they absolutely want from other countries. Every one knows that for fish, beef, pork, and lumber, they are dependent on us, inasmuch as they cannot get them elsewhere. How is the trade carried on? Great Britain has adopted a curious commercial principle, bottomed on the principle of her navigation act; which in time of peace almost amounts to a prohibition to introduce into her islands any articles of ours; and which in time of war opens the ports of a few of her islands for the introduction of particular articles for three or six months. Mr. C. said he wished to see this trade permanently open to the citizens of the United States. He thought it probable this might be done by the adoption of his plan. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had offered a proposition which was calculated to meet in part the practices of Great Britain. The first resolution related to trading to the West Indies in foreign vessels, and not in vessels of the United States. Every one knew that in the trade between the United States and the West Indies there were either none, or very few foreign vessels.

Mr. C. then offered the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That, from and after the ---- day of ---- next,
no goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be exported from, or
imported into, the United States or the territories thereof,
in any ship or vessel whatever, to or from any European
colonies or settlements, situated on the eastern side of the
continent of America, or its adjacent seas, northward of
the Equator, unless the importation of all articles of the
growth, product, or manufacture of the United States and their
territories, in American bottoms, is at all times admitted into
the said colonies, or settlements, and unless the exportation
of the productions of the said colonies, or settlements, is
permanently allowed in American bottoms from the same to the
United States, and the territories thereof.

WEDNESDAY, February 12.

_Limits of Georgia._

Mr. SPALDING, from the committee to whom was referred, on the thirteenth ultimo, the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Georgia, made a report thereon, which was read, as follows:

The committee to whom was referred the memorial of the
Legislature of the State of Georgia, respecting disputed limits
between that State and the State of North Carolina, having
taken into consideration the matter of the said memorial, as
well as such information as the documents attached to the
memorial and former reports made to this House afford, beg
leave to submit the following report:

Between the latitude of 35 degrees north, which is the southern
boundary claimed by North Carolina, and the northern boundary
of Georgia, as settled by a convention between that State and
South Carolina, intervenes a tract of country supposed to be
about twelve miles wide, from north to south, and extending in
length from the western boundary of Georgia, at Nicajack on the
Tennessee, to her north-eastern limits, on the Tugalo. This
tract was consequently within the limits of South Carolina,
and in the year 1787 it was ceded to the United States, who
accepted the cession. This territory remained in possession of
the United States until 1802, when it was ceded to the State
of Georgia. From the most correct information relative to the
said territory, it appears that it is inhabited by about 800
souls, and (to adopt the words of a former report) it is not
shown at what period they made the settlement, nor had they any
title to the land on which they settled and made improvements.
No such title indeed could have been created, as those lands
remained within the boundary of the Cherokees until the year
1798, when a part of this territory was purchased by a treaty
held at Tellico. It does not appear that the lines that bound
the tract of land in question, and divide it from Carolina,
have ever been established by public authority.

After the transfer of this territory by the United States to
Georgia, the Legislature of that State, in compliance with
the earnest request of those self-governed people, praying
that they might be allowed to participate in the civil rights
enjoyed in common by the people of the United States, passed
an act in the year 1803 to organize the inhabited part of the
territory, and to form it into a county, authorizing, at the
same time, the Governor to appoint commissioners, to meet such
commissioners as should be appointed by the Government of North
Carolina to ascertain and plainly mark the line dividing this
territory from North Carolina. The Governor of North Carolina
expressed a readiness to accede to the proposition, under the
provisions of a former act of the Legislature of that State,
but clogged with a condition which the Legislature of North
Carolina refused to depart from, and which the Legislature
of Georgia refused to accede to. Her reason may be found
in a letter from General Pickens, of the State of South
Carolina, attached to a report made to the House respecting
that territory while the property of the United States. The
letter states, that before the people inhabiting that territory
settled on the lands, it was surveyed, and grants obtained for
most part of it from the State of North Carolina, and probably
by men who cared little whether the land was within the
Indian claim or the limits of South Carolina. Your committee
conceive that they have no right to enter into the feelings
of either of the parties, or to pronounce upon the justice of
the condition made by North Carolina on the one part, or its
rejection by Georgia on the other, and have therefore confined
their attention to that part of the memorial which calls upon
Congress to define and mark out the thirty-fifth degree of
latitude--the line which North Carolina admits to bound her
State--upon the south and north of which Georgia can have no
claim of territory. Your committee, after giving to this point
the most deliberate consideration, are of opinion that the
United States are bound, in good faith, to use their friendly
offices with the State of North Carolina for obtaining an
amicable adjustment of the limits of the territory, which they
have transferred to Georgia, in all parts where such limits may
be disputed.

Your committee, therefore, beg leave to offer the following
resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States
be authorized to appoint a commissioner, to meet such
commissioners as may be appointed by the States of North
Carolina and Georgia, for the purpose of ascertaining and
running the line which divides the territory transferred by the
United States to Georgia, from North Carolina.

The report was read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

THURSDAY, February 13.

_Society of Harmony._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill received from the Senate, the object of which is to authorize the location of a quantity of land in the Indiana Territory by George Rapp and his associates, they paying two dollars therefor, and giving them a credit, without the payment of interest, for six years, when they are to pay one-fourth of the purchase money, and the residue in six annual payments, on condition that, agreeably to prescribed terms, the vine shall be cultivated.

Mr. MCCREERY stated that George Rapp and his associates, amounting to about 3,000 persons, were natives of the Electorate of Wirtemberg; that they were Lutherans, who had fled from oppression in that country; that they were mostly cultivators of the vine, and wished an extension of the usual time for paying for public lands, they not having the means of the common payment; they wished to live together, and to cultivate the vine for their principal support, for their prosperity, and for the good of the community, in introducing its culture into this country.

Mr. ELY observed that the bill appeared to give a preference in the sale of the public lands; that the bill was presented from the Senate without the documents or testimony which might justify this preference; he therefore moved that it should be committed to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. GREGG.--They obtain a whole township of the best land at only two dollars per acre, and it is proposed to extend to them an unusual indulgence in the time of payment. He would not agree to it.

Mr. FINDLAY spoke in favor of the bill.

Mr. CONRAD.--The indulgence of time for payment is not unprecedented. He showed an act granting twelve years for payment where land was purchased for the same purpose, and that act does not bind the purchasers to plant the vine, whereas this does. It were better to make a present of the land than not have the settlement among us of such persons. If not thus sold, it is more than probable that the land will lie waste and unsold more than the six years.

Mr. OLIN.--If we can be justified in a sale of this kind, why oblige foreigners instead of our own countrymen? We have citizens enough of our own who would be glad to purchase on such terms.