Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

ther this subject did not properly come under the duty of the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. FOSTER believed it might, and would therefore alter his motion to, "Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire whether any." &c.

Mr. MACON had no objection to the motion, except that he thought it unnecessary, as he believed it was the duty of the Committee of Ways and Means to act upon the subject, without any special direction.

Mr. FOSTER said it was desirable that something should be done in the business immediately, as notice must be given in all the papers of any alteration which may be made in the act. The motion was put and carried.

PENSIONERS.

Mr. D. FOSTER said, that a bill passed that House in the session ending in March last, but was postponed by the Senate, for placing certain persons on the pension list. He moved that that bill, with the reports on the subject, be referred to the Committee of Claims.

The SPEAKER said the reports might be referred, but the House knew nothing of such a bill being acted upon at a former session.

Mr. FOSTER moved that the reports of the Secretary of War on the subject might be referred. Agreed to.

IMPEACHMENT OF WILLIAM BLOUNT. The Clerk now proceeded to read the remainder of the documents referred to in the report of the committee on the subject of W. Blount's conspiracy.

The next paper which came of course was the depositon of James Grant, commonly called Major Grant. His evidence consisted principally of conversation which had passed between him and W. Blount. He stated that he met with him in Washington county, Virginia, on the 28th April; that they spoke on the subject of running the line between the United States and the Indians, and he seemed to wish to avoid any responsibility with respect to the Indian treaty; that W. Blount mentioned his pecuniary embarrassments, but that he said he had a plan on foot which he expected would effectually relieve him. He said Chisholm and the Indian chiefs had been with the British Minister at Philadelphia, and that Chisholm had a plan in the handwriting of the British Minister, which, if it succeeded, W. Blount said he should have it in his power to serve all his friends; that he seemed to place great reliance upon Rogers and Carey, and upon their influence with the Indians. He mentioned that an armament was to be sent from England, which was to be co-operated with on the land side by him at the head of the Indians.

The deponent also speaks of having received letters from Colonel King, about the 15th of June, from W. Blount for Carey, which he delivered, and mentions the conversation which passed be

tween them.

Mr. SITGREAVES took the chair of the Clerk and

[H. of R.

said, the document was a paper communicated to the committee by the Chevalier de Yrujo, in French. The committee had not, he said, any formal translation of it, but he would read it in English as perfectly as he was able-which he proceeded to do. It was the communication of a citizen, (Mitchell,) who states that there had been enrolled by an English agent in the Western country, 1,000 persons, for the purpose of attacking certain Spanish posts, and to go against Louisiana and the Floridas; that Chisholm had a list of 1,500 Tories who were engaged to take up arms in favor of England; that there were formed on the Lakes 500 regular troops, 700 Canadian militia, and 200 savages, to attack Fort Louis; that Chisholm had provided six pieces of cannon, the same which was procured for citizen Genet; that the rendezvous was to be at Knoxville the 1st of July; and that, after Chisholm had reported the business to the British Minister, he would set out for England, to lay the project before the British Government, and command money and vessels for carrying it into effect. The Chevalier also gave to the committee a letter which Mitchell had received from Chisholm. It was a request that Mitchell and Craig would be in Tennessee in July; with an assurance that they might rely upon everything which he had said.

The next papers were the evidence of John Phillips Ripley and Thomas Odiorne, who were brought forward by the Chevalier de Yrujo.

J. P. Ripley states that he is a citizen of New Hampshire; that he was educated with Captain Eaton at Yale College; that Captain Eaton had told him that several letters were found in the possession of Dr. Romayne, which proved the British Minister to be concerned in the enterprise contemplated by Governor Blount; that these letters offered rewards to any person who would engage in the service, and that they were discovered under some rubbish; that many of Dr. Romayne's papers were destroyed; that Captain Eaton had told him that Colonel Pickering had reprimanded him for having mentioned anything respecting these letters, and had said that Great Britain was now the only friend we had; that he saw a letter which Captain Eaton had written to Colenel Pickering on the subject. On examination by the committee, Ripley asserted that he believed that Great Britain was at the bottom of the conspiracy.

Thomas Odiorne deposed, that he was also at college with Captain Eaton, and that Captain Eaton had told him nearly the same circumstances which J. P. Ripley deposes to have heard from him. He also says, he saw the letter which the captain had written to Colonel Pickering, as an apology for having mentioned anything respecting the letters found in possession of Dr. Romayne.

Next follows the evidence of William Eaton, taken at Springfield, before Judge Lyman. He states that Philip Ripley was his cotemporary at college and that he had since been acquainted with him at Philadelphia; but that he does not know much about Odiorne. Some time after his return from New York, he recollects to have told Ripley that four or five original letters of William

[blocks in formation]

Blount were found in Dr. Romayne's possession, at the discovery of one of which he felt a good deal embarrassed. The deponent also told the said Ripley that Mr. Pickering was displeased with him for having mentioned anything about these letters, until the matter was laid before the committee; but the deponent denies that he ever told Ripley, or that Mr. Pickering ever said to him, "that Great Britain was now the only friend we had." The deponent believes he might have given it as his opinion, that the British Minister would have encouraged the plan if it had been feasible; that he had delivered every article respecting the conspiracy of Mr. Blount, which had come into his hands, to the committee of inquiry. Captain Eaton also spoke of a French engineer having been into all the seaports of the United States, in order to make plans of, and observations respecting them.

The next paper was a communication from the Chevalier de Yrujo, consisting of an original letter from General Clark, of Georgia, to Murphy, Esq., Consul of His Catholic Majesty there, in answer to an application made to him on the subject of the conspiracy, in which he states, "that the peculiar nature of the proposition made to him by the British, prevents him from giving that satisfaction which is required; an application, he says, had been made to him through a channel which bound him to silence; he was asked whether $10,000 would induce him to join the British, but that he had rejected the offer with disdain."

Mr. SITGREAVES said, that all the documents which were of any importance, had now been read; what remained were not worth occupying the time of the House to read them. If it were wished, however, they might be gone through.

The SPEAKER said, that would be determined on a motion being made for printing.

Mr. OTIS moved that the report and documents be printed.

Mr. DAWSON said, there were two depositions of James Carey, one before the district judge, and another before the committee; as one only had been read, and they did not wholly agree, he trusted that both would be printed.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, certainly, all the papers will be printed.

Mr. DAWSON observed, that Mr. Byers had given evidence, which, though not on oath, he thought entitled to credit, and ought to be printed, as it corroborated the evidence of Carey.

Mr. SITGREAVES said, it had been usual, upon extraordinary and important occasions, to order printed more copies of papers than the usual number; he thought this one of those occasions, and moved that six hundred copies might be printed, as he supposed the additional expense would be inconsiderable.

The motion was agreed to, and the report and documents were ordered to lie on the table.

DEFERRED DEBT.

Mr. NICHOLAS said, it appeared to him that when an important object was to be accomplish

[DECEMBER, 1797.

ed, and such as the House could form an opinion upon, it was proper to express their sense upon the subject to the committee appointed to consider it, lest they might act, from their own opinion, upon a contrary basis, and afterwards have what they had done reversed by the House. He thought this course necessary with regard to the Deferred Debt. He wished the attention of the House to be now turned to this object, as it would be recollected that this session would probably be the only opportunity they would have of a fair and full discussion of it, as the next session will necessarily be a short one, and the following one will be too near the period at which resources will be wanted, to have the desired effect. This was, therefore, the time for making the proper provision, which was absolutely necessary, except they were to encroach upon funds destined for other objects. He, therefore, proposed to the House a resolution to the following effect.

"Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to prepare and report a plan for raising a sum which shall be equal to satisfy the demands which will be made upon the Government in the year 1801, on account of the Deferred Debt."

The SPEAKER was of opinion that it was necessary, if not to move, at least to have the proposed resolution discussed in Committee of the Whole. [He read the rule.]

Mr. NICHOLAS thought the rule had reference to a specific tax. He could refer to a precedent, where the course recommended by the SPEAKER was not taken. It was the resolution requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and report a plan for laying a direct tax.

The SPEAKER was doubtful whether the resolutions proposing to instruct the Committee of Ways and Means took it out of the rule.

Mr. Corr hoped the resolution would lie upon the table till to-morrow; which was agreed to.

HENRY HILL.

Mr. HARPER called for the order of the day on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Henry Hill, which was agreed to, and the House accordingly went into a Committee of the Whole on the subject, Mr. DENT in the Chair.

This subject has been frequently before the House, in different shapes, and has occupied much of its time. The petitioner, Henry Hill, is the administrator of Mr. Miller, the administrator of Mr. Banks, whose name has been often before the House, particularly in the settlement of the claim of the widow of General Greene. It appears. from an investigation of facts. that the United States, in their account with John Banks, have a double credit for the same sum of $9,768, it being credited to them in the quartermaster's department, and also reserved out of the balance due to John Banks, on his contract account; and, it being an established rule at the Treasury, not to open accounts for a new settlement, which have once been adjusted by the proper officers, the Treasury Department have refused to resettle this account. Mr. Hill prays for this balance. The Committee of Claims are of opinion, that it would

[blocks in formation]

be improper for them to determine who are the actual or equitable representatives of John Banks, so far as respects this balance; the right of the claimants, in case of controversy, may receive a judicial determination. It is sufficient that the balance be placed to the credit of the person to whom it belonged on the 31st of December, 1783, when the sum was retained out of Banks's payment. That committee, therefore, submit the following resolution to the consideration of the House:

"Resolved, That the accounting officers of the Treasury cause the sum of $9,768 81, charged to the contract account of John Banks, on the 31st of December, 1783, to be credited to the said John Banks; and that the sum so credited, to be charged to the account

of such other person as, in their opinion, shall be justly chargeable therewith."

Mr. HARPER, Mr. D. FOSTER, and Mr. FINDLEY, urged an agreement to this resolution.

Mr. Corr proposed to amend it, by adding a clause to the following effect:

"And that they charge the account of the said John Banks with the money paid by the United States to the executors of General Greene, on account of debts of the said John Banks, or John Banks & Co., bailed or secured by said General Greene."

After considerable discussion, Mr. Oris moved that the committee rise, in order to have the subject recommitted, that further facts may be stated. This motion produced also considerable debate. At length the committee rose, and being refused to sit again, a motion was made to recommit the report to the Committee of Claims; when Mr. O. moved an instruction to the committee to the following effect:

"To report a statement of facts relative to the demand which the United States may have upon the balance in question, on account of indemnifying the estate of General Greene, as surety for the said Banks." This instruction to the committee, after some debate, was agreed to.

WEDNESDAY, December 6.

Mr. DENT presented a memorial from sundry inhabitants of St. Mary's county, in the State of Maryland, stating, that by the late regulations made in the establishment of the post-roads, they were deprived of the opportunity of receiving newspapers as usual; which, as they have a direct tendency to promote an increase of knowledge, they consider as being deprived of a blessing, and pray for an extension of the road, that the evil they complain of may be remedied. Referred to a select committee.

Mr. D. FOSTER said, he was instructed by the Committee of Claims, to ask leave of the House to be discharged from the further consideration of the petition of Mr. Maury, Consul of the United States at Liverpool, in order that it might be referred to the committee appointed to take into consideration that part of the President's Speech which related to the Consuls of the United States. Agreed to, and the petition referred in the way proposed.

[H. of R.

CONTINENTAL SECURITIES.

Mr. REED presented the petition of Simeon Dunbar, stating that he possesses Continental securities; that he never heard of the act of limitation before the limit was expired, and prays that they may, notwithstanding, be funded.

A motion to refer this petition to the Committee of Claims occasioned some debate upon the propriety of reference of a petition, which acknowledged the claim to be barred by law. It was, however, at length agreed to; when

Mr. WILLIAMS said, he believed there were many just claims undischarged, owing entirely to the ignorance of the persons holding the securities with respect to the law of limitation; for persons probably the best entitled to compensation, had no living on the frontier of the country who were means of becoming acquainted with the laws. He, therefore, proposed the following resolution:

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency or inexpediency of designating certain claims to be excepted from the operation of the act of limitation, and that they report by bill or otherwise."

had been made in the last Winter session, and the Mr. D. FOSTER said, that a motion of this kind Committee of Claims, on the 24th of February, had made a lengthy report thereupon, which, for want of time, had not been acted upon, and which was mentioned in the report of unfinished business. He supposed, if the gentleman moved this report to be committed to a Committee of the Whole, his object would be attained.

After a number of desultory observations, this motion was put and carried, and made the order of the day for Fridav.

EVIDENCE IN CONTESTED ELECTIONS.

Mr. HARPER then called for the order of the

day on certain resolutions which he had offered to the consideration of the House on the subject of taking evidence in cases of contested elections.

The motion was agreed to, and the House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on that subject-Mr. DENT in the Chair. The resolutions were as follow:

66

Resolved, That the method of taking evidence to be adduced, in the trial of contested elections, for this House, shall, hereafter be as follows:

"1. The party intending to contest an election shall give notice of such intention to the person returned. If it be an election in the usual course, this notice shall be given at least weeks before the time when the said person is to take his seat; if not in the usual course, but to fill a vacancy, then the notice shall be days after the person appointed to given within hold the election shall have made known publicly the state of the poll. The notice shall be delivered in and if he be absent, shall be left there open. writing, at the usual residence of the person returned;

"2. That the party intending to take examinations, shall then apply to some justice or judge of the Courts of the United States, or some chancellor, justice or judge of a supreme, superior, or county court, or court of common pleas, of any State, or some mayor or chief magistrate of a town or city, and shall obtain

H. OF R.]

Eridence in Contested Elections.

a notification, under his hand and seal, directed to the opposite party, and requiring him to attend by himself, or his attorney duly authorized, and cross-examine the witnesses. This notification shall state the time and place of examination, and the names of the witnesses; and it shall be served on the opposite party, or his attorney duly authorized, as either may be nearest to such places; provided either is within one hundred miles of it. For attendance, after receiving the notification, one day exclusive of Sundays, shall be allowed for every twenty miles.

3dly. In all cases where either party shall give notice to the other of his having appointed an attorney for the purpose aforesaid, it shall be necessary to serve the above-mentioned notification on the attorney.

"4thly. Every person deposing, shall make oath or affirmation to testify the whole truth, and shall subscribe the testimony by him or her given; which shall be reduced to writing only by the magistrate taking the deposition, or by the deponent, in his presence. The deposition, so taken, together with a certificate of the notices, and proof of the services of them, shall be sealed up by the magistrate who took it, and transmitted to the Speaker of the House.

"Resolved, That the examination of witnesses taken in this manner and no other, shall hereafter be admit

ted on trial of contested elections.

"Resolved, That copies of any papers recorded in any office of records, provided those copies be attested under the hand and seal of the recording officer, shall be admitted at all such trials, in the same manner as the originals would be, if produced. In like manner copies of any other papers of a public nature, and remaining in the possession of a public officer, shall be admitted

66

when attested under the hand and seal of that officer. Resolved, That copies of these resolutions shall be forwarded forthwith to the Executive of every State, with a request that they will cause the managers of every election in their respective States, to be furnished with at least one copy."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. HOSMER moved to amend the first resolution by adding, after the word "election," in the eighth line, or to canvass the votes." Agreed to. Mr. SITGREAVES did not understand the object which the mover of these resolutions had in view. He knew not whether he meant to confine the operation of his rule to the present House of Representatives only, or to all future Houses. From the language of the first resolution he judged the latter was his intention. As it was his opinion, therefore, that any attempt of theirs to bind future Houses would be perfectly nugatory, he should move to strike out the words from, "If it be," to "given," (in the first clause.) This resolution will then confine the operation of the rule to the elections which may take place during the fifth Congress. By the Constitution every House was to judge of the elections and returns of its own members. It was not in the power of any House to prescribe rules for a succeeding one, for this reason the rules which governed a preceding House were always revised by the succeeding one. If they were to prescribe rules which were to be binding on future Houses, it could only be done by an act of the whole Legislature, which would certainly be exceptionable, as it would give to the President and Senate a power over the rules for governing their proceedings, which, by the

[DECEMBER, 1797.

Constitution, they were alone the judges of. He thought his ideas on this subject correct; if they were, he doubted not the motion which he had made would be agreed to.

Mr. HARPER said, if the idea of the gentleman last up was correct, his motion would doubtless be acceded to, though he did not go far enough, because, in that case he should have moved to have struck out the whole clause; because, if the rules proposed were not to have a permanent effect, they would be perfectly nugatory. But he apprehended his friend had not attended to a distinction which he thought a plain one. It was this: the power to establish rules for the taking of evidence, and that of judging of the evidence after it was taken. This House could not say it would admit members under such and such disqualifications, but an agreement to the mode of taking evidence was very different from the qualifications themselves. It was essentially necessary that Legislative and Judicial powers should be kept distinct, yet it was not thought an interference with the Judicial authority for the Legislature to direct the mode of taking evidence in certain cases. Nothing could be more clear than this dis tinction. It could not be said, therefore, that because the whole Legislature directed the mode of taking evidence in cases of contested election, that the President and Senate interfered with the Constiuttional direction that every House should be the judge of its own rules. He was of opinion that a law was necessary, and a law of a perma

nent nature, to which he could see no reasonable objection. He allowed that it would be unconstitutional for the President or Senate to interfere with their rules or elections, but when they came to make a law which was to operate upon the whole community, their interference was neces sary and proper. If these ideas were sound, and he thought they were, the proposed amendment would be rejected.

Mr. N. SMITH said the motion now before them was founded upon an idea that permanent rules could not be made for taking evidence in cases of contested elections. He had frequently heard it said that rules could not be made to be binding any longer than whilst the House existed which formed them. For himself he never conceived this opinion to be correct. That it was highly important that permanent regulations should be made on the subject in question, every one must admit. It became of importance, therefore, to know whether it had the power of making them. When he spoke of permanent rules he would not be understood to mean that any rules should be longer permanent than until the time came when the House of Representatives should wish to rescind them.

The idea which led to the conclusion of the gen tleman from Pennsylvania was this: that every new Congress occasioned a new House of Repre sentatives; that whenever the members were newly elected there was a new House of Repre sentatives. He did not believe this doctrine to be correct. The House of Representatives, in his opinion, always existed; and there was no period

[blocks in formation]

at which it could be said there was not a House of Representatives in being. He never believed it was broken in pieces once in two years; for when the time of one set of members expired, that of another set commenced; so that it was the nature of a corporation, which always existed. He did not think there had been four Houses of Representatives since the commencement of the present Government, but that the whole had been one uninterrupted House. He thought this was the view which the Constitution gave of the subject, as it spoke of it always as a permanent body. In the same way the President and Senate were permanent. If this were not the case, and every election made a new House, there was a time when the Senate was only two-thirds of a Senate (when one-third went out of office.) This idea, therefore, could not be right. There was no difficulty, therefore, in forming permanent rules, since they were made to govern the House and not the individual members. With respect to those things which each branch of Government had the power of doing for itself, each could establish its own rules; but what related to the whole Government must be the act of the whole. The gentleman from Pennsylvania had said that each House had the power of judging of its own elections. This, he apprehended, did not refer to different Houses of Representatives, but to the House of Representatives and the Senate, as each House was always considered by the Constitution as a permanent body. He was, therefore, opposed to the amendment.

Mr. NICHOLAS believed this was a subject in which they should never advance far enough to come to a decision. Very long and very plausible arguments might be adduced on both sides of the question, which would produce different effects on those who heard them; but, he thought the question before them might be acted upon, without coming to a question on that point. He supposed, if any case of contested election came before the House, and the evidence was taken in such a way as to ascertain the truth, they should be at liberty to proceed to the examination of the case; and, therefore, all that was wanting, was to call in the power of the General Legislature to authorize the attendance of witnesses to deliver their testimony. Let that testimony be taken upon established and acknowledged rules, which satisfy every man's mind, and it will carry conviction with it, that it proper. The necessity of adopting some mode of this kind was evident, as it was a great grievance that persons disputing elections had to come there to learn the mode of doing it, before they could proceed to take evidence. Indeed, it was putting the power of sending members to that House in the hands of returning officers. He had no doubt that the Constitution gave them power to make a law on the subject; if necessary the necessity of the case would show the reasonableness of it; but he did not know that a law was requisite; he thought a rule of the House to the effect he had mentioned, would cure the evil complained of.

Mr. SEWALL believed, that the great difficulty

[H. of R.

on the subject. arose from in the form which it presented itself, which had introduced the question, whether that House was a perpetual body, or not. He must confess that he differed in opinion altogether from the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. N. SMITH,) that this House was a perpetual body. He thought the Constitution had shown, that though there was always a House of Representatives, yet, that every House had only two years duration; but, he believed, in determining the real object of this motion, there was no necessity for coming to a decision on this point. Mr. S. objected to the first resolution, on account of the notice required to be given, which, in some cases, would prevent an undue election from being disputed, because the subject was not taken up agreeably to the direction of this rule, as to time; so that, whether the proposed regulation was to be effected by a rule or a law, he thought the first resolution ought to be rejected. With respect to the other parts of the resolutions, some regulations were certainly necessary, both as to elections, and as to all other matters of controversy which may come before the House; because, if some mode were adopted for taking evidence, facts might be brought before the House, which could never otherwise come. As it respected elections, they knew it had happened in one instance and might happen in many, that a person had held a seat in that House for a whole session, who was not entitled to it. He saw no difficulty in passsing an act prescribing the mode of taking affidavits to be laid before the two Houses of Congress. He should venture to move that the committee rise, with the intention of discharging it from a further consideration of the subject, and to propose that a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency or inexpediency of prescribing a mode for taking evidence generally, for the purpose of laying before Congress.

Mr. HARPER said, if the gentleman who had just sat down had no other reason than that which he had assigned for making his motion, he thought, on consideration, he would not himself think it necessary. His whole objection to the resolutions seemed to be, to the notice required to be given. Here was no intention, he said, of precluding evidence after the time specified. The sole object was, that testimony taken in this way, and no other, should be admitted. Persons wishing to have the time extended, might still take the evidence in this way. If there were a doubt on the subject, an additional clause might be introduced to this effect. Whether the mode he had proposed was the best which could be adopted, he could not say. If gentlemen knew a better, he wished them to propose it, and let it be considered; but, surely, because gentlemen think some better mode may be devised, this was not a sufficient reason for discharging the Committee of the Whole from a further consideration of the subject.

Mr. GORDON was in favor of the committee's rising, because he did not think the resolution would have any effect, if carried. He was of opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania,

« PreviousContinue »