Part 245

Mr. VENABLE said, that if the gentleman were so disposed, he should willingly try the question at once on this motion, without farther investigation about it.

On calling over the names, there were, on the amendment of Mr. DEXTER--yeas 28, nays 63.

The amendment of Mr. GILES was then taken up, and determined in the affirmative--yeas 59, nays 32.

Ordered, That the said bill, with the amendments agreed to, be recommitted to Mr. MADISON, Mr. DEXTER, and Mr. CARNES.

MONDAY, January 5,

THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

MONDAY, January 12.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the bill from the Senate, entitled "An act to authorize the settlement of the claim of Samuel Prioleau;" and, after some time spent therein, the committee rose and reported progress.

Defence of the Frontiers.

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, laying before Congress, for their consideration, the copy of a letter from the Secretary of War, accompanied by an extract from a memorandum of James Seagrove, Agent of Indian Affairs. The Message and papers were read:

Mr. MURRAY then moved that the Message should be referred to the same Committee of the whole House, to which had been referred the memorial from the inhabitants of the South-western Territory.

Mr. NICHOLAS objected strongly to this motion, as showing too much deference to the Heads of the Departments. The paper in question ought not to have been sent to the House at all.

Mr. MURRAY defended his motion. He inquired how the gentleman proposed to get information? Was he to manufacture it himself, or in what way could he better obtain it than from the Heads of the Departments? He had not, for his own part, that species of jealousy of them which the gentleman last up had.

Mr. NICHOLAS repeated his arguments with some warmth. He said that the letter from the late Secretary at War was not official, but officious. It had a particular aspect which should forbid its getting any such mark of attention. It was neither more nor less than a commentary on some of the proceedings of the last session of Congress. If this was received, we might expect the table to be heaped with such things.

Mr. SEDGWICK could really see no reason to reject the motion. The PRESIDENT had undoubtedly a right to send the communication. The subject was confessedly of the utmost importance. The member asked, if the House were to close their understandings, and refuse all information from that quarter? He repeated that he could see no ground of any sort for refusing consent to the motion.

Mr. GILES was equally dissatisfied with the matter of this letter, and with the manner in which it had been introduced into the House. They were both equally exceptionable. The letter had come without any call. It was an Executive comment on a Legislative proceeding. It was a defence of a measure adopted by the Senate, and it condemned by implication another of that House. To Mr. G. it was a very extraordinary paper. The PRESIDENT was not to be supposed, however, answerable for the propriety of its contents. He should be very unwilling to take any notice of this paper at all. It had been justly remarked that it was a comment on transactions of the last session. A section of a bill passed in the Senate last session, and rejected by the House of Representatives, was inserted in it, and recommended. This paper might operate very materially on the deliberations of the House. This was a very bad precedent. The Executive had nothing to do with any question depending before the Legislature, and consequently had no occasion to send such a thing.

Mr. HOLTEN imagined that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. MURRAY) had extended his motion too far. It ought to have comprehended only the taking into consideration the Message of the PRESIDENT.

Mr. MURRAY complained of the asperity of expression employed by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NICHOLAS.) Not official but officious, and the intelligence artificial, were phrases to which he objected. The gentleman might have higher sources of information than he had. Mr. M. was willing to take up with information wherever he could get it, and he could have it nowhere with more propriety than from the national servants. It was no good reason to reject information merely because we had not asked for it. Mr. GILES had given a piece of intelligence which Mr. M. said was to him entirely new, viz.: that when the House wanted information, it was one of their rules not to refer for it to the Heads of Departments. The topic was great and important, and the House, before they rise, must examine in general into the situation of the South-western frontier, and our terms with the Indians. Mr. M. said, that the delegate from the South-western territory (Mr. WHITE) would certainly be glad to obtain the information conveyed in this paper. If any gentleman would point out any other way by which the House could, without absurdity, get from the PRESIDENT the information contained in this letter, Mr. M. should be willing to adopt it.

Mr. BOUDINOT was entirely satisfied both as to the propriety of the matter contained in the letter of the Secretary, and as to the manner in which it had been introduced into that House. That the PRESIDENT had a right to consult the Heads of Departments, there could be no kind of doubt. Mr. BOUDINOT then read the following passage from the constitution: "The PRESIDENT shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States. He may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices." Mr. B. defended the Message in all its circumstances, and in the most pointed terms. It was perfectly proper, and peculiarly so at this time. By the constitution, and by the rules and practice of the House, the PRESIDENT had a right to offer his advice regarding Legislative acts.

Mr. W. SMITH had seen much needless jealousy in the House towards Heads of Departments; and the present he thought a refinement on that side. There had been two objections to the communication from the Secretary of War, the one as to the matter, and the other as to the manner in which it was introduced to the House; as to the latter, it was said to have been obtruded unasked. In this last objection Mr. S. saw nothing. He read a precedent from the Journals, which he insisted to be exactly similar, and where Mr. NICHOLAS himself had been one of a committee appointed to examine and report. As to the matter, we might as reasonably object to the Speeches of the PRESIDENT, reminding the House of business which had been before them, or recommending subjects to their notice. He considered the objections of both sorts as entirely unfounded.

Mr. MADISON recommended the alteration suggested by Mr. HOLTEN, for restricting the motion of commitment to the Message of the PRESIDENT, and not to take any notice of the letter from the Secretary, which he considered as, in itself, extremely improper. It could not be meant as information, and the House had no occasion to take advice from the Secretary. The letter itself looked more like a forced thing, than any which he recollected to have seen since the establishment of the constitution. The subject, however, was delicate. The PRESIDENT had an undoubted right to give advice or information in any way which he thought best. It was totally ill-judged in the Secretary to have conveyed his opinion in the very words of a clause in a bill that had passed through the Senate last session, and been rejected in that House. The communication translated into plain language amounted to this: "The Senate last session had more wisdom than this House, and it is proper for this House to reconsider its proceedings, and improve by the superior wisdom of the Senate." Due respect should, however, be paid to the Message of the PRESIDENT. It ought to be taken into consideration, and Mr. M. was not willing to cast obstructions in its way, or to make needless objections.

Mr. DAYTON said, that he was for referring the Report of the Secretary at War, with the PRESIDENT's Message, to the Committee of the Whole, and that consequently he was against striking out the words which expressed that intention. If, by omitting to take any notice of the Report of the Secretary, it was meant to reject the information on account of the source from which it came, it argued such a degree of jealousy and distrust as appeared both unreasonable and unconstitutional. If, on the contrary, the object was not so much to reject it, as, by the manner of referring the Message, to convey any reproof or disrespect towards the late Secretary of War, Mr. D. should be still more decidedly averse to the modification proposed. He lamented it as an unhappy circumstance for this country, that the gentleman who was lately the Head of the War Department had thought proper to resign. That gentleman had executed the complicated and important duties of his office with zeal, fidelity, and ability, and ought to be protected from any proposition or remark which glanced unfavorably at him, or might wound his feelings at the moment of his leaving us. Mr. D. then adduced the Report of the Secretary of War in 1790, to the PRESIDENT, on the subject of the militia system, as a striking precedent. The Secretary there informed the PRESIDENT, that he had submitted to him a plan for the arrangement of the militia. The PRESIDENT sent a Message with the plan to the House of Representatives. What were the steps then taken in that parallel case? Was the Message then alone referred as it is now proposed by some gentlemen? The journals, on the contrary, prove, that the Message and plan were referred to the Committee of the Whole. It was possible, Mr. D. added, that the present Congress might deem themselves wiser than their predecessors. It was possible that many might think it safest to shut their ears against all kinds of information from the Heads of Departments, or even from the PRESIDENT himself. There might be some who would be willing to free the House of Representatives from certain obligations, or shackles under which the constitution placed them, by tearing out a leaf from that instrument, but he ventured to say that it was too soon yet to attempt it.

Mr. SMILIE complained of the style of the memorial from the Secretary of War, and, as a specimen, he read the following passage:

"It is a melancholy reflection that our modes of population have been more destructive to the Indian natives than the conduct of the conquerors of Mexico and Peru. The evidence of this is the utter extirpation of nearly all the Indians in the most populous parts of the Union. A future historian may mark the causes of this destruction of the human race in sable colors. Although the present Government of the United States cannot with propriety be involved in the opprobrium, yet it seems necessary however, in order to render their attention upon this subject strongly characteristic of their justice, that some powerful attempts should be made to tranquillize the frontiers, particularly those south of the Ohio."

In reading the above extract, Mr. M. went no farther than to the words sable colors. Mr. S. SMITH desired that he should read on, that the House might hear that no insinuation was intended, as if the present Government of the United States had countenanced such ravages. Mr. SMILIE said, that he knew what came after, but who would compare the first settlers of North America to the Spaniards, who destroyed in their mines thousands and millions of the Indians, and whose memory had been consigned to the execration of centuries?

Mr. AMES rose. Just when he had begun speaking, there came in a message from the PRESIDENT by his Secretary. On this, Mr. A. observed, that, perhaps, while gentlemen were now speaking there might have arisen a new subject of dispute. Perhaps by the new doctrine, we should reject all communications from that quarter. The message having been delivered, Mr. A. went on to remark, that turning loose the American militia to guard the South-western frontier, was a system of slaughter, of desolation. It was to make a Potter's field a hundred thousand miles in extent! It was a system to waste the blood of the white man, and to extirpate the Indians. The militia were not the people to prevent those kind of injuries against the Indians which were the cause of hostilities. But gentlemen who were now so delicate as to the style of memorials, would do well, if they extended that delicacy to other memorials which had been presented to that House, and referred by the consent of those very members to select committees. Papers had been offered to that House, wherein its conduct had been criminated and reprobated in the most unqualified language of detestation. Yet gentlemen, on some of these occasions, showed no resentment. Mr. A. ridiculed the idea of the present motion as introducing a new and dangerous precedent. The opposition to it came exactly under that description, for it was a direct attack upon the principles of the constitution.

Mr. FITZSIMONS approved of the motion. It had been asked if the PRESIDENT was responsible for the contents of this Report from the Secretary of War? Mr. F. did not think so; but if he had not communicated it, the member would have thought him responsible for the omission. The PRESIDENT had a right to ask advice from the Heads of the Departments. Mr. F. never knew a message from the PRESIDENT which required a reference, that had been refused it. As a matter of course, as a matter of right, it ought to be referred.

Mr. MURRAY rose and read that passage in the Report of the Secretary, which Mr. S. Smith had desired Mr. SMILIE to read, and which he had not read. [They are inserted both together at full length as above.]