Chapter I: A. Coles (30)

It had been asked, why was the country unprepared for defence? Was he expected to answer this question? The Administration and their overwhelming majorities must answer it. They had wantoned in the plenitude of their power. Who could say them nay? Was it Mr. RANDOLPH'S fault that the gentleman from South Carolina had never, in the course of his extensive experience, heard of a proposition to arm the whole body of the militia? which had been damned with a faint appropriation of two hundred thousand dollars, when millions were lavished upon miserable _oyster_ boats. The Clerk of the Senate could not forbear a sneer when he read the title of the bill, at the recollection of the means to enforce it. Mr. R. had proposed himself an annual million until the work should be accomplished. He would forever stand up for the militia. It was not in the scoffs of the epaulette gentry, who, for any service they have seen, are the _rawest militia_, to degrade them in his eyes. Who were they? Ourselves--the country. Arm them and you are safe, beyond the possibility of danger. Yearly did the standing army sweep off the money, while the militia received empty praise. He would rather see the thing reversed. But there will forever be a Court and Country party. The standing army is the devoted creature of the Court. It must forever be so. Can we wonder that it should be cherished by its master? He spoke of a mercenary soldier in terms of the strongest abhorrence. He would ever uphold the militia; and he detested standing armies, as the profligate instruments of despotism, as the bloodhounds of hell. They would support any and every existing Government. In all history he remembered only one instance of their deserting their Government and taking part with the people; and that was when the Duke of Orleans had bribed the army of the last of the Bourbon Kings. A mercenary soldier was disgusting to our senses; was odious and detestable to the eye of reason, republicanism and religion. Yet, that "mere machine of murder," rude as it is, was the manufacturer of all the Cæsars, and Cromwells, and Bonapartes, of the earth; consecrated by a people's curse, not loud but deep, to the infernal gods. As from the filth of the kennel and common sewer, spread the pestilence that carried havoc through a great city, so from this squalid, outcast, homeless wretch sprung the scourge of military despotism. And yet we are told that there was no danger from an army of 30,000 or 40,000 men. With 5,000 Cæsar had passed the Rubicon. With 22,000 he fought the battle of Pharsalia, which rendered him master of the world. To come to later times--what number had Bonaparte, when, deserting his companions in arms, he returned a solitary fugitive from Egypt, to overturn that Government, which if it had possessed one particle of energy, if it had been possible for the civil authority to cope with military power, would have cashiered him for having ruined one of the best-appointed fleets and armies that ever sailed from a European port? Well might the father of political wisdom (Lord Chatham) say to the Parliament of England, "entrench yourselves in parchment to the teeth, the sword will find a passage to the vitals of the constitution." As good a Republican as ever sat on that floor, (Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun,) had dissolved his political friendship with the Earl of Sunderland, when he found him supporting an army; and the event justified his sagacity. Cromwell, the affected patron of liberty, always encouraged the army. We know the consequence. It was a fundamental principle of free Government that a Legislature which would preserve its liberty must avoid that canker, a standing army. Are we to forget, as chimerical, our notions of this institution, which we imbibed from our very cradles, which are imprinted on our Bills of Rights and Constitutions, which we avowed under the reign of John Adams? Are they to be scourged out of us by the birch of the unfledged political pedagogues of the day? If he were the enemy of this Government, could he reconcile it to his principles, he would follow the example set him in another quarter, and say to the majority, _go_ to your inevitable destruction! He likened the people under this joint operation of the two parties, Ministerial and Federal, to the poor client between two lawyers, or the cloth between the tailor's shears.

He was glad to hear from his venerable friend that this was not to be a party war. When the last additional force bill was raised, to which this was about to be superadded, it was an indispensable preliminary to an appointment, to sign, or to promise to sign, the thirty-nine articles of the creed of the reigning political church. But now the political millennium was at hand--already had John Adams and Citizen Genet laid down, like the lion and the lamb, in the same fold. And if they were not joined by their fellow-laborer in Newgate, it was his keeper's fault, not that of his inclination. Citizen _Genet_, now an American patriot of the first order, who extols "_our_ WASHINGTON;" the champion of the laws of nations; the vindicator of American rights against foreign (and, of course, French) aggression! He was glad to hear that it was not to be a war for the protection of manufactures. To domestic manufactures, in the true sense of the term, he had always been, and ever should be, a friend; he had taken a pride in clothing himself in them until it was attempted to be made a political test. He abhorred tests of all sorts, political and religious, and never would submit to them. He was sick of this cant of patriotism, which extended to a man's victuals, drink, and clothes. He had, from a sort of obstinacy that belonged to him, laid aside the _external_ use of these manufactures; but he was their firm friend, and of the manufacturers also. They were no new things to him; no Merino hobby of the day; he had known them from his infancy. He had been almost tempted to believe, from the similarity of character and avocations, that Hector had a Virginian wife; that Lucretia herself--for she had displayed the spirit of a Virginian matron--was a Virginian lady. Where were they found? Spinning among their handmaids! What was the occupation of a Virginian wife--her highest ambition? To attend to her domestic and household cares; to dispense medicine and food to the sick; to minister to the comfort of her family, her servants, and her poor neighbors, where she had any. At the sight of such a woman his heart bowed down, and did her reverence. Compare with such a being your gad-about card-players. Mr. RANDOLPH said that if the Empress Queen had presented herself decked in the spoils of a ravaged world, at the late exhibition, in contrast with our American matrons, bearing the triumphs of their own ingenuity and industry, we should have looked upon her, and all her splendor, with scorn and contempt in our hearts, although, from politeness to the sex, as gentlemen, we should have suppressed the sentiment.

He could not conclude without noticing the parallel attempted to be drawn by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr, CALHOUN--not quite indeed after the manner of Plutarch--between himself and an illustrious statesman, (Lord Chatham.) The gentleman had been pleased to say, that at the mention of his name, Mr. RANDOLPH'S heart had seemed to smite him. It had indeed smitten him: from a sensation which he trusted that gentleman might never feel: against which he seemed well secured. It was a consciousness of his own unworthiness to sustain the high duties imposed upon him by his country, which the recollection of that great man's name had, at the moment, called up. He felt humbled in the contemplation of his worth. Would to God! he possessed some portion of his powers; that he could borrow his eagle-eye, his withering look, the unrivalled majesty of his manner, the magic of his voice, at once the music and the thunder of the spheres, to rouse the House to a sense of their country's danger. In one respect, however, he might boast that he possessed some qualities in common with that immortal statesman. He might assert as lofty a spirit, as unyielding an adherence to the deliberate convictions of his own understanding, as Lord Chatham himself; who, because he set his face against corruption, and had the art of making every coward scoundrel in the nation his foe--concentrating upon himself the "rays of royal indignation, which might illumine but could not consume him;" who, because with intuitive glance he penetrated, resolved and combined every interest of his country, and each design of her enemies, and reached his object "by the flashes of his mind, which, like those of his eye, might be felt but could not be followed," was by the plodding, purblind, groping politicians of the day, attempted to be held up as an empty declaimer, a theatrical gesticulator. Gentlemen must not expect him to quit the anchorage of his own judgment in order to pursue the _ignes fatui_ that wander about Goose Creek.[19] Mr. Speaker, my heart is full--the recollection of that matchless orator and statesman has filled me with unspeakable feelings. To excite them there was no need of the cruel and insulting comparison which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CALHOUN) had attempted to draw between that gigantic statesman and the pigmy who now addresses you.

The question was now taken on concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the second resolution, which is in the following words:

"That an additional force of ---- thousand regular troops ought
to be immediately raised, to serve for three years; and that a
bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistment."

And carried as follows:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson
Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, David Bard,
Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William
Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, Thomas Blount, Adam Boyd,
James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William
Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John
Clopton, Thomas B. Cooke, Lewis Condit, William Crawford,
Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias
Earle, James Emott, William Findlay, James Fisk, Asa Fitch,
Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Charles
Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy,
Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob
Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, Philip
B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Peter
Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle,
Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald
McBryde, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah
Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan,
Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold,
Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, William Paulding, jr., Israel
Pickens, William Piper, Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Josiah
Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John
Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Ebenezer
Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam
Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith,
Silas Stow, William Strong, George Sullivan, Peter Tallman,
Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van
Cortlandt, jr., Robert Whitehall, David R. Williams, William
Widgery, Thomas Wilson, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn--110.

NAYS.--Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion,
Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, Edwin
Gray, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr.,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha
R. Potter, John Randolph, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford,
Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban
Wheaton, and Leonard White--22.

The question was then taken on the third resolution, in the following words:

"That it is expedient to authorize the President, under proper
regulations, to accept the service of any number of volunteers,
not exceeding fifty thousand; to be organized, trained, and
held in readiness to act on such service as the exigencies of
the Government may require."

And carried: yeas 113--nays 16.

The question was next taken on the fourth resolution, in the following words:

"That the President be authorized to order out from time to
time such detachments of the militia, as in his opinion the
public service may require."

And carried: yeas 120--nays 8.

The question was then taken on the fifth resolution, in the words following:

"That all the vessels not now in service belonging to the Navy,
and worthy of repair, be immediately fitted up and put in
commission."

And carried: yeas 111--nays 15.

The question was put from the Chair on the sixth resolution, in these words:

"6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels, owned
exclusively by resident citizens, and commanded and navigated
solely by citizens, to arm under proper regulations, to be
prescribed by law, in self-defence, against all unlawful
proceedings towards them on the high seas."

When the resolution was, on motion, ordered to lie on the table.

The three first resolutions, for filling up the present establishment, for raising an additional number of regulars, and authorizing the acceptance of volunteers' services, were referred to the committee who reported them, with instructions to bring in bills in pursuance thereof.

TUESDAY, December 17.

_Mississippi Territory--Ordinance of 1787._

Mr. POINDEXTER, from the committee to whom the said report was committed, reported the same with an amendment; which was read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole on Monday next. The report is as follows:

The committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the
Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the
Mississippi Territory, and the petition of sundry citizens
thereof, praying to be admitted into the Union of the United
States on an equal footing with the original States; and also
the petition of the inhabitants of West Florida, setting
forth their desire to be annexed to said Territory, for
reasons therein contained, have had these subjects under
consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report:

That there has existed in the Mississippi Territory a temporary
government, founded on the ordinance for the government of the
Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, since the eleventh day
of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight. That,
although this ordinance has undergone some modifications,
extending, in a limited degree, the rights and privileges of
the citizens, it still contains provisions incompatible with
political liberty, and unfavorable to a due and impartial
administration of justice, in the redress of private wrongs
and injuries. The Chief Executive Magistrate is charged with
the execution of the laws; is commander-in-chief of the
militia; has the sole power of appointment to offices, civil
and military, within the Territory, and the removal of these
officers at pleasure; is vested with an unqualified veto on
all bills passed by the other co-ordinate branches of the
Legislature; and is, moreover, clothed with the odious and
arbitrary authority to prorogue and dissolve the General
Assembly whenever, in his opinion, it shall be expedient. These
high and regal prerogatives, constituting some of the most
obvious characteristics which distinguish an absolute monarchy
from the constitution of a free State, are confided to the
discretionary exercise of a Governor, who is neither chosen by,
nor responsible to, the people. He is often a total stranger
to the local interests and circumstances of the country over
which he possesses such unlimited control, and is accountable
only for malconduct or corruption in office to the President
of the United States. The only security which exists against
the frequent and wanton abuse of these powers is to be found in
the mild and conciliatory disposition uniformly manifested by
the General Government towards its territories. But experience
has shown that, in all colonial governments, officers situated
at a remote distance from the tribunal to which they are
responsible, too frequently "feel power and forget right;" and,
by eluding the vigilance of rigid investigation, are enabled to
practise acts of oppression with impunity.

The above summary of Executive powers, so opposite in their
nature to those principles which form the basis of the Federal
Constitution, and which are transfused through the constitution
of the several States, is sufficient to show that the people
are deprived of all participation in the choice of those who
administer the laws, and that public functionaries are rendered
independent of the community whose interests are confided
to their management and discretion. These restrictions on
the rights of the people can be justified only by the most
evident necessity, resulting from peculiar and unavoidable
circumstances. Your committee, therefore, consider it an
act both of strict justice and sound policy to advance the
respective territories of the United States to the grade of a
separate commonwealth, whenever they shall contain the number
of inhabitants necessary to entitle them, under the ratio
established by law, to a Representative in the Congress of the
United States. On the subject of population, there exists no
difficulty, whether the territory be taken in connection with
West Florida or with its present limits. From the official
returns of the census, taken during the summer of the past
year, it appears that there were, in the Mississippi Territory,
the number of forty thousand three hundred and fifty-two souls.
This enumeration, it is alleged, fell considerably short of
the actual population of the Territory at that time; and,
without casting the most remote censure on the officers who
were employed in that service, such a suggestion is strongly
supported by the vast extent of country over which the
settlements are dispersed. It also appears to your committee
that the progressive emigration from the old States to this
section of the Union, added to the length of time which it will
require to form a constitution, and put the same in operation,
afford satisfactory pledges that, anterior to the final
admission of the Territory to the rights of State sovereignty,
the number of its inhabitants will amount to at least sixty
thousand, whereby they will possess the unqualified right, in
conformity with articles of cession and agreement between the
United States and Georgia, to be admitted into the Union on an
equal footing with the original States.

Your committee cannot forbear to express their decided opinion,
that, where no constitutional difficulty occurs, the formation
of new States on the southern extremity of the United States
ought not to be delayed.

Under these impressions, your committee submit the following
resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is expedient to admit all that tract of
country, bounded north by a line drawn due east from the river
Yazoo, where it unites with the Mississippi, to the river
Chatahouchy, and down said river to the thirty-first degree of
latitude; thence, along said degree of latitude, to a point
opposite the river Perdido; thence to the confluence of said
last mentioned river, with the Gulf of Mexico; and thence, in
a direct line through the middle of the Lakes Maurepas and
Pontchartrain, to the junction of the Iberville with the river
Mississippi, and up said river to the above-mentioned river
Yazoo, into the Union of the United States, on an equal footing
with the original States.

WEDNESDAY, December 18.

Mr. RHEA presented petitions from Louisiana Territory, in favor of the second grade of Government.--Referred.

_Battle on the Wabash._

Mr. ORMSBY moved the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether
any, and if any, what provision ought to be made by law for
paying the officers and soldiers of the militia who served
under Governor Harrison, in the late expedition against the
Indians on the Wabash, to compensate them for the loss of
horses, and for the relief of the widows and orphans of those
who fell in the action of the seventh November last; and that
they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

The said resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. MCKEE moved the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to cause to be laid before this House such
information as may be in the possession of the Government, and
proper to be communicated, on the following points:

1. Any evidence tending to show whether any and what agency the
subjects, either public or private, of any foreign power, may
have had in exciting the Indians on the Western frontier to
hostility against the United States;

2. The evidence of hostility towards the United States, on the
part of the Shawanee Prophet and his adherents, anterior to
the commencement of the late campaign against them, under the
command of Governor Harrison;

3. The orders and authority vested in Governor Harrison by the
United States, under which the late expedition against the
Indians was carried on; and such other information relating to
the subject, as, in the opinion of the President, may be proper
to be communicated to this House.

The resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

THURSDAY, December 19.

_Battle of Tippecanoe._

A Message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting two letters received from Governor Harrison, of the Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars of the issue of the expedition under his command on the Wabash. The Message and letters were read, and referred to Mr. MCKEE, Mr. SEVIER, Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, Mr. MORROW, Mr. ALSTON, Mr. LEFEVRE, and Mr. MAXWELL, to consider and report thereon to the House.

_Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the sixth resolution, reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations, in the following words:

"6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels,
owned exclusively by resident citizens, to arm, under proper
regulations, to be prescribed by law, in self-defence, against
all unlawful proceedings towards them on the high seas."

Mr. ARCHER.--The sixth resolution of the Committee of Foreign Relations being now on its passage, I must express my sorrow that I am compelled to obtrude my humble observations upon the fatigued patience of the House, and the more exhausted patience of the nation. As I shall vote against the resolution, I feel it to be my indispensable duty to detail to the House the reasons by which my vote shall be actuated. Many honorable members may, perhaps, conceive that it would be more proper for me to reserve my remarks for the bill, when it shall be reported; but, sir, I have ever held it to be my sacred duty to oppose, even in its incipient state, every measure which may be hostile to the rights, or dangerous to the interests of my country, lest, by not seeming to oppose, my conduct should be construed into an encouragement of such a measure.

For what purpose, sir, let me ask, have we adopted the resolution preceding this? Was it for the purpose of destroying the Government? Was it that the members of that Army should sheath their swords in the bowels of the liberties of their country? Who will impute to this body so disgraceful a motive? Are you about to raise a standing army, not for the purpose of making preparations for war, but with a view of intimidating Great Britain to recede from her unjust infractions of our neutral rights? Do not think that she will be intimidated by any preparations which you can make, however formidable they may be. She knows, too well, your conduct heretofore, to believe you are in earnest. She knows that, many years ago, you resolved to resist, but that this honorable determination terminated in an empty resolution. She knows, too well, that you have been, heretofore, prodigal in words, and parsimonious in spirited action. I do not set myself up for a prophet; but, mark me, if it be not true, that Great Britain will not do you justice till you carry the war out of this hall into the heart of her colonial territories.

Under the firmest conviction, then, as I am, that war between the United States and Great Britain--if we have any respect for our honor as a nation--will be an event of inevitable consequence, I have in vain searched for the reasons which would induce us to authorize our merchant vessels to arm against all unlawful molestations on the high seas. As the resolution is, in its nature, general, every man must see, on the contrary, the dangers necessarily attendant upon the adoption of such a measure. You are now on the very verge of war, and you should, therefore, be careful not to multiply your enemies. You may, by passing this resolution, make France your enemy. You may enlist Denmark and other powers of Europe against you. This is an event which would be deeply deprecated; and, that it should happen, is nothing improbable; for your merchants, armed as they will be, in defence of their commerce, may select the nation who is to be your enemy. If they are molested in their commerce, whether lawful or unlawful, they will be disposed to resist. At any rate, they will be the judges of the juncture when their interests may call for the interposition of force, and will exercise that force according to their own whims and caprices. They sail on the ocean clothed with national authority, and for their actions, whether lawful or unlawful, you will be compelled to answer. Sir, I respect the highly honorable occupation of a merchant, but am not disposed to carry that respect so far as to give my sanction to the adoption of a measure which may jeopardize the peace, and endanger the interests of my country. If this resolution were to authorize an arming against Great Britain alone, this argument would have no effect; but as it has a view to a general arming against all nations, this reasoning is conclusive on my mind, and must operate in the same way upon all men who will give the subject a dispassionate consideration. The consequences of such a measure are plain and obvious. Now, let us examine whether there exists any reason sufficiently powerful to outweigh these considerations.

What is the object, and the only one too, as stated by the honorable chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. PORTER,) for the adoption of this measure? Your vessels will be armed and prepared for privateering the moment war shall be declared. Why, sir, do you think the merchants will believe that you really intend to go to war? And, if they doubt upon this subject, do you suppose they will be so regardless of their own interests as to expend their capital in fitting out privateers, when no absolute certainty exists that war is your object, or your serious intention? It would, certainly, be an object of no inconsiderable moment to have privateers prepared to harass and disturb the commerce of Great Britain in the event of war. If this be your object, you are taking a very improper course to obtain it. If such be your object, take some decided and energetic step which will convince even the incredulous that you will resort to the sword to obtain justice, and your end will soon be effected. But, do not depress the hopes of the nation by sanctioning this tame, imbecile, and temporizing system.

What is the spirit that breathes in the five resolutions which have been adopted--resolutions which were in entire accordance with my feelings? Is it not a spirit of war? Do they not bear a hostile aspect? Are they not calculated to induce Great Britain to believe that forbearance on our part has terminated, and that we are resolved, unless she speedily extend to us full and ample justice, to decide the contest by the sword? Have you any thing to hope, by operating upon the minds of the rulers of that nation, a conviction that you are boasting no longer? If you do entertain such a hope, I pray you, do not adopt this measure--a measure which will show her the fluctuation of our opinions, and the repugnancy of our plans; a measure which will lull to sleep her fears of war, and convince her not only of your indecision, but of your timidity to unsheath your sword in defence of rights clear and undisputed, and in avenging injuries too glaring for the dignity and honor of a nation to submit to. Are the wishes of this nation to be unattended to? Ought we not to relieve its anxieties? Or, are we to tantalize their hopes with energy in one law and imbecility in another? Are the merchants to be told we will protect their commerce? By what? By granting them a right which nature has already given to them? Is commerce to be protected by abridging the natural rights of the people? Is this measure no abridgment of their rights? Does it not confine the legality of arming to resident citizens alone? Look at the measure as you please, it is a dead letter. Is this the period of all others to be selected to incorporate unmeaning laws in the body of your statute book? Do not satirize, by such an act, the manly sensibility of the people. Do not paralyze the national arm. No; let us do justice to the nation by the adoption of such measures as will renovate the depressed spirits of our constituents; which will prevent them from falling into that destructive and deadly languor which this resolution is calculated to produce.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union in their agreement to the said sixth resolution, as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations; and resolved in the affirmative--yeas 97, nays 22.

SATURDAY, December 21.

_Statutes of Limitation._

Mr. GHOLSON, from the Committee of Claims, who were instructed by a resolution of the House of the 11th ultimo, to inquire into the expediency of repealing or suspending the various acts of limitation, so far as they operate to bar the payment of certain descriptions of claims, made a report thereon.--Referred to the Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Rees Nanna and others. The report is as follows:

That they have bestowed on the resolution that full
consideration to which it was entitled. They felt, on the one
hand, sincere solicitude to devise some just and adequate
method of satisfying the claims in question; while, on the
other, they were forcibly struck with the unavoidable scenes
of speculation and fraud which would ensue the repeal or
suspension of any of the acts of limitation, whereby those
claims are barred. If the old soldier, his widow, or his
orphan, were alone to be benefited by such suspension, your
committee would not hesitate to recommend it. Past experience,
however, hath evidently shown that similar legislative
indulgences have enured almost exclusively to the advantage of
the unprincipled speculator, and those who avail themselves
of the ignorance and subsist upon the misfortunes of others.
We have innumerable examples of the truth of this position,
in the consequences that resulted not only from the various
suspensions of these acts which have hitherto taken place, but
more especially from the adoption of the Funding System. It is
deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the consequences; they are
too well known.

Although a communication received from the Treasury at a
former session holds out an opinion that there are in the
possession of that Department sufficient checks and guards to
protect the United States from imposition and fraud in the
payment of a certain part of those claims, the committee are
differently impressed. They have seen a transcript from the
books of the Treasury, published to the world, exhibiting the
names of a certain class of claimants; and to suppose that a
facility of this kind, thus offered to speculative artifice and
management, would not be seized upon and used by the speculator
to impose upon Government, is to suppose a thing contrary to
all experience. The committee feel themselves by no means able
to draw a line of distinction between a just claim liquidated
and a just one unliquidated; and to attempt the invidious
task of distinction in point of merit, where there can be no
difference, and to open the statutes of limitation in order to
relieve a part or a few favorite classes of claims, does not
comport, in the view of your committee, with any principle of
fairness, or with that equal system of distributive justice
which ought to be dispensed toward all. When they take a
retrospective view of the subject, and find that most of those
statutes were first passed in the times and under the patriot
counsels of the old Congress, and that the more general one
which took effect in 1794 was passed under the Administration
of General Washington, who was himself the chief of soldiers
as he was the chief of their patrons and friends in every
station; but he was equally the friend of his country, and
gave that act the sanction of his name, as founded, at least,
in a policy of general justice and right, which the Government
had been at length obliged to resort to and maintain in
self-defence; that every Congress since has invariably adhered
to the general policy of those laws; and, after the lapse of so
many years, when the difficulty of doing justice has increased
with the increase of time, and when a partial repeal would but
tend to increase the discontent and dissatisfaction of every
class of claimants which should remain unprovided for, the
committee cannot, from any view they have been able to take
of the subject, recommend the repeal or suspension of any of
those statutes. They would, therefore, beg leave to submit the
following resolution:

_Resolved_, That it is not expedient to repeal or suspend any
of the acts of limitation, whereby the aforesaid descriptions
of claims are barred.[20]

The report was ordered to lie on the table.

MONDAY, December 23.

_Rules and Orders--Previous Question._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of Saturday. The amendment proposed by Mr. NELSON being again read, as follows:

"That when the previous question is ordered to be taken, upon
the main question being put, every member, who has not already
spoken, shall have liberty to speak once:"

Mr. GOLD said the amendment now offered to the rules of the House, secures to every member the right of speaking at least once on every question before the House. The liberty of speech, and freedom of debate, are sacred by the constitution; and to refuse _all_ debate, to deny us the privilege of speaking _at all_, on the most important questions of peace and war, is a subversion of the first principles of the constitution. And what is to justify this measure of imposing silence? It is said, the right of debate has been abused. Let gentlemen beware how, for an occasional _abuse of a right_, they _take away--destroy the right itself_. What right, in the whole charter of our rights, has not at some time been abused? Man is frail, and why should not, at times of public agitation and concussion of parties, abuses arise? debate become angry and be prolonged? And for this, is the principle to be adopted, that the right shall be forever suppressed and destroyed?--the principle that absolute silence shall be imposed on a minority? Sir, Philip, the tyrant of Macedon, disliked the freedom of speech and debate in Athens: it annoyed him; for this cause, Demosthenes was pursued to the altar, where he expired. The principle contended for by the majority (supposed abuse) will be found to justify the most odious usurpations recorded in history; liberty is abused, and chains are forged to restrain it.

Gentlemen of the majority insist, that the rule will not be abused; that the majority will not execute the rule arbitrarily. The amendment, now offered to the rules, stipulates only for liberty to each member to speak once. Now, sir, if this be denied, and the rule is ever executed, the abuse is inevitable, it is necessarily involved in the very execution of the rule.

Neither the journals of our State Legislatures nor the laws of the Parliament of Great Britain afford examples for thus arbitrarily proceeding. Debate is admitted in the British Parliament on the previous question; our rules exclude it on both the previous and main question. Beside, sir, I need only refer gentlemen to the manual of parliamentary law, from the hand of the third President of the United States, to show that the previous question was confined to subjects of delicacy, which a due regard to the interests of the State or its Government forbade to be agitated. How much, sir, has this question been perverted from its proper province, to silence all debate and force the question, the passage of the law! Such measures are dangerous to freedom, and afford, in evil times, the most fatal examples.

Mr. SMILIE said he was a friend to freedom of debate, but that there was a difference between this, and that abuse of it when you cannot get a decision without an exertion of physical strength. This has been our case several times. The rule now proposed to be altered is the old rule, and is only restored. We very well know, that a debate has been often prolonged merely to prevent a decision. We have been kept till ten and twelve o'clock at night, and sometimes till daylight. It is an inconvenience which he at his time of life had seriously felt. There can be no evil from the rule as now established. The responsibility of the majority is such to the people, that, if they should abuse it, as the minority have their privilege, the people will correct it, when the minority shall fairly state it to them. He said the majority were also responsible to the people to transact the public business.

Mr. STANFORD, in reply to Mr. SMILIE, said he did not think it proper to give this dispensing power to the majority, if they by the constitution did not possess it, as he contended they did not. He said we have heard of a _sedition law_, and _the reign of terror_. The bill, when first introduced for that law, went to prevent freedom of speech. This rule, in his opinion, much more deserved the character of a "_Gag-law_," than the Sedition law did.

Mr. WRIGHT mentioned the great abuses of this privilege of the minority the last winter. He said, if we don't establish a written, decent rule, we must have a common law rule, such as they have in the British House of Commons, to shuffle and put down, when the abuse of this privilege becomes enormous.

Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this question in the light in which some of its advocates, as well as its opponents, have considered it; as a mere contest for power between the majority and the minority. It is of a higher character. It affects the essential principles of civil liberty, and saps its hopes at its very foundation. I rejoice that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NELSON) has limited his proposition, so as to preclude any mistake concerning the object of it. We are not now advocating an unrestrained privilege of debate. The inquiry is, shall a main question ever be taken in this deliberative body, until every member, who has not already spoken, shall have had an opportunity, if he wishes to avail himself of it, to speak at least _once upon the question_? The ground taken by those who oppose the proposition, is that of necessity and convenience. These are the very points, which, in a free country, ought most vigilantly to be guarded. For it is here that the spirit of despotism always lies in ambush. Under the cover of necessity, or convenience, it steals upon the liberties of a people, and never fails, sooner or later, to make them its prey.

It is not to be denied, that the subject is in some respects difficult to manage, with any hope of convincing. There is a state of feeling, both within this House and out of it, very unpropitious to an impartial debate. In this House it is argued as a question concerning who shall have the power, a majority, or a minority. And as it is agreed, on all hands, that, in the exercise of the power, abuse may happen, the present majority, like all other majorities, have a prevailing inclination to reserve, in their own hands, the exclusive privilege of abuse. And without doors, the subject is of less difficulty. For, of late years, the popular ear has been so vexed with speech upon speech, wind upon wind, the public patience has been so exhausted, in hunting up the solitary grain of sense, hidden in the bushels of chaff, that it is ready to submit to any limitation of a privilege, which subjects it to so irksome a labor. The people are almost ready to exclaim, "do what you will with the liberty of speech, provided you will save us from that _fresh_ of words, with which we are periodically inundated."

Now, this is the very state of the public mind in which the corruption of essential principles commences. Through apparent necessity, or temporary convenience, or disgust at abuse, the popular sentiment is made to acquiesce in the introduction of doctrines vitally inconsistent with the perpetuity of liberty.

I ask the House to consider what is that principle of civil liberty, which is amalgamated and identified with the very existence of a legislative body. In what does it consist? And what is its character? It consists in the right of deliberation. And its character is, that it belongs not to the body, but the individual members constituting the body. The body has the power to control and to regulate its exercise. But it has not the power to take away that right altogether, by the operation of any general principle. An individual member may render himself unworthy of the privilege. He may be set down; he may be denied the right, because he has abused it. But whenever a legislative body assumes to itself the power of stopping, at its will, all debate, at any stage of deliberation, it assumes a power wholly inconsistent with the essential right of deliberation, and totally destructive of that principle of civil liberty which exists, and is identified with the exercise of that right.

The right of every individual member is, in fact, the right of his constituents. He is but their Representative. It is in their majesty, that he appears. It is their right that he reflects. The right of being heard by their Representative is the _inherent_ and _absolute_ right of the people. Now, it is in the essential character of such a right, that it exists, independent, and in despite of any man, or body of men, whatsoever. It is absurd to say, that any right is independent, which depends upon the will of another. It is absurd to say, that any right is absolute, which is wholly relative to the inclination of another; which lasts only as long as he chooses, and terminates at his nod. Now, whether this power be exercised by one, or many, it matters not. The principle of civil liberty is gone, when the inherent and absolute nature of the right is gone.

Apply this reasoning to the case before us. It is impossible to conceal the fact, that as our rules and orders stand, independent of the proposition now offered as an amendment, it is in the power of a majority to preclude all debate, upon any question, and force every member of the House to vote, upon any proposition, without giving him the opportunity of explaining his own reasons, or stating the interests of his constituents. This is undeniable. Is it not, then, plain and conclusive, that, as our rules and orders now stand, according to recent construction, every member of this House holds his right of speaking, not on the principle of his constituents, whose Representative he is, but upon the will of the majority of this House? For that which another may at any time take away from me, I hold not by my own right, but at his will. Can any thing be more obviously at variance with the spirit of the constitution and the first principles of civil liberty?

Let not any man say this power will not be abused. In the nature of things it must be abused. This is the favorite argument of every despotism, and, of course, will not fail to be urged when it is about to plant itself in the very temple of liberty.

I have chosen to consider this subject in relation to the right of the whole body, and of one of its individual members, rather than to that of a majority and minority. The right to speak is an individual right. Limit it as you please, consistent with a single exercise of that right. But when this is taken away, or, which is precisely the same thing so far as it respects the principle of civil liberty, when it is in the power of one or many, at its sovereign will and pleasure, to take it away, there is no longer any right. We have our tenure of speech as the slave has his--at the will of a master.

But it is said that the Legislature must sometimes "act," and that individuals, by an abuse of this liberty of speech, prevent the whole body from "acting." All I say is, limit the exercise of the right as you please, only do not assume to yourselves the power of taking away the whole right, at your pleasure.

It is in this doctrine, of "the necessity of acting," that lies the whole mystery of that error which we are now combating. Strictly speaking, a Legislative body never "acts." Its province is to deliberate and decide. "Action" is, alone, correctly attributable to the Executive. And it will be found, that all the cases in which this necessity of "action" has been urged, have been cases in which the Legislative body has departed from its appropriate duties of deliberation and decision, and descended to be an instrument, or engine, of the Executive. I hesitate not to say, that this position may be proved by almost every instance in which this necessity of action has been urged. It was an Executive haste to its own purposes, which prevailed upon the Legislative body to deny, to its own members, their privileges.

It has been asserted, that "if this amendment passes, this will be the only deliberative body in the world which cannot stop debate." On the other hand I assert, that if this amendment does not pass, this will be the only deliberative body in the world, pretending to be free, in which it is in the power of a majority to force a decision, without any deliberation. It is not true that, in the British Parliament, the previous question stops debate and forces decision on the main question without deliberation. The previous question there, if decided in the negative, suppresses debate, by postponing the main question. And until 1807, the practice and rules of this House permitted debate of the main question, after an affirmative decision of a previous question. Whoever undertakes to examine the subject will find it as I have stated.

It is not true, that this power ever was, or ever can be _necessary_, in a Legislative body. In every case in which the previous question, according to recent construction, has been pressed upon the House, it will be found that there was no _National or State necessity_ for an immediate decision. That is to say, in every instance it will be found, that it was of no sort of public importance whether the main question were taken on this day, on the next, or on a third day. Always the question might have been taken in a reasonable time; and every individual member, who chose to speak, might have had the privilege, if he pleased, of speaking, at least once. As far as I observed, all these pretences of necessity have been easily resolvable into party cunning. The subject was one difficult to maintain. It had popular bearings, which it suited not the pleasure of the majority to have investigated. They pressed the minority to instant decision, by refusing adjournment. And as it happens in all such cases, reaction is equal to action. The minority were put upon their mettle, and they put to trial the mettle of the majority.

It is undoubtedly true, that this power may be sometimes convenient. And this is the whole strength of the argument of those who oppose this proposition. The weak and aged members of the majority have been kept all night from their slumbers, by a hale and sturdy minority; which slumbers they might, by the way, at any moment have enjoyed, if that very majority had yielded the point of adjournment. And is this reason of convenience sufficient, in the estimation of this House, to justify it, in depriving this people, in the person of their Representatives, of the essential right of speaking upon this floor? Is this a justification for such an atrocious and exorbitant grasp at power? Our patriotism, nowadays, can submit to no sacrifices. We are not content with sleeping, if we please, every day in our seats, unless we can sleep also every night of the session in our feather beds. And these feather-bed patriots, as I understand, are all agog for a march into Canada; and, if we believe them, are desirous of nothing so much as showing how those can meet privation and watchfulness in the field, who think of nothing but comfort and sleep upon this floor.

I know there is another argument urged in favor of the assumption of this power by the majority, and that is, the haste and clatter which always attend the end of a session. Let our session be long or short, the event is, in this respect, always nearly the same. What with speeches and postponements, and laying down one piece of business half finished, and taking up another, the latter end of a session is a political chaos. The work of this and the other House, and that of the Palace into the bargain, is in fact sometimes to be washed up, in a night--and the members of all branches are knee-deep and shoulder-deep in the suds. Now, this shows the necessity, not of this unlimited power of the previous question, but of conducting public business with more prospective intelligence. The House is just like all other spendthrifts. It first wastes what is its own, and then seeks how it may make up its deficiency out of the property of other people. We pillage the public liberty, in order to compensate for legislative negligence.

I have often been puzzled to imagine a necessity, which could even apologize for such an assumption of power as the majority, by this new construction of the previous question, are attempting; and, until lately, I did not believe that it could possibly exist. The only case, in which there seemed to me to be an apology for resorting to it, was, the other day, when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) threatened to call the previous question upon the majority themselves. I admired both his manner and the occasion on which he introduced that idea. And really there was something like a necessity. If I understood the view of that honorable gentleman, it was, that he thought there was not fighting matter to spare in the stomachs of the majority; and he threatened them with the previous question, lest, peradventure, the whole war spirit should ooze away through the mouth. In this there was both discretion and patriotism.

Mr. BRIGHAM said, that although he was forward in life, he was but of yesterday of this House, and that the rules and orders were not familiar with him. But he exceedingly regretted that this House, in their wisdom, ever found it expedient or proper to adopt a rule to deprive a minority, or an individual member of this House, of the freedom of debate, the freedom of speech, a privilege so much boasted of in this land of liberty. He observed that he had his rights in common with the other members of the House, and that he had his duties to perform. He was not ambitious to become a public speaker, nor would he say that he supposed he could speak to the edification or satisfaction of the House. But should he, on great questions, be denied the privilege of speaking? Suppose the question of peace or war should assume the aspect of solemnity, and it should become necessary and important that this House be made acquainted with the circumstances and disposition of the citizens of the several sections of the country--and suppose a member who is not much accustomed to speaking, silently sits until those gentlemen who are in the habit, and are fond of speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in debate--shall he, in that case, be denied the right of speaking--shall he be deprived of his constitutional privileges and his constituents of the right of representation on the floor of this House?