H. OF R.]

MONDAY, January 7.

Proceedings.

[JANUARY, 1793. YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, ElMr. LIVERMORE, from the committee appoint-bridge Gerry, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, ed, presented a bill to repeal part of a resolution of Congress of the 29th of August, 1788, respecting the inhabitants of Post Saint Vincents; which was received, read twice, and committed. Mr. LAURANCE, from the committee to whom was recommitted the bill making appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, reported an amendatory bill; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the whole House immediately.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee, and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had had the said bill under consideration, and made no amendment thereto.

Benjamin Goodhue, Christopher Greenup, William Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, James MadiBarry Grove, Richard Bland Lee, George Leonard, son, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith, John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, Artemas Ward, and Hugh Williamson.

NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, John Laurance, John Milledge, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Cornelius C. Ordered, That the said bill do lie on the table. Israel Smith, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, JonaSchoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, The House again resolved itself into a Com-than Sturges, George Thatcher, Jeremiah Wadsworth, mittee of the whole House on the bill to regu- Alexander White, and Francis Willis. late the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose, and reported progress.

TUESDAY, January 8.

The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill making appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793, which lay on the table; and the said bill being amended, was, together with the amendments, ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill entitled "An act in addition to the act entitled 'An act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States;"" to which they desire the concurrence

of this House.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State, accompanying a report of the assays and experiments made by the Director of the Mint, on the gold and silver coins of France, England, Spain, and Portugal, pursuant to the order of the 29th of November last; which were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

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,' was read twice, and committed.

Military Establishment.

The House proceeded to consider the motion of the 28th ultimo, for reducing the Military Establishment of the United States, to which the Committee of the whole House had reported their disagreement on Saturday last. Whereupon, A motion was made and seconded to amend the same by striking out the words "each of non-commissioned officers, privates, and musicians," and inserting, in lieu thereof, the words "of non-commissioned officers, musicians, and of the privates who are now in service, or may be recruited before the day of next."

And the question being put thereupon, it passed in the negative-yeas 26, nays 82, as follows:

the House do agree to the said motion, it passed And then the main question being put, that in the negative-yeas 20, nays 36, as follows:

YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Clark, WilChristopher Greenup, William Barry Grove, George liam B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, Jeremiah Smith, John Steele, Tho mas Sumter, Thomas Tredwell, Abrabam Venable, and Artemas Ward.

NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Daniel Huger, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, Andrew Gregg, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, John Laurance, Richard Bland Lee, John Milledge, William Vans Murray, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel Smith, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis.

commiteed the letter and representation from Ordered, That the committee to whom was the Chief Justice and Associate Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, referred to in the PRESIDENT's Message of the 7th of November last, be discharged from the further consideration of the same.

mittee of the whole House on the bill to reguThe House again resolved itself into a Comlate the claims to Invalid Pensions; and, after that the committee had again had the said bill some time spent therein, the Chairman reported under consideration, and made several amendments thereto; which were read, and partly considered.

FEBRUARY, 1793.]

Fugitives from Justice and Service.-Examining Votes for President, &c.

[H. OF R

masters," in which they desire the concurrence | pointed on the part of this House jointly with of this House.

Fugitives from Justice and from Labor. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the bill sent from the Senate entitled, "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters;" and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the committee had had the said bill under consideration, and made an amendment thereto; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House. Ordered, That the said bill, with the amendment, do lie on the table.

TUESDAY, February 5.

Fugitives from Justice and from Labor. The House proceeded to consider the bill sent from the Senate entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," which lay on the table: Whereupon, the said bill, together with the amendment agreed to yesterday, was read the third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative -yeas 48, nays 7, as follows:

a committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT Of the United States, and for other purposes expressed in the resolution of the fifth instant, made a report; which was twice read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

"That the two Houses shall assemble in the Senate Chamber on Wednesday next, at twelve o'clock: that two persons be appointed tellers on the part of this House, to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared: that the result shall be delivered to the PRESIDENT of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons elected, to both Houses, assembled as aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the journal of the two Houses."

Ordered, That Mr. WILLIAM SMITH and Mr. LAURANCE be appointed tellers on the part of this House, pursuant to the said report.

for both classes of fugitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed on a message from President Washington, founded on a communication from the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugitive from justice who had taken refuge in Virginia, and because it was necessary to have an act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the constitution. There was but little necessity in those times, nor for long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive slaves. The laws of the free States, and still more the force of public opinion, were the owners' best safeguards. Public opinion was against the abduction of slaves; and if any one was seduced from his owner, it was done furtively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner, and to a greater extent than the act of Congress did, or could.

In Pennsylvania there was an act

YEAS.-Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjasbub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Wm. Findlay, Thomas (it was passed in 1780, and only repealed in 1847) discrimiFitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Ben- nating between the traveller and sojourner, and the permajamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, nent resident, allowing the former to remain six months in Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, the State before his slaves would become subject to the Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, emancipation laws; and, in the case of a federal government Daniel Huger, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kit-officer, allowing as much more time as his duties required chell, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, George him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying Leonard, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew Moore, Frederick in time, which was nine months. While these two acts were Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Alex-in force, and supported by public opinion, the traveller and ander D. Orr, John Page, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Israel Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis.

NAYS.-Samuel Livermore, John Francis Mercer, Nathaniel Niles, Josiah Parker, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, and Thomas Tredwell.*

MONDAY, February 11.

Examining Votes for President, &c.
Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, from the committee ap-

*The bill came down from the Senate where debates were not published, and seems to have passed the House without debate, and almost without division, there being but seven votes against it, and two of these (Messrs. Mercer and Parker) from slave States. Nor does it appear to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, VOL. I.-27

sojourner was safe with his slaves in those States, and the same in the other free States. There was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1798 did not grow out of any such trouble, but out of the case of a fugitive from justice. It was that case which brought the subject before Congress; and, in the act that was passed, the case of fugitives from justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to the other-all brief and plain, and executable without expense or fuss. In the case of a slave the owner was allowed to seize him wherever he saw him, by day or by night, Sundays or week-days, just as if he was in his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached

to any person who resisted or obstructed him in this seizure. The only authority he wanted was after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that purpose, the affidavit of the owner, or his agent was sufficient. This act was perfect, except in relying upon State officers, as well as federal officers to execute it, these State officers not being subject to the federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a subject of political agitation.

Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. GILES then moved that they should be referred to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. W. SMITH was decidedly opposed to referring those resolutions to the consideration of he neither viewed a discussion of them as nethe Committee of the whole House, because cessary on the present occasion nor warranted by the nature of the inquiry into the Secretary's conduct. It was trifling with the precious time of the House to lavish it on abstract propositions, when the object of the inquiry ought to be into the facts. He was satisfied that should the House once involve itself in an investigation of theoretic principles of government, the short residue of the session would be exhausted, and no opportunity remain for examining the charges themselves. Those charges being made, it became the House, from a sense of duty to the public and justice to the accused, to proceed immediately to consider them. If the mover intended to apply the principles of the two first resolutions to the facts contained in the subsequent ones, it was unquestionably proper first to substantiate the facts, and then establish the principles which were applicable to them; but it was surely a reversal of order to spend much time in establishing principles, when it might

FEBRUARY, 1793.]

Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury.

happen that the charges themselves would be totally unsupported. He did not like this mode of proceeding, because it might tend to mislead the House; it was sometimes a parliamentary practice to endeavor to lead the mind to vague and uncertain results, by first laying down theorems from which no one could dissent, and then proceeding by imperceptible shades to move unsettled positions, in order ultimately to entrap the House in a vote which in the first instance it would have rejected. This mode of conducting public business, he considered as inconsistent with fair inquiry. The question was, had the Secretary violated a law? If so, let it be shown; every member was competent to decide so plain a question. He could examine the proofs, read the law, and pronounce him guilty or innocent without the aid of these preliminary metaphysical discussions.

If it were urged that the propositions are so plain and obvious that no time would be lost in considering them, he then begged leave to observe that all antecedent discussions of constitutional questions had never failed to occupy a large portion of their time, and that however self-evident the resolutions might at the first glance appear, a more critical attention would satisfy a mind not much given to doubt that they were by no means so conclusive as to be free from objections.

[H. OF R

tioned whether, as a general rule, the position was well founded. A law making appropriations may be violated in various particulars without infringing on the constitution, which only enjoins that no moneys shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of the appropriations made by law. This is only to say, that every disbursement must be authorized by some appropriation. Where a sum of money is paid out of the Treasury, the payment of which is authorized by law, the constitution is not violated, yet there may have been a violation of the law in some collateral particulars. There may even have been a shifting of funds, and however exceptionable this may be on other accounts, it would not amount to that species of offence which is created by the constitution. The Comptroller of the Treasury must countersign every warrant, and is responsible that it be authorized by a legal appropriation; yet it cannot be supposed that he is to investigate the source of the fund.

One of the alleged infractions stated in the subsequent resolution, namely, the drawing part of the loans into the United States without the instructions of the PRESIDENT, evinces that the opposite construction is not a sound one. For suppose the fact proved, and suppose it a violation of the law, it certainly would be a very different thing from drawing money out of the Treasury without an appropriation by law; for in this case, there would be no drawing money from the Treasury at all, the money never having been in the Treasury.

Mr. S. then said, he should also object to referring the last resolution, which is in these words,

Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing resolu tions be transmitted to the PRESIDENT."

The object of this resolution went clearly to direct the PRESIDENT to remove the Secretary from office; the foregoing were to determine the guilt, the last to inflict the punishment, and both the one and other without the accused being heard in his defence. When the violation of the constitution was so uppermost in our minds, it would be indeed astonishing that we should be so hoodwinked as to commit such a

Though the position contained in the first resolution, as a general rule, was not to be denied; yet it must be admitted, that there may be cases of a sufficient urgency to justify a departure from it, and to make it the duty of the Legislature to indemnify an officer; as if an adherence would in particular cases and under particular circumstances, prove ruinous to the public credit, or prevent the taking measures essential to the public safety, against invasion or insurrection. In cases of that nature, and which cannot be foreseen by the Legislature nor guarded against, a discretionary authority must be deemed to reside in the PRESIDENT, or some other Executive officer, to be exercised for the public good; such exercise, instead of being construed into a crime, would always meet the approbation of the National Legislature. If there be any weight in these remarks, it does not then follow, as a general rule, that it is essen-palpable violation of it in this instance. The tial to the due administration of the Government, that laws making specific appropriations should in all cases whatsoever, and under every public circumstance, be strictly observed. Before the committee could come to a vote on such a proposition, it would be proper to examine into the exceptions out of the rule, to state all the circumstances which would warrant any departure from it, to whom the exercise of the discretion should be intrusted, and to what extent. Did any member wish at this period to attempt this inquiry? He supposed not. Let every deviation from law be tested by its own merits or demerits.

The second resolution was liable to stronger objections. It might with propriety be ques

principles of that constitution, careful of the lives and liberties of the citizens, and what is dearer to every man of honor, his reputation, secure to every individual in every class of society, the precious advantage of being heard before he is condemned.

That constitution, peculiarly careful of the reputation of great public functionaries, directs that when accused of a breach of duty, the impeachment must be voted by a majority of the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate, who are to be on oath, and two-thirds of whom must concur before a sentence can pass, by which the officer is to be deemed guilty. The officer is to be furnished with a copy of the charge, and is heard by himself or his

H. OF R.]

Official Conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury.

counsel in vindication of his conduct. Such are the solemnities and guards by which they are protected, and which precede a sentence, the only effect of which is a removal from office. But if the House proceed in the manner contemplated by this resolution; if they first vote the charges, and send a copy of them to the PRESIDENT, as an instruction to him to remove the officer, they will violate the sacred and fundamental principles of this, and every free Government. They will condemn a man unheard, nay, without his having even been furnished with the charges against him; they will condemn to infamy a high and responsible officer convicted by the Representatives of the people, of a violation of the important trusts committed to him, without affording him one opportunity of vindicating his character and justifying his conduct.

|

[FEBRUARY, 1793.

some mode of answering to the charge. It had,
in a recent instance, been the practice of Con-
gress, when an officer's conduct was even in the
first instance inquired into, to afford the officer
an opportunity of attending upon the examina-
tion on which his offence or his freedom from
blame was to appear. He alluded to the con-
duct of the House when an examination took
place relatively to the failure of General St.
Clair's expedition. Suspicions were entertained
that blame lay somewhere. A committee was
appointed to examine. The three officers par-
ticularly concerned were, he understood, invit-
ed, as it were, to come before the committee, to
explain, to interrogate, and to give information.
Though the Secretary of War was not permit-
ted to explain on this floor, justice and delicacy,
and the most common principles of jurispru-
dence, to which we attempted to hold some
analogy, demanded that he should be heard
somewhere, and the committee was renewed
for this purpose. The Quartermaster General
asked to be heard on this floor. Though refus-
ed, he was permitted to attend that committee
on whose examination his character as a Quar-
termaster depended. Were any man responsible
as an officer to this House to fall under the sus-
picion of its members, a regard to decency and
to the established rights of citizenship, would
teach gentlemen to inquire formally before they
hastily laid a charge on the table, to which they
might move the assent of the House. But in
this proceeding a Legislative charge was gone
into before inquiry had been instituted. Every
rule of justice, and all that delicacy which ought
ever to attend her progress, had been disregard-
ed, and in the very first instance, a number of
charges are brought forward, not for inquiry,
but conviction, which, if sanctioned by a ma-

Mr. MURRAY said he was opposed to the reference of the resolutions to the Committee of the Whole. He had, as far as the time permitted, examined the several reports on which the examination depended, and was then ready to vote on them, though he confessed, from the intricacy which was inherent in such a subject, as well as from the vast variety of the detail involved, he had not had sufficient time for a complete investigation. Nor did he imagine that any man who had not previously meditated on the subject for a length of time, and made choice of his ground of attack, could say he was completely master of the subject. Some vote, however, was now rendered essential to the character, not only of Government, but of the gentleman who presided over the finances of the country. But three days were left for this inquiry, and to finish a great deal of other business; and he thought that despatch which was usual in the House ought to be used in pre-jority of the House, are to be followed by the ference to the indulgence which a committee af- dismission of one of the highest officers in the forded. As to the abstract propositions, if it were Government. This mode was as tyrannical as necessary now to go into them, he thought it it was new, and if any thing could throw a would be proper to decide on them first. He bias against the resolutions, independent of inthought it most logical to lay down principles of quiry, it was the partial and unjust form in which reasoning before facts were developed. Were the proceeding had commenced. Resolutions they agreed to by the House, it would be under of conviction might rise out of the report of a provisions and restrictions. They could not committee of inquiry, who would act as a Grand have the implicit force of axioms, but at most Jury to the House, but could never precede it. must be yielded to as wholesome maxims, the He hoped the House would not refer to a Comapplication of which must be frequently modi-mittee of the Whole what might be decided in fied by a certain degree of discretion. With the House with more despatch. respect to all the other resolutions, he imagined they would, on examination, be found to be unwarranted by facts. He hoped the movers Mr. Chairman: The more precious our time, and supporters of the resolutions would not be the more readily shall I vote for a consideration gratified at so late a season by the House in re- of the first resolution; for I think it of more solving itself into a Committee of the Whole. consequence that we should decide on it, than on The mode in which they were brought forward any other before us. We find, from the inquiry did not entitle them to much confidence. He which has been set on foot into the conduct of said, a more unhandsome proceeding he had the Secretary of the Treasury, that he differs from never seen in Congress. It had been a practice, the mover of the resolution in opinion respectderived from the lights of common liberty, com- ing his powers, and the constitutional obligation mon right, and the first principles of justice, he may be under of regarding acts of appropriathat whoever was charged with a violation of tion; it therefore must be the wish of the Seclaw on which a punishment ensued, should have retary himself, whether we agree with him

Mr. PAGE in reply to Mr. SMITH, spoke, in substance, as follows: