experienced equal dilapidation and decay, and that a sum at least as large as was then allowed (particularly when it was considered that the price of goods was very much advanced since that time) should now be allowed for putting the present household upon the same footing of respectability and convenience with that at New York in 1789. Mr. S. did not know that he could give any further information on the subject. It was a matter of notoriety that a great part of the goods then purchased were worn out and destroyed; such as the household linen, crockery ware, &c., and that the PRESIDENT had renewed them at his own expense; insomuch that if he were to take out of the House the furniture which he had supplied, there would little remain in it besides tables, chairs, bedsteads, and a few such articles; since all the carpets and ornamental furniture of the House had been purchased by himself. Whilst he was up, he would wish to obviate the only objection which had been adduced to this bill. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. HENDERSON) had supposed that this allowance was meant to carry into effect what had been rejected in another way, alluding to the proposed advance of salary. That gentleman might see a very obvious distinction between the two things. If $5,000 had been added to the salary of the PRESIDENT, he could have disposed of it as he pleased; but the money now proposed to be granted, was to be employed in the purchase of furniture, &c., which would remain the property of the United States, and would devolve apon the next PRESIDENT. Mr. S. said, he would add, that in the joint committee there was not a dissenting voice to the proposition, and he hoped there would not be one in the House. The question was put for engrossing the bill for a third reading, and carried, there being fifty votes in favor of it. This day and Monday were mentioned for the third reading; the question was carried for the most distant day, 40 to 35. MONDAY, February 27. Accommodation of the President. The bill to accommodate the PRESIDENT was read the third time; when Mr. HEATH moved to have the bill recommitted, for the purpose of striking out $14,000 to insert $8,000. He thought $14,000 too large a sum to be given to purchase new furniture; $8,000 he thought would be a sufficiently handsome sum for the purpose. They were apt to be too lavish with the public money on some occasions, and too sparing on others. He had not been satisfied with the reasons which had been given by the Chairman of the committee for giving the sum now in the bill. At a time when our Treasury was so much in want of money, he did not wish so large a sum to be given for this purpose; nor did he think it necessary, except it were to put our PRESIDENT in the style of a potentate or prince. And this he was sure the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES would not [H. OF R. wish, as he believed he was a gentleman of great economy, and would spurn at any thing like tinsel or expense. Five thousand dollars had been thought a sufficient sum for this purpose, but he was willing to give $8,000. He hoped the bill would therefore be recommitted, and this sum be inserted. Mr. MACON seconded the motion for recommitting the bill. He was against it altogether. He did not see why they should furnish the house of the PRESIDENT any more than that of any other of their officers. He thought the thing improper at first, and that it was wrong to continue the practice. If the salary was not large enough, it should be made larger, though he thought it sufficiently large. Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred with his colleague, Mr. HEATH. It was necessary, he said, that Republicans should be consistent. If we thus give away the people's money, said he, shall we not be charged with rapaciously putting our hands into their pockets? Have we not, he added, refused to redress grievances and injuries, and to do justice to many deserving and distressed citizens, because our Treasury is low? And shall we now, when there is no right reason for it, lay hold of the public Treasury, and lavish away $14,000? For what? For adding new furniture to the house of the PRESIDENT. No; he was willing to render him all possible respect; he remembered well his letter to our sister Republic of Holland. had a pretty good memory. He remembered well his patriotism; but he saw no reason to give him $14,000. He would give him $8,000, which he thought would be a very pretty compliment; but to give $14,000 would outrage every idea of that economy and Republican simplicity which ought to characterize the American nation. Why, said he, shall we, who are a Confederacy of the Democratic Republicans, everlastingly keep our eyes upon the pageantry of Eastern Courts? Let us rather attend to our own character than that of any despotic nation upon earth. He hoped the bill would be recommitted. He The question for recommitting was carried45 to 40. The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill, whenMr. HEATH moved to strike out $14,000 and insert $8,000. Mr. GILLESPIE called for the estimate, which he understood was in possession of the committee. Mr. SITGREAVES said there was no estimate before the House or committee. All that he had seen was a list of the furniture which had been purchased for the PRESIDENT in 1789. He himself had not had patience to go through it; but if the gentleman wished it, it might be read to the House. Mr. HARTLEY hoped there would have been no objection to this appropriation. He thought the Chairman of the committee had fully shown the propriety of granting the $14,000 to the PRESIDENT, who was not merely an officer of the Government, but a branch of it. It was not giving the money away, but merely advancing it on account of the United States. He was not in favor of high salaries, but he wished the situation of the PRESIDENT to be made comfortable and respectable. Mr. HEATH said, he believed a great part of the furniture which was purchased in 1789, was at present as good as when laid in; this was particularly the case with respect to the mahogany furniture; and he thought the $8,000 would be a sufficient sum to replace all articles of a perishable nature, such as carpets, linens, &c. Mr. HOLLAND was in favor of striking out, because it was only necessary to appropriate as much as might be necessary whilst Government remained here, as, when it should be removed, the furniture now used might not be suitable for the house at Washington. At that time, he supposed a further sum would be called for, and therefore he thought a less sum than $14,000 would be sufficient for the present purpose. Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of the bill as it stood. He had been told that it was the intention of the State of Pennsylvania to make an offer to the PRESIDENT of the house which had lately been erected in this city; if so, perhaps the furniture which might be purchased for it would be suitable for the house in the Federal City. He had before said that he thought it would have been better to have augmented the salary of the PRESIDENT, and let him purchase his own furniture. But as that had not been agreed to, he wished the committee now to rise and report progress, that information might be gained on the subject; because he thought if he was to have that house, that sum would not be too large. Mr. SITGREAVES said, he did not know whether the Legislature of this State would conclude to make the PRESIDENT the offer which the gentleman last up had mentioned; but of this he was sure, that if they did, he could not afford to accept of it. For, if this bill passed, he was certain that, under such circumstances, he could not remove into that house, because he would not be able to furnish it. Mr. S. said, he was surprised the House should so suddenly change their opinion. He thought he had given sufficient information on the subject to have shown the necessity of the grant. [Mr. S. here repeated what he had before noticed respecting what had been allowed on a former occasion.] When gentlemen entered minutely into the subject, they seemed to have information which was not very correct. He believed the sum mentioned in the bill not more than sufficient. The decay which had taken place in the PRESIDENT's household would require that sum to make it good. The gentleman from Virginia supposed there were many articles, not perishable in their nature, which could not have been injured by their use. He was mistaken. There was nothing but about $800 worth of [FEBRUARY, 1797. plated ware and the mahogany furniture which could at all come under this description. Indeed, any gentleman who was in the habit of paying his respects to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES must have seen with regret that the appearance of his furniture was so far inferior to that which was to be found in the houses of any of our wealthy citizens, or even of those in moderate circumstances. When this was a notorious fact, what ground, he asked, could gentlemen have for comparing the household of the PRESIDENT to the pomp and splendor of Eastern Courts? On the contrary, he thought there was a humility of appearance in the house of the PRESIDENT, which he would not say was a disgrace to the country, but which at least proved its rigid economy. Mr. NICHOLAS said he voted for going into Committee of the Whole on this subject from an idea that the sum proposed to be given to the PRESIDENT was larger than was necessary, though he confessed he could not say what that sum ought exactly to be; he was for giving enough and rather too much than too little. Indeed, when he considered that the whole sum was not to be expended, except it should be found necessary, and that a certain style was expected to be observed in this station, he was not for stinting the sum to what he thought just enough for purchasing furniture. If the whole of the money granted must of necessity be expended in furniture, he should have had more hesitation on the subject; but as the expenditure would be left to the discretion of the PRESIDENT, he could not suppose, from the wellknown habits of economy of that gentleman, it would be improperly disposed of. He therefore felt no difficulty in agreeing to the sum in the bill; for though he thought the sum too large, yet he would not so confine the appropriation as to oblige their officer to go about the streets to look out for cheap purchases of furniture. Mr. BUCK said, previous to these measures being brought forward, they had decided against any advance to the salary of the PRESIDENT. All that time a committee was appointed to inquire into the state of the PRESIDENT's household, and to report whether any, and what, further accommodation was necessary to be afforded. He conceived that it was the wish of that House that the gentleman who was coming into office should have accommodations equal to those which had been given to the gentleman who was leaving it. The committee had examined into facts, made a report, and a bill had been brought in accordingly. The committee had informed them upon what principles they had acted; and it did not appear that they either intended to increase the splendor of the household of the PRESIDENT, nor to add to his salary. If any member could come forward and show that the report of the committee was erroneous, they should have some ground upon which to reject it. He had heard no man say this, and therefore all that had been offered or FEBRUARY, 1797.] Accommodation of the President. [H. OF R the subject ought not to weigh against that re- | not wanted, it would not be expended; but, he port. When the bill was before them on Satur- believed, whatever sum was appropriated would day, there was a considerable majority in favor be expended; for he was not one of those of it, and as they had no new information on who thought that revenue could not be found. the matter, he saw no reason for a change of He believed if the money was granted, it would opinion. be both found and spent. Some members, Mr. B. said, had held out an idea that they were about to give this money away, to enable the new PRESIDENT to live in the style of foreign Courts. If the inhabitants of this city had adopted this style, then it would be chargeable against the PRESIDENT, but not otherwise, since it was acknowledged he had not kept pace with them in this respect. The appropriating this money would only be converting it into so much public property; for, when his term of office should expire, he could not carry away a single article. It was not, therefore, giving away a farthing, but merely providing for our own convenience to enable the PRESIDENT to fill the office with comfort and reputation; and as they had nothing before them to show the sum too large, he saw no propriety in rejecting it, for the purpose of inserting any other. error. Mr. RUTHERFORD said, if the House had committed an error one day, it would be well for them to correct it another. If they were to give $14,000 away on the present occasion, he thought they would commit a very serious The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SITGREAVES) had said many of the citizens of Philadelphia lived in a superior style to the PRESIDENT. If so, he would say they were very bad citizens, since it was proper that the citizens of this rising Republic should cultivate a simplicity of living and of manners. Mr. SITGREAVES wished to correct the gentle. man last up with respect to one fact. He had said the PRESIDENT of the old Congress had no salary. It was true that he did not receive any thing under that name, but there was a provision, not merely for the furniture of his house, but for the constant provision of it; and this was so considerable that from 1778 to 1779, in one year, eighty-three thousand dollars were paid for that purpose. Mr. MACON wished to know what sort of money this was; he supposed it was in depreciated paper. Mr. SITGREAVES was not certain what kind of money was meant. Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, in settling an affair of this kind, it was proper to have respect to the office, and not to the man who was to fill it. He could himself consider the establishment of the PRESIDENT's household in no other light than in the nature of a compensation for his services, in the same way that he considered the privilege of franking, stationery, and newspapers, allowed the members of both Houses, to be such; because, if they were not allowed to them, they would have to purchase those articles themselves; and if furniture was not provided by Government for the house of the PRESIDENT, he must himself furnish it out of his salary, or from his private purse. To refuse to provide the necessary furniture would therefore be to reduce his salary; for it was true that this plan of presenting furniture to the PRESIDENT WAS adopted before the salary was fixed, so that it must have been considered as being additional to the salary. And was that salary, he asked, near so valuable now as it was when fixed? Certainly not. He trusted, therefore, they should not reduce it. Mr. MACON thought some of the arguments introduced on this occasion were very improper; such as the habits of economy or private fortune of the gentleman who was to succeed to the Presidential chair. They were about to settle a permanent principle, which it was proper to do at this time, before a new Presidency commenced. He knew nothing of the private property of the person who was to fill the office, This sum, Mr. S. said, was mentioned, from a nor had it any thing to do with the matter. The consideration that four years hence the seat of question was, whether they were to go over the Government would be removed, and that then same ground every four or eight years of fur- the furniture would be in a great degree useless. nishing the house of a new PRESIDENT? He They, therefore, only recommended such a sum did not wish that it should be so; he wished as they thought would be sufficient to put the the salary to be the only consideration which furniture in a proper state for that term. He bethe PRESIDENT should receive for his services. lieved that fourteen thousand dollars would not If it had not been settling a permanent princi- do more than that. ple, he should not perhaps have opposed it. Mr. MACON said he was always opposed to the privileges allowed to members of franking, &c. Gentlemen talked about a statement; he did not know what that might contain, he had not seen it; but he did not know how it could require fourteen thousand dollars to repair furniture which at first cost only thirteen thousand. It had been said that the old PRESIDENT of Congress had a household furnished him, but he received no salary from the United States except his household. He considered this sum as an advance upon the salary paid to the PRESIDENT by the different States, and before any salary was fixed by the United States; but now, as an ample salary was paid to the PRESIDENT, Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH said, the gentleman last he did not think such a provision should be con-up was inaccurate in his statement. The thirtinued. It was sometimes said that it was no teen thousand dollars which were allowed for matter what sum was appropriated, as, if it was furniture for the late PRESIDENT, was in addi H. OF R.] Accommodation of the President. [FEBRUARY, 1797. tion to the furniture which had already been in | ing been negatived, the expenditure must be possession of the PRESIDENT of Congress. Mr. SHERBURNE said, the question was with respect to the quantum of money to be granted, as every one seemed to allow that a certain sum was necessary. By having recourse to what was done for other officers of the Government, they might, perhaps, form an estimate of what would be reasonable on the present occasion. A practice had been established of allowing our Ministers to foreign countries a sum as an outfit equal to one year's salary; so that nine thousand dollars were allowed a Minister for this purpose, though it might happen that he would not be employed more than a few months in the service. He thought, therefore, that fourteen thousand dollars could not be thought too large a sum for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, whose term of service was for four years, and which would go to his successor in office; whereas, the nine thousand dollars allowed to a foreign Minister were entirely at his disposal, though he might not be in the service more than a month. Mr. AMES said, it appeared to him that it would be desirable to proceed according to precedent, as nearly as they could. It was not desirable to innovate or change the established order of things, except strong reasons existed for the change. On inquiring what had been the practice heretofore, they found the PRESIDENT of the old Congress, as well as the PRESIDENT now going out of office, had establishments made for their household similar to that now proposed. If they looked forward to that period when the seat of Government was to be removed, and considered the furniture which would be necessary for the house in the Federal city, it would be seen that there would be a necessity for a new establishment at that time, as it was evident that the present furniture or what might be purchased with the sum now contemplated, would be wholly inadequate to the furnishing of that house. He supposed an additional grant of twelve or fifteen thousand pounds would be necessary for that purpose. left to the discretion of the PRESIDENT. He did not mean to go into any detail. He did not wish to place the gentleman coming into office in a worse situation than that of him who was going out; and as he felt no objection to leave it to the PRESIDENT to make use of the whole or a part of this money, as his discretion should direct, he should vote for the bill. Mr. CLAIBORNE said, as provision had been made for furniture for the gentleman now in office, he was inclined to vote for the fourteen thousand dollars proposed now to be granted for the same purpose to the gentleman who was to succeed him. Mr. ПENDERSON wished to give his reasons for voting against this bill. He wished to place the PRESIDENT coming into office in as comfortable circumstances as he who was going out; but it appeared to him that the sum proposed was larger than necessary for this purpose. Indeed, said Mr. H., when he read an article of the constitution touching this subject, he had his doubts with respect to the constitutionality of the proceeding. That article said, "that the PRESIDENT should receive a compensation which should neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he should have been elected; and that he should not receive within that period any other emoluments from the United States, or any of them." Mr. SITGREAVES believed there could be no doubt as to the constitutionality of the proposed grant of money, as the clause ran, "during the period for which he should have been elected," which would not prevent them from passing any number of acts before he went into office. The question on the passing of the bill was then taken by yeas and nays, and stood 63 to 27, as follows: YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Theophilus Bradbury, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, Joshua Coit, WilDavenport, George Dent, George Ege, Abiel Foster, liam Cooper, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James Gallatin, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Dwight Foster, Nathaniel Freeman, junior, Albert Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Edward Livingston, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, James Madison, Francis Malbone, Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Nicholas, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Patton, Elisha R. Potter, John Re-Read, John Richards, Samuel Sewall, John S. Sherburne, Samuel Sitgreaves, Thompson J. Skinner, Jer We have chosen an elective Government, said Mr. A., and if it were meant to be kept pure, they must encourage the people to make choice of such men, without respect to fortune, as they think will serve them best, but if instead of providing a suitable household for the PRESIDENT, they left him to provide for himself in this respect, men of large fortune only could engage in this part of the public service. And would this, he asked, be doing honor to the publican Government? He thought not. The question for striking out was put and negatived-55 to 36. The committee then rose, and when the question was about to be put in the House Mr. GALLATIN said, the provision of the bill left it to the discretion of the PRESIDENT whether he would expend the whole of the money, or not. His opinion was, that the sum was too large; but the question for striking it out hav emiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, Israel NAYS. Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. FEBRUARY, 1797.] Military and Naval Appropriations. [H. OF R. son, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, George Jack-tions before the cominittee: one to fill the blank son, Aaron Kitchell, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, John Milledge, Anthony New, Alexander D. Orr, Robert Rutherford, William Strudwick, and Richard Winn. Military and Naval Appropriations. The House went into a Committee of the Whole on this subject, when, after some discussion respecting the price of rations, Mr. GALLATIN insisting upon seventeen cents being a sufficiently high calculation, and Mr. W. SMITH abiding by the estimate of the War Department at twenty cents; the latter was agreed upon thirty. six to thirty-four, and the pay and subsistence of the Army was settled, but which has since undergone an alteration, owing to the two companies of cavalry being added by a new bill. The sum for forage and clothing was also agreed upon, but which afterwards, of course, from the above alteration, underwent an augmentation. The hospital department being under consideration, Mr. W. SMITH moved to fill the blank with thirty thousand dollars. with four hundred and forty-six thousand dollars, the other with three hundred thousand. He would observe that one of the items in this estimate, viz., that for the fortifications of West Point, ought not to be included under this head; but, as to the other items, he would mention, in answer to what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. VENABLE) what was the reason which had induced the committee to put them in one sum, which was to obtain the very object he had in view in wishing to have all the items stated separately. It would be recollected that they had had a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, in which he said, "that the appropriations for the Military and Naval Establishments were considered as general grants of money; and, though they were to be accounted for according to law, yet it was the practice of the officers of the Treasury not to consider each appropriation as specific, but the whole as a general grant of money. This practice was making the law a mere farce, since the officers of the Treasury did not Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill it with ten thou- consider themselves as at all bound by the spesand. He said, they had this year had a statement cific sums. He therefore concluded it to be proof the expense of the Military Establishment, by per to pass the law in such a manner as to conwhich they found that the hospital department fine the expense to the appropriation for the difhad cost six thousand nine hundred and five dol-ferent items. It was said to be impossible to lars. It had been the uniform practice of the House to appropriate from thirty to forty thousand dollars under this head, though the expense had never exceeded seven thousand; and to apply the surplus to other purposes. He thought it wrong to appropriate four times the sum necessary, and had therefore proposed to fill the blank with ten thousand dollars, which was fifty per cent. more than had ever been expended for the purpose. Mr. PARKER believed than ten thousand dollars would be enough to pay for physic for the Army. Indeed he believed it was generally expended in wine and luxuries by the officers, and that little of it went to the use of the subordinates. The question for ten thousand dollars was put and carried. The blank for the Ordnance Department was filled with forty thousand dollars; and that for the fortifications of the ports and harbors of the United States with twenty-four thousand dollars. Mr. GALLATIN moved to fill the blank for the Quartermaster's Department, the Indian Department, the defensive protection of the frontiers, bounties, and all the contingent expenses of the War Department, with three hundred thousand dollars. Mr. VENABLE said, if the sum necessary for each of the above items could be specified, he would rather have it so expressed than have the whole in one sum. Mr. W. SMITH said it would come to the same thing, if the several items were voted in an aggregate sum, as they were all contingent expenses. He should move to have the blank filled with four hundred and forty-six thousand dollars. Mr. GALLATIN observed there were two mo carry the law into execution on this principle. It was said there were a number of contingent expenses which could not be exactly ascertained, and that therefore it was necessary the officers of the Treasury should have a certain discretion given them to make use of the surplus of any item for which more than was necessary had been appropriated. He believed the uncertainty here mentioned existed, and therefore it had been concluded to be best to put the contingent articles together in one sum, in order to give bounds to the discretion of the Department. Having given the reasons which caused the bill to be brought in in this shape, Mr. G. said he would mention the items upon which the sum he had proposed to fill up the blank was composed. For defensive protection, sixty thousand dollars; for the Quartermaster's Department, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars. This latter sum has been estimated at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but upon what ground he was at a loss to know. The Army would now be fixed in garrison, and would not have to march from post to post. None of the reasons given last year for this expense would now apply; and he thought it unreasonable that the same sum should be allowed for this item which was allowed at the time when they were engaged in an Indian war. In 1789, when we had eight hundred In 1790, he did not recollect the num- In 1791 - $11,076 45,763 92,223 In 1792 (in the height of the Indian war) 206,510 |