DECEMBER, 1800.] Reporting the Debates. [H. of R. reasons in support of the report of the committee. None such had been offered. It was said that the stenographers could hear very well from their present positions. He denied it. The persons at present apply. But if the door be once opened to admission in this way, there may be no end to intrusion. The Speaker being divested of power to act, and the necessity of acting being evident, the House will be per-reporter could not possibly hear. Though himpetually troubled with appeals. In his opinion, the power confided to the Speaker had been exercised in this case with great propriety. It must be apparent to every body that the area was too small to justify the admission of the stenographers. He believed it to be an idle pretence that the stenographers could not hear. He believed it to be a mere matter of pride, which would be gratified by an appeal from the Chair, and a reversal of the decision of the Speaker by the House. Mr. THATCHER, persuaded that all the information derived from the debates of this House was of little comparative importance when viewed in relation to the general mass of information possessed by the people, cared but little for the event of the resolution before the House. Upon this ground he felt no anxiety whatever. As a matter of order, it might perhaps be of some importance. As to the convenience of position, he doubted whether a more correct account of the debates could not be given from a situation without the bar than within it. His reasons were these: It was well known that for four or five sessions after the organization of the Federal Government stenographers never came within the bar, and their positions during that period were as remote from the members as at present. Yet if any man would appeal to the debates then taken, he would find them as correctly taken as they have been at any time since. It is true, there were complaints of inaccuracy, but the debate takers never assigned, as a justification of their errors, the inconvenience of their situations; on the contrary, they declared that they did as well as they could, and contended that their reports were as correct as the nature of the case permitted. When the seat of Government was transferred to Philadelphia, and the stenographers occupied places within the bar, complaints increased, the debates were taken more incorrectly, and two or three of the stenographers were actually turned out of the area within the bar; one of whom, he believed, was sent into the upper gallery. The incorrectness of the published debates did not arise so much from an inability to hear as from an inability to take down a rapid speech. Mr. T. said he believed the debates as taken down by Mr. Lloyd, were as accurately taken as any taken before or since. The conclusion he drew from these facts was, that if the stenographers were admitted by the House within the bar, the public would gain nothing by it. He had, however, no objection to their admission, if the Speaker approved it. They might, as far as he cared, take any place in the House; even seats alongside of the Speaker. Mr. DAVIS had expected to hear substantial self nearer the gentleman, he had not heard a word that fell from the gentleman from North Carolina. He trusted the House would admit the stenographers within the bar. If not admitted, the conversation and passage of the members around them will at once prevent the debates from being well taken, and be a perpetual excuse for their errors. But if admitted, they will have no such apology, and they will be within the power of the House. The great mass of our citizens are too remote to attend your debates. They rely on those who report them. Not more than forty or fifty persons transiently appear in the galleries, who are not equal to diffusing a knowledge of your proceedings. Exclude the stenographers, and you may as well shut your doors. It may be said that you print your journals; but who reads them? They are scarcely read by the members themselves. On great national questions the people ought to know, not only what you do, but also the principles that guide you. The gentleman from South Carolina was willing to place the stenographers under the coercion of the Speaker, but was unwilling to place them under the coercion of the House. For his part, he thought differently. He did not wish to see them at the mercy of the Speaker. Several allusions had been made to the treatment of a reporter at Philadelphia, who had been driven from the House by the Speaker. He recollected the affair, and, in his opinion, the Speaker had in this case been actuated more by personal enmity, than by any other motive. Mr. H. LEE next rose. He said he put it upon the candor of his colleague from Virginia to declare whether, in his opinion, any gentleman in that House wished to suppress his sentiments, or was disposed to shrink from an avowal of them. If an individual were to judge from the debate of to-day he would infer that it was the desire of some members on that floor to conceal their sentiments from the people. No such thing was the case. We are as anxious as those who differ with us that the people should know what we think, say, and do. The only question was, whether the Speaker shall exercise a certain power which he can conveniently, and which he has hitherto honorably exercised, or whether we shall assume it with all its inconveniences. He hoped we should not. He feared no inaccuracy so long as the debates published received no sanction from the House. Have you, said Mr. L., no greater objects to engage your attention than whether this man or that man shall go out of your bar, or remain within it? He thought the House might be better employed. H. OF R.] Reporting the Debates. Mr. MACON understood the subject before the House very much as his colleague did. The question was simply whether we will take upon ourselves inconveniences alleged to exist, or keep the stenographers without the bar. He was convinced that the situations occupied by the stenographers were badly calculated for hearing, as even within the bar the members could scarcely hear each other. One reason had great weight with him. It was, that if the House made a rule in relation to the admission of the stenographers, would be placing law in the room of discretion. He preferred a certain rule to a vague discretion. The danger apprehended from a crowd of stenographers was farcical. Since he had been in Congress he had never seen more than three or four. And if the number admitted should prove inconvenient, it would be time enough, when the inconvenience was experienced, to remedy it. [DECEMBER, 1800. point of situation. In short, the business would be restored to its old form. His colleague had made an appeal to his candor. He wished to know whether he (Mr. N.) thought that he or any other gentleman in that House wished to suppress his sentiments, or was disposed to shrink from an avowal of them? He would answer the appeal made by his colleague, and would tell him that he did not feel himself at liberty to form conjectures respecting the opinions of others, but decided from facts. If he heard gentlemen make use of arguments so weak as those he had heard that day in defence of their sentiments, he would say that their feelings differed essentially from his. would say that, judging them by their arguments, they do not wish publicity to be given to the debates of this House. He What do the gentlemen tell us? Does it not amount to this: that their complaisance for the Speaker suffers him to judge for them in a case where they are the best judges; and would not this complaisance go to this length, that if the Speaker should judge wrong, they will not interfere to correct his error? We are told by a gentleman just up, that the application made proceeds from pride, and that it can proceed from nothing else. But the gentleman has not assigned his reasons for this ex Mr. S. SMITH said the question was entirely one of inconvenience. He would not ascribe to any member a desire to suppress his sentiments. The speeches never went forth as delivered. Yet it was desirable to assign to the stenographers the most convenient places. He had heard gentlemen on both sides of the chair declare they would experience no inconvenience from the admission of the stenographers. For him-traordinary charge. self, from his situation, he could experience none. He believed, indeed, that the members could be heard from any part of the House, and nearly as well in one place as in another. But as other gentlemen hold a different opinion, and the stenographers had hitherto been admitted within the bar, he had not the least objection, and would vote for their admission. In this stage of the debate, the SPEAKER arose, not, he said, to inquire into the consequences of the House acting in the business, but again to repeat the line of conduct he had pursued, and the motives which had influenced his conduct; he did this for the information of members not in the House at the time he had before addressed the House. The SPEAKER then repeated what he had before stated, viz: that on being appealed to by Mr. Stewart, he had declared to him his decision before any other application had been made; that he had spoken to many members, all of whom, without a single exception, had approved his ideas, and concluded with again declaring, as he had before declared, that the stenographers could not be admitted within the bar without violating the order of the House and the convenience of the members. It was, he said, for the House to decide-to them only was he responsible. Mr. NICHOLAS understood it to be the object of those who supported the admission of the stenographers within the bar to place them upon the same footing they had heretofore held. This was his object. All the remarks, therefore, made respecting their independence of the Chair, were inapplicable. They would still be subject to his control, except as to the single It is contended that any place without the bar will be convenient for the stenographers. Let the place be pointed out. Let the gentlemen who urge this show us a place without the bar inaccessible to the whispers of the members and the pressure of a crowd. Do they imagine that any particular place can be assigned to which they can ensure a profound silence, and from which every person can be withheld? Do they not know, have they not experienced, that when business presses, when subjects of importance are discussed, a crowd is produced, noise ensues, and interposing obstacles render it impossible either to hear or see the members! In such cases, by far the most interesting that can occur, a recess within the bar can be their only protection. The gentleman from Massachusetts had put the business upon a very extraordinary footinga footing that he did not expect from him. He represented that it would be safe to trust the reporters to the Speaker's indulgence. For his part, he did not think it would be safe in such hands. Shall the Speaker have the discretion of saying what debates shall be taken and what shall not? Shall he, and he only, have the public ear? Could the Speaker desire this? Surely he could not. He ought rather to desire the House to decide generally than thus impose upon him such an invidious task. Mr. N. said, he considered those who report the debates as appearing in this House on behalf of the people of the United States, to whom they communicated what passed here. The people were entitled to this information; and if, as observed by the gentleman from Massa chusetts, either foreign Ministers or Secretaries, or any other gentleman in long robes, interfered with such an object, they ought to give way. He knew not wherein consisted the propriety of assigning them particular seats. What right had they to exclusive seats? He knew no connection that subsisted between them and this House. Be the right as it may, he was not for sacrificing a solid benefit to mere complaisance. But a gentleman has told us that one stenographer, for his misrepresentation and insolence, had been discharged by the Speaker. In the course of debate, Mr. N. said, he had studiously avoided any allusion to this circumstance. Nor would he now say any thing about it, as he thought it altogether foreign from the sent question. pre The respect which gentlemen expressed for the Speaker appeared to him to lead them from the object they professed to have in view. For, at present, the stenographers are not under the control of the Speaker. But admit them within the bar, and if they are guilty of misconduct, if they infringe any of the rules of the House, the Speaker has them within his power. Some gentlemen apprehend the admission of a crowd of stenographers. The thing is morally impossible. When Congress met in a large populous city, where several daily papers were printed, we saw but two reporters. Here, removed from the busy world, where the demand for that description of labor which arose from publishing the debates was not nearly so great, and, of consequence, the profit less, it could not be expected that there could be more. Mr. N. concluded by declaring that, in his opinion, it was the duty of the House to decide in this case. The Speaker had changed the established practice of the House. It became, therefore, the House to inquire whether he had done what he ought to have done; which, if he had omitted to do, it devolved on them to see effected. Mr. WALN spoke in favor of the adoption of the report. The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on agreeing to the report of the select committee, and carried by the casting vote of the Speaker. There being yeas 45, nays 45, as follows: [H. OF R. Richard Thomas, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, NAYS.-Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Mausoleum to Washington. Whole on the bill for erecting a Mausoleum to The House went into a Committee of the the memory of GEORGE WASHINGTON. made the motion now under consideration, that Mr. ALSTON was in hopes, when he first amendment without debate; but, as his wish a question would have been taken upon the he held it to be his duty to give to the House upon that subject had not been complied with, the reasons which actuated him. tract any thing from the merit of that illustriHe said that he by no means wished to deous character whose memory we were now his character might be handed to the latest about to perpetuate; that it was his wish that posterity unimpaired, and that he really thought the amendment equally calculated to effect that desirable purpose with the bill; that the difference of expense was a matter of importance to the people of this country; that the expense of a mausoleum, from the best information he had 150 or $200,000; that a monument, such as been able to collect, would amount to at least not cost more than one tenth as much as a was contemplated by the amendment, would mausoleum, as contemplated by the bill as it now stood. Indeed, he believed that the bare expense of interring the remains of General WASHINGTON in a mausoleum would cost as much as the proposed monument. YEAS.-Theodore Sedgwick, (Speaker,) George Baer, Bailey Bartlett, John Bird, John Brown, Christopher G. Champlin, William Cooper, William Craik, as far as the resolution of the last session went; Mr. A. said he considered Congress pledged, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Franklin Daven- that the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. port, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, OTIS,) who was up a few day ago upon this Abiel Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Elizur Goodrich, Roger Gris subject, had requested information; in answer wold, William Barry Grove, Archibald Henderson, to which he had only to observe that if that genBenjamin Huger, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittleman would have given himself the trouble to tera, Henry Lee, Silas Lee, James Linn, Lewis R. have examined the proceedings of the last Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Robert Page, Josiah Par-session of Congress he would have been better ker, Jonas Platt, Levin Powell, John Read, Nathan informed than he appeared to be; that a com Read, John Rutledge, jr., John C. Smith, Samuel mittee equally respectable with that which had Tenney, George Thatcher, John Chew Thomas, reported the bill at the present time, had then H. OF R.] Mausoleum to Washington. fully investigated the subject, and had made a report, which was to be found upon the journals of the last session of Congress, recommending a monument such as was contemplated by the proposed amendment, and that the request made by the President of the United States to Mrs. Washington, in conformity to the report of that committee, was for a monument; to which request she had consented; he, therefore, considered Congress as pledged thus far and no farther; that a motion was made in this House to change the monument to a mausoleum; that the recent death of General WASHINGTON at that time, prevented any person from opposing any measure which was offered, let the expense be what it would; but that the time which had elapsed since, had enabled the public mind the better to judge. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. LEE) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GRISWOLD) had dwelt a great deal upon the subject of public gratitude. It was by no means his wish or intention to lessen that sentiment, but he said that he could not give his consent to an expensive measure like that contemplated in the bill, when a measure far less expensive, in his opinion, would answer every purpose as well. Mr. ALSTON was followed by Mr. HUGER, who advocated the erection of a mausoleum. Mr. SMILIE replied. He considered the erection of a mausoleum as productive of unnecessary expense, as a monument would answer every rational purpose contemplated in the bill. [DECEMBER, 1800. not fail to excite the sensibility of every American heart, it was a subject of great regret that a division of sentiment should arise. The memory of our departed patriot lives in the affections of a grateful country, and will triumph over time. During a long life, so usefully and honorably employed, WASHINGTON had reared to himself a fabric of fame, the lustre of which can neither be diminished nor heightened by any measure that we can take. But, sir, from a respect for our own, as well as for the feelings of the nation, we should endeavor to unite in the last act of attention which we propose to show this venerable character. Mr. C. said that the proposition for a mausoleum was calculated to create division. The expense of such a monument would be immense, and would be viewed by many as a profuse and useless expenditure of the public money. He believed that the statue recommended by the old Congress could be better justified upon principles of economy, and would meet with more general support. Here Mr. C. read from the journals of the old Congress the following resolutions: “Resolved, (unanimously, ten States being present,) That an equestrian statue of General WASHINGTON be erected at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established. "Resolved, That the statue be of bronze-the General to be represented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his right hand, and his head encircled with a laurel wreath. The statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which are to be represented, Mr. H. LEE next spoke at some length in in basso relievo, the following principal events of the favor of a mausoleum, and read a letter receiv-war, in which General WASHINGTON commanded in ed from Mr. King, our Ambassador at London person, viz: The evacuation of Boston-the capture of the Hessians at Trenton-the battle of Princeton enclosing a plan, presented to him by an emi--the action of Monmouth-and the surrender of nent foreign artist, for a mausoleum of one York. On the upper part of the front of the pedeshundred and fifty feet base, and the same tal, to be engraved as follows: The United States height, the expense of which was estimated at in Congress assembled ordered this statue to be $170,000. erected, in the year of our Lord, 1783, in honor of GEORGE WASHINGTON, the illustrious Commanderin-chief of the Armies of the United States of America, during the war which vindicated and secured their liberty, sovereignty, and independence."' Mr. CHAMPLIN, after some remarks, moved that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Which motion being carried without a division, the committee rose; and on the question to grant them leave to sit again, only three members rose in the affirmative. Mr. CHAMPLIN then moved the recommnitment of the bill to the same committee that reported it, with the addition of two members, which was carried, and Messrs. CLAIBORNE and CHAMPLIN appointed. After Mr. CHAMPLIN's motion for a recommitment of the bill to a select committee was carried, Mr. CLAIBORNE said he had risen to move that the committee just appointed be instructed to inquire into the expediency of carrying into effect a resolution passed by the old Congress, on the 7th of August, 1783, directing an equestrian statue of General WASHINGTON to be erected at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established. Mr. C. said, that on a question which could A monument thus designed, (continued Mr. C.,) would portray in lively colors the military achievements of our late illustrious Chief, and is calculated to impress upon our posterity & grateful recollection of his eminent services. Mr. C. was the more interested in support of a monument of this kind, because it had been sanctioned by a unanimous vote of those venerable philosophers and statesmen who presided in our councils, at a time of the greatest danger, directed the storm of war, and tamed the rage of tyranny. It was true, that this equestrian statue would not express any of the great events of WASHINGTON's civil life, but, of these, we have already many honorable testimonials; the first in order, and which he hoped would be the last in durability, was the Constitution of the United States; to this instrument his name was annexed, and TUESDAY, December 23. Mausoleum to Washington. [H. OF R would be noticed with gratitude by the lovers of freedom in every age and every clime; this city is another memento of his civil life, and, if it should be the residence of all that piety, Mr. H. LEE moved the going into a Comwisdom, and magnanimity, which was so de-mittee of the Whole on the bill for erecting a voutly prayed for by each branch of the Legis- mausoleum to GEORGE WASHINGTON. lature, at the commencement of the present session, this city would remain an honorable testimonial of the civil virtues of its great founder. On this question the House divided-yeas 42, nays 34. Mr. MORRIS took the chair, and read the bill by paragraphs. at the base and of proportionate dimensions.” The motion was agreed to. There was no doubt, said Mr. C., but that Mr. H. LEE said the merits of the bill had many gentlemen were also solicitous that the been so often discussed, and the subject was so body of General WASHINGTON should be de- delicate, that he would not again offer his senposited within the walls of the Capitol; of this timents generally on it. As it was the opinion number Mr. C. was one, and was desirous that of several members, that the dimensions of the a plain but neat apartment should be speedily mausoleum should not be fixed in the law, but prepared for its reception. But over his re- that they should be governed by the sum apmains, instead of an expensive monument, Mr.propriated, he moved to strike out "100 feet C. thought it most advisable to place a plain but neat tomb-stone, of American marble, and prepared by an American artist. And in order to convey to posterity, in impressive language, the feelings of the American nation, when the loss of our patriot, sage, and hero, was first announced, Mr. C. wished to see engraved upon this tomb the addresses of each House of Congress upon this occasion to the President of the United States, together with the President's replies thereto. Mausoleum to Washington. Mr. H. LEE, from the committee to whom was referred the several propositions made commemorative of the services of GEORGE WASHINGTON, reported a bill for the erection of a mausoleum, differing in no other respects from the former bill reported, except as to the materials of which the mausoleum is to be constructed; the present bill directing it to be made of stone, the former one directing it to be made of marble. He said that the committee, after maturely considering the relative merits of all the plans proposed, had preferred the mausoleum, as well from its superior durability as cheapness, to any other. VOL. II.-33 Mr. H. LEE then moved an amendment confining the ground on which the mausoleum should be erected to public property. Mr. HARPER opposed the amendment, which was lost, only 31 members rising in favor of it. Mr. H. LEE then moved to fill the blank, fixing the sum to be appropriated for erecting the mausoleum, with $200,000. Mr. SMILIE said he hoped the House would not with its eyes open go into a measure that might involve incalculable expense. It was proposed to appropriate $200,000. This was probably but a small part of what would be ultimately required; and when the thing was once begun, it must be completed, cost what it would. If the architect would give security for accomplishing the work for $200,000 he it stood, he was opposed to it, as a useless exwould not be so much opposed to it. But, as penditure of public money. Mr. HARPER said the old story was again rung in their ears. An object, in itself highly important, was proposed, and, forsooth, because it cost some money, on the ground of economy it must be rejected. He would ask the gentleman just up whether he knew any thing about the expense of a mausoleum? And yet not professing to be informed, professing indeed to know little, he had put his vague conjectures in the room of estimates formed with deliberation by artists of the first eminence. These clamorous objections were well understood. Their sole object was ad captandum vulgus; to create aların about what was termed useless expense. They were intended for nothing else. To satisfy the solicitude of gentlemen an artist of talents universally acknowledged had been desired to furnish an estimate; which estimate stated that a pyramid of 100 feet base would cost $67,000. This was the estimate of an artist of such accuracy that in the greatest work ever undertaken in America, and the greatest, perhaps, of its kind, ever undertaken in the world, (he alluded to the water works of Philadelphia,) the expense actually incurred had |