ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Against the motion it was objected,

first, that the

time and place in which it stood would certainly convey an indirect reprehension of General Washington for bringing before Congress the case of Captain Asgill and Huddy; secondly, that it manifested a distrust in Congress which, however well founded it might be with respect to retaliation, ought not to be proclaimed by themselves; thirdly, that political and national considerations might render the interference of the supreme authority expedient, of which the letter from the Count de Vergennes, in the late case furnished an instance; that the resort of the Military Commanders to the Sovereign for direction in great and difficult cases, such as those of retaliation would often prove, was a right of which they ought not to be deprived, but in the exercise of which they ought rather to be countenanced. These objections reduced the patrons of the motion to the Delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina alone, or nearly so. In place of it, the declaratory motion on the Journal was substituted. This again was objected to, as implying that, in the cases of retaliation taken up by the Military Commanders, they had proceeded on doubtful authority. To remove this objection, the amendment was proposed, limiting the preamble to the single act of discharging Captain Asgill. This, however, was not entirely satisfactory, because that particular act could have no constructive influence on the reputed authority of the generals. It was acceded to by the votes of several who were apprehensive that, in case of rejecting it, the earnestness of some might obtrude a substitute less harmless, or that the resolution might pass without the pre

amble, and be more offensive to the Commander-inchief. The first apprehension was the prevailing motive with many to agree to the proposition on the final question.

This day a letter was received from General Washington, enclosing one, of the twenty-fifth of October, from Sir Guy Carleton, relative to the demand made on him for a liquidation of accounts, and payment of the balance due for the maintenance of prisoners of war, in which the latter used an asperity of language so much the reverse of his preceding correspondence, that many regard it as portending a revival of the war against the United States.42

SATURDAY AND MONDAY.

No Congress.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12TH.

The reappointment of Mr. Jefferson, as Minister Plenipotentiary for negotiating peace, was agreed to unanimously, and without a single adverse remark. The act took place in consequence of its being suggested, that the death of Mrs. Jefferson had probably changed the sentiments of Mr. Jefferson with regard to public life; and that all the reasons which led to his original appointment still existed, and, indeed, had acquired additional force from the improbability that Mr. Laurens would actually assist in the negotiation.

"A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, declaring that when a matter was referred to any of the departments to take order, it was the sense and meaning of Congress that the same should be carried into execution." On this motion, some argued that such reference amounted to an absolute injunction; others insisted that it gave authority, but did not absolutely exclude discretion in the Executive departments. The explanation that was finally acquiesced in as most rational and conformable to practice, was, that it not only gave authority, but expressed the sense of Congress that the measure ought to be executed; leaving it so far, however, in the discretion of the Executive Department, as that, in case it differed in opinion from Congress, it might suspend execution, and state the objections to Congress, that their final direction might be given. In the course of debate, it was observed, by Mr. MADISON, that the practice of referring matters to take order, especially where money was to be issued, was extremely exceptionable, inasmuch as no entry of such proceedings was made on the Journals, but only noted in a memorandum book kept by the Secretary, and then sent to the Department, with the reference to take order indorsed by the Secretary, but not signed by him; so that the transaction, even when public in its nature, never came before the public eye, and the Department was left with a precarious voucher for its justification. The motion was, in the end, withdrawn; the mover alleging that, as he only aimed at rendering an uncertain point clear, and this had been brought about by a satisfactory explanation, he did not wish for any resolution on the subject.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13TH.

No Congress.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14TH.

The proceedings were confined to the Report of the Committee on the case of Vermont, entered on the Journal. As it was notorious that Vermont had uniformly disregarded the recommendation of Congress of 1779, the Report, which ascribes the evils prevalent in that district to a late act of New York, which violated that recommendation, was generally admitted to be unjust and unfair. Mr. HOWELL was the only member who openly supported it. The Delegates from New York denied the fact that any violation had been committed on the part of that State. The temper of Congress, on this occasion, as the yeas and nays show, was less favorable to Vermont than on any preceding one, -the effect, probably, of the territorial cession of New York to the United States. In the course of the debate, Mr. HOWELL cited the case of Kentucky as somewhat parallel to that of Vermont ; said that the late creation of a separate court by Virginia for the former, resembled the issuing of commissions by New York to the latter; that the jurisdiction would probably be equally resisted, and the same violences would follow as in Vermont. He was called to order by Mr. MADISON. The President and the plurality of Congress supported and enforced the call.

No Congress till

MONDAY, 18TH, AND TUESDAY, 19TH, NOVEmber.

The Journals sufficiently explain the proceedings of those days.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20TH.

Congress went into consideration of the Report of a Committee, consisting of Mr. CARROLL, Mr. McKEAN, and Mr. HOWELL, on two memorials from the Legislature of Pennsylvania. The memorials imported a disposition to provide for the creditors of the United States within the State of Pennsylvania, out of the revenues allotted for Congress, unless such provision could be made by Congress. The Report, as an answer to the memorials, acknowledged the merit of the public creditors, professed the wishes of Congress to do them justice; referring, at the same time, to their recommendation of the impost of five per cent., which had not been acceded to by all the States; to the requisition of one million two hundred thousand dollars, for the payment of one year's interest on the public debt, and to their acceptance of the territorial cession made by New York. After some general conversation, in which the necessity of the impost, as the only fund on which loans could be expected, and the necessity of loans to supply the enormous deficiency of taxes, were urged, as also the fatal tendency of the plan intimated in the memorials, as well to the Union itself as to the system

[blocks in formation]
« 前へ次へ »