Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (32)

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I shall give my vote in a very different manner from the gentleman who has just sat down. I was extremely happy to witness the very prompt and decided opposition this measure received in the House, and from the quarter whence that opposition originated; and I subscribe with great pleasure to the sound constitutional doctrine, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania advanced this morning before our doors were opened. We are now told that to reject this bill at its first reading, will be to depart from the usual course of proceeding in this House, and an attempt is made to enlist the feelings of members so far at least as to permit the bill to progress one step farther, that we may avoid violating that decorum which ought to be observed between the two Houses. I do not, however, consider the subject in this light. I conceive, on the contrary, it is as competent to us to reject the bill on its first as on any other reading. I well recollect that about eight years ago an important bill was smuggled through the House by this fastidious mode of proceeding. Gentlemen were allured from their honest opinions, and finally, by finesse and management, the bill was carried through the House. I understand that this course is pursued by the other branch of the Legislature on bills carried from this House; and I believe it will be found that with regard to the passage of bills between the two Houses, the course of procedure on the part of this House is more liberal than that pursued by the other. For I do not recollect a single instance in which the vote of a single member can stop the passage of a bill in this House received from the other branch of the Legislature. I, therefore, feel no scruples on this score. I think it just as well to say, that we will permit this bill to pass to a second or third reading, as to say that though we are opposed to the principle contained in a resolution which may originate in this House, we nevertheless permit a committee to bring in a bill to carry it into effect, because we may destroy the bill at its last stage. This appears to be a strange course of reasoning. It is like permitting yourselves to be bound in chains that you may be loosed again, or going into prison that you may afterwards come out. Gentlemen talk of the propriety of discussing this subject, but when a subject is so clear that every man has made up his mind upon it, where is the need of discussion? If it is not so clear, will any gentleman say that the discussion now had, in which every member has a right to speak twice, which is once more in my opinion than is necessary, will not be sufficient to develope all the merits and demerits of the bill? Will gentlemen undertake to say, if every member shall give the mature, or as it may be, crude suggestions of his mind, that the subject will not be sufficiently discussed, and lead to the formation of a correct judgment? I believe it will. And therefore, on this ground, a bill may as well be decided in its present stage as before a Committee of the Whole.

Some gentlemen, to whom I have listened with considerable gratification, tell us that, out of respect to the other branch, we ought not at this time to reject the bill. I, however, feel no such respect on this occasion, and shall express none. On the contrary, I am free to declare, that when a measure, tending to impose a burden on the people, or to detract from the privileges of the citizen, comes from that quarter, I shall always view it with jealousy. The inequality of the representation in that branch, the long tenure of office, and the custom with which they are so familiar of conducting their proceedings in conclave, (the House will recollect how long it was after the adoption of the constitution before the public could get admission into their twopenny gallery,) render all their proceedings touching the public burdens, or the liberties of the people, highly suspicious. And to say the truth, I am not at all surprised that they did close their doors on this occasion, that they might not be under the inspection of the public eye, while they were passing the bill on the table. I say so, because I am willing to abide by the good old principle of judging all men by myself; and if I had introduced such a bill, I should have been glad, my name did not appear on the Journals, that the public might not know to whom they were indebted for such a precedent.

I have another objection to the bill, besides that of the quarter from which it originated, or the manner in which it has been presented to the House. It appears to my mind like an oblique attempt to cover a certain departure from an established law of the land, and a certain violation of the Constitution of the United States, which we are told have been committed in this country. Sir, recollect that Congress met on the first of December, that the President had information of the incipient stage of this conspiracy about the last of September--that the proclamation issued before Congress met, and yet that no suggestion, either from the Executive or from either branch of the Legislature, has transpired touching the propriety of suspending the writ of habeas corpus until this violation has taken place. I will never agree in this side-way to cover up such a violation, by a proceeding highly dangerous to the liberty of the country, or to agree that this invaluable privilege shall be suspended, because it has been already violated, and suspended, too, after the cause, if any there was, for it has ceased to exist. No; I wish to be true to those principles which I have constantly maintained, and, God willing, ever will maintain so long as I have a seat on this floor, or have life. It has heretofore been the glory of those with whom I have acted, that in all our battles we have combated for the principles of the constitution and the laws of our country, in the persons of those in whom they have been attempted to be violated, however infamous and contemptible. When those principles were prostrated under the sedition law, what did we say? That the character of the man accused could not change the laws of the land, or impair his rights--that we would support the constitutional rights of the citizen, in the person of the meanest reptile, as well as in the persons of those who occupy the highest stations in society. We have done so--let us continue to do so, regardless of popular clamor or odium, and we shall still continue to find ourselves on true ground. We never inquired what kind of a man Callender was--we said, such is the law and the constitution; let justice take its course. I could quote other examples equally strong, but in deference to the feelings of the House I shall desist from doing it.

I beg pardon for detaining the House so long. I will, however, endeavor to express the remaining ideas I have to offer in a few words. There is another consideration which renders this bill highly objectionable. I consider the case as now at issue, whether the United States is under a military or civil government, or, in other words, whether the military government is subject to the civil power, or the civil authority to the military. I conceive that a case has occurred, in which the military has not only usurped the civil authority, but in which it has usurped nothing short of omnipotent power; and I consider this bill as calculated to give a softening and smoothing over to this usurpation; and on this ground I cannot assent to it. Suppose this bill either to pass or not to pass, what has been the practice under the constitution? By the expression, under the constitution, I do not mean conformably to it. Men have been taken up by a military tribunal, and have been transported contrary to law. I say transported, for if a man can be transported from the district where the offence with which he is charged was committed, he may also be deported to Cayenne, or transported to Botany Bay. And even you yourself, (addressing the Speaker,) if such acts be sanctioned by this bill, in your passage from this House to your lodgings, may be arrested, put on board a vessel and carried whithersoever the military authority may choose. To this I will never give my consent. It has been very well remarked by my colleague, that this is not the first case in which an insurrection has occurred in the United States, but that it is the first case in which an attempt has been made to suspend the precious privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

I put it to any man, whether, now that we have received information of the extent of this conspiracy, and when we find that Catiline, Cethegus, and Lentulus, have not as many brother conspirators as themselves, this conspiracy is equal to that in Pennsylvania in 1794 or 1795? In physical force it is not comparable to it, however in intellectual talent it may be. I conceive then that according to the Constitution of the United States, there is but one case in which the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended, and I should not go into this view of the subject, if it had not been misstated by all those who have preceded me in the debate. My view of the subject is this--that this privilege can only be suspended in cases in which not merely the public safety requires it, but that the case of the public safety requiring it, must be united with actual invasion or actual rebellion. Now, with whatever epithets gentlemen may dignify this conspiracy, I am not even of the opinion of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. R. NELSON)--I think it nothing more nor less than an intrigue--and I am happy that I can declare on the honor, not of a soldier, but of a citizen, that I believe it to be a foreign intrigue, availing itself of domestic materials for answering its purposes, and poor indeed must be the soil of this, or of any other state of society, which would not furnish such materials.

A gentleman from Massachusetts has stated to the House that the organization and administration of the Government, at this time, forbids the apprehension of any abuse being made of the powers delegated under this law. Surely, sir, the gentleman could not mean to urge this as any thing new. He must have known, if he had consulted history--as doubtless he has--that the king _de facto_, and the administration _de facto_, are always above suspicion. That there never was a proposition brought forward, that did not find a majority ready to say, There is surely no danger of any improper use of this power in our time, for we are all honorable men, and we would not delegate it, if an improper use could be made of it; and that, if we reject a measure, we ought not to do it so much on account of ourselves, as on account of those who come after us. And what will those who come after us say of us? They will follow our example, and declare that the character of their forefathers was above every doubt and every suspicion. Now, for myself, I beg leave to be permitted to disclaim every argument of this kind. I do not, indeed, consider it fair to introduce such an argument. Let us take up the question on its own merits and demerits, without any allusion or reference to our own virtues, or the degeneracy of posterity. For myself, I have no hesitation in saying that I will not grant this power at any time, except under the most imperious necessity; and I say this without any disrespect to this honorable body, or to any of the public functionaries. Take man as he is, and in his best estate, you find him an animal prone to abuse and corruption. There does not exist a single constitution or law in the world, that does not enforce this salutary truth.

I shall consider this bill, if it passes, as establishing a new era in the Government. When I was a boy, I recollect to have consulted such chronological tables as I could get access to. I recollect to have read, that at a certain time, monarchy was abolished in Rome; a little while after, the first Dictator was named; then the second Dictator--and I believe, as in a case of apoplexy, she scarcely got over the third fit. I believe a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus might have, here, the same effect as the establishment of the first Dictatorship at Rome. In what situation would it place yourselves and the citizens of this country? It would leave them at the mercy, not merely of a justice of the peace, but at the mercy of every subaltern officer of the army and navy. I believe it would comport as much with the safety and interest of this confederacy to give us power to send these people off, as to put this power in their hands. I believe we should be as trustworthy as they. And, let me ask, what compensation to an innocent man, to a man of honor and feeling, to a man of character, who should be tied neck and heels and sent off to New Orleans, and who should ultimately be proved to be innocent--I ask what compensation it would be to him to bring an action of damages? Against whom? A man without visible property? And what action? An action on the most mercenary principle. To be indemnified in his fame by dollars and cents. The injury would be irreparable. At present, all stand under the law. If any one offend, let him be brought under it. But, in this way, to put a man in an oyster boat, or skipper, and transport him to a distance from the place of his arrest, and then say he shall have a remedy, in case of his innocence, against an inferior officer, is absurd. If we pass such a bill, which God forbid! it should contain a large appropriation, and Government should be obliged to make good the injured party--to afford him redress. I say they should grant a large appropriation, for it is not for men with epaulets and gold buttons to make reparation. If the bill passes, we are told it will be but temporary. Why, the Sedition law was but temporary; and I think, sir, (alluding to the Speaker,) you were one of those who aided its passage--much against your will--by being present at the altar when it was more than once re-enacted. As to its three months continuance, I consider that as one of the most objectionable features of the bill--as a bait to the trap; as the entering wedge. If it is made reconcilable to the interests and feelings of this House to pass it for three months, do you think we will then feel the same lively repugnance to it that we now do? No! It has been truly said, that no man became perfectly wicked at once; and it may be affirmed, with equal truth, that a nation is never enslaved at once. Men must be initiated by degrees, and their repugnance must be gradually overcome. Let me state a case. It is proposed to extend the time of service of the Executive Magistrate from four, to five, or eight years, or for life. If it be prolonged for a term, do you believe we shall stop at its expiration? No! Once extended for life, he will then claim the power to choose his successor, and the hereditary principle will follow. This is the old trick. Let me, however, tell gentlemen that old birds are not to be caught with chaff, though, unfortunately for them, the mass of mankind does not consist of old birds. Pass one other law, and I would quit the country. A twin brother to this same bill was introduced into the British Parliament in 1794; and that bill to prevent seditious assemblies, was brought forward for about as good reasons as this. According to it, if four or five persons assembled, and refused on the notice of a magistrate, to disperse, they were considered guilty of sedition, and were dispersed by force. These two bills form a complete tyranny--and tyranny of the most odious kind, because established under the mask of liberty. Was the tyranny of Robespierre less intolerable, oppressive, or odious, because inflicted in the name of the people, than a like tyranny in Turkey, under the Grand Seignor and his Muftis? Take one other thing along with you. These two fatal wounds, inflicted on the liberties of the English nation, were inflicted by the man who came forward in the character of a reformer--by the man who came forward as the advocate of a Parliamentary reform; from which circumstance he acquired that popularity which enabled him to inflict those deadly wounds on the liberty of his country.

Having said so much with regard to the principle, permit me to add one word on the details of the bill. There is a departure in it from the known, accustomed, and received language of the constitution, in the use of the word “authority.” The words are “warrant or authority.” The expression is, in my opinion, too lax. Perhaps, we may be told, that the bill may be amended on the third reading. But my objection to the principle contained in it is such, that I will not consent to carry to a third reading that which under no amendment can be rendered palatable to my taste. Mr. R. concluded by observing that he had so far exhausted himself that he was unable to go on.

Mr. SMILIE.--I shall not detain the House long by the remarks which I propose to make on this subject. I shall waive all observations on the mode of proceeding on this occasion--whether we shall reject the bill on its first, or suffer it to go to a second reading. The question is now put, and I am called upon to give my vote, either in the affirmative or negative. I, therefore, feel under a necessity to put my negative upon it. I consider this one of the most important subjects upon which we have been called to act. It is a question which is neither more nor less than, whether we shall exercise the only power with which we are clothed, to repeal an important part of the constitution? It is in this case only, that we have power to repeal that instrument. A suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is, in all respects, equivalent to repealing that essential part of the constitution which secures that principle which has been called, in the country where it originated, the “palladium of personal liberty.” If we recur to England, we shall find that the writ of habeas corpus in that country has been frequently suspended. But, under what circumstances? We find it was suspended in the year 1715, but what was the situation of the country at that time? It was invaded by the son of James II. There was a rebellion within the kingdom, and an army was organized. The same thing happened in the year 1745. On this occasion it was found necessary to suspend it. In latter times, when the Government had grown more corrupt, we have seen it suspended for an infinitely less cause. We have taken from the statute book of this country, this most valuable part of our constitution. The convention who framed that instrument, believing that there might be cases when it would be necessary to vest a discretionary power in the Executive, have constituted the Legislature the judges of this necessity, and the only question now to be determined is, Does this necessity exist? There must either be in the country a rebellion or an invasion, before such an act can be passed. I really doubt whether either of these exist. I really doubt whether a single law of the United States has been, as yet, violated. I will not say this is the fact; but I do not know any thing to prove the contrary. But, supposing that a rebellion does exist, we are then left at liberty to decide whether it is such a one as to endanger the peace of society to such a degree that no ordinary remedy will answer. If an ordinary remedy will not, it may be our duty to apply an extraordinary one. What is this mighty business? What is the opinion of the Executive as to its danger? Does he consider it dangerous? It is a little remarkable that, in every instance under the British Government, the proposition of such a measure originated with the Executive, while here, without any intimation of danger from the Executive, we propose, on our own suggestion, to suspend one of the most valuable privileges that is secured to the citizen. Let us attend to the communication of the President on this subject. He states that, according to his information, the persons concerned in the conspiracy depend on receiving two kinds of aid; foreign aid, and aid derived in their own country. After giving his opinion of the foreign aid expected, he says:

“On the whole, the fugitives from the Ohio, with their
associates from Cumberland, or any other place in that quarter,
cannot threaten serious danger to the city of New Orleans.”

The President declares that, in his opinion, there is no danger to be apprehended. With regard to foreign force, he states his reasons for thinking there is no danger. As the Message is in the hands of every gentleman, there can be no necessity for me to read it. But he explicitly declares, from the state of our relations with other nations, there can be no danger from that quarter. This being the deliberate opinion of the Executive Magistrate, who is more deeply responsible on this occasion than any other member of the Government, is it not most extraordinary that we should attempt to take steps which can only be justified in the last resort? Are gentlemen aware of the danger of this precedent? This is the first attempt ever made under the Government to suspend this law. If we suspend it when the Executive tells us there is no danger, on what occasion may it not be suspended? Let us suppose that it shall be suspended on this occasion, what will be its effect? Parties will probably for ever continue to exist in this country. Let us suppose a predominant party to conjure up a plot to avenge themselves. Do not gentlemen see that the personal liberty of all their enemies would be endangered? I mention this to forewarn gentlemen of the dangerous ground before them. I do not say that our country may not, at some future day, be in such a situation as to justify such a suspension, but I have never yet seen her in such a situation, and, at this moment, I think it does not exist. When we see the great body of the people so firmly attached to their Government, ought we to be thus alarmed on beholding a few desperate and unprincipled men attempting to stir up an insurrection? There is another consideration which will induce me to give my hearty negative to this bill. If foreign nations see that we are obliged, under such circumstances, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, will it not show that the constitution is incapable of supporting itself, without the application of the most dangerous and extraordinary remedies?

Mr. DANA.--I understand that the question is, whether the bill shall be rejected on its first reading, without passing through the ordinary forms of proceeding. In such cases, the ordinary question is, Is there any thing in the bill proper for the House to deliberate upon? If they are of opinion that it can be modified in such a way as to ensure its passage, it ought to go to a Committee of the Whole. This was my opinion when the motion was first made to reject the bill. I was disposed to vote against the question, although the bill went to repeal the constitution. I have been accustomed to view the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as the most glorious invention of man. I was notwithstanding, however, from a respect to the other branch of the Legislature, disposed to investigate the subject--to examine whether there was any necessity for it. As, on the one hand, I was inclined to believe that the judgment of the Senate had, on this occasion, been tinged by a strong abhorrence of rebellion; so I was willing, on the other, to take time to guard myself against an equally strong feeling of abhorrence of dictators. But, on one principle, I cannot agree to consider this bill as a proper subject of investigation, for one moment. I perceive, on further examination of the bill, that the Senate have provided for its suspension in cases where persons have been already presented. Had it been confined to future arrests, I might have agreed to deliberate on it, but viewing it in the light of an _ex post facto_ law, I must give it my instantaneous negative. There is another principle which appears to me highly objectionable. It authorizes the arrest of persons, not merely by the President, or other high officers, but by any person acting under him. I imagine this to be wholly without precedent. If treason was marching to force us from our seats, I would not agree to do this. I would not agree thus to destroy the fundamental principles of the constitution, or to commit such an act, either of despotism or pusillanimity. Under this view of the subject, I am disposed to reject the bill, as containing a proposition on which I cannot deliberate.

The yeas and nays were then taken on the question, “Shall the bill be rejected?”--yeas 113, nays 19, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph
Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton,
William W. Bibb, Phanuel Bishop, John Blake, jr., Thomas
Blount, James M. Broom, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William A.
Burwell, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Campbell,
Martin Chittenden, John Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay,
George Clinton, jr., Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard
Covington, Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jr.,
John Dawson, Theodore Dwight, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb
Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William
Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Charles
Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas
Halsey, John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, James Holland, David
Holmes, David Hough, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, James
Kelly, Thomas Kenan, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jr., Henry
W. Livingston, Edward Lloyd, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland,
Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, William McCreery, David
Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow,
John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson,
Thomas Newton, jr., Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Porter, John
Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas M. Randolph, John
Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell,
Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer
Seaver, James Sloan, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, John Smith,
Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, William
Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge,
Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Uri
Tracy, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van
Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill,
David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander Wilson, Joseph
Winston, Richard Wynn, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Evan Alexander, John Archer, Barnabas Bidwell, John
Chandler, Richard Cutts, Elias Earle, Isaiah L. Green, William
Helms, Josiah Masters, Gurdon S. Mumford, Gideon Olin, Thos.
Sanford, Henry Southard, David Thomas, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel
C. Verplanck, Matthew Walton, Eliphalet Wickes, and Nathan
Williams.

MONDAY, February 2.

_Death of the Representative, Levi Casey, Esq._

Mr. THOMAS MOORE, a member of this House for the State of South Carolina, informed the House of the death of his colleague, General LEVI CASEY, late one of the members of the said State in this House: Whereupon,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of General LEVI CASEY, late a Representative from the State of South Carolina.

_Ordered_, That Mr. THOMAS MOORE, Mr. EARLE, Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, Mr. MARION, Mr. EARLY, and Mr. HOLLAND, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House will testify their respect for the memory of General LEVI CASEY, late one of their body, by wearing crape on the left arm for one month.

On motion of Mr. HOLLAND,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House will attend the funeral of the late General LEVI CASEY this day, at one o’clock.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That a message be sent to the Senate to notify them of the death of General LEVI CASEY, late a member of this House, and that his funeral will take place, this day, at one o’clock.

THURSDAY, February 5.

_National Defence._

GUNBOATS.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, being the report of a committee on fortifying our ports and harbors.

The question was taken on the amendment offered by Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, which was disagreed to--ayes 51, noes 54.

The question then recurred on filling the blank in the 2d resolution with “$250,000,” for building fifty gunboats.

Mr. MUMFORD.--I hope a majority of this House will agree to strike out the whole resolution respecting gunboats, with a view to appropriate that money to solid and durable fortifications. I was opposed to it in Committee of the Whole. I did then, and do now consider, that there is no necessity for any more gunboats. There are, in my opinion, a sufficient number already for the Southern sections of the Union, for which places they appear to be only adapted, except in a very few places to the North, where there is shoal water. They may answer a very good purpose in shoal water, but are inadequate for the defence of your ports and harbors to the north of the New Jersey shore; and I very much doubt, whether, in a gale of wind, they would not even sink at their mooring at the entrance of either of the harbors of Portsmouth, Salem, Plymouth, Newport, or New York.

It has been asserted that this was an electioneering scheme, and that as soon as our Spring elections were over, no more would be thought of it until the next election. I wish, sir, to put this question to eternal rest, by stating the plain matter of fact. Why, sir, it has been considered of so serious a nature in its consequences, and of so much importance, that the Legislature of the State of New York, in their last session, did enter into formal resolutions, instructing their delegation, in both branches of the Legislature of the United States, to use their utmost endeavors for the defence and protection of the port and harbor of New York: the whole State is alive on this subject--and the memorials now lying on your table from the Mayor and Corporation of that city, together with the petitions from the citizens of all political parties, tend to one and the same object, protection to their persons and to their property; there is not, there cannot be any dissenting voice with them on this subject.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH was too unwell to go far into the subject, but he would ask the House whether they were acting with their accustomed caution and distrust, where the expenditure of public money was involved? He thought not. If he were convinced that the expenditure of $150,000 or even $1,500,000 would answer the proposed end, he would cheerfully give it. But, as had been observed, the system of gunboats was matter of experiment, and if they should eventually turn out good for nothing, the House would be of opinion that they had vested as large a capital in a worthless project as would be deemed necessary. He would not undertake to say that they were good for nothing--far from it. But there was no information before the House which entitled him to say they were good for much. When you compare, said Mr. R., the lavish appropriation made on this subject in Committee of the Whole, and view the economy this House always practises on every branch of expenditure, relative to the regular army and navy, looking with an eagle eye on every dollar before they part with it--it surprises me to see them voting away hundreds of thousands of dollars for a species of vessel, which, in all human probability, may be used for river craft in a few years. One thing has been ascertained. Ships of war are defensive and offensive, too, but the House will vote no money for an addition to them. I do not censure them for it; but if they will not appropriate for objects, the physical powers of which are ascertained, why vote the public treasure by handfuls for vessels, the powers of which have never been tried? Let the experiment be made, and, if it succeeds, let us appropriate liberally; but, till then, let us not vote more money than has been already appropriated. I believe there is one situation in which they may be useful--in the Mississippi. I wish, however, not to be understood as speaking as a man of science on this business. I only wish some evidence of the value of this machine, before I vest so large a capital in it. I hope, therefore, that the blank will not be filled with $150,000. As it has been stated, I think it will be extremely disproportionate to vote $20,000 for the fortification of all our harbors, and $150,000 for gunboats.

Mr. ELMER said that, under existing circumstances, he was opposed to appropriating 150,000 dollars to building additional gunboats. The House had determined that they would not authorize the President to man those already built. It appeared to him very bad economy to suffer the public vessels to lie in dock, and to build other vessels, the utility of which was not ascertained. There might be situations in which gunboats would be useful, but had they not enough of them already? If it should be ascertained that thirty or forty gunboats should be wanted for any particular purpose, Mr. E. said it might be prudent to authorize their erection. He said he had been in favor of giving authority to the President to man and equip the armed vessels and gunboats. The House had, however, refused this. If, then, they would not authorize the President, whatever the emergency, to man the present vessels, why build additional vessels?

Mr. HOLLAND was opposed to filling the blank with so large a sum. He was also opposed to giving authority to man the armed vessels. The nation was in a state of profound peace, and he did not see that these vessels would have any thing to do. He was opposed to this appropriation on another ground. He believed, whenever the necessity should occur, they would be able, in one, two, or three months, to build as many gunboats as would be wanted.

Mr. GREGG said, from the discussions which had taken place, and the votes of the House, there might be a propriety in postponing the business for the purpose of obtaining information. For his own part, he was willing to acknowledge that he was altogether in the dark. He did not know in what situation gunboats would be useful, or the number of men required to man them; nor did he know whether land fortifications were necessary, in connection with them, to defend the port of New York. Before he could act understandingly on the subject, it was necessary for him to have this information. Some gentlemen say that gunboats will answer valuable purposes, while there are others of opinion that there are so few places, on the coast of the United States, where they will answer, that a small number of them will be sufficient. I believe, said Mr. G., under these circumstances, that it will be best to postpone the further consideration of the subject, and, in the mean time, call on the Secretary of the Navy to say at what points gunboats will answer, together with the number of them necessary, and on the Secretary at War to say whether he is in possession of any plan for the protection of New York, together with its expense and the number of men required. It will be next to madness to erect fortifications without putting in them sufficient men to keep them in repair. Many fortifications, commenced some years ago, for want of this provision, are now as useless as if they never had been begun. Mr. G. said he was particularly desirous to obtain information from the Executive as to the practicability of defending the port of New York. If it could be defended, he would not be backward on the subject.

Mr. FISK hoped the motion would prevail. Experience had proved gunboats to be useful. In their late war with Tripoli, they had been obliged to borrow a number of them, which had proved not only an instrument of defence, but likewise of offence. It was true, also, that, in other cases, they would be useful. Indeed, they appeared to be peculiarly adapted to the United States, who had a large extent of seacoast and numbers of shoals, enabling them to act with effect; that they would rot in time was true; it was also equally true that other shipping would rot; and that the loss of fifty or sixty gunboats would not be equal to that of a single frigate. It was also equally true that gunboats did not require the same expense in manning and equipping as other vessels; they were also so situated as to be capable of being instantly manned, which was not the case in regard to other vessels. The Secretary of the Navy had stated the number of men necessary for each gunboat at twenty-seven. Take three hundred and fifty men as necessary for a frigate; of course thirteen gunboats will not require more men than one frigate. Mr. F. said he thought gunboats, in every point of view, the preferable defence. The Secretary of the Navy had stated sixty gunboats to be requisite. For the purpose, however, of accommodation, it is proposed to lessen the number of gunboats to thirty, and to apply the remaining sum to fortifications. He hoped this motion would prevail.

Mr. EARLY moved to postpone the further consideration of the second resolution to Monday week. In common with other members, he felt the necessity of information, before he agreed to carry further the system of gunboat defence. It appeared from the report of the Secretary of the Navy, that there were built, or on the stocks, seventy gunboats. He, for one, was of the opinion that this was a number amply sufficient to justify the requiring at least some information on the subject, either as to the ports capable of being defended by them, or their general capability of yielding defence to the United States.

The motion to postpone was disagreed to--ayes 49, noes 58.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said he was in favor of filling the blank with $150,000, as from all the official information before the House this appeared to be the best mode of defence which had been devised. He observed that some time since a majority of the House had considered the gunboat system as the best means of defence. He would ask gentlemen who were then in favor of this system, and were now opposed to it, what reasons they had for their change of opinion. If the President and Heads of Departments were of opinion that such a number of gunboats was necessary as had been named, he would ask them what reasons they had for thinking a smaller number sufficient, and whether the mere _ipse dixit_ of a member of this House ought to stand in competition with the deliberate opinion of the heads of departments? They were peculiarly responsible to the nation, and must be considered as having taken more pains to inform themselves on such a subject than an individual member of the House.

Mr. PITKIN, in reply to Mr. FISK, observed, that he had compared the estimates of a frigate and gunboats, from which he inferred that the equipment and annual expense of a frigate of 44 guns, compared to that of gunboats, was as eighteen to one.

Mr. ELLIOT said, that if the opinion of the President should be complied with, there would be one hundred and twenty-nine gunboats built, which in actual service would transcend the expense of the Navy of the United States, and would cost more than a million of dollars. Mr. E. said he considered the reproach cast upon those who were formerly the advocates of gunboats, as strong evidence of their inutility. Gunboats had been lately thought much of; what was the result? That gunboats might be considered as a kind of vessel guarding a little deposit of national spirit, if any there was left to put on board: but as soon as they were assailed by the wind or waves, their maiden purity was gone. They were of no use whenever there was wind or tide, and could only float in a time of profound tranquillity.

Mr. ALSTON said he possessed little information with regard to the advantages or disadvantages that were likely to flow from building the number of gunboats that was proposed. He merely rose to ask the attention of gentlemen to the grounds taken at the last session. The building of gunboats had been instituted on the recommendation of the President made at the last session. Gentlemen would there find the reasons on which that system had been begun. They were not intended to be set afloat on the ocean, to commit depredation or attack vessels at sea, but as an aid and support to our fortifications, and to prevent an enemy from annoying our seaports. It was, he believed, the opinion of the House at the last session, that gunboats constituted the best system that could be devised for this purpose.

Mr. EARLY moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution until this day week.

Mr. LLOYD said he should have no objection to the postponement, if he knew any mode of obtaining the information desired. It appeared that the committee had applied to the Secretary of the Navy, who ought to possess full information on the subject. What was his reply? Waiving altogether the expression of his own opinion, he merely confined himself to stating that the President thinks it expedient to build sixty additional gunboats. Whence, then, were they to get the information that was desired, to enable them to determine whether gunboats are a proper defence for the United States? They might apply to the President or the Secretary of the Navy, and get information from them that they think them necessary. Mr. L., however, said that he was of opinion that they ought to judge on this subject from what had already taken place. For himself he was free to declare that he was opposed to the gunboat system. He had carefully attended to the arguments of gentlemen, and to what did they amount? Have they adduced an argument to show their utility, or produced an instance to show where they have been useful? It has been said that their utility is established by the use made of them against Tripoli. But he would ask whether they would have been of any use if the vessels of Tripoli had left the shore? It was admitted that gunboats were not useful on the ocean. It was evident, then, that they were building a navy for a state of perfect calm; and were gentlemen disposed to expend millions for vessels that would be only useful under such circumstances?

Mr. MUMFORD.--The gentleman from North Carolina on my right, said that if any gentleman can show us any better mode of defence we shall be glad to hear it, and although I think it incumbent on him to show us the utility of gunboats, I will not detain the House but a few minutes to recommend what I conceive to be a far better mode of defence, I mean solid and durable fortifications that will last for ages, and block-ships similar to the draught now held in my hand, and which any gentleman may examine at his leisure if he chooses. Sir, the experience off Copenhagen is an evidence of their real utility. Witness the engagement with the British fleet and the Crown battery, (somewhat similar to the plan of Montalembert, recommended by me in debate yesterday,) and the block-ships. That fleet was actually silenced, and nothing saved the proud navy of old England on that memorable day but the game of flag of truce played off so successfully by the hero of Trafalgar; and when in order I shall move to adopt those block-ships in place of gunboats.

Mr. TALLMADGE said the question before the House had no connection with the defence of New York; it was a proposition for building gunboats. Having been on the select committee that brought in these resolutions, he thought it proper to state that there had not in that committee been a unanimous opinion in favor of gunboats. He was himself entirely hostile to the measure. He saw no necessity for adding to the number already built, or authorized to be erected. They had thirteen gunboats fit for service, and fifty-six would be soon launched. It would seem to him better to comport with the system of economy, in the first instance, to finish and prepare these fifty-six for service. No reason had been assigned for the additional sixty that had been proposed, but the mere opinion of the President. Mr. T. said he did not wish to call in question the high authority attached to the opinion of the President, but he would wish to know whether any naval officer had recommended gunboats as a proper defence for the country. He did believe there were some particular circumstances under which they would be useful, and under this impression he had hitherto voted. But when he saw nothing but gunboats called for, he was placed under the necessity of refusing to grant a single dollar. It appeared as if they were contemplated to be relied on as the exclusive defence of the United States, and as if it were intended to let the frigates rot. He was opposed to the postponement, as he did not see the probability of obtaining any useful information not already before the House.

The question was then taken on postponing the consideration of the resolution until Monday, which was carried--yeas 69.

THURSDAY, February 12.

_Indiana--Suspension of the Anti-slavery Clause of the Ordinance of 1787._

Mr. PARKE, from the committee to whom was referred the letter of William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, enclosing certain resolutions of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the said Territory, made the following report:

That the resolutions of the Legislative Council and House
of Representatives of the Indiana Territory relate to a
suspension, for the term of ten years, of the sixth article of
compact between the United States and the Territories Northwest
of the river Ohio, passed the 13th July, 1787. That article
declares “there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude in the said territory.”

The suspension of the said article would operate an immediate
and essential benefit to the Territory, as emigration to it
will be inconsiderable for many years, except from those States
where slavery is tolerated; and although it is not considered
expedient to force the population of the Territory, yet it is
desirable to connect its scattered settlements, and, in regard
to political rights, to place it on an equal footing with the
different States. From the interior situation of the Territory,
it is not believed that slaves would ever become so numerous
as to endanger the internal peace or future prosperity of the
country. The current of emigration flowing to the Western
country, the Territories ought all to be opened to their
introduction. The abstract question of liberty and slavery is
not involved in the proposed measure, as slavery now exists
to a considerable extent in different parts of the Union; it
would not augment the number of slaves, but merely authorize
the removal to Indiana of such as are held in bondage in the
United States. If slavery is an evil, means ought to be devised
to render it least dangerous to the community, and by which the
hopeless situation of the slaves would be most ameliorated; and
to accomplish these objects, no measure would be so effectual
as the one proposed. The committee, therefore, respectfully
submit to the House the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to suspend, from and after the
1st day of January, 1808, the sixth article of compact between
the United States and the Territories and States Northwest of
the river Ohio, passed the 13th day of July, 1787, for the term
of ten years.

Referred to the consideration of the Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

FRIDAY, February 13.

_Importation of Slaves._

The bill, sent from the Senate, entitled “An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight,” together with the amendments agreed to yesterday, were read the third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 113, nays 5, as follows:

YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Isaac Anderson, John Archer, David Bard,
Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, William W.
Bibb, Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop, John Blake, jr., Thomas
Blount, James M. Broom, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William A.
Burwell, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne,
Joseph Clay, Matt. Clay, George Clinton, jr., Frederick Conrad,
Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana,
Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jr., Elias Earle, Peter Early,
James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, Wm. Ely, John W.
Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, Charles Goldsborough,
Peterson Goodwyn, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey,
John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, William Helms, David Holmes, John
G. Jackson, Walter Jones, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah
Knight, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jr., Henry W. Livingston,
Edward Lloyd, Matthew Lyon, Duncan MacFarland, Patrick
Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery,
David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah
Morrow, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford,
Jeremiah Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin, Timothy
Pitkin, jr., John Porter, John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Rea
of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John
Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sanford, Martin
G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, Dennis Smelt, John
Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph
Stanton, William Stedman, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge,
Sam’l Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas W. Thompson, Uri Tracy,
Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B.
Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Peleg Wadsworth, Matthew Walton,
John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Nathan
Williams, Alex’r Wilson, Joseph Winston, Richard Wynn, and
Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Silas Betton, Martin Chittenden, James M. Garnett, Abram
Trigg, and David R. Williams.[47]

MONDAY, February 16

_Circuit Courts._

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled “An act establishing circuit courts in the district of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio,” together with the amendments agreed to on the thirteenth instant, were read a third time: Whereupon, the bill, with amendments, was recommitted to a Committee of the Whole this day.

The House, accordingly, resolved itself into the said committee; and, after some time spent therein, the bill and amendments were reported without amendment thereto.

The bill was then read the third time, and on the question that the same do pass? it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 82, nays 7.

_Lewis and Clarke._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill making compensation to Messieurs Lewis and Clarke, and their companions. The bill was reported with several amendments thereto; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House. The House proceeded further to amend the said bill: When an adjournment being called for, the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, February 17.

_The Writ of Habeas Corpus._

The House proceeded to consider the motion of Mr. BROOM, of the seventh instant, and the same being read in the words following, to wit:

“_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make further provision, by
law, for securing the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
to persons in custody, under, or by color of, the authority of
the United States.”[48]

Mr. BROOM addressed the House as follows: