Part 232

Mr. W. SMITH observed, that the constitution only required members and the Clerk to take the oath. The gentleman was not a member. It does not even appear for what number of years he is elected. In fact he is no more than an envoy to Congress. Instead of being called delegate to Congress, had he been plainly called an envoy, the difficulty would have vanished. He is not a Representative from, but an officer deputed by the people of the Western Territory. It is very improper to call on this gentleman to take such an oath, any more than any civil officer in the State of Pennsylvania. Mr. S. did not consider him as coming even within the Post Office law, (viz: for franking letters.) He is not entitled to pay, unless a law shall be passed for that end.

Mr. GILES agreed with the gentleman who spoke last as to the impropriety of demanding an oath.

Mr. LYMAN was for it.

Mr. DAYTON was against the oath. Call him what you will, a member, a delegate, or, if you please, a nondescript. It would be wrong to accept his oath, even if he should offer it. He is not a member. He cannot vote, which is the essential part. It is said that he can argue, and by that means influence the votes of the House. But so also a printer may be said to argue and influence, when he comes to this House, takes notes, and prints them in the newspapers.

Mr. BOUDINOT.--As the House had set out on a wrong principle, it was natural that, in their subsequent progress they should wander further and further from the point. But, as the House had now given their decision, he acquiesced in it. It was, however, a strange kind of thing to have a gentleman here arguing, who was not bound by an oath. He never could reconcile it.

Several other members spoke.

The House divided on the question, "Shall the delegate take an oath as a member?" Ayes 32, noes 42--majority against the motion, 10.

Ordered, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill extending the privilege of franking to JAMES WHITE, the delegate from the South-western Territory, and making provision for his compensation; and that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. THATCHER, and Mr. MACON, be the said committee.

WEDNESDAY, November 19.

Another member, to wit, THOMAS SCOTT, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House is now ready to attend them in receiving the communication from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, agreeably to his notification to both Houses yesterday; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

The Senate attended and took seats in the House; when, both Houses being assembled, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES came into the Representatives' Chamber, and delivered his Address to them. (For which see Proceedings of the Senate.)

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES then withdrew and the two Houses separated.

Ordered, that the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to both Houses be committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

THURSDAY, November 20.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM FINDLAY, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, November 24.

Answer to the President's Speech.

Mr. NICHOLAS then rose in defence of Mr. MADISON's amendment. He thought the House should not bow so much to the Executive as to approve of his proceedings without knowing what they are. Gentlemen say that they do not mean an implicit approbation. Why, then, hazard words that infer it? He would go as far in thanking the PRESIDENT as any person with propriety could go.

Mr. SEDGWICK insisted that the amendment of the member from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) was preferable to the other. The PRESIDENT has said that his policy in regard to foreign nations is founded on justice. We approve of that. He recites his motives. They are also approved. Where, then, is the danger of expressing a general approbation? Would it be proper to give an approbation that cannot be appropriate, and that has no definite meaning? Mr. S. was far from designing to approve, explicitly or implicitly, what the House were not acquainted with. He only intended to convey a general sentiment of approbation; and he saw nothing more than this in the amendment of the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. HILLHOUSE never designed indiscriminate approbation; nor had he any secret meaning couched under the words of his amendment. When he had any thing to say to the House, he came honestly and told them in plain words what he would be at. He meant to express his applause of pacific and equitable measures. As to the question so often referred to, (the embassy of Mr. Jay,) he solemnly declared that it never was in his mind to express any thing about it. It would come before another body.

Mr. MADISON imagined that, in his motion as now worded, every person might see substantial approbation.

Mr. AMES.--Jealousy may become habitual as well as confidence. Nothing but a habit of jealousy could have found any thing of a secret in this verbal distinction of your policy instead of a policy. The distinction was trifling, but, if there must be one, he preferred the amendment of Mr. HILLHOUSE. His reasons for this preference were so minute that they, perhaps, had little more value than what his imagination chose to give them. In the mean time, nobody will suppose that we do not approve of the policy of the PRESIDENT in preferring pacific measures, because the system of peace is now preferred all over the Continent of America.

Mr. DAYTON rose to make a reply to "remarks so illiberal."

Mr. AMES here rose again and said that the gentleman certainly could not mean him.

I mean that gentleman, Mr. SPEAKER, said Mr. DAYTON, pointing to Mr. AMES. He has accused me of "habits of jealousy." To this charge Mr. D. rejoined with some warmth. He again declared that he never would pledge himself to approve of the mission of Mr. Jay, till he should learn what were that gentleman's instructions. He meant to draw this line of distinction, to give approbation of general principles, but not of particular measures. The former he considered as implied in the amendment of Mr. MADISON, the latter in that of Mr. HILLHOUSE.

Mr. VANS MURRAY considered the dispute as resting on the words a policy and your policy. He would not give explicit approbation to particular measures, but he approved the general principles on which the PRESIDENT preferred a pacific system.

Mr. GILES.--It is admitted on all sides of the House, that we approve the general principles, but will not pledge ourselves to approve the particular means. It is best, then, to adopt the least equivocal words. Mr. G. allowed that there was but little difference, yet he should vote for the amendment of Mr. MADISON as it stood.