Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

not glimmer dimly through the intricate windings of various provisions. These ought to have been natural conclusions, resulting from the principle, rather than the sources from which it is to be inferred. It ought to have been settled as soon as the bill came in, and before a vote indicative of it had been moved. As the whole of this subject had been hitherto completely sifted, he would make but one or two remarks. The framers of the Constitution could never have thought of this mode of applying a ratio. All the guards in favor of State Governments, show that the States were viewed respectively and severally. The laws relative to elections are entirely and exclusively in the hands of the States. Had the Convention intended the aggregate of the whole, and not of States, should be the object of apportionment by ratio, they would have kept the election law in the hands of Congress; they would have empowered Congress to divide the Continent into districts. If New Hampshire has five members here, and her aggregate divided by thirty thousand would give her but four, (which is the case,) she will have an undue influence on this floor; as the weight and power that any State has here, ought to be but equal to her numbers. It has been laid down as doctrine here, that every member represents the whole. He could not comprehend the force of that position in the use and latitude in which it was applied. He would not annex any meaning to theoretical truths, which did not admit of a wholesome practice. A member here represents his constituents; he legislates for the whole. The people whose rights and interests are the subject of legislation, are a whole; from their unity of interests, and from their union of Government, results the general duty of the Representative. His responsibility to his own circle of constituents, is on his duty discharged or neglected to the whole; because the true good of the several parts consists in the general prosperity of the whole. Where a member represents one district, he meant to give, and show a truth, on the use of which alone he could conceive a practical operation to the principle of responsibility could be obtained. Any other idea of responsibility which he had ever heard, was too refined for common use. If a member from one part of the Union is to be the Representative of a part which does not elect him, agreeably to this fractional doctrine, he cannot be held in check or control by them; and the very reason that may make him hateful to them, may ingratiate him among those from whom he actually comes. Instead of cementing confidence, such a predominance given any one State, beyond what her numbers entitle her to, will sow discord and jealousy. He had an amendment ready to offer, which was, to strike out the words "within the several States," and to insert these words: "agreeably to a ratio of one member for every thirty thousand." He would vote against the motion, and against the principle on which it was founded, which, though not specified in the bill, was obvious, and take the liberty of moving his amendment, if the motion now before the Committee failed, which he hoped would be the case.

[H. of R.

Mr. BOUDINOT said, he could have wished that, as the House had gone into a Committee of the Whole, the gentleman [Mr. MURRAY] had brought forward a proposition, as he is abundantly able to do, which would give the bill the consistency he wished for. He then entered into a defence of the proposition, and justified its friends from the charge of inconsistency. He had been in favor of forty thousand; if that had been agreed to, he should have applied it as it is now proposed in respect to thirty thousand. He replied to several objections, by explaining the Constitution.

Mr. BENSON moved an amendment as a substitute for Mr. VINING's proposition, expressly apportioning the representation on the aggregate number of the people of the United States. This he moved in conformity to the idea of Mr. MURRAY, who contended that there was no principle in the bill.

Mr. VINING, on this, withdrew his proposition. The debate was continued on Mr. BENSON'S motion, and was finally negatived-33 to 24. The Committee then rose, and had leave to sit again.

FRIDAY, February 17.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a Letter and Memorial from D. L. Morell, of the Island of St. Domingo, suggesting a plan for the civilization of the Indians; which were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

On a motion made and seconded, Resolved, That it be a Standing Order of this House that, whenever confidential communications are received from the President of the United States, the House shall be cleared of all persons except the members and the Clerk, and so continue during the reading of such communications, and during all debates and proceedings to be had thereon. And that, when the SPEAKER, or any other member, shall inform the House that he has communications to make, which he conceives ought to be kept secret, the House shall, in like manner, be cleared till the communication be made; the House shall then determine whether the matter communicated requires secrecy or not, and take order accordingly.

APPORTIONMENT BILL.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill for an Apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first Enumeration; and making provision for another Enumeration, and an Apportionment of Representatives thereon, to compose the House of Representatives, after the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven; and after some time spent therein, the Committee rose and reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.

FRIDAY, February 20.

A memorial and petition of sundry merchants of the State of North Carolina, engaged in com

H. OF R.]

Apportionment Bill-Settlement of Claims.

Thomas Tudor Tucker-25.

[FEBRUARY, 1792.

merce, previous to the late Revolution, was pre-nathan Dayton, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, sented to the House and read, stating the peculiar Andrew Gregg, James Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Philip hardships under which they labor, from the two- Key, Aaron Kitchell, Samuel Livermore, Andrew Moore, fold causes of the operation of the fourth article Nathaniel Niles, John Page, Cornelius C. Schoonmaof the Definitive Treaty of Peace, and so muchker, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Joof the act of Congress for funding the public nathan Sturges, Peter Sylvester, George Thatcher, and debt, as redeems the old Continental money, at the rate of one hundred dollars thereof, for one dollar specie; the former requiring them to pay their British debts in sterling money, with full interest to the present time, and the latter depriving them of all hope of indemnity, from the effects of depreciation and tender laws, to which they were exposed during the war, and praying relief. Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

APPORTIONMENT BILL.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill for an Apportionment of Representatives among the several States, according to the first Enumeration, and making provision for another Enumeration, and an Apportionment of Representatives, after the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven."

NAYS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, EgFitzsimons, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, bert Benson, John Brown, William Findley, Thomas Thomas Hartley, Daniel Huger, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Josiah Parker, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Thomas Sumpter, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Anthony Wayne, Alexander White, and

Francis Willis-26.

On filling up the blank in the fourth section taken and stood thus: with "thirty thousand," the yeas and nays were

bert Benson, John Brown, William Findley, Thomas YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, EgFitzsimons, Samuel Griffin, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, John Laurance, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Joshua Seney, Samuel Sterrett, Mr. SENEY moved that the third and fourth sec-Thomas Sumpter, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, tions, which provide for an apportionment of the representation on the Second Census, &c. should be struck out. This motion occasioned some debate, and was disagreed to.

The blank for the ratio of representation on the Second Census, was filled with "thirty thousand." The bill was then reported to the House with the amendments. These were taken into consideration, and severally agreed to.

Mr. DAYTON then moved to strike out the second section, which provides for a second enumeration in five years; and called the yeas and nays; which were taken, and stood as follow:

Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Anthony Wayne, Alexander White, and Francis Willis-29.

NAYS. Robert Barnwell, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Andrew Gregg, James Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John W. Kittera, Amasa Learned, Samuel Livermore, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, Jonathan Sturges, and George Thatcher-22.

morrow.

The other amendments to the said bill were then severally again read, and agreed to. YEAS-Robert Barnwell, Elias Boudinot, ShearjaOrdered, That the said bill, with the amendshub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jo-ments, be engrossed, and read the third time tonathan Dayton, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Hillhouse, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Amasa Learned, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Niles, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Joshua Seney, Israel Smith, Jonathan Sturges, Peter Sylvester, George Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, and Alexander White-23.

NAYS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, John Brown, William Findley, Thomas Fitzsimons, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Huger, John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Josiah Parker, William Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Thomas Sumpter, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Anthony Wayne, and Francis

Willis-26.

Mr. SENEY renewed his motion for striking out the third and fourth sections, which respect the ratio of representation on the Second Census, and called for the yeas and nays; which were taken and stood as follow:

YEAS. Robert Barnwell, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jo

Mr. LIVERMORE laid a motion on the table to the following purport: "That a committee should be appointed to report a bill authorizing the officers of the Treasury to settle the claim on the estate of General Greene, so as that the said estate may be indemnified from the claims against it, by virtue of his having become security for certain contractors, who furnished clothing and rations to the army of the United States, in the State of South Carolina."

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS.

The House went into Committee of the Whole

on a bill providing for the settlement of the claims of certain persons, under particular circumstances, barred by the limitations heretofore establishedMr. W. SMITH in the Chair.

The object of this bill is, to admit the claims of such officers, soldiers, artificers, sailors, and marines, as may have been inevitably precluded from presenting them, within the times prescribed by the ordinances of the late Congress, dated the 2d November, 1785, and 23d July, 1787.

FEBRUARY, 1792.]

Election of President-Apportionment Bill.

The Committee agreed to sundry amendments, which were reported. The House adopted several of them; others were proposed, but not decided on. Adjourned.

TUESDAY, February 21.

[H. OF R.

John W. Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, Sam-
uel Livermore, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles,
Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Israel
Smith, William Smith, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tudor
Tucker, and Jeremiah Wadsworth.

NAYS.-Abraham Baldwin, John Brown, Nicholas Gilman, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, John Page, Josiah Parker, Joshua Seney, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Thomas Sumpter, George Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Anthony Wayne, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis

Willis.

APPORTIONMENT BILL.

A message from the Senate, informed the House that the Senate disagree to the last, and agree to all the other amendments proposed by this House to the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act relative to the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the officer who shall act as President in case of vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President." The Senate have also appointed a comAn engrossed bill for an Apportionment of Remittee, jointly, with such committee as shall be appointed on the part of this House, to consider and to the first Enumeration, and making provision for presentatives among the several States, according report what business is necessary to be done by another Enumeration, and an Apportionment of Congress in the present session, and what part of Representatives thereon, to compose the House of the business now depending may, without great Representatives, after the third day of March, one inconvenience, be postponed to the next session, thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, was that the proceedings may be so regulated as to close read the third time, and the blanks therein filled this session by the first Tuesday in April next. Mr. GOODHUE, Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. LAU-up; and, on the question that the said bill do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 34, nays RANCE, Mr. WHITE, and Mr. MACON, were appoint- 16, as follows: ed a committee on the part of this House, for the purpose expressed in the message from the Senate.

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT, &c.

The House then proceeded to reconsider their last amendment, disagreed to by the Senate, to the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act relative to the election of a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the officer who shall act as President, in case of vacancies in the offices both of President and Vice President." Whereupon, the said amendment being read as follows:

Strike out the ninth section in the words following:

“And be it further enacted, That in case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President of the United States, the President of the Senate pro tempore, and in case there shall be no President of the Senate, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for the time being, shall act as President of the United States, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

And in lieu thereof, insert:

"And be it further enacted, That, in case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, for the time being, shall act as President of the United States, until the disability be removed, or a Pre

sident shall be elected."

A motion was made, and the question being put, that the House do recede from the said amendment-it passed in the affirmative-yeas 31, nays 24, as follows:

YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, William Findley, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry Benjamin Goodhue, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell,

Benson, Abraham Clark, William Findley, Thomas Fizsimons, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thotera, John Laurance, Nathaniel Macon, James Madimas Hartley, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, John W. Kitson, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Joshua Seney, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Thomas Sumpter, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, John Vining, Anthony Wayne, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis.

YEAS.-Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, Egbert

NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Learned, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Niles, TheoGoodhue, James Hillhouse, Aaron Kitchell, Amasa dore Sedgwick, Israel Smith, Jonathan Sturges, George

Thatcher, and Jeremiah Wadsworth.

SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS.

The House resumed the consideration of the amendments reported by the Committee of the Whole House yesterday, to the bill providing for the settlement of claims of persons under particular circumstances, barred by the limitations heretofore established; and the same being read was agreed to. The said bill was then further amended, and, together with the said amendments, ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow.

THE MILITIA BILL.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill more effectually to provide for the national defence, by establishing an uniform Militia throughout the United States. The first section being read

Mr. STURGES said, that he conceived some amendment was necessary to this section. It appears to consider the militia of the several States, as the militia of the Union; whereas the Consti

[blocks in formation]

tution considers it as belonging to the respective States; that the States alone are to say of what description of persons the militia shall consist, and who shall be exempt from militia duty; Congress have only power to organize them, when thus designated. He therefore moved that the section should be amended, by striking out the clause, which he considered as involving the principle he was opposed to.

Mr. SENEY observed, that the consequence of the gentleman's motion would be, to render the power of Congress in organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, entirely nugatory.

Mr. BARNWELL enlarged on the ideas suggested by Mr. SENEY.

Mr. LIVERMORE made some general remarks on the terms used in the Constitution, to designate the power of Congress in respect to the militia. He contended that they were the most vague and indefinite that could possibly have been adopted. He agreed substantially with Mr. STURGES. It is the militia of the several States that Congress have power to organize, and provide a mode of discipline for. It is not a militia to be formed, or created-it already exists. He therefore thought it best to leave it to the respective States to make their own militia laws.

Mr. BARNWELL observed, that the consequence of the gentleman's proposition would be a total want of uniformity in the militia, and a clashing from different militia systems. That it was in vain to expect an effective militia, except Congress should exercise the powers so expressly delegated to them in this respect.

Mr. BOUDINOT observed, that from the experience Congress has had in the preceding sessions, of the difficulties attending this subject, he was fully of opinion that a plan of conciliation alone would ever procure a passage through the Legislature for a militia bill. He adverted to the powers of Congress on this subject, and to those reserved to the States; to the latter, was expressly reserved the power of appointing the officers, and if they refuse to do it, there is no power in Congress to compel them. He therefore accorded with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. STURGES] in opinion that the law which Congress shall pass, must be very simple in its construction, and refer to as few objects as possible.

Mr. HILLHOUSE controverted the sentiments advanced by Mr. BOUDINOT. He said the natural inference was, that Congress possesses no power at all in the case; for, if what that gentleman advances is true, no provision that Congress can possibly make will be of the least avail. He contended that Congress, by virtue of the powers vested in them, are empowered to organize the militia, to say what descriptions, ages, &c., the militia shall consist of; to form them into companies, corps, regiments, &c.; and that when this is done, the States are to appoint the officers; for, previous to such an organization, the States cannot exercise the power of appointing the officers. He hoped, therefore, that the motion would not be agreed to; but that the Committee would proceed in the matter agreeable to the express powers of the Con

[FEBRUARY, 1792.

stitution, and when they came to the section making exemptions, he hoped they would make them on a very liberal scale, that the militia should consist of such persons as would be capable of rendering service.

Mr. WADSWORTH opposed the motion. He observed that the subject had been managed in such manner, as to pare the bill now under consideration, down to such an inadequate, defective system, that he did not feel much interested in its fate. Still he hoped the motion would not prevail, for he considered it as better than no provision at all. He said that the militia of the several States exist at the present moment more by general consent of the persons forming them in the several States, than in consequence of any laws of the particular States. The people in several States already avow the sentiment, that they think that Congress alone has the power to form the militia.

Mr. SEDGWICK enlarged on the ideas of Mr. WADSWORTH. He further remarked that the amendment proposed would operate extremely unequal, and would defeat the public expectations of an efficient military defence, such an one as was consistent with a free Government.

Mr. STURGES Supported his motion. He was surprised to hear gentlemen express their apprehensions that we should have no militia at all. Adverting to the Constitution, he explained what he considered the meaning of organizing, &c. It simply relates to forming, arming, and arranging in a particular way, those materials which are furnished by the militia laws of the several States. In reply to the objections derived from the inattention and aversion of the States, to such requisitions as Congress may make, he said it was not to be supposed that the States would be so inattentive to the means of their own preservation, as to neglect their duty in this respect.

Mr. NILES Supported the motion.

Mr. MURRAY observed, that in no particular point of view was the people to be considered as united for a general purpose, more than in that of the general defence. The militia, contemplated in the Constitution, certainly does not mean an existing militia; for many of the States have no militia nor militia laws; and therefore the clause must respect a militia to be formed or created. He enlarged on the necessity and wisdom of the provision. The appointment of the officers he considered as being properly left in the power of the States.

The motion was negatived.

A motion by Mr. FITZSIMONS, to exempt persons who are not able to arm and equip themselves, from any penalty on that account, while that disability continues, occasioned some debate.

Mr. SUMPTER entered into a general consideration of the subject. He denied that Congress had any right to interfere with the regulations of the several States in respect to their militia; their whole power respects only the calling the militia into actual service in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion; and when thus called into service, they may provide for the organizing and ar

[blocks in formation]

ranging them in companies, corps, and battalions; and it is the duty of the General Government then to provide them with the means of defence; but they have no right to say that the militia, previous to being thus called out, shall be at the expense of arming themselves. He hoped the bill would take a different direction, and that Congress would not so far interfere in this business as to designate the persons who shall bear arms, and to say how they shall be armed. It seems to be the opinion of some gentlemen, according to the observations which have fallen from them, that the militia service shall be imposed on a comparatively small part of the citizens; and this inequality is to be increased by obliging those persons to be at the expense of arming themselves. He hoped that such injustice would not take place. Mr. NILES, adverting to the Constitution, observed, that it appeared to him that a provision for arming the militia was reserved to the States, so far as it respects the common defence. He considered the requisition in the bill as operating like a capitation tax; and this species of tax, he observed, was to be assessed only in a certain way, agreeably to a particular clause in the Constitution. He concluded by moving that the clause in the bill which contained this provision for arming, should be struck out.

This motion was negatived.

Mr. FITZSIMONS withdrew his motion, which provided for a certificate from two Justices of the Peace, to admit a substitute, which provides that they shall be excused, if, in the judgment of the commissioned officers to whose company they belong, they are not able to furnish themselves.

This substitute was adopted.

Mr. KITCHELL Moved that the clause should be struck out, which provides that the calibres of the guns should be of one bore. He observed that this provision was unnecessary, and in fact impossible to be complied with.

[H. OF R.

left in the bill, and to strike out this would render the militia a fallacious source of defence, and effectually destroy every idea of uniformity. Mr. KITCHELL's motion was negatived. The motion to expunge the exemptions was seconded by Mr. DAYTON.

Mr. BOUDINOT opposed it. He urged, in brief, the several reasons which were offered on a former occasion in support of the exemptions.

Mr. DAYTON said, it appeared to him unreasonable to exempt persons from militia duty, and from paying an equivalent, too, who, from their station in life, are best qualified to pay those equivalents. It appeared to him to be unjust and impolitic.

Mr. J. SMITH Opposed the motion. He observed that the experience of the Eastern States, where the militia is on at least as respectable a footing as in any part of the Union, was against the spirit of the motion. There various exemptions are made, and the prejudices of the people are in favor of the practice. Many exemptions are necessary, and many characters in society cannot, and ought not to be compelled to bear arms- -Ministers of the Gospel, &c. To combat these prejudices, would be little better than attacking a windmill. Several other gentlemen spoke on the subject. The motion was finally negatived.

The third section being read

Mr. J. SMITH moved that these words, after the word "companies," "" in such manner as the President of the United States shall see proper to direct," should be struck out. He observed, that, as the President of the United States has, by the Constitution, no command over the militia till they are called into actual service, he cannot, with any propriety, be invested with this power. It lies with the Legislatures of the several States to make the provision requisite in this case. Executives of the several States must be more competent to determine the number of regiments, &c., into which their respective militia should be divided.

The

Mr. LAURANCE said, the Constitution, by investing Congress with the power of organizing the militia, appears necessarily to have included the power in question.

Mr. SUMPTER asked what was to be done with the arms which the militia now have in their hands. Are they to be thrown away? Besides, he thought the provision inconsistent with the actual state of the military force of the country, the laws for the regulation of which contemplate the enrolment of riflemen among the regular forces of Mr. LIVERMORE said, he was in favor of striking the country. Adverting to the expense which out the words, on two accounts. He did not know would attend this provision, he observed it was how the power could be exercised, and he was opalmost totally impracticable to carry it into exe-posed to retaining phrases which, however soundcution. He hoped it would not be agreed to, as it would involve an enormous and unnecessary expense.

ing and pompous they may be, contained no meaning. This he conceived to be the case in respect to the words in question. They propose to invest a power in the President, which I do not see how he can exercise; or, if he can, certainly not with so much propriety as the Legislatures of the several States.

Mr. MURRAY offered some similar remarks. He did not conceive that the excellency of the militia of the United States consisted in their being armed all with muskets of the same bore. He did not consider the bill in the light that some gentlemen Mr. HILLHOUSE was opposed to striking out the appeared to do. It was, in his opinion, merely a pro- words. He said he could conceive of no disadvision to keep alive a military germ that shall, vantage which would result from giving the Prewhen occasion calls, spring up, and diffuse its in-sident the power of making a uniform arrangefluence among the people in such manner as to furnish the most competent means of defence.

Mr. WADSWORTH objected to the motion. He said this was one of the very few good regulations

ment of the militia. It appeared to be necessary, in order to his being able to determine how to call them into service, should public exigencies require it, in such proportions and drafts as shall be

« AnteriorContinuar »