was now satisfied as to the returns from Maryland and South Carolina. Substance he thought should never be sacrificed to form. The principle he started upon was 33, and he still adhered to that. He thought it incorrect to say the powers of the House would be increased by increasing its members; vary the number as you please, the Constitutional powers remain the same. If, the House decide against going into Committee, it is as much as saying they are satisfied with 33,000, the ratio fixed in the bill. He had no idea of crowding or bearing down the minority by the majority, nor did he think there was any ground for making such a charge. Gentlemen have a full opportunity now on the question of going into Committee to offer their arguments in favor of increasing the ratio, and he had no doubt they would be patiently heard.

Mr. BAYARD observed, that from the explanations made about ill-humor yesterday, it was possible he and his friends might mistake. Gentlemen say they were patient and willing to hear discussion. There had been imputations made by gentlemen yesterday and that day, that the motives by which the minority were influenced were neither fair nor honorable. Was that candid? When complaints were made of the conduct of the House yesterday, it was replied that the House were formerly guilty of similar impropriety. He would not defend the conduct of any former Congress; if it was wrong then, it would be equally wrong now. It would be more laudable to vary from it than to imitate it.

Mr. B. said there were many grounds upon which a recommitment could be urged. In point of fact the census was not such as to enable them to act. Mr. B. then gave a history of the returns, &c.

An honorable gentleman had said we should not sacrifice form to substance, but where, he asked. could the line be drawn? It might at length be urged, that the oath was entirely a matter of form, and therefore to be wholly dispensed with. One State might expect a cargo of United Irishmen, and another a cargo of a different description, to swell their population; they would, therefore, defer their return, disregarding anything and everything the law prescribed, as mere matter of form. Unless attention is paid to the forms prescribed, the nation is exposed to perpetual fraud. A return was not true or legal if not made within the time limited. Gentlemen say, pass this bill, and then make a law to legalize the returns; this, he said, to use a vulgar adage, would be putting the cart before the horse. As to inflicting a penalty upon the marshals, it could not be done if that House say the returns are legal.

Mr. B. said he did not expect to hear from a gentleman so urbane and well-bred as the one from Maryland, (Mr. SMITH,) arguments founded on the supposition of one State being republican and another not so. He hardly knew how to excuse the gentleman when he said the minority are not republicans. If he did mean to apply such an epithet to them, Mr. B. said he would oppose a flat denial to his assertion; he knew not what |

JANUARY, 1802.

pretensions there could be for saying so. Can it be alleged that we ever urged anything that was anti-republican? The gentleman must have forgot himself. He surely thought he was addressing a mob on some electioneering occasion. I may have mistaken the gentleman; there are many kinds of republicans. Bonaparte called himself a republican. although he was more absolute than Louis XIV, ruling the nation with a rod of iron. Bonaparte called himself a republican, to get the station he now holds. If, with a certain high authority, the gentleman does believe "we are all federalists and all republicans," he should define what species of republicanism he meant when he made use of the term. [Mr. B. was called to order here and in one or two other parts of his speech, but the Speaker declared him to be in order.]

Mr. B. proceeded, and observed he was about to say we (the minority) are not such republicans as Monsieur Bonaparte or Robespierre; we do not wish to make a general prostration of every civil institution, and of all respect for morals and religion.

As to this being the first republican House of Representatives, or republicanism going out when the British Treaty came in, he believed no such opinion was ever entertained until the country was infected with French principles. Then one party was called British and the other French. He did not know that we had suffered from that treaty, but we owed our war with France to it. It had been reiterated that there was an antirepublican party in that House. He was sorry to see the House divided by such artificial distinetions. He wished all would co-operate in dispelling such imputations, and allow that all are equally interested in promoting the welfare of our common country. He was sorry to hear that these explanations as regarded parties are matters of form, and as the gentleman from Massachusetts says these are of no importance, he hoped they would be discarded.

As to there being pertinacity or obstinacy in the minority in making motion after motion yesterday, he wanted no precedent for his justification; he was satisfied with himself, and would proceed in that line of conduct which he felt to be his duty. Must gentlemen be told they are guilty of obstinacy because they do not bow the neck or humble themselves in the dust to every measure of the majority? Or must they bear the charge of not being actuated by proper motives if they venture to differ from the majority? He hoped no one would be intimidated by such unjust imputations.

Mr. RUTLEDGE expressed his opinion in favor of the propriety of answering the imputations which had been made; but he hoped the business would cease there, and that they should not proceed with recrimination, which was calculated to do injury abroad.

Mr. S. SMITH replied to Mr. BAYARD. He was pleased that Mr. B. allowed he had behaved with politeness to gentlemen and avoided personalities. When he spoke of temper, it was not his own,

JANUARY, 1802.

Apportionment Bill.

H. OF R.

tion in stating the fact, but to support the insinuation of his hostility to the State governments. It therefore became him to disclose the whole truth, that the attempt referred to had been made, but that it was made by the party to which he was opposed, and repelled by the party to which he was attached.

The parties could not be discriminated without naming them, and as his opponents had been distinguished by several names, he had a right to suppose he should give the least offence by using them all, and allowing them to make their selection. The gentleman had said he had abused his constituents. Sir, said Mr. B., I believe there were very few of my constituents who co-operated in the project of pulling down the State government, for the purpose of submitting themselves to the yoke of the democracy of Pennsylvania. The gentleman might be assured that they who had sent him here were disposed to pull down no government.

but that of the House, he praised. If he had attempted an eulogium on the mildness of his own temper it would have been very ill-judged; he believed few would have given credit to it. The gentleman from Delaware complains of party distinctions being made in this House; but he started the subject himself yesterday. A gentleman from New York, in the course of debate, had observed that it had been made a question in the State of Delaware whether sovereignty was of any real advantage, and whether they would not be in a better situation by being united to another State. The gentleman from Delaware rose in his place and said it was true such a question was agitated, but by whom? By a set of persons originally called jacobins, then democrats, and now republicans. What was their object? They had been long struggling to get the offices of that State into their hands, but failing in their attempt, they wished to throw themselves into the State of Pennsylvania. Mr. S. said the gentleman to be sure had a right thus to abuse his own constitu- But he would ask, where was the use in deents, and he had nothing to do with it; he could scribing people by the names they had assumed not at the time help regretting that the gentleman themselves? Was it abusing the party to call had not a colleague to answer him. If he had them democrats? There had been a democratic been his colleague he would have answered him society formed in our first city, and some men now in this way: Who opposed giving up the sover-high in office had become members of it. They eignty of the State of Delaware? A set of men were then not ashamed, but proud of the appellaformerly called old tories, next aristocrats, then tion of democrat. The name might not be deemed monarchists, and now federalists. The gentle- as honorable as formerly, but he had not been senman from Delaware might in his way be a repub-sible before that it was considered as a term of lican, and so might Bonaparte in his way. Mr. abuse.

S. did not think we are all federalists and all re- The gentleman had said a great deal about Britpublicans, though he believed the great mass of ish influence. He does not believe that we are the people of the United States were so. He be-infected with it, or the people in general, but he lieved some leading characters in the country believes there are leading characters in the counwere led away by the intrigues and influence of try led away by the intrigues and influence of Britain; while they could make a handle of French Britain. Sir, said Mr. B., I am ignorant of the malconduct and French depredations, the people sources of that gentleman's information; but if were led away by these characters; but when the the gentleman ventures his assertion upon the days of delusion were over, the people returned to ground of public news-upon the ground of what their sober senses. He had been forced into the has been circulated in the newspapers and credited observations he made relating to party. by certain people-give me leave to tell him that there is the same foundation to assert that some leading men in the country have been led away by French influence and French intrigues. He believed that France had employed more agents in the country than Britain, who had held out more allurements, and employed greater and more successful means to seduce the integrity of our citizens than British agents at least such things had been said and believed by as many people as those who entertained the opinion expressed by the gentleman. For his own part he could hope that neither belief had any other foundation than the noise and clamor of party. He deprecated the consequences of distinction drawn from supposed connexions with foreign nations. If there must be party, let us divide as Americans, and not as French and English. The very distinction tends to embitter the spirit of party and weaken the attachment to our country. He was sorry that upon the floor of that House gentlemen should employ themselves in blowing the flame of civil discord. It would be a worthier office to harmonize and to remove the errors of public opinion,

Mr. BAYARD thought the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. SMITH) had betrayed sensibilities not justified by anything which had occurred. The gentleman must certainly have taken to himself what was designed for others, for he had not observed any personal remark which had been directed to his feelings. On the contrary he had thought the gentleman was treated with great decorum. But, said Mr. B., be the case as it will, the gentleman is not excusable for making a charge against me neither correct nor candid. He has stated that I have abused my constituents; there is not the smallest ground for such a statement. Mr. B. said he was incapable of abusing his constituents, or suffering them to be abused by others. He would take the liberty of examining the grounds of the gentleman's charge.

In the debate of a former day it had been insinuated that he was inimical to the State governments, and it was stated upon the occasion that an attempt had been made to abolish the sovereignty of his State, and to unite the territory with other States. There could have been no inten

H. of R.

Apportionment Bill.

JANUARY, 1802.

which we know to be groundless, and which di- And then the main question being put that the vide the country. He did not know that he had said bill do pass, it was resolved in the affirmative heretofore transgressed the doctrine he had incul-yeas 85, nays 4, as follows: cated, but if he had he would endeavor in future to practise it.

About half after 3 o'clock an adjournment was called for, but not agreed to.

Mr. ELMER advocated an immediate decision of the question; nor did he think that could be justly called obstinacy, as all the information wanted on the subject was before the House. He expressed his regret for the personal allusions that had been made.

Mr. GODDARD said he would consider it one of the most unfortunate incidents of his life if what he had said had necessarily given rise to the party allusions that had been made. He thought the House must have had a strong predisposition to the disease with which it had been that day infected if it had been excited by his observations. Mr. G. was convinced that prejudices and passions crept imperceptibly upon the public mind. He had examined himself as to the charge made by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. SMITH.) and would repeat what he had before observed, that he was willing to deprive his own State of a Representative to benefit the Union. If the gentleman has not patriotism himself to act in that manner, he trusted it would be allowed a human mind might be actuated by such motives. As to being influenced by envy towards Rhode Island on account of its political regeneration, he assured the gentleman envy was the last passion that would rankle in his mind.

The question for recommitment was taken by yeas and nays. Yeas 34, nays 56, as follows: YEAS-Willis Alston, James A. Bayard, Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Joseph Hemphill, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Joseph Peirce, Elias Perkins, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard, John C, Smith, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, George B. Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Benjamin Walker, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

YEAS-Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, James A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, Thomas Boude, Robert Brown, William Butler, John Campbell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Condit, Manasseh Cutler, Richard Cutts, Samuel W. Dana, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, Lucas Elmendorf, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Andrew Gregg, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms, Joseph Hemphill, William H. Hill, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, William Jones, Michael Leib, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Mattoon, John Milledge, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Joseph Pierce, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, John Randolph, jr., Nathan Read, John Rutledge, William Shepard, John Smilie, Israel Smith, John C. Smith, John Smith, of New York, John Smith, of Virginia, Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Stratton, John Taliaferro, jr., Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, George B. Upham, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, Isaac Van Horne, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

NAYS-John Davenport, Thomas Morris, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, and Benjamin Walker.

THURSDAY, January 7.

A memorial of Evan Thomas and others, a committee appointed for Indian affairs by the yearly meeting of the people called Friends, held in the town of Baltimore, was presented to the House and read, praying the attention and interference of Congress to prevent the supply of spirituous liquors to the Indian tribes residing in the Territory of the United States Northwest of the river Ohio, by traders and settlers on the frontiers, and to introduce among the said Indian tribes the most simple and useful arts of civil life.-Referred to Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, Mr. GRISWOLD, Mr. DAVIS, Mr. HOGE, and Mr. RANDOLPH, to examine and report their opinion thereupon to the House.

NAYS-John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Phanuel Bishop, Robert Brown, William Butler, A memorial of Isaac Zane was presented to the Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Condit, Rich- House and read, praying that he may be permitted ard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, Lucas Elmendorf, Ebe- to retain the possession of a certain tract of land nezer Elmer, William Eustis, Andrew Gregg, John A. which was granted to him by the Wyandot naHanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms, tion of Indians, and which, by the cession of lands William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George since made by the said nation, falls within the Jackson, William Jones, Michael Leib, John Milledge, boundary of the United States.-Referred to Mr. Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, James Nott, An- JACKSON, Mr. FEARING, Mr. VAN HORNE, Mr. ELthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel MER, and Mr. JOSIAH SMITH; to examine and reSmith, John Smith, of New York, John Smith, of Vir-port their opinion thereupon to the House. ginia, Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Stratton, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Thomas Tillinghast, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, and Isaac Van Horne.

A memorial of sundry delegates chosen by, and in behalf of, a number of aliens residing in the county of Chester, in the State of Pennsylvania, was presented to the House and read, praying a repeal or amendment of an act of Congress, passed on the eighteenth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, entitled "An act sup

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompanying a "The Speaker shall assign such places to the stestatementexhibiting the amount of duties and draw-nographers on the floor as shall not interfere with the backs on goods, wares, and merchandise, import- convenience of the House." ed into the United States, and exported therefrom, during the years one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine, and one thousand eight hundred, in pursuance of a standing order of the House of the third of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven; which were read, and ordered to lie