Chapter I: A. Coles (3)

It does seem to me that this sort of philosophical experiment ought not to be gone into by this House. If it be necessary to employ anything it would be vastly preferable that we should not go through all this solemn farce of passing a law for the purpose of exhibiting a sort of playful experiment, and there is probably a day of our time to be devoted to it, when, in truth, no solid advantages can accrue from it. I am unwilling on another ground, because the thing itself would expose the Government to a sort of ridicule. If we pass this bill, and the experiment be made; if a brig be bought for this money and totally destroyed, there will still be as much proof wanting to demonstrate that this is an experiment on which we can rely, as there was before. I am against it on another ground: that if we trust to this kind of doubtful defence, we shall get into the habit of giving up the more substantial defence of the country. This is my solid reason for voting against this bill. No one ever yet found any way of getting along in solid defence but by solid preparation. I should rather come into honorable combat than fight with this underhand explosion, when especially there is so much doubt in it. If an experiment could be made, however, without all this solemn farce, I do not, know that I should have any objection to it.

The motion for recommitment was lost--50 to 45.

The question on the passage of the bill was then taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative--yeas 65, nays 53.

WEDNESDAY, March 28.

_First Meridian._

Mr. PITKIN, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 25th of January last, the memorial of William Lambert, made the following report thereon:

That the memorialist states that, for the purpose of laying a
foundation for the establishment of a first meridian for the
United States of America, at the seat of Government, he has
made calculations to determine the longitude of the Capitol,
in the City of Washington, from Greenwich Observatory, in
England; and that he submits the same, together with the
data and elements on which his calculations are made, to the
consideration and patronage of the National Legislature.

The committee have deemed the subject worthy the attention of
Congress, and would, therefore, beg leave to observe, that the
necessity of the establishment of a first meridian, or meridian
which should pass through some particular place on the globe,
from which geographers and navigators could compute or reckon
longitude, is too obvious to need elucidation.

The ancient Greek geographers placed their first meridian to
pass through one of the islands, which were by them called the
Fortunate Islands, since called the Canaries. Those islands
were situated as far west as any lands that had then been
discovered, or were known by ancient navigators in that part of
the world.

They reckoned their longitude east, from Heria or Junonia, one
of these islands supposed to be the present Island of Teneriffe.

The Arabians, it is said, fixed their first meridian at
the most westerly part of the continent of Africa. In the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when Europe was emerging
from the dark ages, and a spirit of enterprise and discovery
had arisen in the South of Europe, and various plans were
formed, and attempts made to find a new route to the East
Indies, geographers and navigators continued to calculate
longitude from Ferro, one of the same islands, though some of
them extended their first meridian as far west as the Azores or
Western islands.

In more modern times, however, most of the European nations,
and particularly England and France, have established a first
meridian to pass through the capital, or some place in their
respective countries, and to which they have lately adapted
their charts and astronomical tables.

It would perhaps have been fortunate for the science of
geography and navigation, that all nations had agreed upon
a first meridian, from which all geographers and navigators
might have calculated longitude; but as this has not been done,
and in all probability never will take place, the committee
are of opinion that, situated as we are in this Western
hemisphere, more than three thousand miles from any fixed or
known meridian, it would be proper, in a national point of
view, to establish a first meridian for ourselves; and that
measures should be taken for the eventual establishment of such
a meridian in the United States.

In examining the maps and charts of the United States, and
the particular States, or their seacoasts, which have been
published in this country, the committee find that the
publishers have assumed different places in the United States,
as first meridians.

This creates confusion, and renders it difficult, without
considerable calculation, to ascertain the relative situation
of places in this country. This difficulty is also increased,
by the circumstance that, in Louisiana, our newly-acquired
territory, longitude has heretofore been reckoned from Paris
the capital of the French Empire.

The exact longitude of any place in the United States being
ascertained from the meridian of the observatory at Greenwich,
in England, a meridian with which we have been conversant,
it would not be difficult to adapt all our maps, charts, and
astronomical tables, to the meridian of such a place. And no
place, perhaps, is more proper than the seat of Government.

It appears by the papers submitted to the consideration of the
committee, that Mr. Lambert has calculated the longitude of the
Capitol in the City of Washington, from the Royal observatory
at Greenwich, by one of the most approved methods now in use
for that purpose, viz: an occultation of a known fixed star by
the moon.

His calculations are founded on an occultation of n pleiadum,
(_Alcyone_,) one of the seven stars, on the night of the 20th
of October, 1804. By these calculations it appears, that
the longitude of the Capitol, in the city of Washington, as
reduced according to the true figure of the earth, (being that
of an oblate spheroid,) is 76° 53´ 6".920 degrees west. The
committee would observe, that Mr. Lambert appears to be well
acquainted with astronomical calculations; and that, so far
as the committee have had time to examine them, they appear
to be correct. In a question, however, of so much nicety, the
correct decision of which depends so much on the accuracy of
the observations made, and the goodness of the instruments
used, and when the smallest error in the data will necessarily
produce an erroneous result, full reliance ought not to be
placed on calculations made from a single observation.

Indeed, in order to be certain of a correct result, it may
be proper that more than one of the various methods of
ascertaining longitude should be used; that calculations
should be made from observations of the eclipses of Jupiter's
satellites, of solar eclipses, of the angular distances between
the sun and moon, or the moon and a fixed star, or other
methods, as well as from observations on occultations of fixed
stars.

The committee are, therefore, of opinion that, in order to
lay a foundation for the establishment of a first meridian in
this Western hemisphere, the President of the United States
should be authorized to cause the longitude of the city of
Washington, from the observatory at Greenwich, in England, to
be ascertained with the greatest possible degree of accuracy;
and that he also be authorized, for that purpose, to procure
the necessary astronomical instruments.

They, therefore, beg leave to submit to the consideration of
the House, the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make provision, by law,
authorizing the President of the United States to cause the
longitude of the city of Washington from the observatory at
Greenwich, in England, to be ascertained with the greatest
degree of accuracy; and also authorizing him, for that purpose,
to procure the necessary astronomical instruments.

In presenting the above report, Mr. PITKIN observed that the object of the committee was to have a first meridian established for the United States, from which computations of longitude might be generally made, that maps, charts, and nautical tables, might not, as heretofore, be calculated from the observatory at Greenwich, or from the varying points of Philadelphia, New York, Washington, or Charleston. Mr. P. dilated upon the advantages of such a measure. Congress would fix upon the place most proper for a first meridian; and, perhaps, as Washington was the seat of Government, it would be as proper a place as any. As the longitude must be taken very exactly, various instruments would be necessary for the purpose of making astronomical observations. As he was desirous that a bill should pass on the subject at this session, he did not move a reference of the report to a Committee of the Whole, but moved that it lie on the table, to give gentlemen time to consider it before he asked a decision on it.

The report was accordingly ordered to lie on the table.

FRIDAY, March 30.

_Batture at New Orleans._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill providing the means to ascertain the title to the batture near New Orleans.

Mr. BIBB's motion yet under consideration, and a division of the question being called for,

The question on striking out the sections of the present bill (providing for a judicial decision) was taken, and carried--yeas 95, nays 22.

The question now recurred on Mr. BIBB'S amendment, to insert, in lieu of those stricken out, several new sections.

[Mr. BIBB'S amendment proposes that the right of the United States shall be vested in the Corporation of New Orleans, so as to enable them to defend any suit which may be instituted for the recovery of the batture, and that the batture shall be used and enjoyed as a public highway and landing place, &c.; as well by citizens of the United States as by the inhabitants of New Orleans.]

This motion was decided by yeas and nays and lost--yeas 36, nays 84.

SATURDAY March 31.

_The Batture at New Orleans._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, on the bill providing the means to ascertain the title to the batture in front of the suburb St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans.

The question having recurred on the amendment of Mr. PITKIN, the said amendment was withdrawn by the mover.

The question was then taken on concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their first amendment to the said bill, and carried in the affirmative.

The question then recurred on concurring with the Committee of the Whole House in their second amendment to the said bill, amended in the House to read as follows:

"SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That the President of
the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, at any
time within one year, to make and execute such compromise with
the parties, or any of them, who were removed from the said
batture on the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand eight
hundred and eight, by order of the President of the United
States, and to procure a cession of their claims thereto, or
to any part thereof, for the use of the public, or to any body
politic or corporate, on such terms as may be agreed on with
the said parties, and deemed advisable by the President, and to
stipulate for a compensation, either in money or public lands,
in the city of New Orleans, or its territories, as he may think
proper."

Messrs. NELSON, SMILIE, HOLLAND, and BIBB, opposed the amendment; and Messrs. SHEFFEY, KEY, and LYON, supported it.

The question being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 62, nays 55.

MONDAY, April 9.

_Apportionment of Representation._

Mr. FISK said he rose to offer a resolution, which he had for some time wished to present for the consideration of this House. It is to provide for fixing the apportionment of the Representatives of the several States according to the third census. The last ratio was one Representative for every thirty-three thousand souls; which, gave one hundred and forty-two members to this House--a number as large as may be considered necessary for the despatch of legislation, or to preserve the liberties of the people. It is estimated that the next census will give seven millions two hundred thousand souls, which, according to the present ratio of representation, would give to this House two hundred and eighteen members--a greater number than could be accommodated within these walls, and a greater body of men than could progress with the business of the House.

After the census shall be taken, the amount in each State ascertained, and the fractional numbers known, it will be much more difficult to fix the ratio than at this time. I therefore beg leave to submit the following resolution. And as it embraces a subject of great importance, I have no objection that it lay on the table a few days for the consideration of the members:

_Resolved_, That the apportionment of Representatives amongst
the several States, according to the third enumeration of the
people, ought to be in the ratio of one Representative for
every forty-five thousand persons in each State, and that a
committee be appointed to bring in a bill accordingly.

A motion was made that the resolution lie on the table.

A motion was also made to postpone it for a week.

Mr. PICKMAN moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution indefinitely. He thought the question could be decided to much greater advantage in the two first months of the next session of Congress than in the two weeks remaining of the present session.

Mr. MACON was against indefinite postponement. Every one, on reflection, must be satisfied that it would be better to decide the ratio of apportionment now than after the result of the census was known. He thought the resolution had better have been in blank as to the ratio. The ratio might be settled either by fixing the number of Representatives of whom the House should consist after the next census, or by fixing the number of souls which should entitle a district to a Representative.

Mr. GOLD said, however desirable it might be at this time to fix the ratio, he doubted very much whether a decision would now settle the question. If a law were now to be passed, and there should be several large fractions on any given ratio, there would be a strong disposition to alter the ratio at the next session. He thought it would be expedient also to postpone the apportionment, because it might be affected by the proportion in which the population of the United States may have increased since the last census, which could not be ascertained till after the census.

Mr. QUINCY said he understood the object of the resolution to be to settle a principle before the facts were ascertained. Now it was his opinion that the House should know the facts first and settle the principle afterwards. Suppose the principle to be adopted--perhaps one or two States might be entitled to but one Representative, which, had the ratio been fixed at forty thousand, might have been entitled to two. This would appear to operate unjustly. The House must know the facts in order fairly to apportion representation. The apportionment ought to be made not merely in relation to population, but to the weight of the different States in the Union--and these considerations could not have their due weight till after the relative numbers were ascertained.

Mr. W. ALSTON was in favor of deciding on the subject at this session. He had no fear of difficulty resulting from fractions remaining unrepresented. It would be recollected that at the last apportionment, Delaware had a fraction of thirty-one thousand left, and Carolina twenty-nine thousand. The small States could not object to the course proposed; for if this question was postponed till after the census, and a particular ratio should appear to suit the returns of the three large States, they would support it and carry it too, notwithstanding the large fractions it might leave to smaller States. A disadvantage would therefore result to the small States from postponement rather than from a decision now.

Mr. FISK said there was one other reason why an apportionment should be made at this session, viz: that it would enable the State Legislatures at their ordinary winter sessions to divide the States into districts, and not subject them to the necessity of an extra session for the purpose.

Mr. LIVERMORE was against indefinite postponement, because he was inclined to the opinion that the subject ought to be acted on at this session, but wished the resolution to lie on the table a day or two. He said he was convinced, from his experience in the manner of doing business in this House, that it would take nearly the whole of the next session of Congress to make the apportionment, if it was postponed till after the census was taken. He had rather the resolution had been blank as to the ratio.

Mr. FISK modified his motion, so as to leave it blank as to the ratio.

Mr. BURWELL thought that the present was the proper time to fix the proportion; because, after the respective numbers of each State were received, it would be in the power of the larger States to fix the ratio as they pleased, and at present none of the State jealousies could be brought into action, which would, when the returns were actually made. To get over the difficulty said to exist in settling a principle before the facts were known, it was only necessary to say that so many members should compose the House. If the population was smaller than expected, there would still be the number deemed proper to constitute the House; and if it was larger there would be no great increase of members, to the detriment of public business. Mr. B. said he was fully impressed with the necessity of acting on the subject at the present session. If postponed till the result of the census was known, and the particular interest of each member of the House became implicated in the decision of it, there would be extreme difficulty in coming to a decision.

Mr. SMILIE said he could not conceive any objection to passing the resolution in its present shape. In this question there was an inconvenience on one side and evil on the other. It was an inconvenience that the House could not with precision ascertain the population of the United States; but, from the increase in times past, the increase for the last ten years might be estimated. The evil of postponement on the other hand was great. Mr. S. said he had been in Congress when the ratio of representation had been settled heretofore, and he had never seen a more difficult question--and it ended at last in a bargain between the members of the different States; and from these bargains no good could arise. He much preferred deciding on the subject at the present session.

Mr. RHEA of Tennessee was anxious that the subject should lie on the table a day or two, the more especially as there was such a disagreement of opinion as to the operation of the measure of fixing the ratio beforehand. Coming from a small State himself, he feared lest the principle should operate to the injury of the small States. He said he had been much surprised at the declaration of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the question would be decided eventually (if postponed) by individual interest. If on such a question the House was to be governed by individual interests, what was the nation to expect from them? This suggestion was another reason in his mind for the resolution's lying on the table.

Mr. SMILIE had spoken of human nature as he found it, even in the gentleman from Tennessee as well as all others--a degree of self-concern always influenced individual conduct. Whoever had assisted at settling the representation of a State would conceive the difficulty of deciding these questions.

The motion for indefinite postponement was negatived, ayes 23. The motion to postpone to Monday shared the same fate, ayes 33. The motion to lie on the table was carried--53 to 41.

WEDNESDAY, April 11.

_Colonel Washington._

Mr. RANDOLPH said that the House was already apprised of the death of Colonel William Washington, in whom our country had lost one of her most illustrious sons. It is very far from my intention, sir, said he, by any amplification of mine to lessen the impression of that merit which the bare mention of his name is calculated to make on the mind of every man who hears me. It is not the least unequivocal proof of that worth that it was not extinguished by the effulgence of his great kinsman's glory, with which it was daily brought into comparison. The reputation which can stand such an ordeal as this, is far beyond the praise or blame of an humble individual like me. If, to the proposition which I am about to offer, an objection should arise in the breast of any man who hears me on the score of the rank which that gentleman bore in the late American army, permit me to suggest that it is a testimony to valor and not to rank. It is not a mere respect to rank which I wish the House to pay. It is not in rank to add to the infamy of an Arnold, or to the glory of a WASHINGTON. I will, therefore, move the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the members of this House do wear crape on the
left arm during the remainder of the session, as a testimony of
respect for the memory of William Washington, late a Lieutenant
Colonel in the Revolutionary army.

Mr. SMILIE said he hoped there was no man who felt more respect or gratitude to those men who served their country during the Revolutionary war than he did, but this resolution appeared to be improper on several grounds. I agree, said Mr. S., with the gentleman from Virginia, that rank should have no effect on the opinions of the members of this House on such a subject as this. But, is it not singular that as to the many heroes who have served us during the Revolution, who have now gone to their long home, no notice has been taken of their merits by us, nor any step taken to confer upon them the honor now proposed to be conferred on this officer, whom I acknowledge to be meritorious? We have seen a Greene die, and certainly no man exceeded him in rank or merit, the General-in-chief excepted. We have seen a Wayne also die; and I do not recollect that such a tribute was proposed to any man who served us during the Revolution. Shall we, then, by passing this resolution, sanction an idea that Lieutenant-Colonel Washington was entitled to more respect than others? Would not the passage of this resolution be considered as an indirect censure on the other Revolutionary characters who have gone from us? When the other heroes fall that are still existing, we must, if we pass this resolution, pay the same respect to their merits, or suppose them to have been inferior. This would introduce into the Legislature invidious comparisons, and, instead of legislating, we shall be sitting as judges upon character. In every respect, I think the resolution objectionable.

The question was taken on the resolution without further debate, and passed in the negative--yeas 30.

THURSDAY, April 12.

_The Convoy System._

Mr. EPPES said that, some time ago, a bill had been reported by him to the House, authorizing the President of the United States to employ the public armed vessels to convoy the lawful commerce of the United States. The motion to adjourn, which had been agreed to, would leave but a small portion of the time of the House for the discussion of the several subjects before them. As he was compelled by ill health to leave the city at an early day, having already obtained leave of absence, he was anxious to obtain a vote on this before he departed, and therefore asked to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of the bill, in order to take the sense of the House whether it should go to a third reading or lie on the table for the present.

This motion was opposed by Messrs. MACON, TAYLOR, PICKMAN, RANDOLPH, LIVERMORE, and WILSON, on the ground of its being out of the usual course of proceedings; and it was objected to the more especially as this was a subject involving very important principles, and one which, of all others, ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. EPPES expressed his willingness to take a silent vote on the subject, and thought a vote might be obtained on the bill without much debate.

Mr. JOHNSON expressed great anxiety to vote on the bill.

Mr. LIVERMORE intimated that he was strongly against the bill, and, if it took every hour in the session, he was determined to expose what he believed to be its injurious features.

On the question, Mr. EPPES' motion was negatived--yeas 50, nays 61, as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon,
David Bard, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A.
Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, John
Clopton, Howell Cobb, James Cox, William Crawford, John Dawson,
Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, Meshack Franklin,
David S. Garland, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, James
Holland, Benjamin Howard, Jacob Hufty, Richard M. Johnson,
Walter Jones, Aaron Lyle, Samuel McKee, Nicholas R. Moore,
Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, John Porter,
John Roane, Erastus Root, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons,
Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Dennis Smelt,
George Smith, John Smith, Henry Southard, Robert Weakley,
Robert Whitehall, Robert Witherspoon, and Richard Wynn.

NAYS.--William W. Bibb, Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge,
William Chamberlin, Epaphroditus Champion, James Cochran,
Richard Cutts, John Davenport, junior, William Ely, James
Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barzillai Gannett, Thos. R. Gold, William
Hale, Daniel Heister, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Richard Jackson,
jr., Robert Jenkins, William Kennedy, Herman Knickerbacker,
Joseph Lewis, jun., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Matthew Lyon,
Nathaniel Macon, Robt. Marion, Vincent Matthews, Archibald
McBryde, Pleasant M. Miller, William Milnor, Thomas Moore,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Benjamin Pickman, jun.,
Timothy Pitkin, jun., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John
Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee,
Matthias Richards, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, Samuel Smith,
Richard Stanford, John Stanley, James Stephenson, Jacob Swoope,
Samuel Taggart, John Taylor, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, George
M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Jabez Upham, Nicholas Van Dyke,
Archibald Van Horne, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton,
Ezekiel Whitman, and James Wilson.

FRIDAY, April 18.

_Colonel Washington._

Mr. QUINCY rose to move a resolution. He said he very deeply regretted the situation in which this House had been placed in relation to the memory of that distinguished officer of the Revolution, General William Washington, in consequence of the resolution moved on the 11th instant. He thought that the impression exhibited on the journals was not such as either did justice to that individual or to the feelings of every member of the House. He hoped that to the resolution which he was about to offer, and which had for its object an explanation of the grounds on which he knew a majority of the House had voted, would not find an objection. It would take away the appearance that this House had not that deep sense of the merits and services of that officer which he knew they possessed. He then read the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the House of Representatives are deeply
sensible of the loss this nation has sustained in the death of
General William Washington, late Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army
of the Revolution, and that the rejection of the resolution
offered on the 11th instant, in relation to that distinguished
officer, having been produced wholly by considerations of a
general nature, cannot be deemed to derogate from the high
sense which this House, in common with their fellow-citizens,
entertain of his civil and military virtues and services.

The House agreed to consider the resolution--58 to 13.

The resolution passed--ayes 63; about seventy-five members were present.

FRIDAY, April 20.

_General Wilkinson._

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following letter, which was read:

WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1810_.

SIR: After a tedious passage from New Orleans I arrived at
Baltimore on the 16th instant, and reached this city the
next day. My absence has been necessarily protracted by the
selection of papers, from a mass of twenty years' accumulation,
for the establishment of facts, to refute the multifarious and
diversified calumnies by which I have been assailed.

I now present myself to the Representative body of the nation,
the guardians of the public weal and the protectors of
individual rights, to express my earnest desire that they may
constitute some impartial tribunal, which may be governed with
strictness by the principles of the constitution and the laws
of evidence, to investigate the conduct of my whole life, civil
and military, whereby justice may be done, and my unexampled
persecution be terminated.

I aver my innocence of the foul offences which are imputed
to me, and declare my ability to support it before any
unprejudiced court. Through you, sir, I appeal to my
country, and I claim that right which is not refused to the
most profligate--the right of confronting my accusers. The
Representatives of the people will not, I am persuaded, suffer
a fellow-citizen who has been devoted to the public service
more than twenty-five years, and has nothing left him but
conscious fidelity and attachment to his native country, to sue
in vain for justice.

The enclosed letter to the Secretary of War was written
anterior to the receipt of my notification of recall from the
command on the Mississippi, and will evince my readiness and my
desire for a full investigation of my conduct.

With perfect respect, I have the honor to be, sir, your
obedient servant,

JAMES WILKINSON.

Hon. J. B. VARNUM, _Speaker_, _&c._

_Naval Establishment._

Mr. RANDOLPH, from the committee to whom was referred the resolution respecting the reduction of the Naval Establishment, reported the following bill; which was twice read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole:

[Here follows the Bill.]

MONDAY, April 23.

_Loan Bill._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill authorizing a loan for a sum of money not exceeding the amount of the principal of the public debt reimbursable during the year 1810.

[In the discussion which took place on this bill, there was no objection to the principle of it. Every gentleman who spoke assented to the propriety of placing at the disposal of the Government a sum of money fully adequate to meet the appropriations authorized by law for the present year.]

Mr. DANA wished to ascertain the precise amount of the principal of the debt reimbursable during the year 1810, with a view to inserting the sum in the body of the bill.

Some difference of opinion appeared to exist as to the exact amount of principal reimbursable. The sum annually applicable to the payment of the public debt is eight millions of dollars. The sum left, after paying the interest of it for the year, is annually applicable to the extinguishment of the principal. The exact amount of interest payable on the public debt during this year not being known, there was a difficulty in ascertaining the exact amount of principal reimbursable.

The sum of $4,800,000 was mentioned.

Mr. DANA moved to amend the bill so as to authorize a loan "not exceeding $4,800,000, being the amount of the principal reimbursable," &c. This motion was supported by the mover, and Messrs. GOLD, SHEFFEY, QUINCY, UPHAM, TALLMADGE, and PICKMAN, and opposed by Messrs. BACON, W. ALSTON, and MONTGOMERY.

The arguments in favor of the motion were, generally, that it was improper to attempt to disguise any thing by giving to it a specious name; that borrowing money should not be called paying the public debt; that all authority given to borrow money should be express and specific as to the sum. It was said in reply, that there could be no objection that the truth should appear on the face of a bill; that this sum not being wanted to defray the ordinary expenses of the Government, but to pay debts heretofore contracted, the phraseology was perfectly correct; that it was as specific in fact as if expressed in so many figures.

Mr. DANA varied his motion, after debate, on account of the uncertainty which appeared to exist as to the sum reimbursable, and of course as to the sum to be loaned. He moved to amend the bill so as to give authority to borrow a sum of money "not exceeding four millions of dollars."

This motion was supported and opposed by the same gentlemen who debated the former motion. In support of the motion it was said, that this sum was all that the Secretary of the Treasury had asked for, and was therefore as much as ought to be given. The advocates of the amendment also said that they were averse to legislating blindfold, to voting millions without knowing for what, or to surrendering up their judgments to Executive discretion, under an idea that the President would not borrow more than was necessary.

In reply it was said, that since the Secretary of the Treasury had made the estimate in question, other expenses had been incurred; that it was impossible to tell the precise amount which was wanted until Congress should adjourn, as it was impossible to tell on one day what appropriations they would make the next day; that, if not necessary, the authority to borrow would not be used; as in the case of the loan authorized at the last session of Congress, not a cent of which had been actually borrowed. That law had granted an authority nearly similar to this in nearly the same language.

Mr. DANA'S motion was negatived--52 to 29.

Mr. QUINCY observed that he felt but one difficulty on this subject. He could not agree to borrow an amount greater than the Secretary of the Treasury had said was necessary. He, therefore, moved to amend the bill by adding to it the following proviso:

"_Provided_, That nothing in this act contained shall be
construed to authorize any sum to be borrowed greater than four
millions of dollars."

The motion was lost--ayes 28.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow.

TUESDAY, April 24.

_Reduction of the Navy._

The House in Committee of the Whole on the bill to reduce the Naval Establishment of the United States.

The bill having been read--

Mr. MCKIM moved to amend that part of the bill which directs the sale of all the gunboats, by adding the following words: "belonging to the United States, unfit for service, and unworthy of repairs."

This motion was agreed to without debate, ayes 56.

Mr. KEY said he was friendly to the reduction of the Navy, but not to its annihilation. He therefore moved to strike out so much of the bill as provides that all the frigates but three shall be "sold," and to insert in lieu thereof, "laid up in ordinary."

Messrs. DANA and MUMFORD supported the motion.

Mr. RHEA of Tennessee made a motion, which superseded that made by Mr. KEY, to strike out the whole of the section, except so much as related to gunboats. He was wholly opposed to the reduction of the Navy at present.

Mr. SMILIE said he should vote for the motion with a view to inserting a substitute going to place the Navy now on the footing of the Peace Establishment of 1806.

Mr. DANA was in favor of Mr. RHEA'S motion, but expressed himself very pointedly in favor of a reform in the expenditures and conduct of the Naval Establishment generally.

Mr. BASSETT also was in favor of Mr. RHEA'S motion. He supported the policy of a small navy, and vindicated the establishment generally from charges of waste or extravagance, though he was friendly to reform wherever necessary. Mr. B. spoke nearly an hour.

Mr. COOK and Mr. RHEA of Tennessee also spoke in favor of the motion to strike out the whole of the first section.

Mr. MACON spoke against the motion, and against the policy of a navy as applicable to the situation of this country.

Mr. STANFORD followed Mr. MACON on the same side of the question, and particularly reprobated the extravagant expenditure of money incident to the naval system.

Mr. DANA spoke again on the subject of reform in the system.

Mr. MACON and Mr. STANFORD explained.

Mr. BOYD was against the reduction of the Navy under present appearances.

The motion to strike out the remainder of the section was carried, 61 to 25.

Mr. SMILIE moved to insert, in the place of that part which was stricken out, the following:

"And further, that the President of the United States be, and
he is hereby, authorized to keep in actual service as many of
the frigates and other armed vessels as in his judgment the
nature of the service may require, and to cause the residue to
be laid up in ordinary in convenient ports: _Provided_, the
whole number of officers and seamen shall not exceed that fixed
by the act 'in addition to the act, supplementary to the act,
providing for the Naval Peace Establishment, and for other
purposes;' passed the 21st day of April, 1806."

Mr. S. read the law alluded to in this amendment, which would go to retain in service thirteen captains, nine masters commandant, seventy-two lieutenants, one hundred and fifty midshipmen, and nine hundred and twenty-five able-bodied seamen, ordinary seamen and boys.

Mr. MCKIM opposed the amendment, because he was altogether opposed to a reduction of the Navy in the present state of the world.

Mr. SMILIE replied. He said he had no apprehension of danger to his country from laying up a few frigates.

Mr. BASSETT stated that the whole number of seamen now in service, was but two thousand seven hundred and twenty-three. If the number was reduced, the expense of reducing and re-enlisting them within a short period, would exceed the expense of keeping them in service during the interval.

Mr. MONTGOMERY spoke in favor of the amendment, under the impression that there was no disposition in Congress to make use of the Navy. Although the number of seamen in service might not exceed two thousand seven hundred and twenty, as stated, yet the President now had power to authorize the employment of five thousand four hundred and ninety men. The adoption of the amendment, he said, would curtail the present annual expense, $778,000.

Mr. MUMFORD spoke against the amendment. He remarked that the counting-house calculation of pounds, shillings, and pence, heretofore imputed as a fault to the merchants, seemed to have been transferred to the planters of cotton and tobacco. He did not regard a little expense when put in competition with the national safety.

Mr. SMILIE'S amendment was negatived.

The section for disusing all the navy-yards except those at Boston, New York, and Norfolk, having been read--

Mr. KEY moved to insert "Washington" after New York, and, speaking in support of his motion, expatiated on the advantages possessed by a navy-yard at the seat of Government.

Mr. BASSETT concurred with Mr. KEY in opinion; but, as he presumed the section was only meant as an accompaniment to that part of the bill already stricken out, he moved to strike out the whole section.

Mr. DANA opposed the amendment. Six navy-yards were certainly not necessary for the service of the United States, and he particularly opposed the retention of the yard at Washington.

Mr. KEY spoke in reply to Mr. DANA, and in support of Mr. BASSETT'S motion. He defended the navy-yard at Washington against the imputations cast on it.

Messrs. TALLMADGE and DANA spoke against the amendment.

Mr. SMILIE spoke in favor of the amendment, and expressed his astonishment at the change which appeared to have taken place in the House since they had voted, 60 to 31, a few days ago, to reduce the Navy.

Mr. KEY expressed his surprise that a gentleman having as much parliamentary experience as the gentleman who preceded him, should be surprised at the change of votes. A majority had voted to reduce, having different objects of reduction in view; but, when a reduction in any one branch of expenditure was proposed, it appeared that a majority could not agree in it. Mr. K. spoke again in favor of the amendment.

The motion to strike out the section was lost, 52 to 40.

Mr. KEY renewed his motion to insert "Washington."

Mr. RANDOLPH opposed the motion on the ground of the unfitness of the situation of Washington, compared with others, for a navy-yard.

Mr. MACON supported the motion; because he was utterly opposed to a navy, he said he wished that a navy-yard should be kept here, as members of Congress would be much sooner disgusted by seeing the expenditures of the Navy system, than by hearing of them.

Mr. DANA, as a friend to a navy, said he wished the amendment not to prevail. The gentleman from North Carolina, an enemy to navies, wished to retain the yard at this place; he, Mr. D., a friend to them generally, wished to dispose of or disuse it. They therefore thought alike, though they should vote differently.

The motion to insert "Washington" was carried--54 to 42.

The section for reducing the marines was struck out, without debate--ayes 59.

The committee rose, and reported the bill as amended.

The SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and the House resolved now to consider the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. MILNOR said the bill had been much amended in committee, and as the remnant left amounted to very little, and the discussion of that little would probably cost more than would be saved by passing it into a law, he moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject indefinitely.

WEDNESDAY, April 25.

_Loan Bill._

The engrossed bill authorizing a loan for a sum of money, not exceeding the amount of the principal of the public debt, reimbursable during the year 1810, was read a third time.

All the gentlemen who spoke against the bill professed to be willing in a proper manner to authorize a loan of any sum of money necessary to meet the appropriations made; but they contended that the bill was objectionable because the sum was not stated in the face of the bill, because the bill bore a deceptive appearance of borrowing money to pay the public debt, when, in fact, it was to meet the ordinary expenses of the Government; because the bill authorized a loan of five millions five hundred and sixty thousand dollars, more by one million one hundred and sixty thousand dollars than the Secretary of the Treasury had declared to be necessary, and because no loan ought to be authorized until bills now before the House were decided on, which involved a reduction of the annual expenditure.

In reply to the objections to this bill, it was urged that the amount authorized (not required) to be borrowed was as definitely expressed as though in figures; that there could be no deception on the face of the bill, for, if no debt heretofore contracted was now to be paid off, there would not only be no occasion to borrow, but there would be an immense annual surplus in the Treasury; that, since the estimate of four millions had been reported to the House, various appropriations had been made, and it was impossible yet to say how much might be wanted, and no more would be borrowed than actually was wanted; that if the passage of the bill was delayed but a day or two, it would be very easy for gentlemen to prevent its passage at all.

The bill was passed--yeas 77, nays 35.

_Reduction of the Navy._

The House then resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. MILNOR said when he had made the motion for the indefinite postponement of the bill, he had supposed that the sense of the House had been fully expressed on it; but as it appeared that the motion would occupy much time in debate, and as some gentlemen had thought proper to insinuate that the motion was made for the purpose of avoiding meeting a direct question on the bill, he now rose to withdraw the motion.

The question was then stated on the first amendment made in Committee of the Whole, viz: to strike out so much as requires the sale of all the gunboats.

Mr. MUMFORD hoped that the frigates would not be laid up in ordinary. He said he was no politician by profession; he had been called from mercantile pursuits against his inclination, but he had always understood that government was instituted for the protection of the citizen. He was chagrined when he saw the events unfolding in the Old World, and witnessed such a paralyzing system going on in his own country. He had hoped that some system would have been adopted for the protection of our commerce at sea. If gentlemen were determined to abandon the ocean altogether, he begged to know it in time before merchants were totally ruined, for it was impossible at present to carry on any commerce whatever. The part of the country which he represented (city of New York) felt it strongly; agriculture would feel it sooner or later. The enormous captures made of their property had reduced merchants to the alternative of staying at home, or having no commerce but with Great Britain. If gentlemen are disposed to surrender commerce to the discretion of the belligerents and retire from the ocean, it is time to know it. Mr. M. said he was no _motive-monger_; he never arraigned gentlemen for their motives. We have heard gentlemen say, "millions for defence and not a cent for tribute;" and a noble and popular sentiment it was. It seemed now to be reversed with them, and a plain translation of their speeches was, "millions for tribute; not a cent for defence." Various projects had been offered. Some gentlemen were for putting down the whole Army and Navy; others were for a sort of snail system, alarmed at the least apprehension of danger. Viewing the subject as he did, Mr. M. entreated that gentlemen would consent to protect commerce. The island of St. Domingo now possessed seventeen armed vessels. They were gaining strength daily, and what was the situation of our Southern borders? If our naval force was entirely withdrawn from the ocean, it was impossible for an army of militia to defend the mouth of the Chesapeake. He understood that two vessels were now building in Chesapeake Bay for St. Domingo. He knew that the Haytian agents had been in this country for the purpose of purchasing vessels. Under all these circumstances was it wise and prudent to discharge the Navy? He presumed the best course would be to put to sea what little navy we have to protect our own coasters, for they would be necessary without any view to commerce in the European seas. Under every view, instead of laying up those vessels in service, Mr. M. said he hoped that gentlemen would consent to fit out every vessel in the possession of the United States, and send them out to protect American commerce.

A motion having been made by Mr. SMILIE to amend the bill so as to place the Navy on the footing on which it stood in 1806--

Mr. DANA said he was not for pausing with merely replacing the former system; he was also for guarding against the waste of public property and treasure which had taken place in the Naval Establishment. He believed that for the number of fighting men afloat the United States had been put to a much greater expense than was necessary. He was not speaking, he said, of our having few brave men on the water, nor of the great sums given anywhere to those who give us their blood; but the system of the navy-yards, he believed, required a thorough reform. If he was to judge of the general economy on board the frigates and smaller vessels from the little he had seen of them, he must set it down for certain that waste did not exist on board the vessels after they were fitted for service, and manned, and officered. As far as he had an opportunity to observe, he had marked a strong sense of subordination, and the practice of command at the same time sustained with gentleman-like propriety, without any unnecessary torture or rigor. In all this business, Mr. D. said, where you employ warriors, whether by land or water, that department called the staff, the agents, purveyors of supplies, &c., is the branch of the service to which you most look for waste. On merely casting the eye along the decks of our vessels, the conduct of the officers, and the manner in which the men behaved, indicated a sort of conduct which appeared to him incompatible with waste, laxity of discipline, or want of attention to duty. Generally speaking, the civil branch of the service was the reverse of this. Mr. D. adverted to the mode of equipping vessels, and reprobated the scrambling, which he had understood often took place for equipments, as incompatible with methodical arrangement, and correct distribution of supplies. It was wasteful and inconsistent with regular accountability. It was not the course pursued in the navy-yards of other nations. The commander of a man of war in other countries was not permitted to go into a navy-yard; he could not there claim to have every thing new on board his vessel. When every man was suffered to manage as he would, there was no security for the economical conduct of an establishment; for the more anxious was each commander to have his own vessel exclusively well equipped, the more would the public suffer. He was, therefore, for adopting some system of rigorous retrenchment--what it should be he did not know. In the nature of the thing he was confident it could be done; without it there must be much waste. At present, therefore, he was against striking out the frigates from the Naval Establishment. A reform in the expense was the great desideratum, not the abolition of the Navy.

Mr. D. said he would submit to the House one consideration: the appearance which the passage of such a bill would present to the world after the resolutions passed at the commencement of the present session. For his own part, indeed, he had deemed it useless to make declarations of national independence, or to resolve against submission; but at the commencement of the session a resolution had been passed respecting what had taken place between Executive and the British Minister, and then Congress had pledged themselves to call forth the whole force of the nation to stand by and support the President. He had supposed this unnecessary, improper, and exceptionable in some respects. But at the same session, when the controversy was chiefly respecting maritime privileges, if they should not only reduce but sell the Navy, what would the world say, when they had seen the beginning and end of the session? Would it be possible that foreign powers could look up with any reverence to their acts? We shall, said he, be reduced to such a situation that even the apprehension of our hatred could not insure respect from foreign Governments, if we suffer our conduct to be so completely at war with our own acts. In order to possess some appearance of respectability in the estimation of others, the most expedient course would be to establish economy and provide for a less profuse distribution of the public moneys, but to retain the public armed vessels, that we may be in the condition for effectual service whenever it is deemed expedient. By this course we may save more of property as well as character than by an abolition of the Navy; and if we save both it is better than to save the one and lose the other.