JANUARY, 1803.] Cession of Louisiana to France. [H. OF R information might be improper during a pend- | let the call for information prevail; let us draw ing negotiation. He was one of those who thought it proper, on that occasion, that the House should have the papers; but he also thought it improper, and had then so declared, to call for papers during a pending negotiation. Whether in the present instance a negotiation was pending or was not, he did not know. He was, therefore, for postponing the resolution till this was known to the House. Mr. DANA said that he did not know, nor had he heard from any quarter, that there was any negotiation depending respecting the cession of Louisiana. The President has informed us of the fact. All that the resolution asks are official documents respecting the cession, with the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which it is to be delivered up. He could not see the impropriety of such a request. But if the President deem it improper to furnish the information, we do not assert our right to demand it. There are two views in which this information may be important; that which may throw light on the boundaries of the province as ceded; and another, whether the province is to be ceded to the French in the condition it shall be in when actually delivered up, or whether subject to the conditions in which it was held according to treaty by Spain. This is important information to guide our deliberations; information not depending upon an existing negotiation, but upon a negotiation decided. Mr. GRISWOLD called for the taking of the yeas and nays. Mr. SMILIE was in favor of the widest publicity in every case where it would not prove injurious; and there were, in his opinion, very few cases in which it ought not to take place. He could not, however, withhold one remark; that gentlemen should object to the mode now proposed, a mode similar to that adopted in like cases, greatly surprised him. [He here quoted the proceedings of the House on a call for papers in the case of the British Treaty.] That case furnished a precedent, by which it appeared that a motion for information was referred to a Committee of the Whole for a more full discussion. Mr. DAVIS observed that, as he lived in that district of country most materially affected by the subject before the House, he thought it proper to express his opinion on the motion. He said he did not know what reason could be assigned for the motion, but that expressed by the gentleman from Virginia, to go into a Committee of the Whole in private, to propose certain resolutions that required secrecy. Mr. D. said it had been his purpose yesterday to have submitted certain resolutions, which he should have done, but for the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut calling for information; after it was made he was willing to wait until all information was obtained that could be furnished. Suppose we go into a Committee of the Whole, what light can we expect from their deliberation? We can gain nothing. But from the President such information as he may think it proper to give; and let us then refer that information to a Committee of the Whole, and they will be able to deliberate wisely. What use can it be to take a step from which no benefit can be derived? As to the call on the President, he will not give us any thing that is improper. How does the gentleman from Virginia know what light this information may throw on the subject? Is he prepared to say it will throw no light on this subject? If he is, Mr. D. said he himself was not. He might have ways of acquiring the secrets of the Cabinet; but for himself he had no such opportunities. Mr. D. concluded by declaring himself against the motion. Mr. RANDOLPH was compelled again reluctantly to trespass on the indulgence of the House, to assure them, and the gentleman from Kentucky, that his motion did not comprehend a refusal to agree to the call for information made by the gentleman from Connecticut. After going into committee, they might, perhaps, either by a unanimous vote, or by that of a majority, agree to the resolution. Benefit might arise, and no mischief possibly could, from going into a Committee of the Whole. Mr. HUGER must acknowledge that he could not understand the object of those who were for refusing this information. If they had any objection to asking the information, let them inform us what it is. And if they have no objection, why go into a Committee of the Whole; which, if gone into, must be with closed doors? The question alluded to in the British Treaty was very different from this. In that case, one part of the House thought they had a right to demand the information of the Executive, and that he was bound to deliver it; while the other part of the House neither acknowledged the right to demand, nor the obligation to obey. The present case was entirely different. We ask nothing but what the Executive shall think proper to furnish, we are as cautious as we can possibly be; we even go so far as to put words in the President's mouth, if he shall think there is any impropriety in giving the information. Gentlemen certainly have confidence in the Executive, that he will tell us if the information is improper to be furnished. Mr. H. could not but express his surprise that the House had received no official documents on this important subject. He could not comprehend why Congress should not know the contents of the convention. If proper, we ought to have these documents; and if not proper, we ought to have a reason for it. The country was in a state of serious alarm; and it might have a bad effect if something was not immediately done, and a disposition exhibited to act, in case it should prove necessary. Mr. SMILIE said the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HUGER) was incorrect, when he stated that, in the case of the British Treaty 700 H. OF R.] Cession of Louisiana to France. one set of gentlemen had contended for the (JANUARY, 1803. more full discussion, but for the purpose of Mr. RANDOLPH.-The gentleman from Connecticut tells us that this subject is referred to in the Message of the President, and that on it we are called by him to legislate. That subject has been referred to a Committee of the Whole; and yet, he says, it is improper to refer this resolution to the same committee. This may be logic; but I confess, if it is, I do not understand it. He says if the object of reference be for s more ample discussion, he will be in favor of it; but not so, if it be to send it to a secret committee. Does the gentleman mean to insinuate that the debates of this body are for the enterMr. GRISWOLD Would not object to the refer- tainment of the ladies who honor us with their ence if the object were to obtain a more full presence; or that as soon as our doors are shut, discussion of the resolution. He was generally our ears also are shut to all useful and necessary in favor of such references, as the discussion information? If the doors shall be closed, canwas conducted in a Committee of the Whole not we still agree to the resolution? However on a freer scale than in the House. On this gentlemen may persist in the course they have principle it was, that the call for papers re-taken, I shall not permit the warmth of their specting the British Treaty was referred to a Committee of the Whole. But it had not been referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. remarks, or that of my own feelings, to betray me into a debate on points which the House have determined shall be discussed with closed doors. For my own part, I am ready to deHe, however, understood the object of gen-clare that I have arguments to advance, that it tlemen to be to refer the resolution to a Com-is not my wish to advance with open doors. Mr. BACON said the resolution simply called mittee of the Whole, for the purpose of discussIf that were the for information respecting the cession of the ing it with closed doors. object, he should oppose it. For, he would province of Louisiana to the French. He did say, nothing of secrecy could arise out of the not see the end to be answered by committing discussion of this resolution. He did not wish it. Is there any doubt that we shall not stand that a resolution so important should be re-in need of information when we come to discuss If gentlemen points connected with this subject? It appeared ferred to a secret committee. mean to deny us this information, let them to him they would. He was therefore against deny it in public. Let them not do it in a the reference. secret committee. Surely they can have no such unworthy motives. Mr. S. SMITH.-The gentleman from Connecticut has candidly admitted that it is customary As to the case of 1796, under the British in such cases to make a reference; that he is Treaty, the ground of opposition was this: It not in favor of the reference being made to a was claimed that the House had a right to de- committee with shut doors; but if the object cide upon a treaty, and to establish this point were to obtain a free discussion, he would not papers were called for. And on the decision object to it. He is told that a full and free of the question, on the granting or refusing the discussion cannot be had without such a referapplication, depended the establishment of the ence, and yet he persists in his hostility to the right of the House to participate in the treaty-motion. He had been told so by the mover, making power. This right was denied by those and common sense would have told him so at who voted against the call. But in this case first; yet he is for taking advantage of the there was no difference as to the power of the mover, and for shutting out the arguments he House. The President in his Message had ex- has to urge. The gentleman is mistaken in his pressly stated that the cession would have statement of the motives of the different sides weight in the deliberations of the Legislature. of the House in the discussion on a call for This, then, being a case in which it is proper to papers, in 1796, when he represents one side as He recollected it had been legislate, shall we go to work blindfold, without claiming a right to participate in the treatyhaving all the information possessed by the Ex-making power. ecutive, that it is proper we should possess? charged upon them; but they had denied it. What do we know respecting the cession? We contended, said Mr. S., that when a treaty Though made for more than one year, we have no information, except that contained in the Message, which barely mentions the fact. For these reasons Mr. G. hoped the motion would not prevail, as its avowed object was not for a was formed, appropriating a large sum of JANUARY, 1803.] Cession of Louisiana to France. [H. OF R. selves, if he recollected right, moved a resolution | William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, William Helms, that it was expedient to carry the treaty into effect, by which they did admit the right of the House. Mr. S. said he had no previous knowledge of what the gentleman from Virginia meant by his motion; he might perhaps wish to amend the resolution; but when he says he has arguments that he cannot urge without shut doors, he trusted that indulgence would be allowed him, or there would be a denial of justice. Mr. DANA said, there was a magic of language, to those unaccustomed to parliamentary Language, in the House resolving itself into a committee, and that committee returning itself back into the House, both composed of the same members, that made the proceedings of public bodies appear ridiculous. But there were substantial benefits derived from the observance of these forms. There was a fuller and freer discussion; every member spoke as often as he chose, and they enjoyed the Speaker's advice. There were, besides, two discussions and decisions, instead of one. He admitted, therefore, the propriety of such procedure in all cases where there was an important principle involved. But in this instance there was no important principle to discuss. There was an important principle involved in the famous question of 1796. It was therefore right to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. He did not know what principle was to be discussed on this reference, unless it was the want of information. This he most sensibly felt; and those gentlemen who also felt it, might, he thought, be indulged by those who possess all information on the subject. If any gentleman, however, will say that any important principle is involved in the resolution, he was ready to go into Committee of the Whole, though not with closed doors. The question was then taken by yeas and Days on Mr. RANDOLPH's motion, to refer the resolution of Mr. GRISWOLD to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and carried-yeas 49, nays 39, as follows: YEAS.-Willis Alston, John Archer, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, John Smith, (of New York,) John Smith, (of Virginia,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abraham Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns. NAYS.-John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, Thos. Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Wm. Dickson, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, James Mott, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thos. Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods. On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, the House immediately went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. RANDOLPH rose, and observed that he held in his hands certain resolutions connected with the Message of the President, relative to the late proceedings at New Orleans, the discussion of which had been ordered to be carried on with closed doors. He asked the decision of the question, whether, previously to offering his resolutions, the doors ought not to be closed? The resolutions he meant to submit grew out of the Message. If the House, however, insisted upon their being then read, he had no indisposition to read them. The CHAIRMAN considered the committee as incompetent to clearing the galleries. He thought it must be the act of the House. Mr. DAWSON inquired if the same rules that applied to the House, did not also apply to Committees of the Whole? Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of the President's Message respecting New Orleans. Mr. GRISWOLD said there was other business, not requiring secrecy, referred to the committee. Mr. RANDOLPH repeated his call for the reading of the President's Message. The CHAIRMAN asked what Message? Mr. RANDOLPH replied, the confidential Message. Mr. GRISWOLD said that could not be read with open doors. The CHAIRMAN said the doors could not be closed without an order of the House. Mr. S. SMITH observed that it had been customary to clear the galleries before the House went into committee. To save time, he would move that the committee should rise, in order to obtain an order of the House to that effect. Mr. GRISWOLD hoped the committee would not rise. The business he had proposed was of a public, not of a private nature. It was also of a pressing nature, and ought not to be postponed for any other business. Mr. DANA hoped, indeed, for the honor of the House, they would not exhibit the spectacle of wasting time in going into committee and then coming out of it without doing any thing, but would proceed to the public business. Mr. RUTLEDGE.-The gentleman from Virginia holds in his hands resolutions that require secrecy. After deciding on the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut, he will not be precluded from offering these resolutions. Mr. EUSTIS said if the House had resolved itself into a committee for the express purpose of taking into consideration the resolution of H. OF R.] Navigation of the Mississippi. the gentleman from Connecticut, it would be proper to give it the preference over any other business; and in that case he should have been as ready at this moment as at any other to offer his objections to it. But if it were understood that the House had resolved itself generally into a Committee on the state of the Union, one gentleman from Virginia having made a motion, and another gentleman from Connecticut having afterwards made another motion, that made by the last gentleman being junior in point of time ought to be last attended to. The other gentleman's motion was first in course; and if the gentleman who offered it desired the galleries to be cleared, he had an undoubted right to an order to that effect. [JANUARY, 181. doors; let the committee rise, and the galleria be cleared. Mr. DANA, in one point, fully agreed with the gentleman from Maryland. They had taken great pains to get power. But he regretted that any political party allusion whatever had been made on this subject. He had supposed it so important, so deeply interesting to all America, that he had hoped all spirit of party would have slept during our deliberations on it; and that we should have shown that we entertained but one sentiment, and were ready, if neces sary, to extend one arm in defence of our invaded rights. Mr. R. MORRIS expressed his disagreement with the Speaker on a point of order When the question was taken on the rising of the committee, and carried in the affirmative The committee accordingly rose, and the Chairman reported that they had come to no resolution. A motion was made to adjourn, on which Mr. GRISWOLD called the yeas and nays; which were-yeas 38, nays 51. Navigation of the Mississippi. [SECRET SESSION.] Mr. MACON (Speaker) remarked that a Committee of the whole House was one committee, and a Committee of the whole House on the state-ayes 49, noes 37. of the Union another committee. They were distinct committees. The last was never formed for special purposes. He did not recollect that this had ever been done. Whereas the other committee was always formed for a special | purpose. The difficulty in this case had arisen from referring the confidential Message to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. He believed it would be well to rise, and separate the two subjects that had been referred to the Committee on the state of the Union. Mr. GRISWOLD did not understand what the gentleman from Massachusetts meant by priority of motion. The Chairman had determined that the motion of the gentleman from Virginia was Ordered, That the Committee of the whole not in order, as it could not be submitted to a House on the state of the Union, to whom was public committee. After this disposition of that referred the Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE motion, none remained before the committee UNITED STATES of the twenty-second and thirtiother than his own. In point of priority, he eth ultimo, be discharged from the considerarose, therefore, to have his resolution then de- tion thereof; and that the said Message, tocided upon. With regard to the proposition of gether with the documents transmitted therethe honorable Speaker, he did not see any rea-with, be committed to a Committee of the son for it. Was it not as well to decide on whole House to-morrow. this resolution in this committee as in any other committee? Why, then, rise for the purpose of referring it to a secret committee? Mr. S. SMITH said, the gentleman from Massachusetts meant by his remarks that the Message of the President had precedence. The gentleman from Connecticut was only now urging what had been decided against him in the House. He thinks he has now an advantage, and presses it. Mr. S. said, he had not a doubt that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) is very sincere in his opinion, that, if we will agree to submit all power to them, they will indulge us by agreeing to certain subordinate points. But gentlemen will excuse us. We have already taken great pains to divest them of power, and we are not yet disposed to return it into their hands. We are of opinion that the Message ought to be discussed with closed doors; that is the intention of the motion; let us not take advantage of those who have arguments to offer which they wish not to submit with open The House was then cleared of all persons, except the members and the Clerk: Whereupon the House resumed the consideration of a confidential communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, received the thirty-first ultimo, On a motion made and seconded that the bility, the information of a disposition in certain of That, adhering to the humane and wise policy Ordered, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of the whole House last appointed. THURSDAY, January 6. Mr. GRISWOLD moved that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on his resolution respecting Louisiana. Mr. DAWSON was opposed to the motion, for reasons before assigned. [H. OF R offered to that House which ought to obtain a unanimous vote, it was that of his honorable friend from Connecticut; which proposes simply the calling for such information as the President might see fit to give on a most important subject that had excited the sensibility of the whole nation. The President himself, in his Message, alludes to the subject as one which may require Legislative interposition, and gentlemen persist in refusing us this information. It was a most extraordinary circumstance in the annals of the United States, that, notwithstandMr. GRISWOLD said the gentleman did not un- ing the magnitude of the cession of Louisiana, derstand what he had proposed. It had been the length of time since it was made, and the the wish of gentlemen to separate the consider- necessary consequence of having a new and ation of his resolution from other subjects re-powerful neighbor on our frontier, we had yet ferred to the Committee of the Whole on the no official information on the subject. The state of the Union. For which purpose he President in his Message really tells us nothing. had been willing to refer it to a Committee of He says "the cession of the Spanish province the Whole. But he was averse to referring it of Louisiana to France, which took place in the to a secret committee; as he did not perceive course of the late war,"-this we had been told its connection with any subject that required long before by the public prints, and in a dissecrecy. The discussion on it ought, in his cussion before the British Parliament-but he opinion, to be public. It was not necessary for goes on and says "will, if carried into effect, him to repeat that it was of a pressing nature. make a change in the aspect of our foreign reIt respected the obtaining information on a sub-lations, which will doubtless have just weight ject, he would say, of greater importance than in any deliberations of the Legislature connectany which could come before Congress that session. One third of the session was gone, and yet the Legislature had no information before them. He hoped there was no disposition entertained by gentlemen to embarrass this proposition with points unconnected with it. The proposition was extremely simple. Called upon by the President to legislate on the subject of the cession of Louisiana, we do not know the precise state of that cession. To legislate correctly, we want to be informed of all the circumstances. If gentlemen are disposed to Mr. L. suspected gentlemen had not correctly deny us this information, let the denial be pub-attended to the resolution. It only requests the lic. Do not let them refer this motion to a secret committee, where they may deny us the information we ask on reasons which we cannot divulge. Mr. G. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays. Mr. S. SMITH asked if this were not the precise motion decided yesterday by the House? He thought it had been referred to a Committee of the Whole. He had considered it as having taken that course. When we go into committee the gentlemen will see whether we shall refuse them the information. Perhaps we shall see that it is of such a nature as we ought to possess. He did not himself know how that was; nor did he mean to commit himself by any remarks which he had made. He trusted gentlemen would remember their vote yesterday, and not suffer themselves to be put out of their course by this extraordinary mode of conducting business. ed with that subject." To this the understanding of every schoolboy is competent. It was really surprising that gentlemen should wish to reject such a call as this. It was not probable that the President had been so unmindful of his duty as not to have demanded an explanation through our Ministers at the Court of Spain, or at Paris. If he has this information, and it is of a nature proper to be known to us, we ought immediately to obtain it, that we may not be slumbering at our posts on an infraction of our rights. He President to lay such information before the House as he may think proper. Are gentlemen then afraid to trust to the discretion of the President? Are they apprehensive lest he should communicate that which is improper? hoped they had more confidence in the Executive. He thought this call should precede any resolutions. He could not disconnect the shutting of the port of New Orleans from the cession of Louisiana. There appeared to be a natural connection between these two events. He was afraid that the shutting the port was ominous of the disposition of Spain to cede the province to France, independently of any encumbrances she may have imposed upon herself. He was afraid France in this transaction would consult her interests and convenience, and not our rights. We well knew the grounds on which that nation interpreted treaties, and we had no reason from that knowledge to reMr. LOWNDES demanded whether, even if the press our fears. An observation of the gentlemotion were the same, there was any impro- man from Virginia had given him great uneasipriety in putting it again to-day; and whether ness. That gentleman had told us, if Spain had it were not perfectly consistent with the rules ceded Louisiana to France she had a right to of order to go into a committee, and take up cede it. This Mr. L. was not prepared to say. the resolution? If there ever was a resolution | He did not think Spain had a right to give to |