Mr. Randolph said, the provision desired by the gentleman from Connecticut already exists. The Legislature has defined the powers of the late circuit judges, and has decided that they shall not execute any powers. Those powers are transferred to other courts. Unless the House had changed their opinion, it was not necessary to go into any discussion on this point. The readiest and fairest course for gentlemen would be to propose to repeal the law of the last session, and restore the judges.

The question was then taken on the first resolution, and lost—ayes 34, noes 56.

The Chairman then read the second resolution, as follows:

Mr. Randolph said he was not ready for the question. He had one or two remarks to offer, which had suggested themselves during the reading of the resolution. It had been repeatedly decided that the United States would not permit themselves to be brought into their own courts. Wherefore grant to a particular class of persons, in a single case, that which had ever been refused to the war-worn soldier of the Revolution; especially when it should be recollected that this case, involving the interests of judges, as a caste, could not be decided by any judicial tribunal free from bias?

A doctrine is advanced new to this House, which I have been told originated with an eminent character on the bench of the United States; I did not hear the gentleman from Connecticut distinctly, but I understand him as subscribing to it; that Congress may, constitutionally, deprive a judge of all authority, and transfer to another his powers and duties, but that the office nevertheless remains, and the judge, of course, entitled to his compensation. The constitution says that "the judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, for their services, receive a compensation." Without entering into a question which has already been so fully discussed, he would barely remark, that if the position just advanced be correct, the words "compensation" and "office," which the constitution supposes, and every one believes, to have distinct and different meanings, must be convertible terms. For when the powers and duties are taken away, what, let me ask, is left but a salary? The word office must be rendered by the word salary.

Mr. Dana.—The question of compensation to the judges involved considerations very distinct from those ordinarily decided upon in that House. Most of the individual cases brought here were made in pursuance of some particular law, and did not call in question the authority of Congress. If the case of the judges were to be referred to any tribunal, the right to refer was founded on the principle of controlling the decisions of the Legislature in case those decisions should appear to the tribunal to be unconstitutional. It was, therefore, in this view not proper to refer the question to a tribunal dependent on the body to be controlled. This was the only course that would probably be deemed impartial by all the parties concerned.

Mr. Bacon said the true question was on the constitutionality of the repealing law. One Congress had passed a law constituting certain courts, which at the last session had been repealed. Now of what do courts consist? Of judges, who are officers of the court. The question is, whether by abolishing the courts, these officers are abolished. He supposed they were. He considered the terms as synonymous. Now the question is whether, if the offices are abolished, those who filled them before they were abolished are entitled to salaries? That is the only question that remains undetermined. What does the constitution say? Admitting the offices abolished, it says: "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

Does it not follow that if they continue in office they are entitled to a salary for the services they perform. If they do not continue in office they are entitled to nothing, and the constitution has no reference to them. This is the true question.

Mr. Smilie would ask whether the Supreme Court in such a case as this could be denominated an impartial tribunal? He asked if they had not seen the time when, during the disputes between the clergy and laity, no wise man, not of the clerical order, would have trusted himself in the hands of the clergy? The same remark applied to the military, and also, with equal force, to the Judges of the Supreme Court. He really, however, thought that the judges would not receive the salaries, even if they were offered to them, as it would be contrary to every idea of patriotism. He, therefore, considered the application as a mere matter of form.

Mr. Nicholson.—The resolution contemplated giving the power to try the right of the judges to their claims; but the great object in reality was to authorize the judges of the Supreme Court to decide upon the constitutionality of the repealing act. Let this object, then, be avowed; let it be so declared openly, and not introduced in this incidental manner. From the remarks made last year by gentlemen on the other side of the House, it was a little surprising that this application should be made, for it was then strenuously contended that the Supreme Court had the right to decide upon the constitutionality of all laws. Why, then, ask for it? If they have this right we need not confer it; if they have it not, we cannot give it them. If the petitioning judges can bring their case before the Supreme Court, let them do so; my consent shall never authorize it. If the Supreme Court shall arrogate this power to themselves, and declare our law to be unconstitutional, it will then behoove us to act. Our duty is defined.

Mr. Eustis said when the office of judge was abolished all his duties ceased. The salary allowed was a compensation for services. Now when there were no services to be performed, what salary could there be allowed, or what retribution demanded? on what did this claim rest? On the opinion of the judges. But by the decision of the last winter their offices were abolished; it followed, therefore, of consequence, that their salaries ceased too. This was a plain and simple question. He considered the memorial as the protest of the judges against this decision. As such, he was willing that it should rest on the files of the House, and instead of being offended at this treatment the judges ought to be thankful.

Mr. Dana said the ideas of the gentleman from Massachusetts were in one respect correct. The memorial of the judges was a protest against the law passed by Congress. It was proper they should make it, so far as they confined themselves to language not indecorous or disrespectful. He would admit likewise that the question of powers decided the question of salary; others however entertained a different opinion. Why object then, in a case where there was a difference of opinion, to refer the decision to an impartial tribunal? The only question is whether in a contest for power, you, the Legislature, will claim the exclusive exercise of power, and whether, even if you shall exceed the constitutional limits, you will assert the entire right of saying so, or whether you will refer it to a tribunal which shall be an umpire between those who hold different opinions?

Mr. Alston said the resolution required amendment. As it now stood, it would appear that all the late judges of the circuit court claimed a compensation for services not rendered. He believed this was not the case. There were some of those judges who had made no such request. He, therefore, moved to insert the name of those who had presented memorials; also to insert the word "late" before the word "judges."

Carried without a division.

The resolution as amended stood thus:

On which the question being put, it was lost—ayes 35 noes 57.

Mr. Varnum observed that the memorial contained two principles, both of which had been negatived. To draw the attention to a final decision he would move another resolution, to wit:

Mr. T. Morris moved that the committee should rise and report progress, that the petition might be printed. Negatived without a division.

The resolution was then carried without a division, when the committee rose and reported it.

The House immediately took it into consideration; when

Mr. Randolph moved to strike out the words, "late judges of the circuit courts of the United States."

Mr. Griswold said he presumed it was not the object to expunge all evidence of these gentlemen being judges, or late judges of the circuit courts of the United States, and yet that would appear to be the effect of the motion. He must, therefore, call for the yeas and nays, which would make that fact be recorded on the journals.

Mr. Randolph said he had made the motion that the resolution might conform to the prayer of the petition. Had the memorialists called themselves late judges, he should have had no objection to their being so designated in the resolution. His wish was to style them in the resolution as they had styled themselves.

Mr. Griswold said, though they had not expressly styled themselves circuit judges, yet they had stated that they had been appointed circuit judges under a law of the United States. They had therefore virtually so styled themselves.

A few words were added by Mr. Eustis against it, and by Messrs. Randolph and Nicholson in favor of striking out the words, when the question was taken by yeas and nays and carried—yeas 50, nays 47.

And then the main question being taken, that the House do agree to the resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House, amended to read as follows:

It was resolved in the affirmative, yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:

Friday, January 28.

Presents to a Minister's Wife.

Mr. Speaker laid before the House a letter from Col. Humphreys, late Minister at the Court of Madrid, stating that, when he was about to leave that Court, the Minister of State urged his acceptance of the customary present from His Majesty. Col. Humphreys informed him that he could not, consistently with the constitution of his Government, accept the present. The Minister continued to press the acceptance, and urged that as he was no longer an officer of the United States, there could be no impropriety in his receiving it. Col. H. replied that, though he was then out of office, there would still, in his opinion, be an indelicacy in the acceptance, and that if he should receive the present designed for him, he should consider it as his duty to deliver it into the hands of the President of the United States, to be disposed of at the pleasure of the Government.

Under these circumstances he left the Court of Madrid; and upon his arrival in the United States, he found a casket of valuable female ornaments addressed to Mrs. Humphreys, which, though unaccompanied by any letter, he presumed to be a present from the Queen of Spain. Doubting the propriety of accepting it under such circumstances, Mrs. Humphreys presented the casket to the President of the United States, who put it into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State declining to decide the constitutional question, whether Mr. Humphreys could with propriety retain it, ordered it to be returned to him for the purpose of being sent back to Spain, or otherwise disposed of as he may think proper. Mr. Humphreys refused to receive it back on such terms: it consequently remains with the chief clerk in the Department of State, and Mr. H. now requests Congress to give orders for sending it back to Spain, or for disposing of it in such other way as they may think proper. He makes the same request respecting a sword presented him by the Dey of Algiers, which is also in the hands of the chief clerk of the Department of State, under similar circumstances.

The subject, after considerable conversation in the House, was referred to a select committee to report their opinion thereon.

French Spoliations.

Mr. Mitchill called up his resolution respecting French depredations, as follows:

Mr. Bayard offered an amendment, which was agreed to, striking out the latter part of the resolution, and instructing the committee to report their opinion whether indemnification shall be made.

After a very desultory debate on referring the resolution to a Committee of the Whole, or to a select committee, and the rejection of a motion of reference to a Committee of the Whole, the question was taken on the resolution as amended, which was determined in the negative—ayes 34, noes 39.

The House adjourned.

Monday, January 31.

Another member, to wit, John Fowler, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

French Spoliations.

Mr. Bayard observed that a resolution offered some days since by a gentleman from New York, (Mr. Mitchill,) of considerable national, and of great individual importance to a large description of citizens, appeared to him to have been disagreed to more from considerations of form than substance; as the merits of the subject were not, on that occasion, brought into discussion. In order to meet the ideas of gentlemen who desired, in the first instance, to decide the principle whether indemnity ought to be made to our merchants, he submitted the following resolution:

Mr. Bayard moved the taking up the resolution for consideration; on which the House divided—yeas 39, nays 45. Resolution ordered to lie on the table.

About 3 o'clock the galleries were cleared, and the House remained with closed doors till 4 o'clock, when they adjourned.

Wednesday, February 2.

French Spoliations.

Mr. Hill called for the order of the day on the bill to prohibit the importation of certain persons, whose admission is prohibited by laws of the States.

Mr. Bayard requested the gentleman to waive his call for one moment, to enable the House to take his resolution respecting French spoliations, laid some days since on the table, into consideration for the sole purpose of giving it a proper disposition. His object, some days since, when he called it up, was to have it referred to a Committee of the whole House, not to urge its discussion on that day. His object was now the same, and his sole wish was that it should be referred, and a day named for its consideration. As, however, said Mr. B., it may be voted down now, as it then was, without any reasons being assigned, gentlemen will excuse me for calling the yeas and nays. I hope gentlemen will so far at least comply with the forms of justice as to suffer the case to be considered, whatever may be their ultimate decision upon it.

Mr. Randolph said he would ask the gentleman from Delaware, whether he had seen any indisposition in that House to discuss the subject? For his part he had seen none, either in the House or in any individual member. He felt no objection to take up the subject at any time, and to discuss, or rather to hear the gentleman from Delaware discuss it. He hoped, therefore, the gentleman would not persist in taking up the time of the House by calling the yeas and nays.

Mr. Bayard said he had seen an indisposition in the House to discuss the subject; and the reason why the gentleman from Virginia had not seen it was, that he was not in his place on the day he had before moved that the resolution should be taken up. Had he been in his place, he would have seen that a motion to take it into consideration had been rejected without a single reason being assigned. But under the assurance of the gentleman, that there was no aversion to consider the subject, he would waive his call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Randolph said he spoke only for himself.

Mr. Bayard replied that he then persisted in the call.

The yeas and nays were then taken on taking up the resolution; and were—yeas 65, nays 26.

The resolution was referred to the Committee of the Whole without opposition.

When Mr. Bayard moved that it be made the order for Monday next.

Mr. R. Williams moved the 3d of March.

Mr. Gregg thought it was best to take the resolution up fairly and decide it at once.

Mr. R. Williams said he was willing to meet it fairly, but he thought one day sufficient for the investigation.

Mr. Huger had no hesitation in saying this was a question of great moment, and one well worthy of the deliberate attention of the House. To be sure, if there was a great press of important business, he would acquiesce in its postponement. But this was not the case. There was no business before the House of pressing importance. He was in favor of a fair and full investigation of the subject. The motion to make it the order of the day for the last day of the session, when the press of other business would absolutely preclude any attention to it, was tantamount to a refusal of all investigation whatever. Unless the motion was withdrawn, he would, therefore, call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Bacon said his mind preponderated against the claim. But to him it appeared that a postponement to such a day, would be the same as declaring the claim should not be attended to. If the claim should be sustained by the vote of the House, it would surely require more than one day to make the necessary arrangements for carrying it into the shape of a law.

Mr. Bayard.—No doubt the observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts is correct, that a postponement to the last day of the session is, in effect, precisely the same as to reject the claim altogether. Gentlemen ought to consider that our sole object is to bring into discussion the claims of our citizens. I do not undertake to express any opinion of the validity of the claims. No member on the floor is less personally or locally interested than I am. But I do think that no claim whatever, of the meanest nature, should be decided upon until the party is heard. Many of our citizens, who have incurred losses, suppose they have an equitable claim on the Government. The claims have been announced in the public papers, and in petitions on the files of this House. Is it then for this House to say they will not attend to the petitions of our citizens? For what do we ask? Simply for a discussion, and that a decision shall not be made until those who consider themselves aggrieved shall be heard. Are gentlemen unwilling to trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to an act of justice? But I will abstain from going into the merits of the subject. I will only repeat that there is no petition, however worthless, but the House pays it a decent respect, by referring it, and allowing time for its examination. Will they then, in a case of such magnitude as this, where there are so many claims, so variously characterized, will they refuse this ordinary measure of respect? I will expect a different decision from the justice and candor of the House.

Mr. R. Williams said he would withdraw his motion, and move that the subject be made the order of the day, for the first day of March, which would allow sufficient time for a full and fair investigation.

Mr. Smilie did not know what the gentleman from Delaware meant, when he said we were not willing to trust our consciences. He hoped every gentleman had as good a conscience as the gentleman himself. For his own part, if there was time to discuss this subject, he would be willing to hear it discussed, and it would then appear who brought the merchants into their misfortunes, and who occasioned their losses. But, as he believed there was not now time, he thought it best to postpone the consideration of the subject until the next session, when it would fully appear who had been the friends, and who the enemies of our merchants. In the mean time he would only add that he would never be one of those who would consent to tax the agricultural interests of the country to pay the merchants.

Mr. Rutledge observed that it was important that our merchants should be extricated from their present embarrassments. They wish to know the disposition of Congress on their claims. This cannot be done if the present motion obtain; for the subject, in that event, will be disposed of this session precisely as it was the last. It was then referred, at an early period, to a committee with whom it slept until near the close of the session, when a report, merely of facts, was made. The report was then made at a late day of the session, and the House never took it up. It is now proposed to be postponed until a very late day of this session, and it will then not be taken up.

Whatever the opinions of some gentlemen may be, it is a fact that many honorable and unfortunate merchants are now struggling with their misfortunes, produced by French spoliations, whom the hope of relief from Government has saved from ruin. They wish to know their fate, and no longer to be kept in suspense. Let their claims then be decided at once; and if gentlemen are ready to say they shall not be indemnified for losses, which, but for the renunciation of the treaty, they would have been indemnified for by France, let them say so. It is known that France would have indemnified for these losses, but for the treaty. The most respectable letters have been received from France to this effect; and Mr. R. said the fact was within his own personal knowledge. Under these circumstances the claims ought to be taken up and decided upon speedily. If the gentlemen were serious in naming so late a day, the House must be troubled with the calling of the yeas and nays; as it was impossible to expect that any thing that would be effectual could be done after the first of March, as all the measures adopted by the House required the concurrence of the Senate and the details of a law.

Mr. R. Williams said he never permitted himself to propose any thing to that House in which he was not serious. He was serious in his belief that if his motion should be adopted there would be full time allowed for an investigation of the subject. He was in favor of the distant day he had named, inasmuch as he was convinced that it would protect the House from the unnecessary consumption of a great deal of time, and which, if taken up now, would interfere with the transaction of much important business. Full time would still be allowed to decide the question of indemnity. He did not know that more was required this session by any body. He had not heard any member say that a law would be necessary this session. All that was required was a decision preparatory to a law. In his opinion this was an improper time to discuss the merits of the subject; he should, therefore, make no reply to observations of this nature, which, he thought, had been improperly offered at this stage of the business.

Mr. Bayard said he had not fallen into the same mistake with his honorable friend from South Carolina, in considering the gentleman from North Carolina in earnest in the motion he had made. He had not thought him serious, as the day named by him was so late as not to allow time sufficient for a fair discussion. The gentleman was not a new member, and his experience could tell him how imperiously the House were occupied, during the last two or three days of its sitting, in detail indispensably necessary to complete business already begun. He had seldom known the close of a session, when it had not been necessary to sit on Sunday or till midnight. How then could it be expected that, at such a period, even the semblance of justice could be done to the subject? Whereas, if it were earlier attended to, they might consult their own convenience. If it happened, as had heretofore been the case, that they had more time than they knew what to do with, a much earlier day could be fixed on. But should the subject be postponed till the first day of March, it might be said, if the House should not then go into committee on it, that a day so late had been named with a view of deferring the subject to the next session. While, if the House, actuated by magnanimity and justice, shall go into its consideration, it would put it in the power of a minority, or even a few members, to prevent the transaction of other important business. Mr. B. said he would not pledge himself; but he rather thought the subject could be discussed in the course of one day.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had mistaken him on the point of conscience. This was not astonishing, as that gentleman often made mistakes. He had said nothing about the conscience of that gentleman, as he knew nothing about it. He was asked whether gentlemen were unwilling to trust themselves, lest their own consciences should compel them to do an act of justice. This was all he had said, and it had not been said with any view to impeach the conscience of any gentleman on the subject.

Mr. Bacon hoped this business would be so conducted as to show a disposition on the part of the House to meet these claims on honorable and fair principles, and so as to manifest no indisposition to a fair and full discussion. It was undoubtedly a serious question. There were a number of respectable characters interested in the decision—respectable, because citizens of the United States. He hoped their claims would be treated with all the candor and liberality they had a right to expect. He apprehended that two or three days were not sufficient, amidst the crowd of other business at the end of a session, for a fair and full examination. He should, therefore, vote against the motion.

Mr. Dawson hoped the motion would prevail. A resolution in a great measure similar to that now proposed by the gentleman from Delaware had been offered some time since by a gentleman from New York. It was moved to refer that motion to a Committee of the Whole and negatived; afterwards a motion was made to refer it to a select committee, which was also negatived. He did conclude, from these decisions, that a majority of the House were not disposed to discuss the merits of the question this session. He believed this was still the sentiment of the majority, who considered the subject as not yet ripe for decision. He, therefore, thought the taking it up at an early day would only serve to waste time.

Mr. Gregg said, that so far as his mind was made up, he was against the claim; but he was, notwithstanding, in favor of a full discussion of it. The subject had been attended to. The committee appointed last session had gone into a laborious investigation of it; and had made a report containing very important statements and facts. He wished the consideration to be so far delayed, as to allow time for the printing of this report. He was against a postponement to the first day of March; but thought the second Monday in February would answer.

Mr. Thatcher said he felt gratified at the House manifesting more liberality in giving an opportunity now to discuss the subject than had been manifested before. Attempts made during the last session to discuss the subject had ended in nothing. This session, when the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mitchill) had offered a resolution, it had been negatived. The motion of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard) to take up the present resolution had also been negatived. But now a considerable majority were for taking it into consideration. He was, however, surprised at the motions for making the consideration of the subject the order of the day for the first and third of March, as they would in effect frustrate all discussion, from the press of other business. The subject was of infinite importance; millions depend upon the decision. The merchants were anxious to know the result. A state of suspense was, of all states, most painful to them. Why then put off the decision of a claim in his opinion just, and to which the House ought not to shut their ears?

Mr. Eustis said, whatever may have been the intention of the mover to postpone to the first of March, and of the intentions of gentlemen on this or any other occasion, he had no disposition to inquire—the tendency of the postponement will be to preclude a deliberate discussion. Those more conversant with the course of business knew, better than he did, the pressure of business which necessarily crowded the last days of a session; and he was more averse to the motion from the avowal of an honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Dawson,) who had risen to support the motion, and avowed his principal reason to be a conviction that the present Congress ought not to take any decisive measures on the subject of the claims. He differed widely from that gentleman. Independently of the magnitude and extent of these claims, and of the situation of those concerned, the House were called upon by a sense of public duty to bestow upon them a cool and deliberate consideration, which on ordinary occasions was extended to applications of an individual and inferior nature. The common course of business brings this subject to view. It will be recollected that, at the last session of Congress, the memorials of the claimants were referred to the consideration of a select committee. That committee reported a state of facts, and closed their report with the following words:

From the late day of the session in which this report was made, no order was taken on it, no discussion was had. By this part of the report facts are offered for consideration; data are furnished; a discrimination, in point of time, and of course in point of merit, is made; and the final determination is submitted to the House.

A sense of justice to the memorialists and a strong sense of public duty require that we meet the question and come to a decision. Those who appear already to have judged the question may possibly see in the statements which have been made, and the arguments by which the claim will be supported, reasons to alter their opinions. In any event, and especially after a discussion, in case of an adherence to those opinions they appear already to have formed, if they fail to produce conviction on others, the reasons on which they ground those opinions may be useful to the House, and will accompany and justify the vote they shall finally give. When the question shall be decided (and I hope it will be in favor of an earlier day than that moved for) I shall move that the report of the committee of the last winter shall be referred to the Committee of the Whole, together with the resolution under consideration. It will be also proper at that time to give a second reading to the memorials which have been presented—the grounds on which they rest their claim will be brought again into view, and by giving them a free discussion and consideration we shall be better enabled to come to a just decision. These claims, like conscience, are of no party; the misfortune has been indiscriminate, and it is to be expected the final determination will be just.

Mr. Holland advocated a full discussion, and the assignment of an early day.

When the yeas and nays were taken, on making it the order of the day for the first of March, and it was decided in the negative—yeas 18, nays 74.

On motion of Mr. Bayard it was made the order for the second Monday in February.

Thursday, February 3.

Amy Dardin's Claim.

A petition of Amy Dardin, of the county of Mecklenburg, in the State of Virginia, widow and relict of David Dardin, deceased, was presented to the House and read, praying compensation for the value of a stud horse, called Romulus, the property of the deceased, which was impressed into the service of the Southern army under the command of Major General Greene, by order of James Gunn, captain in a regiment of Continental cavalry, some time in the month of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one. Referred to the Committee of Claims.

Tuesday, February 8.

District of Columbia.

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolutions, offered by Mr. Bacon:

The first resolution being read,

Mr. Smilie said it was not his wish to take up the time of the House, but barely to assign, in a few words, his reasons for the vote he should give. In the last Congress he had voted against the assumption, and he had heard no reasons since to change his opinion on the propriety of that vote. He should, therefore, vote now for a retrocession. He never could understand the reason for giving Congress an exclusive jurisdiction over ten miles square. He believed there was but one reason: It had been thought good policy to introduce this article into the constitution to facilitate its adoption, as it was known that all parts of the Union were anxious to have the seat of Government. It did not appear to him, in any proper point of view, necessary that Congress should possess such exclusive jurisdiction. There was no doubt that, let Congress sit where they would, they would always have sufficient power to protect themselves. Unfortunately, however, there was on this subject an association of ideas in the minds of many persons, not in the least connected, which was, that the residence of Congress in this place, and their possessing exclusive jurisdiction, was the same thing. If the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction could have any effect on his mind, as to the other point, it would be directly opposite, as he would much rather sit here without than with exclusive jurisdiction, as we cannot possess this authority without depriving the citizens of rights which were the most dear to them. When he looked around him, and saw no man, unless a stranger, who was not a political slave, he felt the most painful sensations. Under our exercise of exclusive jurisdiction the citizens here are deprived of all political rights, nor can we confer them. If Congress can derive no solid benefit from the exercise of this power, why keep the people in this degraded situation? It is true, this place may be settled by foreigners; but can we suppose that any native citizen, who values his political rights, will come here? For the honor of the country, he must suppose there would be none. Why not then restore the people to their former condition? Mr. S. concluded by declaring that the act of retrocession would have no effect upon his mind as to staying here.

Mr. Bacon said he would state, in a few words, the reasons that influenced him in submitting these resolutions. In the first place, he knew of no advantage which the United States derived from retaining the exclusive jurisdiction of the District. Therefore, if the States to which it originally belonged were disposed to take it back, there could be no objection derived from this consideration. In the second place, it appeared, from their short experience, that the exercise of exclusive legislation would take up a great deal of time, and produce a great expense to the nation; and it was probable that, in the course of events, the trouble and expense would increase with the increasing number of the inhabitants. Should justice be done to the exercise of this power, it was likely that as much time would be spent in legislating for this District as for the whole United States. It was certain that very considerable time would be consumed. They would likewise be subjected to other expenses than those attendant on legislation. In the next place, the Government would be very diverse from that in the other parts of the Union. He would rather see the Government in the United States uniform. Here the citizens would be governed by laws, in the making of which they have no voice—by laws not made with their own consent, but by the United States for them—by men who have not the interest in the laws made that legislators ought always to possess—by men also not acquainted with the minute and local interests of the place, coming, as they did, from distances of 500 to 1,000 miles. From these considerations, he inferred their incompetency to legislate for this District, whatever their disposition might be. These were the principal reasons that influenced his mind. They might however, perhaps, be easily obviated by the reasons of other gentlemen, which he would be glad to hear.

Mr. Huger was opposed to the resolutions, first, because he was not inclined hastily to make alterations in the great national compact that held us together. It appeared to him that, though they might not always understand the reasons on which a part of it was founded, yet it was prudent not to change it until experience had clearly proved its inconvenience. It must be obvious that it was easier to perceive its present inconvenience than to foresee the effects that may ensue from a change. The constitution contemplates the exercise by Congress of exclusive legislation over ten miles square. It must impress itself upon the mind of every gentleman that the wise men who framed the constitution deemed it proper. Congress also had thought it proper, as well as two of the most respectable States in the Union—the one by receiving and the other by granting the territory. All these considerations impressed his mind with a disinclination hastily to alter the course that had been pursued.

Mr. Dennis regretted that he had been called out of the House when this subject was taken up, as, in the remarks which he considered it his duty to make, he could not avail himself of the ideas suggested by other gentlemen, and as he might repeat what had been perhaps already said. He would undertake, however, to show that the proposed resolutions were objectionable in every point of view that could be taken of them. They presented two aspects. Admitting, in the first place, that they could be carried into effect, so far as to restore the people of the territory to the situation in which they were placed before the cession, yet it appeared to him a strong objection that all the advantages of exclusive jurisdiction would be thereby lost. He had always thought that part of the constitution which gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction over a district of ten miles square wise and proper, and that a government whose laws were to pervade the whole United States ought not to be subjected to the whim or caprice of any part of the United States.

By exclusive legislation, he understood the exclusion to the States of all participation in legislation. He admitted that it was competent to Congress to sanction the acts of Maryland and Virginia; but he believed that no one would contend that Congress could divest themselves of an ultimate control. They might admit the Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia to legislate for the territory, but Congress possessed the power of controlling or modifying their acts. He would wish to know what advantage there could be in giving this legislative agency to those States? If given, no doubt could be entertained of many acts passed by them being disagreeable to the people of the territory, who would apply to Congress to repeal them. The next Congress, too, would have the power of resuming the jurisdiction, or, more properly speaking, the jurisdiction would still remain in Congress. Under such a qualified cession, he presumed the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland would refuse to act; for, why should they legislate for people not within their limits? The power of legislation might as well be vested in the Legislature of Massachusetts. The truth is, that our jurisdiction would be paramount, and the acts of Maryland and Virginia would go into operation merely by our permission, and Congress might repeal and amend them whenever and howsoever they pleased. We should, therefore, be then relieved from no trouble that we now experience. There would then be as many applications to pass laws as there are now.

In another point of view he was astonished at these propositions, and at the quarter from which they came. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) has told us that his resolutions are bottomed on the broad basis of the rights of man; but he would ask how this could be, when the resolutions went to transfer twenty thousand men, without their consent, to a Government different from that under which they now live? Gentlemen are going to imitate some of the extraordinary scenes that have lately occurred in Europe, and propose to transfer this District with the same facility that in that quarter of the globe they have transferred an Italian dukedom or a German principality.

Mr. Dennis thought the situation of Congress in relation to the people of this Territory was not sufficiently understood. He knew that it was always troublesome to legislate for any people: he foresaw these inconveniences when they removed to this place. He had thought then, as he thought now, that some legislative government must be provided for the District. In this opinion he had never varied, but had, from successive events, become more confirmed in its accuracy. But, if gentlemen object to vesting the people with the power of government, he thought he could suggest a plan better than that of retrocession, to wit: to vest the President with the power to revise the laws of Maryland and Virginia, and make a report to the next session of Congress. The laws of Maryland and Virginia were generally agreeable to the people, but they experienced many inconveniences from local and peculiar circumstances.

Wednesday, February 9.

District of Columbia.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the resolutions of Mr. Bacon to recede to the States of Maryland and Virginia the District of Columbia.

Mr. Bayard hoped the committee would not agree to the resolutions. He did not believe that a constitutional power existed enabling the Government of the United States to recede the Territory. The Territory had been acquired by the direction and under the permission of the constitution. The constitution also allows the cession by particular States. When, therefore, gentlemen say Congress has the power to recede, he was at liberty to call upon them to exhibit that part of the constitution that conferred the power. He had looked over the constitution with a vigilant eye, and he could see nothing to this effect. Can it be done without power? Do gentlemen recollect that the Government of the United States is federative, and of course possessed of limited powers; and what is not delegated does not exist; and that there is an express provision that powers not expressly given shall not be assumed by implication? It was difficult to point out a non-entity. If gentlemen contend for an entity, they should distinguish it. If Congress have the power to recede this Territory, they have also the power to recede the others, the Indiana and Mississippi Territories. It is an extremely different thing to receive a cession and to recede it after it is received. Congress has the power to do the one, but not the other. How can the retrocession be made? Gentlemen say, by law. That law may be repealed. If receded, what would be the situation of the Territory? It could be no affair of contract. For a contract cannot exist without a consideration. Though, on the cession, there was a consideration, in receding there would be none. Would there be a power in Virginia and Maryland, if receded, to prevent a resumption? Such a measure showed but little respect for the people of the Territory. As far as he knew the sentiments of the people, it was not their wish to be receded. They were willing to live under the protection of Congress. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has called them slaves. They may not thank him for the appellation. If they were slaves, there must be some corollary; and if so, we must be their tyrants. But they are not slaves; they are children, over whom it is not our wish to tyrannize, but whom we would foster and nurture. Are we, in the character of Representatives of the United States, to be considered as their tyrants, because they are not immediately represented here? We ought not to decide this question until the people express their desire to return to the States.

But there is a more serious consideration relative to the people of the Territory. It is proposed to recede the District to Maryland and Virginia. Once take that step, and what obligation was there in Congress to remain here? He felt there was none. The obligation to remain arises, in a great measure, from the cession, and by destroying that, you extinguish the sense of the obligation to stay. This may be the object of gentlemen. A number of the measures lately proposed appeared to have that tendency. One motion had been made to concentrate the public buildings. Violate one stipulation of the Government, or disappoint a reasonable expectation that had been excited by the measures of the Government, and the ruin of hundreds follows. Now, a motion is made to recede. Combine these two operations. Unfix the Capitol, and recede the District, and, believe me, Congress will soon take wings and fly to some other place. It had been truly remarked, on a similar occasion, by those interested, though these things may be sport to you, they are death to us. Not a motion of this kind had been made, or could be made, that did not depreciate the interests of the place, and frustrate the object professed. By such means, our accommodations will be impaired, all enterprise be subdued, and industry languish. He hoped, therefore, that the House, by a decided vote, would reject these resolutions, and put all similar ones to sleep.

Mr. Gregg said he had expected that this question would have been decided by a silent vote. He, for his part, had no intention of having troubled the committee with any observations of his on the subject, but as other gentlemen had seen proper to enter into a discussion of it, he would beg the indulgence of the committee while he assigned, as concisely as possible, the reasons that would influence his vote. Having been a member of the Legislature at the time the act was passed for assuming the jurisdiction of the Territory, he foresaw pretty clearly most of the difficulties in which we are now involved by that act, and therefore had given it his opposition in every stage of its passage. A majority of the Legislature, however, at that time, entertained a different opinion, and made the assumption. From that moment he had considered a contract to be fully complete and ratified between the States of Maryland, Virginia, the people of the Territory of Columbia, and the Government of the United States. That contract he considered as of permanent obligation, not to be done away, but by the unanimous consent of all the parties.

Mr. Smilie could not agree either with the gentleman from Delaware or with his colleague (Mr. Gregg) on the constitutional question. We had a power to accept the cession, or not to accept it; from which necessarily resulted the power of recession. Instead of arguing as the gentleman from Delaware, he would call on him to point out in the constitution the prohibition. His colleague talked of a moral obligation to keep the Territory. This might exist, if it were proposed to force this Territory on the States without their consent. The gentleman seems to have taken offence at the expression which had fallen from him of slaves. For his part, he had never been accustomed to courtly language, but to the expression of his ideas plainly and openly as he conceived them. He certainly had not used the expression with any intention to treat the people of this Territory with disrespect; but to express his regret at the degraded situation of those who were formerly in possession of the full rights of citizenship. The gentleman seems also offended at the epithet of tyrants applied to us.

Mr. S. would ask the gentleman from Delaware, if ever he knew a government possessed of unlimited power, who had not abused it. This was the condition of this Government, which he hoped, however, if continued, would be moderate. He had expected that gentlemen opposed to the retrocession would have shown the benefit to be derived to the United States from retaining the jurisdiction. If there were none, it was useless and dangerous, inasmuch as it could only be done at the expense of the rights of the people. He was surprised yesterday at the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Dennis,) that this measure would deprive twenty thousand people of their rights. How could this be, when they had no right to be deprived of? You may give them a charter. But of what avail will this be, when Congress may take it away at any moment? They would continue for ever to be ultimately governed by a body over whom they had no control. Mr. S. concluded by again observing that he had always thought the assumption wrong; but that he had no idea of connecting that consideration with the removal of the Government. It could have no influence on his mind. He would go farther, and say that he had no idea of removing; nor did he believe they could remove.

Mr. Randolph said that, whatever reasons might be advanced on the ground of expediency against the adoption of the resolution, he wished to say a few words on the constitutional objections which had been offered to them. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Bayard) told us, on a very late occasion, that the power to create involved the power to destroy; and although I may not be willing to adopt this maxim in all the latitude in which it was urged by that gentleman, I have no hesitation in averring my belief that Congress possess the right, with the assent of these States, respectively, to cede the several portions of this territory to Maryland and Virginia. Nor, in my opinion, does this doctrine militate against that construction of the constitution, which regards that instrument in the light of a limited grant of power. In this construction I heartily concur with the gentleman from Delaware, or rather, if he will permit me to say so, I am glad to find he agrees with me, as I have retained my opinion, whilst he seems to have changed his. I readily admit that Congress possesses no power but that which is devolved on them by the constitution, explicitly, or which is evidently included in, or deducible from its plain provisions. The constitution nowhere gives Congress the express power of repealing laws; but the repeal of laws is essentially connected with the power of passing them, as, in this case, the right to recede is involved in the right to accept the cession. The parties to this compact are the United States, of the one part, and the States of Maryland and Virginia, of the other. We speak the voice of the United States, and, among others, of Maryland and Virginia, in their confederate capacity. The Legislatures of those States answer for them in their individual capacity. If all these parties are agreed to revoke their act, I wish to know who is to dissent to it, or what obstacle can prevent its being rescinded?

Mr. R. said, that he was of the number of those who voted against assuming the jurisdiction of this territory. He did it from a predilection for those principles in which the American Revolution originated; from the firm belief that men ought not to be bound by laws in whose formation they had no influence. It was the violation of that principle, and not the extent to which it was carried, which laid the foundation of our independence. For, let it be remembered that the demand of Great Britain went only to a peppercorn; but that we disdained the admission of so odious a doctrine, and commenced a determined and successful resistance. But it is denied that this territory is in a state of slavery, because, says the gentleman, it implies that we are tyrants. The term slavery, sir, excites in the mind of man an odious idea. There are, however, various species of this wretched condition. Domestic slavery, of all others the most oppressive; and political slavery, which has been well defined to be that state in which any community is divested of the power of self-government, and regulated by laws to which its assent is not required, and may not be given. Nor have I ever before understood that slavery, particularly of the last description, necessarily implied tyranny, although it too frequently is productive of it. But, so far from being slaves, the people within this territory are, it seems, our children, who are to experience every indulgence at our hands. Sir, the form of government, such as has been described, however mild and beneficent it may be in its administration, places those subjected to it in a state of political slavery, and they are as completely divested of self-control as the infant who is dandled on the knee of its parent. As to the existence, then, of this species of slavery, it mattered not whether the people within the limits of this District were regarded as the favorite son, and feasted on the fatted calf, or were exposed to the cruel rigor of a step-mother.

An idea had been held out from a very respectable quarter that this District might, in time, become a State. As to Congress, what difference will they find between being under the jurisdiction of the State of Columbia, or the State of Maryland. But, if this objection were removed, it is impossible that this territory can become a State. The other States can never be brought to consent that two Senators and, at least, three electors of President, shall be chosen out of this small spot, and by a handful of men.

The constitution seems to have intended, by its provision on this subject, to guard the General Government against the undue influence of any particular States wherein it might sit. An insurrection in Philadelphia is mentioned by some gentleman as having given rise to this clause in the constitution. The constitution, no doubt, had a wise end in view, but it has failed in the means of attaining it. No man has a higher respect than myself for the talents of the framers of that instrument. But let it be remembered, that they were making a great experiment, and to have failed in but a single object, is the highest proof of their wisdom. The physical force of this small District would prove but a poor defence against the aggression of large and powerful States. Happily, our security is more amply provided for; it results from the command which has been given us over the sword and the purse of the Union. Our protection is not in a mathematical line—which would oppose but a feeble resistance to an invading foe. But let gentlemen ask themselves, why the inhabitants of this District should be less formidable if disposed to insurrection because under our own jurisdiction? Look at Paris! was the insurrection of the fourteenth of July, which humbled into the dust the ancient monarchy of France, the effect of a want of jurisdiction; of a want of power in the Government over the lives and fortunes of the people? Did the city afford the Government a defence? No, it was in insurrection. Did the military send its aid? On the contrary, it joined the insurgents. What was the fact at Philadelphia? That Congress was insulted by its own troops. Would the civil jurisdiction of the town have repelled the bayonet? No, it was not in parchment to afford this defence. It has left us an awful lesson against standing armies; and if we shall ever be so infatuated as to multiply armies about us, we may rely in vain on the lines of circumvallation which the limits of our exclusive jurisdiction form. The constitution, therefore, has failed in its endeavor to give to Congress any other security than that which public opinion and the command of the national resources afford.

But, whilst I have no doubt on the subject of our constitutional right, I am opposed to the resolution on the ground of expediency. It appears to have disseminated a great alarm among the people of our immediate neighborhood. At a proper time, when great unanimity can be obtained, it may be carried into effect. If now passed, it is irrevocable; and I have no indisposition to give the question the most mature deliberation, and to give it a fair operation on the public mind. I could wish, indeed, to see the people within this District restored to their rights. Men in such a situation are, as it had been wisely and eloquently said, fit instruments to enslave their fellow-men. This species of Government is an experiment how far freemen can be reconciled to live without rights; an experiment dangerous to the liberties of these States. But, inasmuch as it has been already made, inasmuch as I was not accessory to it, and as, at some future time, its deleterious effects may be arrested, I am disposed to vote against the resolutions. I view them as a fatal present to this House, although I respect the motives in which I believe them to have originated; as tending to disunite those who ought ever to act in concert; and I have no hesitation on a question of expediency to declare my disposition to concede something to the wishes and fears of those around me. In their present shape, at least, I shall therefore vote against the resolutions.

Mr. Eustis was opposed to the resolutions, for the reasons which had been stated, and for other reasons not mentioned, though they might have occurred to the minds of gentlemen. He thought it right to express a difference of opinion with the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) on an important question, the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress to the ten miles square. He was not prepared to pronounce the provision of the constitution on this subject deficient or unwise. It rather appeared to him to be founded in the nature of the Government. A Government on parchment, and without force, was no Government at all. It had been stated this provision grew out of a transaction at Philadelphia, and asked what dependence was to be placed on a military force when that force was itself the aggressor? But that transaction suggested a different result. Had the militia been well equipped and ready for service, and under the immediate control of Congress, would the military force have been suffered to overawe them? This very case furnished an argument for investing Congress with the complete command of the militia force of the territory, to screen them from insult, and to protect them from the application of force that might destroy deliberation. They had already taken a course calculated to prove the soundness of this mode of protection. Their laws had recognized the militia of the territory; and some measures had been taken to organize them. The militia was the physical force Congress must rely on. Suppose that militia were under the command of Maryland, and Congress was about to pass a law obnoxious to that State. Suppose the militia of Maryland to be mutinous, and to surround these walls. Must you resort to Maryland for protection, and wait on her measures? No; the situation of the territory and your immediate power over the militia must furnish you with the means of protection. He therefore thought it one of the best provisions of the constitution, to submit the physical force near the Government to its direction.

Mr. Southard rose only to make one observation, which had been touched on but lightly in the course of the debate. It appeared to him that when Congress assumed the exclusive jurisdiction of the ten miles square, they had, in the first instance, entered into a contract with the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland. He had no doubt that, if the contract had ended here, they might, with their consent, make a retrocession. The second step, however, taken, was a contract between the agents of Government and the proprietors, in order to obtain the soil. This contract appeared to him to be solemn and binding. In entering into the contract, the proprietors gave the General Government sites for the public buildings, and half the residue of the land within the city plot. He conceived that this was a contract founded on express stipulations that Congress should exercise exclusive jurisdiction. The proprietors had no idea, at the time they made the contract, that their property would be retroceded and the Government had since received more than one million's worth of real property which they now enjoyed. He would ask, whether a retrocession, under such circumstances, would not have a retrospective effect, and impair those obligations which the United States were bound to observe? For this reason, he thought a retrocession improper, as it would be a violation of contract with the people of the territory. It appeared to him that, while they were satisfied, the General Government ought to be satisfied.

Mr. Varnum doubted the reality of the observation of the gentleman from New Jersey. He suspected there was no such contract in existence. It was not the interest of the Government of the United States to do any thing that would injure this District. He therefore supposed that every gentleman who voted on this occasion, would act for the interest of his country. If he thought it possible for Congress to legislate for the territory, he should have no objection to retaining the jurisdiction. But, when he considered that Congress were appointed to legislate on great objects, and not on minute local concerns, he did not think them competent to legislate for the persons situated in the Territory of Columbia. He did not know whether, if the jurisdiction was retained, it would not be proper to indulge the citizens with a territorial legislature. But to this the people themselves object. Virginia objects to a union with Maryland. There were, manifestly, hostile interests which could not easily be united. And if there shall be a territorial legislature, still Congress has a right over their acts. Whether this was the fit time to retrocede the territory he did not know; but he believed the time would come when the citizens of the territory will be in favor of it.

Mr. Smilie stated the circumstances of the case at Philadelphia, which had been so often alluded to by gentlemen. At the close of the late war there had been a mutiny among the troops, who had surrounded Congress. Not a drop of blood had, however, been spilt. This was the mighty incident of which so liberal a use had been made. He would ask whether, in countries over which the Government had complete jurisdiction, worse things had not happened? He would ask, whether this menace of Congress were to be compared with the mob of Lord George Gordon in a country over which the Government had an entire jurisdiction.

The question was then taken on the first resolution, for receding to Virginia the territory originally attached to that State, and lost—ayes 22.

When the question was taken on the second resolution, and lost, without a division.

The committee rose, and reported their disagreement to the resolutions.

The House immediately took up their report.

Mr. Nicholson called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Randolph said, as he believed the House incompetent to legislate for the people of Columbia; as he believed the interests of the several parts of the territory were as hostile as any in the Union, as it was manifest there was an Alexandria, a Georgetown, and a city interest; and even, within the city, a Capitol-hill interest, and a President's-house interest—which were irreconcilable; he should vote for the amendment of his colleague, (Mr. Dawson.) To attempt to legislate for the District was, in effect, to constitute the chairman of the committee, or, at any rate, the committee itself on the affairs of the territory, the Solon or Lycurgus of the place. It was well known that the indolence of the other members, or their indifference, inseparable from the situation in which they were placed, would prevent Congress from legislating with a full understanding of the objects before them. He, therefore, thought it expedient to retrocede all the territory, excepting the City of Washington. This disposition of the territory would leave entirely untouched the question which arose from the interest of individuals who had made purchases of property under the faith of Congress retaining the jurisdiction. It was probable that, in such event, a corporation might be established in the city that would answer the ends of Government, without two-thirds of the time of the National Legislature being consumed.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, on concurring with the Committee of the Whole, in their disagreement to the first resolution, and carried—yeas 66, nays 26, as follows: