Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

MAY, 1796.]

Expense of Foreign Intercourse.

who were unwilling to vote for $30,000 in the dark, were opposed to the measure; but they would not give $30,000, because they could not see a necessity for more than $10,000. He was of opinion the latter sum would be sufficient, as it was probable the expense of the agent, as far as it was gone, was paid. They had no account of the expenditure of $200,000 taken from the million appropriated for purchasing a peace with Algiers; and he could not conceive that more than $10,000 would be really wanted, if, as he supposed, the expenses already incurred by Mr. Bayard were paid. If the Executive should say more was wanting, he would have no objection to vote for it; but until they had documents on which to form some judgment of what was wanted, he was not willing to vote for the sum proposed. In most other cases, when agents were employed, they had some idea of the duties of his office, but in this case he was an utter stranger to them.

Mr. SWANWICK wished he could join gentlemen in thinking that there was no occasion for their agent in London. They need only take up any of our morning papers, and they will see the practice of taking our ships and men is still continued. With respect to the expense which may attend this agency, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GILES] must know that even in this country law is expensive, but much more so in Great Britain. It is, said he, a part of their revenue, the sums raised by means of stamps being immense. $10,000, which had been mentioned, he was confident, would by no means be adequate. He was afraid $30,000 would fall short. He was afraid it would require two or three times that sum before the business was completed.

[H. of R.

ed that the House should have some sort of estimate upon which to act. He thought the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GILES] said rightly, when he observed no one knew in what this money was to be expended. If, said Mr. W., it is to go for law-suits, it ought to be so designated.

Mr. GILES could not help remarking upon what had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. W. SMITH.] His information had satisfied him that the expenses of Mr. Bayard were paid hitherto. That gentleman had said that $45,000 remained of a former appropriation, but had been taken away. It would be noticed that the sum now appropriated was not the whole sum allotted for foreign correspondence, but an additional sum. They had already appropriated $40,000 and if they now appropriated $30,000 more, it would make $70,000. He supposed, at the time the $40,000 were appropriated, that sum was to cover the whole of the foreign expenditure. But now they were called upon for $30,000 more to defray the expenses of an agency to London. He could not think one-third of the money would be wanted for this purpose, and, therefore, would confine his vote to that sum.

Mr. S. SMITH was not at all surprised that gentlemen who were so much averse to the Treaty, should wish the blank to be filled with $10,000 only, because this would destroy the means of obtaining the proposed redress. It would destroy the Treaty; but, that the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WILLIAMS,] who made a speech of two hours long in favor of the Treaty, should lean to such an opinion, he was astonished. Suits, he said, must first be instituted in the British Courts, which, if they did not appropriate money to pay for, could not be carried on, and the redress proposed by the Treaty to the merchants of the United States would be defeated. If the gentleman from New York, therefore, wished to defeat the intention of the Treaty, he would vote against the sum proposed; if not, he would vote for it.

Mr. W. SMITH said, gentlemen had expressed a surprise that no estimate had been received from the Executive. There was nothing surprising in it. There were, he said, $45,000 in the Treasury, which were reserved by the Executive for these extraordinary expenses; but this bill contemplated the taking of that sum away and applying it to other purposes; the House must, Mr. WILLIAMS trusted that every man who therefore, replace that sum with some other re-voted for carrying the British Treaty into effect, sources. Gentlemen knew that there would be the expense attending Mr. Bayard's agency in London, and that of an agent to the West Indies, which must be considerable; they must also know that, in time of war, neutral nations must be put to extra expenses in their foreign intercourse, which were not incurred in time of peace. Was it right to refuse the Executive $20,000 or Mr. GALLATIN said, the present was by no $30,000 for this purpose? He did not think the means a Treaty question. There was no connexPRESIDENT had done anything to warrant this union between Mr. Bayard's mission and the Trea

reasonable distrust.

did so because he thought it for the interest of the United States. It did not appear to him that the present question had anything to do with the Treaty. Since the Treaty was adopted, he did not wish to hear anything more about it. He trusted he should be found a good citizen, and do all in his power to carry it into effect.

ty-he was appointed before the Treaty was ratiMr. WILLIAMS said, he was at a loss what to fied. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. S. vote for. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. SMITH,] did not attend to the arguments of the S. SMITH] had said they had commenced the bu- gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. GILES.] He did siness, and were bound to continue it. He thought not object to Mr. Bayard's mission. He wished if they had Legun to do an improper thing, the only to have some specification for which $30,000 sooner they got quit of it the better. He wished were wanted. If the object of the mission was the expenses which were to be borne to be desig-known, and some estimate was before them, they nated. The sum proposed might not be enough, should be willing to appropriate whatever appearor it might be three times too much. Whenever ed to be necessary. If they appropriated so large appropriations were made, it was always expect- a sum as that proposed, it might be applied to ob

H. OF R.]

Expense of Foreign Intercourse.

jects justifiable by, and within the general expression of, the law, and yet different from those intended by the Legislature, viz: of defraying the expense of law-suits. They had formerly, he said, appropriated a million of dollars for foreign intercourse, which had been expended according to law, but the whole of which was not spent according to the intention of those who voted for it. So it might be in this case; and, though the PRESIDENT was justified to apply the money in any manner which appeared to him to be for the interest of the United States, provided it was for the general purpose of foreign intercourse; yet, as they were called upon to make a grant of public money, it was necessary to have some estimate by which to regulate the amount; but having no such estimate, no demand for money, it was perfectly right to fill the blank with the smaller sum proposed; if more be wanted, it will of course be asked. Ard here he would observe, upon what had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. W. SMITH.] He said that there remained a balance of $45,000 of a former appropriation, which they proposed to transfer to another object. This sum, he said, was the balance remaining from the appropriations made two years ago. The effect of the law carried this sum to another fund; it went to the surplus fund, and, therefore, could not have been appropriated to the object now under consideration.

Mr. NICHOLAS believed nobody would be influenced to vote against the blank being filled with $30,000, because he voted against the Treaty; he should vote for it on that ground. He did not wish to take any of the faults or failures of the Treaty upon himself, and, therefore, he would appropriate whatever was asked for as necessary to enable gentlemen to make the best of it. He believed if they did not now appropriate the sum required, they could not hinder the PRESIDENT, from getting it, as they had already appropriated $40,000 for foreign correspondence. He should give his vote, therefore, for the largest sum mentioned.

Mr. TRACY would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GALLATIN] why he would vote for 10,000 dollars? He did not know that it would be wanted. They had not any statement, nor could they have any of the money which would be necessary. What, said he, is our external situation? and what will it be whilst the war in Europe continues? He wished to know where the money was to be found necessary to pay all the expenses which would necessarily be incurred in keeping up their foreign relations? Gentlemen were willing that the Executive should take a great deal upon himself, have a great deal of responsibility, and they were very ready to find fault when every thing was not done to their wishes, but when called upon for the money necessary for the occasion, it was refused because no estimate was made; because the expenses were contingent, and could not be calculated. $30,000 might be enough, or it might not. He desired gentlemen to look on the affairs of Europe; until the war there should cease, hel

[MAY, 1796.

said, the expenses of our foreign correspondence would necessarily be large. To give the PRESIDENT ample means was the best way of preventing the impressment of our seamen, and the injuries committed upon our commerce; but, if the necessary means were withheld, all the authorities would be crippled, and we should abroad be laughed at.

Mr. LIVINGSTON said, meaning, as he did, to vote against filling up the blank with $30,000, he would give the reasons which influenced his vote. If this appropriation had been asked for to pay the expense of new foreign agents, he would have given it his support; but he could not agree to give money for the purpose assigned; for, if the PRESIDENT were to pay the expenses of the suits which were to be instituted for obtaining redress for prizes illegally taken from our citizens, he should be authorized to do so by law. And if they agreed to appropriate the sum required for foreign intercourse, the PRESIDENT could not expend the money in the way mentioned; for what connexion, said he, had the expense of such lawsuits with foreign intercourse? It was said the United States were to indemnify our merchants from loss; but this could not be done by a general appropriation for the expenses of foreign intercourse; it must be done, he said, by a special appropriation for the purpose; yet this might as well be done under this appropriation as to pay the law-suits under it. He should, therefore, vote against this additional appropriation, except it could be shown to be necessary for the additional salaries of agents. He was not certain that these considerations would have weight with others, but they had weight upon his mind, and, unless more information was given upon the subject, he should vote against the sum proposed.

Mr. SWANWICK was of opinion that the prosecuting of the appeals of our merchants to recover their property illegally taken from them, might very properly be paid out of the sums appropriated for foreign expenditure. His friend from New York [Mr. LIVINGSTON] had said, that if the PRESIDENT undertook to pay the expense of these lawsuits, without any direct authority, he might also go on to indemnify our merchants for their losses altogether; but that gentleman must allow that this could not be done, unless a sum sufficiently large was appropriated for the purpose. Undoubtedly, if a sum large enough was granted, he might apply it for that purpose, because it would be known, at the time it was granted, that it must be appropriated to something of the kind. How was this relevant to the present case? Can the PRESIDENT satisfy the losses of our merchants out of thirty thousand dollars? Certainly not; and he thought it only reasonable that the expense of the suits instituted to recover the losses of our merchants should be paid by Government, otherwise the recovery would in many cases be too heavy for an individual to bear. And if they were to appropriate too small a sum for this purpose, would not the merchants come to that House and say, "because you did not allow sufficient

MAY, 1796.]

Expense of Foreign Intercourse.

money to prosecute our claims, we now call upon you for restitution?" He hoped no one would be influenced in his vote on this occasion by his dislike to the Treaty; that question had nothing to do with the present. Mr. S. concluded with observing, that he had no calculations on the subject; but, as he had before said, he knew the expensiveness of British courts of law, and he wondered that the law gentlemen in that House, who knew very well the price of law, should think the sum too large.

Mr. HAVENS said, that it appeared to him a very improper way of doing business, to include, under the general expression of "foreign intercourse," as it was expressed in the bill, such a great variety of subjects, very different in their nature, about which it might be supposed necessary to expend some portion of the public moneys. He thought that when the House was called upon to make appropriations of the public moneys, they ought at least to have before them such a specific detail of the several particulars about which it was supposed necessary that public money should be expended, as would enable them to judge of the necessity or propriety of making the expenditure. He wished to have the clause so amended as to enumerate the particular objects of expenditure which had been mentioned by those who advocated it as it then stood. He then moved that the clause should be so amended as to say, that the money should be appropriated for the purpose of defraying the expenses that would arise in prosecuting certain suits in the Courts of Great Britain, on account of the spoliations that had been committed on the American commerce, and for other contingent expenses, instead of saying generally for the purposes of "foreign intercourse."

Mr. NICHOLAS seconded the motion. Mr. GILES hoped they should not agree to the amendment. It would support the idea that they were to make indemnification for all the spoliations which the British had committed upon the property of our merchants; a principle he should be very unwilling to sanction. He was of opinion that not one farthing of the money now appropriated would be expended in that way. The view he had of the business was, that the money was wanted to answer any contingency which might arise from the present state of Europe. He was for having the merchants go on in their own way, and to get all they could from the British. Considering the proposition as affording an additional sum for keeping up foreign intercourse, he would consent to fill up the blank with $20,000, which would make the sum already granted $60,000, but with no indirect view of interfering with the claims of our merchants.

[H.OP R.

bound and prepared to make good their losses, if they were not satisfied by the British. To that principle he should never agree. Mr. LIVINGSTON explained.

Mr. VENABLE said, by the amendment proposed the thing was brought to issue. Gentlemen were agreed that this money was wanted for a certain purpose, but when that purpose was brought forward and inserted in the bill, they were opposed to the meeting of it. It was said, if they made provision for the payment of the expense of lawsuits, they must also make provision for the payment of the spoliations themselves. But should it be said in that House that they would not pay the expense of these law-suits, and yet expect the PRESIDENT to do this? Could it be supposed that the PRESIDENT Would do an act which the Legislature would not do? If $30,000 were wanted for the usual foreign expenditure, he would vote for it, but not for an object which the House seemed unwilling to sanction.

Mr. W. SMITH objected to the motion's being in order.

Mr. HAVENS said, that he had not proposed the amendment to the clause under consideration because that he approved of the principle of paying for the spoliations that had been committed on American commerce, under all existing circumstances, but merely that gentlemen might vote for the appropriations of the public money, on the ground or for the reasons which they themselves had assigned in favor of the clause when expressed in a more general way, under the idea of foreign intercourse; and he was surprised to find any gentleman opposed to an amendment which expressed the very reasons which he himself had urged in favor of the clause when expressed in a more general way. He did not think that they ought to avoid the making specific appropriations, under color of such general expressions; he was, besides this, of opinion that it would not be treating the PRESIDENT well to put him in such a situation as to make it necessary for him to designate all the particular objects of public expenditure, when they were not detailed in the law itself. If gentlemen intended that the PRESIDENT should expend the money about the law-suits in question, they ought to say so in the law, and take the responsibility of the measure upon themselves. After the clause was amended in the way that he had proposed, they could then decide with more propriety on the clause itself.

Mr. WILLIAMS was opposed to the amendment because he did not wish to pay the expenses, at least, of all the law-suits in question. The gentieman from Maryland [Mr. S. SMITH] had mistaken him. He did not oppose the sum because Mr. DAYTON was decidedly against the amend- he was unwilling to grant the necessary appropriment and preferred the bill, as it would read with-ations, but because the object to which the money out it. The relief of American seamen was with him one of the objects as well as the affording of aid to the merchants, who were suffering, or might hereafter suffer from the depredations of English cruisers. To afford aid in prosecuting the appeals of the merchants, did not, he said, by any means sanction the principle that the United States were

was to be applied was not mentioned.

Mr. MACON moved to strike out the whole section. He thought they had nothing to do with the recovery of damages for the spoliations of the British, for which this money seemed to be wanted. He thought they were as much bound to pay the spoliations themselves as the law-suits; to do

H. OF. R.J

Expense of Foreign Intercourse.

[MAY, 1796.

those purposes, he would vote for more, and therefore saw no necessity for mentioning them there.

this would be making all persons, on land, a kind suits, we could have recovered our losses?" Both of underwriters for adventurers at sea. the seamen and the treaty, said Mr. M., are proMr. GILBERT Could not see any reason for ob-vided for, and if money enough was not voted for jecting to fill the blank with thirty thousand dollars. If they were to continue there ever so long, they could not say for what this money was want- Mr. GILES said, he should not have risen again ed. It must go for contingencies. He hoped the had it not been for what had fallen from the gensection would not be struck out. It was the busi- tleman from New Jersey [Mr. DAYTON.] Whatness of the Executive to direct the expenditure of ever might be thought of the penury of that the money, and of that House to appropriate money House, he thought they had voted very large to enable him to do it. The object of his col- sums for foreign intercourse. They had approleague [Mr. HAVENS] was to specify the object to priated a million of dollars for purchasing a peace which the money should be applied; to direct the with Algiers; but two hundred thousand dollars PRESIDENT how he should manage foreign inter-of that sum had been taken for foreign intercourse, course. Where he found this doctrine, he could he believed, with great propriety. However, as not say; the Constitution knew none such. He they had appropriated so amply all that had been believed they should make the appropriation. He asked for, he thought there was no ground for would not say it should be for this or that pur-charging them with not appropriating sufficiently. pose, but leave it to the PRESIDENT to expend it in the way which appeared to him most proper. Mr. DAYTON Could not suffer the question to be taken before he said a few words in answer to the gentleman from North Carolina, who seemed to think that the money now to be appropriated was to be expended only in discharging the expenses of law-suits. The Executive, he said, had been subjected to indirect censure, because immediate relief had not been obtained for impressed American seamen, when the means of doing it were not afforded him by the Legislature. If agents should be appointed pursuant to the bill that had passed the House of Representatives, an appropriation would nevertheless be necessary, in order to enable and induce the Consuls to co-operate with them in so humane and important a work. Every one must know that, during the present war, extraordinary expense must necessarily be incurred in the maintenance of tranquility and neutrality, and in the preservation of foreign intercourse and good understanding.

He should vote against striking out this clause; but, in doing this, he would not be understood to authorize the PRESIDENT to expend this money in law-suits. If he had done it at all, he hoped he had so done it as not to make the United States ultimately answerable for the losses of our merchants. He was willing to vote for twenty thousand dollars, which he thought enough; and as they had no information from the PRESIDENT on the subject of these law-suits, he hoped the money would not be expended upon them.

Mr. WILLIAMS said a few words against striking out the clause, and against appropriating the money for the payment of law-suits. He hoped it would not be so used.

The motion for striking out was put and negatived.

The question was about to be put for filling the blank with thirty thousand dollars; when

Mr. GALLATIN said, the gentleman from New Jersey had mentioned the expense of sending an agent to the West Indies. He found, by referring In cases of the seizure of the property of Ame- to the Secretary of the Treasury's accounts, that rican citizens, contrary to the Law of Nations, the expense of Mr. Higginson's agency had been where a representation or remonstrance must be charged to the contingent expenses of Governmade from this Government to that of the offend-ment, and not to the head of foreign intercourse. ing party, it would be necessary to send abroad in order to obtain extracts from Court records, or other proofs, to establish the fact of a violation; yet this could not be done without expense, and was but one of the very many instances which might occur to require expenditures of money, and where the want of it would prove exceedingly detrimental to their general interests. If they should refuse to make the necessary appropriation they could not justly blame the Executive if the most effectual measures were not taken and persevered in, to promote the interests of this country as an independent nation.

Mr. MACON said they had passed a bill relative to seamen, which was now in the Senate. This money had nothing to do with that bill. The gentleman from New Jersey had told them of this expense before, but gentlemen in general expected the money was wanted to pay for the law-suits mentioned; and, said he, if we interfere in these suits, may not our citizens say, in any case which is unsuccessful, "if you had let us manage our own

He found that by far the greater proportion of the yearly appropriation of $20,000, for contingent expenses of Government, had, in the year 1794, been expended for that object or for foreign intercourse; there being but a sum of one hundred and eighty dollars applied that year to contingent expenses of another nature. He read the statement of receipts and expenditures. Hence, said he, two things appear: first, that the expenses attending agency to the West Indies have usually been charged to the account of contingent expenses, and will of course be provided for when we make the usual appropriation for that purpose; and secondly, that it would be useless to appropriate $20,000 for the contingent expenses of Government, were it not for the object of foreign intercourse; that that appropriation is in fact an appropriation for foreign intercourse; and that the sum with which they were going to fill the blank would be, in fact, in addition, not to the $40,000 already appropriated, but to a sum of $60,000, which might eventually and commonly was

MAY, 1796.]

Ships' Passports-Duty on Snuff.

applied to defray the expenses of foreign inter

course.

The question being put for $30,000, it was negatived-40 to 36.

Mr. W. SMITH then moved $25,000. He said there would be no more inconvenience from voting a large sum than a small one, as if it was not wanted, it would not be expended. With respect to the $40,000 already appropriated, he believed it was wholly expended in salaries, and $25,000 might be wanted for contingent expenses. The question was put and lost-38 to 37. The question was then put and carried on $20,000, by a large majority.

THURSDAY, May 19.

The bill for providing relief for persons imprisoned for debt was read a third time and passed.

The bill directing certain experiments to be made to ascertain an uniform principle to regulate Weights and Measures, was read a third time and passed.

The amendments by the Senate to a bill in addition to an act supplementary to an act for providing more effectualy for the collection of duties on goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States, were twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole

[blocks in formation]

The bill for providing passports for ships and vessels of the United States, which originated in the Senate, was about to be read the third time; when

Mr. S. SMITH said, he believed there was a clause in the bill originating revenue, (as it directed sums to be paid for passports,) which was an encroachment upon the powers of that House, who only had a right to originate revenue laws. He believed the Senate had done it without intention, and he did not wish to enter into any contest with them on the subject, but to postpone the consideration of the bill.

Other gentlemen thought it would be better to reject the bill, and originate a new one; which course, after some observations, was adopted.

The bill was accordingly read a third time, and rejected unanimously.

[H. of R.

EXPENSES OF FOREIGN INTERCOURSE. The bill making further provision for defraying the expenses of intercourse with foreign nations,and to continue in force an act providing means of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, was read a third time; and after a few observations on the time which it should remain in force-in the course of which it was observed, by Mr. GILES, that he hoped the time was not far distant when they should have less to do with foreign nations than they had at present-its continuance was confined to one year, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress. The blank for the sum of money appropriated was filled up, according to the estimate from the proper Department, with $324,539 06. The bill was then passed.

ROAD FROM MAINE TO GEORGIA.
Mr. MADISON moved that the House should

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill enabling the PRESIDENT to cause to be
examined, and, where necessary, surveyed, the
post roads from Wiscasset in Maine, to Savannah
in Georgia, and to report the expense that would
attend the transmission of the mail thereon. The
House resolved itself into a Committee of the
Whole accordingly, when, after two amendments,
viz: adding the city of Washington to the other
towns mentioned, and inserting Portland instead
of Wiscasset, and filling up the blank appropri-
ating a sum of money for the purpose, with five
thousand dollars, the Committee rose and re-
ported the bill. The House took up the amend-
ments, agreed to them, and the bill was ordered
for a third reading to-morrow.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. SWANWICK presented a second petition from Richard Grenon & Co., expressive of the injury they should receive by the alteration which was proposed to be made in the drawback to be allowed on snuff exported, and praying, amongst other things, that the intended act might not have force until April 1, 1797, in order that they might fulfil their present engagements with foreign countries.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole on that subject; when

Mr. BOURNE, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, said that they had been favored with information from various quarters, and he trusted the present bill would meet the wishes of manufacturers, and produce considerable revenue. The first clause, he said, provided for mills being Mr. W. SMITH said, that as they had rejected entered for a year or less, the want of such a prothe bill providing passports, as improper to have vision having destroyed many manufactories, who, originated in the Senate, he would move. "That for various reasons, did not keep their mills going the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures the whole year. They had also inserted a clause be instructed to bring in a bill for providing pass-to remit the duty in the case of destruction by fire, ports for ships and vessels of the United States." Agreed to.

or otherwise, at the instance of manufacturers. With respect to the drawback, it had been found

« ForrigeFortsett »