Part 47

Mr. BACON said that with other gentlemen, he could not but regret that this proposition had been brought forward. If he were brought to vote upon it, he need not tell the House that he should cordially vote for it; but it was really one of the last observations which he had expected to have heard from any gentleman that we wanted field for debate. He had thought that the grievance was the other way; that the cause of complaint was, that they consumed too much time in debate. He said he should certainly vote for the resolution, were it brought to a direct vote; but, for the purpose of placing before the House the view of the subject which he entertained, he should take the liberty to move an amendment to it, and then move to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. The amendment was in these words, proposed to be added to the motion:--"And furnishes an additional proof of the spirit of accommodation on the part of the Government of the United States, which has at no time been intermitted."

Mr. J. G. JACKSON moved that the whole subject be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that as an indefinite postponement was considered as tantamount to a rejection--for it prevents a renewal of the subject during the session, and a rejection does nothing more, as the House had heretofore had a woful experience in the case of certain very pertinacious petitioners; and, as he was afraid, they would again have from a certain body of petitioners, who, he presumed, had not entirely given up their hopes of quartering themselves on the public property--an indefinite postponement, then, being equivalent to a rejection, he certainly was opposed to the rejection of his own motion. He could not have believed that this motion would have been rejected by the House, though he said he had certainly calculated on its being opposed by those who condemned the promptitude and frankness with which the President had proceeded to restore, as far as depended on him, the intercourse between the two nations. It is this part of the conduct of the President of the United States, said Mr. R., on which I mean to give an opinion--"By the President of the United States, a proclamation"--and in that proclamation, in my opinion, he has deserved well of his country. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. FINDLAY,) if he is near enough to hear me in this vast room, when have I proposed bringing in review the whole measures of former administration; when have I proposed an answer to an address to the two Houses? I have proposed no such thing, sir, although my motion is nearly tantamount to it; because it so happens that the only act of which we have any knowledge, except the laying up the gunboats in dry dock, which I also most cordially approbate, is this very thing. Now, I have not the slightest objection, if the gentleman chooses, that the honorable and worthy gentleman from Massachusetts should insist on a venire on the conduct of any former President of the United States, but I beg myself to be excused from serving on it. As an unqualified juror, I choose to except myself; for, really, as to one of those Presidents, his career does not yet seem to be finished. It would seem as if he meditated another batch of midnight judges, and another midnight retreat from the Capital. I do, therefore, except to myself as a juror as to him or any other President. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Agreed, sir. Let the good that men do live after them, and the evil be interred in their graves. But, I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, also, if this be one of their abstract propositions? How abstract, I pray you? Or, if it be one of those unmeaning propositions, the discussion of which could answer no good to this House? It would be idle in us now to be trying Mr. Adams on the merits of the sedition law, the eight per cent. loans, or any other such act. It would answer no purpose; and it would be equally idle and futile to pass any opinion on the merits or demerits of the first four or last four years of the late administration, for this plain reason, the question bolts upon you, cui bono? What earthly good can result from it? But is that the case in relation to the Executive, on whose future dispositions rest the best interests of this nation? Is that a mere idle discussion? And is it come to this? Is this House so sunk in the Executive opinion, (I trust not, sir; I abhor the idea,) that its approbation of a great course of national policy is to pass for nothing; is it to have no influence on the conduct of the Executive of the United States? This, sir, is taking higher doctrine than was ever advanced by those who wished to see the President open Parliament by a speech from the throne. It is taking higher ground than the Minister of that country from which the precedent was derived. The weight of the House of Commons is felt too sensibly there for their inclinations not to be sounded by motions from their Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their members of opposition, in relation to the great course of foreign affairs. And, sir, shall we now be told that it is a mere matter of moonshine, a thing of no moment, whether this House really does approve the conduct of the Administration of the Government of the United States, or disapproves it? Praise, in my opinion, properly and not prodigally bestowed, is one of the best resources of a nation. Why is this House called upon, and I am sorry to say it is, too often, and too lightly, to give its sanction to the conduct of individuals in the public service, if its approbation is estimated so trivially? No, sir; this is a great question which I have presented to you, and gentlemen may hamper it with as many amendments as they please; they cannot keep the question out of sight. Some may be against it because they are for it; some because it does harm, and some because it does no good. The question cannot be kept out of sight; it has been presented to the American people and they have decided it, decide you how you may.

With respect to the gentleman's amendment, I need not tell him, I presume, that I shall vote most pointedly against it, because, in my opinion, it does not contain the truth. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) will be among the last of the members of this House to attribute to me an improper sentiment in regard to him, when I say that it does not contain the truth. If the gentleman from Massachusetts chooses, in imitation of another Eastern nation--not those who tried their Kings after they were entombed, but those who consigned to one common grave the living and the dead; if he be willing to attach the sound, healthy body of the present Administration--healthy so far, and, I trust, fortifying itself against contagions--to the dead corpse of the last, let him. He shall not have my assistance in doing it; nor have I the least desire to draw a marked distinction between the two Administrations. The gentleman will hardly suspect that I am seeking favor at court. My object is plain. It is to say to the President that, in issuing that proclamation, he has acted wisely, and we approve of it. I know, sir, that there are men who condemn the conduct of the President in issuing the proclamation; and why? They say he was precipitate. Where was the necessity, they will tell you, of declaring that the Orders in Council will have been withdrawn? This is the language of objection. There is a difference of opinion subsisting in this country on these two points. There are men who condemn this proclamation, and men who condemn the construction given by the Executive to the non-intercourse law. I approve both. I wish the President of the United States to have the approving sentiment of this House, and to have that approbation as a guide to his future conduct; and I put it to the gentleman from Massachusetts whether it be fair to mingle it with the old, stale, refuse stuff of the embargo? No, sir; let him not put his new wine into old bottles. There is a difference of opinion in this country. The President of the United States stands condemned by men in this nation, and, as I believe, in this House, for having issued that proclamation, and put that construction on the non-intercourse law. I wish to see by how many he is thus condemned. I do not wish to see the question shirked--to see it blinked. If there be a majority of the House, as I believe there is, in favor of the conduct of the President, I wish him to have that approbation expressed as a guide to his future, and a support to his present conduct. It is due to him. Sir, have I moved you a nauseous, sickening resolution, stuffed with adulation? Nothing like it; but, a resolution that the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of the British Government towards a restoration of the ancient state of things between the two countries--the state prior to the memorable non-importation act of 1806--meets the approbation of this House. Either it does, or it does not. If it does, let us say so. If it does not, let us say so. If gentlemen think this House never ought to express an opinion, but leave the President to grope in the dark as to our views, or get them through inofficial channels, I presume the previous question will be taken, or motion made that the resolution lie upon the table. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says, shall we go back, and approve of what he conceives to be similar conduct of the late President of the United States in relation to the embargo? I hope not, sir. But if a majority of this House choose to do so, let them. I shall say no. But, why mingle two subjects together, on which there does exist--and I am afraid it will leak out on this very vote of indefinite postponement--so very material a difference of opinion in different parts of the House? For example: I do not think of the offer about the embargo as the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania think; and I think it probable that those two gentlemen do not think of this proclamation and the construction given to the non-intercourse law, as I think. And why should we make a sort of hotch-potch of two subjects, on which we do not think alike, for the purpose of getting us all united against both? It is an old adage, and a very homely one, perhaps too much so for the delicate ears of this assembly, that if you put one addled egg into a pudding, you may add fresh ones, ad infinitum, but you can never sweeten it. And, sir, I defy the gentleman from Massachusetts, with all his political cookery, by pouring out of the jar of our present situation into the old mess, to sweeten it.

In the year 1806, we passed that miserable old non-importation act, which last session we repealed; and really, sir, we got rid of it with an adroitness which pleased me exceedingly. Never was an obnoxious measure more handsomely smothered by its avowed friends. Gentlemen said it was merged in the non-intercourse act, and therefore, as a matter of indifference, they would repeal it; and when the non-intercourse act shall expire by its own limitation, at the end of this session, or be suspended by the President's proclamation, as it is in relation to Great Britain, there is an end of both; and thus, the old measure, the old, original sin to which we owe our first difficulties, was as much gotten rid of as if a majority of this House had declared it an unwise measure, and therefore repealed it. I do recollect to have heard one gentleman (Mr. EPPES) say, that unless the section repealing this law were stricken out, he should be compelled to vote against the bill. He conjured the House to cling to the old non-importation act as the last vestige and symbol of resistance to British oppression; but the House was deaf to his call, and the non-importation act was plunged beneath the wave, never, I trust, to rise again. When, therefore, the late President of the United States made an offer to Great Britain to suspend the embargo as to her, provided she would withdraw her Orders in Council, I will suppose that she had accepted that offer. In what situation would she have stood in relation to the United States? Her fine cloths, her leather, her watches, her this and her that, would have been prohibited admittance into this country under the old non-importation act of 1806, which would have been in force. That act, in point of fact, had no operation on her adversary. Her ships would have been prohibited the use of our waters, while the ships of war of her enemy were admitted. Did that make no difference? That, sir, would have been the situation of the two countries, provided she had accepted the offer to suspend the embargo as to herself--the old non-importation act in operation, her ships of war excluded, and her rival's admitted. I pray you, was not that the condition of the country when Mr. Rose arrived? Was there not some difficulty, under the proclamation, in the admission of the Statira frigate, bearing that Minister into our waters? And were not French ships of war then, and have they not since been riding quietly at Annapolis, Norfolk, and elsewhere? Has not, in fact, the gallant Captain Decatur taken our own seamen out of one of them? And yet, sir, the offer at that time made by us has been identified with the negotiation between Mr. Secretary Smith and Mr. Erskine. What then was her situation? The non-importation act in force, her ships excluded and those of France admitted, and nothing in force in relation to France except the embargo. What is now the situation of affairs? Trade with her is restored to the same situation, in point of fact, in which it stood when Congress met here in 1805 and 1806--at the memorable first session of the ninth Congress, which generated the old non-importation act of 1806. Her ships of war are admitted into our waters, her trade is freed from embarrassment, while the ships of her adversary are excluded and the trade between us and her adversary forbidden by law. While, therefore, I am ready and willing to approve the conduct of the present Administration, it is not because I conceive that they have effected any thing so very difficult--that they have obtained any such mighty concession--but, because they have done their duty. Yes, sir; we all recollect that the objections made to the treaty negotiated by Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pinkney, on two great leading accounts: 1st. That it contained no express provision against the impressment of seamen. Is there any provision now made? No, sir. The next objection to the treaty was the note attached to it by Lords Holland and Auckland. What, sir, did gentlemen on this floor say was the purport of this note? That its object was to put us in a state of amity in respect to Great Britain, at the expense of the risk of collision with France. On account of this note, the treaty and the treaty-makers have been politically damned. And yet, we are now, in point of fact, in that very situation, in relation to the two nations, in which it was said that the British Commissioners, by the note, aimed to place us, and which was a sufficient reason, according to the arguments of gentlemen, for rejecting the treaty. The note was a sort of lien, gentlemen said, that would put us in a state of hostility with regard to France, and amity with regard to England. We refused to give our bond, for such it was represented (however unjustly) to be, to be sure, sir; but we have paid the money. We have done the very thing which gentlemen say the note aimed to induce us to do. We have put ourselves in a situation endangering collision with France, and almost insuring amity with England. We have destroyed the old non-importation act. The non-intercourse act is suspended as to her. Trade is again free. There is nothing now to prohibit her ships, whether for commerce or war, from coming into our waters, whilst our trade with France is completely cut off, and her ships excluded from our waters. I cannot too often call the attention of the House to this fact, on which I am compelled to dwell and dilate to get rid of this merciless motion, which kills while it professes to cure. When Mr. Rose came into this country, French ships of war were freely admitted; English ships were excluded.

As "the physician, in spite of himself," says in one of Moliere's best comedies, on a changé tout cela--the thing is wholly reversed. We are likely to be on good terms with England, maugre the best exertions of some of our politicians. Trade with Great Britain is unshackled, her ships are admitted, trade with France is forbidden; and French ships excluded, as far as it can be done by paper. Now, in the name of common sense, what more could Mr. Canning himself want, than to produce this very striking and sudden change in the relations between the two countries? For a long time previous, it was the ships of England that were excluded, while those of her adversaries were admitted. And we know that we could not have touched her in a more jealous point than in her navy. Things are now reversed--we have dexterously shuffled the non-importation act out of the pack, renewed trade with her, admitted her ships, and excluded those of France. And what, I ask this House, has the British Minister given us in requital for this change of our position in relation to him and his rival belligerent? The revocation of the Orders in Council--this is the mighty boon. For, with respect to his offer in relation to satisfaction for the attack on the Chesapeake, he made that offer to Mr. Monroe spontaneously, on the spur of the occasion, and there is not a doubt in my mind but that we had nothing to do but to receive it at that time, provided the instructions of our Minister had permitted him to receive it; but, perchance, sir, if he had received it, we might have been at this day discussing his message, and not the message of another President. All that Mr. Canning has given this country is a reiteration of his offer to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake, and his withdrawal of the Orders in Council; and to what did they amount? So soon as you, by your own law, cut off your trade with France, he agrees to revoke the orders interfering with it. Mr. Canning might as well have withdrawn blank paper. They had nothing left to operate upon. The body upon which they were to operate was destroyed by our own act, to wit, the trade of France. And, sir, while I compliment the present state of things, and the conduct on the part of our Government which has led to it, I cannot say that we have greatly overreached Mr. Canning in this bargain, in making an exchange of the old non-importation act with the admission of English, and exclusion of French ships and trade, for the Orders in Council. Mr. Canning obtained as good a bargain out of us as he could have expected to obtain; and those gentlemen who speak of his having heretofore had it in his power to have done the same, did not take into calculation the material difference between the situation in which we now stand, and the situation in which we before stood--to say nothing at all of Great Britain's having taken a stand against the embargo, having declared that she had nothing to offer in exchange for it; that we might keep it as long as we pleased. If she had accepted our offer, as I before stated, the old non-importation law would have been in operation, her ships of war would have been excluded, whilst those of France were admitted. Now, the non-importation act is not in force, her ships are permitted to enter our waters, and those of France excluded. And what has this sarcastic Minister of Great Britain given us in exchange? The Orders in Council, which had completely ceased to operate by the cutting off of the trade between us and France. Let me state this argument in a shape most favorable to ourselves, and least so to the British Government. I speak as to argument; for, as to friendship between nations, there is no friendship in trade. We ought to get the best bargain out of them that we could, and it was the duty of their Minister to get the best out of us. Let us throw out of view the exclusion of French ships and French commerce. Is the removal of the non-importation act, and the admission of British vessels, nothing? What has Mr. Canning given you in return? The Orders in Council--and what were they worth to him? Not a straw.

Mr. HOLLAND said he had no doubt that the President had done his duty in the case referred to in the proposition under consideration; and as he had entertained no doubt but the President would, on this and every other occasion, do his duty, he said he felt no excessive joy on the occasion. It was only an ordinary act of duty well performed, and therefore he was not willing to distinguish it from those numerous acts which he trusted would be, as they had heretofore been performed, by the Executive. Were he the author of the proposition, he should have many scruples as to the propriety of offering such a one. Were the precedent to be set by the passage of this resolution, the House might hereafter witness a struggle on the floor to determine who should be first to come forward with a proposition expressive of approbation. The human mind might be so operated upon that the Executive might feel himself under an obligation to promote the person bringing forward such a motion. I, said Mr. H., would be one of the last to introduce such a motion were I a friend to the President; and if I were not a friend to the President, I would not bring it forward, lest it should be thought that I was courting favor in his eyes. But why, sir, should this House give an expression of approbation of the President? Because, we are told, it may be a guide to him hereafter. Let this House be careful how it acts, and attend to its own duties. The President does not stand in need of this kind of support. I never will step forward as a member of this House, to excite him to his duty by a vote of this kind. I believe he possesses an attachment to his duty sufficient to induce him to perform it. I believe that the voice of the people of the United States is such, in relation to the present and late President, that they believe they were well disposed to do their duty, and that they have done their duty; but it does not follow that we ought to express our approbation as to any particular act. The gentleman himself says that the President has only done his duty. Is it not surprising, then, that we are called upon to give him the approbation of this House? What would be inferred from this procedure? Why, that it is so seldom our Presidents have done their duty, that, in the very first instance in which they have done it, the House of Representatives had discovered and applauded it. If the gentleman thinks so, I wholly disagree with him. If our officers do their duty properly, they will receive the thanks of the nation; and where is the propriety of singling out for approbation or disapprobation this particular act? I see none. It is asked, will you leave the President of the United States to grope in the dark, and not let him know whether he has received our approbation or not? And is the President to judge from the thanks of the House that he has done his duty? How is he to know that they have expressed their sense of his conduct from proper motives? Would he not be right to suspect those who vote for, and more especially those who bring forward such a proposition, of improper motives? He would be left still worse to grope in the dark. It has been said that former Presidents have been deceived in consequence of votes of approbation; and the same would again occur. On every ground I am opposed to the passing such resolutions on principle, and shall therefore vote for indefinite postponement. It was indefinitely postponed.

SATURDAY, May 27.

Sedition Law.

Mr. STANFORD said he had risen to offer a resolution, which he wanted to have offered immediately after that which had been offered by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) and adopted by the House, on the subject of prosecutions for libel at common law; but not being able to get the floor, he would now beg leave to move his by way of instruction to the same committee. That committee, Mr. S. said, had been charged with an inquiry into what prosecutions for libel at common law had been instituted in the courts of the United States, which he hoped the committee would duly make, and lay before the House. Thus the House would see what system of persecution, if any, had been resorted to, and cherished by the late Administration or its friends, in any part of the United States; and he equally hoped some remedy might be devised at this time, the beginning of a new Administration, to obviate any like occurrence in future. But, said Mr. S., let it not be that any thing be done partially. While we are about to bring to our view all the cases of prosecution for libel under the common law, we are not likely to know any thing about prosecutions for libel which had occurred under the sedition law, and that too under a different Administration. We have not authorized any such inquiry. That abuses have occurred under both, is but too probable, and I think it will be liberal, as it is just and fair, to make the inquiry more general on the subject. If any citizen has been oppressed or injured by such prosecutions, let it be known, and let justice be done him; even now, if with propriety any way can be devised to do so. Inquiry, however, is all that is asked for the present.

It may be perceived, said Mr. S., and if not, I wish it should be understood when I speak of justice being done, that I speak with rather peculiar reference to a gentleman of this House, who has been a principal sufferer under the well-known sedition law. I think it never too late to do justice, under whatever circumstances or motives of policy it may have been withheld for a time. I trust no gentleman will, upon this occasion, suspect me of a design to excite any party feelings. It certainly is not my wish, whatever may be the effect. The resolution I am about to offer is not so framed, nor would it necessarily involve the question of the constitutionality of the law. I feel persuaded, therefore, that the different gentlemen of the House may, from a spirit of liberality and fair concession, indulge the inquiry asked for.

But, sir, said he, since the other inquiry has been gone into, it cannot be unfair to say that the majority of the House owe it to themselves to extend the inquiry, as well to cases of prosecution under the sedition law, as to those under the common law; and I shall be permitted to say also, they owe it as well to the feelings and sufferings of the gentleman to whom I have alluded. Whatever may be the aspect of political opinions and parties now, it is known to you, sir, and a few others on this floor, that to him much is due for the present ascendency of the majority; perhaps to no one more, to the extent of his sphere of action and influence. In the famous contested election for President in this House, eight or nine years ago, he gave the vote of a State, which sufficed to decide the contest; and more especially so, if the blank votes of the State of Maryland could have rendered that vote doubtful. But, however such considerations may or may not avail, nothing is more clear to me than that the inquiry should be indulged on the most liberal principles.

Resolved, That the committee, appointed to inquire into what prosecutions for libels at common law have been instituted before the courts of the United States, be instructed to inquire what prosecutions for libels have been instituted before the courts of the United States under the second section of the act entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,'" passed the 14th day of July, 1798, and the expediency of remunerating the sufferers under such prosecutions.

Mr. SAWYER moved to amend the resolution by adding, at the end of it, the words "and that the committee also inquire whether any and what private compensation has been made to such suffering persons."

Mr. MACON said he did not know how the committee could go about to make such an inquiry as that contemplated by the amendment. The gentleman must be well satisfied that the Government could not rightfully inquire into transactions between individuals.

Mr. DANA said that he had no particular objection to meet this inquiry. As to the disclosure of facts as to the reimbursement by individual contribution, it might be amusing, if this House had authority to make it. He said he should like to know who contributed to the relief of James Thompson Callender, when he was prosecuted; but he had some doubt whether it was proper to enter into any inquiry or whether it was proper to pass the resolution pointing to the remuneration of sufferers under the sedition law. He should have supposed that it might be proper to leave it at large for the committee to report. He said he had certainly no objection to inquire, though he conceived that prosecutions at common law and under the sedition law were essentially different; because, supposing the Congress of the United States to pass such a law, the courts of the United States might take cognizance of it; but, without such a law, it did not belong to the judiciary to extend its care to the protection of the Government from slander. Such was the decision of Judge Chase, (said Mr. D.,) who decided that the court had no jurisdiction at common law in suits for libel; and the Supreme Court of the United States never did decide the question. The strong contrast is this: that while there was a description of men who said that no prosecution could be had at common law for libel, nor under the statute which modified the common law so as to allow the truth to be given in evidence--who, while they excited indignation against this statute, should afterwards undertake to institute prosecutions at common law where there was no limitation in favor of the defendant. There is this difference in the cases: that we find practice precisely different from professions. I do not say that the heads of departments were instrumental in instituting these prosecutions; but it marks some of the subordinate men who were active in making professions. I am very willing that the proposed inquiry should be made; but I cannot see the propriety of our undertaking to give any opinion as to remunerating those who suffered.

Mr. STANFORD said:--Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my colleague's motion of amendment can be in order? It is no concern of this House, or of the Government, what private contributions may have been made to the gentleman from Kentucky; and, if it was, the inquiry is impossible. [The SPEAKER said, not being able to enter into the views of the mover of the amendment, he considered the motion in order.] Then, said Mr. S., if my colleague is anxious to know what he could not otherwise know, I will tell him I had contributed a small sum to the gentleman from Kentucky, as a sufferer in what was then considered a common cause; but, upon his return to his seat in the House, he could not brook the idea of such a contribution, and returned the amount to myself I know, and to others I believe. My colleague would do well to tell us how much he contributed. It was well known contributions were made in a quarter not far from him; and if he did not, I am well persuaded it was not for the want of sympathy on his part, or extreme zeal in the democratic cause; for I am confident I have seen as much or more seditious matter from under his pen, than I ever saw from under that of the gentleman from Kentucky. Be that, however, as it may, I am for one willing, if no constitutional difficulty can be shown, to remunerate the sufferers--at least to take such money out of the treasury, and restore it to its original, rightful owners; and if it cannot be consistently done, why the inquiry can do no harm. But, indeed, we have great examples in the case before us. Did not the late President, when he came into place, refuse to let such money come into the treasury in the case of the worthless Callender? As the proper authority, he thrust it from him as unworthy the coffers of his country; and did not his doing so meet general approbation? I confess it met mine most cordially, and I believe it did that of my colleague also. Have we not, moreover, the best recorded proof that the present President holds similar opinions on this subject? His splendid opposition to the sedition law is the proof to which I allude, and is, in my mind, conclusive on this subject. But if it were not, where is the impropriety of an inquiry? The House will be better able to decide when the whole matter shall come fairly before them.

Mr. QUINCY said this appeared to be a proposition to aid a single individual; and, by the amendment, gentlemen who had aided that individual were anxious to prevent him from gaining more than he had paid. It was a kind of application to the House to repay to those persons who relieved the sufferers under the sedition act, the sums which they had paid. If this were the object, Mr. Q. suggested whether it would not be proper for them to come forward and lay their claim in the ordinary form before the House.

Mr. SAWYER said he was, as he always had been, willing to contribute his mite to the relief of the sufferers; but he did not wish to see them remunerated from the public treasury.

Mr. LYON.--I have for some time been in suspense whether I ought, or ought not to make any observations on the subject before the House; delicacy on the one hand bids me be silent, while a duty I owe to myself, to my family, and to the nation, requires (that since my particular case has been alluded to) the members of this House and the public should be made acquainted with many of the circumstances of that case, which have either never come to their knowledge, or have long been buried up among the consumed heap of political occurrences, disputations and publications of these days. Besides, sir, I have it in my power to throw much light on the subject of the inquiry wished for, by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. SAWYER,) who has proposed the amendment under consideration, and I will assure the gentleman that I shall not be backward in doing so. It is true, sir, that I was unjustly condemned to pay a fine of one thousand dollars and to suffer an ignominious imprisonment of four months in a loathsome dungeon--the common receptacle of felons, runaway negroes, or the vilest malefactors--and this when I was the Representative of the people of Vermont in this House of Congress. It cannot be said there was no other room in the prison, there were rooms enough; yes, sir, one of my judges during my imprisonment, found another room in the same jail to be imprisoned for debt in, until he gave bonds for the liberty of the yard. To heighten the picture exhibited by official tyranny, and to add to the cruel vexation of this transaction, I was carried out of the county in which I lived, fifty miles from my family, kept six weeks without fire in the months of October and November, nearly the whole of which time the northwest wind had free admittance into the dungeon, through the same aperture that admitted the light of heaven into that dreary cell. And let it be asked, in these days of the mild reign of republicanism, for what crime was all this extraordinary, this ignominious punishment inflicted?

I hold a copy of the indictment in my hand, which includes the charge against me. I will not trouble the House with a recital of the technical jargon and tedious repetition of words, of course, which constitute the bulk of such instruments. No, sir, but I will read the identical words of the charge, which says, that on the 20th of June, 1798, Matthew Lyon wrote a letter to Alden Spooner of Windsor, Vermont, in which he said, "as to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and uniform support. But whenever I shall, on the part of the Executive, see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice--when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment--when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities, and experience, discarded in their application for offices for fear they possess that independence; and men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and advocate opinions the consequence of which they know but little of--when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a state engine to make mankind hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble advocate."

This is the whole of my crime, and what do those words amount to. Who is here that hears these words, but what approves the sentiment they contain? What do I say in these words, other, or more, or less, than that when the Executive is doing right, I will support him--when doing wrong I will not be his humble advocate? This ought to be the creed of every member who enters these walls. Was there to be an oath or abjuration added to the constitutional oath to be taken by the members of this House, can any person who hears me, devise a better, or one more proper? Could any person who really thought Mr. Adams quite clear from all those improprieties, as merely possible from the nature of man, mentioned in my letter, have thought of my libelling the President by this declaration? I presume not, sir. Yet this, my crime, received one of the condemnations which you are called upon by this motion to constitute an inquiry into--an inquiry I cannot persuade myself will be refused. The letter, sir, was an answer to a violent invective against me, published in the same paper a short time before, in which besides a number of other charges against me, it was imputed to me as a crime that I acted in opposition to the Executive.

I did not begin the altercation. A person who was a friend to the Adams Administration, in the act of libelling me, (one of the constituted authorities,) ushered the Executive into his performance. My character, ever dearer to me than life, was concerned. I deigned to answer him, after expostulating with him on my right as one of the constituted authorities of the nation to exercise my own judgment in my official conduct, and showing that my merely differing with the Executive proved no more than that the Executive differed with me. I incidentally proceeded in the words for which I was indicted, the very words I just now read. I was charged with neither more nor less as coming from my pen. As if to outrage every principle of law and every sentiment of decency and propriety, this indictment, founded on the sedition law passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, charges me with having in Philadelphia on the 20th of June prior, written a letter to Alden Spooner of Vermont, which contained those words I have been reciting. My letter was produced in court and carried the Philadelphia post-mark of some day in the same June, I do not recollect which day; Judge Patterson himself admitted this fact, and that it was out of my power and control in the June before the sedition law was passed. Thus the indictment, which was the foundation of the barbarous treatment I received, carried on its front its own condemnation; but this defect was remedied by the ingenuity of the party judge, who dexterously mingled his assertions that the crime was cognizable under the common law, with his admonitions to a pliant jury not to be deterred from finding a verdict where the man who wrote was a member of Congress, and knew the sedition law was about to be passed, and probably hurried his letter to evade the law.

It may be said, sir, that I was charged in the indictment with publishing a copy of a letter, from an American diplomatic character in France, to a member of Congress, commonly called the Barlow letter. I was so, and there was a third count in the indictment for aiding and abetting in the publication of said letter. The words selected as seditious were as follow: "The misunderstanding between the two governments has become extremely alarming: confidence is completely destroyed; mistrust, jealousy, and a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come from your Executive; I mean if your object is to avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and the second coming of Pinkney, had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying speech of your President, and the stupid answer of your Senate, in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this letter; but when we found him borrowing the language of Edmund Burke, and telling the world that although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed on their engagements; that their religion or morality was at an end, and they had turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though you were at peace, we wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to a madhouse! Instead of this, the Senate have echoed his speech with more servility than ever George the Third experienced from either house of Parliament." No proof appeared on the trial of my printing, or aiding or abetting in printing, or circulating a printed copy of this famous letter. I had read the copy of the letter in company, but the advocates of the sedition law would never admit that such reading was punishable by that law. The printer who printed the letter, swore that he had been anxious to get the letter from me, and that I had refused to suffer it to be printed, and repelled every attempt to persuade me to the printing; that he had obtained the copy of the letter in my absence. The fact was, that my wife was persuaded by a gentleman who is now a member of this House, that the Republican cause and my election (which was pending) would be injured if the letter was not published; and, as I understood, she gave it to him, the letter was printed, and that gentleman had some of the copies before I came home. I suppressed the remainder of the edition. The judge, finding no proof to support this part of the charge, directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty generally, as there could be no doubt of my being guilty on the first count. I had acknowledged my having written the letter to Alden Spooner. They did so. I will not detain the House by going into a detail of the manner in which that jury was packed. After all the care and management in the original selection, there was one man on it whose honesty my persecutors feared; and, to get him off, a wretch falsely swore that the summoned juryman had expressed to him something like an opinion that I could not be found guilty. I will not here dwell upon the judge's denial to me of a challenge upon the jury--as great a crime as any Judge Chase was charged with. I look for an investigation of this business when all the features of it shall come fairly to public view. Should that investigation be refused at this time, I shall not fail to look for it at some future time. I can never forgive the unjust stigma that has been placed on my character; and should justice be refused me during my whole life, I will leave it with my children and theirs to seek it. When my enemies wounded my feelings, robbed me of my property, and affected temporarily my reputation, I consoled myself that my friends would soon be in power, and they would make every thing right. My wounded honor would be consoled; the wound would be healed--a share at least of the property of which I had been deprived, would be reimbursed. How cruelly have I been thus far disappointed! Generous men, at the time I suffered, said it is enough for you to bear the mortification of the temporary insult--we will share with you the loss of property. Under this impression much money was collected, the greater part of which went to relieve oppressed Republican printers--it has all been charged to me. I never asked, nor would I have received a cent of this gratuity, could I have avoided it without insulting the benevolent views of the good man (Gen. Stevens Thompson Mason, deceased) who set the subscription on foot. That good man gave me a list of those to whom he considered me beholden, and the amount; while the thing was fresh in every one's mind I made a compliment, which he considered ample, and more than ample, to every one of those on that list that was within my reach; to those few that remain on that list uncompensated, I feel beholden and much indebted. As the thing has grown old, and as I have come in contact with those gentlemen, I have felt myself in an embarrassed, awkward situation, from which I wished to be relieved by being able to say to them, the public have restored your money--here it is--it is yours, not mine. Judging other men to have feelings like myself, I am at a loss how to get rid of the obligation I feel, in any other way than the restoration of their money when it comes in a way they cannot refuse it. From this source my anxiety for the restoration of the money unjustly taken from me, arises more than any other; and on every review of the subject, I am bound to say that I have been more cruelly treated by the neglect of a duty to which my friends had pledged themselves, when they declared me innocent and patriotic, than by enemies who thought me guilty, and found me goading them in their progress toward the destruction of the liberty and republicanism of this country. As if to make their cruelty more insupportable, insult is added to the injury, by daily insinuations that I am bound by gratitude to stand by those who call themselves Republicans, in all their projects, right or wrong. Before I was elected a member of Congress from the State of Kentucky, I sent to a member of this House, who had promised me to bring it forward, a petition to be laid before the House of Representatives for redress in this case. He returned the petition to my son in a letter, which I have in my hand--in which he says, "I am sorry and ashamed that I have not presented the petition. I have not wrote to your father, and confess I am ashamed; pray you, the first time you write to Colonel Lyon, do endeavor to make an excuse for me." Such I believe was the impression of most of those I had acted with in the reign of terror, as we called it; but that impression has been wearing off, it seems, while my feelings have been every day increasing in their poignancy at their neglect of a duty, to which they had solemnly pledged themselves, while they were struggling with their adversaries for pre-eminence and power. Happily the awful silence which surrounded this extraordinary business has been broken. I consider this a prelude to investigation and a correct issue; and, let the event of the vote now about to be taken be what it may, I shall not despair.

I shall at this time say no more on this subject than to declare I wish not to have my case singled out for reparation. I wish the investigation general; the provision for remuneration general, to all who suffered under the lash of that unconstitutional sedition law.

Mr. SAWYER'S amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. ROSS rose to propose another amendment to the resolution. It was a fact, he said, well known in almost every part of the United States, that the people in the district from which he had just been returned, had suffered as much in the cause of democracy as that of any other; that they had presented as firm a barrier to Federal oppression, and perhaps had as just claims as any other people in the United States to remuneration for losses in the cause. It was well known that at the time that high-handed measures were taken in this country, an insurrection had taken place in Pennsylvania, commonly known by the name of the Hot-water Insurrection; that it occurred in consequence of the oppression of the law for the collection of a direct tax. Many persons who had opposed the law, under the idea of its being unconstitutional, were prosecuted, punished, and some of them, in consequence of those prosecutions and the sentence resulting from them, expired in prison. To some who remained after the aspect of the affairs of the country was changed, mercy was extended by the United States; but to those whose prosecutions and convictions were of an earlier date, lenity was not extended; they were compelled to pay their fines before they could be relieved from imprisonment. Mr. R. declared his object in rising to be, to move to amend the resolution in such a way as to instruct the committee to inquire whether any, and if any, what compensation and remuneration should be made to the persons who suffered and were punished in consequence of an act to lay and collect a direct tax in the United States.

Mr. DANA said the gentleman's amendment contemplated remunerating those who suffered by their opposition to a statute. He would propose an amendment to inquire into the propriety of remunerating those who had suffered by their submission (not by their opposition) to the several acts respecting the embargo, certainly so much more meritorious conduct than that of opposition. As respected the whole of this subject, he said he was very free to declare that as regarded those who had been prosecuted at common law in the State of Connecticut, who had certainly been at very considerable expense, their defence perhaps having cost them several thousand dollars, yet, on the principle of correct legislation, he had not the least idea of remunerating them. Where shall we stop, said Mr. D., if we tread back on the steps of each other? We shall have opportunity enough for censure in reviewing our conduct. Perhaps it might be as well to draw the veil of oblivion over past transactions, and learn from experience to err no more.