Occupation of the Oregon.-Niagara Sufferers.

laws, had long been an object of great solicitude among the most enlightened men of Europe. This subject had drawn to its consideration the first talents of modern times-I say, said he, the first talents, because I speak of such men as Howard and Baccaria So early as 1785, the labors of these great men were directed to this subject, and the best results have followed their exertions. About the same time, the Legislature of his native state engaged in the reformation of the penal code of Pennsylvania. In 1794, the Penitentiary system was adopted there; this system is well known and duly appreciated, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Europe-for reference to the Legislature of this state, on this interesting subject, has been frequently made with high approbation, by the most respectable European writers on the subtheject.

|

[H. of R.

had exhibited great vigilance and untiring perseverance the intention of the act of 1817, that no occupancy, exin behalf of the claimants. In the report upon the sub-cept such as was permanent, should give a claim for inject, which the gentleman had laid before the House, he demnification. This, and this alone, was the just and the had undertaken to present something like a history of proper rule. Any rule that went beyond this point, Mr. W. the legislation of Congress on the subject, which, though pronounced to be extravagant, unreasonable, and destrucsufficiently minute in its details, was very erroneous in tive to the interests of the country. The principle of the its conclusions. The report, Mr. W. said, set out with gentleman from New York is, that, though the house a declaration, that the act of 1817 was intended to ex- should have been occupied on the first day of the war tend the provisions of the act of 1816. If the gentle- and destroyed on the last, the Government is bound to man had attended a little more minutely to the facts in indemnify the sufferer, because the war is its own act. the case, he could not possibly have arrived at this con- Sir, I not only deny this position, but I greatly doubt if clusion. That act was intended to restrain those pro- the Government is answerable in any case. I know visions, instead of extending them. Mr. W. here re- that, on this point, writers on national law differ in their viewed the history of the amendatory act. In the course opinions. But I hold it to be the sentiment of the best of execution of the act of 1816, the President, conceiv- of these writers, that Government is not liable for any ing too wide a construction of it had been given or me- destruction of property by an enemy. The gentleman ditated, suspended the execution of the law, and, by his says, that the citizens on an exposed frontier are, or message of December 6, 1816, recommended to Con- ought to be, the objects of peculiar protection to their gress a revision of the law. That message was referred Government. I question this. Sir, is not every citizen to the Committee of Claims, who, on the 16th of the under this Government free? Does he not choose for same month, made a report, condemning the principle of himself the place of his abode? Does he not know several of those decisions, and recommending a change that, on a maritime frontier, especially, he will enjoy adof the provisions of the law, so as to make their repeti- vantages peculiar to that situation-advantages of marktion impracticable, which was accordingly done by an ed-advantages of easy and cheap transportation, which amendatory act. It appeared, therefore, to have been the citizens in the interior cannot possess? And does the object of the President, and of the Committee, to he not know, on the other hand, that in case of the rerestrain the commissioner in his decisions. The claims currence of a state of war, the frontier will, of course, which had been passed, and the allowances which were be most exposed to danger; and if, in his opinion, the considered objectionable, were those to Mr. Carroll and advantages to be enjoyed do not fully compensate the Mr. Ringgold; those which the commissioner intended danger to be incurred, is he obliged to go there? The to have allowed, had the law not been changed, were citizen in the interior is forced to march many miles to the very claims for which the bill now under considera- defend him, and also has to pay taxes for the same obtion proposed to provide. It was the apprehension of ject-and would we compel him, after the war is over, the allowance of these very claims that induced the Pre- to pay all his losses too? Sir, the Government of a counsident to suspend the execution of the act, and Congress try ought to be just, not only before a war, but during to change its provisions. From the view which the gen- the war, and after the war. If the citizen in the interior tleman from New York had taken in his report, it would must pay what he on the frontier suffered by the war, appear that Congress, in the act of 1816, intended to why ought not the citizen on the frontier to pay him of provide for the payment for those buildings which had the interior for his expenses in coming to aid him? It been occupied as barracks. But, Mr. W. said, the al- is a bad rule that will not work both ways. The genlowance to Mr. Carroll, was upon the ground that his tleman from New York well knows that citizens on the buildings had been occupied by troops, and so was that frontier have commonly an active part in occasioning of Mr. Ringgold; and yet these were the very allow the wars of a country, (especially wars on a commercial ances which Congress disapproved, and passed the act question,) and yet he tells us that if you do not give of 1817 to prevent the recurrence of. If the intention them special protection, they will be in danger of makof the act of 1816 had been to allow such claims, the ing terms with the enemy. Sir, let them do it--and then commissioner did nothing wrong-made no mistake- let them see whether their Government will not know and there was no necessity of passing the subsequent how to punish such behaviour They call on Governact of 1817. That act provided that, on all claims over ment just as if they had had no hand or part in bringing two hundred dollars, the commissioner should be re- on the war-as if it were the doing of the interior exclustrained from giving any final award, and should only | sively—yet we all know, and so do they, that the rereport the facts, and his opinion, to Congress. But, if verse is true. the commissioner had made no improper allowances, why did the second act curtail his power?

It was evident, that, in making the allowances he did, he had departed from a right construction of the act of 1816, and the act of 1817 was passed to remedy the error. But, whatever doubt there might be as to the true meaning of the law of '16, should the bill now reported by the gentleman pass, he would, "by one fell swoop," (to quote the gentleman's own language as applied by him to the Treasury,) destroy them all. (Here Mr. W. quoted the bill.) Now, I put it to the candor of the gentleman, whether, supposing a house to have been occupied for a day for some military use, at the opening of the war, and to have been burnt by the enemy on the last day of the war, Government was bound to pay the loss? No, surely. It was never the intention of Congress that an occupation merely accidental and contingent should bring a house or building under the provisions of the act. "I know, indeed, said Mr. W. that the occupation in the case of Carroll's and Ringgold's buildings, was but temporary, and yet they were allowed by the Commissioner; but the Committee of Claims decided against the allowance, as being contrary to law. It was

It is in the nature of things impracticable, that a government should pay for every loss its citizens may sustain by a state of warfare. All such as are merely incidental must be borne by the sufferers.

And, as the Government is not bound in equity to repay losses of this kind, so neither is it a dictate of sound policy that they should do so. Once adopt this practice, and you render yourselves assailable at once. Especially if you have an extensive seaboard, and a maritime foe, you invite him to aggression; you make it his policy to depredate; you give him the strongest temptation to transfer the war from your person to your property; you take from war every thing of a brave and noble character, and make it a mere game of burning and pillage. Surely this one consideration is enough to warn us against sanctioning such a bill as is now before the committee. Refuse to pay such losses, and what will be the effect? The effect will be that the frontier citizen will do bis utmost to defend himself and his property. You call in the aid of two passions instead of one. If a man is sure of being repaid for the devastations of the enemy, his only motive to resist them will be his patriotism; but, if he knows he is to receive no in

H. of R.]

Niagara Sufferers.

demnity, he will fight not only from patriotism, but from self interest. The gentleman cannot be so unacquainted with the nature of the human mind, as not to perceive the effect of bringing in such a principle to aid the arm of the citizen soldier.

[DEC. 27, 1824.

Government would be bound to no such thing. It was not the occupation of the house as a barrack that caused it to be destroyed-the enemy was not to know of such occupation; the house was destroyed with others not so occupied; it was a casualty, and the sufferer must bear his loss.

But the gentleman insists that if the Government is not bound to pay for such losses, we cannot claim to be independent. Sir, I have read to you, from the page of impartial history, some of the acts of pillage and cruelty perpetrated by the enemy in our Revolutionary war; were these losses ever paid? No, sir, the old Congress denied the right of the sufferers to indemnity, and invariably refused to grant any compensation whatever. Was our country, therefore, not independent? Yet the gentleman says we must either pay such losses ourselves, or compel the enemy to pay them, or we are not independent. Sir, we suffered much under the British Orders in Council. Was compensation allowed in the treaty of Ghent? We suffered sorely under the Berlin and Milan decrees. Has compensation ever, to this day, been allowed for those losses? No, sir; and it is very questionable if the nation will go to war to obtain it. Will the gentleman, therefore, maintain that these States are not, at this day, independent? Sir, the thing is not done by any government, nor can the argument be sustained by an appeal to facts. The true rule is, that Government is bound to obtain such allowance, and to make such compensation, if it can be done conveniently. But would the gentleman say that, in order to get the allowance of one million, the whole nation must be plunged into war, at an expense of one hundred millions? In such cases, the demand becomes a question of policy. It was a maxim (attributed, I believe, to Mr. Adams) at one time, in the mouth of every American, "millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute." There is something of honor in such questions. What was the language of President Madison to Cockburn, when he commenced his ravages? Did the President say to him, "Admiral Cockburn, pray forbear; forbear, if you please; if not, we must pay our citizens for the injuries you may inflict." No, sir; he said, "Forbear; if not, we will retaliate." This, sir, is the only note for such an ear as Cockburn's-the dread of retaliation is the only consideration which can hold such an enemy in check.

I must now say a few words on the doctrine of retaliation. The gentleman seems to think that the burning of Newark, by the American troops under McClure, was a wanton and improper act; and, in his report at a former session, he charges it on our Government, and maintains that the enemy had a right to retaliate. Sir, I deny his position in toto; I say, and hope to prove, first, that the destruction of Newark was not a wanton act; and, secondly, that the enemy had not the least right to retaliate it If the gentleman had directed his views a little farther on this subject, he would have been able to perceive and to trace the same predatory spirit which led to the devastation of the Niagara frontier, prevailing through both our wars with England. In the war of the Revolution, as well as through all the stages of our late contest, they were actuated by the same temper towards us. [In support of this position, Mr. W. went into a series of quotations from the history of both wars, referred to the conduct of the British army under Cornwallis, and when led by the traitor Arnold to the burning of Falmouth, the ravaging of New Jersey, and the cruelties on board the Jersey prison ship, in which eleven thousand men were said to have perished. He then proceeded to the conduct of Admiral Cockburn at Frenchtown, Havre de Grace, Georgetown, Fredericktown, and Hampton, interposing comments as he proceeded, and arguing, from the whole, the prevalence of a mean, dastardly, malignant spirit of revenge and personal cruelty Now. (said Mr. W.) put it to the gentleman from New York to say, after all this series of conduct, from February to May, 1813, whether the destruction of one village, eight months afterwards, could be considered as a wanton act of aggression? No, sir-no; if the American army, instead of burning the village of Newark, had laid waste with fire and sword the whole Canadian frontier, they would have inflicted an act of retaliation well merited by the barbarities perpetrated at Hampton alone. But was this an act of our government? The Government disavowed the act the moment they heard of it. Was this an act of wanton destruction done for its own sake, and a parallel to the British murders The gentleman relies much on the merits and suffer and ravishings in the Chesapeake? It was a purely mili-ings of the inhabitants of the Niagara frontier. Sir, I have tary movement, necessary to the destruction of Fort much regard for those inhabitants, and, though they are George: deliberate notice was sent to the inhabitants, personally unknown to me, I am inclined to believe and time allowed them to remove their persons and ef- much of the representations in their favor which have fects. As a pretended retaliation for such an act, the been given by the gentleman from New York; but still, enemy landed on the 19th, burnt Lewistown, Youngs- I feel great doubt whether they were sufferers to any town, Manchester, and even the little village of the Tus- thing like the extent they would have us to suppose. carora Indians. No notice was given-no time for re-do know that many, who send us the most heart-rending moval of goods, or even for personal escape; and so far accounts of their calamities, placed themselves voluntawas the injury from being confined even to all these vil- rily on the frontier for certain commercial purposes, and lages, that the whole country was fired and laid waste; I have been very credibly informed that that frontier, they burned, they ravaged every object they could reach; generally, received more benefit than injury from being but I cannot preserve a due command of my feelings to the extent it was the seat of war. Sir, those people, when I reflect on those scenes. Sir, we find the same many of them, could well afford to have their houses thing from '76 to 1815, the same conduct, the same spi- burnt, if they received, at such a rate, the public money rit; and, with facts like these within their knowledge, which was then concentrated, and expended with the the Committee of Claims did right in denying, as I now most lavish profusion on that frontier. deny, all right on the part of the enemy, to waste that frontier on the principle of lawful retaliation, and the consequent right of the claimants on that ground. The law says that, in order to indemnity, it must be shown that the occupation of the property for military purposes was the cause of its destruction. Now, sir, let me put a case. Suppose the enemy in the Potomac, within cannon shot of this city; and suppose one of the houses here was occupied as a barrack for troops, and in a bombardment of the city with red hot balls, that house should with others be destroyed, would the owners have a just claim, under the law, to be repaid its value? No, sir, the

I

But on the subject of retaliation, the gentlemen would have us rely on the testimony of a certain British captain of artillery drivers. This gentleman affirms that, in his hearing, General Drummond declared that it was "beneath the British government" to waste the border on a principle of retaliation. Very delicate, indeed!— But let us hear another of these delicate gentlemen. What does Admiral Cockburn tell us? That it was on this very principle that he was ordered to waste and burn and ravage on the Chesapeake. Which shall we believe? Sir, I'll believe neither. What is this but to call a culprit into court to swear off his own accusa

DEC. 27, 28, 1824.]

Niagara Sufferers.-Internal Improvement.

tion? Sir, any British officer will tell us that his government is not to blame-is never in the wrong. We can appreciate, very highly, the delicacy of these gentle men, especially after the scenes at Hampton, in which they made so chaste and honorable a figure; and, no doubt, if charged with those very transactions, they would not only say they were clear of the perpetration of these enormities, but, as I believe, would swear to it. I will believe none of them. I have long been in the habit of supposing that actions spoke louder than words. I ask not, I care not, how a man preaches, unless I know how he acts also; and I do know that the actions of these men were cruel, dastardly, vindictive, and every way abominable.

[H. of R.

ue of all the towns and villages falling within the track of an invading army, nor for all the losses incidental to war; but he should contend that, as far as the ability of the nation extends, it ought to indemnify its citizens for losses occasioned by military occupation; and he did not doubt the ability of this nation to pay all such losses. With regard to the question of retaliation, be differed with the gentleman from North Carolina. He had never before heard that the burning of Newark was on our part a measure of retaliation. He had always thought that, as the villages on each side of the frontier were occupied by the troops of both nations—and as they could not remain on this frontier during the winter without the use of these villages-they were throughout the war at all times liable to destruction on both sides, as they were absolutely necessary, both to us and to the enemy. It was, he presumed, for that reason these villages were destroyed. The enemy had no such justification for other atrocities. It was doing injustice to our country to attribute the burning of Newark to a motive of retaliation.

On these grounds, Mr. Speaker, I am decidedly of opinion that this bill ought not to pass. If it does, it will not only make a destruction of your Treasury, but it will be an act without a parallel in the history of legislation. I will venture to assert that such a law is not to be found within the lids of any code among civilized nations. The gentleman, indeed, says the Emperor of Russia has made a similar allowance to his citizens- Whatever might be the usages of European nations, subjects I would say he has no citizens; but the case as to making indemnity for losses, he could not think is widely different from that before us. The damage these rules applicable to our condition-they were betfor which Alexander made allowance was made by his ter designed for nations surrounded by warlike and powown authority-the burning was his own act. But that erful neighbors, liable to continual invasions, rendering for which we are called to empty the Treasury is the indemnity almost out of the question, if not impractica act of an enemy. If, indeed, these losses had been oc- ble. Our condition was different. In looking forward casioned by the act of an American force, acting under to future wars, he had no apprehensions of invasion, if legitimate authority, I should say, under my present im- the Government persisted in the policy it was now purpressions, pay the demand. But the case is widely dif- suing. Indeed, if the same policy had been pursued at ferent. I was always opposed to the act of 1816—but an earlier period, our country never would have been inwhen it had passed and became a law, the Committee vaded. He could not think that any alarming principle of Claims, so far from impeding its operation, honestly would be established by the bill. Our future wars-the endeavored to carry it into effect, not viewing the claim theatre of our future wars, would be carried far beyond of the sufferers as a right which the government had our boundaries-they must be upon the ocean. been forced to allow, but as a claim of suffering fellow. country will never be again invaded. The spirit of inmen to whom relief had been extended as an act of com-vasion, and the record of our disgrace, perished together passion and charity.

I am sensible, sir, that I have detained the House too long; but I thought it was due to the House, to the committee over which I preside, to the gentleman who advocates the bill, and to myself, to state with frankness my reasons for opposing it.

in the flame of Orleans.

Our

Mr. C. hoped the House would now accord to the sufferers by the late war, that relief which had been so long deferred. For seven years these claimants had applied in vain for retribution. In 1817, when a question was debated whether a commission should be establish

Mr. C.

Mr. CAMBRELENG, of New York, said, that, how-ed to liquidate these claims, or whether the claimants ever widely the gentleman from North Carolina differed should be compelled to come by petition before this from kim, as to the justice of these claims, he was glad House, a distinguished member remarked, that the right to find there was no difference of opinion as to the atro- of petition (in relation to those claims at least,) had becious character of the enemy's conduct during the late come a privilege of having the petition rejected. This war. It was impossible to forget the horrors of Hamp- opinion was very much objected to by many members, ton and Havre de Grace-the Vandalism here; or the but seven years of vain application to this House must massacre of our countrymen on the Raisin. These were satisfy every one of the justice of his remark. The acknowledged to be contrary to the usages of civilized House had been told there were advantages enjoyed by war; and retribution for these losses was due from the those residing in the neighborhood of war. enemy, and not from our own government. But the said he had yet to learn what advantages could countercase now before the committee was of another charac- balance the oppressions and pollations incident to war? ter--one, as he thought, strictly within the rule laid down What advantage could indemnify the inhabitants of the by the gentleman from North Carolina; that wherever, Niagara frontier, for suffering throughout the war the by military occupation, the property had acquired a mi-apprehensions of invasion by Christian and Savage--who litary character, it was rendered liable to destruction by were at last abandoned to their fate, and subjected, in the enemy; such he considered to be peculiarly the mid-winter, to all the horrors of war? I hope, said Mr. case on the Niagara frontier. But, on this subject he C. we shall now administer relief. We have the ability would quote an authority which could not be objected to do so-and the claims are unquestionably just. If to-[Mr. C. then read the evidence of General Porter to the details of the bill go beyond the rule of justice, let establish the military character of the frontier generally it be amended. Mr. C. then moved that the committee throughout the war; the houses upon it being almost rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. without exception occupied for public stores, arsenals, barracks, quarters, &c.] There were other depositions, Mr. C. said, all in accordance with this, which it was unnecessary to detain the House by referring to. If ever there was a case of military occupation, this appeared to be completely so. If a government was, in any case, bound to indemnify its citizens for losses, this certainly was one. Mr. C said he should not contend that government was bound to Indemnity its citizens for the va

VOL. I.-5

The Committee accordingly rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-Dec. 28, 1824.

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT.

Mr. STEWART, of Pennsylvania, said, that, at the last session, he had submitted a proposition, which had for its object the creation of a permanent fund for the purposes of internal Improvement; but, owing to the

H. of R.]

Internal Improvement-Credit on Duties.

[DEC. 28, 1824.

press of other important business, it was not then dis-signment, for foreign account, which has hitherto been posed of. He now rose to renew that proposition. found to interfere with the interests of our own regular When we advert, said Mr. S. to the flourishing condi- merchants." tion of our national finances, as exhibited by the Presi This opinion, from the head of the Treasury Departdent, in his late message to the House: When we look ment, would require nothing to enforce it; and whatever to the rapid increase of our wealth and resources-the objections might exist against the total abolition of the growth of our population—the increase of our internal credit system, there ought to be no opposition to the trade and commerce, and the vast extention of our ter- abolition of so much of it as applies to aliens. It would ritory-it must be admitted, he thought, that the period appear, he said, from the two reports alluded to, that had arrived when it would be proper to appropriate, at the duties on credit, as bonded in 1823, amounted to least, a part of the ample revenues of the country to its twenty-three and one half millions, in round numbers, internal improvement-connecting the distant parts of and that the interest thereon, at six per centum per anthis widely extended republic: uniting and binding them num, if allowed, would amount, in round numbers, to together by the strong ties of interest and intercourse. $1,150,000. The total amount of imposts bonded for Such a system, whether regarded in a commercial, poli- payments on credit, from 1789 up to 1823, was stated tical, or military point of view, was equally important, at 527 millions; which, upon the ratio of interest for the and he believed its adoption was alike demanded by na-year 1823, (as before stated,) would give a grand total tional feeling and national interest. He could not better of $26,000,000. But, as the merchants pay no interest illustrate the importance of this subject, than by adopt on these bonds, it might be considered as a donation of ing the language of the great Father of his country, that amount. He had been told by intelligent merchants, WASHINGTON, Who, more than forty years ago, when re- one of whom was a member, that it would be safe to commending the adoption of measures to facilitate an rate the importations made by aliens, and on foreign acintercourse between the eastern and western states, count, at one fourth part of the total amount, and, of used this emphatic language: "In my judgment, this course, that the Treasury had, in effect, been making is the best, if not the only cement that can bind us to advances, year after year, to alien importers, which, in gether for a great length of time, and we shall be defi- the aggregate, amounted to six millions of dollars; a cient in foresight and wisdom if we neglect it. Our in- sum nearly equal to the whole amount disbursed in the terest is so much in unison with this measure, that noth-payment of Revolutionary pensions. And thus it aping but that short sighted and ill-timed parsimony, and pears, that a corps of foreigners have been quartered upcontracted way of thinking, which intermingle so much on the Treasury as pensioners, under the name and chain our public councils, can counteract it." To these wise racter of alien importers, while our own people are idle and patriotic sentiments, he thought every liberal and for want of business. We can easily find two of our enlightened statesman would cheerfully and cordially own men ready to do the work of one; and we must respond. needs pension foreigners to help us, and aid them in superseding our own native merchants in our commercial operations, and then allow them to pocket their pensions, and carry off the profits of the trade. He hoped the House would see this matter in its proper light, and that the resolution which he was about to send to the Clerk's table, would be read and passed.

Mr. S. then offered the following resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on Roads and Canals be instructed to report a bill pledging the proceeds of the sales of the Public Lands and the dividends of the United States' Bank Stock, as a permanent fund for the purposes of internal improvement, to be distributed among the several States according to the ratio of representation, and expended on objects to be designated by Congress within or bordering on the States respectively. The said fund, with the interest thereon accruing, to be vested, annually, in United States' or other productive Stocks, until the same shall be required to carry into effect the objects of its appropriation.

On motion, this resolution was ordered to lie on the table, and be printed.

Mr. T. then submitted the following resolve: Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire whether any, and, if any, what, provision ought to be made by law to discriminate between importations made by citizens of the United States and others, and whether it is or is not expedient to repeal all laws allowing credits for duties upon merchandise imported by aliens, or on foreign account.

The resolve was agreed to.

Mr. BRECK, of Penn. moved to take up the resolution offered by bim some days since, on the subject of the claims of the Marquis de Maison Rouge, with a view to its modification. The motion was carried-ayes 74, noes 37.

Mr. BRECK modified the resolution by striking out the last clause, which inquires respecting orders given by the Executive for the defence of certain suits by the Attorney General of the United States.

DISCRIMINATING CREDITS ON DUTIES. Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, rose to offer a resolution, couched in the usual form of an inquiry. It was predicated upon two reports made by the Secretary of the Treasury to the House. He had two objects in view-first, to discriminate between importations made by citizens of the United States, and all others; and, second, to procure a repeal of such laws as allow credits for duties bonded upon merchandise imported by aliens, The question recurring on the resolution thus modior on foreign account. The discrimination was desira-fied, calling simply for copies of any letters which may ble for the sake of the statistical fact, as well as for other have been addressed by the claimants to the Executivepurposes; and he saw no reason why we should allow Mr. BRENT, of Lou. objected to it, as calling on the alien importers to bond their duties, on long credits, President for a private letter. without interest, when it was well known our native merchants were seriously injured by this extension of the credit system in favor of foreigners. In the printed document, No. 13, the Secretary says:

Whatever motives there may be for allowing a credit for duties to our own citizens, no sufficient reason is perceived for continuing it to foreigners, who are not domiciliated in the republic. A discrimination, in this respect, between citizens of the United States and others, would tend to confine the commerce of the nation to its own citizens, and would aid in restraining the practice of shipping merchandise to this country, upon con

Mr. BRECK explained, and contended that the letter was strictly of a public nature. All he wished was to have an authenticated copy of it laid before the committee. A private copy lay in his own desk, but this could not be received as evidence by a committee of this House.

Mr. COCKE objected to the resolution as unnecessary, as the paper might be authenticated in another way, without calling on the President on the occasion.

Mr. HEMPHILL suggested, as an amendment, to add the clause, "if, in his opinion, it shall not be improper to communicate the same;" and in this form the resolu tion was adopted,