people to cut down the timber and burn it, for the sake of getting the land, and there was no way of arresting this practice, but by securing the land; and being of so good a quality, when the trees were cut down, it would probably sell for a greater price than was originally given for it. Mr. GALLATIN saw no connection between the two resolutions, which the gentleman who had just sat down thought it necessary to connect together. The last resolution proposed the purchase of land clothed with live oak; the present proposed the appropriation of a sum of money for purchasing the site of a naval yard, &c., as a foundation for a Navy. The last went only to the securing of timber for the building of a Navy, if at any day it should be thought necessary; he believed he should vote for the last, but certainly against the first.. They had been told that no commerce could exist without protection, and that that protection must be a Navy; from whence it would follow, that if a Navy was necessary to protect commerce, it must be a Navy competent to vie with the navies of other nations. He would here ask, how gentlemen drew their conclusion, that commerce could not exist without the protection of a Navy. He wished they would show from the example of any nation in Europe, or from our own example, that commerce and navies had gone hand in hand. There was no nation, except Great Britain, said he, whose Navy had any connection with commerce. No nation, except England and Holland, had more to do with commerce than this country, and yet we had no Navy; and though for the four last years this commerce had been subject to continual depredations, it was not exceeded by any nation, except the two he had named. And if they looked to Europe, they would find there was no connection between navies and commerce. Russia and Swden had considerable navies, but little commerce; whilst Holland, whose Navy was by no means large, ranked next to England with respect to commerce. Hamburg, he said, was one of the first commercial States in Europe, yet she had no Navy. Navies, he said, were the instruments of power, more calculated to annoy the trade of other nations than to protect that of the nation to which they belong. une. But there was another position which he should take in opposition to gentlemen who supported the creation of a Navy, viz: that however useful or desirable a Navy might be, this country was not equal to the support of We might have two or three frigates indeed, but, when he said we could not support a Navy, he meant to say we could not support such a Navy as should claim respect, in the sense which those gentlemen spoke of it; such as being an object of terror to foreign nations. If they calculated what the three frigates had cost, considered the scanty manner in which this country was peopled, our inability to raise any very large revenue, and the high price of [H. OF R. labor, the truth of this assertion would appear evident. Again, if such a Navy were created, how was it to be manned? He wished gentlemen to point out any mode in which a Navy could be manned in this country without having recourse to the abominable practice of impressment. If the nations of Europe found it impossible to man their fleets without having recourse to these violent means, he believed it would be impossible, without breaking down those barriers which secured the liberty of every citizen, to man a Navy in this country. Perhaps he might be asked, if we were, then, to be left without protection? He thought there were means of protection which arose from our peculiar situation, and that we ought not to borrow institutions from other nations for which we were not fit. If our commerce had increased, notwithstanding its want of protection; if we had a greater number of seamen than any other nation, except England, this, he thought, pointed out the way in which commerce ought to be protected. The fact was, that our only mode of warfare against European nations at sea, was by putting our seamen on board privateers, and covering the sea with them; these would annoy their trade, and distress them more than any other mode of defence we could adopt.* MONDAY, February 13. Mr. HARPER said, that though the House had declined coming to a resolution to authorize the PRESIDENT to purchase certain lands in Georgia, clothed with live oak and red cedar timber, as a reserve for future naval purposes, yet there seemed to be a disposition to cause an inquiry to be made on the subject. He therefore proposed a resolution to the House to the following effect: H. OF R.] John C. Symmes. [FEBRUARY, 1797 report, after stating all the facts upon which the claim was founded, gave it as his opinion, that the petitioner had no real claim on the United States. This report, it seems, had never been acted upon. The reading of it, as well as of all the documents relative to this claim, was called for, and they were accordingly read. The op de Neufville to the United States, during the war of their Revolution, as stated in the said memorial, and vouched by the testimonies herewith reported, constitute a reasonable claim, in behalf of his, at present, very distressed widow and children, on the justice of the United States. That it being impossible, from various and peculiar circumstances incident to the services rendered, to ascertain and liquidate the compensation due into a precise sum, it is necessary for posers of this claim acknowledged the distressed Congress to decide on and provide for such allow-situation of the petitioner, but denied the justice ance as may be deemed equitable and right. That, of her claim upon the United States; the treaty in the opinion of the committee, the sum of three which Mr. de Neufville proposed to enter into thousand dollars may be a proper allowance. They with Mr. Lee, they supposed, was a treaty therefore propose the following resolution: which he believed would prove beneficial to his "Resolved, That provision ought to be made, by country, and not to the United States: that law, for granting to the widow and two children of there were many claims in our own country John de Neufville, the sum of three thousand dol- from persons who had been injured by the war, lars, to be equally divided among them." the justice of which was less equivocal, and the distress at least equal. Mr. NICHOLAS said, a few days ago only, a poor man, whose health had been so much impaired in the war, that he was unable to earn his living, had applied to him to bring his case before Congress, yet, as the pension law affords no relief to any person, except he had been wounded, he was obliged to inform him that he could do nothing for him. There were multitudes of such instances, equally distressing with the present, to which no relief could be afforded. Mr. THATCHER moved to have the three thousand dollars struck out, and five inserted. This was negatived-45 to 37; but the resolution was agreed to as reported-yeas 63, nays 25. THURSDAY, February 16. This report was advocated by Messrs. HARPER, W. SMITH, SWANWICK, HAVENS, HEATH, THATCHER, VARNUM, and RUTHERFORD. They stated that the husband of the petitioner, John de Neufville, was an eminent merchant at Amsterdam; that he was an influential character there, and, at an early period of our Revolutionary war, entered with great zeal into the interests of America; that, meeting with Mr. William Lee, the Commissioner of the United States, he endeavored to bring about a treaty between the United Netherlands and the United States, which being discovered by the British, that Court used its influence with the Government of that country to harass and drive him out of the country; that during his residence at Amsterdam, his house was a constant asylum for American citizens; that he had made large advances in money for the service of the United States, which obliged him to extend his credit beyond what was warranted by the regular course of trade, and a failure in the payment of which (owing to the embarrassed circumstances of the United States at that time) had greatly injured him, and left him to the mercy of his creditors. The consequence was, he was reduced from affluence to poverty at an advanced period of life. Some years ago he arrived at Boston with his wife and two children, where he subsisted in a very humble manner upon the bounty of his friends in Holland; those friends having, by the reverses occasioned by the Revo"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to lution, been much injured in their property, bring in a bill to authorize the President of the Unicould afford him but a scanty pittance; but Mr. ted States to grant, in fee simple, to John C. Symmes de Neufville being dead, the petitioner was de- and his associates, that part of a tract of land, the prived of this assistance; and, to add to her re-boundaries whereof are ascertained by a survey exepeated misfortunes, the son of her late husband, from their multiplied sufferings, had been deprived of his reason. Under this pressure of grievances, the petitioner was come from Boston to lay her case before Congress, and pray relief. This peculiarly distressing case was supported with great zeal and feeling by its ad-ing out of the same the lots reserved by the original vocates, particularly by Mr. HARPER. The claim was opposed by Messrs. COIT, SWIFT, and NICHOLAS. An application, it seems, was made by Mr. de Neufville, during his lifetime, for redress; upon which the then Secretary of State (Mr. JEFFERSON) reported. This Mr. GALLATIN said, a report had been made upon the contract between John C. Symmes and his associates, and the United States, which it was of importance to pass into a law this session, as the object was four hundred thousand acres of land, which was worth about eight hundred thousand dollars. The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, when the report, which was very long, having been read, the committee agreed to the resolution reported, which was in the following words: cuted in conformity to the act of Congress, entitled An act for ascertaining the bounds of a tract of land purchased by J. C. Symmes,' and returned to the Treasury Department the 10th of January, 1794, already made, on September 8, 1794, to the said J. which is not included within the bounds of a grant C. Symmes and his associates; excepting and reserv contract, entered into between the United States and the said Symmes and his associates; provided that the said Symmes and his associates shall previously, in conformity to the terms of the original contract, make the requisite payment for the tract to be granted to them, and for the 47,625 acres, part of the FEBRUARY, 1797.] Indirect Taxes. [H. OF R. grant already made to them on the 30th September, | used by the middling and lower classes of the 1794, for which they have not yet paid any conside- people; but the tax falling upon fine as well as ration; and provided, also, that the township reserv- brown sugar, all parts of the community would ed for an Academy shall have been previously laid bear an equal share in the burden. off and secured, according to the terms of the contract, and of the resolutions and law of Congress relative thereto." FRIDAY, February 17. BROWN SUGAR. Mr. W. SMITH said, the proposed increase, it was calculated, would raise 110,000 dollars, and as the article was not liable to be smuggled, nor its consumption to be decreased, it would be a certain, and he thought, an eligible tax. Mr. HOLLAND had no doubt but this tax would augment the revenue; but he knew also that it would fall more upon the poor than upon the rich, and he thought they ought not to add to their burdens. He thought there were other articles which would bear some addition, but either brown sugar or salt would be much felt. If they studied that which would be burdensome, here they might fix, but he hoped this was not the principle. By advancing an article so universally used, a rise of labor (already too high) must naturally follow. Mr. KITCHELL believed the rich and opulent would bear their portion of this tax as well as the poor, as it would fall upon fine sugar as well as upon brown. It would therefore be paid in proportion to the sugar used, and would fall as equally as any other tax which could be laid. In this instance, Mr. K. said, gentlemen seemed apprehensive of the poor bearing too great a part of the burden; but, if the direct tax on land were to take place, would it not, he asked, fall much heavier upon the poor than a tax on sugar? He believed it would; since the poor who held lands would be called upon to pay their portion of it, whilst the rich who held no lands, would escape it. He, therefore, thought this a far preferable tax. Mr. WILLIAMS moved to strike out the half cent, and insert a cent. It appeared to him that such an advance could not materially affect the consumer. The people, it was true, might use less; but, if they did so, as it was an article of luxury, every pound of sugar less which was consumed, would be of benefit to the country, by keeping the money which it cost in a foreign market at home. But he did not believe that this would be the case; or that the proposed additional duty would increase the price of labor, as had been suggested. He believed the price of labor would be regulated by the price which the farmer was enabled to get for his produce. Whatever the farmer could afford to give his laborer (especially in this country where agriculture is the true interest) would fix the price of all other labor. Mr. HOLLAND said, perhaps the constituents of the gentleman last up might manufacture their own sugar, and therefore would not be affected by this tax; but the greater part of his constituents were obliged to use and purchase their sugar; and if it were a luxury, it was one he did not wish to deprive them of, but that they might have it upon the same terms as usual. He looked upon it as a necessary of life, already at too high a price, and he should; therefore, oppose any advance of duty upon it. Mr. GALLATIN said, he and his constituents were in the same situation with the gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) and his constituents. They manufactured almost the whole of their own sugar; very little imported sugar was used; indeed, they sometimes exported sugar; but though this reason seemed to act pretty powerfully upon the gentleman from New York, it would not have the same effect upon him. Whenever a measure operated partially upon other parts of the Union, though it Mr. DEARBORN said, if further revenue was might operate in favor of his constituents, he necessary, he could not conceive any article should feel himself in duty bound to oppose it. which would bear an advance of duty better On the ground of their being Representatives than the one proposed. The present duty, he of the whole Union, as well as on the ground said, was one and a half cent a pound, and of policy, he did not believe it was right to encould it be supposed that to lay an additional deavor to throw a burden upon one part of the half cent upon it, could make much difference Union, because the part in which they were to the consumer, or that it would ever be felt, most particularly interested, would escape it. or that, at the end of a year, it would be dis- He hoped the amendment would be rejected, covered whether one and a half or two cents and after the sense of the committee should daty had been paid upon a pound of sugar? have been taken upon it, he also would move He should have no objection, instead of half a an amendment. At present, brown sugar paid cent, to lay an additional cent upon this article. one and a half cent a pound duty, and molasses In various parts of the country, brown sugar three cents per gallon. He should, therefore, was retailed at from 12 to 20 cents a pound, move to have an additional cent laid upon mo the price being much increased from the pres-lasses, in order that the two articles might be ent distressed situation of the West Indies. But they would find sugar of the same quality selling in one place for 12, in another for 14 or 16 cents; therefore, whether the duty was one or two cents, he did not think it would be felt by any body. It was true, that it was an article increased in the same proportion. He was against any increase at present; but if the duty on one article was increased, the other ought also to be increased. Mr. WILLIAMS observed, that he had said the people in the part of the country from whence H. OF R.] Indirect Taxes. [FEBRUARY, 1797. the duty would be evaded. But he would have he came, made their own sugar during the war; Mr. WILLIAMS denied that his constituents made any salt; they had no salt but what paid duty; nor did his constituents make one-fourth of the sugar they used; nor did he believe his colleague's (Mr. COOPER's) constituents made one-half of the sugar they used, as he well knew that a large quantity of sugar was sent to that district by way of Albany. Mr. READ hoped the amendment would obtain. Although such persons as lived at a distance from market manufactured their own sugar, and consequently would be excused from this duty, yet they labored under many disadvantages in other respects, on account of their remoteness from market, and therefore he had no objection to their being excused from the operation of this tax. He did not believe this tax on sugar would fall upon poor persons. Farmers, indeed, used a little brown sugar, but they would rather pay a little more for this article than have their land taxed. Mr. CLAIBORNE was against the amendment. If an additional duty of one cent was laid upon brown sugar, the different dealers would make it three or four, so that it would be materially felt. Mr. GALLATIN then moved to amend the resolution, by adding an additional cent per gallon upon molasses. At present the duty on brown sugar was one and a half cent per pound, and on molasses three cents per gallon. The advance of 33 per cent. on the present duty would be the same that had been agreed to be laid upon sugar. Mr. BUCK said, if he thought the advocates of this amendment would vote for the resolution when amended, he might be induced to vote for it; but he believed they did not mean to do so. If an increase of the duty on brown sugar would fall upon the poorer class of the people, an additional duty on molasses would fall much heavier upon them. But he thought gentlemen were mistaken with respect to the operation of the tax on brown sugar; in the country it would not fall upon the poor, though in the cities it might do so; though in increasing the duty on brown sugar, that on fine was also increased. In the country it was the rich who used brown sugar; they had not got to that pitch of refinement which called for the use of fine sugar; they used brown sugar, and the poor used none; they sweetened with molasses. Notwithstanding this, if he thought gentlemen meant to vote for the resolution when amended, he would not object to the addition on molasses, as he did not think so small an advance would be materially felt. Mr. RUTHERFORD hoped they should not agree to lay an additional duty on either of these necessaries of life. He hoped there was sufficient good sense in the House to oppose such a measure. They were used by all classes, from the infant to the stoutest man; particularly by many poor, infirm, aged persons, who looked upon them as nutritious and balmy nourishments. He hoped, therefore, they would not increase the price of those articles; for, if an additional cent was added, the dealers would add two, three, or four cents, which would be more than the poor could afford to pay for them. Mr. SWANWICK seconded the motion. The Mr. CHRISTIE believed the gentleman from only way in which the tax on brown sugar Pennsylvania meant, by the introduction of this could be secured was by advancing the duty on amendment, to defeat the tax on sugar altomolasses in the same proportion, otherwise mo-gether; he should, therefore, vote against this lasses would be used in the place of sugar, and amendment; but if the additional tax on sugar should be carried, and the additional tax on molasses should be introduced alone, he would vote for it, but he would not vote for them together. He did not think the tax on sugar would fall upon the poor, particularly as fine sugar would be taxed equally with the brown. He thought it was a fair object of taxation. He believed they should want revenue, and he did not know an article from which it could be better raised. Mr. FINDLAY was at a loss to know how a tax on molasses would operate; but his doubts had been removed by the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Buck,) who had informed them it was used by the poor in place of brown sugar. In many parts of Pennsylvania molasses was scarcely known, and brown sugar was generally used by the poor; if, therefore, the same class of persons in one part of the country used molasses for the same purpose for which brown sugar was used in other parts, it was only reasonable that both should be taxed in the same proportion. His colleague (Mr. GALLATIN) had mentioned that his constituents would not pay any of this tax, as they made their own sugar. It was so with a part of his constituents, but not with the whole. As it would be unjust to pass one tax without the other, he should be in favor of the amendment. Mr. GALLATIN said, it had been charged against him, that he had introduced his amendment with a view to defeat the tax on sugar. He had already said that he did not wish for any indirect tax during the present session; but, at the same time, he considered it his duty, if a majority should choose to pass the resolution, to make it as good as possible before he voted against it, for this purpose he had introduced his amendment. Whenever the duty on sugar was increased, that on molasses should also be increased. With respect to what had been said about the duty on brown sugar not falling upon the poor, it was contradicted by the quantity every year imported into the United States. When they knew that this amounted to twentytwo millions of pounds weight, they must conclude that it was used by the poor as well as the rich; for though the Eastern States used a great deal of molasses, it was not the case in the Middle, Southern, and Western States; all classes of citizens in those States used sugar. The voting for the amendment now was the same as voting for it in any other shape. It was doing now what would be done hereafter, if now omitted. There was nothing informal in it. He saw no reason which could be urged for one taking place, which would not equally bold with respect to the other. Mr. SWANWICK thought that those gentlemen who separated the articles of sugar and molasses, would wish to defeat the object; thus it was with the gentleman last up. This was introduced with a view of securing the collection. Mr. S. said he had before stated the injury the United States might sustain in case of a failure of pay from the imported, and need not repeat that he objected in toto to the tax. [H. OF R. Mr. Buck asked if, when on the question on the resolution, (if adopted,) a separate vote could be given? He was answered no. Then he would observe to the gentleman that, if it could not be separated, he hoped it would not be introduced, it having been said the duty on sugar would operate on the poor; now, he said, here was an article introduced with it that would operate worse than the other; therefore, he should oppose both, if put together, when, if separated, he should have voted for the tax on molasses alone, as sugar was a great means of sustenance and use. The Chairman again remarked (in reference to what had fallen from Mr. W. SMITH) that the amendment was in order, though he did not think it the most fair way of introducing the subject. Mr. GALLATIN conceived that he was the best judge of the fairness of his proceedings; and as the Chairman had declared the amendment to be in order, he expected a question would be taken upon it. Mr. NICHOLAS begged leave to differ in opinion from the Chair in this instance, though he must own much deference was due to it: he thought the proceedings perfectly fair. Mr. N. would vote for this, in order to have the two connected; that gentleman could now vote against the addition of molasses, then he would have an opportunity to vote on sugar alone. He should wish it extended to both alike. The gentleman (Mr. BUCK) was mistaken in his application on this subject; it was not taxing the sustenance of the poor in one article more than another, for the sugar would most affect one part, yet molasses would as much affect another; he, therefore, hoped, if gentlemen wished fair and equal taxation, that this association would take place; this equalization would go to prevent any opposition to the tax, which would otherwise be hazarded. Mr. Buck was satisfied with this explanation; therefore, supposing gentlemen who supported the amendment would vote for both, according to this modification, he should go with them; if not, he should oppose the amendment. Mr. DAYTON (the Speaker) said, he did not rise to speak to the point of order; he considered that as already settled by the Chairman. Every member, he said, against laying an additional tax upon molasses, would, of course, vote against the amendment; and all those who had no objection to the tax, but who did not wish it to be thus introduced, of whom he found there was not a few, might join them, as, after the additional tax on sugar was agreed to, that on molasses might be again introduced. Mr. S. SMITH said, he had some doubt before the last gentleman was up, of the propriety of tacking these two articles together, but now he had none. One part of the Union, he supposed, would be for voting out molasses: but his constituents would not like the tax on sugar, except it was accompanied with that on molasses; as a subject of sweetening he thought they should |