be taken up; although he was not surprised at the reluctance of those gentlemen who cherished the institution as one of the insignia of sovereignty, to act upon it. This aspect of the subject could not, however, be changed by any report of the detailed operations of the Mint. He, therefore, moved that the House, agreeably to the order of the day, resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolution to repeal so much of the laws on the subject of the Mint as relate to the establishing of a Mint. Mr. GREGG considered the motion to go into the discussion of the subject at this time premature. He was among those members who were not present at the late period of the last session when the repealing act passed, having previously retired from the House. It would be recollected that the appointed time for the Director of the Mint to make his annual report was the first Monday of January. That period is so near that he thought it most advisable not to proceed to act on the subject until possessed of the information that document might furnish. Though the institution had not been considered as having operated much to the public good, yet the operation of it during the last year may perhaps change their opinions respecting it. He, therefore, moved to postpone the consideration of the motion to the second Monday in January. Mr. SMILIE said he did not concur in opinion with his colleague. If members were absent when this subject was acted upon, it was their own fault; and that circumstance was certainly no argument for delay. Did he, however, believe that any new information could rationally be expected from the report of the Director of the Mint, he should not be for taking up the subject now. But of this he had no expectation. At present, there was no business before the House. The committees appointed would soon make their reports, and then the House would be engaged with other subjects, to the neglect of this. Let us then take up this subject now, enter upon its discussion, and if, in the progress of our inquiries we want information, it will be then time enough to postpone it. DECEMBER, 1802. the Mint, received during the last session, stating the real and personal property attached to the Mint; that the machinery might last for one year; that the horses may last a year; that to conduct the operations of the Mint to advantage, steam should be used instead of horses; that the lot on which the Mint is erected was too small; and that a less annual sum than seventeen or eighteen thousand dollars would not provide for the establishment.] Mr. GRISWOLD observed that he was informed yesterday by a gentleman from Massachusetts, not now in his place, that the coins issued the current year would exceed in value five hundred thousand dollars. He did not state this from his own knowledge. But if it should appear from the report of the Director to be the fact, he thought it would satisfy every member, that though the establishment was an expense to the Treasury, yet it was no expense to the nation; for the exportation of bullion to that amount, to be coined, and the importation of it thereafter, would cost at least five per cent. Mr. RANDOLPH said he would state a fact, which was, that notwithstanding all the issues from the Mint, no member sees a coin. For himself he had not seen a piece of gold coined in the Mint for two years. This he considered a sufficient answer to the remarks of the gentleman last up. Mr. LOWNDES said the remark of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) was not correct, as he had seen many pieces of American coin. But he could assign a satisfactory reason for the appearance of so little gold in ordinary circulation. It was the practice of the banks to count over once a month the specie in their vaults. This trouble was considerably lessened by depositing gold instead of silver. He had been credibly assured that there was now in the vaults of the banks of the United States gold, in eagles and half eagles, to the amount of two millions of dollars. Mr. DENNIS was not for precipitating measures. He was one of those who were in favor of a serious and candid inquiry into the merits of the institution. He was not in favor of retaining it merely as an emblem of sovereignty. He believed that the sun rising would set, and he believed also that the independence and sovereignty of the nation could be as well preserved without as with the Mint. But he believed it proper to receive information that would enable them to decide whether the institution, so far from being useless, may not be useful and profitable. They were not prepared to say whether the copper coinage at least should not be retained. From some inform Mr. SOUTHARD was in favor of the postponement. There were now present a number of gentlemen not members at the period of discussion during the last session. They have no documents, and cannot be correctly informed. He saw no advantage in entering upon the discussion at this time, as new and additional information may be received from the report of the Director. It had been said there was no business before the House; but there was business; there was a billation received the last session, that department of upon their table, why not take that up and act upon it? Mr. RANDOLPH called for the reading of a document that would throw clear and full light upon the subject; not light of that fleeting kind that may be derived from an annual report. From this document sufficient information could be had to convince any member that we might act as well now as at any other time. [The Clerk read a report from the Director of the establishment appeared to be profitable. Mr. D. said that, if, on full inquiry, the establishment appeared to be a drain on the Treasury, he should be for abolishing it; but he should not, on immature information, be for abolishing an institution, coeval with the Government, and founded on good reasons. The reasons adduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) were insufficient. So far as related to the horses, he believed there were only four employed, and the purchase of four fresh ones would be a very unimportant consideration. Another argument was drawn from the smallness of the lot on which the Mint stands. Though it might be better conducted on a more extensive lot, yet he was not satisfied, notwithstanding present disadvantages, that it might not be profitably conducted, at least so far as regarded a copper coinage. For these reasons he thought it proper to wait a few days; in order to receive information that would enable them to understand the points on which their decision may ultimately turn. Mr. HUGER assigned his reasons for being in favor of a postponement, coincident with those already given. He considered it proper to wait until the Director's report was received. They could then avail themselves of the experience of another year, under auspices more favorable, perhaps, than those of preceding years. He thought it proper to wait, that they might see whether there had not been more economy than usual in the expenses of the last year. The question was then taken on Mr. GREGG's motion to postpone the subject till the second Monday in January, and carried-ayes 47, noes 28. DRAWBACKS. On motion of Mr. S. SMITH, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. VARNUM in the Chair, on the bill to allow a drawback of duties on goods exported to New Orleans, and therein to amend the act entitled, "An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage:" The bill is as follows: H. of R. on the question of engrossing the bill for a third reading, the House divided-ayes 34, noes 34. The SPEAKER declaring himself in the negative the bill was lost. THURSDAY, December 23. Another member, to wit: LEWIS R. MORRIS, from Vermont, appeared and took his seat in the House. A Message, was received from the PRESIDENT In pursuance of the resolution of the House of Rep- DEC. 23, 1802. The said Message was read, and, together with the documents accompanying it, ordered to lie on the table. The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Edward Tiffin, President of the Convention of the State of Ohio, enclosing an address to this House from the said Convention, approving "the prompt and decisive measures taken by Congress at their last session, to enable the people of the Northwestern Territory to emerge from their colo"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-nial government, and to assume a rank among the resentatives of the United States of America in Con- sister States;" also, expressing "their unequivocal gress assembled, That the debentures for drawbacks approbation of the measures pursued by the presof duties on goods, wares, and merchandise, which ent administration of the General Government, have been exported from the United States, previous to and of both Houses of Congress, in diminishing the sixth day of February, one thousand eight hundred, the public burdens, cultivating peace with all nafor the port of New Orleans, on the river Mississippi, tions, and promoting the happiness and prosperity may be paid at the respective offices of the customs, on the terms and conditions prescribed by law in cases of exportation, for the benefit of drawback, to any foreign port or place, other than the dominions of a foreign State immediately adjoining the United States." Mr. S. SMITH Spoke in favor of the bill, and explained the grounds on which it had been brought in, and its operation. Mr. ELMENDORF opposed it, and moved the rising of the Committee, that it might be recommitted to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, with instructions to extend its provision to cases wherein debentures of drawback had not been issued-not pledging himself, however, to support it, even if so amended. Messrs. S. SMITH, MITCHILL, and DANA, spoke against the Committee rising, and in favor of the bill. The motion for the Committee to rise was lost without a division. Mr. MACON then spoke against the bill, and Mr. S. SMITH replied; when the Committee rose and reported the bill without amendment. The House immediately took up the report, and 7th CoN. 2d SES.- 10 of our country.' The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from Thomas Worthington, an agent appointed by the Convention of the said State of Ohio, enclosing a copy of the Constitution of said State, and an ordinance passed by the Convention, containing certain propositions for the consideration of Congress; which were read, and, together with the address of said Convention to this House, and the letter accompanying it, ordered to be referred to Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. ELMENDORF, Mr. GODDARD, Mr. HENDERSON, and Mr. ARCHER; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. VARNUM in the Chair, on the report of the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures on the petition of John Holland, jr. The report is in favor of granting the prayer of the petitioner for a remission of duties, in proportion to the damage sustained by his vessel taking fire on the night of entering the goods imported in her, and before they were landed. The report was supported by Messrs. S. SMITH, DANA, and EUSTIS, and opposed by Messrs. MASON, and GREGG. Mr. GRISWOLD, though from present impressions in favor of the report, thought it did not comprehend all the facts necessary to form a full judgment respecting it. He therefore moved the rising of the Committee. Mr. JOHN C. SMITH Supported the motion, which was carried; when, on motion of Mr. GRISWOLD, the report was recommitted to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures. FRIDAY, December 25. Another member, to wit: WILLIAM H. HILL, from North Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the House. DECEMBER, 1802. ence to the directions of "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act to establish the Treasury Department," which were laid before the House on the twentieth instant, be printed for the use of the members of this House. CASE OF J. P. VAN NESS. Mr. DAVIS observed that he was of opinion that a member of the House retained his seat contrary to the spirit and sense of the Constitution. It therefore became his duty to offer a resolution for instituting an inquiry into the subject, in doing which he disclaimed all personal view. He then made the following motion: Resolved, That the Committee of Elections be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire whether John P. Van Ness, one of the members of this House from the The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter State of New York, returned by said State to serve as one of its members in the seventh Congress of the from the Secretary of State, transmitting abstracts of the returns made by the Collectors of the Cus- United States, has not, since his election as a member toms within the United States, of registered and of this House, and since he occupied a seat as a memimpressed American seamen ; also, a report exhib-ber, accepted of, and exercised the office of a major of the Territory of Columbia, and thereby forfeited his militia, under the authority of the United States, within right to a seat as a member of this House. iting an abstract of communications received from agents of the United States, for the relief and protection of the said seamen; which were read and ordered to lie on the table. On motion, it was Resolved, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making provision, by law, that Natchez be a port of delivery. Mr. THOMAS called the attention of the House to a part of the unfinished business of the last session. A bill to extinguish the claims of the United States for balances reported against certain States, &c., was postponed during the last session to the 4th Monday in November. He moved the reference of so much of the report of the Committee of Revisal and Unfinished Business as related to this subject to a select committee. Ayes 26.-Lost. Mr. MORRIS observed, that, if in order, he would move the reference of so much of the report of Revisal and Unfinished Business as related to the petition of C. L'Enfant to the Secretary of State. The SPEAKER said this would be irregular, as it would involve the reference of a report of the Committee of Clains to the Secretary, which was contrary to the practice of the House. Mr. MORRIS afterwards moved the reference of the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Mr. L'Enfant to a Committee of the Whole on Monday week. Carried. Mr. M. then moved that the Secretary of State be directed to furnish this House with such documents as are in his possession, relating to the claim of C. L'Enfant for services rendered in laying out the City of Washington under the direction of the President of the United States. Agreed to. MONDAY, December 27. Ordered, That five hundred copies, in addition to the number already printed, of the letter and report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and sundry accompanying documents, prepared in obedi Mr. MITCHILL considered the point as interesting in two relations; that which involved the decision of a principle, and that which went to deprive the State, (New York,) one of whose representatives he was, of a member. For these reasons he hoped the business would not be immediately intimation he had received of the contemplation pressed. He acknowledged this was not the first of such a motion; but he had entertained a hope that the gentleman with whom it originated, had, on reflection, considered it not inconsistent with his duty to abandon it. Mr. DAVIS replied, that he felt no disposition to press a decision. He had communicated, the first day he took his seat, his ideas on the subject to certain members, the friends of the gentleman implicated by the resolution, in hopes that he would resign. He now entertained no wish to push the business. He supposed, however, that the resolution would, of course, go to the Committee of Elections. He repeated that he was governed by no personal prejudice, but entirely by a sense of duty. He concluded with saying he was in favor of the question of reference being immediately taken. But on Mr. MITCHILL repeating his desire for some delay, Mr. DAVIS agreed to let the resolution lie till to-morrow. TUESDAY, December 28. Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, JOHN STRATTON; and from North Carolina, WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, appeared and took their seats in the House. A Message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting a plan and estimates for a dry dock. The Message and the reports and estimates referred therein, were read, and, together with the plans accompanying the same, ordered to be referred to the committee appointed on so much of the President's Message of the fifteenth instant, as relates to our navy yards, and the building of docks. LETTER OF JAMES MCHENRY. The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter addressed to him from James McHenry, late Secretary for the War Department, containing a variety of observations on the subject-matter of a report presented to the House, on the twenty ninth day of April last, from the committee appointed to inquire and report, whether moneys drawn from the Treasury have been faithfully applied to the objects for which they were appropriated, and whether the same have been regularly accounted for; and to report, likewise, whether any further arrangements are necessary to promote economy, enforce adherence to Legislative restrictions, and secure the accountability of persons entrusted with the public money," together with an appendix, comprising sundry explanatory statements in defence of the official conduct of the said James McHenry, whilst acting in the capacity aforesaid: the House proceeded in the reading of the said letter, and having made some progress therein, Mr. ALSTON said that the paper which the Clerk was reading appeared to him to be a very voluminous one, and that he did not think the House were bound to listen to the reading of it. He conceived them only bound to attend to such documents as might be received from public officers, or to petitions for a redress of grievances. He did not believe the paper now before the House to be one of that description, or that the House ought to take any notice of it. If the House were bound to take notice of every letter any individual might think proper to write and address to the Speaker, very little time might be left to do any other business. He concluded by saying he thought they ought to take no more notice of it than they should of any paragraph in a newspaper which might be enclosed to the Speaker. He therefore moved that the paper should not be read. Mr. STANLEY observed that he did not perceive the difference stated by his colleague; nor did he know how the gentleman could anticipate the contents of a communication before read. We shall be enabled to judge better of it when we hear it. By what inspiration could the gentleman form a judgment now? The communication appeared to him of the utmost importance. He hoped, therefore, it would be read. Mr. MORRIS could not omit making a remark or two. From the communication, so far as read, it appeared that it was charged that the character of a former public officer had been aspersed. The House ought, therefore, not only to read the communication, but also to inquire into the complaint. There was not an indecent expression in it. The writer complains that his character has been attacked; he thinks unjustly attacked. It will be the height of injustice to refuse him an opportunity of being heard. The SPEAKER said that it was a rule of the House that when the reading of a paper is called for, it shall be read, unless dispensed with by general consent. H. OF R. Mr. RANDOLPH said he wished only to observe, that there was but one principle (and that had been stated by the Speaker) on which these papers call for the reading of papers. To him, however, ought to be read. Any member had a right to it appeared that there was no occasion for inspiration to perceive that the papers, so far as read, were in a high degree indecent, unworthy of any man who had held, or ought to hold, an office under Government, and derogatory from the dignity the House. Members were cited by name; insults were offered to individual members; a committee was divided into different sects; on one class illiberal calumnies were thrown, while the other class was shielded from reflection. Was this decent or indecent? He congratulated himself that he differed as widely on this subject as he did on others from gentlemen. Mr. MORRIS said, however widely he might differ on this as well as other subjects from the gentleman from Virginia, he believed his own ideas of what was decent or indecent as correct as those of that gentleman. The letter states that a report had been made during the last session implicating the character of the writer. It further states that certain gentlemen on the committee did not concur in the report. This the writer knew from the debates upon the report. He therefore, thought it his duty, in vindicating himself, to exonerate those members from censure. Was this indecent? He conceived not. Mr. M. said that when he had observed that there was not an indecent expression in the letter, he meant that there was no such expression applied to the House collectively. He did not mean to say there were no charges against individual members. But if there were charges against individual members, that was no reason for the House refusing to hear it. That could only be done when charges were made against the House in its collective character. The SPEAKER read the rules of the House that applied to the case before them. Mr. ALSTON said he only rose to notice the observation of his colleague, (Mr. STANLEY,) who supposed he saw the inside of the communication before it was presented. This he denied. He had grounded his motion exclusively on what he had heard read. Mr. BACON was at a loss to decide on the propriety of reading or not reading these papers. He perceived that they contained not only a complaint, but a high charge against a committee of the House, stating that the major part assumed to act exclusively upon the business assigned to the whole committee, without consulting the other members. This was a high charge. Whether proper, or regularly made, he did not know. It was rather his opinion that the House ought to proceed in reading the papers, and afterwards to pass proper order on them. The SPEAKER declared the rule for reading imperative, and Mr. ALSTON withdrew his motion; on which the Clerk proceeded in the reading, which was continued for more than an hour; when H. OF R. Case of John P. Van Ness-Amendment to Rules. Mr. DAVIS renewed the motion for suspending the further reading. He asked what reason there was in consuming the time of the House in having long papers read, on which, when read, the House could not act? He read a rule of the House enjoining upon every member or the Speaker, before presenting any paper, briefly to state its contents; and asked of what avail this rule could be, unless it were in the power of the House to refuse the reading? The SPEAKER again declared his opinion that the reading was imperative, unless dispensed with by unanimous consent. Mr. MITCHILL was proceeding to make some remarks, when Mr. GRISWOLD called him to order; as the decision of the SPEAKER had settled the point, unless an appeal was made therefrom. Mr. Davis said he was so tired with the papers, and thought the precedent so bad a one, that he appealed from the decision of the Chair." Mr. DANA called for the yeas and nays. The question was taken, according to a rule, without debate, on the question "Is the decision of the Chair in order?" Carried in the affirmative-yeas 62, nays 16, as follows: YEAS-John Archer, John Bacon, Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, John Clopton, John Condit, Manasseh Cutler, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, William Dickson, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Seth Hastings, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, William Hoge, David Holmes, Samuel Hunt, George Jackson, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, David Meriwether, Thomas Morris, James Mott, Anthony New, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Cotton Smith, John Smith, of New York, Henry Southard, John Stanley, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stratton, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, Abram Trigg, George B. Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Henry Woods, and Thos. Wynns. NAYS-Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, Thomas T. Davis, Lucas Elmendorf, James Holland, Michael Leib, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Thomas Newton, jr., John Randolph, jr., John Smith of Virginia, Josiah Smith, Richard Stanford, John Taliaferro, jr., and John P. Van Ness. The House then proceeded in the further reading of the said letter; and, having gone through the same, it was ordered that the said letter, with the appendix accompanying it, do lie on the table. DECEMBER, 1802. be appointed a committee pursuant to the said resolution. Mr. GRAY addressed the House in the following words: Mr. SPEAKER: I rise to offer to the consideration of this honorable House a subject of an uncommon nature. In order that the crime of murder may no longer be deemed honorable, and with a view to mark with disgrace a wicked and pernicious practice, which has lately destroyed the social harmony of some of our fairest cities, and brought some of our most valuable citizens to an untimely end, I move the following resolution: Mr. G. then offered a resolution for the appointment of a committee, with instructions to inquire into the expediency of disqualifying any person from holding an office under the Government of the United States, who shall hereafter be concerned in a duel, or in sending or carrying a challenge. Ordered to lie on the table. CASE OF JOHN P. VAN NESS. the Committee of Elections to inquire whether Mr. DAVIS called up his resolution instructing Mr. VAN NESs had not forfeited his seat, by accepting the appointment of Major in the Militia of the Territory of Columbia. Mr. VAN NESS said that, so far as the decision of the House might affect him personally, he felt little concern; but, so far as it affected him as a representative of an important State, he was not so indifferent. He had no objection whatever to the proposed inquiry being made. As it involved the decision of an important principle, it deserved great attention. He had no doubt of the inquiry being made with that candor and fairness which, in most cases, characterized the proceedings of the House. He was far from imputing any impure motives to the mover or seconder of the resolution. It would be as derogatory in him to impute, as in them to entertain, any views dishonorable or base. He had risen barely to state his wish that an inquiry might be made. Mr. ELMENDORF proposed a verbal amendment, which was not agreed to. The resolution was then adopted without a division. Mr. DAVIS said, that while on the subject of would, by resigning, relieve the House from the seats improperly held, he hoped another member He questioned necessity of deciding on his case. whether a Territorial delegate could represent a State. He alluded to the State of Ohio. It appeared to him that a State must be represented in a full manner, by representatives entitled as well to vote as to debate. The gentleman, therefore, who held his seat as the Representative of the Territory could not remain in that character after the Territory had become a State, inasmuch as he had been appointed under the Territorial Government. Mr. D. concluded by giving notice that, unless the gentleman resigned, he should offer a motion to vacate his seat. AMENDMENT TO RULES. Mr. RANDOLPH said that, on examining the rules of the House, he found two to which he |