Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

FEBRUARY, 1798.]

Case of Griswold and Lyon.

[H. of R.

should be opposed to going into any further lengthy proceedings on so disagreeable a subject, which would prevent them from doing the business of the nation, for which they were sent.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to make the question the order for to-morrow, if the House met.

were eye-witnesses to the fact. But the gentleman said there would be no peace until these members were expelled. He did not know from what he drew his conclusions. What was done yesterday was done before the House was in session; and it had already been determined that acts of violence committed without the bar, during a session of the House, are not Mr. THATCHER observed, that he had before said causes of expulsion. He did not know, therefore, that he had seen nothing on the part of Mr. LYON, how gentlemen would support the doctrine that a in the affray of yesterday, which ought to subject member ought to be expelled for an act of vio-him to expulsion; but the gentleman from Virlence done before the House was in session. It might be necessary, however, to investigate other facts connected with these.

Mr. J. PARKER Seconded the motion for the expulsion of these members, because he believed there would be no peace in the House until they were expelled. He was sorry the gentleman from Massachusetts should have said he saw nothing but what was passive on the part of Mr. LYON. He himself saw more, and that gentleman must have seen it if he had his eyes about him. He said, that after the offending members had been separated Mr. LYON met Mr. GRISWOLD without the bar of the House and began to belabor him with his cane, when they were again separated. The attack of yesterday, Mr. P. said, at a time when the House ought to have been in session though it had not come to order, would fix an indelible stain upon it; and if these members were not expelled, no member could consider himself as safe in his seat. Such a transaction would certainly lower that House in the estimation of their constituents. He had even heard this morning, as he came to the Hall, persons in the street call out, "There is nothing to do in Congress to-day-there's no fighting going on!" In order to get rid of these reproaches, he hoped all parties would unite in expelling these members. If their constituents chose to send them back, he hoped no member would associate with or take notice of them. And if a vote of expulsion should be agreed upon, he would afterwards move to expunge from the Journals all the entries relative to these disgraceful proceedings.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished the motion to lie upon the table for the present, because he was not himself prepared to decide upon the subject; he wished, also, that whenever the motion was taken up, gentlemen might come with their minds determined upon it, so that a long debate might not be necessary. He therefore moved to postpone the consideration of this resolution to Monday.

Mr. GORDON wished to know what part of the resolution the gentleman from Virginia was not ready to act upon n?

Mr. NICHOLAS did not understand the drift of the gentleman's question. If he meant to ask whether he (Mr. N.) disapproved of the vote which he had already given, he would answer him he

did not.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said he should approve of the motion for postponement, if it were made for tomorrow, instead of Monday; and he hoped the business would not only be taken up to-morrow, but be concluded before they rose. He had sat with great patience during the late debate, but he

ginia (Mr. PARKER) said, that if he (Mr. T.) had had his eyes about him, he might have seen something for which he ought to be expelled. If, indeed, he had eyes behind he might have seen what he alluded to; but this not being the case, he did not see it. As far as the business respects Mr. LYON, some inquiry might be necessary, as all he saw was, that Mr. LYON suffered much, without any offence on his part. He thought, therefore, the business should be gone into, as on a former occasion, and that they ought to examine the subject with candor, and then they should doubtless decide upon it with propriety.

Mr. SITGREAVES was against the postponement, in order that a different course might be taken. He knew nothing in this case which distinguished it from a late case, and therefore could not see why the same course ought not to be pursued as was then pursued. He should therefore vote against a postponement, in order that the resolution might be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. HARPER inquired whether such a motion would not supersede a motion for postponement. The SPEAKER said, it would.

Mr. HARPER then made the motion.

Mr. GALLATIN asked whether he understood the SPEAKER rightly, that a motion for a reference to a committee superseded a motion for postponement?

The SPEAKER said, it did.

Mr. NICHOLAS asked whether it would not then be in order to postpone the consideration of the subject?

The SPEAKER answered, it would. Mr. NICHOLAS renewed the motion for a postponement till to-morrow.

Mr. HARPER, believing that it would be proper to refer this resolution to a committee, as before, especially as some of the facts did not pass within the view of the House, he should vote against the postponement-not because he wished to avoid a vote on the question; for, if it should be the opinion of the House that it ought not to go to a committee, he was perfectly ready to give a vote upon the question; but he thought it better that the business should have this course. With respect to any discussion being necessary upon this subject, he perhaps might think it necessary to make some observations upon it, when the question came before the House for decision; for, though some gentlemen might be endued with the happy faculty of doing everything in an instant, he could not boast of possessing that faculty. But, even if he were not desirous of discussion for his own infor

[blocks in formation]

mation, he wished it for the information of the public; and, notwithstanding all that the House, had heard about a waste of public money and public time, he believed they should best serve the public by suffering the business to take the usual

course.

The motion for a postponement was put and negatived.

Mr. SITGREAVES then moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Mr. HARPER moved that the committee have leave to sit during the session of the House.

Mr. THATCHER thought, as it was probable a number of members might be wanted to give evidence, the House had better adjourn, as on a former occasion, as it would not be proper to go on with business when so many members were absent. Mr. T. CLAIRBORNE hoped leave would not be granted for the committee to sit immediately. He wished them coolly to deliberate upon the business, which they could scarcely be expected to do, when their passions were so strongly affected as they must be at present.

The question for leave to sit during the session was put and carried-46 to 36.

Mr. HARPER moved that the committee be in

[FEBRUARY, 1798.

have been best for witnesses to have delivered their evidence in writing. He hoped that course would now be taken, and then there would be no difficulty in reporting it to the House; and if it should be found necessary, in order to elucidate any part of it, to put any questions to the witnesses in the House, the business would be greatly facilitated and shortened by the evidence being reported.

The question was put and carried. ENCOURAGEMENT TO COTTON GOODS.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said he wished to propose a resolution for the adoption of the House, which had in view the encouragement of a manufacture which was much increasing in the United States, and might become of considerable national importance. It was to the following effect:

[ocr errors][merged small]

COLLECTION OF DUTIES.

Mr. LIVINGSTON called up for consideration the structed to report to the House the evidence in resolution, which he yesterday laid upon the table. writing, upon which they shall found their report. on the subject of the clashing jurisdiction of Mr. KITTERA thought the facts were so notori-States; when it was determined to be referred to ous that there was no necessity for this instruction. a committee of seven members. Mr. HARPER said if his friend from Pennsylvania could say that every body would be satisfied with the report of the committee without the evidence, he would not insist upon this motion. But if the evidence was not reported, how could he say that all the witnesses might not again be called before the House? It was his wish to prevent this.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS said there was a considerable difference between this transaction and the one lately under consideration. He thought in this case it would probably save much trouble to report the evidence.

Mr. BROOKS said it must be recollected that the gentleman from Virginia was not satisfied with the former report. He wished to hear the witnesses themselves; and if the evidence was to be reported, he did not suppose it would be satisfactory.

Mr. NICHOLAS Seconded the motion, because it would be likely to shorten the business; but if, when the testimony came to be reported, there was any obscurity in it, he should feel it necessary to ask the witnesses questions by way of elucidation, as every man who was called upon as a judge, should be in full possession of every fact relative to the subject.

Mr. BROOKS said the gentleman who had just sat down, would have no difficulty in pointing out some obscurity, in order to furnish an apology for rehearing of the witnesses.

Mr. KITTERA said if to report the evidence would prevent the necessity of hearing the witnesses in the House, he should not object to it; but he believed this would not be the case.

Mr. VENABLE was before of opinion that it would

Mr. S. SMITH said that a letter and report of the Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of regulating the collection of the duties arising from impost and tonnage, had been referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures; but as it was necessary to obtain local information from parts of the Union from whence none of the members of the committee came, they wished, for this particular purpose, to have some members added, so that they might have the benefit of a member from every State in the Union.

After a few observations, it was agreed that the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures should be discharged from the further consideration of this subject, and that it should be referred to a committee of sixteen members.

CASE OF GRISWOLD AND LYON. Mr. OTIS believed that something further was necessary to be done in respect to the unfortunate business, which had already engaged the attention of the House. From what had happened in the view of the House, it appears that the parties are in the habit of conflicting with each other; and except they are restrained by some authority which shall be sufficiently imposing upon them, further violence may be expected. In order, therefore, to secure this House from future violations of its dignity and order, he proposed the following resolution for adoption:

“Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, be respectively required by the Speaker to pledge their words to this House, that they will not commit any act of violence upon each other du.

[blocks in formation]

ring this session; and that if either refuse to make such engagements, the party refusing shall be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, until he shall comply with this obligation."

Mr. SEWALL understood a motion had been agreed to in relation to the affair of yesterday, which might produce an expulsion of the members in question. He thought it would be better, therefore, to alter the wording of the resolution, and instead of during this session," say "during the continuance of the examination of the business before the House."

Mr. SITGREAVES did not think any alterations were necessary. An expulsion of the members was a possible, but not a necessary result. If an expulsion does not take place, the resolution will remain in operation for the remainder of the session, which would be proper; and, if an expulsion took place, its operation would fall of course.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS thought it best to pass the resolution as it stood. If a similar resolution had been entered into on a former occasion, it would probably have prevented what had now taken place.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS called for the reading of the resolution which was passed on a former occasion. [It was read. It stated "that any personal contest between the members, before the House had come to a decision upon the business, would be considered as a high breach of privileges."] Mr. W. thought this resolution went as far as the House had a right to go. The resolution proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, went farther, he thought, than they had power to go. It went to imprison one or both of the parties, if he or they refused to comply with a request of the House. He had his doubts whether that House had the Constitutional power to imprison a man for a crime, as the law only would do this. He thought a resolution similar to that adopted on a former occasion, would be sufficient at present; and if the mover did not think proper so to alter it. he would himself move an amendment for this purpose.

[H. OF R.

decided, though they could not do it before, the members in question would be at liberty to commit any act of violence they pleased upon each other. They had seen the consequence. He hoped, therefore, the House would restrain these gentlemen in such a manner as that it may not be in their power again to interrupt their proceedings.

Mr. R. WILLIAMS defended his opinion, and insisted upon his right to deliver it; nor should he ask any gentleman to explain to him the oath he had taken to support the Constitution of the United States. When gentlemen violated the rules of the House, the House had a right to punish them; but he was doubtful whether they had the power to imprison a member if he refused to say yes, to a question which should be put to him. Mr. SEWALL presumed, that that House had the same right which every Court possessed, of preserving its order by imprisonment of offenders; and it was incident to this authority to restrain persons likely to commit these offences. It was necessary, for the future security of the House, for these gentlemen to say, they will not again assault each other. This was a means of preventing, and not of punishing, offences. He had no objection to the resolution, therefore, on the ground of power, but he had some doubt as to the propriety of the expression. For, said he, suppose these gentlemen are expelled, and Mr. G. afterwards assaults Mr. L., the former might consider himself bound by his promise to the SPEAKER, and forbear to defend himself. To correct this impropriety of expression, he moved to strike out the words "during this session," and insert "whilst members of this House."

Mr. OTIS consented to this amendment. Mr. SITGREAVES wished the mover to assent to another alteration in the phraseology of his motion. Acts might, perhaps, be committed which would not be called acts of violence, though very offensive. He wished the same words used as formerly, viz: "personal contest with each other."

Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the general object of this resolution; but the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts went to govern members during the recess of Congress. He supposed this was going further than gentlemen themselves intended. He thought a resolution like the former, which should extend during the present session, would answer every purpose. He did not see any necessity to inflict penalties before a breach of order was committed.

Mr. Oris flattered himself that his object would have met with the concurrence of all sides of the W House, believing that all wished to prevent future violations of order and peace. With respect to the doubts of the gentleman from North Carolina, his politics seemed to be altogether a system of doubts. If this system was common, it would be extremely difficult to progress with business at all. He believed, on the present occasion, these doubts were groundless. When an act of violence was done in the view of the members of the House, they had certainly the power to obtain some security against a repetition of such violence. If this was not done, the presumption was, the business of the session might be continually interrupted; and had they not the right of securing the peaceful exercise of their legislative functions for the remain-power of the House to extend the force of the der of the session? He thought this could not be seriously doubted. With respect to the former resolution, if he had been in his place, he should have suggested its impropriety; for, by it, it seemed to be implied that, after the question was

Mr. VENABLE said, the idea of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. SEWALL) was not correct, when he supposed an obligation entered into at this time, would be binding when a person ceased to be a member of that House. All obligations which members owe to the House, are dissolved when they cease to be members; nor was it in the

resolution beyond the present session. He should not object to its having that extent. He thought it only reasonable, in order to obtain a prospect of future peace in their deliberations, that these gentlemen should declare that they will not enter into

[blocks in formation]

any further personal contest during the session. He moved, therefore, again to alter the resolution to read, "during the session."

Mr. Oris hoped the amendment would be made, he had too readily consented to the former alteration. The question was then taken on the resolution, and carried by a large majority, there being 73 votes in favor of it.

The SPEAKER asked, whether it was the pleasure of the House that the Sergeant-at-Arms should be sent for Mr. LYON?

Mr. SITGREAVES said it might not be convenient for Mr. LYON to attend the House; he asked whether the resolution might not be sent to him, and his answer be received in writing?

Mr. NICHOLAS Supposed, that if both gentlemen prepared a declaration in writing, and presented it to-morrow, it would answer the purpose.

Mr. HARPER replied, the mischief intended to be guarded against might in the mean time be done.

Mr. GALLATIN said, he had just been called out by a member of the House, who had asked him whether he thought it would be proper for Mr. LYON to attend the House. He supposed, therefore, if the Sergeant-at-Arms was sent for him, he would immediately attend.

Mr. HARPER hoped the Sergeant-at-Arms would

be sent.

The SPEAKER said, as soon as the Clerk had made a copy of the resolution, the Sergeant-atArms would wait upon Mr. LYON with it.

Mr. LYON having entered,

The SPEAKER said, the members from Vermont and Connecticut being now in their places, he should proceed to read the resolution which had been entered into by the House. [He then read the resolution.]

As soon as it was finished reading,

Mr. GRISWOLD rose and said, he should not hesitate to enter into the proposed engagement.

Mr. LYON also rose and said, he was ready, as it was the wish of the House, to agree to the proposition.

The SPEAKER said, then you do accordingly agree to this proposition?

Both answered, "I do agree."

AMENDMENT OF THE RULES, &c. Mr. HARPER called up his proposed amendment to the Standing Rules of the House, respecting motions for adjournment; which was referred to the committee which has been appointed on the subject of the Rules.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS moved that the House go into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for disciplining and organizing the Militia of the United States; but, the sense of the House being taken, there appeared only 14 members for it.

Mr. W. then said, as there appeared no business before the House, he would move an adjournment, in order that the Committee of Privileges might attend to the business referred to them. Agreed

to.

The bill for the relief of William Alexander, was read the third time and passed.

[FEBRUARY, 1798.

The bill appropriating money for holding a treaty with the Indians in the State of Tennessee, was received from the Senate with amendments; which were read and referred to a select committee.

MONDAY, February 19.

A message was received from the President of the United States, enclosing a report from the Secretary of State, with an account of the losses recovered for captures on behalf of citizens of the United States, under the treaty made with Great Britain; which was ordered to be printed.

The bill providing for the widows and orphans of certain deceased officers, was read the third time, and passed.

Mr. GREGG presented a petition from Jeremiah Hall and others, praying that a tract of land-six miles square, near the Scioto river, in the Northwestern Territory-may be laid off in a certain manner, and that payments may be received for it by instalments. Referred to the committee to whom has been referred an inquiry into the law for disposing of this land.

RULES OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. DENT, from the committee to whom was referred two propositions for amending the standing rules of the House, reported it as the opinion of the committee, that that which goes to prevent the reconsideration of a vote when there are fewer members present than when it originally passed, ought to be adopted; but that the one which would prevent a motion for adjournment from being in order, when another motion was before the House, ought not to be agreed to.

Mr. NICHOLAS wished this report to he committed to a Committee of the Whole. He was not ready to vote upon it; to say that no number of members less than had agreed to a certain proposition was competent to agree to another, and of course that a majority of the House could not do the business of the House.

The report was accordingly committed.

REPORTING THE DEBATES.

Mr. DAWSON wished the resolution which he had laid upon the table, on the subject of admitting persons who attended the House for the purpose of taking an account of its debates and proceedings within the bar of the House, to be taken up and referred to the same Committee of the Whole.

The resolution was accordingly read.

Mr. SITGREAVES thought it would be more eligible that this proposition for amending the rules should have the same course as others, especially as, from the information of the SPEAKER, it appeared that the object of the resolution was in practice, with the exception of one individual note-taker, who had abused the privilege, and insulted the SPEAKER and the authority of the House. It was proper, therefore, that the fact should be stated, so as that the House might act upon it.

[blocks in formation]

PIERS AT NEWCASTLE, DELAWARE. Mr. HARTLEY presented the petition of a number of merchants, traders, and others, of Philadelphia. praying that some new piers may be erected at Newcastle, and that the old ones may be repaired.

Some difference of opinion arising as to the proper reference of this petition, Messrs. HARTLEY and LIVINGSTON being in favor of a reference to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, and Messrs. SITGREAVES, GALLATIN, and KITTERA, for a reference to the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. CoIT suggested the propriety of its lying on the table till to-morrow, as he recollected the Secretary of the Treasury had already made a report upon the subject, which was referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, but he did not know whether or not that committee had reported. He wished time to inquire. Agreed

to.

Mr. THATCHER said, that on the 20th of January, 1793. a petition was presented from Tobias Lord, and others, praying leave to erect a pier in Kennebunk river, that an act had been passed authorizing the erection of said pier, under such regulations as should be determined by a law of the State. He had now received the law which had been passed, which he had laid before the House. The law, and papers accompanying it, were referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

NORTHWESTERN LANDS.

Mr. DAVIS said a petition had been this morning presented, and he had had others sent to him to present on the subject of the Northwestern Territory lands. He thought something might be done on this business, which would not only answer the wishes of settlers, but might also be beneficial to the United States. For this purpose he proposed a resolution, which he wished to be referred to the committee appointed on this subject, proposing certain advantages to settlers in that Territory; which was agreed to.

ACT OF LIMITATION.

[H or R.

tions during the late war, which, according to the course of the Treasury, have hitherto been discharged by issuing certificates of registered debt, shall be barred and declared void, unless claimed by the proper creditors, or their legal representatives."

AMY DARDIN.

Upon motion of Mr. T. CLAIBORNE, the following resolution was agreed to-45 to 40: "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill for the relief of Amy Dardin."

[This claim has been long before Congress, and been several times the subject of discussion. It is for the value of the famous horse Romulus, the property of the husband of the petitioner, pressed into the service of the United States during the war. The case of the widow is evidently a hard one, and this is the second time a vote has been obtained in her favor, which has afterwards been reversed.]

The committee rose, reported their agreement to the three resolutions, and had leave to sit again. The House took up the two first, agreed to them, and directed the Committee of Claims to bring in a bill or bills accordingly. When the third resolution came to be considered, the yeas and nays were called for, and its adoption was strongly opposed by Messrs. HARPER, NICHOLAS, and BAYARD, on the ground of its throwing open a door to every claim which had heretofore been determined as barred, as cutting up by the root all the acts of limitation; that it was also setting aside these laws in the most objectionable way, by inviting every person, who had an unsatisfied claim, to petition Congress for relief, which would of course engage much of their time. If the acts were to be set aside, it would be much better and less expensive therefore to authorize the proper department to settle these claims, than that the time of the House should be engaged in investigating and settling them.

On the other hand, its adoption was advocated by Messrs. GALLATIN and T. CLAIBORNE. This was stated as a hard case; that this determination would not open the acts of limitation to any but such as Congress might deem extremely hard cases; that it would give the Treasury no power whatever to settle any claim: the power, therefore, could not be abused, except they themselves abused it; that whatever policy there might be in acts of limitation, they were certainly liable to strong objections; they knew they were honoraMr. GALLATIN moved that the unfinished busi-bly indebted a sum of money, but they determine ness should be postponed, in order to take up the report of the Committee of Claims on the expediency or inexpediency of excepting certain claims from the operation of the act of limitation; which, being agreed to, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on that subject; and agreed to a resolution proposing to suspend, for a limited time, the law barring Loan Office certificates, final settlements, and indents of interest; and also to a resolution in the form recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury, viz:

not to pay it, merely because the paying it might render the accounts at the Treasury less simple, or because they would be liable to pay more than is convenient. This policy might be justifiable, but it bore very hard upon individual sufferers. It was argued, therefore, that without opening the acts generally, when a strong, unequivocal claim was presented, which was in the hands of the original holder, and where, of course, there could be no possibility of fraud, relief might and ought to be granted.

"Resolved, That a time be limited by law, after Mr. J. WILLIAMS was an enemy to acts of limiwhich credits on the books of the Treasury for transac-tation, as he thought a debt once due must always

« AnteriorContinuar »