The Louisiana Treaty. that the only way of giving pub- further remarks, the question of re- > were then closed for a short time, MONDAY, October 24. H. OF R. "His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part, to cede to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States; and whereas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particularly of the third article, the French Republic has an incontestable title to the domain and to the possession of the said territory; the First Consul of the French Republic, desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the said United States, in the name of of the French Republic, forever, and in full sovereignty, the said territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they Lave been acquired by the French Republic, in virtue of the above-mentioned treaty concluded with His CathoMajesty." to cause to be laid before this House a the United States and the Government or Spain, (if any such correspondence has as will show the assent or dissent of Spain ase of Louisiana by the United States; tocopies of such other documents as may be irtinent of State, or any other Department Sernment, tending to ascertain whether the es have, in fact, acquired any title to the Louisiana by the treaties with France, of h of April, one thousand eight hundred and SWOLD said that, by adverting to the of the President respecting the treaty and ns lately concluded between the United d the French Government, he found that sident, speaking on the subject, observes: manent arrangements for this object retime and deliberation, it is for your consida whether you will not forthwith make such rary provisions for the preservation, in the while, of order and tranquillity in the counis the case may require." He recommends to mediate attention of Congress the passage ne temporary laws. This being the case, he subject being about to be brought before Iouse, it became important that they should distinctly what they had obtained by the y; and whether there were any territory be ing to the United States to take possession of, y new subjects to govern. Inasmuch as if new territory or subjects were acquired, it was ectly idle to pass even temporary laws for the cupation of the one, or the government of the her. He believed it would be admitted that, by e express terms of the treaty, the United States ad neither acquired new territory nor new subcts. The part of the treaty having relation to his point, is thus expressed: "Whereas by the article the third of the treaty conluded at St. Ildefonso, the 9th Vendemiaire, an 9 (1st October, 1800,) between the First Consul of the French Republic and His Catholic Majesty, it was agreed as follows: 8th CoN.-13 By this article it appears, that in a treaty between Spain and France, Spain stipulated to cede to France, upon certain conditions, the province of Louisiana. The treaty between the United States and the French Government does not ascertain whether these terms have been complied with by France, or whether the cession has been actually made by Spain to France. All that appears is a promise made by Spain to cede. If the terms stipulated by France have not been complied with, and Spain has not delivered the province to France, then it results that France had no title, and of consequence that the United States has acquired no title from France. If this be correct, the consequence will be that we have acquired no new territory or new subjects, and that it is perfectly idle to spend time in passing laws for possessing the territory, and governing the people. This point not being ascertained by the language of the treaty, it may be important to obtain documents that may satisfy the House whether the United States have acquired either new territory or new subjects. In the treaty lately concluded with France, the treaty between France and Spain is referred to; only a part of it is copied. The treaty referred to must be a public treaty. In the nature of things it must be the title-deed for the province of Louisiana. The Government must have a copy of it. As there is but a part recited, it is evidently imperfect. It becomes therefore necessary to be furnished with the whole, in order to ascertain the conditions relative to the Duke of Parma; it also becomes necessary to get the deed of cession; for the promise to cede is no cession. This deed of cession, Mr. G. also presumed, was in the possession of Government. It was also important to know under what circumstances Louisiana is to be taken possession of, and whether with the consent of Spain, as she is still possessed of it. If it is to be taken possession of with her consent, the possession will be peaceable and one kind of provision will be necessary; but if it is to be taken possession of in opposition to Spain, a different provision may be necessary. From these considerations he thought it proper in the House to call upon the Executive for informa a Marine Corps, and in an act fixing the rank and pay of the commanding officer of the Corps of Marines: and that the committee be authorized to report by bill or otherwise. Agreed to, and a committee of five appointed, viz: Messrs. LEIB, JACKSON, CUTTS, L. WILLIAMS, and OLIN. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. DAWSON, from the committee to whom had been referred two propositions of amendment to the Constitution, made a report in part, as follows: "Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the different States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the said Constitu tion, viz: "In all future elections of President and Vice President, the Electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves. The person having a majority of all the Electors appointed as President shall be the President; and if there shall be no such majority, the President shall be chosen from the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list for President, by the House of Representatives, in the manner directed by the Constitution. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President; and in case of an equal number of votes for two or more persons for Vice President, they being the highest on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President from those having such equal number, in the manner directed by the Constitution." Referred to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. THE LOUISIANA TREATY. Mr. RANDOLPH said the House would recollect a report made during the last session having relation to the subject of the Message of the President, delivered that morning, which had been acted upon at a late day. The report it had been thought inexpedient to publish at that time. As tending to throw light on the important subject before the House, and as a very able composition of a gentleman not then in his place, (Mr. NICHOLSON,) he thought it worthy of publication. He therefore moved its reference to the committee to whom the Message had been committed, and would afterwards move that it should be printed for the use of the members. The SPEAKER doubted whether it was in order to receive such a motion respecting a paper which had been considered confidential. Mr. RANDOLPH said he would withdraw his motion for the present, and bring it forward at a future time in a less objectionable shape. Mr. GREGG observed that, if his memory did not fail, the injunction of secrecy was taken off, though there had been no resolution for printing the report. He regretted it had not been published OCTOBER, 1803. last session. If his impression was correct, it might now be published. Mr. RANDOLPH said his friend from Pennsylvania would perceive a very cogent reason for not publishing the report at that time. Its contents rendered it inexpedient to publish it till the negotiations then depending should be terminated one way or the other. That reason had ceased, it appeared necessary to clear the galleries before and the report might therefore be published. As the injunction of secrecy could be taken off, he hoped that measure would be adopted before an adjournment took place. He would not, however, offer such motion until any other important business coming before the House might be at tended to. public Journal any notice of the report alluded to. Mr. DANA inquired whether there was on the If there were, they could act upon it in public; if there were not, they could not act. Mr. GRISWOLD.-What, Mr. Speaker, is the question before the House? The SPEAKER said there was no question before the House. Mr. GRISWOLD.-The Speaker having decided that there is no question before the House, all this conversation is out of order. Mr. RANDOLPH.-There is nobody out of order but the gentleman himself. His colleague asks if there is any mention of the report on the public Journal? For answering his inquiry the Clerk is examining the Journal. There is, therefore, a question before the House; and any member has to determine his mind on any particular business. a right to require that the Journal be examined between the Speaker, and the gentleman from Mr. GRISWOLD was sorry to see a difference Virginia. The Speaker says there is no question before the House-the gentleman from Virginia says there is. It was very well for any gentleman requiring information contained in the Journal to inquire of the Clerk. But he never knew before that that made a motion. Mr. LYON saw no difference between the Speaker and the gentleman from Virginia. The Clerk said there was no mention on the public Journal of the report. Mr. LYON moved that the doors be closed for the purpose of taking off the injunction of secrecy. Mr. RODNEY was opposed to closing the doors. It might be proper to publish the report, but that could be directed at a future day. He felt very hostile to closing the doors of that House except on important occasions. The question was taken on Mr. Lyon's motion, which was lost-ayes 49, noes 62. Mr. DAWSON wished, as the injunction of secrecy could not be taken off with open doors, that they would be shut for that purpose, when he should move a resolution for taking off the injunction on all subjects before us at the last session. The SPEAKER said the regular course would be to move a reconsideration of the motion for closing the doors. Mr. SMILIE hoped the House would reconsider the motion. He was no friend to shut doors; but it was apparent that the only way of giving publicity to the report was to come to a resolution to that effect with closed doors. After some further remarks, the question of reconsideration was taken and agreed to; as also was the question for closing the doors. The doors were then closed for a short time, and the injunction of secrecy respecting the report of the secret committee taken off, and the report ordered to be printed. MONDAY, October 24. THE LOUISIANA TREATY. Mr. GRISWOLD moved the following resolution: Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House a copy of the treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the first of October, one thousand eight hundred, together with a copy of the deed of cession from Spain, executed in pursuance of the same treaty, conveying Louisiana to France, (if any such deed exists;) also copies of such correspondence between the GovMinister of Spain, (if any such correspondence has taken place,) as will show the assent or dissent of Spain to the purchase of Louisiana by the United States; together with copies of such other documents as may be in the Department of State, or any other Department of this Government, tending to ascertain whether the United States have, in fact, acquired any title to the province of Louisiana by the treaties with France, of the thirtieth of April, one thousand eight hundred and ernment of the United States and the Government or three. H. OF R. "His Catholic Majesty promises and engages on his part, to cede to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States; and whereas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particularly of the third article, the French Republic has an incontestable title to the domain and to the possession of the said territory; the First Consul of the French Republic, desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship, doth hereby cede to the said United States, in the name of of the French Republic, forever, and in full Sovereignty, the said territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and in the same manner as they the above-mentioned treaty concluded with His Cathohave been acquired by the French Republic, in virtue of lic Majesty." By this article it appears, that in a treaty between Spain and France, Spain stipulated to cede Louisiana. The treaty between the United States to France, upon certain conditions, the province of and the French Government does not ascertain whether these terms have been complied with by France, or whether the cession has been actually made by Spain to France. All that appears is a promise made by Spain to cede. If the terms stipulated by France have not been complied with, and Spain has not delivered the province to France, then it results that France had no title, and of consequence that the United States has acquired no title from France. If this be correct, Mr. GRISWOLD said that, by adverting to the the consequence will be that we have acquired no Message of the President respecting the treaty and new territory or new subjects, and that it is perconventions lately concluded between the United fectly idle to spend time in passing laws for posStates and the French Government, he found that sessing the territory, and governing the people. the President, speaking on the subject, observes: This point not being ascertained by the language As permanent arrangements for this object re- of the treaty, it may be important to obtain docu'quire time and deliberation, it is for your consid-ments that may satisfy the House whether the eration whether you will not forthwith make such temporary provisions for the preservation, in the 'meanwhile, of order and tranquillity in the country, as the case may require." He recommends to the immediate attention of Congress the passage of some temporary laws. This being the case, and the subject being about to be brought before the House, it became important that they should know distinctly what they had obtained by the treaty; and whether there were any territory be longing to the United States to take possession of, or any new subjects to govern. Inasmuch as if no new territory or subjects were acquired, it was perfectly idle to pass even temporary laws for the Occupation of the one, or the government of the other. He believed it would be admitted that, by the express terms of the treaty, the United States had neither acquired new territory nor new subjects. The part of the treaty having relation to this point, is thus expressed: "Whereas by the article the third of the treaty concluded at St. Ildefonso, the 9th Vendemiaire, an 9 (1st October, 1800,) between the First Consul of the French Republic and His Catholic Majesty, it was agreed as follows: 8th CoN.-13 United States have acquired either new territory or new subjects. In the treaty lately concluded with France, the treaty between France and Spain is referred to; only a part of it is copied. The treaty referred to must be a public treaty. In the nature of things it must be the title-deed for the province of Louisiana. The Government must have a copy of it. As there is but a part recited, it is evidently imperfect. It becomes therefore necessary to be furnished with the whole, in order to ascertain the conditions relative to the Duke of Parma; it also becomes necessary to get the deed of cession; for the promise to cede is no cession. This deed of cession, Mr. G. also presumed, was in the possession of Government. It was also important to know under what circumstances Louisiana is to be taken possession of, and whether with the consent of Spain, as she is still possessed of it. If it is to be taken possession of with her consent, the possession will be peaceable and one kind of provision will be necessary; but if it is to be taken possession of in opposition to Spain, a different provision may be necessary. From these considerations he thought it proper in the House to call upon the Executive for informa "Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House a copy of the treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the first of October 1800, together with a copy of the deed of cession from Spain, executed in pursuance of the same treaty, conveying Louisiana to France, (if any such deed exists;) also copies of such correspondence between the Government of the United States and the Government or Minister of Spain (if any such correspondence has taken place) as will show the assent or dissent of Spain to the purchase of Louisiana by the United States; together with copies of such other documents as may be in the departments of this Government, tending to ascertain whether the United States have, in fact, acquired any title to the province of Louisiana by the treaties with France, of the 30th of April 1803. OCTOBER, 1803. tion on this point. Other important documents question; which is supported by the strongest posmay, perhaps, likewise be in the hands of the Pre-sible evidence, and pledging herself to put us in sident. Hence he considered it his duty, before possession of that right, so soon as we shall have the House went into a consideration of the reso- performed those stipulations, on our part, in conlutions laid on the table, to submit the following sideration of which France has conveyed to us resolution: her sovereignty over this country and people. lations can only be fulfilled by laws to the passing From the nature of our Government, these stipuAnd when these laws are about to be passed, enof which the Legislature alone is competent. deavors are made to impede, or frustrate, the measure, by setting on foot inquiries which mean nothing, or are unconnected with the subject, and this is done by those who have always contended that there was no discretion vested in this House by the Constitution, as to carrying treaties into effect. If, sir, gentlemen believe that we must eventually do that which rests with us, towards effecting this object, to what purpose is this inquiry? Mr. R. begged the House not to impute to him any disposition to countenance this monstrous doctrine, whose advocates now found it so difficult to practise. On the contrary, he held in the highest veneration the principle established in the case of the British Treaty, and the men by whom it was established, that, in all matters requiring legislative aid, it was the right and duty of this House to deliberate, and upon such deliberation, to afford, or refuse, that aid, as in their judgments the public good might require. And he held it to be equally the right of the House to demand such information from the Executive, as to them appeared necessary to enable them to form a sound conclusion on subjects submitted, by that Department, to their consideration. But those who then contended that this House possessed no discretion on the subject, that they were bound implicitly to conform to the stipulations, however odious and extravagant, into which the treaty-making power might have plunged the nation—those who then said that we cannot deliberate, are now instituting inquiries to serve as the basis of deliberation (for if we are not to deliberate upon the result, why institute any inquiry at all?)-inquiries, which are in their very nature deliberation itself. But whilst he arraigned the consistency of other gentlemen, Mr. R. said that it behooved him to assert his own. Information on subjects of the nature of that which they were then discussing, might be required for two objects: to enable the House to determine whether it were expedient to approve a measure which on the face of it carried proof of its impolicy; or to punish Ministers who may have departed from their instructions-who may have betrayed the interests con Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the resolution would not be agreed to. He was well apprized of the aspect which it was in the power of ingenuity to give to a refusal, on the part of that House, to require any information which gentlemen might think fit to demand of the Executive, however remotely connected with subjects before them. But the dread of imputations which he knew to be groundless should never induce him to swerve from that line of conduct which his most sober judgment approved. Did he indeed conceive that the nation, or the House, entertained a doubt of our having acquired new territory and people to govern; could he for a moment believe that even a minority, respectable as to numbers, required any other evidence of this fact than the extract from the treaty which had just been read, he would readily concur with the gentleman from Connecticut in asking of the Executive, whether indeed we had a new accession of territory and of citizens, or, as that gentleman had been pleased to express himself, subjects to govern. He hoped the gentleman would excuse a small variation from his own phraseology, since, notwithstanding the predilection which some Governments and some gentlemen manifested for this form, Mr. R. asked for himself the use of such as were more familiar to American ears and American constitutions. The Executive has laid before this House an instrument, which he tells us has been duly ratified, conveying to the United States the country known under the appellation of Louisiana. The first article affirms the right of France, to the sov-fided by the nation to their care. ereignty of this territory, to be derived under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, which it quotes. The third article makes provision for the future government, by the United States, of its inhabitants; and the fourth provides the manner in which this territory and these inhabitants are to be transferred by France to us. There has been negotiated a convention, between us and the French Republic, stating, in the most unequivocal terms, that there does exist on her part a right to the country in To illustrate this remark, let us advert to the case of the Treaty of London, generally known as Mr. Jay's treaty. That instrument had excited the public abhorrence. The objections to carrying it into effect were believed insuperable. This sentiment pervaded the House of Representatives, and when they demanded information from the Executive, they virtually held this language: "Sir, we detest your treaty-we feel an almost invincible repugnance to giving it our sanction |