Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

DECEMBER, 1806.

Non-Importation Act.

H. OF R.

to them, had no right to remit that part of them best for the suspension to operate to the end of the which had become the property of the informer. session, or to the 30th of June, or to a later period? He submitted, therefore, the propriety of so amend- This was one of those minor questions that did ing this section as to save the rights of the latter. not require much time for consideration, and havThe several provisions of the laws on this sub-ing decided that the suspension should not be exject having been read, a debate of considerable length arose on the necessity of the proposed

amendment.

Its necessity was contended for by Messrs. R. NELSON, G. W. CAMPBELL, DAWSON, and FINDLEY, and opposed by Messrs. J. CLAY, BIDWELL, J. RANDOLPH, and CROWNINSHIELD.

By the former gentlemen it was contended that a vested right became attached to the informer, or officer of customs, which the United States could not morally divest; and that, although the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized by law to remit all forfeitures, yet that Congress could not themselves remit them.

On the other hand, it was maintained that Congress, having given the entire power of remission of forfeitures to the Secretary of the Treasury, were as competent themselves to remit as he was, and that the power which they had bestowed on an inferior Executive officer they were themselves competent to exercise.

In the course of this argument, Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL moved that the Committee should rise, and ask leave to sit again.

This motion was, however, withdrawn, under the impression that the blank would not be filled until the third reading of the bill.

The Committee then rose, and reported their agreement to the bill without amendment.

Mr. DAWSON, to try the sense of the House on the point discussed in Committee, offered the following amendment:

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to affect the right or claim of any person, to any part of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, incurred by the breach of the act aforesaid, which such person shall or may be entitled to, by virtue of the said law, in cases where a prosecution has been commenced or information has been given, before the passing of this act; the amount of which right and claim shall be assessed and valued by a proper judge or court in a sum

mary manner.

tended to the 31st of December, there could be little difficulty in fixing an intermediate day. He should, therefore, move to fill the blank with the 30th of June, although he did not mean to press the motion. He understood that was the quarter day at the Treasury.

Mr. ALSTON said, when he voted in Committee, against filling the blank with the 31st of December, it was not because he was absolutely against that day, but because his mind was not made up with respect to the most proper day at which to limit the suspension. He had heard nothing since to satisfy his mind on this head. He hoped, therefore, that the blank would not be filled until the third reading of the bill.

Mr. J. CLAY remarked that, when he seconded the motion of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. J. RANDOLPH.) it was with a perfect knowledge that it would be competent to the House to fill the blank on the third reading of the bill. But, he would ask, whether there would not exist a difficulty in fixing the period of suspension at any day short of the commencement of the next session of Congress? And, if there were, whether there would not arise a necessity of placing somewhere a dispensing power? He hoped, from all he could collect, that all differences between the two Governments would, before that day, be removed. Well, suppose a treaty, in all respects perfectly satisfactory, should be concluded, and the prohibitory act only suspended until the 30th of June, without any power existing to dispense with it? The bill must again go into effect notwithstanding all the causes which gave rise to it have ceased. He believed it was not competent to amend a bill on its third reading, unless by unanimous consent. For this reason, he wished that the blank might be filled with the 30th of June, and an amendment introduced, authorizing a further suspension, in case our differences shall be adjusted. If this course were adopted, he believed every gentleman would be satisfied."

The argument, commenced in Committee, was resumed by the same gentlemen, when the ques-sideration of the bill to Monday. tion was taken, and the amendment disagreed to -ayes 12.

Mr. SMILIE moved to postpone the further con

Mr. J. RANDOLPH hoped that, if the consideration of the bill were postponed, it would not be Mr. J. RANDOLPH said, after what had passed, till Monday. He considered the bill of some imthe House would not ascribe to him a wish to pre-portance to two classes of persons; to the mercipitate the decision on filling the blank in the first section. He had, indeed, no such intention. When in Committee, he had avoided saying anything as to the principle or expediency of the measure; nor should he touch these points, if at all, till the question whether the bill should pass, or not, was fairly before the House? But, he would appeal to gentlemen, whether the interests of the United States could be materially affected by an additional suspension for three days, three weeks, or three months? The subject had been very fully debated the last session, and gentlemen could surely make up their minds whether it were

chants, and still more so to the Southern planters. It was considered, by those who understood its operation, as of material importance to the cotton planters. He supposed, between this day and tomorrow, every gentleman would be able to make up his mind whether it would be expedient to suspend the prohibitory law for three, six, or nine months. The period appeared to him comparatively an unimportant question; whereas, that of the bill coming soon into operation, was of great importance to the planters. If passed, it would have a considerable effect on orders abroad and projects at home. If a postponement took place,

[blocks in formation]

he hoped the House would adjourn till to-morrow, and its consideration be then resumed. As the other House were generally more tardy in their proceedings, it could scarcely be expected to get in operation in less than eight or ten days; and that period would be taken from the period of suspension, short as it might be.

The motion to postpone the bill to Monday was disagreed to-ayes 29.

Mr. SMILIE then moved a postponement till tomorrow; which was carried-ayes 60.

In the course of the debate, Mr. R. NELSON remarked, as an inducement to the prompt passage of the bill, that he was informed that Mr. Merry, the late British Minister, about to sail for England, was waiting to learn the fate of it.

SATURDAY, December 6.
NON-IMPORTATION ACT.

The House proceeded to consider the bill to suspend the operation of an act, entitled "An act to prohibit the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise," and to remit the penalties incurred under the same; when the first section thereof being again read, in the words following, to wit:

[ocr errors]

SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the operation of the act, passed on the eighteenth day of April last, entitled "An act to prohibit the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise," be, and the same hereby is, suspended until the day of next.

DECEMBER, 1806.

ence? If at the last session, when gentlemen deemed the conduct of Great Britain hostile to us, they suspended the operation of the prohibitory act to the 15th of November ensuing, surely, a fortiori, gentlemen, who deemed the conduct of that Government so materially changed, would agree to a suspension for a period as much longer as would be equivalent to the change in her conduct. It might be said that the reason for the suspension at the last session did not now exist, as it was then necessary to give a greater length of notice of the going into operation of so important a law. True; but no gentleman would say that a period, so long as that allowed, was then necessary, as it was only requisite, in this point of view, to allow time for the information of the passage of the act to be received before the sailing of the Spring vessels. Under this view of the subject, he would renew his motion to fill the blank with the 31st day of December.

Mr. ELLIOT hoped the motion would prevail. He, indeed, very much regretted that it had been negatived in Committee of the Whole. He had never considered the prohibitory act as valuable, but as indicating the spirit of the American people, and as leading the way to stronger measures in case the conduct of Great Britain should require them. He was willing to part with it for a reasonable disposition towards accommodation on the part of Great Britain, which they had been assured existed at present. In the present state of our foreign affairs, when a European Power had frequently invaded our territory, he thought there were strong reasons for being on good terms The SPEAKER observed that when the bill was with Great Britain. He contemplated the proyesterday under consideration, the question pend- hibitory law as a mere matter of temporary poling was on filling the blank in the first section icy, not as forming a part of a permanent system with the words "June 30," (the day until which of commercial warfare with Great Britain. Mr. it was proposed to suspend the prohibitory act.) E. said there was one reason, which ought to deAt the request of Mr. J. RANDOLPH, the Mes-cide the vote of the House on this question. If sage of the President of the 3d instant was read. Mr. J. RANDOLPH then said, that when he had made the motion in committee to fill the blank with the 30th of June, he had done it under the impression that the House had expressed their disapprobation of a suspension to so long a day as the 31st of December. But it seemed, from some observations which had been made in the House, that some gentlemen who voted against the suspension until the next session, had voted in this way, not because they were opposed to that day, but merely because they had not fully considered the subject. He would, therefore, withdraw his motion to fill the blank with the 30th of June, and renew his motion to fill it with the 31st day of December. He did this, not only from the motives he had mentioned, but from other motives, which struck his mind with great force, and which, if gentlemen attended to them, they would find of considerable weight. Gentlemen have said that they are disposed to pass the suspending law, because the conduct of Great Britain, which they deemed the last year hostile to us, had since materially changed. Now if this were a fact, (the accuracy of which he was not about at present to discuss,) what was the infer

gentlemen viewed the prohibitory law as a mere matter of temporary policy, and if, as they had been assured by the Executive, the pending negotiations were likely to issue in a satisfactory result, surely they ought no longer to keep the agricultural and commercial interests in suspense, as to the measures contemplated to be pursued on our arrangements with Great Britain. For one, he should be willing, after the assurances they had received of the friendly disposition of the British Government, and from his sense of the inefficiency of the law, to repeal it altogether. And although gentlemen should be disposed to hold it up in terrorem to Great Britain, why not suspend it for a year, or, at all events, permit the suspension to cease during a session of Congress? Suppose a majority shall say that the suspending act shall cease in June or July, the non-importa tion act will then be again in force. How, then, can our merchants with any safety take their measures? Why leave the subject in doubt, when they were convinced that the spirit which presides over the pending negotiations will produce a favorable result? For these reasons Mr. E. said he hoped the present motion would prevail.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BIDWELL observed that with the gentleman from Vermont, who had just sat down, he could say that the prohibitory act, the operation of which was proposed to be suspended, received his vote at the time of its passage. But, like him, he could not add, that his view of the policy of the measure had changed. Further reflection had confirmed him in the belief of its wisdom and justice; and experience, during the short period which has intervened, has added the weight of its sanction. The act had, so far, evidently produced a salutary effect. He had no hesitation in saying that it had an influence in producing the accommodating spirit which, at the date of the last despatches from our Commissioners, was manifested on the part of Great Britain towards the United States. Convinced of the soundness of our policy, he should by no means be willing to see it abandoned by a repeal of the act. On the contrary, he hoped the act would be retained and enforced, and that further steps would be taken in the same system of policy, unless it should be rendered unnecessary by satisfactory conventional arrangements. Yet, consistently with this system, he was willing, for the reasons stated in the President's Message, to suspend the operation of the act for a reasonable time, but not for so long a time as had been moved by the gentleman from Virginia. The object of the proposed suspension was twofold: First, to meet a conciliatory disposition on the part of Great Britain, with the proof of a disposition equally conciliatory on our part; and, secondly, to give a full and fair opportunity for concluding a negotiation, which had been delayed by causes not of a suspicious or unfriendly nature. If we had reason to believe that the delay was an intentional procrastination for the purpose of deluding us, or for gaining time to take advantage of events, it would be a sufficient objection to any suspension. But he saw no ground for such a suspicion. They were assured that the negotiation was in a favorable train, and promised a result mutually advantageous. He would, therefore, give full time for its conclusion. Neither of the objects proposed by a suspension, however, required so long a time as until the last of December. Both of them would be satisfied by carrying the suspension to the first of July. The intervening period would, after making allowance for all ordinary obstacles, afford sufficient opportunity for the act to be transmitted to London, to produce its due effect there, and admit a return of the result. More than that ought not to be allowed. It would be going beyond the objects of the suspension. It would, in the event of a failure of the negotiation, give an unnecessary protraction to the operation of our prohibitory law. It would evince an unstable or doubtful policy, and excite a suspicion of our sincerity, or at least of our capacity to enforce the system we have adopted. By a suspension to the first of July, we should admit the Spring importations, and thereby show a proper attention to the interests of our merchants, without permitting the Fall importations. The event of a treaty, in the meantime, might be provided

H. OF R.

for by a separate clause in this bill, or, which he should prefer, by a separate act to be passed, if necessary, before the close of the session. For these reasons he hoped the motion to fill the blank with the 31st of December would not prevail, but that it would be filled with the first of July, agreeably to a motion which had been made and withdrawn, but which he took the liberty to renew.

Mr. SLOAN said he hoped the motion to fill the blank with so late a period as the 31st of December would not prevail. He hoped also that the House would take up the subject with that seriousness which its magnitude required. He should not recapitulate the causes which had induced Congress at their last session to pass the prohibitory act, as they must be in the recollection of the House. But he would ask gentlemen one question of serious import. What facts had occurred to induce the House to suspend this act? A friendly disposition_manifested by the Ministry of Great Britain. This was the utmost extent of the ground on which it was proposed to legislate. He would ask whether it was sufficient ground to induce a suspension for so long a time? He was willing to meet friendly dispositions on the part of Britain by friendly dispositions on our part. But did it appear that anything had been done which was permanent or binding? No. They had not been informed that a single preliminary article had been agreed upon. It was true that there was for the present a suspension of aggression on our commerce and seamen; he was, therefore, in favor of a suspension of the prohibitory act for a very short period. But he hoped that both the motions which had been made would be rejected, and an earlier day, about the close of the session, be introduced, and that the President might be empowered further to suspend the act, if occasion should require, until the next meeting of Congress.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD said he could not but regret that the gentleman from Virginia, after the vote in the Committee of the Whole, should have withdrawn his motion to fill the blank with the 30th day of June. When he was up yesterday, some expressions had dropped from him of the confidence he entertained with regard to the friendly disposition of Great Britain, in her commercial relations with this country. Though that was his opinion, grounded on the information contained in the Message of the President, he had always considered the measures of Great Britain as founded on a system of policy hostile to our growing commercial greatness. If she found our policy wavering, it was very possible she might renew her former depredations on our commerce. It would be recollected that it was a very long period after the remonstrances were made by our Ministers, before any attention was paid to them, or they received an answer. Several months at least elapsed. It had always appeared to him that the conduct of Great Britain had in this instance been governed by the state of the Continent, and that she had been controlled by continental events. It must, too, be acknowl

[blocks in formation]

edged that she had never seriously entered into negotiation with us until the passage of the prohibitory act. Mr. C. said it was his opinion if we had not acted with spirit Britain never would have negotiated with us. Such being his opinion, he was in favor of continuing the prohibitory law, or of suspending it only for a short time. He was therefore opposed to filling the blank with the 30th of December. With regard to his own individual opinion he did not know whether he should be for making the suspension go beyond the present session; for if events should favor a new coalition, it was very probable her depredations would be renewed. Although appearances were flattering, she was undoubtedly governed by events, and might in future change her conduct. He could not agree that we ought to be influenced by some clouds in the Western country embodied by another nation. It would make no difference in his conduct towards Great Britain if the country were invaded even to Washington. He would still persist in the same policy. There was no doubt that the United States could resist a combination of all Europe. Great Britain at present appeared to be friendly, and the negotiations might issue in some commercial arrangements, but which might not prove satisfactory to the House. He did not, therefore, wish to give up the law for so long a time. He might agree to its suspension to the first of July. He did not think the interest of the merchants ought to be considered with regard to their Spring importations, because they had already imported a sufficiency of the prohibited articles; and if the interests of the merchants were to be attended to in all such cases, it would be impossible for the Government to get along. Besides, a great part of the prohibited articles might be got from other countries, at prices but little exceeding the British. From this view of the subject, he thought the period of suspension ought to be entirely determined by its effect on the negotiations. So far as this consideration recommended a suspension he was willing to go. But he could not consent to so long a period as that proposed, which almost doubled that agreed upon at the last ses

sion.

Mr. SMILIE said that when he agreed to the passage of the prohibitory law, it was from a conviction that it would produce salutary effects. Such was then his impression, and such was his present opinion. It was true that he wished to impose no commercial restrictions upon the trade of Great Britain, provided she would treat us as a friendly nation. The act had been passed as an inducement to her to review her conduct, and to do us justice. Entertaining still the same views and feelings, and believing the measure was calculated to produce the best effects, he still remained a firm and decided friend of the law. As soon as the desired effects were produced he should cease to wish for its continuance. But until they were produced he should never consent to part with it. From the Message of the President, it appeared that it was his opinion, as well as that of our Ministers, who were undoubtedly the best qualified to

DECEMBER, 1806.

judge, that a temporary suspension of the law would have a favorable effect on the pending negotiations. He was, therefore, willing to suspend it; but not for so long a period as that mentioned. A suspension until the 1st of July would allow ample time for its effect on the negotiations. If, during the course of the session, circumstances should arise requiring a change of policy, they could be easily provided for. They were then just on the verge of the session. Despatches would undoubtedly be received before they rose, from which they would learn what was best to be done. For these reasons Mr. SMILIE hoped the blank would be filled with the 1st day of July.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH rose merely to observe that it was usual for gentlemen to renew in the House, motions made in the Committee of the Whole. It was true he had not renewed this motion yesterday, because he did then understand the vote in the Committee of the Whole as expressing the disapprobation of the House of so long a period of suspension as the 31st day of December. But after he had received information that several gentlemen, who had voted against the motion, did not consider it in this light, be had renewed the motion. Mr. R. said he really did not see it, nor could he be induced to believe it to be a question of great importance, whether the suspension should be for six or twelve months. The principle of the bill was as much involved in one period as the other. He thought the whole reasoning of gentlemen went to show that the suspension ought not to extend beyond the present session. It was evident that this was not the opinion of the President, who, in his Message, recommends the suspension, as well with a view to the promotion of our own commercial purposes, as to favor the negotiations. Great Britain having indicated a conciliatory temper, did it not become a point of policy towards her to suspend this act for a reasonable time? If, too, the suspension be limited to some day when we are not in session, may not great inconvenience arise? Gentlemen on the committee with him would recollect that he named the 3d day of March; but at the suggestion of two gentlemen from two great commercial cities a further time was deemed necessary; and it did appear to him, if it were extended beyond the 3d of March, it should be to a day which would fall into the next session. However, in case the suspension should be limited to an intermediate day, he had prepared a clause further to suspend the act in case a treaty should be formed, which, in that event, he would offer.

Mr. ALSTON said he was still, as he expressed himself yesterday, in considerable doubt as to the proper time to which the act passed at the last session, prohibiting certain articles from being imported into the United States, should be suspended. It was then adopted with a view to aid our negotiations with Great Britain; and as the negotiations with the Government it was intended to operate against, were still pending, the same cause which produced its passage in the first instance, operated upon his mind as to the propriety of continuing the law; but he was perfectly willing

[blocks in formation]

to suspend its going into effect, until ample time should be afforded for a termination of the negotiations now pending.

H. OF R.

Green, Silas Halsey, John Hamilton, James Holland,
David Holmes, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight,
John Lambert, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion,
Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow,
Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin, John
Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rhea of Tennessee,
James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith,
Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman,
Henry Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri
Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, and
Tracy, Joseph B. Varnum, John Whitehill, Robert
Joseph Winston.

The question was then put on filling it with the 1st of July.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said this seemed to be a very important question, though he really did not see it in that light. He hoped, however, they would have the yeas and nays; which, being taken, were

He did not believe that in the event of a failure of an adjustment of differences by the negotiation now on foot, war with that country would follow, nor that there would be a necessity for any strong er measures on our part to be taken; once permit the law to go into operation, and he believed its effects would be as forcibly felt by that country as any measure we could adopt. He was opposed to a suspension to the time proposed (which was the 31st of December next) for several reasons; for instance, should our expectations of a friendly adjustment of differences fail, and the event be known in the course of two or three months, everybody, particularly those in favor of the system, would say it ought to apply to the next fall importations. Again, if we put it off until theyeas 97, nays 12, as follows: time proposed, it would seem as though we ourYEAS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac selves were afraid of the ground we had taken, Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, and never intended it to take effect. The ground George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, Barnabas Bidwell, taken by the gentleman from Vermont, which John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, James M. Broom, was, that we ought to be in session at the time to liam Butler, George W. Campbell, Levi Casey, John Robert Brown, John Boyle, William A. Burwell, Wilwhich the law should be suspended, was to his Chandler, John Claiborne, John Clopton, Orchard mind very forcible; he felt a great repugnance to Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield, Richdelegating a power to any person whatever to ard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, Ezra Darby, John Davensuspend the operation of a law of Congress; but, port, jr., John Dawson, Theodore Dwight, Elias Earle, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Mas-Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, sachusetts, (Mr. BIDWELL,) a clause could be intro-William Ely, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James duced specially authorizing the President of the United States, in case of certain events taking place, to suspend the law, and that only until the next session of Congress. A special delegation of this kind would not be an abandonment of the principle he contended for. He, therefore, felt himself under the necessity of voting against filling up the blank with the time proposed.

The yeas and nays were then taken on filling the blank with the 31st of December, and wereyeas 45, nays 67, as follows:

YEAS-George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, James M. Broom, John Boyle, John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Theodore Dwight, Peter Early, James Elliot, Caleb Ellis, William Ely, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Walter Jones, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jr., Henry W. Livingston, Edward Lloyd, Josiah Masters, William McCreery, David Meriwether, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Thomas Sandford, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, and Thomas Wynns.

NAYS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, George W. Campbell, Levi Casey, John Chandler, John Claiborne, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Growninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, Elias Earle, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L.

Fisk, James M. Garnett, Peterson Goodwyn, Silas
Halsey, Seth Hastings, James Holland, David Holmes,
Walter Jones, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Nehe-
miah Knight. John Lambert, Henry W. Livingston,
Edward Lloyd, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder,
Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William McCreery,
David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore,
Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely,
Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin,
Timothy Pitkin jr., John Pugh, John Randolph, Thom-
as M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea
of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter
Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Martin
G. Schuneman, John Smilie, Henry Southard, Richard
Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel
Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David
Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson,
Uri Tracy, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van
Rensselaer, John Whitehill, David R. Williams, Alex-
ander Wilson, John Winston, and Thomas Wynns,

NAYS-John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Charles
Goldsborough, Isaiah L. Green, David Hough, Joseph
Lewis, jr., Jeremiah Nelson, Josiah Quincy, James
Sloan, Samuel Smith, Joseph Stanton, and Joseph B.
Varnum.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading without a division.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved that it should be read a third time to day.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD named Tuesday.

the negative without a division, as was that for The question on the last motion was passed in reading the bill on Monday, when the motion to read it to-day was carried without a division.

The bill was immediately brought in engrossed, and read a third time.

Mr. SLOAN said he should vote in the negative,

« AnteriorContinuar »