ment was adopted, it might lead him finally to vote for the Treaty, which he otherwise should not do.

[APRIL, 1796.

which had been sanctioned by the PRESIDENT and Senate. In deciding upon the amendment proposed, he wished the sense of the House to be Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that other gentlemen taken; and if he considered that a single indivimight be allowed to be consistent in their vote as dual would be influenced to vote against the resowell as the gentleman last up. He voted yester-lution who would otherwise have voted for it, he day in the majority for the resolution in its pre- should wish them to be separated. It was his sent form, and he did not wish to vote for it in opinion the Treaty was a bad one, and he believany other. Why did not gentlemen yesterday ed it was the opinion of a decided majority of that move their modification? To pass the modifi- House. He wished the resolution to be so amendcation to-day would be undoing what was done ed that the Treaty might go into effect by a conyesterday. siderable majority, as it would tend to lessen the irritation which had been raised respecting it.

If a majority of the House thought the Treaty a bad one, they had a right to say so, and let the responsibility rest where it ought to rest.

Mr. HILLHOUSE said, when he prepared the resolution on the table, he thought he had done it in such general terms that every gentleman might vote for it, without expressing a sentiment contrary to what he entertained respecting the Trea- Mr. SITGREAVES said, the gentleman who introty. The amendment proposed, he thought very duced this resolution said he did it with a view to objectionable. It appeared as if it was intended accommodation. If so, the mover and supporters to force gentlemen to vote against carrying the of it would not wish to lay gentlemen under an Treaty into effect rather than vote for the Treaty. obligation of doing what was disagreeable to them. For his own part, he could not vote for it, as it Those gentlemen were willing, it seemed, to vote would be in direct contradiction to the sentiments for a resolution for carrying the Treaty into efwhich he had before expressed. He thought can- fect, but wished at the same time to divest themdor itself could not expect gentlemen who approv-selves of responsibility. Mr. S. said he had no ed of the Treaty to vote for the amendment. It objection to their expressing their own opinions; was also a rule to avoid expressing particular sen- they were not his. Therefore, if a fair representtiments in resolutions of this kind. One part of ation of opinion was to be given, the two propothe proposition, if it was brought forward sepa- sitions should be separated. With respect to that rately, would be assented to generally, respecting part of the resolution expressing hopes in future the confidence placed in the PRESIDENT, with re- negotiation, he had no objection, but to the other spect to future spoliations and impressments of sea- he could not agree. On this subject he was so men. In this proposition, it was said, the Treaty decided, that he avowed he would rather lose the was injurious; he did not believe it was so. He be- Treaty than that the sentiments in the amendlieved it would be beneficial to the United States. ment should go out as his act. He hoped gentleIt would not only be agreeing to an opinion which men would consent to let them vote as they was contrary to the sentiments of gentlemen, but thought right. Let gentlemen throw their ideas it would be passing a censure on the other branch- into a distinct proposition, the responsibility would es of Government. Gentlemen were not required then be rightly placed; their constituents would to say it was a good Treaty, and he hoped no one be informed of their opinions, the honor of the nawould be forced to say it was a bad one. tion would be saved, and the divisions which had distracted their country would be healed.

[The SPEAKER informed the House that it was then twelve o'clock, and as they had yesterday ordered that there should be a call of the House today at that hour, he should direct the Clerk to make the call. It was accordingly done. Messrs. BRENT, HARPER, and PATTON were absent. The two former came to the House soon after the call, and, on making apologies, were excused. Mr. PATTON was indisposed.]

Mr. GREGG said he should vote for the resolution in its present state. He did so, not because he thought the Treaty a good one, but because he believed the interest of the United States would be promoted by making the necessary appropriations, and because he was apprehensive worse consequences might arise from defeating it than from carrying it into effect.

Mr. MOORE considered himself as called upon to choose between two evils. He considered the Treaty to be bad. On the other hand, he was apprehensive that evils might arise, if it was not carried into effect, out of the control of that House. He had resolved not to vote for the resolution on the table; but he felt unwilling to take upon himself the responsibility of rejecting the Treaty,

Mr. DEARBORN said, in offering the amendment which he had proposed, he had no intention of taking any thing like an unfair advantage, or of producing what might be thought uncandid or unfair. His own sentiments relative to the Treaty were such as would prevent his consenting to do any thing to carry it into effect, unless with such a provision as he had brought forward. It appeared to him of such a nature, that he was not sure that he could bring his mind to vote to carry it into effect at all. He had supposed there could be nothing improper in taking the opinion of the House relative to the thing itself. If it might be presumed that there were but few gentlemen in that House who thought the Treaty a good one, he, indeed, thought there were none of that opinion, until then, though some gentlemen had praised it in their speeches, but which he had merely considered as adding weight to their arguments, he believed such an amendment was desirable.

As he, therefore, took it for granted that a considerable majority of the House were of the same opinion with himself, he saw no impropriety in having that opinion expressed. The propositions.

APRIL, 1796.]

Execution of British Treaty.

[H. of R.

would not interfere with any bill which might be would vote for it in that way, rather than lose it. brought in, and gentlemen would have the discre- Were they then to vote for the resolution, loaded tion to vote for it or not. If a majority of the with odium, or lose the Treaty? These steps, he House thought differently from him, and chose to said, all led to one issue-a rejection of the Treanegative the amendment, he should be satisfied. ty. The gentleman from Virginia last up, had deUntil he heard something further on the busi-clared that, though he should vote for the amendness, to convince him of the impropriety of doing so, he should wish to see a decision of the House upon the proposition as he had offered it.

Mr. HARPER said he was of the number who thought the measure of passing the resolution on the table a very expedient one; but whilst this was his opinion, he knew there were many, both within and without their walls, of a different opinion. He had no objection to gentlemen's expressing their opinions, but he wished also to be at liberty to express his. He should, therefore, propose that the mover should form his resolution as a preamble. This would answer the purpose of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. MOORE.]

ment, he would not be bound to vote for carrying the Treaty into effect. He believed most of those gentlemen who would vote for the amendment, would vote against the original resolution; and that it was introduced as a barrier betwixt the Treaty and those who were friendly to it. He would agree to or reject the original resolution; for he, for one, would declare he would not vote for the resolution so loaded. If the Treaty was to be so carried into effect, it would poison its vitals. The Treaty was the law of the land; it also held up a relation between two nations. It was not merely the delivery of the posts, or compensation for spoliations, that the Treaty embraced; such a resolution would spread a general alloy of bad nations' to the sword. The Treaty, so loaded, opinion, which would eventually bring the two would not have the desired effect; for, instead of allaying the spirit of enmity between the two countries, it would serve to keep it alive. It was the interest of both countries to be at peace, and Were the amendment proposed to be adopted, it to have a good understanding with each other. Mr. KITTERA appealed to the candor of the gen- raised against the PRESIDENT for having executed would keep up that animosity which had been tleman who brought forward the amendment, with the Treaty. Small were his means, said Mr. M., respect to the propriety of making his proposition of settling disputes with foreign nations. Witha distinct one. He thought it would be extremely out Navy, without Army-nothing but plain reaimproper to pass a resolution which should say, son with which to meet a powerful Court"We pass this law, though we believe it to be a very bad one." He thought it also directly charg-whether Mr. M. was in order? The SPEAKER an[Mr. MACON wished to know of the SPEAKER ing another branch of the Government with im- swered in the affirmative.]

to.

He said, when it was so formed, every one would have an opportunity of voting for it, and, if negatived, the resolution would stand as before. He hoped, therefore, the proposal would be agreed Mr. DEARBORN said he considered his motion in the nature of a preamble; and he had no objection to any alteration that would make it more properly so.

proper conduct.

Mr. MURRAY said he had not spoken on the subMr. NICHOLAS had no objection to the amend-ject before. He was stating that the PRESIDENT ment being inserted by way of preamble. He urged the propriety of the opinions of members being fairly taken on this important business.

Mr. GREGG wished to offer an amendment, as a substitute to that before the Committee. It was, in substance, as follows: "Resolved, That under a consideration of existing circumstances, without reference to the merits or demerits of the Treaty, and in confidence that measures will be taken by the Executive to maintain our neutral rights, it is expedient," &c.

This was declared out of order until the amendment was decided on.

Mr. VENABLE had no objection to the propositions being taken separately, as gentlemen would be then left at liberty to vote as they pleased. He conceived there were gentlemen who would vote for the proposition with the amendment, who would not vote for it without it. He did not know that any amendment would reconcile the resolution to him; for, though he should vote for the amendment, he would not bind himself to vote for carrying into effect the Treaty.

Mr. MURRAY said, if this measure was pursued, the Treaty would be defeated. The amendment proposed, implied that the friends of the Treaty

was armed only with reason; he was stripped of all the symbols of power, and if the Treaty before them was carried into effect, with such a clog as the amendment proposed, he would be debilitated indeed. Their Executive had, in his opinion, done great things, and what would have covered any European Minister with untarnished laurels, by means of reason and policy; for, however wickedly Courts act, they calculate upon the force of the Powers with whom they treat. When a Minister goes to negotiate, they inquire into the naval and military force of his country, their appropriations for the army and navy, &c., &c. The Envoy of the United States would be a blank upon such an occasion. What was their interest, then? It was to give energy to their Government. Should they then pass the law in such a manner as almost to warrant the people in resisting it? The only thing which remained for them to do, was, not only to carry the Treaty into effect, but to carry it into effect with good faith. The object was not merely the posts-it was a conciliation of the differences long existing between the two nations; and it was their duty to execute it so as to produce the greatest advantage; whereas, if they were to agree to the amendment proposed, so co

Execution of British Treaty.

vered with odium, it would weaken the power of be so complete a departure from their principles the Executive, already too feeble.

APRIL, 1796.]

Execution of British Treaty.

[H. of R.

OF

was proposed, why was the declaration to be Leonard, Samuel Lyman, Francis Malbone, William made? Was it to keep alive the misunderstand- Vans Murray, Josiah Parker, John Reed, John Riching which had already taken place between the ards, Theodore Sedgwick, Samuel Sitgreaves, Jeremiah different branches of Government? Certainly Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Isaac Smith, Samuel Smith, that was not a desirable thing. To say these William Smith, Thomas Sprigg, Zephaniah Swift, laws were made from circumstances of imperious George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, necessity, as had been observed by his friend from Uriah Tracy, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Pennsylvania, [Mr. KITTERA,] was not the best mode of procuring submission and respect to them. No instance could be produced in which such a conduct had been adopted, and he hoped it would not now be sanctioned.

Mr. KITCHELL said, he should vote against the proposition now brought forward, because he thought it wrong to hold up an idea which would have a tendency to weaken the Government. He looked upon it as injurious. The people would judge upon the Treaty from the instrument itself and what had been said of it. They ought never to alarm the people unnecessarily. It was not from any fear of going to war, or any other apprehension but what he had mentioned, which caused this opposition in him.

Mr. GALLATIN said, if the propositions could be divided, no gentleman could reasonably object to the sense of the House being taken upon them. Mr. PARKER said, he had not yet spoken upon this business. He would now say, he disapproved of the amendment, and should not vote for it. He thought the Treaty a bad one, and would not agree to vote for it by means of any modification. Mr. HEISTER said, he should vote for the amendment, because, if the Treaty went into operation, he should wish the reasons which induced the House to agree to it to appear on the Journals. When, however, the resolution for carrying the Treaty into effect was put he should vote against it.

The motion was then put on the preamble, and decided in the negative, as follows: Yeas 49, nays 50:

and John Williams.

From this list it appears that the question was lost by one vote. The Clerk, however, through mistake, reported the votes to be equal, viz: 49 for and 49 against the question, and the SPEAKER gave his vote in the negative, but the above was afterwards found to be the true statement.

Mr. W. SMITH was glad the motion was nega tived. He did not wish either blame or praise to be cast upon the Treaty by the resolution passed to carry it into effect. He would, therefore, move to add the following words to the original resolution: "Without reference to the merits of the Treaty."

Mr. GILES opposed this amendment. He said, it would be an indirect mode of passing a censure upon the House for having undertaken to judge of the merits of the Treaty. He did not know whether it struck the gentleman in the same way, but he would agree it was improper to pass a censure upon the House. He hoped, therefore, the motion would either be withdrawn or voted against.

The motion was withdrawn.

Mr. SWANWICK said, had the amendment which had been proposed been adopted instead of being rejected, he might have waived his objections to the Treaty, and have voted for carrying it into effect: but when he was called upon to give a vote upon the unqualified resolution, however he might differ in sentiment from some of his friends, he should be under the necessity of voting against it. He knew the question was important. The gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. AMES,] in YEAS.-Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Da- high wrought colors, had represented it in all its vid Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard fulness. But, after reviewing his mind, he had Brent, Dempsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, Gabriel not been able to see this instrument in that light Christie, John Clopton, Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn, which could induce him to give his vote for it. Samuel Earle, Jesse Franklin, Albert Gallatin, William He hoped no impropriety of motive would be asB. Giles, James Gillespie, Christopher Greenup, An-cribed to any gentleman on that floor-he had no drew Gregg, William Barry Grove, Wade Hampton, Carter B. Harrison, John Hathorn, Jonathan N. Havens, Daniel Heister, James Holland, George Jackson, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Samuel Maclay, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Francis Preston, Robert Rutherford, Israel Smith, John Swanwick, Absalom Tatom, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and

Richard Winn.

doubt every one acted as his feelings told him was right; and, on this eventful question, in which they must differ, he hoped they should have the candor to put the difference to a proper account. His interest would have led him to vote for the Treaty, as he had much property, in common with his fellow-citizens, on the ocean, and his ships were upon his own risk, and losses would of course be heavier to him than to most other merchants; but he could not, consistently NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Benjamin Bourne, Theophilus with his judgment, which was imperious upon Bradbury, Nathan Bryan, Daniel Buck, Thomas Clai- this occasion, vote for the Treaty, though he borne, Joshua Coit, William Cooper, Jeremiah Crabb, might have done it if the resolution had been George Dent, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gil-qualified. bert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glen, Benjamin Goodhue, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, George Hancock, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, John Heath, Thomas Henderson, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, George 4th CON.-42

Mr. HOLLAND went over the reasons that would induce him to vote against the Treaty; which are detailed at length in his speech upon the merits of the Treaty. He said, that if the construction of the 9th article were to extend to the