gerous check to the freedom of the press. What avails the declaration of our Constitution respecting the freedom of the press, if it may be restrained by the conduct of members in either House of Congress? And surely it may be restrained by such remarks as have been so warmly made by members here, merely on a member's stating information in his place, and referring to newspapers for further confirmation. Bold must be the printer, and on a broad basis of a large subscription must he stand, who can repeat information so severely quoted in this House. The honor of the House can never be vindicated by such expressions; on the contrary, they may lead our constituents to suppose that at least passions prevail here, and animosities exist, which ought to have no place among us; and, indeed, such conduct may tend directly to produce consequences of a serious nature to members concerned in debate. Mr. MADISON remarked, that an amendment now incorporated in the bill has changed its principles altogether. It was contemplated by the original bill to provide for debts incurred only for the support of the war; but by this amendment, debts are to be subscribed to the loan which were created subsequent to the period in which those debts originated that have been hitherto called debts of the United States. Another amendment has been added, which postpones the subscription to a period so distant as to anticipate the proper business of a subsequent Legislature, which will be more competent to decide upon it than this House is. The gentleman who brought forward this motion, assigned as a reason, that by this postponement the Senate would have a control over the subject which they would not have without passing the bill, and with this amendment. Mr. M. reprobated the idea of controlling the deliberations of a subsequent Legislature. He said the ground of the bill was changed. The postponement of the subscriptions renders it entirely unnecessary for the present Congress to decide upon it. He was in favor, therefore, of postponing it, and of the previous question. Mr. GERRY said he did not expect this opposition to the bill, at this stage of the business, especially from gentlemen who had advocated the very principle on which the bill is founded, viz: a provision for the balances which shall be found due on a final settlement of the accounts. The motion for the previous question is founded on the remonstrance of the State of Virginia;* a State which justly has the reputation of being wise in her councils and decisions, but on the present occasion is single and alone in her conduct in regard to this subject. No other State has come forward with such a remonstrance against the act and doings of the National Legislature. He concluded, therefore, that in this instance at least, that State is in an error; especially as the grounds of her complaints have been obviated. He then adverted to the general provisions of the bill, and showed that they were Mr. PAGE had called for the reading of the proceedings of the Legislature of the State of Virginia relative to the funding system, particularly the assumption of the State debts. These proceedings were accordingly read. [JANUARY, 1793. perfectly consonant to the existing provisions made by former acts of the Government, respecting the balances which shall appear to be due to the several States. He alluded next to the several provisos and amendments of the bill which had been ingrafted in it, to accommodate it to the wishes of those who, notwithstanding, appeared to be as much opposed to it as ever. He was really surprised and confounded at the conduct of gentlemen in the Opposition. He noticed briefly the justice of the claims of the creditors; and concluded by observing that there were already sufficient difficulties to embarrass the operations of this Government, and he conceived that the opposition to measures calculated to doing justice in this particular case, was calculated to increase those difficulties and embarrassments. Mr. AMES reprobated the idea of putting the previous question. After a discussion of three weeks, it is now proposed to prevent a decision of the subject. He considered this as a very unfair and unjustifiable mode of procedure; such an one as the gentlemen in opposition to the bill, on mature reflection, would not themselves justify. He then noticed the scope of the arguments offered in support of the previous question, and urged a variety of considerations to show that the present was the most favorable time to decide the question. He deprecated the consequences of a postponement; it would be considered as a denial of justice on the part of the present Legislature, and as placing the creditors in the most uncertain situation as to their future fate; in short, he conceived it was such an evasion of justice as might put the country in a flame. Mr. GILES replied to Mr. AMES. He conceived the consequences would be directly the reverse from those he had anticipated; he thought those who were to be benefited, who were comparatively but a small number, would not put the country in a flame: the danger was, that those who would suffer by the burdens which would result from the measure, would be thrown into a flame. He then entered into a general consideration of the subject, and urged a variety of reasons against the bill, and in favor of putting the previous question. Mr. G. also enlarged on the impropriety of precipitating the subject the present session. Mr. WHITE said he had, last session, voted against the bill for assuming the State debts, but he should vote for the bill now under consideration. In this he thought he was perfectly consistent, as there was a radical difference between the two. The former was a proposition for assuming all the debts of all the States-the same which had been originally proposed at New York, and which he had uniformly opposed. The present is only for assuming to the amount of the balances which may be due to creditor States: this he always approved. He said he had heard but one argument against the propriety of coming to an immediate decision, which appeared to have any weight-that was, the unequal and imperfect representation. This, he said, was a circumstance which he felt as sensibly as any member of the House, and if the proposition was to impose bur JANUARY, 1793.] Balances due certain States. H. of R. dens on the people, or to change an established States were concerned, they might do the same in system, he should hesitate before he agreed to it; the case of individuals. But as jealousies had but neither of these was the present case; no addi- taken place in the minds of the members, and as tional sums were to be raised by the bill, and no both sides of the House seemed to consider the change made in the mode of payment of the ba-passing this bill as giving a greater force and stalances without the approbation of the States to bility to the act for settling the accounts between which they may be due. the United States and individual States, it was a Having thus obviated this objection, he said, he strong reason with him to give his assent to it. would give the reasons which induced him to be- It had been said the passing the bill by so small a lieve the matter ought now to be decided. He majority would occasion discontent and uneasiobserved that, perhaps, it might have been wellness among the people. This might be the case, had the subject not been brought forward, con- but the same reason is equally applicable to a residering the opposition which had taken place.jection of the bill by a small majority. But who He did not, however, censure the gentleman who are most likely to be dissatisfied? Those who introduced it; that gentleman had, as well as him- by a rejection of the bill would feel themselves self, been acquainted with the proceedings respect-injured, at least disappointed in their expectations ing the assumption, from the commencement. of advantage; or those who, notwithstanding its And he declared he did not expect, when the reso-passage, would be left in their present condition? lutions were laid on the table, that an objection He believed, the former: so that as far as that arwould be made to them; and it was probable as gument had any weight, it was in favor of the little apprehension was entertained by the mover bill. of the resolutions; but he thought the manner in Mr. MURRAY was in favor of the previous queswhich the bill had been opposed, and in which it tion. He thought the present stage of the busihad been supported, required an immediate de-ness was the most proper to call for that question. cision. It had been made the criterion of the It would, he said, have been justly exceptionable public faith of the Government, and of the fidelity had the question been called previous to debate, of its officers. Those who were in favor of the but now it was strictly proper. Adverting to the bill, alleged, as one reason in support of it, that merits of the bill, he objected to it as an infraction when the balances were known, the debtor States of the Funding System; that system provides for would not agree to make provision for those ba- funding the balances in favor of the States, not lances, agreeably to the existing law. He believed the individual creditors. On this principle he conthat this suggestion was unfounded; he did not sidered the bill as establishing a dangerous precebelieve it was possible that any man, whom the dent, and as affording a pretext for future infracconfidence of his fellow-citizens should place on tions and mutilations of that system. this floor, would ever refuse to carry that law into Mr. M., adverting to certain observations effect. He considered it as one of the pillars of which had been thrown out respecting the unthe Constitution-a solemn compact between the easiness which was said to exist in some of the United States and individual States-and he be- States, informed the House, that with respect to lieved if ever this Government should be guilty the State he had the honor to represent, the greatof so gross a breach of faith, in a matter of import-est apparent satisfaction with the measures of the ance sufficient to attract the general notice of the General Government prevailed. It is true, said citizens, that there was an end to the Government he, my constituents feel the pressure of taxes in itself. It was a Government founded on opinion; common with the rest of their fellow-citizens, but and when the opinion of the people ceased to sup- they discover no disposition to complain; they port it, the Government must fall. On the other consider the public burdens as the price of their hand, the bill had not been opposed on its merits. liberties and independence, and, under this idea, No gentleman had attempted to point out the indi-submit to them with the utmost cheerfulness; at vidual or the description of men who would be the same time confiding in the wisdom and justice injured by the operation of the bill; they had of the Government that their impositions will be opposed it wholly on collateral circumstances; regulated according to the exigencies of the nathey had supposed that if the States who had tion, and that no unnecessary taxes will ever be debts due to their citizens should have their ba- laid. He thought it necessary to say thus much, lances discharged by assuming those debts, that as he conceived too high a coloring had been given they would oppose the payment of the balances to some representations which the fancy of memto States which have no creditors. It had like-bers had brought forward in their zealous oppowise been alleged, that the Commissioners for set-sition to the bill. members, to wit: "Shall the main question, that the said bill do pass, be now put?" it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 33, nays 31, as follows: tling accounts might conduct themselves in such The previous question being called for by five a manner as to render a legislative interposition necessary, to arrest the measures consequential on the settlement. He had no apprehension of such conduct on the part of the Commissioners, and could not legislate on a supposition that they would conduct themselves in a manner so very improper; but if they did, he could not see that the change in the payment of the balances could have any effect. If the Legislature could interfere where YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, John Wilkes Kittera, John H. OF R.] Half-Pay to Widows and Orphans. [JANUARY, 1793. HALF-PAY TO WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel NAYS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Abraham Clark, William Findley, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith,John Steele, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis. The main question, that the said bill do pass, being now put, it was resolved in the affirmative, the House being equally divided, viz: yeas 32, nays 32, and the SPEAKER declaring himself with the yeas. The yeas and nays were as follows: YEAS.-Jonathan Trumbull, Speaker, Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, John Wilkes Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Thomas Sumpter, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, and Alexander White. NAYS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Abraham Clark, William Findley, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, John Steele, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis. Ordered, That the Committee of the Whole House, to whom was referred the bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled "An act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," be discharged from the further consideration of the same; and that the said bill be committed to Mr. BENSON, Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. WHITE, and Mr. KIT TERA. A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with an official statement of the expenditures to the end of the year 1792, from the sum of ten thousand dollars granted to defray the contingent expenses of Government, by an act passed on the 26th of March, 1790; also, an abstract of a supplementary arrangement made in the District of North Carolina, in regard to certain surveys, to facilitate the execution of the law laying a duty on distilled spirits. The papers accompanying the said Message were read, and ordered to lie on the table. the Whole House on the motion of the 18th instant, for making provision of half-pay for seven years to the widows and orphans of such officers killed in the service since the third day of June, of the Army of the United States as have been 1784, or who may hereafter be killed in the service of the United States. Mr. HARTLEY, who brought forward the motion, moved to strike out June 3, 1784, and insert 4th day of March, 1789. Mr. LIVERMORE said he should be in favor of the motion if it went as far back as the year 1775, and comprehended the widows and orphans of the officers of the Army killed within two years from the commencement of the war. Mr. WILLIAMSON said he should consider it his duty to move for an amendment to the proposition, in the progress of its discussion, by inserting a clause to provide for the widows and orphans of the officers of the militia. Mr. WADSWORTH stated the reasons on which he supposed provision had not been made for the widows and orphans of those officers which were killed during the period alluded to by the gentleman from New Hampshire: one principal one was, that the new Government was not authorized by the Constitution to create any demands against the United States; the Government was bound to take up the debts as they found them. The old Government had not recognised the claims of those widows and orphans alluded to. With respect to the present resolution, he was opposed to the amendment; he thought it ought to go back to June, 1784, the commencement of the present Indian war. He should move for other amendments to the resolution, that it should provide not only for those who may fall by the sword, but for such as die in the public service. He should also be for extending the provision to the widows and orphans of the officers of the militia. He considered it as a most disgraceful thing to a Government not to make provision for the families of those who sacrificed their lives in the cause of their country. The motion for striking out June 3, 1784, was put and carried. The other part of the motion, to insert 4th day of March, 1789, was not put, being superceded by a motion for the Committee's rising. The Committee then rose, and reported progress. TUESDAY, January 29. The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was referred the Report of the Secretary of War on the petition of Thomas Wishart. Whereupon, Resolved, That Thomas Wishart is entitled to the pay of a Lieutenant in the Army of the United States, from the 15th of November, 1776 until the 15th of October, 1781; and that the Comptroller of the Treasury be authorized to settle and adjust the account of the said Thomas Wishart accordingly. Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in, pur suant to the said resolution; and that Mr. PARKER, Mr. GORDON, and Mr. ASHE, do prepare and bring in the same. Mr. BENSON, from the Committee to whom was referred the petition of Robert Heaton, made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act regulating Foreign Coins, and for other purposes; and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the Committee had had the said bill under consideration, and made several amendments thereto; which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House. The said bill, together with the amendments thereto, was then read the third time, and passed. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill entitled "An act to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions," with several amendments; to which they desire the concurrence of this House. [H. of R. The motion offered by Mr. WHITE, the purport of which is, to amend the first section by striking out what relates to the Director of the Mint, and inserting a clause which provides for the appointment of an officer to be denominated "the Director of Patents," was further considered. Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the form of the amendment as indirectly providing for a new establishment. Mr. WHITE withdrew his motion, and offered the following, in substance, in lieu of it: "That an office shall be established for the purpose of granting patents, vesting in the authors of useful inventions and discoveries the exclusive right to their inventions and discoveries: said office to be under the direction of an officer to be denominated Mr. LIVERMORE said he liked this motion, because it brought the subject directly before the Committee. This object, however, he disliked; it sounded like a provision for granting dollars per annum-a sound which he was always averse to. He was altogether in favor of devolvThe House resolved itself into a Committee of ing the business on some officer already appointed: the Whole House on the bill to amend an act en- the Secretary of State he mentioned as a proper titled "An act to promote the progress of the Use-officer to superintend this subject. ful Arts ;" and, after some time spent therein, the Committee rose, and had leave to sit again. WEDNESDAY, January 30. Mr. PAGE said he should not agree to the amendment if he thought a salary would be the consequence. He supposed that provision might be made for the officer without recurring to a salary: Another member, to wit: WILLIAM HINDMAN, he alluded to fees from the patentees. He obreturned to serve in this House, for the State of jected to devolving the subject on the officer of Maryland, in the room of JOSHUA SENEY, who has the Mint, or of the Secretary of State, as interresigned his seat, appeared, produced his creden-fering with the essential duties of those officers; tials, and took his seat in the House. The House proceeded to the consideration of the amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill entitled "An act to regulate the claims to Invalid Pensions." Whereupon, The amendments of the Senate to the bill to regulate claims to Invalid Pensions, were taken into consideration. Being read, it was moved that the bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole. This motion was objected to, as it would set the whole subject afloat, and might in its consequences preclude the Senate from an opportunity of receding from their amendments, and agreeing to the bill as it passed the House. In answer to this objection, it was said, that the amendments involved an entire new principle, a principle which had not been discussed in the House; and that is, they make distinction in the situation of those invalids whose cases have been decided on by the Secretary of War, and that of the persons whose claims have been examined by the judges. The cases of the latter are not recognized by the amendments. The motion for recommitting was carried in the affirmative, and the subject made the order of the day for to-morrow. and, though the gentlemen at present in those offices are abundantly qualified to execute the duty, yet it may happen that persons may hold those appointments at some future time not qualified for this particular service. Mr. MURRAY observed that the amendment contemplated the appointment of one officer only, and that to be fixed at the seat of Government. He suggested several considerations in favor of investing the Judges of the District Courts with the power of granting patents in the several States, for the greater accommodation of the citizens, and the more extensive encouragement of genius. was in favor of giving greater facility to the issuing of patents than has hitherto been considered as advisable. He Mr. WHITE said he thought the gentleman's idea would not do, as patents might be issued in the different parts or extremes of the Union for the same invention. Mr. MURRAY said that he conceived a remedy for this inconvenience might easily be devised. Mr. BOUDINOT said that one great objection to the present mode of obtaining patents was, the great delay and expense incurred by the applicants in being obliged to wait till the officers now empowered to decide on applications could find leisure, from the special duties of their offices, to PROMOTION OF THE USEFUL ARTS. attend to them. With respect to devolving the The House again resolved itself into a Com-duty on the judges, he hoped that would not be mittee of the Whole House on the bill to amend an act entitled "An act to promote the progress of Useful Arts." done; as it would be found, judging from the engagements of the District Judge of Pennsylvania, that they could not possibly attend to the business. H. OF R.] Promotion of the Useful Arts. [JANUARY, 1793. Mr. BALDWIN objected generally to any amend-attraction for the ingenious and aspiring, Lonment which should provide for the institution of don, in that country, not only attracts as the mart a new department. His opinion was, that no of genius and of all that contributes to ease or office should be created till there was an absolute gain, but, by its immense combination of things, necessity for it. He entered into a brief consider- aids invention, and draws the genius into action ation of the subject, and attempted to show that which it may have attracted. But we are differthe business might with ease and convenience be ently circumstanced, both as to local situation, and attended to by some officer already appointed. as to the thing as it regards the principle on which it is to be obtained. The distance from the extremes of the Union, or from its centre to its extremes, is very great. If the power were lodged with the District Judges, the citizen of ingenuity would have an opportunity of taking a patent certainly with more ease than if you oblige him to take a journey of perhaps six or eight hundred incentive to invention. Difficulty and distance would discourage it, and would frequently overpower the wish to obtain a patent for a discovery the profits of which would often be doubtful. Mr. WILLIAMSON, adverting to the principles of the bill, said it was an imitation of the Patent System of Great Britain; that the provisions were such as would circumscribe the duties of the deciding officer within very narrow limits; the settlement of disputes arising from contested claims will devolve on referees altogether. He was decidedly opposed to creating a new Department-miles. The facility of enjoyment would prove an expense to the Government would be the inevitable consequence. The question on Mr. WHITE's motion was negatived. Mr. MURRAY said, he intended to move to strike out "Director of the Mint," for the purpose of inserting "the Judge of the District wherein the applicant might reside." As he thought the bill of great consequence as it related to the useful and ornamental arts, he would trouble the Committee with his reasons. He thought it was of consequence that, while the law holds out an invitation to genius, the mode of gratifying the fair and honest inventor should be as easy as possible. The Director of the Mint must reside at the Seat of Government; and, if he alone, or any other person, were exclusively empowered to issue patents, the benefits of invention would be but very partially enjoyed by the citizens who reside at a distance from the Seat of Government. The law ought to facilitate the granting of patents; and, as the right of exclusive enjoyment, at least for a limited term, was inherent in all equally, in every part of the nation, so all should, as far as possible, have equal facility in making their pretensions known and effectual. A country in Europe (Great Britain) had afforded, it was true, much experience on the subject; but regulations adopted there would not exactly comport in all respects either with the situation of this country, or with the rights of the citizen here. The minds of some members had taken a wrong direction, he conceived, from the view in which they had taken up the subject under its analogy with the doctrine of patents in England. There is this strong feature which distinguishes that doctrine in that country from the principles on which we must settle it in this. These patents are derived from the grace of the Monarch, and the exclusive enjoyment of the profits of a discovery is not so much a right inherent as it is a privilege bestowed and an emanation of prerogative. Here, on the contrary, the citizen has a right in the inventions he may make, and considers the law but as the mode by which he is to enjoy their fruits. England in one entire kingdom. Its Court is the scene where its prerogative diffuses its bounties, and, being stationed at London, the business can be well managed in a single spot. Here, on the contrary, there are fifteen States, sovereign as to many purposes, and forming within themselves centres of One and but one objection had been made to this alteration: that if the District Judges have the power, patents may issue in different places for the same discovery. This would be an evil, but is not without a remedy. Patents are matters of record. Let it be the duty of the Judge, immediately after the granting of a patent, to transmit a copy of the application, with all the necessary description of the article, to the Supreme Court, from which it may be easily disseminated to every District Court, and through the United States. An inventor desirous of obtaining a patent, would, of course, examine the patent records to see whether he had been anticipated. The grant of a patent does not destroy a claim or right founded in priority. Here he would observe, that, if the inconvenience were not entirely removed by this measure which he proposed, neither was the inconvenience of clashing claims as to originality and priority of discovery removed by any provision of the bill as it stands; nor could human ingenuity, perhaps, devise a complete mode in which it could be obviated. If a man who is really the inventor, chooses to try his title as to the originality of the invention, even after a patent is given to another, he will make and vend the article, and the solid title will be tried before a jury in an action brought against him by the patentee. If the measure he proposed were not deemed a sufficient guard, he would suggest the propriety of a further caution: Let the application be published and remain in the office, as in England it does (he believed) two months in the office of the Attorney General, that a caveat may be entered by any man who might claim or dispute the applicant's title. He believed that the bill, either as it tended to foster the genius of men, or was considered with respect to distant emolument and national character, was extremely important. It was almost immediately one of those laws that embraced national views and national citizenship, and looked to an object of advantage which nothing but a National Government could secure. Without the aid of a General Government, the genius of the Americans could not reap its fruits. Nor had the |
