Kitabı oku: «Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)», sayfa 96

Wednesday, December 18

Mr. Rhea presented petitions from Louisiana Territory, in favor of the second grade of Government. – Referred.

Battle on the Wabash

Mr. Ormsby moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and if any, what provision ought to be made by law for paying the officers and soldiers of the militia who served under Governor Harrison, in the late expedition against the Indians on the Wabash, to compensate them for the loss of horses, and for the relief of the widows and orphans of those who fell in the action of the seventh November last; and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

The said resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. McKee moved the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House such information as may be in the possession of the Government, and proper to be communicated, on the following points:

1. Any evidence tending to show whether any and what agency the subjects, either public or private, of any foreign power, may have had in exciting the Indians on the Western frontier to hostility against the United States;

2. The evidence of hostility towards the United States, on the part of the Shawanee Prophet and his adherents, anterior to the commencement of the late campaign against them, under the command of Governor Harrison;

3. The orders and authority vested in Governor Harrison by the United States, under which the late expedition against the Indians was carried on; and such other information relating to the subject, as, in the opinion of the President, may be proper to be communicated to this House.

The resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Thursday, December 19

Battle of Tippecanoe

A Message was received from the President of the United States, transmitting two letters received from Governor Harrison, of the Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars of the issue of the expedition under his command on the Wabash. The Message and letters were read, and referred to Mr. McKee, Mr. Sevier, Mr. Breckenridge, Mr. Morrow, Mr. Alston, Mr. Lefevre, and Mr. Maxwell, to consider and report thereon to the House.

Foreign Relations

The House resumed the consideration of the sixth resolution, reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations, in the following words:

"6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels, owned exclusively by resident citizens, to arm, under proper regulations, to be prescribed by law, in self-defence, against all unlawful proceedings towards them on the high seas."

Mr. Archer. – The sixth resolution of the Committee of Foreign Relations being now on its passage, I must express my sorrow that I am compelled to obtrude my humble observations upon the fatigued patience of the House, and the more exhausted patience of the nation. As I shall vote against the resolution, I feel it to be my indispensable duty to detail to the House the reasons by which my vote shall be actuated. Many honorable members may, perhaps, conceive that it would be more proper for me to reserve my remarks for the bill, when it shall be reported; but, sir, I have ever held it to be my sacred duty to oppose, even in its incipient state, every measure which may be hostile to the rights, or dangerous to the interests of my country, lest, by not seeming to oppose, my conduct should be construed into an encouragement of such a measure.

For what purpose, sir, let me ask, have we adopted the resolution preceding this? Was it for the purpose of destroying the Government? Was it that the members of that Army should sheath their swords in the bowels of the liberties of their country? Who will impute to this body so disgraceful a motive? Are you about to raise a standing army, not for the purpose of making preparations for war, but with a view of intimidating Great Britain to recede from her unjust infractions of our neutral rights? Do not think that she will be intimidated by any preparations which you can make, however formidable they may be. She knows, too well, your conduct heretofore, to believe you are in earnest. She knows that, many years ago, you resolved to resist, but that this honorable determination terminated in an empty resolution. She knows, too well, that you have been, heretofore, prodigal in words, and parsimonious in spirited action. I do not set myself up for a prophet; but, mark me, if it be not true, that Great Britain will not do you justice till you carry the war out of this hall into the heart of her colonial territories.

Under the firmest conviction, then, as I am, that war between the United States and Great Britain – if we have any respect for our honor as a nation – will be an event of inevitable consequence, I have in vain searched for the reasons which would induce us to authorize our merchant vessels to arm against all unlawful molestations on the high seas. As the resolution is, in its nature, general, every man must see, on the contrary, the dangers necessarily attendant upon the adoption of such a measure. You are now on the very verge of war, and you should, therefore, be careful not to multiply your enemies. You may, by passing this resolution, make France your enemy. You may enlist Denmark and other powers of Europe against you. This is an event which would be deeply deprecated; and, that it should happen, is nothing improbable; for your merchants, armed as they will be, in defence of their commerce, may select the nation who is to be your enemy. If they are molested in their commerce, whether lawful or unlawful, they will be disposed to resist. At any rate, they will be the judges of the juncture when their interests may call for the interposition of force, and will exercise that force according to their own whims and caprices. They sail on the ocean clothed with national authority, and for their actions, whether lawful or unlawful, you will be compelled to answer. Sir, I respect the highly honorable occupation of a merchant, but am not disposed to carry that respect so far as to give my sanction to the adoption of a measure which may jeopardize the peace, and endanger the interests of my country. If this resolution were to authorize an arming against Great Britain alone, this argument would have no effect; but as it has a view to a general arming against all nations, this reasoning is conclusive on my mind, and must operate in the same way upon all men who will give the subject a dispassionate consideration. The consequences of such a measure are plain and obvious. Now, let us examine whether there exists any reason sufficiently powerful to outweigh these considerations.

What is the object, and the only one too, as stated by the honorable chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. Porter,) for the adoption of this measure? Your vessels will be armed and prepared for privateering the moment war shall be declared. Why, sir, do you think the merchants will believe that you really intend to go to war? And, if they doubt upon this subject, do you suppose they will be so regardless of their own interests as to expend their capital in fitting out privateers, when no absolute certainty exists that war is your object, or your serious intention? It would, certainly, be an object of no inconsiderable moment to have privateers prepared to harass and disturb the commerce of Great Britain in the event of war. If this be your object, you are taking a very improper course to obtain it. If such be your object, take some decided and energetic step which will convince even the incredulous that you will resort to the sword to obtain justice, and your end will soon be effected. But, do not depress the hopes of the nation by sanctioning this tame, imbecile, and temporizing system.

What is the spirit that breathes in the five resolutions which have been adopted – resolutions which were in entire accordance with my feelings? Is it not a spirit of war? Do they not bear a hostile aspect? Are they not calculated to induce Great Britain to believe that forbearance on our part has terminated, and that we are resolved, unless she speedily extend to us full and ample justice, to decide the contest by the sword? Have you any thing to hope, by operating upon the minds of the rulers of that nation, a conviction that you are boasting no longer? If you do entertain such a hope, I pray you, do not adopt this measure – a measure which will show her the fluctuation of our opinions, and the repugnancy of our plans; a measure which will lull to sleep her fears of war, and convince her not only of your indecision, but of your timidity to unsheath your sword in defence of rights clear and undisputed, and in avenging injuries too glaring for the dignity and honor of a nation to submit to. Are the wishes of this nation to be unattended to? Ought we not to relieve its anxieties? Or, are we to tantalize their hopes with energy in one law and imbecility in another? Are the merchants to be told we will protect their commerce? By what? By granting them a right which nature has already given to them? Is commerce to be protected by abridging the natural rights of the people? Is this measure no abridgment of their rights? Does it not confine the legality of arming to resident citizens alone? Look at the measure as you please, it is a dead letter. Is this the period of all others to be selected to incorporate unmeaning laws in the body of your statute book? Do not satirize, by such an act, the manly sensibility of the people. Do not paralyze the national arm. No; let us do justice to the nation by the adoption of such measures as will renovate the depressed spirits of our constituents; which will prevent them from falling into that destructive and deadly languor which this resolution is calculated to produce.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union in their agreement to the said sixth resolution, as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations; and resolved in the affirmative – yeas 97, nays 22.

Saturday, December 21

Statutes of Limitation

Mr. Gholson, from the Committee of Claims, who were instructed by a resolution of the House of the 11th ultimo, to inquire into the expediency of repealing or suspending the various acts of limitation, so far as they operate to bar the payment of certain descriptions of claims, made a report thereon. – Referred to the Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Rees Nanna and others. The report is as follows:

That they have bestowed on the resolution that full consideration to which it was entitled. They felt, on the one hand, sincere solicitude to devise some just and adequate method of satisfying the claims in question; while, on the other, they were forcibly struck with the unavoidable scenes of speculation and fraud which would ensue the repeal or suspension of any of the acts of limitation, whereby those claims are barred. If the old soldier, his widow, or his orphan, were alone to be benefited by such suspension, your committee would not hesitate to recommend it. Past experience, however, hath evidently shown that similar legislative indulgences have enured almost exclusively to the advantage of the unprincipled speculator, and those who avail themselves of the ignorance and subsist upon the misfortunes of others. We have innumerable examples of the truth of this position, in the consequences that resulted not only from the various suspensions of these acts which have hitherto taken place, but more especially from the adoption of the Funding System. It is deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the consequences; they are too well known.

Although a communication received from the Treasury at a former session holds out an opinion that there are in the possession of that Department sufficient checks and guards to protect the United States from imposition and fraud in the payment of a certain part of those claims, the committee are differently impressed. They have seen a transcript from the books of the Treasury, published to the world, exhibiting the names of a certain class of claimants; and to suppose that a facility of this kind, thus offered to speculative artifice and management, would not be seized upon and used by the speculator to impose upon Government, is to suppose a thing contrary to all experience. The committee feel themselves by no means able to draw a line of distinction between a just claim liquidated and a just one unliquidated; and to attempt the invidious task of distinction in point of merit, where there can be no difference, and to open the statutes of limitation in order to relieve a part or a few favorite classes of claims, does not comport, in the view of your committee, with any principle of fairness, or with that equal system of distributive justice which ought to be dispensed toward all. When they take a retrospective view of the subject, and find that most of those statutes were first passed in the times and under the patriot counsels of the old Congress, and that the more general one which took effect in 1794 was passed under the Administration of General Washington, who was himself the chief of soldiers as he was the chief of their patrons and friends in every station; but he was equally the friend of his country, and gave that act the sanction of his name, as founded, at least, in a policy of general justice and right, which the Government had been at length obliged to resort to and maintain in self-defence; that every Congress since has invariably adhered to the general policy of those laws; and, after the lapse of so many years, when the difficulty of doing justice has increased with the increase of time, and when a partial repeal would but tend to increase the discontent and dissatisfaction of every class of claimants which should remain unprovided for, the committee cannot, from any view they have been able to take of the subject, recommend the repeal or suspension of any of those statutes. They would, therefore, beg leave to submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is not expedient to repeal or suspend any of the acts of limitation, whereby the aforesaid descriptions of claims are barred.¹⁸

The report was ordered to lie on the table.

Monday, December 23

Rules and Orders – Previous Question

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of Saturday. The amendment proposed by Mr. Nelson being again read, as follows:

"That when the previous question is ordered to be taken, upon the main question being put, every member, who has not already spoken, shall have liberty to speak once:"

Mr. Gold said the amendment now offered to the rules of the House, secures to every member the right of speaking at least once on every question before the House. The liberty of speech, and freedom of debate, are sacred by the constitution; and to refuse all debate, to deny us the privilege of speaking at all, on the most important questions of peace and war, is a subversion of the first principles of the constitution. And what is to justify this measure of imposing silence? It is said, the right of debate has been abused. Let gentlemen beware how, for an occasional abuse of a right, they take away – destroy the right itself. What right, in the whole charter of our rights, has not at some time been abused? Man is frail, and why should not, at times of public agitation and concussion of parties, abuses arise? debate become angry and be prolonged? And for this, is the principle to be adopted, that the right shall be forever suppressed and destroyed? – the principle that absolute silence shall be imposed on a minority? Sir, Philip, the tyrant of Macedon, disliked the freedom of speech and debate in Athens: it annoyed him; for this cause, Demosthenes was pursued to the altar, where he expired. The principle contended for by the majority (supposed abuse) will be found to justify the most odious usurpations recorded in history; liberty is abused, and chains are forged to restrain it.

Gentlemen of the majority insist, that the rule will not be abused; that the majority will not execute the rule arbitrarily. The amendment, now offered to the rules, stipulates only for liberty to each member to speak once. Now, sir, if this be denied, and the rule is ever executed, the abuse is inevitable, it is necessarily involved in the very execution of the rule.

Neither the journals of our State Legislatures nor the laws of the Parliament of Great Britain afford examples for thus arbitrarily proceeding. Debate is admitted in the British Parliament on the previous question; our rules exclude it on both the previous and main question. Beside, sir, I need only refer gentlemen to the manual of parliamentary law, from the hand of the third President of the United States, to show that the previous question was confined to subjects of delicacy, which a due regard to the interests of the State or its Government forbade to be agitated. How much, sir, has this question been perverted from its proper province, to silence all debate and force the question, the passage of the law! Such measures are dangerous to freedom, and afford, in evil times, the most fatal examples.

Mr. Smilie said he was a friend to freedom of debate, but that there was a difference between this, and that abuse of it when you cannot get a decision without an exertion of physical strength. This has been our case several times. The rule now proposed to be altered is the old rule, and is only restored. We very well know, that a debate has been often prolonged merely to prevent a decision. We have been kept till ten and twelve o'clock at night, and sometimes till daylight. It is an inconvenience which he at his time of life had seriously felt. There can be no evil from the rule as now established. The responsibility of the majority is such to the people, that, if they should abuse it, as the minority have their privilege, the people will correct it, when the minority shall fairly state it to them. He said the majority were also responsible to the people to transact the public business.

Mr. Stanford, in reply to Mr. Smilie, said he did not think it proper to give this dispensing power to the majority, if they by the constitution did not possess it, as he contended they did not. He said we have heard of a sedition law, and the reign of terror. The bill, when first introduced for that law, went to prevent freedom of speech. This rule, in his opinion, much more deserved the character of a "Gag-law," than the Sedition law did.

Mr. Wright mentioned the great abuses of this privilege of the minority the last winter. He said, if we don't establish a written, decent rule, we must have a common law rule, such as they have in the British House of Commons, to shuffle and put down, when the abuse of this privilege becomes enormous.

Mr. Quincy. – Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this question in the light in which some of its advocates, as well as its opponents, have considered it; as a mere contest for power between the majority and the minority. It is of a higher character. It affects the essential principles of civil liberty, and saps its hopes at its very foundation. I rejoice that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nelson) has limited his proposition, so as to preclude any mistake concerning the object of it. We are not now advocating an unrestrained privilege of debate. The inquiry is, shall a main question ever be taken in this deliberative body, until every member, who has not already spoken, shall have had an opportunity, if he wishes to avail himself of it, to speak at least once upon the question? The ground taken by those who oppose the proposition, is that of necessity and convenience. These are the very points, which, in a free country, ought most vigilantly to be guarded. For it is here that the spirit of despotism always lies in ambush. Under the cover of necessity, or convenience, it steals upon the liberties of a people, and never fails, sooner or later, to make them its prey.

It is not to be denied, that the subject is in some respects difficult to manage, with any hope of convincing. There is a state of feeling, both within this House and out of it, very unpropitious to an impartial debate. In this House it is argued as a question concerning who shall have the power, a majority, or a minority. And as it is agreed, on all hands, that, in the exercise of the power, abuse may happen, the present majority, like all other majorities, have a prevailing inclination to reserve, in their own hands, the exclusive privilege of abuse. And without doors, the subject is of less difficulty. For, of late years, the popular ear has been so vexed with speech upon speech, wind upon wind, the public patience has been so exhausted, in hunting up the solitary grain of sense, hidden in the bushels of chaff, that it is ready to submit to any limitation of a privilege, which subjects it to so irksome a labor. The people are almost ready to exclaim, "do what you will with the liberty of speech, provided you will save us from that fresh of words, with which we are periodically inundated."

Now, this is the very state of the public mind in which the corruption of essential principles commences. Through apparent necessity, or temporary convenience, or disgust at abuse, the popular sentiment is made to acquiesce in the introduction of doctrines vitally inconsistent with the perpetuity of liberty.

I ask the House to consider what is that principle of civil liberty, which is amalgamated and identified with the very existence of a legislative body. In what does it consist? And what is its character? It consists in the right of deliberation. And its character is, that it belongs not to the body, but the individual members constituting the body. The body has the power to control and to regulate its exercise. But it has not the power to take away that right altogether, by the operation of any general principle. An individual member may render himself unworthy of the privilege. He may be set down; he may be denied the right, because he has abused it. But whenever a legislative body assumes to itself the power of stopping, at its will, all debate, at any stage of deliberation, it assumes a power wholly inconsistent with the essential right of deliberation, and totally destructive of that principle of civil liberty which exists, and is identified with the exercise of that right.

The right of every individual member is, in fact, the right of his constituents. He is but their Representative. It is in their majesty, that he appears. It is their right that he reflects. The right of being heard by their Representative is the inherent and absolute right of the people. Now, it is in the essential character of such a right, that it exists, independent, and in despite of any man, or body of men, whatsoever. It is absurd to say, that any right is independent, which depends upon the will of another. It is absurd to say, that any right is absolute, which is wholly relative to the inclination of another; which lasts only as long as he chooses, and terminates at his nod. Now, whether this power be exercised by one, or many, it matters not. The principle of civil liberty is gone, when the inherent and absolute nature of the right is gone.

Apply this reasoning to the case before us. It is impossible to conceal the fact, that as our rules and orders stand, independent of the proposition now offered as an amendment, it is in the power of a majority to preclude all debate, upon any question, and force every member of the House to vote, upon any proposition, without giving him the opportunity of explaining his own reasons, or stating the interests of his constituents. This is undeniable. Is it not, then, plain and conclusive, that, as our rules and orders now stand, according to recent construction, every member of this House holds his right of speaking, not on the principle of his constituents, whose Representative he is, but upon the will of the majority of this House? For that which another may at any time take away from me, I hold not by my own right, but at his will. Can any thing be more obviously at variance with the spirit of the constitution and the first principles of civil liberty?

Let not any man say this power will not be abused. In the nature of things it must be abused. This is the favorite argument of every despotism, and, of course, will not fail to be urged when it is about to plant itself in the very temple of liberty.

I have chosen to consider this subject in relation to the right of the whole body, and of one of its individual members, rather than to that of a majority and minority. The right to speak is an individual right. Limit it as you please, consistent with a single exercise of that right. But when this is taken away, or, which is precisely the same thing so far as it respects the principle of civil liberty, when it is in the power of one or many, at its sovereign will and pleasure, to take it away, there is no longer any right. We have our tenure of speech as the slave has his – at the will of a master.

But it is said that the Legislature must sometimes "act," and that individuals, by an abuse of this liberty of speech, prevent the whole body from "acting." All I say is, limit the exercise of the right as you please, only do not assume to yourselves the power of taking away the whole right, at your pleasure.

It is in this doctrine, of "the necessity of acting," that lies the whole mystery of that error which we are now combating. Strictly speaking, a Legislative body never "acts." Its province is to deliberate and decide. "Action" is, alone, correctly attributable to the Executive. And it will be found, that all the cases in which this necessity of "action" has been urged, have been cases in which the Legislative body has departed from its appropriate duties of deliberation and decision, and descended to be an instrument, or engine, of the Executive. I hesitate not to say, that this position may be proved by almost every instance in which this necessity of action has been urged. It was an Executive haste to its own purposes, which prevailed upon the Legislative body to deny, to its own members, their privileges.

It has been asserted, that "if this amendment passes, this will be the only deliberative body in the world which cannot stop debate." On the other hand I assert, that if this amendment does not pass, this will be the only deliberative body in the world, pretending to be free, in which it is in the power of a majority to force a decision, without any deliberation. It is not true that, in the British Parliament, the previous question stops debate and forces decision on the main question without deliberation. The previous question there, if decided in the negative, suppresses debate, by postponing the main question. And until 1807, the practice and rules of this House permitted debate of the main question, after an affirmative decision of a previous question. Whoever undertakes to examine the subject will find it as I have stated.

It is not true, that this power ever was, or ever can be necessary, in a Legislative body. In every case in which the previous question, according to recent construction, has been pressed upon the House, it will be found that there was no National or State necessity for an immediate decision. That is to say, in every instance it will be found, that it was of no sort of public importance whether the main question were taken on this day, on the next, or on a third day. Always the question might have been taken in a reasonable time; and every individual member, who chose to speak, might have had the privilege, if he pleased, of speaking, at least once. As far as I observed, all these pretences of necessity have been easily resolvable into party cunning. The subject was one difficult to maintain. It had popular bearings, which it suited not the pleasure of the majority to have investigated. They pressed the minority to instant decision, by refusing adjournment. And as it happens in all such cases, reaction is equal to action. The minority were put upon their mettle, and they put to trial the mettle of the majority.

It is undoubtedly true, that this power may be sometimes convenient. And this is the whole strength of the argument of those who oppose this proposition. The weak and aged members of the majority have been kept all night from their slumbers, by a hale and sturdy minority; which slumbers they might, by the way, at any moment have enjoyed, if that very majority had yielded the point of adjournment. And is this reason of convenience sufficient, in the estimation of this House, to justify it, in depriving this people, in the person of their Representatives, of the essential right of speaking upon this floor? Is this a justification for such an atrocious and exorbitant grasp at power? Our patriotism, nowadays, can submit to no sacrifices. We are not content with sleeping, if we please, every day in our seats, unless we can sleep also every night of the session in our feather beds. And these feather-bed patriots, as I understand, are all agog for a march into Canada; and, if we believe them, are desirous of nothing so much as showing how those can meet privation and watchfulness in the field, who think of nothing but comfort and sleep upon this floor.

I know there is another argument urged in favor of the assumption of this power by the majority, and that is, the haste and clatter which always attend the end of a session. Let our session be long or short, the event is, in this respect, always nearly the same. What with speeches and postponements, and laying down one piece of business half finished, and taking up another, the latter end of a session is a political chaos. The work of this and the other House, and that of the Palace into the bargain, is in fact sometimes to be washed up, in a night – and the members of all branches are knee-deep and shoulder-deep in the suds. Now, this shows the necessity, not of this unlimited power of the previous question, but of conducting public business with more prospective intelligence. The House is just like all other spendthrifts. It first wastes what is its own, and then seeks how it may make up its deficiency out of the property of other people. We pillage the public liberty, in order to compensate for legislative negligence.