Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)

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.

Mr. Johnson said, that however much the act laying a direct tax was disapproved, and arose from measures which were improper, yet he had never deemed it an unconstitutional law, as he had the sedition law. He should therefore vote against the amendment and for the resolution.

Mr. Gardenier suggested to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since he had brought the subject before the House, the propriety of going the whole length of his principle. To my mind it is very clear, said he, that if those who oppose the law are to be remunerated, for what it cost them in consequence of prosecution, you must go only on the principle that the direct tax never ought to have been laid at all. If the law was right, it was improper to oppose it. If it was improper, perhaps according to modern democracy, it might be proper to oppose it by force. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous doctrine for legislators to broach; it is a doctrine to which I myself can never agree, for it is making Government a nullity. The suggestion which I wish to make is this: that if those men who suffered in the Hot-water Insurrection are to be remunerated, it is no more than fair that those should be remunerated who have quietly paid this tax. They were at least respectful to the laws. The committee therefore ought to be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repaying to the several contributors in the various States the direct tax, collected from them, unless there be something so admirable, so lovely, so worthy of encouragement in insurrection, that those concerned in it have peculiar claims to encouragement by Government. If that be the case, the gentleman stopped at the proper point. If there was nothing in insurrection, however, which the Legislature would feel it proper to cherish, the gentleman should either go the whole length of his principle or not touch it at all.

Mr. Ross said he had not undertaken to state any principle at all. His object was to refer the subject to a committee to decide upon. He had not said that he considered the original resolution to contain a correct principle; it was a point left for the committee to consider and for the House to determine on. But if it was a correct principle that those who suffered under the sedition law should be remunerated, he said he had no hesitation in saying that his constituents, who had suffered as materially and as much as any for the democratic interest in this country, should be placed on the same ground as those who were asking for the favor of the House for no better reason; and when the gentleman calls upon me, said Mr. R., to go the whole length of a principle which he states, it is calling upon me to do that which is consequent on a principle which I have not assumed. The gentleman from Kentucky conceives that there is a difference between the cases alluded to in my amendment and the cases arising under the sedition law. Where is the difference, sir? In both cases they were laws of the United States: in both cases the judges of the courts of the United States were authorized to proceed. In neither of the cases did they decide the law unconstitutional. If, then, persons were punished by the sedition law in its full operation, carried into effect by the constituted authorities, where, I ask, is the distinction between that and any other law? To all the purposes of legality, that law is as much legal as that under which the direct tax was instituted. Whether the law under which a direct tax was collected, was constitutional or not, has it not as equally received the disapprobation of the Republicans of the United States as the sedition law? If then it was the object of the democratic party to rid the country of such a law as much as of the sedition law, I ask whether those who suffered under each law have not equal claims? There can be no legal claim upon the House under either law; but we know that it was the hardy yeomanry who presented a firm phalanx to the irresistible torrent of injurious laws of the Federal Administration, and who gave the present party the ascendency, and many of them have not, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been, compensated for their suffering by a long continuance in an honorable and lucrative office which he enjoys by the confidence of his constituents.

Mr. Potter declared himself at a loss to know whether the House was sitting here as a branch of the Legislature to pass laws, or as a body to remunerate those concerned in the violation of them. The House sit here to make laws and not to encourage those who resisted them; but if they determined to give premiums for the violations of laws, they had better depart home at once.

Mr. Rhea wished the House to get rid of this motion and the amendment as speedily as possible. If the House were to go on as it had commenced the session, the whole time of the House would be spent about nothing, discussing propositions which could not possibly produce good to the nation. He therefore moved to postpone the whole subject indefinitely.

Mr. Macon said he had been in hopes when this motion had been made, that it would be one of the happy days of the House; that the question proposed would occupy the whole day in debate, and that all would agree in it at last. As to comparing this case with that of the direct tax, it was notorious that the discussion on the sedition law and the public opinion also took a very different turn from that which it took on any other law. The whole discussion (said Mr. M.) as well as I recollect, turned upon the constitutionality of the law. Then, if it is still believed that the law was unconstitutional, I leave it to gentlemen to say whether it can be viewed in the same light as a law, the constitutionality of which is not disputed. In the one case, trials took place for speaking and writing; in the other case for opposing the execution of a law. I wish this question to be settled for this reason: In all governments where liberty and freedom have existed, parties also have had existence. Thinking honestly produces parties. That those gentlemen who were in power when the sedition law was passed, should step a little too far, was not so much to be wondered at as that those who came after them should do so; because they were making the first experiment of the instrument. I then believed, and do still believe, that the law was unconstitutional. Taking up this question, the original resolution of my colleague is that remuneration should be made to those people who suffered under it; but seeing that the question with respect to the constitutionality of the law had always been matter of dispute, it proposes that a committee shall inquire into the subject. The House is no farther committed by passing this resolution, than to consent to the inquiry being made. I submit it to the candor and reflection of gentlemen of all parties, whether this thing, in a national point of view, can produce any evil – on the contrary, may it not produce good? All that has been said about the direct tax laws can have no other effect than to draw off the attention of the House from the true question before them. The question on this law, in my mind, is a different one from any other law which has been passed. I feel no hesitation in acknowledging that it is my opinion that all the sufferers ought to be remunerated, both those who suffered under the sedition law, and those who suffered under the common law. It is the business of all parties to settle amicably as they can any subject of contention between persons of different political persuasions. If this first resolution should be referred to a committee, and they report that the law was unconstitutional, I will venture to pronounce that no majority will ever again make a law of that kind. If, sir, the sufferers under the sedition law did suffer contrary to the constitution, ought not their expenses to be reimbursed? On the subject of contribution, I know that that party to which I was attached, did contribute, and did consider it an honorable cause. I was willing (and there are gentlemen in this House who know it) to open my purse when a man of a very different political creed from myself, Peter Porcupine, was oppressed. I care not of what party a man be, that is oppressed. I can prove that the party opposed to me in politics have also subscribed. It is all no more than the subscriptions for printing speeches which are occasionally made in the House, in which gentlemen of all parties unite. Suppose that the whole fine in any particular case had been paid by individual subscription, what has the Government to do with that? Will it be contended, because an old soldier who received a pension also received individual contributions, that the pension should be taken from him, or that the Government is thereby acquitted of what it owed him? Surely not; the Government has nothing to do with transactions between individuals. As to the particular gentleman brought into this discussion, I believe that every man that contributed any thing towards paying the fine levied on him, was remunerated to his satisfaction. I have thought proper to state these opinions of mine, and to avow myself in favor of reimbursing the sufferers. But before I sit down, I must say that my opinion of modern democracy is very different from that of the gentleman from New York. I consider it as neither leading to insurrection, rebellion, nor any such thing. I believe that the true principle of every modern democrat, is, that the law constitutionally made is supreme, and is to be obeyed; that it has nothing to do with riots, rebellion, and insurrection. I know very well, and shall not deny it, that there are times when insurrection is a holy thing, but it is not peculiarly attributable to democracy. With us, election puts every thing to rights; and on them every man of pure democratic principles depends. It is doubtful whether the question of the constitutionality of the sedition law can be settled in a more easy way, and in a mode less liable to irritation, than that proposed by my colleague. If the committee report as I wish, it is well; if not, it settles the question forever; and it is surely desirable that the question should be settled. However gentlemen may differ, as to the principle proposed to be investigated, they might with propriety vote for the inquiry, as it is the ordinary course of every day. I do not consider this as proposing to give a premium to violators of the laws. I know that much depends in this world on names; and that if you give any man or thing a bad name, whether merited or not, it is difficult to get rid of it. I hope the House will not be deterred from this inquiry by any name attempted to be given to it. It is proper that this question should be settled; and if considered now, it will be settled by a body which did not partake of the heats of those times, and when, to say the least of it, there is a little division in the great parties of the nation; and it seems to me that the gentleman who moved it has been fortunate in the selection of his time. Eight years have elapsed, a new President is just inducted, and the question is now brought up for our decision. I am sorry that any member of this House should make a motion with no other view but for procrastination. I do not believe that my colleague who made this motion is more in the habit of procrastinating the public business than other members of the House; and I was in hopes that there would have been no dissentient voice to his motion. He only asks of you to let the inquiry be made. He does not ask a single member of the House to commit himself upon the question, but merely asks that a committee may be permitted to inquire into it; and this, it seems to me, is no extraordinary request. I hope that the resolution, without being trammelled with any extraneous matter, will be passed.

Mr. Key said he should vote for indefinite postponement of the resolution. What good purpose could its adoption answer, unless the House had the power to take money from the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of remunerating any person who had suffered? Had Congress that power? He apprehended not. He could see no such power amongst those delegated to Congress. The gentleman from North Carolina admitted the House were under no obligation to remunerate the sufferers; and if the gentleman would turn to the rules laid down for the definition of the powers of Congress, he would see that there was no authority to draw money from the Treasury for this purpose. Under that view of the constitution, Mr. K. said he must vote for indefinite postponement.

Mr. Macon asked under what clause of the constitution Captain Murray and others had been remunerated? Under what clause money paid into the Treasury had been returned in various instances? The right to take, gave the right to return that which was taken. In many instances this principle had been practised on. There was no law to authorize the punishment of a man for robbing the mail; but it was derived from the power of establishing post roads. The power of refunding money was one which had been often exercised.

Mr. Gardenier was in favor of an inquiry. It was not only proper that an inquiry should be made, but it was the bounden duty of the House to make it. A member of the House in his place had stated facts which if true undoubtedly entitled him to their interference. Our duty (said Mr. G.) is imperative. The case of the gentleman does not rest upon the question whether the sedition law was constitutional or unconstitutional, but upon the fact that he was not a proper object for the exercise of that law. For, if the statement made be correct, he was punished for uttering a creed which would not be improper for every member of the House; and I will say that subsequent events have shown the sincerity with which the gentleman did make it; that he had kept his promise most religiously; that it was not applicable to those men, or that time, any more than to the present, but was a creed on which he practised before and ever since, so far as his political course is known to me. It is a case in which the privileges of the members of this House are materially concerned. If under the sedition law for a letter written by a member of this House to his constituents, giving his view of public measures, he has been punished, it concerns the safety of this House that complete and perfect remuneration should be made. It is as important that every member should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents, as that he should without restraint address the Chair of the House. It was a case, therefore, which never ought to have been the subject of a judicial investigation, much less considered as a crime. The gentleman at the time followed the dictates of his conscience. To his conscience and his God alone should he be responsible. Sir, should we refuse an inquiry into this case, when we know that the fine of James Thompson Callender, for one of the most atrocious libels ever written in the United States, was remitted? When we know that it was remitted by the President of the United States, after the money had been received by the proper receiving officer of the United States, when it had passed out of the hands of James Thompson Callender into the hands of the officer of Government, and was, to all intents and purposes, in the Treasury of the United States, because there is no such thing as a treasury in which money is actually deposited – for a libel, too, in which the great Father of his Country was treated with a shameless indignity, which could not but have gone to the heart of every man? When the President of the United States was in that libel called a hoary-headed incendiary, should that fine be returned, and shall a gentleman in this House be fined and imprisoned for that which was not even improper? Shall we not restore to him that which others have been suffered to retain, and for which we have not brought to question him who restored it after it was in possession of the receiving officer of the United States – in fact, after it was in the Treasury? Let us not be guilty of this inconsistency. If the sedition law has gone to the tomb of the Capulets, and I believe it has, I am not one who wishes to bear up against the people's voice; the Government is theirs, and when they speak we obey. If under that law the Government has received money for an act which really, if the statement of the gentleman be true, could scarcely be considered an offence within the purview of that law, will you not give it back to him? Either give back the money in the case, or take measures to recover that money which was given back in the other. I am not for making fish of one and flesh of another. Whilst on this subject I will declare that I never did consider the sedition law as unconstitutional. Congress were competent to pass it. But, that parties will sometimes in the ardor of their course exceed the limits of discretion, and do violence to the milder feeling of the community in which they live, has been proved in the Adams Administration, and in that which has lately disappeared; and when they have cooled down, it is but rendering justice to the sense of the country to acknowledge their errors. No, sir, I am satisfied that all prosecutions for libels on the Government should be at least very hesitatingly sustained. You cannot draw a precise line by which you shall limit the right of investigation. The two things are so blended together that you cannot separate them. You must either make the Government supreme or the people supreme. I am for the latter. As Dr. Johnson makes Lord Chesterfield say, liberty and licentiousness are blended like the colors in the rainbow; it is impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. Licentiousness is a speck on the eye of the political body, which you can never touch without injuring the eye itself. I hope and trust that with this investigation will be connected an inquiry into the prosecutions at common law in Connecticut. I have seen in the State of New York, but not under the present Administration, a defendant coming into court, begging only to be permitted to prove that what he had said was true; I have seen also an Attorney-General rise to prevent it: I have seen the truth smothered on the trial by men who were as clamorous against the sedition law as any loud-mouthed patriot in the country. I have seen them bringing almost to the block the victim who may only wish to prove the truth of what he said – which was denied him. I mention this to show that where parties are contending against each other, where there is a majority on one hand and a minority on the other, that which appears on paper proper for the protection of the Government, turns out to be for the oppression of the minority. In the nature of parties it cannot be otherwise. Therefore, in my opinion, the Government of the United States cannot render a greater service than by declaring it will not be accessary to any diminution of the rights of the citizen; that free investigation shall in all cases be permitted. Mr. G. made some further observations on the particular case of Mr. Lyon, and concluded by expressing his hope that the resolution would pass.

The question that the resolution be postponed indefinitely, was decided by yeas and nays – yeas 69, nays 50.

Monday, May 29

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Orchard Cook; and from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Say and John Smilie, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

Wednesday, May 31

Julian Poydras appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat, as the Delegate for the Territory of Orleans.

Mr. McKim presented a petition of thirty-five American citizens confined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery, stating that, through means of falsehood and deception, they were induced to engage in the unlawful expedition of Miranda, fitted out from the city of New York, in the year one thousand eight hundred and six, and that they were captured by the Spaniards, and condemned to slavery, and praying that Congress will take their distressing case into consideration, and effect their release and return to their native country. – Referred to Mr. McKim, Mr. Say, Mr. Emott, Mr. Roane, and Mr. Cochran, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

Monday, June 5

Two other members, to wit: Ezekiel Whitman, from Massachusetts, and Richard Wynn, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been informed of the death of the Honorable Francis Malbone, one of the Senators from the State of Rhode Island, have directed the same to be communicated to this House.

On motion of Mr. Potter,

Resolved, unanimously, That this House will attend the funeral of Francis Malbone, Esquire, late a member of the Senate of the United States.

Resolved, unanimously, That this House do wear mourning on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of the deceased.

Tuesday, June 6

Another member, to wit, Wilson C. Nicholas, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, June 7

Another member, to wit, Erastus Root, from New York, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Friday, June 9

Another member, to wit, Nicholas Van Dyke, from Delaware, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Monday, June 12

Mississippi Territory

The Speaker presented a petition enclosed to him from a number of inhabitants of the district east of Pearl river, in the Mississippi Territory, praying for the division of the Territory.

Mr. Poindexter moved that the petition lie on the table. It would perhaps be disrespectful to the petitioners to reject it, although its contents would merit that course. There were three parties who must, by the ordinance for the government of the Territory, consent before the Territory of the Mississippi could be divided. One party was the Mississippi Territory, the other the State of Georgia, and the third the United States. Neither of these parties had consented. There was, therefore, an absolute interdiction to all legislation on the subject; and the House could, with as much propriety, refer a petition from a State to be exempt from general taxation, or to recede from the Union, as to refer this petition.

Mr. Burwell said he felt himself bound to oppose the motion for its lying on the table. If the request was wholly improper, the report of a committee to that effect would settle the question at once.

Mr. Bibb was in favor of the motion; though, had a motion been made to reject it, he should have voted against it.

Mr. Macon was in favor of a reference of the petition. No harm could arise from an inquiry into it.

Mr. Troup admitted the correctness of the remarks of the delegate from the Territory, but wished the petition to be referred to a committee for the purpose of an inquiry as well into the amount of population in that country as into its quality; whether it was lawful or unlawful. There were certain facts connected with this subject, perhaps not generally known to the House. In the course of last year, he had understood that a great many persons, amounting to perhaps three or four thousand, had crossed the Tennessee river, and fixed themselves on its banks, not only contrary to law, but the impression was that they had set out in defiance of the law, and had even gone so far as to organize themselves into military associations for the purpose.