on an indefinite postponement, and passed in the negative-years 42, nays 81, as follows:

H. OF R

C. concluded by expressing a hope that the gentleman from Virginia would agree to a postponement till next Monday.

Mr. CLARK said he had no objection. The question was then put, and the postponement to Monday next carried.

PLURALITY OF OFFICES.

YEAS-Willis Alston, jun., Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop, James M. Broom, Martin Chittenden, Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jun., Peter Early, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William_Ely, James Fisk, Seth Hastings, William Helms, David Hough, Joseph Lewis, jun., Henry W. Livingston, Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-I beg leave to submit a Josiah Masters, Jonathan O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mum-motion to the House-a very important motionford, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John which at present I only mean to lay on the table. Pugh, Josiah Quincy, Martin G. Schuneman, John The Constitution of the United States has proCotton Smith, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, vided that no person holding an office under the Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Ten- Government of the United States shall be capaney, Thomas W. Thompson, Killian K. Van Rens-ble of holding a seat in either House of Congress. selaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Pe- But as the best things are liable to corruption, and leg Wadsworth, Eliphalet Wickes, and Nathan Wilas we are told the corruption of the best things is liams. NAYS-Evan Alexander, Isaac Anderson, David always the worst, so the Constitution of the UniBard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Basset, George M. Bed-ted States has received in practice a construction inger, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas which in my judgment the text never did and Blount, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William Butler, does not warrant, but which, if warranted by the George W. Campbell, John Campbell, Levi Casey, text, is totally repugnant to the spirit of that instruJohn Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, ment, which, composed of the jarring interests of Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jun., Ja- the different States, and settled on the basis of cob Crowninshield, John Dawson, William Dickson, compromise, gave birth to a Government of reElias Earle, James Elliot, John W. Eppes, William sponsibility, without influence, without patronage, Findley, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Peterson without abuse, without privileges, attached to any Goodwyn, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Hal- individual, class, or order of men. It could not sey, John Hamilton, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, have been the object of such an instrument, that Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Michael Leib, Matthew while a man holding an office not exceeding the Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert value of fifty dollars should be excluded from a seat Marion, William McCreery, David Meriwether, Ni- in this House, a contractor living on the fat of the cholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, land should be capable under the Constitution of John Morrow, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Randolph, Thomas M. holding one. Look through the whole of the ConRandolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of stitution, and say where such a privilege is to be Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, found. You find there the single principle of Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Ebenezer Sea- republicanism, that he who has the influence dever, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel rived from power and money shall not have a place Smith, Henry Southard, Thomas Spalding, Richard in the council of the nation-that placemen and Stanford, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, pensioners shall not come on this floor. While Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, this principle scrupulously excludes men holding David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Alexander responsible offices-men known to the whole Wilson, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns. world-shall it be considered as permitting contractors to creep in through the crevices of the Constitution, and devour the goods of the people? Such a departure from the spirit, if not from the letter of the Constitution-such a gross evasion of principle-calls aloud for remedy. Can a man who holds a contract for fifty or an hundred thousand dollars give an independent vote on this floor? If so, why not admit the Chief Justice and other high officers under the Government to a seat here? Is it for any other reason, but that the Constitution will not permit the influence derived from office to operate here?

Mr. CLARK then varied his motion so as to postpone the resolution to the second Monday in March.

Mr. J. CLAY said he wished the gentleman would withdraw his motion, and move a postponement till next Monday. He was very sensible of the importance of the subject, and was only sorry that there was not a prospect of obtaining a Constitutional majority in favor of the resolution. Mr. C. said they had been told by his colleague (Mr. CONRAD) that he was ready to vest the President with a discretionary power to remove a judge on the address of the two Houses. But if the gentleman had attended to the politics of his own State he would have seen the impropriety of such authority; the consequence of which was that a judge, whose removal had been requested by the two branches of the Legislature, actually held his place at the discretion of the Governor. The other alternative his colleague had suggested was worse than the present provision, as at present a majority of one branch and two-thirds of the other were sufficient to remove a judge. Mr.

The Constitution may be tried by another test. It was made for the good of the people under it, and not for those who administer it. It was never intended to be made a job of, and I hope it never will be suffered by the people to be made a job of. I think it is contrary to the tenor of the Constitution to hold a plurality of office. We sometime since received a petition from a learned institution to exempt books imported by them from duty. What did we say on that occasion? We said, no; we cannot exempt your books from duty. All

Military Land Warrants-Trade with St. Domingo.

H. OF R.

Trade with St. Domingo.

FEBRUARY, 1806.

islands and continue the intercourse, or the inter-son, Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van course will be continued by agents in those Rensselaer, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, islands. But, I fear the effect the passing this Peleg Wadsworth, Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Willaw may have on the inhabitants of that island. Iliams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Richfear that, in the spirit of resentment, when they ard Winn, and Thomas Wynns. hear of the passage of this bill, they will turn to Mr. SMILIE. Have we, or have we not a right a nation of pirates, as it respects us; and that you to carry on trade with St. Domingo without the will either be obliged to send a fleet into the West consent of France? That is the question before India seas, for the protection of your commerce, the House. Either give up the trade, or acknowor be obliged to see it sacrificed. I know not why ledge the independence of Hayti. I am of opinit is necessary for us, at this time, to pass any billion that, while we acknowledge the rights of on the subject. I know not why France should France over that island, that we cannot trade wish such a bill. France will herself, probably, with its inhabitants without the consent of be a loser by its passing. I think we have a right to trade with the inhabitants of that island. Suppose the inhabitants of Jamaica, or the black and white inhabitants of any other

Mr. EARLY asked if the gentleman was in

order?

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.-I'll stop if the Speaker so decides, or if any gentleman in the House wishes it.

The SPEAKER.-The gentleman will proceed,

if he pleases.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.—I had but a word to say. Suppose, sir, there should be a revolt in the East Indies, and England should interdict our trade with Calcutta, with Madras, &c., should we obey? But I will not enlarge. I sincerely hope the bill

will not pass.

The yeas and nays on the amendment werefor it 22, against it 95, as follows:

YEA-David Bard, Burwell Bassett, Robert Brown, John Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, James M. Garnett, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Michael Leib, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Penn

sylvania, Jacob Richards, John Smilie, Samuel Smith, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill,

and Alexander Wilson.

France.

It was moved that the bill be read the third time to-morrow; which was negatived, and it was ordered to be read this day. The bill being read the third time

Mr. MCCREERY opposed its passage in an argument of considerable length.

Mr. CONRAD called for the ayes and noes; which were ordered.

his satisfaction that the ayes and noes were orderMr. J. C. SMITH said, he rose merely to express ed on this question. I consider, said Mr. S., all discussion of the merits of the bill as perfectly fruitless. The rapid manner in which it has been hurried thus far through the House, utterly precludes all deliberation, and is a sure prognostic of its final passage. It is a measure which will greatly embarrass all our foreign commerce, and if it is to have its intended effect, which I much doubt, because I believe its defective provisions will be easily defeated or evaded, it must prove completely ruinous to a lawful and valuable branch of our trade. But, as a measure of policy, I consider it absolutely destructive of the best and dearest rights of this country. Sir, the secret is out; the fact cannot be concealed that this bill is dictated by the Governmant of France. The imperious mandate of the French Minister is published to the world; and the connexion between his orders and this act of obedience and submission will be clearly perceived and universally acknowledged. I presume not to arraign the motives of other gentlemen; they, doubtless, have reasons which justify the measure to themselves. Indeed, it is impossible their impressions can be like mine. For myself, I view the bill, under all its circumstances, as a surrender of all the rights of self government; as a sacrifice of the honor and independence of this nation upon the altar of Gallick despotism. To this sacrifice I never can, I never will consent; and it is, therefore, with pleasure I shall record my decided negative upon the Journal of the

Nars-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, Joseph Barker, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, John Blake, junior, Thomas Blount, James M. Broom, William Butler, Levi Casey, John Chandler, Martin Chittenden, Christopher Clark, George Clinton, jun., Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, William Dickson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William Findley, Peterson Goodwyn, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, David Hough, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Joseph Lewis, junior, Henry W. Livingston, Matthew Lyon, Duncan MacFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, David Meriwether, Thomas Moore, Jonathan O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford, without acknowledging their independence. If Mr. J. CLAY.-We cannot trade with them Jeremiah Nelson, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John gentlemen are ready to do this, I shall consider it Rhea of Tennessee, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas as a sacrifice on the altar of black despotism and Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, usurpation. Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Cotton Smith, Mr. DANA.—I rise, sir, to declare my approbaJohn Smith, Henry Southard, Thomas Spalding, Rich-tion of the sentiments expressed by my honorable ard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, Lewis colleague, Mr. J. C. SMITH. B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas W. Thomp

House.

This bill, from the nature of its provisions. I consider as inadequate to prevent the trade with

FEBRUARY, 1806.

Trade with St. Domingo.

H OF R.

this commerce ought to extend only to military apparatus, and not to the denial of the ordinary necessities and conveniences of life; that the laws of nations require that we should exercise a strict neutrality between France and Hayti; and that a declaration of non-intercourse was, and probably would be considered, by the inhabitants of that island, as a declaration of war. But opportunity has not been allowed for the examination requisite to the establishment of these points, and there is obviously no disposition to attend to it were it made. I shall, therefore, merely record my negative to the bill.

the island of St. Domingo. At the same time, to its final passage, has been equally apparent in considering the circumstances under which it has this day's debate. Considering the magnitude of been pressed upon our attention. I view it as pe- its principles and consequences, the course adoptculiarly exceptionable in principle, and as involved is unprecedented. Under other circumstances, ing consequences which may be severely injurious and had time been allowed for the investigation, in practice. I should have held it my duty to have shown, as I will not attempt, at this time, to state the va-I think it might be done, that our restrictions of rious possible consequences of passing the bill. Without estimating the probability of its being regarded by those who now rule in Hayti as an act of hostility against them, and, therefore, as a cause for their exercising hostilities against this country; without intimating the tendency of such measures to drive them to attempt maritime enterprises, and thus to raise up in the West Indies a black Algiers, distinguished by activity and ferocity; without presenting to view the consequent dangers to the property of our merchants and the lives of our seamen; the single consideration of the circumstances under which we are now required to act upon this subject, is sufficient to de- Mr. ELMER. I know of no foundation for the cide my vote against the present bill, even if it declaration, that this bill is the effect of an order were otherwise of no moment. As one of the from the Minister of France. I believe no such Representatives of the people of the United States, order would affect a single member on this floor. I hold it not my duty to bow to the mandate of Policy requires, our duty requires, the passing of any foreign Power. In this light I view the com- this bill. The subject has been fully discussed, munications laid before the Senate, from Talley- this and the last session; there is no haste; if rand and the French Minister Plenipotentiary, gentlemen wish to amend, let their amendments requiring the interdiction of trade with St. Do-be brought forward; if they wish further to dismingo, under the order of their imperial master. With such sentiments, it is impossible for me to be in favor of the present bill.

Mr. RHEA. of Tennessee.-I deny that this bill is the effect of any request or order of the French; it is an act of justice.

cuss, the House is ready to listen; the principle of this bill is already settled, and has long been. I look not at consequences; I look to what policy and duty require. We must offend France or Saint Domingo; but I see not why St. Domingo should be up in arms at the passage of this bill. I fear the offence of no nation; I fear only doing wrong as a man, and as a legislator; I fear more the consequences of not passing, than I do of passing this bill.

Mr. QUINCY. It was my intention to have entered fully into an examination of the principles of this bill, but, like the gentleman from Connecticut, I deem myself precluded from executing this purpose, by the temper and disposition dis- Mr. EARLY. I had hoped this bill would pass covered by the House. In a commercial view, it without such observations as the House has been will affect my particular constituents but little.compelled to hear; I had hoped that the gentleThe merchants of Boston have been concerned in man from Connecticut, (Mr. SMITH) usually so this commerce to a very limited degree only. distinguished by the urbanity and correctness of There are, however, principles in the bill affecting his deportment in debate, would have forborne commercial convenience generally, which I should such expressions of bitterness and wrath. But have deemed it my duty to have considered, if the the gentleman could not omit this opportunity of course of proceeding adopted by the House, had opposing the present Administration. The gennot convinced me that it was not by argument tlemen who now oppose the bill were the cause that this bill was to be carried, or could be defeated. of its not being adopted the last session. When The bill was laid upon our tables yesterday. In we wished to pass this bill the last session, genhalf an hour after, we were called into Commit- tlemen who are now opposed to it, prevented its tee of the Whole upon it, through which it passed passage by saying that there was no cause for it, instantly without amendment. The report of the and we were told to wait till France should reCommittee was immediately considered, and a monstrate against (he intercourse. Well, France motion to postpone for a single day only, was vio- has remonstrated, and now the same gentlemen lently opposed by the gentlemen fron Virginia, tell us not to pass the bill, because she has remon(Mr. EPPES) and from Massachusetts, (Mr. BID-strated. Strange! There may be other grounds WELL.) It is true, as has been said, this subject has been long before the Senate, ut it is the first time that I ever heard that the members of this House were in duty bound to be prepared to act immediately upon an important question, because it had been long under the consideration of the other branch of the Legislature. A similar de gree of haste and determination to press this bill 9th CoN.-17

of objections to this bill, which gentlemen choose not to avow. There is a disposition, not only in this House, but elsewhere-in the public printswhich fills my mind with awe. After all we can do, the object seems to be to draw down on us the wrath of other Governments. Look at a celebrated publication in the Philadelphia gazettes. What is the object of that; and what is the object

now? Why, to tell the revolters of St. Domingo that they have just cause of offence or of war.

Mr. EPPES.-I rise to express my approbation of the novel manner in which some gentlemen have expressed their disapprobation of this bill. A gentleman from Connecticut rejoices to negative this bill; another gentleman from Connecticut coincides with him, and a gentleman from Massachusetts perfectly agrees with him.

Every nation, when injured, has a right to demand redress. Has not France, then, this right? Some gentlemen would declare St. Domingo free; if any gentleman harbors such sentiments let him come forward boldly and declare it. In such case, he would cover himself with detestation. A system that would bring immediate and horrible destruction on the fairest portion of America.

FEBRUARY, 1806.

mas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B. Varnum, MatThomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, thew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS-Silas Betton, Martin Chittenden, Jacob Crowninshield, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Henry W. Livingston, Matthew Lyon, William McCreery, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Josiah Quincy, John Cotton Smith, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Thomas W. Thompson, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.

WEDNESDAY, February 26.

Mr. ELY.-The amount of the trade, and the exact situation of this country, I knew little of till yesterday. I have attended to the observations that have been made; but I have scarcely heard any reason given why this bill should be passed. Hence, I am inclined to think that reason had little to do in the business, unless they are secret reasons. I wish for reasons for passing the bill; but An engrossed bill to continue in force an act the discussion has only afforded me reasons entitled An act to authorize the Secretary of against them. Have these Haytians no rights? War to issue military land warrants, and for other If they were once subjects of a Government that purposes," was read the third time, and the bill can no longer hold them, has that nation any recommitted to a Committee of the Whole imright to call on us to starve them out; to starve mediately. The House accordingly resolved itthese people into subjection to that Power? Gen-self into the said committee; and, after some time tlemen have said that we wish war. I trust not. I love a clear sky, good looks, and pleasant feelings. I love peace, and wish it as much as any gentleman in the House. It is suggested, and I fear too truly, that these people, rude, untutored sons of nature, fired with the full force of the lex talionis, when they come to hear of this bill, will arm, harass, and will swarm round our West India trade, and thus injure one fourth of our commerce. I deny the right of the French to dictate, as has been done. I deny the necessity or policy of yielding to the orders of the French Minister. Mr. SMILIE.-I deny that the inhabitants of St. Domingo are a nation. Has the United States, or any other nation, acknowledged them so? No. How, then, are they to be considered other than a part of France ?

The bill passed-yeas 93, nays 26, as follows: YEAS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William Butler, George W. Campbell, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jun., Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, William Dickson, Elias Earle, Peter Early, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Michael Leib, Duncan MacFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Tho

spent therein, the Committee reported an amendment thereto, which was twice read and agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That the said amendment be engrossed, and, together with the bill, read the third time this day.

Mr. BIDWELL, from the committee appointed on the twenty-second of January last, presented a bill prescribing the effect in each State of the records of judgments and decrees of the courts of record of every other State; which was then read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next.

The House proceeded to consider the amendment proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act for altering the time for holding the Circuit Court in the district of North Carolina ;" Whereupon,

Resolved, That this House do agree to the said amendment with an amendment.

An engrossed bill enabling the President of the United States to make restitution to the Government of Denmark, for the capture and condemnation of the Danish brigantine called the Henrick, and her cargo, was then read the third time, and passed.

On a motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That dollars ought to be appropriated. out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the immediate relief of Peter Landais, late a captain of one of the armed vessels of the United States, on account of his claim to prize money accruing from the captures made and carried into Bergen, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy