and respect, act a part consistent with a just sense of our peaceable intention. Let us act with the greatest circumspection and delibera tion. Mr. LIVINGSTON was sorry the answer was not drafted so as to avoid this debate. He said it was his sincere desire and hope that the candor of gentlemen who advocated the Address in its present form, and those who wished it amended, would so combine as to make it agreeable to all. He said he intended to oppose the amendments which had been proposed, although he did not see the Address every way right; with a view to reconcile parties, when the present motion was disposed of, he should move to strike out some words, in order to insert others. He could not, like some gentle men, draw consolation from the misfortunes of other nations; their distresses were rather matter of regret; nor did he see a propriety, as another gentleman had done, of likening our af fairs with those of the members of a family; but, even if it would bear, he could not see that tranquillity in this family as was expressed. His only objection, he said, to the paragraph in question, was the words "tranquil prosperity." He believed the United States did not enjoy that tranquil prosperity; on the contrary, he thought this was a time of great calamity in the country, and he thought that it was owing, principally, to the measures of the Government. There were other clauses in the Address, he said, he should, when they came to be considered, make objections to, and he thought they could be all easily removed by motions suitable; however, he said there were many sentiments in the Address in which he heartily concurred. He should vote against the striking out the eight clauses in question, as he thought such amendments could be proposed as would make the Address meet his hearty concurrence, and he believed give general satisfaction. [H. OF R. said, for nations to applaud themselves, and he thought it could give no offence to any. He did not hear gentlemen mention what nation was meant. He presumed the only nation that could be alluded to was the French Republic. If, however, it can be proved that they have used similar language, he supposed it would give gentlemen some ease as to this particular. In looking over some papers, he had seen several bombastical expressions in a note of Barthelemy, a report to the Convention of Laviere, and of Cambaceres, in the name of the three committees. In one are these words, a Government so powerful as the French." In another, he calls it "the most enlightened in the civilized world." In another, "the first in the universe." He hoped that while that nation could use expressions like these, the gentlemen of this House would not think the expressions referred to would give offence to that or any other nation. 66 Mr. PARKER said, when he made the motion he did not refer to any particular nation; he had neither France nor England in view; he did not wish to see us contrast our political situation with that of any other country. His objections to the words, he said, arose from our making the declaration ourselves. Our Government, he acknowledged, was free; it was the best, in his opinion, any where. He wished to believe the people as enlightened as any other; he believed they were, and if they were not, they had only themselves to blame; but however enlightened or free we were, in his opinion, we were not the proper organs to declare it; however enlightened we might be, he thought the last four years Administration had convinced many, as well as himself, that the Administration was not the most enlightened; if they had, they would not have suffered such shameful spoliations on our commerce, and shameful acts of cruelty to our seamen. He said the two little monarchies of Denmark and Sweden, neither of which, in point of extent, can be compared with the United States, more (to use the comparison of the gentleman from Pennsylvania yesterday) than a speck is to the sun; nor are they either of them in population nearly equal to the United States; and although they are surrounded by the greatest warlike powers in belligerent state, yet they have preserved their neutrality inviolate; their ships have not been wantonly seized, nor have their seamen been torn from their ships, or whipped at the gangway of British ships-of-war, or been shot by their press-gangs. To mention the instances of British cruelty towards our seamen in every instance that could be adduced, would take up Mr. HARPER'S motion was then put and ne-time unnecessarily; one alone, that recently gatived. Twenty-five members only voting for happened, I shall relate: the motion. Mr. GILES' motion was then put, to strike out those clauses, and negatived. Mr. PARKER renewed the motion he made yesterday, to strike out the words "freest and most enlightened in the world." Mr. AMES hoped that the motion to strike out would not prevail; for, without being over tenacious on the subject, he must give a preference to the copy of the report which was printed; the members had the advantage of weighing it in their minds, which they would lose by adopting the substitute; besides, he thought the ideas were so crowded in that proposed, as to render it heavy; he hoped the reported Address would be agreed to. Mr. PARKER again moved to strike out "freeest and most enlightened," &c. Mr. W. SMITH said yesterday, in the discussion on the subject, gentlemen had assigned for their reason to strike out those words that other nations would be offended at us. It was usual, he The brother of a member of this House (Mr. FRANKLIN, of N. C.) was impressed on board a British ship-of-war in the West Indies; he was unacquainted with seamanship, having only made a passage from, North Carolina to the Islands; being awkward and not being a seaman, he was discharged. The same evening, a H. OF R.] Address to the President. [DECEMBER, 1796. press-gang of the same ship fell in with him and | and were well-informed as to public affairs. In made him a prisoner; in attempting to make his such a country, liberty is likely to be permaescape, he was shot at. The ball was aimed at nent. They are enlightened enough to be free. his body; it was not winged with death, but It is possible to plant it in such a soil, and the young man was wounded in the hand.'" reasonable to hope that it will take root and flourish long, as we see it does. But can liberty, such as we understand and enjoy, exist in societies where the few only have property, and the many are both ignorant and licentious? Mr. CHRISTIE wished to make an amendment to the paragraph, which he thought would answer the end equally as well as striking it out; if agreeable to the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. PARKER,) he would move to put the word "among" after the word "freest," which would read "the freest and among the most enlightened." He could not say we were the most enlightened, but he did think us the most free; not that he was afraid of offending any nation, but he thought this a more consistent declaration. Mr. SWANWICK said, nobody doubted but we were free and enlightened, but he thought their declaration was no evidence of the truth of it. He thought the last amendment very good, but it would be still better if the gentleman would put the word among a little further back, so as to read "among the freest and most enlightened." A pacific disposition could not be proved by any thing so well as treating others with respect as well as ourselves; we may not be exclusively free or enlightened. He hoped it would be thus altered. Mr. CHRISTIE thought we were the freest people in the world; he, therefore, could not agree to the amendment last proposed. Mr. AMES said, if any man were to call himself more free and enlightened than his fellows, it would be considered as arrogant self-praise. His very declaration would prove that he wanted sense as well as modesty, but a nation might be called so, by a citizen of that nation, without impropriety; because, in doing so, he bestows no praise of superiority on himself; he may be in fact, and may be sensible that he is less enlightened than the wise of other nations. This sort of national eulogium may, no doubt, be fostered by vanity, and grounded in mistake; it is sometimes just, it is certainly common, and not always either ridiculous or offensive. It did not say that France or England had not been remarkable for enlightened men; their literati are more numerous and distinguished than our own. The character, with respect to this country, he said, was strictly true. Our countrymen, almost universally, possess some property and some pretensions of learning-two distinctions so remarkably in their favor, as to vindicate the expression objected to. But go through France, Germany, and most countries of Europe, and it will be found that, out of fifty millions of people, not more than two or three had any pretensions to knowledge, the rest being, comparatively with Americans, ignorant. In France, which contains twenty-five millions of people, only one was calculated to be in any respect enlightened, and, perhaps, under the old system, there was not a greater proportion possessed property; whilst in America, out of four millions of people, scarcely any part of them could be classed upon the same ground with the rabble of Europe. That class called vulgar, canaille, rabble, so numerous there, does not exist here as a class, though our towns have many individuals of it. Look at the lazzaroni of Naples; there are twenty thousand or more houseless people, wretched, and in want! He asked whether, where men wanted every thing, and were in proportion of 29 to 1, it was possible they could be trusted with power? Wanting wisdom and morals, how would they use it? It was, therefore, that the iron-hand of despotism was called in by the few who had any thing, to preserve any kind of control over the many. This evil, as it truly was, and which he did not propose to commend, rendered true liberty hopeless. In America, out of four millions of people, the proportion which cannot read and write, and who, having nothing, are interested in plunder and confusion, and disposed for both, is small. In the Southern States, he knew there were people well-informed; he disclaimed all design of invi-peared to him to be violated, in their ascribing dious comparison; the members from the South would be more capable of doing justice to their constituents, but in the Eastern States he was more particularly conversant, and knew the people in them could generally read and write, Mr. Corr could not say with the gentleman last up, that we were the freest, but he was very willing to agree with the amendment of gentleman, that we were among the freest and most enlightened; he thought the first amendment much improved by this; he said it removed great part of the difficulty from the minds of many gentlemen; however, he hoped no unnecessary time would be taken up with such trifles. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, that some of the observations which had been brought into the present debate, were of too delicate a nature to be commented upon or even repeated; he should not, therefore, follow the gentleman who spoke last, in his inquiry, how far this country was exposed to be annoyed by France in the possible, though happily not probable, event of a rupture with France? As to the words "freest and most enlightened," which were more immediately the subject of discussion, he did not object against them on the ground of fact, but he considered the expression as resolving itself into a question of decorum and delicacy, the rules of which ap to themselves such a superlative preference, however true, in a comparison with every other people. The amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. CHRISTIE) very much softened the terms and rendered them more palatable. DECEMBER, 1796.] Address to the President. [H. OF R. Mr. KITCHELL thought we had given a very | any other expression could not be justly estigood proof that we are not the most enlightened mated by considering it in the abstract-it people in the world, by this discussion; and if ought to be viewed in its application and use. we declare to the world that we are, that declaration will be a still more glaring proof. It appeared to him quite unnecessary; he thought it spending a great deal of time to no purpose; it was not important enough for that waste of time, when the session was to be so short; he therefore wished the question to be put. Wè are about to lose the services of the PRESIDENT, who is admitted on all hands to have been a useful and patriotic officer. The House of Representatives are desirous that he should take with him to his honorable retirement the only reward which the nature and spirit of our political institutions admit of-the approbation of his country. It will surely be admitted that we ought to give to the expression of this approbation all the value of which it is susceptible; and it is obvious, from the slightest perusal of this paragraph in the Address, that the words in question give to it all its force and en unmeaning compliment. The spectacle of a nation, neither free nor enlightened, offering to its first Magistrate the tribute of approbation and applause, would neither be "novel nor interesting," since the days of history are stained with numberless instances of prostituted praise and courtly adulation; it when it is the voluntary homage of a free and enlightened people, offered with sincerity to an illustrious fellow-citizen, it is truly a precious reward for patriotic labors. Those who object to this expression, therefore, ought to move to strike out the whole paragraph. To reject the words would totally defeat the intended compliment; to qualify them would spoil it. Mr. S., therefore, wished to retain them as they were reported. Mr. SITGREAVES agreed that a very useless and improper latitude had been assumed in the discussion, and he thought that a few moments would not be misspent in recalling the attention of the committee to the real question before them. The assertion that we are the freest and most enlightened nation in the world was found|ergy, and that without them, it would be an fault with, and while some gentlemen moved to strike it out altogether, others proposed to qualify it in different ways. Mr. S. believed that, in any modification of the expression, the criticism was, in itself, extremely unimportant; and if, as some gentlemen had treated it, it was a mere question of decorum, he should feel perfectly indifferent whether it was rejected or retained. But when he heard one member deny that we are the most free, and another that we are enlightened; and most especially when he heard that the expression was contended to be improper in relation to the acts and the administration of the Government, he confessed it did appear to him to be of some consequence not to part with the expression, lest, by doing so, the House should give countenance to these objections. For his own part, he believed the proposition to be true; he conceived the word "enlightened," as applicable to political illumination; and not to our rank in arts, sciences, or literature; and he considered the sentence as equivalent to an assertion that we enjoy the most enlightened system of political freedom extant. In this view of it, he thought it literally true; and, if true, he could not discern the indecorum of declaring so on the present occasion. He was strongly impressed with the propriety of the idea which he had suggested yesterday, that this should be considered as an act of intercourse purely domestic, an expression of self-gratulation on our superior happiness, which, by the forms of society, ought not to be noticed by any other nation. We may be deemed, without too bold a figure, to be speaking in soliloquy; and to listen to what we say would be no better than eavesdropping: the indecorum would rest with those who overhear us, and not with ourselves. It could not be denied that such a belief of the superiority of our political situation ought to be cherished among us. If we did not believe it, we should take shame to ourselves, because our Government is the work of our own hands. If the belief that we are free and enlightened is valuable, the expression of it is also valuable, because it tends to preserve us so; it is a sentiment which we cannot dwell upon too much. But, he contended, the propriety of this or Mr. THATCHER said, he did not think the object of the present question of much consequence, nor did he care much about it; however, he would wish to see the members more unanimous on the subject; he would, therefore, propose an amendment, which he thought would have some tendency towards it, which was to leave out the superlative, and let the passage read, "The spectacle of a free and enlightened nation." Mr. HENDERSON commended the ingenuity of the last motion, as he thought it would more concentrate the ideas of the members. He would vote for it. Mr. CHRISTIE'S motion was then put, and negatived. Mr. THATCHER'S motion was put, and passed in the affirmative. Mr. LIVINGSTON then moved to strike out the words from the next paragraph, "Wise, firm, and patriotic Administration," and insert in their place, "Your wisdom, firmness, and patriotism has been." He could not say that all the acts of the Administration had been wise and firm; but he would say, that he believed the wisdom, firmness, and patriotism of the PRESIDENT had been signally conducive to the success of the present form of government. He was willing to give him every mark of respect possible, but he believed some of his public acts of late rendered the present motion necessary. Mr. W. SMITH орposed the amendment, as he H. OF R.] Address to the President. thought the gentleman who proposed it conceived the words to imply more than was meant by them-they are not meant to include every act of the Executive. He thought that the Administration in general had been wise, firm, and patriotic; that the wisdom and firm ness of the PRESIDENT had been conducive to the success of the present form of government. Had not the words been put in the reported Address, he thought it would not have been of consequence whether they were ever inserted; but the difference is very great. Now they are inserted, they are made public, and, to erase them now, and substitute words in any manner deficient in sentiment to them, would be to carry censure and not respect. That the Administration of that valuable man had been wise and conducive to the good of this country, will not admit of a doubt; and for us to rob him of that honor which is his due, would be insult. And any thing short of the words in the Address he thought would not carry a proper mark of respect. Mr. GILES observed, that he thought the Administration had been very deficient in wisdom. Many gentlemen, he said, were very particularly opposed to the British Treaty and to the great emission of transferable paper. Could it then be supposed these gentlemen could, in this instance, so change their opinion? The gentleman last up had said, that because the words were in the reported Address they ought not to be struck out. He thought that the House had now as much power to act as though the committee had made no report. He thought they ought not in any way to be influenced by the report of the select committee, but act as though they had to form the Address themselves. He believed that the PRESIDENT possessed both wisdom and firmness. He was willing to compliment the PRESIDENT as much as possible in his personal character, but he could not think it applicable to his Administration. He thought the amendment proposed would meet his concurrence, and he hoped it would be agreed to. Mr. GILBERT hoped and presumed that the motion of his colleague would not obtain. He understood that the House addressed the PRESIDENT in answer to his Speech, always as a public man, and not in his private capacity. How extraordinary, then, will it appear in this House to refer only to his private conduct! It is, in substance, complimenting him as a private man, while the very words reprobate him in his public station. We are now to address him as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. We may tell him of his wisdom and his firmness, but what of all that unless we connect it with his Administration? Mr. ISAAC SMITH.-The sin of ingratitude is worse than the sin of witchcraft; and we shall damn ourselves to everlasting fame if we withhold the mighty tribute due to the excellent man whom we pretend to address. Posterity, throughout all future generations, will cry out [DECEMBER, 1796, shame on us. Our sons will blush that their fathers were his foes. If excess were possible on this occasion, it would be a glorious fault, and worth a dozen of little, sneaking, frigid virtues. I abhor a grudging bankrupt payment, where the debtor is much more benefited than the creditor. The gentleman from Virginia misrepresents his own constituents-I am sure he does all the rest of the Union. On the present occasion we ought not to consult our own little feelings and sensibilities. We should speak with the heart and in the voice of millions, and then we should speak warm and loud. What! "Damn with faint praise:" and suppress or freeze the warm, energetic, grateful sensations of almost every honest heart from Maine to Tennessee! I will not do it! Every line shall burn! This is a left-handed way of adoring the people. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, the motion then before them was of great importance, and every man who thought favorably of the PRESIDENT'S Administration should there make a stand. For, if the words were struck out, it would convey an idea to the world that it was the opinion of that House that the Administration of the PRESIDENT had neither been wise nor patriotic. Gentlemen might very well concur in the Address in its present form, who did not think that every single act of the PRESIDENT had been wise and firm, since it was his Administration in general which was referred to, and not each individual act. He hoped, therefore, the amendment offered would be decidedly opposed, and that the words proposed to be struck out would be retained. Mr. GALLATIN thought the words objected to were conceived to mean more than they really did mean by gentlemen who supported the present motion; nor could he conceive how the words "firmness and patriotism," proposed to be inserted, could apply to any thing but the public character of the PRESIDENT. On the first view of the Address, Mr. G. said, he thought with the gentlemen from New York and Virginia, and it was not without considerable hesitation that he brought himself to agree to this part of the Address. He found, however, on further examination, that they did not go so far as he at first thought they did. Had they approved of every measure of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, he should have voted against them. But, in the first place, he would observe, that his Administration did not include Legislative acts; so that whatever evils had arisen from the funding or banking systems were not to be charged to the PRESIDENT. They did not mean to pay compliments to themselves but to the PRESIDENT: therefore, the words in question related only to the Administration of the PRESIDENT alone, and not to those officers of State which had been supposed by some gentlemen. The first question was, then, whether that Administration had been marked with wisdom, firmness, and patriotism? And, he would briefly say, so far as related to the in DECEMBER, 1796.] Address to the President. [H. OF R. Resolved, That the SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said Address; and that Mr. AMES, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. SITGREAVES, be a committee to wait on the PRESIDENT to know when and where it will be convenient for him to receive the same. FRIDAY, December 16. Mr. AMES, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT to know when and where he would receive the answer of this House to his Address, reported that he had appointed to receive it at his house this day at two o'clock. ternal situation of the country, it had borne these | liam Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, and marks. He did not recollect any instance Abraham Venable. where he could say here was any want of wisdom, or there of firmness or patriotism. If they proceeded to foreign affairs, a great number of members were found (he for one) who wished that certain acts had not taken place; and, if he thought, in giving approbation to this Address, he was approving of these measures, he would certainly vote against it. But, as the gentlemen from South Carolina and New Jersey (Mr. SMITH and the SPEAKER) had observed, as the approbation went to the Administration in toto, it had respect to no particular act. Nor did he believe the literal sense of the words would apply to the business of the late treaty.. [He read the words.] The most clear_meaning of these words related to the present Government and constitution; and the word " success could apply to those parts of the Administration only which had had time to be matured. He did not believe that at the present period it could be said that the Treaty with Great Britain had been successful, and, therefore, could not be included within the meaning of the expression. Not meaning to pledge an approbation of that act, and not conceiving that the sentence could have such a meaning, he would vote against the proposed amendment, and for the original The question was put on the amendment and negatived. The committee then rose, reported the Address with the amendments, when the House took them up, and having gone through them On the question being about to be put on the answer as amended, Mr. BLOUNT wished the yeas and nays might be taken, that posterity might see that he did not consent to the Address. The main question being put, it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 67, nays 12, as follows: YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Theophilus Bradbury, Nathan Bryan, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, William Craik, James Davenport, Henry Dearborn, George Dent, George Ege, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, James Gillespie, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Samuel Lyman, James Madison, Francis Malbone, Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, John Nicholas, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton, John Read, John Richards, Samuel Sewall, John S. Sherburne, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., William Strudwick, John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Mark Thompson, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams. NAYS.-Thomas Blount, Isaac Coles, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, WilVOL. II.-3 Address to the President. The SPEAKER informed the House that the hour was nearly at hand, which the PRESIDENT had appointed for receiving the Address of the House, in answer to his Speech. The members, in a body, accordingly waited upon the PRESIDENT, at his house; and the SPEAKER pronounced the following Address: ed to your communication respecting the state of our with success. "While we notice, with satisfaction, the steps that you have taken, in pursuance of the late treaties with several foreign nations, the liberation of our citizens, who were prisoners at Algiers, is a subject of peculiar felicitation. We shall cheerfully co-operate in any further measures that shall appear, on consideration, to be requisite. "We have ever concurred with you in the most sincere and uniform disposition to preserve our neutral relations inviolate; and it is, of course, with anxiety and deep regret we hear that any interruption of our harmony with the French Republic has occurred; for we feel with you, and with our constituents, the cordial and unabated wish to maintain a perfectly friendly understanding with that nation. Your endeavors to fulfil that wish, and by all hororable means to preserve peace and to restore that harmony and affection, which have heretofore s happily subsisted between the French Republic and the United States, cannot fail, therefore, to interest our attention. And while we participate in the full reliance you have expressed on the patriotism, selfrespect, and fortitude of our countrymen, we cherish the pleasing hope that a mutual spirit of justice and moderation will ensure the success of your perseverance. "The various subjects of your communication will, respectively, meet with the attention that is due to their importance. "When we advert to the internal situation of the United States, we deem it equally natural and becoming to compare the present period with that immedi |