“This Government has granted licenses to neutral vessels, who take in a proportion of their cargoes in Great Britain, to proceed to the Spanish colonies to the south of the line, provided the returned cargoes are to be brought to this country; and I have now several expeditions of this nature under my direction for the account of houses on the continent, who prefer subjecting themselves to the conditions Ministers have imposed for the toleration of that trade, to the risk of detention and its consequences, even in the event of restitution.”
“This Government has granted licenses to neutral vessels, who take in a proportion of their cargoes in Great Britain, to proceed to the Spanish colonies to the south of the line, provided the returned cargoes are to be brought to this country; and I have now several expeditions of this nature under my direction for the account of houses on the continent, who prefer subjecting themselves to the conditions Ministers have imposed for the toleration of that trade, to the risk of detention and its consequences, even in the event of restitution.”
This is no fiction, sir, it is a fact. It cuts your commerce like a two-edged sword, involves your neutrality, and prevents your own merchants from going to the same market, the profiton which ultimately centres in Great Britain. There are at this moment British agents in two of your commercial cities, and I suppose more in other parts of the United States as well as in Europe, for they swarm on the industry of all nations. They are acting in concert to carry on this licensed trade with the Spanish colonies, their enemies jeopardizing your neutrality, to the manifest injury of the real American merchants. This is a very valuable branch of commerce, as you may readily suppose from the price that sagacious calculating nation sets upon it. What is the result of all this? Why, sir, if it were not for the interference of this very Government, so much extolled at the expense of your own, we should enjoy the benefit ourselves. They themselves license vessels to carry on a commerce, which if pursued by your citizens, without their permission, is sure to be plundered. Thus, sir, that Government assails your commerce at home, and condemns it abroad, on the most vexatious and unwarrantable pretensions.
Sir, I beg leave to call the attention of the committee to an important fact. Examine your treaty with Spain, your treaty with France, your treaty with Holland, your treaties with some of the Northern Powers, what do they say? “Free ships make free goods.” What does Great Britain say? “You shall give up the goods of my enemies;” and you accede to it. Is this reciprocal? Is it just? Is it not a humiliating concession? Is this cause of war? What says that oracle, that celebrated pamphlet, on this occasion? Not a word, sir; it is as silent as the grave. Who now has the greatest cause of complaint, Great Britain or her enemies? Her motto is “Universal domination over the seas”—the common highway of all nations—and, unless you assert your rights, you will be swept into the general vortex. We are told that this is a war measure. If it be true, and commercial regulations are of that nature, we are at war with Great Britain at this very moment, for she imposes four per cent, on her exports to our country. You cannot impose any on your exports to that country; it is unconstitutional.
Mr.Chandler.—Mr. Chairman, unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, it is with extreme diffidence that I rise to make a few observations on the measures now under consideration; but the subject is so important, that I am unwilling to give a silent vote.
It appears to be acknowledged by all the gentlemen who have spoken before me, that we have just cause of complaint against Great Britain; that she has impressed our seamen and compelled them to serve on board her ships of war, to the number of several thousand; that she holds them in the most degrading servitude, and compels them to fight her battles against a nation with whom we are at peace, and that she has seized and condemned, contrary to the laws of nations, and usage, our ships and property to a very large amount. This fact, Mr. Chairman, is so evident and notorious, that it would be trifling with the time of this committee, were I to attempt to introduce new evidence to prove it.
This point being conceded, it then remains to be determined whether we will tamely submit to these wanton aggressions upon our rights as an independent and a neutral nation, or have recourse to measures of some kind calculated to obtain redress for the past and security for the future. The first, Mr. Chairman, ought to be put out of the question. To submit, without opposition to so wanton and so flagrant violation of our rights, would render us unworthy the name of Americans. For what did we contend with this same Great Britain in 1775 and the succeeding years? When we were few in numbers, and at first without arms, without ammunition, without money, or other established resources, and without allies? Sir, a Warren, a McClary, a Montgomery, a Mercer, and a host of heroes, fought, and bled, and died—for what? For the rights, the liberties, the freedom, and independence of our country. And shall we, Mr. Chairman, without one effort, surrender those dear-bought rights and privileges, the price of which was the best blood of our countrymen? No, sir, we shall not, we will not do it; our faces would be covered with shame, and disgrace as well as injury descend to our children. But, sir, this committee will not consent to a surrender of those rights, which they are constituted to guard and protect. They will, I presume, at least a great majority of them, be disposed to take measures sufficiently strong to compel that haughty nation to do us justice.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, the only difference in opinion with most of us is, what measures will be most likely to have the desired effect, with the least injury to ourselves. For my own part I was in favor of the resolution laid on the table by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I allude to the one which has been several days under discussion. I was in favor of it, because I believe it would be the most effectual; and no man I think can doubt our right to adopt such a measure, it being only a commercial regulation, such as every independent nation may rightfully make whenever her interest or convenience require it. It would, in my opinion, be most likely to effect our object, because it would most deeply touch that tender point, their interest; and it is their interest which governs them. If we forsake their workshops and warehouses, it will materially affect their manufactures and trade. Indeed, to use the language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it will reach the vitals of her commerce; and if it were to go to the vitals of their nation, the fault is not ours; they are the aggressors, we act on the defensive only. If, sir, that nation has two millions of people employed in the cloth manufacture alone, as was stated by a gentleman from Maryland, (which number, however, I think too large,) she must at least have four millions in the whole employed in manufactures of all kinds. We take from her of these manufacturesto the amount of thirty millions annually—a market for which she cannot find elsewhere. Interdict the importation of her goods, and what is the consequence? She cannot pay, and therefore cannot employ her workmen. She will not find her account in manufacturing goods annually to the amount of thirty millions of dollars more than she can find a market for; therefore her workmen, at least one million of them, will be out of employment. How are they to subsist? How can they get their bread? Other means they have not; they cannot find any other occupation; and, if they could, they are not fitted for them. This derangement of business must be severely felt; their merchants and manufacturers will, I believe, be persuasive advocates for us. They will feel the evil, and will powerfully press the Government to do us justice. The Minister will be convinced of the danger. He will be careful not to suffer our custom to be diverted from England; for he knows if the channel of our trade is once turned, it will not easily, if ever, be restored. He will pause before he finally drives his best customer to the necessity of leaving him; for he cannot be ignorant that our trade, consisting of the exportation of raw materials, and the importation of wrought manufactures, will be courted by other nations, who will soon find it for their interest to accommodate us with a supply of our demands on satisfactory terms. I consider, Mr. Chairman, that our commerce is and will be so available to the nations of Europe, as to furnish us the means of commanding respect and procuring justice by commercial regulations. I have no fear that Great Britain will venture on a war with us; but if, from a predetermination to quarrel with us at all events, she should make a commercial regulation, or any other of our measures, a pretext for hostilities, notwithstanding all that has been said on the floor of this House by certain gentlemen, to disparage the troops or militia of our own country, and of our weakness, inferiority, and inability to defend ourselves, and to prove the invincible power of Great Britain, yet I trust she would still find us Americans.
Mr.J. Randolph.—I should have been better pleased if the gentleman who has so eloquently painted the wrongs which we have received from Britain had, instead of telling us of the disease, pointed out the remedy. The gentleman a few days ago offered himself as a collateral security for the facts stated by the President and our illustrious Minister at the Court of London. Did the gentleman believe that what we could not take from them, we should accept from him? That our commerce has been pirated upon and our seamen impressed we all knew before. But where is the remedy? Gentlemen say they are for taking commanding ground, that will ensure respect. Where is it? Let them give in their project. Is this the remedy, or is this the time? Gentlemen tell us we ought not to stop short of indemnity for the past and security for the future. Are they then for going to war with Britain on the same ground which Mr. Pitt took with the French Republic? Do they expect success in their project? And is peace to be destroyed, and the interests of this people compromitted, until what they please to call indemnity and security shall be obtained? Are they for going to war with Spain and France, and making a similar convention with them that we some time since made with Britain for spoliations committed on our commerce, and then by a kind of legerdemain draw from our own pockets wherewith to pay for those very spoliations? Is this the indemnity they expect to obtain? I want none of it. I almost dread to see a convention with any power across the Atlantic, with a stipulation to pay money, as I fear its only tendency would be to deprive us of that we have left. Make any sort of convention you please, and something will scarcely fail to fall out between the cup and the lip, by which you will have to pay the debts due to you by others. By some sort of legerdemain, the money of yourbona fidecitizens will get into the pockets of your diplomatists or their creatures on this and the other side of the water, into the hands of bureau men, of counting-house politicians. But I find gentlemen undertake to say, because I am indisposed to go to war, I am the advocate and apologist of Great Britain; and because I quote the able pamphleteer, who stands forth the godfather of the doctrines contained in it, I abjure them; and so far from costing me six cents, they cost me one hundred and fifty; and I consider that a better bargain than the other pamphlet, which did not cost me a sous. Am I to be considered as the apologist of Britain, because the defence of this country has been committed to weak advocates, or because its cause has been weakly defended or treacherously abandoned? No; I am the advocate of the circumstances of the times—of the constitution of this people—of common sense—of expediency. What does the gentleman from New York tell you? I admire the resentment he feels for the wrongs committed on our country, and I entertain a respect for him. He tells you every thing I have told you—that American merchants are employed in covering enemy’s property. No, he draws a distinction between native and adopted merchants, and says that he considers the latter as the root of the evil. I agree that this trade is carried on by foreigners naturalized among us. But the gentleman says the other nations of Europe treat us on the principle that free ships make free goods; while Great Britain treats us on the opposite principle, and contends for the principle of contraband of war, and the liability of enemy’s property to seizure. Why is there this difference? Because those who treat on the principle of themare liberumfind it their interest to treat on this principle. But do they who have the mastery of the ocean consider it as their interest? And yet the gentleman arraigns onecountry for being governed by her own interest, while he applauds another for being governed by the same feelings.
But the gentleman says the Federal Constitution grew out of commerce. Indeed! I have always understood it grew out of the feeble and lax state of our Federation. I have no doubt the regulation of commerce, and the hope of obtaining an adequate revenue, aided its formation. But will the gentleman undertake to say the constitution was made to give us the mastery of the seas? If so, I will be glad to see how he makes it out. Will he say the finger of Heaven points to war?
Mr.J. Claysaid he was sorry the committee were determined to press this subject. He believed a delay of four or five days would be important; he therefore moved that the committee should rise.
Mr.Alstonsaid, it would certainly be unnecessary for the committee to rise, with a view to decide upon the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr.Gregg.) The committee having refused in the first instance to take up this resolution, and having acted upon that which had been submitted by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr.Nicholson,) was a sufficient evidence of the sense of this House as to its final adoption or rejection. The newspapers emanating from this place to all parts of the United States would convey the sense of the House as fully upon the resolution as though a final vote should have been taken; and should the resolution offered by the gentleman from Maryland be now decided upon, and agreed to, every one would be satisfied that the one offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania would not be adopted.
Mr. A. said it was time—high time—that this House had come to some determination upon this important subject. It was time that the public mind was put to rest. It was time that the American people were informed of the extent that we intended to go, and of the steps we intended to take towards Great Britain, in order to meet the aggressions committed by that Government upon the commerce of our country. He verily did believe the resolution submitted by the gentleman from Maryland, the merits of which it was in order upon the present motion to discuss, better calculated to have the desired effect upon that Government on whom it was intended to operate, than any other plan or project which had been submitted or talked of, inasmuch as it was only a commercial regulation or restriction, acknowledged by all Governments in the world to be perfectly within the control of every independent nation. Some gentlemen had thought it not sufficiently strong—that something more efficient should be adopted. For his part, he did believe it much stronger, as to the effect it would have in bringing Great Britain to terms of amicable adjustment, than that which had been submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and which was now sleeping on the table. This, Mr. A. said, was that kind of commercial regulation that carried with it the appearance of a determination to persevere in it; and, in his humble opinion, it was well calculated to distress that nation who had so long persisted in a regular system of aggression towards us. On the contrary, that which had been submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was such a one as Great Britain would plainly discover we ourselves did not mean to persevere in, because it would readily be seen, that, while it distressed her, it would be equally injurious to us. Another reason suggested itself why he would prefer the resolution now under discussion. It seemed to be understood, on all sides, let which should be adopted, or whatever course should be pursued, that no system was to go into operation immediately—that full time was to be given for an attempt at friendly negotiation. It was intended as an expression of public sentiment. It was, therefore, of great importance to this nation, that the sentiment expressed should be with as much unanimity as possible. It was evident to all that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, from the violent opposition it had met with, could not, if carried at all, be carried by that majority that the one now under discussion could. If, therefore, he in the first instance had been in favor, he should, after the discussion which had already taken place, think himself, for the sake of harmony alone, perfectly justified in abandoning it. The resolution now under discussion, which was offered by the gentleman from Maryland, could not be objected to, as the other had been, on the ground of its being in any manner whatever calculated to produce war, if adopted in the full extent in which it was submitted. The object of the present resolution is a prohibition of certain articles, the growth and manufacture of Great Britain and her dependencies, from being imported into the United States; most of which articles, Mr. A. said, he was advised by those better acquainted than himself with mercantile transactions, could be obtained from other countries; and those which could not be obtained, we could either do very well without, or raise within ourselves. What effect, then, would this measure have upon Great Britain? No person would deny that it would lessen in her own country the value of her manufactures. Whilst our citizens at home were perfectly content, the voice of the artisan, the manufacturer, and the laborer in Great Britain, would be raised against the aggressions committed by their own Government, which caused us, and in fact compelled us, in self-defence, to enter into the regulation proposed.
The motion for the committee to rise having been rejected, the question was taken on the resolution originally proposed by Mr.Nicholson, when the committee rose, and the Houseconcurred in its adoption—yeas 87, nays 35, as follows:
Yeas.—Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, William Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaac L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.Nays.—Silas Betton, Phanuel Bishop, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, Leonard Covington, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Elias Earle, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Seth Hastings, David Hough, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.
Yeas.—Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, William Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaac L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.
Nays.—Silas Betton, Phanuel Bishop, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, Leonard Covington, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Elias Earle, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Seth Hastings, David Hough, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.
Mr.Earlymoved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means to bring in a bill.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been informed that the honorableJames Jackson, Esq., one of the Senators from the State of Georgia, died yesterday, have appointed a committee to take order for superintending his funeral.
The House then proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon,
Resolved, unanimously, That this House will attend the funeral ofJames Jackson, Esq., late a member of the Senate of the United States.
Resolved, unanimously, That the members of this House do wear mourning on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of that distinguished revolutionary patriot.[36]
Mr.Boyle, from a committee appointed, on the tenth ultimo, on the memorial of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole, to whom was committed, on the fifth instant, the report of a select committee on the petition of the President and Directors of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company. The report is as follows:
That, of the practicability of opening the proposed canal, and of its preference to one contemplated on the opposite side of the river, as well on account of the greater facility of its accomplishment, as of the superior advantages that would result to the navigation of the river, when accomplished, may, in the opinion of the committee, be correctly estimated by reference to a draft of part of the river, and notes explanatory thereof, which accompany the memorial. Of the immense utility of the proposed canal no one can doubt who reflects for a moment upon the vast extent of fertile country which is watered by the Ohio and its tributary streams, and upon the incalculable amount of produce which must, of course, necessarily find its way to market by descending that river and encountering the danger and difficulties of passing its rapids. But, besides the general advantages which would result from the completion of the proposed canal, it is, in the opinion of the committee, particularly interesting to the United States, inasmuch as it would greatly enhance the value of the public lands north-west of the Ohio. There can be but little doubt that, by the additional value it would give to the public lands, the United States would be more than remunerated for the aid which the Legislature of Kentucky have solicited.From these considerations the committee would not hesitate to recommend a donation or subscription of shares to the amount contemplated by the law of the Legislature of Kentucky incorporating the Ohio Canal Company, if they believed the state of the public finances was such as to justify it. But, from the applications already made for aid in opening canals, it is probable that, if the United States enter upon expenses of this kind, those expenses cannot be inconsiderable; and, as the revenue of the United States is already pledged, almost to the full amount, for purposes, though not more useful, yet more urgent, the committee are induced to submit the following resolution.Resolved, That it is inexpedient to grant, at present, the aid solicited by the Legislature of Kentucky, in opening a canal to avoid the rapids of the Ohio.
That, of the practicability of opening the proposed canal, and of its preference to one contemplated on the opposite side of the river, as well on account of the greater facility of its accomplishment, as of the superior advantages that would result to the navigation of the river, when accomplished, may, in the opinion of the committee, be correctly estimated by reference to a draft of part of the river, and notes explanatory thereof, which accompany the memorial. Of the immense utility of the proposed canal no one can doubt who reflects for a moment upon the vast extent of fertile country which is watered by the Ohio and its tributary streams, and upon the incalculable amount of produce which must, of course, necessarily find its way to market by descending that river and encountering the danger and difficulties of passing its rapids. But, besides the general advantages which would result from the completion of the proposed canal, it is, in the opinion of the committee, particularly interesting to the United States, inasmuch as it would greatly enhance the value of the public lands north-west of the Ohio. There can be but little doubt that, by the additional value it would give to the public lands, the United States would be more than remunerated for the aid which the Legislature of Kentucky have solicited.
From these considerations the committee would not hesitate to recommend a donation or subscription of shares to the amount contemplated by the law of the Legislature of Kentucky incorporating the Ohio Canal Company, if they believed the state of the public finances was such as to justify it. But, from the applications already made for aid in opening canals, it is probable that, if the United States enter upon expenses of this kind, those expenses cannot be inconsiderable; and, as the revenue of the United States is already pledged, almost to the full amount, for purposes, though not more useful, yet more urgent, the committee are induced to submit the following resolution.
Resolved, That it is inexpedient to grant, at present, the aid solicited by the Legislature of Kentucky, in opening a canal to avoid the rapids of the Ohio.
An engrossed bill to authorize the erection of a bridge over the river Potomac, in the District of Columbia, was read the third time; and on the question that the said bill do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 61, nays 52.
About 2 o’clock Mr.D. R. Williamssaid he had a motion to make, which required the galleries to be cleared. They were accordingly cleared.
The bill to prohibit the importation of certain British goods, wares, and merchandise, was read the third time.
The yeas and nays were called for on its passage.
The question to recommit the bill having been disagreed to, it passed—yeas 93, nays 32, as follows:
Yeas.—Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, William Dickson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.Nays.—Silas Betton, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Caleb Ellis, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.
Yeas.—Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, William Dickson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Matthew Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.
Nays.—Silas Betton, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Caleb Ellis, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.
Mr.D. R. Williams, from the committee appointed on the seventh ultimo, presented a bill to prohibit the introduction of slaves into the Mississippi Territory, and the Territory of Orleans; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Saturday next.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolutions submitted some time since by Mr.J. Randolph.
Resolved, That a contractor under the Government of the United States is an officer within the purview and meaning of the constitution, and, as such, is incapable of holding a seat in the House.Resolved, That the union of a plurality of offices in the person of a single individual, but more especially of the military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the introducing of an arbitrary government.Resolved, That provisions ought to be made, by law, to render any officer in the army or navy of the United States, incapable of holding any civil office under the United States.
Resolved, That a contractor under the Government of the United States is an officer within the purview and meaning of the constitution, and, as such, is incapable of holding a seat in the House.
Resolved, That the union of a plurality of offices in the person of a single individual, but more especially of the military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the introducing of an arbitrary government.
Resolved, That provisions ought to be made, by law, to render any officer in the army or navy of the United States, incapable of holding any civil office under the United States.
The question was taken on these resolutions without debate.
The first was agreed to—ayes 54, noes 37.
The second was agreed to—ayes 75; and
The third was agreed to without a division.
When the committee rose and reported their agreement to the resolutions.
The House immediately considered the report.
On concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the first resolution,
Mr.Fisksaid he sincerely regretted it was not in his power to vote for this resolution. He regretted there was no such principle in the constitution as is prescribed. Such a principle not being in the constitution, he did not conceive it in the power of the House to make the provision. It was not, in his opinion, in their power to say a man should not hold a seat in that House who was not prohibited by the constitution. It was on this ground only he was against the resolution under consideration.
Mr.J. Randolph.—I think the gentleman from Vermont may in perfect consistence with the principle he has laid down, which I do not mean at present to contest, give his vote in favor of this resolution. He says that this House has not a right to make a disqualification which the constitution itself does not attach to the tenure of a seat on this floor; that the constitution draws a line between the qualification and disqualification of a member, and that this House has no right to alter them. What do we propose to do? To add a new disqualification? No; to do that which the constitution put in ourhands, which it not only authorizes but enjoins upon us. The constitution declares that each House shall be the judge of the qualification of its members. It is clearly, then, the duty of the House to expound what is or is not a disqualification; and we are now only about to declare what is such a disqualification—merely to expound the constitution on this head. I know some gentlemen are startled at the idea of expounding the constitution. But do we not do this every day? Is not the passage of every act a declaration on the part of this House that a decision upon it is among their constitutional powers? Or, in other words, is it not an exposition of the constitution? So, in this instance, I will suppose a man returned to serve as a member of this House, and that he is declared, for some reason, to be disqualified from holding a seat. This, according to the gentleman, would be expounding the constitution. We propose doing no more than saying, if the Secretary of State, or Chief Justice, should come here, they cannot hold a seat. We say that an abuse exists under the constitution, and offer a remedy.
I have heard some quibbling about the meaning of the word “officer.” What is the meaning of office? Agency; it is the office of a man’s cook to dress his dinner, of a tailor to supply him with clothes; and it is the office of a contractor to fatten on the land—to acquire lordships, demesnes, baronies—extensive territory—by the advantage he derives from holding the public money, in virtue of his contract. But it is asked, if a contractor is an officer; and whether he can be impeached? because, under the constitution, all civil officers are liable to impeachment. Would you impeach the Marshal of the District of Columbia? It may be answered that you may impeach him, but that you would not probably do so, because that would be breaking a butterfly on the wheel. Would you impeach a deputy postmaster? And yet when the postmaster at New York accepted his appointment, did he not vacate his seat in the Senate? There is no doubt a contractor is an officerpro tempore—it is not an office in perpetuity, but created for a time, and for a particular purpose. And I will ask, if it is not more dangerous to the independence of the two Houses to admit commissioners and contractors within their walls than officers with legal salaries and appointments? If we are to admit either, I say, give me the legal officer, with a determinate salary and definite powers, rather than the contractor who may gain thousands and tens of thousands of dollars by a single job. But, if the gentleman from Vermont is of opinion that a contractor is not an officer, under the constitution, I hope he will join me in another vote, on an amendment which I shall beg leave to offer—this goes only to purge these walls, not those of the other House. I mean an amendment declaring void all contracts made with members of either House, and on this principle: between the sessions of the Legislature it is possible for a member to receive a lucrative job, by which he may put thousands in his pocket, and which being completed in the recess, and there being nobody to take cognizance of it, it will be impossible to apply a remedy. But, I hope this construction, which, so far as relates to our own House, we have an undoubted right to make, will obtain as the true construction of the constitution.
But it is said that this House, and Houses which may hereafter meet, may give the constitution a different construction. No doubt of it; and this may operate to the end of time. A former House passed a sedition law; a subsequent House deemed the law unconstitutional. It is true they did not declare it so, and I am sorry for it; but there is no doubt of the fact. Now, we may pass a sedition law again to-morrow, and the people rise up against it, and send different members to represent them. The people may again slumber; as long as you keep your hands from their pockets, they will keep their eyes from yours; and, in the same way, this law may be repealed. I can, therefore, see no force in this objection. The courts of justice undertake to expound the constitution, and shall not the House of Representatives be as competent to do this as any court of justice? I will suppose a case, that of a man condemned under the Sedition law by a tribunal of justice. Suppose men of different principles come on the bench, would they hesitate to reverse the preceding decision of the court? Indisputably not. Here, too, then, we would behold varying and repugnant decisions.
Mr.Eppes.—I have no doubt that every objection which can be made to a member of this House holding a civil office during his continuance as a Representative, applies with equal force to his holding a lucrative contract. The framers of the constitution in excluding civil officers from the floor of this House, most certainly intended to prevent any species of dependence which might influence the conduct of the Representative—to prevent his looking up for preferment to the Executive, or being biased in his vote by Executive favor. A lucrative contract creates the same species of dependence, and every objection which could be urged against an officer, applies with equal force against contractors, who are dependent on the Executive will, and particularly carriers of the mail. While, however, I make this admission, I do not believe we have power to pass this resolution. The words of the constitution are: “No person holding an office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.” These words are plain and clear. Their obvious intention was to have excluded officers, and officers only. It would certainly have been equally wise to have excluded contractors, because the reason for excluding officers applies to them with equal force. We are not, however, to inquire what the constitution ought to have been, but what it is. We cannot legislate on its spirit against the strict letter of the instrument. Our inquiry must be, is he anofficer? If an officer, under the words of the constitution, he is excluded; if not an officer, we cannot exclude him by law. It is true, as has been stated, that, by the constitution, we are made the judges of the qualifications of our own members. This judgment, however, is confined within very narrow limits. The constitution prescribes the qualifications of a member. We can neither narrow nor enlarge them by law. Our inquiry can go no further than this: has the Representative the qualifications prescribed by the constitution? An extensive meaning has been given to the word “office.” How far such a construction of the meaning of this word is warranted, I leave for others to decide. That all contractors are not officers, I am certain. A man, for instance, makes a contract with the Government to furnish supplies. He is certainly not an officer, according to the common and known acceptation of that word. He is, however, a contractor, and, under this resolution, excluded from a seat here. A carrier of the mail approaches very near an officer. The person takes an oath, is subject to penalties, the remission of which depends on the Executive. His duties are fixed and prescribed by law. Near, however, as this species of contract approaches to an office, I do not consider that the word “office” in the constitution can include even this species of contract. I consider the word “office” in the constitution ought to be construed according to the usual import and meaning of that term; and as I do conscientiously believe that the word “office” and the word “contract” cannot be tortured to mean the same thing, I shall vote against the resolution.
Mr.Alston.—While I am as much opposed as any man to see any holder of public money within these walls, I cannot justify myself in declaring what is or what is not the constitution. If in any case this ought to be done, this surely should be the last. What is its effect? To deprive a member of his seat on the vote of a bare majority, when the constitution has declared that “no seat shall be vacated, but on the vote of two-thirds of the members.” Let this House say so, and what becomes of a contractor, if any such there be within these walls? The decision of the House will be in violation of the constitution. No man who knows me will imagine that I have any partiality for contractors holding seats within these walls. I have never held a contract, or received a cent of the public money but for my wages as a member of this House. I am, therefore, as disinterested as man can be on this point. If there is a contractor within the meaning of the constitution, let him be pointed out. I am not certain how I shall vote upon such a proposition. But I will not declare beforehand a particular construction of the constitution. If I believe the case comes within the constitution, of which I am not certain, I will vote for clearing the House of such a member. But I will not consent to a majority declaring in this way what they cannot carry into effect. How can this be done? If you cannot get two-thirds of the members of this House to vacate the seat, I ask what becomes of the resolution declaratory of the meaning of the constitution? But it is idle to pass a declaratory resolution unless it can be carried into effect. One thing I will say, if the mover will modify his resolution so as to impose a penalty on any officer who shall make a contract with a member of Congress, I will give it my consent. For I wish to see no man in these walls dependent on the Government. I still adhere to the principle which I set out with, when I entered into public life, for I became a member of the legislature of the State which I have the honor to represent at the age of twenty-one; but there was no office in the gift of any government which I would possess. This is a principle to which I strictly adhere, and I do not believe I have any relation on earth who holds an office, numerous as my relatives are.
Mr.R. Nelsonsaid he was sorry that he could not on this occasion, consistent with the oath he had taken to support the constitution, advocate the resolution under consideration. He agreed that it was highly improper for contractors to hold seats in that House, as there were many cases in which they could not give a free and impartial vote; but in his opinion there was no power to exclude members from a seat, unless that power was contained in the constitution. He said he would give his idea of the spirit and meaning of the constitution on this point. They were bound by its letter—where the letter and the words of it were plain, they were bound strictly to adhere to them; where, from the wording, the meaning was doubtful, or difficult, every member was bound to put that construction which his judgment dictated. But where there was no difficulty, where the words were plain and obvious, he would ever raise his hands against what was called the spirit of the constitution, or, in other words, giving it a meaning which the words would not bear. If this power existed in the constitution, it must be found under that section which declares, that “No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either House, during his continuance in office.” The question then comes to the single point: Is a contractor an officer under the constitution? If he is, there is no doubt he may be excluded from a seat in this House; but if he is not, he cannot be excluded. What then is the idea of an officer under the constitution? It either must be recognized by the constitution, or some law passed in conformity to it, for no man under the Government has a right without law to create as many offices as he pleases. ThePostmaster-General has a right to contract for carrying the mail; he may employ for this purpose fifty, five hundred, or five thousand men. Will any body thence contend that the Postmaster-General has the right of creating five thousand offices? Our constitution has been justly extolled as the freest in the world, and as the best calculated to promote the happiness and security of the people. It has been called free in contradistinction to those despotic governments, where all the offices are held up to sale. Is not this the case with contracts? Are they not uniformly given to the lowest bidder? What government of principle then is this, which proposes to put a construction upon the constitution, by which offices under the Government shall be thus exposed to sale? But are they in truth officers of the United States, recognized either by the constitution or laws? No, they are not officers of the United States, they are mere hirelings of the Postmaster-General; he has not the power of setting up the constitution to the highest bidder. If so, it is no longer a free constitution; it does not deserve the eulogiums which have been so justly passed upon it.
Mr.Early.—I would not rise to trouble you were not the yeas and nays to be recorded on this question. I am as fully sensible as the honorable mover of the resolution, or any other gentleman on this floor, of the extreme impropriety, to say the least of it, of persons remaining members of this House who hold a contract under the Government to which any emolument is attached. With him and them I believe, that of all descriptions of appointment, this is the most improper to be blended, where the emoluments are not fixed by law, but rise or fall with circumstances. I am therefore as willing as any person can be to adopt any measure to effect a remedy of this evil, which we possess the constitutional right of doing. My difficulty on this subject is not the same with that presented to the minds of some gentlemen, that we are not authorized to pass a resolution putting a construction upon the constitution. On this subject, by the constitution we are made judges of the qualifications of the members of this House. If so, we are necessarily judges of their disqualification also. One power implies the other. I therefore have no difficulty on this score. The simple question is, in my mind, whether a contractor is an officer under the constitution? My own opinion is decidedly in the negative—an opinion formed after the most mature reflection. I can appeal to you, sir, that I have sought after truth on this subject with industry; and I can appeal to other members to attest my having contemplated early in the session the offering a resolution as the foundation of a law, to give effect to the object of the gentleman from Virginia, to declare void any contract made by any officer under this Government with any member of either House. So far I am prepared to go, if any member shall introduce such a proposition. The passage of such a law will remove the inconvenience which might arise from interfering decisions made in this House at different times, and will prevent the existence of a different rule in the two branches of the Legislature.
Mr.J. Randolphadmitted that this might be, as he was convinced it was with many gentlemen, and hoped it was with all, a question admitting of a fair difference of opinion. It was a question that respected the construction of the Constitution of the United States. The point in issue, whether a contractor is or is not an officer of the United States, had been set aside by being begged. Gentlemen argue as if it was proposed to add a new qualification to holding a seat on this floor, when in truth, no such question existed; the only question was, whether there was an existing disqualification. While I am up, said Mr. R., permit me to say the gentleman from Maryland has, with a peculiar infelicity, abandoned the ground which he had first taken. He says that a contract cannot be an office, because the former are put up to sale; and because no man, under the constitution, can possess the power of creating an indefinite number of offices. And yet, how are those men who carry the mail or discharge the duties of postmasters appointed, but on the meredictumof the Postmaster-General? And how are foreign Ministers appointed? They are not appointed by law. The President nominates as many as he pleases, and is only limited by the money at his disposal. As to the offices under the Postmaster-General, as has been alleged, being let to the lowest bidder, I believe it would be difficult to establish the allegation. I understand that that is not the principle on which they have been let out. We are told that a contract is nothing but a bargain. It certainly is a bargain. But suppose the office of Postmaster-General, as that seems in this debate to have engaged so much of the attention of gentlemen, should be let to the lowest bidder; would the person that discharged those duties be less an officer of the United States? There is one office which I believe is always let to the lowest bidder—a common executioner. Who is he? The deputy of the sheriff: andquo ad hoc, he is as much an officer as the superior who employs him.
Mr.Elmersaid it was perfectly clear to him, that the members of that House were not at liberty to vote for the resolution under consideration. Both common sense and the constitution forbade considering a contract in the light of an office, and he had never before heard it contended that they were equivalent terms. He would cordially give his vote for any law which could be constitutionally passed, to get rid of speculation and corruption of any sort, but the oath which he had taken to support the constitution limited his power, which he could not transcend.
Mr.Kellysaid he would concisely assign the reasons which would induce him to vote against the resolution. He did not believe anofficer and a contractor meant the same things. With regard to the contractors holding a seat on that floor, it might happen that a man might be a contractor without being in the least disqualified from impartially discharging all the duties of a member, as the contract which he formed might be more for the good of others than his own benefit. He, however, allowed that where a person held a seat, and made use of the power it gave him to make a contract, he was highly censurable. Still he was of opinion that it was not in the power of the House to declare the two appointments incompatible, unless the constitution expressly authorized them. In examining the constitution he found no such provision. Though it had been attempted to be shown that a contractor and an officer were one and the same, he believed they were very distinct things. A contractor receives no authority from Government; his contract was derived from an officer, and all the power he possessed was derived from him, who was only amenable for the performance of the duty to the person who appointed him. A contractor could not, therefore, be considered as an officer under the constitution, amenable to the United States.
Several allusions, said Mr. K., have been made to cases which have occurred under the Postmaster-General, but until these shall be particularly pointed out, it will be impossible for us to decide how we are to act. I believe that it does not become this House to pass declaratory acts relative to the constitution. It ought, in my opinion to stand on its own footing; and every case that is presented ought to be decided, not by a declaratory act, but by the constitution itself. My colleague says that the judges of the federal as well as State courts take an oath as well as we do, to support the constitution; and that, notwithstanding they are in the daily habit of construing the constitution. But there is a wide difference between their deciding particular cases which properly come before them, and this House going into a general declaration without any such particular case. Would the judges undertake to declare the meaning of the constitution without the existence of a particular case calling for their decision? So that the very thing which the House is about doing, has been invariably avoided by the judges.
The question was then taken by yeas and nays on agreeing to the resolution—yeas 25, nays 86.
A message was received from the Senate informing the House that they had passed a bill to carry into effect the provisions of the eighth section of the “Act regulating the grants of land, and providing for the disposal of the lands of the United States south of the State of Tennessee.”
The bill having been read the first time—
Mr.R. Nelsonsaid he should not, on this occasion, go into an examination of the principles of the bill, as they were well understood by the House. They went to practise one of the grossest impositions he had ever known. In order to get rid of what he considered a stain on the statute book, and a disgrace to the nation, he moved that the bill be rejected.
The question was accordingly put from the Chair, “Shall the bill be rejected?”
On the motion of Mr.Leib, it was determined to take the yeas and nays.
The question was then put, Shall the bill be rejected? and passed in the affirmative—yeas 62, nays 54, as follows: