Part 341

Mr. JEFFERSON, Secretary of State, in his Report on the fisheries.

Letters of the Secretary of War and Quartermaster General.

For an authorized establishment of 5,120 men, of all arms, the actual establishment being about 3,600. It would be curious to compare the army expenses of that day with those of this day, and the comparative care with which Congress looked into these expenses at the two different periods. The United States were engaged in Indian wars then as now, and upon a theatre (time and cost of getting to it considered) as far off as our Indian wars are at present; for, the distance estimated in that way, is less now to California than it was then to the Miami of the Lakes: yet a cost of something like $200 a head was considered extravagant, and such as to call upon Congress for an inquiry.

The bill came down from the Senate where debates were not published, and seems to have passed the House without debate, and almost without division, there being but seven votes against it, and two of these (Messrs. Mercer and Parker) from slave States. Nor does it appear to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, for both classes of fugitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed on a message from President Washington, founded on a communication from the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugitive from justice who had taken refuge in Virginia, and because it was necessary to have an act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the constitution. There was but little necessity in those times, nor for long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive slaves. The laws of the free States, and still more the force of public opinion, were the owners' best safeguards. Public opinion was against the abduction of slaves; and if any one was seduced from his owner, it was done furtively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner, and to a greater extent than the act of Congress did, or could. In Pennsylvania there was an act (it was passed in 1780, and only repealed in 1847) discriminating between the traveller and sojourner, and the permanent resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before his slaves would become subject to the emancipation laws; and, in the case of a federal government officer, allowing as much more time as his duties required him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying in time, which was nine months. While these two acts were in force, and supported by public opinion, the traveller and sojourner was safe with his slaves in those States, and the same in the other free States. There was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1793 did not grow out of any such trouble, but out of the case of a fugitive from justice. It was that case which brought the subject before Congress; and, in the act that was passed, the case of fugitives from justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to the other--all brief and plain, and executable without expense or fuss. In the case of a slave the owner was allowed to seize him wherever he saw him, by day or by night, Sundays or week-days, just as if he was in his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached to any person who resisted or obstructed him in this seizure. The only authority he wanted was after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that purpose, the affidavit of the owner, or his agent was sufficient. This act was perfect, except in relying upon State officers, as well as federal officers to execute it, these State officers not being subject to the federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a subject of political agitation.

This was a party election, and as such conducted on both sides. Marshall, in his Life of Washington, says of it: "By each party a candidate for the chair was brought forward; and Mr. Muhlenberg, who was supported by the opposition, was elected by a majority of ten votes against Mr. Sedgwick whom the Federalists supported."

The debate on this subject was one of the most elaborate, and most replete with knowledge of commercial principles and statistics, which our Congress has furnished. It grew out of the clause in the constitution which gave Congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and gives the interpretation of that clause by its authors, which was wholly different in its nature, as well as distinct in its grant, from the power to lay and collect duties on imports. The latter was to raise revenue: the former to coerce nations into reciprocity of liberal trade with us by making a discrimination in the trade of nations to the disadvantage of the nations which refused to come into reciprocal arrangements with us. The discrimination proposed by Mr. Madison was 5 per centum, and was levelled against Britain, and was only defeated by five votes. In this great debate, as in that upon the Bank of the United States, the genius of Hamilton and Jefferson were pitted against each other, each having made opposite reports on each question, which were the magazines from which the opposing speakers in Congress chiefly armed themselves--Mr. Madison being the chief exponent of the Jeffersonian side, and Mr. William Smith, of South Carolina, that of General Hamilton. It is curious that while this power to regulate foreign commerce by Congress, was one of the chief causes for forming the Federal Government, yet it has never been exercised by Congress, and seems to be a power overlooked, or confounded with that to lay duties and imposts for revenue. Though not yet exercised, it is a power which has found need for its exercise, and will find it again. Our immense commerce, if all articles are taxed even moderately, will produce far more revenue than the economical and fair administration of the Government would require: a large part of it would be left free, as after the payment of the public debt in President Jackson's time; and as may be again after the extinction of the public debt, and the introduction of economy into the expenditures. A moderate duty on two-thirds of the importations may then be sufficient for the expenditures of the Government, leaving (say) one-third to go upon the free list. Now the nations which receive the chief benefit of that large free importation ought to reciprocate the favor by taking something free, or at a moderate duty, from us. "Free commerce is not to be given in exchange for burthens and impositions;" and that was the principle of Mr. Madison's resolutions, which were barely defeated, and that by the influence of the mercantile class engaged in commerce with Great Britain. A full view of this subject is given in the first volume of the Thirty Years' View, in giving an account of the effort of the author to revive Mr. Madison's plan.

It is grateful to behold the immense progress which the humanity of nations has made. Great Britain is no longer subject to the imputation of exciting pirates and savages against us. She has long since ceased to instigate Indian hostilities, and long ago joined us in humbling Algiers. Far from stimulating barbarian war, she even interposes to save us from civilized war with great nations--witness the proffered mediation of William the Fourth to settle the difficulty between France and the United States, in General Jackson's time: a beautiful instance of old animosity extinct under time, and former evil deeds succeeded by works of kindness and respect.

This seventh, article stipulated indemnity to the owners of the deported slaves.

Mr. Jefferson resigned his place of Secretary of State at the end of this session, and was succeeded by Mr. Edmund Randolph, of Virginia. Of the resignation and character of Mr. Jefferson, Marshall thus speaks: "This gentleman withdrew from political station at a moment when he stood particularly high in the esteem of his countrymen. His fixed opposition to the financial schemes which had been proposed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the Legislative and Executive Departments of the Government; his ardent and undisguised attachment to the revolutionary party in France; the dispositions which he was declared to possess in regard to Great Britain; and the popularity of his opinions respecting the Constitution of the United States; had devoted to him that immense party whose sentiments were supposed to comport with his on most or all of these interesting subjects. To the opposite party he had, of course, become particularly unacceptable. But the publication of his correspondence with the French minister, Genet, dissipated much of the prejudice which had been excited against him. He had, in that correspondence, maintained, with great ability, the opinions embraced by the Federalists on those points of difference which had arisen between the two Republics, and which, having become universally the subjects of discussion, had in some measure dissipated those topics on which parties had previously divided."

The ratification of the Treaty, with the exception of the 12th article, was by the following vote: YEAS--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, Gunn, Henry, King, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Potts, Read, Ross, Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Vining--20. NAYS--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Jackson, Langdon, Martin, Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell--10. This excepted article related to the direct trade with the British West Indies; and the recommendation added to the clause of ratification was with a view to obtain the full enjoyment of that trade. This was in the year 1795, and the object of the recommendation was not obtained until above thirty years thereafter, and under the administration of General Jackson.

This recommendation to treat further for obtaining indemnity for the slaves carried off by the British during the Revolution, remained without effect, and all claim to that indemnification was relinquished by the treaty of 1796. But the same deportation of slaves took place in the war of 1812, followed by the same stipulation for indemnity in the treaty which closed that war, which was contained in the treaty which closed the war of the Revolution; and attended by the same refusal to comply with it. It was not until after twelve years of further negotiation, and under the administration of Mr. John Quincy Adams, and under the arbitrament of the Emperor Alexander, of Russia, that indemnity for these deported slaves of 1812 was received.

This was the first instance of any heated debate in answering an address from Washington. It became a party discussion on some points, especially in relation to what was said of the Democratic societies. Marshall says of it: "A very eloquent and animated debate ensued, which terminated in the Committee of the Whole by striking out the words, "self-created societies"--47 voting for, and 45 against expunging them." The question was renewed in the House; and the Chairman of the committee being opposed in sentiment to the Speaker, who was now placed in the chair, the majority was precisely changed, and the words were reinstated. This was a victory for the Administration, but soon lost, the next being in favor of the opposition.

He resigned accordingly, no further investigation being moved with respect to him. Recording the event, Marshall says: "Seldom has any minister excited in a higher, or more extensive degree than General Hamilton, the opposite passions of love and hate. His talents were of a grade too exalted not to receive from all the tribute of profound respect; and his integrity and honor as a man, not less than his official rectitude, though slandered at a distance, were admitted to be superior to reproach by those enemies who knew him."

A celebrated painter who died in 1554. Speaking of this artist, Henry the Eighth once said, "Out of seven ploughmen I can make seven Lords, but out of seven Lords I cannot make even one Holbein."

Col. Timothy Pickering, in place of Gen. Knox, resigned.

The distinction was invidious, and soon fell under the ban of public opinion; but the mode of making it was commendable, and freed the Senators voting for the increase from the imputation of a personal motive.

This was nominally a private petition, but in reality a question between the State of North Carolina and the Federal Government in relation to their relative rights over Indian lands within the chartered limits of the State.

This was the first discussion with open doors, except on the contested election of Mr. Gallatin.

This was the first formal opposition to the mode of answering the President's Speech at the opening of the Sessions of Congress, though many members had from the first been repugnant to it as being too close an imitation of the British mode of opening the Sessions of Parliament by an Address from the sovereign in person, an answer to it, and the presentation of the answer by the House in a body.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FLAG.--It is tricolor, made of the richest silk, and highly ornamented with allegorical paintings. In the middle, a cock is represented, the emblem of France, standing on a thunderbolt. At two corners, diagonally opposite, are represented two bombshells bursting; at the other two corners, other military emblems. Round the whole is a rich border of oak leaves, alternately yellow and green; the first shaded with brown and heightened with gold; the latter shaded with black and relieved with silver; in this border are entwined warlike musical instruments. The edge is ornamented with a rich gold fringe. The staff is covered with black velvet, crowned with a golden pike, and enriched with the tricolor cravatte and a pair of tassels worked in gold, and the three national colors. The flag is to be deposited in the archives of the United States.

Counsel for the prisoner.

Of all the members who opposed this trading establishment from the commencement, Mr. Macon was the only one that remained in Congress until it was abolished in 1822.

This motion, going to the destruction of the Mint itself, brought up an incidental debate on the right of Congress to withhold appropriations for the support of existing establishments--which is the only part of the debate on the bill which retains a surviving interest.

This being the last year of Washington's administration, it presents a proper occasion for seeing what the support of the Government then cost, both as an inquiry pertinent in itself, and as furnishing a point of comparison for the future. This is shown in the introductory clause to the appropriations, stating, "That for defraying the expenditure of the civil list of the United States for the year 1796, together with the incidental and contingent expenses of the several departments and officers thereof, there be appropriated a sum not exceeding $530,392 85 cents." The objects to which this expenditure went, were, 1. Salary to President and Vice President. 2. Compensation to the members of Congress, with all the incidental expenses of that body. 3. The federal judiciary, with all its contingent expenses. 4. The Executive departments, with all their subordinate offices and expenses of every kind. 5. The Mint establishment. 6. The light-house establishment. 7. North-western and South-western territorial governments; with a few other small objects. For each of these items a specific sum was appropriated, of which, the appropriations for Congress were, for the pay of the members and all the officers and attendants, (estimated for a session of six months,) $193,460; and the expenses, fuel, stationery, printing, and all other contingencies of the two Houses, were $11,500. For diplomatic intercourse, $40,000.

And proved to be so in this case, though it required thirty years' experience to show it. When the system was brought to a close in 1822, it was found that the whole capital was gone.

This was the first attempt to pay members of Congress as salaried officers.

This resolution would seem to embody Mr. Madison's interpretation of the clause in the constitution which authorizes Congress to establish post roads.

This explanatory note was written by Mr. Gales, editor of the Annals of Congress, who has rendered a valuable service to the student of political history in bringing these two great debates, each by itself, into a single and connected form. They are the groundwork of high constitutional knowledge; and, whether for the intrinsic importance of their matter, the close acquaintance of the speakers with their subject, or as fine specimens of parliamentary debating, they stand forth as debates of the first class which our congressional history has afforded. Marshall, in his history, says of them: "Never had a greater display been made of argument, of eloquence, and of passion; and never had a subject been discussed in which all classes of their fellow-citizens took a deeper interest." The first debate related to the Treaty-making power, and how far the House of Representatives had the right to refuse assent to a treaty which required an appropriation of money, or which regulated commerce, or which required the exercise of any other power specifically granted to Congress. The second applied to the execution of the commercial Treaty of 1794, with Great Britain; one party contending that the Congress was bound to make the appropriation to carry it into effect--the other denying the obligation and claiming the right of a discretionary power. The two debates were upon kindred subjects, and before the House at the same time, yet kept distinct, in the discussion, neither sliding into the other, and one finished before the other began; such was the closeness with which members then adhered to the subject, even in Committee of the Whole, and which gave to these early debates of our Congress so much point and power, and so much attraction to the hearer then and to the reader now. An abridgment can only present a part of these great debates, which cover above 300 pages of the Annals of Congress; but the whole argument will be seen on both sides, as the pith and marrow of each main speech will be given.