solved the stipulations they had entered into to make restitution and compensation. But what, in this state of things, would restrain their piratical cruisers in the West Indies? They, whether hoping that a war would be the consequence of annulling the Treaty, or that, as the two nations were no longer under that tie, they might again rob with impunity; and would probably seize on American vessels wherever they could meet them, and carry them into those ports in which corrupt Judges stood ready to condemn them. [H. of R. could, and doubtless would, commence the negotiations anew with Great Britain in order to obtain alterations and modifications of the objectionable parts, but an attentive perusal of the article which had been quoted, must convince him and every other person that the PRESIDENT must consider the Treaty as valid and binding, even though the appropriations were refused, and consequently instead of making a new compact, must, if he preserved that character for firmness and consistency which he had ever supported, protest against the usurpation of power on the part of the House So far as this question respected a dissolution of the present Government, it was certainly a of Representatives. very delicate one. Important as the subject under debate unquestionably was, he was free to declare it to be his opinion that no decision, however unfavorable it might seem, could justify, or would produce a separation of the States. He lamented that it had been conceived or mentioned by any one, for he should, whilst he had strength, resisting that he came to frame a new Treaty instead such an event as the most fatal that could befall his country, and would cling to the Union as the rock of their political salvation. But he would not say, nor would any one else seriously say, that there was no room to apprehend that a rejection might produce suspicions, jealousies, distrusts, and discord between the one part of the Union and the other, and such a general fermentation in the public mind as never before prevailed. But let it be supposed for a moment that the PRESIDENT could condescend to send out another Envoy upon such an errand; had the gentleman revolved in his mind what language must accompany the mission? The new agent must introduce himself to the Court of London by declarof the one which though lately made by the two branches of Government who were then conceived to be the constituted authorities, had been more lately broken by the third branch. That the PRESIDENT had believed the approbation of the Senate followed by his own ratification to be fully sufficient to render the compact valid and binding, but that the House of Representatives had taken a new view and sense of his and their powers, had conceived their concurrence necessary to give it binding force, had convinced him that his construction of the Constitution had been erroneous, and had insisted upon his sending this extraordinary Envoy to practise upon the new lessons they had taught him. He could not here refrain from making a serious appeal to the candor and good sense of the gentleman from Virginia. Having served with him many years in public life-in the Old Congress, under the Confederation, in the Federal Convention, and for nearly six years under the present form of Government, he had, upon many Were it possible for a man acquainted as the and various occasions witnessed the display of his gentleman from Virginia is, with the temper and superior talents, and the efforts of his patriotism, character of Courts, to conceive that this messenand derived from thence a conviction that, as at ger, though clothed with diplomatic sanction, no former moment, so neither at the present, could could be otherwise received and treated than with he appeal to those qualities in that gentleman in contempt? Would he not be told to go back to vain. Mr. D. requested him to turn his attention his countrymen, and desire them to settle among to the last article of the British Treaty, and par- themselves where they had deposited this power ticularly that part of it which is in the words fol-of Treaty making? Would he not be told that lowing, viz: if it resided in the PRESIDENT with the advice "This Treaty, when the same shall have been rati- and consent of the Senate, as they had been taught fied by His Majesty and by the President of the United to believe,. then there was one already formed States, by and with the advice and consent of their Se- which the British Government were ready, and nate, and the respective ratifications mutually ex- the United States bound to fulfil, but that if the changed, shall be binding and obligatory on His Ma- House of Representatives were in future to particijesty and on the said States, and shall be by them re-pate in this power, he must, if he returned to Great spectively executed and observed with punctuality and the most sincere regard to good faith," &c. He called upon the gentleman from Virginia to show in what line or word of it the PRESIDENT had exceeded his authority, or, if that was not pretended, and he believed it was not by any one, he wished that gentleman to reflect for a moment how it was possible to refuse appropriations, and yet preserve inviolate the faith of this country, so solemnly pledged in that article. Britain, bring not only his own credentials from the PRESIDENT, but also authenticated copies of the powers from the House to the PRESIDENT himself? The member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. GALLATIN] had asserted there was as weighty a responsibility on the one side as on the other. This, Mr. D. said, he altogether denied. All must admit that the PRESIDENT and Senate would at least share it with those members who should vote for Could that member conceive a more embarrass- carrying the Treaty into effect, and they would ing situation than that in which the measures have to justify them, in addition to the important contemplated by him would place the first magis-objects of the settlement of differences, the comtrate of this country? He had said, in his speech, pensation for losses, the possession of the posts, that if this Treaty was rejected the PRESIDENT &c., the plea of plighted faith. But they who should vote against the necessary provision in that House, would thereby take upon themselves alone all the consequences of the rejection. Could they lean for support upon even the ten dissenting Senators? No! For the instrument when under consideration of the Senate was an inchoate act. No faith was then pledged, its merits alone were the subject of consideration, and it might then have been rejected without wounding in the least degree the national honor. Could they lean upon those citizens, numerous as they were, who early expressed disapprobation? No! For this was generally done to arrest or to prevent ratification, and now since it was ratified, the opposition of far the greater part of this description was withdrawn and the names of very many of them were signed to the numerous petitions laying upon the table, praying that the Treaty might be carried into effect. They were, in short, about to take upon themselves a weightier responsibility than had ever before been er.countered by any majority since the formation of the Government. Nor would they free themselves from this responsibility if they should first_refuse and afterwards resolve to appropriate. To reject the appropriation by a vote, though it were to continue only for a moment, would be to inflict such a deadly wound upon the Constitution and honor of this country, as no subsequent vote or conduct could ever heal-they were considerations far too sacred thus to be sported with, and he earnestly entreated gentlemen to consider well the importance of the first step they were about to take, which if wrong could never effectually be trodden back. Mr. D. concluded with observing that, although he was not pleased with many parts of the Treaty-although he had never felt any strong predilection for an intimate connexion with Britainalthough he had never seen their encroachments on the rights, nor their depredations upon the property of American citizens with an indulgent eye, or in the temper of tame submission, and although he had long ceased to entertain any respect for the negotiator, yet he should vote for the resolution, because he loved his country, and to that love, would sacrifice every resentment, every prejudice, every personal consideration. He should vote to carry the Treaty into effect with good faith, because he sincerely believed that the interests of his fellow-citizens would be much more promoted by that, than by the opposite line of conduct. He had said," with good faith," and he hoped in thus repeating the expression he should not give offence to the Committee, nor to the member from Pennsylvania, at whose instance those words were stricken out of the resolution. They were however, words of solemn import, and although that member declared he did not understand them, yet they were well understood by the people of the United Statess They were not ignorant of the solemn obligations thereby imposed upon them, and their Representatives. They knew that their faith when pledged could never be broken, without injuring their interests. They would judge when it was fairly pledged. They would know when it was wantonly violated, and they [APRIL, 1796. would determine whether they would permit a violation to be made with impunity. Mr. CHRISTIE said, the first time he read the Treaty he believed it to be a bad bargain; he continued to think so, though he did not think it pregnant with all the evils which had been ascribed to it. He thought all that had been urged about war, and a dissolution of Government, if the Treaty was not carried into effect, something like the tale of "Rawhead and Bloody bones," to frighten children. But, though he thought the Treaty a bad one, his constituents were desirous it should be carried into effect, and he found himself bound to lay aside his own opinion, and act according to their will. He should therefore vote for carrying it into effect. The question was then put on the resolution, which is in substance as follows: Resolved, That it is expedient to make the necessary appropriations for carrying the Treaty with Great Britain into effect. The House divided, forty-nine for the resolution, forty-nine against it. It remained for the Chairman, Mr. MUHLENBERG to decide. He said, he did not feel satisfied with the resolution as it now stood; he should, however, vote for it, that it might go to the House and there be modified. The resolution was consequently agreed to, and reported to the House. [The following statement will show the true sense of the House as to the expediency of carrying the British Treaty into effect: Forty-nine voted for this expediency. The Chairman, Mr. MUHLENBERG, to give an opportunity further to consider the resolution, voted for it. Mr. PATTON from Delaware was ill, and was necessarily absent. It is, however, well understood, that he is opposed to the Treaty. Mr. VARNUM was accidentally absent. He is no friend to the Treaty. Messrs. FREEMAN, SHERBURNE, and VAN CORTLANDT are absent on leave. Mr. DUVALL has resigned, and his successor has not yet taken his seat. From which it is evident that there is an actual majority of the House against the expediency of carrying the Treaty into execution.] When the resolution was reported to the House, the question on it was called for, and the yeas and nays. Mr. GILES wished some modification to be made in the resolution before them, or an additional one introduced so as to express the sense of the House upon the Treaty; he said it was observable that several gentlemen voted for the present resolution who thought the Treaty a bad one. He was not prepared at present with a proper resolution. The reason why he thought some qualification necessary was, that as a part of the Treaty was only to continue in effect for two years, and at the end of that time a fresh negotiation would probably take place, if the sense of that House upon the Treaty H. OF R.] Execution of British Treaty. was known to the PRESIDENT, it might, in some degree operate with him in a renewal of that part of the Treaty. Mr. JACKSON wished, as he discovered some of the members of the House were at present absent, and as the yeas and nays were to be taken upon the question, that a call of the House should be made previous to the taking of it. He said, he should vote against the Treaty, and should be able to give satisfactory reasons to his constituents for so doing; he, wished therefore, that on this important decision, the name of every member should appear on the list of yeas and nays. He hoped, therefore, the question would be postponed for the purpose. Mr. MACON also wished the question to be postponed. He said he had doubts yet on his mind, respecting the construction of the 9th article, relative to the holding of lands, and if the construction which some gentlemen thought it would bear was the true construction, this question would be of greater importance to the State of North Caro lina than the Declaration of Independence itself. He should speak within bounds if he was to say one half of the lands in that State would be affected by that construction. Mr. HOLLAND and Mr. GILLESPIE also express ed their doubts on this head. Mr. SWANWICK hoped the question would be put off till Monday; in the mean time gentlemen might have an opportunity of making up their minds on the subject so as to harmonize together. Mr. S. SMITH said, it would be imprudent and improper to force the decision of the question at present. He hoped it would not be insisted upon, Mr. WILLIAMS said, any delay in their decision would add to the loss already sustained, by the farmers and merchants in the sale of agricultural production. For the sake of accommodation he would, however, consent to a postponement of the question till to-morrow. [APRIL, 1796. EXECUTION OF BRITISH TREATY. The House then took up the resolution yesterday passed in a Committee of the Whole, for with Great Britain; when carrying into effect the Treaty lately negotiated Mr. DEARBORN said, as it appeared that a majority of that House was in favor of carrying into effect the British Treaty, notwithstanding several of those gentlemen who had declared their thought it a bad Treaty, and as he wished to see intention of voting for it, had declared they the opinion the House entertained of the Treaty entered upon their Journals, he took the liberty of proposing an amendment to the resolution in the following words: "Resolved, That, although in the opinion of this House the Treaty is highly objectionable, and may prove injurious to the United States, yet, considering all the circumstances relating thereto, and particularly, that the last eighteen articles are to continue in force only during the present war, and two years thereafter, and confiding also in the efficacy of measures that may be takcommitted on our neutral rights, in regard to our vesen for bringing about a discontinuance of the violations sels and seamen, therefore, &c." taken upon the question; which was agreed to. Mr. Corr hoped the yeas and nays would be Mr. GоODHUE hoped the House would not agree to the resolution; he, for one, would never agree to it. Mr. SWANWICK hoped the amendment would be agreed to; for whatever some gentlemen's opinion might be with respect to the propriety of carrying the Treaty into effect, very few thought it a good Treaty. An amendment, therefore, declaring the motives which actuated that House in passing the resolution for carrying the Treaty into effect was very desirable, it would induce some gentlemen to vote for it, who would otherwise vote against it and it ought not to excite objecMr. TRACY hoped the question might be post-men, the arguments which had been used to ention. He appealed to the recollection of gentleponed, if gentlemen wished it, till to-morrow or force the necessity of the appropriations, which Monday. the most objectionable part of the Treaty was to laid great stress upon the shortness of time which be in force. He hoped, therefore, these arguments would not be objected to in the form of a resolution. Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped the question would be postponed till Monday, when he hoped more unanimity would prevail in the decision. Messrs. BOURNE, CHRISTIE, and COOPER, Wished the adjournment to be till to-morrow only. The question was put and carried for to-morrow. Mr. GILLESPIE then moved that a call of the House be made for to-morrow at 12 o'clock; which was agreed to. SATURDAY, April 30. A bill for continuing in force an act in the State of Maryland, appointing a Health Officer for the port of Baltimore, was read a third time and passed. The House took up the consideration of the amendments yesterday made in the Committee of the Whole in the bill for the Military Establishment; which, being agreed to, it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. the Treaty perfect in every part, a very paragon; There might, indeed, be gentlemen who thought and would vote against it. It might be said this these, of course, would object to this amendment, amendment would convey an indirect censure on the other branches of Government; but he did not think so. That the Treaty was highly objectionable was shown by the decision of the Committee of the Whole yesterday, when the Chairman, with the hope of some modification taking place in the resolution, decided the vote in its favor. He hoped the proposed modification would not, therefore, be objected to. There was another important observation, which was the confidence expressed in the PRESIDENT's taking measures to prevent future spoliations of property and impressment of seament. Mr. S. said, if the ameud ment was adopted, it might lead him finally to vote for the Treaty, which he otherwise should not do. [APRIL, 1796. which had been sanctioned by the PRESIDENT and Senate. In deciding upon the amendment proposed, he wished the sense of the House to be taken; and if he considered that a single individual would be influenced to vote against the resoshould wish them to be separated. It was his opinion the Treaty was a bad one, and he believed it was the opinion of a decided majority of that House. He wished the resolution to be so amended that the Treaty might go into effect by a considerable majority, as it would tend to lessen the irritation which had been raised respecting it. Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that other gentlemen might be allowed to be consistent in their vote as well as the gentleman last up. He voted yester-lution who would otherwise have voted for it, he day in the majority for the resolution in its present form, and he did not wish to vote for it in any other. Why did not gentlemen yesterday move their modification? To pass the modification to-day would be undoing what was done yesterday. If a majority of the House thought the Treaty a bad one, they had a right to say so, and let the responsibility rest where it ought to rest. Mr. HILLHOUSE said, when he prepared the resolution on the table, he thought he had done it in such general terms that every gentleman might vote for it, without expressing a sentiment contrary to what he entertained respecting the Trea- Mr. SITGREAVES said, the gentleman who introty. The amendment proposed, he thought very duced this resolution said he did it with a view to objectionable. It appeared as if it was intended accommodation. If so, the mover and supporters to force gentlemen to vote against carrying the of it would not wish to lay gentlemen under an Treaty into effect rather than vote for the Treaty. obligation of doing what was disagreeable to them. For his own part, he could not vote for it, as it Those gentlemen were willing, it seemed, to vote would be in direct contradiction to the sentiments for a resolution for carrying the Treaty into efwhich he had before expressed. He thought can- fect, but wished at the same time to divest themdor itself could not expect gentlemen who approv-selves of responsibility. Mr. S. said he had no ed of the Treaty to vote for the amendment. It objection to their expressing their own opinions; was also a rule to avoid expressing particular sen- they were not his. Therefore, if a fair representtiments in resolutions of this kind. One part of ation of opinion was to be given, the two propothe proposition, if it was brought forward sepa- sitions should be separated. With respect to that rately, would be assented to generally, respecting part of the resolution expressing hopes in future the confidence placed in the PRESIDENT, with re- negotiation, he had no objection, but to the other spect to future spoliations and impressments of sea- he could not agree. On this subject he was so men. In this proposition, it was said, the Treaty decided, that he avowed he would rather lose the was injurious; he did not believe it was so. He be-Treaty than that the sentiments in the amendlieved it would be beneficial to the United States. It would not only be agreeing to an opinion which was contrary to the sentiments of gentlemen, but it would be passing a censure on the other branches of Government. Gentlemen were not required to say it was a good Treaty, and he hoped no one would be forced to say it was a bad one. [The SPEAKER informed the House that it was then twelve o'clock, and as they had yesterday ordered that there should be a call of the House today at that hour, he should direct the Clerk to make the call. It was accordingly done. Messrs. BRENT, HARPER, and PATTON were absent. The two former came to the House soon after the call, and, on making apologies, were excused. Mr. PATTON was indisposed.] Mr. GREGG said he should vote for the resolution in its present state. He did so, not because he thought the Treaty a good one, but because he believed the interest of the United States would be promoted by making the necessary appropriations, and because he was apprehensive worse consequences might arise from defeating it than from carrying it into effect. Mr. MOORE considered himself as called upon to choose between two evils. He considered the Treaty to be bad. On the other hand, he was apprehensive that evils might arise, if it was not carried into effect, out of the control of that House. He had resolved not to vote for the resolution on the table; but he felt unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of rejecting the Treaty, ment should go out as his act. He hoped gentlemen would consent to let them vote as they thought right. Let gentlemen throw their ideas into a distinct proposition, the responsibility would then be rightly placed; their constituents would be informed of their opinions, the honor of the nation would be saved, and the divisions which had distracted their country would be healed. Mr. DEARBORN said, in offering the amendment which he had proposed, he had no intention of taking any thing like an unfair advantage, or of producing what might be thought uncandid or unfair. His own sentiments relative to the Treaty were such as would prevent his consenting to do any thing to carry it into effect, unless with such a provision as he had brought forward. It appeared to him of such a nature, that he was not sure that he could bring his mind to vote to carry it into effect at all. He had supposed there could be nothing improper in taking the opinion of the House relative to the thing itself. If it might be presumed that there were but few gentlemen in that House who thought the Treaty a good one, he, indeed, thought there were none of that opinion, until then, though some gentlemen had prais ed it in their speeches, but which he had merely considered as adding weight to their arguments, he believed such an amendment was desirable. As he, therefore, took it for granted that a considerable majority of the House were of the same opinion with himself, he saw no impropriety in having that opinion expressed. The propositions APRIL, 1796.] Execution of British Treaty. [H. of R. would vote for it in that way, rather than lose it. Were they then to vote for the resolution, loaded with odium, or lose the Treaty? These steps, he said, all led to one issue-a rejection of the Treaty. The gentleman from Virginia last up, had de would not interfere with any bill which might be brought in, and gentlemen would have the discretion to vote for it or not. If a majority of the House thought differently from him, and chose to negative the amendment, he should be satisfied. Until he heard something further on the busi-clared that, though he should vote for the amendness, to convince him of the impropriety of doing so, he should wish to see a decision of the House upon the proposition as he had offered it. Mr. HARPER said he was of the number who thought the measure of passing the resolution on the table a very expedient one; but whilst this was his opinion, he knew there were many, both within and without their walls, of a different opinion. He had no objection to gentlemen's expressing their opinions, but he wished also to be at liberty to express his. He should, therefore, propose that the mover should form his resolution as a preamble. This would answer the purpose of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MOORE.] He said, when it was so formed, every one would have an opportunity of voting for it, and, if negatived, the resolution would stand as before. He hoped, therefore, the proposal would be agreed Mr. DEARBORN said he considered his motion in the nature of a preamble; and he had no objection to any alteration that would make it more properly so. to. ment, he would not be bound to vote for carrying the Treaty into effect. He believed most of those gentlemen who would vote for the amendment, would vote against the original resolution; and that it was introduced as a barrier betwixt the Treaty and those who were friendly to it. He would agree to or reject the original resolution; for he, for one, would declare he would not vote for the resolution so loaded. If the Treaty was to be so carried into effect, it would poison its vitals. The Treaty was the law of the land; it also held up a relation between two nations. It was not merely the delivery of the posts, or compensation for spoliations, that the Treaty embraced; such a resolution would spread a general alloy of bad opinion, which would eventually bring the two nations' to the sword. The Treaty, so loaded, would not have the desired effect; for, instead of allaying the spirit of enmity between the two countries, it would serve to keep it alive. It was the interest of both countries to be at peace, and Were the amendment proposed to be adopted, it to have a good understanding with each other. raised against the PRESIDENT for having executed would keep up that animosity which had been the Treaty. Small were his means, said Mr. M., of settling disputes with foreign nations. Without Navy, without Army-nothing but plain reason with which to meet a powerful Court Mr. KITTERA appealed to the candor of the gentleman who brought forward the amendment, with respect to the propriety of making his proposition a distinct one. He thought it would be extremely improper to pass a resolution which should say, "We pass this law, though we believe it to be a very bad one." He thought it also directly charg-whether Mr. M. was in order? The SPEAKER an[Mr. MACON wished to know of the SPEAKER ing another branch of the Government with im- swered in the affirmative.] proper conduct. Mr. MURRAY said he had not spoken on the subMr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the amend-ject before. He was stating that the PRESIDENT ment being inserted by way of preamble. He urged the propriety of the opinions of members being fairly taken on this important business. Mr. GREGG wished to offer an amendment, as a substitute to that before the Committee. It was, in substance, as follows: "Resolved, That under a consideration of existing circumstances, without reference to the merits or demerits of the Treaty, and in confidence that measures will be taken by the Executive to maintain our neutral rights, it is expedient," &c. This was declared out of order until the amendment was decided on. was armed only with reason; he was stripped of all the symbols of power, and if the Treaty before them was carried into effect, with such a clog as the amendment proposed, he would be debilitated indeed. Their Executive had, in his opinion, done great things, and what would have covered any European Minister with untarnished laurels, by means of reason and policy; for, however wickedly Courts act, they calculate upon the force of the Powers with whom they treat. When a Minister goes to negotiate, they inquire into the naval and military force of his country, their appropriations for the army and navy, &c., &c. The En Mr. VENABLE had no objection to the proposi-voy of the United States would be a blank upon tions being taken separately, as gentlemen would be then left at liberty to vote as they pleased. He conceived there were gentlemen who would vote for the proposition with the amendment, who would not vote for it without it. He did not know that any amendment would reconcile the resolution to him; for, though he should vote for the amendment, he would not bind himself to vote for carrying into effect the Treaty. Mr. MURRAY said, if this measure was pursued, the Treaty would be defeated. The amendment proposed, implied that the friends of the Treaty such an occasion. What was their interest, then? It was to give energy to their Government. Should they then pass the law in such a manner as almost to warrant the people in resisting it? The only thing which remained for them to do, was, not only to carry the Treaty into effect, but to carry it into effect with good faith. The object was not merely the posts-it was a conciliation of the differences long existing between the two nations; and it was their duty to execute it so as to produce the greatest advantage; whereas, if they were to agree to the amendment proposed, so co |