Chapter I: A. Coles (2)

That the same commutation should extend to the corps not
belonging to the lines of any particular State, and who were
entitled to half-pay as aforesaid: the acceptance or refusal
to be determined by the corps, and to be signified in the
same manner, and within the same time, as above mentioned;
that all officers belonging to the hospital department, who
are entitled to half-pay by the resolution of the 17th of
January, 1781, might collectively agree to accept or refuse
the aforesaid commutation, signifying the same through the
Commander-in-Chief, within six months; that such officers as
had retired at different periods entitled to half-pay for
life, might, collectively, in each State of which they are
inhabitants, accept or refuse the same; their acceptance
or refusal to be signified by agents authorized for that
purpose, within six months; that with respect to such retiring
officers, the commutation, if accepted by them, should be in
lieu of whatever might be then due to them since the time of
their retiring from service, as well as what might thereafter
become due; and that as soon as their acceptance should be
signified, the Superintendent of Finance should be, and he was
thereby, authorized to take measures for the settlement of
their accounts accordingly, and to issue to them certificates
bearing interest at six per cent.; that all officers entitled
to half-pay for life, not included in the preceding resolution,
might, also, collectively, agree to accept or refuse the
aforesaid commutation, signifying the same within six months
from the passage of said resolution. The petitioners state,
and the fact is of too general notoriety to be disputed, that
although they confidently expected, at the time they were
compelled from imperious necessity to accept the sum in gross
in lieu of half-pay for life, that it would be paid to them
in reality, and not by a fresh promise without any sufficient
guarantee for its due performance, yet they were compelled
to receive certificates, which, for want of any specific
provision for the payment of them, or the interest accruing on
them, were immediately depreciated to five for one, and, by
degrees, to ten for one, in exchange for money. They therefore
pray that half-pay for life, to commence from the time of the
reduction of the Army, may be granted to them, according to the
solemn stipulations entered into with them by Congress, by the
resolutions before referred to; deducting therefrom the five
years' full pay received by them in depreciated paper, by way
of commutation.

It is well known to your committee, and to the whole nation,
that the far greater part of the officers were compelled by
hard necessity to dispose of their commutation certificates
at prices infinitely below their nominal amount; that this
did not proceed from want of patriotism, of which they had
beforehand given proofs most unequivocal, or of want of
confidence in their Government; but that, after having spent
the vigor of their manhood in the service of their country,
they returned to the walks of civil life, (many of them maimed,
and scarcely able to halt along,) ignorant of what was passing
or likely to pass in the councils of their country; the griping
hand of poverty bore hard upon them; and, unacquainted as they
necessarily were with civil affairs, they fell an easy prey to
the wiles of the artful and insidious speculator, who was lying
in wait to fatten upon their hard earnings. Under circumstances
like these, it would have been strange indeed, if they had
kept their certificates in their pockets. No, the thing was
impracticable; go they must, for whatever they would bring, and
be the consequences whatever they might.

Upon the whole, the committee are of opinion that the contract
entered into by Congress with the officers of the late
Revolutionary Army, for giving them half-pay for life, has
not been substantially complied with by the Government. They,
therefore, recommend the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioners is reasonable,
and ought to be granted.

FRIDAY, February 9.

_Robert Fulton and Torpedoes._

The following letter was laid before the House:

"KALORAMA, _February 9, 1810_.

"SIR: Having published a pamphlet explaining my experience on
the practice and effects of torpedoes, I beg leave to present
you, and each member of the House of Representatives, one copy.
Should the House consider this subject of sufficient interest
to merit further explanation, I shall be happy to give a
lecture at such time and place as may be most convenient, in
which I will exhibit the various modes of attack with torpedoes
and harpoon guns, as prepared for action, with such models and
demonstrations as will lead to a clear understanding of the
subject.

"I have the honor to be, &c.,

"ROBERT FULTON.

"Hon. SPEAKER _House of Reps._"

Leave was given to present the pamphlets mentioned in the above letter, as requested.

_Navigation of the Mobile._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit to the House a report of the Secretary of State,
complying with their resolution of the 22d of January.

JAMES MADISON.

FEBRUARY 9, 1810.

DEPARTMENT STATE, _Feb. 8, 1810_.

The Secretary of State, to whom the President has been pleased
to refer the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
22d of last month, has the honor to state that it appears from
the records in this department, that in the years 1801 and
1802, the Executive had endeavored to obtain, for the citizens
of the United States residing on the waters of Tombigbee and
Alabama rivers, the free navigation of the Mobile river to its
confluence with the ocean--first, by claiming this navigation
as a natural right, sanctioned by the general principles of the
law of nations applicable to rivers similarly situated; and,
secondly, by endeavoring to purchase the country held by Spain
on the Mobile.

These efforts were made before it was known that Spain had
ceded Louisiana to France, and consequently before the purchase
of that province by the United States. Since that purchase, the
country held by Spain on the Mobile has been claimed as being
included therein.

The Spanish Government, having objected to this claim in a
manner which justified a belief that the question would not
be soon decided, our Minister at Madrid was instructed again
to claim the free navigation of the Mobile under the general
principles of the law of nations, and to represent to His
Catholic Majesty the propriety and necessity of giving orders
to his officers not to interrupt the free communication with
our Territories through the waters of the Mobile.

In addition to what has been done through this department, it
appears that the Governor of the Orleans Territory, and other
officers of the United States, have endeavored to induce the
Spanish authorities on the Mobile to abstain from exacting
duties on the passage of our merchandise or produce up or
down that river. Notwithstanding, however, every thing which
has been done, it is understood that these authorities have
continued to exact (with some occasional relaxations) a duty of
twelve per cent. "on all articles of the growth or manufacture
of the United States, which are conveyed through said river to
and from the city of New Orleans."

All which is respectfully submitted.

R. SMITH.

MONDAY, February 12.

_Torpedoes._

Mr. DAWSON.--On hearing the Journal read, I find that on last Friday a letter was received by the Speaker from Mr. Fulton. What merit is due to his invention I will not pretend to say; but I know Mr. Fulton to be a man of science and successful experiment; of which he has given proofs, both in Europe and this country. It seems to me that some attention ought to be paid to his communication. I therefore move you that his letter be referred to a select committee.

Mr. Dawson's motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed, consisting of Messrs. DAWSON, TAYLOR and BACON.

WEDNESDAY, February 14.

_Torpedoes._

Mr. DAWSON made the following report:

The committee to whom was referred a letter from Robert Fulton
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated on the
9th instant, beg leave to report, in part, that at their
request Mr. Fulton attended the committee on this morning,
and explained to them his views of the uses and effects of
torpedoes, on which the committee forbear to give an opinion,
and offer the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That, when the House shall adjourn on Friday next,
it will adjourn to meet on Monday; and that Mr. Fulton have the
use of this Hall on Saturday, for the purpose of exhibiting
the torpedoes and delivering a lecture on their practice and
utility.

Mr. RHEA moved to recommit the report to the committee who reported it, with a view to obtaining a report on the merits of it.--Motion negatived.

Mr. LIVERMORE called for a division of the resolution reported by the committee, so as to take a question separately on the words, "RESOLVED, That, when the House shall adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday."

The question on this part of the resolution was decided by yeas and nays--yeas 90, nays 29.

Mr. LIVERMORE moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject indefinitely.

A desultory debate took place on these various questions. It was said that the Hall of the House of Representatives was exclusively appropriated to Legislative purposes, and that, at this time, to appropriate it to the purpose of experimental lectures, would afford a precedent which would be injurious; that such a measure, if admissible at all, should not be taken unless the House were convinced of the practicability of the system proposed to be illustrated, because it would hold out the idea that the House of Representatives had sanctioned it. It was also said that this system could quite as conveniently be illustrated in one of the other apartments of the Capitol, without spreading on the Journals a formal record allowing Mr. Fulton the use of this House. In reply, it was said, that this was an invention which promised to be of great public utility, and it was but reasonable, as the inventor was known to be a scientific man, that he should have an opportunity of demonstrating its efficacy, when he has offered his services for that purpose. If it succeeded, it might be a saving of many millions to the United States; and if it failed, the House would, by paying attention to it, have shown their disposition to encourage science. The argument against the report of the committee, that this Hall was exclusively devoted to legislation, it was said, would operate with equal force against permitting Divine service to be performed there on Sundays.

Before any question was taken on the latter clause of the report of the committee, the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, February 15.

_Torpedoes._

A motion was made by Mr. BURWELL, that the unfinished business of yesterday do lie on the table; and the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative.

The House then resumed the consideration of the said unfinished business, and the question recurring on the motion to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the second member of the resolution, Mr. SPEAKER decided that the said motion to postpone indefinitely was, at the time the same was under consideration, out of order.

A motion was then made by Mr. ROSS, to amend the said resolution by striking out the words, _delivering a lecture on_, for the purpose of inserting the word _explaining_. And the question being taken thereon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

The question was then taken upon concurring in the second and last member of the said resolution, and determined in the negative--yeas 55, nays 61.

On motion of Mr. TROUP, the question was then stated on concurring in the first and second members of the said resolution; when Mr. SPEAKER decided that, a question being divided, one part affirmed and the other rejected, a question cannot be put upon the whole of the resolution as originally proposed. From which decision of the chair, an appeal was made to the House by Mr. TROUP, and being seconded, the question was taken, "Is the decision of the Chair correct?" and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 78, nays 21.

FRIDAY, February 16.

_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, widow of Alexander Hamilton, praying for the compensation due to her deceased husband.

[This report is one of the class of those favorable to the prayers of the petitioners on grounds of equity, but declaring, because they are barred by the statute of limitations, that they, therefore, ought not to be granted.]

The resolution reported by the Committee of Claims is as follows:

"_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be
granted."

The report was supported by Messrs. MONTGOMERY, VARNUM, HELMS, and BACON, on the ground that the late General Hamilton had no claim on the Government under the resolutions of the old Congress; because he was, on the 25th of November, 1782, a delegate in Congress, and, by the 6th article of the Confederation, incapable of holding, at the same time, a military commission. He was in that Congress, a member (if not the chairman) of the committee which reported the resolutions under which his heirs are now said to be entitled to compensation. Had no statute of limitations ever been passed, therefore, it was said that General Hamilton or his heirs had no claim on the Government; because in accepting a seat in Congress, he had virtually resigned his commission before the close of the war. The case might be a hard one; but there were hundreds of cases at least equally so, and cases too in which the sufferers had not, as General Hamilton had, subsequently enjoyed lucrative employments by the favor of his country. It was said that Congress ought to be just before they were generous. Before they granted a claim of this doubtful character, influenced by the character or standing of the individual, they should relieve the impoverished old soldiers who daily begged of them for a pittance of bread, whose claims were equally just and whose necessities were much more pressing.

Mr. BOYD spoke in favor of the report of the committee. Either the statute of limitations was just or it was unjust. If unjust, it ought to be repealed; if just, Congress ought to be careful how they made exceptions in favor of particular claims.

Messrs. JOHNSON, GHOLSON, DAWSON, SHEFFEY GOLD, KEY, PITKIN and GARDENIER, oppose the report of the committee. It was said that General Hamilton's having received a brevet commission at the close of the war was evidence of his having been considered in service until the end of the war; for unless he had, such a commission could not have been issued to him. But a short time before the peace, he was seen at the head of his regiment gallantly storming a redoubt at the siege of York, and contributed not a little to the capture of Cornwallis and his army. By accepting a seat in Congress he did not resign his commission, but held himself liable to be called into service at any time, if necessary. But if he had, from the best of motives, accepted a seat in Congress, and thereby resigned his commission, it was said that his heirs ought not, therefore, to be deprived of the compensation equitably due to him. Congress had extended the hand of relief to the daughters of Count de Grasse, who had no shadow of a legal claim; but their father had assisted by sea, as General Hamilton did on the land, at the capture of Cornwallis; they were in this country in distress, and Congress had relieved them. Should the same relief be denied to the representatives of a citizen who had served during the war, and whose legal claim, if barred at all, (except by the statute of limitations,) was only barred by his zeal in the service of his country, which prompted him to accept a seat in Congress? The statute of limitations, it was said, was never intended to bar Congress from discharging a just claim, but merely to prevent the accounting officers of the Treasury from allowing all the old, and perhaps fraudulent claims which might have been pressed upon them. Every gentleman who spoke, dwelt upon the obduracy of heart and injustice, as it was termed, which could refuse to the claim of the war-worn soldier, the compensation due to him for his assistance in achieving the liberties of his country.

Before the question was taken on the report, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

And the House adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, February 19.

_Bank of the United States._

Mr. MONTGOMERY, from the committee appointed, on the twenty-ninth ultimo, on the memorial of the Stockholders of the Bank of the United States, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. The report is as follows:

That in proceeding to the consideration of the said petition,
your committee instructed their chairman to address a letter
to the Secretary of the Treasury, requesting him to furnish
such information or observations as he might think proper, in
relation to the subject-matter thereof, as connected with the
financial and commercial interests of the United States. In
reply to which, the Secretary, by his letter to the chairman,
referred your committee to his former report on the said
subject, made to the Senate of the United States, in obedience
to the order of that House.

Your committee have been attended by agents of the petitioners,
who, in addition to the matters contained in the petition,
have suggested to your committee that the object of the
petitioners was to obtain the renewal of the charter in its
present form; that, for this renewal, the bank is willing to
make compensation, either by loans at a rate of interest,
or by a sum of money to be agreed upon, or by an increase
of the capital stock, by a number of shares to be taken and
subscribed for by the United States, to an amount adequate to
the compensation to be agreed upon for such renewal.

These agents also suggested that they were fully authorized
and empowered to offer and conclude the terms specifically
connected with these propositions.

Your committee, not feeling themselves authorized to enter into
such terms, and judging that the extent of those propositions
would better apply to the details of a bill, than to the
adoption of a principle to be first settled by the House,
have, therefore forborne to inquire into the extent of the
propositions, and, without expressing an approbation or
rejection of these offers, or giving an opinion as to the plan
and reasoning of the Secretary of the Treasury, your committee
in order that the opinion of the House on this great national
question may be declared previous to entering into the details
connected with the subject, recommend the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is proper to make provision for continuing
the establishment of the Bank of the United States, with
offices of discount and deposit, under the regulations
necessary for the beneficial administration of the national
finances, during such time, and on such conditions, as may be
defined by law.

WEDNESDAY, Feb. 28.

_Amey Dardin._

Mr. GHOLSON, from the committee appointed on the seventh of December last, on the petition of Amey Dardin, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

The report is as follows:

That the petitioner claims compensation for a stud-horse,
known by the name of Romulus, taken from her husband, David
Dardin, in the year 1781, for the use of the army of the
United States. It appears that the said horse was impressed
from David Dardin for the public service by Lieutenant Rudder,
a Continental officer, on the 26th of February, in the year
aforesaid, and was then valued at the sum of £750 specie. The
horse was taken to the army in North Carolina, then commanded
by General Greene, who, upon hearing of the valuation, ordered
the said horse to be valued again, which valuation was still
higher than the first; whereupon General Greene ordered the
horse to be returned to his former owner, who called upon
three persons to ascertain the damages sustained by the use of
his horse, and they estimated the damages at £100. The said
Dardin then received the horse as his property, and continued
to use him as such until the 18th July, 1781, when another
Continental officer again took the horse and gave a receipt
for him, wherein the sum of £750 is mentioned as having been
before stated as the appraised value. This procedure attracted
the attention of the Executive of Virginia, and in December,
1782, Benjamin Harrison, then Governor, made a representation
to General Greene respecting this subject; but the horse being
by this time in the State of Georgia, and applied to the public
service, was continued therein, finally disposed of, and never
thereafter returned to the said owner. It also appears that
this claim of Dardin was referred to the Virginia Assembly
in 1782 by the court of Mecklenburg county; and, in a former
report it is stated, and believed to be true, that Dardin
accordingly petitioned the Legislature of that State; but his
claim being considered as coming more properly against the
Union than against any particular State, he did not succeed.
He, or the present petitioner, was then advised that redress
might be obtained against the officers who took the horse,
and a suit was instituted in the High Court of Chancery of
Virginia for that purpose, which suit was depending therein
until the month of June 1793, when it appears to have been
abandoned and was dismissed. With the exception of the fact
which the committee have extracted from a former report in
this case, that this claim was once presented to and rejected
by the Virginia Legislature, (which is deemed a circumstance
of no particular importance,) all the foregoing statement is
supported by written documents, which appear to be genuine and
authentic.

On the merits of this claim, your committee consider it almost
superfluous to comment. The facts are conclusive in its favor,
and no obstacle to its discharge can be conceived, except the
lapse of time on this subject. The committee beg leave to
state, that on the 23d July, 1787, Congress passed a resolution
providing that all persons having unliquidated claims against
the United States shall exhibit a particular abstract thereof
to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States
within one year. This was the first limitation that was
adopted in respect to any class of claims, except those for
personal services, which had been barred by the resolution
of 2d November, 1785. The committee are of opinion that this
claim was not included in the resolution of 23d July, 1787,
because that resolution mentions only unliquidated claims;
and the present claim was always liquidated and certain. The
certificate granted by the Continental officer states the
appraisement of the horse, made pursuant to the usage of the
army, at the specific sum of £750 specie.

The next limitation to claims against the United States, and
which it is believed by the committee embraces the claim of
the petitioner, is contained in the act of the 12th February,
1793, which took effect on the 1st of May, 1794. On the 28th of
February, 1794, the petitioner, instead of presenting her claim
to the Treasury, according to the requisition of the statute
of the 12th of February, 1793, presented it to Congress, who
took cognizance of it, and ordered it to lie on their table.
Her petition, and the only documents on which she could have
succeeded at the Treasury, were retained in the possession of
the House of Representatives until, and for some time after,
the statute of limitations began to operate. Your committee
have no hesitation in hazarding the opinion that in a case
like this, between A and B, before an intelligent and upright,
and equitable judge, the claim would be most undoubtedly
sanctioned, as not coming within the spirit, although it may
fall within the strict letter of the act of limitation.

Placing, however, this question out of view, the committee
are still of opinion that the claim of the petitioner ought
to be allowed. They believe that when a claim, founded in a
fair consideration, and supported by indisputable evidence, is
presented for payment, a proper self-respect on the part of the
Government, as well as justice to the claimant, requires its
discharge. They therefore submit the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought to be
granted.

FRIDAY, March 2.

_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolution reported by the Committee of Claims on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton:

_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be
granted.

Messrs. NELSON and TAYLOR opposed, and Messrs. ROOT, BOYD, and MONTGOMERY, supported the report--each at considerable extent.

At length the question was taken in committee, and the report disagreed to, 60 to 52. The committee rose, and reported their disagreement.

The House concurred with the Committee of the Whole in their disagreement--yeas 62, nays 52.

After some conversation as to the proper course now to be pursued,

Mr. GHOLSON moved that the Committee of Claims be instructed to report a bill, pursuant to the prayer of Elizabeth Hamilton.

The motion was agreed to by yeas and nays--61 to 46.

FRIDAY, March 9.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Minifie," was read twice, and committed to the Committee of Claims.

_Torpedoes._

The bill from the Senate, entitled "An act making appropriation for the purpose of trying the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine explosion," was read the first time.

A motion was made by Mr. LIVERMORE, that the bill be rejected; and the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative--yeas 27, nays 76.

The bill was then read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

MONDAY, March 12.

Another member, to wit, from Virginia, JOHN RANDOLPH, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

WEDNESDAY, March 14.

_Claim for Indian Depredations._

Mr. WITHERSPOON, from the committee appointed on the fourteenth ultimo, on the petition of Alexander Scott, made a report thereon, which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next. The report is as follows:

That in the month of February, 1794, William Scott, James
Pettigrew, and John Pettigrew, of South Carolina, left that
State, with a view of establishing themselves in the present
Mississippi Territory, and took with them twenty-one negro
slaves, with goods and chattels to the value of more than
one thousand dollars; that they proceeded in safety on their
journey as far as the Muscle Shoals, on the river Tennessee,
where they were attacked, about the 9th of June, 1794, by a
party of Cherokee Indians, who put to death all the white
people of the family, and took possession of and carried away
the negroes and other property. It appears, also, to your
committee, that repeated endeavors have been made, at very
great expense, to recover the aforesaid property, without
any other success than the recovery of a negro child; and
that the persons legally entitled to the said property are
forever foreclosed from any remedy by which to recover the
same, in consequence of the stipulations of the ninth article
of a treaty made with the Cherokee Indians on the 2d day of
October, 1798, which article is in the following words: "It is
mutually agreed between the parties that the horses stolen,
and not returned within ninety days, shall be paid for at
the rate of sixty dollars each. If stolen by a white man,
citizen of the United States, the Indian proprietor shall be
paid in cash; and if stolen by an Indian from a citizen, to
be deducted, as expressed in the fourth article of the Treaty
of Philadelphia. This article shall have retrospect to the
commencement of the first conferences at this place in the
present year, and no further. And all animosities, aggressions,
thefts, and plunderings, prior to that day, shall cease, and
be no longer remembered or demanded on either side." By the
above-recited article, the petitioners are wholly deprived
of redress in the premises. If there existed any tribunal of
justice before whom the case could be brought, the right of the
petitioners to the said negro slaves and their increase would
doubtless be established. But there is no court within the
United States having cognizance of an action for the recovery
of property held within the Indian boundary. Neither is it
in the power of the petitioners to avail themselves of force
or stratagem, whereby to regain possession of the aforesaid
slaves and their increase, because they would be liable to
punishment for a violation of the statute of the United States
regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes. From these
premises, it appeared to your committee that the petitioners
have an undoubted right to the above-mentioned slaves and their
increase, and that they have been deprived of all remedy for
their recovery by the acts of the Government of the United
States; that the voluntary renunciation of their rights by
the Government gives to the petitioners a fair claim on the
Government for indemnification. Your committee, therefore,
under an impression that the aforesaid slaves would be
delivered to the agent of the United States for Indian Affairs
among the Cherokee Indians upon conditions more favorable to
the United States than a full remuneration of their value to
the petitioners, respectfully submit the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner is reasonable,
and that the President of the United States be authorized and
requested to treat, by such commissioner as he shall appoint,
for the delivery to the rightful owners of the slaves and their
increase taken from William Scott, James Pettigrew, and John
Pettigrew, on or about the 9th of June, 1794, by a party of the
Cherokee nation of Indians, at or near the Muscle Shoals, on
the river Tennessee, upon such equitable conditions as to him
shall appear just and reasonable.

FRIDAY, March 16.

_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for the relief of Elizabeth Hamilton.

Messrs. SMILIE, ROOT, W. ALSTON, BACON, MACON, CLAY, and BOYD, opposed the bill, and Messrs. JOHNSON, SHEFFEY, and NELSON, supported it.

The committee rose about four o'clock, and reported the bill.

Mr. MACON moved to amend the said bill by striking out the following words: "five years' full pay for the services of her said deceased husband as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary war, which five years' full pay is the commutation of his half-pay for life;" for the purpose of inserting, "whatever may be due to her for his services as an officer during the Revolutionary war."

Mr. GHOLSON called for a division of the question.

And the motion to strike out was negatived, yeas 57, nays 54.

Mr. W. ALSTON moved to amend the bill by adding the following proviso:

"_Provided_, That it shall be made to appear, to the
satisfaction of the accounting officers of the Treasury
Department, that the said Alexander Hamilton ever was entitled
to half pay or commutation."

The question on Mr. ALSTON'S amendment was decided in the negative--yeas 55, nays 56.

And on motion, the House then adjourned, about five o'clock.

SATURDAY, March 17.

_Amey Dardin's Claim._

The bill for the relief of Amey Dardin was read a third time.

Mr. STANFORD moved to recommit the bill to obtain a more particular report on the claim than had been made. Motion negatived.

The passage of the bill was opposed by Messrs. MACON, BACON, PICKMAN, and STANFORD, and advocated by Messrs. GHOLSON, SMILIE, W. ALSTON, and SHEFFEY.

[It was opposed on three grounds--the main objection being that it opened the statute of limitations; 2, that the claim ought not to be allowed, because the horse, for which compensation was asked, might have been reclaimed if the deceased Mr. Dardin had chosen to have received it; 3, that interest ought not to be allowed on the sum at which the horse was valued.]

The bill was passed--yeas 82, nays 24.

_Mrs. Hamilton's Claim._

The consideration of the bill for the relief of Mrs. Hamilton was called for.

Mr. WYNN moved to adjourn. For it, 23.

Mr. ROOT moved to postpone the further consideration of it till Friday next. Negatived, 57 to 43.

Mr. ROOT opposed the bill at length, and Mr. FISK replied.

The question "Shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading?" was then taken and carried, by yeas and nays.

On the question, when the bill should be read a third time, Mr. ROOT named Friday, and Mr. NELSON to-day.

For Friday 44--For Monday 50.

To-day was fixed as the day; and a motion was made by Mr. T. MOORE to adjourn. Lost, 63 to 50.

The bill was read a third time and passed, 63 to 53, the votes being precisely the same as those last taken, except that Mr. R. BROWN was absent on this vote.

MONDAY, March 26.

_Torpedo Experiment._

The bill making an appropriation for the purpose of making an experiment on the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine explosion, was taken up.

Mr. DANA, said that the question now before the House did not relate to any degree of reputation which any individual might claim for any invention, nor to any interest he might have in any discovery he had made. The question was, whether this proposition now appeared before the House under such circumstances that they should step out of the ordinary course of encouragement, given by law to inventors, to provide the means of making an experiment at the public expense. This, Mr. D. said, was the simple inquiry to be made; and, however eminent or distinguished in the walks of science, or however irradiated by the splendor of genius, it belonged to no individual to demand of the Legislature that they should adopt any system previous to its utility being ascertained. No individual could arrogate it to himself; and, when any individual pressed himself upon the Legislature, it was a question whether this experiment was worthy to be made; whether the invention promised any possible good worthy of this experiment.

Mr. D. said he had no wish to detain the House, but he had really doubted, for himself, whether, with the views he entertained on this subject, it was compatible with the respect due to the House to withhold some of the sentiments which occurred to him in opposition to this bill. In every instance in which a sum of money had heretofore been appropriated to encourage inventions, it had been for some object admitted to be of value, for something intended to be of use, and which, prior to making the appropriation in relation to it, had been, in a degree, examined. This, however, was a thing which, on the face of it, appropriated a sum of money for the purpose of making experiments to ascertain the use of the invention. It was therefore, perhaps, the first appropriation of the kind ever proposed.

Mr. D. said he did not perceive that any experiment could be made, in time of peace, to ascertain this thing, so as to decide the question of the practical use of the torpedo; for, with respect to every question stated in the publication laid on the table, with respect to any principle which the inventor proposed to establish by any specific experiment, with respect to any question which related to natural agents or their physical effect, he thought it proper to admit the whole.

In the first place, Mr. D. said that he admitted that the explosive force of gunpowder, placed at the keel, might destroy any ship. Another thing he would admit, that a person might deposit powder in a metallic case, which should remain under water; that the case might be made water-tight, and that the clock-work contained in it might be put in motion. He would admit, also, that this machine might be balanced so that its gravity should be nearly equal to that of the water; that the action of the current or tide might bear such a magazine, so specifically apportioned, beneath the bottom of the vessel.

But, when all these things were admitted, Mr. DANA said that he did not perceive that any one point was gained as respected the object of the experiment, for it must be considered that all this experiment could only go to decide the action of natural physical powers, where the efforts of genius were not combined.

As respects the whole of the thing itself, as far as I understand it, I perceive nothing new in it. I do not conceive that, on this subject, there is any thing very novel in point of principle. There may be something in the modification of it; but, as respects the main principle, there is nothing new. The idea was started during the war of the American Revolution, and various experiments were made on it. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, at that time, was not, as I have understood, impressed himself with much confidence in the experiment. But a gentleman of his family, and an officer of his army, who had more confidence in it, made the experiment; and, ultimately, the experiment was pretty much given up.

As he did not speak at random, Mr. D. asked leave to call the attention of the House to the principles of the invention of David Bushnell, of Connecticut. [Mr. D. here read, from the _Philosophical Transactions_, an account of a machine invented by Mr. Bushnell, in many respects similar to that invented by Mr. Fulton.]

The principal difference between these two inventions, Mr. D. said, appeared to be in the mode of conveying the machine to the keel of the ship. The plan of Mr. Fulton was, instead of conveying it by means of a diving-boat, to convey it by the action of the current to the place where it was to operate. To do this he proposed two modes. As respected the first, the action of the current on the torpedo placed obliquely, Mr. D. said he had no doubt. It was the principle on which the helmsman steers his ship, and the seaman manages his sails; the principle on which boats are made to pass ferries by the oblique action of the current. As respected the second mode, the use of the harpoon-gun, there was no novelty in that certainly. It had been used in Europe in the whale fishery, where they were not trained in this species of fishing so as to produce dexterity in throwing the harpoon. Premiums had been given, and attempts made to discharge a harpoon from a ring and rope attached to it, at the distance of ten fathoms, which was a greater distance than the most experienced and skilful could strike with effect.

The question which Mr. D. said he proposed, was, whether obstacles could not be interposed by naval men. As respected firing the harpoon-gun, he should suppose it a want of skill or attention in the experiment if it failed to take effect. That a harpoon might be fired into a vessel, that the torpedo would go under her, and that a vessel which could be bought for $5,000, might be blown up in this way, he had no doubt; but when all this is done, what does it ascertain? As respects making a torpedo, any person who is in the neighborhood of a good gun and locksmith, and has good powder, can construct one. Mr. D. said he did not see the necessity of spending this sum of money rather for amusement than for any thing else. He did not see the necessity of it, because he did not perceive any one thing to be learnt from an experiment. He was, therefore, against the bill.

Mr. LYON said that the gentleman from Connecticut had shown his own conviction of the utility of torpedoes, and it would be worth while to give five thousand dollars to establish the same conviction in others. If I had the twentieth part of the certainty on the subject which that gentleman has, said Mr. L., I should not vote for the experiment. I have no desire, in voting for any thing of this kind, to give up any other kind of defence. I know it is all-important in us to defend our ports and harbors. If it was not for our extensive seacoast, I should not be so extremely averse to going to war. I would leave no means untried to protect this seacoast. However little the hope might be, if there was the least thing to hang hope on, I would give $5,000 for the experiment. I have voted for the highest sum ever called for, for the defence of New York; but still, when I look to the steeples of the fine churches, and to the banks, &c., of that city, exposed as it is and must be, I am struck with horror. Notwithstanding all the exertions which have ever been made for them, they must still be insecure. If $5,000 would carry conviction as far on the rest of the House as with the gentleman from Connecticut, the money would be well laid out to enable us to go on with a further experiment of this plan.

The gentleman from Connecticut read a long history of the torpedo experiment made many years ago. I believe, sir, Mr. Fulton has but little merit in originating the thing. Let gentlemen recollect what an alarm this thing made, and how uneasy the British were during the Revolutionary war, till they thought they had got rid of these machines. I cannot forget the alarm which they excited, and will take the liberty to quote Hopkinson on the subject, who was a witness to the transaction:

"'T was early day, as poets say,
Just when the sun was rising,
A soldier stood on log of wood,
And saw a sight surprising.

"As in amaze he stood to gaze,
The truth can't be denied, sir,
He spied a score of kegs, or more,
Come floating down the tide, sir.

"A sailor, too, in jerkin blue,
The strange appearance viewing,
First damn'd his eyes, in great surprise,
Then said--'some mischief's brewing.'

"These kegs now hold the rebels bold,
Pack'd up like pickled herring,
And they 're come down, t' attack the town
In this new way of ferry'ng.

"The soldier flew--the sailor too,
And, scar'd almost to death, sir,
Wore out their shoes to spread the news,
And ran till out of breath, sir.

"Now up and down, throughout the town,
Most frantic scenes were acted;
And some ran here, and some ran there,
Like men almost distracted.

"Some fire cried, which some denied,
But said the earth had quaked;
And girls and boys, with hideous noise.
Ran through the town half naked." &c. &c.

If a parcel of kegs, in those days, alarmed them so much, what will Fulton's torpedoes do now?

Mr. MCKIM said, that what had fallen from the gentleman from Connecticut had operated powerfully on his mind to satisfy him of the propriety of the appropriation. He says, observed Mr. MCK., that he has no doubt they will produce the desired effect. Now, sir, when I am informed, from so respectable a source, of their effect when properly placed under the ship, I am induced to vote for this appropriation. If one of these machines in a hundred should take effect, the object would be perfectly gained. If we could only blow up one or two in a squadron, we should not hereafter be disturbed by British squadrons in our waters. I have listened with great pleasure to the lecture of the gentleman on pneumatics, hydraulics, &c., for I know not where I could have derived so much information as from that gentleman, and I take the opportunity of returning my thanks to him.

Mr. FISK said he was against the bill, but from different reasons than other gentlemen were. I do believe, said he, that in some cases, the anchored torpedoes may be effectual; but I do not believe that any thing to result from this bill will be of service to the country. I do not entertain any doubt that a vessel may be blown up. The explosion will take place, the wreck will be left in the bed of the river, and it may cost $5,000 to raise it, or it may remain as an obstacle to the invasion of the capital. If Congress are at this time seriously to resort to the torpedo system of defence, let us do it in a more serious manner; let us make a respectable provision to purchase torpedo munition, and create a torpedo corps under certain regulations. We have got military and naval armaments; let us make a torpedo armament. At the same time, it was but justice to the inventor to say, that he considered the anchored torpedo as a very useful invention. Mr. F. moved to recommit the bill, to inquire into the propriety of appropriating such a sum of money as the Secretary of the Navy should deem adequate to the object, for the sum proposed certainly was not.

Mr. QUINCY said he agreed with the gentleman from New York in his opposition to the bill, because, if a fair experiment was intended, the appropriation was totally insufficient. This morning, in a conversation with the Secretary of the Navy, I understood that this sum will not enable a vessel to be placed in that situation which will give a fair experiment. If we pass this bill, it will be utterly useless to the purpose proposed. If the object be to have gentlemen who never saw such a thing gratified with an explosion, that object will be attained, but no other. Let us have an estimate from the Secretary of the Navy of the probable expense, or the whole sum appropriated may be lost, and the law will prove utterly disgraceful to those who passed it.

Mr. HOLLAND said he had understood from the torpedo inventor himself, that $5,000 would be amply sufficient.

Mr. DANA said he had no belief that any vessel could be purchased for five thousand dollars, on which a sufficient experiment could be made. He conceived that the experiment could only be made in hostile operations. We are told that these torpedoes would destroy the navy in the British channel. Do we doubt the inveteracy of the French hatred of the British navy when it has existed so many years? If this invention would command the British Channel--and millions are but dust in the balance for this object--to enable Bonaparte to strike at the British soil, why has not the invention been patronized by France? It has been rejected by France, and rejected by England after an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars--and now are we to take it up? It is as a stationary resistance to be made to a naval force where there are fortresses also, that the torpedo may be made use of, if they can be used at all; where chains, or chevaux-de-frises are made use of, it may be made use of as auxiliary to other aids in terrifying the enemy. As to setting these machines afloat, firing harpoons into vessels, calculating the chance of boats getting away when a single shot may send them to the bottom, I have no opinion of it at all.

Mr. LYON said he would not vote for recommitment, not that he had not rather that ten thousand dollars were appropriated than five thousand; but the House had the Senate's opinion on that point before them. He agreed with gentlemen entirely, that there never could be a complete experiment until time of war. But that was no reason why we should not, before war came, be in a fair state to try the experiment in war.

Mr. FISK said he had not seen the experiment which had been made in New York, but he had conversed with hundreds who had. He had no doubt but the invention might be useful, but how was its utility to be ascertained, unless in the vessel to be attacked, there was a crew prepared to resist the approach of the boats, or prevent the operation of the torpedo? The nation would be no more convinced of their utility after an expenditure of five thousand dollars than they now are. It is because I have confidence in the effect of anchored torpedoes, that I am for recommitting the bill. By passing the bill as it is, we shall demonstrate nothing but the expenditure of money. I am for making an actual experiment on an enemy's vessel. To attack a well-manned frigate, is a very different thing from attacking an old hulk, perfectly at the disposal of the projectors. If we were to pass a bill constructing a torpedo corps, and offering a bounty on every ship blown up, it would be much better calculated to make an impression of our seriousness than this bill.

Mr. TALLMADGE said, that having been absent from the House at the time this bill was first introduced, he knew not what arguments had been offered in favor of it. He said he was always ready to encourage inventions, &c., but when a measure was presented which had no novelty in it, he could not be satisfied to give a silent vote on the bill for encouraging it.

My honorable colleague stated fairly the principles on which the submarine boat was constructed; and I believe, said Mr. T., that there is no gentleman in this House who doubts the power of gunpowder, placed under the bottom of a vessel, to destroy it. I have seen it tried during the war in a great variety of ways. I became perfectly satisfied that the principle was just; the only difficulty was to place the magazine in such a situation that it should have the greatest possible effect.

I well recollect that, in 1777, when Bushnell was called on to make an experiment on a British brig of thirty-two guns, lying in North river, a detachment of troops was directed to proceed down the river to enable him to make the experiment free from interruption. I had the honor to command the detachment, and continued there one month. The object of the troops under my immediate command was to keep off all hostile persons, whether of the enemy or persons unfriendly to the invention, that he might have every opportunity to make his experiment with success. His object was at ebb tide to get into the river a boat constructed for the purpose, and pass down the river, and, if possible, fix his magazine of powder to the bottom of the enemy's vessel. He tried it over and over again. Sometimes he would entirely miss the vessel; sometimes he would come so near that he would get intimidated and retire again; till, sir, I became so heartily sick of the business, and of that sort of duty, that I wished the boat and men were both at the bottom of the ocean. I state this to show the difficulty, danger, and what I myself conceive to be the impossibility of placing the magazine under the vessel. So much for this; and I take Mr. Fulton's machine to be bottomed precisely on the same principle, the difference only being in the mode of application.

I have no idea of laughing the subject out of the House; but how can gentlemen see the least probability of success in the invention? Suppose a frigate at anchor, and a few boats endeavoring to harpoon this vessel. Do gentlemen suppose that boats can approach without the most imminent danger? And, granting that the harpoon strikes, where is all the nautical skill of the men when they see this, if they do not prevent it from taking effect. Suppose a perfectly sure shot, and that the harpoon should be fastened in the bow, is it possible that the rope to which the torpedo is attached would not be cut, and the torpedo left to float below perfectly harmless? Do gentlemen consider harpooning a vessel to be like harpooning a whale, which has no men on board of it to take out the harpoon? I cannot bring myself to believe it possible that a crew on board a ship could see all around her, and yet permit a torpedo to be attached to her and place her in such a condition as to be liable to be totally destroyed with every person on board.