They had been yearly called upon for additional appropriations for this object: if they thought it necessary to check this spirit for foreign connexions, or were determined not to renew the law relative to foreign negotiations, it would be right to agree to the proposed reduction. As to impeachment or censure, they were out of the question. The President thought a Minister to the Court in question would be of some use; they thought differently, and that the money would be more valuable. Where was the cause of accusa-that House had no right to judge over his head, tion? It was merely a difference of opinion.

H. OF R.]

Additional Appropriations.

[JULY, 1797.

were only in session at certain periods, whereas
it could not be said at what precise time it should
be necessary to send a Minister to a foreign coun-
try. If the President should be guilty of exces-
sive ill conduct, gentlemen would do well to come
forward and say he had done wrong; but, even
in that case, he should be doubtful whether that
House would be justified in refusing an appropri-
ation, as it would be necessary to punish the Presi-
dent in a different way; for, in refusing the ne-
cessary money, the person employed on the em-
bassy would be punished, and not the President.
Mr. GALLATIN wished the gentleman from
Connecticut, instead of being angry, had attended
to the fact which he had stated, viz: that the
money asked for was already appropriated. He
wished, also, that he had inquired into the fact,
whether, at any time, they had appropriated for
the expense of Ministers before they existed? If
they were bound to appropriate, they were not
bound to appropriate beyond what was before
them. He did not believe that even the gentleman
from Connecticut would subscribe to this doctrine.
As to what the gentleman had said relative to
what had taken place since he came into that
House, he was mistaken altogether. In addition
to what had been said by the gentleman from
Georgia, he would ask why the law of 1790
was limited for two years, if not meant to check
the power of the President? If Congress had
been of opinion that they were bound, they would
have made a permanent appropriation as in rela-put, it was negatived-45 to 33.
tion to the public debt. If, because they differed
in opinion, they were to charge each other with
subverting the Government, there would be an
end to business. He gave the Constitution a con-
struction which he thought right; that gentle-
man, he supposed, did the same, and though, in
his opinion, his doctrine brought all Legislative
power into the hands of the Executive, yet he
would not charge him with any other than good
intentions.

The question was put, for filling the blank with the larger sum, viz: $60,500, and carried, there being fifty votes in favor of it.

The 7th, 8th, 9th. 10th, 11th, and 12th items were agreed to without opposition.

On the $5,000 proposed for the hospital department, some debate took place. It was urged by Messrs. W. SMITH and OTIS, on the ground of its having been called for by the proper department, and that if it was not expended, the money would be safe in the Treasury.

It was opposed by Messrs. GALLATIN, VARNUM, and MACON, as, in their opinion, unnecessary. It was alleged that the expense of this department had never reached $7,000, and that $10,000 had been appropriated this year, which they thought must prove sufficient; if it were not, it might be supplied next session. Mr. GALLATIN declared he had no faith in the estimates of the War Department with respect to the several heads of expense, as heretofore, when the appropriations were made general, and a surplus under one head was taken to supply deficiencies under another, the hospital department had been estimated at $30,000; though, by the return which had been made to them last session, it appeared that it scarcely ever exceeded $6,000. [It will be recollected that last session the appropriations for the Military Establishment were made special, so that in future every item of expense must be kept distinct.]

cases.

On the motion for striking out this item being

The question for filling the blank with $5,000, was carried-49 to 30.

The remainder of the items were agreed to, without debate. The committee rose, the House took them up, and agreed to them, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading on Monday.

DUTY ON SALT.

Mr. ALLEN laid a resolution on the table, again proposing a duty of cents per bushel on salt;

A confidential communication was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, as follows:

Gentlemen of the Senate,

and House of Representatives:

With respect to the Judges of the Supreme Court, the President had the power only to ap-ordered to lie. point them, their number was fixed by the Legislature; so that there was a similar check in both He thought the true ground was the expediency of the business. Mr. HARPER asked whether that House was possessed of all the information necessary to form The whole of the intelligence which has for some a judgment of the propriety of this measure. Could they say with propriety, that a Minister time past been received from abroad, the corresponought not to be sent either to Lisbon or Berlin?dence between this Government and the Ministers of the And if the proposed sum were taken from the ap- the officers of the United States, civil and military, upon belligerent Powers residing here, and the advices from propriation, one of these missions must be given the frontiers, all conspire to show, in a very strong up. Thus to control the power of the President, in his opinion, would be to destroy a provision of light, the critical situation of our country. That Congress might be enabled to form a more perfect judgment the Constitution, and bring the President into a of it, and of the measures necessary to be taken, I have very humiliating situation. directed the proper officers to prepare such collections Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the appropriation of of extracts from the public correspondence as might money was not vested in their hands for the pur- afford the clearest information. The reports made to pose of exercising their judgment upon the pro-me, from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of priety of expense, he could not see the use it was of; but he did believe they had the power of controlling what appeared to them improper expense, and that it was their duty to do so.

War, with a collection of documents from each of them, are now communicated to both Houses of Congress. Í have desired that the Message, reports, and documents, may be considered as confidential, merely that the mem

?

The said Message and papers were read, and ordered to be referred to Messrs. SITGREAVES, BALDWIN, DANA, DAWSON, and HINDMAN; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

Ordered, That the said committee be instructed to report whether it will be proper to print any, and what part, of the said communication, for the use of the members.

[H. OF R.

ful. But if these laws were passed, this tax on salt was necessary to keep up the equilibrium of taxation; for the stamp act would almost exclusively fall upon commerce and large cities; this would principally be felt by the agricultural part of the Union; and, if it were not agreed to, they must have a land tax.

Mr. SHEPARD said, no tax would operate so equally as a salt tax, as every citizen must make use of it in a smaller or larger quantity.

Mr. GALLATIN opposed this tax on the same ground which he heretofore opposed it, as oppressive to certain parts of the Union, and no way affecting others, and therefore wholly unequal, and particularly as it bore heavy on the poorer classes of society. He was against it also, because it was not proposed that the amount of this tax should go towards a reduction of the public debt, but merely to encourage expense in the Government; for he believed if they filled the TreasThe bill from the Senate, allowing full mileage ury with money, means would be found to expend to the members of both Houses; the bill respect-it. Indeed, if the Treasury had not been at presing Consuls and Vice Consuls; and the bill making additional appropriations for the year 1797, were read the third time and passed.

TUESDAY, July 4.

DUTY ON SALT.

Mr. ALLEN called up the resolution he yesterday laid upon the table, for laying an additional duty on salt.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to postpone the consideration of this resolution until the second Monday in November.

Some debate took place on this question; and, when it came to be taken, the House was equally divided, there being 43 votes for the postponement, and 43 against it. The SPEAKER decided against the postponement, and the resolution was referred to a Committee of the Whole immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on this resolution;

when

Mr. ALLEN moved the blank cents per bushel. be filled with twelve.

Mr. SWANWICK wished the sum to be seven. Mr. ALLEN consented to make it eight. Mr. SITGREAVES hoped it would be twelve. The question was first taken upon twelve, and negatived, there being only 30 votes for it. It was next taken upon eight, and carried, 47 to 42, and then upon the resolution as amended, and carried by the same numbers.

The committee rose, and the House took up the resolution.

After a few words from Mr. LYON against the tax, and from Mr. WILLIAMS in favor of it,

Mr. W. SMITH went at considerable length into a defence of the measure, in the course of which, he said, they had already agreed upon appropriations to the amount of $700,000 or $800,000, and were not certain of any revenue to meet the expenditure. The license act, he believed, might produce from $50,000 to $60,000 dollars, and the stamp act from $100,000 to $150,000, if they should be passed, but he considered this as doubt

ent in rather a low state, he believed they should have gone into most of the expensive measures proposed to them this session. He allowed the tax would be productive, as a tax upon bread, air, this tax, however, were to be agreed to, he should or any necessary of life, must be productive. If wish to make an amendment to the present proposition. At present the drawback allowed to the New England States, on account of salt used in the fisheries, amounted to about $90,000 a year, though by the statements it appeared there should only have been allowed $50,000. To rectify this, he proposed the following proviso to be added to the resolution, viz:

Provided, That the allowance now given upon vessels employed in the fisheries, shall not be increased.

This amendment was opposed by Messrs. HARPER, SEWALL, DANA, and KITTERA, on the ground of its being an unfair way of introducing the proposition, as no one expected it; they were not prepared to meet it; the correctness of the statement was doubted; and, if it were correct, it was said, the proper way of doing the business would not be to pass the present law without a drawback, but to reduce the former drawback and make it less on this occasion.

The motion was supported by the mover, and Messrs. VENABLE and LIVINGSTON; but, after some discussion, Mr. GALLATIN withdrew it, in order to give gentlemen time to make themselves acquainted with the fact he had stated; but he expressed his intention of renewing the proposition when the bill came in.

The question then returned upon the original resolution; when

Mr. HARPER went at length into a defence of the measure, (in the course of which he charged Mr. GALLATIN with being mistaken $12,000 as to the amount of the drawback allowed,) and insisted that it was a fair and proper tax, and that so small an advance upon the present duty could not operate oppressively upon any part of the community.

Mr. NICHOLAS followed in opposition. He

dwelt considerably on the unjust and unequal manner in which this tax would operate. He said he did not view this question as deciding merely whether an additional tax of eight cents should be laid upon salt; but whether that necessary of life should be called upon for every thing Government should want. He was in favor of a direct tax which should fall equally, though it might, in the origin, be attended with some considerable expense; but, if they went on raising partial sums in this way by indirect means, the expense of instituting a direct tax would always be an obstacle, and indirect taxes would always be had recourse to. He did not believe it to be absolutely necessary to provide a revenue this session, as he believed money might as well be borrowed without as with additional revenue, and, at the next session, the subject could be fully gone into.

[JULY, 1797.

After the first call was finished, Mr. BLOUNT came in, and said he was called out to the door, and, from the noise without doors, he had not heard his name called. His vote being refused to be admitted, he said he should then call the yeas and nays on the passing of the bill.

A committee was appointed to report a bill in pursuance of this resolution; and the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, July 5.

A bill was reported for laying a duty upon salt, which was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole this day, after a motion was lost for postponing it till the second Monday in November, by 39 to 33.

AUTHORIZING A LOAN.

The House went into Committee of the Whole

on the bill authorizing a loan of money; when

Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank in which was to be inserted the money to be borrowed with $800,000, which, he said, was about the amount of the appropriations of the present session.

Mr. GALLATIN said, it was, perhaps, not very material as to the exact sum with which this blank was filled; but the appropriations of this session did not amount to that sum. One hun

dred and fifty thousand dollars had been appropriated for the fortifications, and the amount of the appropriation bill was $567,000, which made a little over $700,000; and there would certainly be a considerable overplus of revenue to meet, in part, this expense.

Mr. LYON spoke of the discontent which had always been shown in the part of the country from whence he came, which, he said, would be greatly increased by this addition. It was not only a duty of eight cents, every cent would be made four before the salt reached them. There was no kind of tax which his constituents would not sooner bear. It had been said that a land tax would cost twenty-five per cent. to collect it; but what was twenty-five compared with three hundred per cent.? Nor did he believe this tax would prevent a land tax. He believed they should go on taxing the people until they would be greatly dissatisfied. He would much rather a tax of eight cents was laid upon tea, which would produce an equal sum. The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative-47 to 41, as follows: Mr. HARPER denied that a surplus of revenue YEAS-John Allen, George Baer, jr., James A. Bay- revenue of 1796, indeed, had proved much more in the present year could be depended on. The arn, David Brooks, John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, Wm. Craik, 1797 had also been very productive; but the acproductive than was expected. The first quarter of Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight counts were brought up no later, and, consequentFoster, Jonathan Freeman, Chauncey Goodrich, Wm. ly, it was impossible to know what defalcations Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, would take place in the three last quarters of this Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hos year, or how productive the whole revenue of it mer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuei would be. Should it be as productive as that of Lyman, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison 1796, there would, indeed, be a surplus above the G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, James Schure-appropriations of last session; but this was uncerman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sin-tain. The revenue of 1797 was, indeed, to arise nickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel from importations already made, and bonds now Smith, William Smith, of Charleston, John Swanwick, in the custom-house; but there might be great George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, failure in the payment of those bonds. It was John E. Van Alen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Wil-known how much the trading capital of this liams.

NAYS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Demsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Tompson J. Skinner, William Smith, of Pinckney District, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.

had been diminished by late events-by the fall country, which stood pledged for the payment, of prices last year, by the great amount of property detained abroad, and by the spoliations now the spoliations would become, and to what degree going on. It was impossible to tell how great all these causes united might render the merchants unable to pay their bonds-consequently, how productive the revenue of this year might be. He hoped there would be a great surplus; but it was quite uncertain; and, in this uncertainty, he thought it wise so to extend the power of borrowing as to cover any possible deficiency. This could not, in his opinion, be done with less

than $800,000, which might be wanted; and if it was not, would not be borrowed.

[H. or R.

The calculation of the quantity of salt estimated to be necessary to be used for a quintal of fish, Mr. W. SMITH said, besides the two items men- (one bushel,) was said to be stated too low; that tioned by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, there the sum allowed was not only meant as a drawwas $10,000 or $15,000 appropriated for agents back of the duty, but also as a bounty on the fishunder the British Treaty. There was also ano-ing trade-as being a nursery for seamen, and ther article which might be agreed to in the serving as a kind of naval militia for the United course of the session, which should be included States. in the loan. There could be no inconvenience from giving authority to borrow a larger sum than required, as it would be drawn only as it was wanted, and the interest charged only from the time the money was got. The surplus of revenue, as his colleague had stated, was very precarious; $600,000 might be sufficient, but of that there was no certainty.

Mr. GALLATIN did not know why gentlemen should wish to increase this sum beyond the ap propriations of this session, as there was already authority in the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to borrow more money than they could get. He believed the excess of revenue would be sufficient, as last year there was an increase of $700.000, and this year there would not be a less sum. He wished to have the blank filled with the amount of the appropriations, viz: $697,000. Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of the larger sum. The question for filling the blank with $800,000 was put and carried-43 to 34.

The committee rose, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading this day, which it afterwards received, and passed.

Mr. GALLATIN moved to strike out all that related to the allowing of a drawback to vessels employed in the fishing trade, on the ground that he yesterday stated, viz: that the allowance at present made was too large by $40,000 a year, taking the year 1794 for his data; but it appeared that in the year 1795 there was a deficiency in that trade, owing principally, it was supposed, to the great demand for seamen in the merchant service. He, therefore, would take the calculation of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HARPER.) made yesterday, and, instead of calling the amount of drawback allowed $90,000, he would state it to be $78,000; and even then, he said, the drawback at present allowed would exceed by two thousand dollars the drawback to which they would be entitled, if the present duty took place.

He spoke generally against the tax as oppressive to the back country; but if the gentleman from Massachusetts, and others, were determined to increase the tax, he should wish their part of the country to pay their share of it.

This motion was supported by Messrs. VENABLE, NICHOLAS, CLAY, MCDOWELL, and MACON.

If it should appear, however, that the present allowance was too great, (which, by some gentlemen in favor of this motion, which was in blank, seemed to be acknowledged,) a less allowance might be make in this bill; but they could not consent to the bill passing without a drawback.

The question for striking out the clause was taken, and negatived-49 to 41.

Mr. Corr moved to fill the blank with 50 per cent., instead of 664, which was the drawback allowed by the present law.

Mr. HARTLEY thought this sum too high. Mr. WILLIAMS moved 33 per cent., which was carried without a division.

Mr. NICHOLAS moved a limitation clause, to continue the act in force for two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress. This motion was carried-42 to 39.

The committee rose, and the House agreed to the amendments. The yeas and nays were called upon the limitation clause, and were taken, and stood-yeas 47, nays 43, as follows:

YEAS-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis. John Dawson, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, John A. Hanna, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N. Havens, David Holmes, Walter Jones, John Wilkes Kittera, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Daniel Morgan, Anthony New, John Nicholas, TompBlair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, son J. Skinner, William Smith, of Pinckney District, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Swanwick, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, John Williams, and Robert Williams.

NAYS-John Allen, George Baer, jun., James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Demsey Burges, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John Reed, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith, of Charleston, George Thatcher, Mark Thomson, John E. Van Alen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third

It was opposed by Messrs. SEWALL, OTIS, HAR-reading this day; and before the House rose, it PER, COIT, BROOKS, KITTERA, J. WILLIAMS, and DAYTON.

received it, and passed. The yeas and nays on its passage stood 45 to 40, as follows: