The whole business was closed by the following remonstrance and protest, which was presented by the Massachusetts delegation, and by congress permitted to be placed on their files. Probably a more unparliamentary acknowledgment of errour could not have been made. WHEREAS the honourable Elbridge Gerry, Esq., a delegate in congress from the state of Massachusetts, has represented to the general assembly of the said state that he was on the 19th day of February 1780 deprived of the privilege of a member of congress, in being denied the right of calling the yeas and nays upon a question of order, in consequence of which Mr. Gerry withdrew from congress, and it appearing to said assembly, by the journals of congress and by the letters that passed between the president of congress and Mr. Gerry, that Mr. Gerry's complaint of a deprivation of privilege was well founded, and whereas no reparation has been made to the state of Massachusetts or Mr. Gerry for the injury aforesaid, The undersigners, delegates in congress from the state of Massachusetts, do in the name and by express order of the general court of said state remonstrate against the conduct of congress for the year 1780, in depriving Mr. Gerry of his right as a member of congress, as being injurious to the privilege of Mr. Gerry and subversive of the right and interest of the state of Massachusetts, in expectation that the present congress will order this remonstrance to be lodged amongst their records, that the sense of the state of Massachusetts relative to the conduct of congress for the year 1780, in the instance referred to, the 19th of February, may at all times hereafter appear. S. HOLTEN, It was certainly a very singular notion that a tribunal, possessing authority in the last resort, could be amenable to any other power, excepting indeed to public opinion, for the exercise of its discretion; and it is not a little surprising that when it was so important to have congress stand high in the public confidence, any measure could be justified by so ardent a revolutionist as Mr. Gerry, which might lessen its authority with the people. But the delegates in congress were considered as forming an assembly of ministers from sovereign states, rather than as officers of one common government; and although circumstances rendered the union of physical and moral strength necessary for the common good, the idea was never for a moment abandoned, that the source of authority remained in the distinct parts of the confederacy, and not in the confederacy itself. A feeling, if not of state pride yet certainly of state power and authority, which shortly after was a subject of great consideration, controversy and alarm, and which to the present time manifests itself on suitable occasions in some parts of the nation, existed then in its primitive strength, and required only a convenient opportunity for a very active and troublesome exertion of its influence. But whatever may be thought of an appeal from a decision of congress, as it was then constituted, to the state constituent of the delegate who made it, there is equal cause of surprise at the decision of congress on the principal question itself. By the confederation, which was in the nature of a constitution or supreme law, and wholly beyond the control or authority of congress, in the 10th article it is expressly declared that “the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the journal when "it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a state, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of said journal," &c. The phrase "any question" seems not liable to a construction, which should exclude questions of order. Matters of great interest might be incidentally but effectually settled under this class. Nor was the right solely derived from the confederation. Congress, by rules of proceeding adopted on 26th May 1778, provided, article 14, Each member present shall declare openly and without debate, his assent or dissent to a question by ay or no when required by motion of any member whose name shall be entered as having made such motion. The practice under these regulations was also very well established. Two instances from a number may be cited as directly in point. On 24th May 1779, a motion was made by Mr. Morris, seconded by Mr. Carmichael, relative to a pension for those military officers "whose youth, health and ease had been generously expended in the service of the public." An objection was made against taking this into consideration, as being out of order. On the question, not whether it should be considered, but is the above motion in order, the ayes and noes were required by Mr. Carmichael and unanimously decided against him by states; he and Mr. Morris being the only individuals who voted in the affirmative. On 18th December of the same year, à question was pending relative to certain contingents of Massachusetts and Virginia, on which a motion was made to amend, and the motion being objected to as out of order, the question was stated from the chair, "Is the motion in order?" and the ayes and noes being demanded, they were taken and recorded accordingly. The refusal of congress to order the ayes and noes on the question proposed by Mr. Gerry was therefore a clear departure from their existing rules; and connected as it was with a subject of high interest to the state of Massachusetts, was probably supposed to betray somewhat of hostility to the rights of the state, to which her inflexible representative was not inclined to submit. The taking of ayes and noes in congress could have consumed little more time than a common division of the house; less certainly than ascertaining the vote of an assembly of two hundred members who rise to be counted: but it began to be vexatious from its frequency; and it is somewhat remarkable, that while previous to this oc currence the ayes and noes were recorded almost every day, and often many times in a day, the public journals do not show an instance of a call of this kind for the whole year 1780. To give the entire history of this unpleasant affair, the narrative has proceeded beyond the time of its occurrence. It afforded Mr. Gerry a relaxation from his public duties, and he returned to Massachusetts in July 1780, after having devoted without recess or intermission, four years and six months to his official labours in congress. The first business, which claimed Mr. Gerry's attention on his arrival in Massachusetts, was the settlement of his public accounts. The members of congress were paid by their respective states; advances were made to them from time to time according to the liberality or ability of the - state, or not unfrequently, the popularity of the incumbent. In this, as in some other respects already adverted to, they more resembled a congress of diplomatic agents than an assembly of legislators. The accounts presented from time to time to the legislature of Massachusetts for allowance, contained charges for the actual expenses of the delegate, with a claim for a per diem compensation for the time occupied in the public service. Every charge of personal expenditure, including |