H. OF R. Spanish Affairs. APRIL, 1806. With regard to the appropriation of two millions necessary to elucidate the transactions of this with a view to this purchase, I voted for it is as a House. It seems to have been fashionable for set-off to the resolution reported by the select gentlemen to declare what were their motives for committee. I voted for it in preference to a the several votes they have given during the time standing army. I would rather strengthen the our doors were shut. I had but one motive, which, arm of the Executive with money, than with a I hope, will contiuue to govern me so long as I standing army so fatal to liberty. And I believe have a seat in this House. My object was, to be a majority of the Republicans in this nation will prepared for war, while I endeavored to maintain uphold me in this opinion. Everybody knows peace. I voted for the resolution for the increase the importance of this country. Has it not been of the Army, because everybody knows, who is said on this floor that there does not belong to acquainted with the state of the south and southyou a foot of ground between the Mississippi and western frontiers, that the militia in that quarter the Perdido? I recollect when this country was are not able to defend it. They are, indeed, but ceded to the United States to have had a conver- a people of yesterday-aliens to your habits and sation on the subject with a gentleman from Vir-language-and, indeed, aliens in every sense of ginia, for whose opinion I have a high respect, and he was of opinion with me that it was very doubtful whether this country was included, indeed we rather thought it was not in the treaty. Will any man say that it is not of vast importance to us to have the small territory that divides our people, and by a fair purchase remove all grounds of future quarrels? If it has entered into the minds of gentlemen to make other than a fair purchase of this country from its rightful owner, this is not my opinion, nor have I any recollection that any such motive has been avowed. A particular document has been referred to, the receipt of which I have heard one or two gentlemen say might have altered their votes on the bill passed by the House. But I was astonished to hear such a declaration. It could not have altered my opinion; it had in my mind no bearing on the measure. I have one further observation to make. If it was doubtful whether this country belonged to us, what would have been the effect of adding one or two additional regiments to your standing army, and placing them on a territory you acknowledge you do not believe to be rightfully yours? I would rather put down a regiment of the present standing army than add one man to it. When our rights are invaded we shall not require a standing army to defend them-it will be the militia that will defend them. I am opposed to a standing army, and ever will be opposed to it. For these reasons I was in favor of strengthening the arm of the Executive by an appropriation, instead of strengthening it by a standing army. Mr. CLARK requested the Speaker to examine the secret Journal, and see whether this Message were in it. The SPEAKER said it was, and might therefore be discussed with open doors. Mr. J. CLAY.-I was astonished when I found this Journal without the Message. Five Messages appear to have been received, all of which appear on the Journal, excepting this, which is the only Message of any consequence. I did believe, when the injunction of secrecy was removed, it applied to all the papers received by the House, and I did not conceive myself bound to conceal one tittle of what occurred while we had locked doors. I should, therefore, wish my friend from Virginia so to amend his motion, as to include all the documents. I consider this essentially the word. We had seen that frontier invaded by Mr. CLAY Concluded by observing that, as they had published five Messages which had contained nothing, he hoped they would publish the one that contained something. Mr. DAWSON expressed himself in favor of giv ing publicity to the Message, which, he believed, could do no possible injury. So far as it went, he thought it favored both the resolutions-as well that for raising an army, as that for conducting a negotiation by the appropriation of money. The reading of the Message being called for, Mr. SPEAKER said he thought it was in order to read it, as it was inserted on the private journal. Mr. BLACKLEDGE appealed from the decision of the Chair. Mr ALSTON observed that his colleague would better get at his object by taking a question on the reading of the Message; and Mr. BLACKLEDGE so modified his motion. Mr. SMILIE said a regard to consistency would prevent him from voting to give publicity to the Message. He could not vote for it, because he did not wish to take on himself that responsibility which might flow from the publicity, defeating the negotiation. It rested with those who voted for taking off the injunction of secrecy, to take that responsibility on themselves. At the same time, however, that he must vote against it, he hoped a majority would be found in its favor, because he saw it would be necessary to publish this document in order to place their conduct in a proper point of light. So far was the Message of the 17th of January, which had been alluded to, from having any influence in changing his vote, that it tended strongly to confirm him in the propriety of it. On the SPEAKER reminding Mr. SMILIE of the question before the House, he declined saying anything further than requesting the yeas and nays to be taken. H. OF R. to repel an insinuation made the other day in the debate on the Yazoo question, by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. J. RANDOLPH,) which I have heard was applied to me: That I left my seat for fear of voting on it, and removed to a different part of the House. Sir, I will candidly confess, that although the year before the last, I had declared I considered it for the interest of this country, that those claims should be compromised, and voted for the compromise of them; yet last year, when I found gentlemen in whom I had great confidence of opinion that such a measure would tend to sanction a scene of nefarious swindling, I was induced to determine then, and so expressed myself, that I would not vote again upon the question, and I was more inclined to pursue this course from a supposition that my knowledge of the vital injury which my district had sustained by the existence of a claim, called the Indiana purchase, which hovers over their heads, and in consequence of its recent resuscitation, lands had been sold at one-fourth of their value, and which claim is certainly more exceptionable than that of the persons who purchased from the Yazoo men, might produce a bias in favor of compromise which was improper, and I was willing to think that my opinion was incorrect. But at the same session when the gentleman from Virginia charged all who had voted for the compromise with corruption, and threatened them with the vengeance of the people, and when it was declared that no member from Virginia, who had the temerity to vote for it, should be re-elected, I was driven from the neutral ground I had taken, and thus borne down by the impetuous intemperance of the gentleman, I thought it became me not to shrink from the vote I had given. The reasons on which I acted were made public. I brought the question fairly before my constituents, and they re-elected me by a greater majority than formerly. I could not, therefore, decline to vote for a measure which they and my judgment approved, and which I believe the faith of Congress had been pledged to sanction. As an individual I cared not what was the fate of the bill from the Senate. As a judge to whom the claims of our citizens was presented, I wished that it should be ex equo et bono. Mr. ELMER said if he understood the decision of the Speaker, the motion of the gentleman from Virginia was altogether useless. He had understood, from a former decision, that the Journal did not include the Message; but other gentlemen appeared to have considered it in another way. He was perfectly willing that it should be published, and he did not think any ill could arise from it. For reasons already assigned by other gentlemen he had been against taking off the injunction of secrecy at this time. He should, therefore, vote against every question of this kind. Mr. JACKSON.-Is it not the right, Mr. Speaker, of any member to demand an official copy of the The gentleman from Virginia knows I refused Message? You have decided it to be a part of by my vote to give leave to the gentleman from the public journal, ordered to be printed, and an Maryland to be excused from voting, as I not only appeal has been made from that decision; how can stood up when a division was called for, but made it then with propriety be said, it shall not be read, the remark which he repeated, that he was not because the reading of it will give it publicity? compelled to vote, but might retire. After givAs so much has been said of the important bearing this vote I went across the House to ask a ing of documents sent to us, and we have published our proceedings, it is my wish to see them all exposed to public scrutiny. I am not now prepared to make a motion which I shall offer at a proper time, unless anticipated by some other gentleman, that the President be requested to lay before the House all the papers heretofore communicated by him, with a view of giving them publicity. I wish on all occasions to give publicity to my conduct as well in conclave as when these doors are open, and I will take this occasion friend from North Carolina to spend a social evening with me. He is now in his seat, and I appeal to him that I did not even mention the subject before the House. When the same question occurred I voted by him, as I had before voted; I knew of nothing that could drive me from my purpose, or from my seat. I will not attempt to scan the feelings which predominate in the mind so illiberal as to attribute unworthy motives to, and manifest a jealousy of every man that differs from it; it is a topic fruitful of com Mr. BLACKLEDGE said he was astonished at the course which this debate had taken. The question is this, shall a paper, heretofore secret, be made public? And the Chair has decided that this very paper is already public. Let the question then be decided which way it may, the paper goes to the public. My object is to get a vote which shall decide whether this question shall be debated with closed doors or in public. APRIL, 1806. mentary, it involves considerations which I will in the courts of the United States, nor he believed not delineate; for my part I cannot envy those in the courts of the respective States, and in the feelings, I thank God such is not my nature. It is case of a great culprit. He had been pronounced always unpleasant to me to engage in controver-guilty by a great majority of the House, and a sies which have a tendency to excite the malig- majority of the Senate had concurred in the denant passions. I wish to avoid them as much as cision, and to make this provision for the payany man living, as far as is consistent with my ment of his witnesses, indicated a consciousness honor and reputation, but I never will shrink from that the decision had been unjust. To this he a contest, political or personal, in this House or was not willing to subscribe. He was not disout of it, at the sacrifice of either. posed to libel the House by any act of this sort; for it was a libel on themselves for the members who accused, to manifest their consciousness of having acted unjustly by a provision to reward the culprit by the payment of his witnesses. If it is just thus to provide in the case of Chase, we ought to travel back, and commence the business of justice in cases of innocence. It cannot be forgotten, that an insurrection was said to have existed in the year 1794, in the western counties of Pennsylvania, and that for certain purposes this insurrection was produced. Victims were then required by certain members of the Government, and among them was a member of this House (General Hamilton.) He was dragged from his home to the city of Philadelphia, incarcerated. and a bill against him sent to the grand jury. It was returned ignoramus, and notwithstanding the innocence of this gentleman was thus established, he was put to an expense of between five and six hundred dollars, not a cent of which was ever refunded to him! Are we then disposed to provide for an acquitted felon, to remunerate him, to give him a premium for his iniquities, and to leave innocence unnoticed? He trusted not. He boped the House would not dishonor itself by such an act, and be. therefore, hoped a recommitment of the bill would take place. Mr. SPEAKER said it was in order to appeal from his decision. Mr. BLACKLEDGE then said he would appeal from that decision. After some further conversation, Mr. BLACKLEDGE withdrew his motion, which was renewed by Mr. J. CLAY. The SPEAKER then said, the reading of the Message of the President of the 6th of December is called for; the Speaker has decided that that document is a part of the Journal ordered to be published, and may be read. From this decision an appeal is made to the House, on which appeal there can be no debate. When, without taking a question, two successive motions were made to adjourn, the last of which prevailed. MONDAY, April 7. Mr. GREGG, from the Committee on the Public Lands, to whom were referred, on the fifth instant, the amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act to continue in force an act, entitled 'An act to authorize the Secretary of War to issue land warrants, and for other purposes,' reported to the House their agreement to the same without amendment. The motion was agreed to, and the bill recommitted. SPANISH AFFAIRS. The House resumed the consideration of the question depending at the time of their adjournment, on Saturday last, on an appeal from the de"cision of the Chair respecting a point of order as therein stated. The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to the said bill: Whereupon, Ordered, That the said amendments, together with the bill, be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow. The SPEAKER informed the House that the bill to compensate the witnesses who attended the trial of Samuel Chase was for a third reading, on which, Mr. BLACKLEDGE moved that the galleries should be cleared. The House continued in secret sitting for a short time, when the doors were opened and the question taken by yeas and nays on the point of order, whether the decision of the Speaker was correct, viz: "That the said Message being contained in the journal of the secret proceedings of the House, and the same had been read in the House, it was now in order to call for the reading of the said Message." It was decided in the negative-yeas 43, nays 59, as follows: Mr. LEIB rose, and said that he had a motion to make on the subject. It was that the bill should be re-committed to a Committee of the Chittenden, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph YEAS-George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, Martin whole House. By the provisions of the bill com- Clay, Leonard Covington, John Dawson, James Elliot, pensation was to be made to the whole of the wit-William Ely, John W. Eppes, John Fowler, James M. nesses who attended the trial, on behalf of the accused as well as of the prosecution, and to this he never could or would consent. It was the establishment of a principle, which did not obtain Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, Seth Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Thomas Sammons, John Cotton Smith, Samuel Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Benjamin Tallmadge, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, David R. Williams, and Alexander Wilson. NAYS-Willis Alston, jun., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, John Chandler, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield. Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, Elias Earle, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Findley, James Fisk, Peterson Goodwyn, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, Walter Jones, John Lambert, Michael Leib, Duncan McFarland, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russel, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sandford, Ebenezer Seaver, James Sloan, John Smilie, Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston. The question then recurred on the motion made by Mr. J. RANDOLPH on Saturday, as follows: "That the printed supplemental journal of secret proceedings be amended, by inserting after the word "read" in the third line of the first page, the Message of the President of the United States of the 6th of December last, and that a new edition of the said journal, thus amended, be printed for the use of the members." Mr. DANA said he was happy they were enabled to take a direct vote on the publication of the Message. On the vote just taken he had felt himself bound to consult the opinions of gentlemen who thought when the injunction of secrecy was taken off, it did not apply to the publication of the Message. The question now presents itself directly for consideration, whether it would be most expedient to publish it. It appears to me, said Mr. DANA, that there will be no breach of confidence in publishing it. If in private life one man makes a communication to another, and the person who receives it says he will not pledge himself to keep it secret, there is no obligation on him not to divulge it, and should he divulge it there will be no question about the violation of confidence. Under what form then, was the communication of the President made to this House? Is there anything in the Constitution relative to the President's communicating anything to either House in confidence, and absolutely prohibiting either House from disclosing it? If there is no such thing in the Constitution the disclosure must be left to our discretion, of the propriety of which we must be the judges. In the first place, the Constitution of the United States provides for such communications to Congress as the President may see fit to make, it also declares that each House shall be governed by such rules as they shall make. Now when this Message was received, the rules of the last House were adopted, and are such as are now in force. What is the rule applicable to the present point? H. OF R. "Whenever confidential communications are received from the President of the United States, the House shall be cleared of all persons except the members and the Clerk, and so continue during the reading of the communications, and (unless otherwise directed by the House) during all debates and proceedings to be had thereon. And when the Speaker, or any other member, shall inform the House, that he has communications to make, which he conceives ought to be kept secret, the House shall, in like manner, be cleared till the communications be made; the House shall then determine whether the matter communicated requires secrecy or not, and take order accordingly." The President can make no communications to us except under this rule. It was under this rule that this Message was communicated. What is the inference? The rule was peremptory, so far as it required the communication of the President to be read with closed doors; but after having been so received, it is strictly within the power of the House to decide whether it shall continue private, or be published. The President must have communicated the Message under this impression. No obligation of confidence can be infringed by publishing it. Believing, therefore. that the publication will be no violation of confidence, and believing that it will be for the public good, I shall vote for it. Mr. SLOAN. I shall as decidedly as the gentleman from Connecticut vote against the publication of the Message; and on a principle which it behooves me never to abandon so long as I hold a seat on this floor. If I understood anything of the matter, it was communicated to the House by the President in confidence that it would not be published; and if I have any idea of propriety, it ought to be still kept secret, and the reasons which first made it so still continue. If we are not Constitutionally bound to keep the communications made by the President secret, I do conceive we are under an obligation of respect to the other branches of the Government, not to betray the confidence reposed in us; and should this communication be published the other branches of the Government ought first to sanction it. Such a course would, in my opinion, have a direct tendency to destroy our confidence in the President, and our diplomatic character abroad. Mr.J. RANDOLPH.-Before the question is taken I have a few observations to offer in addition to those which I submitted the other day on the subject of the secret proceedings, to show that the Message of the President ought to be published, not only in justification of the report of the select committee which has been published, but in justice to the Government itself. An attempt has been made in the public prints, and on this floor, to give a color to the proceedings of the House, when in conclave, totally inconsistent with, and in opposition to truth. It has been intimated that the minority were in favor of war; or by intimating that the majority were in favor of specific measures, the inference has been drawn that the minority were in favor of war. The fact is thisand as the Message of the President has been read as a part of the journal ordered to be published, as the Speaker and Clerk have attested, I will undertake to state what it contains, unless prevented by the Chair. The SPEAKER interrupted Mr. R. by observing that such a statement would not be in order. APRIL, 1806. not failed, while a negotiation was depending, we declared ourselves in favor of taking a decisive and hostile attitude. Here is the real difference of opinion. In the one case we had a pending negociation. In the other it had been tried and failed. But that is not all. Because we bought Louisiana from France, it was contended that we should be following the old precedent by buying the Floridas of Spain. But in answer it was observed that in the first case we made an offer to purchase, as a prelude to negotiation; and it was declared that the misconduct of the Spanish agents was unauthorized. But here the case was completely reversed. There was no doubt of the misconduct of the Spanish agents being authorized, and negotiation had been tried and had failed. There was another difference. In one case we made a fair and honorable purchase from France who owned the property; but in this case, we observed that we were about to make a dishonorable purchase of a highwayman of property taken from its rightful owner, or to obtain his services to bully it from its rightful owner; and it was known, the declaration had been repeatedly Mr. RANDOLPH.-I will confine myself to stating that the division of sentiment in the House, was whether we should have a territorial accommodation of our differences with Spain, whether we should have an accommodation which did not merely suit Spain and us, or a moneyed accom modation which neither suited us or Spain, but France. A recurrence to the journals will show this to have been the principal difference that subsisted within the walls of this House. There was no party of men in this House, or elsewhere, in favor of war-for I beg leave to call gentlemen on the committee to witness that the opinion of the majority of the select committee was, that we should neither give money nor make war; but that we should defend the limits of the old United States and the territories acquired from Spain. What were the facts? Our army was dispersed in cantonments, God knows where. The country to be protected was far removed from any consid-made, that a high officer of the Government of the erable surrounding population-a country which, from the circumstances in which it is placed, must be kept and held by military force. When the militia of the United States from the most contiguous States to New Orleans were deputed to take possession of the country, events proved that it could not be defended by militia unless indeed by the militia of the Chickasaws, the Creeks, and Choctaws. It is not only cut off from the populous parts of the United States but it is protruded into the Gulf of Mexico, and also surrounded by extensive marshes, which do not admit of its being defended in the same manner as the other parts of the United States. So much with regard to a standing army. The committee applied to the head of the proper department to know what force would be required to defend the frontiers. Our report has been published. Why have not the letter addressed to the Secretary of War and his report been likewise published? If the Executive of the United States will take upon itself the responsibility of defending the country with a single granadier, be it so. But it was said there was not sufficient force to defend the country; and are we not now attempting by a landed bounty to generate this force? These circumstances prove our views in committee, and I do not hesitate to say that all the force we have should have been placed in the vicinity of New Orleans-that was the weak point which ought to have been guarded. United States, the head of the Department of State, avowed that the money was for France. Where has the Hornet sailed? To Corunna or to Cadiz? No, to Nantz, the high road to Paris. It was not because there was a party in the House indisposed to the honest acquisition of the Floridas, but because there was a party indisposed to acquire them at the expense of the national treasure and honor, that opposition originated to the measures you have taken. No, sir, we were not for war, we were for peace-for acting on true policy, on the principle of taking firmer ground than has been taken-that ground which we thought was called for; and not for endeavoring to curry favor with one of the European Powers by throwing our weight in her scale, and thus producing a cause of quarrel with another nation during a pending negotiation. This is the fact. We told gentlemen, that, after France had said, if you give Spain one blow I will give you ten or two, I do not recollect which,-after she had told you that your claims against Spain must be abandoned, after she had in the most insulting and degrading manner interfered in your differences with Spain, that, under these circumstances to put money into the hands of France was not only a violation of your neutrality with Great Britain; but that the ground subsequently taken towards Great Britain was a most dastardly accommodation to the wishes of France, in order, by putting on a hostile attitude to Great Britain, to curry favor with the Emperor of France; and which was not demanded by the situation of our affairs with Great Britain. There is another view of the subject. Against Spain, with whom we had tried the fair experiment of negotiation, and which had totally failed, we took no manly attitude; while we reserved all What is our true policy? To take part with our energy for Great Britain, and determined to neither of those nations-to let neither of them coerce her by prohibiting the importation of her finger one dollar of our money-to resist the unjust millinery. Yes, against Spain, when our negotia- pretensions of all. This policy we have abandoned, tions had totally failed, and under circumstances and what is the consequence? The national of disgrace to the United States, we took no man-honor has received a stain which all the waters of ly ground, but begged her to take money; while the Potomac cannot wash out. It is on the page with Great Britain, with whom negotiation had of history, and cannot now be taken off. The na |