H. OF R.] Amendment of the Bankrupt Act. (JANUARY, 1803. portant concerns. Besides, were he able and Mr. NICHOLSON.-Many gentlemen appeared willing to perform the drudgery of that service, to wish a repeal, because there were some in it was doubtful whether he had any legal or jurious provisions in the law; others wished it constitutional right to frank any packages, ex- might be amended, believing it was capable cept those going immediately and directly from of such alterations as would remove their obhis own particular office, and that he might be jections. He thought it in some respects deliable to a penalty, though he should frank let- fective, and in others beneficial. If the evils ters on public business, relating to the Army to which it was subjected could be remedied, he and War Department generally. should be for retaining, if not, for repealing the law. The extension of the privilege of franking was opposed by the Speaker, (Mr. MACON,) and others. They considered all franking as wrong, and liable to abuse-they would rather restrict than extend this privilege. He was for re Mr. BAYARD agreed with the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON,) and thought the committee should have inquired what amendments were expedient. He was also forcibly Mr. SMILIE.-Considering the situation of the United States, he thought there never should have been a bankrupt law; but he doubted whether it would be expedient to repeal it st In reply, it was said that, if confidence could this time, but let it expire of itself. He believed not be placed in those officers, as to the privi- much mischief had been produced by it, and if lege of franking, the imposition could not be it was repealed now, he apprehended much prevented by referring their packets to the Se- more would ensue. Its natural life was but five cretary of War, or by paying their account cur-years, and he thought it had better exist for rent with the postmasters. It was evident the that period than be repealed. Government must pay those expenses; that it commitment. could make no difference as to the revenue, whether the Postmaster General's Department received and paid to the Treasury the money which was drawn from the contingent fund of the War Department, or from a special appro-impressed with the remarks of the gentleman priation to defray the expenses of postage on military letters and packets, or whether they extended the privilege of franking to those officers from and through whom the military details must pass. In the former case, it was but taking from one pocket and putting in the otherin the latter, much trouble was saved; and, if the characters employed in those departments were worthy of a confidence which should entitle them to the places they hold, it could never be supposed that they would abuse the privilege of franking. from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,) that it was better to suffer the law to expire of itself than repeal it now. He did not think that the House were prepared to go into a discussion. The argument of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) that the bankrupt law was er post facto, would not apply; but an act to repeal would in reality be an ex post facto law. Many merchants had entered into contracts, having an eye to the bankrupt law; many had embarked in perilous enterprises, knowing, that if they had made unfortunate calculations, that by s On motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, Seconded by Mr. surrender of their effects they might again en EUSTIS, the committee rose and the amend-gage in commercial pursuits. And though a man ments from the Senate were recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means. might be discharged from his contracts, the sense of moral obligation was not impaired-in foro conscientia he was still answerable. He Amendment of the Bankrupt Act. would not deny that frauds were committed, but Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the act would not be for this should the honest debtor be eternally amended, but repealed. When it passed, he was fettered with his debts? Should he, from unone of those who entered his protest against it. avoidable accidents, be cast into prison, and his He considered it in the nature of an ex post facto family reduced to misery and distress? He was law an allurement to fraud-tending to cor- sure that the gentleman would revolt at the rupt the morals of the community-to change idea. Were the bankrupt law repealed, they the nature of contracts-to discharge men, not must substitute the insolvent laws of the differonly for their obligations and their solemn pro-ent States. Did not the insolvent laws of the mises, but to violate their oaths. And, because Southern States hold out the same allurements Congress had a right to enact such a law, would to fraud as the general bankrupt law? By a gentlemen say it was for the benefit of trade? repeal, they would increase the evils, and destroy Its operations had been the reverse. He had the benefits of the general system. We were, been waiting, ever since its establishment, for said Mr. B., a great commercial Republic; the the merchants themselves to come forward and connection between merchants of the different urge the repeal. A portion of them had peti-States was increasing; therefore, the merchant tioned for amendments, which, in fact, amounted to a request for a repeal. Mr. S. SMITH thought any arguments on the merits of the question were premature. It was a subject of too much importance to be hurried in that manner. He hoped it would be recommitted. of Georgia and the merchant of New Hampshire should be subjected to general regulations. Now, the merchant of Pennsylvania trusting the mer chant of Virginia knew that his whole estate, real and personal, was liable for the payment of his debts; whereas, by the insolvent laws of that State, (Virginia,) the former might give an JANUARY, 1803.] Case of John P. Van Ness. FRIDAY, January 14. {H. OF R Mr. VAN NESS moved the following resolution: extensive credit; the latter might vest it all in and, which was untangible for the payment of his demand. The bankrupt act was a commercial law, extending equal benefits throughout the Union. If it was suffered to go back to the select committee, they would be able to give a clearer Resolved, That a monument be erected in commemview of its advantages and defects. It was a sub-oration of the patriotism, valor, and good conduct of ject of incalculable importance, both as it re- Major General Horatio Gates, who, in the late Revospected the debtor and creditor, and he hoped lutionary war, commanded the American forces that it would meet a candid and deliberate investi- captured General Burgoyne and the British army under his command, at Saratoga, in the State of New gation. York. Mr. RANDOLPH said that the affairs of the world had been found to suffer more from being put in the hands of those who were superior to the management of them, than from those who were inadequate to the execution of those objects intrusted to them. It had been alle wed a sound rule of construction, that all general powers must be confined to particular exceptionз. The constitution gave Congress the right of making a bankrupt law, but it did not give the power of impairing contracts. He would exonerate the person, but never the property; It was the case in Virginia, when a man had surrendered all his property, his person was liberated, but his property never. And though we were a commercial Republic, was it not necessary to take care of the agricultural interest? How did the bankrupt law operate upon the planter? He knew by experience that it had been in many instances ruinous; that many planters had been choused out of their property by the operations of this very law. He had known from experience that many men had been buoyed up and supported by their friends till those friends were made good, and then suffered to fail, to the great injury of the for mer. Mr. BACON was in favor of a reference to a Committee of the whole House. Mr. S. SMITH said, gentlemen seemed to consider the bankrupt law as made entirely for the Ordered, That the said motion be referred to the committee to whom was committed, on the tenth instant, the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to carry into effect several resolutions of Congress for erecting monuments to the memories of the late Generals Wooster, Herkimer, Davidson, and Scriven." MONDAY, January 17. SAMUEL J. CABELL, and from North Carolina seats in the House. Emancipated Slaves from French West Indies. A memorial of sundry inhabitants of the town of Wilmington, in the State of North Carolina, that a certain number of negroes or mulattoes, was presented to the House and read, stating to whom emancipation has been granted by the Executive of the French Government in the Island of Guadaloupe, had been recently landed at the said town of Wilmington; that, in the opinion of the memorialists, much danger to the peace and safety of the people of the Southern States of the Union in particular, is justly to be apprehended from the admission of persons of that description into the United States, from the West India Islands; and praying that Congress will be pleased to take the premises into consideration, and adopt such effectual measures for prevention thereof, as they in their wisdom may deem proper. benefit of the debtor. That was an erroneous opinion. It was made also for the creditor: as such he advocated it. It enabled the creditor to secure his property, if he found the debtor was Ordered, That the said memorial be referred disposed to be fraudulent: he could apply for a commission of bankruptcy, and make the debtor to Mr. HILL, Mr. EARLY, Mr. HUGER, Mr. Ranaccount for the property in his possession. Be-DOLPH, and Mr. CAMPBELL, to report their opinion thereupon to the House. sides, it reduced the creditors to an equality-a debtor could not secure his friends, and leave the rest of his creditors without a dollar. Case of John P. Van Ness. An Mr. DAVIS called up the report of the Committee of Elections on the case of John P. Van instance of that kind had lately come within his Mr. HOLLAND moved that it be referred to a Ness. The House went into Committee of the Whole on the report, as follows: of the said member, it appears to your committee "That, from the free concessions and agreement that he has accepted and exercised the office of a major of the militia, under the authority of the United States, within the Territory of Columbia; and that a paragraph in the sixth section of the first article of the constitution, which expressly provides, that 'No person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office,' does, in the opinion of your H. OF R.] French Spoliations. committee, render the acceptance and exercise of the office aforesaid incompatible with the holding, at the same time, of a seat in the House. "Your committee, therefore, ask leave to submit to the House the following resolution, to wit: "Resolved, That John P. Van Ness, one of the members of this House, having accepted and exercised the office of major of militia, under the authority of the United States, within the Territory of Columbia, has thereby forfeited his right to a seat as a member of this House." [JANUARY, 180 cepted it. He had never entertained a docki on this point until broached in the Hous Since then, he had heard various opinions. B what he had heard, his own opinion was not changed, as he believed that a true construction of the constitution would exclude his case. Should, however, a decision against his bolding his seat be made, he should retire without any other regret than that which he had expressed He had not risen to argue the case as an advo cate, but merely to assign the grounds on which he had acted. The question was then taken on the report of the Committee of Elections, which was agreed to without a division. The committee rose, and the House immediately took up their report. influence, should be recorded on their journals; for which purpose he called the yeas and nays; which were taken, and were unanimously in favor of the resolution. MONDAY, January 24. A new member, to wit, RICHARD WINN, returned to serve in this House as a member from South Carolina, in the room of Thomas Sumter, appointed a Senator of the United States, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House. Mr. VAN NESS said he would make a remark or two that would, perhaps, remove any impressions of indelicacy on his part in retaining his seat under the circumstances in which he was placed. He considered himself as standing on that floor, not as a private individual, but as a Representative of New York; and as holding Mr. RANDOLPH observed that, on a precedent a trust which he was not authorized to abandon so important as was about to be established by before a constitutional decision should be made. the vote of the House, it was unnecessary to His constituents had placed him there as the say a word. He wished, however, that the guardian of their rights; and that trust he disposition of the House to exclude, by a nnancould not desert without a constitutional deci-imous vote, even the shadow of Executive sion being made. If that decision should be adverse to his retaining his seat, in retiring from the House he should feel no regret but at leaving his constituents unrepresented during the remainder of the session, at not having discharged all the business assigned him by the Chair, and at ceasing to associate with gentlemen whom, for the most part, he respected. In a pecuniary view, the relinquishing his seat could not in the least affect him; nor should he consider it disreputable to leave a body without any imputation of dishonor or impropriety. The reasons he should offer to the committee for retaining his seat, were few and simple. He thought the fair, liberal, and sound construction of the constitution did not affect his case; that the incapacitating provision only applied to civil offices. The constitution was only a digest of the most approved principles of the constitutions of the several States, in which the spirit of those constitutions were combined. Not one of those constitutions excluded from office those who had accepted military appointments, except in the regular service. He, therefore, felt a full conviction that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution of the United States to exclude militia officers from holding a seat in Congress. And however important it might be to adhere to the letter of the constitution, yet, when the spirit of it was so clear as it appeared to him, it ought to have weight in the decision of the question before the committee, which might affect objects of great importance. The right of every portion of the Union to a representation in that House was very important, and ought to be respected in all cases which may either directly or indirectly affect it. Gentlemen, therefore, ought to reflect before they deprive a part of the Union of this important right. Had he supposed that the acceptance of an office in the militia would have interfered with his seat in that House, he would never have ac Ohio Territorial Delegate unseated. Resolved, That, inasmuch as the late Territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio have, by virtue of an act of Congress passed on the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and two, formed a Constitution and State Government, and have thereby, and by virtue of an act of Congress aforesaid, become a separate and independent State, by the name of "Ohio," that PAUL FEARING, & member of this House, who was elected by the late Territorial Government of the Territory north-west of the river Ohio, is no longer entitled to a seat in this House: Ordered, That the said motion be referred to the Committee of Elections: that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House. French Spoliations. Mr. MITCHILL rose to address the House on a subject of a commercial nature. He alluded to the depredations committed upon the commerce of the United States, by French armed vessels, during the late war in Europe. The gentlemen of the House would, he hoped, turn their attention, for a few minutes, to the numerous memorials received from our merchants during the last session, praying compensation for those JANUARY, 1803.] Memorial of United States Judges. [H. OF R tions that would be useful. They could tell, for instance, that one sort were lawful captures for and on account of contraband, others for want of a rôle d'équipage, others were taken wrongfully, without any cause whatever, and the like. Some judgment might be formed in this way of the probable amount that might be contemplated as bona fide claims. He suspected this amount would be but an inconsiderable part of the gross amount of captures. But whether it was large or small, he hoped an examination would be attempted; and, for that purpose, he moved the following resolution: Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire by what means the value or amount of property taken from citizens of the United States by the French, during the late war in Europe, can be best ascertained, and the several sorts of captures distinguished and classed, and report their opinion thereon to this House, to the end that indemnification may be made. Mr. MITCHILL then said, that he did not press an instant decision upon it; but wished it to lie a day or two on the table for consideration. THURSDAY, January 27. losses. These papers were numerous and respectful, and came from a most valuable portion of our fellow-citizens. Their grievances had not hitherto been redressed, nor even inquired into with the minuteness which it appeared to him to deserve. It was true a committee, numerous and intelligent, had been appointed during the last session, to examine the matter of these applications. A report had been made to the House. This report was full of information concerning the political and commercial connection between the United States and France. It comprised a concise and correct history of what had been done on both sides, since the mutual misunderstandings arose. It was a valuable document, as far as it went; but it did not conclude with any recommendation of a mode of relief, or even of investigation. It stopped short with the historical narrative, without proposing even a mode of further inquiry. During the present session, nothing further had been done or attempted. Early after the Congress assembled, he had himself given notice of an intention to revive the subject. It was confessedly of magnitude enough to merit investigation. This notice, he remembered, was given previous to the receipt of the message from the Executive. But the multitude of public business that had grown The several petitions of William Tilghman, out of that communication, added to other sub- Oliver Wolcott, Richard Bassett, Charles Magill, jects, had so completely occupied his mind, Samuel Hitchcock, Benjamin Bourne, Egbert that he had hitherto suffered it to pass on with- Benson, Philip B. Key, William Griffith, Jereout bestowing on it the consideration which he miah Smith, and George K. Taylor, were preowned that it deserved. He was now ready to sented to the House and read, respectively remake amends for this inadvertent or necessary, presenting, that, by an act of Congress, passed certainly not intentional, delay. He had heard, on the thirteenth day of February, one thouwith satisfaction, the call of the gentleman from sand eight hundred and one, entitled "An act South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) for his (Mr. for the more convenient organization of the MITCHILL'S) promised motion. He acknow- courts of the United States," certain judicial ledged the hint of that gentleman to be season-offices were created, and courts established, able, and felt himself obliged to him for acting the part of a good prompter. To show that gentleman that he had profited by the suggestion made on Friday last, he had now risen with an intention to lay a resolve upon the table. The object of the resolve was to cause an inquiry to be entered upon, by a special Committee of the House, as to what amount of property, or its value in current money, had been taken from the Americans during the late war by the cruisers of France. The committee could devise some mode of ascertaining the magnitude of the sufferings complained of. This he considered as the first step that ought to be taken, towards the procuring of redress for the petitioners. And, until this was taken, he believed nothing was likely to be done. Another object of the resolve he was about to offer, was to instruct the same committee to inquire into the different classes of captures and claims. He did not suppose that all the petitioners were entitled to compensation. Some of them, he knew, were not; but it was equally clear that some of them were. This complicated mass of applications could be examined by a committee, who could draw some distinc called Circuit Courts of the United States: That, in virtue of appointments made under the Constitution of the United States, the petitioners became vested with the offices so created, and received commissions, authorizing them to hold the same, with the emoluments thereunto appertaining, during their good behavior: That, during the last session, an act of Congress passed, by which the above-mentioned law was declared to be repealed; since which no law has been made for assigning to the petitioners the execution of any judicial function, nor has any provision been made for the payment of their stipulated compensations: That, under these circumstances, and finding it expressly declared in the Constitution of the United States that "the Judges both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office," that petitioners are compelled to represent it as their opinion, that the rights secured to them by the constitution, as members of the Judicial Department, have been impaired: That, "with this sincere convictica, and influenced by a H. OF R.] Memorial of United States Judges. (JANUARY, 180 be doing it too much honor, but it would be making too wide a difference between similar applications to adopt this course. He was, therefore, for pursuing the common course. sense of public duty, they most respectfully re- | other petitions. He would not say that it would quest of Congress to review the existing laws, which respect the offices in question, and to define the duties to be performed by the petitioners, by such provisions as shall be consistent with the constitution, and the convenient ad- Mr. GRISWOLD had no objection to a referministration of justice:" That "the right of the ence of the memorial to a Committee of the petitioners to their compensations, they sin- Whole. Perhaps that would be the better mode. cerely believe to be secured by the constitution, It was true, as the gentleman from Virginia notwithstanding any modification of the Judi- had stated, that a very important constitutional cial Department, which, in the opinion of Con- question may arise on this memorial. Nor did gress, public convenience may recommend. he know, as represented by the gentleman from This right, however, involving a personal in- Massachusetts, (Mr. BACON,) that all the conterest, will cheerfully be submitted to Judicial stitutional questions involved in the subject had examination and decision, in such manner as been settled by the decision of the last session. the wisdom and impartiality of Congress may He had understood the gentleman aimself, in prescribe: That judges should not be deprived his speech, during the last session. to have said of their offices or compensations, without mis- that the question of compensatio.. was a very behavior, appears, to the petitioners, to be different question from that then under discusamong the first and best established principles sion. He was not absolutely certain that that of the American constitutions; and, in the va- gentleman expressed such an opinion, but he rious reforms they have undergone, it has been was certain that some gentlemen of the majority preserved and guarded with increased solicitude: did. As the memorial was couched in terms of That, on this basis, the Constitution of the great respect, he trusted there would be no obUnited States has laid the foundation of the Ju-jection on the part of the House to give it a dicial Department, and expressed its meaning in proper attention. terms equally plain and peremptory:" That, "this being the deliberate and solemn opinion of the petitioners, the duty of their stations requires that they should express it to the Legislative body. They regret the necessity which compels them to make the representation; and they confide, that it will be attributed to a conviction that they ought not, voluntarily, to surrender rights and authorities intrusted to their protection, not for their personal advantage, but for the benefit of the community." Mr. GRISWOLD moved a reference of the foregoing memorial to a select committee. Mr. GREGG observed that, according to the usual mode of transacting business, it ought to go to the Committee of Claims. He, therefore, made that motion. Mr. RANDOLPH did not think a select committee, or the Committee of Claims, a proper committee to whom to refer this memorial. What is its nature? Does it embrace any point of fact on which a committee is to make inquiry? No. It is a broad constitutional question. He was, therefore, in favor of having it examined, where it must eventually be settled, in the House. If, therefore, the memorial had any reference, it ought to be referred to a Committee of the whole House; to which effect he made a motion. Mr. BACON hoped this last motion would not obtain. He did not know what there was in this petition to distinguish it from any other petition from any citizens of the United States. It was suggested that it involved a great constitutional question. He did not know that this was the case. Any thing might be made a constitutional question. But he thought this question had been already determined by the whole Legislature on the most mature deliberation. He saw nothing to distinguish this petition from Mr. RANDOLPH Would concisely answer the gentleman from Massachusetts. Does this question involve an inquiry either into matter of expediency or of fact? With respect to fact, they were all agreed. The judges make the question turn on a construction given to the constitution; it was, therefore, indubitably a constitutional question, on which a committee could not decide. The House, then, must decide. It appeared to him to be the plainest case on earth. No doubt constitutional questions may arise on many points. He hoped, therefore, the House would itself decide it. For his part, he considered the decision as already made. He hoped the memorial would be taken up that day. Mr. SMILIE was against referring the memorial to a Committee of the Whole. If the subject had not been already maturely considered and discussed at the greatest length, he should be in favor of such a reference. But it had been most fully discussed. If they meant to sit there to the neglect of the important business, they ought to go into Committee of the Whole; but if they meant to do the public business, they ought not. Gentlemen should recollect the time spent in this discussion the last session. Mr. DANA thought the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not calculate correctly. The same object, as to debate, would be attained in the House as in a Committee of the Whole. For he would recollect, that notwithstanding the length of the debate of the last session, and though the House were in Committee, no gentleman had spoken more than once; and, according to the rules of the House, every member had a right to speak twice. Mr. DANA said that he agreed with the gentleman from Virginia in the ideas he had expressed. |