in, the Committee rose and reported to the House their agreement to the same.

The House then proceeded to consider the said report of the Committee of Claims at the Clerk's table; and so much as is contained in the last clause thereof, being twice read, in the words following, to wit:

"From an attentive consideration of the case, your committee are of opinion the prayer of the petition is reasonable, and ought to be granted."

The question was taken that the House do concur with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the said last clause of the report,

and resolved in the affirmative.

Ordered, That a bill, or bills, be brought in pursuant thereto; and that the Committee of Claims do prepare and bring in the same.

MARCH, 1804.

Mr. FINDLEY, from the Committee of Elections, to whom were referred, during the present session, a memorial of Samuel J. Cabell of the State The House resolved itself into a Committee of of Virginia, complaining of an undue election of the Whole on the report of the Committee of THOMAS MANN RANDOLPH, one of the members Commerce and Manufactures, of the twenty-sev-returned to serve in this House for the said State; enth of January, on the petition of Lachlin McIn- and, also, sundry depositions and other papers tosh and Joseph Habersham, of the State of Geor- transmitted from the counties of Amherst, Albegia; to which Committee of the whole House was marle, and Fluvanna, in the State of Virginia, in also referred a report of the Committee of Com- the case of the said contested election; made a merce and Manufactures on the petition of the report thereon, which was read, and ordered to executors of John Habersham, deceased, made the lie on the table. The report is as follows: twenty-seventh of February last; and, after some time spent therein, the Committee rose and re ported two resolutions thereupon; which were severally read, and agreed to by the House, as follows:

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be authorized to direct credit to be given to the late Collector of Savannah, to the amount of eleven hundred and eleven dollars and eighteen cents.

Resolved, That the proper officers of the Treasury be authorized to pass to the credit of John Habersham, late Collector of Savannah, in Georgia, the amount of two orders or bills drawn in his favor by Edward Price, and one of them endorsed by William Wallace; the former upon Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury, and the other upon James McHenry, Secretary of War, making together the sum of two thousand one hundred and twenty-four dollars and fifty-three cents.

Ordered, That a bill, or bills, be brought in, pursuant to the said resolutions; and that the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures do prepare and bring in the same.

Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, presented a bill making an appropriation for defraying the expenses incurred in inquiring into the official conduct of Samuel Chase and Richard Peters, and in conducting the impeachment against John Pickering; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the whole House immediately.

66

That having examined the depositions and papers referred to them, they discover that the land lists of all the counties of which the district is composed are wanting, and the list of voters of all the counties but one, (viz Fluvanna county) are also wanting. The Committee also inform the House, that, by letters from the memorialist of the thirteenth of October, and third of November, the Committee were requested not to proceed until he could procure and transmit further docuthe fifth of January, accompanied with a protest against ments. That by another letter from the memorialist of documents then before the Committee, he again made a request that the Committee would defer taking the subject under consideration. Afterwards the memorito be prepared, and to attend the Committee himself, alist was notified, by the direction of the Committee, or by his agent, in order to obtain a decision. He has not complied with the notification, and the Committee observe no facts, from examining the documents submitted to them, sufficient to invalidate the claim, or set aside the return of Thomas M. Randolph.

Therefore, the Committee are of opinion that Thos. M. Randolph, returned as a member for the Congressional District composed of the counties of Albemarle, Amherst, and Fluvanna, in the State of Virginia, is

entitled to his seat in the House."

No further proceedings took place upon this report.

ana.

GOVERNMENT OF LOUISIANA. The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the government of LouisiThe House accordingly resolved itself into the The fifth section being read, as follows: said Committee; and, after some time spent therein, the bill was reported with several amend-rior court, and in such inferior courts, and justices of "SEC. 5. The judicial power shall be vested in a supements thereto, which were severally twice read, the peace, as the Legislature of the Territory may, from and agreed to by the House. court, and the justices of the peace, shall hold their time to time, establish. The judges of the superior shall consist of three judges, any one of whom shall offices for the term of four years. The superior court constitute a court. They shall have jurisdiction in all criminal cases, and exclusive jurisdiction in all those

Ordered, That the said bill be engrossed, and read the third time to morrow.

Mr. SMILIE offered a resolution directing a call of the House every morning at ten o'clock, during the remainder of the session, connected with a

Louisiana Territory.

which are capital, and original and appellate jurisdic-ings of the House on the bill. We understand, tion in all civil cases of the value of one hundred dollars. Its sessions shall commence on the first Monday of every month, and continue till all the business depending before them shall be disposed of. They shall appoint their own clerk. In all criminal prosecutions which are capital, the trial shall be by a jury of twelve good and lawful men of the vicinage; and in all cases, criminal and civil, in the superior court, the trial shall be by a jury, if either of the parties require it. The inhabitants of the said Territory shall be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus; they shall be bailable, unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident, or the presumption great; and no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted:"

The House proceeded to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of Government, for the year 1804" Whereupon, Resolved, That this House doth agree to the said amendment.

MARCH, 1804.

cided on the divisibility of the motion to postpone. Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH remarked that whenever a question was susceptible of division, it might be divided as a matter of right.]

Mr. VARNUM asked if a motion were made to postpone certain resolutions, or a bill, whether it would be divided so as to apply to a part only of the bill or the resolutions?

Mr. JACKSON said the motion is to postpone the resolutions generally. A major proposition must include the minor, and cannot be susceptible of division. If a member were to move a postponement of one of the resolutions, a motion to postpone the whole would supersede it.

Messrs. ELLIOT and EUSTIS were of opinion that the motion did not admit of division. The SPEAKER said it had been the practice of the House to commit a particular section. He considered the motion divisible.

Mr. JOHN RANDOLPH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred, on the second instant, two reports of the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures; one "on laying a tonnage duty on foreign ships and vessels, to be denominated light money" the other on various memorials and petitions for the encouragement of domestic acts, trades, and manufactures;" presented a bill imposing more specific duties on the importation of certain articles; and also, for levying and collecting light money on foreign ships and vessels; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. A message from the Senate informed the House, that the Senate agree to the first, second, and fourth amendments proposed by this House to the bill, sent from the Senate, entitled "An act to Mr. RODNEY rose.-I was about, said he, when erect a light-house on the south end of St. Simon's interrupted by an inquiry relating to a point of island, in the State of Georgia, and for the plac- order, taking advantage of the opportunity afing a buoy or buoys on or near St. Simon's bar," forded to give my reasons in support of the resowith an amendment to the said fourth amend-lutions under consideration. I had observed that ment; to which they desire the concurrence of the House. The Senate disagree to the third amendment by this House to add a new section at the end of the said bill.

GEORGIA CLAIMS.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH moved the taking up for consideration the resolution offered by him on the claims under the act of Georgia of 1795.

Mr. ELLIOT moved the order of the day on the bill for the compromise of those and other claims. Mr. GREGG moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolutions till the first day of December next. He was, he said, perfectly prepared to act on the bill for the settlement of the claims, and to give it his decided negative; and should have no objections, but for the lateness of the session, and the great mass of important business that demanded attention.

The question having been stated on the postponement of the first resolution to the first Monday of December

they experienced such a variety of objections, and from such a variety of quarters, that notwithstanding it was my intention to have given them a silent vote, and to have relied on the able manner in which they had been supported by my worthy friend from Virginia, I felt it my duty to remain no longer silent. My friend from Massachusetts has endeavored to interest the feelings of the House by awakening their compassion to the claims of those who have innocently suffered. I will only remark, in reply to such addresses to our feelings, that justice has the first right to be heard. Be just before you are generous, is a maxim consecrated by time and humanity; though an acknowledged virtue is of an inferior order, it may be the second virtue which a Legislative body ought. to possess, but justice is the first. In the course of this discussion when reason failed, resort has been had to other means, and a too liberal disposition to use personal recrimination has been indulged. I am pleased, however, to hear the gentleman from Massachusetts declare here that the warmth displayed on this occasion ought not to affect the personal feelings of individual members, and I am happy that this sentiment pervades every part of the House. I shall therefore pass by the sallies of the imagination which we have heard, as we do the flights of our pigeons who leave their owners animo revertendi, and return Mr. RODNEY expressed the same wish, and that to the subject. I shall pass by the fable of the the yeas and nays might be taken on each divis-lion, without reversing it; nor shall I allude to ion of the question. He was opposed to a postponement. He should not have risen at this late period but for the warm opposition the resolutions had received from various quarters, and but for his desire to avail himself of the opportunity to state his reasons for giving them a firm support. [Mr. R. was interrupted by an inquiry whether his remarks were in order before the Chair had de

The SPEAKER said, the motion to consider the resolutions, being first made, must be first put.

It accordingly was put, and carried-yeas 58. Mr. JACKSON then moved a postponement of the resolutions until the 1st Monday in December. Mr. STANFORD inquired whether the motion of postponement was not susceptible of a division, so as to apply to each resolution separately.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH hoped the question would be so taken.

another fable relating to that noble animal, and to a reptile who, having found under him a shelter from danger, attempted to sting him.

It is objected to these resolutions that they are abstract propositions. By abstract principles, I understand axioms unapplied. But when they are applied to facts, they cease to be considered in the abstract. In geometry there are certain

MARCH, 1804.

Georgia Claims.

H. OF R.

considered as a common fund for the use and benefit

elementary principles which are the basis of all "Provided, That all the lands ceded by this agreereasoning on any proposition in that department ment to the United States, shall, after satisfying the of science. So in law there are principles in the above-mentioned payment of one million two hundred abstract while they remain unapplied, and which and fifty thousand dollars to the State of Georgia, and bear in every case where facts admit of their ap- the grants recognised by the preceding condition, be plication. So in politics certain principles are held sacred, either in the view of right, or in rela- of the United States, Georgia included, and shall be tion to the constitution of a State. But when faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other these principles are applied to a given state of United States, for the period and until the end of one use or purpose whatever: Provided, however, That the things, they cease to be abstract. In the Declaration of Independence there are several abstract lished by this agreement shall have been declared, may, year after the assent of Georgia to the boundary estabprinciples, such as "that all men are free," &c. in such manner as not to interfere with the aboveBut when applied to a certain state of things, mentioned payment to the State of Georgia, nor with they are no longer abstract. I apprehend, there- the grants hereinbefore recognised, dispose of or approfore, that my worthy friend from Pennsylvania priate a portion of the said lands, not exceeding five will, on more mature reflection, perceive that the millions of acres, or the proceeds of the said five milprinciples contained in the resolutions bearing on lions of acres, or of any part thereof, for the purpose of facts cease to be abstract; on facts which it is ne- satisfying, quieting, or compensating for any claims cessary for us to decide, and against examining other than those hereinbefore recognised, which may the consequences of which no reason can be urged. be made to the said lands, or to any part thereof. It But says another gentleman, we have no jurisdic- being fully understood, that if an act of Congress maktion in the case; we have nothing to do with the ing such disposition or appropriation shall not be passed act of Georgia of 1795; we have no authority into a law within the above-mentioned period of one over it. I confess myself really surprised to be year, the United States shall not be at liberty thereaf assured, over and over again, that the act of 1795, ter to cede any part of the said lands on account of which gives the House all this trouble, is the corclaims which may be laid to the same, other than those ner stone of the present claims, and without recognised by the preceding condition, nor to compenwhich there would not be a shadow of claim, is sation for the same; and in case of any such cession or not to be considered as blended with our proceed-right of soil over the lands thus ceded or compensated compensation, the present cession of Georgia to the ings. What! when we are called upon to com- for, shall be considered as null and void, and the lands promise claims, are we not to go to the cause, to thus ceded or compensated for shall revert to the State the fountain source, and decide whether they have, of Georgia." or have not, a foundation in justice? Put the act of 1795 out of the way, and would we have ever heard of this compromise? Remove it, and would we have a single claimant before us soliciting a compromise? I consider the act, to Georgia, as involving the all-important point; as intimately and indissolubly blended with the question before

us.

That question is whether we will consent to give five millions to effect a compromise of claims, directly emanating from the act of 1795; and then, as an incidental question, we are obliged to look at the act of 1795. If the House have authority over the main question, ex vi termini, they have authority over every question incidental to it; and common sense teaches us that it is absolutely necessary to determine on the validity of the act of 1795, in order to decide the justice or policy of compromising claims arising out of it.

But says the gentleman from Massachusetts, the United States are pledged to compensate these claimants by the articles of agreement made with Georgia, and by the act of Congress passed at a late session and he wishes us to drop the curtain over this scene of iniquity. I should be as glad as that gentleman to do it, but I wish to know who raised it, and whether the first act in this dark drama is not the act of 1795, and whether this did not, in the first instance, raise the curtain ? I wish to examine the validity of this act. Is there anything in the articles of cession that contravenes its validity? My worthy friend from Virginia has frequently called the attention of the House to that instrument. I will again invite it. By the third article it is

It must be evident from the plain reading of her part to pay, nor wish the United States to pay this article, that Georgia did not contemplate on

the claimants. She ties the United States down

to a certain time, and if afterwards she undertakes to appropriate one acre to their satisfaction, the whole reverts to Georgia. Is there any specific recognition of claims in the instrument? Is there any covenant to pay the claimants under the act of 1795? We find nothing in the letter of the articles of cession to warrant it; and we the United States to compensate the claimants must conclude that there is no promise made by under that act. But say gentlemen, this is to be found in the act of the last session. I think that claims are not recognised, or intended to be react establishes no such thing, and that those cognised by it; for it explicitly declares in the eighth section:

"That so much of the five millions of acres reserved

for that purpose by the articles of agreement abovementioned, as may be necessary to satisfy the claims not confirmed by that agreement, which are embraced by the two first sections of this act, or which may be been regranted by the Spanish Government, be, and derived from British grants for lands which have not the same is hereby appropriated for that purpose, and so much of the residue of the said five millions of acres, or of the net proceeds thereof as may be necessary for that purpose, shall be and is hereby appropriated for the purpose of satisfying, quieting, and compensating, for such other claims to the lands of the United States south of the State of Tennessee not recognised in the above-mentioned articles of agreement, and which are

derived from any act or pretended act of the State of Georgia, which Congress may hereafter think fit to provide for: Provided, however, That no other claims shall be embraced by this appropriation, but those, the evidence of which shall have, on or before the first day of January next, been exhibited by the claimants to the Secretary of State, and recorded in books to be kept in his office for that purpose, at the expense of the party exhibiting the same, who shall pay to the person employed by the Secretary of State for recording the same, at the rate of twelve and a half cents for every hundred words contained in each document thus recorded; nor shall any grant, deed, conveyance, or other written evidence of any claim to the said lands, derived or pretended to be derived, from the State of Georgia, and not recognised by the above-mentioned articles of agreement, ever after be admitted or considered as evidence in any of the courts of the United States, unless it shall have been exhibited and recorded in the manner and within the time above-mentioned."

From this view I think it must be obvious to every person who has considered the articles of cession and the act of Congress, that neither in the one nor the other are these claims recognised as valid. They are both very far from containing any covenant to compensate or compromise them. I know that truth is only to be sought by a slow and painful process, while error is very compendious and easy. We can with great ease hop and skip over truth and perch upon assertion, and call it truth. But where shall we find in the articles of cession or the act of Congress any obligation to render compensation for these claims? We can find nothing. No such idea is inculcated. While we may find abundant proof to satisfy us that this assumption is without foundation, and cannot be supported.

Having settled, as I conceive, these preliminary points, I will call the attention of the House to the great point on which their decision must turn. Either the act of 1795 or of 1796 is in force. If that of 1795 is in force the claimants have a legal title to unascertained millions. If that act is not binding, they have no claim at all. If that act is of no authority, there is an end of their title. The tree is cut up by the roots, and all its branches fall. They have either then a title to fifty millions, or they have no title at all. Their case cannot be compared to a common saying, which declares half a loaf better than no bread.

Now let us compare these facts and reasonings with the resolutions. When I rose I intended to

have taken them up in order, but as I have been diverted by the course of the argument, I shall pursue the track I have taken. One of the resolutions states "that a subsequent Legislature of an individual State has an undoubted right to repeal any act of a preceding Legislature, pro'vided such repeal be not forbidden by the constitution of such State, or of the United States."

MARCH, 1804.

body, between municipal acts and those constituting contracts. The distinction holds to a certain degree as to expediency, but not as to power. When a Legislative body forms a contract, it is a solemn thing, and it ought not to be touched, except when the private evil arising from its being annulled should rather be endured than the public calamity arising from its continuance. But still the position of the resolution is perfectly tenable. What one Legislature has done another may undo; what one has enacted, a subsequent one may repeal.

Let us examine whether there is anything in the rescinding act of Georgia at variance with the constitution of that State, or the Constitution of the United States. The whole course of the business shows the previous act to have been a violation of the constitution of Georgia. The Constitution of the United States declares that no State "shall pass any ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts." That no contract has been impaired, is evident from attending to the sense of the word. I know of no contract formed, either in a legal or equitable sense. Did the constitution of Georgia authorize her Representatives to rob the people of their property? Or did it authorize them only to dispose of it for their welfare? If they had a right to dispose of it in a wrongful manner, it knocks up the argument at once. If they were vested with a right to rob and plunder their constituents, I give up the point. But until this is shown I shall remain of opinion that they only had the right of disposing of it for the general good. I am not about to travel through the fruitful wilderness of inquiry disclosed in the progress of this affair. But gentlemen say that we have no evidence of corruption. What do they want more than we possess? The whole business has been referred to a set of Commissioners, whose comprehensive powers embraced an investigation of every claim. They have fully examined the claims under the act of 1795, and they have reported that—

"A comparison of the schedule annexed to the articles, and which is declared to be a part of the agreement, with the yeas and nays on the passage of the act authorizing the sale, (E,) shows that all the members, both in the Senate and House, who voted in favor of the law, were, with one single exception, (Robert Watkins, whose name does not appear) interested in, and parties to, the purchase.

"The articles of agreement, and list of associates of the Tennessee company, which have been voluntarily furnished by one of the trustees, shows that a number of members of the Legislature were also interested in that company."

This stubborn fact appears on the face of a report made by persons duly authorized to investigate the whole transaction. The fact is indisputable, and ought to satisfy the most reluctant and This is, I think, a plain and clear axiom. Both unwilling mind of the enormity of the corruption Legislatures flow from the same source, and are attending this business. It is fully satisfactory to armed with equal powers. What one Legislature my mind. But it is said that this statement is can do, another may undo, if the interest of the founded on ex parte depositions, and that no oppublic prescribes it. I know an ingenious distinc-portunity has been allowed to cross-examine the tion is taken, as to the power of a Legislative witnesses. But where were they taken? In Geor