H. OF R.] Foreign Intercourse. sent, or what should be their grade. Under the general power of making treaties, vested in the President, he had the power of sending Ministers where he pleased; also in the power intrusted to him of executing the law (not only the municipal, but the law of nations) it was necessary he should have this power. [JANUARY, 1798. support of the motion, it was alleged that the last of these Ministers was entirely unnecessary, and that the other two had been improperly, because unnecessarily, raised from Ministers Resident to Ministers Plenipotentiary. To him it was a sufficient answer to these allegations to say, that the President had thought otherwise; because, the President, being charged by the constitution with the foreign relations of the country, must be invested with the means necessary for conducting them with effect; and was infinitely better qualified by this situation to judge what those means were, and how they ought to be used, than the House can pretend to be. One of these means was the appointment of foreign Ministers, which was expressly vested in the President by the constitution. When the President, therefore, had thought fit to appoint foreign Minconstitutional power, and it did not lie with the House of Representatives to object or judge. To him, therefore, Mr. H. said, it was a sufficient answer to all those objections to say that the President had thought otherwise. Το others, who might hold different opinions from him on this subject, he thought it was a sufficient answer to be told that the House of Representatives, as well as the President, had thought differently, and had sanctioned the changes which he had thought proper to make in this respect, by voting money to carry them into effect. This the House had done expressly in all the three cases contemplated by the present motion. In a word, all relations were in the hands of the Executive; all our foreign intercourse was to him, and from him. Of course, he was the only judge of what was proper in this business. This being the case, it should seem as if that House had nothing to do with respect to the propriety of sending a Minister to Berlin, or in relation to other grades of Ministers, though they had the power of fixing their salaries. But it was contended by the gentleman from Georgia and others, that, by regulating these salaries, the Legislature had the power of pre-isters, or to alter their grades, he had exercised a venting the extension of their establishment. This brought up an old question; but it was a very important one, and he did not regret that it was frequently drawn into discussion. He thought the great landmarks of our constitution could not be too well understood. He did not mean, however, to extend his observations on this subject. It was said, this was a Government of departments and checks, and of course, that the Legislature ought to check the Executive in its operations. That this was a Government of departments and checks, to a certain extent, he should readily allow; but that it was so to the extent which had been represented, he did deny. Our Government was divided into three departments, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; each of these had checks and balances in its own department. The President was checked by the Senate; the Legislature was checked by the President and Senate; the Judiciary was checked by having certain appeals, writs of error, &c. So far from one department checking the other, it was necessary that all the parts should act in unison like a clock, and the moment one part declined to act, the Government could not proceed. It was not in the power of the Legislature to reverse the decision of the lowest court, and should it then be said that they could judge over the head of the Executive? This remark was applicable to all the departments. No one department was a favorite of the constitution. Every act of a department ought to be considered as well done. This being the case, whenever the President had appointed a Minister, and done it constitutionally, when he informed the Legislature thereof, they might do any thing and every thing but doubt the propriety of establishing the Minister. Mr. HARPER.—As to the general policy of the present motion, as connected with the foreign relations of this country, Mr. H. said that he would add two or three remarks on that subject, and then conclude. The motion went, he said, to reduce the appointments and salaries of three ministers: those to Madrid, Lisbon, and Berlin; and in Mr. GALLATIN said the committee had been told, in the course of the debate, by some gentlemen, that this attempt to reduce the number of our Ministers was unconstitutional; by others, that it was inexpedient; and even some gentlemen, who agreed to the general expediency of the measure, believed it would be attended with inconvenience from our present foreign relations. In relation to the constitutionality of the thing, he did not believe, whatever doctrine was supported with respect to treaties, that upon this occasion the committee should be told that they were interfering with the constitutional power vested in the President. It was true that he had the general power of appointing Ambassadors, but it was not less true that the Legislature had the sole and exclusive power to provide for all the expenses of the Union. Hence arose the idea of ours being a Government of departments, so formed as to be a check upon each other. But the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. N. SMITH) said there was no such thing as a check of departments; that each was distinct; and, though each had checks within itself, none of them checked the other. And to illustrate his position, he introduced the simile of a clock, at the same time that he told them that the Executive Department was the main-spring which put the clock in motion, whilst Mr. G. supposed he meant that the other branches were merely the hands, which moved as they were directed. But if there was any act which could not be done but by all the branches, each had its share in deciding upon the propriety of it. When a treaty was made it had been argued that that House had nothing to do but carry it into effect; but here it was said that the House were bound to provide for every Ambassador appointed; and if, by withholding salaries, they obliged the President to send Ministers Resident where he wished to send Ministers Plenipotentiary, they would act inconsistently with the constitution. Though gentlemen might make speeches on this subject, they must know that where the Legislaare had a right to act, it had a right to deliberate and to use its discretion. It was true treaties had been made, but no treaty had been made since the adoption of the present Government, by Ministers Resident at any Court at the time. If any benefits were derived to the country from the British treaty, they must be attributed to the Envoy Extraordinary, and not to our Minister at that court. And when our treaty with Spain was concluded, it was necessary to send a Minister Resident to another Court to do the business. Since our treaties were always made by special Envoys, what advantage could it be to have numerous Ministers Plenipotentiary in Europe? In the present | critical situation of the country, agitated as it was to the centre, was it not to be apprehended that our Ministers would participate, in some degree, in the party spirit which there abounded, and rank themselves on one side or the other, which would have a tendency to draw this country into a vortex from which we were so happily separated by the Atlantic? We were the only nation, he said, who possessed a Government on a firm foundation, in which civil and religious liberty was fully recognized; we, therefore, enjoyed what the people of Europe were seeking after. We have nothing to wish, except to remain in our present situation. Why, then, should we hazard the being involved in European broils? He had before stated that Consuls were equal to every commercial regulation, and he had heard nothing to change his opinion. Seeing, therefore, that these diplomatic agents were rather dangerous than useful, he thought it time to put a stop to their increase. Mr. BAYARD began his observations by remarking, that the gentleman from Virginia had said that it was not his design that his motion should have an immediate effect upon the Ministers at present employed. If the gentleman was sincere in his avowal, it was clear that he did not understand his own motion; for whatever amendment was introduced into the third section, which the gentleman had intimated might be so amended as to give the regulation a distant operation, as it only related to the sum of money to be appropriated, it would not enable the President to employ a Minister Plenipotentiary, besides those at London and Paris, at a higher salary than $4,500. Some gentlemen have said, it was idle talk [H. OF R. about this House having the power to appropriate, without having the power at the same time to use their discretion. He contended that the power of appointing Ministers was vested in the President, and the House had no right to believe he would abuse this power. It had been supposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that he might appoint an indefinite number of Ministers; and were the House, in that case, he asked, blindly to appropriate for them? This question was predicated upon an abuse of power, whilst the constitution supposed it would be executed with fidelity. Suppose he were to state the question in an opposite light. Let it be imagined that this country has a misunderstanding with some foreign power, and that the Executive should appoint a Minister, but the House, in the plenitude of its powers, should refuse an appropriation. What might be the consequence? Would not the House have contravened the constitution, by taking from the President the power which by it is placed in him? It certainly would. So that this supposition of the abuse of power would go to the destruction of all authority. The Legislature was bound to appropriate for the salary of the Chief Justice of the United States, and though the President might appoint a chimney-sweeper to that office, they would still be bound. The constitution had trusted the President, as well as it had trusted that House. Indeed it was not conceivable that the House could act upon the subject of foreign Ministers. Our interests with foreign countries came wholly under the jurisdiction of the Executive. The duties of that House related to the internal affairs of the country; but what related to foreign countries and foreign agents was vested in the Executive Department. The President was responsible for the manner in which this business was conducted. He was bound to communicate, from time to time, our situation with foreign powers; and if plans were carried on abroad for dividing or subjecting us, if he were not to make due communication of the design, he would be answerable for the neglect. TUESDAY, January 30. Breach of Privilege. Mr. SEWALL then said, he believed the business which he had to lay before the House would require secrecy, as it was a subject which would considerably affect the feelings of the members of the House. He therefore moved that the galleries might be cleared; which was accordingly done, excepting the members and Clerk. Mr. SEWALL then said, that he had been informed, in a manner which left no doubt of the truth of the fact, that, in the presence of the House whilst sitting, MATTHEW LYON, a member from the State of Vermont, did this day commit a violent attack and gross indecency upon the person of ROGER GRISWOLD, another member of this House; and in order to bring the sub- [FEBRUARY, 1798. | respect. Permit me, sir, through you, to assure the House of Representatives that I feel as much as any of its members the necessity of preserving the utmost decorum in its proceedings; that I am incapable of an intentional violation of its rule; and that, if, in the present instance, I am chargeable with nega-rance of their extent, and that the House of Reprea disregard of them, it is owing wholly to my ignosentatives claimed any superintendence over its members when not formally constituted, and when they are not engaged in actual business. If I have been mistaken in my understanding on this subject, I beg the House to believe that my fault has been without intention, and that I am very sorry that I have deserved its censure. I am, sir, your obedient servant, MATTHEW LYON. "Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for a violent attack and gross indecency committed upon the person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence of the House, whilst sitting, be, for this disorderly behavior, expelled therefrom." It was moved that this resolution be referred to a committee to be denominated a Committee of Privileges, with instruction to inquire into the whole matter of the said resolution, and to report the same with their opinion thereon to the House. The question was taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative, 49 to 44. Ordered, That Messrs. PINCKNEY, VENABLE, KITTERA, ISAAC PARKER, R. WILLIAMS, COCHRAN, and DENT, be a committee for the purpose. A motion was then made that the House come to the following resolution: "Resolved, That the House will consider it a high breach of privilege if either of the members shall enter into any personal contest until a decision of the House shall be had thereon." A motion was made to add the following words to the end thereof: "And that the said Matthew Lyon be considered in the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms until the further order of the House." The yeas and nays were taken upon this February 1, 1798. The reading of the letter having been gone through, a member proposed that it should lie on the table, when Mr. MACON said, that as it was an acknowledgment of improper conduct, he thought it ought to be entered upon the journals. Mr. NICHOLAS moved that the letter be reunder consideration. Gentlemen would recolferred to the committee who have this subject an offence of the same nature was committed, lect, he said, that, on a former occasion, when a letter written by the offending member was cient apology to the House. He did not know not only referred, but was also deemed a suffithat this would be the case in the present instance; but that it might be, was evinced by fore, it would be referred. Agreed to. the case to which he alluded. He hoped, there FRIDAY, February 2. Mr. VENABLE from the Committee of Privi question and decided in the negative-29 to 62. leges, made the following report: THURSDAY, February 1. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a letter from a member from Vermont, which he was requested to lay before them. Mr. RUTLEDGE thought, that in all cases, when letters were sent to the SPEAKER to be laid before the House, it would be proper for him to state the substance of such communications before they are read, otherwise improper matters might be brought before them. The SPEAKER allowed that the suggestion was a proper one, and proceeded to state the contents of the letter in his hand; which having done, the reading of it was called for, and it was read as follow: The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred a resolution on the 30th of January, charging Matthew Lyon with disorderly behavior, with instrucreport the same, with their opinion thereon, to the tions to inquire into the whole matter thereof, and to House, having examined several witnesses on oath touching the subject, report: That, during the sitting of the House of Representatives on the 30th day of January, 1798, the tellers of the House being engaged in counting the ballots for Managers of the impeachment against William Blount, the Speaker had left his chair, and many members their seats, as is usual on such occasions; the Speaker was sitting in one of the member's seats, next to the bar of the House, and several members near him, of whom Mr. Griswold was one. House, leaning on the same, and holding a conversaMr. Lyon was standing without the bar of the tion with the Speaker. He spoke loud enough to be heard by all those who were near him, as if he intendTo the Speaker of the House of Representatives: ed to be heard by them. The subject of his converSIRAs the attention of the House of Repre-sation was, the conduct of the Representatives of the sentatives has been called to my conduct in a dispute State of Connecticut, (of whom Mr. Griswold was with Mr. GRISWOLD on a suggestion of its being a one.) Mr. Lyon declared that they acted in opposiviolation of the order of the House, and the respect tion to the interests and opinion of nine-tenths of their due to it from all its members, I feel it incumbent constituents; that they were pursuing their own prion me to obviate the imputation of intentional dis-vate views, without regarding the interests of the people; that they were seeking offices, which they were willing to accept, whether yielding $9,000 or $1,000. He further observed that the people of that State were blinded or deceived by those Representatives; that they were permitted to see but one side of the question in politics, being lulled asleep by the opiates which the members from that State administered to them; with other expressions equally tending to derogate from the political integrity of the Rep resentatives of Connecticut. On Mr. Lyon's observing, that if he should go into Connecticut, and manage a press there six months, although the people of that State were not fond of revolutionary principles, he could effect a revolution, and turn out the present Representatives-Mr. Griswold replied to these remarks, and, amongst other things, said that, "If you go into Connecticut, you had better wear your wooden sword," or words to that effect, alluding to Mr. Lyon's having been cashiered in the army. Mr. Lyon did not notice the allusion at this time, but continued the conversation on the same subject. Mr. Griswold then left his seat, and stood next to Mr. Lyon, leaning on the bar, being outside the same. On Mr. Lyon's saying he knew the people of Connecticut well, having lived among them many years -that he had frequent occasion to fight them in his own district, and that he never failed to convince them-Mr. Griswold asked, if he fought them with his wooden sword, on which Mr. Lyon spat in his face. The Committee having attentively considered the foregoing state of facts, and having heard Mr. Lyon in his defence, are of opinion that his conduct in this transaction was highly indecorous, and unworthy of a member of this House. They, therefore, recommend the adoption of the resolution submitted to their consideration by the House, in the words following, to wit: "Resolved, That Matthew Lyon, a member of this House, for a violent attack and gross indecency, committed upon the person of Roger Griswold, another member, in the presence of the House while sitting, be for this disorderly behavior expelled therefrom.' The report having been read, Mr. LYON said, he did not think the evidence was stated in its full extent in this report. He wished, therefore, before the House proceeded in the business, they would hear the evidence themselves. Mr. HARPER inquired of the SPEAKER whether that was the usual mode of proceeding? The SPEAKER said, it was necessary first to take up the report for a second reading. Mr. MACON observed that this was a very delicate and a very serious question, as it related to one of the members of that House, and as it respected the dignity of the House itself. He hoped, therefore, the report would be printed, that some time would be given to consider it, and that the House would themselves hear the testimony. The punishment which the report proposed was equal to death itself. He hoped, therefore, it would not be acted upon hastily, but made the order of the day for Monday. Mr. Harper did not wish to press the business in an improper manner, as it was certainly of great importance to a member of that House, to the House itself, and to the dignity of the country. It was usual to have all reports of [H. OF R. any consequence printed, and a day or two given for consideration. He was not himself desirous of delay, as he was at present ready to vote upon the question; but, if other members wished it, he should not object to the motion proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. NICHOLAS took it for granted, that, whenthink it necessary to go into an examination of ever this subject came up, the House would the witnesses themselves, and not rely upon the manner in which their testimony had struck others. He thought it would be best, therefore, whilst the report was printing, to go on in the examination of witnesses. The question for postponing till Monday was put and carried. Mr. NICHOLAS said, he had no objection to wait for the printing of the report, before the House proceeded to examine the witnesses, but he should not waive the right of having them re-examined before the House. MONDAY, February 5. Mr. D. FOSTER reported a bill for the relief of Oliver Pollock, which was committed for Wednesday. French Outrages. The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of Representatives: I have received a letter from his Excellency Charles Pinckney, Esq., Governor of the State of South Carolina, dated the 22d October, 1797, enclosing a number of depositions and witnesses to several captures and outrages committed within and near the limits of the United States, by a French privateer the Vertitude or Fortitude, and commanded by a perbelonging to Cape Francois, or Monte Christo, called son of the name of Jordon or Jourdain, and particularly upon an English merchant ship named the Oracabissa, which he first plundered and then burned, with the rest of her cargo, of great value, within the territory of the United States, in the harbor of Charleston, on the 17th of October last. Copies of which letter and depositions, and also of several other de positions relative to the same subject, received from the Collector of Charleston, are here with communicated. Whenever the channel of diplomatical communication between the United States and France shall be opened, I shall demand satisfaction for the insult and reparation for the injury. I have transmitted these papers to Congress, not so much for the purpose of communicating an account of so daring a violation of the territory of the United States, as to show the propriety and necessity of enabling the Executive authority of Government to take measures for protecting the citizens of the United States and such foreigners as have a right to enjoy their peace, and the protection of their laws, within their limits, in that as well as some other harbors which are equally exposed. JOHN ADAMS. UNITED STATES, February 5, 1798. This Message, with the documents accompanying it, was referred to the committee for considering on proper measures for the protection and defence of the country. Mr. SEWALL moved the House to take up the report of the Committee of Privileges, in order that it might be committed to a Committee of the Whole. Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether evidence could be heard in a Committee of the Whole. The SPEAKER said, the House might authorize the Committee of the Whole to hear evidence. ted. [FEBRUARY, 1798. Judge PETERS was accordingly called upon. Mr. RUTLEDGE desired an oath might be administered to the SPEAKER, Messrs. S. SMITH, BROOKS, HOSMER, COIT, DANA, GOODRICH, and CHAMPLIN; which was accordingly done. Mr. RUTLEDGE said, if there should be occasion, he should also call upon Judge CHIPMAN, a Senator from Vermont, as an evidence. Mr. CHIPMAN was, towards the close of the sitting, also sworn. Some conversation took place as to the best Mr. SEWALL moved the report to be commit-mode of taking the evidence, whether, as it was If gentlemen wished evidence to be heard before the committee, they would, of course, make an addition to his motion. For his own part he thought it unnecessary. to be reported to the House, it should be received from the witnesses in writing, leaving them to be questioned afterwards by the members of the committee, or whether it should be given viva voce, deliberately, and taken down by the Clerk. The latter mode was at length adopted, and the SPEAKER proceeded to give his testimony. Mr. NICHOLAS had no objection to evidence being heard before a Committee of the Whole, except that it might involve the subject in some embarrassment; as it was possible that a majority of the committee might come to a deci- [Taking the testimony in this case, and the debates sion which, according to the constitution, it upon it, occupied the House until the 12th of Februwould require two-thirds of the House to con- ary, when, a motion having been made to amend the firm. He saw no reason for going into a com-resolution of expulsion, by substituting a reprimand, mittee, except that the SPEAKER would have to give his testimony; but he did not see why the a vote was taken on that question, and negatived-. SPEAKER might not give his testimony from 52 to 44. The vote was then taken on the resolution his seat, as well as from any other place. By of expulsion, and stood yeas 52, nays 44. The congoing into a committee, the subject would take stitution requiring two-thirds of the members present up a longer time than it otherwise would do, as they should have twice to go over the same clared by the Speaker to be not carried. to carry a vote of expulsion, the Resolution was deThe folground. lowing were the yeas and nays:] Mr. R. WILLIAMS was in favor of hearing the evidence before the committee. Mr. THATCHER was not of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, that this matter should be run over as soon as possible. He thought it of infinite importance, as it respected the dignity of the House and the people at large, and he hoped it would go through every form of the House. The question for a commitment was put and carried, and it was made the order for this day. Mr. NICHOLAS then moved that the Committee of the Whole be authorized to examine testimony, and called for the yeas and nays upon the question; which being agreed upon, they were taken, and, so little opposition was there to this mode of proceeding that the question was carried, 88 to 4. The negatives were Messrs. GORDON, SEWALL, SITGREAVES, and THATCHER. Mr. D. FOSTER moved that the committee should be authorized to report the whole of the evidence, as he thought it was important it should be entered upon the journals. Carried. The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT in the chair, on this subject. Mr. THATCHER said it would be necessary that a Judge should attend to administer an oath to the members who should be called upon to give their testimony. The CHAIRMAN informed the committee that the Judge of the District Court was in the House. YEAS.-George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas. A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Wm. Shepard, Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth. NAYS.-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Wm. Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Wm. Findlay, John Fowler, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert GallaJohn A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. tin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, Havens, Walter Jones, Edw. Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams. |