WIN, WRIGHT, and COCKE, be the committee to consider and report thereon to the Senate. The Senate took into consideration the motion made on the 11th instant for printing copies of the laws passed the first session of the seventh Congress; and Ordered, That it be referred to Messrs. TRACY, BALDWIN, and STONE, to consider and report thereon to the Senate. On motion, that the Senate do now proceed to the consideration of the report of the committee, made on the 24th of October last, on an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the election of President and Vice President, it passed in the negative-yeas 9, nays 22, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Butler, Dayton, Hillhouse, Olcott, Plumer, Tracy, Wells, and White. NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Bailey, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, Condit, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, Pickering, Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith, Stone, Taylor, Worthington, and Wright. The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: I communicate a digest of the information I have received relative to Louisiana, which may be useful to the Legislature in providing for the government of the country. A translation of the most important laws in force in that province, now in press, shall be the subject of a supplementary communication, with such further and material information as may yet come to hand. Mr. WORTHINGTON presented the petition of a number of the inhabitants of the Indiana Territory, praying to be set off into a separate district, for reasons therein stated. Ordered, That it be referred to Mr. BRADLEY and others, the committee to whom were referred, on the 7th instant, petitions on the same subject, to consider and report thereon to the Senate. A motion was made, by Mr. ANDERSON, that it be Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of the money appropriated to defray the contingent expenses of the Senate, the sum of two hundred dollars each to the principal and engrossing clerks in his office, for their extra sevices during the last session of Congress. And it was agreed that this motion should lie for consideration. A message from the House of Representatives SENATE. informed the Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled "An act to repeal the act, entitled 'An act to allow a drawback of duties on goods exported to New Orleans, and therein to amend the act, entitled 'An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage ;" in which they desire the concurrence of the Senate. The bill was read, and ordered to the second reading. WEDNESDAY, November 16. The bill, entitled "An act to repeal the act, entitled 'An act to allow a drawback of duties on goods exported to New Orleans, and therein to amend the act, entitled An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage," was read the second time, and referred to Messrs. ANDERSON, BRECKENRIDGE, and FRANKLIN, to consider and report thereon to the Senate. The Senate took into consideration the motion made yesterday, to authorize the Secretary of the Senate to compensate his principal and engrossing clerks for their extra services during the last session of Congress; and, on the question to agree thereto, it passed in the affirmative. On motion, it was agreed that the further consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the motion for amendments to the Constitution of the United States, respecting the election of President and Vice President, and also the resolution of the House of Representatives on the same subject, be the order of the day for Monday next. On motion, by Mr. TRACY, that it be Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, requested to lay before the Senate a statement of the payments which have been made by the respective States of the direct tax; distinguishing, as far as may be, the sums which have been paid into the hands of supervisors, and not paid into the Treasury: It was agreed that the motion lie for consideration. Mr. BRADLEY, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 7th instant, the bill to divide the Indiana Territory into two separate governments, and giving the assent of Congress to the proposition of the convention of the State of Ohio, contained in the sixth section of the seventh article of the constitution of that State, reported the bill with amendments; which were read, and ordered to lie for consideration. THURSDAY, November 17. Mr. TRACY presented the petition of Ezekiel Scott, of the State of New York, praying allowance of compensation for military services; he having acted in the capacity of major in one of the regiments raised by order of the Governor and Council of that State, in the year 1781, to be subsisted at the expense of the United States; and the petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table. Mr. TRACY also presented the petition of Henry Glen, praying compensation for military services and supplies, furnished by himself and others under his authority, during the late Revolutionary war; and the petition was read, and ordered to lie on the table. The Senate took into consideration a motion made yesterday, that the Secretary of the Treasury be requested to lay before the Senate a statement of the payments of the respective States, of the direct tax, distinguishing the sums received by supervisors, and not paid into the Treasury. Ordered, That it be referred to Messrs. BRADLEY, TRACY, and STONE, to consider and report thereon to the Senate. The bill brought up for concurrence was read, and ordered to the second reading. NOVENBER, 1803. made that the further consideration of the bill, together with the proposed amendment, be the order of the day for Wednesday next; and it passed in the negative. The motion was then resumed, to add a proviso to the first section of the bill; and, after debate, the Senate adjourned. TUESDAY, November 22, The Senate resumed the second reading of the bill, entitled "An act for the further protection of together with the amendment proposed to the first the seamen and commerce of the United States," section thereof; and, other amendments having been proposed, Ordered, That the bill, together with the amendments, be referred to Messrs. SAMUEL SMITH, ADAMS, and JACKSON, to consider generally and report thereon to the Senate. A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled "An act fixing the salaries of certain officers therein mentioned," in which they desire the concurrence of the Senate. The bill was read, and ordered to the second reading. The bill, entitled "An act to repeal the act, entitled 'An act to allow a drawback of duties on goods exported to New Orleans, and therein to amend the act, entitled An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage," was read the third time and passed. The Senate took into consideration the motion, made on the 18th instant, relative to the violation of the flag of the United States. Whereupon. Resolved, That the President of the United Mr. ANDERSON, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 16th instant, the bill, entitled "An act to repeal the act, entitled 'An act to allow a drawback of duties on goods exported to New Orleans, and therein to amend the act, entitled An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage:" reported it without amendment. Ordered, That this bill pass to a third reading. Mr. BRADLEY reported, from the committee appointed the 17th instant, on the motion to request the Secretary for the Department of Treasury to report on the subject of the direct tax, an amend-States be requested to cause to be laid before the Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury Senate such information as may have been rebe, and hereby is, requested to lay before the Sen-ceived relative to the violation of the flag of the ate a statement of the payments which have been United States, or to the impressment of any seamade by the respective States, of the direct tax; men in the service of the United States, by the designating, as far as may be, what sums have agents of any foreign nation. been paid into the Treasury, what sums are retained by the supervisors, what sums are in the hands of the collectors, and the persons in whose hands such moneys are; and the progress that has been made in those States from which no payment hath been received. ment; which was adopted; and it was A motion was made, by Mr. LOGAN, that it be Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate such information as may have been received relative to the violation of the flag of the United States, or to the impressment of any seamen in the service of the United States, by the agents of any foreign nation. Ordered, That the Secretary lay this resolution before the President of the United States. The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the motion for amendments to the Constitution of the United States, respecting the election of President and Vice President; and, after debate, Ordered, That the consideration thereof be postponed. WEDNESDAY, November 23. The bill, entitled "An act fixing the salaries of And it was agreed that this motion should lie for certain officers therein mentioned," was read the consideration. MONDAY, November 21. The bill entitled "An act for the further protection of the seamen and commerce of the United States," was read the second time. On motion to amend the bill, by adding a proviso to the end of the first section-a motion was second time, and referred to Messrs. BRADLEY, BALDWIN, and SAMUEL SMITH, to consider and report thereon to the Senate. Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 22d instant, the bill, entitled "An act for the further protection of the seamen and commerce of the United States," reported the bill with amendments; which were read. and ordered to lie for consideration. 81 NOVEMBER, 1803. HISTORY OF CONGRESS. Amendment to the Constitution. AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee to whom was referred the motion for an amendment to the Constitution in the mode of electing the President and the Vice President of the United States; whereupon, the President pro tem. (Mr. BROWN) Submitted to the consideration of the Senate the following question of order: SENATE. ject to a treaty, in the whole or in part, even after Mr. DAYTON never suggested that we have no Mr. HILLHOUSE said, it was a matter of indiffer “When an amendment to be proposed to the Con-ence to him how the House proceeded on the quesstitution is under consideration, shall the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present be requisite to decide any question for amendments, or extending to the merits, being short of the final question ?" [A debate took place on this proposition, tedious, intricate, and desultory, which it was very difficult to follow, and often to comprehend.] Mr. ADAMS was of opinion that on all questions involving the amendment two-thirds of the votes were requisite, but not on any of the forms of proceedings on the subject. Mr. DAYTON thought two-thirds necessary on all questions upon which the amendment might ultimately depend; that the reasoning in the case of treaties would apply here as well in a single principle as on the aggregate. Mr. FRANKLIN differed altogether from the last speaker. He considered all the preliminary proceedings, previous to the ultimate vote, subject to the decision of an ordinary majority. The motion here is a simple proposition, involving the mode of proceeding in that House, and could not affect the final vote on the amendment, which must be carried by two thirds. The amendment will come fairly before the House for discussion by the vote of a simple majority; but subject the House to the control of two-thirds in the first instance, and discussion itself is obstructed-you can neither strike out nor insert. tion, so that the rules of the Senate may not be embarrassed. The question appeared to him now to be principally the best mode of taking up the subject for deliberation. Mr. TAYLOR.-The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. DAYTON) has acknowledged, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) has concurred in the sentiment, that this amendment is not so much a Constitutional question as one of expediency and form. In this view, the gentlemen must consider that they cannot take from the Vice President a right which he possesses to a Constitutional equality in the election, as the Constitution declares (article 2, section 1) that the President "shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice PresiNo right of expedent, be chosen for that term." diency can find room in this place: if there be any, gentlemen will of course show it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MACLAY) had felt no doubt on his mind on the subject. Mr. BUTLER.-It never was intended by the Constitution that the Vice President should have a vote in altering the Constitution: whatever of the arguments of gentlemen relate to that point falls to the ground. The question now before the House is, whether, when a general proposition is brought up, shall the same number of two-thirds be requisite to decide upon its admission, as upon the subsequent and perfecting vote? In his opinion the same number was necessary. So on a motion formerly made by a gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON,) for striking out all that related to the Vice President, he thought two-thirds were necessary to a vote of that kind, as the striking out would go to an alteration of the Constitution. On minute alterations of the letter or phraseology, which did not involve the principle, perhaps a simple majority would be sufficient. Mr. WRIGHT Supposed that the forms of proceeding in that House hitherto observed would not be departed from. It had never been considered that a preliminary question in proceedings was to be decided upon as a final question of amendment of the Constitution. Such a form of proceeding would leave it in the power of a minority to arrest every proposition on such a subject before it passed the threshold; and it might even put it in the power of the Vice President himself to deMr. COCKE Considered the House as competent cide a question, though in the eye of the Constito the formation of its own rules, and was opposed tution he is not a member of the Senate at all. Mr. MACLAY.-This appears to me a very sim-to this new mode of proceeding, evidently calcuple question: it is no other, in fact, than whether lated only to embarrass. the House may or may not determine its rules of proceeding. Now, he was convinced that the Constitution had already settled this question, by declaring that each House shall be competent to establish its own rules. It was in the nature of things necessary, and it was fair to infer that in Legislative proceedings the simplest form was most eligible who would apply a clumsy apparatus while one simple and sufficient was at hand? The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. FRANKLIN) had made the proper distinction. Treaties bore no analogy to forms of proceeding. We may ob Mr. HILLHOUSE thought the decision on this question perfectly analogous to the cases which arise on treaties. Suppose that two-thirds of the Senate present concur with the proposition of the bill now before the Senate from the House of Representatives, and a majority agree to strike out a part? Mr. WRIGHT.-Gentlemen cannot or will not keep it in mind that the proposition before the House is not an alteration of the Constitution, but the formation of a proposition upon which two-thirds of the House must ultimately decide, and, after which decision, must go to the several States, and depend for its final adoption upon three-fourths of the States. It does not, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. HILLHOUSE) seems to assume, require two-thirds of the Senate to prepare and propose an amendment to a treaty; it is the principal confirmation or ratification only that requires two-thirds. Mr. JACKSON was not averse to a postponement; though he did not approve of the idea of the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. DAYTON,) concerning the abolition of the Vice President's office. If the Senate would postpone, a committee might be appointed who would search for precedents, and report by Monday or on some other day. He moved to postpone, seconded by Mr. BRADLEY; lost-ayes 15, noes 16. Mr. PICKERING.-There appears to me so close an analogy between the proposed amendment and the case of treaties, that it ought to govern. The striking out of a part of the Constitution must be considered as an amendment, for if a part is struck out it is no longer the same thing; he did not approve of subjecting a Constitution to repeated alterations. Mr. ISRAEL SMITH.-This appears to be a very important Constitutional question; and in fixing the principle, care is requisite, though he did not see why it should not be done as early as possible. All our details of bills go through the forms of reading and engrossing; they are read and considered section by section and clause by clause, so that nothing shall be admitted but by a majority. Then, why not, in the debates of an amendment, use the same precautions? If you admit amendments to the Constitution by a common majority, it appears that there is not the same precaution. Mr. TAYLOR.-The gentleman's arguments were entitled to an answer; but a short one would be sufficient. The analogy with treaties is no more perfect than that with relation to ordinary Legislative acts. Treaties originate with the Executive, with a power over which there is always entertained a salutary jealousy. On the other hand, a law must have the consent of the President after it has passed both Houses; if the President refuses his consent, the whole is inchoate, and two-thirds of both Houses may, non obstant, pass the law without that consent; and here only the cases are analogous. We may proceed to give a law perfection in its preliminary stages, so may we discuss an amendment; but to the ultimate perfection of the thing, two-thirds are required. If the doctrine held by some gentlemen were to prevail, it would be difficult ever to amend the Constitution, be its imperfections ever so great. Mr. HILLHOUSE was convinced, by the arguments of the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. I. SMITH,) that this was a question of the first magnitude. In the case of a law to which the President denies his concurrence, when it is returned to both Houses, no amendment can be made thereto, it must pass altogether by two-thirds, or is lost. Again: If you were to move to strike out a part of the amendment, it would appear by the vote on your journals that the question had not NOVEMBER, 1803. been decided by two-thirds. In the passage of laws it is understood that all parts of a law must have a majority of votes, but it is also well understood that different parts of the same law will not obtain the same number of votes, and that some will vote against particular parts who approve of the rest, yet that the whole must have a majority. He never doubted that a proposition for an amendment may be admitted by a majority for discussion; but it was no more a conclusion that twothirds were not necessary on a vote involving the principle during the discussion, because there was to be a final vote, than that two thirds would not be necessary on the last vote here, because it is not final in relation to the other House. Mr. ANDERSON proposed to postpone the subject till to-morrow. Mr. TRACY also wished to postpone to next day. Mr. NICHOLAS hoped the question would be decided before the House rose; and as it was a simple question of order, he wished the wholesome rule of the other House to be pursued, to decide the questions of order without debate. The question to postpone being taken, was lostayes 14, noes 16. The proposition offered by the President was then called up for decision, whether two-thirds were necessary-ayes 13, noes 18. Mr. BUTLER desired to know from the President if the question now decided did not require a majority of two-thirds? The PRESIDENT said, according to the rule of the House, the question required only a principal majority to decide it. Mr. DAYTON's motion for striking out what related to the Vice President was called for, and the question taken on striking out-ayes 12, noes 19. The report of the committee at large being then under consideration, Mr. NICHOLAS moved to strike out all following the seventh line of the report, to the end, for the purpose of inserting the following: 66 In all future elections of President and Vice President, the Electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and, in distinct ballots, the person voted for as Vice President, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves. The person voted for as President, having a majority of the votes of all the Electors appointed, shall be the President; and if no person have such majority, then from the three highest on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose the President in the manner directed by the Constitution. The person having the the Vice President; and in case of an equal number of greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be votes for two or more persons for Vice President, they being the highest on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President from those having such equal number, in the manner directed by the Constitution; but no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President, shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States." Mr. ADAMS objected to the number" three" instead of five, and wished five to be restored, as 85 NOVEMBER, 1803. HISTORY OF CONGRESS. Amendment to the Constitution. the House of Representatives had already agreed to it. He asked for a division of the question; which was not agreed to. Upon the question for striking out being put, it was carried without a dissenting voice, and the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS adopted in the report, leaving the number blank. Mr. DAYTON moved to fill up the blank with the number five; upon the question being put, it was lost-only eleven rose in the affirmative. Mr. ANDERSON moved to strike out the word "two" in the nineteenth line-ayes 6. Lost. Mr. S. SMITH then moved to fill the blank with the word "three;" which was carried-ayes 18, noes 13. Mr. ADAMS Suggested an objection to the amendment as it stood, which appeared to arise out of the treaty of cession of Louisiana. His original idea was adverse to the limitation to natural-born citizens, as superfluous; but, as it stood, the terms upon which Louisiana was acquired had rendered a change necessary, for it appeared to him that there was no alternative, but to admit those born in Louisiana as well as those born in the United States to the right of being chosen for President and Vice President. Mr. BUTLER said that, if there was a numerous portion of those who were already citizens of the United States who can never aspire to, nor be eligible for, those situations under the Constitution, he did not see how this supposed alternative could be upheld. The people of Louisiana, under the treaty and under the Constitution, will clearly come under the description of naturalized citizens. While he was up, he would take the opportunity of speaking to the question at large, and to examine the motives which produced this amendment; the principal cause of solicitude, on this subject, he understood to be the base intrigues which were said to have been carried on at the Presidential election. Mr. WRIGHT called to order; and a short altercation on the point of order took place. SENATE. danger, than put into the hands of four of the did he apprehend that the proposed amendment would cut off any State in the Union, but he was persuaded that it would cut off the weight and the influence of many of the small States. He had heard it said with confident boldness that experience had shown the necessity of amendment, and that the Constitution had already undergone correction. But gentlemen should show him that healing a wound and cutting off a limb Mr. BUTLER proceeded. He had on a former were operations not of a different nature and difday asked if he might, in this stage of the discus-ferent degrees of danger. He did not mean, nor sion, take a view of the whole subject; the House had decided in the affirmative. When the proposition was first laid before the House, he had felt a disposition in favor of it; his mind had been shocked by those base intrigues, which had taken place at the late Presidential election, and he was hurried by indignation into a temper which a little cool reflection and some observation on a particular mode of action in that House, had checked and corrected, and finally convinced him that much caution was required in a proceeding of that nature, and that, in all human probability, such a scene of intrigue may never occur again; that it became questionable whether any steps whatever were necessary. Upon a careful review of the subject, it appeared to him that an alteration might make matters worse; for though at present there has been afforded, by a course of accidents and oversights, room for intrigue, it would be preferable to leave it to the care and discretion of the States at large to prevent the recurrence of the He had been told that the people of the United States called for this amendment. How had this sense been collected? It was a difficult matter to collect their sense; the great variety of habits, the diversity of climates, the space over which they are spread, the different modes of education and way of thinking, all render it difficult to ascertain the general sentiment, and he who says the people at large wish for this amendment, in my judgment, hazards greatly the respectability of character. It is urged that the people did feel great indignation at the scenes which were exhibited in the House of Representatives on a former election; and that the people might be hurried into strong and dangerous measures to prevent the recurrence of scenes so disreputable to republican Govern |