proposed by the bill, as there was not in the Union a man more obnoxious in that State than the judge contemplated to be given them.

Mr. EUSTIS was against the motion to strike out the first section, as it was calculated to remove a great inconvenience attached to the duties of a particular judge, and as there was no reason offered in favor of it which ought, in his opinion, to influence the House. In the assignation of duties, the Congress ought not to know any of the judges, but ought to presume that they were all equally learned and agreeable to the people.

FEBRUARY, 1803.

favor of this law, inasmuch as it promoted the convenience of Judge Washington, were it not that it interfered with the convenience of two respectable States.

Mr. SMILIE was sorry that he was obliged to assign the reasons for the opinions he had advanced. But this became necessary from the remarks of the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. BAYARD.) That gentleman has said the judge alluded to may have been harsh in his treatment of traitors, insurgents, and libellers. In the remarks he had to make, Mr. S. said, he should pass Mr. RUTLEDGE observed, that the duties as- over whatever related to libels and sedition, and signed to Judge Washington were extremely in- confine himself to the observations of the gentleconvenient. He was obliged to ride from Vir-man that related to treason. He hoped he should ginia to Vermont. The judges, he presumed, never see the time when the character of any were all learned and upright. If any of them judge should be considered too sacred to be nofailed to discharge their duty, the regular course ticed on fit occasions in that House. It was not of proceeding was known to the House. He had that he had on this occasion anything to say benever understood the cause of the arrangement cause the judge (Chase) had been too severe upon which submitted Judge Washington to this in- traitors, insurgents, or libellers, but because he had convenience, until he learned that that gentleman construed an act of insurgency into treason. This had, some time since, contemplated a residence in was essentially a different thing. There was an Connecticut; under which impression the present insurrection in Pennsylvania, in the county of arrangement had been made. Northampton

Mr. ELMENDORF viewed the subject differently from any gentleman who had spoken on the subject. It appeared to him that a judge, by being permanently assigned to a particular circuit, would become better acquainted with the laws of the States embraced within his circuit. He therefore thought Congress should legislate but once in making a proper distribution of the judges.

Mr. BAYARD said it must be apparent that the whole discussion consisted in what might be termed argumentum ad hominem.

Mr. VARNUM asked if there was any propriety, in the discussion of the question before the Committee, in commenting on the character of a judge? Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the gentleman would proceed.

Mr. SMILIE proceeded. There was an insurrection in Pennsylvania, in the county of Northampton. A person of the name of Fries, concerned in that insurrection, was tried for treason. When the trial came on, and the counsel of Fries appeared, the judge (Chase) said the court would After making some remarks on the propriety not hear an argument as to what was or was not of the change contemplated in the bill, he said treason. We have, said he, already decided this that he believed an upright judge would always point; our opinion is drawn out in writing, and be inimical to traitors, insurgents, and libellers. you must be governed by it. Fries had employed He believed that Judge Chase had been considered two of the most eminent counsel of the Pennsylin some measure harsh in his treatment of this vania bar, who, it might be proper to remark, description of persons. But in civil cases, he never were of different political sentiments. But, notheard the least imputation thrown upon his con- withstanding their political difference, when the duct, even by his enemies. The laws under which judge behaved in this manner, they unitedly told those prosecutions were conducted were now ex- him we will not degrade our professional characpired, and considering the mildness of the present ters, or commit the rights of our client, in whose Administration, he did not conceive that there service we have volunteered, by taking any furwas any danger of falling under the lash of the ther part in these proceedings. There are rights learned judge. It was extremely evident this was of the bar as well as the rights of the bench; and a matter with which the people had nothing to while we respect the latter, we will maintain the do, as the only question was, whether they should former. The effect was that this man (Fries) have for their judge A or B? It had been well was tried without counsel, convicted of treason, observed by a gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. and sentenced to death. After the trial the AtEUSTIS,) that the House ought to consider every torney General requested the notes of several genjudge equally learned and upright. It was, there-tlemen of the bar present during the trial, which fore, not regular or delicate to make such remarks. were given, in which they cited a number of the The boon prayed was very small, as in the event most approved authorities from the books to show of the death of any one judge, the judges would that the crime committed by Fries was not an themselves have the right of allotting themselves. act of treason, but that it was particularly desigHe could not believe that any gentleman enter-nated in the Sedition act. The opinions and autained such hostility to the judges as to wish to thorities went to the President, and Fries was defeat a measure barely because it would promote pardoned. their convenience, and on which they were all agreed.

Mr. HOLLAND observed, that he would be in

Of the abilities of this judge, Mr. S. entertained no doubt, as little as he entertained of the abilities of Jeffries.

These circumstances having happened in Pennsylvania was the reason why he was opposed to the assignment of Judge Chase to the State he represented. Whenever justice was administered, the citizens ought to have confidence in those who administered it; and it would be wrong in the House to force upon the State he represented a man as a judge that would be considered as an evil.

Mr. BACON said the mention of the circumstances stated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was rather disagreeable. It might, perhaps, be necessary. But he did not think the trial of the judges was then before the House. The only solid objection to the bill is this: that there are strong and peculiar prejudices in some parts of the Union against a certain judge. Whether these were reasonable or not, it was a query whether the laws could be administered as well under a person against whom there exists a fixed prejudice, however unfounded that prejudice may be, as under persons against whom such prejudice does not exist. In this view of the subjeet, the objection was not entirely without weight. It was certainly of great importance that all our officers, but particularly our judicial officers, should be treated with respect; and if, in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, a certain judge is not duly respected, that might furnish an argument against

the bill.

H. OF R.

gument and the most mature deliberation, and which it will not be necessary to examine again. The court may say we have fully considered the case, and do not require any further arguments. This was not the doctrine of a Jeffries, but of a Hale and a Camden, those luminaries of law, and ornaments of the English bench.

Mr. BAYARD concluded by saying he regretted that such an extrinsic discussion should have been introduced into the debate; but he hoped the majority of the House would grant the request of the judges.

The question was then taken on striking out the first section, and carried-yeas 42, nays 36. The second section was agreed to; when the Committee rose and reported the bill, and the House immediately took up the report, when, on motion of Mr. MOTT, the yeas and nays were taken on concurring with the Committee of the Whole, in their disagreement to the first section of the bill, and carried-yeas 48, nays 40, as follows:

YEAS-John Bacon, Robert Brown, William Butler, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorf, Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith of Virginia, Josiah Smith, Samuel Stanton, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., Abram Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Robert Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. BAYARD said he believed the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SMILIE) was correct in saying that a man of the name of Fries had been tried and convicted of treason. He believed, also, there were many other men guilty of insurgency and treason who had neither been tried nor convicted of treason. He further believed that any man guilty of the crime of insurgency or treason NAYS-Willis Alston, John Archer, James A. Baywould look upon the judge as a Jeffries. But he ard, Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Samuel W. Dana, did not know what the character of Judge Chase John Davenport, Peter Early, William Eustis, Abiel had to do with the provisions of the bill on the Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William B. table. No man had impeached that judge; and Grove, Seth Hastings, Daniel Heister, Joseph Hempthat was the only regular or Constitutional mode hill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin of criminating a judge in that House. If the Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Thomas judge had construed an opposition to a particular Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, law into treason, and by a false, and, he presumed, John Rutledge, William Shepard, John Cotton Smith, what gentleman meant to insinuate a corrupt de- John Smith, of New York, John Stanley, Samuel Tencision, jeopardized the life of a citizen, only ulti-ney, Samuel Thatcher, David Thomas, Thomas Tilmately saved by the clemency of the President, was it not the duty of those who thought so to impeach him? Was not this the duty of the gentleman from Pennsylvania? This would be fair, honorable, and open. The charges would be regularly made, and the judge would be heard in his defence. If the gentleman believed the judge guilty of the charges he had made, it was a duty to himself and to the American people to bring them forward in the shape of an impeachment. But the gentleman has assumed the character of a reporter of law cases without the capacity. No doctrine had been laid down in the case of Fries that had not been acceded to by the whole bench; and he believed if any judge whatever had been on the bench he would have made the same decision. It was extremely possible for cases to arise in which the court shall decide after the fullest ar

linghast, George B. Upham, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

said bill be postponed until Saturday next. Ordered, That the further consideration of the

BANKRUPTCY.

The order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee, of the thirteenth of January last, to whom was referred the petition of Josiah Fox, and others, inhabitants of the towns of Norfolk and Portsmouth, in the State of Virginia; and who were also instructed, by a resolution of this House, of the third of the same month, "to consider and report on the expediency of repealing an act, entitled 'An act to establish an uniform system of bankruptcy thoughout the United States"-being called for:

H. OF R.

Bankruptcy.

FEBRUARY, 1803.

Mr. S. SMITH said the subject was important, wished the House to go into a Committee of the and there was not time at this late period of the Whole, as there must be decided the goodness or session to give it a full and fair consideration. badness of the law. The gentleman from DelaImpressed with the necessity of attending to other ware alleges the importance of the system to the public business that must be transacted, he had commercial world. Granted; and therefore the been induced to give up the consideration, during necessity of investigating that system in a Comthe present session, of a subject of great import-mittee of the Whole, where the greater latitude ance, (alluding to the repeal of the discrimina- of debate is allowed. But the commercial world ting and countervailing duties,) and which he had is not very anxious on the subject. On the 14th been extremely anxious to have discussed. If the of January he had made a report on the memorial House purposed to go through business then be- from the merchants of Norfolk; the report had fore them, absolutely necessary for the public ser- then been postponed for three weeks; and had revice, they must forego a discussion that would mained unacted upon ever since, and yet not a inevitably consume much time. He therefore single petition had been received in favor of a moved a postponement of the consideration of the continuance of the law. We must, therefore, infer report to the first Tuesday in November. that the merchants are willing to leave to us the decision whether it shall or shall not be repealed. Should the House, contrary to his hopes, determine not to repeal the law, he was prepared to offer amendments; one of which would bie hat no person declared a bankrupt should be entitled to his commission for twelve months thereafter. Mr. N. concluded by calling for the yeas and nays. Mr. VARNUM hoped the motion would not prevail. Gentlemen would recollect that all the benefits conferred by the bankrupt system on the commercial world were so many injuries inflicted on the other parts of the community. Whether the law were repealed or not, there was no doubt that there ought to be amendments to it.

Mr. MITCHILL hoped the consideration of the report would be postponed. Being opposed to the repeal of the system of bankruptcy, he had, on a former day, moved a postponement to a day which had passed over without the subject being taken up. From its not having been called up on that day, he had supposed that gentlemen did not mean to urge a decision this session. The bankrupt system he considered as a great experiment in the commercial and political world, which Congress had determined to try for five years, when the law will expire by its own limitation. He hoped, as three years had elapsed, it would be suffered to continue till the period of its limitation, when, from an experience of its effects, they would be better enabled to decide on the propriety of perpetuating it. Should the subject, however, be taken up, he was prepared, while he voted against a repeal of the law, to offer certain amendments, which, after a mature consideration of the subject, he considered necessary. He concluded by observing that this discussion would unavoidably take much time, and more he apprehended than the public good would admit, as he was persuaded that even if a majority were in favor of a repeal, it could not be effected without a warm struggle with its friends.

Mr. EUSTIS hoped the motion of postponement would not prevail. The bankrupt law was extremely defective and required amendment. A committee had been appointed to amend it. Their proceedings had been paralyzed by a motion to repeal; and they had abandoned all idea of reporting until a decision was had on this motion. He hoped therefore that question would be taken up and decided; and if the consideration required even three days the House could not spend their time to more advantage.

Mr. BAYARD. If the postponement take place, there will be an end of the report; and it will rest with the next Congress to exercise their discretion in either repealing or amending the system. The postponement will have the same effect this session as a determination not to repeal; and, if the postponement is carried, the select committee will immediately go to work, and can, in a short time, report amendments.

Mr. NEWTON said it was not his wish to take up much of the time of the House. He was in favor of a repeal of the bankrupt law; and he

Mr. HASTINGS was against the postponement. He doubted whether the majority of the merchants were in favor of this law. He believed no class of our citizens were more attentive to their interests than the merchants. He believed they considered themselves injured by this law, and, therefore, they did not come forward with petitions against a repeal. He believed there had never been a law which had produced more iniquity and fraud, and he knew of no business before the House more important than a repeal or amendment of it.

Mr. GRISWOLD was in favor of a postponement, which would lay aside the question of repeal, and clear the way for amendments.

Mr. THATCHER said the people were not in the habit of coming forward and dictating to Congress. Their silence, therefore, on this occasion, was no argument of their indifference. He believed the bankrupt law required amendments, which would be made in case the question of repeal, for the fair discussion of which there was not time, were laid aside. He therefore hoped the motion to postpone would prevail.

The yeas and nays were taken on the postponement, and were-yeas 39, nays 39; the SPEAKER declaring himself in the negative, the question of postponement was lost, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, William Butler, John Campbell, Thomas Claiborne, John Condit, Samuel W. Dana, Peter Early, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Abiel Foster, John Fowler, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Morris, James Mott, Joseph H. Nich

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill, entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled 'An act fixing the Military Peace Establishment of the United States," with several amendments; to which they desire the concurrence of this House. The SenOrdered, That the committee to whom were ate have also passed the bill, entitled "An act supreferred, on the fourteenth and sixteenth instant, plementary to the Act concerning Consuls and the memorials of sundry aliens, residing in Mont- Vice Consuls,' and for the further protection of gomery county, in the borough and county of Lan-American seamen," with several amendments; to caster, and in the city and county of Philadelphia, and State of Pennsylvania, have leave to report thereon by bill or bills, or otherwise.

H. OF R.

SAMUEL CORP.

Claims of Georgia.

An engrossed bill for the relief of Samuel Corp was read the third time; and on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative -yeas 42. nays 38, as follows:

FEBRUARY, 1803.

They were performed under circumstances which called for the interposition and aid of the Government itself, and in the exercise of an almost unlimited discretion delegated by the Executive of the United States to the Governor of Georgia. It will be recollected that, at the period during YEAS-Willis Alston, John Archer, James A. Bayard, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Richard Cutts, which these services were performed, the whole Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dawson, Eb-frontier of the United States was in a state of enezer Elmer, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger alarm. A general confederacy existed between Griswold, Seth Hastings, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, the Indian tribes residing within our territory, the Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin object of which was an union of hostility against Huger, Samuel Hunt, Michael Leib, Samuel L. Mit- the white inhabitants. A regular warfare was chill, Thomas Morris, Thomas Newton, jun., Thomas carried on in the Territory Northwest of the Ohio, Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shep- by an army under the immediate orders of the ard, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Federal Executive. An irregular warfare preJohn Stanley, Joseph Stanton, Samuel Tenney, Sam- vailed between the inhabitants residing in the uel Thatcher, Philip R. Thompson, Philip Van Cort now State of Tennessee and the Southern tribes; landt, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Peleg and the people in the State of Georgia were rousWadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods. NAYS-John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel preservation. This State was lined by a frontier ed to action by the irresistible principles of selfBishop, Thomas Boude, Robert Brown, William But- nearly four hundred miles in extent, thinly setler, Samuel J. Cabell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, tled, and immediately in the neighborhood of John Condit, Lucas Elmendorf, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, William Hoge, James Holland, two of the most numerous and warlike nations, David Holmes, George Jackson, Ebenezer Mattoon, whose settlements were strung along its whole David Meriwether, James Mott, Anthony New, Joseph length. Actual hostility quickly roused the peoH. Nicholson, John Randolph jr., John Smilie, Israel ple of that country to a sense of their situation. Smith, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, of New York, The whole frontier was subjected to inroad, thefts, Josiah Smith, John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David and massacres; and the innocent inhabitant laid Thomas, Thomas Tillinghast, Abram Trigg, John himself down to rest at night, under an awful apTrigg, Robert Williams, Richard Winn, and Thomas prehension that, before his eye could meet the Wynns. morrow's sun, his ears would be assailed by the war-whoop, or the fire of the savage foe.

GEORGIA CLAIMS.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of

the Whole on the following report of a select committee on the Georgia militia claims:

In this situation of affairs, communication was made by the Governor of Georgia to the Department of War, stating the existing exigencies, and the impending evils. In the month of October, requesting instruction as to the mode of meeting

"The Committee to whom was referred the report of the Secretary of War, together with sundry documents respecting claims against the Uni-1792, the Secretary of War writes to the Goverted States to compensation for services performed nor an answer in the following terms: by certain militia within the State of Georgia, during the years 1793 and 1794, respectfully report:

"That it appears to your committee that the said services were performed under circumstances which render them a just claim to compensation from the Government of the United States, and that said Government hath already gone far in recognising their validity, by settling with and making payment to the contractor who furnished supplies to the said militia, whilst engaged in performing the same services for which they now claim compensation. Your committee, therefore, beg leave to submit the following resolution: "Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law for the payment of certain militia employed within the State of Georgia, during the years 1793 and 1794, for

the defence of said State."

Mr. EARLY.-Mr. Chairman, believing that the claim, which is now the subject of consideration, depends upon facts little understood by the Committee, I must beg their indulgence, while I endeavor, by a recurrence to a train of documents, to explain and establish its justness. It is a claim for services of the most meritorious kind, performed in defence of an exposed part of the Union.

"If the information which you may receive, shall substantiate clearly any hostile designs of the Creeks against the frontiers of Georgia, you will be pleased to take the most effectual measures for the defence thereof, as may be in your power, and which the occasion may require."

Here, Mr. Chairman, it will be perceived there was given to the Governor of Georgia a complete discretionary power to call into the field such a number of troops as the occasion might render necessary for the defence of the frontiers. He was constituted judge of the occasion, and judge of the extent of the force which that occasion might render expedient. In conformity with the ample powers thus possessed, he called out and employed in defensive protection the militia, whose claims are now under investigation.

The danger to which our settlements were exposed, did not cease. Such was the spirit of hostility which at that period governed the Indian tribes, that, wherever our frontier was left unprotected, there the unfortunate inhabitants became a subject of slaughter. The troops, of course, were retained in service. But, on the 30th of May, 1793, the Secretary of War writes to the Governor of Georgia, directing the force which