Part 265

Mr. PARKER offered an amendment, which was seconded by Mr. MACON.

The substance of this amendment was, to strike out all that part of the resolution which goes before the word assurances; in place of which, Mr. PARKER proposed to appoint a committee, who should personally wait on the PRESIDENT, and assure him of the attention of the House, &c., and concluding as above. Mr. P. had the highest respect for the PRESIDENT, but he had always disapproved of this practice of making out Addresses in answer to these Speeches, and of the House leaving their business to go in a body to present them. Last session, the framing of this Address had cost very long debates, and produced very great irritation. Some of the most disagreeable things that happened during the session occurred in these debates. He wished unanimity and the despatch of business, and so, could not consent that any Address should be drawn up, as he preferred ending the affair at once by sending a committee with a verbal answer.

Mr. MURRAY replied, that the practice of drawing up such an Address was coeval with the constitution. It was consistent with good sense; and he did not see that any argument had been employed by the gentleman who spoke last against it. It was true that the House might send a verbal answer, and it was likewise true that the PRESIDENT might have sent them his Speech by his Secretary, without coming near them at all. He had come to Congress, and Mr. M. could perceive no impropriety in Congress returning the compliment by waiting on him.

The committee divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. PARKER. Eighteen members rose in support of it: so it was lost. The committee then agreed to the resolution as offered by Mr. MURRAY. They rose, and the Chairman reported progress. The resolution was agreed to by the House. The next question was, of how many members the select committee should consist that were to be employed in framing a draft of the Address. The different numbers of five and three were proposed. A division took place on the former motion, when only thirty-one gentlemen rose in its favor. The motion for a committee of three members to report an Address was of course carried. Mr. MADISON, Mr. SEDGWICK, and Mr. SITGREAVES, were appointed.

It was then moved that two Chaplains should be named, as usual; which was agreed to.

THURSDAY, December 10.

FRANCIS PRESTON, from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

FRIDAY, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from Vermont, DANIEL BUCK; from New Jersey, THOMAS HENDERSON; from Pennsylvania, WILLIAM FINDLAY; and from Virginia, JOHN NICHOLAS, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

MONDAY, December 14.

Two other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, THOMAS HARTLEY, and from Virginia, ANTHONY NEW, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.

Address to the President.

Mr. MADISON, from the select committee appointed to draft an Address in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT, made a report, which was read by the Clerk.

Mr. GILES moved that the usual number of copies of the Address should be printed for the use of the members.

TUESDAY, December 15.

Address to the President.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. MUHLENBERG in the chair, on the draft of an answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech. The following sentence being under consideration:

"Contemplating that probably unequalled spectacle of national happiness, which our country exhibits, to the interesting summary which you, sir, have been pleased to make, in justice to our own feelings, permit us to add the benefits which are derived from your presiding in our councils, resulting as well from the undiminished confidence of your fellow-citizens, as from your zealous and successful labors in their service."

Mr. PARKER moved to strike out the words "probably unequalled," and from the word "councils," to the end. He owned that the United States owe much to the PRESIDENT for his services on most occasions; but he had sometimes erred as other men. He could not for his own part subscribe to the expressions contained in the words which he had moved to strike out; his confidence in the PRESIDENT was diminished in consequence of a late transaction.

Mr. SHERBURNE called for a division of the question; that a question should first be put upon the words "probably unequalled," and afterwards upon striking out the latter part of the clause.

The question was accordingly put upon the words "probably unequalled," and they were struck out, 43 to 39.

Mr. MURRAY rose to make a few observations on the motion for striking out from the word "councils." As a Representative from Maryland, he said, he could not on this occasion be contented to give a silent vote. The Legislature of that State had not long since declared, that their confidence in the PRESIDENT remains undiminished; and though his single sentiment might be deemed unimportant when viewed in connection with the unanimous vote of his State, yet he was free to declare, that his confidence in the Chief Magistrate had experienced no diminution. The Legislature of Maryland, he observed, had foreseen that attempts would be made, and saw that unjustifiable attempts were actually making to diminish the confidence of the people in the PRESIDENT; they therefore resolved to give the sanction of their unanimous vote to his character, declaring that the PRESIDENT retained their confidence, and that he had merited it. Though not bound by the opinion of the Legislature of that State, he conceived it his duty not to give a silent vote on the present occasion.

Mr. GILES had hoped that nothing would have been brought before the House calculated to disturb the harmony that ought to subsist, by involving the discussion of delicate points. He had as much zeal as any man for the preservation of the PRESIDENT's fame and reputation; but he could not go the length of the expressions in the clause objected to. He could not agree to it in its present shape, because the assertion in it does not correspond with the fact. After this remark, there could not, he conceived, be any inconsistency in voting against the word and still feeling a regard for the PRESIDENT. He hoped his fame and reputation might never receive a stain, but pass unimpaired to posterity. He should vote for striking out.

Mr. FREEMAN wished the motion might be so modified as to involve the striking out of the word "undiminished" only. Though he for himself, he observed, might say that his confidence in the PRESIDENT was undiminished, he could not utter the same sentiment in behalf of the people at large. In his opinion the confidence of a part (a very small one perhaps) of the people was diminished; though that of a majority might be unshaken.

Mr. HARPER said he had no difficulty in declaring, that his own confidence in the PRESIDENT was undiminished, but he could not go so far as to pledge himself that that of all the people was so. He never, he said, had been in the habit of worshiping the PRESIDENT. He considered him as a man, not infallible, but as a wise, honest, and faithful public servant, and he was prepared in all places and situations to declare this opinion; but he was not ready to pronounce concerning the opinion of the people of the United States. Some time hence they may become unanimous in their confidence; but he could not say that it was not diminished. He was ready to declare for himself but not for others. If called upon to declare whether a majority, whether four-fifths of the people retained their confidence in the PRESIDENT, he could declare it as his opinion in the affirmative; but the clause as it stands includes the whole, and he declared as it stood could not command his vote. He concluded by expressing his intention, when it would be in order, to introduce a modification of the clause, so as to express the undiminished confidence of the House in the PRESIDENT.

Mr. PARKER, in coincidence with the wish of Mr. FREEMAN, agreed to confine his motion to striking out the word "undiminished."

Mr. SEDGWICK doubted whether, after a division of the question, and a question being taken on the first part, a modification of the second part would be in order.

The Chairman declared it in order.