Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jun., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jun., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jun.. David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Henry Woods. NAYS.-Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, William Eustis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Joseph Pierce, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Benjamin Walker, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods. FRIDAY, March 5. State Balances. Mr. THOMAS, from the committee appointed to inquire into the expediency of extinguishing the claims of the United States, for certain balances, which, by the Commissioners appointed to settle the accounts between the United States and the individual States, were reported to be due from several of the States to the United States, made a report, as follows: That the following balances were, by the said Commissioners, reported to be due from the States hereinafter mentioned, to wit: From the State of New York, two millions seventy-four thousand eight hundred and forty-six dollars; from the State of Pennsylvania, seventy-six thousand seven hundred and nine dollars; from the State of Delaware, six hundred and twelve thousand four hundred and twenty-eight dollars; from the State of Maryland, one hundred and fifty-one thousand six hundred and forty dollars; from the State of Virginia, one hundred thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine dollars; and from the State of North Carolina, five hundred and one thousand and eighty-two dollars. That, as none of these States has evinced a disposition to pay any part of those balances, except the State of New York, which has been credited on the books of the Treasury for two hundred and twentytwo thousand eight hundred and ten dollars and six cents, for money expended in erecting fortifications, pursuant to an act of Congress, passed the 5th of February, 1799; but as it would be unequal to ask a further payment from that State exclusively, and as it does not appear that any measure of coercion can ever be resorted to, a further continuance of the demands against those States, the justice and equity of which they do not admit, will, in the opinion of the committee, answer no useful purpose; but, on the contrary, is calculated to occasion perpetual irritation and disquiet, as well to the creditor as to the debtor States. The committee are, therefore, of opinion, that it is expedient to extinguish the claims of the United States for those balances, and for that purpose report a bill, which is herewith submitted. The report was laid on the table. The bill [H. OF R. was twice read, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Wednesday next. WEDNESDAY, March 10. An engrossed bill for revising and amending the acts concerning Naturalization was read the third time, and on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 59, nays 27, as follows: YEAS.-Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, James A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, Robert Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, John Dennis, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, John Fowler, Wm. B. Giles, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, William Jones, Michael Leib, John Milledge, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Thomas Newton, jun., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, David Thomas, Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, and Henry Woods. NAYS.-John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John C. Smith, Josiah Smith, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Benjamin Walker, and Lemuel Williams. THURSDAY, March 11. Wyoming Controversy. The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee to whom was referred the petition of sundry inhabitants of the State of Pennsylvania, settled on the lands claimed under grants from the State of Connecticut, antecedent to the trial before the court of commissioners between the State of Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The report of the committee embraces an historical view of the Wyoming controversy, recites the act of Pennsylvania, for preventing intrusions upon land in Northampton, Northumberland, and Luzerne Counties. The report then proceeds to state: "The petitioners complain of these acts as unconstitutional, and pray that provisions may be made by law for transferring the proceedings under these laws from the State Courts of Pennsylvania to the Courts of the United States; and that further provision may be made by law, that in the trial of any prosecution in virtue of the said acts the defendant may have a venire facias to summon juries from some State, other than Pennsylvania. Your committee conceive that the right of jurisdiction was finally settled by the H. OF R.] State Balances. decree of Trenton, of the 30th December, 1783, and that by the decision of the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania in April, 1795, the whole question of the right of soil was fully taken up and decided by the court, in a case the most favorable for the defendant; which decision not having been revised and reversed, should also be considered as final and conclusive. [MARCH, 1802 appointed to settle the accounts between the United States and the individual States. Mr. THOMAS.-Mr. Chairman, I rise, with a great deal of diffidence, to deliver my senti ments on this floor, as I have not been accus tomed to public speaking; however, a sense of my duty as a Representative of the United from the State of New York, impels me, on this occasion, to ask the indulgence of the Com mittee while I make a few reinarks on the subject of the bill now under consideration. Your committee therefore, upon the whole circum-States, as well as the immediate Representative stances of the case, are of opinion, that the measures contemplated by the petitioners would tend very much to increase the embarrassments already experienced by the State of Pennsylvania, in extending and enforcing its lawful jurisdiction over the lands in question, and that it would be highly inexpedient on the part of the United States to interfere with the regulations of the States in that respect, or to countenance, by any means whatever, any circumstances of insubordination to the State authority. Your committee are therefore of opinion that the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be granted." After a debate, the committee rose and reported their agreement to the report. A motion was made and lost to recommit the report to a select committee. It was then moved to postpone the further consideration of the report till the last day of November next. Not carried. The question was then taken on concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their report, by yeas and nays, and agreed to—yeas 60, nays 17. And so the petition was rejected. FRIDAY, March 12. The House being informed that NARSWORTHY HUNTER, the Delegate from the Mississippi Territory, in this House, died last evening: On motion, it was Resolved, That a committee be appointed to take order for superintending the funeral of NARSWORTHY HUNTER, late a Delegate from the Mississippi Territory; and that this House will attend the same. Resolved, That the members testify their respect for the memory of the said NARSWORTHY HUNTER, by wearing a crape on the left arm, for one month. Resolved, That the SPEAKER of this House address a letter to the Governor of the Mississippi Territory, to inform him of the death of NARSWORTHY HUNTER, the Delegate from the said Territory in this House, in order that measures may be taken to supply the vacancy occasioned thereby. Ordered, That Mr. LEIB, Mr. DAVIS, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. RUTLEDGE, and Mr. LEWIS R. MORRIS, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the first resolution. State Balances. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to extinguish the claims of the United States for balances reported against certain States by Commissioners Sir, a number of the debtor States, and par ticularly the one which I have the honor to represent, have always believed that they were prodigiously injured in the settlement that was made; they have always believed that there was something radically wrong, grossly unequal, in the accounts exhibited by the individual States, and allowed by the Board of Commissioners; in this belief, they have fre quently called for information on the subject, for a re-examination of that settlement, and have as often been denied it. Much might be said to prove that the very economical system adopted and adhered to by the State of New York in limiting the prices of produce, and in liquidating the accounts of her citizens for supplies furnished during the Rev olutionary war, operated particularly prejudicial to that State in the settlement. I shall, however, waive any remarks on this for the pres ent, and confine myself principally to the rule which was adopted for apportioning the expenses of the war among the several States. Sir, the committee will recollect that by an act of Congress passed in the year 1789, the enumeration of inhabitants made in the year 1791 was adopted as the rule for apportion ing this debt among the thirteen States. I shall in the first place examine the original contract entered into by these States, and under which these expenses were incurred, and then endeavor to show the effect which, adopting an enumeration made seven or eight years after the close of the war, had upon the several States different from what the same rule would have produced had the apportionment been made according to the numbers in each State at that period, say 1784. In the year 1778, the people of these States entered into a confederation for various pur poses, one of which was, to prosecute the war against Great Britain. In the eighth article of this compact it was expressly agreed that— "All charges of the war, and all other expenses that should be incurred for the common defence, and general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, should be defrayed out of a common treasury, which should be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all lands within each State granted to or surveyed for any per thereon should be estimated, according to such mode son as such lands and the building and improvements as the United States in Congress assembled, should from time to time direct and appoint." [ARCH, 1802.] State Balances. [H. OF R. year 1784, and having apportioned the whole debt among the several States, according to the enumeration, I find the following to be the result: That the State of Massachusetts, instead of being a creditor of $1,248,801, she would have been a creditor for only $863,267; that the State of Connecticut, instead of being a creditor State of $619,121, she would have been a debtor State for $235,419; that the State of Rhode Island, instead of being a creditor State for $299,611, she would have been a debtor State for $13,212; that the State of New Jersey, instead of being a creditor for $49,030, she would have been a debtor State for $300,201; that the State of New York, instead of being a debtor State for $2,074,846, she would have been a creditor State for $965,921, &c. This, Mr. Chairman, was the agreement un- | ler which this debt was incurred; and here llow me to ask the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) whether he was orrect when he told us the other day that his settlement had been made agreeably to he articles of Confederation; and, further, whether, agreeably to that compact, the State which he represents would have been allowed or her losses in the Penobscot expedition, which has enabled her to become a creditor State of upwards of one million two hundred housand dollars, and more than one-third of he whole amount of the balances. Sir, had he original agreement under which these exDenses were incurred been adhered to in the settlement, no one ought now to complain; out, in order to comply with it, the expenses This, Mr. Chairman, would have been the of the war ought to have been apportioned situation of those States had the apportionment Among the several States according to the value been made according to the numbers in each of the lands and buildings at the time these State in the year 1784. As for the accuracy expenses were incurred, and I do contend that of this statement I think I can with safety the period immediately after the termination pledge myself; it is, however, open for any of the war was the only proper one for carry-gentleman who will give himself the trouble to ing into effect this stipulation. I am per- examine it for himself. The principles on suaded that no gentleman on this floor will which it has been made cannot be disputed, as deny that the existing circumstances of the it respects the State of New York; if any several States at that period were the most thing, it does not make enough in her favor, proper to determine the just proportion which for it is evident that the emigration into that each State ought to pay of these expenses, by State from the neighboring States was greater for whatever rule might be adopted. Admitting, the first seven years after the close of the war then, that Congress had the power, and it was than it has been for any subsequent seven years. judged expedient to deviate from the original Will, then, Mr. Chairman, any gentleman hescontract, and adopt as the rule of apportion-itate a moment to pronounce the rule of apporment the enumeration of inhabitants as a more practicable one, ought it not to have had reference to the numbers in each State at the close of the war? Most unquestionably, Mr. Chairman, no gentleman will deny this, and that the year 1784 was the proper time. It may, however, be said that no enumeration was made till the year 1791, seven years afterwards. I grant it. But will this alter the justness of my position? Not at all. It must be obvious in the mind of every gentleman who has reflected on the subject, that the relative numbers in each State had changed materially between the year 1784, when this settlement ought to have been made, and the year 1791, when it was made. In order to establish this fact, I have adopted this method; I have admitted what I believe every gentleman who hears me will, without hesitation that there has been no material variation in the increase of population in the several States since the year 1784; that the increase was nearly, if not correctly, in the same ratio between the years 1784 and 1791, with the increase between the years 1791 and 1801; that is, that the relative increase of population in the several States was nearly, if not correctly, in the same proportion for the seven years previous to the year 1791 that it was for the ten years subsequent to that period. I This I have established as my data, by which have ascertained the numbers in each State in the VOL. II.-41 tionment which was adopted unjust, unequal, and erroneous? Will any gentleman say, sir, that the rule of apportionment was a just one, or as just as the nature of the case would admit of, which brought the State of New York in debt upwards of two millions-two-thirds of the whole amount of the balances-when, on the principles of righteousness, on the principles of legal contract, or any other principles, but an unauthorized act of Congress, that State would have been a creditor State for nearly a million? Mr. Chairman, I admit, as the settlement has been made, and the creditor States have received their balances, that it would be improper now to take up this subject de novo, and endeavor to compel those States to refund what they have received more than they were entitled to; this is not expected-it is not asked; all that is asked of you is, that you render such justice to those injured States as the present situation of this transaction will admit of; this is all that is contemplated in the bill now before us. Sir, as to the present situation of the State of New York with respect to this subject, she has not acknowledged the justice of this claim, as was stated by some gentlemen when this question was under consideration the other day; she has uniformly denied it. It is true she did comply with the act of Congress passed in February, 1799, and has expended and been credited on the books of your Treasury for $223,810 under that act; she did this, not from a conviction of the justice of the claim, but from motives which have always actuated her conduct, as well during the Revolutionary war as since, to do every thing in her power for the general welfare of the nation, whenever its exigencies required it, and also from an expectation that the other States called debtor States would do the same, and thereby get rid of an evil which she considers as having a tendency to alienate the good will and cordial affection so necessary to be cherished between these States-a cause, sir, which has and will, while it is suffered to exist, occasion perpetual irritation and disquiet, as well to the creditor as to the debtor States, and which may at some future period produce consequences more fatal. [MARCH, 15% The bill was supported by Messrs. RANDOLE VAN RENSSELAER, HILL, VAN NESS, GEBA BAYARD, SMILIE, MACON, S. SMITH, CLAIBORN and HOLLAND-and opposed by Messrs. ELVE. BACON, EUSTIS, HASTINGS, and BUTLER. The question was then taken on the commit tee rising, and reporting the bill without amets ment, and carried-yeas 47, nays 33. A motion was then made that the bill be e grossed for a third reading on Tuesday, and er ried—yeas 47, nays 35. A motion was then made by Mr. LEIB to commit the report of the select committer & which the above bill was founded, in order correct an erroneous statement in relation : Pennsylvania. MONDAY, March 15. Mr. GRISWOLD said, that he hoped the resu tion which he had laid on the table for inder fying for French spoliations would be first take up. It was important, before a decision s made on the repeal of the internal taxes, the the extent of indemnities made by Governmen should be known. He therefore moved a poš ponement of the bill on internal taxes till morrow, that, in the mean time, his mot might be acted upon. He concluded by des ing the yeas and nays. แ The motion of Mr. GRISWOLD is as follows: Resolved, That it is proper to make provision law towards indemnifying the merchants of the United States for losses sustained by them fro French spoliations, the claims for which losses bar: been renounced by the final ratification of the Covention with France, as published by proclamati of the President of the United States." I say, sir, these were her motives in agreeing to that measure; and did she not evince a magnanimous spirit by doing it? a willingness to suffer an additional injury herself, rather than not remove a cause which might put in jeopardy the peace and harmony of these United States? But, Mr. Chairman, as it can answer no useful purpose to have the remainder of the money expended in the manner directed by the act and this I am warranted in stating to the committee, not only as my own opinion, but as the opinion of the gentleman who was employed under Government as an agent or commissioner to superintend the expenditure already madeas no other State has evinced a disposition to extinguish these balances by paying any part of them, or by complying with any of the terms heretofore offered by Congress; and as it must be admitted on all hands that Congress have no power to effect it by eviction, I ask gentlemen if it would be just or reasonable that the State of New York, who has been injured more in the settlement than any other State in the Union; who has already paid upwards of $220,000 towards these balances, and who is the only State that has, or in all probability ever will, pay a cent towards them-I say, I ask gentlemen of the committee whether it would be just that that State should now be driven to one of two alternatives; either to draw near a million of dollars from her citizens and expend it where it will answer no useful purpose to the State nor to the nation, or to withhold any further appropriations, and thereby incur the imputation of having violated her faith? I call upon gentlemen seriously to consider whether it would not be prodigionsly unjust to hold that State in this predicament; whether it would not be add-only this morning. Mr. S. asked if this mode ing injury to injustice to do it? Mr. Chairman, I do flatter myself that the representatives of this nation, convened here to legislate on fair and equitable principles, will not suffer a new wound to be inflicted on that State, but that they will unite with one accord in passing the bill now before us, and thereby not only heal the one already made on that, as well as several of her sister States, but remove a rock which may endanger our Federal ship. Mr. LOWNDES observed, that it was nearl two months since the committee was raised whom had been committed the petitions of merchants praying indemnities; notwithstand ing this length of time, the committee had ne yet met. He hoped this resolution would induce the committee to meet. Mr. S. SMITH said, that he had presented the first petition on the subject of French spe ations, and that it had been immediately re ferred to a select committee, who, though they had made progress in the business committed to them, had not considered it fair to decide until all the petitions expected on the subject had been received. One indeed had been presented was not perfectly just and fair? For himself, on this subject, he was precluded from voting as he was deeply interested in the decision of the House. He mentioned this circumstance that the reason might be understood why pr ticular gentlemen from different parts of the Union did not vote on this question in its several stages. Mr. LOWNDES said he did not consider the right of deciding the principle delegated to the select committee. That must be decided in the MARCH, 1802.] French Spoliations. [H. OF R. House to act understandingly upon them. The resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was so vague as not to be susceptible of any distinct meaning. He hoped, therefore, the subject would be suffered to undergo a full and deliberate investigation in the select committee, which he, as a member of that committee, as House. It was the duty of the committee | them from each other, thereby enabling the barely to make arrangements to protect the House from imposition on the score of facts. If it shall be determined by the Government, that it is improper to make compensationthough he thought such a decision scarcely possible the select committee may be discharged. If, on the other hand, it is thought proper to compensate, the committee may go into the in-sured the House was progressing as fast as a vestigation of details. sense of justice and a regard to our merchants require. Mr. DANA.-The object of the present motion is to take up the resolution of my colleague, and to take order upon it-not to decide definitely upon it. This being the true question, I hope the gentleman from New York will not think it improper in me to say that many of his remarks do not apply to it. As the question is not whether we shall immediately decide the point, but only place it in a train for decision, it must be discussed either in a Committee of the Whole, or in a select committee; and we ask the House now to decide which, that it may be progressing towards a final decision. Mr. MITOHILL felt it an obligation, that the case of those whom he had the honor to represent, and that of the other merchants in the United States, should be taken up and receive from this House the most deliberate and serious consideration. He had before submitted to the House his ideas on the proper course to be pursued, which it was not necessary for him to repeat. He would, however, observe, that the resolution now made was so broad as entirely to defeat its object. The first reference of this business was to a select committee instructed to examine all the papers and documents in relation to it, with an instruction to report their opinion to the House; on receiving which the The resolution states a general principle. If House might be able to come to a decision. it is the fixed determination of the majority, On the other hand, the present proposition without an inquiry, not to grant any relief goes to commit the House on the whole extent whatever, there is an end of the business. But of the subject without any examination what-if you agree to grant any relief, the resolution ever. Mr. M. said, he would suggest a few reasons, which satisfied his mind that a decision should not be too rapidly pressed. The vessels taken by the French admitted of various classifications. One class consisted of those that were captured before the dissolution of our treaty with France; another class, of those which were captured after that event; another class, of those that were captured by picaroons without commissions; and another class, where captures were made on account of contraband goods. All these classes involved distinct considerations; and when the subject was presented to the House in a form so complicated, was it proper precipitately to decide a principle that might bind the Government to make indemnity for all cases whatever? Mr. M. said he had no doubt but that such property of the citizens of the United States as came fairly under the character of spoliated property, would be considered as a fit subject of indemnity. He was one of those who thought that in such cases payment ought to be made. He considered the merchants as a very important class of citizens, and that their interests ought to be protected. This he thought the more necessary from the consideration of the bill on the table, which, when passed, will render the Government very dependent on mercantile Credit. Mr. M. was of opinion that the best way of accomplishing the object of the merchants was not to precipitate the subject. On the other hand, he was of opinion that the best chance of success would arise from an examination of the various classes of spoliations, from separating | ought to be adopted. The principle is then established of indemnifying; after which you may discriminate. The principle on which the resolution is founded is not that Government has declined to insist upon the claims of its citizens against the French; but that it has undertaken to abandon their claims, so that no citizen can now come forward with his claim either against the French Government or any citizen of France. For this is the construction of the treaty as finally ratified by the Government. It is a complete surrender and renunciation of all demands. Among the first claims of our citizens are some of private right, which were it not for the treaty, could be recovered in the courts of France, but which the treaty bars. This constitutes a class of claims which the Government cannot refuse to indemnify. There are other descriptions of claims which might require discrimination; in some of which the degree of compensation should be varied, and others in which there should be no compensation whatever. I think, therefore, it is proper for the Government to say the business shall be attended to; at some future time an inquiry may be made into the nature of the various claims. This is all we ask. | |