Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

dulged. The motion was agreed to, and referred to a committee to bring in a bill.

On motion of Mr. TRACY, a resolution to the following effect was also agreed to:

66

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to prepare and lay before Congress at their next session, a mode for collecting a tax on snuff.”

Mr. BOURNE, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, reported a bill for providing passports for ships and vessels of the United States, which was read twice and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. Mr. W. SMITH moved a resolution to the following effect:

"Resolved, That a Committee be appointed to bring in a bill authorizing the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to lay and regulate embargoes during the recess of Congress."

morrow.

[H. op R.

[blocks in formation]

The Committee of the Whole, to whom was referred the amendments of the Senate to the

bill in addition to an act, entitled an act supple mentary to the act, entitled an act to provide more effectually for the collections of duties on goods, States, and on the tonnage of ships or vessels, was wares, and merchandise imported into the United

was referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

The resolution was agreed to, 36 to 29. Mr. BOURNE, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, reported a bill for suspending the duty on snuff, which was twice read and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading toA message was received from the Senate in-discharged, and the bill, with the amendments, forming the House that they had receded from their amendment to the bill altering the compensation of the Accountant of the War Department; and that they had passed the act for ascertaining and fixing the Military Establishment of the United States, with amendments, also an act concerning the Mint; to which they requested the concurrence of that House.

WIDOW OF GEN. GREENE.

pro

After a number of observations upon the priety of doing so, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. SWIFT in the chair, on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Catharine Greene, widow of the late General Greene. Some very long documents on this subject were read, and considerable debate had on the merits of the claim; but the usual hour of adjournment being past, and the reading of other papers being called for, the Committee rose, had leave to sit again, and the House adjourned.

SATURDAY, May 21.

Mr. New, from the committee to whom were referred the amendments of the Senate to the bill laying a duty on carriages, made a report to agree to the amendments. These amendments do not make any material change in the bill. The report of the committee was agreed to.

Mr.BOURNE, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, reported a bill to authorize the PRESIDENT to lay, regulate, and revoke embargoes, during the recess of Congress. It was read twice and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.

and Means, to whom was referred the amendMr. W. SMITH, from the Committee of Ways ments of the Senate to the bill regulating the which was agreed to, read the third time, and compensation of clerks, made a report thereon; passed.

Mr. MADISON, from the committee to whom was referred the bill from the Senate respecting the Mint, reported the bill with an amendment limiting its duration to two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress. The report was ordered to be committed to a Committee of the Whole to-day. The House, therefore, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, and agreed to the bill and amendment; the House then took it up, and ordered it to be read the third time on Monday.

MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill fixing the Military Establishment were read. They went to the retaining the whole number of light that men should be enlisted for five instead of dragoons and the Major General, and directing three years. The amendment respecting the dragoons being under consideration

Mr. BALDWIN informed the House that the amount of the amendments of the Senate was retain the Major General. this, to keep up 320 dragoons instead of 52, and to that the House, having determined upon these It appeared to him subjects already, would be at no loss to form an opinion upon these amendments.

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the amendment from the Senate would not be agreed to. This House had taken great pains to mature the bill, and he was of opinion that the number of troops agreed to was sufficient for a Peace Establishment.

The bill to suspend part of an act to alter and amend an act for laying certain duties upon snuff and refined sugar, was read a third time and passed. Also, the bill limiting the time for allow-gentleman had observed to the contrary; any addi

4th CoN.-46

No

H. OF R.]

Military Establishment.

[MAY, 1796.

Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, John Williams, and
Richard Winn.

The consideration of the propriety of retaining the Major General was next taken up

Mr. NICHOLAS could not conceive any use for Generals. He believed if the Senate had struck out the General they sent them, the amendment would have been a good one.

Mr. GILES hoped they should not agree to the amendment. It would be a commencement of sinecures in the Military Department. There would be Generals without men to command. He believed the bill, as sent from that House, contained its full proportion of officers.

tion would not only be an augmentation to the great expenses already accrued by the late war, but be a mean of retaining in the Army useful citizens, who would be otherwise employed in pursuits of much more benefit to the United States. Let us reflect on the appropriations made this session, and compare them with the situation of our Treasury. In the Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, it is stated that there will be a deficiency in the course of the current year, to meet the probable necessary appropriations, the sum of one million three hundred and ten thousand six hundred and five dollars and thirty cents, which sum must be obtained from Mr. S. SMITH was in favor of the amendment. loans or new revenues. Thus situated, ought we He said the expense would be no great things, to keep up an Army which is not wanted? He and the present Major General would be very hoped they would not. Were they wanted, he necessary in taking possession of the posts. Perwould endeavor to provide means for their sup-haps, at this time, it was essential to keep this man port; but, as he conceived they were not, he did in command, as if he were discharged, it might not see the propriety of expending money, taken create a derangement in our Army which might on loan, which must be done if his motion did be fatal. The command of three thousand men, not succeed. it was true, was too trifling for a Major General. But, perhaps, as this General had been the victorious means of procuring us peace with the Indians, immediately to discharge him, would appear like ingratitude, if not injustice.

Mr. W. LYMAN hoped the amendment would be disagreed to.

Mr. S. SMITH said, the Senate seemed to contemplate these light dragoons, on account of the officers, who were to do duty on horse or foot, as necessity required. From this idea, he would suggest the propriety of agreeing to the amend

ment.

Mr. KITTERA said, the Army would be placed so widely from each other, that the horse would prove very useful.

Mr. GILES had no idea of keeping up the horse for the sake of the officers.

Mr. GILBERT was in favor of retaining the whole number of horses.

Mr. RUTHERFORD concurred in opinion with the gentleman last up.

Mr. W. LYMAN said, they were not now called upon to reward the services of Major General Wayne, but to provide proper cfficers for their Army. If the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. S. SMITH] were to bring forward a measure of that kind, they should know how to decide upon it. Nor did he think the argument for making the office of a Major General, because the posts were to be received, had much weight. Any other officer would receive them as well as a Major

On motion of Mr. WILLIAMs, the yeas and nays were taken, and the amendment was nega-General. tived, 58 to 22, as follows:

YEAS.-Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Vans Murray, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Mr. GILES said, he had no personal objections to the present commander of our Army; but he considered the present proposition such a breach of principle as he could not agree to. It was the making of an office for a man; as the gentleman from Maryland seemed to think the taking pos session of the posts the principal business to be performed by him. If the services of this gentleman was necessary on that occasion, he would much rather pass a bill to make him a Commissioner for that purpose. All the arguments in favor of a Major General were in favor of the man, and not of the propriety of the office.

NATS-Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Gabriel Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles, Jeremiah Crabb, George Dent, Samuel Earle, William Findley, Abiel Foster, Jesse Franklin, Mr. MURRAY said, the gentleman last up must Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, know that the gentleman who had so successfully Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William Barry commanded our Western Army, was now in the Grove, Wade Hampton, George Hancock, Robert Good-service of the United States, yet he would insinuloc Harper, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jona- ate that there was an intention of creating a new than N. Havens, John Heath, Thomas Henderson, office. There was no disposition in those who James Holland, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Mat

thew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Na-wished to retain this meritorious man in service thaniel Macon, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Fred- to create new offices. They were now about to erick A. Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, make a regular Military Establishment; heretoJosiah Parker, John Reed, John Richards, Robert Ru-fore it had rather been a nominal one. There therford, Jeremiah Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas had been hitherto a Major General at the head of Sprigg, John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, Absalom our corps, and he thought it would be proper to Tatom, Richard Thomas, John E. Van Allen, Philip continue the command. There appeared to him

MAY, 1796.]

Military Establishment.

(H. OF R.

inent, but not for a Peace Establishment. He drew this conclusion from that grade ceasing with the war in 1783, and being again introduced in 1791, when the Indian war had commenced, and he understood it was more connected with the nature of the service than the number of men. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. SMITH] said that the nature of the service of this Summer, required the service of General Wayne; but as the act they were about to pass would not take place till the 31st of October, as it was the opinion of all gentlemen of military knowledge, that there was no necessity for retaining a Majo General in our reduced Army Establishment after the posts had been taken possession of, and as the whole Summer appeared sufficient for that ser

a great deal of danger from the instability of their
proceedings, an instability often charged upon a
Government like ours. He would not attribute
this to any other motive than such as were too
apt to enter into large deliberative bodies. Was
it right that when a man had led our armies to
victory, and returned, that he should be imme-
diately stripped of his commission? He thought
not. It was said that this was done, because the
Army was reduced; but he believed it was now
as large as when General Wayne obtained his
victory by it, for it was not then more than three
thousand men; and yet, because they wished to
retain this man in the service of the United States,
they were told that they were creating new offi-
ces for which there was no necessity.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, with respect to the insta-vice, he would vote against the amendment.
bility of their measures, he was ready to take his
own share of it as well as that of the gentlenian
last up, for he never found him vary from one
point; he was always desirous to keep up every
office which had been once established. Mr. N.
thought the conduct of gentlemen extraordinary.
At one time they were to make our Establish-
ment as large as possible, and when more favora-
ble circumstances appeared, they were not to re-
duce it. Where were the benefits of peace, if
they were still to keep up our war establish-
ments? Gentlemen tell you that the Army would!
be as large now as before the reduction, yet the
same gentlemen were opposed to its being reduced
to the number now contemplated. This appeared
something like inconsistency. Mr. N. said, if
they did not seize every favorable opportunity of
lessening the expenses of Government, he believed
their constituents would have good reason to
complain of their want of attention to their duty.
Mr. MACON said, they ought to legislate on this
subject as if there were no Army in existence.
They had no permanent Establishment, as their
men were discharged at the end of every three
years. He believed our present commander was
a very respectable officer, but he could not vote
for a Major General in the Establishment, which
he thought unnecessary, because he thought him
a deserving man.

Mr. HARTLEY thought it best to have a Major General. The expense was but small, and in case of the militia being called out (as was mentioned by the gentleman from Rhode Island) a Major General would be necessary; besides, to reject him, would have the appearance of forcing this man out of office in an ungenerous manner.

Mr. BOURNE believed it was not necessary to have any appropriate number of men for a Major General to command. It had often been thought that a Major General was necessary. He believed they had thought so on former occasions. If any necessity should arise for the militia to be called out to aid the Army, such an officer would be highly necessary. He did not think it would be true economy to reject him.

Mr. GALLATIN said it was not pleasing to give a vote which was in some degree of a personal nature like the present. He was unacquainted with the gentleman who now held the office of Major General in our Army, and, therefore, was under no personal influence, and his opinion on the subject was formed upon the information of those in whose judgment on military affairs, he must necessarily confide, as it was a subject he did not understand. It was supposed that a Major General was necessary for a War Establish

On motion of Mr. BAILEY, the yeas and nays were then taken, and the Senate's amendment was lost, 49 to 34, as follows:

YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, George Hancock, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, John Reed, Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, John Swanwick, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

NAYS.-Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Biount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel Crabb, George Dent, Samuel Earle, William Findley, Christie, Thomas Claiborne, Isaac Coles, Jeremiah Abiel Foster, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, William B. Grove, Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havans, John Heath, Thomas Henderson, James Holland, George Jackson, Aaron Kitchell, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, John Richards, Nathaniel Smith, Israel Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah Swift, Absalom Tatom, Philip Van Corti ndt, Abraham Venable, John Williams, and Ri

chard Winn.

The amendment proposing that men should be enlisted for five, instead of three years, came next under consideration.

Mr. MACON hoped they should adhere to their usual practice.

Mr. S. SMITH thought, if the mode of enlisting men for five years, proposed by the Senate, was superior to that of enlisting thein for three, which he thought it was, there was no reason against adopting it.

Mr. GILES hoped they should not agree to the

[blocks in formation]

amendment, as they had found no inconvenience from the customary practice; besides the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. MURRAY] would be again charging them with instability.

Mr. HARPER hoped the gentleman last up would show his instability on this occasion by joining them in supporting the present amendment. He believed it would be better to enlist men for five years than for three; for when they were enlisted for three years only, very shortly after they had learnt their trade, they were discharged. He believed a man would enlist for five years as soon as for three, and therefore it would be a very advantageous alteration in our present system.

Mr. JACKSON said, if it was in order, he would move to strike out five and insert three. He was confident better men would be got for three years than could be got for five. If men were to be enlisted for the latter period, he believed they should get for soldiers only the scum of the country. He said he was well acquainted with the business, and he knew that when men were enlisted for one year only, better men were got than since they had been enlisted for three years.

Mr. S. SMITH said, he also had had some experience in the business of enlisting men; and he had no doubt good men would be got for five years as soon as for three. That men out of the Western country should wish to have men enlisted for a short period, he was not surprised, because, when their service was completed, the farmers got them for laborers; but if men were enlisted for five years, they would get less frequent draughts of useful hands from this part of the country. For this reason he was in favor of the

[blocks in formation]

[MAY, 1796.

on the subject but what he had heard in that House, and he had considerable doubts in his mind on the subject. A letter having been mentioned yesterday to be in the office of the Secretary at War, which he understood would throw light upon the subject, he moved a resolution, calling upon the Secretary of War to furnish the letter in question.

This motion occasioned some debate, in which it was said the letter alluded to was a private letter from Mr. Burnett to General Knox, the late Secretary of War, and that it was therefore most probably not in the War Office. The motion was agreed to.

MONDAY, May 23.

The bill respecting the Mint was read a third time and passed.

WIDOW OF GEN. GREENE.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the petition of Catharine Greene, widow of the late General Greene, for indemnity against the demands of Harris and Blachford, of London, merchants, on account of a certain bond which had been given to them by General Greene, as was said. on account of the United States. The following was the report of the Committee of Claims:

"That this petitioner prays for indemnity against the demands of Messrs. Harris and Blachford, merchants, who have obtained a judgment against the estate of the late General Greene, for a large sum, in consequence of his being security to the said Harris and Blachford, for the debt of John Banks & Co., which debt, she states, was incurred for, and in behalf of the United States; and that General Greene gave security for no other purpose than to forward the interests of the public.

mittee find, that in the Fall of 1782, General Greene "On a strict investigation of this claim, the Comwas authorized by the Department of War to obtain supplies of clothing for the Southern Army, then under his command; and, not long after, he contracted with John Banks, a partner in the house of Hunter, Banks & Co., for such supplies.

"In February, 1783, General Greene, under authority of the Superintendent of Finance, contracted with the same John Banks, to furnish such provisions as the same Army were in want of; both of which contracts met the approbation of his employers.

Mr. SMITH, from the committee appointed to confer with a committee from the Senate, on the subject of their amendments to the bill for the relief and protection of American seamen, reported that the committee appointed on the part of that House had receded from their disagreement to the amendments of the Senate, except the contractors could command, and the last, which "Both these contracts required greater funds than in one instance. The report was agreed to. Instead of having certificates issued to three descrip-feated, because the creditors for supplies on the former was to supply rations for the Army, was near being detions of American citizens, viz: natives, foreign-contract-were about to deprive the contractors of ers who were in this country in 1783, and those who have obtained their citizenship since, they are all to be included under the head of American citizens.

WIDOW OF GEN. GREENE.

Mr. HENDERSON said, he was very desirous of obtaining all the information possible before he was called upon to give a vote on the claim of the widow of General Greene. He was more desirous of this, as he had received no information

their means to fulfil the last. In this situation, Gen. Greene had before him the alternative of turning the Army loose upon the inhabitants, to plunder for their necessary food, or support, by his own credit, that of the contractors. He preferred the latter, and gave, in bond to Harris and Blachford, to secure an eventual addition to the security of John Banks & Co., his own payment for articles which had gone to the use of the United States in clothing the Army.

"John Banks received of the United States the whole sum of the contract, but diverted the money from

[blocks in formation]

its proper channel, and left General Greene liable to pay the sum secured by the bond mentioned above, and another to Messrs. Newcomen and Collet. Banks & Co. became bankrupts, and, soon after, Banks died.

"The Committee find that General Greene, as soon

as he was apprised of any possible danger which might accrue to him, took measures to procure some security; but his attempts were ineffectual as to a complete indemnity. It appears he effected some payments, and obtained partial indemnity, but was left finally exposed to a large claim of Messrs. Newcomen and Collet, and this bond about which the present petition is conver"Against the claim of Newcomen and Collet, Congress have indemnified the estate of General Greene, by an act passed April 27th, 1792.

sant.

{H. of R.

to pay such sum as may be found due on the said bond, out of the Treasury of the United States, to the said executors, to be accounted for by them, as part of the said estate."

After some debate on this subject, in the course of which the SPEAKER read. in his place, a Letter he had received from the Secretary of the War Department, in consequence of a resolution passed on Saturday, calling for a letter which had been written by the late Colonel Burnett to the late Secretary of War, declaring that no such letter could be found in the War Office; and Mr. Corr spoke at considerable length against the claimat length the question was put and carried in favor of the report, there being 51 members in the

"This act has served as a precedent to the Commit-affirmative. The Committee then rose, and the tee, in deciding on the present petition, as there are the same reasons existing for the interference of Government now as then; to which may now be added the weight of precedent.

"For further particulars as to the merits of the claim, the Committee ask leave to refer the House to a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made to Congress on this subject, the 26th December, 1791, and which is herewith laid before them. The bond given by Gen. Greene to Harris and Blachford for J. Banks & Co., is dated 8th April, 1783, for the sum of £18,473, 13s. 7d. South Carolina currency. This sum, by a variety of negotiations and payments, has been considerably reduced; the Committee have not been able to ascertain with precision the sum now due, but suppose it to be between eleven and twelve thousand pounds.

"The Committee are of opinion that General Greene gave this bond with the sole and honorable motive of 'serving, to his utmost ability, the then pressing interest of the United States: and that the salvation of the Southern Army, and success of our arms in that part of the Union, in a great measure depended upon this timely interference of his private credit.

"They think the honor and justice of Government is pledged to indemnify the estate of General Greene, and by paying the sum due to Harris and Blachford, save a deserving family from indigence and ruin. They therefore report, for the consideration of the House, the following resolution, viz:

House took up the consideration, when, on motion of Mr. BLOUNT, who said he had intended to have made some observations on this subject, but finding the majority so large in favor of the report, he could not believe what he should say would have any effect, the yeas and nays were taken and stood, yeas 56, nays 26, as follows:

YEAS.-Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus Bradbury, Richard Brent, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Christopher Greenup, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, John Heath, Daniel Heister, William Hindman, George Jackson, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, John Milledge, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Anthony New, John Nicholas, John Reed, Robert Rutherford, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, Zephaniah Swift, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, and John

Williams.

latin, James Gillespie, Roger Griswold, Wm. B. Grove, George Dent, Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert GalJames Holland, Aaron Kitchell, Matthew Locke, SamWade Hampton, George Hancock, Thomas Henderson, uel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Absalom Tatum, and Rich

ard Winn.

The resolution was referred to the Committee of Claims, to report a bill.

NAYS. Thomas Blount, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J. "Resolved, That the United States ought to indem-Cabell, Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, Isaac Coles, nify the estate of the late General Greene, for the sum due on a bond, given by the said General Greene to Harris and Blachford, bearing date April 8, 1783, for the sum of £18,473, 13s. 7d., South Carolina currency, as surety for John Banks & Co.: Provided, That it shall appear, upon due investigation, by the officers of the Treasury, that the said General Greene, in his life time, or his executors since his decease, have not already been indemnified, for the contents of the said bond: And provided, That the said executors shall make over to the Comptroller of the Treasury, and his successors, for the United States, all mortgages, bonds, covenants, or other counter securities whatsoever, if such there are, which were obtained by General Greene in his life-time, from the said Banks & Co., or either of them, on account of his being surety for them as aforesaid; to be sued for in the name of the said executors, for the use of the United States: And the officers of the Treasury are hereby authorized to liquidate and settle the sum due to the estate of the said General Greene, to indemnify the same as aforesaid, according to the true intent and meaning of this resolution; and

[The facts, as stated in the course of debate, were as follows:

A little time before the evacuation of Charleston by the English, in the Fall of the year 1782, a a number of merchants who had settled there, under British authority, were under the necessity of leaving the city. Thus situated, these merchants were willing to dispose of their goods in a way that would secure their money, and enable them to leave the country immediately. John Banks knowing of this, and being, it is said, a man of a speculative disposition, determined to avail

« ForrigeFortsett »