Violation of the Right of Deposit at New Orleans.

DECEMBER, 1802.]

The Mint.

Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of a document that would throw clear and full light upon the subject; not light of that fleeting kind that may be derived from an annual report. From this document sufficient information could be had to convince any member that we might act as well now as at any other

time.

[The Clerk read a report from the Director of the Mint, received during the last session, stating the real and personal property attached to the Mint; that the machinery might last for one year; that the horses may last a year; that to conduct the operations of the Mint to advantage, steam should be used instead of horses; that the lot on which the Mint is erected was too small; and that a less annual sum than seventeen or eighteen thousand dollars would not provide for the establishment.]

Mr. RANDOLPH said he would state a fact, which was, that notwithstanding all the issues from the Mint, no member sees a coin. For himself he had not seen a piece of gold coined in the Mint for two years.

cussion at this time, as new and additional inMr. RANDOLPH rose, in order to renew a formation may be received from the report of motion which he had made yesterday, and on the Director. It had been said there was no which-being called to the door when some ob- business before the House; but there was busijections were urged against it-he was surpris-ness; there was a bill upon their table, why not ed to find himself in a small minority. Under- take that up and act upon it? standing that the refusal to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on his motion for abolishing the Mint, was the effect of a desire on the part of the House to receive the report of the Director of that institution, for the past year, he would endeavor to show that the House were already in possession of competent information, and that it could not be affected by any communication which the head of that department might make. If this were a subject novel to the House, and of an undigested nature, he should readily acknowledge his motion to have been premature; nor would it, under those circumstances, have been submitted to the House. But, on examination, it would appear that the subject had been matured during the last session; that information of the most satisfactory nature had been received from the Director; and a bill actually passed the House. That information, if it were not in the recollection of every member of the House, was accessible to all of them. It stated explicitly that the machinery would not last, without repair, longer than another year-this, he presumed, had not renewed itself; that the horses were so Mr. LOWNDES said the remark of the gentleold that it would be necessary, at the end of man from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) was not the year, to replace them by others-these had correct, as he had seen many pieces of Amerinot, he supposed, grown younger; that the lot can coin. But he could assign a satisfactory was too circumscribed, and this, he imagined, reason for the appearance of so little gold in had not enlarged its limits; that the expense of ordinary circulation. It was the practice of the the institution could not, by any new arrange-banks to count over once a month the specie in ments, be reduced below twenty thousand dol- their vaults. This trouble was considerably lars. The Director had not only recommended lessened by depositing gold instead of silver. a change of the site, but of the modus operandi He had been credibly assured that there was of the machinery of the Mint, by supplying the now in the vaults of the banks of the United labor of horses by steam. Upon this informa-States gold, in eagles and half eagles, to the tion the House had acted last session. No gener- amount of two millions of dollars.' al election having intervened, he must presume Mr. DENNIS said that, if, on full inquiry, the that no change of sentiment had taken place. establishment appeared to be a drain on the TreaHe, therefore, thought he had a right to consi-sury, he should be for abolishing it; but he der this subject as perfectly matured, and there should not, on immature information, be for being no other business before the House, hoped abolishing an institution, coeval with the Govit would be taken up; although he was not sur-ernment, and founded on good reasons. The reaprised at the reluctance of those gentlemen who sons adduced by the gentleman from Virginia cherished the institution as one of the insignia Mr. RANDOLPH) were insufficient. So far as relaof sovereignty, to act upon it. This aspect of ted to the horses, he believed there were only the subject could not, however, be changed by four employed, and the purchase of four fresh any report of the detailed operations of the ones would be a very unimportant consideration. Mint. He, therefore, moved that the House, Another argument was drawn from the smallagreeably to the order of the day, resolve itselfness of the lot on which the Mint stands. into a Committee of the Whole on the resolu- Though it might be better conducted on a more tion to repeal so much of the laws on the sub-extensive lot, yet he was not satisfied, notwithject of the Mint as relate to the establishing of standing present disadvantages, that it might a Mint. not be profitably conducted, at least so far as Mr. SOUTHARD was in favor of the postpone-regarded a copper coinage. For these reasons ment. There were now present a number of gentlemen not members at the period of discussion during the last session. They have no documents, and cannot be correctly informed. He saw no advantage in entering upon the dis- I until thirty years afterwards.

he thought it proper to wait a few days, in order to receive information that would enable

The true reason for the non-circulation of gold was the

erroneous valuation of that coin, which was not corrected

FRIDAY, December 24.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM H. HILL, from North Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, December 27.

Case of J. P. Van Ness.
Mr. DAVIS observed that he was of opinion

[DECEMBER, 1802 But on Mr. MITCHILL repeating his desire for some delay, Mr. DAVIS agreed to let the resolu tion lie till to-morrow,

TUESDAY, December 28.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, JOHN STRATTON; and from North Carolins, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Letter of James McHenry.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter addressed to him from James McHenry, late Secretary for the War Department, containing a variety of observations on the subject-matter of a report presented to the House, on the twenty-ninth day of April last, fre the committee appointed to inquire and report, whether moneys drawn from the Treasury have been faithfully applied to the objects for which they that a member of the House retained his seat were appropriated, and whether the same have contrary to the spirit and sense of the constitu- been regularly accounted for; and to report, tion. It therefore became his duty to offer a likewise, whether any further arrangements resolution for instituting an inquiry into the are necessary to promote economy, enforce adsubject, in doing which he disclaimed all per-herence to Legislative restrictions, and secure sonal view. He then made the following mo- the public money, together with an appendix, the accountability of persons intrusted with defence of the official conduct of the said James comprising sundry explanatory stateinents in McHenry, whilst acting in the capacity aforesaid: the House proceeded in the reading of the said letter, and having made some progress therein,

tion:

Resolved, That the Committee of Elections be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire whether John P. Van Ness, one of the members of this House from the State of New York, returned by said State to serve as one of its members in the seventh Congress

of the United States, has not, since his election as a member of this House, and since he occupied a seat as a member, accepted of, and exercised the office of a major of militia, under the authority of the United States, within the Territory of Columbia, and thereby forfeited his right to a seat as a member of this House.

Mr. ALSTON said that the paper which the Clerk was reading appeared to him to be a very voluminous one, and that he did not think the House were bound to listen to the reading of it. He conceived them only bound to attend to such documents as might be received from pub

Mr. MITOHILL considered the point as inter-lic esting in two relations; that which involved the decision of a principle, and that which went to deprive the State, (New York,) one of whose representatives he was, of a member. For these reasons he hoped the business would not be immediately pressed. He acknowledged this was not the first intimation he had received of the contemplation of such a motion; but he had entertained a hope that the gentleman with whom it originated, had, on reflection, considered it not inconsistent with his duty to abandon it.

officers, or to petitions for a redress of griev ances. He did not believe the paper now before the House to be one of that description, or that the House ought to take any notice of it. If the House were bound to take notice of every letter any individual might think proper to write and address to the Speaker, very little time might be left to do any other business. He concluded by saying he thought they ought to take no more notice of it than they should of any paragraph in a newspaper which might be enclosed to the Speaker. He therefore moved that the paper should not be read.

Mr. DAVIS replied, that he felt no disposition Mr. STANLEY observed that he did not perto press a decision. He had communicated, ceive the difference stated by his colleague; the first day he took his seat, his ideas on the nor did he know how the gentleman could ansubject to certain members, the friends of the ticipate the contents of a communication before gentleman implicated by the resolution, in hopes read. We shall be enabled to judge better of it that he would resign. He now entertained no when we hear it. By what inspiration could wish to push the business. He supposed, how-the gentleman form a judgment now? The ever, that the resolution would, of course, go to communication appeared to him of the utmost the Committee of Elections. He repeated that importance. He hoped, therefore, it would be he was governed by no personal prejudice, but read. entirely by a sense of duty. He concluded with saying he was in favor of the question of reference being immediately taken.

Mr. MORRIS could not omit making a remark or two. From the communication, so far as read, it appeared that it was charged that the

JANUARY, 1803.]

Cession of Louisiana to France.

[H. OF R.

character of a former public officer had been | complaint, but a high charge against a comaspersed. The House ought, therefore, not only mittee of the House, stating that the major to read the communication, but also to inquire part assumed to act exclusively upon the busiinto the complaint. There was not an indecentness assigned to the whole committee, without expression in it. The writer complains that his consulting the other members. This was a character has been attacked; he thinks unjust- high charge. Whether proper, or regularly ly attacked. It will be the height of injustice made, he did not know. It was rather his to refuse him an opportunity of being heard. opinion that the House ought to proceed in The SPEAKER said that it was a rule of the reading the papers, and afterwards to pass proHouse that when the reading of a paper is called per order on them. for, it shall be read, unless dispensed with by general consent.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he wished only to observe, that there was but one principle (and that had been stated by the Speaker) on which these papers ought to be read. Any member had a right to call for the reading of papers. To him, however, it appeared that there was no occasion for inspiration to perceive that the papers, so far as read, were in a high degree indecent, unworthy of any man who had held, or ought to hold, an office under Government, and derogatory from the dignity of the House. Members were cited by name; insults were offered to individual members; a committee was divided into different sects; on one class illiberal calumnies were thrown, while the other class was shielded from reflection. Was this decent or indecent? He congratulated himself that he differed as widely on this subject as he did on others from gentlemen.

The SPEAKER declared the rule for reading imperative, and Mr. ALSTON withdrew his motion; on which the Clerk proceeded in the reading, which was continued for more than an hour.

WEDNESDAY, December 29.

Case of John P. Van Ness.

Mr. DAVIS called up his resolution instructing the Cmmittee of Elections to inquire whether Mr. VAN NESS had not forfeited his seat, by accepting the appointment of Major in the Militia of the Territory of Columbia.

of the House might affect him personally, he Mr. VAN NESSs said that, so far as the decision felt little concern; but, so far as it affected him as a representative of an important State, he was not so indifferent. He had no objection As it involved the decision of an important whatever to the proposed inquiry being made. principle, it deserved great attention. He had candor and fairness which, in most cases, charno doubt of the inquiry being made with that acterized the proceedings of the House. He rect as those of that gentleman. The letter the mover or seconder of the resolution. It was far from imputing any impure motives to states that a report had been made during the would be as derogatory to him to impute, as in last session implicating the character of the them to entertain, any views dishonorable or writer. It further states that certain gentle-base. He had risen barely to state his wish that an inquiry might be made.

Mr. MORRIS said, however widely he might differ on this as well as other subjects from the gentleman from Virginia, he believed his own ideas of what was decent or indecent as cor

men on the committee did not concur in the re

port. This the writer knew from the debates upon the report. He therefore thought it his duty, in vindicating himself, to exonerate those members from censure. Was this indecent? He conceived not.

Mr. M. said that when he had observed that there was not an indecent expression in the letter, he meant that there was no such expression applied to the House collectively. He did not mean to say there were no charges against individual members. But if there were charges against individual members, that was no reason for the House refusing to hear it. That could only be done when charges were made against the House in its collective character.

The SPEAKER read the rules of the House that applied to the case before them.

Mr. ALSTON said he only rose to notice the observation of his colleague, (Mr. STANLEY,) who supposed he saw the inside of the communication before it was presented. This he denied. He had grounded his motion exclusively on what he had heard read.

Mr. BACON was at a loss to decide on the propriety of reading or not reading these papers. He perceived that they contained not only a

Mr. ELMENDORPH proposed a verbal amendment, which was not agreed to.

The resolution was then adopted without a division.

WEDNESDAY, January 5, 1803.

Cession of Louisiana to France.

Mr. GRISWOLD called up his resolution respecting Louisiana, laid on the table yesterday, as follows:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be

requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this House copies of such official documents as have been received by this Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which that province is to be delivered up: unless such documents and report will, in the opinion of the President, divulge to the House particular transactions not proper at this time to be communicated.

The question was put on taking it into consideration, and carried-yeas 35, nays 32.

Mr. RANDOLPH observed that the discussion on this motion might embrace points nearly connected with the subject referred to a committee

H. OF R.]

Cession of Louisiana to France.

of the Whole on the state of the Union, and which had been discussed with closed doors. He therefore thought it would be expedient to commit this motion also to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to whom had been committed the Message of the President respecting New Orleans,

Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the motion would not prevail. He did not see what argument could be urged in favor of it. The resolution related to a public transaction stated on their journal. He did not think that any thing which ought to be kept secret could be involved in the discussion of it. What is its purport? It only requests the President to furnish documents respecting "the cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France, which took place in the course of the late war," and which the President says "will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight in any deliberations of the Legislature connected with this subject."

(JANUARY, 1808 vastly important, and to make an eloqnent harangue upon it, and to infer that those who did not immediately agree to the resolution were averse to giving information, and to going into a discussion of the merits of the main subject. It would, however, not be expected that he should enter upon these on a preliminary resolution. But he would assure the gentlema who had submitted this resolution, that, so fir from indulging any disposition to be dilatory in his attention to this important subject, he came yesterday prepared to make a motion that the House should go into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, which motion he should have then made but for that offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.

But be

Mr. RUTLEDGE said that, did he consider that the giving publicity to any information on this subject would in the least interfere with the constitutional functions of the President, he would be the last man to support the resol tion of his friend from Connecticut. could not conceive that this could be its effect. Are not, said Mr. G., these papers important What were they about to ask? They were to the House? Does not the President refer to about to ask, in respectful terms, the President them as important to enlighten us? He speaks for information relative to what he states as a of the cession as a fact. He took it for granted fact; so much information as he may think it the President would not make the declaration expedient to give. Surely there would be no unless he had official information of its truth. impropriety in this. The cession of Louisiana Ought not the House to be possessed of all the had been stated in all the public prints of Euimportant information in the power of the Ex-rope and this country, and on the floor of the ecutive to give? It certainly ought. Every gentleman would agree that the House ought to have all the information. If the information is confidential, it will be received with closed doors. But the question, whether the House shall obtain this information is a public question; and there was not a man within those walls, or in the United States, who would not say that the Legislature ought to possess every information on a subject so deeply interesting. Why, then, refer this resolution calling for information to a committee? Why postpone it? They had but a short time to sit. More than half the session was already elapsed. Is it not time to gain information? Mr. G. said, he would venture to declare that no subject so important could be brought before the Legislature this session. Ought we not, therefore, on such a subject, to take immediate means to gain information? He hoped the House would not agree to the reference, which could have no effect but to put the resolution asleep, and deprive the Legislature of information they ought to possess.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, as he had expressed his disinclination to discuss a proposition with open doors which would trench on the decision of the House to discuss a subject to which it intimately related with closed doors, it could scarcely be expected that he should indulge the gentleman in entering into arguments calculated to carry him from his purpose. But he denied that the adoption of his motion would be a refusal to give information. He well knew that there was nothing easier than to declare the subject

British Parliament. This cession had been made a year ago, and, notwithstanding the elapse of this time, we have received no official informa tion on this subject. Is it not natural for the people to ask why Congress do not call for this information? Will they not say the President has done his duty in stating the fact? Upon this subject, so very important, are they to be kept in the dark? Mr. R. could not conceive any turn of the debate on this resolution that could produce a discussion of the merits of the Message referred to the Committee of the Whole. If the President shall say the information he gives us ought not to be made public, he would answer for himself, and he believed he could answer for his friends, that they would not seek a public discussion. And if the information is imparted without confidence, the House, if it see fit, can itself control a public discussion. Mr. R. concluded with saying that, in the present case, he was for deciding on the resolution with open doors.

Mr. S. SMITH thought this point ought in a great measure to be determined by the custom of the House in similar cases. He did not assert it as a fact, but, from recollection, he believed it was so, that when a call was made for papers in the case of the British Treaty, the question was referred to a Committee of the Whole, and there fully discussed. According to his recollection, one side of the House called for papers on the principle that, after negotiations were terminated, the House had a right to informa tion before they made a grant of money under s treaty, but acknowledging that a call for such