they will mould and fashion both the legislation and administration, according to the true import and meaning of that most excellent Constitution which they have framed and adopted by mutual consent, and for mutual benefit, and which they still admire and revere as the only sure palladium of their dearest rights, liberties, and privileges. Mr. CLAIBORNE (of Tennessee) rose to offer a few remarks upon the question under debate, but more particularly to reply to some observations which had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER.) And, notwithstanding the exhausted state of the patience of the committee, since it was his intention to occupy their time but a little while, he hoped to be favored with their kind indulgence and attention. Some weeks ago, early in the investigation of the present subject, he had expressed an opinion favorable to the proposed amendment, and he had heard no reason to authorize a change of that opinion. It was true that the opposition had been violent and uniform; that the most splendid eloquence had been called forth to defeat the amendment; and gentlemen, abandoning a plain system of reasoning which might tend to convince the mind, had vied with each other in exhibiting talents for declamation, and, indulging themselves in the visionary fields of fancy, had brought to the view of the committee a number of imaginary evils, well calculated to alarm timid men, and to communicate uneasiness to the people. Thus we found that, while the gentleman from New York (Mr. WILLIAMS) feared the success of the amendment, lest it might overthrow the Government and destroy the Union, the gentlemen from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) wished its rejection, lest it should be accompanied with all the horrors of anarchy, and throw us completely into the arms of France. Mr. C. begged leave to call the attention of the committee to the amendment itself, and he would ask whether such dangers could be rationally apprehended from its adoption? The simple question was, whether all our foreign Ministers should receive equal salaries with those residing at London, Paris, and Madrid. Is there not strong reason for a discrimination? Have we not been told that the Courts of France, Spain, and England are the most expensive in Europe, and that in Portugal and Prussia Ministers can move with dignity, and live in affluence and ease, on much smaller salaries than those residing among the first mentioned Powers? Has this information been denied, or has an attempt been made to confute it? But, say gentlemen, we have not a Constitutional right to adopt the amendment; that the office of Minister is created at the will of the President, and we are bound to appropriate. To avoid an unnecessary discussion, he would concede this point. But did it follow that a Minister having been created, and his salary fixed, it could not be lessened during his continuance in office? Yet this doctrine was maintained by some members, and the gentleman from South Caroli [MARCH, 1798. na promised to establish its authenticity so clearly that all the arguments of the worthy member from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) should fall to the ground and be of no weight. But, sir, how was this promise complied with? Why, we were told that the Ministers having been appointed, and their salaries fixed, it would be as unconstitutional to lessen them as it would be to diminish the compensation of a federal Judge And shall this assertion alone induce the committee to embrace an opinion that will not stand the test of the smallest inquiry. We all know, said he, that the Constitution prohibits the diminution of a Judge's salary during his continuance in office; but as to the compensation of Ministers, it was silent; hence the inference is fairly deducible that it is left to Congress to fix, heighten, or lessen that compensation at their discretion. But it is unnecessary to dwell longer on this point. The arguments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GALLATIN) appear to me conclusive, and remain unanswered. But we are told, adopt the amendment and our Ministers will retire. This event would give to him no regret-not that he disliked the characters employed-they were all honorable men, and their return to America would be a valuable acquisition. But Mr. C. was opposed to this diplomatic policy; he feared it would draw closer our foreign connexions, and extend our foreign political intercourse, which, in his opinion, foreboded much evil to our common country. France, says the gentleman from South Carolina, commenced her intrigues in America at the organization of the present Government, and he would add, that England began her career about the same period. France, we were told, had acquired a powerful party in America, and that even within the walls of this House she had her votaries, whose zeal for her cause induced them to lose sight of the interest of their own country. If this was the fact it was unknown to him; but he would say, there was some ground to fear that there were men in the United States so much attached to the interest and policy of England as to be willing to entwine the fate of America with the destinies of that tottering and corrupted monarchy. For his part, he disclaimed and despised all foreign influence, and the great wish of his heart was to see it exiled from our country; the ! first step towards it was, to reduce our diplomatie establishment, and, by degrees, to do it away altogether. But, says the gentleman from South Carolina, Ministers are the guardians of our commerce; without them Consuls would be of no use, since they are unknown to the Courts of Europe. I believe, said Mr. C., this statement is not strictly accurate. The foreign Consuls in America, before they acted in their offices, produced their creden tials to our Executive, and were acknowledged. He believed a similar usage prevailed among other nations. The Consul General from France was well known in the United States, and it appears that our Consul General is known to the French Directory, and if my information be true, that gentleman has rendered our commercial interests considerable service. four It had been asked, Where was the necessity of having a Minister at Berlin ? and the member from South Carolina has given us the answer. He tells us "that the present Prussian monarch is young, enterprising, warlike, ambitious, and just grasping the most brilliant sceptre in Europe; that he held the balance of power in his hands; that he held it with a treasury replenished by years of peace, and with three hundred thousand of the finest troops in Europe." All this might be true, and it might further be conceded, that these troops would, the first opportunity, re trieve the disgrace which the sans-culottes of France had brought upon them. But all this proved not the propriety of America's forming a connexion with him. She had nothing to fear, either from his power or ambition, unless she courts his favor. Let this monarch preside at the Congress of Radstadt; let him prove the pacificator of Europe, and put an end to a war which has so much thinned the ranks of mankind; but for myself, I would wish him to lose sight of the interest of America. The friendship of Kings too often proves the bane of Republics. He said he was not well versed in history, but he would ask the learned member from South Carolina if numberless instances did not present themselves to his mind, where the friendship of Kings ultimately proved the ruin of Republics? In tracing the historic page of ancient times, it will be found that some of the little Grecian States, when in imminent danger, had solicited the friendship of Philip, King of Macedon. He gave it; but what was the consequence? He acquired an influence in their councils which enabled him to triumph over liberty and enslave the people, and the last remains of dignity sunk in the Grecian world. But we are told, the Prussian monarch has possessions on the Baltic, and wishes his commerce extended; and shall America make any sacrifices to gratify him in this wish? Have our merchants heretofore had any trade with this Power, and do gentlemen wish to force it? With regard to the commerce of America, he was of opinion, it was oo soon in our history to see it splendid, or to urn our attention solely to its welfare. Agriculture is the leading interest of our counry, and requires our primary care. Agriculture s the favorite pursuit of man; and so long as xtensive and fertile tracts of land remain unocupied in America, so long will her citizens prefer livelihood from the peaceful cultivation of the oil to an uncertain subsistence on the ocean. It is necessity that occasions commerce to unrl her sails. Thus we find, that while the flag 7 England is displayed in every quarter of the obe, the colors of France are seldom seen. The sular situation and contracted limits of the forer, drive her citizens upon the ocean for support, hile the extensive and fertile dominions of the latafford for her inhabitants subsistence at home. The gentleman from South Carolina, although [H. OF R. he acquits the friends of the amendment of the motive, declares that their doctrine would overthrow the Government and introduce tyranny. What is this dangerous doctrine, so much dreaded, so pregnant with evil? It is only this: we claim a share in the care of the public purse; we see an impropriety in giving to all our foreign Ministers equal salaries, and some members are of opinion, of which number I am one, that an extensive foreign political intercourse is inimical to the interests of America. And can such doctrine lead to the destruction of the Government, supported as it is by the strongest bulwark-the hearts of the people? It is impossible! A doctrine, too, which flows from the Constitution, and confides to the Representatives of the people a power to limit the disbursement at the Treasury Department; a power that is safely committed, since, from the great responsibility attached to the Representatives, no abuse can be apprehended. This doctrine never could endanger the Government. The committee were told by the worthy member from South Carolina, that political, like religious fanaticism, is equally destructive to the happiness of the people, and he cautioned gentlemen against the adoption of the present amendment. And had that the appearance of fanaticism? Certainly not. Why, then, were such observations heard? Are they made to alarm the citizens, and to excite their suspicions against the gentlemen who support the amendment? France, says the gentleman, affords an awful example of the danger of fanaticism. There, a monarchy that had lasted for fourteen centuries, was hauled to pieces in a moment, and the nobles and the priests perished in its ruins; and, in pathetic terms, he exclaims, "The brilliant throne of Louis was not far distant from the place where he bled, and the splendid administration of Neckar was soon followed by the reign of Marat." How could these observations apply to the present question? But having been made, his respect for the gentleman led him to notice them. And does my friend really lament the downfall of a monarchy that held a brave people in servitude and chains for fourteen centuries; where not only human rights, but human life, were sacrificed at the pleasure of the monarch? And does he lament the ruin of a splendid administration, which enabled the Court, the nobles, and the favorite few, to revel in luxury on the hard earnings of the yeomanry of the country; which filched from the industrious citizen one-half the produce of his labor? If such be his disposition, and such his sentiments, all that I can say is, Í envy not his feelings, and thank Heaven my partiality for the human family is too great not to rejoice at the liberation of thirty millions of people from so galling a yoke of bondage. Fanaticism, says the member, once reigned in America; but he felicitated himself and his country that its reign was over. If the gentleman alluded to the spirit of 1776, Mr. C. believed he was mistaken; that spirit still existed, and if a time should come when liberty was in danger, it would burst forth in all its glory. H. OF R.] Foreign Intercourse. [MARCH. 1798. tract appropriations; they say there is always a tendency in the popular branch of the Government to encroach on the Executive. To prove the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State bound thereby. Here a law may be made independent of this branch of the Legislature, except as to the first act, that of appropria-which they go into Europe; England and France tion to enable the President to form a treaty, are particularly mentioned. He thought there which the Constitution gives this House a dis- was no necessity; nor was it policy to quote excretion in; and having made the appropriation, amples from those countries, to know how to adit had exercised all the power given by the Con- minister our own Government. As to England. stitution, unless a treaty should be made to carry he said, the people have no power or liberty but on or declare war, which expressly belongs to what has been dealt out to them by mere acts of this House. But all these were extreme cases, sovereign grace and prerogative mercy, but their and ought not to be supposed, because it was im- Government is different. As to France, it is and possible to give power that might not be abused. has been for ten years in a state of revolution. He said, after a treaty was ratified, he then He said the sources of power, and the means of thought the obligations of that House to appro- obtaining it in this country and England, were priate might be assimilated to that for a Judge. quite different. Here it was in the people; there To show more clearly that that House was mo- in the Crown. Here power was freely given to rally bound to appropriate for a treaty Constitu- the Executive by the people; there it was taken tionally made, he would state a case. Suppose a from them by usurpation, which keeps up a contreaty made, which required no money to carry stant jealousy between the governing and the it into effect, or did not require any for several governed; the one constantly on its guard, under years; how was that House to check its opera-a conviction of being in possession of what it has tion, or prevent the Judges from being bound by no right to; whilst the other is taking all advanit, as by the Constitution they are? Or will gen-tages to regain what was forced from it. In this tlemen say, this House can only check such as require money, and not those which require none; and that after a treaty has been in operation for several years, this House can stop it? This certainly would be the effect of such a construction of the Constitution. country no such jealousy exists, because all power is with the people, except what they have freely given up. He said, this principle would hold good in private life; for if the property or liberty of an individual was forced from him, he would never be contented at seeing another, or the one ment must be, in its turn, both master and servant, governing and being governed by turns." He said, although he had no great partiality for the politics contained in that author, yet he read it in order to show that even those who contended for a much stronger Executive than ours did not deny that each branch was to be a check on the other. But it is said, for this House to refuse to appro-who had taken it from him, enjoy it, but would priate for Ministers, when appointed, would be be constantly striving to get it back. These reto check the other departments of Government. marks he meant to apply, as well to those who It might as well be said the other departments seemed to fear Executive power, as to those who have no right to check this. Such a construction feared the powers of that House. The member goes to do away the intended checks of the de- from New Jersey, (Mr. IMLAY,) as well as some partments of Government on each other, and others, had said this branch of the Government tends to destroy all confidence and render them ought not to check the Executive. Mr. W. said, independent in all their acts. He said our Gov- that this was not a correct opinion; to prove ernment ought not to be construed as though one which he read a clause from Mr. Adams's dedepartment was intended to destroy the other, fence of the American Constitution, which says, but to aid and check it. The member from Dela-"That each of the three branches of the Govern ware, (Mr. BAYARD,) in advocating the principle of the Executive's selecting men of certain politics to office, had talked of administering the Government by conscience; he believed such would be a new-fangled Administration; he thought the Constitution ought to be the conscience of every administrator of the Government. Mr. W. said, the bill, without the proposed amendment, was the same in principle as that first passed in the year 1790, and continued ever since; though there had been an increase of money granted, the principle was the same; where Ministers should be sent, and their grade was left to the Executive, the check which that House reserved to itself was as to the quantum of appropriation, which he thought would ever prove a sufficient one against abuse, for the Executive could make use of no more money than was given him. He said, this was one of the things which might be done either by this House, or given to the President, as was most expedient. It had been heretofore left to him, and he saw no reason for a change at this time. But some gentlemen seem very unwilling to allow that this House has the power to con Mr. W. said, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) charged all those who advocate the powers of the House as being ignorant of the effects of the measures they advocate, and compares their speeches to those of Fox and Sheridan in the English Parliament. The gen tleman ought to recollect that with as much propriety might his be compared to those of Pitt & Co. And is that an Administration which he would wish to take place in this country?—a sys tem which had kept the nation one-half of its time involved in war-which had drenched the world with blood; a system which had involved the nation in a debt which all the world could scarcely pay, and which had reduced one-half of the people to a state of poverty and want, whilst it raised the other to a state of luxury and dissipation. INDEX TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE FIFTH CONGRESS. 29 30 31 Accounts between the United States and the indi- committed 32 reported rejected ordered to the third reading amended and passed 44 Adjournment, motion for appointing a committee committee of conference appointed resolution for adjourning on the 9th July, re- consideration postponed altered to 16th July, and concurred in message of the President requesting a post- Adjournment, a resolution from the House for ad- disagreed to a resolution for adjourning on the 10th July the adjournment of the session Algiers, a message on the subject of building and Answer to the President's Speech reported reply of the President thereto Appropriations, a bill making additional appropri- ations for the year seventeen hundred and amended and ordered to the third reading the amendment concurred in Arms and ammunition, a bill to prohibit, for a lim- passed amended by the House amendment agreed to 25 29 38 ceived ponement of the adjournment committed 574 574 576 587 589, 598, 604 605 611 616 Army, bill to enable the President to raise a pro- visional army, reported third reading of the bill negatived (See also Military Establishment.) Artillerists and engineers, a bill for raising an ad- non-concurred in - SECOND SESSION. 548 549 554 considered - 556, 564, 565, 567,689 - Absent Senators, the Secretary directed to request, further consideration postponed to next session |