reduction of expense wherever it could be done, yet they would find, that the salary of the Secretary of the department for Foreign Affairs was the same as now. [Mr. S. read an extract from the Journals of 1787 to corroborate his assertion.] This was of itself sufficient to show the necessity of an increase at present. Mr. FINDLEY said, there was a difficulty. if they did not extend the advance to all their officers, where to draw the line. The question on the resolution was put and carried, there being fifty five members in favor of it. The Committee then rose, and the House took up the consideration of the resolution. Mr. LOCKE thought this resolution would have a very bad tendency, and would be unfavorably received by the people. He was opposed to it, and should wish the sense of the House to be taken upon it by the yeas and nays. [H. OF R. Mr. S. SMITH reported a bill for making an addition to the salaries of certain public officers for the year 1796; which was twice read and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole to morrow. The question for which being put was carried. Mr. GILLESPIE observed, that it was alleged that this addition to the salaries of their officers was owing to the advance which had taken place in the price of living. since their salaries were fixed. If it were so he thought the Purveyor of A communication was received from the AtPublic Supplies should be struck out, as that offi-torney General, enclosing a report upon the peticer had not been long appointed. He made a motion to that effect, which was negatived. The yeas and nays were then taken on the resolution, which passed-yeas 51, nays 34-in the following form: "Resolved, That there be allowed and paid, for the year 1796, to the Secretaries of State, Treasury and War Departments, Treasurer, Comptroller, Auditor, Register, Commissioner of Revenue, Purveyor, Attorney General, and Postmaster General, in addition to their respective salaries." The yeas and nays being demanded by one-fifth of the members present, were as follow: tion of sundry inhabitants of St. Clair, against the oppressive conduct of Judge Turner, which recommended a certain mode of prosecution. The report and other papers were referred to a select committee. cuit Courts of Rhode Island and Vermont, was The bill altering the time of holding the Cirread a third time and passed. Mr. TRACY from the Committee of Claims, made a report upon the petition of certain Stockbridge Indians for compensation for services during the war with Great Britain, which was against the petitioners. Agreed to. He also made a report on the petition of John YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Benjamin Montgomery and Thomas Smith, executors of Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Gabriel Christie, Joshua the late General Richard Butler, who was killed Coit, William Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, in a battle with the Indians on the 4th November, William Findley, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Eze- 1791, and left behind him a widow and children; kiel Gilbert, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Henry the report was in favor of the petitioners, and reGlen, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger commended the act of June 7, 1794, to be exGriswold, William B. Grove, Carter B. Harrison, Tho- tended to this claim. Mr. T. observed, that this mas Hartley, John Heath, James Hillhouse, William case had been before determined upon on a petiHindman, John Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Sa- tion from the widow Butler; that a bill had passed muel Lyman, James Madison, Francis Malbone, John that House, but had been negatived in the SeMilledge, Andrew Moore, William Vans Murray, Alex-nate. He doubted not, therefore, the report would ander D. Orr, John Page, John Reed, Robert Rutherford, be agreed to. It was ordered to be referred to a Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Committee of the Whole. Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Thomas Sprigg, John Swanwick, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wads worth, and John Williams. NAYS.-Theodorus Bailey, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, Daniel Heister, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Francis Pres Mr. SWANWICK presented a petition from sundry officers in the late war, holding military warrants, praying that land might be appropriated, upon which to locate their warrants in place of that ceded to the Indians by Treaty. It was referred to the committee who had the manage ment of that business. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill authorizing Ebenezer Zane to locate certain lands Northwest of the river Ohio; which, after a few amendments, was agreed to, taken up in the House, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. H. OF R.] Treaty with Algiers-Sale of Prizes. The Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred the bill relative to military lands, was discharged, and the bill was recommitted to a select committee. SALE OF PRIZES. Mr. S. SMITH wished the House to take up the resolution, which had been laid upon the table on Saturday, relative to the sale of prizes in the ports of the United States. It was accordingly taken up. Mr. S. said, his intention in bringing forward this resolution was to put all nations upon the same footing with respect to selling of prizes in their ports. By our Treaty with Great Britain, prizes taken from that Power by the French were prohibited from being sold in our ports; and in our Treaty with France, a similar stipulation was made with respect to French vessels taken by the English; but in case a war should take place between' Great Britain and Spain, there was at present no regulation to prevent Great Britain from bringing Spanish prizes into our ports. By the law which he proposed he meant to deny the privilege of selling prizes in our ports to all nations, as the best way of steering clear of offence to any, and thereby preserve our neutrality inviolate. After some little opposition, on the ground of its being a measure not at present called for, but might be entered into when such a war as was anticipated should take place; that it was giving an advantage without reciprocity; and that the French, having heretofore had the privilege of selling her prizes ia our ports, the stoppage of that privilege might give offence to them-it passed by a large majority, and a committee was appointed to bring in a bill. A bill was subsequently reported, which was read the first and second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole. Mr. W. SMITH, from the committee to whom was referred the amendments of the Senate to the bill for the sale of lands Northwest of the river Ohio, made a report, recommending the amendments to be agreed to, and proposing some additional ones. They were ordered to be printed. TREATY WITH ALGIERS. The House, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, of the eighteenth ultimo, relative to a further provision for foreign intercourse;" and came to the following resolutions, which were severally twice read, and agreed to by the House: 1. Resolved, That the sum of two hundred and sixty thousand dollars be appropriated, in order to carry into effect any Treaty already made, and enable the PRESIDENT to effect any Treaty or Treaties with any of the Barbary States. 2. Resolved, That dollars be appropriated for foreign intercourse, in addition to the sum of forty thousand dollars, annually appropriated for that purpose. 3. Resolved, That the sum of four thousand five hundred and thirty-nine dollars and six cents, [MAY, 1796. be appropriated to reimburse the sums advanced by Captains Colvill and Burnham, for their ransom from captivity in Algiers. Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in, to continue in force the act, entitled "An act proted States and foreign nations," and, also, pursuviding the means of intercourse between the Uniant to the resolutions aforesaid; and that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. GALLATIN, and Mr. HILLHOUSE, do prepare and bring in the same. WEDNESDAY, May 11. certain lands in the Northwestern Territory, was The bill authorizing Ebenezer Zane to locate read a third time and passed. widow of the late Colonel George Gibson, which, of land Northwest of the river Ohio, with the 160 acres each are done away, and the least quan- SALE OF PRIZES. the Whole upon the bill to prevent the sale of The House resolved itself into a Committee of prizes in our ports. the duration of the law for two years, and from Mr. GALLATIN moved to add a clause, to limit thence to the end of the next session of Congress. Mr. S. SMITH wished to amend the motion by striking out "two" and inserting "three." negatived. The motion for inserting "three" was put and not prevail. If he understood the intention of this Mr. SITGREAVES hoped the amendment would bill, it was to prevent the necessity of making stipulations in time of war. At the expiration of this law it was possible the parties might be at war. The idea was to establish, during a season of peace, a law with respect to the sale of prizes, which could give offence to no Power; but, at the expiration of the proposed limit, we might be in the situation we wish to avoid. Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the bill was attended to it would be seen that that objection would not stand. If the act expires, and we think proper to renew it, would it be introducing a new principle? Surely not, it will have been in operation three as new. years, and, therefore, could not be considered Mr. MURRAY had no objection, in common acts of the Legislature, to introduce a clause of limitation; but in acts where great principles are laid down, as in this, which establishes a rule of action equal to every country in a state of war, whilst we are in a state of neutrality, he thought it perfectly unnecessary to limit the bill. It would always be in our power to repeal the law; but, holding out an idea that at the end of two years the regulation might die, he thought wrong. There was no experiment necessary with respect to this law; for, being right now, it would be right forever. But to hold out an idea that the measure was merely temporary, might induce a foreign Power to make use of artifices to prevent a re-enacting of the law. Mr. SITGREAVES said, he did not feel convinced by what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia. If, when the law expired a fresh law was passed, it would be considered as a neutral nation changing the situation of two nations at war, so as to give one a preference to another. It would at least be considered as an unfavorable thing, if Spain should be at war with France or England, when this law expires; not to renew it would place her on a worse footing than the other Powers, and to put her on the same ground with France and England, we must make a new law. It was true it would not be a new principle, but it would change her situation, and might be cause of offence to the other nation at war. Mr. SWANWICK conceived that every argument in support of the bill was in favor of a limitation of its duration. It was founded upon the probability of war betwixt England and Spain. If these two Powers did go to war he apprehended it would be within two years, or not all. But gentlemen say the principle is a permanent one. He was of a different opinion: it might be a very wrong principle at some times, though good now. To make the law permanent was going too far. He had another and still stronger objection to the law being passed without limitation-he should make no stipulation in favor of any country without reciprocity. If this privilege was allowed to Spain, we ought to be guarantied to have a like stipulation in our favor. [H. OF R. our ports Dutch prizes, and the Executive could not with propriety refuse them the privilege of selling them. On account of the situation of other Powers, especially Spain, it was right, in this instance, to do by law what in most cases would be better done by Treaty; but the very reasons which induced him to wish for the law, induced him to make the amendment. The Treaty with Great Britain was to expire two years after the present war; and, if the present law was not made to expire about the same time, it would put it out of the power of the PRESIDENT to negotiate a new Treaty upon the best terms possible; for Great Britain, holding by law that advantage, would feel no inducement to grant an equivalent in order to obtain it. Mr. WILLIAMS was in favor of the limitation; for, though a good measure to-day, it might not be so a few years hence. No difficulty could arise from the limitation; and, if it did not answer. it was much better to let the bill die of itself than to repeal it. The motion on the amendment was put and carried. The Committee then rose, the House took up the consideration of the amendment, agreed to it, and ordered the bill to be engrossed for a third reading. Mr. S. SMITH called up, and the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution which he had laid upon the table to prevent the sale of prizes in the ports of the United States. He wished, he said, to put all nations upon the same footing in this respect. The French had been in the habit of bringing their prizes into the ports of the United States. Under the Treaty with that nation (and as the Law of Nations did not forbid their sale) the PRESIDENT had indulged them in the practice of selling their prizes. The French, therefore, having had this privilege, the British, if no new law was passed to the contrary, would expect to be indulged in the same way; and, should a war break cut between England and Spain, (which was no improbable thing from the present situation of Europe,) and the English should bring into the ports of the United States Spanish prizes, it might give offence to Spain, as that nation could not do the same, it being contrary to a stipulation in the late Treaty with Great Britain. The British bringing Spanish prizes into our ports, Mr. S. said, would have another bad effect-they would enlist our sailors on board their vessels, and by that means greatly enre-hance the wages of seamen, already too high. Mr. S. said, he did not see any necessity for the bill at all, but he should waive his objections to it. He thought there were strong reasons, however, for limiting its duration, in order to obtain suitable returns from other foreign Powers. Mr. GALLATIN said, it was well understood that the Law of Nations was entirely silent with spect to the sale of prizes in neutral ports. It was one of those things relative to belligerent Powers, which was more the subject of a Treaty than of law. Amongst all our Treaties with foreign nations only one of them contemplated this object, viz: the Treaty with Great Britain, which forbids expressly all her vessels taken prizes from being sold in our seaports. This being established, we wish to put other nations, with whom we have not treated on the subject, on the same footing with Great Britain. We had not at present any provision with the Dutch on the subject, so that Great Britain might bring into The motion was put and carried; the Committee rose and reported the resolution; the House took it up, when Mr. MACON observed, it would be impolitic to pass the law proposed. Had they not already allowed the French to sell prizes in our ports, and would it not be a breach of our Treaty with them now to put a stop to the practice? He thought it would be better to leave the matter as it was. Mr. W. SMITH said, the Executive did not consider it as repugnant to the Law of Nations to allow the French to sell their prizes in our ports, and, therefore, he had tolerated the practice. But it was an injurious practice; it created a tendency to war and a desire of privateering in their seamen, when they were witness to the spoils acquired by others. No nation could claim it of right; and we had a right by law to prohibit it; and very beneficial effects would, in his opinion, arise from such a restriction. [May, 1796. commercial from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SWANWICK.] who said he was under no apprehension from British privateers engaging our sailors: whereas our sailors, having early embarked in privateers, was well known to be one of the causes of the high prices of wages. British impressments was another cause. The sailors of Mr. SWANWICK thought the resolution very im- the Danes and Swedes remain at nearly the same portant. It was interfering with a principle gen- rates as usual; and he would say if Spanish and tlemen were not aware of. It was a very delicate Portuguese prizes were to be admitted to be sold subject. Sweden and some other countries have in our ports, the wages of sailors would advance found an advantage in allowing prizes to be sold to fifty dollars a month. That gentleman had in their ports. It was doubtful with him whether studied and spoken upon the Treaty, yet he did the inconveniences would not be greater than the not seem perfectly to understand it. He said, our conveniences arising from the proposed measure. seamen would not be likely to enter on board It had the appearance of withdrawing an advan- privateers, because, if they did, they would be tage from France, which the PRESIDENT had considered as pirates. Mr. S. read the article, in heretofore allowed them to enjoy. If the late which the words are: "If any subject or citizen, Treaty with Britain takes the power away from &c., shall accept any foreign commission or letFrance, let it be left on that ground. He supposed ters of marque for arming any vessel, &c., if the PRESIDENT did not grant the privilege with- taken, shall be considered as a pirate." Did sailout well considering the matter. What were ors, he asked, come under this description? But, now the reasons for withdrawing it he could not if they did, show them a prospect of extraordinasay. The gentleman from Maryland had men-ry gain, and nothing could stop them from entioned a war with Spain. If such a war were to take place the measure now proposed might be adopted; but, in the mean time, as the PRESIDENT had conducted the business heretofore, he was willing it should be still left with him. The measure might be a right one, but it was taken up in a sudden manner, and he had not time to make up his mind on the subject. He thought no argument of what might possibly happen at some future time ought to influence them in the present decision. With respect to enlisting our people to go on board privateers, if prizes were suffered to be brought in, he believed the high wages given by the inerchants to seamen would prevent them from voluntarily going on board ships-of-war; besides, they would be liable to be treated as pirates. He, therefore, did not apprehend much evil from this; but he apprehended much evil and no advantage from this resolution. His great objection against it was, because it was an interference with Executive business, and that its operation would be chiefly against France. The British take few prizes. It would neither favor the interests of France nor Spain, but it would favor alone Great Britain. Upon the whole, as the PRESIDENT had allowed France the privilege of selling her prizes in our ports, he was not willing to do any thing on his own part to withdraw it. Mr. S. SMITH.-This subject was introduced two years ago. Things were very different from what they are now. The French were allowed to sell their prizes in our ports under the Laws of Nations. By our Treaty with France, prizes taken from that nation were forbidden to be sold in our ports; and, by our Treaty with Britain, the same thing is stipulated with respect to the British vessels. Therefore, neither of those two nations can complain; but before any new European war takes place we wish to put all nations upon the same footing in this respect. He was surprised to have heard ideas so anti tering. The peace of this country, Mr. S. said, would better be preserved if a plan of this kind was adopted. In other countries, it was true, prizes were permitted to be sold or not, as it appeared to be their interest. It was our interest to keep ourselves separate from the quarrels of European nations, which scarce ever ceased, and to be at peace with all the world. Was it one of the causes of Admiral Murray's being on our coast that French prizes were suffered to be brought into our ports and sold. from whose ships our property had suffered more injury than all the prizes which could be sold in our ports would do us service? The measure was perfectly neutral, and could give no nation reason to complain. Mr. SWANWICK agreed with the gentleman from Connecticut, [Mr. HILLHOUSE.] that we ought not to act under fear of displeasing any foreign nation, when doing what appeared right and proper; and wished, also, with the gentleman from Maryland last up, to be at peace with all the world. Upon these principles there would not be a discordant sentiment in that House. If this advantage was given up to Spain, that prizes taken from her should not be sold in our ports, we ought to have a stipulation on her part, that in case we were at war our vessels should not be sold in her ports. With regard to the existing state of things by Treaty, neither France can bring British, nor Britain French prizes into our ports, so that we need not be afraid of our sailors being tempted to enter on board privateers, few or none of these appearing here. But few prizes had been brought into our ports, and as few instances of American sailors going a privateering. He believed British impressments of our seamen and the general rise in price of almost every thing, had been the chief cause of the present high wages. He could tell the gentleman from Maryland that there was an article in the MAY. 1796.] Sale of Prizes. [H. OF R. against the practice. With respect to the Law of Nations authorizing the sale of prizes, there was a remark in Vattel which seemed to incline to the opinion that the sale of prizes was not inconsistent with neutral duties. He thought we ought to give no advantage to one belligerent Power over another; and therefore, to give any belligerent Power the liberty to sell their prizes in our ports, and refuse it to others, would be a breach of neutrality; and therefore it was, that two years ago, he advocated a bill which passed the Senate, but was rejected in this House by a small majority. late Treaty which more probably continued Ad-privilege to the British, as there would be no law miral Murray on our coast than the intercepting of French prizes-he meant the article which sanctioned the taking of our vessels coming from French ports. on suspicion of their having enemy's property on board. Nearly every vessel of this kind the British cruisers met with are taken and sent into Bermuda, where the original suspicion is made proof strong as Holy Writ, and the virtuous Judge has no scruples in condemning nearly as fast as the vessels are brought in. He believed this was the whole history of Admiral Murray's cruise. He was daily in the habit of capturing our vessels and goods. If his views were to intercept French prizes, he would not be about the mouth of the Delaware and off New York, as prizes have been mostly carried into the more Southern ports, on account of their nearer situation to the West Indies. Gentlemen seemed to think this law would favor Spain, Portugal, and Holland. If so, he said, we had no reciprocity of advantage; and we are making regulations barring ourselves from obtaining equivalent returns of benefit for what we are thus needlessly relinquishing. There was nothing in the Law of Nations which gave the British a right to sell prizes in our ports, nor was there anything in the late Treaty which either sanctioned or prohibited the privilege. The French had been allowed to do it, but it was stated by Mr. JEFFERSON, the Secretary of State, to be a mere indulgence; yet, having been once granted, the PRESIDENT was scrupulous about withholding the privilege, except required so to do by law. If a war were to take place between Great Britain and Spain, not being restricted by law, the PRESIDENT would feel himself required to grant the Mr. GOODHUE said the only question was, whe-same privilege to Great Britain which he had herether we should give to Spain the same advantages tofore allowed to France. by law, which Great Britain and France had by Treaty. He had no doubt if we did this, Spain would have the magnanimity to make a similar regulation in our favor. Mr. MADISON believed that if a war were to break out between Great Britain and Spain, we should then be as free to make such a regulation as we are during the war at present; and if so, he did not see the necessity of going into such a measure at present. to have something in return from Spain, he had With respect to the observation that we ought little doubt but she would grant to us a reciprocal could at any time be repealed. He hoped, thereregulation; if, however, she should not, the law fore, the session would not close before such a law was passed. Mr. KITTERA said the regulation would be an advantage to this country, and not to Spain. Instead of the sale of prizes being advantageous, they were a great evil; for, independent of other considerations, it was injurious to fair and regular commerce, because the goods coming in, unexpectedly, overstocked the market, and put things out of their regular course. He thought there was some weight in the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SWANWICK] that if this was an advantage given to Spain, we ought to have something in return; and though she might, from a principle of magnanimity, grant us a similar regulation, it would be more certain to have it secured by Treaty. As Mr. GALLATIN was in favor of the resolution, he did not see the necessity for this measure, he and he conceived the present was the best time for did not like a Legislative interference of any sort, passing such a law. If the regulation were to take under present circumstances. The Executive was place while a war subsisted between Great Britain charged with the application of the Law of Na-and Spain, it might be a cause of offence to Great tions, and was responsible on that subject: the Legislature were to define them. This would induce hesitation at least. He had not thought much on the subject; but he believed there was nothing in the present case that could require the interference of Congress, in a manner to assume a respon-regulation from her. It must, however, be observed, sibility belonging to the Executive Department. Mr. W. SMITH said, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MADISON] supposed that it would be full time enough to make the regulation now proposed, when a war might break out between Great Britain and Spain; but he would ask that gentleman what was to be done if such a war should break out in the recess of Congress, and British vessels of war were to bring in Spanish prizes? The PRESIDENT having heretofore permitted the French to bring in and sell their prizes, could not, without a violation of neutrality, refuse the same Britain, as operating against her; but, at present, no nation could object to the passing of such a law. With respect to the idea suggested that we should stipulate a return of favor from Spain, he must confess he was not afraid of obtaining a similar that, so far as related to Great Britain, though we had stipulated by Treaty that her vessels taken prizes should not be sold in our ports, yet that Treaty was only to continue in force for two years after the present war, and the law now under consideration was not limited in its duration; he therefore wished an amendment to be introduced limiting the law to the same period with the existence of the Treaty, that when the PRESIDENT had again occasion to negotiate, he might obtain something in return from Great Britain. Mr. W. SMITH thought there was force in the |