mind on the subject? I ask him and the House, whether in the course of this day and yesterday, and on previous occasions, all the great bearings of this resolution have not been sifted, and every line and sentence carped at by critics and hypercritics? Why then are we charged with precipitation? Yesterday it was moved to postpone the resolution; that motion was lost, and on that occasion the object of gentlemen was carried though their motion was lost, for the day was consumed. The same course has been pursued to-day, and on incidental motions to amend particular parts of the resolution, gentlemen have debated its merits. I ask you, therefore, if the resolution has not been discussed in every point of view of which it is susceptible, or if any new matter can be introduced? I ask if the House be disposed to postpone the question until to-morrow, and if the day shall be consumed in making and discussing the same evasive motions made to-day, whether an attempt to take the question then will not be charged with precipitation? There can be no doubt that, unless we adopt the peculiar course of gentlemen, we shall still be charged with precipitation. I for one am willing to submit to this charge, and am willing to hear it urged within and without these walls. If I did not believe the question had been fully discussed, and that further discussion would fail to change a vote, I would acquiesce to postpone it until to-morrow, or the next month; but believing the contrary, I shall be against it.

Mr. ELLIOT Some of the gentleman's remarks are so extraordinary, that I cannot, I will not suffer them to pass unnoticed. It is immaterial to me what the gentleman from Connecticut, or Virginia, thinks on this subject. Some gentlemen may think the mind of every gentleman fixed; some gentlemen may rely on a degree of personal influence, which I trust will never be realized, and that some gentlemen will take their opinions on the subject from others. But be this as it may, I think it improper to put the queries submitted by the gentleman from Virginia, at the first moment when it is strictly in order to debate the merits of the amendment. Good Heavens! is it come to this, when most material amendments are about to be made in the Constitution, and after an extraordinary degree of irritation and fatigue, when one day more is asked for, the gentleman from Virginia shall get up, and ask if every member has not made up his mind on the vote he shall give; after two new principles are introduced in the resolution sent from this House, which, though confined to the simple principle of discrimination, occupied a month's discussion?

I do not accuse of improper motives the majority of this House, with whom it is my pride and pleasure on most occasions to act. I believe they sincerely think it for the interest of their country that this important decision should be immediately made. I know that the State I represent has manifested great zeal and uncommon unanimity in favor of the discriminating principle. Impressed with its importance, they have, contrary to their usual course, submitted to the inconvenience of an extra session, in the expectation that

DECEMBER, 1803.

this principle would be adopted by the two Houses. But I believe that not a member of the Legislature of that State will be gratified, that so many important amendments, additional to this, have been made after the discussion of a single day; the greater part of which has been consumed in the discussion of incidental points. I do not believe that the people of the United States wish us to spend day after day in examining the merits of a private claim, and to give but a single day to the making of three or four alterations in the Constitution, without allowing a single member an opportunity of discussing any but incidental questions. These are my opinions. I do not believe, however, that they will be accepted by the majority as of any weight. In making them, I mean no reflection on the majority. Yet I believe the majority may, without offence, be informed that even a humble minority have rights as well as they, and that while they feel power they ought not to forget right. These are my reasons for hoping another day may be devoted to the subject.

Mr. GREGG said he would vote in favor of a postponement, were he not persuaded that the question had been fully discussed. It would be recollected that two of the propositions, contained in the present resolution, had been on a former occasion before the House, and had been ably discussed. These same propositions now appeared in a shape somewhat different in form, but the same in substance. They related to the principle of discrimination, and to the number of persons from which the House of Representatives should elect a President. It would he conceded that these two questions had been as fully discussed as they could be. Everything the subject admitted of had been already advanced. The remaining principle, embraced by the resolution of the Senate, authorizing the Vice President eventually to become President, has been also fully discussed on the motion by the gentleman from Vermont. That gentlemen calls this an incidental question; but without deciding whether it was an incidental question or not, Mr. G. believed it questionable whether anything could be added to what had been advanced. Another motion had been made to do away the office of Vice President. This likewise had been discussed. These four propositions embraced the whole of the resolution from the Senate; and although there may have been no discussion on the whole of it, yet as there had been a full discussion of all the parts of which it consisted, the effect was the same.

Mr. HUGER said he must exercise the liberty of disagreeing with the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The fact was that the question of discrimination had never been fully discussed. When it was first before the House the gentlemen in the majority acted as if all acquiesced in it. Its real merits had not been, therefore, entered into by them. The only question discussed was, the number from which a choice should be made by the House of Representatives. That was fully done. What then followed? On the main question, Mr. H. said, he was almost the only one, who really went into a discussion of its merits, the gentlemen

on the other side had not thought proper to make

any answer.

Mr. DANA.-After having been before Congress for ten years, and the members of the House having spent three days in discussing the petition of Amey Darden for the price of a horse, the amendment of the Senate, to the Constitution is brought before us; and after but two days discussion, we are now called up to decide finally upon it. I do not ask gentlemen to change their opinion, but I require them to have some regard to common decorum; and that when it is unusual on the most ordinary occasions to read a bill the third time on the same day that it has been discussed in a Committee of the Whole, they will not urge a measure of the first importance, which goes to reverse the ideas of our wisest men, to a precipitate decision, in violation of this common rule. This is all I ask, and no more. When gentlemen say there is nothing new to be advanced, I acknowledge myself willing to pay great respect to their intuitive judgments and reach of thought, I do not pretend to say they have not this eminent qualification; but I must say that few men possess these vast powers of mind. It might be arrogance in me to say that I could add anything to what has been so ably urged, particularly in the other branch of the Legislature. Yet I might perhaps present the subject in a light somewhat different. Gentlemen are graciously pleased to say they will hear patiently what we have to advance; but to say they will hear us patiently, when four hours have elapsed since the usual time of dining, is giving us but little indulgence; the exhaustion of the Speaker, and the impatience of the House are such discouragements as a speaker is not accustomed to bear. For these reasons I hope the business will be permitted to take its ordinary course, and the third reading of the amendment be postponed until to-morrow.

Mr. BEDINGER urged the necessity of coming to an immediate decision, as the State Legislatures would be exposed to serious inconvenience by further delay. The Legislature of Kentucky would, he understood, adjourn about Christmas. This business had begun with the session, and he was persuaded the mind of every member was made up on it.

Mr. R. GRISWOLD hoped the Legislature of Kentucky would not become extinct on their adjournment, and, if not, when they meet again, they could take up this amendment. He trusted, therefore, the House would not precipitate a decision on this account. He could not promise himself, if indulged with time, with the ability to make any observations that would convince the judgment of a single member. Indeed, it was a melancholy truth, that the temper of the House was such as to indicate no change. Gentlemen say, they have made up their minds. He still thought it proper that the subject should be fully discussed on that floor, as the State Legislatures were ultimately to decide. He wished to see it discussed every where, on the floor of the House as well as in the public prints. He hoped, also, a respect for the dignity of their proceedings would

H. OF R.

restrain gentlemen from calling for a decision at so late an hour. It was not usual to carry a bill to the third reading on the same day with its discussion in a Committee of the Whole. This may have been practised some at the close of a session on unimportant subjects, but had never been practised at the commencement of the session. For these reasons, he hoped the subject would be postponed until to-morrow, when he would offer his opinion on it. It was certainly true, that the gentlemen in favor of it had hitherto refused to discuss its merits. He did hope that, before a final vote was taken on the amendment of the Senate, they would come forward, and, divesting themselves of party sensibility, show the grounds on which they advocated it.

The motion to read the resolution a third time to-morrow, was rejected by yeas and nays-yeas 45, nays 74, as follows:

YEAS-John Archer, Simeon Baldwin, Silas Betton, John Campbell, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Clifton Claggett, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Thos. Dwight, Peter Early, James Elliot, James Gillespie, Calvin Goddard, Gaylord Griswold, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Walter Jones, Joseph Lewis, junior, Thomas Lewis, Henry W. Livingston, Thomas Lowndes, Nahum Mitchell, Samuel D. Purviance, Tompson J. Skinner, John Cotton Smith, Joseph Stanton, William Stedman, James Stephenson, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George Tibbits, John Trigg, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Richard Winn, and Joseph Winston.

Isaac Anderson, David Bard, George Michael BedinNAYS-Willis Alston, jun., Nathaniel Alexander, ger, William Blackledge, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, George W. Campbell, Levi Casey, Thomas Claiborne, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Rd Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, John B. Earle, John W. Eppes, William Findley, John Fowler, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Hammond, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, John B. C. Lucas, Matthew Lyon, Andrew McCord, William McCreery, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, John John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Patterson, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, Jacob Richards, Cæsar A. Rodney, Erastus Root, Thos. Sandford, Ebenezer Seaver, John Smilie, John Smith of New York, Richard Stanford, John Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, and Thomas Wynns.

The question was then taken on its being read the third time to-day, by yeas and nays, and carried in the affirmative-yeas 78, nays 35, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, junior, Nathaniel Alexander, Isaac Anderson, David Bard, George Michael Bedinger, William Blackledge, John Boyle, Robert Brown,

Joseph Bryan, William Butler, George W. Campbell, Levi Casey, Thomas Claiborne, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Rd. Cutts, John Dawson, Willian Dickson, John B. Earle, Peter Early, John W. Eppes, William Findley, John Fowler, James Gillespie, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Hammond, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, John B. C. Lucas, Matthew Lyon, Andrew McCord, William McCreery, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, John Patterson, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richard, Cæsar A. Rodney, Erastus Root, Thomas Sandford, Ebenezer Seaver, John Smilie, John Smith of New York, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, Isaac Van Horne, Joseph B. Varnum, Daniel C. Verplanck, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Richard Winn, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS-John Archer, Simeon Baldwin, Silas Betton, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Manasseh

Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, Thos. Dwight, James Elliot, Calvin Goddard, Gaylord Griswold, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Joseph Lewis, junior, Thomas Lewis, Henry W. Livingston, Thomas Lowndes, Nahum Mitchell, Samuel D. Purviance, Tompson J. Skinner, John Cotton Smith, William Stedman, James Stephenson, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, George Tibbits, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Marmaduke Williams, and Joseph Winston.

The engrossed resolution was then read the third time; and on the question, Shall the same pass?

Mr. PURVIANCE said, as I am aware that this question will induce a lengthy discussion, which may not be terminated until to-morrow, I move an adjournment.

Motion lost-ayes 30.

Mr. P. rose again. Fatigued as I am, said he, by the long time we have remained in session, and not having had time to prepare myself fully on the merits of the question, though impelled to trouble the House with some ideas, they shall be few, and shall be concisely expressed. I am against the amendment, for several reasons. First, because it is calculated to injure the interests of the smaller States. This point having been ably discussed, I shall merely remark, that it is more than probable, should this amendment obtain, the President. for more than one hundred years to come, will be confined to some person within the five large States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. The whole number of Electors consists of one hundred and seventy-six, of which eighty-nine make a majority, and the number of Electors attached to these States are ninety-six. The amendment confines the number of persons from whom the election shall be made, if brought within these walls, to three; and two must, at all events, be chosen by one of the larger States. If the Constitution

DECEMBER, 1803.

remains in its present state, the number brought into the House will be five, whereby the smaller States will have a better chance of getting one or other of the two officers. This idea must have operated forcibly on the minds of the persons delegated to consider the Constitution, and had it not been for that number being so large, the smaller States might not have come into the Union. Having come into the Union, with rights so guarded, and expecting a continuance of them, it is now extremely improper to deprive them of that chance which, if not held out, might have prevented the adoption of the Constitution. We know that the Constitution was regarded as a compromise between the large and small States, in which the large States made considerable concessions to the small States, and induced them thereby to come into the measure. If this amendment is not a violation of the compact, why may we not further alter it, and say that the ratio of Representatives in this House may be as one to one hundred thousand, by which some whatever? One measure is as just as the other. States may be deprived of any representation

ment, because it does appear to me that a sacred In the second place, I am against the amendright of franchise, a right of choosing our governors for ourselves, for which ourselves and our fathers fought and bled, is now to be made a kind of job, a subject of barter, and the Constitution so altered as that one State may say to another, if you consent to give us Titius, we will, in return, agree to give you Caius; and, if you do not give us Titius, we will not give you Caius. Thus, the five larger States will always enjoy the power of choosing the President. The time may arrive, though God forbid it should! when this country may become corrupt, when persons, candidates for the great Executive offices, may, by promises of ample compensation, influence the Electors. In the third place, I am opposed to the amendment because the office of Vice President is still retained, when the original reasons for it are entirely done away. We know that the principal reasons for creating it were to bring forward two of our ablest characters, without discrimination, and to keep all intrigue from being interwoven in the election of the Chief Magistrate. This object is done away, and the office is retained at the expense of five thousand dollars a year, when the duties attached to it might as well be discharged by some other person, as is the case in every State in the Union, where there is not a Lieutenant Governor. In North Carolina, and in other States, where the office of Governor becomes vacant, it is provided that it shall be filled by the Speaker of the Senate, and eventually by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

But, in the fourth place, I am opposed to any innovation on the sacred charter, because when we shall have once begun to make incursions on it, there is no knowing at what point of progress we shall stop. It is extremely probable that we shall not stop, until some of the fairest features of the system, are crumbled into dust. This is my strongest reason against the amendment. For, I