Page images
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.

Fishing Bounty.

MARCH, 1806.

Holmes, David Hough, John G. Jackson, James Kelly,
Nehemiah Knight, Joseph Lewis, jun., Duncan MacFar-
land, Josiah Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah
Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Jeremiah
Nelson, Roger Nelson, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jun.
John Pugh, Josiah Quincy, John Rhea, of Tennessee,
John Russell, Peter Sailly, Ebenezer Seaver, James
Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Henry Southard, Jo-
Thomas W. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Philip
jamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas,
Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Joseph B.

Varnum, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Robert
Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, Marmaduke Williams,
Nathan Williams, Alexander Wilson, and Joseph
Winston.
So the resolution was lost.

FISHING BOUNTY.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, from the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the petition of Jonathan Very, of Salem, in the State of Massachusetts, made the following report:

no authority from Government; his contract was derived from an officer, and all the power he possessed was derived from him, who was only amenable for the performance of the duty to the person who appointed him. A contractor could not, therefore, be considered as an officer under the Constitution, amenable to the United States. Several allusions, said Mr. K., have been made to cases which have occurred under the Po-tmas-seph Stanton, William Stedman, Samuel Taggart, Benter General, but until these shall be particularly pointed out, it will be impossible for us to decide how we are to act. I believe that it does not be come this House to pass declaratory acts relative to the Constitution. It ought, in my opinion to stand on its own footing; and every case that is presented ought to be decided, not by a declaratory act, but by the Constitution itself. My colleague says that the judges of the federal as well as State courts take an oath as well as we do, to support the Constitution; and that, notwithstanding they are in the daily habit of construing the Constitution. But there is a wide difference between their deciding particular cases which properly come before them, and this House going into a general declaration without any such particular case. Would the judges undertake to declare the meaning of the Constitution without the existence of a particular case calling for their decision? So that the very thing which the House is about doing, has been invariably avoided by the judges. Mr. DAWSON observed that when the resolution was offered, he had voted for it, because he approved the principle on which it was founded. He should now be obliged to vote against it, because it tended to curtail the privileges of the House. If a contractor had constitutionally no right to a seat in the House, the proper way was to take up the case and act directly upon it. He believed that such a case did exist, and he was ready to say if there were any members who received money from the public, they ought not to hold a seat on that floor.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on agreeing to the resolution-yeas 25, nays 86, as follows:

the schooner Edmund, of the burden of fifty-one tons. The petitioner, in the year 1800, was the owner of This vessel was licensed for employment in the cod fishery, and sailed on her voyage the twenty-first day of June, and returned to Salem on the ninth day of August, with a fare of fish, of three hundred and seventytwo quintals. She departed on the second voyage, the twenty-first day of August; and after being employed in the cod fishery, and having caught upwards of forty quintals of fish, on the ninth day of September, ensuing, the said vessel met with a severe storm, shipped a sea, and was so wrecked that the crew deserted her, and she, with her whole cargo of fish and salt, was thereby totally lost. In consequence of this loss, the petitioner and the crew of said schooner were deprived of the bounty money allowed under the existing laws for the encouragement of the fishery, in lieu of the drawback on the salt consumed in making the fish. The peti tioner prays that he and the crew of said schooner may receive the same bounty, which, in the event of a suc cessful voyage, they would have been entitled to, or such proportion thereof as may be deemed proper.

The committee are satisfied that the duty paid to the United States, on the quantity of salt exported in the schooner Edmund, amounted to an equal sum with the bounty prayed to be allowed by the petitioner; it might, therefore, at the first view, seem reasonable to grant the prayer of the petitioner; but, on the other hand, the existing law only warrants the payment of

YEAS-Evan Alexander, Burwell Basset, George M. Bedinger, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, Elias Earle, James M. Garnett, Edwin Gray, Walter Jones, Michael Leib, William McCreery, Thomas Moore, Thomas Newton, jun., John Randolph.Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea, of Pennsylvania, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, Samuel Smith, Thom-the bounty to fishing vessels actually employed during as Spalding, Richard Stanford, Philip R. Thompson, David R. Williams, and Richard Winn.

NAYS-Willis Alston, junior, Joseph Barker, Silas Betton, Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John Campbell, John Chandler, Martin Chittenden, John Claiborne, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Davenport, jun., John Dawson, William Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, William Ely, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, John Fowler, Charles Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, William Helms, David

four months of the fishing season; that is accounted to
be from the first day of March to the first day of De-
cember, in every year. This schooner was at sea, and
actually engaged in the fishing business, for seventy
days only, during the two voyages. She was not em-
ployed longer than that time before she was lost, and
abandoned by the crew. No provision exists, in the
law for the encouragement of the fisheries, which is
calculated to meet a case similarly circumstanced. It
contemplates the employment of a fishing vessel, for
the period of four months, and leaves no discretion to
be exercised by the officers of the customs.
It a regu
larly licensed fishing vessel is lost, or shipwrecked, at
any time within the four months, as the law now stands,
the bounty cannot be paid. The committee consider

MARCH, 1806.

Petition of Josiah H. Webb-Amendments to the Constitution.

this as a hardship upon the fishermen, and the owners of fishing vessels. It would certainly be an equitable arrangement to allow them to receive such proportion of the bounty, as the time employed, previous to the loss of the vessel, might bear to the four months; and where the vessel should be entirely lost, with the crew, it would be only a fair and just encouragement to the cod fishery, if the full bounty was paid; and such a provision could not be considered as operating injuriously to the revenue, as the bounty is allowed in lieu of the drawback to which the salt used in curing fish would be entitled, upon its exportation out of the United States. The committee, however, are not permitted to vary the law to suit each individual case. A mere informality, unintentionally committed, might sometimes be dispensed with; but, where the principal provision of the law is not complied with, there can be no reason to induce Congress to fluctuate in its decisions, according to the various applications or views of individuals, who may feel themselves injured.

Under all the circumstances stated in this case, (although the committee are fully sensible that the loss falls peculiarly hard on the petitioner,) they are of the opinion that, as the law now stands, it would be improper to allow the bounty asked for by the petitioner; and therefore recommend, that he have leave to withdraw his petition, and the documents accompanying the same.

The report was agreed to.

SATURDAY, March 29.

Mr. THOMAS M. RANDOLPH, from the committee appointed on the fifth instant, presented, according to order a bill concerning the public grounds within the limits of the city of Wash ington, in the District of Columbia; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

Mr. DAWSON, from the Committee appointed on the fourteenth instant, presented a bill authorizing the proprietors of squares and lots in the City of Washington, to have the same subdivided and admitted to record; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Tuesday next.

Mr. JACKSON, from the committee appointed on the twenty-third of December last, presented a bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act to extend jurisdiction, in certain cases, to the Territorial Courts;" which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole to whom was committed on the eighteenth instant, the bill to provide for the adjustment of titles of land in the Territory of Michigan, and for other purposes. Mr. JACKSON, from the same committee, presented a bill to amend the act, entitled "An act to divide the Indiana Territory into two separate Governments, and for other purposes;" which was read twice, and committed to the Committee of the Whole to whom was committed, on the eighteenth instant, the bill to provide for the adjustment of the titles of land in the Territory of Michigan, and for other purposes.

PETITION OF JOSIAH H. WEBB. Mr. J. C. SMITH, from the Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Josiah H. Webb, made the following report:

H. OF R.

The petitioner, while employed in carrying the mail of the United States in August last, from Coweta to Fort Stoddert, was shot through the body by some person unknown. He is now in a languishing condition, under the care of the commanding officer at Fort Stoddert, destitute of the means of present subsistence; and, from the nature of the wound, it is not probable he will be able to provide for his future support.

A letter from the Postmaster General addressed to the Committee, and accompanying this report, confirms the foregoing statement, and recommends the petitioner's case to the humane provision of Congress. And when it is considered that the petitioner is now within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of the United States, in a part of the country where no regulations are yet adopted for the support of the poor; that he is under the immediate charge of an officer of the Government, who must either permit the petitioner to suffer for want of the necessaries of life, or maintain him at his own private expense, there can be little doubt that it is the duty of the National Legislature to extend its aid to an individual thus circumstanced.

Of the nature and extent of the relief which ought to be afforded to the petitioner, your Committee are not yet fully advised; at present they respectfully submit to the House the following general resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner is reasonable, and ought to be granted.

Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in, puruant to the said resolution, and that the Committee of Claims do prepare and bring in the same.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. NEWTON alluded to the fate experienced yesterday by the resolution declaring the tenure of a seat in the House incompatible with the holding a contract under the Government of the United States. From the fate experienced by this resolution, he said he was induced to offer an amendment to the Constitution which he considered as of great importance. He said he would wish to see an American Congress composed of very different materials from a British Parliament. He did not wish to see contractors on that floor. When the Members of that House came to perform the duties of the people, they should pass themselves into oblivion. No suspicion ought to attach to them. To preserve the character of the Representative body from reproach, he had prepared an amendment to the Constitution which he would submit to the House.

The amendment was then read, as follows:

"That no person, holding a contract under the Government of the United States, or who shall, directly or indirectly participate in the emoluments of such contract, shall be capable of holding a seat in the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States." Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. THOMAS said he wished to submit a resolution, also to amend the Constitution. It was for the purpose of districting the several States. for the choice of Electors of President and Vice President by the people.

He said he had had the resolution for some time in his drawer, waiting for a favorable opportunity to bring the subject forward. He would not say that the present was the auspicious moment to

[blocks in formation]

call the attention of Congress and the nation to alter that sacred instrument, for he believed it ought not to be approached with innovations, but for strong and cogent reasons; nor then, only when the public mind was free from collision, and unembarrassed with other questions of great national policy. However, as several propositions for amendments were before them, if they were called upon at this time to consider any, he wished to draw the attention of the House to one which experience had proved to be really necessary and proper.

The object of districting the State, and vesting the choice of Electors of President and Vice President in the people, was one which he had frequently urged and advocated in the Legislature of the State which he had the honor, in part, to represent, under the Constitution as it now stands, which left it optional with the State Legislature, either to appoint the Electors themselves, or to rest their election with the people at large. Indeed, he said, he always did think, and still thought, that the mode of choosing Electors for the Chief Magistrate of this country, ought to be by the people, and that, too, in an uniform mode throughout the United States. This, he considered the only proper way to obtain a fair expression of the public will in the choice of this highly responsible officer; and in order to have this subject before the House, he would submit the following resolution: "That the State Legislatures shall, from time to time, divide each State into districts, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives from each State, in the Congress of the United States; and shall direct the mode of choosing an Elector of President and Vice President in each of the said districts, who shall be chosen by citizens having the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, and that the districts so to be constituted, shall consist, as nearly as may be, of contiguous territory, and of proportion of population, except where there may be any detached portion of territory, not of itself sufficient to form a district, which shall then be annexed to some other portion nearest thereto; which districts, when so divided, shall remain unalterable until a new census of the United States shall be taken." Laid on the table.

FOREIGN AGGRESSIONS.

Mr. DANA.-Mr. Speaker, it is well known, sir, how highly the public expectation has been excited with respect to the proceedings of Congress. Before we assembled in this place there existed a strong sentiment of indignation, in consequence of the injuries and indignities accumulated upon the United States. The language of the President's communication to Congress at the opening of the session corresponded to this tone of the public mind. The sentiment has been decidedly manifested in the memorials laid before Congress from different parts of the Union. The frequency of our deliberations in conclave, the speeches delivered in public, the conversations of gentlemen without the bar, all might be mentioned as evin cive of the general conviction, that the state of public affairs imperiously required something to be done; something adequate to the exigencies of

MARCH, 1806.

our peculiar situation; something worthy of the moderation, the firmness, and the wisdom, which should characterize the Representatives of a free, enlightered, and magnanimous people.

From the interesting nature and magnitude of the subjects on which the President has given us information; from the general character of the measures which he has officially recommended to our consideration, a serious weight of responsibility has been devolved upon this House; and an ample portion of it, in my apprehension, has rested on those members upon whom the management of business has been more especially devolved in the course of political events, and by the peculiar circumstances of the time. The session has now continued for more than sixteen weeks. During this time the gentlemen have had opportunity to present for our consideration such measures as they have thought proper for liberating the country from evils which are experienced, and for guarding it against such as are to be apprehended. After all the patience of expectation, during so long a period, in waiting for the gentlemen to develope whatever of system they may have formed or adopted for the public welfare, I hope it will not be judged improper if I now request your attention to some of the subjects which have not been considered in the House, although they are mentioned in the President's communication, and are perhaps not less immediately interesting than others, about which there has been so much said in the form of public debate.

With the exception of the reference to affairs with several Indian tribes, and the measures for exploring certain parts of the interior of this continent, the communication of the President principally regards our foreign relations. He gives us information of the state of affairs with the Powers of Barbary; but no difficulties on that coast are mentioned as requiring the particular attention of Congress. The prominent topics are our relations with some of the greater Powers of Europe. With them we have questions of seri

ous moment.

We have controversies, nominally, with Spain, on account of territorial claims and aggressions, and for spoliations during the former war. With respect to these, we have done nothing in public. Of what has been done in secret, I abstain from speaking, as the majority of the House has not yet consented to remove the veil which hides the proceedings in conclave from the eyes of the people.

Between this country and Great Britain there are serious questions relative to the impressment of seamen, and the trade with colonies of her enemies. With a view to these questions we have had various propositions before us, and the House has adopted such as undoubtedly seemed to the majority most advisable.

But among all the propositions and resolutions which have been laid on your table, not one has contained any provision relative to some of the grossest outrages mentioned in the President's Message; outrages committed by persons under

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

the flags of various belligerent Powers, the British, the French, the Spanish. I speak of outrages at the entrance of our harbors, on our coasts, and in the West Indies:

"Our coasts have been infested, and our harbors watched by private armed vessels, some of them without commissions, some with illegal commissions, others with those of legal form, but committing piratical acts beyond the authority of their commissions. They have captured, in the very entrance of our harbors, as well as on the high seas, not only the vessels of our friends coming to trade with us, but our own also. They have carried them off, under pretence of legal adjudication; but, not daring to approach a court of justice, they have plundered and sunk them by the way, or in obscure places where no evidence could arise against them, maltreated the crews, and abandoned them, in boats in the open sea or on desert shores, without food or covering. These enormities appearing to be unreached by any control of their Sovereigns, I found it necessary to equip a force to cruise within our own seas; to arrest all vessels of these descriptions found hovering on our coasts, within the limits of the Gulf stream, and to bring the offenders in for trial as pirates. "The same system of hovering on our coasts and harbors, under color of seeking enemies, has been also carried on by public armed ships, to the great annoyance and oppression of our commerce."

Such is the language of the President. Some redress for these enormities is demanded by a regard to national honor, justice, interest, humanity. What redress is provided? On this subject the gentlemen have done nothing, proposed nothing, doubtless because their faculties have been so much absorbed in other considerations which they deemed important.

H. of R.

and abandoned, in a sickly climate, in a strange land, without shelter, without clothing, and without means of subsistence. What can justify a desertion of the cause of our fellow-citizens suffering under these infamous outrages? With these observations respecting the depredations on our commerce, and the sufferings of our seamen in the West Indies, I leave the subject for the present to the reflections of gentlemen. It is my intention at this time to advert more particularly to the conduct of belligerent cruisers near our ports and on our coasts.

Of the violations of our neutral rights by these cruisers, one of the most memorable cases has been stated in a memorial from South Carolina. On casting an eye over the memorial, I find it supported by the signature of the President of the South Carolina Insurance Company, with a long list of names, which, as I am well informed, are among the most respectable in Charleston, comprehending merchants, and planters, and professional gentlemen. Without stating the whole of the memorial, I will now mention only certain parts of it as being more immediately applicable. This is the language:

"Your memorialists are deeply affected by the recent capture, at the very entrance of this port, of the American ship Two Friends, by a French privateer. This event has excited among all classes of citizens, the strongest sensations, not only because the ship was captured without any color of pretence, within sight of land, but because she is our only regular London trader, and had on board a full supply of spring and summer goods.

"This most extraordinary capture has already been followed by events no less alarming; our harbor being at this moment completely blockaded by three French privateers.

belonging to St. Jago de Cuba and Barracoa; in which receptacles, our vessels and their cargoes, with the sold, without any condemnation whatever, or even the knowledge of the Government of Cuba, are instantly formality of a trial, thereby precluding every future possibility of redress.

"Your memorialists avail themselves of this occasion

On examining the documents before the House, the injuries, the insults, the barbarities, which are mentioned by the President in general terms, will be seen to have been too fully realized in detail. "These just alarms and apprehensions of your meYou have decisive proof of the atrocious practices morialists are heightened by the well known circumin the West Indies. Permit me to turn your at-stance of many of the cruisers which infest our shores tention but to a single page of the official documents. In a letter of the 7th of June, 1805, from Mr. Blakely, our Consul at St. Jago, in Cuba, we have this information: "Since the last evacuation ' of Hispaniola, more than one thousand American seamen have been landed in this port, most of 'them without clothes, and all of them without any possible means of support, but such as they receive from their own Government." In another letter of the 1st of July, 1805, he speaks in these terms: "The scene of robbery, destruction, evasion, perjury, cruelty, and insult, to which 'the Americans, captured by French pirates, and 'brought into this and the adjacent ports, have 'been subjected, perhaps has not been equalled in a century past." Shall these sufferings of our countrymen be disregarded, because the seamen perhaps were not employed by capitalists engaged in a trade carried on in distant seas, in Europe or Asia? Is all the philanthropic sensibility which has been professed in debate to be confined exclu-ernment." sively to seamen impressed into British service? Some portion of it, I hope, will yet be found for our own countrymen in the West Indies, captured, robbed of their property, loaded with indignities, 9th CoN.-29

6

[ocr errors]

to notice a late decision of the district court within this State, grounded on an act of Congress, whereby the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is limited to the short distance of three miles, or a marine league, from the coasts or shores, which, by the said court, is construed to mean three miles from the land; consequently, the middle channel of our bar, being more than three miles distant from the nearest land, is pronounced by judicial authority to be without the jurisdiction of the United States; the very entrance of our harbor, in full sight of the city, where vessels are frequently obliged to anchor, while waiting for a tide, and with a pilot on board, is, by our own tribunals, acknowledged to be without the protection of our Gov

The seizures of merchant vessels on our coast, and near our ports, are mentioned in memorials from other ports of the Union. We have before us complaints on this subject from Baltimore

H. OF R.

Foreign Aggressions.

MARCH, 1806.

the laws. Originally the act was temporary; but, after being once continued in force for a further term, it was ultimately made permanent, by an act passed in the year 1800. By the sixth section it is provided, that the district courts shall take cognizance of complaints, by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof. The comprehensive form of expression assigns to the district courts the cognizance of libels for damages, in cases of capture, as well as of libels for restitution. Before this act was passed, a question had existed, whether the district courts, as courts of admiralty, were authorized to take cognizance of such complaints, even where the captured property was within a port of the United States, and nothing more than restitution was the object of the complaint. The fact may be ascertained by recurring to the State papers of the time. I presume, sir, it is well recollected by yourself. The act of June, 1793, terminated the question about the judicial cognizance of such cases, but by its very terms did not permit the district courts to extend the claim of jurisdiction from the shore to a greater distance than a marine league.

Philadelphia, New York, New Haven, and Salem. | States." You will find it in the third volume of Indeed, the conduct of belligerent cruisers, in the tracts of sea adjacent to our territories, has been a subject of general condemnation. Persons who have differed on other topics have agreed on this. This sentiment has been common to people of different professions, and classes, and parties. The main facts are notorious. Near our ports, within the recesses of our coast, almost within our harbors, belligerent cruisers have watched for opportunities of seizing merchant vessels employed in the trade of this country. Need I mention the indignation excited by the blockade of New York. The interruption of the commerce of that great port is well known. British vessels of war were stationed off Sandy Hook. Among them, I remember the names of the Leander, the Cambrian, the Driver; there may have been others, which I do not recollect; but such particulars are not of consequence in the present estimate; the general fact is sufficient. By taking such stations, belligerent cruisers have been able to seize our merchant vessels on the return voyage and carry them in for adjudication, under pretext of being employed in trading directly between the parent country and a colony of the enemy, or of having violated, in the outward voyage, some regulation respecting contraband or blockade. Millions of property have thus been exposed to seizure, which might otherwise have been added to the commercial stock of our country, and swelled the receipts of the Treasury. Such stations, too, have afforded opportunities for the impressment of seamen.

With respect to these outrages, sir, I will not fatigue you by professions of patriotism; nor will I invoke the spirit of 1776; nor will I declaim about our Revolution, or about our right to national independence. Such observations have no specific bearing on the subject. In whatever degree it may have become fashionable to occupy the time of the House in this manner, I trust it will not be supposed to manifest any want of respect to the understandings of the House, if I attend to considerations more directly applicable to some practical purpose.

Permit me, sir, to call your attention to the causes of these outrages, with the view of providing some effectual remedy. One general cause is to be found in the habitual rapacity of those who cruise under the belligerent flags. But we must expect the rapacity to exist, whatever we may say about justice or generosity. The men who roam the seas in quest of prey, will not be deterred from rapine and violence by general declamations about the principles of virtue or the rights of neutrality, while they can seize their object with ease and impunity. Adopt means of prevention, which cut off their hopes of success! These will be found more effectual than any vague professions of patriotism.

There is another cause-the defective nature of the existing law of the United States. This we may reform, unless restrained by some of the duties of neutrality. In June 1794, was passed "An act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United

In the case decided in South Carolina, and noticed in the memorial from Charleston, it would seem, that a considerable dissatisfaction had been felt in consequence of the opinion, judicially given by the district judge: and, if my recollection is not fallacious, some censorious remarks were published in a paper or papers of the day. That serious discontent should exist when the very entrance of such a harbor as that of Charleston was officially pronounced to be without the verge of territorial protection, ought not to excite surprise in any reflecting mind. There was serious cause for inquietude. But, if I understand that case, I can have no hesitation in declaring my opinion, that in his construction of the law, which marked the extent of his authority, the decision of the district judge was correct. And, instead of censuring, we ought to approbate and hold in honor that spirit of judicial independence which pronounces sentence according to the existing law, however unacceptable may be the result even to persons worthy of high estimation. If no relief is provided for cases of this nature, the fault is not in the district judge, but in the existing law. The evil is one for which we have the power to authorize a remedy. It belongs not to any judge or court of the United States under the law as now existing; and, while no other provision is made by Congress with respect to the extent of the territorial protection of the United States, it is not to be expected that the President will assume the responsibility of attempting to enforce any extension of the principle in any case whatever beyond a marine league from the shore.

Does our duty, as a neutral Power, require us to submit to this limitation in all cases? According to my apprehension of the subject, the act of June, 1794, ought to be considered as defining the limits within which this country would assume

« EelmineJätka »