Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

The penalties and forfeitures in this section are limited and restricted solely to vessels prepared, fitted, &c., "in any port or place within the jurisdictional limits of the Governmont of the United States." How easy will it be to evade the penalty of this section, by preparing or fitting vessels in a foreign port or place? And, sir, if the statement, just now made, by the honorable gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. ALSTON,) be correct, it will not be more difficult to avoid the penalties and forfeitures of the third section. That gentleman has stated that it would be very easy for a vessel, in the course of an hour or two, to land a cargo of negroes on some one of the numerous islands along the Southern coast, and be off. If so, this part of the bill must be very inefficient, indeed. It says:

"That, if any ship or vessel, laden in whole or in part, with persons, the importation or bringing of whom is, by this act, prohibited, shall, after the 31st day of December, aforesaid, be found in any river, port, or bay, or harbor, within the United States, or the territories thereof, or anywhere on the high seas, within the jurisdictional limits of the Government of the United States, such ship or vessel, together with her cargo, &c., shall be forfeited, aud the owner and master, &c., forfeit and

pay

dollars."

December, 1806.

Africa, or suspected to be intended for the slave trade, shall give bond, that no slave shall be taken on board of his vessel, to be transported to this country; and provide, likewise, that the owner or master should forfeit and pay a certain sum for every slave he should put on board. I would go further, and say, that every person who should land a slave on our shores, should not only forfeit all his property, but should suffer the punishment of imprisonment.

For these reasons, sir, I hope the Committee will rise, and that the business will be referred to a select committee.

Mr. EARLY. In answer to the gentleman from Connecticut, I will acknowledge that there is an inconsistency in this bill. But it seems very wonderful that the gentleman has at last found it out. I offered an amendment, a short time since, in order to obviate this inconsistency; but, unless I am much mistaken, that very gentleman voted against it.

In the name of all the friends of this bill, I offer my most grateful acknowledgments to the gentleman for proving, in the most incontestable manner, the absolute necessity of that very provision in the bill which he opposes. He has shown, most undeniably, that you must forfeit the negroes, that you cannot possibly get at the vessel or the captain, to operate on them. In the name of common sense, I ask you, then, what can you find to operate on, but the negroes imported? and yet, with these truths staring them in the face, gentlemen are opposed to the measure. I wish the gentleman from Connecticut, from the immensity of the resources which he has displayed on this subject, would tell us what, beside the negroes, can be found for the law to operate upon.

given them, they must report the same bill, and then you will be just where you are now.

Mr. BIDWELL thought it was premature to refer the subject to a select committee.

Now, sir, according to this section, no vessel is forfeited, nor is the owner or master liable to a penalty, unless she is actually found within the jurisdictional limits of the Government of the United States. And here a very serious question may arise, how far, on the high seas, the jurisdictional limits of our Government extend; on this subject there is a diversity of opinion. Some contend that it extends but a marine league, or three miles from the shores, as the shores run; others, three miles beyond a line drawn from headland I am willing that the Committee rise, but not to headland; others extend it still further-the for the purpose mentioned. The gentleman moves question is not yet finally settled in this country. you to rise, and refer the bill to a select committee; But, sir, would it not be easy for a vessel to un- and for what? To determine the principle of the lade her cargo by the means of lighters and boats, bill; not to specify the detail. What can the seat a place clearly beyond our jurisdictional limits?lect committee report? Unless instructions are In which case, she would not be liable to a forfeiture. In addition to this, the vessel must not only be "found" within our limits, but she must be "found laden in whole or in part, with persons, the importation or bringing of whom is by this act prohibited;" otherwise the forfeiture is not incurred, nor can any penalty be exacted from the owner or master. Thus, sir, for aught that is contained in this section, a vessel may unload just within our limits, and afterwards enter our ports in safety, or she can come within our limits, and if she can unload her cargo before she is found or seized, she will escape the forfeiture. These two sections, and the second and third, contain all the penal clauses in the bill; and I would submit it to the consideration of the Committee, whether it will not be necessary to add some further clauses more highly penal, if we really intend to prohibit this infamous traffic. Perhaps we may insert some of the provisions contained in the present laws against the slave trade, between the United States and foreign countries: That the owner or master of every vessel clearing for the coast of

Mr. PITKIN. I beg leave, Mr. Chairman, to explain myself. I am sorry I was so unfortunate as to be misunderstood by the honorable gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. EARLY.) He has stated that the objections which I made on the fourth section of the bill, were inconsistent with the vote I gave on the amendment to the same section, which he had proposed; and that, in case his amendment had been adopted, the difficulties which I had mentioned would have been removed. I trust, sir, I shall be able to satisfy the Committee, that no such inconsisteney can be imputed to me. What was the amendment proposed? It was, in substance, that the negroes, "if they had not been condemned before by a court having jurisdiction of the same," should be forfeited. I voted against the amendment, because I conceived it wholly unnecessary, as no one would suppose they could be condemned twice; and, also, because I was op

[blocks in formation]

posed to that part of the section which was proposed to be amended. But how this amendment, if adopted, would have obviated my objections to the inconsistency of the two clauses in this section, is difficult for me to conceive. If the amend ment had been adopted, the negroes were to be forfeited, once at least, and of course to be sold; but, by the last clause, no one could either buy or sell, without being liable to a heavy penalty.

As to this section in general, I did say, what I again repeat, sir, that unless absolutely necessary, I never would consent that those unfortunate blacks should be sold at auction, by the United States, in the same manner as they would sell a bale of goods.

H. OF R.

of a ship engaged in this traffic was guilty of murder.

Mr. S. said he was well aware of the propriety of proportioning punishments to crimes. In this instance, he thought, by annexing death to the perpetration of this crime, this proportion would not be violated. He did also believe that the people of the United States viewed the subject in the same light. He was certain those of the State in which he lived did. Under this impression, he would offer for the consideration of the select committee a new section, prescribing that if any person should take any negro or mulatto, without their consent, with an intent to sell them as slaves, and transport them into any place within the jurisdiction of the United States, they should be considered as guilty of felony, and on being convicted, suffer death.

The SPEAKER observed that it was not at present in order to receive this motion, unless in the shape of an instruction to the committee to whom the bill had been recommitted.

The gentleman from Georgia has likewise said, that I have proved, conclusively, that the section must be retained, and the negroes must be sold, because I have declared, that the other parts of the bill are insufficient to prevent the importation of slaves. I leave the Committee to judge whether this is a just inference. I have endeavored to satisfy the Committee that the second and third Mr. SMILIE said, as the hour was late, he would sections of the bill are so limited in their provis-withdraw the motion for the present, and take ocions, that the penalties may be so easily evaded, casion to renew it on a future day. that the object intended by the law, will not be enforced.

But, sir, if I have succeeded in this, if I have proved the inefficiency of the present bill to answer the important object we have in view, that is, to prevent the importation of the people of color into the United States, does it follow, that we must retain a section, which says, that the importer shall not make slaves of them, but that the United States will make slaves of them themselves? I should suppose that the just inference would be, that we ought to insert clauses which would be more efficient, and that, for this purpose, the bill ought to be referred to a select committee.

The question being taken on the Committee's rising, it was carried-ayes 72.

Mr. PITKIN hoped they would not have leave to sit again.

Mr. SLOAN. Notwithstanding the very high respect I entertain for the gentleman who reported this bill, I think it is easier to make an entire new one, than to undertake to amend this, so that it will answer.

The question being taken on the Committee having leave to sit again, it was lost-ayes 45, noes 57.

The bill was then recommitted to a committee of seven, consisting of Messrs. EARLY, T.M. RANDOLPH, KELLY, J. CAMPBELL, KENAN, COOKE,

and VAN RENSELLAER.

Mr. SMILIE invited the attention of the House to the introduction of a new principle into the bill-a principle which, in his opinion, involved the reputation of the country. In looking over the bill, he had been struck with surprise to find no penalty attached to one of the highest crimes man could commit. He believed there was not a State in the Union that did not inflict the punishment of death on wilful murder. A captain

FRIDAY, December 19.

[blocks in formation]

Commerce and Manufactures, made a report on Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, from the Committee of the petitions of sundry inhabitants of Philadelphia and Baltimore, praying for a drawback of duties on refined sugar exported.

The report states that the subject was fully ex amined by the committee in the last Congress, to which report they refer for their reasons against granting the prayer of the petitions, concluding with a resolution, declaring it inexpedient to grant the prayer of the petitioners.-Referred to a Committee of the Whole on Tuesday.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD then moved the following resolution:

H. OF R.

Evidence in the case of Contested Elections.

Resolved, That it is expedient to reduce the duties on foreign refined sugar and sugar candy, from and day of next, and that all restriction at present imposed on the importation and exportation of refined sugar be removed.

after the

DECEMBER, 1806.

arose. Messrs. J. CLAY, ELLIOT, SMILIE, and FINDLEY, supported, and Messrs. VARNUM, BIDWELL, and SLOAN, opposed the amendments.

By the former gentlemen it was observed, that the provisions submitted were offered for the Mr. CROWNINSHIELD remarked that the duties purpose of preserving sacred the right of election; at present paid on the importation of these arti- that, under the existing provisions of law, it was cles were exceedingly high, and operated as a frequently necessary, in the case of a number of monopoly to domestic sugar refiners. He was bad votes being given, either to confine the reopposed to any such monopoly, and to such exor-turns, where there was great appearance of fraud, bitant duties. His object was to call the atten- or to set aside the election altogether and order a tion of the House to the subject-for which pur- new one. This was a great grievance, that loudly pose he moved the reference of his resolution to called for redress, if any means could be devised the same committee with that to which the re- for affording it. It was added that a similar proport had been referred, in which motion the vision had been adopted in the State of PennsylHouse concurred. vania, and had been carried into effect without inconvenience; and that even if it should be acknowledged that it would be attended with some inconveniences, it did not follow that it was which could be devised. not freer from objection than any other provision

CONTESTED ELECTIONS.

On motion of Mr. BIDWELL the consideration of the bill "to revive and make permanent an act to prescribe the mode of taking evidence in cases of contested elections for members of the House of Representatives of the United States, and to compel the attendance of witnesses, and in addition to the same," was resumed in Committee

of the Whole.

On the other hand it was contended, that the right of ballot was justly considered sacred, and that whatever tended to impair it ought to be resisted; that, in this instance, although nomMr. J. CLAY offered two new sections, in con-inally the power given to the magistrate only apformity with the intimation made by him when the bill was before under consideration, the purport of which was

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That if, on due examination made according to the provisions of this act, and of the act hereby revived and made permanent, it shall be proven to the satisfaction of the magistrate before whom the examination shall have been had, that at any election by ballot for any member or members of the House of Representatives, any person or persons shall have voted who may not at the time of such election be legally entitled to vote, the person or persons so having voted shall be examined upon oath or affirmation touching the candidate or candidates for whom they may have voted. And the said magistrate shall have like powers to summon and compel such person or persons so voting as aforesaid, to attend, as are provided by the act revived and made permanent by this act, and under like penalties, and with like allowances for attendance and travelling as other witnesses. And it shall be the duty of the said magistrate to reduce the examination of the person or persons so illegally voting, to writing; and to transmit it, duly certified with the other testimony touching the case, to the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States, for the time being And if any such person, or any other witness, summoned to attend as aforesaid, shall refuse to answer, such person or witness, so refusing, shall be fined in a sum not exceeding twenty dollars, to be recovered in like manner as other penalties or fines imposed by the aforesaid act.

"SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That no testimony or examination, taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this act, or of the act revived and made permanent by this act, shall ever be given as evidence in any court of law or equity, in support of any action of debt, damage, or trespass, or in any criminal prosecution against any person or persons so examined, excepting in actions of debt for the recovery of fines and penalties imposed by this and the aforesaid act."

On these provisions a debate of some length

plied to persons not legally qualified to vote, it
who were or were not so qualified. On this point
virtually gave him the right of determining
the magistrate was liable to misjudgment, and
clare for whom he voted, and thus destroy the
might consequently compel a qualified voter to de-
Nor was it unchari-
sacredness of the ballot.
table to suppose, that in addition to the mistakes
of the magistrate, party spirit might in some in-
stances carry him beyond the bounds of propriety.
It was besides a strong objection to the proposed
provision, that it made the issue of an election
depend on the oaths of persons who had previ-
ously committed a fraud by giving illegal votes.

After this discussion the Committee, without coming to any decision, rose and asked leave to sit again, which was refused, and the bill recommitted to Messrs. BIDWELL, HALSEY, SMITH of Pennsylvania, SMITH of Virginia, PITKIN, R.NELand MCFARLAND.

SON,

[blocks in formation]

On motion of Mr. MARMADUKE WILLIAMS,

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of extending the power of granting injunctions to the judges of the district courts of the United States; and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise; and a committee was appointed, of Mr. MARMADUKE WILLIAMS. Mr. JACKSON, Mr. ELLIS, Mr. SANDFORD, Mr. MASTERS, Mr. KELLY, and Mr. FISK.

Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, presented to the House a petition of the President, Directors, and Company

DECEMBER, 1806.

Western Waters-Defence of New York Harbor.

of the Highland Turnpike, in the State of New York, which was received and read, praying the aid of Congress to enable the said company to complete the turnpike road from Kingsbridge, on the east side of Hudson river, across the Highlands to the city of Hudson, in the said State of New York.-Referred to Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, Mr. SOUTHARD, Mr. VARNUM, Mr. TRIGG, and Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee; to examine and report their opinion thereupon to the House.

H. OF R.

has, by Messrs. Lewis and Clarke. been traced nearly to its source; the Mississippi, by Lieutenant Pike, to its source; and the Red River, by Mr. Freeman, about six hundred miles from its mouth, nearly as far as the French settlements extended.

The important surveys made by Messrs, Lewis, Clarke, and Freeman, in addition to those before made, furnish materials for commencing an accurate map of the Mississippi and its western waters; some principal rivers, however, remain still to be explored. The ridges or The House resolved itself into a Committee of mountains from which the sources of these rivers spring, in a great measure form the exterior boundary of the the Whole on the bill supplementary to the act, newly acquired territory of the United States on the entitled "An act regulating the grants appropria-west side of the Mississippi. It therefore makes it the ted for the refugees from the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia ;" and, after some time spent therein the Committee rcse, and had leave to sit again.

more important that the work commenced of exploring the western waters should be carried on and finally completed.

Your committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Ordered, That the representation of George Gilpin, and William H. Dorsey, Judges of the Resolved, That the sum of $ be annually apOrphans' Court of the counties of Alexandria and propriated for the term of years, for the purpose of Washington, in the District of Columbia, pre-enabling the President of the United States further to sented to this House on the seventh of January, explore the western waters of the United States. 1804. be referred to Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, Mr. Referred to a Committee of the whole House COVINGTON, and Mr. PORTER; to examine and on Thursday next. report their opinion thereupon to the House. MAIL CONTRACTS.

DEFENCE OF NEW YORK HARBOR. The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter, diMr. CLINTON, of New York, presented several rected to them, from Charles Bruce, representing petitions from the inhabitants of New York, praythat the Postmaster General had given a contracting that the city may be adequately fortified. to another person for a higher sum than that bid [NOTE.-These petitions were alike, being signed by him, and implicating a member of the House only by different petitioners.]

in the transaction.

Some conversation ensued on the disposition of these papers.

Mr. ELLIOT was of opinion that, considering their nature and the mode of presentation, no notice ought to be taken of them.

Mr. ALSTON said he had seen Bruce in North Carolina, who was there using language similar to that contained in the letter. When he came to this place he had made inquiry on the subject, of the proper officer, and had learned that Bruce had previously been a contractor, and had failed in several contracts-and that it was for this reason that his proposals had not been accepted.

Mr. EARLY called for the reading of the documents, from which it would appear that one of Bruce's own sons, who had been a contractor, had robbed the mail. Mr. E. added that he knew this to be a fact, and that the man was now in jail suffering for the crime.

Mr. BIDWELL moved that the communication should be referred to the Post Office Committee. Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS opposed the motion, which was lost without a division. No further order was taken on the subject.

EXPLORATION OF WESTERN WATERS. Mr. ALSTON, from the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the farther exploring of the western waters, made the following report:

That considerable information has already been derived from those expeditions which have taken place, under the direction of the President of the United States, in exploring the western waters. The river Missouri, 9th CoN. 2d SESS.-7

Mr. CLINTON moved that they be printed. On dividing the House, the motion was lost.

Mr. THOMAS, of New York, called for the reading of the petitions. As the House had decided that they should not be printed, it was proper the members should hear them read. This motion was carried.

The Clerk had read a few sentences only, when Mr. THOMAS called for order. There was so much noise and disturbance in the House, he could not hear the Clerk read. The SPEAKER having restored order, the Clerk finished the reading of the petitions.

Mr. VARNUM, of Massachusetts, rose to inquire by whom the petitions were signed, whether by the Corporation of New York, or by individuals.

The SPEAKER replied, that they were signed by individuals only.

Mr. VARNUM then moved that the petitions be printed, in order that the public might know who were the persons that had signed the petitions.

The SPEAKER observed, that a motion for printing the petitions was not in order, as the House had already decided that question. It might, however, be done, if a motion to reconsider that vote should be made and carried.

Mr. VARNUM then moved to reconsider the vote already passed. It being carried-ayes 53, noes 43, Mr. V. then renewed his motion for printing, which was seconded by Mr. QUINCY, who remarked that he understood the motion to be that the names of all the signers be printed.

Mr. SMILIE, of Pennsylvania, believed that such a thing had never been done before.

H. of R.

Petition of the Manhattan Company.

Mr. DANA, of Connecticut, called for a division of the question.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD inquired, if the signers were numerous. If they were, the printing would | be expensive.

The SPEAKER replied, that they were very nu

merous.

Mr. SMILIE thought, if the House agreed to printing the names, the precedent would be very inconvenient.

Mr. BIDWELL, of Massachusetts, expressed his opinion in favor of printing.

Mr. DANA objected to printing the names. The object of the memorial is of general importance; and if the facts stated are true, and the arguments solid, it makes no difference whether there are few or many petitioners.

Mr. QUINCY concurred in sentiment with the gentleman from Connecticut. If, therefore, the original motion, included the names, he would wish not to be understood as seconding it. He would withdraw.

Mr. ELLIOT, of Vermont, hoped the names would be printed. He wished that the name of every man in the Union, who is willing to defend his country in this alarming crisis, could be printed. He wished that the yeas and nays, on the question of defence, could be taken throughout the seventeen States.

Mr. GREGG, of Pennsylvania.-According to the motion of the gentleman from Vermont, every man's name in the Union must be printed, as all are willing and ready to defend their country when necessary. He had no objection but the expense, though it was contrary to the usual mode of doing business.

Mr. THOMAS was against printing the names. Few of the subscribers were known to any members of the House.

The SPEAKER rose to state the question, when Mr. ALSTON, of North Carolina, began to speak. The SPEAKER said, he would state the question, if the gentleman from North Carolina would permit him. He understood the motion to be, that the petition, with the names of the subscribers, be printed.

Mr. ALSTON understood the question differently from the SPEAKER. He concurred in sentiment with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG,) in the impropriety of printing.

Mr. SMILIE understood the motion to be, that the petition be printed without the names, and that the amendment proposed was to print the names also.

The SPEAKER declared himself willing to be corrected, if he had mistaken the motion.

Mr. VARNUM said, he moved for the printing of the petitions generally. That motion would not comprehend the names. This was his view of the subject.

Mr. QUINCY understood his colleague otherwise. He (Mr. VARNUM) had certainly said that he wished the petition printed, in order that the public might know who had signed them.

DECEMBER, 1806.

would renew it. He wished all the information on the subject he could obtain, and for that reason, he wished the names of the petitioners published. The printing of the petition could furnish no new information, for it had been already printed all over the continent before it was presented to Congress. This Mr. W. thought very unfair and indecorous, in the petitioners. He concluded, by moving that the motion be amended so as to comprehend the printing of the names.

Mr. VARNUM agreed that his colleague (Mr. QUINCY) had correctly stated his observations. He had, indeed, expressed a wish that it might be known who were the petitioners.

Mr. DANA was opposed to printing the names, but was solicitous that the petition might be printed. It would be convenient for the members to have it on their desks to refer to. Mr. D. conceived that the petitioners did not deserve the imputation of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS.) The petitions had been distributed in all the wards of New York for signers, and the publication of them could not be prevented.

The question being taken on the amendment offered by Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, to print the names of the petitioners, it was lost-ayes 11. The question was then taken on the motion to print the petitions, which was also lost-ayes 46, noes 60.

MANHATTAN COMPANY.

Mr. CLINTON presented a petition from the President and Directors of the Manhattan Company in New York. The petition states that the law which directs that custom-house bonds shall be exclusively deposited in the United States Bank, affects their interests very injuriously; that the monthly deposits at New York amount, on an average, to $250,000. That the merchants dealing at the Manhattan bank, make in Manhattan notes large payments on account of custom-house bonds into the United States Bank, which, by means of their notes, draws largely on the Manhattan bank for specie; that, by these and similar means, the United States Bank regulate the discount, and contract the business of all the other banking institutions in the city. That the reasons which once existed for giving the United States Bank a preference, have since ceased, by the sale of the public stock. But the stockholders in the United States Bank are now almost entirely foreigners, which circumstance is favorable to the erection of foreign influence in this country, and ought to excite alarm.

Mr. C. said that as the subject related to the revenue, he moved the reference of the petition to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD thought that the subject had no connexion with the revenue. In his opinion, however, the petitioners stated very strong reasons in support of their petition. They also seem to intimate a wish that they should be allowed a share in the deposits, which Mr. C. thought no more than reasonable. He concluded, by moving a reference of the petition to a select com

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS inquired if the motion to print the names was withdrawn. If it was, hemittee.

« AnteriorContinuar »