Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.

Case of the Leander.

APRIL, 1806.

resentatives with charges against the court and the tlemen a transaction which took place two years Government. The memorialists not only charge ago. A petition was then presented from certain the Government, but the magistrates, with corrupt aliens in Pennsylvania and New York; and be motives. Shall we permit the Government to be cause they reflected on a former Administration. I never did, said thus treated, and the tribunals of justice to be thus the House would not hear them. calumniated; and give a sanction to the charges Mr. S., witness such an attempt as this; and could by printing a paper that contains them? I hope such attempts be sustained, they would subvert all we shall have virtue and firmness enough to re- government whatever. Shall a person accused of sist such a procedure. I think we have gone fara crime, while his trial is depending, bring forenough in patiently listening to petitions which ward complaints against his judges? If so, we This is turning the have no legal object in view, which not only have no regular government. charge the Departments of the Executive Gov- House of Representatives into a judiciary body, ernment with improper views, but which contain and authorizing them to wrest all other business accusations against the tribunals of justice; what from the tribunals of justice. scarcely merit to be called accusations-but base calumnies. The manner too in which these memorials have been presented is most extraordinary. In point of time, this being the last day of the session, it must have been known that it was out of our power to investigate their contents. It is also very unfortunate, when the citizens of New York are so ably represented on this floor that the petitioners have been obliged to travel to Bos. ton, in order to obtain a gentleman to present their memorials. For these reasons, I shall vote decidedly against the printing.

Mr. QUINCY said that the observations which were made were such as might have been expected to be offered, had it been proposed to go into an inquiry on these memorials. I do not say, said Mr. Q., that the information contained in the petitions is true. All I say is, that as a high officer of the Government is implicated, justice requires that an inquiry at some time should take place. I do not say that it ought now to take place. The question at present is, whether this information shall rest on our tables. Gentleman say no-throw it off. But I say inquire; because I believe, when an examination shall be made, a part of the statement at least will be found to turn out correct. It is said that the memorialists are under accusation; but have they not therefore, a right to petition this House? But so far as relates to the judge, there is only an information by the Grand Jury, not a prosecution. Whoever heard of a man accused before himself? Gentlemen may throw these petitions under the table, but, if they do so, they will do a great disrespect to the House. My only object is that an inquiry should be made at a convenient season into the facts alleged in these petitions. The information contained in some of those statements is corroborated by information known to some gentlemen on this floor-that the Executive had been advised of the fitting out of the Leander time enough to have prevented her sailing. By throwing these petitions under the table gentlemen will show that they are not disposed to investigate these facts.

Mr. ALSTON.-I would not rise, but for the extraordinary declaration of the gentleman from Massachusetts, who says members of the House knew that the President was possessed of knowledge of the Leander's sailing, time enough to have prevented it. He says he knew it. If so, this sufficiently accounts for the course now proposed to be taken. If the fitting out and the destination of the Leander were known to any member of this House, I pronounce that member equally criminal with the Secretary of State or the Presi For my part I had heard a gentlemen of respectability from New York say, though some people were prepared for the sailing of the Leander, he did not think twenty men in New York knew the place of her destination. As to the course pursued by the House, it is perfectly immaterial to me, whether the petitions lie on the table, or are returned to those from whom they came-my only wish is, that we do not sanction a thing of this kind without knowing more about it.

dent.

Mr. JACKSON.-The gentleman from Massachusetts has told us of information possessed in this House of a most extraordinary nature-cer tainly the most extraordinary in the annals of ju risprudence; that Government had a knowledge of this case, and that they are afraid to trust the decision of a jury of their country. This is most extraordinary indeed, For my part, I regret that the gentleman from Massachusetts had so far forgot his own dignity, and the duty he owes his country, as to have permitted himself to have be come the organ of these charges. He has told us we will discredit ourselves by rejecting these peti tions. But permit me to say he has already more discredited himself by presenting them. The petitioners say this expedition has received the ap plause and encouragement of the Government, and the gentleman says this is known to the House. I pronounce this false. I say it is a base calumny, of which the gentleman has made him self the organ; and in saying so, I hold myself responsible in any place the gentleman pleases.

Mr. QUINCY.-I deemed it my duty to present Mr. SMILIE believed the House were to blame a petition handed to me, let it come from what in permitting these petitions to be presented. It quarter it might-and in this instance before I was a rule of the House that every member pre- presented these memorials I made a correct statesenting a petition should first generally state its ment of all their contents, which the House heard, contents. The member who presented these pe- and having heard, received them. As to the titions, having made this statement, I think the harsh things which have been uttered by the genHouse ought not to have permitted them to have tleman from Virginia it is not in his power to been read. I will call to the recollection of gen-hurt my reputation. I said some information,

= APRIL, 1806.

Case of the Leander.

H. OF R.

think themselves aggrieved, it will be time enough to come forward with their complaint.

Mr. EARLY.-The memorials have been presented at a time and under circumstances so extraordinary, as, in my opinion, to call for, at the hands of this House, something more than is contained in the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky. These peculiarities of time and circumstance have been already noticed by different gentlemen, and are of a nature so striking, that they cannot escape the attention of any. I shall not, therefore, detain the House with any arguments, or with a detail of them. I rise for the purpose of offering a resolution which I think the occasion calls for, and in favor of which I hope the gentleman from Kentucky will withdraw his motion. Mr. EARLY then offered the following resolution:

stated in the memorials, was correct. I say so now. But did I say the whole information contained in them, with the coloring, was true? Gentlemen will bear me witness that I said I did not believe the facts could be proved; but that there was ground enough to justify the going into an inquiry. Now, as to the information alluded to: I received no information myself from New York-the information came to a gentleman on this floor. Was it for me to bring this information before the House? Other gentlemen had the same information. I have said these things as a reason for not being too precipitate. Such conduct will look as if we were influenced by improper motives. In what I have said, I by no means mean to give a sanction to the memorials. Mr. MUMFORD. On the first of February I applito the Collector of New York. He declared he did not know the real destination of the Leander Resolved, That the charges contained in the memo-she had cleared out for Jacmel. The 2d Feb-rials of S. G. Ogden and William Smith are, in the ruary, the Leander sailed from the watering place at Staten Island. Her destination was the common subject of conversation. Some supposed it was to one place, and some to another; but it was generally conjectured to be a British expedition. It was common conversation that Miranda had brought with him a credit on Great Britain, and I have since been informed he drew a bill on one of the late British Administration. Shortly after, I heard of the prosecution, but I never imagined he Administration had anything to do with the expedition.

Mr. QUINCY said, in the remarks he had offered, he had only meant to say that there had been an extraordinary equipment and arming in the haror of New York. He did not mean to pledge himself as to the knowledge of the destination, gor to the other fact, whether there was time for he Administration to have prevented it.

Mr. JACKSON.-The gentleman did say so. Mr. QUINCY.-Such is my impression at presnt, but I am not certain of it. Since I rose, I ave understood that after this information was eceived, an attempt was made by the Executive o stop the vessel. In making the remarks I have offered, I did not mean to criminate the Adminisration. If my words bore such a meaning, I withdraw them. Such was not my intention.

Mr. BIDWELL said, the memorials referred to wo subjects. On the first, the memorialists state hat they have been indicted for an offence, and epresent certain facts, which they say are in their avor; they say the indictment is depending-this s begging the case. That while these facts renain to be tried before a tribunal of justice, where he whole benefit of evidence may be made use of ither in justification or destruction of the charges, hat the memorialists should resort to a petition of this nature on the last day of the session, is nost extraordinary; and for the House to underake to decide a question now pending before a court and jury, before whom any witnesses may be summoned, would be still more extraordinary. The other subject relates to the conduct of the judge in this particular case. If, when this case shall be ultimately decided, the memorialists shall 9th CoN.-35

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

Mr. LYON withdrew his motion.

Mr. CLARK said this resolution was susceptible of division. He had no objection to the latter part of it, but he did not wish to give a hasty decision on the former, as he was not acquainted with all the circumstances referred to. He would therefore move to strike out the first part of the resolution.

Mr, SMILIE. We are now to give a vote whether these charges are true or not. Believing them to be untrue, I shall vote against the motion to strike out.

Mr. CLARK.-I do not believe that they are true. But it is not proper to condemn a cause unheard. These men think themselves aggrieved; they set forth certain charges, and we at once give our opinion that they are false. I can never agree to this course.

Mr. DANA. These memorials contain a statement of certain facts in the nature of allegations against certain officers in this Government. Whenever allegations of this kind are made, such language ought to be used as is best adapted to convey the ideas of the petitioners. These memorials contain two things. In the first place, they charge the Executive of the United States with a participation in Miranda's expedition. As to this charge, I am fully sensible of the impropriety of the House interfering. Under a law of the United States the equipment of a vessel against a Power with which we are at peace, is considered as a misdemeanor, punished by fine and imprisonment: and if General. Miranda misled these men

H. OF R.

Case of the Leander.

under a belief that the President, or Secretary of State, did countenance-though in fact they did not-this enterprise, they may, if found guilty by a jury, avail themselves of this circumstance, in mitigation of their fine and imprisonment. It does not become this House, by any declaration, to give an opinion on this point, either one way or another. On the other point, relative to the conduct of the judge, I am not so satisfied relative to the course to be pursued. Is not every man accused entitled to a fair trial? And if the charges are true, and the man guilty, and yet the judge has erred, he has abused his authority. I will not say perversely, but he has not pursued the usual course of administering criminal justice. As to this part of the memorial, therefore, I am willing it should lie on the table; while I am perfectly ready as to that part which respects the Executive, to reject it.

APRIL. 1806.

had a right to call for redress. In order to get rid of this difficulty, he moved the previous question.

Mr. JACKSON asked the yeas and nays, which were taken on the previous question, "Shall the main question be now put," and decided in the affirmative-yeas 74, nays 15, as follows:

YEAS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac
Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bas-
sett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, John
Blake, jun., Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler,
John Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Freder
ick Conrad, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield,
Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, Elias Earle, Peter Early,
James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, William Findley, James
Fisk, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Andrew Gregg,
Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David
Holmes, David Hough, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones,
John Lambert, Matthew Lyon, Patrick Magruder,

Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery,
Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Mar-

row,

Mr. ALEXANDER.-I wish to be informed of the correctness of my impression, that the mover of John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newthe memorial prayed it should be printed. Before ton, jun., Gideon Olin, John Pugh, John Randolph, the House give their consent to publish such a Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, voluminous piece of calumny, I should be glad to John Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, hear some reason assigned for it. At first blush, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, as has been represented by the gentleman from John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry SouthNew York, this appears to be an unjust and un-ard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Philip R. Thomp candid attempt to obtain the interference of this House. I should be glad gentlemen would show us any case in which it would be right for this House to interfere while it is coram judice. Mr. A. concluded with suggesting a modification of the motion of Mr. EARLY, which he afterwards withdrew.

Mr. CLARK likewise withdrew his amendment. Mr. MASTERS.-It is the first time I ever heard of a defendant under an indictment for a public offence, petitioning the Representatives of the people to interfere and arrest him from public justice. It is a kind of imputation on this House. The petitioner is accused of a breach of the law, and is called on to answer that accusation before the proper forum. It does not belong to this House to interfere with that tribunal. The Constitution has set apart and defined the different powers.

The memorialists attempt to criminate the Administration. The Administration is not on trial before this House. If the district judge, in the course of the examination and trial, acts corruptly, there is a proper time and manner of bringing him constitutionally before this House. We ought not to countenance the defendant's endeavors to cast an odium on the court before whom the trial is depending, and the petition ought to be dismissed in stronger language than is expressed in

the resolution.

son, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Nathan Williams, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS-Silas Betton, Christopher Clark, Samuel W. Dana, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, Joseph Lewis, jun, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pi:kin, jun., Josiah Quincy, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Thomas W. Thompson, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, and Peleg Wadsworth.

And then the main question being stated, "That the House do agree to the said motion," a division of the said question was called for: Where upon, the first member thereof being again read in the words following, to wit:

[ocr errors]

Resolved, That the charges contained in the memerials of Samuel G. Ogden and of William S. Smith, are, in the opinion of this House, unsupported by anf evidence which, in the least degree, criminates the E1ecutive Government of this country."

The question was taken that the House de agree to the said first member of the motion, and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 75, nays 8,5 follows:

YEAS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Is Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, jun., Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crown shield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliott, Ebenezer Elmer, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, David Hough, John G. Jackson, Patrick Mr. CLARK said he really felt for the dignity of the Walter Jones, John Lambert, Matthew Lyon, House. He had no hesitation to say that the peti- Magruder, Robert Marion, William McCreery, Nicho tion was unsupported by evidence. But the jour-las R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John nals would show that this was not the first in- Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, junstance that similar petitions had been acted upon. Gideon Olin, John Pugh, John Randolph, Thomas M. The petitioners thought themselves injured, and Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhes of

Mr. J. RANDOLPH asked for a division of the resolution down to the word "country," preceding the first dash.

[blocks in formation]

Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Nathan Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS-Burwell Bassett, Samuel W. Dana, William Ely, Joseph Lewis, jun., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Josiah Quincy, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

The second member of the said motion being again read in the words following, to wit:

"That the said memorials appear to have been presented at a time, and under circumstances insidiously calculated to excite unjust suspicion in the minds of the good people of this nation, against the existing

Administration of the General Government."

The question was taken that the House do agree to the said second member of the motion, and resolved in the affirmative-yeas 70, nays 13, as follows:

YEAS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, jun., Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, John Lambert, Matthew Lyon, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Nathan Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston. NAYS-Christopher Clark, Samuel W. Dana, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Joseph Lewis, jun., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer. The third member of the said motion being again read, in the words following, to wit:

"And that it would be highly improper in this House, to take any step which might influence or prejudice a cause now depending in a legal tribunal of the United

States."

H. of R.

Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jun., Matthew Lyon, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford, Jeremiah Nelson, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

The fourth and last member of the said motion being again read, in the words following, to wit: "Therefore, Resolved, That the said memorials be, by the Clerk of this House, returned to those from whom they came:"

The question was taken that the House do agree to the said fourth and last member of the motion, and resolved in the affirmative-yeas 71, pays 14, as follows:

YEAS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, junior, Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, John Lambert, Matthew Lyon, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Nathan Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

uel W. Dana, William Ely, Joseph Lewis, jun., JereNAYS-George M. Bedinger, Christopher Clark, Sammiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Russell, Samuel Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg, and Killian K. Van

The question was taken that the House do agree to said third member of the motion, and unan-Rensselaer. imously resolved in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, every member present voting in the affirmative, to wit:

Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, jun., Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Matthew Clay, John

DUTIES ON SALT.

The House took up the amendments of the Senate to the bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force for a further time, the first section of the act, entitled "An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers."

[blocks in formation]

These amendments proposed striking out all the provisions of the bill relative to the repeal of the duty on salt.

Mr. ÁLSTON said he believed it would be in order to amend the amendment of the Senate. If it were, he would offer an amendment, which would go to take off the duty on salt to the amount of eight cents.

The SPEAKER Considering the amendment, in the present stage of the business, not in order, the question was put on concurring in the amendments of the Senate.

APRIL, 1806.

this tax upon salt, when the measure was proposed at the heel of a session, when it might have been offered three months ago, and connected with another thing which compelled me to vote for it? In my opinion, it is as Constitutional for us to agree to an amendment of the Senate as if the thing originated with us. I hope the House will agree to the amendment. The situation of our affairs requires it, and I trust we shall treat with contempt the attempt to force down so important a bill at the end of a session.

Mr. ALSTON thought it would be advisable to accommodate with the Senate. In order to obtain an accommodation, he should vote, in the first instance, against the amendments of the Senate. On a conference, they may agree to strike off the duty of eight cents on salt, and the next year, when we shall better understand the ground on which we stand, the House may be disposed still further to lessen the burden.

Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee.-I do not consider this bill as in the nature of a bill originating revenue, but as one, on the contrary, detracting from the revenue. I contend that the Senate have the power, at any time, to say they will not consent to the repeal of a revenue law, else they are a trifling, insignificant body. Are they not, as well as we, to judge of the exigency of the country? This is not a question of expediency, but of necessity. Though we are desirous of taking off the duty on salt, such is the situation of the country, menaced with foreign danger, and particularly with a war with Tunis, that the revenue ought not to be diminished. For these reasons I shall concur in the amendment of the Senate.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-I understand this House to have sent a bill to the Senate repealing the existing duty on salt, and continuing for a further time the tax imposing a duty of two and a half per cent. on articles previously charged with ad valorem duties. The Senate have returned the bill, retaining the supply we voted, as well as the tax proposed by us to be repealed. I hope we shall not agree to their amendments, and the reasons I shall offer will not be those drawn from expediency, but from my idea of the Constitutional powers of this, and the other branch of the Legislature-which is, that it is the sole and indisputable prerogative of this House to grant the money of the people of the United States. It is here only that a grant of money can originate. It is true that the Senate have the power of amending money bills, but my idea of the extent to which that power can go, according to the true spirit of the Constitution, is this: While the Senate may amend money bills, to facilitate the collection of duties, or in other respects, as to their details, they do not possess the Constitutional power of varying either the quantum of tax proposed in this House, or the object on which it may be levied. I hope the House will never consent to give up this invaluable privilege of saying what supplies they will grant, and the object on which they shall be levied. But, even supposing this objection nugatory, I hope this House will not suffer itself to be trapped, on the last day of the session, in agreeing to a grant it was never in their contemplation to make. When we sent a bill to the other branch to continue the Mediterranean duty, we sent at the same time, a bill to repeal the duty well Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, Barna

on salt. The amendment from the Senate can be viewed in no other light than as originating a money bill in the Senate. It goes to originate a tax on salt. Such, in effect, will be the object and tendency of the measure. Let us suppose, instead of sending to the Senate a bill imposing a new tax, we had sent a simple bill to repeal this same tax upon salt-could the Senate, by an amendment, rivet and continue the Mediterranean fund? And if they could, would not that be originating a money bill? I hope the House will disagree to the amendments of the Senate.

The veas and nays were then taken on agreeing to the amendment of the Senate-yeas 24, nays 56, as follows:

YFAS-John Blake, jr., Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, James Fisk, Isaiah L. Green, Walter Jones, Michael Leib, Matthew Lyon, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, junior, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, Jas. Sloan, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, John Whitehill, and Nathan Williams.

NAYS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Bur

ler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Matthew Clay, bas Bidwell, Robert Brown, Levi Casey, John ChandJohn Clopton, Jacob Crowninshield, John Davenport, junior, John Dawson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, David Hough, Joseph Lewis, jun., Thomas Moore, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Smile, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Joseph Stanton, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Winn, and Jo

Mr. SLOAN. However I may expose myself to the censure of the gentleman from Virginia, I think it my duty to say something on a subject highly interesting to my constituents. Notwithstanding the talents and eloquence of that gentle-seph Winston. man, I differ from him on this subject. I will ask Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-I hope we shall now adwhat chance there was of obtaining the repeal of here to our disagreement to the amendment of the

« AnteriorContinuar »