tions or wants urged them to it, would violate the peace, and destroy the frontier inhabitants. [JANUARY, 1797. He said, he had not been a little surprised that the gentlemen from New York and Pennsylvania, [Mr. WILLIAMS and Mr. GALLATIN,] who lived on the frontiers, and were consequently subject to the incursions of the Indians, should have advo-ject. Indeed, a day did not pass but they heard cated the reduction of the present establishment. The gentleman from New York had said he lived within thirty miles of them, but that he depended upon the yeomanry for support, and was not afraid. There was magnanimity in this declaration; but suppose these Indians were to come out upon him with hostile intentions, he perhaps might call for assistance when it was too late, and when the defenceless inhabitants of the frontier had met destruction. Mr. P. said, he could not help being surprised at the reason given for the proposed reduction of the present number of infantry, viz: to retrench the public expenses. He should be glad to meet gentlemen on the ground of a retrenchment of the public expenses; he loved economy, but he hated that little, contracted economy, which saved pence at the expense of pounds. He hoped they should not be afraid of doing their duty, because there was a degree of unpopularity attached to all taxes; but if they would fix a permanent source of revenue, they must not go to cents and half-cents on sugar or five-penny bits on salt, but to a land tax. the only object upon which they could look with certainty for supplies. He should not, however, do as the gentleman from Pennsylvania and one of his colleagues [Mr. GALLATIN and Mr. NICHOLAS] had done, because there was a reluctance in the House to vote for revenue, decline from voting for the present establishment. He would do what he conceived to be his duty, and let others do what they pleased. He would therefore vote for the present establishment, trusting that no gentleman, convinced of the necessity of the Military Establishment, and that further revenue was necessary to support that and the other expenses of Government, would withhold his assent to some effectual system for raising it; and that if it were found indirect taxes would not answer the purpose, direct taxes would be resorted to. Take what mode of taxation they might, difficulties would present themselves. These were unavoidable; but because difficulties occurred, he trusted they would not shrink from the business; to do that would be to show an imbecility of conduct which he trusted that House would never show. Our constituents, said he, know as well as we do that Government is necessary, or we should not be here; they know expense must be incurred; that that expense must be raised by taxes, and be collected from themselves. Shall we, then, exclaimed he, be afraid to meet them, from having done our duty? All we shall have to do, added he, will be to show the justice of the demand, and he ventured to say their constituents would have patriotism enough cheerfully to pay it. It was a fact he acknowledged it was a melancholy one-that there was necessity, from the present uncertain state of our commerce, of fixing upon some permanent revenue, which should be equal to the purposes of peace or of war. It was proper to guard against all possible circumstances, since we could not always expect to be free from the calamities to which all other nations are subfrom the newspapers of depredations being committed upon our commerce, not only by the British, but by the French and Spaniards; and it was not to be supposed that our merchants would continue their commerce, notwithstanding their mad thirst of gain, under such risks. It was necessary, therefore, to find a substitute for at least a part of the revenue which had heretofore been drawn from that source, or they should not be able even to pay the four regiments of infantry they were then about to agree to keep up. He should, however, consent to do this, and trust in the House to provide revenue when that subject should come before them. Mr. THATCHER did not see what the present question had to do with revenue. The question was not how many troops the United States could support in time of war, but how many were necessary in the present state of things. As far as this subject was connected with fighting, he knew but little about it, nor did he ever wish to know more than he did. But it was a singular circumstace, he said, that ever since 1791 till the late peace, there had been war on a frontier of five hundred miles extent, during which time the English had had possession of the posts on that frontier, and this war had been supported, and the Indians brought to a peace, by nearly the same number of troops which were now in pay. The reduction since that time had been very small. It was now a time of peace, not even the least suggestion had been offered that any rupture with the Indians was likely to take place, yet gentlemen seemed unwilling to reduce the establishment. During the war, the English had possession of forts within our territory, which they had now given up, and we had taken possession of them, and it could not be considered other than extraordinary that we should have occasion for nearly the same troops now as during that war. Some of the posts which we had obtained being garrisoned, would do away the necessity of garrisoning others. He therefore supposed there would not be occasion to have troops in all the posts which had been mentioned. But gentlemen had hinted there was danger of war from another quarter. But if they supposed France or England intended to wage hostilities against us, it was idle to talk of one regiment of infantry; they should have twenty regiments. This was, therefore, not the ground of the present question. All that was necessary to be considered was, what number of troops was necessary to garrison the frontier posts? believing, as he did, that three regiments would be sufficient, he should vote for the amendment. Mr. S. SMITH said, if it were really a fact that as many men were in pay now as were in service during the Indian war, he would agree with the JANUARY, 1797.] Military Establishment. [H. or R. and to discharge a part of the Public Debt, they shrink from the task. gentleman from Massachusetts that the number was too large. [Mr. THATCHER denied having said the number was equal, but that there had been Where, said Mr. H., is this regiment to be placed? little reduction.] Mr. SMITH said, the number of It was not to be in garrison, and he did not know men then in the service was 5,000, but at present where else it could be to any purpose; so that they the number contemplated was 3,000. The regu-were about to fix a taxation to grind their constilations made last year contemplated the taking in tuents for no purpose. Who were the best judges all those who were in service on the first of July of the wants of the frontiers? Those who lived last; and gentlemen would recollect that the artil- on them, surely; and they had said there was no lery had been raised in consequence of an appre- necessity for so large a body of men. To keep hension of war with Great Britain, and were meant them, would, therefore, be a lavish use of public for the service of the sea-coast; there were, there- money; but if the money, instead of being so apfore, only two thousand for the service of the plied, were appropriated towards the reduction of frontier. the Public Debt, every citizen in the Union would be satisfied. This consideration, and the gentleman's own showing, induced him to vote for the proposed reduction. Mr. HOLLAND said, if the committee had stated to them the number of posts, and the men necessary to be placed in them, they might have formed a judgment whether the four regiments would be wanted or not; but without that information, they were under the necessity of acting in the dark. The gentleman from Maryland asked if the United States were not able to keep up the troops in question? One thing he knew: that the United States had been able to keep up their expenses, equal to all the revenue which could be collected. But that gentleman seemed to be much affected with the situation of the officers, who would be thrown out of service, if the amendment should prevail. He did not know that they were under any tie to keep them longer than wanted, and he doubted not that officers would always be found when wanted. The compensation, he believed, was fully equal to the service, and that it was a matter of favor to obtain such situations. The gentleman had said some of the posts would be unnecessary, but had not said which. He had been told that a cordon of posts had been so formed as to prevent supplies being conveyed to the Indians-from which cordon the inner posts were excluded. In doing this, they had contemplated the security of the trade to be carried on by the United States on the frontier. If the United States were not able to keep up 1,500 men, they were in a bad situation, indeed. That such an opinion should be entertained in that House, their constituents would not believe, nor did he believe they would thank them for such economy: it was no economy. The last year they had declared what the establishment should be, and now they were proposing to undo what they had then done; by which means they should throw a number of deserving men upon the world, without perhaps the means of subsistence. Was this the way, he asked, in which meritorious soldiers were served in other countries? No; they had half-pay given them, and this, he said, ought to be the case everywhere, and not that, after fighting our battles, and perhaps receiving wounds in the service which incapaci- A gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. SITtated them from labor, they should be thrown upon GREAVES] had said, the military gentlemen were the country, desolate. Mr. S. hoped that they all in favor of retaining the four regiments. He should show that there was some degree of fixed-was at a loss to know how that gentleman came ness in their conduct. The business was well at his knowledge on that subject. It was his opinsettled last session. They had only four small regi-ion, the Army system was a bad one, and that it ments to support, and he trusted they should support them, as he believed them necessary. Mr. HARRISON said, that if the Chairman of the committee had informed them of the number of posts to be occupied, and the men required for garrisoning them, and had shown that the whole four regiments were wanted, he would have voted for them; but not having done this, he should vote for the proposed reduction. That gentleman himself, Mr. H. said, had shown that three regiments would be sufficient; for he had said a certain portion of these men should be kept as a corps de reserve. Where, he asked, would he keep them in reserve? He believed the cordon of posts would be too distant for any supplies to reach them in time, in case of an attack from the Indians. Gentlemen blamed the present economy, and condemned the proposed system of direct taxes; but who, he asked, had created the necessity for one or the other? Not those who advocated either, but those who opposed them. And now, when they were called upon to provide revenue for defraying the increased expenses of Government, should be reduced as much as possible. He believed they were likely to have peace on the frontiers. The Indians, he said, would not commit depredations near a post, but at a distance; because they knew, if they attempted a post, they would bring the force of the United States upon them, which would involve them in war. It was well known, the Indians were more afraid of the militia than of regulars, and that therefore the former was the best defence against them. Not having any information, he should vote in favor of the amendment. Mr. COOPER said it might be of use to gentlemen to be informed of the number of men which the British had kept in their several posts on the frontiers. He said he had obtained the number. He then mentioned what were in the different posts. The total number was 1,245 men. Mr. WILLIAMS said, our troops were reduced last year to 3,000 men. Now, it appeared, from what had fallen from a gentleman on the committee, their number was 2,500 men. These would be sufficient for three regiments; therefore, the same number of men would be kept up, as if the four regiments were retained. With respect to the number of officers, we had, he said, 32 companies of infantry, and 16 companies of artillery and engineers. If the reduction proposed were agreed to, there would be left 130 officers. If these were not sufficient for the garrisons, he did not know anything of the business. But the gentleman from Maryland said. the saving would not be so much as had been said. How he estimated he could not tell; but, he believed, that, by putting the same number of men in three regiments which were now in four, would be a considerable saving. With respect to the frontier, he said, we had no defence in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Vermont, nor at New York, except at Oswego, Niagara, and Detroit. This, he said, was a distance of between five and six hundred miles. Nor did he think they were necessary, though there were several tribes of Indians in that quarter. Nor did he think a small post any defence against Indians; if they were to prove troublesome, the militia was the best defence. He did not see the use of keeping officers when we had no occasion for them. Let us, said he, do equal justice. If they were not wanted, he had no objection to giving them a gratuity, but he had an objection to keeping them in pay when the service did not require them. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to. Mr. GALLATIN said he would not have brought the question once more before the House had he thought the reduction of expense a trifling one; if he had not thought that the Military Establishment was the most expensive-he had almost said the most extravagant-establishment in the Government. Yet, he said, they were told they had no right to think upon the subject, because military men told us they were wanted. Mr. G. said, if he understood the gentlemen of the committee, it was a mere matter of opinion as to the number of men to be kept up; and if it was matter of opinion, it was not strictly necessary, because if necessary it was no longer a matter of opinion. As to the reduction which had heretofore taken place, notwithstanding what had fallen from the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. S. SMITH] the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. THATCHER] was pretty nearly right. If his memory was right, when the subject was last under discussion, the number of men in actual service was 3,500, though the nominal establishment was 6,000. It was then concluded that all the men which remained on the 1st of July should be retained in the new establishment; which, as the time of about 400 would then expire, left 3,100 effective men, or thereabout. So that the reduction was more nominal than real. Mr. G. wished to know, if any reason could be given why we should have more troops now than before the Indian war? He meant exclusively of the artillery and engineers, which was meant for the sea-coast. He then mentioned some posts where he thought there would be no necessity for garrisons: It was well understood, he said, that the possession of the [JANUARY, 1797. posts lately held by the British would curb the Indians. He hoped they should have some benefit from the British Treaty, and if there was any one, it was to be secure, so far as related to the posts occupied by the British, without being obliged to keep up so large a number of troops as before. As to the idea suggested by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. PRESTON] that the present was a saving of pence, to prove it was something more, he would call the attention of the House to the expense of the different years, from 1791 to 1795. The years 1790 and 1791, he said, we were in much the same situation as now. There was actual hostility at the time, but it was not so serious as afterward. In 1790, he found the expense was $291,000; in 1791, $520,000; in 1792, which was the year in which General St. Clair was defeated, $974,000; in 1793, $1,120,000; and in 1794 and 1795, after deducting the expense of the Western insurrection. and harbors, from 1,700,000 dollars to 1,800,000 dollars; in 1796, 1,300,000; and that estimated for 1797, 1,200,000 dollars. If this expense, he said, was compared with the general expenses of the Government, it would be found to be five-sixths of the whole'; and, therefore, if they meant to make any retrenchments, this was the object in which they should attempt them. If the average expense of 1790 and 1791 was compared with that of 1796 and 1797, the former would be found about 400,000 dollars, while the latter was from 1,200,000 to 1.300,000. Surely, then, there was room for retrenchment. It was true, as had been suggested by the gentleman from Maryland. [Mr. S. SMITH,] that many retrenchments might take place in the Quartermaster's and some other departments. He should certainly support him in those deductions, when they should come under consideration; but an intention of saving in detail ought not to prevent them, he said, from saving in the principal. That gentleman was, however, mistaken with respect to his saving in the Naval Establishment; for, supposing the frigates would not have more than four months' pay, he had omitted to take notice that there was yet required to finish the frigates about 200,000 dollars. Considering, therefore, that under the head of the Military Establishment the principal deductions must be made, he hoped the amendment would prevail. Mr. HARTLEY again requested gentlemen to consider that honesty was the best policy, as the old adage says; and while we pay proper respect in our conduct to our officers, they will not forget us when calling for their service. He would candidly ask gentlemen whether, the last session, the Army was not put on a Peace Establishment? The Executive had now ordered the Army to be organized upon that order, and now for a counter order to take place almost before the old one was established, were they free from alarm, he would ask? After the posts are all occupied, and there should appear a surplus, then would be the time to disband. JANUARY, 1797.] Military Establishment-Regulation of Pilots. The question was then taken by yeas and nays for the reduction of the four regiments to three, and carried yeas 44, nays 39, as follows: YEAS.-Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thos. Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Christopher Greenup, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, George Jackson, Matthew Locke, Samuel Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Thompson J. Skinner, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., William Strudwick, John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, John Williams, and Richard Winn. [H. of R. The question was then put to restore the dragoons, and lost-yeas 18, nays 64, as follows: YEAS.-Abraham Baldwin, William Cooper, William Craik, James Davenport, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, John Wilkes Kittera, Francis Malbone, John Milledge, F. A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Page, Samuel Sitgreaves, and William Smith. NAYS.-Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, Theophilus Bradbury, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Daniel Buck, Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, George Dent, William Findley, Abiel Foster, Jesse Franklin, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., Albert Gallatin, Christopher Greenup, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, Thomas HenderNAYS.-Fisher Ames, Theophilus Bradbury, Gabriel son, James Holland, Andrew Jackson, George Jackson, Christie, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, William Craik, Matthew Locke, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, SamJames Davenport, George Dent, Abiel Foster, Dwight uel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew Moore, Anthony Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glen, Chauncey Good-New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, rich, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, John Hancock, John Patton, Elisha R. Potter, Francis Preston, John Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, Thomas Hen- Reed, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah derson, John Wilkes Kittera, William Lyman, Francis Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Samuel Smith, Malbone, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Mur- Richard Sprigg, jr., William Strudwick, John Swanwick, ray, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, John Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Patton, Elisha R. Potter, Francis Preston, John Reed, Mark Thompson, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cort Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, landt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, Peleg William Smith, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, John Wadsworth, John Williams, and Richard Winn. E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth. Mr. MURRAY made a motion to restore the two companies of light dragoons. When the motion to strike out was agreed to, it was contemplated, he said, to retain the four regiments of infantry. Now one regiment had been struck out, there might be gentlemen who would wish to have the dragoons kept up. He owned he was of that opinion. Mr. SITGREAVES called for the yeas and nays. Mr. HOLLAND thought there was no necessity for these troops. Georgia was secure, and had soldiers in garrison, as well as the other frontiers. He supposed the member from Georgia voted for the reduction, for the purpose of having those horse kept. Mr. MILLEDGE said he was still of the same opinion as before, of the great necessity of the dragoons being kept up on that frontier. If posts were necessary there, he said, dragoons were also necessary. And then, the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the said first resolution, amended to read as follows: "Resolved, That all such parts of the act, entitled An act to ascertain and fix the Military Establishment of the United States,' which relate to the light dragoons, ought to be repealed, and that the four regiments of infantry be reduced to three :" It was resolved in the affirmative. The second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth resolutions being read, were, on the question severally put thereupon, agreed to by the House. Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in, pursuant to the said resolutions; and that Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, Mr. HARTLEY, Mr. PARKER, Mr. Van CORTLANDT, and Mr. DEARBORN, do prepare and bring in the same. REGULATION OF PILOTS. The House, on motion of Mr. DENT, resolved He knew it would be a great expense, and itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill he was as much as possible for retrenching expense, for the regulation of pilots within the bay and but not at the hazard which a want of proper secu-river of the Chesapeake; when rity in that quarter would run. If any disturbance Mr. SWANWICK briefly stated the intention and with, or inroads from, the Indians in that quarter should occur, what would give that expeditious check which dragoons could, when our posts are 25 miles asunder, and our frontier extends 300 miles? It was well known that we might be one day upon the best terms, and perhaps the next at From these ideas, he would leave gentlemen to judge whether they did not require expeditious war. movements. Mr. GALLATIN said he knew not how a motion of this kind could be made, when the question was put on the words as amended. The SPEAKER explained. operation of this bill, which was to give equal privileges to Virginia and Maryland pilots, with respect to bringing in vessels into the Chesapeake. This application was founded on this circumstance, viz: that Maryland pilots went out further to sea than Virginia pilots to meet vessels, and were frequently called on to pilot vessels belonging to Virginia, but not being allowed anything for this pilotage, the Virginia pilots taking possession of any vessel brought in by such a Maryland pilot into the Cheasapeake, and receiving all the advantages of the pilotage. This practice had consequently had this effect: Maryland pi lots, though vessels were in the greatest distress, would not come on board, so that many had been lost for want of pilots, as the Virginia pilots scarcely ever went out to sea. The bill went to direct the Board of Pilots to grant licenses on equal terms to Maryland and Virginia pilots. Mr. PARKER confirmed this statement. Mr. Cort objected to the principle, from doubts whether they had a right to direct the affairs of a State Government to do certain acts. Mr. S. SMITH thought these officers might be directed to grant licenses to these pilots on the same ground that the Judges and Justices of States are directed to do the business of the United States. Mr. SITGREAVES did not allow the analogy of the two cases. In 1789, he said, there was a similar case. When it was necessary to provide for the safe-keeping of the prisoners of the United States in the several States, when Congress did not pass a law on the subject, but passed a resolution requesting the several States to pass laws to provide for the case. Mr. NICHOLAS thought the duty might as well be done, not by directing the officers to perform the duty, but by permitting them to do it. He thought this mode would steer clear of the objection. The Committee rose, and had leave to sit again. WEDNESDAY, January 25. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have disagreed to the amendment proposed by this House to the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act giving effect to the laws of the United States within the State of Tennessee." NAVAL EQUIPMENTS. Mr. PARKER, from the committee appointed to inquire into the business of the Naval Equipments ordered by former acts of Congress, and to report whether any and what further regulations were necessary, made a report. The whole amount of expense of the frigates was estimated at $745,437, exc.usive of manning and provisions. The expense of the galleys was estimated at $80,000. The annual expenditure, it was supposed, would be $223,174. The money wanted for completing the frigates was-for that building at Philadelphia, named the United States, of 44 guns, $55,950; for that at Boston, named the Constitution, of 44 guns, $96,671; for that at Baltimore, named the Constellation, of 36 guns, $47,275. The United States, it was estimated by the Secretary at War, would be completed in April, the Constitution in July, and the Constellation in May. But the committee were of opinion, owing to the frost, they would not be ready so soon. The committee recommend that the vessels should be finished as soon as possible, and that dollars should be appropriated for the purpose; that there also be a sum appropriated for purchasing a proper site for a naval-yard; and, also, that provision should be made for obtaining a sufficiency of liveoak and red cedar for naval purposes. [JANUARY, 1797. The report was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. CONTESTED ELECTION. On motion of Mr. VENABLE, the unfinished business of yesterday was postponed, in order to take up the report of the Committee of Elections on the election of JOSEPH BRADLEY VARNUM, which was in favor of the sitting member. It is also stated that his conduct has not only been fair and regular throughout the whole business, but that the object of the petitioners was "rather the effect of malevolence than from a wish of promoting the public good." Mr. Corr moved to strike out the words printed in italics. He doubted the propriety of the House passing a censure of the kind proposed upon the petitioners and those who supported them. The motion to strike out the words in question was supported by the mover, and Messrs. THATCHER, BRADBURY, SITGREAVES, CRAIK, N. Smith, COOPER, MURRAY, SEWALL, HARPER, D. FOSTER, and WILLIAMS; and opposed by Messrs. VENABLE, SWANWICK, W. LYMAN, NICHOLAS, DEARBORN, RUTHERFORD, BALDWIN, Christie, HolLAND, MADISON, and BRENT. The principal ground upon which the motion was supported was, that the Committee of Elec tions had no business to scrutinize the motives of petitioners; that their motives had nothing to do with the legality or illegality of elections; that they ought to report that a petition had foundation, or it had not; that the House had no right to take upon them to judge upon motives and characters. It was said, on the other hand, that the charges in the petition were so notoriously false and malicious as to call for some other notice than barely to say they were unfounded, and that it was necessary to put a check upon such outrageous attacks upon members of that House, by some such notice as was reported, in order to prevent them in future. The yeas and nays were called for upon this question, and all the papers relative to the business were read. This took place towards the conclusion of the business, and so exhausted was the patience of the House, that four different motions were made and negatived for adjournment. At length Mr. Corr offered a substitute for his former motion, viz: to strike out the words in italic, in order to insert these words: "that the conduct of the sitting member has been fair and honorable throughout the whole transaction," This motion was put and resolved in the affirmative-yeas 44, nays 28, as follows: Joshua Coit, William Cooper, William Craik, Samuel YEAS.-Theophilus Bradbury, Dempsey Burges, W. Dana, James Davenport, Henry Dearborn, George Ege, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jesse Franklin, Ezekiel Gilbert, James Gillespie, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, George Hancock, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Thomas Henderson, William Hindman, George Jackson, Samuel Lyman, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, Elisha |