Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (27)

Mr. A. said it was time--high time--that this House had come to some determination upon this important subject. It was time that the public mind was put to rest. It was time that the American people were informed of the extent that we intended to go, and of the steps we intended to take towards Great Britain, in order to meet the aggressions committed by that Government upon the commerce of our country. He verily did believe the resolution submitted by the gentleman from Maryland, the merits of which it was in order upon the present motion to discuss, better calculated to have the desired effect upon that Government on whom it was intended to operate, than any other plan or project which had been submitted or talked of, inasmuch as it was only a commercial regulation or restriction, acknowledged by all Governments in the world to be perfectly within the control of every independent nation. Some gentlemen had thought it not sufficiently strong--that something more efficient should be adopted. For his part, he did believe it much stronger, as to the effect it would have in bringing Great Britain to terms of amicable adjustment, than that which had been submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and which was now sleeping on the table. This, Mr. A. said, was that kind of commercial regulation that carried with it the appearance of a determination to persevere in it; and, in his humble opinion, it was well calculated to distress that nation who had so long persisted in a regular system of aggression towards us. On the contrary, that which had been submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was such a one as Great Britain would plainly discover we ourselves did not mean to persevere in, because it would readily be seen, that, while it distressed her, it would be equally injurious to us. Another reason suggested itself why he would prefer the resolution now under discussion. It seemed to be understood, on all sides, let which should be adopted, or whatever course should be pursued, that no system was to go into operation immediately--that full time was to be given for an attempt at friendly negotiation. It was intended as an expression of public sentiment. It was, therefore, of great importance to this nation, that the sentiment expressed should be with as much unanimity as possible. It was evident to all that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, from the violent opposition it had met with, could not, if carried at all, be carried by that majority that the one now under discussion could. If, therefore, he in the first instance had been in favor, he should, after the discussion which had already taken place, think himself, for the sake of harmony alone, perfectly justified in abandoning it. The resolution now under discussion, which was offered by the gentleman from Maryland, could not be objected to, as the other had been, on the ground of its being in any manner whatever calculated to produce war, if adopted in the full extent in which it was submitted. The object of the present resolution is a prohibition of certain articles, the growth and manufacture of Great Britain and her dependencies, from being imported into the United States; most of which articles, Mr. A. said, he was advised by those better acquainted than himself with mercantile transactions, could be obtained from other countries; and those which could not be obtained, we could either do very well without, or raise within ourselves. What effect, then, would this measure have upon Great Britain? No person would deny that it would lessen in her own country the value of her manufactures. Whilst our citizens at home were perfectly content, the voice of the artisan, the manufacturer, and the laborer in Great Britain, would be raised against the aggressions committed by their own Government, which caused us, and in fact compelled us, in self-defence, to enter into the regulation proposed.

MONDAY, March 17.

_Importations from Great Britain._

The motion for the committee to rise having been rejected, the question was taken on the resolution originally proposed by Mr. NICHOLSON, when the committee rose, and the House concurred in its adoption--yeas 87, nays 35, as follows:

YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson,
David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger,
Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas
Blount, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William Butler, George W.
Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark,
Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., Frederick
Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, William
Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W.
Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson
Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaac L. Green, Silas
Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G.
Jackson, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Matthew
Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah
Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow,
John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H.
Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea
of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John
Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman,
James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry
Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B.
Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill,
Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan
Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, and
Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Silas Betton, Phanuel Bishop, James M. Broom, John
Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, Leonard Covington,
Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Elias Earle, Caleb Ellis,
William Ely, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Seth
Hastings, David Hough, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan
O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Timothy Pitkin,
jr., Josiah Quincy, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas
Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges,
Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R.
Thompson, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Mr. EARLY moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means to bring in a bill.

WEDNESDAY, March 19.

_Death of Senator Jackson, of Georgia._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been informed that the honorable JAMES JACKSON, Esq., one of the Senators from the State of Georgia, died yesterday, have appointed a committee to take order for superintending his funeral.

The House then proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House will attend the funeral of JAMES JACKSON, Esq., late a member of the Senate of the United States.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House do wear mourning on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of that distinguished revolutionary patriot.[36]

_Canal at the Rapids of the Ohio._

Mr. BOYLE, from a committee appointed, on the tenth ultimo, on the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole, to whom was committed, on the fifth instant, the report of a select committee on the petition of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company. The report is as follows:

That, of the practicability of opening the proposed canal, and
of its preference to one contemplated on the opposite side of
the river, as well on account of the greater facility of its
accomplishment, as of the superior advantages that would result
to the navigation of the river, when accomplished, may, in the
opinion of the committee, be correctly estimated by reference
to a draft of part of the river, and notes explanatory thereof,
which accompany the memorial. Of the immense utility of the
proposed canal no one can doubt who reflects for a moment
upon the vast extent of fertile country which is watered by
the Ohio and its tributary streams, and upon the incalculable
amount of produce which must, of course, necessarily find its
way to market by descending that river and encountering the
danger and difficulties of passing its rapids. But, besides
the general advantages which would result from the completion
of the proposed canal, it is, in the opinion of the committee,
particularly interesting to the United States, inasmuch as it
would greatly enhance the value of the public lands north-west
of the Ohio. There can be but little doubt that, by the
additional value it would give to the public lands, the United
States would be more than remunerated for the aid which the
Legislature of Kentucky have solicited.

From these considerations the committee would not hesitate
to recommend a donation or subscription of shares to the
amount contemplated by the law of the Legislature of Kentucky
incorporating the Ohio Canal Company, if they believed the
state of the public finances was such as to justify it. But,
from the applications already made for aid in opening canals,
it is probable that, if the United States enter upon expenses
of this kind, those expenses cannot be inconsiderable; and, as
the revenue of the United States is already pledged, almost
to the full amount, for purposes, though not more useful, yet
more urgent, the committee are induced to submit the following
resolution.

_Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to grant, at present, the
aid solicited by the Legislature of Kentucky, in opening a
canal to avoid the rapids of the Ohio.

FRIDAY, March 21.

_Potomac Bridge._

An engrossed bill to authorize the erection of a bridge over the river Potomac, in the District of Columbia, was read the third time; and on the question that the said bill do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 61, nays 52.

About 2 o’clock Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he had a motion to make, which required the galleries to be cleared. They were accordingly cleared.

WEDNESDAY, March 26.

_Importation of British Goods._

The bill to prohibit the importation of certain British goods, wares, and merchandise, was read the third time.

The yeas and nays were called for on its passage.

The question to recommit the bill having been disagreed to, it passed--yeas 93, nays 32, as follows:

YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson,
David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger,
Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas
Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John
Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay,
Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., John Clopton, Frederick
Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield,
Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, William Dickson,
Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John
W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson
Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas
Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G.
Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Matthew
Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion,
Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas
Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger
Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin,
John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania,
John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter
Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver,
James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry
Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill,
Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan
Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Silas Betton, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Martin
Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Caleb Ellis,
William Ely, James M. Garnett, Seth Hastings, David Hough,
Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy
Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas Sanford,
John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William
Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge,
Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram
Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, and
Peleg Wadsworth.

THURSDAY, March 27.

_Introduction of Slaves into Territories._

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, from the committee appointed on the seventh ultimo, presented a bill to prohibit the introduction of slaves into the Mississippi Territory, and the Territory of Orleans; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Saturday next.

FRIDAY, March 28.

_Plurality of Offices._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolutions submitted some time since by Mr. J. RANDOLPH.

_Resolved_, That a contractor under the Government of the
United States is an officer within the purview and meaning of
the constitution, and, as such, is incapable of holding a seat
in the House.

_Resolved_, That the union of a plurality of offices in the
person of a single individual, but more especially of the
military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit
of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the
introducing of an arbitrary government.

_Resolved_, That provisions ought to be made, by law, to render
any officer in the army or navy of the United States, incapable
of holding any civil office under the United States.

The question was taken on these resolutions without debate.

The first was agreed to--ayes 54, noes 37.

The second was agreed to--ayes 75; and

The third was agreed to without a division.

When the committee rose and reported their agreement to the resolutions.

The House immediately considered the report.

On concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the first resolution,

Mr. FISK said he sincerely regretted it was not in his power to vote for this resolution. He regretted there was no such principle in the constitution as is prescribed. Such a principle not being in the constitution, he did not conceive it in the power of the House to make the provision. It was not, in his opinion, in their power to say a man should not hold a seat in that House who was not prohibited by the constitution. It was on this ground only he was against the resolution under consideration.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I think the gentleman from Vermont may in perfect consistence with the principle he has laid down, which I do not mean at present to contest, give his vote in favor of this resolution. He says that this House has not a right to make a disqualification which the constitution itself does not attach to the tenure of a seat on this floor; that the constitution draws a line between the qualification and disqualification of a member, and that this House has no right to alter them. What do we propose to do? To add a new disqualification? No; to do that which the constitution put in our hands, which it not only authorizes but enjoins upon us. The constitution declares that each House shall be the judge of the qualification of its members. It is clearly, then, the duty of the House to expound what is or is not a disqualification; and we are now only about to declare what is such a disqualification--merely to expound the constitution on this head. I know some gentlemen are startled at the idea of expounding the constitution. But do we not do this every day? Is not the passage of every act a declaration on the part of this House that a decision upon it is among their constitutional powers? Or, in other words, is it not an exposition of the constitution? So, in this instance, I will suppose a man returned to serve as a member of this House, and that he is declared, for some reason, to be disqualified from holding a seat. This, according to the gentleman, would be expounding the constitution. We propose doing no more than saying, if the Secretary of State, or Chief Justice, should come here, they cannot hold a seat. We say that an abuse exists under the constitution, and offer a remedy.

I have heard some quibbling about the meaning of the word “officer.” What is the meaning of office? Agency; it is the office of a man’s cook to dress his dinner, of a tailor to supply him with clothes; and it is the office of a contractor to fatten on the land--to acquire lordships, demesnes, baronies--extensive territory--by the advantage he derives from holding the public money, in virtue of his contract. But it is asked, if a contractor is an officer; and whether he can be impeached? because, under the constitution, all civil officers are liable to impeachment. Would you impeach the Marshal of the District of Columbia? It may be answered that you may impeach him, but that you would not probably do so, because that would be breaking a butterfly on the wheel. Would you impeach a deputy postmaster? And yet when the postmaster at New York accepted his appointment, did he not vacate his seat in the Senate? There is no doubt a contractor is an officer _pro tempore_--it is not an office in perpetuity, but created for a time, and for a particular purpose. And I will ask, if it is not more dangerous to the independence of the two Houses to admit commissioners and contractors within their walls than officers with legal salaries and appointments? If we are to admit either, I say, give me the legal officer, with a determinate salary and definite powers, rather than the contractor who may gain thousands and tens of thousands of dollars by a single job. But, if the gentleman from Vermont is of opinion that a contractor is not an officer, under the constitution, I hope he will join me in another vote, on an amendment which I shall beg leave to offer--this goes only to purge these walls, not those of the other House. I mean an amendment declaring void all contracts made with members of either House, and on this principle: between the sessions of the Legislature it is possible for a member to receive a lucrative job, by which he may put thousands in his pocket, and which being completed in the recess, and there being nobody to take cognizance of it, it will be impossible to apply a remedy. But, I hope this construction, which, so far as relates to our own House, we have an undoubted right to make, will obtain as the true construction of the constitution.

But it is said that this House, and Houses which may hereafter meet, may give the constitution a different construction. No doubt of it; and this may operate to the end of time. A former House passed a sedition law; a subsequent House deemed the law unconstitutional. It is true they did not declare it so, and I am sorry for it; but there is no doubt of the fact. Now, we may pass a sedition law again to-morrow, and the people rise up against it, and send different members to represent them. The people may again slumber; as long as you keep your hands from their pockets, they will keep their eyes from yours; and, in the same way, this law may be repealed. I can, therefore, see no force in this objection. The courts of justice undertake to expound the constitution, and shall not the House of Representatives be as competent to do this as any court of justice? I will suppose a case, that of a man condemned under the Sedition law by a tribunal of justice. Suppose men of different principles come on the bench, would they hesitate to reverse the preceding decision of the court? Indisputably not. Here, too, then, we would behold varying and repugnant decisions.

Mr. EPPES.--I have no doubt that every objection which can be made to a member of this House holding a civil office during his continuance as a Representative, applies with equal force to his holding a lucrative contract. The framers of the constitution in excluding civil officers from the floor of this House, most certainly intended to prevent any species of dependence which might influence the conduct of the Representative--to prevent his looking up for preferment to the Executive, or being biased in his vote by Executive favor. A lucrative contract creates the same species of dependence, and every objection which could be urged against an officer, applies with equal force against contractors, who are dependent on the Executive will, and particularly carriers of the mail. While, however, I make this admission, I do not believe we have power to pass this resolution. The words of the constitution are: “No person holding an office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.” These words are plain and clear. Their obvious intention was to have excluded officers, and officers only. It would certainly have been equally wise to have excluded contractors, because the reason for excluding officers applies to them with equal force. We are not, however, to inquire what the constitution ought to have been, but what it is. We cannot legislate on its spirit against the strict letter of the instrument. Our inquiry must be, is he an officer? If an officer, under the words of the constitution, he is excluded; if not an officer, we cannot exclude him by law. It is true, as has been stated, that, by the constitution, we are made the judges of the qualifications of our own members. This judgment, however, is confined within very narrow limits. The constitution prescribes the qualifications of a member. We can neither narrow nor enlarge them by law. Our inquiry can go no further than this: has the Representative the qualifications prescribed by the constitution? An extensive meaning has been given to the word “office.” How far such a construction of the meaning of this word is warranted, I leave for others to decide. That all contractors are not officers, I am certain. A man, for instance, makes a contract with the Government to furnish supplies. He is certainly not an officer, according to the common and known acceptation of that word. He is, however, a contractor, and, under this resolution, excluded from a seat here. A carrier of the mail approaches very near an officer. The person takes an oath, is subject to penalties, the remission of which depends on the Executive. His duties are fixed and prescribed by law. Near, however, as this species of contract approaches to an office, I do not consider that the word “office” in the constitution can include even this species of contract. I consider the word “office” in the constitution ought to be construed according to the usual import and meaning of that term; and as I do conscientiously believe that the word “office” and the word “contract” cannot be tortured to mean the same thing, I shall vote against the resolution.

Mr. ALSTON.--While I am as much opposed as any man to see any holder of public money within these walls, I cannot justify myself in declaring what is or what is not the constitution. If in any case this ought to be done, this surely should be the last. What is its effect? To deprive a member of his seat on the vote of a bare majority, when the constitution has declared that “no seat shall be vacated, but on the vote of two-thirds of the members.” Let this House say so, and what becomes of a contractor, if any such there be within these walls? The decision of the House will be in violation of the constitution. No man who knows me will imagine that I have any partiality for contractors holding seats within these walls. I have never held a contract, or received a cent of the public money but for my wages as a member of this House. I am, therefore, as disinterested as man can be on this point. If there is a contractor within the meaning of the constitution, let him be pointed out. I am not certain how I shall vote upon such a proposition. But I will not declare beforehand a particular construction of the constitution. If I believe the case comes within the constitution, of which I am not certain, I will vote for clearing the House of such a member. But I will not consent to a majority declaring in this way what they cannot carry into effect. How can this be done? If you cannot get two-thirds of the members of this House to vacate the seat, I ask what becomes of the resolution declaratory of the meaning of the constitution? But it is idle to pass a declaratory resolution unless it can be carried into effect. One thing I will say, if the mover will modify his resolution so as to impose a penalty on any officer who shall make a contract with a member of Congress, I will give it my consent. For I wish to see no man in these walls dependent on the Government. I still adhere to the principle which I set out with, when I entered into public life, for I became a member of the legislature of the State which I have the honor to represent at the age of twenty-one; but there was no office in the gift of any government which I would possess. This is a principle to which I strictly adhere, and I do not believe I have any relation on earth who holds an office, numerous as my relatives are.

Mr. R. NELSON said he was sorry that he could not on this occasion, consistent with the oath he had taken to support the constitution, advocate the resolution under consideration. He agreed that it was highly improper for contractors to hold seats in that House, as there were many cases in which they could not give a free and impartial vote; but in his opinion there was no power to exclude members from a seat, unless that power was contained in the constitution. He said he would give his idea of the spirit and meaning of the constitution on this point. They were bound by its letter--where the letter and the words of it were plain, they were bound strictly to adhere to them; where, from the wording, the meaning was doubtful, or difficult, every member was bound to put that construction which his judgment dictated. But where there was no difficulty, where the words were plain and obvious, he would ever raise his hands against what was called the spirit of the constitution, or, in other words, giving it a meaning which the words would not bear. If this power existed in the constitution, it must be found under that section which declares, that “No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House, during his continuance in office.” The question then comes to the single point: Is a contractor an officer under the constitution? If he is, there is no doubt he may be excluded from a seat in this House; but if he is not, he cannot be excluded. What then is the idea of an officer under the constitution? It either must be recognized by the constitution, or some law passed in conformity to it, for no man under the Government has a right without law to create as many offices as he pleases. The Postmaster-General has a right to contract for carrying the mail; he may employ for this purpose fifty, five hundred, or five thousand men. Will any body thence contend that the Postmaster-General has the right of creating five thousand offices? Our constitution has been justly extolled as the freest in the world, and as the best calculated to promote the happiness and security of the people. It has been called free in contradistinction to those despotic governments, where all the offices are held up to sale. Is not this the case with contracts? Are they not uniformly given to the lowest bidder? What government of principle then is this, which proposes to put a construction upon the constitution, by which offices under the Government shall be thus exposed to sale? But are they in truth officers of the United States, recognized either by the constitution or laws? No, they are not officers of the United States, they are mere hirelings of the Postmaster-General; he has not the power of setting up the constitution to the highest bidder. If so, it is no longer a free constitution; it does not deserve the eulogiums which have been so justly passed upon it.

Mr. EARLY.--I would not rise to trouble you were not the yeas and nays to be recorded on this question. I am as fully sensible as the honorable mover of the resolution, or any other gentleman on this floor, of the extreme impropriety, to say the least of it, of persons remaining members of this House who hold a contract under the Government to which any emolument is attached. With him and them I believe, that of all descriptions of appointment, this is the most improper to be blended, where the emoluments are not fixed by law, but rise or fall with circumstances. I am therefore as willing as any person can be to adopt any measure to effect a remedy of this evil, which we possess the constitutional right of doing. My difficulty on this subject is not the same with that presented to the minds of some gentlemen, that we are not authorized to pass a resolution putting a construction upon the constitution. On this subject, by the constitution we are made judges of the qualifications of the members of this House. If so, we are necessarily judges of their disqualification also. One power implies the other. I therefore have no difficulty on this score. The simple question is, in my mind, whether a contractor is an officer under the constitution? My own opinion is decidedly in the negative--an opinion formed after the most mature reflection. I can appeal to you, sir, that I have sought after truth on this subject with industry; and I can appeal to other members to attest my having contemplated early in the session the offering a resolution as the foundation of a law, to give effect to the object of the gentleman from Virginia, to declare void any contract made by any officer under this Government with any member of either House. So far I am prepared to go, if any member shall introduce such a proposition. The passage of such a law will remove the inconvenience which might arise from interfering decisions made in this House at different times, and will prevent the existence of a different rule in the two branches of the Legislature.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH admitted that this might be, as he was convinced it was with many gentlemen, and hoped it was with all, a question admitting of a fair difference of opinion. It was a question that respected the construction of the Constitution of the United States. The point in issue, whether a contractor is or is not an officer of the United States, had been set aside by being begged. Gentlemen argue as if it was proposed to add a new qualification to holding a seat on this floor, when in truth, no such question existed; the only question was, whether there was an existing disqualification. While I am up, said Mr. R., permit me to say the gentleman from Maryland has, with a peculiar infelicity, abandoned the ground which he had first taken. He says that a contract cannot be an office, because the former are put up to sale; and because no man, under the constitution, can possess the power of creating an indefinite number of offices. And yet, how are those men who carry the mail or discharge the duties of postmasters appointed, but on the mere _dictum_ of the Postmaster-General? And how are foreign Ministers appointed? They are not appointed by law. The President nominates as many as he pleases, and is only limited by the money at his disposal. As to the offices under the Postmaster-General, as has been alleged, being let to the lowest bidder, I believe it would be difficult to establish the allegation. I understand that that is not the principle on which they have been let out. We are told that a contract is nothing but a bargain. It certainly is a bargain. But suppose the office of Postmaster-General, as that seems in this debate to have engaged so much of the attention of gentlemen, should be let to the lowest bidder; would the person that discharged those duties be less an officer of the United States? There is one office which I believe is always let to the lowest bidder--a common executioner. Who is he? The deputy of the sheriff: and _quo ad hoc_, he is as much an officer as the superior who employs him.

Mr. ELMER said it was perfectly clear to him, that the members of that House were not at liberty to vote for the resolution under consideration. Both common sense and the constitution forbade considering a contract in the light of an office, and he had never before heard it contended that they were equivalent terms. He would cordially give his vote for any law which could be constitutionally passed, to get rid of speculation and corruption of any sort, but the oath which he had taken to support the constitution limited his power, which he could not transcend.

Mr. KELLY said he would concisely assign the reasons which would induce him to vote against the resolution. He did not believe an officer and a contractor meant the same things. With regard to the contractors holding a seat on that floor, it might happen that a man might be a contractor without being in the least disqualified from impartially discharging all the duties of a member, as the contract which he formed might be more for the good of others than his own benefit. He, however, allowed that where a person held a seat, and made use of the power it gave him to make a contract, he was highly censurable. Still he was of opinion that it was not in the power of the House to declare the two appointments incompatible, unless the constitution expressly authorized them. In examining the constitution he found no such provision. Though it had been attempted to be shown that a contractor and an officer were one and the same, he believed they were very distinct things. A contractor receives no authority from Government; his contract was derived from an officer, and all the power he possessed was derived from him, who was only amenable for the performance of the duty to the person who appointed him. A contractor could not, therefore, be considered as an officer under the constitution, amenable to the United States.

Several allusions, said Mr. K., have been made to cases which have occurred under the Postmaster-General, but until these shall be particularly pointed out, it will be impossible for us to decide how we are to act. I believe that it does not become this House to pass declaratory acts relative to the constitution. It ought, in my opinion to stand on its own footing; and every case that is presented ought to be decided, not by a declaratory act, but by the constitution itself. My colleague says that the judges of the federal as well as State courts take an oath as well as we do, to support the constitution; and that, notwithstanding they are in the daily habit of construing the constitution. But there is a wide difference between their deciding particular cases which properly come before them, and this House going into a general declaration without any such particular case. Would the judges undertake to declare the meaning of the constitution without the existence of a particular case calling for their decision? So that the very thing which the House is about doing, has been invariably avoided by the judges.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on agreeing to the resolution--yeas 25, nays 86.

MONDAY, March 31.

_Yazoo Claims._

A message was received from the Senate informing the House that they had passed a bill to carry into effect the provisions of the eighth section of the “Act regulating the grants of land, and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States south of the State of Tennessee.”

The bill having been read the first time--

Mr. R. NELSON said he should not, on this occasion, go into an examination of the principles of the bill, as they were well understood by the House. They went to practise one of the grossest impositions he had ever known. In order to get rid of what he considered a stain on the statute book, and a disgrace to the nation, he moved that the bill be rejected.

The question was accordingly put from the Chair, “Shall the bill be rejected?”

On the motion of Mr. LEIB, it was determined to take the yeas and nays.

The question was then put, Shall the bill be rejected? and passed in the affirmative--yeas 62, nays 54, as follows:

YEAS.--Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, George M.
Bedinger, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount,
Robert Brown, William Butler, Levi Casey, John Claiborne,
Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
Frederick Conrad, John Dawson, Elias Earle, John W. Eppes,
James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg,
Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Thomas
Kenan, Michael Leib, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah
Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, John Morrow, Gurdon
S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin,
John Pugh, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of
Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford,
Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel
Smith, Henry Southard, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford,
Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Whitehill, Robert
Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn,
and Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Willis Alston, jun., Joseph Barker, Silas Betton,
Barnabas Bidwell, John Campbell, John Chandler, Martin
Chittenden, Orchard Cook, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts,
Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jun., William
Dickson, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William
Ely, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Isaiah L.
Green, Seth Hastings, William Helms, David Hough, John G.
Jackson, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jun., Matthew Lyon, William
McCreery, Jeremiah Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson,
Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, John Russell, Peter
Sailly, Martin G. Schuneman, John Cotton Smith, Joseph Stanton,
William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin
Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas W. Thompson,
Uri Tracy, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg
Wadsworth, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, and Nathan
Williams.

So the bill was rejected.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved that the House adjourn. He said that a few days ago the House had adjourned on account of the death of General Jackson. He hoped they would now adjourn on account of his resurrection. For he had told him, that if he could give a death-blow to the Yazoo business he should die in peace. Adjourned, yeas 58.

TUESDAY, April 1.

_Plurality of Offices._

On motion of Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, the House took up the report of the Committee of the Whole on sundry resolutions agreed to by them on the 28th ultimo. When the question was put on concurring in the report of the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the second resolution as follows:

2. _Resolved_, That the union of a plurality of offices in
the person of a single individual, but more especially in the
military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit
of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the
introducing of an arbitrary Government:

Mr. BIDWELL said he would very concisely assign his reasons for voting against this resolution. It declares that “the union of a plurality of offices in the person of a single individual, but more especially of the military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the introducing of an arbitrary Government.” It appeared to him that this was not a correct declaration. If the constitution itself be referred to, it will appear that it recognizes a union of civil and military offices in the same person. Such a union is to be found in the First Magistrate of the United States, who exercises the highest Executive civil functions, and is at the same time Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia while in actual service. The same principle pervaded the constitution, he believed, of every State. There was also a union of civil and military authority in several offices, by acts of Congress. This was the case with the marshals in certain cases, and officers who are charged with the superintendence of Territorial affairs. If it were proper, said Mr. B., as I do not think it is, by a vote of this House, to undertake to define the constitution, it still appears to me that we cannot consistently say that the union of a plurality of offices in the person of a single individual, but more especially of the military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. A declaration of that kind would be a vote of censure on the people of the whole United States, for having adopted the Federal Constitution, on the people of the several States, for having adopted their constitutions, and on the Legislature under both Governments, for having passed laws which authorized such a union.

Mr. J. CLAY said, the objections of the gentleman arose from not having properly considered the nature of the union of civil and military office in the First Magistrate. By the constitution, the military was placed in strict subordination to the civil power. For this reason the President of the United States had placed under his control all the officers of the Army and Navy. The union contemplated in the resolution before you, said Mr. C., is that which gives the actual discharge of civil powers to an officer who has actual command of your army. I ask if it was ever in the contemplation of the constitution, that the President should in person head your armies and command your fleets? I believe not. There exists in one of the Territories such a union as is contemplated in the resolution. In Louisiana a person holding the office of Governor, is at the same time Commander-in-chief of the Army of the United States, in virtue of his appointment of Brigadier-General. Will any man pretend to say that a union of offices, such as these, the discharge of whose duties is incompatible, is such a union as is contemplated in the constitution? No; the union in the constitution was only intended to give the President a control over the Army and Navy; while this resolution contemplates the positive and actual union of powers in the same person, powers which at the same time he may be called upon to exercise at different and distant places. To separate these powers is the object of the resolution. I hope the resolution will be agreed to, and the separation take place.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--My friend from Pennsylvania has left me little to say on the question, and indeed I have heard nothing in the shape of argument, or assertion, but what I was prepared to hear, and of which I apprised the House some time ago. It has come out at last from the lips of a man who has prided himself upon being the champion of the Constitution of the United States to-day, although but a few days ago he threatened us with a dissolution of the Union, that the constitution has no spirit in it. He calls on any man to lay his finger on that spirit. What does the Constitution of the United States say? Does it not guarantee to each State a Republican form of Government? Is there no spirit in this? Is not the constitution then devised under the influence of a Republican spirit, for the benefit of the people who are governed by it, and not for the exclusive benefit of those who administer it? Will any man pretend to say that a Republic is any thing or nothing? And that it is congenial to such a Government that the civil and military authority should be vested in the same hands? Is it not of the very essence of such a Government that the military should be kept in strict subordination to the civil power? And have not your laws, which give to marshals in certain cases a power over the military, been passed to keep the military under such subjection? How is the military to be kept in such subjection, when, according to the usage of the Romans, the leader of an army is the Governor of a province? If the constitution has no spirit in it, it is a dead, lifeless thing, not worth the protection of any man of sense. But I am happy that it has a spirit, which I trust will save this nation, even if its letter shall be killed.

Mr. QUINCY said he would merely observe, that, though it were true that a union of civil and military offices in the same person was repugnant to the spirit of the constitution, it was not true that a union of different offices in the same person was repugnant to it. They had to-day united two offices in the same person, in the bill relative to the Territory of Michigan. They had heretofore constituted several of the officers of the Government Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. He could see nothing in the constitution which interfered with a plurality of offices, which in many instances was attended with great practical benefit. As there was therefore in the constitution nothing explicit against this union, he could not vote for the resolution.

Mr. GREGG said he believed it was contrary to the spirit of the constitution, that civil and military offices should be united in the same person; but, he would ask, what benefit would result from such a declaration? The power of appointing to office was vested in the President and Senate, who were sworn to support the constitution. They were, therefore, the judges of the powers with which they were invested. In the exercise of this power, they have actually declared that they do possess it. What does this resolution amount to? If they undertook to declare the President guilty of such a flagrant act as involved a violation of the constitution, it was their business to impeach him. Mr. G. said, as he could see no good likely to arise from this resolution, he should not vote for it. The practice it referred to was not new, though he had always thought it wrong. He recollected, that, some years since, the Governor of the North-western Territory was likewise Superintendent of Indian Affairs and Commander-in-chief of the Army, for all which appointments he drew pay, though no notice had been taken of it. Other instances of the same kind might be pointed out. He did believe this union was contrary to the spirit of the constitution--to the true spirit of a Republican Government--and if the gentleman from Virginia would bring forward an amendment to the constitution to prohibit such a union, he would vote for it.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--Six years ago, there could not have been a doubt of the right of this House to pass this resolution--now, the right is disputed. Have we not a right to pass a resolution referring to the constitution, in order to bring in a law grounded on it? Do we not do this every day? One word as to the appointment of General Wilkinson. Gentlemen are fond of sheltering themselves behind great names. I have no hesitation in saying I think the Executive was wrong in making that appointment. I have no hesitation in saying so here, though gentlemen who join me out of doors are reluctant to make the same declaration on this floor. I do not think, however, the persons who made the appointment as reprehensible as the persons at whose importunate solicitation it was made. I believe that a man of good sense, and of upright intentions, may be induced to do that which his own judgment will afterwards condemn. It is well known, that the ante-chambers of our great men were crowded with applicants for offices in Louisiana. I have understood that for every office there were at least one hundred and fifty applications. Thus much for the idea which has been thrown out of the existence of a scarcity of characters to supply these offices.

Mr. VARNUM considered the resolution as going too far, and said it was a very common thing for two offices to be united in one man. It had been usual to unite the diplomatic character with the military command in our intercourse with the Indians, and a diplomatic character had likewise been given to our naval commander in the Mediterranean. Instances of a plurality of offices in one person were very numerous. If there existed, at present, any case, in which such a union was incompatible with the discharge of official duties, he hoped it would be pointed out; whether there was or was not, he could not say. But where did the responsibility for such appointments lie? Not that House, but the other branch of the Legislature was responsible; for the correct discharge of whose duties they were accountable to the people. Where, then, was the propriety of an interference by the House? If the President made an appointment against the spirit of the constitution, the people would know it. Was it presumable that if a law was to pass this House, predicated on the resolution under consideration, the other branch of the Legislature would agree to it, after having sanctioned the appointments at which it is levelled? Was this House to sit as a court of censure? The constitution did not delegate such a power. Our very laws, in various cases, direct the union of office prescribed by the resolution. Ought we not, then, in the first place, to repeal those laws before we pass a resolution in direct hostility to them?

Mr. V. said, he had no hesitation to observe, that the military and civil office should, in general, be kept distinct; but he believed there were cases where it was necessary. He was perfectly willing to leave the responsibility where the constitution had placed it--in the hands of the President and Senate. With regard to the union of the military office in the cases alluded to, he would not undertake to say whether it was proper or not. He could readily, however, conceive, that the union arose from the most correct motive, as the country was a frontier, which might be menaced with danger, and which might require the united exercise of the military and civil authority to repel it.

Mr. J. CLAY said he would ask whether the ordinary union of military and civil powers in the Governors of the Territories was such as that contemplated in the resolution? The case of the Governor of Louisiana had been alluded to, where the same person, he believed, received the pay of Governor and Brigadier. Is that the case with the other Governors? He believed gentlemen would not say that it was necessary that the Governor of New Orleans should be a brigadier-general in the army; and yet they allowed that to be the most vulnerable point on the frontier. If, then, they say that the union is necessary in one case, they will admit that it ought to be in the other.

Mr. LEIB said that, viewing the resolution as an abstract proposition, he had no objection to giving it his support; but if it was intended as a side attack upon the Administration, he was not prepared to vote for it. Before he was prepared to act on it under this view, he wished for facts which were not before the House. He, therefore, moved a postponement of the resolution till Monday.

The motion to postpone was lost.

The question was then taken on agreeing to the resolution, and decided in the negative--yeas 31, nays 81.

WEDNESDAY, April 2.

_Claim of Beaumarchais._

Mr. BASSETT presented to the House a petition of Amelia Eugene Beaumarchais, heiress and representative of the late Caron de Beaumarchais, deceased, by J. A. Chevallie, her attorney, which was received and read, praying to be relieved from an unfavorable settlement at the Treasury of the United States, of the accounts of the deceased, for supplies furnished, and services rendered to the United States, during the Revolutionary war with Great Britain.

_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of Claims.

_Charlestown, Va._

Mr. JACKSON called for the order of the day, on the report of the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, on the petition of sundry inhabitants of Charlestown, in Virginia, praying that that place should be made a port of entry.

Mr. LEIB moved an indefinite postponement of the report.

Mr. JACKSON opposed this motion, and spoke at some length in favor of the constitutional right of the petitioners to be allowed a port of entry.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, though against postponement and in favor of discussing the principle, contested the right.

Mr. LEIB withdrew his motion; when the motion to consider the report was disagreed to--only 13 members rising in favor of it.