part I

have experienced so much want of principle and integrity among them, and their partisans in this country, both individually and collectively, that my prejudices against the whole nation are so strong, that it is with difficulty I can guard my expressions so as not to give offence.

The arrival of General Wilkinson has created considerable alarm in the Spanish colonies below, and Governor Gayoso has directed that the militia within his Government he immediately armed. The fears and jealousies of the Spanish nation will certainly, in the course of a few years, occasion the loss of all the country on this side of the Mississippi, to the Crown of Spain.

The whole of my correspondence on various subjects, since my communication of the 29th of July last, would make a large volume, and as there is but little of it immediately interesting to the United States, I shall only refer you to Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5.

I am sensible you will perceive a great want of arrangement in this communication; but at the same time I am equally so that you will excuse it, when I assure you that the whole packet, except Mr. Clark’s letters and the correspondence with Governor Gayoso, is the work only of two nights and one day, and that in the woods, without any other table than a small instrument box, the weather cold and windy, and all my young men who used to aid me in copying many miles ahead on the line.

I am sorry that the report mentioned in the beginning of this is not forwarded; my part has been done some time, but the Spanish part is not yet ready, owing to the absence of Mr. Power. I shall write to you again from New Orleans. In the mean time, believe me to be, &c.

ANDREW ELLICOTT.

Hon. SECRETARY OF STATE.

P. S. Daniel Clark, Esq., of New Orleans, has lately spent a number of days with me in my camp; from him I have received much valuable information, which it will be unnecessary for me to detail, as he will give it to you himself in Philadelphia the ensuing winter. He intends to visit that city immediately after our interview in New Orleans.

There is not a gentleman of literature or science, and scarcely one of respectability in this country, with whom I have not been upon the most intimate footing ever since I came into it; and every attack that has been made upon me has arisen either from envy or misconception, to which I should never have paid any attention had the principles of opposition not entered our camp, and begun to embarrass our business.

A. E.

* * * * *

[Communicated to the House, February 4, 1804.]

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In my Message of January 20th, I stated that some papers forwarded by Mr. Daniel Clark of New Orleans to the Secretary of State, in 1803, had not then been found in the office of State, and that a letter had been addressed to the former chief Clerk, in the hope that he might advise where they should be sought for. By indications received from him they are now found. Among them, are two letters from the Baron de Carondelet, to an officer serving under him at a separate post, in which his views of a dismemberment of our Union are expressed. Extracts of so much of these letters as are within the scope of the resolution of the House are now communicated. With these were found the letters written by Mr. Clark to the Secretary of State, in 1803. A part of one only of these relates to this subject, and is extracted and enclosed for the information of the House. In no part of the papers communicated by Mr. Clark, which are voluminous, and in different languages, nor in his letters, have we found any intimation of the corrupt receipt of money by any officer of the United States from any foreign agent. As to the combinations with foreign agents for dismembering the Union, these papers and letters offer nothing which was not probably known to my predecessors, or which could call anew for inquiries, which they had not thought necessary to institute, when the facts were recent, and could be better proved. They probably believed it best to let pass into oblivion transactions which, however culpable, had commenced before this Government existed, and had been finally extinguished by the Treaty of 1795.

TH. JEFFERSON.

FEBRUARY 4, 1808.

Extract of a letter from the Baron de Carondelet, dated

NEW ORLEANS, July 10, 1796.

I suppose, sir, that you are now at the Bluffs, and in possession of a command which requires firmness, vigilance, conciliation, and prudence, as well with regard to the savages as to the Americans; for the evacuation of that important post is not yet so certain as not to admit of doubt, at least so long as the savages remain attached to us. Besides, it is proper to keep in view that the neighboring States, that is to say, Kentucky and Tennessee, are interested that it should remain in our power, for political reasons which cannot be trusted to paper. You must, of consequence, keep them in those sentiments, by treating their inhabitants, to whom the liberty of the navigation is granted, with kindness and regard. Let the friendship of the Chickasaws and the satisfaction of the Americans who navigate the river, be the basis of your conduct; as for the rest, I have not yet received any official news from the Court concerning the treaty, which we know nothing of but through the American gazettes.

All the appearances of an approaching peace in Europe have vanished; but it is probable that we shall not have war with the English. Fourteen French ships of the line, with ten thousand men, are actually to take possession of the Spanish port of St. Domingo; and France and Spain appear more united than ever. The Spanish inhabitants have lost their slaves.

Extract of a letter from the Baron de Carondelet, dated

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 12, 1796.

In answer, sir, to your private letter of the 10th of last month, I will acknowledge to you that I was under the belief that the Fort of St. Ferdinand was badly constructed, but not to the degree that you point out to me. You must, however, without augmenting the expenses which its evacuation would render useless, put it in a state to maintain yourself there until I receive new instructions from the Court. Should the Court think proper, as may very well happen, not to evacuate our posts on the Mississippi, I will despatch a courier to you in all haste, that you may change the situation of the fort, which ought to be done with all diligence, and so as that it be again sufficiently intrenched to prevent its being surprised or attacked before it is in a state of defence; for this purpose I will send immediate and secret orders to New Madrid and to St. Genevieve, that carpenters, masons, &c., should instantly be sent to you, and you may also count on a reinforcement of troops, which I will send to you by the galley Philapa, which I am causing to be rebuilt without noise; all these dispositions, I repeat to you, ought to be prompt and secret. I expect the answer of the Court in ----.

If His Majesty, on the contrary, should persist in it that the evacuation of the forts must take place, it will be done in the most simple mode, towards the commencement of January. In the mean time you must prepare the minds of the Chickasaws, and of the inhabitants of Kentucky and Tennessee, for one or the other of these events. You ought to make the latter understand that their natural interest leading them to separate at some day (_un jour_) from the Atlantic States, the occupation of our posts on the Mississippi by the troops of the latter could not but be disastrous to them, since they would cut off all communication between them and us, from whom alone they could, in that case, hope to receive assistance.

Extract of a letter from Daniel Clark to the Secretary of State, dated

NEW ORLEANS, March 8, 1803.

As a proof that expectations of assistance from ourselves against our own Government have been always relied on by the Spaniards, and that they have constantly looked to a division of our Western States from the General Government, I now forward you an order to receive from Washington Morton, Esq., of New York, a sealed packet which I left in his possession when I set out for Europe, and which I then mentioned I would show you at my return, not thinking, at that time, that circumstances would occur so soon as to render the disclosure a measure of immediate necessity. Among other papers of less importance in this packet, is a small part of the correspondence of the Baron de Carondelet with the officer commanding Fort St. Ferdinand, at the Chickasaw Bluffs, in which he suffers his plans and views to be clearly perceived, and which were solely aimed at our destruction; the remainder are, as well as I recollect, copies of talks and letters to and from the Chickasaw Indians; and, by the Baron de Carondelet’s letter to the officer, you will perceive that the fact I advised you respecting the annual pension of five hundred dollars to Uguluycabé cannot be disputed.

Should you think these documents of sufficient importance to require my presence in Washington to elucidate any part of them, I shall immediately sacrifice all private business of my own, and hasten there; and, in the mean time, will endeavor to collect, from undoubted sources, such other information relative to this subject as may be acceptable.

Although for four or five years past I had a perfect conviction that the intrigues of the Spaniards with the Western country were not for the time dangerous, on account of the incapacity of the Governors of this province, and their want of pecuniary means, yet, fearful of what might happen in future, should more enlightened and ambitious chiefs preside over it, I could not last year resist the temptation of hinting my suspicions of what had been formerly done in this way to the President at an interview with which he honored me, and I even went so far as to assert that a person supposed to be an agent from the State of Kentucky had been here in the end of 1795 and beginning of 1796, to negotiate on the part of that State, independent of the General Government, for the navigation of the Mississippi, before the result of the Treaty of St. Lorenzo was known, wishing that this hint might induce the President, to cause inquiry to be made into the circumstance, which he could easily find the means of investigating; but as he made no other inquiry of me respecting it than merely in what year the thing happened, it struck me that he must have had other information on the subject, and that he thought it needless to hear any thing more about it. By great accident I have lately learned something which induces me to suppose that any information he may have received respecting the measure alluded to has been incorrect, and given with the view of misleading him, and I request you will mention the subject anew to him, that you may know how far I am right in my suspicions. The information I possessed on the subject, could not, from the way in which it was obtained, be accompanied with what would be proof to convict the person concerned, or I should have openly accused him in the face of the world; but to me it amounts to a moral certainty of his guilt, and my conduct to him showed, on all occasions, how much I detested his object and his person. The same want of proof positive, sufficient to convict him, prevents me at present from naming him; but if inquiry is diligently made about the influential character from Kentucky, who at that period was so long in Natchez, and afterwards here, what his business was, and what was the idea entertained of him, enough will doubtless be discovered to put our Government on its guard against him and others of his stamp, and against all foreign machinations in that quarter in future.

Communicated to the House, April 25, 1808, by Daniel Clark.

Pursuant to the resolution of the House, calling on me for testimony relative to General Wilkinson’s receipt of money from the Spaniards, I now lay before it some original papers, corroborating the statement which I have already given:

No. 1. The first is the translation of a letter, in Spanish, from Thomas Power to D. Thomas Portell, dated at New Madrid, June 27, 1796, and containing the reasons why it was proper for Portell to deliver to Power, without an order in writing from General Wilkinson, a sum of money which had been placed for that purpose in Portell’s hands by the Spanish Government of New Orleans. The original letter is subjoined in the handwriting of Mr. Power, with which I am acquainted.

This letter explains the deposition of Derbigny, and also makes mention of the letter in cipher from General Wilkinson to Gayoso, then Governor of Natchez, of which a translation, in the handwriting of Gayoso, has heretofore been laid before the House. It may be proper to add that I am well acquainted with the handwriting of Gayoso, in which the translation is written, and that he has been dead more than eight years.

No. 2. A translation of Portell’s answer to the foregoing, dated Madrid, on the same day, June 27, 1796. The original is subjoined in the handwriting of Portell, with which I am acquainted.

The object of this correspondence seems to have been to furnish to Portell the means of explaining to his superiors his motives for delivering the money without a written order.

Nos. 3 and 4 are two original papers in the handwriting of Philip Nolan, with which I am well acquainted. Nolan was the confidential agent of Gen. Wilkinson in 1796, and has been dead several years.

These two papers are stated by Mr. Power to be secret instructions given to him by General Wilkinson, after the latter received money from Portell, mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2. The instructions, according to Mr. Power’s statement, were given in the handwriting of Nolan, as a measure of precaution against the danger of detection. The six hundred and forty dollars, of which they make mention, are stated by Mr. Power to be a part of the sum received, for Wilkinson, of Portell, which Power, after his arrival in Kentucky, was obliged to use for the expenses of his journey.

No. 5. Is the translation of a letter to the Baron de Carondelet from Mr. Power, dated at New Orleans, May 9, 1797, after his return from Kentucky. The original letter in Spanish is subjoined. It is in Mr. Power’s handwriting, with which I am acquainted. It explains the affair of the six hundred and forty dollars, mentioned in the secret instructions, Nos. 3 and 4, and refers to and quotes those instructions as the instructions of General Wilkinson.

No. 6. Is the translation of the Baron de Carondelet’s answer to this letter. The answer is in Spanish, and in the handwriting of Don Andres Armesto, Secretary to the Government, which I know. It is signed by the Baron de Carondelet, with whose signature I am acquainted.

DANIEL CLARK.

No. 1.

Translation of a letter from Thomas Power to Don Thomas Portell, Commandant of New Madrid, dated

NEW MADRID, June 26, 1797.

Having received verbal instructions from Mr. James Wilkinson, the American General, to take charge of the money, which, by a letter, he received from the Secretary of the Government, Don Andres Armesto, under date of 7th or 8th of March last, of which I was bearer, he has advice, is deposited in this post, and being informed by the official letter which you have received on this business from the Governor General of the Province, of which you will be pleased to furnish me a copy, that said money is not to be delivered without an express order from the said Mr. Wilkinson, I find myself forced to relate circumstantially some particulars to smooth and remove the difficulty which the want of a written order on the part of the aforesaid General Wilkinson presents. Although this relation may appear an abuse of the confidence with which the Governor General of the Province and the Governor of Natchez, and

## particularly General Wilkinson, have honored me, I am persuaded

that the urgency of the case which offers will serve me as an excuse and justification.

You are not ignorant of the fact, that Don Manuel Gayoso de Lemos being here in the month of September, of the year last past, he intrusted to me some despatches of the greatest importance for General Wilkinson, which I carried to Cincinnati, and I returned with the answers in the month of November. By order of the said Don Manuel Gayoso, I made immediately another journey to the Ohio, and I ascended it to Red Bank in search of Sebastian, who came with me to the mouth of the Ohio, where we met with the Governor of Natchez. At the end of December, I accompanied this gentleman to Natchez, and I went thence to New Orleans.

The principal object of my going down was to take charge, by order of General Wilkinson, of the money which you have now in deposit for him, which is shown by the letters which he wrote to the governors of this province and of Natchez; but, at my arrival, the money had been already sent off in one of His Majesty’s galleys, for this place, which I learned from the Baron de Carondelet, the Intendant, and Don Andres de Armesto. I repeatedly treated on this business with the two last of these persons, urging forcibly the necessity of sending sugar, coffee, and powder, to New Madrid, to form a cargo to take to Kentucky with Wilkinson’s money, hiding, by this means, the true intention of the voyage, and giving it the appearance of a commercial speculation. All this Wilkinson had before represented as indispensable for many reasons, particularly in order to avoid a misfortune similar to that which had already occurred. At last the Secretary told me that the barge in which Mr. Aaron Gregg, the American officer, was to go up, was destined for this service, and that as for the crew, he would permit me to choose among the Creoles, residents in this post, those who might appear to me most worthy of confidence, so that I left New Orleans with the belief that at my return to this post I should find every thing disposed conformable to what I have just related. On arrival at Greenville, informed General Wilkinson of the steps which had no doubt had been taken, from whence has resulted, that he, like myself, was impressed with the belief that all the measures for executing this service with success had been taken. I cannot communicate all the motives why Wilkinson has not given me an order in writing; but one of them was, that he did not know the sum of money which you had to deliver to his order, the Governors not having written a word to him on the subject, the Secretary only saying that his money was deposited in New Madrid, without expressing the sum. In the letters in cipher, from General Wilkinson for the governors, which are here enclosed, he tells them that he has sent me to bring the aforesaid money, informing you that the No. 1 is for the Governor General of the Province, and the No. 2 for Don Manuel Gayoso. I will add that General Wilkinson, when I represented to him that on presenting myself without his order in writing, some difficulty might arise, authorized me, if the case required it, to write an order that you should deliver his money, specifying the sum there might be, signing it in his name, and giving you a receipt therefor. I cannot omit that the commission of General Wilkinson was so sudden, so urgent, that it was extended even to limiting my return to my destination by the first of August, of which I advise you that you may endeavor not to delay the service. I believe that the Governor General is not ignorant of the embarrassments of General Wilkinson, nor can he be ignorant that, for a long time past, he has been expecting this money, the delay of which has been the cause of much trouble to him, involving him in great difficulties; and I can assure you, confidently, that he will be very much disgusted with any delays in the expedition, which might be productive of serious injury. As for the mode of carrying the money, it is evident that to take it openly would be too scandalous a thing, if I were not to say that it would be madness. The unhappy result of the expedition of the unfortunate Henry Owen ought to serve as a beacon in order not to lose ourselves on the same rock, and to make us take another course less dangerous. I would wish you to put a bag of one thousand dollars in a barrel of coffee or sugar, so that although the difference of the respective gravity, between silver, sugar, and coffee be very great, the quantity being so small, it will not be easily known. It will likewise be prudent to carry some barrels without money in order to sell them before arriving at Cincinnati, if it should so happen that any one should offer to buy these goods, because not to sell them when it might be done to advantage would excite suspicion; and to complete the disguise it would be well to take a certain quantity of powder and rum. If these dispositions should appear defective, I beg you to make such changes as may be to your mind. God preserve you many years.

No. 2.

Translation of a letter from Don Thomas Portell to Mr. Thomas Power, dated

NEW MADRID, June 29, 1796.

Having well considered the contents of your letter of this day, I mention that I agree in every thing to the whole of the reflections you place before me; although at first sight it appears that I ought to wait the decision of the Governor General, as he prescribes to me in his official letter of the 20th of January of the present year, and of which I enclose you a copy, which you request of me. The circumstances which you expose are such, that they leave me nothing more to do than to tell you to forward me a memorandum of the number of pounds of coffee, sugar, barrels in which to fill the powder and rum you desire for your expedition, because, as soon as I receive it, I will get it ready as you desire, informing you that for the merchandise you must sign me an acknowledgment of having received it, and for the money a receipt as attorney of General Wilkinson.

In order that the barge may be ready, and as you may want it, I have written an official letter to the Lieutenant-colonel Vincente Folch, that he may send it as soon as possible, because as nothing was said to me of what you have now mentioned respecting it, Mr. Francis Langlois asked it of me for an affair of service, and took it loaded with corn to the Fort of San Fernando, and it has not been returned, although I have required it, thinking it might be wanted here; Don Vincente Folch having answered me, that if I had not orders to keep it, there were none to return it.

The two letters in cipher remain in my hands, which I shall forward by the first safe opportunity, with the distinction you point out, No. 1 to the Governor General, and No. 2 to the Governor of Natchez.

As for packing the money and arranging the barrels, as soon as they are ready, between you and myself, all this may be done without any one else acquiring a knowledge of it. God preserve you many years.

No. 3.

Instructions from Gen. Wilkinson to Thomas Power.

To proceed to Galliopolis: to make application and propositions to the leading characters there to induce them to move to New Madrid, with all the French of that settlement; to urge this point in such measure as to attract the attention of the public officers there, whose report to the Executive will immediately follow, and will account for his frequent missions to that place: to return as rapidly as possible; to load with flour and proceed without a moment’s delay to New Orleans; in the route to see Newman, and to enter on the subject of his desertion; to inform him of the facts which have transpired, and the opinions prevalent; to urge his return, as the request of all his friends; to assure him of safety, and of such reward as he may demand; also that being pardoned for the imputed offence, no further process can lie against him for the same; that the oath which he was suborned to take, being made while in duress, is in itself a nullity, and cannot be offered in crimation of him; it will be necessary that he should take down his examination, founded on the interrogations furnished him; and if they prove material to the crimination of Wane and his associates, then he must embark N----n under a fictitious name at New Orleans for Philadelphia; and having arrived there, must lodge him in some retired place, and call upon me, under cover of the night, for further advice. You will hear of me at ----. If N----n cannot be prevailed upon to return under dispositions favorable to my views, then let his declaration on oath be circumstantially taken to all the points enumerated in the interrogations, in the presence of Dr. Flowers, Colonel Bruin, Daniel Clark, or any three or four of the most notorious, and of the most respectable Americans of the Natchez district. Let these gentlemen certify to two copies, and to the original, and let them be transmitted to me through different channels. P. to take charge of the original. Mr. P. must take with him credentials from the Government of Louisiana, acquitting him of any political connection or agency injurious or hostile to the interests of the United States. He must carry to Philadelphia testimonials of his family and character, addressed to as many of the native respectable merchants of that city as possible: these may be readily procured from New Orleans and the Havana.

It is indispensable that P. should meet me in Philadelphia; for the rest let him rely on my friendship and address. To collect from Bradford every information respecting the Pittsburg insurrection, which may be employed, should it be found necessary, to disgrace certain persons: to bear no paper about him which carries my name upon it.

No. 4.

Employ the six hundred and forty dollars, _avec le cargaison_, to pay expenses and lay in a cargo of best flour _pour la ville_, where it will help to reimburse. In making your settlement, take care to secure me the six hundred and forty dollars advanced, and bring them with you. I have urged peremptorily the necessity of your presence at the metropolis. Bring me N----n, if, upon examination, you find his presence of more consequence than his deposition, when taken as directed. I believe he was caused to desert by O’Hara: probe him to that point. You are to bring me papers, but my name is not to be written or spoken. You must do the needful below to detect and expose past treachery or indiscretion, and to prevent either in future. I have referred particularly on this head. I shall expect you impatiently. Should I continue where I am I shall wish you near me. If I cross the water, you are to accompany: bring every credential of family and fortune to repulse the insinuations of ----. Trust something to my address, and put faith in my honor and affections to the grave.

No. 5.

Letter from Thomas Power to the Baron de Carondelet, dated

NEW ORLEANS, May 9, 1797.

Enclosed your Excellency will receive the documents relative to my last confidential expedition, made by your Excellency’s order, on the Ohio, of which I have already given you a narrative, as well verbal as in writing. The remarks which follow will serve for its elucidation.

I left New Madrid with ten oarsmen and a patron; the provisions which were delivered to the crew were, biscuit for a month; meat for a month; rum for fifteen days.

To disguise, as far as possible, the true object of the expedition, we had hired the people under the same conditions as are common in commercial voyages, so that the monthly rations allowed by the King did not even last fifteen days. The reason why I issued to the crew two extraordinary allowances of liquor daily, counting from the day we left Red Bank until our arrival at the falls of Ohio, was to encourage them to row with vigor, that Lieutenant Steel, whom I thought in pursuit of me, might not again take me, because, had I fallen into his hands a second time, I was lost. As respects the one hundred and fifty dollars, for the horse which I bought to make the journey from Frankfort to Cincinnati, and the expenses which accrued on this journey, they were indispensable for a double motive: to carry my complaint against Steel, for having offered so great an insult to our flag, and to give advice of my arrival to the American General, Mr. James Wilkinson, that he might take the necessary measures. I have to add that, the motive which has induced me to dispose of the merchandise which I received of J. and A. Hunt, in exchange for the coffee and sugar, was to give credit to the opinion which I myself had raised, that I had come to purchase horses to take to Natchez, in order to better the breed in that district. Besides this, as the occurrence with Steel had awakened suspicions, excited apprehensions, and attracted the attention of the inhabitants of the Western country, all had their eyes directed on me, so that I found myself obliged to do something which should please them, that it might serve me as a safe conduct to quit those parts, which by the this means I happily effected. The mare, of which statement No. 1 makes mention, was lost on my arrival at New Madrid in the woods, where she died of thirst, the excessive frosts having entirely frozen up the waters. The stud-horse I delivered on going down to Don Manuel Gayoso de Lemos, but he returned him to me a short time since, and I have him carefully kept until your Excellency is pleased to make some disposition respecting him. Of the sum of $9,640, which I was to deliver to Mr. James Wilkinson, I have only delivered him nine thousand, having retained the six hundred and forty dollars to avoid the unfortunate result with which I was threatened, and likewise to provide what was necessary for the crew during the voyage. The following are the documents which are enclosed:

No. 1. The account sale of the merchandise, laden, &c.

No. 2. Account of the expenses for the crew.

No. 3. Account and expenditure of the six hundred and forty dollars.

No. 4. Statement which shows in what manner the merchandise has been made use of.

No. 5. Statement which shows what is due to me.

No. 6. Invoice of J. and A. Hunt.

All which are accompanied with the obligation of Mr. N. Welch for one hundred and five dollars, and the two receipts of Mr. Boyd, the one for four hundred and sixty-six dollars and two-thirds, for the value of a horse; the other for two hundred dollars, for the value of a mare. The balance which appears in my favor, according to the statements Nos. 3 and 4, as well as the account of my monthly pay for fourteen months, I beg your Excellency will be pleased to direct that it should be remitted to me, or delivered to Mr. Philip Nolan, to whom I have given advice on the subject.

Mr. James Wilkinson, in the instructions which he has given me, directs that I should present to your Excellency the account of the expenses to which the six hundred and forty dollars have been applied, (and I have done so in the statement No. 3,) that he may be reimbursed said amount. The instruction says, “in making your settlement take care to secure me the six hundred and forty dollars advanced, and bring them with you.” Although he charged me to take them to him to the United States, I am of opinion that no one is better suited to remit them than Mr. Philip Nolan, as your Excellency has now resolved that I should remain in this province; your Excellency will please to suffer me to assure you that in every particular I have acted with prudence, with honor, and the disinterestedness of an honest man, as well as with the zeal and fidelity which the King’s service requires, and with the vigilance and activity, [here there is a line unintelligible.] I deserve nothing and expect nothing for having fulfilled the obligations of a good subject to His Majesty, unless your Excellency will be pleased to procure me opportunities of displaying the inclination I feel of sacrificing myself for the prosperity of my country and glory of my Sovereign.

God preserve your Excellency many years.

THOMAS POWER.

No. 6.

Answer to the foregoing, dated

NEW ORLEANS, May 28, 1797.

There remain in my hands the six documents relative to the account of the last expedition which you made on the Ohio, and which you enclosed to me in your official letter of the 9th instant, and they are as follows:

No. 1. Account sales of the effects laden at New Madrid.

No. 2. Another of the expenses of the crew.

No. 3. Account of the expenditure of the six hundred and forty dollars.

No. 4. Statement which shows how the merchandise has been employed.

No. 5. Statement which shows the balances due to you, &c.

No. 6. Original invoice of J. & A. Hunt.

On account of it there will be delivered to you one thousand dollars, that you may make preparations for your journey in the new commission which I intrust to your care.

It is necessary to see how you can get rid of the horse with the least possible loss, as well as to recover the debt of Nicholas Welch, or have it recovered, for which purpose I enclose you his obligation; and likewise the proceeds of the merchandise, which, to the amount of three hundred and fifty-three dollars, you delivered to Don Pedro Derbigny, in order to give an account to the Court without these balances, which cause trouble and appear speculations, when they are no more than the effect of necessity, and the difficulty which these commissions cause in places where there are no resources, when you have to deceive the vigilance of spies.

As you finish these matters, and as soon as your present commission is fulfilled, you will give me advice.

God preserve you many years.

BARON DE CARONDELET.

To THOMAS POWER.

THURSDAY, January 28.

Mr. SOUTHARD, one of the members for the State of New Jersey, informed the House of the death of his colleague, Mr. EZRA DARBY, late one of the members of this House: Whereupon, the House came to the following resolutions:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of EZRA DARBY, Esq., late a Representative from the State of New Jersey.

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

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House will attend the funeral of EZRA DARBY, Esq., on to-morrow at twelve o’clock.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That a message be sent to the Senate, to notify them of the death of EZRA DARBY, late a member of this House, and that his funeral will take place on to-morrow, at twelve o’clock; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

_Ordered_, That Mr. SOUTHARD, Mr. MASTERS, Mr. PORTER, Mr. HELMS, Mr. NEWBOLD, and Mr. LAMBERT, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the first resolution.

SATURDAY, January 30.

_Removal of Federal Judges on the Address of Congress._

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL.--It has always been my opinion that in a free Government like ours, every department ought to be responsible for its conduct. The Constitution of the United States was evidently framed on this principle, and the preservation and security of the rights and liberties of the citizens and the due execution of the laws will be found to rest, in a great degree, on rendering public agents sufficiently and practically responsible for their conduct to the nation. That this is not the case with the Judiciary of the United States has been proved by experience. Your judges once appointed are independent of the Executive, the Legislature, and the people, and may be said to hold their offices for life. They are removable only on conviction by impeachment of high crimes and misdemeanors, and this mode of proceeding has been found in practice totally inefficient, and not to answer the purpose for which it was intended--that of rendering your judges duly responsible for their conduct. They may therefore be considered as independent of the rest of the nation, (and they seem to think so themselves,) as if this provision in the constitution, relative to impeachment, did not exist. No matter how erroneous their opinions--how dangerous to the public weal--how subversive of the interest of the people--how directly opposed to the laws of your country; yet, as it is neither a high crime nor misdemeanor to hold erroneous opinions, which they seem conscientiously to believe, they cannot be removed by impeachment--they are independent of the rest of the nation.

This subject has attracted the attention of the people in most of the States. The Legislatures of several States have passed resolutions declaring the necessity of amending the Federal Constitution, so as to render the judges, in practice as well as in theory, responsible for their conduct. The most numerous branch of the Legislature of the State which I have the honor to represent in part, have declared their opinion in favor of such amendment. In order, therefore, to bring this subject before the House, that the sense of the National Legislature may be ascertained thereon, I submit the following resolution:

_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring therein_, That the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the said States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said constitution: The Judges of both the Supreme and Superior Courts of the United States shall, after the ---- day of ----, be removed from office by the President of the United States, on the joint address of both Houses of Congress requesting the same, three-fifths of each House concurring in such address.

This resolution was referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

MONDAY, February 1.

Another member, to wit, GEORGE CLINTON, junior, from New York, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, February 22.

_Captain Pike._

Mr. J. MONTGOMERY observed, that to Captains Lewis and Clarke, who had explored the Western country, a compensation had been made; he held in his hand a similar resolution for remunerating Captain Pike for the important services he had rendered on an almost similar expedition, which he proposed, as follows:

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire what compensation ought to be made to Captain Pike and his companions for their services in exploring the Mississippi River, and in their late expedition to the sources of the Osage, Arkansas, and La Platte Rivers, together with their tour through New Spain; and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. MARION objected to the phraseology of the resolution, as sanctioning a general principle, to which he was not prepared to assent. The resolution did not go to inquire if any compensation, but what compensation, should be given; thus taking it for granted that some remuneration should be made. Mr. M. wished it to be so modified as to inquire “if any, and, if any, what,” compensation should be granted.

Mr. MONTGOMERY acceding to this alteration, the resolution was adopted.

WEDNESDAY, February 24.

_Removal of Judges upon Address from Congress._

Mr. WHITEHILL presented the resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, requesting their members in Congress to use their endeavors to procure an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, so that the Judges of the United States should hold their offices for a term of years, and be liable to removal by the President, on the joint address of a majority of both Houses of Congress; and that, on trials by impeachment, a majority of the Senate should be competent to conviction.

Mr. BARD moved to refer the resolutions to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. DANA opposed the motion. The resolutions were only instructions to the Pennsylvania delegation. This House had nothing to do with them.

After a debate of about two hours, the question was taken and carried--yeas 82, nays 27.

MONDAY, April 4.

A new member, to wit, ADAM BOYD, returned to serve in this House as a Representative for the State of New Jersey, in the room of EZRA DARBY, deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

TUESDAY, April 12.

_Frauds in Land Warrants._

Mr. RANDOLPH rose to give notice that he meant to bring forward a motion on a subject of considerable public interest, and in which in his opinion the honor of the Government of the United States was materially implicated. He held in his hand an application from a veteran soldier on the subject of his bounty land, and who had sent him a power of attorney to act for him--a man of unimpeachable character, and who had not been at the seat of Government since it was established--his name William Bryan. I found, said Mr. R., that his warrant, No. 9--, has been drawn and fraudulently located; I say fraudulently, because I am well assured that the party has not received any advantage from the warrant, and there is the strongest evidence of fraud. His warrant has been drawn and located, by whom I cannot discover; my researches were completely baffled by the memorable fire, which it is presumable owed its origin to a desire to cover frauds of this nature. I was referred from the War Office to the Treasury Office; for the only chance of finding out who had acted as attorney in fact for this old man, was, that the warrant ought to have been returned and on file there. On going there I found that the space on the record which the warrant ought to have occupied, was blank; and that no such warrant exists on the Treasury files. I believe this is far from being a solitary case, but that the cases are numerous, and many of those who have honestly earned a title to public land have been in this way defrauded, and the land sold to speculators who have reaped the benefit of it. I therefore give notice that I shall at a future day move for an inquiry into this subject.

_Suspension of the Embargo._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, 55 to 20, on the resolution offered by Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL, declaring that the President of the United States ought, in the event of certain contingencies occurring during the recess of Congress, to be authorized to suspend the operation of the embargo.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said he would state to the House, in a very brief manner, some of the reasons which induced him to bring forward this resolution.

It will be recollected, said he, that the causes which induced the passage of the law, imposing an embargo, were the orders of council by Great Britain, and the decrees by France, which went in a great degree to cut off and destroy the whole commerce of the United States. In case those causes should be removed, I presume it will be thought necessary that there should be a power vested somewhere to withdraw the embargo occasioned by those orders and decrees. As therefore it is believed that we shall not be much longer in session, and it is at least possible that these orders and decrees may be removed, that Great Britain may revoke her orders of council or change them so as not to affect our commerce, and that France may revoke her decrees or change them so as to render our commerce secure, it is all-important that a power should be vested somewhere to give the people such relief as would be justified by this state of things. Suppose it were the case that any alteration should take place when Congress were not in session, some weeks, nay, some months must pass before Congress could be in session and a law pass for removing the embargo; the consequence of which would be that the country would suffer the pressure of the embargo for weeks or months longer than would be necessary; and I presume no member of the House will say that it would be proper to continue longer than necessary the pressure which the embargo must make upon them. There is I presume at least some reason to believe that the belligerent powers themselves are beginning to see their own interests injured. We see, by the latest accounts from Great Britain, that propositions are made in Parliament for revoking her orders. Should this take place, it is presumable that we also should revoke our regulations. This measure would also have a good effect in turning the attention of the people to the real source whence their present inconveniences flow; they will be taught to look to those circumstances which produced the embargo, a change of which would justify its removal. This would be a consideration of some importance. The mind of the public would be kept alive by the expectation that every day may bring the news which would induce Government to revoke the embargo, which no doubt bears hard upon the agricultural as well as commercial interests of the country.

The resolution as it now stands seems to me to embrace the principal grounds upon which we ought to authorize the Executive to suspend the operation of the law in question. If a general peace or suspension of hostilities take place in Europe, it would seem that there would be no danger from a suspension of the interdiction of our own vessels from sailing; but if no such event takes place, in the event of such alterations as shall exclude American commerce from the operation of the orders and decrees of the belligerents, it will be proper that the embargo should be suspended, they being the grounds on which the measure was adopted. You must vest a power somewhere to ascertain whether such change take place or not. You cannot precisely determine the fact which shall authorize suspension; for were you to say that in case of a revocation of the decrees of France or England the embargo shall cease, you give a vast advantage to those nations--for they may revoke them to-day and reinstate them to-morrow, as their interests may dictate. It is therefore necessary to vest a power somewhere to ascertain not only the revocation, but a reasonable assurance that they will not be renewed. For this purpose it is essentially necessary that the President should be authorized to determine the changes which shall render our commerce safe, by the assurances which may be given that they will not again resort to similar measures. This I mention only as my general object; as to the expressions in the resolution I am not tenacious of them; and in any modification of them which shall promote the public good I shall certainly acquiesce. I have no object but one; that the public may see that we have not left our posts till we had done every thing in our power to relieve them from the distress of measures adopted by us and rendered necessary by the conduct of other nations.

I conceive this to be more important to the people on the seacoasts than to the people in the Western country. To the Western country a few weeks or months protraction of the interdiction, in the fall of the year, could not be of much importance; yet it would seem to me that in the commercial cities and towns, in the Atlantic States, a few days or weeks, much more so a few months’ which might occur before Congress could convene, would be very important; and they would feel much uneasiness if, knowing such changes had taken place as would warrant the removal of the embargo, they were compelled to lie under its pressure until Congress could meet to revoke it. It cannot be expected, after the President shall determine to call Congress, that they can be convened here in less than three months. Such a resolution as this therefore would be beneficial to the commercial interest.

WEDNESDAY, April 13.

_Suspension of the Embargo._

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution.

Mr. LOVE said, to a proposition having for its object the removal of the embargo, at the first moment the public interests would permit, he had presumed there would have been no objection made either on that floor or by any man in the nation. In this presumption, said Mr. L., I am extremely sorry to be disappointed, and more especially so as the mode of opposition calls for a reply from those who have been the advocates of the system of policy pursued by the Government, during the embarrassing crisis it has been compelled to encounter.

The proposition before the committee is so familiar to those who have been long in the habits of legislation, from the frequent exercise of the general principle on which it rests, that nothing not already obvious to the minds of the greater part of this honorable body, I am sure, can be said in support of it. In the observations therefore, sir, which I shall trouble the committee with, it will not be necessary to say more than shall be proper in answer, only, to the objections which have been made at this time, to the exercise of the power contemplated by the resolution.

I have heard no argument yet urged against the right of delegating in any situation, or under any circumstances, the exercise of special powers which are acknowledged to be vested in a more general view essentially in the Legislature. The argument, if urged to such an extent, would evidently defeat itself, and go to destroy the operations of this or any other Government deriving the source of its authority from a Legislature. Our constitution has enjoined many duties on Congress, which without a delegation of the powers thus vested in it, could never be effected. An objection to the resolution under discussion on so broad a ground, would have been too obviously untenable. The question has not been thus directly met; but in opposition to the constitutionality of the delegation of power contemplated, a distinction has been taken between the authority which should be given to suspend a law, already in operation, and one which has not yet commenced its operation.

I listened, sir, with every possible attention to the argument made on this distinction. I am obliged to say there was no reason intelligible to my mind, offered in support of it. I will content myself therefore with expressing the opinion that the circumstance of a postponed or present operation, cannot make a difference in the principle. In both cases the authority which delegates the agency is the same, it is the act of every branch of the Legislature, and there can be no distinction which would not apply to one equally with the other. It may in the manner of its exercise be assimilated to the powers of a Legislature to repeal a law already in existence, in contradistinction to the power of repealing one, the operation of which had been suspended. If such a position could be sustained (as a proper inference from our constitution) it would be vain; for if the Legislature have the right of repealing a law, they might in the same breath that they would repeal this, enact another which should provide in a manner so far in conformity with the practice acknowledged to be correct, as to be entirely exempt from the objection urged on the ground of this distinction.

When I compare the limited nature of the power now proposed to be delegated, with those almost unbounded trusts which it has been the constant practice of the Legislature to confide in the Executive Department, I cannot help feeling at a loss to account for the present opposition on any grounds of consistency. Those delegations of authority have not been confined in practice to either of the political parties which have at different times given a tone to the Government. The gentleman from Tennessee, who has introduced the resolution, has mentioned several instances in which this has been done; permit me to add others, in which it appears to me the principle has been carried further than in the present case.

By the constitution, the power of borrowing money is in express terms _exclusively_ vested in Congress. Yet this has been only exercised by a delegation of it, from the commencement of the Government till the time has ceased when it was necessary to exercise it. I hope, sir, it may never be necessary to do it again; but if it should, I ask gentlemen how it will be effected but by the intervention of an agency, although the words of the constitution permit _Congress only_ “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

Other powers of great importance, solely confided to Congress, have been delegated, and not as now contemplated, in a restricted and limited degree, but in terms of the broadest and most absolute discretion; many instances have occurred of this in constant succession ever since the revolution, in political opinion, which has taken place in the Legislature of the Union; for scarcely were the Republicans warm in their seats before they made a delegation of the power to the President, more unlimited in principle and more dangerous in practice than that now advocated, for suspending the operation of the embargo law. In 1802 he was authorized to organize a military corps. In February, 1803, he was authorized to cause to be built several vessels of war, if the exigencies of the service should require it. In 1804 the same powers were repeated, and many others, equally dangerous and equally necessary, were delegated both these years. In March, 1805, he was authorized to permit or interdict at pleasure foreign vessels from coming into our ports. Compare the discretion either in extent or importance vested by those laws, with that now contemplated, and on the ground of precedent we are more than justified; even in the present session we have delegated the power of suspending or continuing a law, now certainly in operation, by authorizing the President to build and equip, or not, at his discretion, a number of gunboats, or he may, under the influence of the like discretion, for ever desist from the execution of it.

If this body is supposed to act under the regular impulse of any political principles, it appears to me, sir, that the numerous precedents to be found in our statutory code ought to have an effect. In those which I have mentioned, and many others which have been enumerated by the gentleman from Tennessee, the President was vested with the right, _ad libitum_, to continue, suspend, or terminate the operation of a law. In the present one the discretion is limited to the contingencies of peace in Europe, a suspension of hostilities, or such conduct and assurances on the part of the belligerents who have invaded our commercial rights, as will enable our vessels to pass with our produce in safety to a foreign market.

Let us now examine, sir, the other constitutional objection made by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that Congress have not the power to lay an embargo. If indeed this novel position be correct, the question is at an end, and the people of the United States would be justified in the resistance the argument invites. I had indeed understood the gentleman, as others near me did, to found his idea of the unconstitutionality of this embargo, on the circumstance of the laws imposing it being unlimited as to time. He defined an embargo to mean an inhibition for a limited time, and this unlimited nature of the present embargo was dwelt on by him with peculiar emphasis; but when a gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. JOHNSON,) who followed him, had ably exposed the fallacy of this distinction, and completely sent the argument home to its author, the distinction was abandoned by explanation. I understand the explanation of the gentleman; but as the object in pressing the unlimited quality of this embargo on the sensibility of the nation, cannot be mistaken, I have too, sir, for reasons alike obvious, thought it proper to mention it.

But, sir, as to the power to lay an embargo. The first motives for a union of the States, imply this as indispensable. It would be enough to show it to be a measure of general defence and protection, to give Congress a right to act on the subject; as such, sir, it expressly ranks among the provisions assigned as the great causes for the adoption of the Federal Constitution; for in the preamble to this instrument, the people say, they have adopted it in order “to provide for the common defence and general welfare.”

In the first paragraph of the eighth section of the first article, the same words are repeated; common defence and common protection to the external interest of the United States, are then the peculiar objects of its Government. An embargo under some circumstances is not only a proper but a necessary and indispensable means of common defence and protection; I might say that the present crisis is a strong illustration of such necessity. But if the right to lay an embargo is controverted, I would ask by what means is the Government in time of war, or expected war, under the authority of law to secure the property of its citizens, which it is the business of all Governments to do, towards all who claim under it the protection of their rights? Where is the power lodged, if not in the National Legislature, which shall prohibit your own, or even your enemies’ vessels from leaving your ports, after a declaration of war? Are the States vested with, or do they generally retain the right to lay an embargo? No, sir, they cannot so far enter into the collisions of interests which would follow among each other by preventing the vessels from sailing from the ports of any of them. The effect of doing so would be too obviously an invasion of the general powers of commercial regulation solely intrusted to Congress. Can any man of rational mind suppose, then, that the Government of this country is really so defective in what is not only to common sense an obvious reason, but one of the express objects of its institution?

But to lay an embargo is unconstitutional, because Congress cannot lay an export duty! And it is argued by the same gentleman that the lesser power being thus provided against, the exercise of the greater must of course be included in the prohibition; the minor forming an objection, the major is, _a fortiori_, inadmissible. How easily, sir, is this argument of inference retorted on the gentleman; for, according to a familiar and certainly plain course of reasoning, it would seem, that if the subjects are the same as is said, when the framers of our constitution made an exception of the lesser power, if they had intended also to except the greater, they would not have forgotten it.

The reasons which influenced the framers of that instrument to provide against the power of laying an export duty, were obvious; the provision was adopted in that spirit of mutual accommodation, which was so necessary to the harmony of the whole. It would be difficult, it was easily foreseen, to devise an export duty, which would not bear harder on some of the States than others; it was better therefore not to resort at all to a mode of taxation which would afford so fruitless a source of contention. The policy too of taxing exports was perhaps radically inadmissible; yet I cannot, for my life, discern how an export duty has been drawn into analogy with an embargo.

That the embargo was a curse, and continues to be a most calamitous one to us all, I have heard no one deny; but until now, I have not heard the assertion advanced that our Government, by its conduct, was the author of that curse. Yes, sir, many evils which the injustice of other nations has inflicted on the peace and honor of the United States are acknowledged to be curses of the most irritating and affecting nature; but the gentleman has said more for England and France, than either of them has before said for itself, when he attributes to his own Government the misconduct which has produced those evils. It was scarcely to be expected that any state of internal division or any views of whatever description would have produced on this floor an assertion which has thus put a new argument in the hands of our enemies in justification of their aggressions on us; it is more than our enemies have asserted. We have heard indeed from France and England that their decrees and orders, which make the present voluntary retirement from the seas necessary on our part, were the effect of an unjustifiable attack, which each has attributed in the first instance to the other. Each criminates the other, and not America, with being the author of the peculiar mode of warfare which has proved so destructive to the rights of neutrals. The very language of their orders and decrees assumes this position, and they are all prefaced with the declaration, that their orders are enacted in the spirit of retaliation on each other, and not, sir, for any offence which our Government has been the author of, as the gentleman now tells the American people; for what purpose let the nation judge.

I may surely be permitted to express my surprise and astonishment at this assertion, sir, as it has never before been insinuated, on this floor at least; and as it forms so strong a contrast with the declarations which have been before made by the same gentleman, permit me to recall the gentleman’s attention to his arguments in conclave, and to notice, if it will not be out of order, (which I presume it will not, as all which then took place has since been directed to be published,) the grounds of his opposition to the embargo at that time.

It is recollected by us all that the honor of presenting a resolution in conformity to the policy recommended by the President, in his Message of the 18th of December last, was an object of emulation between the gentleman from Virginia and one from Massachusetts, (Mr. CROWNINSHIELD,) whose absence from the House the nation has so much cause to deplore, and we all so sensibly feel. I thought it then, and still think it an honorable emulation, arising from a patriotic sense of duty. The gentleman from Virginia finally succeeded, and became the author of the resolution in this House for laying the embargo; scarcely had he, however, presented the resolution, the necessity of which he at the same time took occasion to observe he had long foreseen, and, for two years at least, before the period when it was recommended, (and, of course, sir, prior to the rejection of this noted London Treaty of December, 1806, now so much eulogized,) scarcely had he thus expressed his approbation of the embargo, till he again doubted its policy, and soon after denounced its justice, not yet, indeed, for any of the reasons we now hear, respecting the rejection of the treaty, but because it was a measure said, or insinuated, to be dictated by France; and that it was to have an injurious operation solely on England. It was in vain that the friends of the embargo urged the probable existence of the very grounds that measure now more strongly rests on; that the hostile determination of France to enforce her decree of November 21, 1806, would probably be followed by orders as harsh on the part of Great Britain; that this was the course of policy the adoption of which England had already announced, and its execution might, therefore, be fairly anticipated; that the King’s proclamation of the 16th of October, 1807, a copy of which accompanied the President’s Message, was an evidence of the determination of that Government to offer no satisfactory accommodation of our differences, and of its determined usurpation of our maritime rights; to these arguments nothing was replied, but the repetitions in lengthened speeches of the same charges. The opinions then avowed, sir, by the advocates of the embargo, have met with support from the events which have since been developed, while the unjustifiable grounds of opposition are abandoned, even by their authors. But, sir, if there is any gentleman, who, with his eyes open to the situation of the commerce of the world, will say that the embargo ought to be removed, and that the policy is unsound, let me ask him to tell us what, in the embarrassing state in which we are placed by the efforts of France and England to involve us in their conflicts, we are to do? The gentleman from Virginia has hinted at arming our merchantmen! War, then, is the substitute; it is, indeed, the only one, I agree. To arm our merchantmen, leads to war--nay, sir, it is war, according to the interpretation nations have a right to put on such an act of a Government; it will be opposed by open war and undisguised hostility. If we are to have war, let it be in the direct tone and unequivocal language of a nation indignant at the insults it has received, not in the indirect manner of arming a few trading vessels, the masters of whom would choose for the nation its enemy, or involve us with both the belligerents at once, as their particular animosities might dictate; if we are to go to war, it might be well to fight one at a time at least. But, sir, I cannot but hope if our strong, but pacific policy is adhered to, cursed as it is said to be, it may yet preserve us from the conflicts of Europe. It is a curse, indeed, sir, under which we are compelled to labor, but what is the alternative? I have thought much, sir, on the subject; it has been my duty as well as that of every other gentleman to weigh it well. We hear its effects are severely felt, and we hear, too, what are the exertions of our opponents to seize the favorite opportunity which it is so well calculated to produce, to excite the sensibility of the people through the medium of their immediate interests. But remove the embargo, and we must arm our vessels, and war is at once declared. I have heard no one deny that this must be the alternative. Compare the evils, both of great extent. I admit, by the embargo, we lose half the value of the products of our country, or the receipt of it is suspended; by war, to admit the effect in this particular, no worse, at least it could be no better; but have we counted the costs of the armies we are to raise, and to pay, of the supplies we are to furnish, of the loss of our blood, and the diminution of our strength, of the reduction of the profits of agriculture itself, by calling men from their domestic occupations, and lessening the number of hands for tillage--have we calculated the thousand other evils which follow in the train of war? To plunge into war, sir, to escape the curse of the embargo, would be truly fulfilling the adage of old--“out of the frying-pan into the fire.” I do not hesitate to say that, if we have patriotism enough to pursue our own interests, better would it be for this country to remain under the truly calamitous curse of the embargo for years, than at once to launch itself into war. But if we must at length, after all our efforts to prevent it, have war, let it be a war dependent on national sentiment, and arising from no doubtful necessity, which must be produced by the conflicts of our vessels at sea. We all know, and have felt that it has required the exertion of an unparalleled fortitude, to resist the emotions which have impelled us to acts of vengeance and redress for our injuries; let us not, then, seek for new causes, of doubtful necessity, to place us at once at war, as would be the case by arming our vessels. No, sir, let it be a cause which, in spite of our divisions, so earnestly of late fomented, must unite us in one spirit of opposition, in one sentiment of indignation against the enemy who shall attack us, with the spirit of unanimity with which a sense of injury will inspire us. I do not too highly estimate our strength, or, I trust, our patriotism, when I say, that no army which Europe combined could transport across the Atlantic, could long withstand the American arms. That we have had ample cause, of war, wanton, unprovoked cause, I had not, till now, supposed had been doubted; we are now, indeed, informed that our Government is to blame, and that the insults and injuries to which we have been subjected, are, in a great measure, attributable to its misconduct. What the object is, in making these assertions, let the nation judge; believing them groundless, I do not fear to be able to prove them so. The non-importation law has been mentioned as one of the subjects of just umbrage to England, and as having had an embarrassing effect on the state of our negotiations there. The gentleman has certainly but little attended to the documents which have lately been read in this House; if he had, he would there have found, under the sanction of authority which he is not presumed to doubt, that it was a measure one of our Ministers in London has given his most unequivocal approbation to.

It was said that our Ministers were suppliants at a foreign Court--our Government must place an efficient instrument in their hands; and a coercive system of policy is recommended, with a direct allusion to the enaction of the non-importation law before the rising of the Congress then in session.

We are told, too, that a principal cause of our embarrassments is the rejection of the treaty concluded by our Ministers in London on the 31st of December, 1806. This assertion has been made here, sir, with such earnestness that it requires examination. The treaty which has been rejected by our Government has been eulogized, and a month’s discussion of it has been challenged; not, it is true, wholly on its intrinsic worth, or positive merits, but because the circumstances, also, under which it was concluded, made its provisions proper, and its adoption necessary. The Treaty of 1794, commonly called Jay’s Treaty, I understood the gentleman also to say, would under the existing circumstances of December, 1806, have been proper for our adoption. This was, indeed, sir, a necessary preface to his defence of the rejected treaty, for it is certainly susceptible of easy demonstration, that it is, in its features and provisions, far more objectionable and defective than the Treaty of 1794; and, whether we take it on the ground of peculiarity in the circumstances of the contracting parties, or on its intrinsic merits, it has less claim to our assent.

In the first place, let us examine the circumstances under which those two treaties were made, and then compare their respective provisions. From the retrospect I am at this time able to take of our situations at those different periods, I cannot hesitate to believe that the circumstances under which the Treaty of 1794 was made, were more unfavorable for negotiation on the part of the United States at that time, both as they respected England and America, than they were in December, 1806. As they respected England, her situation was at the former period infinitely more commanding. By her combinations with the great powers of Europe, as early as 1792, or perhaps antecedent to that year, she was perfectly secure against any annoyance from France, her only enemy in 1794. The Treaties of Pavia and Pilnitz, to which, it is believed, England early in 1792 acceded, and which certainly laid the groundwork of the conventions and coalitions of the spring of 1793, had produced the effect of uniting in concert with her against France, the powers of Russia, Germany, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, and many of the minor States of Europe. England, then, felt no apprehensions for her own safety, none for the abridgment of her commerce, and seemed to be but little sensible to her interests in cultivating a good understanding with America: her single enemy was confined to his own territories, and threatened even with famine. The United States, in 1794, had not long commenced their existence as a nation, and their new Government might be said to be scarcely more than in a state of experiment. The debts which had been created by the Revolutionary war, we had undertaken the honorable discharge of, and we were then laboring under the immense load; our resources were comparatively small, our embarrassments great, our burdens by no means in a course of alleviation, and our situation totally defenceless; the savages who bordered on our frontiers were numerous, strong, and fierce, and our armies had but recently suffered a dreadful carnage and terrible defeat; we were destitute of manufactories which could supply us with arms, or the means of filling our arsenals; a civilized nation of Europe, then great and powerful, bordered her colonies on our Southern frontier, and disputed with us the navigation of our rivers. Sir, if circumstances could ever sanction a dereliction of right, and a compromitment of interest, those circumstances, then, might be said to exist. Then, indeed, there might have been a semblance of apology, in our infant and crippled state, for leaning, in some measure, on the strength of a nation which was supposed to stand firm. I confess, sir, I would rather, even at that time, have had no treaty, than such a one as was then made; it has set a bad example. But what was our situation in December, 1806--adverting again to circumstances, which are made the test in this case, when the treaty, since rejected, was signed in London? Our strength and population increased to a most envious and flattering degree; our foreign debts discharged, and our domestic one, which we had honorably assumed the payment of, reduced--our credit established abroad, our Treasury overflowing, and our resources flourishing; manufactories of arms were every where reared, and had furnished the nation with the best means of defence; the savages on our frontiers were subdued, or civilized; our Southern frontier was extended and had grown strong: England, instead of her prosperity and powerful combinations of 1793, was left almost single-handed; the subordinate powers of Europe had become a part of France, the great nations were either under her control, or struggling in their last efforts of disastrous conflict: France, instead of being confined to the defence of her own dominion, was carrying on offensive war, and England had been made to tremble for her own existence. What then are the circumstances alleged, to palliate the evils of such a treaty as was offered us? Was England about to be suddenly relieved in an instant from her embarrassments and burdens? How? We are told, indeed, that France had pushed her conquests too far, that her Emperor had so far stretched his arm of conquest, as to leave himself exposed to the most imminent danger at home; was it therefore that England elevated her hopes, and carried her demands? Stuff, sir, fit only for the cook-shops and coffee-houses of London; I should never have expected it to find its way into the semi-official letter which has been read to us, from a character who has deservedly stood high in the rank of politicians. But our own internal situation, threatened with conspiracy, the extent and magnitude of which was unknown, was another reason it has been suggested for hastening the execution of this treaty. How, in December, 1806, accounts so alarming could have reached England of the extent of Burr’s conspiracy, I cannot but be at a loss to conjecture. The alarm at that time here, was not I believe very serious; not such, at least, as would have been a reason with any man in this country to have thrown ourselves into the lap of a foreign nation, or to have made a treaty which compromitted our rights, and left our interests unprovided for. I must say I think too much alarm was felt on this subject, and that it would at least have been as honorable a sentiment towards the people and Government of America, to have entertained an entire confidence in them, that without any great or dangerous effort they were capable of quelling the conspiracies which might be engendered against their peace. I assert that independent of circumstances which I have endeavored to show were more unfavorable as they regarded the United States, and far more favorable as they regarded England in 1794, than in December, 1806, the treaty of the latter date is worse than that of the former. The former did provide redress in some sort for previous injuries. That of the latter date contains no provisions for any kind of redress or compensation, which was due to us, for the very many spoliations which had been committed on our commerce--it offers no alleviation to the evils of the former--is silent as to the injuries and insults which we had sustained in our waters; totally, sir, although these were subjects of special instruction from our Government, and although we were told by our embassy that a treaty was concluded on the different points of commercial interest. Was it forgotten, sir, to what an immense amount America had suffered under the different orders of the King in council, even from the very date of the former agreement for reparation? Were not our losses under the orders

## particularly of 1798, which gave rise to so much of the havoc our neutral

commerce had groaned under, and which placed the nations of Europe in a better situation than the United States in the conveyance of colonial produce, known to our Ministers? It must have been recollected, for it was enforced in their instructions, how our vessels had been incessantly sent into the ports of Britain and her colonies for adjudication, and the unjust condemnations which had taken place, under the construction of those orders. It must have been recollected how far in the first instance the orders themselves had gone towards the subversion of the laws of nations. The time was, indeed, when a great jurist, Lord Mansfield, had declared, that neither the orders of the King in council nor even an act of Parliament which contravened the law of nations was binding on any one; this was said in the case of the Silesia loan, but those days were past. Sir William Scott has since told us, that the text of the instructions are his guide, and King George the Third is thus, by his single voice, to make and expound the law, which is adjudged to be paramount in modern times to the laws of nations. The adjudications, it is a well-known fact, have been in conformity to the Royal will, stimulated alone by the shipping interests of England; principles of adjudication have been established in the British Courts of Admiralty, which had on the most unjust pretensions wrested from our citizens many millions of their property. Why by this treaty give up our claims to reparation, as they were most emphatically, by signing a treaty which yielded no redress for them while the claims were still unsatisfied; by making a compact which wholly pretermitted them? It is said, sir, that the disputes respecting the colonial trade are adjusted by this treaty. How--by agreeing to a duty on exports? Where was our constitution, now so strongly pressed in discussion, when this stipulation was made; when it was solemnly covenanted, that we should directly invade one of its provisions by laying an export duty? And that, in addition to the deduction on drawbacks allowed by law, an export duty of one, two, or three per cent. should be imposed on colonial articles? Why make the extraordinary and vain stipulation too, contained in the fifth article, that we should have a right to lay the same export duty which England should have a right to impose, if we could lay none by our constitution?

The subject of blockades also, sir, was one on which some stipulation was made absolutely necessary, by the novel doctrines lately asserted, and insisted on by the nations of Europe; it was important that their extent should in some way have been defined, their nature described, when a blockade should be said to exist, and that it should not be a question left entirely to the discretion or interest of a belligerent, or the caprice of her officers. This single question had already led us at different times to the very brink of war with England. In June, 1793, she asserted all France to be in a state of blockade, and ordered our vessels to be captured which should attempt to enter any of her ports with our produce. France had in May of the same year issued an inhibitory order against our trade, of a nature but little less hostile, in consequence, as it was said, of the Russian convention made in London, I think in March of the same year. In the fall of 1793, the British had issued secret orders on the same principle of blockade, which entrapped our West India commerce, to an immense amount, before they were known by us to be in existence; this it was said was a principal reason for the proposition contained in a bill for prohibiting all intercourse with England, which had in the early part of 1794 received the sanction of the House of Representatives, and was rejected in the Senate but by the majority of one vote, and which was succeeded by Mr. Jay’s mission. To the same class, too, may be assigned the British orders of May 1795, against our vessels laden with provisions, which brought President WASHINGTON to a stand on the British Treaty, and caused him, it is said, to demand a previous explanation, which was at that time I presume, satisfactorily made, but which has been since in innumerable instances violated, and the same vague and undefined principles of blockade enforced; at one time by declaring a blockade to exist from Brest to the river Elbe, at others by proclamations of blockade equally extravagant, and more than once by the declaration of the British naval commanders, that a whole kingdom should be cut off, at a stroke of the pen, from all the trade of neutral nations. But, sir, if the general and extensive evils which the new doctrine of blockades had superinduced, were not of sufficient importance to claim a stipulation against their exercise in future, there was one species of injury which seemed really to merit, and to claim indispensably, some notice either by redress or stipulation against its future practice. I know not how to class it; it may be assimilated to a modern blockade, inasmuch as it assumes a jurisdiction wholly ideal; I mean that which was a particular subject of complaint, from the assumption made of a right by a British naval officer in the port of New York, in claiming jurisdiction and the exercise of the right of impressment, and of course every one less inimical to natural right, within the distance of the buoys from his ship. To this assertion of authority I see no disclaimer in this applauded treaty, or any hint at redress for the injury inflicted by the particular occasion on which it was exercised. If this new claim of naval sovereignty is insisted on, or thus tacitly permitted, it is time it should be so understood; for with the same propriety with which the British commander in New York claimed jurisdiction within his buoys, another might claim British jurisdiction from Boston to Charleston, if he could so far stretch a cable.

I come now, sir, to say something on the question of impressment, wholly omitted in the treaty, and which the gentleman from Virginia has said was informally and satisfactorily arranged by the note of the British Commissioners on that subject. He has said that their note contained a stipulation, “that they would order their naval commanders to abstain from the practice of impressments on board American vessels.” I confess I was astonished at the declaration. It is true the printed document has not been furnished till just now. I presume the note of the 8th of November, 1806, to have been alluded to, because something like the same defence on this subject has been used by one of the American Commissioners in his late letter to the Secretary of State, (although, indeed, until I heard that defence read, I had not understood that any improper dereliction of the American interests had been imputed to our Ministers; I had always understood, and, except in the letter alluded to, and the arguments of the gentleman, I have yet understood from every source of information open to me, that it was not expected by our Ministers that the treaty could be ratified by the American Government, but that it was the best they could obtain;) I could not think the quotation of the gentleman correct as to the language of that note. I mentioned then, sir, to those who sat near me, that I had understood it to convey no promise to abstain from the practice of impressment, but a vague and unsatisfactory declaration that the British naval commanders should be instructed to use caution in the impressments they made; as it was said they had been always before instructed; by that means, sir, placing ourselves, if we choose to recognize this informal stipulation, in a worse situation than before, inasmuch as it was an unequivocal acknowledgment of the right of impressment, when exercised under the caution of a British officer. And what, sir, is the language of this same note of November 8th--we have it now before us: “His Majesty’s Ministers give to Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinckney the most positive assurances, that instructions have been given and shall be repeated and enforced for the observance of the greatest caution in the impressing of British seamen, and that the strictest care shall be taken to preserve the citizens of the United States from any molestation or injury; and that immediate and prompt redress shall be afforded upon any representation of injury sustained by them.” How, sir, let me ask, have those officers conducted themselves under these repeated instructions? To say nothing of the continued violations committed on our merchant vessels, we have indeed had a most notable example of the extreme caution which her naval officers had no doubt been instructed, and were determined to observe, in the mode of impressments, in that excessively cautious plan adopted by Admiral Berkeley, to effect his honorable and loyal purposes, in the memorable attack upon the Chesapeake. Then, sir, I must admit, that in pursuance of what I now believe were his orders, the most cool and deliberate caution was used. Our frigate, on an outward voyage, on the very day she left her port, in the usual unprepared state in which I am told vessels of war sail in time of peace, is with the utmost caution pursued by the British ship of superior force, in sight of several others. The American frigate is overtaken; her men, proved to be American citizens, are demanded of her, as of right being the subjects of the King. They are refused, and indeed, sir, I must acknowledge, with peculiar caution, before it was possible for our frigate to prepare for

## action and the defence of the honor of her flag, the British commander

fires three broadsides into her, and commits the murder of fifteen or twenty other American citizens, and no doubt most cautiously compels the United States frigate to strike her colors, goes on board, and takes off three of the native citizens of our country, none of whom have to this day been returned!

But, sir, if this treaty, with its appendages, had contained in it provisions and stipulations which were responsive to our injuries, and which comported with our rights, is there a man in this nation, who consults the dignity and honor of his country, who could have wished its assent to it, subject to the condition dictated by the King of England, and transmitted by a note of the British commissioners annexed to it? The gentleman from Virginia has spoken of the insult conveyed by the letter of Champagny of the 15th of January, 1808, to our Minister in Paris; its terms have been grammatically scanned. Sir, there was no need for this; we are at no loss for subjects of humiliation and insult, whether we look to France or to England. As early as 1793, attempts of the most unjustifiable nature were made to involve us in war by both these powers. Lord Grenville, so early as that time, expressly told our Minister, without disguise, that the British orders of November in that year were intended to have an internal effect upon the affairs of this country. Such has ever since been the conduct of the belligerents, constantly and undeviatingly pursued in the most disrespectful manner, towards us; such was certainly the object of the British Cabinet, in annexing the note of the 31st of December, 1806, to the treaty of that date; and certainly, sir, if a direct attempt to force us into war, is considered an insult to our independence, and an encroachment upon our rights of self-government, such was the language of that note, which, in open and unreserved terms, made it an indispensable condition to the ratification of the treaty, “that the Government of the United States, by its conduct or assurances, will have given security to his Majesty, that it will not submit to such innovations in the established system of maritime law,” as the French decree therein alluded to contained--his Majesty thus most graciously taking upon himself the right of determining for us what course of conduct we should pursue towards his enemy! I do not say, sir, that the letter of Champagny, which has been repeatedly mentioned with such asperity by the gentleman, is such a one as consists with the respect due to us; by some gentlemen its language has been construed to mean a proposition originating in a disposition of friendship, and to convey nothing more than an offer, founded on a supposition of the actual existence of war between Great Britain and the United States, and in that event, to take care of such of our property as should be exposed to capture, until there should be an opportunity of restoration; but to me, sir, I confess the language is not satisfactory. We have a right to expect from all nations something more, or something less than equivocal language. Our Government speaks in terms of friendship, and in the plain language which neither conveys a doubt as to its hostility or friendship; we have a right to expect the same frankness in others. But why, sir, should gentlemen who profess to feel, and I hope do feel only as Americans, suffer their sensibilities to transport them to battle with the Gallic Cock, while under heavier insults they seem disposed to succumb to the British Lion? Why is the letter of the British Minister of the 23d of February wholly forgotten, when we are undergoing the humiliating revival of insults and threats? Is it less awakening to our national sensibility, and to the alarms of honor or interest, to be told, as we are by that letter, that his Majesty the King of England is disappointed in his just expectation that we should have gone to war with France, than to be told through our Minister at the Court of France that the Emperor of that nation expected we were at war with England? If insult was intended by either, it seems to have been measured by the same equal standard with which they have by their hostile orders measured their injuries to our commerce; perfectly in the spirit of retaliation, sir.

My astonishment, sir, has indeed been excited more than on any former occasion, when I have heard a gentleman condemn our Government for the rejection of a treaty, which provided no redress for former injuries, no security against future ones, and which, by the conditions annexed to it, would have infallibly, by stipulating resistance against a belligerent, directly have involved us in war; and that not a war of self-defence, but a war of alliance with one of the powers, for the purpose of resistance and offence against the other. War, sir, I hope will be avoided, notwithstanding the bold attempts to involve us in it, and which have been so steadily pursued by the contending nations. It will I hope be avoided, unless our self-defence shall render it indispensably necessary. Attack or invasion from France cannot be rationally contemplated. War with England, we must all agree, rests on more uncertain grounds; if any thing will prevent it, I believe it to be the course pursued by our Government. The resolution under discussion explicitly avows the terms on which we will consent again to renew our intercourse with Europe. If Great Britain is induced to relax, France must and will pursue the same policy. I think, sir, we have a right to believe, from the best information from England, that this relaxation will take place. I am aware of that disposition in the ruling party in England to go to war with us. I have no right to doubt the truth of the declaration of Mr. Monroe, that there is a party in that country strong and active indeed, as he has described it to be, who are disposed to hostility with us, and who are at all hazards determined to support the maritime supremacy of Great Britain; they are described to be the navy interest, the East India chartered companies, the West India traders, and the shipping interest--strong and active indeed, sir; they sit at the elbow of Majesty, and influence his ready will; but their temptations to war are removed by the embargo, and I hope will continue to be so, until they rescind those orders which have cut us off from the commerce of the world.

But the power contemplated by the resolution, of meeting any friendly disposition on the part of the European powers, is to be withheld, because it would add too much to the already overgrown popularity of the President, who, like Julius Cæsar, has been offered the honor of a Crown! It is true, sir, the demonstrations of confidence in the present Chief Magistrate are general and sincere in many parts of the Union. At the time the only address of this kind was proposed, which I have ever understood originated in Virginia, I had the honor of a seat in her Legislature. It was introduced and supported by the description of politicians there denominated the _Republican minority_; in what spirit of sincerity I leave others to judge at this day. But, thank God, it was not permitted to progress; and thus the person to whom it was intended to be presented was saved the suffusion of a blush, which the evidence of such adulation from his own State would for its sake have infallibly produced.

On this occasion an attempt is made to alarm us, by the assertion that the administration of the Government is assimilating itself to that of a monarchy; and it is said that the power of the President is more dangerous than that of a British King. Has the gentleman weighed the extent of this assertion, or contemplated the powers of a British King? In power, unrestrained as he is by their constitution, (if constitution that can be called, which consists of unsettled and undefined practices, most of them originating, no one knows where, and founded on principles which cannot be traced to any rational ground--a constitution which, notwithstanding their declarations of rights, is perfectly incapable of restraint upon the Executive arm; which subjects the Parliament to the King; which makes it completely _his_ Parliament, and deludes the people with the show of liberty, while they are governed by the single voice of a monarch--yes, sir, it is _his_ Parliament,) has he committed any great act of outrage on the nations of the earth? He feels the pulse of _his_ Parliament before he permits them to convene. _His_ Parliament, I may again emphatically call it; for it is he who orders it into existence, and he who suspends its functions or dissolves it at will. If its pulse does not beat responsively to his wishes, he either dissolves it or postpones its meeting from time to time, as has been the policy with the present Parliament, which, if it had met at the time first appointed, scarcely less than a revolution might have been apprehended, from the general ferment the execrable conduct of England towards Denmark had excited, and the head of our old master might have atoned for that unprecedented act of criminality; for, as such, it had been contemplated with abhorrence by a magnanimous people--a people who felt for the character of Englishmen in the commission of it. There are men there, sir, I acknowledge, who do honor to human nature. When we read the speeches of Erskine, and other great men in the present opposition, we may yet hope that there may be found enough of integrity in the nation to redeem its character from the stains of murder and robbery, which the conduct of its monarch has marked it with. Yet this is the King to whose power that of a President of the United States is said to be assimilating itself. By what instance, let me ask, does it appear that we are verging to the practice of a corrupt monarchy? Is it in the proposition involved in this resolution? No, certainly; for I have before proved that the same powers, and much more extensive and unqualified, have been delegated at every period of our Government, from its commencement to the present session. Is it from any other general assumption of power? No; for it is acknowledged by all that the present Administration has acted in perfect consonance with the powers of the constitution, and I will add, (what its enemies have before allowed,) with the most strict and unceasing regard to the interests and happiness of the people.

Why are we warned, sir, on this floor, against authorizing the President to do an act which may enhance his popularity so much as the removal of the embargo, and that it is another mode of adding to that influence already so overbearing? If, indeed, the embargo operates most distressingly, (as we all know it does, on every part of the community,) it is he who in the first instance, from the strong sense of duty, assumed on himself the responsibility (the _odium_, the gentleman would call it) of the measure. It is but fair, then, however ludicrous the charge in itself, that he should be left to regain the popular favor he is supposed to have lost. It will only leave him where he was.

But, sir, seriously, let me ask gentlemen to tell the nation, before we separate, what they will do. Is there any one so desperate, inconsiderate, or so wild in his opinion, as to say the embargo ought at the present time to be removed, while the hostile Orders of France and England are both enforced with the utmost rigor against us, and when they have multiplied, and been extended in their effects since the expediency of the embargo was fully decided on? What is the obvious alternative? Either authorize its removal, when our safety will permit, or continue in session to wait that event. But why, sir, sit here, at the daily expense of many hundred dollars to the community, when we shall have transacted the business of the nation, merely because some gentlemen are now doubtful of the right or the policy of delegating to the President a power which has, in much stronger and more general terms, been before intrusted to him, and all who have preceded him? But, if any thing better than this can be devised, let it be submitted. For my own part, I promise to give it the attention its importance may merit. But, at the least, let us unite in the adoption of some measures for the safety and interest of our country, at this time so imminently jeopardized by the powers of Europe.

Mr. MASTERS.--Mr. Chairman, I shall not undertake to say that the rejected treaty is so advantageous as we had a right to expect. I do not hesitate to declare that, or even Jay’s Treaty, is preferable to the present state of our affairs. If we take into our view all the relative circumstances of the British nation with France, Russia, and the other belligerent powers, and pay proper attention to the unprotected and defenceless situation of our country and our commerce, in forming our ideas of what we ought to expect from that nation whose navy commands the seas, can we then expect she will sacrifice that navy, or any part of her power, by conceding the point of search for her seamen on board of neutral vessels? It is inconsistent with their interest, and it is inconsistent with their superiority. This right of search for her own subjects, Mr. M. considered as the main block in the way of negotiation, which sound policy and interest require we should clear away. The British and American Commissioners had informally put this point on as good footing as he expected. Although the resolution under consideration is not properly limited and defined, he should not vote against it. His wish was to raise the embargo and arm our vessels. The nation could not bear the pressure. The embargo virtually inhibits all intercourse with foreign nations; the effects are and will be pernicious to the agricultural productions of this country, and produce will fall to the lowest ebb, and enforce the most unparalleled distress on the community. Commerce ought always to be left to the merchant, unshackled and unembarrassed, as much as possible. Our commercial intercourse is the principal resource, both of revenue and commercial opulence. The embargo will tear up by the roots and annihilate the commerce of this country. And the effects will be heavy taxes, an exhausted Treasury, a diminished and ruined revenue. It weakens your own power, fetters your operations, and deludes your citizens; it devours not only the fruits but the seeds of industry. It will sink down and depress the nation to an absence of hope and a want of resources; it will be felt by the nation as a calamity, without deciding the general question of dispute. Prove to me the embargo is consistent with common sense, and will be the means of adjusting our differences with the belligerent powers, and I will then be an advocate for it. Though we have the constitutional right to lay an embargo, it is a matter which requires great consideration, whether the measure will have the effect to which it was seemingly intended. It may be good in theory; he esteemed it chimerical in practice, a mere speculative proposition. Wisdom is to be gained in politics, not by one rigid principle, but by looking attentively at causes and the effects they have or will produce; not by adopting that false philosophy, which seeks perfection out of that which, in its nature, is imperfect; which refers every thing to theory, and nothing to practice; which substitutes visionary schemes for solid tests of experiment, and bewilders the human mind in a chaos of opinions. Search all the histories of the world, and you will not find eleven hundred thousand tons of shipping, of one of the greatest commercial nations, embargoed for an unlimited time.

Mr. Chairman, the season of our severe trial is not at an end, nor are we yet relieved from the dejection and gloom which hangs over our heads; doubts and uncertainty mingle with the hopes and expectations of the people. If you bring our commerce into the situation of the Chinese, you will end in the wild state of nature, that mocks the name of liberty, and the human character will be degraded, instead of being free.

If you entertain a sense of the many blessings which you have enjoyed; if you value a continuance of that commerce which is the source of so much opulence; if you wish to preserve that high state of prosperity by which the country has, for some years past, been so eminently blessed, you lose all these advantages by continuing the embargo and neglecting to arm your vessels. Restore, then, confidence and vigor to commerce. You are at war with your own interest and every idea of policy; instead of protecting commerce you destroy it.

In whatever view the embargo presents itself, it appears to me to be fraught with impolicy; it was laid at midnight; that miserable scene was closed under the darkness which suits with it, and under the secret shelter of our own walls. If we are to go to war, you have, instead of warlike preparations and exerting every sinew of national ability, laid an embargo, and obtained just nothing.

The policy of France, as regards Great Britain, is to make a warlike non-intercourse, and we have, by a side-wind, fallen into the measure, adopted and sanctified it; we have abandoned the great highway of nations: our dispute with Great Britain is about commercial rights; we have given them up.

Is this country at that crisis when we shall surrender all those rights her citizens hold most dear? God forbid! I have contemplated upon the embargo, which is hazardous and impolitic, with great pain and anxiety, and I turn my face from it with horror. If there are any who improperly foster and countenance the threatening storm, whatever consequences may follow, they are answerable to their country and their God.

All the advocates of the embargo on this floor have admitted that it was oppressive and a curse. Take away this _curse_ and arm your vessels. It does not follow, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. LOVE) supposes, that arming will involve us in a war. When Great Britain finds we resist the French decrees, she will revoke her orders of council. When France sees she cannot bring us into her views, she will revoke her decrees.

Mr. FISK wished to say a few words on this subject. I am very much surprised, said he, at the expressions of the gentleman last up, and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) yesterday. They expressed sentiments which, if they once take root in this nation, will prostrate your liberties and rights at the feet of foreign Governments. The gentleman who just took his seat has observed, that the subject of impressment was the main block in the way of negotiation. Very true, it was, sir; it goes to the personal liberty and security of your citizens; and if you surrender that right, what do you expect those citizens will say to you? Do you expect they will greet you with, “well done, thou good and faithful servant?” What can the gentleman think when he recollects the sensation displayed at New York on the death of Pierce, in consequence of the exercise by Britain of the right of impressment? Were those tears and lamentations feigned, or were they the sincere effusions of citizens feeling the injury done them, and burning with indignation at seeing their fellow-citizens murdered almost before their face? If we could believe what the gentleman now suggests, we should suppose that the liberties and lives of our citizens were of no value compared with commerce. Why do gentlemen tell us these things? Are they sincere? They cannot weigh life or liberty in the scales with sordid pelf; it is impossible.

It has been observed by the gentleman from Virginia, and it seems to have been intimated by the gentleman from New York to-day, that the question of impressment was by the rejected treaty placed on better ground than ever was expected; that something like security was afforded to the United States; something on which we could rely: and this assertion is brought in with no other view than as a defence of British measures and a crimination of our own. Let us see the language of the British Minister, in order to ascertain the fact. In the letter from Mr. Canning, dated October 22, he says, in answer to our Minister’s pressing this same question for some security, “no engagements were entered into on the part of His Majesty, as connected with the treaty, except such as appear upon the face of it. Whatever encouragement may have been given by His Majesty’s Commissioners to the hope expressed by the Commissioners of the United States, that discussions might hereafter be entertained, with respect to the impressment of British seamen from merchant vessels, must be understood to have had in view the renewal of such discussions, not as forming any part of the treaty then signed, (as the American Commissioners appear to have been instructed to assume,) but separately, and at some subsequent period more favorable to their successful termination.” It would seem, however, from what was observed yesterday, that this was left, though informal, on such a settled basis, that it might have been satisfactory.

If my memory serves me, the Secretary of State says these vexations are greater than ever. The British Government was never serious in making any settlement against this practice. We find, in the first place, that the British Ministers never yielded that right. We find that Mr. Canning, in answer to our Ministers, tells them they were not to consider the late proclamation respecting impressments as any new regulation on the subject; that the proclamation was not considered in that light, but merely as conveying instructions to the British commanders who might be at a loss how to act; that the proclamation had been framed for nearly three months, but never issued until that time. If it had been in existence for three months, it must have been framed at the very time that the attack on the Chesapeake was in view; that was to try the sentiments of this country, and they meant to steer their course by them. Therefore, it is not an instruction given to naval commanders, lest they should mistake their duty from the late incidents, because it was framed before the attack on the Chesapeake took place. It unfortunately happens that the British Government has not, in this case, covered its object.

I am a little surprised to hear gentlemen telling us that arming our merchant vessels would not produce war. Why arm, if they are not to defend themselves? If the belligerents defend their proceedings, will they not resist our vessels arming against their orders? Could it be done without being met by a declaration of war? But the gentleman from New York has told us that if we suffer our merchants to arm, the British would consider it a sufficient token of our resistance to the French decrees, and remove their orders of council. You have seen all the decrees and orders which make innovations on the law of nations, and subject our commerce to plunder. Are those of France the most hostile? Is the aspect of that nation the most hostile? Compare the letter of Champagny, which declares that our vessels shall be held in sequestration depending the measures of this Government, with the note of Canning, as well as the communications from Mr. Erskine, and what was the result? Look at the treaty which our Government is on this floor condemned for not signing, with the note annexed, declaring that if we submit to the decrees of France, His Britannic Majesty would consider himself bound not to observe the treaty. This note contained a threat; but it was nothing to what Mr. Canning, in observing to our Ministers on this subject, says: “His Majesty cannot profess himself to be satisfied that the American Government has taken any such effectual steps with respect to the decree of France, by which the whole of His Majesty’s dominions are declared in a state of blockade, as to do away the ground of that reservation which was contained in the note delivered His Majesty’s Commissioners at the time of the signature of the treaty; but that, reserving to himself the right of taking, in consequence of that decree and of the omission on the part of neutral nations to obtain its revocation, such measures of retaliation as His Majesty might judge expedient, it was, nevertheless, the desire and determination of His Majesty, if the treaty had been sanctioned by the ratification of the President of the United States, to have ratified it on His Majesty’s part, and to have given the fullest extent to all its stipulations.”

With regard to this treaty, I have no idea of entering into its merits. The gentleman from Virginia, yesterday, seemed to be extremely anxious to justify the treaty. He might have postponed its defence until it was before us, or at least until it was assailed. I will observe that, whatever might have been the intention of our Ministers, they placed the United States in a very disagreeable situation, obliging them to declare that they had no right to negotiate such a treaty. It has given occasion to Mr. Canning to say, “some of the considerations upon which the refusal of the President of the United States to ratify the treaty is founded, are such as can be matter of discussion only between the American Government and its Commissioners; since it is not for His Majesty to inquire whether, in the conduct of this negotiation, the Commissioners of the United States have failed to conform themselves in any respect to the instructions of their Government.” He then goes on to animadvert on the conduct of the American Ministers. Had they kept within the real limits of their own instructions, they never would have given occasion for this reflection on them.

On the score of informal negotiation it will be recollected that from the earliest days of the Government to the present time, the subject of impressment has been pressed upon the British Government, not only in times of war, but in times of peace. If there were in reality any foundation for the charge on our Government, of having sacrificed the interest of, or lost a security to, our seamen, by a rejection of this informal article, it will be only necessary to recur to the correspondence between our Ministers and the British Commissioners, and it will be found that not only formal, but informal articles were such as we ought not to have accepted; that reasonable concessions on our part were offered for the sake of accommodation and refused; that the Treaty of 1794 was, in some measure, proposed as the basis, but was not accepted by the British Ministry. Let me ask the gentleman for a single moment what were the terms offered in this treaty, which he regrets that the Government did not accept? Independent of its exceptionable provisions, it was accompanied by a note which contains a reservation to the British Government to regulate its own proceedings, and leaves us but two alternatives--either to declare war against France, or suffer the British Ministers to rule us. What do they offer us now? If we will trade as they please, and pay them a duty on all our exports, we may carry on our commerce. Is it possible that any man who professes himself an American could accede to this? The spirit of 1776, refusing to pay a duty of two per cent. on tea, would certainly not now yield that for which they then contended, and become again tributary to the British Government. This is not all. Even this admired treaty, which the gentleman from Virginia so much regrets, allows us to trade to the colonies if we will pay tribute. Was it not easily discoverable that two, three, four, or five per cent. would be laid upon the trade, and virtually prohibit us from carrying on this commerce altogether? It was better than prohibition: but if we would not tax it, they would prohibit it altogether. What right had they to demand this? Certainly none, and yet gentlemen wish to raise the embargo, to embrace these regulations, open all our ports to this fettered commerce, and will not place it in the power of the Executive to suspend the embargo. I am a little astonished that gentlemen who consider the embargo as the heaviest curse which could befall this nation, should be against any measure for removing its pressure. But so it is. Here permit me to say that I admire the flexibility of the gentleman’s sentiments. It must be well known to every gentleman in the House, that a gentleman from Virginia, in combating measures which were then carried into effect, as the non-importation law, said, that if we take measures at all, they should be strong measures; none of your milk-and-water measures, but an _embargo_; which would be an efficient measure. This same gentleman, at the present session, exclaims against the Executive influence which produced the embargo. At this very session we cannot forget the scramble between him and another gentleman in this House, (Mr. CROWNINSHIELD,) as to who should have the honor first to propose the measure; he even urged expedition in the measure, as he had a bill ready prepared. In the course of deliberation on the subject, he urged it as the only thing which could promote the national interests; and persisted in this, till one of his colleagues informed us of the effect which it would have upon Britain. He then rose and told us that he had done with the measure; that the measure was partial--not unconstitutional--that it was a new invention; that it was expressly aimed at Great Britain, and this was the great objection. But _now_ we are told that the British Government will ask nothing better of us than giving up the carrying trade. But, unless the gentleman can prove that they are the carriers for their enemy and for us, he will find it difficult to prove that it favors England. Really I am at a loss to see the difference between the proposed measure and that which the gentleman so long since supported for authorizing the President of the United States to suspend the non-importation law. But the gentleman disclaims the influence of precedents. The gentleman has another objection--that it proceeds from a recommendation from the Executive. The gentleman took the liberty to pay a compliment to the President of the United States for declining a re-election; but he expressed great resentment against those States which solicited him to retain his station. I consider this as the highest mark of respect for the course pursued by the present Administration. But it seems, although totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion, the gentleman from Virginia has undertaken to question the motives of all who have joined in the request. The man who has the vanity and arrogance to suppose that he is superior to all mankind, may boast of his republicanism, but he possesses none. I envy him not his sensations. It will be recollected that the constitution has not denied the right of a President, for two successive terms, again to be elected. The legislatures, then, did not travel out of their constitutional course, and it would have been as modest in the gentleman from Virginia--to say no more of it--to have let the subject alone.

In regard to the constitutionality of this measure, which has been questioned, the bill supported by the gentleman from Virginia two years ago, was to enable the President to do a thing at a distant day, if he should think it expedient. What is the object of the present resolution? To put the whole commercial interest at the discretion of the President? Certainly not. If certain events take place, the President is to be authorized to suspend the operation of the embargo law. We command; he obeys. He is the agent, we the principal. The law, giving power to suspend the non-importation law, was more vague than this resolution. In that he had a perfect discretion, there was no landmark laid down in the law. Here there is. The distinction taken by the gentleman from Virginia is a distinction without a difference. The principles of both are the same. The powers given, and the consequences of the exercise of those powers, are the same.

But it seems that the gentleman from Virginia has undertaken to arraign all the measures of Government taken for some time past. A few days ago he was violently opposed to the raising a military force. At the present moment he draws consolation from the circumstance that both Great Britain and France are hostile to us. If he really feels a satisfaction in the hostile attitude of both powers, he ought certainly not to complain of the acts which he says have placed us in that situation. I cannot conceive how a man can with propriety arraign the conduct of an Administration, when he says their measures have produced the very effect for which he is so gratified. We learned from his observations the other day, and it was insinuated again yesterday, that the raising of an army was against the interest of the country. In 1805 and 1806, he was in favor of strong measures against Spain, for he said in the same proportion as we took measures against Spain, Great Britain would respect our rights; because France and Spain being one and the same, measures taken against one were also against the other. But the effects of strong measures seem now to be viewed in a different light. If it was just then to raise an army against France or Spain to make them respect our rights, it is certainly proper now to take strong measures against both France and England, except the gentleman show that the dispositions of nations as well as of men have changed since that time. At the present time the military spirit is a horrid thing; at that time, it was a very pleasant thing.

For a single moment let us consider the embargo. The gentleman says it is unconstitutional. That the constitution having prohibited the power of laying a duty on exports, denies the power to prohibit exportation altogether. There is no difference in this respect between the non-importation law and the embargo. If the argument be true, you must allow trade at all times, whether it furnish a means of annoyance against yourselves or not. Is it not a well-known fact, that Great Britain is in the utmost want of supplies for that navy which murders your citizens and blocks up your ports; and, therefore, you partially disarm them. However gentlemen please themselves and amuse the people--for that will be its only effect--with the idea that the embargo is a pleasant thing to Great Britain, we find that, even by the debates in their Parliament, their orders are considered as measures so hostile, that they expect a declaration of war. How happens it that we become their apologists? that their conduct strikes gentlemen on this floor in a more favorable light than it does the Britons themselves? They consider them as too strong. These members of Parliament must be much mistaken if some gentlemen in this House are correct.

To return to the embargo. I believe most religiously, that had it not been for sentiments expressed in this country so favorable to Great Britain; had it not been for insinuations that it was impossible for us to maintain this measure, before this time we should have been treated with respect by Great Britain. I cannot, while up, but notice what must be obvious to all--that not only in this House, but abroad, every attempt has been made to show that this measure is improper, unjust, and injurious. The table of this House has been loaded with petitions against the embargo; it is known from what source. Another circumstance attends them, that, though they come from different quarters, they owe their existence to one parent, and come from one land. It is very easy to sow the seeds of discord and discontent, if persons industriously and insidiously apply themselves to that object. Whenever a measure has been attempted against Great Britain, we have found what rancorous opposition it has met with. We are now asked to raise the embargo. What encouragement have we to do it? The Treaty of 1794 sacrificed our most important rights. Did it conciliate that Government? Did she even then respect your rights? From that moment to the present, your flag and citizens have been constantly violated. More than three, four, or five thousand seamen, have been impressed into their service. Is it possible that gentlemen can criminate the Government of the United States for not accepting a treaty which gave no security against this? Certainly not. The gentleman told us yesterday that we were contending with a great commercial nation, and had very little to offer in exchange for what we ask. Was it necessary to make this apology for Great Britain? I have thought very differently. Was our commerce of so many millions “nothing?”

Let us now consider the other point which is taken, that the circumstances attending the treaty alter the aspect of it--for this treaty is, to say the best of it, no better than Jay’s, which the gentleman says he so much abhorred. When Jay negotiated his treaty, almost all Europe was in arms against France; Spain, and Italy, then independent nations. When this new treaty was formed, Italy, Spain, Holland, Switzerland, &c., were at the feet of France; and that war which was engendered at the Court of St. James between Prussia and France was decided. Prussia was overwhelmed, and the knowledge of it reached our Ministers before signing this treaty. Germany was at peace. In this situation, was the attitude of Great Britain so imposing as to justify greater sacrifices than were made in 1794? It was not. It was believed and said in this country, that the arms of Bonaparte would conquer the world. Why, then, make this sacrifice? Had we any assurances, if that treaty was ratified, it would be held sacred? On the contrary, doubts were expressed and conditions annexed to it. Has not her conduct since justified a refusal of more than informal stipulations? At the moment when she attacked Copenhagen, she had a treaty with Denmark. She first attacked the town, and then offered terms of accommodation, which were of course refused. What can be said in justification of that outrage? There was, as we were told the other day, some supposition that the fleet was about to be delivered up to France. It was no such thing, sir; it was justified on the supposition that the Treaty of Tilsit contained some secret articles, and the British Government did not know what they were. When she had taken the Danish fleet and burnt the city, she asked the mediation of Russia to secure a peace between them. Can we believe her sincere in these things? If she really believed there were such secret articles, is it natural to believe that she would ask this mediation to restore friendship between her and the injured nation? If we could not see a treachery through this mist, we must be blind. But I would not have noticed the subject, except that a disposition has been manifested to criminate our Government, and prejudice the minds of the nation, instead of looking to the real cause.

I should have supposed, after what has been communicated to us, no one would have accused this Government of a want of justice in its negotiations with foreign powers. Whoever has read the instructions of the Secretary of State to our Ministers, must be convinced to the contrary. Even on the subject of impressments, they were instructed to press it in such a manner as not even to irritate the feelings of Great Britain. A peculiar solicitude has been displayed in all our proceedings to maintain friendship. It has been all in vain. We have been driven to the last alternative, either to shut up our ports for a while, or to fight. What do gentlemen now ask? That we should open our ports to Great Britain alone; for that would be the effect of raising the embargo. Has it been in the power of our Government to make a settlement? No. Are gentlemen willing to put up with what has happened? The terms which Great Britain has offered, it would have disgraced any people to accept. After she has attacked your national ship, shed the blood of your citizens, and obliged you to exclude ships of war from your ports, she requires that you rescind your proclamation before she will even tell you what satisfaction she is willing to make. She says, I have abused you; humble yourself, succumb to me, and I will make such satisfaction as I think fit. This is the nation for whom you are to lift the embargo, and these the favors you are to receive in return. I had rather see this nation again tributary to them than sacrifice so great a proportion of their independence, than acknowledge that all we have done is wrong, and all they have done is right. I consider that whenever this nation is reduced to such a state of apathy as to endure these things, our independence is not worth a straw. You have certain rights--first principles. Recede from them, and you open yourself to perpetual violation; if persisted in, they will prostrate your independence. With these sentiments I cannot consent to repeal the embargo, and the opposition to this resolution seems to be founded in a wish to do that.

Mr. KEY.--I rise on this occasion with great embarrassment, because in no instance of my political life, has any measure called on me to act, in which the interests of my country were more deeply involved. In common with my fellow-citizens of Maryland, I feel a total aversion to the continuance of the embargo, and I am confident I speak the almost unanimous sense of my constituents in calling for its repeal. However proper some of them might have considered it in the first instance, as an experiment from which good might result, yet all now are satisfied that nothing short of its immediate repeal will save them from great distress, and that a long continuance of it will induce bankruptcy and ruin. I am willing, sir, to admit, that those who advocated the embargo were actuated by the purest motives, and had the best interests of their country at heart--that they adopted it as a measure from which great permanent good would result; but time, which tests the correctness of political measures, has sufficiently elapsed to convince them of their error--at least it has impressed on my mind a conviction, that we deeply suffer, whilst those it was intended to operate on, lightly feel its effects. I was originally opposed to the measure--I still am opposed to it; although I anxiously wish its immediate repeal, yet I am compelled to vote against the present resolution, because in my heart and judgment I believe it is so worded as to violate, if adopted, the Constitution of the United States--and that I am unwilling to let the repeal of this law depend on contingencies, not known or designated and which are to grow out of the acts of foreign Governments.

An honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. LOVE,) who originally voted for the measure, has this day admitted it to be a curse. I concur with him, as I hope he will now with me, in a vote and prayer for its speedy removal. I believe the embargo to be partial in its operation, oppressive, and, if persisted in, ruinous to the country. These are strong terms, but if gentlemen will lend a patient ear, I will endeavor to convince them of their truth, and I will use as much brevity as is consistent with perspicuity. The view I take of this subject is extensive, but I hope not diffusive.

The resolution proposes to vest the President with power, on the happening of certain European events, to suspend the embargo law. I am against it, because I want an immediate repeal, because it is unconstitutional to vest the President with power to suspend a law, and because it is partial in its operation, oppressive, and ruinous.

It is partial in its operation in two respects--first as it regards the persons on whom it operates, and secondly, as it respects the product operated on.

The district I have the honor to represent is not bounded on navigable water. So far then as it respects my constituents, (and many other districts of different States are in the same situation,) the law executes itself with rigor. From their geographical position, they are excluded the means of selling their surplus produce, while this very law operates as a bounty in effect to the citizens of other parts of the United States. I call the attention of the committee to the northern parts of the State of New York. That State binds on Lake Erie to Niagara, on the whole extent of Lake Ontario, on a great part of the river St. Lawrence, and the Lakes Champlain and George, and has an immediate, direct, easy communication with the British, in Upper and Lower Canada. The whole Genessee country, and the counties lower down, have a steady, constant market, the prices tempting, the access easy, and few or no officers to interrupt the daily supplies given to their British neighbors. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact of this commerce being steadily carried on.

The embargo, so far as it restrains places from exporting their surplus produce, goes to enhance the price of such produce in foreign markets--the enhanced price affords the temptation, and the easy access gives the means to that country to export it, and in fact, by excluding others, gives them a monopoly of supply. Near four hundred miles of northern coast, in proximity to the British settlements, gives to New York upon the lakes a steady market. Vermont binds on lakes which communicate with Canada. Passamaquoddy openly and publicly furnishes supplies to New Brunswick. In this state of things, and in the mode the law is executed, it is partial and oppressive, and my constituents and others in similar locations so feel and experience it.

But, sir, there is another portion of our fellow-citizens, on whom this law executes itself with peculiar severity, I mean the frugal, hardy, laborious and valuable fishermen of the Eastern States. I see gentlemen smile at a member of the Middle States supporting the interests of the fishermen; but, sir, I should think myself illy entitled to a seat in this House, if I did not know the value of that class of men to society and the Union. I wish, sir, their numbers, character, and usefulness, were better known and understood than I fear they are. And as on this subject my opinions may not be orthodox, I will refer to the head of the church.

Mr. Chairman, in the year 1791, the now President of the United States, then Secretary of State, made an able and luminous report on our fisheries. These are his words: first, as to the annual value of a fisherman’s labor, secondly, as to the situation and value of the whale fishery as carried on from a sand bar--

“About 100 natives on board 17 ships (for there were 150 Americans engaged by the voyage) came to 2,255 livres, or about $416 66 a man.”

“The American whale fishery is principally followed by the inhabitants of the island of Nantucket--a sand bar of about fifteen miles long and three broad--capable of maintaining by its agriculture about twenty families; but it employed on the fisheries, before the war, between five and six thousand men and boys; and in the only harbor it possesses it had one hundred and forty vessels--one hundred and thirty-two of which were of the large kind--as being employed in the southern fishery. In agriculture, then, they have no resources; and if that of their fishery cannot be pursued from their own habitations, it is natural they should seek others from which it can be followed, and prefer those where they will find a sameness of language, religion, laws, habits, and kindred. A foreign emissary has lately been among them, for the purpose of renewing the invitations to a change of situation; but, attached to their native country, they prefer continuing in it, if their continuance there can be made supportable.”--_Mr. Jefferson’s report, January 10, 1791, on the subject of the fisheries._

I call the attention of the committee to every letter of this report, and then let each member ask himself the situation of the fishermen under the embargo law.

Sir, by the Treasury report laid on our desks it appears that the exportation of dried fish alone, in the last year, amounted to 473,924 quintals; and the whole product of the fisheries amounted to $2,300,000--a sum equal to the one-eighteenth part of the whole agricultural produce of the United States: thus in effect, in point of product, adding another State to the Union. Is this class of men, whose farm is the ocean and whose crop is its fish, to have their whole or nearly their whole interests sacrificed by the unequal operation of the embargo? I hope not, sir. I trust gentlemen will see the oppression of the law, and its partial operation, and remove it.

Again, sir, as, to the product, how does this law operate? The cotton planter and the tobacco planter have their articles little deteriorated by time. The embargo, to them, suspends the use of their capital only; but to those who have flour or fish, the embargo, if continued for a few months, destroys their capital--the thing itself. In this respect the embargo works partially; and in reference to its operation on particular portions of our country, on particular classes of people, or on the product, it ought to be repealed at once, and without delay.

Sir, it is a very remarkable fact, and not more remarkable than true, that if you compare the number of fishermen with the product of their labor, and the number employed in agriculture with the product of agriculture, that the value of the former to the latter is as ten to one--a people whose habits and manners are in consonance with republican institutions, and who are as valuable as the agriculturists. God has given them a noble estate in the ocean, most bountifully stocked, and diligently do they work it, with profit to themselves and advantage to their country.

THURSDAY, April 14.

_Suspension of the Embargo._

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS felt that the question which was about to be decided was one of so much importance, every member of the House must be specially responsible for his vote on it; and, laboring under that responsibility, he felt it a duty to state some of the reasons for the vote he should give. I shall vote against the resolution, said Mr. W., and in so doing shall not be influenced by the reasons assigned by my friend from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) nor by those of the gentleman from Maryland. When this resolution was first presented to us, I felt very much inclined to vote for it; but upon considering it more maturely I cannot. This I regret exceedingly, because I shall perhaps differ from a large majority of the friends to the embargo. Gentlemen themselves who advocate it, if all the consequences which certainly attach to it are deliberately considered, will I hope give it up. What is the object of the resolution, or rather of the embargo itself, for I presume it is intended either to fix the day or the circumstances on which it shall be suspended? [Mr. RANDOLPH observed that while up he had forgot to propose an amendment to the resolution so as to declare it expedient to repeal the embargo.] No, sir, said Mr. W., it is not expedient. This amendment, however, has cut in upon me unexpectedly; but as the debate has heretofore been a kind of general battle, partaking of war, army, embargo, treaty, resolution, and amendment,--I shall be in order on any point, it has taken so wide a range.

The resolution is pernicious, and for this reason: the embargo is not designed to affect our own citizens, though I confess it operates hard on them; but to make an impression on Europe; and beyond all question, the firmer you stand, the more likely is your measure to have effect. What is the opinion inferable from the adoption of such a resolution? Does it not tell the belligerent powers of Europe with whom you are contending, that you are tired of the embargo; that you are sick of it, and will accept any modification of their general principles (I would rather say practice, for they have no principle) so hostile to your neutral rights, rather than submit to it any longer? I hope this consideration will have weight with gentlemen, who, like myself, are friendly to the embargo, for assuredly it is entitled to it. Besides, are gentlemen aware of the embarrassment they will not be able to avoid in framing a law on such a subject? It will be scarcely possible to define the circumstances on which you will permit the suspension to take place, without incurring one of two risks; either too precise to admit the President’s acting, for being a law its letter must be fulfilled, or so general as to invest him with a discretionary power altogether inexpedient. I cannot conceive a situation more disagreeable than would be the President’s with such a power. Though I subscribe to what I consider the sound part of the declarations of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) the other day, as to the tendency this resolution will have to throw a monstrous and unusual power into the hands of the President, yet I do not believe it unconstitutional; nor can I subscribe to the arguments of my friend with respect to the constitutionality of the laws laying an embargo; for, sir, if they prove any thing they prove quite too much; and did I possess but a moiety of the eloquence and ability of that gentleman, I could certainly confute them. I contend that the power to lay an embargo is granted in the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” If you cannot prohibit commerce with a particular port or nation, of what avail is the power to regulate it? The law prohibiting all trade with St. Domingo is authorized by the same clause of the constitution, and yet it never was supposed to be unconstitutional. Will it be questioned that you can prohibit exportation from the United States in the vessels of any

## particular nation? Will it be questioned that you have a right to exclude

foreigners from trading with the Indian tribes within your jurisdictional limits? Most assuredly you have these rights, and all derived from the same general power to regulate commerce. The embargo is not an annihilation, but a suspension of commerce, to regain the advantages of which it has been robbed; it follows that it is a constitutional regulation of commerce. The gentleman read my name among others in the negative on the passage of the section in the bill to authorize the President to suspend the non-importation law. I will not undertake to say what were the reasons of the gentleman for voting against that section, but I know that my reason was, it vested the President of the United States with power to suspend the law at the time when we ourselves should be in session. I thought then as I do now, that it is inexpedient, under any circumstances, to give the President power to suspend the operation of a law during the session of Congress.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said, I will now return to the subject before the House. The gentleman last up, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS,) has rendered it unnecessary for me to enter into a discussion of a part of this subject, which might otherwise have claimed more particular notice. With that gentleman I agree, in almost every thing he has said, except as to the effect which this resolution would have upon foreign nations. If I had supposed that this measure held out to foreign powers the slightest pretext for believing that we are so tired of the embargo as to be induced to repeal it, under any circumstances whatever, except such as are consistent with the honor and dignity of the nation, I would be the last man to propose it to this House. But under a conviction that this resolution can have no such effect, that it holds to foreign powers a language directly opposite to this, and that they will see in it the only object which its supporters can be fairly supposed to have, to put it in the power of the Executive to remove, a pressure, as soon as circumstances will render it proper, which is acknowledged to bear hard on the American people, and must continue so to do so long as the causes that produce it remain unchanged, I have brought it before the House, and under this impression alone am I disposed to support it. So far, sir, from thinking that it will induce foreign nations to believe we are disposed to remove the embargo, before the causes that produced it are first withdrawn, I am clearly of opinion that this resolution will convince them that we are determined the embargo laws never shall be repealed, until they revoke their orders and decrees, or until we shall have determined to appeal to war, the last resort of an injured nation. They will see, in this measure, what is believed to be the true principle that ought to direct our conduct--a firm determination to persevere in the embargo until they are brought to a sense of justice, or until that crisis in our affairs has arrived, that will make it our interest and our duty to resort to arms in vindication of those rights which have been so grossly violated--and then the embargo may not be necessary. War and an embargo at the same time are seldom supposed to be necessary; an embargo frequently precedes war, but scarcely ever accompanies it. These remarks are made, because so many misrepresentations have gone abroad with respect to the objects, the effects, and probable duration of the embargo, and the views of those who imposed it. Some considered its operations directed against one nation alone, to wit, Great Britain; while others of the same party declared it could do that power no injury. The first of these positions is not founded on any facts to support it, the laws imposing the embargo being general in their operation; and the result, as far as we can judge from the best information that has yet reached us from that nation, proves the latter to be totally incorrect. Some pretended to state it as a measure that was to be permanent, and forever unalterable, and on that ground opposed it; while others on the same side pronounced it a temporary expedient, a mere chimerical experiment, that was not designed to be persevered in for any time, and therefore declared it useless, and likely to produce no good. In answer to such contradictory objections, it would seem almost unnecessary to say any thing. The one would appear to destroy the other. Those who made them have been equally incorrect in stating the views of those who imposed the embargo, as they have been unfortunate and inconsistent in the grounds upon which they have opposed it. No one could reasonably suppose the embargo was intended to remain forever, to be a permanent, unalterable measure, or to continue longer than the existence of the causes that produced it. Neither ought it to be supposed that it would be removed during the existence of those causes, unless some alternative was resorted to in its place. These representations, or rather misrepresentations, are therefore futile, not founded in fact, and calculated only to deceive and mislead the public mind.

The objects of the embargo have already been stated to you. These were, among others, to take a stand previous to an expected war, to prepare the nation to meet it; to collect and preserve at home our resources and our seamen, from being captured by foreign powers; to produce a pressure on those foreign powers, that might make them sensible of the advantages they derived from our trade, and, by making them feel the want of it, bring them to a just estimate of their own interests, and a sense of justice toward us; and also to pause for a short time in order to determine what system we ought to pursue. These were, it is believed, the principal objects of the embargo. The time has not yet arrived that puts it in the power of this nation decisively to determine with which of the belligerent powers we must go to war, if, indeed, it be necessary to go to war with either. The conduct of those powers has not been such as to induce us to consider either the one or the other friendly disposed toward us--and it might be hazarding too much to go to war with both at the same time. It is not, therefore, the proper time, either on the ground of peace or on that of war, to remove the embargo, as has been insisted upon by those who have been opposed to the measure. But it has been contended by some who are friendly to the embargo, that the resolution before you holds out to the belligerent powers a ground for believing that we will repeal the embargo laws, without any change being first made in their measures relative to our commerce. I am unable to see any thing in the resolution that justifies such an opinion, or that presents to those powers any prospect of their removing the embargo, until they revoke their orders and decrees, or change them in such a manner as to render our commerce safe. What does the resolution say to the belligerent powers? Is not its language clear and explicit? It says to them you must act first, before the embargo shall be removed. The Council of the Nation have solemnly so determined; your orders and decrees have produced the embargo, and it shall continue until you withdraw them. It is announcing to those nations in the strongest language in our power that we are determined not to shrink from the ground we have taken; that we will not relinquish the measures we have adopted, until they first withdraw their measures so destructive to our commerce, and then the embargo shall be removed--then the commercial world will be unshackled, and trade restored to its usual channels, to its full liberty. This resolution will turn the eyes of the American people to the real source of their present difficulties--the conduct of the belligerent powers, in passing their orders and decrees, by which they have bound in chains or rather annihilated the commerce of the civilized world; in these they will see the true cause of the embargo, the reasons that render it essentially necessary to save our trade from certain ruin; and to these they must look to unbind the chains and permit trade to return to its usual channels, and pursue its natural course. On these grounds, and with this view, this measure was brought forward, and is now supported by me.

FRIDAY, April 15.

_Death of Mr. Crowninshield._

As soon as the Journal was read--

Mr. BACON said: I rise with feelings of the deepest sensibility, to perform a solemn and painful duty. It is to announce to the House the death of my friend and colleague, Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, who expired this morning at six o’clock.

Whereupon, on motion of Mr. FISK,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, late a Representative from the State of Massachusetts.

_Ordered_, That Mr. CUTTS, Mr. TAGGART, Mr. QUINCY, Mr. COOK, Mr. GREEN, Mr. ELY, and Mr. BACON, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.

On motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS,

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

On motion of Mr. NEWTON,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House will attend the funeral of the late JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, to-morrow morning at ten o’clock.

On motion of Mr. SMILIE,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That a message be sent to the Senate to notify them of the death of JACOB CROWNINSHIELD, late a member of this House, and that his funeral will take place to-morrow morning at ten o’clock.

SATURDAY, April 16.

The House met at nine o’clock, and after reading the Journal, adjourned till twelve o’clock, in order to attend the funeral of Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.

The House met accordingly at twelve o’clock.

TUESDAY, April 19.

_Suspension of the Embargo._

Mr. RANDOLPH said that they had lately gotten into a strange habit of calling things by their wrong names. The other day, said he, we received a bill from the Senate for making an addition to the Peace Establishment, without limitation; we christened the bill by the style and title of a bill to raise for a limited time an additional military force. Here is a bill authorizing the President of the United States, under certain conditions, to suspend the operation of the embargo; and for certain conditions certainly none ever were nearer uncertainty than these are. What are the conditions? They are not positive, and of these, such as they are, the President at last is to determine. The President, under certain conditions, is to suspend the embargo, and when you inquire what those conditions are, you find them uncertainties--contingencies of which, when they happen, he is the sole and exclusive judge. Now if we do authorize the President to suspend the embargo under certain conditions, let us ascertain them. Let them not be uncertain. Let him not have a discretion whether he will suspend the embargo or not.

It is not my purpose now to recapitulate my former argument on this subject; but I do say that if the President of the United States is to have a discretion at all, it ought to be absolute and unqualified, not only substantially so, but nominally so; and the objection to this bill is, that under the pretence of qualification to discretion, under the mask (not by this intending any disrespect to the other branch of the Legislature) of restricting the power, you do in fact give him an unqualified power; and no gentleman who reads the bill can for a moment hesitate to acknowledge the correctness and soundness of the doctrine. I rise not so much to enter into discussion (for I feel myself unable) as to offer an amendment, which, if it be lost in Committee of the Whole, I will reiterate in the House to ascertain its sense. I move therefore to strike out from the enacting clause in the first section to the end of it and insert:

“That the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, shall be repealed, so far as they prohibit trade with France and her dependencies, and States associated in common cause with her, as soon as the United States shall be exempted from the operation of her decrees of the 21st November, 1806, and December, 1807, and the President of the United States shall have officially been notified thereof, and shall have received assurances that the existing stipulations between the United States and France will be respected by her.

“_And be it further enacted_, That the said acts shall be repealed, so far as they prohibit trade with Great Britain, her dependencies, and States associated in common cause with her, as soon as her Orders of Council of November last shall be revoked, so far as they affect the commerce of the United States, and the President of the United States shall have received official assurances thereof, and that the neutral rights of the United States shall be respected by them. And the President of the United States shall be and he is hereby authorized and required, on the receipt of such assurances from either of the two belligerents, to notify the same forthwith by proclamation; whereupon the embargo shall be removed in regard to such belligerents. And if such assurances be received from both belligerents, proclamation shall in like manner be forthwith issued; whereupon the acts aforesaid, and the several acts supplementary thereto, shall cease and determine.”

I will state in a few words why I have not inserted in that amendment any condition respecting reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake. It was not because the bill from the Senate contains no such principle; but because the embargo has never been considered, that I recollect, certainly it was not so considered by the gentleman who moved the resolution, as a reaction on our part in consequence of that outrage; because the step was not taken till some time after that outrage; and because it was taken before we knew whether reparation would be made for the outrage or not. In fact it was never said by any gentleman who advocated it, to have any connection with that transgression, which stood on its own demerits. The embargo grew out of the French decrees and British proclamations, and if justified by the British proclamation, was assuredly yet more justified by the Orders of Council which followed it. It was then a measure intended to meet the aggressions on our commerce by the two belligerents; and not a measure of resentment in consequence of the aggression on the Chesapeake. It is therefore that I have thought proper not to mingle subjects which at all times ought to have been, and I understand now are kept separate and distinct.

Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposed to this bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has for its object to limit the Executive discretion in suspending the embargo to certain specified events--the removal of the French decrees; the revocation of the British Orders. It differs from the bill, as it restricts the range of the President’s power to relieve the people from this oppressive measure. In this point of view, it appears to me even more objectionable than the bill itself. To neither can I yield my sanction. And as the view which I shall offer will be different from any which has been taken of this subject, I solicit the indulgence of the committee.

A few days since, when the principle of this bill was under discussion, in the form of a resolution, a wide field was opened. Almost every subject had the honors of debate except that which was the real object of it. Our British and French relations, the merits and demerits of the expired and rejected treaty, as well as those of the late negotiators, and of the present Administration; all were canvassed. I enter not upon these topics. They are of a high and most interesting nature; but their connection with the principle of this bill is, to say the least, remote. There are considerations intimately connected with it, enough to interest our zeal and to awaken our anxiety.

The question referred to our consideration is, shall the President be authorized to suspend the embargo on the occurrence of certain specified contingencies? The same question is included in the proposed amendment and the bill. Both limit the exercise of the power of suspension of the embargo to the occurrence of certain events. The only difference is, that the discretion given by the former is more limited; that given by the latter is more liberal.

In the course of the former discussion a constitutional objection was raised which, if well founded, puts an end to both bill and amendment. It is impossible, therefore, not to give it a short examination. It was contended that the constitution had not given this House the power to authorize the President at his discretion to suspend a law. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. KEY) and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) both of great authority and influence in this House, maintained this doctrine with no less zeal than eloquence. I place my opinion, with great diffidence, in the scale, opposite to theirs. But as my conviction is different, I must give the reasons for it--why I adhere to the old canons; those which have been received as the rule, both of faith and practice, by every political sect which has had power, ever since the adoption of the constitution, rather than to these new dogmas.

The Constitution of the United States, as I understand it, has in every part reference to the nature of the things and the necessities of society. No portion of it was intended as a mere ground for the trial of technical skill or verbal ingenuity. The direct, express powers, with which it invests Congress, are always to be so construed as to enable the people to attain the end for which they were given. This is to be gathered from the nature of those powers, compared with the known exigencies of society and the other provisions of the constitution. If a question arise, as in this case, concerning the extent of the incidental and implied powers vested in us by the constitution, the instrument itself contains the criterion by which it is to be decided. We have authority to make “laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution” powers unquestionably vested. Reference must be had to the nature of these powers to know what is “necessary and proper” for their wise execution. When this necessity and propriety appear, the constitution has enabled us to make the correspondent provisions. To the execution of many of the powers vested in us by the constitution, a discretion is necessarily and properly incident. And when this appears from the nature of any particular power, it is certainly competent for us to provide by law that such a discretion shall be exercised. Thus, for instance, the power to borrow money must in its exercise be regulated, from its very nature, by circumstances, not always to be anticipated by the Legislature at the time of passing a law authorizing a loan. Will any man contend that the Legislature is necessitated to direct either absolutely that a certain sum shall be borrowed, or to limit the event on which the loan is to take place? Cannot it vest a general discretion to borrow or not to borrow, according to the view which the Executive may possess of the state of the Treasury, and of the general exigencies of the country,

## particularly in cases where the loan is contemplated at some future

day, when perhaps Congress is not in session, and when the state of the Treasury, or of the country, cannot be foreseen? In the case of the two millions appropriated for the purchase of the Floridas, such a discretion was invested in the Executive. He was authorized, “if necessary, to borrow the sum, or any part thereof.” This authority he never exercised, and thus, according to the argument of gentlemen on the other side, he has made null a legislative act. For so far as it depended upon his discretion, this not being exercised, it is a nullity. The power “to pay the debts of the United States” will present a case in which, from the nature of the power, a discretion to suspend the operation of a law may be necessary and proper to its execution. Congress by one law direct the executive to pay off the eight per cent. stock. Will gentlemen seriously contend that by another it may not invest him with a general discretion to stop the payment; that is, to suspend the operation of the former law, if the state of the Treasury, or even more generally if the public good should in his opinion require it? An epidemic prevails in one of our commercial cities; intercourse is prohibited with it; Congress is about to terminate its session, and the distemper still rages. Can it be questioned, that it is within our constitutional power to authorize the President to suspend the operation of the law, whenever the public safety will permit? Whenever, in his opinion, it is expedient? The meanest individual in society, in the most humble transactions of business, can avail himself of the discretion of his confidential agent, in cases where his own cannot be applied. Is it possible that the combined wisdom of the nation is debarred from investing a similar discretion, whenever, from the nature of the particular power, it is necessary and proper to its execution?

The power of suspending laws, against which we have so many warnings in history, was a power exercised contrary to the law, or in denial of its authority, and not under the law and by virtue of its express investment. Without entering more minutely into the argument, I cannot doubt but that Congress does possess the power to authorize the President by law to exercise a discretionary suspension of a law. A contrary doctrine would lead to multiplied inconveniences; and would be wholly inconsistent with the proper execution of some of the powers of the constitution. It is true that this, like every other power, is liable to abuse. But we are not to forego a healthy action, because, in its excess, it may be injurious.

The expediency of investing the Executive with such an authority, is always a critical question. In this case, from the magnitude of the subject, and the manner in which the embargo oppresses all our interests, the inquiry into our duty in relation to it, is most solemn and weighty. It is certain some provision must be made touching the embargo, previous to our adjournment. A whole people is laboring under a most grievous compression. All the business of the nation is deranged. All its active hopes are frustrated. All its industry stagnant. Its numerous products hastening to their market, are stopped in their course. A dam is thrown across the current, and every hour the strength and the tendency towards resistance is accumulating. The scene we are now witnessing is altogether unparalleled in history. The tales of fiction have no parallel for it. A new writ is executed upon a whole people. Not, indeed, the old monarchical writ, _ne exeat regum_, but a new republican writ, _ne exeat rempublicam_. Freemen, in the pride of their liberty, have restraints imposed on them, which despotism never exercised. They are fastened down to the soil by the enchantment of law; and their property vanishes in the very process of preservation. It is impossible for us to separate and leave such a people, at such a moment as this, without administering some opiate to their distress. Some hope, however distant, of alleviation must be proffered; some prospect of relief opened. Otherwise, justly might me fear for the result of such an unexampled pressure. Who can say what counsels despair might suggest, or what weapons it might furnish?

Some provision then, in relation to the embargo, is unavoidable. The nature of it, is the inquiry. Three courses have been proposed--to repeal it; to stay here and watch it; to leave with the Executive the power to suspend it. Concerning repeal I will say nothing. I respect the known and immutable determination of the majority of this House. However convinced I may be, that repeal is the only wise and probably the only safe course, I cannot persuade myself to urge arguments which have been often repeated, and to which, so far from granting them any weight, very few seem willing to listen. The end to which I aim will not counteract the settled plan of policy. I consider the embargo as a measure from which we are not to recede, at least not during the present session. And my object of research is, in what hands, and under what auspices it shall be left, so as best to effect its avowed purpose and least to injure the community. Repeal, then, is out of the question. Shall we stay by and watch? This has been recommended. Watch! What? “Why, the crisis!” And do gentlemen seriously believe that any crisis, which events in Europe are likely to produce will be either prevented or meliorated, by such a body as this, remaining, during the whole summer, perched upon this bill?

To the tempest which is abroad we can give no direction; over it we have no control. It may spend its force on the ocean, now desolate by our laws, or it may lay waste our shores. We have abandoned the former, and for the latter, though we have been six months in session, we have prepared no adequate shield. Besides, in my apprehension, it is the first duty of this House to expedite the return of its members to their constituents. We have been six months in continued session. We begin, I fear, to lose our sympathies for those whom we represent. What can we know, in this wilderness, of the effects of our measures upon civilized and commercial life? We see nothing, we feel nothing, but through the intervention of newspapers, or of letters. The one obscured by the filth of party; the other often distorted by personal feeling or by private interest. It is our immediate, our indispensable duty, to mingle with the mass of our brethren and by direct intercourse to learn their will; to realize the temperature of their minds; to ascertain their sentiments concerning our measures. The only course that remains is to leave with the Executive the power to suspend the embargo. But the degree of power with which he ought to be vested, is made a question. Shall he be limited only by his sense of the public good, to be collected from all the unforeseen circumstances which may occur during the recess; or shall it be exercised only on the occurrence of certain specified contingencies? The bill proposes the last mode. It also contains other provisions highly exceptionable and dangerous; inasmuch as it permits the President to raise the embargo, “_in part or in whole_,” and authorizes him to exercise an unlimited discretion as to the penalties and restrictions he may lay upon the commerce he shall allow. My objections to the bill, therefore, are--first, that it limits the exercise of the Executive as to the whole embargo, to particular events, which if they do not occur, no discretion can be exercised, and let the necessity of abandoning the measure be, in other respects, ever so great, the specified events not occurring, the embargo is absolute at least until the ensuing session; next, that if the events do happen, the whole of the commerce he may in his discretion set free, is entirely at his mercy; the door is opened to every species of favoritism, personal or local. This power may not be abused; but it ought not to be trusted. The true, the only safe ground on which this measure, during our absence, ought to be placed is, that which was taken in the year 1794. The President ought to have authority to take off the prohibition, whenever, in his judgment, the public good shall require; not partially, not under arbitrary bonds and restrictions; but totally, if at all. I know that this will be rung in the popular ear, as an unlimited power. Dictatorships, protectorships, “shadows dire will throng into the memory.” But let gentlemen weigh the real nature of the power I advocate, and they will find it not so enormous as it first appears, and in effect much less than the bill itself proposes to invest. In the one case he has the simple and solitary power of raising or retaining the prohibition, according to his view of the public good. In the other he is not only the judge of the events specified in the bill, but also of the degree of commerce to be permitted, of the place from which and to which it is to be allowed; he is the judge of its nature, and has the power to impose whatever regulation he pleases. Surely there can be no question but that the latter power is of much more magnitude and more portentous than the former. I solicit gentlemen to lay aside their prepossessions and to investigate what the substantial interest of this country requires; to consider by what dispositions this measure may be made least dangerous to the tranquillity and interests of this people; and most productive of that peculiar good, which is avowed to be its object. I address not those who deny our constitutional power to invest a discretion to suspend, but I address the great majority, who are friendly to this bill, who, by adopting it, sanction the constitutionality of the grant of fresh authority to whom, therefore, the degree of discretion is a fair question of expediency. In recommending that a discretion, not limited by events, should be vested in the Executive, I can have no personal wish to argument his power. He is no political friend of mine. I deem it essential, both for the tranquillity of the people and for the success of the measure, that such a power should be committed to him. Neither personal nor party feelings shall prevent me from advocating a measure, in my estimation, salutary to the most important interests of this country. It is true that I am among the earliest and the most uniform opponents of the embargo. I have seen nothing to vary my original belief, that its policy was equally cruel to individuals and mischievous to society. As a weapon to control foreign powers, it seemed to me dubious in its effect, uncertain in its operation; of all possible machinery the most difficult to set up, and the most expensive to maintain. As a mean to preserve our resources, nothing could, to my mind, be more ill adapted. The best guarantees of the interest society has in the wealth of the members which compose it, are the industry, intelligence, and enterprise of the individual proprietors, strengthened as they always are by knowledge of business, and quickened by that which gives the keenest edge to human ingenuity--self-interest. When all the property of a multitude is at hazard, the simplest and surest way of securing the greatest portion, is not to limit individual exertion, but to stimulate it; not to conceal the nature of the exposure, but, by giving a full knowledge of the state of things, to leave the wit of every proprietor free, to work out the salvation of his property, according to the opportunities he may discern. Notwithstanding the decrees of the belligerents, there appeared to me a field wide enough to occupy and reward mercantile enterprise. If we left commerce at liberty, we might, according to the fable, lose some of her golden eggs; but if we crushed commerce, the parent which produced them, with her our future hopes perished. Without entering into the particular details whence these conclusions resulted, it is enough that they were such as satisfied my mind as to the duty of opposition to the system, in its incipient state, and in all the restrictions which have grown out of it. But the system is adopted. May it be successful! It is not to diminish, but to increase the chance of that success, I urge that a discretion, unlimited by events, should be vested in the Executive. I shall rejoice if this great miracle be worked. I shall congratulate my country, if the experiment shall prove, that the old world can be controlled by fear of being excluded from the commerce of the new. Happy shall I be, if on the other side of this dark valley of the shadow of death, through which our commercial hopes are passing, shall be found regions of future safety and felicity.

Among all the propositions offered to this House, no man has suggested that we ought to rise and leave this embargo until our return, pressing upon the people, without some power of suspension vested in the Executive. Why this uniformity of opinion? The reason is obvious; the greatness of comparison. If the people were left six months without hope, no man could anticipate the consequences. All agree that such an experiment would be unwise and dangerous. Now, precisely the same reasons which induce the majority not to go away without making some provision for its removal, on which to feed popular expectation, is conclusive in my mind that the discretion proposed to be invested should not be limited by contingencies.

The embargo power, which now holds in its palsying gripe all the hopes of this nation, is distinguished by two characteristics of material import, in deciding what control shall be left over it during our recess. I allude to its greatness and its novelty.

As to its greatness, nothing is like it. Every class of men feels it. Every interest in the nation is affected by it. The merchant, the farmer, the planter, the mechanic, the laboring poor; all, are sinking under its weight. But there is this peculiar in it, that there is no equality in its nature. It is not like taxation, which raises revenue according to the average of wealth; burdening the rich and letting the poor go free. But it presses upon the particular classes of society, in an inverse ratio to the capacity of each to bear it. From those who have much it takes, indeed, something. But from those who have little, it takes all. For what hope is left to the industrious poor, when enterprise, activity, and capital are proscribed their legitimate exercise? This power resembles not the mild influences of an intelligent mind, balancing the interests and condition of men, and so conducting a complicated machine as to make inevitable pressure bear upon its strongest parts. But it is like one of the blind visitations of nature; a tornado or a whirlwind. It sweeps away the weak; it only strips the strong. The humble plant, uprooted, is overwhelmed by the tempest. The oak escapes with the loss of nothing except its annual honors. It is true the sheriff does not enter any man’s house to collect a tax from his property. But want knocks at his door and poverty thrusts his face into the window. And what relief can the rich extend? They sit upon their heaps and feel them moulding into ruins under them. The regulations of society forbid what was once property, to be so any longer. For property depends on circulation; on exchange; on ideal value. The power of property is all relative. It depends not merely upon opinion here, but upon opinion in other countries. If it be cut off from its destined market, much of it is worth nothing, and all of it is worth infinitely less than when circulation is unobstructed.

This embargo power is therefore of all powers the most enormous, in the manner in which it affects the hopes and interests of a nation. But its magnitude is not more remarkable than its novelty. An experiment, such as is now making, was never before--I will not say tried--it never before entered into the human imagination. There is nothing like it in the narrations of history or in the tales of fiction. All the habits of a mighty nation are at once counteracted. All their property depreciated. All their external connections violated. Five millions of people are engaged. They cannot go beyond the limits of that once free country; now they are not even permitted to thrust their own property through the grates. I am not now questioning its policy, its wisdom, or its practicability, I am merely stating the fact. And I ask if such a power as this, thus great, thus novel, thus interfering with all the great passions and interests of a whole people, ought to be left for six months in operation, without any power of control, except upon the occurrence of certain specified and arbitrary contingencies? Who can foretell when the spirit of endurance will cease? Who, when the strength of nature shall outgrow the strength of your bonds? Or if they do, who can give a pledge that the patience of the people will not first be exhausted? I make a supposition, Mr. Chairman--you are a great physician; you take a hearty, hale man, in the very pride of health, his young blood all

## active in his veins, and you outstretch him on a bed; you stop up all his

natural orifices, you hermetically seal down his pores, so that nothing shall escape outwards, and that all his functions and all his humors shall be turned inward upon his system. While your patient is laboring in the very crisis of this course of treatment, you, his physician, take a journey into a far country, and you say to his attendant, “I have a great experiment here in process, and a new one. It is all for the good of the young man, so do not fail to adhere to it. These are my directions, and the power with which I invest you. No attention is to be paid to any internal symptom which may occur. Let the patient be convulsed as much as he will, you are to remove none of my bandages. But, in case something external should happen; if the sky should fall, and larks should begin to appear, if three birds of Paradise should fly into the window, the great purpose of all these sufferings is answered. Then, and then only, have you my authority to administer relief.”

The conduct of such a physician, in such a case, would not be more extraordinary than that of this House in the present, should it adjourn and limit the discretion of the Executive to certain specified events arbitrarily anticipated; leaving him destitute of the power to grant relief should internal symptoms indicate that nothing else would prevent convulsions. If the events you specify do not happen, then the embargo is absolutely fixed until our return. Is there one among us that has such an enlarged view of the nature and necessities of this people as to warrant that such a system can continue six months longer? It is a presumption which no known facts substantiate, and which the strength and the universality of the passions such a pressure will set at work in the community, render, to say the least, of very dubious credit. My argument in this part has this prudential truth for its basis: If a great power is put in motion, affecting great interests, the power which is left to manage it should be adequate to its control. If the power be not only great in its nature, but novel in its mode of operation, the superintending power should be permitted to exercise a wise discretion; for if you limit him by contingencies, the experiment may fail, or its results be unexpected. In either case, nothing but shame or ruin would be our portion.

But I ask the House to view this subject in relation to the success of this measure, which the majority have justly so much at heart. Which position of invested power is the most auspicious to a happy issue?

As soon as this House has risen, what think you will be the first question every man in this nation will put to his neighbor? Will it not be--“What has Congress done with the embargo?” Suppose the reply should be--“They have made no provision. This corroding cancer is to be left absolutely on the vitals six months longer.” Is there a man who doubts but that such a reply would sink the heart of every owner of property, and of every laborer in the community? No man can hesitate. The magnitude of the evil, the certain prospect of so terrible a calamity thus long protracted, would itself tend to counteract the continuance of the measure by the discontent and despair it could not fail to produce in the great body of the people. But suppose in reply to such a question, it should be said--“The removal of the embargo depends upon events. France must retrace her steps. England must apologize and atone for her insolence. Two of the proudest and most powerful nations on the globe must truckle for our favor, or we shall persist in maintaining our dignified retirement.” What then would be the consequence? Would not every reflecting man in the nation set himself at work to calculate the probability of the occurrence of these events? If they were likely to happen, the distress and discontent would be scarcely less than in the case of absolute certainty for six months’ perpetuation of it. For if the events do not happen, the embargo is absolute. Such a state of popular mind all agree is little favorable either to perseverance in the measure, or to its ultimate success. But suppose that the people should find a discretionary power was invested in the Executive, to act as in his judgment, according to circumstances, the public good should require. Would not such a state of things have a direct tendency to allay fear, to tranquillize discontent, and encourage endurance of suffering? Should experience prove that it is absolutely insupportable, there is a constitutional way of relief. The way of escape is not wholly closed. The knowledge of this fact would be alone a support to the people. They would endure it longer. They would endure it better. We would be secure of a more cordial co-operation in the measure, as the people would see they were not wholly hopeless, in case the experiment was oppressive. Surely nothing can be more favorable to its success than producing such a state of public sentiment.

We are but a young nation. The United States are scarcely yet hardened into the bone of manhood. The whole period of our national existence has been nothing else than a continued series of prosperity. The miseries of the Revolutionary war were but as the pangs of parturition. The experience of that period was of a nature not to be very useful after our nation had acquired an individual form and a manly, constitutional stamina. It is to be feared we have grown giddy with good fortune; attributing the greatness of our prosperity to our own wisdom, rather than to a course of events, and a guidance over which we had no influence. It is to be feared that we are now entering that school of adversity, the first blessing of which is to chastise an overweening conceit of ourselves. A nation mistakes its relative consequence, when it thinks its countenance, or its intercourse, or its existence, all-important to the rest of the world. There is scarcely any people, and none of any weight in the society of nations, which does not possess within its own sphere all that is essential to its existence. An individual who should retire from conversation with the world for the purpose of taking vengeance on it for some real or imaginary wrong, would soon find himself grievously mistaken. Notwithstanding the delusions of self-flattery, he would certainly be taught that the world was moving along just as well, after his dignified retirement, as it did while he intermeddled with its concerns. The case of a nation which should make a similar trial of its consequence to other nations, would not be very different from that of such an individual. The intercourse of human life has its basis in a natural reciprocity, which always exists, although the vanity of nations, as well as of individuals, will often suggest to inflated fancies, that they give more than they gain in the interchange of friendship, of civilities, or of business. I conjure gentlemen not to commit the nation upon the objects of this embargo measure, but by leaving a wise discretion during our absence with the Executive, neither to admit nor deny by the terms of our law that its object was to coerce foreign nations. Such a state of things is safest for our own honor and the wisest to secure success for this system of policy.

Mr. KEY said he well knew how painful it was to address gentlemen who had already made up their minds; but the magnitude of this important constitutional question compelled him to trespass for a few moments on the patience of the House. I shall, said he, confine myself to the constitutionality of the bill from the Senate, in hopes that if the House feel the impressions on the subject which I feel, they will reject it; or at least word it so, that the power given to the President shall be constitutional. I was in hopes, from the talents of the gentlemen who spoke the other day, that I should have heard some reply, some attempt made to defeat the constitutional objections which I offered to the resolution; if they did not meet them with fair argument, that they would at least have shown what part of the conclusions which I had drawn were incorrect. Gentlemen say the argument is not true. They must either allow my deductions, or show wherein I am incorrect in drawing them. I call upon the understanding of the House, and their attachment to the constitution, to follow me but for a few moments, and see whether we can vest the power contemplated by the bill.

All the respective Representatives of the people of the States at large, and the sovereignty in a political capacity of each State, must concur to enact a law. An honorable gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. CAMPBELL) admitted that the power to repeal must be coextensive with the power to make. If this be admitted, I will not fail to convince you that in the manner in which this law is worded we cannot constitutionally assent to it. What does it propose? To give the President of the United States power to repeal an existing law now in force--upon what? Upon the happening of certain contingencies in Europe? No; but if those contingencies when they happen in his judgment shall render it safe to repeal the law, a discretion is committed to him, upon the happening of those events, to suspend the law. It is that discretion to which I object. I do not say it would be improperly placed at all; but the power and discretion to judge of the safety of the United States, is a power legislative in its nature and effects, and as such, under the constitution, cannot be exercised by one branch of the Legislature. I pray gentlemen to note the distinction: that whenever the events happen, if the President exercise his judgment upon those events, and suspend the law, it is the exercise of a legislative power; the people, by the constitution of the country, never meant to confide to any one man the power of legislating for them.

Is the suspension of the law a legislative act? Can any man doubt it? It is as much a legislative act as to repeal or make a law; and the same power which can give any man a right to suspend a law, can give him an equal right to make a law. I ask if these principles are not clear and manifest to any one who will consider them? Is the power to suspend a law a legislative act? Certainly; because it changes the law to a new rule of conduct. For instance--the law is in full force; no ship or vessel can depart from our ports. That prohibition ceases and a new rule is established by the suspension of the law. Hence the suspension of a law, by repealing an old rule of conduct and establishing a new one, is unquestionably a legislative act. If I am correct--and I call upon gentlemen to show in what respect I am not correct; I call upon them by argument or reasoning to prove that the power of suspending a law is not the power of repealing one--I then beg of you to lay your hand on the Constitution of the United States, and say where is the power of confiding the enaction (repeal and enaction requiring the same power) of laws to any individual whatever? None can be found; and till some can be found, we must recognize it as a sacred truth that under the constitution none does exist.

I have endeavored to show that it is a legislative power, and my reason for doing so was, to testify to a gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. QUINCY) that with this explanation I will give an easy understanding of this question. I do not say that we cannot give the President upon certain predicated events a power by which the embargo may be taken off. Such may be done. But when it is done, a repeal or suspension must be the act of the Congress of the United States, operating upon events or facts to which the President by his proclamation may give publicity. Very different is this bill from that; and from the idea of a gentleman who the other day said that the President was only to judge of the fact. Of what fact? Not of the happening of the events solely; for after they do happen, he is to exercise his exclusive judgment whether it will comport with the safety of the United States to suspend the embargo.

The gentleman does not seem to think that I draw a fair conclusion. I think the bill does not restrict the power of the President to suspend the law upon the happening of certain events. The President is to exercise his sole judgment, upon the happening of these events, whether it is consistent with the safety of the United States to remove the embargo. Is he bound upon the happening of these events to take off the embargo? If not, something more is to be done. He is to exercise a sound discretion whether the trade of our country may be safely prosecuted. He is not even then bound to suspend the whole of the embargo act; but to suspend the whole or in part, under certain exceptions or restrictions. Who is to make these exceptions and restrictions? The President of the United States. Then when under this power of suspension, he makes restrictions to which you are bound to adhere, does he not make the suspension a law of the land? Most manifestly. If he does, is not the suspension an actual imposition of new circumstances? He exercises a legislative act by the suspension, and by fixing terms and conditions on which the commerce of the United States may be afterwards carried on. In both cases he exercises a legislative not an Executive power.

I said the other day that to give the President of the United States power to suspend any law, was equal to giving him power to suspend all laws. And I ask any gentlemen attached to the constitution, where they will find that power. For if it be true in part it is true in the whole as to the power; though we may not in our discretion confide the exercise of the whole power to him. Now, I ask where the constitution gives us a power to enable him to suspend any law. Of all the powers on earth, even were it clear that we possess it, it ought to be exercised with the greatest hesitation. It was perhaps the most dangerous prerogative ever claimed by the Crown for several centuries in England--the power of suspending the effects of laws enacted by the people. I call the attention of gentlemen to recollect that when the last of the unfortunate race of Stuart was about to abdicate the throne, one of the greatest reasons for the abdication was his suspending laws; that he undertook to suspend the penal laws respecting the Catholic system, and introduce Popery. The courtiers of those days attempted to justify the power not only as a prerogative of the Crown, but as often given to it by the people; and in ransacking the history of England, but two precedents were found. No sooner did the patriot convention meet, but in the most solemn manner they declared that such a power did not exist; and governed as that Parliament are now by corruption and intrigues, there never since has been an attempt to give the King the power of suspending laws. My observations flow from no want of confidence in the Executive. I am in conscience and conviction opposed to our having the right to impart a legislative power at all. In England it might be done, because the Legislature is omnipotent; but we are limited within the sphere of our constitution; and if the power is not there to be found, it can nowhere exist. Hence I state that in forming this constitution it was declared that all laws to be enforced must have the assent of the three branches representing three distinct interests of the community; and to repeal them the same formality is required.

It has been said, that powers analogous to that now attempted to be given, have been exercised. One in the case of the non-importation law; where the power to suspend was contained in the body of the law itself. I can satisfy the gentleman from Massachusetts that the powers which he refers to were all Executive, capable of being exercised by any one as well as by the President. If we have authority to give the President of the United States the power of suspending a law, have we not a right to select any other man in society, and give him the same power? We cannot transfer it anywhere. I ask the gentleman if we are capable of giving power to the President of the United States to suspend a law, can we not to any officer of Departments? If we cannot, what limits us? How are we bound? By what clause in the constitution, and on what principle? The President, it is true, is the person to whom, if we had the power, it would be most properly confided; but there is nothing which confines us exclusively to him, or which prevents us, if we have authority to delegate the power at all, from giving it to another.

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. QUINCY) observed that there is a distinction to be taken in the construction of the constitution, from nature and necessity. I sit so remote from him that I could not distinctly hear him. But I cannot see how there can be any distinction in our power from the nature of things, the whole constitution being in writing, containing limitations to our power; nor from necessity, for if that is to have any weight, the constitution is a perfect panacea. The constitution has limited our power, and never even thought of nature and necessity; but told you to revolve in the sphere prescribed to you. As to legislative power, there can be no distinction in it on earth; it is a simple unique power--the right to make, suspend, or repeal laws. There are powers created by that legislative authority; and there the gentleman ought to have taken his distinction. The legislative authority may communicate power to any man in the country to be exercised. They may direct a survey of the country to be made, and empower the President to appoint the person to execute it. This is a power created by the Legislature to be exercised by the Executive, not involving a legislative power at all. So by borrowing money. The power of borrowing money was an authority given to Congress to enable them to pledge the faith of the United States, as a guarantee to inspire confidence in those who might lend. When a law passes for borrowing money you may constitute any person in the country an agent to execute the bond which may be given, to negotiate a loan, or to receive the money in the Treasury. Is there in transacting this business any thing of a legislative power? Certainly not. If by this bill the President of the United States was limited upon the happening of certain specified events to issue his proclamation, and thereupon that the law should cease and determine, I should have no objection to it. I will read my ideas, which might have met the ideas of the house, and will go far to explain to what point I would go and where I would stop. [Mr. KEY then read an amendment somewhat similar to that offered by Mr. RANDOLPH; that in the event of peace or official notification of the rescinding the orders and decrees of the belligerents, &c., the President should issue his proclamation declaring the fact, and thereupon the law imposing an embargo should be repealed.] This, said he, is a legislative repeal or suspension of the

## act laying an embargo, upon the happening of certain events; involving

no power or discretion of any one human being. The suspension or repeal follows by the constitutional exercise of our power, upon the happening of those events which the Executive by proclamation shall notify. And let any gentleman show any further power can constitutionally be given.

Other cases were mentioned, where impliedly or directly the President might or must have power to suspend our laws. I agree with the gentleman that we may give these powers in the manner which the constitution requires. The President may have power to suspend our intercourse with any port or country in the case of contagion. In this case it depends upon the phraseology of the law whether the power be constitutionally exercised or not. If we state in an intercourse law, that if a disease shall exist in any of the West India Islands or elsewhere, and that upon proclamation of the existence of such disease the law shall be suspended, the provision made is entirely different from that contemplated by the present bill. I say if gentlemen will attend to the distinction they will find that it is as plain as the sun at noon-day. It requires but little discernment to perceive that in the present case you devolve a power of suspension or repeal; while, in the case adduced as parallel, the law suspends itself. It requires but little distinction of ideas to mark a difference between a case in which we ourselves by law suspend an act upon the happening of an event yet in the womb of time, and a case in which we give the Executive a power to suspend the law _ad libitum_ when that event does occur.

I therefore do give the bill from the Senate my decided opposition, on the ground that we cannot pass the bill as sent to us; not that I am unwilling to raise the embargo, for I wish an immediate repeal.

Mr. HOLLAND said, when this subject had been first introduced he had conceived it to be one of those plain cases which would require no illustration. He had no idea the power could be doubted. He was dissatisfied with the gentleman from Tennessee, because he had taken up some time to show that they did possess the power; he then thought all the time taken up on the subject was time lost. It had never been before questioned; the power had been exercised from the commencement of the Government to the present time, and never before doubted; and therefore he had been dissatisfied with the gentleman from Tennessee, because he took up a few minutes to show that they possessed the power. I am yet, said he, unable to see that the principle of the bill is shaken by the arguments I have heard against it, although much ingenuity has been exercised on the subject by one or two gentlemen; but, when we come to examine their arguments, they are far from being plausible, certainly not solid. The gentleman from Maryland supposes that the maxim will not be contradicted, that it takes the same power to repeal a law that it does to make it. None will contradict it; but does it apply to this case? Do we vest a power to repeal a law? It is correct that it requires the same power to destroy as to create; that the power creating always has power over the thing which it creates, and can modify it in any manner. If then the power which makes a law, says at what particular period and under what particular circumstances this law shall cease to operate, does it follow that the power of suspension given to an agent is an unconstitutional power? If a power be given by the creating power to suspend a law, does it follow that this power has subverted the original intention of the creator? When a power is invested to suspend the operation of a law, the person who exercises this authority acts in an Executive capacity, and only does what the law enjoins to be done. If I am correct in this, all the arguments of gentlemen in opposition to the bill fall to the ground. One gentleman says, that in relation to the non-importation law, the power to suspend was contained within the law itself. Does he mean to say, because this power was not contained in the original embargo law, that we cannot give it by a subsequent act? Certainly the gentleman does not mean this, because this if passed will be a part of the same law; as it is a known principle that all laws on the same subject shall be considered in the same manner as though connected together. It is not material then whether the power of suspension of a law be given in the body of the law itself, or by a subsequent act. The gentleman from Virginia who proposed the amendment under consideration says, if you will authorize a suspension until twenty days after the commencement of the next session of Congress, why not give him power to repeal it altogether? There is some reason why it should not be repealed altogether; for, were it to be repealed, it might be necessary to reinstate it, which would give us the trouble of reenacting the law; and Congress will be better able then to judge whether it shall be repealed or not, than they are now.

Mr. FINDLAY said, that when this subject was discussed formerly, he had been prepared to make some observations on it, but the floor being sufficiently occupied, he had declined rising, and had intended to have done so now, but for reasons which he would mention.

On the former discussion, the embargo was declared to be unconstitutional. It was boldly asserted that the Government was not authorized to lay an embargo, &c. He was indeed astonished to hear such an assertion, especially coming from the quarter it did. He had apprehended, however, that on that occasion it had been so ably refuted by others that it would not be introduced again; but it having been again introduced to-day, and the proposed transfer of the power of suspending the operation on the embargo to the President objected to on the same ground, he claimed the attention of the committee for a short time. His object was to state the observations he had early made on this subject and the precedents that existed. In doing so, he would not follow gentlemen’s arguments, on the other side, in detail, but would state facts and draw some very concise conclusions. In doing this, he would confine himself to proving the constitutional authority of Congress to lay an embargo, and the constitutionality and expediency of the proposed transfer of the provisional suspending power to the Executive and the expediency of the measure.

From the arguments which had been offered on this subject, he was induced to suspect that gentlemen differed in opinion about the meaning of the word _embargo_. He understood an embargo to be a stopping of trade generally, or of any article of trade or commerce, either by land or water; this he said was the definition of that term, such as he found it in the best authorities; but if there could be any reasonable doubt of laying embargoes being included in the power of regulating commerce, which he thought there could not, it was clearly deducible from other powers taken in connection with this. Here be read and applied the power to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, and the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, &c. He said he agreed with gentlemen on the other side, that this only authorized Congress to carry into effect the powers therein before enumerated, and vested no new power in Congress, but demonstrated beyond a doubt that Congress had power to apply these regulations of commerce to an embargo, if in their opinion it was necessary for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. He said that considering an embargo as incidental, or necessary, either as a substitute of prevention or aid in prosecuting war, the power was beyond dispute; but on this he would not enlarge, it being sufficiently evident otherwise, but he would, by stating the exercise of that power heretofore, illustrate the subject.

That Congress, by the constitution, are the official interpreters of that instrument, as far as it relates to legislative power, must be admitted by all, and has never been denied by any. No other authority can interfere with the exercise of this power, even admitting the power of the judiciary to decide on the constitutionality of laws to the most extravagant extent that ever has been suggested. Yet even on that ground the legislative construction must be held good till a court of justice has decided otherwise. Embargoes have been frequently laid, and no measure can possibly afford more evident or more numerous cases for bringing the constitutionality of the law before a court of justice, but though counsel has been employed in embargo cases, yet none has ever questioned the authority of the law as unconstitutional.

In 1794, three embargoes were authorized by Congress, two of them were in full operation during the period prescribed. No doubt the circumstances were different then from what they are now; but circumstances relate to the expediency of the measure, not to the authority of the Legislature. This affords three precedents of the exercise of the constitutional authority of laying an embargo. Numerous other instances may be given. He had already stated that every stoppage of any usual trade by law was an embargo, for less or more did not change the principle. The Congress which met in 1793, stopped the exportation of arms and ammunition, that is to say, laid an embargo on them; he believed this had been done on other occasions, and these were now included in the embargo. An embargo had been laid several years on all trade with St. Domingo, which still continues, and this had till then been a usual and very beneficial trade; but every prohibition of a usual trade being an embargo to the extent of the prohibition, it was not necessary to enumerate them all. He would only add, that at the last session of Congress a law was enacted for laying a complete embargo on the slave trade, a trade which had been carried on between Africa and the British colonies, now United States, without legal interruption, for more than two hundred years, but though that embargo was laid without limitation of time, it might be repealed.

The first embargo laid by Congress was soon after the constitution had undergone a critical and severe scrutiny in every State in the Union, not only by the press, but by the State conventions, a member of one of which he had been, and had assisted in examining it, not with the most delicate hand; but neither that convention nor any other, it was believed, censured the transfer of the power of laying an embargo to the General Government, nor challenged the want of it, nor moved to have it excepted out of the general powers of regulating commerce, as the power of taxing exports had been. The third Congress was also in a considerable degree composed of such as had not long before been members of the General or State conventions, or both. Such was the President, WASHINGTON, who recommended the first embargo, and he was no mean judge of the extent of the constitutional powers. Almost every Congress since that period had exercised the same power in a greater or lesser degree. He admitted that this Congress had an equal right to judge of the extent of the powers granted by the constitution as any former Congress, but they possessed no superior advantages to enable them to judge more correctly.

The constitutionality of the embargo being demonstrated, the direct question before the committee was, are we not constrained by the constitution, or at least by the nature of the Government, from transferring the power of suspending its operation, on any terms, to the President, and is it expedient to do so? Mr. F. said the first was a question of some delicacy, about which good men might very much differ; the constitution, however, was silent on the subject, and theory, by some called the spirit of the Government, such as that it consists of three separate and distinct branches, could never be perfectly carried into effect, but only in a limited degree. This was demonstrated by all the American constitutions and by the experience and practice of all other Governments. The common theory, that though Executive power may be transferred, legislative power cannot, has also its limitation in practice; these theories are good general rules, but like all other general rules they have their exceptions in practice. He admitted, with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. KEY,) that suspending or changing the embargo, as it changed the rule of conduct, was a legislative act, but not in the full sense of that term. If Congress were to adjourn leaving the embargo as it is, in full operation, and the President during the recess was to suspend or change it, solely by his own authority, this would be an assumption of legislative authority, and a complete legislative act, in opposition to which the gentleman’s arguments would apply with great force, but they do not apply against the transfer proposed in the bill. In the bill before the committee, Congress express its will that the embargo should be suspended as soon as the causes from which it originated ceases, or modified in its operations agreeably to the change of those causes over which we have no control. These changes depending wholly on the will of the belligerent powers, it impossible for Congress to prescribe the contingencies that may produce these changes, so it impossible to prescribe the specific contingencies on which it would be proper to modify or suspend the embargo; therefore it is only the power of applying the law to cases which are yet uncertain that is proposed to be transferred to the President. This is not strictly transferring a legislative power, but a latitude of discretion in the execution of the law, a latitude which arises solely from the nature and necessity of the case, and must be justified from that necessity.

Passing other examples in our own administration that might be mentioned, he would introduce one precedent that applied completely to the case. In 1794, after the British orders of November, 1793, the execution of which had induced President Washington to recommend an embargo, had been restrained, and after it was discovered that the embargo distressed other nations against whom it was not intended to operate, and after negotiation was determined on, the embargo which had existed sixty days, was dropped, even while some of the first commercial cities were petitioning for its continuance, and none for its removal; but a law was passed which authorized the President, at his discretion--[Here Mr. F. read the law]--it authorized the President to lay, to regulate, and to raise an embargo, as, during the recess of Congress, he, in his discretion, should judge expedient. By this law he was authorized to apply the embargo to ships of all nations, or to our own only; by the bill before us, no power is given to lay an embargo, but only to suspend the operation of that already laid; and that law, from the Journals, appears to have passed unanimously. He said that he recollected well, that he himself voted for it on the principles which he just mentioned. There had been a difference of opinion about the expediency of laying an embargo when it was recommended. Some were apprehensive that it would lead to actual war, and all the alarms of the distress and ruin to be occasioned by it, were displayed with shut doors, as well on that occasion as this, but not so perseveringly; such, however, was the different spirit of party between that time and this, that to prevent the impression going abroad that we were a divided people, the minority did not call the yeas and nays on any of the questions respecting it; indeed, party spirit had not then assumed the same form it has done since, nor the same temper.

Mr. ROWAN.--The pressure and weight of the embargo should not have influence in deciding this question. It seems that the feelings of gentlemen are interested in it. The gentleman from Massachusetts wishes to be relieved from it. As you regard civil liberty and the rights of individuals, take it off before you go, sit till you will take it off, or go away and come back to do it. Do not be influenced by sympathy for the people suffering under the pressure of the embargo to make a sacrifice of the rights of these very people under color of sympathy for whom you are about to pursue this course. These evils may not be the immediate consequence of this course, but you are not less responsible for it from the remoteness of its consequence. We are answerable for all the proceedings of future Legislatures upon this precedent. That is the misfortune of it. We cannot see what consequences are attached to it. It may be improved upon by our successors further and further, till it is impossible for them to retrace their steps; and it is in that point of view that I am strongly opposed to the vestiture of this power. Is it possible that, in this early state of our Government, this thing should be deliberately done? We know very well the popularity of our first President, when the first precedent of this kind was set. It is unfortunate for the happiness and well-being of society, that there sometimes are men whose opinions have such a weight as to overturn deliberation. We need no longer deem so extravagant the custom of ostracism, which banished every man whose popularity and influence was too great. Strip this question of men, and resort to the constitution, and it will be impossible to sustain the bill. Even its advocates do not deny that it is unconstitutional. It is not to be found in the fountain of our power; they go back to precedent for authority to pass it, and the resort to precedent is itself one of the strongest arguments against it. They do not find a specific delegation to us of authority to transfer our power. The true ground is abandoned, and those materials resorted to, as a substitute for argument, which have always ruined republican governments--precedent and feeling. Judgment is silenced by feeling, and then precedent is called in to aid the overthrow of principle. Instead of looking into the constitution, and deriving our authority from the fountain, we agree that others shall have thought for us. Here are precedents; the persons who formed them were republicans; no doubt they examined the constitution; we will confide in them, and bottom our decision on their opinion. The first attribute of freedom is to act for yourself; and when others think for you, you evince that you are ready to be governed by them--for, if others think for you, and act for you, you have little else than vassalage left.

I am opposed to the bill, then, upon principle. I will join heartily in any constitutional mode of repealing the law. I would say to the gentlemen who passed the embargo law, “I have no doubt that you meant to serve the country by passing it; upon you rests the responsibility; and I will act with you to repeal it in any way which shall be constitutional.”

There is a provision in this bill which is more dangerous still. It not only belongs to Congress to regulate commerce, but to declare war. Pass this bill, and the Executive has it in his power to declare war--for he is to take off the embargo when, in his judgment, the interests of the nation require it; and then, under such restrictions as his judgment shall dictate, determine with which of the powers of Europe he will go to war, or whether with both--for he may so exercise the power which you shall give him as not to leave it optional in the nation whether it will declare war or not. Our honor may be assailed in such a manner in consequence of it, as not to leave us at liberty to inquire whether properly or not. The power, if given at all, should be confined to a total repeal, and not put it in the power of the President to say with whom we shall be embroiled. How do gentlemen reason? I have not heard any reasoning, though I have heard it said, and, no doubt, a course of reasoning might have served to prove it, that this bill only confers Executive power. What did Congress more when they laid the embargo than that which they now authorize the Executive to do--to legislate upon existing circumstances and probable events? He is to exercise his judgment, whether the embargo shall be suspended upon ratification of a treaty of peace, suspension of hostilities, &c., and the modification of the suspension rests with him. If this be not legislation, I am at a loss to know what is. Enforcing a law constitutes an Executive duty; but not exercising a judgment upon the circumstances which form the basis of a law, and then acting upon it. The Executive cannot combine in himself two powers which the constitution declares shall be forever separate. Reason and the constitution direct that the Executive and legislative departments shall be kept separate and distinct.

Being young in legislation, I may learn to repose upon the opinion of others, and not be governed by own interpretation of the constitution; I have not as yet, however, learned it, and must be governed by my own understanding.

Mr. LYON moved that the committee now rise. Negatived--58 to 13.

The question was then taken on Mr. RANDOLPH’s amendment, and negatived--ayes 14.

Mr. LEWIS moved to amend the bill so as to repeal the embargo from and after the passing of this bill.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that this motion of his colleague’s went pretty directly to the root of the evil. There had been a variety of propositions before the committee. For myself, I have no hesitation in saying, that if we must grant a discretion to the President of the United States, I should wish that discretion, so far as it relates to the suspension of the embargo, to be as ample as possible; for, if the constitution is to be violated, the greatest good attending that violation should flow from it, if indeed good can flow from the violation of the constitution. But I think that benefits have flowed from constitutional violations, and why should they not again? Our body politic is not of so tender a nature as to die outright even of so violent an assault as this; there are stamina in it which will ultimately restore it to its wonted vigor. I understand that the gentleman from Virginia who makes this motion, does it from the apprehension that an idea will go forth that he is not in favor of raising the embargo, although he voted against it originally. I conceived it impossible that such an idea should go forth. Is it possible that those who voted against laying the embargo can now be insensible to its pressure? What is the operation of the embargo, and what will be the operation of this confidence which we are about to repose in the Executive of the United States? Why, when the embargo was laid, there were those who made money on it, because they got earlier intelligence of it than their fellow citizens; and now, when the embargo is in operation, there are those who do not suffer under it. I have it from good information, that at least 100,000 barrels of flour have been shipped from Baltimore alone since it was laid. It may be recollected, that the gentleman from Maryland, who, the other day, gave us so able an illustration of the question, urged as an argument against it, that the embargo operated unequally. I should be sorry to put myself on a par with that gentleman in any knowledge, much less could I assume to possess a better knowledge of his own district than he himself possesses; but I believe it has been said by a gentleman said to be possessed of commercial knowledge, that many thousand barrels of flour had been shipped from that gentleman’s district alone through Baltimore. I was in hopes that this reply would have been made before, because, coming from the quarter whence it must have come, it would have operated as an argument to estimate the value of this measure on the West India Islands; and it is evident, that nothing but an evasion of this kind would keep up the price, low as it is--for, when I single out Baltimore, I have no doubt the same game is going on elsewhere--at Eastern Point and Passamaquoddy particularly. The operation of the embargo is to furnish rogues with an opportunity of getting rich at the expense of honest men. The man who is hardy enough to give bond and leave his security in the lurch, can make great returns; whereas the honest merchant and planter are suffering at home, and bearing the burden. It is for the benefit of the dishonest trader--for the planter is out of the question, as he cannot be a partner in the act which contravenes the law of the land. Is this all the operation of the embargo? No; for I will tell you another operation it has; that while the sheriff is hunting the citizen from bailiwick to bailiwick with a writ, his produce lying on his hands worth nothing, your shaving gentry--accommodation men, five per cent. per month men--are making fifty or sixty per cent. by usury; or making still more by usury of a worse sort--buying the property of their neighbor at less than one-half its value: and well they may afford to appropriate their money to such profitable uses, supposing character, morals, religion, honor, and every thing dear to man, trodden under foot by Mammon. Are these alone the effects which result from the embargo? No, sir; you are teaching your merchants, on whose fidelity, on whose sacred observation of an oath, when the course of events returns to its natural channel, your whole revenue depends; you are putting them to school, and must expect to take the consequences of their education. You are, by the pressure of the embargo, which is almost too strong for human nature, laying calculations and snares in the way, teaching them to disregard their oath for the sake of profit; and do you expect your commerce to return to its natural channel without smuggling? You may take all your Navy, and gunboats into the bargain, with all which you cannot stop them. Those men who now export so many barrels of flour from our markets, will not pay the high duties on wines and groceries when they can avoid it by evasion of the laws; for they will have learned the art of evading laws; they will have taken their degrees in the school of the embargo. This is the necessary result. You lay temptations before them too strong for their virtue to resist, and then, having cast your daughters into a brothel, you expect them to come out pure and uncontaminated. It is out of the question, and I venture to predict that the effect of this measure upon our imposts and our morals too, sir, will be felt when not one man in this assembly shall be alive. Every arrival from the West Indies tells you of the cargoes of flour daily carried in, until it becomes a point of honor not to tell of one another.

Mr. LEWIS’s amendment was then negatived--ayes 22.

The bill having been reported to the House by the Committee of the Whole, the House then proceeded to consider it, and several motions made to amend it, all of which were rejected.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading--ayes 56, noes 27. To-morrow being named for the day, was lost--yeas 28. It was then ordered to be read this evening, without a division. And having been read a third time,

The question was then taken (half-past ten) by yeas and nays--yeas 60, nays 36, as follows:

YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, William Blackledge, John Blake, junior, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell, Matthew Clay, Howell Cobb, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Daniel M. Durell, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, J. Heister, James Holland, David Holmes, Daniel Ilsley, Richard M. Johnson, William Kirkpatrick, John Lambert, Robert Marion, William McCreery, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Pugh, Jacob Richards, Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, James Sloan, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, Henry Southard, Clement Storer, George M. Troup, James I. Van Allen, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Isaac Wilbour, Alexander Wilson, James Witherell, and Richard Wynn.

NAYS.--William W. Bibb, Thomas Blount, Epaphroditus Champion, John Culpepper, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jun., William Ely, Francis Gardner, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, John Harris, William Hoge, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Philip B. Key, Joseph Lewis, junior, Edward Lloyd, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Josiah Masters, William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery, jun., Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Rhea of Tennessee, John Rowan, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Taylor, Abram Trigg, Archibald Van Horn, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, and David R. Williams.

Mr. RANDOLPH then moved to strike out of the bill the words “under certain conditions;” for nothing could be more certain than that the bill contained no certainty.--Negatived without a division.

_Ordered_, That the Clerk of the House do carry the said bill to the Senate, and inform them that it has passed the House without amendment.

On motion, the House then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, April 20.

_Judge Innes._

On motion of Mr. ROWAN, the House took up for consideration the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of Harry Innes--56 to 26.

Mr. SMILIE moved that the report be committed to a Committee of the Whole, with a view to let it lie over until the next session. The select committee in considering the testimony before them, which consisted of those documents before the House, had thought they did not contain sufficient matter on which to ground an impeachment; at the same time that they felt a disposition to pursue the inquiry if other testimony could be had, which did not appear possible to be had during the present session. A postponement of the subject would give an opportunity to procure testimony _pro_ and _con_.

Mr. ROWAN was opposed to commitment, as he thought it could answer no purpose but to delay a decision. For himself he was of opinion that the documents already before the House were abundantly sufficient for the conviction of Judge Innes; at least sufficient on which to ground an impeachment. It certainly was not for the interest of the community, if this man were guilty, that he should be continued in the exercise of his high authorities longer than could be avoided, and therefore, in justice to the United States, and to the people of Kentucky, an early decision should be had.

Mr. R. then took a view of the testimony contained in the report of the committee of the Legislature of Kentucky in the case of Judge Sebastian, on which he dwelt at some length, stating more than one fact proved by it, which he thought would of itself be a sufficient ground for removal from office of a judge of the United States.

Nothing could be gained, he said, by sending the subject to a committee. The people of Kentucky were alive to the subject. They had manifested their anxiety in regard to it, and their attachment to the Union by sending forward to this body a solemn resolution expressive of their desire for a full inquiry, and on this subject he thought the zeal of the State should not outstrip that of the nation. This commitment and consequent postponement would be a manifest disregard of the act of an honorable State, to whom the House should not show disrespect. He concluded by hoping that Kentucky would be permitted to have a judge who was truly an American; one who could not tamper with the enemies of his country, and about whom should be such an atmosphere of repulsion as to prevent him from being selected as a fit object for corruption. Such a judge as this Kentucky wanted.

Mr. SMILIE said neither his respect for the State of Kentucky, nor yet any suspicious circumstances, should affect his feelings; he wanted testimony to satisfy his mind of the guilt of the man. None but legal testimony could be received on trial for impeachment, and such he wished to see before he voted for commencing an impeachment. Setting all other considerations aside, the House had now but four days to sit, and it would occupy the whole of that time at least to discuss the subject, were it now to be decided.

Mr. TAYLOR had been one of the select committee, and in the minority on the report which they agreed upon. Whatever might be the opinion of the committee, he thought the House were bound, from the respectable source from which the subject had been presented, to act upon it during the present session. With respect to the evidence necessary to prove a misdemeanor, it was not necessary that they should put their finger on the statute book to find the offence, for common sense would decide it. A judge of the United States had been dismissed from office for drunkenness, much less a misdemeanor than conferring with the agent of a foreign Government for purposes injurious to his country. It was said that Judge Innes had, instead of being as he ought to have been the preserver of peace in the community, suffered a foreign agent to make communications to him, and then to pass quietly out of his jurisdiction. The House had now ground sufficient to commence a process of impeachment, for the simple oath of a person saying that he has good cause to believe such an one guilty of any offence was sufficient ground for a judge to commence a prosecution against the person accused, and so also good ground of suspicion was sufficient for the institution of an impeachment or incipient process in this case. He thought, therefore, that there was no occasion for commitment, as it was moved with a view to postpone the subject.

Mr. FISK was averse to a hasty decision on this subject. He was by no means convinced of the guilt of Judge Innes; for although the Legislature of a State had declared an opinion on the subject, States as well as individuals might err, and it did not become this body to found its decisions on popular prejudice or reports, but to examine impartially.

Mr. F. then went over the evidence contained in Judge Innes’s deposition in the case of Judge Sebastian. It did not appear, he said, that Judge Innes had personal knowledge of the facts which he stated in his deposition, but from common report, for they were notorious in Kentucky, and were known in Massachusetts at the same time. He said he wished, as much as the gentleman from Kentucky, to see our judicial springs pure; but he wished not to oppress when there was no hope of conviction, nor to harass when there was no hope of punishing.

MONDAY, April 25.

_General Wilkinson._

Mr. CLARK said it would be recollected by the House, that he had some time since been directed to make a statement in relation to General Wilkinson. He now held in his hand a correspondence with the Spanish Government, which he would lay upon the table, as it went to substantiate the facts contained in that statement.

These papers were read, and consist chiefly of memoranda in the handwriting of Philip Nolan, and purporting to be instructions from General Wilkinson to Thomas Power, and of answers from Thomas Power.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that they be printed.

Mr. SMILIE opposed the printing, as, if it were indeed testimony, this House was not the tribunal to decide upon it.

Mr. RANDOLPH said it was certain, that from the noise in the House, or some other cause, the papers as read could not be understood. They appeared to embrace a correspondence of Philip Nolan, said to be the agent of General Wilkinson, with Power, and in the course of them there was a recommendation that General W.’s handwriting should not be used. He presumed that gentlemen felt more interested in these than in the papers every day laid on their table and printed.

Mr. SMILIE said they had had enough of this business of denunciation, and he wished no more of it. He was willing that the papers should be sent to the court of inquiry, but he would go no further.

Mr. RANDOLPH called for the yeas and nays on the motion for printing.

Mr. RHEA supported the motion for printing.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on printing, and carried, 52 to 30.

On motion of Mr. KELLY,

_Resolved_, That the papers and information relative to the conduct of General James Wilkinson, which have been this day communicated to this House by DANIEL CLARK, Esq., be transmitted to the President of the United States.

_Five o’clock, P. M._

_Non-Importation._

The bill from the Senate to authorize the President, under certain contingencies, to suspend the non-importation law, having been called up, and a motion having been made to postpone it indefinitely,

Mr. NEWTON begged the House to consider one moment before they postponed this bill. They had already passed a law authorizing the President of the United States to suspend the operation of the embargo law, in the event of a general peace, or such accommodation to neutrals as should render the commerce of the United States safe. Now, in the event of that law being suspended, it might also be proper to suspend this.

Mr. NELSON said he should never vote for the repeal or suspension of this law. He hoped to see the time when it should become a permanent regulation; he would not yield to any of the powers of Europe, and he wished to be independent of them. There were many things now imported from Europe which could as well be made in our own country. If they could be as well made, he considered it sound policy to give a preference to our own manufactures, and so far to prohibit theirs as to effect a preference of our own. Whether in this principle I am right or wrong, said he, I am certainly right in this: That at this late period of the session it is impossible to discuss such a question as this, and therefore I wish the motion to prevail.

Mr. BURWELL said he would add but a single observation to those of the gentlemen just sat down. He was in favor of postponing the bill indefinitely, because he wished it to be understood that we have a right to make all regulations we please respecting our commerce, or trade, or aught else, without consulting the dispositions of any power whatever. He wished it to be understood here and elsewhere, and therefore he was in favor of postponement of this bill.

Mr. MARION said he was one of those who originally voted for the non-importation law, and he had never repented his vote; but he voted for it under a firm persuasion that it would go into operation. It had been afterwards suspended because there was a negotiation pending and a prospect of accommodation; but if it were the determination never to suffer it to go into operation, he had much rather see it repealed. If it were to be kept in suspension, hung up like a rod _in terrorem_, it would merit ridicule. What cause could there be for suspending it at present? Any negotiation pending? He believed not. If it were the understanding of a majority that the bill should not go into operation, he hoped they would propose a repeal of it.

Mr. EPPES said it appeared that the question of suspension of the non-importation act was very different from that of a suspension of the embargo. The former was a measure of coercion on Great Britain, and whether it had that effect or not, he believed at the time the law was passed that the only way which we could operate on that power was by commercial restrictions; and he felt now free to declare, that if ample reparation were made for the outrage on the Chesapeake, if the decrees were withdrawn and every injury redressed, that he would hold on upon the non-importation act so long as the impressment of our seamen remained. Whenever you take off this, said he, you have nothing to enforce your rights as to impressment, nor as to that system of commercial pillage which has been adopted by Great Britain. We know that the embargo was imposed as a measure of safety. It was to give us time to make preparation to meet the event. If the decrees which produced the embargo are withdrawn, the embargo may be withdrawn with propriety. But let me ask any gentleman whether he believes that any circumstances which produced the non-importation act will be removed? Whether they believe that Great Britain will give up her system of impressing seamen? If he does, let him look at the course she has adopted. After appointing a Minister to negotiate with you, she has issued a proclamation, establishing the right of impressment on its broadest footing. Shortly after, it was declared by the King, at the opening of Parliament, to be one of those rights which never could nor ever would be admitted. I was originally in favor of the non-importation law, and I am still so. If gentlemen take into consideration all the circumstances which produced the law, I will venture to say that there is not a man in the House originally in favor of it who can now vote for its suspension. It has never yet been fairly in operation. It is now indeed a law of the land, but its operation is virtually suspended by the embargo. I am in favor of its going into operation, and never will consent to its suspension till its intended effect be fulfilled, or the experiment is made.

The question of indefinite postponement was carried--58 to 29.

_Home Manufactures._

Mr. BIBB said, that notwithstanding the difference of opinion which had taken place occasionally between the members of this House during the present session, on questions of policy, he was pleased to perceive that no difference of sentiment existed in regard to the injuries done us by foreign nations. He believed that but one spirit actuated the people of the United States--that they were attached to their country, and to their country alone. He wished not only by professions, but by practice, to show foreign nations that we can live without them. He therefore offered the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the members of the House of Representatives will appear at their next meeting clothed in the manufactures of their own country.

Mr. MACON would never agree to a resolution which they could not enforce. Congress have nothing to do with this subject. He could not conceive what effect this resolution could have. If it was intended as a pledge, he was not willing to give it; if to have force, he denied their authority to enforce it.

Mr. RHEA said, if the House adopted the resolution, he should pay no regard to it. He would appear in what clothing he chose, this resolution to the contrary notwithstanding.

Mr. EPPES admitted that the resolution could have no force; it was intended to express the feelings of the House. He should rejoice to see every member of the House and every man in the nation, clothed entirely in the manufactures of this country. It would establish an independence of the best kind. The proposition was a valuable one, and he wished to God that the ladies could be placed in a situation to adopt a similar resolution. If he were to appear in the manufactures of his own State, he must be confined to a homely garb; but if the resolution passed, he would, before the next season, have cloth manufactured for his use in his own family. Mr. E. calculated that a million of men in the United States wore broadcloth coats, and if they were all manufactured in this country the saving would be immense.

Mr. MACON did not conceive it fair that those who like him had no wives at home to make them coats, should not only be reproached for their misfortune, but pointed at as sinners. He had during this session bought himself a suit, but he was not able to obtain American manufacture. His friend from Maryland (Mr. NELSON) had procured him a hat, and that was all that he could obtain of American manufacture. As to the ladies, if they were to legislate on the subject he did not believe that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. EPPES,) fond as he is of the ladies, would persuade one in the House, or in the nation, to agree to such a resolution. Had I a wife, I should be willing to see her dressed to her own satisfaction. The ladies have a right to dress as they please, and he did not care who knew it. The gentleman from Virginia reminded him of a neighbor who used often to say, O, how rich we might be, if it was not for the expense of eating and clothing!

Mr. BIBB said he had hoped that the resolution would be at once adopted unanimously. He did not wish to provoke debate, and therefore withdrew his resolution.

_Adjournment._

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL, from the committee appointed on the part of this House, jointly with a committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States and inform him of the proposed adjournment of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service, and that the President had signified to them that he had no further communication to make to Congress during the present session.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having completed the legislative business before them, are now ready to adjourn.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint them that this House, having finished the business before them, are now about to adjourn until the day appointed by law for the next meeting of Congress; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

The Clerk accordingly went with the said message, and, being returned, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House until the first Monday in November next.

FOOTNOTES

[1] This paragraph is entitled to the careful consideration of all who aspire to a practical knowledge of the principles of our Government, and an intimate acquaintance with its early working. Louisiana had been ceded to the United States by the French Government: the treaty for the cession was now to be submitted for the ratification and the legislation which were necessary to carry it into effect: and the President sets out with showing that he had legislative authority for what he had done--that the sanction of Congress had been given to the acquisition beforehand--before the negotiation had been instituted. It was Congress--the legislative authority--which had given that previous sanction, held so vital by Mr. Jefferson: and, notwithstanding that previous sanction, the treaty, after ratification by the Senate, was to be submitted to the legislative power, for the exercise of their functions, as to those conditions which the constitution had vested in Congress. What these functions were, in the understanding of Mr. Jefferson’s political school, was to give, or refuse the appropriation according to the dictates of their own discretion, uncontrolled by the treaty stipulation.

[2] _Boundaries of the Province of Louisiana, as contained in a paper communicated by Mr. Jefferson to Congress._

The precise boundaries of Louisiana, westward of the Mississippi, though very extensive, are at present involved in some obscurity. Data are equally wanting to assign with precision its northern extent. From the source of the Mississippi, it is bounded eastwardly, by the middle of the channel of that river, to the thirty-first degree of latitude; thence, it is asserted, upon very strong grounds, that, according to its limits, when formerly possessed by France, it stretches to the east as far, at least, as the river Perdido, which runs into the bay of Mexico, eastward of the river Mobile.

It may be consistent with the view of these notes to remark, that Louisiana, including the Mobile settlements, was discovered and peopled by the French, whose monarchs made several grants of its trade, in particular to Mr. Crozat, in 1712, and some years afterwards, with his acquiescence, to the well-known company projected by Mr. Law. This company was relinquished in the year 1731. By a secret convention, on the 3d November, 1762, the French Government ceded so much of the province as lies beyond the Mississippi, as well as the island of New Orleans, to Spain; and, by the treaty of peace which followed in 1763, the whole territory of France and Spain, eastward of the middle of the Mississippi, to the Iberville, thence, through the middle of that river and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea, was ceded to Great Britain. Spain having conquered the Floridas from Great Britain, during our Revolutionary war, they were confirmed to her by the Treaty of Peace of 1784. By the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, of the 1st of October, 1800, His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part to cede back to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations therein contained, relative to the Duke of Parma, “the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it actually has in the hands of Spain, that it had when France possessed it, and such as it ought to be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States.” This treaty was confirmed and enforced by that of Madrid, of the 21st of March, 1801. From France it passed to us by the Treaty of the 30th of April last, with a reference to the above clause as descriptive of the limits ceded.

[3] The bill thus passed was in these words:

“That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to take possession of, and occupy the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirteenth day of April last, between the two nations, and that he may for that purpose, and in order to maintain in the said territories the authority of the United States, employ any part of the army or navy of the United States, and of the force authorized by an act passed the third day of March last, entitled “An act directing a detachment from the militia of the United States, and for erecting certain arsenals,” which he may deem necessary; and so much of the sum appropriated by the said act as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated for the purpose of carrying this act into effect; to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States.

“SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That until the expiration of the present session of Congress, unless provision for the temporary government of the said territories be sooner made by Congress, all the military, civil, and judicial powers exercised by the officers of the existing government of the same, shall be vested in such person and persons, and shall be exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States shall direct, for maintaining and protecting the inhabitants of Louisiana in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion.”

From the terms of this act, and especially of the second section, it is seen that the Spanish system of government was continued in the ceded territory after it became the property of the United States, and that the military, the civil, and judicial powers of the Spanish Intendants (for France never took possession of the country except to deliver it to the United States), were transferred by law to such persons as the President should appoint. The powers of the Spanish Intendants, as all know, were an emanation of the despotic power of the kings of Spain, and wholly incompatible with our constitution--a very clear declaration of Congress that the constitution did not extend to the territory, and that its inhabitants could claim no rights under it: and this declaration was in consonance with all the previous acts for the government of territories, all of which were inconsistent with the constitution.

[4] The practice of pronouncing eulogiums on deceased members, adjourning the two houses, and attending the funeral in procession, had not then been adopted. A mourning for thirty days (which was the length of time which the children of Israel wept for the death of Moses in the Valley of Moab), was the simple and expressive sign of respect.

[5] The following is the act:

That the act of Congress passed on the fourth of April, one thousand eight hundred, entitled “An act to establish a uniform system of Bankruptcy throughout the United States,” shall be, and the same is hereby, repealed: _Provided, nevertheless_, That the repeal of the said act shall in no wise affect the execution of any commission of bankruptcy which may have been issued prior to the passing of this act, but every such commission may and shall be proceeded on and fully executed as though this act had not passed.

[6] This act, as passed, asserted full power in Congress to legislate upon slavery in the Territories without regard to the constitution, or any of its provisions in relation to the States, or the rights of the States within themselves, or between each other. Thus: 1. It prohibited the foreign importation of slaves into the Territory at once, which, with respect to a State, could not be done before 1808. 2. It prohibited the domestic importation of any slave into the Territory which had been imported from abroad since the year 1798. 3. It prohibited the carrying of any slave whatever into the Territory, except by a citizen of the United States removing into it for actual settlement, and being at the time the _bona fide_ owner of such slave. These were three provisions which could not be adopted towards the States; and for their violation a fine was incurred by the importer, and freedom attached to the slave--penalties which Congress could prescribe within no State.

The following is the section containing these prohibitions and penalties:

“SEC. 10. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the said Territory, from any port or place without the limits of the United States, or cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in importing or bringing any slave or slaves. And every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within said Territory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars; one moiety for the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the use of the person or persons who shall sue for the same; and every slave so imported or brought, shall thereupon become entitled to and receive his or her freedom. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the said Territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States, or to cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, which shall have been imported since the first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, into any port or place within the limits of the United States, or which may hereafter be so imported from any port or place without the limits of the United States; and every person so offending and being thereof convicted before any court within said Territory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave so imported or brought from without the United States, the sum of three hundred dollars, one moiety for the use of the United States, and the other moiety for the use of the person or persons who shall sue for the same; and no slave or slaves shall directly or indirectly be introduced into said Territory, except by a citizen of the United States removing into said Territory for actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal _bona fide_ owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave imported or brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive his or her freedom.”

This section applied to Lower Louisiana, called the Territory of Orleans. No provision on the subject of slavery was made in the act for the government of Upper Louisiana, afterwards called the Territory of Missouri. And thus, by legislating fully on the subject in one Territory, and not at all in the other, Congress asserted its right to do as it pleased with slavery in such places, uncontrolled by any power but its own will.

[7] At the time of passing the second bankrupt act in 1841--that is to say, after the lapse of forty years--it was shown that there was still property of bankrupts in the hands of assignees, the estate being so administered as to pay expenses, yielding nothing to the creditors, and leaving nothing to the debtors.

[8] There are three grades of Territorial government, all based upon the idea of pupillage in the Territory, and of sovereignty and guardianship in the Federal Government. The first grade, as in the case of mere children, allowed the inhabitants no voice in their own government: a Governor and Judges, appointed by the Federal Government, adopted laws from the codes of the States, and executed them. The second grade, as in the case of children advancing towards the years of discretion, (to whom a father allows some latitude of will,) admitted the inhabitants to some share in their government, by giving them a Council composed of their own citizens, (but appointed by the President,) to act with the Judges in adopting the laws. The third grade, as in the case of children arrived at the years of discretion, but not yet of full age, allowed them a Territorial Legislature, consisting of a House of Representatives, elected by themselves, a Council appointed by the President, and liberty to originate and enact laws; but all their acts as in those of the two other grades, subject to the approbation of Congress. From this grade the Territory, on attaining the population which would give a right to one Representative in Congress, would pass into the class of States, on an equal footing in all respects with the other States, and entitled of _right_ to all the benefits of the federal constitution. Before this transition, the Territories had no _rights_ under the constitution. They were governed independently of the constitution, and contrary to it. They had no benefits from it, except such as Congress, in its discretion, chose to extend to them. They were governed as property: the soil, as a sovereign owner would govern his property; the inhabitants, as a father would take care of his children, looking to their ultimate equality with himself, and preparing them to enjoy that equality as soon as prepared for it. It was this graduated form of Territorial government, in its three regular degrees, to which Mr. Macon was so much attached. It was devised by the “Old Congress,” as he called it--the Congress of the confederation--and received its features from the organizing mind of Mr. Jefferson when he was a member of that Congress in 1784. Neither under the Articles of the Confederation, nor under the Federal Constitution, had the Territories had any _rights_: they were governed as property according to the will of Congress, uncontrolled by any authority, except the limitations and conditions expressed in the deeds of cession from the States, or in the treaties with foreign powers by which they were ceded. All this is abundantly evident in all the legislation of Congress upon the subject, and in none more so than in the government of Lower Louisiana.

[9] The _judicial_ power of the Territory remained as provided for in the 4th section, in judges appointed for four years, and without the right of jury trial in civil cases. The _legislative_ power was vested in a Governor and council appointed by the President, and their acts subject to the approval or disapproval of Congress. The following is the section:

SEC. 4. The legislative powers shall be vested in the Governor, and in thirteen of the most fit and discreet persons of the Territory, to be called the Legislative Council, who shall be appointed annually by the President of the United States from among those holding real estate therein, and who shall have resided one year at least in the said Territory, and hold no office of profit under the Territory or the United States. The Governor, by and with advice and consent of the said Legislative Council, or of a majority of them, shall have power to alter, modify, or repeal the laws which may be in force at the commencement of this act. Their legislative powers shall also extend to all the rightful subjects of legislation; but no law shall be valid which is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or which shall lay any person under restraint, burden, or disability, on account of his religious opinions, professions, or worship; in all which he shall be free to maintain his own, and not burdened for those of another. The Governor shall publish throughout the said Territory all the laws which shall be made, and shall from time to time report the same to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress; which, if disapproved of by Congress, shall thenceforth be of no force.

[10] The yeas and nays were so nearly the same on every question that one set will answer for the whole.

[11] Of the 21 who voted against this bill, almost the whole were from the non-slaveholding States.

[12] The object of this bill was, not to increase the amount of duty, but to increase the list of specific duties by transferring _ad valorems_ to it as a means of diminishing frauds and the expenses of collection.

[13] This was the whole ceremony. No eulogium was pronounced, nor any adjournment moved, and in the House of Representatives the event was not noticed. And this was the custom at that early time.

[14] This was the commencement of Mr. GAILLARD’s long Senatorial service, terminated only by death, and during which, from vacancies and absences in the Vice Presidential office, he was almost continually President _pro tempore_ of the Senate.

[15] This was after the duel of Col. Burr with General Hamilton, which event probably influenced the negative vote.

[16] A more beautiful or more patriotic address was never delivered. How little could the hearers have supposed that, in three years, the author would be on trial for High Treason.

[17] The interference of the Internal Revenue officers with the politics of the country, was one of the reasons for preferring the system of Custom House Duties to direct taxes; it may be a question whether the concentration of the revenue officers in the Custom Houses, and the vast number which the _ad valorem_ system admits of, may not have given to that evil a more dangerous form.

[18] Roads, rivers, canals--their construction or improvement so long the vexed question of Federal power, have been superseded as national questions by the progress of science, and the force of individual enterprise. Railroads have put an end to that question, and with it, all the old maxims of preparing for war in time. They are the largest, cheapest, and most effective preparation for war, that the world ever saw, being the realization of the whole art of war; to wit: The concentration in the shortest time of the greatest number of troops. By these roads the United States would throw millions of citizen soldiers, if needed, on any one point in a very few days.

[19] We understand, that in correspondence with the Parliamentary practice of England, no chair was, previously to the introduction of Mr. Chase, assigned him; but that an informal intimation was made to him, that, on his requesting it, it would be allowed.

[20] During these proceedings, neither the managers nor the House of Representatives were present.

[21] The argumentative parts of the answer are omitted as being reproduced in the pleadings.

[22] Mr. Jefferson.

[23] These words, used by Mr. Randolph as a quotation,--they were quoted from Lord Chatham,--afterwards (during the Mexican war) were repeated as original in the American Senate.

[24] On the 7th February following, Mr. Granger addressed the annexed explanatory letter to the Speaker:--

WASHINGTON CITY, Feb. 7, 1805.

SIR,--My sole object in addressing to Congress my letter of the first of the present month was to gain an opportunity of refuting the charges and insinuations which had been made against me. The little reflection I could give the subject induced me to believe that it was proper, in a respectful manner, to repel the charges publicly, and in the place where they were made. Nor did it occur to me that the right of an officer to defend his character depended upon the office he happened to hold.

If, however, I erred in this, I presume it cannot be wrong, in defence of my reputation, to address you in your private character as a gentleman. I will own that I am desirous of retaining your friendship and confidence. I will own that I am not indifferent to public opinion, and that I seek the confidence and esteem of my fellow-citizens by the even tenor of a well-spent life, and a regular discharge of all the social duties--not by lessening the esteem and confidence to which others are entitled.

Various charges have been made against me for the interest I have in the Georgia grants--for my being an agent of the New England Company, and for my conduct as such agent. As these charges have not yet appeared in print, I cannot give that specific answer which may hereafter become necessary, and for which I pledge myself to the public, in case such necessity should exist.

I now take the liberty of stating how I became interested in the claims, how the agency was accepted, and what has been my conduct as agent.

First, as to my interest.

When the members of the New England Company formed their contract with William Williamson as agent for the Georgia Mississippi Company, in September, 1795, I had not the least interest in the concern. Upon the advice of my friends, and at their solicitation, between that period and the first of December, I agreed to become interested, and accepted of a certain share, which was procured for me by a voluntary relinquishment of a part by several gentlemen for that purpose. In January, 1796, the agents came on from Georgia to give the conveyance, and I was deputed as agent for many of the proprietors near Connecticut river; to discharge which trust I proceeded to Boston. Before the business was closed my principals arrived; a variety of considerations induced me to relinquish the adventure, such as the difference of climate, the distance of the property, the warlike habits of the natives, and the want of capital, and before the time of which I am about to speak, I relinquished my right to two friends from Connecticut. Thus my concern with the Georgia lands, as I thought, was closed for ever. But on the evening of the Sunday next preceding the second Tuesday of February, 1796, Ashbel Stanley, then of Coventry, in Connecticut, applied to Oliver Phelps, Esq., and myself, and requested us to become surety for him and Jeremiah Ripley, Esq., of said Coventry, (they being partners in trade,) to the Georgia agents, for the space of sixty days, to the amount of $75,000, and assigned for reason that the agents would not take notes signed in the name of the firm, and that he only wanted our names till he could have an opportunity to procure the name of Judge Ripley as an endorser to his notes. The great esteem I had for Judge Ripley, and a knowledge of his ability, induced me to give Mr. Phelps, as I was about to return to Connecticut, a written engagement to assume one-third of the risk, in case he should think it best to make the endorsement. Mr. Phelps made the endorsement for Stanley, and took into his hands, as security, Stanley’s conveyance of seven hundred and fifty thousand acres of Georgia Mississippi Company’s land, for which the endorsement was given; and, also, an assignment by Stanley of one hundred thousand acres more, which Seth Wetmore assigned to Stanley. Stanley failed. Judge Ripley denied the authority of Stanley to use his name in a land contract, and Mr. Phelps and myself, as endorsers, had to meet the $75,000. On the fourth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, we satisfied these obligations, and they were cancelled and delivered up. To acquire the means of satisfying these endorsements, we were compelled to dispose of 670,000 acres of his land, besides a vast deal of other property. When we called for the scrip on the two thousand acres, conveyed by Wetmore to Stanley, and by Stanley to Phelps, we found that Wetmore had conveyed the same land to Israel Munson, merchant in Boston. Here a new difficulty presented itself, which has been but lately removed. On the 30th of August, 1803, Mr. Phelps, to enable me to close this dispute, gave me a conveyance of these one hundred thousand acres; and on the 8th of September, in the same year, I effected a final settlement with Mr. Munson, of his claim for the joint benefit of Phelps and Granger. This explains the conveyances from Mr. Phelps and Mr. Munson to me, and these facts can be proved by these gentlemen, and by Judge Ripley, Amasa Jackson, Esq., of New York, Joseph Lyman, Esq., of Northampton, Massachusetts, Clerk of the Supreme Court, John Peck, &c.

On record will also be found a conveyance of one hundred thousand acres, of December 8th, 1803, from John Peck to me. In this property I have not the least interest. It is deposited in my hands in lieu of special bail, in two cases, in favor of Eli Williams, of Hagerstown, against John Peck, of Boston, now pending before the court in this district. John Thompson Mason, Esq., knows this fact.

Finally, I have never been a dealer in this property, nor otherwise than is herein stated, interested therein; excepting only that in one instance I have received some scrip of a gentleman, whose fortune was consumed by his adventuring in the property, for a demand which was subsisting before the 13th of February, 1796.

Secondly, As to my accepting the agency. On the 17th day of February, 1803, the Commissioners on the part of the United States reported to Congress in favor of a compromise of these claims and Congress afterwards, in the same session, made an appropriation of the 5,000,000 acres of land, to satisfy such demands as Congress might think best to provide for. Thus stood the business without a single objection within my knowledge to a compromise, when, in August, 1803, one of the directors of the New England Mississippi Company, solicited me to accept an agency in the business. Although I could not see any objection to it, as I was personally interested, and the duties of my office had not the least possible relation to the business, still I was not willing to accept the agency without advice. Accordingly I stated the case to the last Attorney-General, who suggested that he would not be understood to give any opinion on the subject, but for his part he could not perceive the least objection to my acceptance. After this the agency was accepted, and I can with the greatest truth aver, that I then had not the least idea of any objection on the part of Congress. The only difficulty contemplated was that of bringing the claimants and the Commissioners to an agreement.

Lastly. As to my conduct as agent. I acknowledge that I have, in an open, fair, and plain manner, vindicated the rights of the company I represent. But I deny my attempting to make use of any kind of influence.

Here I appeal to the Commissioners, whether I have ever attempted to press any thing in relation to the business. I make the same appeal to you, sir, and to every other member of the two Houses of Congress. If I have been guilty of what is charged upon me, there must be some one ready to rise up, and bear testimony against me. I trust I have virtue enough not to attempt improperly to influence any man. If not, I hold the members of Congress in too high respect to deem them capable of yielding to any improper influence.

For the truth of this statement, I appeal to the Author of my existence; and, in support of it, I pledge my character to you and to my country. I cannot close this letter without offering my ardent desire for an investigation of my conduct.

I am, sir, with high esteem and respect, your humble servant,

GIDEON GRANGER.

[25] An act of Congress has since passed to prevent members from taking government contracts; but the act did not extend to their sons, brothers, and nephews, and the spirit of it has been often eluded.

[26] Mr. Randolph was the great opposer of these claims in Congress, and General Jackson their great opposer in Georgia. It was he who roused the feeling which overthrew the General Assembly who made the grant, and elected the legislature which annulled their act, and burnt the record of it. He was in the Senate of the U. S. with Mr. James Gunn, the Senator alluded to in the debate as being engaged in the fraud, and lost his life in the last of the many duels which his opposition to this measure brought upon him.

[27] With this session ended the first term of Mr. Jefferson’s administration, and the end of that term presents a natural occasion for reviewing the working of the Government in its point of chief contact with the people--_receipts and expenditures_. These were kept at the lowest point. The internal taxes had been repealed: the custom house duties had not been increased. For, though the change of many articles from the _ad valorem_ to the specific list, had the effect of increasing the revenue, yet it did not increase the duty, the object being to prevent frauds and to simplify and cheapen the collection. The duties themselves, both the specific and the _ad valorem_, remained at the low and moderate rates which characterized the early periods of our Government. The average of the specifics, on the leading articles, were: on spirits, 29 cents per gallon; on wines, 32 cents per gallon; on teas, 16 cents per pound; on coffee, 5 cents per pound; on sugars, 2½ cents per pound; on molasses, 5 cents per gallon. The _ad valorems_ were simplified to three rates, which in fact were but two, the third and highest rate only applying to luxuries, which were but little imported; and the lowest rate applying to the bulk of the importations. Thus the highest rate (20 per centum) in an importation of near forty million dollars worth of merchandise paying _ad valorem_ duties, only fell upon $425,000 of that quantity, while the 15 per cent. fell upon $7,640,000 worth, and the 12½ per cent. rate fell upon 31 millions of dollars worth. The average of all the _ad valorems_ was about 13 per centum; and such was the cheapness of this simplicity of impost, that the cost of collection was only about 4 per centum, and the revenue cutter service almost null. The net revenue yielded was twelve millions and a quarter, of which there went to the principal and interest of the public debt, about eight millions; to the army and navy, about two millions; miscellanies, about half a million; tribute to Algiers, near $200,000; diplomatic intercourse, $60,000; and about $600,000 to the civil list--comprehending the entire _support_ of the Government in all its branches--executive, judicial, and legislative. And thus the moderate duties of that time, upon the moderate importation of that time, with the economy of that time, produced nearly twenty times the amount of revenue which the _support_ of the Federal Government required.

[28] Okefonokee Swamp, covering one-fourth of Georgia, 15,000 square miles--the great refuge of fugitive slaves, white outlaws, and depredating Indians.

[29] The whole object of the bill was the purchase of Florida, but it not being desirable to avow that purpose, the object was covered up in the vague phrases of extraordinary expenses in foreign intercourse. The following is the act as passed:

That a sum of two millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated towards defraying any extraordinary expenses which may be incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied under the direction of the President of the United States, who shall cause an account thereof to be laid before Congress as soon as may be.

[30] The Marquis de Casa Yrujo. He was recalled.

[31] This expunging was so complete that no vestige of the expunged matter appears in the Journal; but it is otherwise well known what it was. The two named persons had presented memorials, which had been received and read, stating that they were under a criminal prosecution, now depending in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New York, for an alleged offence against the laws of the United States, in which, if guilty, they have been led into error by the conduct of officers of the Executive Government, who now intend to bring upon the memorialists the penalties of the laws, to sacrifice their characters, fortunes, and liberty, in expiation of their own errors, or to deprecate the vengeance of foreign Governments, by offering the memorialists as victims to their resentment: that they have also experienced great oppression and injustice in the manner of conducting the said prosecution; and praying such relief therein as the wisdom of Congress may think proper to grant.

The prosecution was for an alleged breach of the neutrality laws, in fitting out a vessel from New York against a Power with whom the United States were at peace, to wit, the King of Spain. The vessel was the _Leander_, and built for General Miranda, then engaged in his South American expedition. The implications of the Executive Government which the memorials charged, were voted, by the House of Representatives, to be unsupported and reprehensible, and ordered to be returned to the parties from whom they came. The following was the resolve, adopted nearly unanimously, on the motion of Mr. Early:

_Resolved_, That the charges contained in the memorials of S. G. Ogden and William Smith are, in the opinion of this House, unsupported by any evidence which, in the least degree, criminates the Executive Government of this country; that the said memorials appear to have been presented at a time and under circumstances insidiously calculated to excite unjust suspicions in the minds of the good people of this nation against the existing Administration of the General Government, and that it would be highly improper in this House to take any step which might influence or prejudice a cause now pending in a legal tribunal of the United States. Therefore, _Resolved_, That the said memorials be by the Clerk of this House returned to those from whom they came.

[32] The constitutional power of Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves into States, did not accrue till the year 1808; but Territories not being States, the constitutional prohibition had no application to them.

[33] This was the public commencement of Mr. Randolph’s separation from the Administration of Mr. Jefferson; but his dissatisfaction had begun before, at the retention of Mr. Granger, Postmaster-General, in the Cabinet, after it was known that he was the agent of the New England Mississippi Land Company.

[34] Since the statute of 13th William the Third, the British Judges are removable upon the joint address of the two Houses of Parliament, notwithstanding they are commissioned, since that statute, during good behaviour--_quamdiu se bene gesserint_. Before that time they were commissioned during the royal pleasure--_durante bene placito_: and it was usual, during profligate reigns, when convictions of obnoxious persons were required, to remove such of the judges as could not be relied on, and appoint a subservient set in their place. The act of William the Third made them independent of the King, but not of the Parliament representing the country. Their independence of the crown was completed by the statute 1 George III., which prevented the vacation of their commissions on the demise of the sovereign.

[35] This is the true view of the constitution, and of our policy, and the motive to the confederation of 1778, and to Union of 1787. Defence was the object, and the policy--so declared in the instruments of confederation and of Union, and so proclaimed by every consideration of policy. And for defence, the United States are the strongest power in the world. Her railroads in a few days would place a million of volunteers, if needed, on any point of land attack: her privateers would clear the seas of the enemy’s commerce. And these two great means of defence would be as cheap as effective; superseding the old expensive policy of “_preparing for war in time of peace_.”

[36] The practice of pronouncing funeral eulogiums over deceased members had not been yet adopted. Attending the funeral, and wearing the badge of mourning, were deemed the adequate honor; and well worthy was General James Jackson of it. He was a man of marked character, high principle, and strong temperament--honest, patriotic, brave--hating tyranny, oppression, and meanness in every form; the bold denouncer of crime in high as well as in low places; a ready speaker, and as ready with his pistol as his tongue, and involved in many duels on account of his hot opposition to criminal measures. The defeat of the Yazoo fraud was the most signal act of his legislative life, for which he paid the penalty of his life--dying of wounds received in the last of the many duels which his undaunted attacks upon that measure brought upon him.

[37] The item for contingent expenses of the Navy, comprises commissions to agents to foreign countries and in the United States, officers’ travelling expenses, expense of conveying seamen from one port to another, as for instance where seamen are entered in Philadelphia or Baltimore to join a vessel fitting out at Washington, the expense of nautical instruments, such as compasses, quadrants, spy-glasses, &c., charts, books, models, drawings, signals, lanterns, oil, candles, clamps, fuel, hammocks, trumpets, glass, cisterns, cases, mess kids, axes, gridirons, tea kettles, galleys, shovels, tongs, charcoal, sulphur, saltpetre, fire engines, fire buckets, bread bags, and an infinite variety of other such articles, not expressly provided by law.

[38] Two frigates.

[39] The item for ordnance comprises cannon, carronades, swivels, blunderbusses, muskets, pistols, swords, boarding-pikes, cutlasses, cannon ball of every description, musket and pistol ball, cannon, musket, pistol and priming powder, powder horns, priming horns, flannel and paper cartridges, cartridge boxes, slow match, lint stocks, worms, rammers, sponges, wads, gun-locks, screw-drivers, flints, cartridge thread, &c.

[40] The error which now prevails (with so many) on the subject of the fishing bounties and allowances, is one which strongly illustrates the evil in our legislators, of not being sufficiently acquainted with our early Congressional history. They are now held by many--by enough to prevent their repeal--to be bounties out of the Treasury for the encouragement of the fisheries as a nursery of seamen, when their whole history proves that they were denied when asked on that ground, (bounties out of the Treasury to any branch of industry being equally unconstitutional and impolitic,) and only granted on the principle of drawback--as a refunding of duty paid on foreign salt exported on fish; and as such applied at first to all salted provisions, both beef and pork as well as to fish. And as such drawback these bounties and allowances rose and fell with the salt tax as long as national legislation was under the control of our earlier generation of statesmen; but since near thirty years this dependence of the bounties and allowances upon the salt tax has ceased to be known, and, while the duty has been undergoing reductions, the bounties and allowances have remained at the highest rate they ever attained when the salt duty was at its highest rate. The want of this knowledge has cost the public treasury some millions of dollars; and is still costing it some hundreds of thousands annually.

[41] The application of steam power to the propulsion of boats on water and cars on land, under the enterprise of private individuals, has superseded all the old ideas of federal internal improvement by roads, rivers, and canals.

[42] This is the first appearance of Mr. Clay in either House of Congress.

[43] The following are the letters:

NASHVILLE, Jan. 8, 1807.

SIR: I received your instructions, dated the 2d instant, and agreeably thereto, I delivered your letter, addressed to General Thomas Johnson, to Colonel Cheatham, and it was forwarded to him immediately. I arrived at Centreville on the 4th instant; heard a report there that Colonel Burr had gone down the river with one thousand armed men; arrived at the mouth of Cumberland river that evening, and made inquiry concerning Colonel Burr, and was informed that he left that place on the 28th December, 1806, with ten boats, of different descriptions; had sixty men on board, but no appearance of arms. I left there on the 5th instant, and arrived at Fort Massac that evening; delivered your letter to Captain Bissel, and received his answer; made some inquiries of him, and was informed that Colonel Burr had left that place on the 30th December, 1806, with ten boats. He likewise informed me that he had been on board the boats, and seen no appearance of arms or ammunition. On my return to the mouth of Cumberland river, I was informed that three boats had been stopped at Louisville, with a quantity of ammunition. There are about fifty men stationed at the mouth of Cumberland, under command of Colonel Ramsey.

I remain, with the highest esteem, yours,

JOHN MURRELL.

GEN. ANDREW JACKSON.

* * * * *

FORT MASSAC, Jan. 5, 1807.

SIR: This day, per express, I had the honor to receive your very interesting letter of the 2d instant; I shall pay due respect to its contents; as yet I have not received the President’s Proclamation alluded to, nor have I received any orders from the Department of War relative to the subject matter of your letter.

There has not, to my knowledge, been any assemblage of men or boats, at this or any other place, unauthorized by law or precedency; but, should any thing of the kind make its appearance, which carries with it the least mark of suspicion, as having illegal enterprises or projects in view, hostile to the peace and good order of Government, I shall, with as much ardor and energy as the case will admit, endeavor to bring to justice all such offenders.

For more than two weeks last past I have made it a point to make myself acquainted with the loading and situation of all boats descending the river. As yet there has nothing the least alarming appeared. On or about the 31st ultimo, Colonel Burr, late Vice President of the United States, passed this with about ten boats, of different descriptions, navigated with about six men each, having nothing on board that would even suffer a conjecture, more than a man bound to market; he has descended the rivers towards Orleans. Should any thing, to my knowledge, transpire, interesting to Government, I will give the most early notice in my power.

I have the honor to be, respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,

DANIEL BISSEL.

GENERAL ANDREW JACKSON.

[44] With this agreed the practice of all the free States at that time, and the laws of several of them--as New York and Pennsylvania--in the former of which nine months, and in the latter six months, was allowed to the sojourner and traveller to depart with his slave, with the alternative of taking the character of a resident if he remains longer, and thereby subjecting his slave to the emancipation laws of the State.

[45] The bill was passed through the House with only five dissenting votes, and through the Senate with nearly equal unanimity. The following is a copy of the act:

That, from and after the thirtieth day of June next, the act, entitled “An act laying an additional duty on salt imported into the United States, and for other purposes,” passed the eighth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, shall be, and the same hereby is, repealed, and that, from and after the thirty-first day of December next, so much of any act as lays a duty on imported salt be, and the same hereby is, repealed; and, from and after the day last aforesaid, salt shall be imported into the United States free of duty: _Provided_, That for the recovery and receipt of such duties as shall have accrued, and on the days aforesaid, respectively, remain outstanding, and for the recovery and distribution of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, and the remission thereof, which shall have been incurred before and on the said days, respectively, the provisions of the aforesaid act shall remain in full force and virtue.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, from and after the first day of January next, so much of any act as allows a bounty on exported salt, provisions and pickled fish, in lieu of drawback of the duties on the salt employed in curing the same, and so much of any act as makes allowance to the owners and crews of fishing vessels, in lieu of drawback of the duties paid on the salt used by the same, shall be, and the same hereby is, repealed: _Provided_, That the provisions of the aforesaid acts shall remain in full force and virtue for the payment of the bounties or allowances incurred or payable on the first day of January next.

☞ Throughout the entire debate on the bill, there was not a word of objection to the bounties and allowances falling with the salt tax.

[46] The motion to “reject” a bill is one of indignity to it. It is equivalent to declaring that it is unworthy of consideration, and therefore to be driven out of the House on learning what it is from the first reading, (which is only for information,) without going to the second reading, which is for consideration.

[47] Only five dissentients, and they both from free and slave States, and dissenting upon matters of detail. So that the prohibition of the trade itself may be considered unanimous.

[48] The bill from the Senate to suspend the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ had been rejected in the House, and this movement was for the better securing the privilege in future. Although prospective in its terms and object, the debate upon it was chiefly retrospective, looking back to the arrest of persons in New Orleans as accomplices of Burr; and thus possesses a double interest, as connecting itself with history while discussing a question of the greatest interest to the liberty of the citizen.

[49] This alludes to the early conspiracy to separate Kentucky from the Union, while the Spaniards held the mouth of the Mississippi, and, with it, a check upon the exports of the West. The conspiracy existed--the Spanish Governor General at New Orleans, and some leading citizens of Kentucky, the parties. Spanish money was paid to some of these citizens--some were even stipendiaries, receiving annual sums for their treacherous service to Spain. General Wilkinson had the misfortune to be implicated in this conspiracy, but the proof of it was never made out.

[50] He had been tried at Richmond, Va., (Chief Justice Marshall presiding,) on two indictments--one, for high treason, in levying war against the United States; the other, for a misdemeanor in setting on foot, within the United States, a military expedition against a power with whom the United States were at peace, _to wit_, Spain; and had been acquitted on both trials, under instructions from the Court. First. That the acts proved under the treason indictment, did not amount to levying war against the United States. Second. That the military expedition against Spain was set on foot in Ohio, and not in Virginia, and therefore not triable in Virginia. Col. Burr was recognized to appear and answer to this charge in Ohio, but forfeited the recognizance, and the United States for many years.

[51] It was dated 29th July.

[52] Joseph Hamilton Daviess, of Kentucky, the able lawyer, brilliant pleader, and ardent patriot, killed at Tippecanoe at the head of a night charge upon the Indians.

[53] YEAS.--Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, Condit, Dayton, Gaillard, Jackson, Mitchill, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of Vermont, White, and Wright--18.

NAYS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Ellery, Franklin, Hillhouse, Howland, Logan, Maclay, Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, Stone, Sumter, and Worthington--13.

[54] In consequence of this vote Mr. Smith withdrew from the Senate, and resigned his place in a letter (affirming and arguing his innocence) to the Governor of Ohio.

[55] This contested election, as involving a point of constitutional law, to wit, whether a State Legislature can add to, or diminish, the representative qualifications which the constitution prescribes? rises above a question between individuals, and becomes an exception to the general rule of this abridgment, to omit reports, debates, and proceedings on contested elections. The report of the committee, after extended debate, was agreed to by the House, almost unanimously--89 to 18.

[56] This is a sensible speech, and its recommendations have since been adopted in practice by all the States, except in the classification of the militia and the estimate of volunteers. Experience--that of the war of 1812, and the late war with Mexico--has since proved that volunteers may be relied upon for all _active_ service in the United States, either at home or abroad; and that, with the facilities of railroad transportation, such accumulated masses may be thrown upon any point as to crush any invading force. In fact, with railroads and volunteers, the idea of invasion has become obsolete, and the word never mentioned except from habit and past associations.

INDEX TO VOL. III.

A

_Act, Embargo, the_, 641.

ADAIR, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 348; on British aggressions on our commerce, 358.

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY, Senator from Massachusetts, 6, 163, 345, 485, 547; for the issue of stock for the purchase of Louisiana, 18; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 25; opposes removal of seat of Government, 46, 47; on suspending intercourse with St. Domingo, 349; on the bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges of foreign ministers, 364; on the bill for the relief of the ex-Bashaw of Tripoli, 372; on order of proceedings in the case of John Smith, 554; on the expulsion of Senator John Smith, 573; on amendment to the constitution relative to the removal of the Federal Judges, 607.

_Address of Senate and House_, in answer to President’s Messages.--_See Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Admirals in the Navy._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

_Admissions on the Floor of the Senate_, considered, 39.

_African Slavery_, petition of Thomas Morris relative to, 166. _See Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_African Slaves._--_See Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

ALEXANDER, EVAN, Representative from North Carolina, 413, 613.

ALEXANDER, NATHANIEL, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 297.

_Algerine War._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

_Alien and Sedition Laws._--_See Index_, vol. 2, _Seditious Practices and Defensive Measures_.

_Allegiance, Foreign._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

ALSTON, WILLIS, jr., Representative from North Carolina, 50, 285, 377, 493, 613; on the postponement of the bill to tax imported slaves, 141; on laying a duty on imported slaves, 387; on the payment of witnesses on the trial of Chase, 410; on importations from Great Britain, 464; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 468; on conference with the Senate relative to a repeal of the duties on salt, 482, 484; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 518; on securing the privilege of the habeas corpus, 533; on British aggressions, 617; on inquiring into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 645. _See Index_, vol. 2.

ALSTON, LEMUEL J., jr., Representative from South Carolina, 613.

_Amendment to the Constitution._--Proposed in the Senate, 6; necessity of designating the persons severally, whom the people should wish to hold the offices of President and Vice President, 6; strongly recommended by State Legislatures, 6; _note_, 6; are three readings of a resolution required by the rules of the Senate? 6; opinions of Senators asked, 7; resolutions requiring the joint action of both Houses required to take the same course as bills, 7; this resolution proposes an alteration of the supreme law of the land, 7; amendments offered to the form and substance of the resolution, requiring a majority of votes of electors necessary to a choice of Vice President, and when wanting, referring his election to the Senate, 7; amendment proposed, that no person serve more than eight years, or more than four in any period of eight years, 7; moved to refer to a select committee, 7; subject too important to be hurried, 7; the business should be immediately proceeded with, 7; amendments carried and resolution referred, 7; committee report, 7; moved to strike out all relating to the appointment of Vice President, 7; object of the mover to put off the main question, 8; custom of some to arraign motives instead of meeting arguments, 8; charge of arraigning motives totally unfounded, 8; if this motion is considered it may jeopard the amendment for discrimination, as two-thirds of the State Legislatures will be in session in two or three months, 8; postponement moved, 8; lost, 8; report of the committee further considered, 21; question of order raised relative to a two-thirds vote, 21; motion to strike out all relating to the Vice President, lost, 21; various amendments adopted, 21; discussion on limiting the choice for President to natural-born citizens, 21; discussion on limiting the number from which the House shall choose a President, to three, 22; a point of importance to the small States, 22; the small States have no reason for any apprehension, 22; the number five desirable, 22; design of the constitution to secure a competition to the aspirant for the office, 23; this general amendment of the constitution unnecessary, 23; present mode may be the source of great good, 23; amendment read, 23; the Vice President should be chosen by the same ratio of numbers as the President, 23; he may by some casualty become President, 23; adopt the designating principle without some precautions, and you lose the assurance that the Vice President will be the second man in the nation, 24; if we designate any, then designate both President and Vice President, and on equal terms, 24; the number three is large enough, if the candidates are designated, 24; is not the constitution susceptible of correction under experience? 24; reason for adopting the number three instead of five, 25; this is really a question between great and small States, 25; in the old Congress the States were all equal, 25; the amendment calculated to produce more good than evil, 25; by reducing the number do you not attack the principles of the federative compact? 26; object of the amendment to make the election more certain by the people, by leaving it to them to designate the persons they preferred for each office, 26; the jealousy of States is nothing but the leaven of the old Congress, 26; why is no regard paid to the experience of the last election? 27; the most effectual mode to keep the selection out of the House is to fix it on the number three, 27; three conforms more to the spirit of the constitution than five, 27; the number three adopted, 27; reasons for opposing this amendment of the constitution, 27; the constitution bears marks of having been issued under the influence of State classifications, 27; effect of this amendment when two rival

## parties are arrayed against each other, 28; what inconvenience

is there in the present mode? 28; the experiment has worked well, 28; importance of the Vice Presidency, 28; operation of the designating principle examined, 29; how amendments must be made, 29; this amendment affects the relative interest and importance of the smaller States, 30; it has a tendency to render the Vice Presidency less respectable, 30; the resolution contains principles which have a manifest tendency to deprive the small States of an important right, secured to them by a solemn and constitutional compact, and to vest an overwhelming power in the great States, 30; imperfections of man, 30; attempt to excite the attention, the vigilance, and even the jealousy of the small States, against the large, 31; constitution examined to place in its proper light the operation and effects of the resolution, 31; Madison on the mode of electing President, 32; what is the direct object of the proposed alteration in the choice of President, 32; intention of the plan adopted by the constitution for choosing a President, 33; the opposition to this discriminating amendment is condensed into a single stratagem, namely, an effort to excite the passion of jealousy in various forms, 33; two principles sustain the constitution--a majority of the people, and a majority of States, 34; these principles considered, 34; view under which the amendment should be considered, 34; is the amendment calculated or not to cause the popular principle to operate perfectly, and to prevent the abuse of an election by a minority, 35; does the amendment afford cause of jealousy to the smaller States, 35; instance of a government, the substance of the constitution of which is destroyed, but the form remains unaltered, 35; solution of this effect, 35; the design of the amendment is to bestow on the majority a power to elect a Vice President, 36; question carried, 37; not decided fairly, 37; two-thirds of the whole number elected are required, 37; amendment as adopted, 37; further amendment considered, 38; lost, 38.

_In the House_, report of the Committee considered, 58; evils relative to the election of President and Vice President were anticipated at the time of the adoption of the constitution, 58; amendment moved to the resolution, 58; true spirit and principle of the constitution, through the organs of government, to express public opinion, 58; the amendment moved proposes to elect the President by the House, not by States, 58; amendment misunderstood, 59; if any defect in the constitution, that defect perhaps consists in a departure from the plain and simple modes of an immediate election by the people, 59; a legislative election should be restrained to the smallest number, 59; the number should be five, instead of three, 59; object of the amendment should be to prevent persons voted for as Vice President from becoming President, 60; five will allow to the smaller States a larger scope for choice, 60; two comes nearer to the principle of the constitution than five, 60.

_Relative to the removal of Federal Judges_, resolutions offered, 341; referred to Committee of the Whole, 341; postponed to next session, 341; moved in the House, 413; postponement moved, 414; reasons against postponement, 414; an important means of bringing the administration back to the principles on which it came into power, 414; _note_, 414; history of corruptions, 415; causes of the delay in the business of the House, 415; a subject of last importance to the peace and happiness of the United States, 415; part of the constitution relating to the power of impeachment a nullity, 415; _note_, 415; reasons for postponement, 416; reasons against postponement, 416; postponement indefinite lost, 417.

_Various amendments suggested._--State of the country at the adoption of the constitution, 607; Federalist and Republican, 607; one of the errors of the constitution, 607; modes of correction, 607; proposed to reduce the term of representatives to one year, 608; term of senators to three years, 608; President to be chosen by lot from the Senate, for one year, 609; objections considered, 609; advantages considered, 610. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

AMY DARDIN’s _claim_, report on considered in the House, 82; report not agreed to, 82; moved to grant the prayer of the petitioner, 82; carried in committee, 82; amendment moved in the House, 82; committee instructed to bring in a bill, 82; motion to take up the bill, 85; move to postpone, in order ultimately to test the sense of Congress on repealing the statutes of limitation, 85; motion lost, 85; bill amended, so as to allow $2,500 for the horse Romulus, 85; the $2,500 negatived, 85; $2,300 adopted, 85; bill ordered to third reading, 85; bill lost, 85; petition of referred, 302; bill reported and read twice, 340. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

ANDERSON, ISAAC, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493.

ANDERSON, JOSEPH, Senator from Tennessee, 3, 165, 346, 547; favors temporary removal of seat of government, 46; further remarks, 47; elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 169; on British aggressions on our commerce, 356; on expelling Senator John Smith, 598. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Appropriations, Naval_, bill making for the year 1806 considered in the House, 474; moved to strike out the words “and other contingent expenses,” 474; _note_, 474; what objects intended to be provided for under this term, 474; this bill mere form, the money might be appropriated in the lump, 474; expenditure the same, 474; motion to strike out, lost, 474; annual expenditures for the navy, 475; further debate, 475; bill ordered to third reading, 476; moved to recommit, 478; passed, 478; importance of circumscribing contingencies, 478; time to check this loose proceeding, 478; bill reported, 478.

_Appropriations._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

ARCHER, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 52, 285, 378. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Arms, exportation of_, amendments to bill relative to, 380.

ARMSTRONG, JOHN, Senator from New York, 38, 44.

_Army._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Army Uniforms_, petition of Andrew Jackson relative to, 167.

B

BACON, EZEKIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 614; on inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 648.

BAILEY, THEODORE, Senator from New York, 3; resigns his seat in the Senate, 39. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

BALDWIN, ABRAHAM, Senator from Georgia, 3, 163, 345, 485. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

BALDWIN, SIMEON, Representative from Connecticut, 79, 286.

_Bank of the United States_, memorial of stockholders, 611.

_Bank of the United States._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Bankrupt Act_, vote on the bill to repeal in Senate, 38; bill to repeal, as passed by the Senate, 38.

_In House._--Resolution to repeal considered, 79; no remonstrance hostile to it has been received, 79; law expires by its own limitation in a few years, 79; principle unjust, as it favors one class of citizens at the expense of all others, 79; the preferable system was that of the States extending relief to insolvents, 79; its partial operation has a most mischievous influence on the morals of the mercantile world, 79; the principle inequitable as regards debtor and creditor, 79; while justice and humanity dictates the liberation of the body of the debtor, justice forbids the exoneration of property from going to satisfy debts, 80; the principle of the law, however good in theory, can never be carried into effect, 80; the expenses are an objection to the system, 80; _note_, 80; the honest, though unfortunate, debtor has nothing to fear from his creditors, 80; the public silence indicates neither hostility nor opposition, 80; true policy to suffer the act to expire by its own limitation, 81; general sentiment of the nation concurs in the propriety of affording some relief to the distresses of the commercial world, 81; if the exoneration of property from just debts is a violation of justice, this does not hold in commercial concerns, 81; credit is the life of trade, 81; the principles of a bankrupt law do not operate in favor of the debtor, 81; such a system multiplies checks against fraud, 81; one object of the constitution in granting the power, was the establishment of credit upon broad principles of justice, 81; report of committee agreed to, 82; amendment extending the period of removal moved, 82; amendment directing the completion of all proceedings under commissions taken out previous to repeal, 82.

_Bankruptcy._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

BARBARY POWERS, protection of commerce against, _see_ _Duties on Imports_.

BARD, DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612; on a tax on imported slaves, 96; on the importation of slaves, 130. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

BARKER, JOSIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493, 612.

BARNEY, JOSHUA, report on petition of, 615.

BASSETT, BURWELL, Representative from Virginia, 377, 493, 613; to prohibit members of Congress from making contracts with the Government, 659.

BASSETT, JOHN, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 210.

BAYARD, JAMES A., Senator from Delaware, 165, 353, 487, 552; on British aggressions on our commerce, 357. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

BEAUMARCHAIS, claim of petition relative to, 473; claim of report on, 542.

BECKLEY, JOHN, chosen Clerk of the House, 51, 378. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

BEDINGER, GEORGE M., Representative from Kentucky, 50, 285, 378, 493; on a tax on imported slaves, 130, 132, 140.

BEDFORD, GUNNING, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 225.

BENTLEY, WM., appointed Chaplain by the House, 164.

BETTON, SILAS, Representative from New Hampshire, 50, 285, 377, 493.

BIBB, WILLIAM W., Representative from Georgia, 503, 613, on home manufactures, 709.

BIDWELL, BARNABAS, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493; offers a resolution to present a sword to Gen. Eaton, 380, 381; on the presentation of a sword to Gen. Eaton, 382; on discharging committee from consideration of invasion of neutral rights, 394; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 471; on the importation of slaves, 494, 495, 497; on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, 510; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 525, 535.

_Bills_, in Senate, to authorize President to take possession of territory ceded by France, 6; second reading of do., 7; ordered to third reading, 8; passed, 8.

_Bills, Money._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

BISHOP, PHANUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 287, 377, 497. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

BLACKLEDGE, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 285, 613.

BLAKE, JOHN, jr., Representative from New York, 377, 493, 612.

BLOUNT, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 378, 613; on post roads, 542; reports relative to the attack on the Chesapeake, 616; further report relative to British aggressions, 621; on building gunboats, 626, 628. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

BONAPARTE’s proclamation to the inhabitants of St. Domingo, 362.

BONDE, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Boston, Mass._, memorial of inhabitants relative to aggressions on commerce, 399.

BOYD, ADAM, Representative from New Jersey, 50, 285, 676; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 308; on the Georgia claims, 324.

BOYD, JAMES P., his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 228.

BOYLE, JOHN, Representative from Kentucky, 50, 285, 380, 493; on the resolution relative to public roads, 84; on the government of Louisiana, 148; reports relative to canal at the Rapids of the Ohio, 465.

BRADLEY, STEPHEN E., Senator from Vermont, 3, 163, 345, 485, 547; offers amendments to the resolution relative to amendments of the constitution, 7; moves to strike out part of the proposed amendment to the constitution, 23; further remarks, 24. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Breach of Privilege._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

BRECKENRIDGE, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 3, 165; gives notice for leave to bring in a bill to authorize President to take possession of territories ceded by France, 6; asks leave, 6; reports on amendments of the House to Senate’s bill authorizing the President to take possession of Louisiana, 8; on the merits of the Louisiana treaty, 16. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Bribery._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

BRICE, NICHOLAS, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 228.

_Bridge over the Potomac_, bill postponed, 374. _See_ _Potomac Bridge_.

_British Aggressions on our Commerce_, message from the President relative to, in Senate, 353; report of the committee on the message considered, 355; first resolution passed, 355.

Second resolution relative to a demand for the restoration of property, &c., and to make arrangements relative to the impressment of seamen considered, 355; impropriety of agreeing to the resolution arising from all the circumstances of the case, 356; this resolution predicated on the principle of the first, which passed unanimously, 356; language of the resolution not too strong, 356; the principle of the resolution considered, 357; the resolution shelters the Executive from the responsibility which ought to attach to its measures, 357; it demonstrates the union of the different branches of the Government on the subject, 357; the resolution will bear the character of advice to the President, 357; we should reflect upon this step, 357; object of the resolution, 358; motion to recommit to a special committee, 358; objections to the resolution in its present shape, 358; motion to recommit lost, 358; it becomes the Senate to take stronger ground and adopt vigorous measures before requesting the President to negotiate, 359; negotiation not exhausted, 359; two objections made to the resolution, a censure upon the President, and a sacrifice of the honor and interests of the United States, 359; these considered, 359; resolution carried, 359.

Third resolution considered, 369; the first resolution is a declaration of our neutral rights, the second requests the President to send a special Minister to England, &c., the third proposes to prohibit the importation of certain British goods, unless redress is obtained, 369; it is designed to aid negotiation, 369; Great Britain prohibits the importation of our goods, and how can she regard this as a war measure? 369. _In the House._--Resolution to call on the President for a copy of his Proclamation interdicting our ports and harbors to British armed vessels, 617; no necessity for the measure, 617; it has been published in all the newspapers, 617; the former practice, 617; this opposition to the motion unaccountable, 618; not contained in the report of the committee because it was believed to be sufficiently official in the newspapers, 618; resolution adopted, 619; copy of Proclamation, 619; report of committee on the report, 621.

_British Treaty_, deficiency in the appropriation to carry out the seventh article, 287. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

BROOM, JAMES M., Representative from Delaware, 383, 493; on laying a tax on imported slaves, 390; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 520, 526.

BROWN, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 3, 165; elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 3; on rules of the Senate relative to separate readings of resolutions, 7; submits to Senate a question of order, 21; elected President _pro tem._ of Senate, 41. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

BROWN, OBADIAH B., elected chaplain of the House, 614.

BROWN, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 286, 377, 493, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

BRYAN, JOSEPH, Representative from Georgia, 79, 286, 379.

BURR, AARON, as Vice President presides in Senate, 38; Vice President presides over the Senate, 163; franking privilege denied, 168; farewell address to the Senate, 169; _note_, 170. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

BURWELL, WILLIAM A., Representative from Virginia, 493, 613; on rejection of the bill from the Senate suspending the Habeas Corpus, 504; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 522; on British aggressions, 618; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 646; on naturalization laws, 659; on suspension of the act of non-importation, 709.

BUTLER, PIERCE, Senator from South Carolina, 6; reports on amendment to the constitution, 7; offers amendment to limit eligibility to Presidency, 7; on the eligibility only of natives to the Presidency, 21; resigns, 165. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

BUTLER, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 51, 207, 378, 493, 613.

C

CALHOUN, JOSEPH, Representative from South Carolina, 613.

CAMPBELL, GEORGE W., Representative from Tennessee, 51, 285, 378, 613; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 58, 60; on postage on newspapers, 78; on the resolution relative to public roads, 83; on the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 94; on the government of Louisiana, 152; continues the argument for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 232; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 291; on the establishment of post roads, 338; on importations from Great Britain, 451; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 531; on fortifications and gunboats, 638; on removal of the federal judges, 675; on suspension of the embargo act, 677; on suspension of the act, 693.

CAMPBELL, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 50, 286, 377, 493, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

CARLTON, PETER, Representative from New Hampshire, 612.

CARONDELET, his letter relative to money for General Wilkinson, 642.

CASEY, LEVI, Representative from South Carolina, 51, 287, 378, 494; decease announced, 491, 515.

_Census of the Union._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

CHAMBERLAIN, WILLIAM, Representative from Vermont, 50, 285.

CHAMPION, EPAPHRODITUS, Representative from Connecticut, 612.

CHANDLER, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493, 612; on importations from Great Britain, 462; on building gunboats, 627; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 645.

_Charitable objects._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Charlestown, Virginia_, petition of inhabitants for a port of entry, 407; report of committee of commerce, 409; facts in the case, 409; report agreed to, 409.

CHASE, JUDGE, _official conduct of_ considered in the House, 88; no people have such a sense of the importance of preserving unpolluted the fountains of justice as citizens of the United States, 88; hence the independence of the judges under the constitution, 88; resolution offered to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Samuel Chase, and whether he has so acted in his judicial capacity as to require the interposition of the constitutional power of the House, 89; called upon to vote an inquiry into the conduct of a judge without any facts being adduced to show that such an inquiry should be made, 89; to adopt the resolution in its present form would be a vote of censure on the Judge, 89; parties aggrieved, or members cognizant of the facts, should bring up the measure, 89; statement of facts made at last session, 89; occasion of that statement, 90; a statement of the facts occurring in Pennsylvania, 90; this is the first instance in which a motion to appoint a committee of inquiry into the official conduct of a public officer has been opposed, 90; this House the constitutional guardians of the morality of the judiciary, 90; character of the Judge involved by this discussion, 90; the conviction of any one member of the propriety of this measure cannot warrant the House in taking this step, 90; the statement of facts is not founded on personal knowledge, 91; hearsay should never be the ground for instituting an inquiry, 91; action should be delayed until such facts are disclosed as will justify the step, 91; the propriety of the inquiry cannot be seen without evidence, and what is the object of the inquiry but to obtain evidence, 91; if the inquiry cannot be had without the evidence, both must be dropped, 91; no impropriety in giving the case the same direction as all other business of the House, 91; it does not appear correct to call the character of a public officer in question, unless some necessity should first appear, 92; no precedents adduced which apply to this case, 92; case of Judge Pickering, 92; the course proposed inverts the natural order of things, being an inquiry for and not out of facts, 92; facts stated not sufficient for impeachment, 93; the grounds should be stated in the form of a resolution, and such resolution be referred to a committee for investigation, 93; we have the same right to impeach the President, yet it would be improper without facts, 93; question of adjournment moved and lost, 93; postponement desired, to afford time for reflection, 94; we should proceed cautiously in this matter, 94; before the vote for an inquiry there should be probable grounds that facts exist to authorize such a procedure, 94; improper to go into such an inquiry before specific charges are laid before the House, 94; reasons for proceeding in what is termed so precipitate a manner, 95; all objections are applicable to a motion for impeachment only, 95; committee rose, 95; amendment moved to insert also the name of Judge Richard Peters in the resolution, 96; only a committee is asked to receive evidence, and determine whether it affords grounds for an impeachment, 96; no way more favorable to the person implicated, 96; on the request of a member for a committee of inquiry, that measure ought to be adopted, 96; precedents are not necessary; reason and common sense are all that is necessary to guide to a decision, 97; British annals are full, 97; case of the Earl of Strafford, 97; it is notorious that Fries was tried for his life without being heard, 97; Peters equally guilty with Judge Chase--amendment carried, 98; let the facts be laid before the House, 98; otherwise we shall legislate on the opinion of a member, 98; men of talents will not take seats on the bench, if their character is liable to be scrutinized without any facts being previously adduced, 98; any member may procure an investigating committee if this resolution pass, 98; under the circumstances, the measure is improper in every point of view, 99; arguments of the opposition turn on the ground of expediency and precedent, 99; its expediency argued, 99; precedents considered, 99; resolution objected to because of the indelicacy of implicating the character of a judge, 100; all independence has its limits, 101; is not this House under a solemn oath for the faithful discharge of this and every other duty, 101; other objections considered, 102; reasons for every member to vote for the resolution, 102; this House is the grand inquest of the nation, whose duty it is to inquire, on a proper representation, into the conduct of every officer, 103; it is the duty of a grand jury to inquire who is guilty, 103; in England common report has been considered sufficient authority for similar inquiries, 103; not necessary that the House should be acquainted with any facts to make this inquiry, 103; the accused should have an opportunity to prove to the world that his character has been assailed without cause, 104; what will a committee do, 104; it operates in the nature of an inquisition, 104; let us first ascertain if there is sufficient grounds for an impeachment, 104; when did this case occur, 104; why has it rested so long, 104; it is not of the serious nature contended, 104; precedents do not warrant this form of proceeding, 105; so important is this matter that the conduct of any officer should be inquired into on the demand of a member, 105; the offence charged is such as will warrant impeachment, 105; is the present proceeding conformable to principle? 105; a charge has been made against Judge Chase, 107; precedents examined, 107; a more anti-republican resolution not seen, 108; unprecedented, unparliamentary, 108; information on the matter extremely contradictory, 109; precedents examined, 109; resemblance to a grand inquest, 110; proceedings in North Carolina, 110; difference between the friends and opponents of the resolution, 111; form of a resolution offered, 111; objections and personal allusions examined and answered, 112; is the denial to the prisoner and the jury of the right of having the point of law discussed nothing? 113; is treason better defined than murder? 113; should an incipient inquiry be confined by the same rules which govern a criminal trial? 113; cases of precedent offered, 113; the House is vested with the sole power of impeachment; how it is to be exercised must depend on its discretion, 114; what does the resolution demand of us? 114; if gentlemen are in possession of facts, let them declare them, 114; let the instances of malfeasance of these judges be specified, 115; what public character will be safe, if this resolution is adopted on the request of a single member? 115; observations of the opponents are incorrect; the resolution is to inquire, not to impeach, 115; the duty of the committee will be to inquire into the official conduct of a certain public officer, 115; if there is no ground for impeachment, the character of the officer should be vindicated, 115; no justification in the constitution on which to ground a refusal to inquire, 115; various objections considered, 116; precedents for the judgment in Fries’ case, 116; no facts have been shown, 116; the inquiry is an act of justice due to the people of the United States on the one hand, and to the officers on the other, 117; all the difference possible between an inquiry and an impeachment, 117; analogy between the functions of this House and a Grand Jury correct, 117; the reputation of the Government demands the inquiry, 117; it is not the examination, but the result of the examination, that attaches merit or demerit to a public officer, 118; a full inquiry into the conduct of public officers should be cherished with great care, 118; in this case a specific charge has been made, 118; authorities from foreign nations adduced, 118; the case of the Western Insurrection, 119; the precedents adduced, examined, 120; committee of investigation of the last Congress, 120; this resolution points to two particular officers as objects of suspicion, 121; if charges were specified, a member, on moving the resolution, might demand an inquiry, 121; others have their convictions as well as the mover of the resolution, 121; common fame no ground on which to support such a resolution, 122; on the broad basis of universal right, the resolution is condemned, 122; reason why the charge is of a serious nature, 123; amendment moved, 123; moved to strike out amendment and insert other words, 124; motion to strike out agreed to, 124; motion to insert carried, 124; question on agreeing to the amendment as amended, lost, 124; original resolution carried, 124; committee appointed, 125; report of the committee, 161; ordered printed for the use of the members, 161; report, 174.

_Trial of Judge Chase._--_Note_, 173; report of committee in favor of impeachment adopted, 174; committee appointed to impeach Judge Chase at the bar of the Senate, 174; committee to prepare articles of impeachment, 174; do. considered, 175; managers to conduct the impeachment appointed, 175; proceedings in the Senate, 175; rules of proceeding adopted by the Senate, 175; preliminary proceedings, 177, 178; answer of Judge Chase, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191; replication by the House of Representatives, 191; names of the witnesses, 191, 192.

Impeachment opened, 192; it is for a daring inroad upon the criminal jurisprudence of the country, by delivering an opinion, at a time and in a manner before unheard of and unknown, that the respondent is impeached, 192; the soundness of the opinion is offered as a defence, 193; this was a criminal trial for a capital offence, 193; answer of respondent on this point examined, 193, 194; the second article is the case of Basset, whose objection to serve on a jury was overruled by the judge, 194; the same exception to a juryman, which would furnish ground for a new trial, ought to be a cause of setting aside such juror, if it be taken previous to his being sworn 195; third, the rejection of the evidence of John Taylor, 195; is it not an unheard-of practice, in a criminal prosecution, to declare testimony inadmissible because it is not expected to go to the entire exculpation of the prisoner? 195; fourth, requiring the questions intended to be put to the witness to be reduced to writing, and submitted to the Court, in the first instance, 196; refusal to postpone the trial, although an affidavit was regularly filed, stating the absence of material witnesses, 196; fifth, arresting and committing the defendant contrary to law, 196; other articles stated, 197; testimony of William Lewis, 198; testimony of Alexander J. Dallas, 199; testimony of Henry Tilghman, 201; testimony of Wm. Rawle, 202; testimony of George Hay, 204; testimony of John Taylor, 207; testimony of Philip N. Nicholas, 207; testimony of John T. Mason, 209; testimony of John Heath, 210; testimony of James Triplett, 210; testimony of John Basset, 210; testimony of George Read, 211; testimony of James Lea, 212; testimony of John Montgomery, 213; testimony of Samuel H. Smith, 214; testimony of John Stephen, 214; documents offered in evidence, 215.

Opening for the defence, 215; statement of the points to which testimony will be directed, 215; first, that the opinion was not only legal, but had been twice expressly decided, and once admitted, in the same court, and had before that trial been laid down as a general principle of law, 215; second, that the nature of Basset’s application has been wholly misunderstood by the witnesses on the part of the prosecution, 216; other points stated, 216; fifth and sixth, that by a rule solemnly made by the Supreme Court, that they never considered the State laws as regulating _process_, &c., 216; other points stated, 216; testimony of Samuel Ewing, 217; testimony of Edward J. Coale, 217; testimony of William Meredith, 217; testimony of Luther Martin, 218; testimony of James Winchester, 219; testimony of William Marshall, 219; testimony of David M. Randolph, 221; testimony of John Marshall, 222; testimony of Edmund J. Lee, 224; testimony of Robert Gamble, 224; testimony of Philip Gooch, 224; testimony of Gunning Bedford, 225; testimony of Nicholas Vandyke, 226; testimony of Archibald Hamilton, 226; testimony of Samuel Moore, 226; testimony of William H. Winder, 227; testimony of James Winchester, 227; testimony of Walter Dorsey, 227; testimony of John Purviance, 228; testimony of Nicholas Brice, 228; testimony of James P. Boyd, 228; testimony of William McMechin, 228; testimony of William S. Govane, 228; testimony of William Cranch, 229; argument begun by Mr. Early, on the part of the Managers, 229; remarks upon the first article of the impeachment, 229, 230; do. on the second, third, and fourth articles of the impeachment, 231; remarks on the sixth and seventh articles of the impeachment, 232; do. on the eighth article, 232; argument continued for the House, by Mr. Campbell, 232; provisions of the constitution relative to impeachments--their precise object and extent, so far as relates to the present case, 233; the several charges founded on the trial of Callender, stated in the second, third, and fourth articles of impeachment examined, 234; disqualification of a juror, 234; argument continued by Mr. Cloud, on the fifth and sixth articles of the impeachment, 236; the practice of the Federal Courts, 236.

Argument for the defence opened by Mr. Hopkinson, 236; the first proper object of inquiry is to ascertain, with proper precision, what acts or offences of a public officer are the objects of impeachment, 237, 238; first article examined, 240; second specification of first article examined, 242; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Key, on the second, third, and fourth articles of the impeachment, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Lee, on the fifth article, 248; do. on the sixth article, 249; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Martin, 250; general review of the case, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257; argument for the defence continued by Mr. Harper, 258; political position of the defendant, 258; general review of the first six articles of impeachment, and an examination of the law and the facts, under the seventh and eighth articles, 260.

Reply for the prosecution continued by Mr. Nicholson, 261-262; to sustain an impeachment it is not necessary to show that the offences charged are of such a nature as to subject the party to indictment, 263; words “good behavior,” 263; treason examined, 264; reply further continued for the prosecution, by Mr. Rodney, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273; reply for the prosecution concluded by Mr. Randolph, 274; the doctrine of impeachment, 274.

Manner of taking the judgment of the Court, 281; opinion of each Senator taken on each article, 282, 283; acquittal of Judge Chase, 284.

_Chesapeake Frigate_, attack on, 614; report on, 616.

_Chesapeake and Delaware Canal._--Report of committee on, 418.

CHITTENDEN, MARTIN, Representative from Vermont, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612.

_Church in Georgetown._--Bill to incorporate Presbyterian society considered in the House, 408; moved to strike out the section authorizing a lottery for finishing the building, 408; objected to as authorizing public gambling, 408; ecclesiastical corporations, object of hatred, 408; no objection to such an act, 408; no incorporation among Quakers, 408; Quakers think no money ought to assist them in their passage to heaven--others think money employed to the best advantage in this way, 408; in a moral, political and religious view, these acts highly necessary, 408; such an application never refused in a State, 408; bill passed, 409.

_Circuit Courts in Ohio and Tennessee_, bill relative to, 519.

CLAGGETT, CLIFTON, Representative from New Hampshire, 50, 285.

CLAIBORNE, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 377, 493.

CLAIBORNE, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

CLARK, CHRISTOPHER, Representative from Virginia, 285, 384; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 294, 297; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 310; on the Georgia Claims, 324; on the importation of slaves, 386; on laying a tax on imported slaves, 388; on incorporating a church in Georgetown, 408; on postponing the resolution for amending the constitution, relative to the removal of Federal judges, 413; on amendment of the constitution, relative to the removal of Federal judges, 416; on importations from Great Britain, 442.

CLARK, DANIEL, delegate from Orleans Territory, 493, 640; refuses information relative to Gen. Wilkinson, 644; his statement relative to Gen. Wilkinson, 646.

_Classification of the Senators of Ohio_, 38.

CLAXTON, THOMAS, chosen doorkeeper of the House, 378. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

CLAY, HENRY, Senator from Kentucky, 487.

CLAY, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493, 615; on the amendment to the constitution, relative to the election of President, 59; on the motion to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 90; on the increase of specific duties, 158; offers a resolution to present a sword to Com. Decatur, 286; on the remission of duties on books, 289; on the Georgia Claims, 337; offers resolutions of non-intercourse with Great Britain, 400; on importations from Great Britain, 421; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 472; on naval appropriations, 478; on repeal of the duty on salt, 481; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 540.

CLAY, MATTHEW, Representative from Virginia, 50, 287, 383, 613; on organizing the militia of the United States, 659. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

CLINTON, DEWITT, Senator from New York, 3; moves amendment to the constitution, 6; _note_, 6; on rules of Senate, relative to separate readings of resolutions, 6; denies charge of Dayton, relative to arraigning motives, 8; in favor of amendment reported, relative to Vice President, 8; resigns his seat in the Senate, 20.

Clinton, George, elected Vice President, 168; presides in Senate as Vice President, 349, 485, 547. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

CLINTON, GEORGE, jun., Representative from New York, 340, 494, 676; presents the petition of the Manhattan Co., 497.

CLOPTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 51, 286, 377, 493, 613; on the amendment to the constitution, relative to the election of President, 59. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

COALE, EDWARD J., his testimony for the defence, on the trial of Judge Chase, 217.

_Coast Survey_, resolution relative to, 494.

COBB, HOWELL, Representative from Georgia, 613.

COCKE, WILLIAM, Senator from Tennessee, 3, 165; opposes removal of seat of government, 46. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Cod Fisheries._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1. and 2.

_Commerce of United States._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Committee of Senate_ to wait on President, 4; on resolutions relative to amendments of the constitution, 7; on act relative to the importation of slaves, 39; of House to inquire into the official conduct of Judges Chase and Peters, 174; report of do., 174; to prepare articles of impeachment against Judge Chase, 174; to conduct the trial, 175; of the House, second session, eighth Congress, 285.

_Compensation of President, Vice President, and other Officers._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

CONDIT, JOHN, Senator from New Jersey, 3, 20, 163, 345, 485, 547. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Congress._--First session of eighth, Oct. 17, 1803, 3; extra session, Oct. 17, 1803, 3; second session of eighth commenced, 163; adjourned, 343; third session of eighth adjourns, 344; first session of ninth commences, 345; adjournment of the first session of ninth, 484; commencement of second session of ninth, 485; adjournment of second session, ninth Congress, 546; commencement of first session of tenth Congress, 547; adjournment of first session, tenth Congress, 710.

_Connecticut_, vote for President, 168.

CONRAD, FREDERICK, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 404; on naval appropriations, 478.

_Contested Election_ of Thomas Lewis, report on, 143; in Maryland, report on, 615; _note_, 615.

_Contested Elections._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Contingent Fund_, message relative to, 39.

_Contingent Expenses_, resolution relative to, 388. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Contracts, Government_, _note_, 337; resolution relative to, 659.

COOK, ORCHARD, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493, 612; on fortifications and gunboats, 628, 630.

COVINGTON, LEONARD, Representative from Maryland, 377, 494.

CRANCH, WILLIAM, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 229.

CRAWFORD, WILLIAM H., Senator from Georgia, 551; on expelling Senator John Smith, 604.

CROWNINSHIELD, JACOB, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 285, 377, 493, 615; in favor of the resolution to carry the Louisiana treaty into effect, 67; on the protection of seamen, 314; on discharging the committee from consideration of invasion of neutral rights, 394; on the importation of slaves, 401; on the West India trade, 403; on making Charlestown, Virginia, a port of entry, 409; on importations from Great Britain, 422; on reference of the petition of the Manhattan company, 497; on British aggressions, 617, 618; on building gunboats, 626, 629, 634; decease of, 694.

CULPEPPER, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 613.

_Cumberland Road_, bill relative to, 384.

CUSTIS, GEORGE WASHINGTON PARKE, letter relative to retrocession of the District of Columbia, 297.

CUTLER, MANASSEH, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 286. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

CUTTS, RICHARD, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 287, 377, 493, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

D

DALLAS, ALEXANDER J., testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 199.

DANA, SAMUEL W., Representative from Connecticut, 50, 286, 377, 493, 612; on the bill authorizing the President to take possession of the Louisiana Territory, 74; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 120; on protection against the Barbary Powers, 161; on the resolution relative to the Georgia claims, 315, 316; on laying a duty on imported slaves, 387, 388, 389; on naval appropriations, 474, 478; on repeal of the duty on salt, 481; on the coast survey, 494; on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, 515; on revolutionary pensions, 614; on British aggressions, 618. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

DARBY, EZRA, Representative from New Jersey, 377, 493, 612; deceased, 675.

DAVENPORT, JOHN, Representative from Connecticut, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

DAWSON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 377, 493, 613; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 58, 59; moves to take up resolution relative to the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 161; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 292, 301; on the bill to authorize the court of the District of Columbia to grant divorces, 313; on laying a tax on imported slaves, 391. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

DAYTON, JONATHAN, Senator from New Jersey, 3, 164; moves to refer resolution relative to amendments of the constitution to a select committee, 7; opposes amendment of constitution reported relative to the Vice President, 7; charges Clinton with the habit of arraigning motives, 8; on the acquisition of Louisiana, 13; on choice of the House from the three highest candidates, 22; on amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 25; offers public buildings at Trenton in case of a removal of the seat of Government, 46. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

DEANE, JOSIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 612.

DEARBORN, H., letter with documents relative to the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 663. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Debates, reporting of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

DECATUR, STEPHEN, resolution of thanks to, 165.

_Defensive measures under John Adams’ administration._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Delaware_, vote for President, 168.

_Delegates_ from Territories. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

DELEMOS, letter in cipher of Gen. Wilkinson to, 642; do. letter of, 665.

DENNIS, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 50; on considering the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 92, 111; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 122; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 304. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Departments, Executive._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

DESHA, JOSEPH, Representative from Kentucky, 613.

DICKINSON, JOHN, his death announced in the Senate, 553.

DICKSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Tennessee, 51, 285, 378, 494. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Diplomatic or Foreign Intercourse._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_District of Columbia_, resolution for the recession of, considered, 161; point fully considered at the last session, 161; motion to go into committee lost, 161; motion to discharge the committee carried, 161; resolutions relative to, 295; resolutions for recession considered, 303; motion to postpone lost, 303; not the intention to remove the Government, 303; object to cede back to Maryland and Virginia all but the city of Washington, 303; question of power in Congress after accepting the cession, 304; constitution examined, 304; its possession every way expensive to the General Government, 304; the people of the District are the merest subjects in their condition, 304; in a degraded situation, 304; the resolutions are unconstitutional, inexpedient, and unjust and cruel to the people of the District, 304; resolutions of high importance, 306; it is said the recession cannot be made without the consent of the people of the District and of the United States, 306; these points examined, 306; seat of Government is fixed permanently here if the right of jurisdiction extended only over the soil covered by the public buildings, 306; if the right of Congress to recede is admitted, the whole will eventually be receded, 307; two questions involved, 307; difficulty of legislating for ten miles square considered, 308; the State Legislatures had presumed Congress would exercise exclusive jurisdiction, 308; the removal of the seat of Government, which would be the consequence of recession, is not only inexpedient, but also unconstitutional, 308; these points examined, 308; what are constitutions, 308; if the object is to recede all but the city of Washington it operates a change of the seat of Government, 309; this point demonstrated, 309; Congress not prepared to act on these questions at present, 309; constitutional point examined, 310; expediency of retrocession, 310; is Congress competent to legislate for the people of the District, 310; no, 310; not equal to the task, 310; the end of the resolutions is to reduce the present quantum of territory, 311; expense and time in legislating for the territory, 311; business of the Union interrupted, 311; resolutions lost, 311.

_Bill to prohibit the exaction of bail_ in certain suits within the District of Columbia, read third time, 312; proper measure to prevent the oppression of malignant creditors, 312; not essentially necessary, 312; recommitment moved, 312; lost, 312; bill lost, 312.

_Bill to authorize the court_ of the District of Columbia to decree divorces in certain cases, 313; reasons for the bill, 313.

_Emancipation in the District_, reasons for, considered, 313; rejected, 313.

_Divorces_, bill to authorize court of District of Columbia to grant, postponed, 343.

_Documents, Executive_, communicated to the House, 379.

DORSEY, WALTER, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 227.

_Drawbacks._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1. _Duties on Imports._

DURELL, DANIEL M., Representative from New Hampshire, 612; on fortifications and gunboats, 628.

_Duties on Imports_, passage of the bill imposing specific duties, 342.

_Duties on Imports, bill for the protection of commerce_ against the Barbary Powers considered in the House, 158; moved to strike out first section laying increased duties to provide means for protection, 159; improper to tack to the provisions for the Mediterranean service, upon which there could be no difference of opinion, a new tax, in respect to which they could not agree, 159; the increased rate of duty proposed, 159; duties already high, 159; why impose a tax of $750,000 to meet an expenditure of $500,000? 159; now about to authorize a greater expense than usual, and the Legislature are called upon to provide means, 159; the public debt should never be increased while the resources of the country are adequate to its wants, 159; statements of the opposition examined, 159; average rate of ad valorem duty thirteen and a half per cent., 160; goods charged with ad valorem duties are the most difficult to smuggle, 160; duty on spirits not too high though it yields a fifth of the revenue, 160; duty on sugars, on salt, on wines, on woollens, 160; design to apply the resources to the support of the navy, 160; the only objection is to the imposition of unnecessary taxes, 161; the measure gives an improper impression of the causes of the bill, 161; motion to strike out lost, 161; do. renewed in the House and lost, 161.

_Salt_, motion for an inquiry relative to the duty on, 295; various rates which have been imposed, 295; present duty twenty cents per bushel, 295; equal to thirty cents, 295; finances amply sufficient to authorize a reduction, 296; imports of salt, 296; origin of Liverpool salt, 296; distinction to be made against British salt, 297; to retrieve reputation of salted provisions, 297; resolution moved, 297; state of the finances will not allow a reduction, 297.

Resolution to inquire into the expediency of repealing the duty on salt, 479; committee already instructed, 479; duty too high, and falls heavy on the agricultural interest, 479; adopted, 479; bill to repeal duty on salt and bounty on exported salt provisions and pickled fish, considered, 479; _note_, 479; moved to amend so as to take off eight cents of the duty, 480; a difference of twenty cents on the bushel will operate very seriously on those who have made shipments, 480; changes should be gradual, 480; this duty was pledged for the payment of the national debt, 480; no argument that it will operate injuriously on shipments, 480; one of the objects of the bill to get rid of the pledge to pay the debt, 480; the taxes pledged will still exceed the amount for which they were pledged, 481; can the Administration get along without this tax, 481; immediate effect of this measure ruinous, 481; further debate on the third section, 481; passage of the bill, 481.

Amendments of the Senate considered in the House, provisions repealing the duty on salt being struck out, and imposing two and a half per cent. duty, retained, 482; sole and indisputable prerogative of the House to grant the money of the people, 482; extent of the power of the Senate, 482; House should never give up this privilege, 482; not a bill originating revenue, 482; a question of necessity, 483; motion to agree to amendments of Senate lost, 483; reasons for adhering to the disagreement, 483; committee of conference appointed, 483; Senate adhere, 484; House receded, 484.

In Senate bill passed, 491; in House bill for repeal referred, 502; passed, 503; _note_, 503.

_Importation of Slaves_, duties on considered in the House, 96; South Carolina repealed her law prohibiting the importation of slaves, 96; its repeal gives fresh activity to the trade, 96; to impose a tax on imported slaves is the extent of the power of Congress, 96; resolution to lay a tax of ten dollars on each slave imported, moved, 96; in Committee of the Whole, resolution amended to lay a tax of ten dollars on each slave imported into the United States and their Territories, 129; repeal of the law of South Carolina, should not occasion so much dissatisfaction here, 129; the law was repealed because it was evaded, and could not be enforced by the State, 129; this tax will not prevent the introduction of a single slave, 129; by laying the tax and deriving a revenue, the Government will be giving a sanction to the trade, 129; effect of the resolution, if adopted, would be injurious, 130; the question is on the policy of laying the tax, 130; this point considered, 130; to import slaves is to import enemies into our country, 131; danger of a rebellion, 131; effect of holding slaves on the national character, 131; importation of slaves is in direct contradiction to the principles of morality, 131; Eastern States engaged for many years in smuggling them, 132; the resolution would sanction the trade, 132; all declamation and appeal to the passions in behalf of the resolution unnecessary, 132; impose the tax and it becomes the duty of our armed ships to protect the trade, 132; the question is not whether we shall prohibit the slave trade, but whether we shall tax it, 132; other considerations urged against its policy, 132; as a profitable article of commerce it is as eligible for taxation as any other, 133; by laying the tax Congress does all it can to discourage the trade, 133; this is the only constitutional power at present enjoyed, 133; the question should be considered only in its commercial, economical, and fiscal relations, 133; present extent of the commerce, 133; present prohibitory statutes disregarded by common consent, 133; arguments against the policy of the tax considered, 134; so far from binding the nation to protect it by laying a tax, it is already recognized in many of the States and permitted by the constitution, 134; the condition of man subdued by fraud or force delineated, 134; a tax will in some degree discourage the traffic, 135; gentlemen reprobate a traffic as infamous and horrid, and yet wish to draw a revenue from it, 135; South Carolina had an undisputed right to do as she has done--why single her out for censure, 135; it is not a mere question of revenue, but whether the Government of the Union shall condemn the act of a State which she was fully authorized to pass, 135; should not be hurried away by passion and feeling, 136; the Treasury wants money, and taxes must be laid, 136; this article should be taxed because the trade is odious, 137; motion that the committee rise and report progress, as there is a prospect the Legislature of South Carolina will repeal the law admitting the importation, 137; arguments urged by the friends of the measure two-fold, 138; people of South Carolina not friendly to the act admitting the importation, 138; question of postponement lost, 139; resolution adopted, 139; bill ordered, 139; question on the day for the consideration of the bill, 140; motion to postpone to next session, 140; all concede that the tax will not diminish the traffic, 140; the revenue should be appropriated to humane purposes, 140; propriety of agreeing to the postponement considered, 140; a postponement will be destructive of the bill, 141; the law would have a partial effect, 141; brief postponement carried, 142; _note_, 142.

Motion in House to impose a tax of ten dollars per head on each slave imported, 385; ninth section of the constitution read, 385; no reason why this article of importation should remain without duty, while others pay, 385; the adoption of the resolution can only express the opinion of Congress of the impropriety of importing slaves, 386; be partial in its operation, 386; a question of revenue merely, 386; partial and unjust in its operation, 386; a duty on South Carolina alone, 386; it would have prevented a large importation if it had been adopted two years ago, 386; black men not the only men imported into this country, 387; moved to strike out the word “_slaves_,” and insert the word “_persons_,” 387; this preserves the words of the constitution, 387; under the constitution a tax can be laid on the importation of slaves or freemen, 387; object to express disapprobation of the traffic, 387; amendment would make a false impression in Europe, 387; amendment necessary to the passage of a law on this subject, 388; how should a cargo of slaves be entered at the Custom House, 388; proceedings in North Carolina on the subject, 389; the amendment does not correspond with the spirit of the constitution, 389; this point examined, 389; amendment lost, 389; object of the resolution to raise a revenue, or to point the disapprobation of the nation against South Carolina, 389; is this a course to secure peace and harmony, 389; amount to be realized, 390; reasons for not exempting this article, 390; further debate, 391; resolution agreed to, 391. A new section to the bill moved, prohibiting the importation of all slaves into the United States, 401; what would be the effect of forfeiture in case of smuggling slaves, 401; further debate, 401; ordered to be engrossed, 401; read third time, 418; bill recommitted, 418.

Bill to prohibit the importation of slaves in Committee of the whole House, 494; strong objections to forfeiture of persons of color imported, 494; under the bill it was followed by a sale of these persons as property, 494; better be left to the laws of the several States, 494; in some States there could be no such thing as a slave, 494; fugitives in the State of Massachusetts faithfully restored, 494; her laws do not interfere with persons passing through, only those coming there to reside, 495; _note_, 495; a valid sale would interfere with these laws, 495; this motion an old thing in a new shape, 495; importation in the free States an improbable thing, 495; the United States should retain control of them, 495; if imported in the south they will be slaves, if at the north vagabonds, 495; what shall be done with the negroes if they are not forfeited, 495; to leave them to the operation of the laws of the States is to leave them to become slaves, 495; slaves will continue to be imported unless you forfeit them, 496; motion to refer the bill to a select committee, 496; reasons for the motion, 496; if imported contrary to law they are to be seized as smuggled goods, and treated accordingly, 496; what besides the negroes can be found for the law to operate on, 496; committee rose, 496; objections against the amendment reduced to two; first, that a forfeiture is necessary to deprive the importers of every motive to introduce any slaves into the country and render prohibition effectual; second, if slaves are emancipated and turned loose in the Southern States they will be a nuisance, 497; objections not well founded, 497; a forfeiture implies a right of ownership in the importer, 498; better do nothing than forfeit them, 498; the practical state of things, 498; what is our duty? 498; objections to forfeiture considered, 499; only a commercial question, 499; forfeiture only will effect prohibition, 499. _See_ _slaves, importation of_.

_Bill laying more specific duty on certain articles_, and imposing light money, read a third time, 158; postponement moved, 158; a postponement a rejection of the bill, 158; it increases the existing rate of duties, 158; remove the fraudulent practice in making out invoices of the articles, subject to ad valorem duties, 153; promote manufacturers in the Eastern and Middle States to the detriment of the Southern, 158; postponement lost, 158; bill passed, 158; _note_, 158.

_Remission of Duties on Books_, report of the committee considered, 289; constitution a grant of limited powers, 289; its leading feature an abhorrence of exclusive privilege, 289; the privilege asked for is referred to the first section of the eighth article, 289; the impost shall be uniform, 289; one quantum, one mode of collecting, and one manner, 289; if one class is exempted, others may be also, 289; objectionable on the ground of expediency, 289; constitutional objection considered, 289; the power of Congress adequate to promote science and literature, 289; mistake to suppose that a denial to exempt books from impost is a tax on literary institutions, and, therefore, not uniform, 290; these institutions soon be rivalling booksellers, 290; report against the remission adopted, 290.

_Duties on Imports._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Duties on Tonnage._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

DWIGHT, THOMAS, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 285.

DWIGHT, THEODORE, Representative from Connecticut, 493; on the importation of slaves, 501.

E

EARLE, JOHN B., Representative from South Carolina, 51, 285, 378, 494.

EARLY, PETER, Representative from Georgia, 52, 285, 378, 493; opposes a repeal of the Bankrupt Law, 79; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 117; on the Georgia militia claims, 125; appointed to impeach Judge Chase at the bar of the Senate, 174; opens the argument for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 229; on the appointment of an agent to collect information on the Louisiana lead mines, 287; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 306; contingent expenses, 388; on laying a tax on imported slaves, 389, 390; on the payment of witnesses on the trial of Chase, 412; on importations from Great Britain, 439; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 469; on the importation of slaves, 495, 496, 501; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 525. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

EATON, GENERAL, resolutions of thanks submitted in the Senate to Gen. Eaton and his companions, 371; resolution in the House to present a sword to Gen. Eaton, 380; moved to amend by striking out “sword,” and inserting “medal,” 381; only on extraordinary occasions, that medals are awarded, 381; the case of Preble, 381; nothing can be done which fame has not anticipated, 382; honors should be apportioned to merit, 382; the advantages derived from the services of Gen. Eaton considered, 382; sword is a reward for mere valor; in this case the valor displayed is only a small part of the distinction, 382; what services were rendered, 382; amendment carried, 382; verbal amendments proposed, 382; resolution reported to the House, and referred to a select committee, 333; bill to authorize the settlement of accounts with Gen. Eaton, 482.

_Electoral votes for President_ in 1804--counting of, 167; counting of, 340.

_Electors of President._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

ELMER, EBENEZER, Representative from New Jersey, 86, 285, 377, 493; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 309; on incorporating a church in Georgetown, 408; on importations from Great Britain, 440; on a plurality of offices, 469; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 516; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 541. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

ELLERY, CHRISTOPHER, Senator from Rhode Island, 3, 163. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

ELLICOTT, ANDREW, letter to the Secretary of State, 668.

ELLIOTT, JAMES, Representative from Vermont, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612; remarks on the death of Samuel Adams, 52; on the amendment to the constitution, relative to the election of President, 60; on the resolution to carry the Louisiana treaty into effect, 64; on the bill to authorize the President to take possession of the Louisiana territory, 73; advocates a repeal of the Bankrupt Law, 79; on the inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 89, 93; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 108; on the bill relative to the Louisiana territory, 144; on the Georgia claims, 319; an the reference of the letter of the Postmaster General, 333, 334; on the presentation of a sword to Gen. Eaton, 381; relative to the impressment of seamen, 384; on importations from Great Britain, 440; on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, 505; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517; on securing the privilege of the habeas corpus, 527; on fortifications and gunboats, 632.

ELLIS, CALEB, Representative from New Hampshire, 377, 493.

ELY, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493, 612; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 404, 405, 407; on the importation of slaves, 500.

_Emancipation in the District of Columbia_, resolution on, 313.

_Embargo_, Message from President Jefferson recommending, 640; documents accompanying the Message, 641; resolution relative to offered, 641; House informed that the Senate had passed a bill laying an embargo, 641; action of the House on the bill, 641; bill passed, 641; act laying an embargo, 642; bill to authorize the President, under certain contingencies, to suspend the embargo, considered, 677; the Orders of Council by Great Britain, and the decrees of France, the causes of the embargo, 677; if removed, the embargo should be withdrawn, 677; possible they may be modified or changed before another session, 677; let the public see we have done every thing to relieve them from the distress of measures rendered necessary by the conduct of other nations, 677; no argument urged against delegating the exercise of special powers, 678; distinction between the authority to suspend a law in operation, and one not commenced, 677; this delegation of power examined, 677; power to lay an embargo considered, 679; our Government, by its conduct, the author of the cause of the embargo, 680; author of the resolution laying the embargo, 680; rejection of the treaty of December, 1806, 681; circumstances of the two treaties and their provisions, 681; the subject of blockades, 683; the question of impressment, 683; objectionable condition of the treaty, 684; assertions respecting the Administration, 685; either treaty is preferable to the present state of affairs, 686; raise the embargo and arm our vessels, 686; objections to an embargo, 686; fraught with impolicy, 687; impressment the main block in the way of negotiation, 687; arming of our merchant vessels produces war, 688; subject of the treaty, 688; constitutionality of the embargo, 689; the embargo considered, 690; its immediate repeal only will save from great distress, 691; the resolution considered, 691; our fisheries, 692; object of the embargo, 692; the resolution is pernicious, 693; object of the embargo to make an impression on Europe, and the resolution, tells them we are already tired of it, 693; foreign nations will see we are determined the embargo shall never be repealed until they revoke their decrees and orders in council, 693; further debate, 694; the discretion to the President should be absolute, but the resolution in pretence only gives it, 695; amendment moved, 695; amendment more objectionable than the original, 696; it limits the discretion of the President to specific circumstances, 696; interpretation of the constitution, 696; expediency of investing the President with this power, 697; some provision relative to the embargo unavoidable, 697, 698; two characteristics of the embargo power, 699; the most enormous power in the manner in which it affects the hopes and interests of the nation, 699; which position of invested power most auspicious to a happy issue, 700; constitutionality of the bill, 700; to give the President power to suspend a law is equal to giving him power to suspend all laws, 701; similar powers have been exercised, 702; other cases stated, 702; question of power examined, 703; constitutional power of the House, 703; history of former embargoes, 704; does the constitution restrain us from giving this power, 704; precedents, 705; the pressure and weight of the embargo should not have influence in deciding this question, 705; pass the bill, and the Executive has it in his power to declare war, 706; amendment lost, 706; moved to amend so as to repeal the embargo, 706; remarks thereon, 706; bill passed, 707.

_Embargo._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1, _Great Britain, retaliating measures upon_.

EPPES, JOHN W., Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 377, 493, 613; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 118; on the postponement of the bill laying a tax on imported slaves, 141; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 306; on importations from Great Britain, 443; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 467; on naval appropriations, 475; on the exclusion of military and naval officers from civil employment, 477; on the suspension of the habeas corpus, 507; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 658; on suspending the act of non-importation, 705; on home manufactures, 710.

EUSTIS, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 286; on the bill authorizing the President to take possession of the Louisiana territory, 75; opposes a repeal of the bankrupt law, 79; in favor of augmentation of the navy, 88; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 115; on the bill relative to the Louisiana territory, 145; on expenses of repairs at Navy Yards, 314; on the Georgia claims, 325, 331. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

EWING, SAMUEL, his testimony for the defence, on the trial of Judge Chase, 217.

_Ex-Bashaw of Tripoli_, report of committee in the Senate on Message relative to, 370.

_Ex-Bashaw of Tunis_, bill for relief of, passed, 484.

_Excise Laws._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Executive Departments._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Expatriation._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Expunging the Journal of the Senate_ ordered, 376; _note_, 376.

F

FENNER, JAMES, Senator from Rhode Island, 345, 487, 551.

FINDLAY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612; on the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 99; on a tax on imported slaves, 132, 140; on the remission of duties on books, 289, 290, 291; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 307; on the Georgia claims, 327; on importations from Great Britain, 438; on suspension of the embargo, 703. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

FISK, JAMES, Representative from Vermont, 377, 493, 612; on laying a duty on imported slaves, 387; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 466; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517; on excluding settlers from the public lands, 545; on fortifications and gunboats, 631; on suspension of the embargo act, 687; on inquiry into the conduct of Judge Innes, 708.

_Flag of the United States._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Florida, purchase of_, motion to refer to a select committee, 353; confidential message from the House, 353; bill relative to, amendment of, 353; third reading of bill in Senate, 354; motion to postpone, 354; amendments offered, 354; passage of the bill in the Senate, 355; _note_, 355.

_Foreign Ministers_, in Senate, bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges and immunities of, considered, 364; two points of view to be considered, 364; one, as the provisions of the bill relate to the law of nations--the other, as they regard the Constitution of the United States, 364; privileges under the law of nations, 364; no citizen of a republic enjoys such a privilege, 364; writers have assigned various reasons for this phenomenon in politics and morals, 364; this arises from the nature of their office and duties, 365; experience shows the necessity of erecting some barrier against the abuse of these privileges, 365; the provisions of the bill considered in detail, 366; treatment in case of heinous offences, 366; do. of offences against the Government, 366; relations which the bill bears to the Constitution of the United States, 366; circumstances in which the bill originated described, 367; by the passage of the bill we may prevent the spread of an evil which threatens the dearest interests of the nation, 368; bill ordered to third reading, 369; various amendments proposed and carried, 369; bill lost, 369.

FOWLER, JOHN, Representative from Kentucky, 50, 383, 497. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_France, relations with_, during John Adams’ Administration. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Franking Privilege._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2, _Post Office bill_.

FRANKLIN, JESSE, Senator from North Carolina, 3, 163, 547; elected President pro tem. of Senate, 44. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

FRANKLIN, MESHACK, Representative from North Carolina, 613.

_Freedom of conscience._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_French Refugees._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_French Spoliations bill_, relative to, 380.

_French Spoliations._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Frontiers, protection of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Fugitives from Justice._--_See_ _Index_, vol 1.

G

GAILLARD, JOHN, Senator from South Carolina, 167; _note_, 167, 345, 485, 550.

_Galliopolis_, petition of the inhabitants of, 353.

GAMBLE, ROBERT, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 224.

GANNT, Rev. Dr., Chaplain of Senate, 4, 348. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

GARDENIER, BARENT, Representative from New York, 612; on building gunboats, 627; on fortifications and gunboats, 629; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 645.

GARDNER, FRANCIS, Representative from New Hampshire, 612.

GARNETT, JAMES M., Representative from Virginia, 377, 493, 613.

_General welfare clause examined._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Georgia_, vote for President, 168.

_Georgia Land Claim._--Resolutions in the House relative thereto offered, 142; referred, 142; bill relative to considered, 148; desirable to take the sense of the committee in the first instance on the resolutions, 148; not our duty to give an opinion, whether the Legislature of Georgia acted wickedly or uprightly, 149; no opinion required from us, 149; the committee should have stated whether the facts in the resolutions are erroneous or not, 149; certain of the claims are not recognized, either by the State or the United States--let gentlemen prove it if they can, 149; no pledge has been given, or it can be proved, 149; the recognition of these claims is equally a violation of the rights of the State of Georgia, with a rejection of them, 150; the resolutions examined in detail, 150; further statement of facts, 151; moved to postpone the resolutions to the next session, 153; the principles of the resolutions are not abstract, 153; when we are called to compromise claims, can we not determine whether they are founded in justice or not? 153; it is necessary to determine the validity of the act of 1795, in order to decide the justice of compromising claims under it, 152; point upon which the decision must turn, 153; comparison of the facts with the resolutions, 153; evident the claims under the acts of Georgia have no validity, 154; a stain on our character to grant compensation for their pretended losses to any of those adventurers who made the spurious contract with Georgia in the year 1795, for the purchase of her western territory, 154; sources of information that led to this conclusion, 155; the Yazoo contract, how obtained, 155; reception of the law of 1795 by the people of Georgia, 155; vote on the postponement of the resolutions taken separately, 156; carried on final vote, 157; _note_, 157; report of committee for appointment of commissioners considered, 315; report confined to statement of facts, 316; is a summary of all, 316; report considered in the House, 316; amendment proposed limiting the resolution to a particular class of claims, 316; claim of the New England Mississippi Land Company, whom it is proposed to debar from any benefit of the five million acres, reserved in the compact with Georgia to satisfy any claims not specially provided for in that contract, 317; case of the Connecticut Reserve, 318; further objections to the measure, 319; _note_, 319; various questions proposed and examined, 320; did the State of Georgia in 1795 possess a title to the territory in question? 320; were the Legislature of Georgia in 1795 invested with power to sell the territory, &c.? 320; can a legislature rescind a contract made by its predecessors? 321; can the judicial power declare a legislative act void, as having been passed by means of corruption? 321; were the claims of the present claimants recognized by the act of cession, &c.? 321; the equity of the claims, and the policy of compromise, 322; the acts of fraud, 323; the four land companies, 323; wrong sufficient to invalidate the contract, 323; present applicants innocent holders, 323; the question is, whether we are to do a good or an injury to a class of men denounced as a band of speculators, 324; effects of the amendment proposed, 324; had the claimants, at the time of their purchase, or not, a knowledge of the fraud? 326; the arguments urged are not intended to influence the judgment of the House, but to control the public mind by an avowed appeal to the people, 326; silence and concert of unprincipled men, 326; Message of the President in February, 1795, considered, 327; title of Georgia doubtful, 327; lands sold by Georgians to citizens of Massachusetts, at Boston, 327; the bargain and sale fair and legal, 328; amount of land sold, 328; the law of Congress taking possession of the government of the territory, 328; conditions on which Georgia surrendered her right of soil, 329; question of title given up, question turns on expediency, 329; equitable considerations urged, 329; observations on the various objections urged, 330; manner of selling the land in the Eastern States, 331; story of the distressed female applying to the Magdalen Hospital, 332.

Present claimants no right in law or equity to the lands in question, and policy does not demand the interference of the national Legislature, 336; Matthew Lyon explains his share in the contracts, 336; _note_, 337; how could Georgia have a pre-emption title to the lands while the Indian title still existed? 337; notoriety of the fraud is evidence that the present claimants are not innocent purchasers, 337; resolution agreed to, 337; _note_, 338.

_Georgia Limits_, in House, report on memorial of the Legislature of Georgia, 403; report deferred, 404.

_Militia Claims._--Report of the committee, in the House, on claims against a petition for pay as militiamen, called out in the State of Georgia for protection of that State against the Indians, considered, 125; they were called out under the authority of the Government of the United States, which is bound to compensate them, 125; petitioners must look for compensation to the State of Georgia, which has agreed to receive a certain sum in full of all demands for military service, 125; _note_, 125; interpretation of the articles of cession, 125; statement of facts, 126; committee assume the principle that the State was bound in the first instance to pay the soldiery, notwithstanding the ulterior responsibility of the General Government, 126; reasoning to sustain this principle examined, 126; the troops were called out in all cases by the State Executives, on instructions from the General Government, 126; two modes marked out in the constitution in which the militia may be called into service, 127; when a service is performed, the party for whom it is performed is the only one responsible for the compensation, 127; a distinction taken between the situation of troops called into the field by order of General Government, and those called by State Executives on the authority of the former, 127; this proves nothing in the present case, 127; has the right of peace and war been yielded to the General Government, and yet the States bound to compensate for war services, 128; the simple question considered by the committee was, whether compensation had or had not been rendered for those services, 128; this depended upon the decision of another question, whether the State of Georgia was in the first instance liable for these claims, 128; two ways by which the militia of a State may be called out by the Executive of the United States, 128; what are the facts in this case? 128; what is the nature of the compromise made in the case, 128.

_German Language, laws in._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

GILES, WILLIAM B., Senator from Virginia, 163, 552; reports the bill for the Government of the Territory of Orleans, 166; on the order of proceedings in the case of John Smith, 554; on expelling Senator John Smith, 589. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

GILLESPIE, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 78, 285; decease of, 312. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

GILMAN, NICHOLAS, Senator from New Hampshire, 345, 485, 547. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

GODDARD, CALVIN, Representative from Connecticut, 50, 286; on the call upon the President for documents showing the title to Louisiana, 55; on the resolution relative to public roads, 84; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 291. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

GOLDSBOROUGH, CHARLES, Representative from Maryland, 377, 493, 612; on a Naval Peace Establishment, 402.

GOOCH, PHILIP, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 224.

GOODRICH, CHAUNCEY, Senator from Connecticut, 551. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

GOODWYN, PETERSON, Representative from Virginia, 50, 288, 377, 493, 613.

GOVANE, WILLIAM S., his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 328.

_Granger Gideon, Postmaster-General_, letter to the House, 332; considered, 333; a second letter stating his interest in the Georgia grants, 333; motion to refer to a select committee, 333; an affair of honor between two gentlemen and Congress has nothing to do with it, 333; Congress has no power to remove the Postmaster-General, if the charges were true, 333; nothing more reasonable than to grant the reference, 333; the letter couched in such language the House should not listen to it, 334; too late in the session for this business, 334; nothing disrespectful in the letter, 335; if the charges are true, the President is the proper person to apply to for removal of the officer--subject postponed, 336.

GRAY, EDWIN, Representative from Virginia, 50, 288, 379, 497, 613.

_Great Britain_, retaliatory measures upon in Washington’s Administration. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

GREEN, ISAIAH L., Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493, 612.

GREGG, ANDREW, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 377, 494; on the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 91; on a tax on imported slaves, 137, 141; on the bill relative to the Louisiana Territory, 144, 145; on the bill to bridge the Potomac, 290; on the Georgia claims, 329; on the reference of the letter of the Postmaster-General, 334; on the Yazoo claims, 379; submits a bill relative to a Naval Peace Establishment, 385; on discharging the committee from consideration of invasion of neutral rights, 394; introduces resolutions of non-intercourse, 395; on a Naval Peace Establishment, 402; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 404, 405; on the amendment of the constitution relative to the removal of Federal Judges, 415; on importations from Great Britain, 419; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 472; on the exclusion of military and naval officers from civil employment, 476; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517; on excluding settlers from the public lands, 543; Senator from Pennsylvania, 547. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

GRIFFIN, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 114.

GRISWOLD, GEORGE, Representative from New York, 50, 285.

GRISWOLD, ROGER, Representative from Connecticut, 50, 286; on the motion to call on the President for documents relative to the acquisition of Louisiana, 54; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 58; against the resolution to carry the Louisiana Treaty into effect, 61; remarks on the bill authorizing the President to take possession of the Louisiana Territory, 73, 75; on the resolution relative to public roads, 83; in favor of augmentation of the Navy, 88; on the motion to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 90, 92, 104; on the postponement of the bill to tax imported slaves, 141; on protection against the Barbary Powers, 159; on the remission of duties on books, 289; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 292; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 307. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Gunboats._--Report of the committee, in the House, on fortifying harbors considered, 516; question on filling the blank with $250,000 for building fifty gunboats, 516; better appropriate the money to solid and durable fortifications, 516; a sufficient number already, 516; the system of gunboats a matter of experiment, 516; if the experiment succeeds, then let us vote liberally, 516; the House has already refused to man the gunboats now built, 516; when the necessity arises the boats can be built, 517; more information desired on the subject, 517; experience has proved them to be useful, as in the late war with Tripoli, 517; the expense, as compared with that of frigates, 517; advantages and disadvantages, 518; number already on hand, 518; postponed, 518.

In House, the bill from the Senate, for building gunboats and the bill for fortifying harbors from committee on aggressions, considered, 625; moved to reduce the number of gunboats to be built from one hundred eighty-four to one hundred, 625; gunboats could not have prevented any one of the aggressions of which we complain, 625; could only act in harbor defence, 625; some frigates should be provided, 625; other means of defence can be provided in other bills, 625; a sufficient number should be built, or the money would be thrown away, 625; a frigate costs more than gunboats with same number of guns, 625; gunboats not a mere experiment, 625; without the boats the squadron would not have been competent to attack Tripoli, 626; these boats crossed the Atlantic, 626; of 60 or 70 tons burden, 626; duty of the House to provide effectual protection, 626; fortifications and gunboats regarded by the committee as the best system, 626; and such a number of boats, they say, are wanting, 626; if the object is to protect the country, this bill should pass, 626; if ships or frigates will add to the protection, they can be voted when the subject comes up, 626; these boats eminently and essentially useful as a species of defence, 626; expense of a frigate and gunboats compared, 626; shall a certain sum of money be appropriated for the defence of ports and harbors? 626; never should be said that we ought to defend ourselves beyond our own shores, 626; the information obtained from the Executive was in favor of gunboats, 627; when the number necessary is known, the money should be appropriated, 627; the situation of the country in relation to Great Britain should be considered, 627; no objection to vote for gunboats if land batteries will be sufficiently provided for, 627; a visionary scheme to evade the real object of defence, and to introduce false notions of economy, 627; intention of the committee to erect new works and repair old, 628; after such a proposition as this, no one which could be made would be surprising, 628; the great object was to arm the nation to meet an event which they would be called on before long to meet, 628; question now on one species of this arming, 628; gunboats in connection with fortifications cannot obtain the end proposed, 628; these boats cannot be used in certain ports to which they are assigned, 628; reasons, 628; moved to strike out sixty-four gunboats and substitute four frigates, 628; question on striking out, 629; difference of opinion on the subject of gunboats, 629; bill accords with the sentiments of the Northern States, 629; if the motion prevails, a million dollars more will be required, 629; United States have not means to build a fleet, 629; time for a naval establishment has passed, 630; not in our power to provide as respectable a fleet as Denmark, 630; let us then apply our limited means to a mode of defence on which more reliance can be placed, 630; put the harbors in such a state of defence we shall not feel the want of a Navy, 630; gunboats a part of land defence, 630; British not dared to attack a single French port, 630; other modes of defence should be taken into account at the same time, 631; it would be a proper measure now to increase the Navy, to prevent aggression from a foreign power, 631; no danger can arise to the liberties of the people from an increase of the Navy, 631; had more tons of shipping afloat and more largely concerned in the freedom of the seas than any nation on earth save one, and shall they lie unconcerned while the dearest rights of nations are destroyed by that one? 631; this measure is beyond our means, and is not a measure of exigency, 631; what became of the Navy of Denmark? and what will be the fate of ours, 632; it has been charged that the formidable Navy raised by the former Administration has been sold off by this, and the nation left without defence, 632; amendment negatived, 632; presents one of those great crises that rarely occur in the annals of a nation, 632; a crisis of awful moment, 632; principal unavowed argument in favor of the present measure is the supposed predilection of the Executive, 633; a new volume of the celebrated proclamation and gunboat system, 633; subject of messages, 633; opinions of naval officers annexed, 634; every argument is answered by saying it is a popular system, 634; with whom is it popular? 634; the whole seaboard interested in this question, 634; utility of gunboats examined, 635; objections to the bill considered, 635; reasons for the measure, 636; origin of gunboats, 636; a period has arrived when this nation must receive a satisfaction for injuries inflicted, and security for the future, or the sword must be drawn, 637; negotiations, 637; course of the Administration, 637; evidence of the utility of gunboats, 637; until gentlemen on the seacoast could better agree on the number and utility of gunboats, so large a number should not be built, 638; how are the boats to be manned, 638; attempt to persuade the public that the friends of this measure are about to drain the Treasury for a useless measure of defence, 638; does the present state of our foreign relations require effective measures, 638; will the nation consent to expose to an enemy the whole extent of our seacoast, without an effort to repel him until he is landed? 639; what are the means in our power best calculated for defence? 639; either gunboats or ships, 639; opinion of naval men that gunboats may be useful, but they should not supersede all other means of defence, 639; instead of a comprehensive system, measures are laid before us by piecemeal, 640; objections to the measure, 640; bill passed, 640.

H

_Habeas Corpus, suspension of the writ of._--In the Senate, committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of suspending, 490; bill reported, 490; bill passed, 490; confidential Message to the House, 490.

In House, on the question that proceedings on the bill be had with open doors, 504; carried, 504; moved to reject the bill, 504; do. withdrawn, 504; _note_, 504; information in President’s Message, 504; existing laws sufficient, 504; its suspension would hold out an improper idea of danger and alarm, 505; danger nearly over, 505; this step never resorted to before, 505; no apology for suspending this writ, 505; a dangerous precedent, 505; most extraordinary proposition ever presented to our consideration, 506; constitution forbids it only in the case of self-preservation, 506; proposition is to invest unlimited power in the supreme Executive, over the personal liberty of the citizens, 506; nature and character of the writ, 506; bill objectionable also in its details, 506; what evidence of the necessity of this measure? 507; condition of the leader, 507; called by this bill to exercise one of the most important powers vested in Congress, 507; words of the constitution, 507; does the public safety require its suspension? 507; this point examined, 508; constitution does not restrict the power of the Government to such extreme cases, 508; a rebellion exists, 508; a conspiracy has been formed with deliberation, and existed a long time, 508; the country is in a state of insecurity, 508; no insurrection ever occurred like this, 508; the conspiracy considered, 509; nature of this writ, 509; its effects on the individual and on the community at large, 509; no insurrection to be compared in magnitude to this, 510; a subject sanctioned by the Senate, and worthy of discussion and reference, 510; satisfactory proof of a rebellion should be obtained, 510; no doubt of its existence, 510; this not sufficient to justify this measure, 510; it can be necessary only for the detection and conviction of offenders, 510; once suspended in Massachusetts, and regarded as useful, 511; House competent to reject the bill on its first reading, 511; an improper measure coming from the Senate should be viewed with jealousy, 511; an oblique attempt to cover a certain departure from an established law of the land, and a certain violation of the constitution, 512; the case at issue is, whether the military government is subject to the civil power, or the civil authority to the military, 512; it is merely a foreign intrigue, 512; if this bill passes it establishes a new era in the Government, 513; a nation is never enslaved at once, 513; the details of the bill, 514; shall we exercise the only power with which we are clothed, to repeal an important part of the constitution? 514; example of England, 514; does the necessity exist? 514; in the opinion of the President no danger is to be apprehended, 514; this bill operates as an _ex post facto_ law, 515; bill rejected, 515.

_Resolution, in House, to make farther provision for securing_ the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus considered, 520; _note_, 520; necessity and importance of the provision contemplated, 520; provision of the constitution, its intention, 520; arguments in support of the motion, 520; proceedings at New Orleans, 521; doubtful if a change in the law is material, 522; acts of Congress determine the manner in which this writ shall be enforced, 522; these acts considered, 522; events at New Orleans prove the necessity of preserving the military subordinate to the civil authority, 523; the officer at New Orleans has done an illegal act, at the risk of his whole fortune in damages, 524; let the law take its course, 524; he has violated the personal right of the citizen, 524; what are the facts? 524; importance of the writ, and questions arising under it, make the reference proper, 525; the motion and the speech accompanying it have a suspicious aspect on certain judicial procedures depending now within these walls, 525; would they ward off punishment from traitors by condemning the acts which produced their arrest? 525; this expression by Congress will be an obstacle to the recovery of damages against the Commander-in-chief, 525; where is the proof that the provisions now in force are not sufficient for the security of the person? 526; source of this opposition to the motion a matter of astonishment, 526; information comes from the President, 526; in defiance of the constitution persons have been seized by the military authority, 526; is there probable cause of arrest in the case of Alexander? 527; are there no circumstances to justify Wilkinson? 527; two points in which the subject has been examined, 528; the opinion is nearly unanimous that the legal provisions now contemplated ought to be made, 528; the United States as such do not possess any code of common law, 528; not improper at the present time, 528; sections of the constitution violated, 528; Wilkinson’s return to the writ of habeas corpus, 529; a return of disobedience to the civil institutions, 529; various objections to the motion answered, 529, 530; what has occasioned this measure to be brought before the House at this time, 531; violation of the constitution charged upon Wilkinson, examined, 531; not proved that there are not provisions by existing laws to enforce obedience to the writ, 532; these laws exist in every State and Territory, 532; Wilkinson only in contempt for disobedience of the writ, 533; the courts have power to punish contempt, 533; the laws are ample, 533; questions depending on which this proposition is calculated to operate, 533; is a flagrant violation of the constitution to be remedied by an action of damages, 533; conspiracy to separate Kentucky from the Union, 533; _note_, 533; quarter from whence this motion comes, 534; the constitution merely secures the writ, no penalty is attached to its violation, hence the necessity for further provision, 534.

The motion embraces two objects--to provide additional penalties for the security of the privilege of the habeas corpus, and to define the powers of the Supreme Court as to issuing writs of habeas corpus, 535; is it necessary to pass such a law as this? 535; if a constitutional right has been infringed, does it follow that Congress ought to legislate on the occasion? 535; Wilkinson’s transaction was not a disobedience to this writ of habeas corpus, 536; an instance of disobedience stated, 536; example quoted from English history, 537; the seizure of Ballman a violation of personal rights, and of the constitution, 537; have the people the privilege of this writ secured to them as fully and effectually as the constitution intended, and as wise and prudent men ought to desire? 537; the security shown to be at least uncertain, 538; principle of the celebrated statute of Charles, 538; dilemma to which the opponents are reduced, 538; proceeding of the Supreme Court, 539; objected that the subject cannot be matured this session, 539; this whole business one of the most unfortunate kind that could have happened to the United States, 539; further arguments in favor, 539; points showing the necessity of a reference, 540; was it discreet to refer the resolution when it was manifest they could not go through with the business, 541; this very transaction would be beneficial to the country in showing the strength of feeling for the Union, 541; English history of this writ, 541; indefinitely postponed, 542.

HALSEY, SILAS, Representative from New York, 377, 493.

HAMILTON’S, ALEXANDER, _Report as Secretary of the Treasury._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1, _Treasury_.

HAMILTON, ARCHIBALD, his testimony for the defence on trial of Judge Chase, 226.

HAMILTON, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 381, 493.

HAMMOND, SAMUEL, Representative from Georgia, 79.

HAMPTON, WADE, Representative from South Carolina, 51. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

HANNA, JOHN A., Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 286. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Harmony, in Indiana, Society of._--In House, bill to authorize George Rapp and others to locate lands in Indiana on certain terms, 404; the associates amounting to about three thousand persons fled from oppression in Wirtemberg, 404; proposed to cultivate the vine chiefly, 404; indulgence of time for payment not unusual, 404; have citizens enough of our own who would be glad to purchase on such terms, 404; no objection if they are foreigners, 405; unusual mode of proceeding, 405; have men that can cultivate the vine as well as foreigners, 405; further debate, 405; bill passed to third reading, 405; recommitment moved, 406; contract between Virginia and the United States relative to these lands, as trustees we cannot violate the trust, 406; let these settlers be scattered over the Union, that all portions may be benefited by them, 407; donations of land usual, 407; bill amended by inserting a rate of interest, 408; bill rejected, 408.

HARPER, ----, opens for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 215; closes the argument for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 258; against the adoption of the report of the committee in the case of John Smith, 562.

HARRIS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 612.

HARRISON, WILLIAM HENRY, letter of, conveying resolutions of the Legislative Council of Indiana, relative to the suspension of the ordinance of 1787, 503. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HASBROUCK, JOSIAH, Representative from New York, 50, 285.

HASTINGS, SETH, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 384, 493; advocates a repeal of the Bankrupt Law, 79; on the importation of slaves, 401. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HAY, GEORGE, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 204.

HAZEN, GEN. MOSES, bill for the relief of the widow of, 166; passage of the bill for the relief of the heirs of, 302; supplementary bill for relief of heirs of, 383.

HEATH, JOHN, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 210.

HEISTER, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania 50, 285, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HEISTER, DANIEL, Representative from Maryland, 51. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HELMS, WILLIAM, Representative from New Jersey, 125, 287, 380, 497, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HILLHOUSE, JAMES, Senator from Connecticut, 3, 164, 345, 487, 550; urges reference to select committees of resolution, relative to amendment of the constitution, 7; on amendments to the constitution, 22; on choice of Vice President, 24, on suspending intercourse with St. Domingo, 351; on expelling Senator John Smith, 584; proposes sundry amendments to the constitution, 607. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

HOGE, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 613. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HOLLAND, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 285, 378, 493, 614; on postponing the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 94; on the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 110; on the government of Louisiana, 147; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 405; on the importation of slaves, 501; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 532; on suspension of the embargo, 703. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HOLMES, DAVID, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 377, 493, 613. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Home Manufactures in House._--Resolution that the members appear at the next meeting clothed in the manufactures of their own country, considered, 710; could not enforce the resolution, 710; will appear in what clothing they choose, notwithstanding the resolution, 710; intended to express the feelings of the House, 710; a million of men wear broadcloth coats--a great saving if manufactured in this country, 710; unfair that those who have no wives at home to make their coats should not only be reproached for their misfortune, but pointed at as sinners, 710; resolution withdrawn, 710.

HOPKINSON, ----, opens the argument for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 236.

HOUGH, DAVID, Representative from New Hampshire, 50, 285, 377, 493.

HOUSE, meets on 1st session of Eighth Congress, 50; adjourns at the close of first session of Eighth Congress, 162; replication of, to the answer of Samuel Chase to the articles of impeachment, 191.

HOWARD, BENJAMIN, Representative from Kentucky, 613.

HOWLAND, BENJAMIN, Senator from Rhode Island, 165, 485, 547.

HUGER, BENJAMIN, Representative from South Carolina, 51, 301; in favor of augmentation of the Navy, 88; on postponing the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 94; on a tax on imported slaves, 135, 138, 140; on the bill relative to the Louisiana Territory, 144; on the increase of specific duties, 158; against considering the resolution for the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 161. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

HUMPHREY, REUBEN, Representative from New York, 612.

HUNT, MEMUCAN, petition of, 82.

HUNT, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 50, 286. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

I

_Impeachment._--Rules of proceeding adopted by the Senate, on the impeachment of Judge Chase, 175; list of witnesses on the, 191, 192.

_Importation of Slaves._--Petition of citizens of South Carolina praying for relief for vessels that had sailed previous to the passage of the act, 642; motion of reference negatived, 642.

_Importation of Slaves_, resolutions of the Massachusetts Legislature relative to, presented, 342.

_Importation of Slaves_, resolutions of Legislature of Maryland relative to, 374.

_Importation of Slaves_, tax on. _See_ _Duties on Imports_; also, _Index_, vol. 1; prohibition of, _see_ _Slaves_.

_Imports._--_See_ _Duties on Imports._

_Imprisonment for Debt._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Indemnity for Spoliations._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1; _Great Britain_.

_Indian Lands within a State, rights over._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Indian Trading Houses._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Indian Territory_, petitions relative to, referred, 383; report of Committee on petition to admit Slavery in, 406.

INNES, JUDGE HARRY.--_In the House_, report on resolution to inquire into the conduct of, considered, 707; no sufficient grounds for impeachment appeared to the Committee--they disposed to pursue the inquiry if other testimony could be had, 707; commitment cause delay, 707; nothing gained by recommitment, 708; bound to act on the subject this session, 708; moved to postpone, 708; evidence reviewed, 708.

J

Jackson, Andrew, petition of relative to army uniforms, 167. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

JACKSON JAMES, Senator from Georgia, 6, 165, 348; urges immediate action on resolution relative to amendments of the constitution, 7; in favor of issuing stock for the purchase of Louisiana, 11; against temporary removal of Seat of Government, 45; on removal of Seat of Government, 47; further remarks, 47; on suspending intercourse with St. Domingo, 349, 350; decease of, 372; resolutions in House relative to the decease of, 465; _note_, 465. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

JACKSON, JOHN GEORGE, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 377; opposes a repeal of the Bankrupt Law, 79; on the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 103; on the government of Louisiana, 147; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 294; on the Georgia claims, 326; on the presentation of a sword to Gen. Eaton, 382; on discharging the committee from the farther consideration of mutual rights, 393, 394; on importation of slaves, 401; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 405, 406; on the payment of witnesses on the trial of Chase, 410; on importations from Great Britain, 455; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 527. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Jails of States._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

JAY, SIR JAMES, report on petition of, 620; compensation asked for a secret mode of communication useful in the Revolutionary War, and may be again, 620; absurd to vote money for a thing they did not and could not understand, 620; other objections, 620; resolution to purchase for the public benefit carried, 620.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Message at 1st session Eighth Congress, 5; 2d session, Eighth Congress, 164; elected President for a second term, 168; inaugural address on his second inauguration as President, 170; _note_, 170, do. 171; the operation of the Government during his first term--_note_, 344. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

JENKINS, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 612.

JOHNSON, RICHARD M., Representative from Kentucky, 613; on fortifications and gunboats, 637; on inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 646.

JONES, WALTER, Representative from Virginia, 50, 286, 379, 493, 613. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

JONES, GEORGE, Senator from Georgia, 547.

_Judges’ Federal_, _resolutions_ relative to the removal of, 341, 553.

_Judiciary System._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

K

KEENAN, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 378, 493, 613.

KELLY, JAMES, Representative from Pennsylvania, 378, 493, 612; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 469.

KENNEDY, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 285.

_Kentucky_, vote for President, 168.

KEY, PHILIP, continues the argument for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 244; opens for the defence in the case of John Smith, 555; against the adoption of the report of the committee in the case of John Smith, 556. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

KEY, PHILIP B., Representative from Maryland, 613; on fortifications and gunboats, 636; on suspension of the Embargo Act, 691, 700.

KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 612.

KITCHEL, AARON, Senator from New Jersey, 345, 485, 547; on British aggressions on our commerce, 359. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1 and 2.

KNIGHT, NEHEMIAH, Representative from Rhode Island, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612.

L

_Lake Superior_ copper lands. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

LAMBERT, JOHN, Representative from New Jersey, 377, 493, 612.

LANDAIS, CAPT. PETER, bill for the relief of, 370, 418.

_Land Warrants_, remarks relative to frauds in, 676.

_Lands, Western._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1, _Public Lands_.

LARNED, SIMON, Representative from Massachusetts, 285.

LATTIMORE, WILLIAM, Delegate from Mississippi Territory, 51, 285, 378, 493.

LEA, JAMES, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 212.

LE CLERC, proclamation of, 361.

LEE, EDMUND J., his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 224; further continues the argument for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 248.

LEIB, MICHAEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377; on the amendment of the resolution of inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 97, 98; on a naval peace establishment, 143; on the bill relative to the Louisiana Territory, 144; on a naval peace establishment, 402; on importations from Great Britain, 459; on naval appropriations, 474. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

LEWIS & CLARKE, Expedition, Message of President on, 360; bill making compensation to, 519, 542.

LEWIS, JOSEPH, jr., Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 377, 493, 613; against considering the resolution for the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 161; on the bill to bridge the Potomac, 290, 298, 300; on a bridge across the Potomac, 397.

LEWIS, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 50; election contested, 85.

LEWIS, WILLIAM, his testimony on the impeachment of Judge Chase before the Senate, 198.

_Library of Congress._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Light-House Duties_ considered in the House, 86; foreign nations levy money on our vessels which frequent their ports, for the purpose of supporting their light-houses, 86; every vessel that enters a British port averages four pence sterling the ton for every light she may have passed inwards, or be expected to pass outward, 86; charges at the port of London, 87; other English ports, 87; expense of American lights defrayed entirely out of the Treasury, 87; light-house duty moved, 87. _See_ _page_ 158, vol. 3.

_Limitation_, Acts of. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

LIVERMORE, EDWARD ST. LOE, Representative from Massachusetts, 628.

LIVINGSTON, HENRY W., Representative from New York, 50, 285, 379, 493.

LLOYD, EDWARD, Representative from Maryland, 494, 613; on the importation of slaves, 501; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 518.

LOGAN, GEORGE, Senator from Pennsylvania, 3, 163, 345, 485; presents memorial of the American convention for promoting the abolition of Slavery, 41; gives notice of a bill to prohibit the clearance of vessels to St. Domingo, 168; on suspending intercourse with St. Domingo, 349. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Louisiana_, boundaries of, 8; bill to authorize President to take possession as passed, 9; _note_, 9; message relative to transfer of, 40; erection of into two Territories, bill for reported in the Senate, 39; further considered, 40, 41, 42, 43.

_Louisiana Treaty_, bill in the Senate to authorize the creation of eleven millions of stock for the purpose of carrying into effect the treaty with France, 9; question--shall the bill pass, 9; three months after the delivery of notifications to pay this money--where then is the necessity for haste, 9; time enough when we find ourselves in possession of the territory, 9; Spain considers herself injured, and may not agree to the cession, even if she cannot prevent it, 9; she considers that France violated the contract with her, and therefore she is absolved, 9; if the money is to be paid on the responsibility of the President, why put that responsibility upon him, and cast it off from ourselves, 10; why make him sole judge of the safe delivery, 10; doubtful if the French prefect can peaceably give possession, 10; his Spanish Majesty is hostile to it, and will the Spaniards acquiesce? 10; important that we should have New Orleans, but as to Louisiana, this new, immense, unbounded world, it cannot be incorporated into the Union without an alteration of the constitution, and will be the greatest curse that could befall us, 10; if we own the province it would be settled by people who would otherwise settle our present territory--thus removed an immense distance, they will scarcely ever feel the rays of the General Government, their affections become alienated, they will view us as strangers, and form distinct interests, 10; have territory enough, 10; dangers of its possession to us, 11; two acts necessary to be performed to carry the present treaty into effect, 11; the French are to deliver possession, and we to pay the money, 11; who shall judge if the French faithfully comply with this agreement, 11; the bill authorizes the President to receive the territory, but why delegate this power to him? 11; Congress will be in session at the time of the cession, if the French faithfully perform, then will be the time to vote the money, 11; grounds to apprehend that the French Government has not capacity to convey, 11; is not the Spanish King’s proclamation and his orders to his officers to deliver to France a title? 11; the question of consideration in the treaty of St. Ildefonso is settled in the ninth article, 12; Spain will not venture a war with the United States, 12; is this a Legislative or Executive business? 12; certainly the latter, and authority should be vested in the President, 12; the possession of the ceded territory is a condition precedent to the payment of money, 12; none of the stock authorized by this bill can be transferred until possession is given, 12; this possession is defined in the bill, 12; the treaty violates the constitution, and cannot be binding, 13; the President and Senate are not competent to incorporate the inhabitants of Louisiana as citizens of the United States, 13; assent of each State necessary for the admission of a foreign country as an associate in the Union, 13; the consent of each member in a commercial house is necessary to admit a new member, 13; points of the title considered, 13; two objections have been made to the treaty--first, the United States cannot constitutionally acquire territory; second, the treaty stipulates for the admission of a new State into the Union, a stipulation which the treaty-making power cannot comply with, 14; these objections answered, 14; before the Confederation, each State, as sovereign, possessed the right to acquire territory--this is still retained, or has been surrendered to the General Government, 14; the stipulation does not mean that the inhabitants shall be erected into a State, 15.

This bill is designed to carry into effect the treaty between France and the United States, 16; if the treaty is unconstitutional we are not bound to carry it into effect, 16; constitutionality of the treaty examined, 16; if the extent and nature of the treaty-making power is undefined, there are modes of ascertaining it, 16; these modes considered, 16; out of order to re-discuss the merits of the treaty on the passage of this bill, 16; none deny that it is incumbent upon the United States to secure the uninterrupted use of the Mississippi, 17; reasons for voting against the treaty examined, 17; objection to making provision for carrying the treaty into effect arising from the doubtfulness of obtaining complete possession, considered, 18; constitutionality of the treaty examined, 18; difference of views among the opponents of the bill, 19; bill passed, 20.

_In the House._--Message from the President stating that ratifications had been exchanged, and provision required for carrying out the treaty, 52; motion to call for papers relative to the treaty, 53; important to know distinctly what had been obtained by the treaty, 53; important to know the relations of Spain to Louisiana, 53; the terms of the treaty examined, 54; its stipulations can be fulfilled only by laws, 54; opponents of this treaty have changed the ground they occupied relative to the British Treaty, 54; statement illustrated, 54; the Spanish correspondence should not be called for, as negotiations already pending with that country, 58; there is no evidence that France has an incontestable title, 55; France only cedes the title which she has, 55; the resolution is opposed as inconsistent with former sentiments, as premature, and as unnecessary, 55; if a majority entertained any doubt as to the validity of the title, they should call for papers, 56; resolution not confined to proper objects, 56; it contemplates an inquiry into subjects totally unconnected with the treaty with France, 56; what has Spain to do in this business? 56; the Executive doubtless has the royal order of Spain to her officers to deliver the province to France, 56; the right of the House to call for papers is not doubted, 56; it is improper to embarrass the business in its present stage by a call for papers, 57; first member of the resolution agreed to, 57; second member lost, 57; amended resolution lost, 57.

Motion for carrying the treaty into effect considered, 61; where is to be found the constitutional power to incorporate the inhabitants into the Union, with the privileges of citizens? 61; if the treaty-making power is exceeded, it is a duty not to carry it into effect, 61; the objections resolve themselves into arguments against the constitutionality and against the expediency of the treaty to be carried into effect, 61; the capacity to acquire territory considered, 61; it is denied that this acquisition has been made in a regular way, 62; report made at a previous session, 62; tenor of the present Administration, 63; better to have the ceded territory on any terms than not to have it at all, 63; the French, 64; immense consequence of the treaty, 65; the question must be decided on the law of nations, 66; the expediency of the treaty considered, 66; has any man shown a breach of the constitution? 67; objections to the resolution urged, 67; why let slip this golden opportunity of acquiring New Orleans? 68; we have now an opening for a free trade with New Orleans, 68; objections examined, 68; it abolishes the discriminating duties of tonnage for a term of years within the territory, giving a preference to France and Spain, 68; similarity in principle of the British Treaty, 70; this grant to France and Spain examined, 70; resolutions reported by the committee and adopted, 72.

_Louisiana Cession_, in the Senate, bill to enable the President to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, read second time and referred, 7; read third time and passed, 8; _note_, 8; report of Committee of Conference on the amendments of the House, 9; Senate recede, 9; bill as passed, 9; _note_, 9.

In the House, the bill to enable the President to take possession of Louisiana, from the Senate, considered, 72; although this power necessary, there is no cause for giving to the President the latitude as to time so extensive as that proposed, 72; amendment limiting the time moved, 72; moved to strike out the whole section to which the amendment applies, 73; explanation relative to the powers of the present officers of the province required, 73; such a delegation of power unconstitutional, 73; no objection can exist to the section under the limitation proposed, 73; necessity for the United States to take possession of the territory in the capacity of sovereigns in the same extent as that of the existing government, 73; no one can inform us what the powers proposed to be given are, 74; the powers repugnant to the constitution, 74; the question is whether we shall take immediate possession of this country or wait until we have time to form such a government as will be most likely to make the people happy, 74; does the second section violate the constitution? 74; we have purchased the country and made arrangements to pay, and possession is to be taken, when objection is made to the part of the statute authorizing the President to act, 74; the principle of the bill is sound, if some details are objectionable, 75; this point further debated, 76; motion to strike out lost, 77; bill passed, 77. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Louisiana Territory_, bill to erect and provide for the government of, considered, in the House, 144; objection to giving the Governor a right to prorogue the Legislative Council, 144; also to giving the President power to appoint the Legislative Council, 144; provision should be made for the election of a legislative body by the people, 144; moved that the committee rise, 144; important to proceed with the bill immediately, 144; a small amendment will remedy the section, 145; better to settle the point respecting the Legislative Council, 145; the principle upon which the Council is organized is the subject of consideration, 145; this form of government is a new thing, but these people differ from the citizens of the United States, 145; the approach of such a people to liberty must be gradual, 145; other considerations respecting the bill advanced, 145; moved to strike out the fourth section of the bill, 146; the section establishes a species of government unknown to the United States, 146; we have three descriptions of government--that of the Union, that of the States, and that of the Territories, 146; _note_, 146; these people will expect the same form of government as their neighbors, 147; the simple question is, what kind of government is most fitted to them? 147; one grade or the other of the Territorial government the best, 147; the section presents two important questions, 147; these questions stated and considered, 147; no danger of giving this people too much liberty, 147; a detestable calumny that man is not fitted for freedom, 147; who can conceive the people of Louisiana, having just thrown off their chains, as fitted to make laws? 147; this plan is superior to the first grade of Territorial government, 148; the second grade better than that proposed in the bill, 148; amendment proposed to fifth section, 152; cannot establish courts in the Territory on any other terms than in the States, 152; can be constituted only as courts of the United States, 152; _note_, 152; amendment moved to inhibit the admission of slaves into Louisiana, as well from the United States as from foreign places, 157; agreed to, 157; other amendments proposed and lost, 157; bill read a third time, 157; various motions to recommit lost, 157; bill passed, 158. _See_ _Orleans, bill providing for government of the Territory of_, vol. 3, p. 166.

_Louisiana, commerce of_, paper relative to sent to the House with documents relative to General Wilkinson, 666.

_Louisiana, purchase of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Louisiana Lead Mines._--Resolution to authorize the President to appoint an agent to obtain information relative to the condition, occupancy, and title of, considered, 287; agents already appointed to explore under a general authority of the President, 287; resolution unnecessary, 288; object to inquire into the occupancy and title of the present owners, 288; a temporary measure, 288; might create dissatisfaction among the people, 288; resolution carried, 288.

LOVE, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 613; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 652; on the suspension of the embargo, 678.

LOWNDES, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 286; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 98; on a tax on imported slaves, 129; on postponement of the bill laying a tax on imported slaves, 140. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

LUCAS, JOHN B., Representative from Pennsylvania, 51, 286; on a tax on imported slaves, 136; on the bill relative to the Louisiana Territory, 146; on the appointment of an agent to collect information relative to the Louisiana Lead Mines, 287; on the Georgia claims, 322.

LYON, MATTHEW, Representative from Kentucky, 50, 384, 502, 614; on the Georgia claims, 336; on inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 654. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

M

MACLAY, SAMUEL, Senator from Pennsylvania, 3, 165, 345, 485, 547. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

MACON, NATHANIEL, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 285, 378, 493; chosen Speaker of the House, 51; address, 51; on the resolution relative to public roads, 84; on a tax on imported slaves, 132; on the bill relative to the Louisiana territory, 146; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 297, 298, 301; chosen Speaker first session 9th Congress, 346; returns thanks to the House, 378; on laying a tax on imported slaves, 389; on the payment of witnesses on the trial of Chase, 410; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 405; on importations from Great Britain, 445; on the importation of slaves, 499; makes his acknowledgments as Speaker to the House, 546; on fortifications and gunboats, 638; on inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 646; on home manufactures, 710. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

MAGRUDER, PATRICK, Representative from Maryland, 377, 493; elected Clerk of the House, 613.

_Mail routes proposed_ by Post-office Committee, 85.

_Manhattan Company_, petition of President and Directors, 497.

MARSHALL, JOHN, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 222. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

MARSHALL, WILLIAM, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 219.

MARTIN, LUTHER, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 218; further continues the argument for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 250.

MARION, ROBERT, Representative from South Carolina, 378, 493, 613; on the importation of slaves, 386, 641; on compensating Capt. Pike, 676; on suspending the act of non-importation, 709.

_Maryland_, vote for President, 168.

MASON, JOHN THOMPSON, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 209.

MASON, STEVENS T., resolution of Senate on decease of, 9; _note_, 9.

_Massachusetts_, vote for President, 168.

MASTERS, JOSIAH, Representative from New York, 377, 494, 612; on importations from Great Britain, 434; on building gunboats, 627; on the importation of slaves, 641; on suspension of the embargo act, 686.

MATHEWSON, ELISHA, Senator from Rhode Island, 551.

MCCORD, ANDREW, Representative from New York, 50, 285.

MCCORMICK, Rev. Mr., elected Chaplain of the Senate, 163.

MCCREERY, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 50, 285, 377, 493, 613; on the Society of Harmony, 404, 405.

MCFARLAND, DUNCAN, Representative from North Carolina, 402, 493.

MCMECHIN, WILLIAM, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 228.

MEAD, COWLES, Representative from Georgia, 378.

_Mediterranean trade._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

MEREDITH, WILLIAM, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 217.

MERIWETHER, DANIEL, Representative from Georgia, 51, 285, 378, 493.

_Message_ of President Jefferson at first session of eighth Congress, 4; _note_ on, 4; on the cession of Louisiana to the United States, 6; relative to the capture of an armed ship of the Emperor of Morocco, 20; from President Jefferson to Senate on Tripolitan aggression, 37; relative to the contingent fund, 39; of President Jefferson to Senate relative to taking possession of Louisiana, 40; of President Jefferson relative to the wreck and capture of the frigate Philadelphia, 48; of President Jefferson to the House on the cession of Louisiana, 52; from the Senate to the House, relative to adjournment, 162; from the Senate to the House, announcing the passage of sundry bills, 162; of President Jefferson to second session of eighth Congress, 164; from the President relative to the Tripolitan war, 168; from President Jefferson to first session of ninth Congress, 346; from the President on the ex-Bashaw of Tripoli, 351; on Spanish and French spoliations, 348; from the President on the aggressions on commerce, 353; of the President on Lewis and Clarke’s expedition, 360; from the President on the demand and threat of Tunis, 375; of President Jefferson at second session of ninth Congress, 486; _note_, 487; relative to Burr’s conspiracy, 488, 490, 491; of President Jefferson, calling an extra session of Congress, 547; of President Jefferson to first session of tenth Congress, 548; from the President, recommending an embargo, 551; from the President, relative to the contingent fund, 552; relative to the impressment of seamen, 554; of President Jefferson, recommending an embargo, 640; with documents relative to Gen. Wilkinson, 663.

_Militia, the_, in the House, bill to authorize a detachment from militia of the United States read third time in the House, 392; a bill of no trifling import, 392; to equip a force of one hundred thousand men at an expense of two millions of dollars, 392; what special objects are to be answered by the bill? 392; what effect will it have on the militia systems of the States? 392; only selected, officered, equipped, and ordered to be in readiness, 392; objection on the score of pay considered, 393; other reasons for the passage of the bill, 393; bill passed, 393; the bill more effectually to provide for the national defence by the militia of the United States, considered, 659; sect. one considered, 659; defects in the present law, 659; the system proposed better than the old, 659; subject uniformly recommended by each successive President, 659; also State executives, 659; object to take only those who can best be spared from home, and can be most relied on, 660; leave at home the senior and minor classes as much as possible, 660; three points of attack, and young men enough under twenty-six and over twenty-one to keep up a continual force, 660; what shall be done with the minor class? 660; numbers of each class, as near as can be ascertained from the census, 660; volunteers not to be relied on, 661; mode of officering, 662; reward of services, 662; other particulars stated, 663; _note_, 663.

_Military Academy._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

MILLEDGE, JOHN, Senator from Georgia, 487, 547. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

MILNOR, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 612; on building gunboats, 625.

_Mint, establishment of._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

MIRO, letter of, respecting settlement of Louisiana, 665.

_Mississippi Question_, on free navigation of. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Mississippi Territory_, memorial of House of Representatives of, 85, 315.

MITCHELL, NAHUM, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 285.

MITCHILL, SAMUEL L., Representative from New York, 50, 285; Senator from New York, 165, 345, 485, 547; on the call for papers relative to the Louisiana treaty, 56; advocates the resolution to carry the Louisiana treaty into effect, 68; on the bill authorizing the President to take possession of the Louisiana territory, 74; remarks on the road to Natchez and New Orleans, 78; on light house duties, 86; on a tax on imported slaves, 133; on the appointment of an agent to collect information on the Louisiana lead mines, 287; on suspending intercourse with St. Domingo, 350. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

MONTGOMERY, DANIEL, jr., Representative from Pennsylvania, 612.

MONTGOMERY, JOHN, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 213; representative from Maryland, 613; on compensating Capt. Pike, 676.

MOORE, ANDREW, Representative from Virginia, 50.

MOORE, ANDREW, petition of, 78.

MOORE, ANDREW, Senator from Virginia, 163, 349, 487, 550. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

MOORE, NICHOLAS R., Representative from Maryland, 50, 285, 377, 493, 613.

MOORE, SAMUEL, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 226.

MOORE, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 51, 286, 378, 493, 613; on a tax on imported slaves, 135. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

MORROW, JEREMIAH, Representative from Ohio, 51, 285, 378, 493, 613; on the resolution relative to public roads, 84; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 406.

MORROW, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 377, 493, 613.

MOSELY, JONATHAN A., Representative from Connecticut, 377, 493, 612; on the importation of slaves, 500.

MOTT JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 286; on the postponement of the resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 94. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

MUMFORD, GURDON S., Representative from New York, 377, 497, 614; on importations from Great Britain, 460; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 516, 518.

N

_National University._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Naturalization laws_, resolution relative to, 659. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Naval Peace Establishment_, bill in House considered, 143; object a more economical arrangement for national ships laid up in ordinary, 143; moved to abolish the office of Lieut. Col. Commandant of the Marine Corps, and to authorize the President to make other reductions, 143; amendment agreed to, 143; other amendments adopted, and bill ordered to third reading, 143; Senate adhere to their amendment, 162; House recedes, 162; bill submitted to the House, 385; provisions explained, 402; further debate, 402.

_Naval Establishment._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Naval Appropriations_, bill making for 1805 considered, 312; amendments proposed, 312.

_Navy, increase of_, considered in the House, 87; no necessity exists for an augmentation of the navy, 87; numerous facts stated to prove this point, 87; the bill has received the sanction of the Senate--they must have had satisfactory proof of its necessity, 88; this point examined, 88; bill referred to the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures, 88; resolution to provide for expenses in repairing ships at one of the navy yards on Atlantic coast considered, 314; some yard nearer to the ocean than at Washington needed, 315; resolution referred, 315.

_Navy_, letter from Secretary of, 396.

_Negroes, kidnapping of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

NELSON, JEREMIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493.

NELSON, ROGER, Representative from Maryland, 286, 384, 493, 613; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 291, 293, 298, 299; the retrocession of the District of Columbia 308; on the reference of the letter of the Postmaster-General, 333, 335; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 470; on the suspension of the habeas corpus, 509; on suspension of the act of non-importation, 709.

_Neutral Rights_, in House, President’s message relating to the invasion of neutral rights by some of the belligerents considered, 393; motion to discharge the Committee of Ways and Means, 393; no avail to make declarations of what is the law of nations on the floor of the House, 393; that was the place for measures to prevent the infraction, 393; the reference should have been to the Committee of the Whole, 394; the eyes of America and Europe are looking with anxiety to our proceedings on this subject, 394; subject should not have gone to a standing committee, 394; the reference was made six weeks ago, and we have no report yet, 394; the subject as interesting as any since the establishment of the Government, 394; the memorials have been referred to the Committee of the Whole, 394; motion to discharge committee agreed to, 395; proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, 396; letter to the Secretary of State, 396; reply, 396; papers referred to Committee of the Whole, 396.

NEW, ANTHONY, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

NEWBOLD, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 612.

_New Hampshire_, vote for President and Vice President, 168.

_New Jersey_, vote for President, 168.

_Newspapers_, postage on considered, 78. _See_ _Postage on Newspapers_.

NEWTON, THOMAS, Jr., Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 378, 493, 613; advocates repeal of the bankrupt law, 79; on securing the privilege of the habeas corpus, 538; on building gunboats, 627; on suspension of the act of non-importation, 709. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_New York_, vote for President, 168.

NICHOLAS, WILSON CAREY, Senator from Virginia, 3; opposes motion to strike out all relative to Vice President in report on amendments to the constitution, 8; for the issue of stock for the purchase of Louisiana, 19; moves an amendment to the report on amendments to the constitution, 21; on the amendment to the constitution relative to election of President, 24; resigns, 163. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

NICHOLAS, PHILIP N., his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 207.

NICHOLSON, JOSEPH H., Representative from Maryland, 50, 286, 377; on the call for papers relative to the Louisiana treaty, 56; on the bill to authorize the President to take possession of the Louisiana territory, 74; in favor of augmentation of the navy, 88; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 118; on the amendment to the resolution of inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 98; further remarks, 105; on protection against the Barbary powers, 160; replies to the argument for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 261; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 294; on the reference of the letter of the Postmaster General, 333; on importations from Great Britain, 402; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 407; on incorporating a church in Georgetown, 408; on the payment of witnesses on the trial of Chase, 411; on importation from Great Britain, 444. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Non Importation of British Goods._--Resolutions relative to offered in the House, 395; property of our citizens has been seized by foreign cruisers--cargoes condemned, seamen impressed and held in bondage, 395; better to have interdicted all commercial intercourse with Great Britain, 395; resolutions referred to Committee of the Whole, 395; resolutions calling for information adopted, 399; other resolutions relating to intercourse with the belligerents offered and referred to Committee of the Whole, 400; amount of importations from Great Britain yearly, 402; effect on the revenue to prohibit this trade, 402; effects of prohibition of cotton goods, 402; other resolutions introduced and referred, 403. Resolutions read, 419; extent of the depredations, 419; no reason to expect an accommodation with Great Britain until we resort to measures, and will make her feel the loss of our market, 419; history of the late conduct of Great Britain, 419; interposition of Government demanded, 420; the capture and condemnation of our vessels, 420; have reached a period at which the honor, the interest, and the public sentiment of the country call loudly on us to make a stand, 421; what are the proper steps to be taken 421; purport of the resolution, 421; this is their vulnerable part, 421; by stopping the importation of British goods and continuing our exports to that country large debts will become due from British merchants to American citizens, 421; the balance of injury will be against us, 421; one hundred millions of American property at the mercy of British cruisers, 421; would it be politic to expose so much property to the retaliation of British ministers? 422; balance of trade against us with Great Britain, is eleven to twelve millions, 422; this measure will injure Great Britain vastly more than it will us, 422; captures by her may amount to six millions, 422; but if it did not exceed one we are bound to protect our merchants, 422; we should have the advantage in a war, 422; but a war will not follow this resolution, 422; a similar principle has been adopted by Great Britain in regard to the Colonial trade, 422; impressment, too, is a subject of most serious complaint, 422; this resolution is defended on principles which would justify none but war measures, 423; three points to be maturely considered--first, our ability to contend with Great Britain for the question in dispute--second, the policy of such a contest--and third, the manner in which we can with the greatest effect react upon and annoy our adversary, 423; what is the question in dispute--the carrying trade--that portion which covers enemy’s property and carries the West India products to the mother country, 424; the policy of such a contest examined, 425; _note_, 425; our Government not framed for offensive war, 425; come out of it without a constitution, 425; never go to war but in self-defence, 425; what is this war for but the carrying trade, and you already possess seven-eighths of it, 426; would you jeopardize your best interests for a circuitous commerce for the fraudulent protection of belligerent property under your neutral flag, 426; it is said you ought to go to war for the fur trade, 426; the period of 1793 stated, 426; what has been done this session, 427; Britain is your rival in trade, you will sacrifice the paramount interests of the country to wound her; for Spain and France you are carriers, and from them every indignity is to be endured, 427; whence comes this resolution, 427; there is no cabinet, no system, no plan, 428; free ships make free goods, 428; the charge of being willing to surrender important rights to a foreign government, 428; never be instrumental to the ambitious schemes of Bonaparte, 429; the object of attack is that very navy which in 1798 stood between you and danger, 429; get rid of the public debt and you may put the world at defiance, 430; can you expect England to yield to you what she will not give up for Russia, 430; the existence of her navy secures your possession of New Orleans, and yet you are for a British naval war, 430; only two commercial nations, 431; it is said England will not go to war--Holland thought the same thing in 1781, 431; character of the inhabitants of the southern country on whom you rely for support, 431; the magic of words, 431; the statesmen and the counting-house clerk, 432; men of no nerve oppose this resolution, 432; no plan on the part of the government, 432; this subject calls for the display of all the knowledge and experience of commercial men and statesmen, 433; object of the resolution is the protection of the active commerce of the country, 433; first inquiry is whether this commerce is so important as to require our protection, 433; this point examined, 433; the government long since pledged to support the rights and interests of our merchants upon the ocean, 434; too late to retrace our steps, 434; treachery to the mercantile interest, 434; insults and aggressions of Great Britain not denied, but the resolution not the best course to proceed, 434; two causes of restraints and prohibitions between nations, 434; protection to home industry and national animosity, 435; the last occasions this resolution, 435; in case of a war what will be the situation of your carrying trade, 435; ought commerce to be considered as beneficial in its relation to the United States, 435; this point examined, 435; the right of commerce to protection under the constitution, 435; our rights are invaded and an attack made upon our carrying trade, which cannot be warranted by the law of nations, 436; it is said this is a war measure, 436; objections considered, 437; impressment of seamen, 438; these seamen made to fight against France, our ally, if we connive at it we may be charged with a breach of neutrality, 438; aggressions on our commerce, 439; the merits of the question, 439; must the agricultural interest of the country be sacrificed to preserve the carrying trade, 440; should the present prosperous state of things be put to risk, 440; can we as men and patriots tamely submit to these aggressions, 440; the resolution is devoted to destruction, 440; never was a more interesting crisis in our affairs in reference to our foreign relations, 440; two classes of arguments against the motion--one addressed to our hopes, the other to our fears, 440; these considered, 440; has there been as much pains taken to apprise the nation of its true position as there has been to alarm it, 441; what is the true cause of our dispute with Great Britain, and what is the extent to which it goes, 441; this measure involves the best interests of our country, 442; the subject considered relatively to its general policy, and whether we are bound to adopt the resolution, 442; objects of the federal compact, 442; the resolution will produce instantaneous war, 442; effect on Great Britain, 442; objects of a free government, 443; unless it fulfils its objects it is not worthy of support, 443; grounds of difference already stated, 443; not able to meet Great Britain on the ocean, 443; we say, be just or we will hold no intercourse with you, 443; the resolution objectionable in all its parts, 444; it embraces two points--one relating to the carrying trade, the other to the impressment of seamen, 444; previous consideration of the subject of impressment, 444; impressment has been going on for ten or twelve years and no memorials come from these patriotic merchants, 444; it is the carrying trade alone which has brought them, because their interests are affected, 444; this an object of secondary importance, 445; effects of adopting the resolution, 445; resolution of 1793 compared, 445; two alternatives before this nation, 445; the dispute is most unquestionably for the carrying trade, 446; a trade less beneficial to the nation than any other, and the cause of most of our disputes with foreign nations, 446; not so important as the coasting trade, or the direct trade, 446; our conduct towards France and its effects, 446; particulars respecting our trade, 446; British merchants and manufacturers will aid us under this measure, 447; the adoption of the resolution will affect the revenue, 447; question of expediency, 447; partial operation of the resolution, 447; impressment considered, 448; arguments for the resolution founded on impressment, examined, 448; adopt this measure and you may overthrow our administration, 449; it is said, now is the time to settle our disputes with England, 449; evidences of the spirit of the nation, 450; the ocean common and undivided property, hence difficult to afford the same security as on land, 450; the case of Tripoli said to be in point, 450; is this the best course, 450; better if the government had never given protection to commerce out of sight of our territory, 451; the grounds of complaint considered, 452; impressment, 452; aggressions on commerce, 453; the right of Great Britain to seize and condemn colonial produce, the property of a neutral, on its way to the ports of a parent state, her enemy, examined, 453; this measure only a commercial regulation and cannot give any cause for war, 454; no animosity to occasion the resolution, 455; the conduct of Great Britain is manifestly unjust and unauthorized by the law of nations, 455; a review of the points in discussion between this country and Great Britain, and the arguments of the opponents of the resolution examined, 455; aggressions of Great Britain a sufficient stimulus for us to do something, 458; law requiring protections for seamen regretted--the flag should protect, 458; motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of the resolution, 459; no discussion of its merits had, 459; motion lost, 459; painful to see gentlemen so far forget the interests of their own country in defending the pretended of rights of others, 460; facts relating to impressments, 460; property of foreign nations covered by American merchants, 460; vindication of the character of American merchants, 461; true history and cause of the British aggressions, 461; difference between our treaty with Great Britain and other nations, 462; the just cause of complaint being admitted, it remains to determine whether we will tamely submit, 462; only difference relates to the question what measures will have the most effect with the least injury to ourselves, 462; where is the remedy, 463; is peace to be destroyed until indemnity and security can be obtained, 463; other arguments considered, 463; motion that the committee rise, 464; opposed, 464; lost, 464; a resolution adopted, 465; bill read third time, 466; passed, 466. _In the House_, motion to postpone the bill authorizing the President to suspend the non-importation law under certain contingencies, 709; in the event of suspending the embargo, it may be proper to suspend this law, 709; the law should be a permanent regulation, 709; have a right to make all regulations we please, respecting commerce, 709; what cause for suspending at present, 709; postponement carried, 709.

_North Carolina_, vote for President, 168.

O

_Oath_, administered to members of House at 1st session, Eighth Congress, 51.

_Oaths._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Officers, removal of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Officers, plurality of._--Resolutions declaring that a contractor is an officer of government, and incapable of holding a seat in the House, and that the union of a plurality of offices in a single individual, especially military with civil authority, is repugnant to the constitution, &c., considered in the House, 466; no such principle in the constitution, as is prescribed in first resolution, 466; no right to make a disqualification which the constitution does not attach to the tenure of a seat, 466; each House shall be the judge of the qualifications of its members, 467; the resolution an exposition of the constitution, 467; meaning of the word “officer,” 467; subsequent Houses may give the constitution a different construction, 467; every objection which can be made to a member applies with equal force to his holding a lucrative contract, 467; words of the constitution, 467; cannot be justified in declaring what is and what is not the constitution, 468; adopt this resolution, and a bare majority might deprive a member of a seat, 468; no power to exclude members from a seat, unless it is found in the constitution, 468; what is the idea of an officer under the constitution, 468; is a contractor an officer under the constitution, 469; the only question is, whether there was an existing disqualification, 469; a contract cannot be considered in the light of an office, 469; officer and contractor do not mean the same thing, 469; not in the power of the House to declare the two appointments incompatible, unless expressly authorized in the constitution, 470; allusion to cases, 470; resolution not agreed to, 470; second resolution considered, 471; declaration of the resolution not correct, 471; constitution recognizes union of civil and military offices, 471; the union here contemplated, gives the actual discharge of civil powers to a person in command of the army, 471; is there no spirit in the constitution, 471; a union of different offices in the same person not repugnant to the constitution, 472; what benefit will result from this declaration, 472; what does the resolution amount to, 472; resolution goes too far; it is very common for two offices to be united in one man, 472; union necessary in some cases, 472; resolution not agreed to, 473; third resolution considered, 473; adopted, 473; bill presented, 473; bill prohibiting military and naval officers from civil employment, read third time, 476; the bill goes to the unconstitutional removal of an officer, 476; have we a right by a legislative act to prejudice any other department of the Government, 476; strongest argument in favor of the expediency of the bill, 476; what is constitutional 477; let us not interfere with the constitutional rights of the other departments, 477; bill passed, 478.

_Ohio_, vote for President, 168.

_Ohio State Government._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

OLCOTT, SIMEON, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 163. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

OLIN, GIDEON, Representative from Vermont, 50, 285, 377, 493; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 404, 405; on the importation of slaves, 501; on excluding settlers from the public lands, 543.

_Ordinance of 1787, respecting slavery_; resolutions of Indiana Council, relative to suspension of, 503; report on, 519.

_Orleans_, bill for the government of the territory of, 166.

P

PAINE, THOMAS, address to the Senate, stating his claim, 552.

PALMER, BERIAH, Representative from New York, 50, 285.

PARKE, BENJAMIN, delegate from Indiana Territory, 381, 497.

PARKER, NAHUM, Senator from New Hampshire, 547.

PARKINSON, REV. WILLIAM, elected chaplain of the House, 52.

PATTERSON, JOHN, Representative from New York, 52.

PENDLETON, EDMUND, resolution relative to the death of, 77.

_Pennsylvania Insurgents._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Pennsylvania_, vote for President, 168; resolutions of legislature relative to removal of Federal judges, 676.

PETERS, RICHARD, Judge, committee appointed by the House to inquire into his official conduct, 174.

_Petitions_, reception of, _see_ _Index_, vol. 2, and _Index_, vol. 1, _Slavery_.

PHELPS, OLIVER, Representative from New York, 78, 315.

PICKERING, TIMOTHY, Senator from Massachusetts, 3, 163, 345, 485, 547; on the acquisition of Louisiana, 13; on the amendment to the constitution, relative to the election of President, 27. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

PIKE, CAPT., resolution to compensate, 676.

PITKIN, TIMOTHY, jun., Representative from Connecticut, 380, 493, 612; on the importation of slaves, 496; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 517.

PLATER, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 50, 285. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

PLUMER, WILLIAM, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 163, 345, 485; on the amendments to the constitution, relative to the election of President, 29. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

POINDEXTER, GEORGE, Delegate from Mississippi Territory, 613.

POLK, WILLIAM, petition of referred, 82.

POPE, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 547; on expelling Senator John Smith, 602.

PORTER, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 612.

_Postage of Newspapers considered in House_, 78; it affects the means of acquiring political information in the different parts of the Union, 78; should be transported free of postage, 78; Post Office establishment never intended as a paramount source of revenue, 78; resolution moved to repeal postage on newspapers, 79.

_Post Office Committee_, report of to the House, 85; amendments discussed, 86.

_Post Office._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Post Roads in States._--Act relative to, in Senate, 45.

_Post Roads_, passage of the bill relative to, 342.

_Potomac River._--Bill to authorize the corporation of Georgetown to make a dam or causeway from Mason’s Island to the western shore of the Potomac, 290; motion to strike out the first section, 290; Congress no right to pass the law in question, 290; the tax authorized would be unequal and oppressive, 290; House should legislate, or relinquish the claim to jurisdiction, and authorize themselves, or retrocede to Virginia, 290; no opposition out of the House, 290; no injury done by it, 290; applicants should give notice of their intention by previous publication, 290; effects of the measure on the navigation, 291; moved committee rise, 291; opposed as it effects nothing, 291; where is the proof it will do no harm? 291; compact between Maryland and Virginia, 291; tendency to improve the navigation, 291; applications from the inhabitants of the district should be noticed, 292; further time desirable, 292; committee rose, 292; asked leave to sit again, 292; act of cession by Virginia read, 292; neither Maryland nor Virginia have ceded their joint rights to this river, 292; any thing done respecting the navigation must be by their joint act, 292; the constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over ten miles square, 292; the jurisdiction of the Potomac ceded by Virginia and Maryland, 292; if Congress has no jurisdiction over the Potomac, it has none over the district, 293; does Congress possess exclusive jurisdiction of the Potomac, is the question, 293; could Maryland give it? she had only a qualified right, so Virginia, 293; each had concurrent jurisdiction, 293; a deed to exclusive property by certain metes and bounds, would not pass a joint interest in other property not contained in those bounds, 293; where is the conveyance by which Virginia has relinquished her concurrent jurisdiction? 293; power of Congress to pass the bill, examined, 293; compact between Maryland and Virginia explained, 293; illustration of passing joint property with exclusive jurisdiction, 293; stipulations between Maryland and Virginia, 294; two States uniting makes the grant complete, 294; Virginia never passed the right of way purchased of Maryland, and Maryland had it not to convey--how could the United States have acquired it? 294; case of the cession of Louisiana, 294; was the jurisdiction of the Potomac ceded to Congress? 294; improper to take up the subject as there is a motion to retrocede the district, 297; determination on the part of the people of the district to give Congress as much trouble as possible, 298; immediate exertions required to prevent the channel from being filled up, 298; propriety of adopting the resolution to retrocede, 298; alterations in the bed of the river, 298; further reasons to show that Congress does not possess the power of legislating on the subject, 299; further reasons on the opposite side, 299; this reasoning examined, 299; it is intended to stop one channel in order to deepen the other, 300; further remarks on the rights of Congress, 300; further debate, 301; motion to strike out first section lost, 301; third reading of the bill, 301; this bill effects the interest and wantonly violates the right of one of the States, 301; two methods of construing the constitution, 302; the Legislatures of the two States never could have intended a cession of the jurisdiction, 302; passage of the bill, 302--Postponement passed in the Senate, 374.

_Bridge across the Potomac_, in the House, resolution to authorize the erection of, considered, 397; will the erection of the contemplated bridge injure the navigation of the Potomac? 397; reasons and objections of the anti-memorialists examined, 397; the inconvenience to vessels examined, 397; other objections of the counter-memorialists examined, 398; resolution carried, 398.

POTTER, SAMUEL J., Senator from Rhode Island, 3; deceased, 165.

PREBLE, COMMODORE, motion in Senate relative to, 168; resolutions relative to, 343.

_Presents to Ministers._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Presidency, Vacancy in._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Proclamation_ of President Jefferson interdicting harbors and waters to British armed vessels, 619.

_Protective Duties._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Public Lands_, bill from Senate to prevent settlement of, until authorized, considered in the House, 543; postponement moved, as too late in the session to do justice to the subject, 543; the bill declares the rights of all settlers forfeited, and thus destroys the constitutional rights of those who had existing rights, 543; an invasion of the rights of the States, 543; propriety of the bill justified by the necessities of the case, 543; shall the public lands be given up to intruders, 543; the bill destroys the right of asserting a claim to property, 544; other objections urged, 544; the very defects are a reason why the bill should not be postponed, 544; postponement lost, 544; moved to strike out first section, lost, 544; bill passed, 545. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Public Roads._--_See_ _Roads, Public_.

PUGH, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 377, 493, 612.

PURVIANCE, SAMUEL D., Representative from North Carolina, 51, 286; in favor of the resolution to carry the Louisiana treaty into effect, 63.

Q

_Quakers._--Memorial on slavery in the Territories, 313. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

QUINCY, JOSIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 377, 493, 612; on the presentation of a sword to General Eaton, 382, 383; on the bill to authorize a detachment from the militia of the United States, 393; on the importation of slaves, 401; on incorporating a church in Georgetown, 408; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 471; on the exclusion of military and naval officers from civil employment, 476; against a repeal of the duty on salt, 479, 480; on the importation of slaves, 495, 498; on reference of the petition of the Manhattan Company, 497; on securing the privilege of the habeas corpus, 537; on post roads, 542; on the settlement of the public lands, 543, 544; on inquiring into the cause of the attack on the frigate Chesapeake, 614; on British aggressions, 617; on granting relief to the soldiers of the Revolution, 623, 624; on building gunboats, 628, 639; on the suspension of the embargo, 696.

R

RANDOLPH, DAVID M., his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 221.

RANDOLPH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 378, 493, 613; remarks on the death of Samuel Adams, 52; against the resolution to call upon the President for documents relative to the acquisition of Louisiana, 54; moves that the committee rise on the debate relative to amendment of the constitution, 60; advocates the resolution to carry the Louisiana treaty into effect, 61, 70; remarks on the bill to authorize the President to take possession of the Louisiana territory, 72; further remarks, 73; advocates a repeal of the bankrupt law, 79; on the resolution relative to public roads, 83; opposes augmentation of the navy, 87; offers a resolution to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 88, 89; further remarks, 91; on the importance of the inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 95, 97, 112; on the Georgia claims, 142, 148, 149, 150; reports on the impeachment of Judge Chase, 161; appointed to impeach Judge Chase at the bar of the Senate, 174; opens the case of the impeachment of Judge Chase, 192; closes the reply to the argument of the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 274; informs the House of the deficiency in the appropriation to carry out the seventh article of the British treaty, 287; on the remission of duties on books, 289; against bridging the Potomac, 290, 292, 293, 299; on the duty on salt, 297; on the resolution relative to the Georgia claims, 315, 316; on the Georgia claims, 317, 330; presents a bill relative to French spoliations, 380; on proceedings of Committee of Ways and Means relative to the subject of neutral rights, 396; against postponing the resolution for amending the constitution relative to the removal of federal judges, 414; _note_, 414, 416; on exclusion of contractors from seats in the House, 417; on prohibition of plurality of offices, 417; on disjunction of military and naval with civil appointments, 417; on importations from Great Britain, 423, 463; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 466, 469, 471, 472; on naval appropriations, 474, 475; on repeal of the duty on salt, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484; on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, 511; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 516; on securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 529, 533, 539; on post roads, 542; on compensation to the soldiers of the Revolution, 622, 623, 624; on relief to the soldiers of the Revolution, 623, 624; on fortifications and gunboats, 639; communicates information relative to the conduct of General Wilkinson, 642; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 649; on fraud in land warrants, 676; on suspension of the embargo, 695, 706. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

RANDOLPH, THOMAS M., Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 378, 493.

_Rapids of the Ohio_, report relative to a canal at the, 465.

RAWLE, WILLIAM, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 202.

REA, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612.

READ, GEORGE, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 211.

REED, PHILIP, Senator from Maryland, 487, 547.

REGNIER, his letter to the Imperial Attorney General, Paris, 641.

_Report_ on the contested election of Thomas Lewis, 143; of committee on the limits of Georgia, 403; relative to non-importation of slaves into Territories, 407; of committee on Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 418; on the claim of Beaumarchais, 542.

_Representation, ratio of._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Resignation_, does it cause a vacancy.--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Resolution_ relative to assistance for Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate, 4; on supplying Senators with newspapers, 4; relative to number of chaplains, 4; of amendment to the constitution, 23; of amendment to the constitution as passed by the Senate, 37; on amendments to constitution, 38; in Senate, on impeachment of Judge Chase, 45; referring the President’s Message to committees, 51; in House, to make provision to carry into effect the treaty of Paris, 53; calling on President for documents to show the title to Louisiana, acquired by treaty, 53; vote on, 57; relative to the death of Edmund Pendleton, 77; relative to the road to Natchez and New Orleans, 78; relative to postage on newspapers, 79; relative to making provision for public roads, 83; of inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 89; to impose a tax on imported slaves, 96; relative to the Virginia Yazoo Company, 125; relative to the Georgia claims, 142; of Senate, relative to the decease of Samuel J. Potter, 165; _note_, 165; to present a sword to Com. Stephen Decatur, 286; calling for the names of the officers and men who destroyed the frigate Philadelphia, 287; to present a sword to Capt. Decatur, 287; relative to post roads in Tennessee, 295; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 298; relative to the duty on salt, 297; relative to a post road to New Orleans, 302; relative to emancipation in the District of Columbia, 313; relative to the protection of seamen, 314; relative to repairs at navy yards, 314; relative to the Georgia claims, 315; to inquire if Samuel Hammond has accepted an executive appointment, 319; relative to counting the electoral votes, 340; relative to the petition of Richard Taylor, 341; relative to the removal of federal judges, 341; relative to the payment of witnesses on the trial of Judge Chase, 343; relative to expenditures in the navy, 354; on British aggressions on our commerce, 355; of thanks to General Eaton, 371; relative to the decease of Senator Jackson, 372; relative to the Yazoo claims, 379; relative to presenting a sword to General Eaton, 380; relative to the number of impressed seamen, 384; relative to contingent expenses, 388; relative to non-intercourse, 395; calling for information relative to the imports and exports to and from Great Britain, 399; relative to non-intercourse with Great Britain, 400; relative to the non-importation of slaves into Territories, 401; _note_, 401, 407; relative to amendment of the constitution respecting the removal of federal judges, 402; relative to importations from Great Britain, 403; relative to the West India trade, 403; in favor of admitting slavery into Indiana Territory, 406; relative to contractors holding a seat in the House, 418; relative to a plurality of offices, 418; relative to adjournment, 474; relative to the coast survey, 494; relative to securing the privilege of the Habeas Corpus, 520; for an amendment of the constitution relative to a removal of the federal judges, 550; relative to John Smith, 551; relative to the decease of John Dickinson, 554; relative to an inquiry into the cause of the attack on the frigate Chesapeake, 614; relative to revolutionary pensions, 614; relative to British aggressions, 617; to lay an embargo, 641; relative to an inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 644; relative to Government contracts, 659; relative to removal of federal judges, 675; to compensate Capt. Pike, 676; relative to the decease of Ezra Darby, 675; relative to the decease of Jacob Crowninshield, 694.

RHEA, JOHN, Representative from Tennessee, 51, 285, 378, 613; on conference with the Senate relative to a repeal of the duties on salt, 482.

_Rhode Island_, vote for President, 168.

_Rhode Island, admission of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

RICHARDS, JACOB, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612.

RICHARDS, MATTHIAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 612.

RIKER, SAMUEL, Representative from New York, 285, 612.

_Roads, Post_, bill for the establishment of certain, considered, 338; object of the measure two-fold, 338; these objects stated, 338; a shorter route to New Orleans, 338; advantages for commercial purposes, 339. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1, _Post Office_.

_Public, in Ohio_, resolutions to provide for considered, in the House, 83; the resolutions contravene one of the provisions of the law to which they refer, 83; various propositions, 83; previous legislation on the subject, 83; the construction of the law, 83; the question is whether five per cent. was to be given, exclusive of the three, 84; further remarks on the construction of the law, 84; the question made an Eastern and a Western one, 84; further remarks on the construction of the law, 84; motion to strike out one-twentieth and insert one-fiftieth, carried, 85.

Bill under consideration, 128; motion to postpone lost, 128; moved to vest the President with a general power to appoint three commissioners to designate and report a route, 128; carried, 128; bill ordered to third reading, 129.

ROBINSON, JONATHAN, Senator from Vermont, 547.

RODNEY, CÆSAR A., Representative from Delaware, 50, 287; on the amendments to the constitution relative to the election of President, 60; on the resolution relative to public roads, 84; on the postponement of the bill to tax imported slaves, 141; on the Georgia claims, 153; continues the reply to the argument of the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 267.

ROOT, ERASTUS, Representative from New York, 52, 285.

ROWAN, JOHN, Representative from Kentucky, 648; offers resolution for inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 648, 657; on inquiry into the conduct of Judge Innes, 707.

RUMSEY, DAVID, letter relative to the impressment of his son, 384.

RUSSELL, JOHN, Representative from New York, 377, 493, 612.

S

SAILLY, PETER, Representative from New York, 377, 493.

_Salem, Mass._, memorial of inhabitants on British aggression, 395.

SAMMONS, THOMAS, Representative from New York, 50, 285, 377, 493.

SANDS, JOSHUA, Representative from New York, 50.

SANFORD, THOMAS, Representative from Kentucky, 50, 285, 378, 493; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 60; in favor of carrying the Louisiana Treaty into effect, 67; on the resolution relative to public roads, 84.

_Savannah, relief of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SAWYER, LEMUEL, Representative from North Carolina, 613; on fortifications and gunboats, 629.

SCHUNEMAN, MARTIN G., Representative from New York, 377, 493.

SCOTT, WILLIAM, letter of Secretary of War relative to, 314.

_Seamen, protection of._--Letter from the Secretary of State relative to the number impressed considered, 313; subject demands investigation, 314; proclamations of Governors of British West India Islands, 314; objects of British Government, 314; will the United States tamely submit to this impressment? 314; resolution of inquiry on the subject, 314; do. referred, 314. _Seamen, impressment of_, resolution of inquiry relative to, offered in the House, 384; number detained in the British service, 384; information already obtained has produced a loud expression of public indignation, 385; resolution of inquiry agreed to, 385.

_Seat of Government._--In Senate, bill for the temporary removal to the City of Baltimore considered, 45; motion to postpone further consideration, 45; bill offered as a spur to the inhabitants at Washington to effect a more complete accommodation of Congress, 45; design of the bill to frighten the women and children of Washington, 46; moral right of Congress to remove Seat of Government denied, 46; Congress possess the constitutional power of altering the Seat of Government, 46; the permanent Seat of Government was fixed under the constitution, and Congress did not possess the power to alter it, 46; to remove would be to prostrate the national faith, 46; motion to postpone lost, 46; Trenton offered to Congress for their accommodation in case of any removal, 46; four rightful grounds of removal could exist, 46; moved to strike out the words “Baltimore” and “Maryland” 47; agreed to, 47; causes of the inconveniences at Washington, 47; the Seat of Government will yet be transferred to the Mississippi, 47; the least expensive course is to remove--time cannot cure the ill accommodations, 47; constitutional point examined, 47; the seat once fixed becomes permanent, 48; motion to order a third reading lost, 48. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

SEAVER, EBENEZER, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612.

_Seditious practices._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Senate_, recedes from disagreement to amendments of the House to bill authorizing the President to take possession of Louisiana, 9; _note_, 9; admission to the floor of, considered, 39; adjournment of first session of eighth Congress, 49; motion relative to absent members, 168; vote of thanks to Aaron Burr, 170; proceedings on the impeachment of Samuel Chase, 175; adjournment at close of first session of tenth Congress, 611.

_Senators_, classification of, 38.

_Sinking Fund_, report of commissioners, 354.

_Slavery._--Memorial of American Convention for promoting abolition of, and prohibiting the introduction of slaves into Louisiana, considered, 41.

_Slavery in Territories_, power of Congress relative to, as asserted in the act erecting the Territory of Louisiana, _note_, 44.

_Slavery in Indiana Territory_, petitions for, 385.

_Slavery._--Resolutions of Indiana council, relative to a suspension of the ordinance of 1787, 503; report on, 519; report in the Senate on the resolutions of the Legislative Council of Indiana, relative to the suspension of the ordinance of 1787, 550; considered in the Senate, 551; resolution on passed, 551.

_Slavery in Territories._--Memorial of Quakers, 313.

_Slavery, prohibiting in a Territory._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Slavery and Slave Trade._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Slaves, importation of_, motion in Senate to appoint a committee to report if any amendments are necessary in the act relative to, 39; resolution relative to non-importation in Territories, 401; resolution in favor of suspending the ordinance of 1787 relative to slavery in Indiana Territory, 406; report relative to non-importation in Territories, 407. Moved to strike out so much of the bill as inflicts the punishment of death on owners and masters of vessels employed in slave trade, 500; crime in question most heinous, and ought to be punished capitally, 500; most effectual method of stopping the trade, 500; question whether we shall strike out that part of the section which attaches the crime of felony to the traffic, 500; penalty just, but too severe to be executed, 500; punishment of death not best calculated to stop the traffic, 501; now said forfeiture is unnecessary, punishment of death will stop the traffic, 501; no man in the Southern States will dare inform, 501; slavery not considered an evil in the Southern States, 501; capital punishments not inflicted for political evils, 501; motion to strike out carried, 502; imprisonment substituted, 502; bill from the Senate to prohibit the importation after January first, 1808, read third time and passed, 519; _note_, 519. _See_ _Duties on Imports_. _Also_ _Index_, vol. 1.

SLOAN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 86, 285, 377, 493, 612; on a tax on imported slaves, 135; on the bill to bridge the Potomac, 290, 298, 300; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 310; on the importation of slaves, 385, 401; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 404, 405; on incorporating a church in Georgetown, 408; on importations from Great Britain, 437; on the importation of slaves, 500; on the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, 510.

SMELT, DENNIS, Representative from Georgia, 497, 613.

SMILIE, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612; on the amendment to the constitution, relative to the election of President, 59; on extending the authority of the United States over the Louisiana Territory, 76; advocates a repeal of the bankrupt law, 79; opposes augmentation of the navy, 87; on the inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 89, 96; on the bill to bridge the Potomac, 290, 291, 298; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 304; on the presentation of a sword to Gen. Eaton, 382; on laying a duty on imported slaves, 387; on discharging the committee from consideration of neutral rights, 393; on the application of the Society of Harmony, 404, 406; on incorporating a church in Georgetown, 408; on amendment of the constitution, relative to the removal of federal judges, 415; on importations from Great Britain, 435; on naval appropriations, 476; on the exclusion of military and naval officers from civil employment, 476, 477; on building gunboats, 626; on inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 645, 652; on inquiry into the conduct of Judge Innes, 701, 708. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

SMITH, DAVID, Senator from Tennessee, 345, 487, 547. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SMITH, ISRAEL, Senator from Vermont, 3, 163, 345, 485; on British aggressions on our commerce, 355. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

SMITH, JEREMIAH K., Representative from New Hampshire, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SMITH, JOHN, Senator from New York, 44, 165, 349. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SMITH, JOHN, Senator from Ohio, 8, 165, 349, 490; resolutions relative to, introduced into the Senate, 551; report thereon, 552; notification to Smith, 552; resolution relative to, 552; in Senate to hear the counsel of John Smith why he should not be expelled, 554; changed to hear counsel why the report should not be adopted, 554; counsel would show that the testimony of the main witness against Smith was not worthy of credit and nothing to affect the character of the accused, 555; further proceedings, 555; reasons of counsel why the report should not be adopted, commenced, 556; examination of the direct testimony submitted, 556, 557, 558; examination of the circumstantial testimony offered by other witnesses in support of the accusation, 558; circumstances which have been distorted against the accused, 559; evidence of Smith’s innocence, 560; Smith’s character and situation in life, 561; charge against Smith is, of being connected with Colonel Burr in the late conspiracy, 563; grounds of proof stated, 563; these grounds examined in detail by counsel for the defence, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 573; arguments of counsel for defence closed, 573; resolution of expulsion of Senator John Smith, of Ohio, for participation in the conspiracy of Aaron Burr, submitted to the Senate, 578; what is the evidence of Mr. Smith’s participation in the conspiracy, examined, 574 to 584; principles of the report of the committee condemned, 584; the Senate have cognizance of the case, 584; to vote for the resolution is to disrobe a Senator of his honor, and doom a citizen, 584; examination of the points relied on against Mr. Smith, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589; other points considered and reviewed, 589, 590, &c.; arguments against Mr. Smith, 598, &c.; counsel for Mr. Smith opposed the resolution on two grounds: 1st. That the Senate have no jurisdiction of the case. 2d. That the evidence does not warrant its adoption, 602; is the resolution supported by the evidence? this point examined, 602, &c.; resolution lost, 606; _note_, 606.

SMITH, JOHN, Representative from New York, 52.

SMITH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 378, 493, 613. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SMITH, JOHN C., Representative from Connecticut, 50, 285, 377; on the Georgia militia claims, 128; on laying a tax on imported slaves, 391; on the importation of slaves, 401; on payment of witnesses on the trial of Chase, 409; on naval appropriations, 478.

SMITH, O’BRIEN, Representative from South Carolina, 383.

SMITH, SAMUEL, Senator from Maryland, 3, 163, 345, 485, 547; in choice of House from five highest candidates, 22; on the amendment to the Constitution relative to the election of President, 26; on suspending intercourse with St. Domingo, 350; elected President _pro tem._ of the Senate, 378; on British aggressions on our commerce, 369. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 377, 493, 612.

SMITH, SAMUEL H., his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 214.

_Soldiers of the Revolution_, one system of national defence which ought to be sedulously cherished, 622; to arm the national defence--muskets in the hands of citizens and cannon in the arsenals, 622; a measure of justice should precede any step for defence, 622; how could the Government call on the youth of the nation for defence, when the veterans of the Revolution were begging from door to door, 622; resolutions submitted, 623; the provision made for these soldiers was notoriously scanty and mean, 623; the pathetic appeal to the House by one of its oldest members, 623; moved to strike out the word “disgraceful” from the resolutions, 623; shall our public lands, commerce and every blessing, be participated in by those who sacrificed nothing for our independence, while those who achieved it are suffered to live and die in wretchedness? 624; compare the services of Lewis and Clarke with that of the soldiers of the Revolution, 624; what a wide difference in their remuneration, 624; there are other sufferers besides the officers and soldiers, 624; no necessity for the amendment, 624; do not desire to disclose our own disgrace, 625; amendment carried, 625.

SOUTHARD, HENRY, Representative from New Jersey, 86, 283, 377, 493, 612; on improving the navigation of the Potomac, 292; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 307; on laying a duty on imported slaves, 386, 389; on incorporating a church in Georgetown, 408, 409; on fortifications and gunboats, 635. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_South Carolina._--Vote for President, 168.

STANFORD, RICHARD, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 285, 378, 493, 613; advocates a repeal of the bankrupt law, 79; on the bridging the Potomac, 298; on the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 303. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

STANTON, JOSEPH, Representative from Rhode Island, 50, 285, 377, 493; on a tax on imported slaves, 137. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_State Balances._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_St. Domingo_, to suspend commercial intercourse with, leave asked, in Senate, to bring in a bill, 349; attention called to the subject by the President in his message, 349; this commerce in violation of law and of the treaty with France, 349; purpose of the bill totally to prohibit a branch of commerce of great importance to the country, 349; a trade highly dishonorable, 349; United States regarded as allies, supporters, and protectors of this trade, 350; our supplies have preserved the colony to the mother country, 350; subject has already been investigated, 350; means by which this commerce carried on not approved, 350; this measure improper and ill-timed, 351. Amendments to bill considered, 355; bill ordered to third reading, 355. Third reading resumed, 360; this bill interdicts all commerce between this country and St. Domingo, 360; advantages of our local situation for the West India trade, 360; people of St. Domingo can be considered only as revolted slaves, or French subjects in rebellion, and to trade with them a violation of the laws of nations, considered, 361; their liberty solemnly proclaimed, 362; present state of St. Domingo, 362; how far is trade with them a violation of the law of nations? 362; the British consider St. Domingo a colony of France, 363; bill passed, 364.

STEDMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 285, 384, 493, 612.

STEPHEN, JOHN, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 214.

STEPHENSON, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 50, 285.

STEWART, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 285.

STONE, DAVID, Senator from North Carolina, 3, 165, 345, 485. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

STORER, CLEMENT, Representative from New Hampshire, 612.

STURGES, LEWIS B., Representative from Connecticut, 377, 493, 612.

_Suability of the States._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SUMTER, THOMAS, Senator from South Carolina, 165, 345, 547.--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

SWART, PETER, Representative from New York, 612.

T

TAGGART, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 286, 377, 493, 612.

TALLMADGE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Connecticut, 79, 377, 493, 612; on the importation of slaves, 500; on the bill to authorize a detachment from the militia of the United States, 392; on the appropriation to build gunboats, 518.

_Taxes, Direct and Indirect._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

TAYLOR, JOHN, Senator from Virginia, 3; of the acquisition of territory and the creation of a State by the treaty-making power, 14; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 33; his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 207. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

TAYLOR, JOHN, Representative from South Carolina, 613; on inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson, 654; on inquiry into the conduct of Judge Innes, 708.

_Tennessee._--Vote for President, 168.

_Tennessee, Admission of._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

TENNEY, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 50, 285, 377, 493. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Territories ceded by France_, bill to authorize President to take possession of, 6.

_Territories_, extension of the constitution to them, _note_ 9.

_Territories._--_See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

THATCHER, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 52, 287; on the call for documents relative to the title of Louisiana, 55; against the resolution to carry the Louisiana treaty into effect, 67; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 116.

THOMAS, DAVID, Representative from New York, 50, 285, 377, 494, 612; on the duty on salt, 295; on non-intercourse, 395; on repeal of the duty on salt, 479; on relief to the soldiers of the Revolution, 624; on fortifications and gunboats, 632. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

THOMPSON, JOHN, Representative from New York, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

THOMPSON, PHILIP R., Representative from Virginia, 50, 285, 378, 493. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

THOMPSON, THOMAS W., Representative from New Hampshire, 317, 493.

THRUSTON, BUCKNER, Senator from Kentucky, 346, 485, 547.

TIBBITS, GEORGE, Representative from New York, 78, 287.

TIFFIN, EDWARD, Senator from Ohio, 547.

TILGHMAN, HENRY, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 201.

_Title of President._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

TRACY, URI, Representative from New York, 377, 493.

TRACY, URIAH, Representative from Connecticut, 3, 163, 345, 485; on rule relative to separate readings of resolutions, 7; against the issue of stock for the purchase of Louisiana, 15; on the amendment to the constitution, relative to election of President, 30; on a two-thirds vote, 37; on British aggressions on our commerce, 359. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Treason and Sedition, bill to define._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

_Treaty with Great Britain._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

TRIGG, ABRAM, Representative from Virginia, 50, 378, 497, 613. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

TRIGG, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 51. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

TRIPLETT, JAMES, his testimony for the prosecution on the trial of Judge Chase, 210.

_Tripolitan War and Mediterranean Fund_, bill relative to, 158.

TROUP, GEORGE M., Representative from Georgia, 613.

_Tunis_, demand and threat of, 375.

TURNER, JAMES, Senator from North Carolina, 351, 487, 547.

_Turnpike to the Ohio_, bill for, before the Senate, 45.

_Two-thirds vote_, majority required, considered, 21.

U

UPHAM, JABEZ, Representative from Massachusetts, 612.

V

VAN ALLEN, JAMES J., Representative from New York, 612. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

VAN CORTLANDT, PHILIP, Representative from New York, 50, 285, 380, 493, 612. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

VAN DYKE, NICHOLAS, Representative from Delaware, 623; his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 226.

VAN HORNE, ARCHIBALD, Representative from Maryland, 613.

VAN HORNE, ISAAC, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 286. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

VAN RENSSELAER, KILLIAN K., Representative from New York, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

VARNUM, JOSEPH B., Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 285, 377, 493, 612; moves amendment to bill to repeal Bankrupt Law, 82; on the resolution relative to public roads, 84; on the bill relative to the Louisiana Territory, 144; on revision of the army rules, 378; on the bill to authorize a detachment from the militia of the United States, 392; on a plurality of offices in the same person, 472; on the suspension of the habeas corpus, 508; chosen Speaker of the 1st session, Tenth Congress, 613; address to House, 613. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

VENABLE, ABRAHAM B., Senator from Virginia, 38; resigned, 163. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

_Vermont_, vote for President, 168.

VERPLANCK, DANIEL C., Representative from New York, 50, 285, 380, 494, 612.

_Vessels registering and clearing._--_See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

_Virginia, Yazoo Company_, motion relative to, 125.

_Virginia_, vote for President, 168.

W

WADSWORTH, PELEG, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 287, 377, 494. _See_ _Index_, vols. 1 and 2.

WALTON, MATTHEW, Representative from Kentucky, 50, 298, 383, 502.

WELLS, WILLIAM HILL, Senator from Delaware, 3; resigns, 163; against the issue of stock for the purchase of Louisiana, 11. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

WHARTON, JESSE, Representative from Tennessee, 613.

WHITE, SAMUEL, Senator from Delaware, 3, 163, 345, 485, 547; against issue of stock for the purchase of Louisiana, 9; on amendments to the constitution, relative to the election of President, 27; announces the death of John Dickinson, 553. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

WHITEHILL, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 50, 285, 377, 493.

WHITEHILL, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 377, 493, 612.

WICKES, ELIPHALET, Representative from New York, 379.

WILBOUR, ISAAC, Representative from Rhode Island, 612.

WILKINSON, GENERAL, facts stated in relation to his conduct, 642; documents, 642, 643; a member of the House could, if obliged, give the House more full, important and damning evidence, 644; resolution that the President cause an inquiry into the conduct of General Wilkinson as to his having corruptly received money from the Government of Spain moved, 644; the member had heretofore tendered information to the Government, who had turned a deaf ear, now he should not be influenced by fear, favor or affection, to gratify curiosity, 644; proceedings on the resolution, 644; incidental questions debated, 644; has Congress the constitutional right to request the President to make the inquiry? 644; can a member be called to give testimony in his seat or at the bar of the House? 645; other questions, 645; nothing impeaching the character of General Wilkinson, 645; inquiry was necessary, and due to the country and to General Wilkinson, 645; impropriety of proceeding hastily, 645; evidence produced sufficient on which to ground inquiry, 646; an inquiry must be made, 646; people of Kentucky interested in this subject, 646; at this time, if ever, persons in office should have the confidence of the Government, 646; can they have this confidence in General Wilkinson? 646; a resolution substituted and adopted, 646; statement of the member of the House, 646; resolution of inquiry moved, 648; not within the power of the House to adopt the resolution, 648; the offence charged is cognizable by more than one department, 648; should not pass over the constitutional limits of their duty, 649; gentlemen mistake by considering that where the House is incompetent to inflict punishment it is incompetent to inquire, 649; competency examined, 649; any inquiry which this House may choose to make into the conduct of any officer, civil or military, is not an interference with the powers of any co-ordinate branch of Government, 650; part taken by the Army in the late project to dismember the Union, 650; evidences of those suspicions, 650; interpretation of a ciphered letter, 651; not shown that the House possesses the powers to proceed in the business, 652; effect of this motion is to hold this man up to suspicion for years to come, 652; if an improper character is commissioned to command our armies, let the responsibility fall where the constitution has placed it, 653; other tribunals than this House, 654; resolution offered to refer the papers, &c., to the Secretary of War, 654; the power of the House is called in question, 654; the resolution, in plain terms, is to denounce the man, 654; will establish a dangerous precedent, 654; interfere with the Executive Department, 654; assume the responsibility attaching there, 654; why make this House a great gun to thunder denunciations against an individual? 655; it will interfere with the Judiciary Department, 655; you deprive the man of a fair trial in the military Courts, 655; duty of the Legislature to pass laws for the regulation of the army, 655; experience of history, 656; search the constitution for this denunciatory power, vested in this House, 656; original motion renewed, 657; agreed to, 657; facts respecting the information relative to General Wilkinson being a Spanish pensioner, and a combination being formed to dismember the Union being in possession of the Executive, 658; resolution calling on the President for documents adopted, 658; Message from the President with documents, 663; referred, 664; papers presented, 708; referred to the President, 709; documents sent to the House by the President, relative to, 663; letter of Estevan Miro, 665; letter of M. Gayoso De Lemos, 665; paper relative to the commerce of Louisiana, 666; letters of Andrew Ellicott to the Secretary of State, 668; extract from Jefferson’s Message, 670; letters from Baron de Carondelet, 671; do. from Daniel Clark, 671; letter from Thomas Power, 672; do. from Thomas Portell, 673; Wilkinson’s instructions to Thomas Power, 673; letter of Thomas Power, 674; letter of Baron de Carondelet, 675.

WILLIAMS, DAVID R., Representative from South Carolina, 378, 493, 613.

WILLIAMS, MARMADUKE, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 287, 378, 616; on securing the privilege of Habeas Corpus, 534.

WILLIAMS, NATHAN, Representative from New York, 377, 497.

WILLIAMS, LEMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 50, 285. _See_ _Index_, vol 2.

WILLIAMS, D. R., on the non-importation of slaves into Territories, 401; on importations from Great Britain, 433; on importations from Great Britain, 441; on Naval appropriations, 474, 475, 478; on the importation of slaves, 495; on excluding settlers from the public lands, 544; on suspension of the Embargo Act, 692.

WILSON, ALEXANDER, Representative from Virginia, 378, 493, 613.

WINCHESTER, JAMES, his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 219, 227.

WINDER, WILLIAM H., his testimony for the defence on the trial of Judge Chase, 227.

WINSTON, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 285, 378, 493.

WITHERALL, JAMES, Representative from Vermont, 612.

_Witnesses, payment of in the case of Judge Chase_, bill considered in the House, 409; disagreement between the Houses prevented passage of a bill last session, 410; the bill from the Senate a taxation of costs by the court who sat on this occasion, 410; shall the House pay all the witnesses, 410; not the practice of courts--the States often pay where the accused is acquitted, 410; why pay all the expenses in this case, and not in any other, 410; the acquittal was constitutional, but not by a majority of the Senate, 410; no data to determine what witnesses had been summoned on one side and what on the other, 410; no law prescribing the fees of witnesses, 410; bound to compensate in the abstract principle of justice and right, as well as from precedent and practice, 411; is it just to compel the attendance of men and not give them compensation, 411; bill calculated to establish a great principle, whether the United States bear the burden in all cases of impeachment, 411; when an officer exposes himself to impeachment, it is not desirable to offer the protection held out in the bill, 412; not the practice in United States Courts or in England to pay witnesses on an acquittal, 412; if the Judge had been convicted he would have been free of all costs, 412; the circumstances should decide the case, 412; could not know for whom the witnesses were summoned, 412; what law authorizes them to recover from the respondent, 412; the Senate omitted to insert in the subpœna on whose side the witnesses were called, 413; committee rose, 413.

WORTHINGTON, THOMAS, Senator from Ohio, 3, 163, 345, 485; presents petition of inhabitants of Indiana, 20; on British aggressions on our commerce, 357.

WRIGHT, ROBERT, Senator from Maryland, 3, 163, 346; opposes reference of resolution for amendment of the constitution to a select committee, 7; on the purchase of Louisiana, 12; on the number of candidates to be presented to the House for Vice President, 24; moves to postpone the bill for a temporary removal of the seat of Government, 45. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

WYNN, RICHARD, Representative from South Carolina, 57, 287, 401, 614. _See_ _Index_, vol. 1.

WYNN, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 50, 287, 378, 493. _See_ _Index_, vol. 2.

Y

_Yazoo claims_ bill, relative to passed, 470.

_Yeas and Nays, in Senate_, on bill to authorize the President to take possession of territory ceded by France, 8; on the bill to authorize the issue of stock for the purchase of Louisiana, 20; on the amendment to the number of candidates to be presented to the House from which to choose a Vice President, 27; on the number of candidates to be presented to the House from which to choose a Vice President, 27; on the amendment to the constitution relative to the election of President, 37; on the bill to repeal the Bankrupt Act, 38; on third election of President, 38; relative to admission of persons to the floor of, 39; on the amendment to the bill relative to the erection of Louisiana into two territories, 40, 41, 42; on turnpike to the Ohio, 45; on act relative to post roads, 45; on postponement of the bill relative to removal of Seat of Government, 46; on ordering the bill relative to a removal of the Seat of Government to a third reading, 48; on the guilt of Judge Chase, as charged in the separate articles of impeachment, 281, 282, 283; on the amendment to the bill for purchase of Florida, 353; on motion to refer the bill relative to the purchase of Florida to Select Committee, 354; on amendments to the bill relative to the purchase of Florida, 354; on motion to strike out the resolution relative to British aggressions on our commerce, 358; on resolutions relative to British aggressions, 359; on bill to suspend intercourse with St. Domingo, 364; on the bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges of foreign ministers, 369; on the bill for the relief of Capt. Peter Landais, 370; to postpone the bill relative to a bridge over the Potomac, 374; on the bill to exclude army and navy officers from civil appointments, 375; on the bill to prohibit the importation of certain articles, 374; on passage of the bill, 375; on expunging the journal of the Senate, 376; on bill relative to the salt duty, 491; on expelling Senator John Smith, 606. _In the House_, on the resolution to carry the Louisiana treaty into effect, 71; on the bill authorizing the President to take possession of the Louisiana territory, 77; on the resolution to repeal the Bankrupt Law, 82; on the motion to adjourn, 94; on the amendment to the resolution of inquiry into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 98; on the amendment to the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 124; on the resolution to appoint a committee to inquire into the official conduct of Judge Chase, 124; on motion to postpone resolution laying a tax on imported slaves, 139; on the postponement of certain sections of the bill relative to the Georgia claims, 157; on the bill relative to the government of Louisiana, 158; _note_, 158; on the petition of Thomas Morris relative to African slavery, 166; on the bill for the relief of the widow of Gen. Moses Hazen, 166; on the reference of the petition of Andrew Jackson, 167; for a third reading of the bill to grant the franking privilege to Aaron Burr, 168; _note_, 168; on postponing the bill granting the franking privilege to Aaron Burr, 169; on passage of the bill, 169; on the resolution to impeach Judge Chase, 174; on the articles of impeachment against Judge Chase, 175; on the resolutions relative to the retrocession of the District of Columbia, 311; on the resolution relative to emancipation in the District of Columbia, 313; on the resolution relative to the Georgia claims, 337; on the resolution relative to the removal of Federal Judges, 341; on the reference of the proposed amendment of the constitution relative to the recall of Senators, 341; on the motion to postpone the bill relative to specific duties, 342; on laying a tax on imported slaves, 391; on erecting a bridge over the Potomac, 398; on postponing the bill relative to the importation of slaves, 401; on the indefinite postponement of the resolution for amending the constitution relative to the removal of Federal Judges, 417; on resolutions relative to importations from Great Britain, 465; on the bill to prohibit the importation of British goods, 466; on the bill relative to the Yazoo claims, 470; on the exclusion of army and naval officers from civil offices, 473; on the bill for the exclusion of military and naval officers from civil employment, 478; on the bill for the repeal of the duties on salt, 481; on the punishment of death on owners and masters of vessels engaged in the slave trade, 502; on rejecting the bill from the Senate suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus, 515; on the bill to prohibit the importation of slaves, 519; in House, on Embargo Act, 641; on the resolution of inquiry into the conduct of Gen. Wilkinson, 657; on suspension of the embargo, 707.

YORK, JOHN, petition for relief as tax collector, 313.

* * * * *

PROSPECTUS OF A Cyclopædia of American Eloquence:

A COLLECTION OF SPEECHES AND ADDRESSES, FORENSIC AND PARLIAMENTARY, BY THE MOST EMINENT ORATORS OF AMERICA, WITH BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES AND ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES,

By FRANK MOORE.

“There were Gyants in thoſe days … mightie men, which were of olde, men of renowne.”

TO BE PUBLISHED BY D. APPLETON & COMPANY, NEW YORK,

And Sold Exclusively by Subscription.

_The Work will be ready for Subscribers in a few months._

The design of this work is to furnish a cheap, convenient and popular Library Edition, of the most celebrated speeches and addresses, forensic and parliamentary, of the principal orators and statesmen of America. It will contain many which have never before been included in any collection, and are not readily accessible to the student or the general reader. As far as attainable, specimens of the eloquence of the Continental Congress will be given, illustrating the principles and portraying the sufferings of the men of the Revolution; as well as the Debates in Congress, since the year 1789, under the present organization of the Government. Selections from the earnest and able discussions in the State Conventions, of the principles involved in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, will also form a portion of the work, and thus render it valuable as a means of acquiring an understanding of that important instrument.

The collection will include the Oration of Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts, delivered at Philadelphia on the first day of August, 1776, now for the first time reprinted in America, and hitherto almost totally unknown; all the speeches of Patrick Henry; the Address to Great Britain of 1775, by Richard Henry lee, and that of 1774, by John Jay; Judge Drayton’s celebrated charge to the Grand Jury of Charleston, South Carolina; James Wilson’s Vindication of the Colonies, in 1775; General Joseph Warren’s Oration on the Boston Massacre; William Livingston’s Speech to the New Jersey Legislature, 1777; John Rutledge’s Speeches to the South Carolina Assembly, 1776-1782; John Adams’ and Josiah Quincy, Jr’s Defence of the Soldiers of the Boston Massacre; Washington’s Inaugural and Farewell Addresses; John Dickinson’s Speech, in 1765, before the Pennsylvania House of Assembly, and the Declaration of Congress on taking up arms, 1775; Dr. John Witherspoon’s Speeches in the Continental Congress, complete; Doctor David Ramsay’s Oration on the Advantages of American Independence; Doctor Benjamin Rush’s Address, “The Revolution is not over,” 1787; Hamilton’s Speeches on the Federal Constitution, and in the Case of Harry Croswell; Fisher Ames on the British Treaty, and other specimens of his oratory; the Speech of R. Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, and Mr. Webster’s celebrated Reply, as well as many other of that distinguished statesman’s forensic and parliamentary efforts; Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Jonathan Robbins, and his Speech on the Federal Constitution; the best Speeches of Mr. Clay, and selections from the eloquence of Red Jacket, Tecumseh, and other Indian orators. Specimens will also be given of

THEODORE SEDGWICK, OLIVER ELLSWORTH, R. R. LIVINGSTON, H. H. BRACKENRIDGE, GEORGE CABOT, CHRISTOPHER GORE, CHARLES PINCKNEY, LUTHER MARTIN, CALEB STRONG, C. C. PINCKNEY, ELBRIDGE GERRY, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, URIAH TRACY, WILLIAM PINKNEY, SAMUEL DEXTER, JAMES A. BAYARD, R. GOODLOE HARPER, EDWARD LIVINGSTON, HARRISON GRAY OTIS, TIMOTHY BIGELOW, JOHN C. SPENCER, JOHN RANDOLPH, JOEL R. POINSETT, HENRY WHEATON, THEOPHILUS PARSONS, HENRY LEE, ALBERT GALLATIN, WILLIAM VANS MURRAY, THOMAS ADDIS EMMET, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, DEWITT CLINTON, ANDREW JACKSON, AMBROSE SPENCER, WILLIAM WIRT, FELIX GRUNDY, CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, RUFUS KING, JAMES HILLHOUSE, JAMES MONROE, JOHN C. CALHOUN, H. S. LEGARE, JOHN SERGEANT, WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, WALTER JONES, WILLIAM LOWNDES, S. S. PRENTISS, TRISTRAM BURGES, and many others.

A brief Biographical Memoir will precede the selection from the works of each orator, and the whole will be illustrated with historical and explanatory notes.

A Thorough Analytical Index will be added to the Work.

The want of a work of this kind is too obvious to make any apology necessary for its publication at the present time. The orators of classical antiquity must always remain as models in style; but a nation must seek in the masterpieces of its own orators, those principles which lie at the root of its existence, and from them learn how to cherish and preserve their liberties.

_The work will be completed in two volumes, each containing five hundred royal 8vo. pages, and will contain numerous portraits elegantly engraved on steel._

Price for the two Vols. in cloth, $5; Library style, $6; half mor., $7; half calf extra, $8.

To be Published by D. APPLETON & COMPANY, Nos. 346 and 348 Broadway

D. APPLETON & COMPANY Publish

Benton’s Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Price $3, cloth; $3 50 Law Sheep; $4 50 Mor.

” Thirty Years’ View. Now complete in 2 vols. cloth, $5; Law Sheep, $6.

Morse’s General Atlas of the World. Colored Maps and bound, $6.

Burton’s Cyclopædia of Wit and Humor. Issued first in Parts at 25 cents each.

ALSO IN PRESS, The New American Encyclopædia.

FOREIGN BOOKS from all parts of the European Continent imported to order on the most favorable terms.

SPECIAL ORDERS for single Books, as well as for large invoices, are sent by the steamers, and returns obtained with the least possible delay.

COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, and other INCORPORATED INSTITUTIONS, are supplied with BOOKS FREE OF DUTY.

CATALOGUES of our own Publications furnished free of charge on application.

NEW YORK, _May, 1857_.

Persons writing to us for American or Foreign Books, are respectfully requested to give their own signatures as well as the name of the Town, County and State in which they reside.

* * * * *

SPECIMEN PAGE OF CYCLOPÆDIA OF AMERICAN ELOQUENCE.

92 FISHER AMES.

country.” In 1788 he was chosen to the State legislature, in which assembly he advocated important educational measures, in view of elevating the character of the great mass of the people, and rendering them capable of higher enjoyments. In 1789 he was elected a member of the first Congress under the constitution, in which body he remained during the eight years of Washington’s administration. He was a strong advocate of the federal policy, and on every question of importance took an active part. He opposed the commercial resolutions of Mr. Madison, because he thought “that commerce could not be served by regulations, which should oblige us to ‘sell cheap and buy dear,’ and he inferred that the effect of the resolutions could only be to gratify partialities and resentments, which all statesmen should discard.” In April, 1796, he delivered his celebrated speech on the appropriation for Jay’s Treaty, a production full of the deepest pathos and richest eloquence.[A] At the termination of the session of Congress, Mr. Ames travelled at the south for his health, which had for many months been gradually sinking. On his partial recovery, he took his seat at the next session, and entered upon the duties of his office. At the end of this session he returned to his home at Dedham, and declining a re-election, took upon himself the practice of his profession. He continued writing political essays during the remainder of his life, all of which bear the mark of the statesman and ripe scholar. In the year 1804 he was called to the chair of the presidency of Harvard College, which honor he declined on account of failing health, and a consciousness that his habits were not adapted to the office. On the morning of the Fourth of July, 1808, he expired, having just completed the fiftieth year of his age.[B]

MADISON’S RESOLUTIONS.

The House of Representatives, on the third of January, 1794, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, “On the nature and extent of the privileges and restrictions of the commercial intercourse of the United States with foreign nations, and the measures which he thought proper to be adopted for the improvement of the commerce and navigation of the same,” when Mr. Madison introduced a series of resolutions, proposing to impose “further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases, on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations, employed in the commerce of the United States, than those now imposed.”[C] On these resolutions Mr. Ames addressed the committee, on the twenty-seventh of January, as follows:

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question lies within this compass: is there any measure proper to be adopted by Congress, which will have the effect to put our trade and navigation on a better footing? If there is, it is our undoubted right to adopt it, (if by right is understood the power of self-government, which every independent nation possesses,) and our own as completely as

[A] Dr. Charles Caldwell, in his autobiography, thus speaks of Ames’s eloquence: “He was decidedly one of the most splendid rhetoricians of the age. Two of his speeches, in a special manner--that on Jay’s treaty, and that usually called his ‘Tomahawk speech’ (because it included some resplendent passages on Indian massacres)--were the most brilliant and fascinating specimens of eloquence I have ever heard; yet have I listened to some of the most celebrated speakers in the British Parliament--among others, to Wilberforce and Mackintosh, Plunket, Brougham, and Canning: and Dr. Priestley, who was familiar with the oratory of Pitt the father and Pitt the son, and also with that of Burke and Fox, made to myself the acknowledgment that, in his own words, the speech of Ames, on the British treaty, was the most bewitching piece of parliamentary oratory he had ever listened to.”

[B] In the preparation of this sketch, the editor has relied mainly on Mr. Kirkland’s chaste memoir of Mr. Ames, which is attached to the published works of that eminent orator.

[C] Mr. Madison, in explanation of his motives and views, spoke of the security and extension of our commerce as a principal object for which the federal government was formed. He urged the tendency of his resolutions to secure to us an equitable share of the carrying trade; that they would enable other nations to enter into competition with England for supplying us with manufactures; and in this way he insisted that our country could make her enemies feel the extent of her power, by depriving those who manufactured for us of their bread. He adverted to the measures enforced by a certain nation contrary to our maritime rights, and out of the proceeds of the extra impositions proposed, he recommended a reimbursement to our citizens of their losses arising from those measures. He maintained that if the nation cannot protect the rights of its citizens, it ought to repay the damage; and that we are bound to obtain reparation for the injustice of foreign nations to our citizens, or to compensate them ourselves.--_Ames’s Works, page 24._