H. OF R.] Case of Griswold and Lyon. [FEBRUARY, 1798. the orders of the House, proceeded to take the evi- | a resolution in the following words, to wit: "Resolved, dence, which they herewith report; and they report further, that it is their opinion that the said resolution ought to be disagreed to. THURSDAY, February 22. The usual time of calling the House to order being arrived, the Clerk desired members to take their seats; which being done, Mr. KITTERA said, the SPEAKER had desired him to inform the House that he was so much indisposed as to be unable to attend the House to-day. Mr. K. suggested the propriety, therefore, of adjourning the orders of to-day till to morrow. That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, members of this House, for riotous and disorderly behavior, committed in the House, be expelled therefrom," with instructions to report the evidence in writing, have, according to the order of the House, proceeded to take the evidence, which they herewith report; and they report further, that it is their opinion that the said resolution be disagreed to. Mr. DAVIS said he hoped the House would disagree to the report of their Committee of Privileges; after this was done, the resolution could be altered in such a manner as gentlemen might think proper. Mr. DENT called for the yeas and nays. Agreed to be taken. Mr. SITGREAVES said there were many con Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not see a necessity for this. He thought the House might informally go into a Committee of the Whole on the re-siderations which should incline the House to port of the Committee of Privileges. He had seen this course taken in other Legislative bodies, and as it would be the means of saving a day, he hoped this mode would now be adopted. Mr. THATCHER hoped gentlemen would not consent to go on with business in an informal manner, since it was evident they were sufficiently informal with all their forms. Mr. HARRISON inquired if there was any probability that the SPEAKER Would be able to attend the House to-morrow. If not, he should be for choosing a temporary Speaker. come to a decision upon the present business without entering into any unnecessary discussion; and there were others which should lead them to avoid coming to an immediate decision. He should, therefore, move that the further consideration of this subject be postponed until the 4th of March, 1799. Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question; which being agreed to, were taken, and stood-yeas 38, nays 53. The motion for postponement being lost, the question on agreeing to the report of the committee recurred. Mr. KITTERA said, the indisposition of the Mr. BAYARD believed it would not be in order SPEAKER was occasioned by a severe headache, to call for a division of the question. The resoto which he was subject; that it generally con-lution implicated two persons, which he thought tinued for six or eight hours, and afterwards he was perfectly well. The question for postponement of the orders of the day till to-morrow was then put by the Clerk, and carried; and then the House adjourned till to-morrow. FRIDAY, February 23. The bill providing for the widows and orphans of certain deceased officers, was read the third time, and passed. Revenue Statements. improper. If the report of the committee was, however, disagreed to, he supposed it would then be in order to move for a division of the question. He should, therefore, vote against the report, as he wished the cases to be separately considered, as they stood on distinct ground, and were not attended with the same circumstances; and, reasoning from analogy, he knew of no instance in a court of justice, where two persons had ever been included in the same charge when their crimes were different. If the situation of both these gentlemen had been the same, there might have been propriety in coupling them together; but as this was not the case, he was opposed to taking an opinion upon both together. Mr. MCDOWELL thought it would be proper to take the same course in this business as was taken in a former case. He moved, therefore, that the report be read a second time, for the purpose of committing it to a committee of the whole House. A communication was laid before the House by the SPEAKER, from the Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing sundry documents prepared by the late Commissioner of the Revenue, in consequence of a resolution of the House of the 6th of January, 1798, requiring to be laid before the House every session, within ten days after its meeting, a statement of the net produce of the internal revenues, the salaries of the Collectors, &c., for the year preceding. The SecMr. GORDON was opposed to this mode of proretary apologizes for not having made the com-ceeding. Every one knew the question, and munication sooner. It was ordered to be printed. were as well prepared to decide upon it now, as they would be after going into a committee upon it. Mr. GILES thought it would comport more with the dignity of the House to decide this business without going into a Committee of the Whole, as he believed every one had made up his mind upon it. If gentlemen intended by Case of Griswold and Lyon. The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Privileges, of the twentieth instant; and the same being again read in the words following, to wit: The Committee of Privileges, to whom was referred FEBRUARY, 1798.] DEBATES OF CONGRESS. Case of Griswold and Lyon. [H. OF R. the course heretofore taken to raise the dignity | agreed to commit the offence. The resolution, Mr. MCDOWELL thought the mode he had The SPEAKER said that motion would be in order after the report of the committee was decided upon. Mr. BAYARD said, the statement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was not correct. He had stated that the offences of the two members were the same in circumstances, and committed at the same time. He apprehended the two cases were very distinct; as, by the depositions before the House, it appeared that the offence of the member from Connecticut was committed before the House was called to order, and that the offence of the member from Vermont was committed after the House was called to order. The argument most depended upon in a former case, against the expulsion of the member from Vermont, was that which insisted that the act of violence, complained of being committed when the House was not in session, was not a cause of expulsion. If this argument had weight at that time, it ought also to have weight in the present case. It would, therefore, be the height of injustice to blend the two cases together; since there might be cause for expelling one member and not the other. Mr. GALLATIN remarked, that if the report The SPEAKER observed that every thing which was agreed to, the resolution for an expulsion would of course be negatived, and then any had been said with respect to a division of the other proposition would be in order; and, on question was out of order, as it could not be the other hand, if the report was disagreed to, divided. He would also remark, in order to the resolution would be before them, and open shorten the debate, that the House was not to amendment. Mr. G. said he rose to make called to order when the stroke was made by an observation upon what fell from the gentle- the member from Vermont upon the member man from Delaware (Mr. BAYARD.) That gen- from Connecticut without the bar of the House. Mr. HARPER asked, if the report of the comtleman had said he would vote against the report, because he wished to distinguish be-mittee should not be agreed to, whether the tween the two members. The reason which he resolution might not then be agreed to? The SPEAKER replied, it could not be divided; gave, though he might have good reasons for his vote, did not appear to him to be correct. but a separate resolution might be brought forThat gentleman seemed to suppose that the ward. facts for which the two members were to be expelled, were facts committed at different times, and of a different nature; whereas the facts for which both were proposed to be expelled, were offences of the same nature, and committed on the same day. What related to the previous conduct of the member from Vermont, was not now under consideration. In order to have that conduct before them, it would be necessary that a reconsideration of it should be moved by a member who voted against that member's expulsion, and seconded by another member who voted on the same side of the question. The argument of the gentleman from Delaware, therefore, did not apply. He said he should himself vote in favor of the report of the Committee of Privileges. He was against expelling either of the gentlemen. Mr. DANA agreed with the gentleman last up, in his conclusions; but he did not seem rightly to have understood the argument of the gentleman from Delaware. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania was acquainted with legal principles, with established principles relative to punishment, he must know that no persons can be charged jointly with an offence, except jointly guilty, and except they had mutually The question on agreeing to the report of the committee, which recommended a disagreement to the resolution for an expulsion of the two members was then taken, and stood-yeas 73, nays 21. The resolution for an expulsion having been disagreed to, Mr. R. WILLIAMS proposed a resolution in the following words: "Resolved, That Roger Griswold and Matthew Lyon, for riotous and disorderly behavior in this House, are highly censurable, and that they be reprimanded by the Speaker in the presence of this House." Mr. HARPER moved the previous question upon this resolution. He did it, he said, upon this ground. The House had just decided, and they had lately decided in another instance, that disorderly conduct shall not be punished by expulsion; and it was his opinion that no less punishment than expulsion ought to be inflicted, as he was unwilling to diminish the reprehensive power of the House, by inflicting what he thought inadequate punishment for offences of this nature. If there were any gentlemen who thought this conduct excusable, and that it ought not to be punished, they would, of course, H. OF R.] Diplomatic Intercouree. vote in favor of the previous question; and those who thought with him, that both ought to be expelled, would also vote in favor of it. Mr. NICHOLAS called for the yeas and nays upon this question. Agreed to be taken. Mr. GALLATIN said, by the gentleman from South Carolina having moved the previous question, he had excluded any discussion upon the merits of the main question. Mr. G. wished some reasons might be given why the main question ought not to be put. Those given by the gentleman from South Carolina were applicable to the resolution itself: they were reasons why he should vote against the resolution, but they did not strike him as reasons why the question should not at all be taken. [MARCH, 1798. Mr. S. Smith moved to strike out certain words, and to insert others to this effect: "That the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall not allow to any Minister Plenipotentiary to France, Great Britain, or Spain, more than $9,000 per annum, nor to any other Minister Plenipotentiary more than $6,000." This amendment was negatived, there being only 48 votes in its favor. The blanks in the bill were next to be filled; the first, which was the permanent allowance, was filled with $40,000; the next, which was an extraordinary appropriation for this year, with $28,650. Before the latter sum was agreed upon, Mr. LIVINGSTON inquired whether the sum of between two and three thousand dollars, which he thought had been lavished away, said to be expended on persons taking leave from this country, was included in the incidental expenses which were contained under this head? He thought such an expenditure of money forbidden by the constitution. Mr. HARPER believed the incidental expenses mentioned in the estimate were expenses of our Ministers abroad. The previous question was then put in this form: Shall the main question (viz: the resolution for reprimanding the offending members) now be put?" And the yeas and nays were taken, and stood-yeas 47, nays 48, as follows: YEAS.-Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findlay, John Fowler, Mr. NICHOLAS understood that three SecretaNathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, William B. ries were allowed the mission at present in Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. France. He thought this was as novel as it Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, was unnecessary; as he believed one Secretary Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward was sufficient for the whole. The United States Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, An- had employed a number of missions at different thony New, John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, times, but never allowed more than one SecreSamuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, Rich-tary to each. He had thought the law would ard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams. not have warranted the practice; but on examining it, he supposed it did. Mr. NICHOLAS answered, that as the law admitted of it, he should not object to the appropriation: but he should move an amendment to prevent more than one secretary to a mission in Mr. HARPER said every Minister employed NAYS.—John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bart- was entitled to a Secretary; the PRESIDENT had lett, James A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bul- accordingly appointed one to each, and he could lock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James not see upon what ground the House could obCochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W.ject to appropriating for their salaries. Dana, George Dent, Thos. Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, William Matthews, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jun., Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams. MONDAY, March 5. Diplomatic Intercourse. [After a protracted discussion the question was taken on Mr. Nicholson's amendment, to wit, to limit the ministers of the highest grade to the two Courts of London and Paris, and it was negatived-52 to 48.] A motion was then made for the committee to rise and ask leave to sit again, which was negatived. The bill was proceeded with. future. The committee then rose and reported the bill with the amendments; which being taken up in the House and agreed to, Mr. NICHOLAS renewed his amendment to limit the salaries of Ministers Plenipotentiary to London, Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars a year, and all others to four thousand five hundred dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon it, which were taken and resulted, yeas 48, nays 52. Mr. S. SMITH then renewed his motion for limiting the salaries of Ministers to London, Paris, and Madrid, to nine thousand dollars, and others to six thousand dollars, and called the yeas and nays upon it, which were taken, and were exactly the same as upon the former question. Mr. NICHOLAS then made his motion to confine future missions to one Secretary, which was negatived-50 to 45. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow. MARCH, 1798.] Georgia Limits. [H. OF R. This result cannot, with justice, be attributed to any want of moderation on the part of this Government, or to any indisposition to forego secondary interests for the preservation of peace. Knowing it to be my duty, and believing it to be your wish, as well as that of the great body of the people, to avoid, by all reasonable concessions, any participation in the contentions of Europe, the powers vested in our EnVoys were commensurate with a liberal and pacific policy, and that high confidence which might justly be reposed in the patriotism, abilities, and integrity, of the characters to whom the negotiation was committed. After a careful review of the whole subject, with the aid of all the information I have received, I can discern nothing which could have ensured or contributed to success that has been omitted on my part; and nothing further which can be attempted, consistently with maxims for which our country has contended, at every hazard, and which constitute the basis of our national sovereignty. Under these circumstances, I cannot forbear to reiterate the recommendations which have been formerly made, and to exhort you to adopt with promptitude, decision, and unanimity, such measures as the ample resources of the country afford, for the protection of our commercial and sea-faring citizens; for the defence of any exposed portions of our territory; for replenishing our arsenals, establishing foundries and military manufactures; and to provide such efficient revenue as will be necessary to defray extraordinary expenses, and supply the deficiencies which may be occasioned by depredations on our com merce. The present state of things is so essentially different from that in which instructions were given to collectors to restrain vessels of the United States from sailing in an armed condition, that the principle on which those orders were issued has ceased to exist. I therefore deem it proper to inform Congress that I no longer conceive myself justifiable in continuing them, unless in particular cases, where there may be reasonable ground of suspicion that such vessels are intended to be employed contrary to law. In all your proceedings it will be important to manifest a zeal, vigor, and concert, in defence of the national rights, proportioned to the danger with which they are threatened. JOHN ADAMS. UNITED STATES, March 19, 1798. This Message was referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. FRIDAY, March 23. MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY-SLAVERY. Mr. J. WILLIAMS called for the order of the day on the bill for organizing and disciplining the militia of the United States. should again go into a Committee of the Whole Mr. GALLATIN thought it better that the House on the bill for an amicable settlement of limits with Georgia, and for the erection of a government in the Mississippi Territory, as that subject had already undergone some discussion, and the bill had been reported with the information to obtain which it had been committed. The latter business was preferred, and the House accordingly went into a Committee of the Whole on the subject'; when Mr. MILLEDGE'S amendment being under consideration, for adding to the section for appointing a provisional Government in the Natchez country," after the consent of the Legislature of Georgia shall have been obtained," Mr. MILLEDGE observed, that the select committee had now reported all the documents on which the United States claimed a right to this territory. As to the title of Georgia, he should not enter into an inquiry as to that. He would only remark, that the State of Georgia was as tenacious of her rights as any State in the Union. But he thought it would not be improper to examine the pretended claim of the United States to this country. Looking into the journals of the Senate, he found that on the 3d of March, 1795, a resolution was passed directing the Attorney General to inquire into and make a report on the subject of the title of the United States to land in Georgia. No doubt the Attorney General not only examined the records of the State of Georgia, but those of the United States, and obtained all the information which he was able to do in the United States; but not finding sufficient ground upon which to found a title, he applied to Mr. Bayard, our Commissioner in London, who obtained a certificate on the subject from a Mr. Chalmers, Secretary to the Board of Trade and Plantations. Twelve months after he was directed to do so, the Attorney General made a report on the subject; but none of the documents which he reported went to establish the claim of the United States; nor any thing which tends to show that a cession of West Florida was ever made. But he now found among the papers got from the Senate, a letter addressed to Mr. Read of the Senate, from Mr. Livingston of New York, informing him that he encloses an extract from the instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester. But Mr. Livingston was not known as an official character; and this document was neither official nor certified. Yet this is the ground upon which the United States claim this tract of country. Before the Gen H. OF R.] Georgia Limits. eral Government proceeded to erect a temporary government, it ought to have better information with respect to the nature of its clam; for, to attempt to establish a government without the consent of Georgia, he thought would be stepping beyond the constitution, two clauses of which he quoted. He hoped the general powers placed in Congress for the defence of the country would not be resorted to in order to sanction the proceeding. It was said that the inhabitants of the district of country alluded to were in a situation which called for immediate attention. He allowed that it would be proper to pay early attention to them; but he thought, inconvenient as it might be, the erecting of a government might be deferred until the consent of the Legislature of Georgia could be obtained. It ought to be remembered that the State of Georgia is a member of the Union, and that it is her interest to make the cession, and he had no doubt she would do so. The convention of that State meet in May, and if application was made to them, he had no doubt the Legislature would be called together, and consent might be obtained by the month of July. He was confident the State of Georgia is desirous of promoting the interests of the United States, and that she is firmly attached to the Government; all its regulations had been constantly carried into effect there; and her consent to the establishment of a provisional government being obtained, every difficulty would be obviated. [MARCH, 1798. which are two nations of Indians, and in the neighborhood of the territory of a foreign nation, with whom, though we are at present at peace, when we recollect the connection subsisting between that nation and another with whom we have differences of a serious nature, we cannot reckon upon as lasting. Yet this remote and vulnerable corner of the Union is to be left defenceless for an indefinite period of time, lest we should possibly give umbrage to the State of Georgia, by providing a temporary government there before the dispute on the subject of limits is settled. And whatever may be the good disposition of Georgia towards the United States, it would require considerable time to obtain the consent proposed. Their Legislature do not meet till next winter. It was true, as had been stated, that their convention met in May, and they might, if they thought proper, call an extraordinary meeting of the Legislature; but this could not be relied upcr. Besides, he saw no necessity for so much punctilio in this case, for if any State were to suffer a part of its territory, within its ordinary jurisdiction, to lie in a defenceless state, the General Government would be warranted in stepping in to defend it, and certainly they might do it in a case like the present, where no jurisdiction is exercised. And if this was not done, the petition of these peo ple set forth, that however unwilling they should be to do so, they should be obliged to pass over to the Spanish dominions. Mr. H. said, he did not wish to have touched Mr. HARPER did not feel any anxiety to ques- upon the question of right; but as the gentletion the desire of the State of Georgia to pro- man from Georgia had said we had none, he felt mote the interests of the United States, and he himself obliged to say a few words upon that was glad to be informed by her Representative, point. He allowed the committee had not bethat she was so well disposed to the General fore them evidence of the right which would be Government, to which assertion he gave the admissible in a court of law; but though it were fullest credit. He, therefore, should not oppose not such as would be admitted in a court of the motion of the gentleman on the ground that law, had it therefore no weight? It was at the State of Georgia would be likely to throw least equal to what was every day received by any obstacles in the way of the proposed tem- the committees of the House. The question porary government; and he should be far from was, whether the papers before them afforded supposing, that, by the erection of such a gov-reason to believe that legal evidence of the title ernment, the United States would assume an extra-judicial right to the territory. He was of opinion that the United States possessed the right to it, and that the most undeniable evidence of the right existed; but that evidence was not now before the House, and if it were, they were not the proper body to decide the question. He believed the amendment ought to be rejected on the ground of policy. The bill went to provide a temporary government, but contained an express clause that the establishment of this government shall not affect the rights of Georgia with respect to her right of the jurisdiction or soil of this territory-consequently, the fears of the gentleman are groundless in this respect. What, then, is the nature of the amendment? It is to prevent the erection of a temporary government in a district of country containing upwards of 5,000 souls, lying far beyond the ordinary jurisdiction of any State, with an immense wilderness intervening, in did exist? It was a copy of a commission and instructions given by the King of Great Britain to Governor Chester, of West Florida, in the year 1770, furnished by the gentleman who was Secretary to the Governor at that time, and whose duty it was to keep the records of that Government. But the gentleman from Georgia said, search had been made in the offices of the British Government for the original, of which this paper was a copy, and it could not be found. But this was no proof it did not exist. If it does exist, legal evidence may be obtained from it, and this paper shows that the Natchez country was included within the territory of West Florida, and that it ceased in the year 1770 to be a part of Georgia. He believed, however, this question ought not now to be acted upon; but that from necessity, and the exigencies of the case, a temporary government ought immediately to be provided for this district of country, and afterwards settle the point of right with |