Part 247

Mr. W. SMITH said, that the resolution was, in its present shape, so extremely vague, that one did not know how to give it a definition or a vote. Different objects were lumped together. If, by an inquiry, the gentleman meant to examine into the wages of members of this House, it was quite needless to appoint a committee, because every member can at this moment speak for himself. But Mr. S. did not consider the present time as the most proper for beginning to reduce salaries, when, within the last twelve months, there had been three resignations, viz: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Secretary of the Treasury, and all chiefly for one reason, the smallness of the salary. I have no doubt (said Mr. S.) of there being complaints, and, if the salary was reduced to three dollars per day, there would be still complaints, as we see is the case with the members of the Legislature of Pennsylvania. He only wished that the committee would rise, and he should then vote in the House that they might not have leave to sit again. The mover of this resolution had mentioned the danger of meeting with reproaches from the people, who thought their salaries too high. Mr. S. saw very little in this matter, because the people who railed at the salary of six dollars per day, were only anxious to get in themselves, and embraced this topic as an expedient of ousting those members whom they wanted to succeed.

Mr. GOODHUE wished to ask Mr. CLAIBORNE one question, "Whether he found himself growing rich?"

Mr. SEDGWICK saw no occasion for rising, because the committee were perfectly competent at this moment to determine the question.

Mr. RUTHERFORD was for reducing the salaries by one dollar per day, and one dollar every twenty-five miles that the members had to travel. This would be a reduction of one hundred dollars per day, which would be much better bestowed upon the innocent widow of the veteran, who had fallen in the service of his country.

Mr. PAGE said, that he did not think the resolution, as it was worded, was a proper subject for discussion in that place; for the House, and not a committee, could properly resolve that committees should be appointed. However, as the resolution had been submitted by the House to the consideration of the Committee of the Whole, it must be examined; but, as to the object of it, that he thought was more properly before the committee, as proposed by the resolution; for, as I have remarked on other occasions, if, instead of discussing a question fully, and collecting the sense of all the members in a Committee of the Whole, it be referred to a committee of one member from each State, that committee might be unanimous in favor of a resolution, against which, eighteen members for Virginia, and a proportionate number from other States, might vote; or, by the weight of that committee, the resolution might be carried, which could not have passed had it been fully and freely discussed in the House. Here, then, my colleague's question should be examined, as I cannot say (as has been said by one of them) that I had no hand in fixing the salaries and pay of the officers of Government and members of Congress, having actually voted at New York for them as they now stand. I think I may, with propriety, give my opinion respecting it. And I am clearly of opinion, sir, that the question arises from a misapprehension of the subject to which it is applied; for there cannot be a greater mistake than to suppose that parsimony in a Republic is necessary to its support. A certain degree of economy is so; but parsimony, applied to the salaries of public officers, and the Representatives in particular, may be ruinous to the interests of a Republic. Should the salaries be so low that men of small fortunes cannot afford to serve their country, it must be deprived of their assistance, and we must accept of the services of the rich, who, to have their wills, though low, will serve even without pay; or, the State will be served by artful demagogues, by ready, designing men, who may, in pursuit of profit as well as popularity, cut out places for themselves and friends, producing at length confusion and anarchy, or, at least, such a bungling system of legislation as will cost more time and money to rectify their blunders than the most extravagant salaries could amount to. What true Republican could wish to exclude from a seat in Congress a physician, lawyer, merchant, farmer, or any other person possessed of such well-known abilities and virtues as to attract the attention and respect of a district which might wish to intrust its interests to him as a Representative? Or, rather, who ought not to desire that, as all offices are open to all, that the son of the poorest citizen might be enabled, if qualified to fill a seat here or elsewhere, to do it without sacrificing his private interest? Is it reasonable to expect that men should sacrifice domestic ease and the interests of their families to serve their country? It is not just to require it. Human nature, except on great and trying occasions, cannot obey such a requisition. My colleague says that he is not a man of fortune; but, has he not a profession by which he can make more than by his attendance on this House? If not, he has not a right to require such a sacrifice of any other person's time and talents. The constitution, far from requiring any thing like it, demands that compensation shall be made for all services; and who will desire less for services than a mere subsistence for a person whilst actually employed in such service? I am sure that less than the present pay of members of Congress would not, in their present situation, be a subsistence. I recollect that, when the House of Representatives were debating, in the first session, at New York, whether their daily pay should be four, five, or six dollars, I affirmed that the expenses of the members where I boarded required that it should be six, that the State of Virginia having once allowed her delegates to Congress eight dollars, and never less than six, when she bore the whole expense, could not object to her Representatives receiving that sum, when divided, as it was, amongst the States, and spread out over the various duties and taxes of the United States. I asked those, as I might ask my colleague now, who of our constituents could calculate what he would save by any proposed reduction of our pay? I have long suspected, sir, that Republics have lost more by parsimony than they were aware of, and that a misapprehension of some practices in ancient Republics has been artfully kept up, so as to favor Aristocracy and Monarchy. The British Parliament has now no pay; but have they been as independent as their countrymen wished them under the British Government?

In reply to the member who had objected to the pay of the SPEAKER, and the difference between the pay of members of the two Houses, Mr. P. said, that whoever would consider the duty of the SPEAKER; his long confinement to the chair; his painful attention to every word spoken in the House, and his responsibility for the correctness of the journals--an examination of which must take up much of his time--would surely not think his pay too great. As to the difference between the pay of a Senator and Representative, he had voted for it, from a belief that a Senator having more services to perform than a Representative, had a right to more pay. The Senate not only have to originate bills as this House has, and to revise and amend bills sent from hence, and often to correct the careless errors they contain, but to make themselves acquainted with the law of nations, and to be prepared to judge of treaties; and also of offences brought before them by impeachments. When the Senators may have gone through the labors of a long session, and the Representatives are returning home, they may be called upon to consider certain nominations to offices, or certain treaties; and at another time to try certain impeachments. Besides all this, the age of a Senator must be such, by the constitution, that it is probable that his family is larger, and his pursuits in life more fixed and profitable than those of a Representative, who may be elected when only twenty-five, and therefore his services must require higher compensation. As to the PRESIDENT and VICE-PRESIDENT's salaries, I voted for a larger sum than was allowed to either, and thought that the disproportion between them was too great. With respect to the judges, I still think their salaries too small, and so should every one think who will consider the vast importance of their office; the labor of both mind and body which it requires; the laborious course of study through which a man must have gone to be qualified for it, and the lucrative employment such a one must have given up to undertake it. In short, I do not recollect a salary which I think too high. And I must repeat it, that I do not think that large salaries in a Republic can injure it; but that small, inadequate salaries may overturn a Republic.

I am sorry that the question has been brought before us respecting our own pay this session, because the elections in Virginia are not over; it would become us much better another session, if re-elected, to reduce it, than to do so when we may be left out. Besides, if I vote for a reduction, I may be suspected of courting popularity; and, if against it, of despising the opinions of my constituents, if they have adopted those which some members tell us prevail amongst their constituents. I do not like to be in such a dilemma, nor to have my independence unnecessarily tried. I wish, as the question is before us, that it may be fully debated here, and even referred to the further consideration of a select committee; because I think the opinions even of a single member and his district should be treated with respect; and that when they have been fairly proved to be founded in error, there will be an end of complaints, and an acquiescence in the decision of this House.

Mr. GILLESPIE proposed an amendment, the scope of which was, that a committee should be appointed to examine and report whether any and what alterations were necessary in the act fixing salaries to the officers under Government. He suggested this amendment from no motive whatever but what was fair. There had been, and there still was, a degree of clamor upon the subject, and it was the duty of the House to pay attention to the voice of the public, whether right or wrong. If, upon investigation, it should appear that the salaries were not higher than they ought to be, then the report of the committee would be the best method for stopping the public clamor.

Mr. CLAIBORNE hoped that the committee would not rise, but decide the point. He trusted that no gentleman would again point at him, and say that the motion came out of his brain. There was not one officer under Government whom he would point out and say, that such an officer had too high a salary. He had expectations that this discussion, by bringing forward the observations of several gentlemen, would in some degree satisfy the people, and that there would be no more pointing out with a finger and saying, "There goes a six-dollars-a-day man."

Another member observed, that it was the duty of the House to attend to the voice of their constituents, and for this reason, he should vote for a committee. He would mention what he had always considered as a most odious distinction, the additional dollar per day, which is to be paid to the Senate from and after the 4th of March next. [The reader will observe, that by the act, members of the Senate were to have seven dollars per day, but the additional dollar was not to commence till the lapse of six years, when all the Senators of the first Congress had gone out.] There was another thing for which he never could see any reason, and that was the giving of the twelve dollars per day to the SPEAKER.

Mr. GILES was perfectly convinced that the allowance to the members is small enough already. The saving of a dollar per day suggested by Mr. RUTHERFORD, would be but little, and it was beginning at the worst of resources. The pay ought to be such as would bring persons of middling circumstances into the House; persons neither too high in life nor too low. If the pay was greatly reduced, none but very rich people could afford to give their attendance, and if too high, a seat in the House might be an object to persons of an opposite description. Formerly the State of Virginia allowed eight dollars per day to the members of its Legislature. This sum had since been reduced to six dollars. Mr. G. mentioned this to show that in the practice of individual States, there might be found a precedent for the allowance to members of Congress. He was for voting directly. Mr. G. said, that there was a country from which America had copied a great deal, and very often too much; a country which still had a very pernicious influence in the United States. The members of the British House of Commons received no wages, while the officers of State had immense salaries. It was however understood, that the British House of Commons were very well paid for the trouble of their attendance. Mr. G. did not wish to see scenes of that kind in this country.

Mr. HILLHOUSE hoped that the House would have done with this thing immediately, as it had now answered all the purposes expected from it, and he trusted that all motions of that sort which had an eye to certain operations out of the House, would meet with the same fate.

The motion was negatived by a very great majority.

THURSDAY, January 29.

AARON KITCHELL, returned to serve in this House, as a member for the State of New Jersey, in the room of Abraham Clark, deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House; the oath to support the Constitution of the United States being first administered to him by Mr. SPEAKER, according to law.

Thomas Person and others.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. COBB in the chair, to resume the consideration of the claims of Thomas Person and others, to certain lands lying on the frontier of the State of North Carolina, and ceded by the Commissioners of the United States to the Indians.

Mr. GILLESPIE took up the subject in the same stage in which it stood before he spoke the preceding day. He said, let us examine the conduct of other States. Did not New York dispose of lands within her chartered limits, and from the sales become wealthy, as she has large sums in the funds? The State of Virginia took advantage of the purchase of Henderson and Company, for that part now called Kentucky, although they now exclaim that the purchase was unlawful; yet, unlawful as it was, it has extinguished the Indian title to those lands. Now, if the purchase of Henderson and Company had this effect on the north-east side of Walker's line, which divides Kentucky from the South-west Territory, is it not just that it should have the same effect on the south-west side, when made by the same persons, on the self-same day? And surely the rights of North Carolina must be at least equal to those of Kentucky, in every thing except that of power. But is Congress going to legislate by strength of arm? I hope not. It has been admitted, by some who have spoken on the subject, that the citizens of North Carolina have a right of redress by law, and by others, against her own Legislature. To the first of these I ask, against whom is the suit to commence? Are our citizens, thus bereft of their property, to be compelled to litigate suits at law for property taken for public use, and for which they have a just claim against the United States; or have they not an equal right to compensation for that which the United States, by their agent, took from them, as other citizens are entitled to, for property piratically taken on the high seas, by the robbers of Britain? And do we, in the last case, say to these unfortunate sufferers, commence suits against those who have injured you? No. Government has taken the litigation in hand, at her own cost. Let her do so with the citizens of North Carolina. Or, will the Government of the United States support the claim of the injured against her own Executive? Will they do it against the State of North Carolina? They cannot; and from what has been said in this matter, it is plain that, as the Government of the United States has converted the property of the citizens of North Carolina to the uses of her Government, compensation ought to be made out of the public purse, as the contrary would, on her part, destroy that bond of union between her, as the sovereign power of the United States, and her citizens, and as not only bound to govern with justice, but also to protect them from all manner of injury, as well domestic as foreign. Mr. G. apologized, that he was without authority in the House, but would pledge his reputation that what he should advance, if not verbatim, should be in substance with the author quoted:

"It is admitted by many, that the sovereign authority possesses a power, under the laws of eminent domain, to alienate the property of the subject, for the benefit of the Commonwealth, by impending public necessity against private injury." But, without doubt, they "that have lost or sacrificed their property to the public safety in such extremity, ought to have satisfaction made, as far as possible, by the Commonwealth. Any thing short of this would destroy the reciprocity between the sovereign and subject."--Puffendorf, b. 8, c. 5, § 7.

But can public necessity be urged in the present case to justify this kind of political robbery? I answer, no. If the Indians are to be kept in peace by bribes, why not, in this, as in other similar cases, by presents and pecuniary rewards? Is it not an indignity to the United States to purchase peace from an Indian nation, at the expense of a part of her citizens, whose resources at best were scanty, and are, by this and other speculations, almost annihilated? Surely it is. And, let me add, is it not an invariable axiom with all authors on Government,

"That all sacrifices of property made by individuals for the public benefit or accommodation, should or ought to be paid out of the public revenue, and that one should not bear more of the burden than another."--Burlamaqui, b. 8, c. 5, § 27, 28.

Is it not, then, obvious to all, who will reflect on this subject, that compensation is due to these individuals, whose property has been wrested from them for Government purposes? The same author observes, in the 38th section of the same chapter:

"That as no subject can assume any part of the sovereign power without the consent of the whole, neither can any sovereign authority deprive the subject of his right and property, nor substitute another sovereign over him without his consent."

The public is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual's private rights, as modelled by the municipal law in this and similar cases. The Legislature can, and frequently does interpose, and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interpose and compel? Not by stripping the individual of his property in an arbitrary manner. No. But by giving him full and ample indemnification for the injury sustained; for there must be an end of all social commerce between man and man, unless private possessions be secured from unjust invasions. Thus, the protection of a State, in every precedent to be found in books that treat of the fundamental laws of civil society, or in the resolutions and acts of the British Parliament, means restitution, indemnity, or compensation. Grotius, when treating of the right of the sovereign authority to give up or take the property of the subject, calls it "restitution, satisfaction;" Burlamaqui, "indemnity, and indemnifying the subject for the injury sustained;" and Vattel, "recompense out of the public money." It is farther observed, that cases of this kind operate, like property thrown into the sea to save the ship, by making an estimate of the loss, and causing an equal average on the property saved, which each owner is bound to pay. So that, from the fullest conviction, I am of opinion the citizens of North Carolina are entitled to the relief reported by the select committee, and that strict justice requires we should comply with it; for, as I have said, in nothing is the Government of the United States more concerned, in a superlative degree, than in doing strict justice to her citizens, as of the last importance in preserving the affections of the people to the Government. Vacancies in our departments, civil, judicial, or military, may be supplied as well, but to restore the confidence of a people borne down with oppression, exceeds comprehension. It is like attempting to return from the grave--is without precedent, and is vain labor indeed. At different epochs it has shook the foundations of monarchies, and caused tyrants to tremble and atone for their crimes with their lives; and, as I said at an early stage of the debate, if usurpers, tyrants, and despots have been compelled to do justice by this undeniable law of nature, shall the Government of the United States, founded on the pure principles of Democracy, be less just? Surely not. Have we received a power to exercise in wantonly oppressing those who gave it? God forbid! Therefore, let it ever be impressed on our minds, that justice exalteth a nation. The House, I hope, will pardon my detaining them, at a time when every moment is precious. But the duty I owe to my injured constituents forbids silence, and will, I hope, be a sufficient apology. I shall, therefore, submit to the judgment of the House, not doubting but justice will be done.

Mr. NICHOLAS was satisfied that the purchasers of the lands had a claim either against the United States or the State of North Carolina. Much had been said about the Indian right; but the Indians never had been fit to occupy these lands. It could never have been the design of nature that these people should be termed the possessors of land which they were incapable to enjoy. He was, upon the whole, on the side of the claimants, though he enumerated some of the difficulties that would attend an attempt to please all parties.

Mr. W. SMITH had found much difficulty in forming his opinion upon this question. He had at first been somewhat disposed against the claimants, but at last, after full deliberation, he was convinced of the justice of giving them redress. He requested the particular attention and candor of the House. The United States were, in this case, made a judge in their own cause, and therefore it became more their duty to examine every part of the subject with the more accuracy. Mr. S. then began a distinct detail of the circumstances in the present dispute. Previous to the year 1776, North Carolina was a British Colony, and the British Crown considered itself as entitled to bestow grants of territory. In that year, North Carolina became a sovereign State, and consequently she conceived herself as succeeding to the right of the British Crown, and as having a right to bestow grants in the same way as the Kings of Great Britain had done. This claim was asserted in her general Declaration of Rights, and it was incorporated into her constitution. When North Carolina entered into the Union, all the Legislative rights of the State were preserved, and, by a necessary inference, her title to the lands comprehended in her original charter. In 1783, the State opened an office to sell the absolute right of such lands as had not been disposed of. In 1789, North Carolina ceded the right of jurisdiction to the United States, but she reserved her own Legislative rights, and consequently her right to sell the lands within her own territory; and in disposing of the lands in question, the State did not intend merely to sell the right of pre-emption from the Indians, but the absolute title to the lands. Mr. S. read a part of the constitution of North Carolina, in order to explain what degree of legislation the State had conceded to the Federal Government, and what part she reserved to herself; and he was clearly of opinion, that the disposal of the lands had been reserved. In 1783 the State offered these lands for sale. In 1786, the Commissioners of the United States assigned a great part of them to the Indians. In 1788, the Legislature of North Carolina declared that they would support the purchasers. The grand question now is, did the State, by acceding to the confederation, give up her right of legislation? She gave up her right to make Indian treaties, but reserved that of legislation, because, as above observed, it formed a part of her constitution, which was understood to continue unviolated. These lands were bought with certificates, which it was alleged, on the other side, would purchase nothing else. If the certificates would purchase nothing else, it was proper at least that they should have been restored to their first owners, who might have subscribed them to a part of the public debt of the United States. They were certainly entitled either to their land or their certificates. These certificates, which were paid into the Treasury of North Carolina, were those of the United States. If the owners had only a pre-emption right, Mr. S. insisted that the certificates should be returned.

Mr. SEDGWICK said, that this was quite a new fact to him, and if it was as stated, there was no necessity for Legislative interference at all. The State of North Carolina had only to come forward and subscribe them to the Treasury.

Mr. W. SMITH explained, that when delivered into the Treasury of North Carolina, they had been cancelled. After this they were again ordered to be made current by the subscriptions of the officers of the State, and in that shape they were offered to the Commissioners of Loans, who refused to accept them. The exact amount of the certificates could still be ascertained, as well as the names of the persons to whom they belonged. They had been cancelled, but not destroyed.