SEPTEMBER, 1814.

Amendments to the Constitution.

H. OF R.

paper. It was a fact, that every member would counterfeiting the notes of the bank. Policy and concur with him in declaring, that many who every consideration dictated that an offence of voted against rechartering the bank, did so, not this kind should be punished, and the law for that because they did not believe that Congress pos-purpose was proposed without adverting at all to sessed the power, but because they believed the the Constitutional question. In regard to the measure inexpedient. He hazarded nothing in question of establishing new branches to the bank, saying that more than the number of the majority it was one of more difficulty. The Constitutional on that question entertained no Constitutional question, however, was not on that occasion stirscruples on the subject. In the Senate the ques-red before Congress, and he believed the yeas and tion was decided against renewing the charter by nays were not called on it. The charter of the the casting vote of the President of that body, in Bank of the United States was limited in its duwhich there were many who did not vote against ration; and whilst it was in existence, it was the it from Constitutional considerations. So far as duty, to say the least of it, of the constituted auany decision of Congress had authority, their de- thorities to give to it efficacy, to punish offenders cisions proved that Congress had the power. against it. The charter of that bank was like the This subject had been so repeatedly discussed. contracts which the Government has made with that he supposed it would be useless to refer to the national creditors-of which he hoped, none the Constitution in relation to it. The question in this House or nation, whatever he had heard had become a point of political faith, and ac- to the contrary, would go so far as to say the naquired the stability of some theological opinions, tional faith was not pledged to redeem the last on which argument and reason were thrown shilling. So in regard to the charter of the Bank away. He did not aspire to the ability to shake of the United States. Those who opposed it ofopinions of such long standing as he knew were fered no obstacle to fulfilling it after it was granted. entertained by some members of the House. But The gentleman had said the State Legislatures even the argument of the gentleman from Vir- and individuals composing them would oppose the ginia this morning would prove the Constitu- grant of any such power as this to the National tional power of Congress to establish a National Government. Once establish the almost indisBank. The gentleman had informed the House pensable utility and importance of a National that such a bank was necessary and indispensable Bank, and there would be such a direct appeal to for the convenient, faithful, and economical ad- the honor and patriotism of the State Legislaministration of the finances. Availing himself tures as to forbid for a moment the idea that they of this admission, and applying it to the general would not sanction its creation. Their private clause in the Constitution vesting powers in Con- interest would vanish before the national good. gress, he contended no doubt could remain of the But even if this base and grovelling passion had power being in Congress. By the Constitutional influence, it would not prevent them from granting phrase "necessary and proper" was not meant an the power he proposed to ask from them. Mr. absolutely indispensable necessity, but any agency J. made some observations going to show that the fitted, suited, applicable to, and connected with, advantage to the individual States from the estabthe faithful administration of the finances. Every lishment of banks within their limits would opeman not prejudiced must, by experience and the rate as a counterpoise to the effect of the collisgentleman's admission, be convinced that Con-ion of interest between a National Bank and the gress already have the power now proposed to be given to them. He then took a retrospective view of the operation of the refusal to recharter the old bank or establish a new one, and proved conclusively that the Government had been very greatly a loser, perhaps to the amount of four or five millions, by that omission-besides the reduced interests at which the facilities it afforded would have enabled the Government to obtain the loans they have since had occasion for. It was demonstrated that a bank of this description furnished facilities which no existing institution did; and it was therefore proved that its establishment was necessary and proper to the fiscal operations of the Government, and of course within the scope of their Constitutional power.

Mr. JACKSON said, it must have been observed, that he had on all occasions purposely avoided expressing his opinion on the constitutionality of any act to establish a National Bank. He did not consider the votes, however, during the time he had held a seat in the House, as recognising the power; for instance, he did not imagine that any person could be considered as sanctioning the institution referred to by voting to punish the

State Banks-because the branches so to be established would be a great advantage to the community in which they were located. The gentleman appeared to think the adoption of the proposition would be a virtual acknowledgment that we do not now possess the power proposed to be given. The Constitution, Mr. J. said, would never be destroyed by the omission to exercise in their fullest plenitude the powers expressly granted in it, &c. He adverted to the eloquent argument of Vice President Clinton, on giving his casting vote against the renewal of the charter of the old Bank of the United States, before the Senate, in which body it had been argued solely on the ground of constitutionality. The Constitution, Mr. J. further said, admitted of different constructions, about which the most learned and the most virtuous men differ; but if one violation were to be made a precedent for a subsequent and analogous violation, the Constitution would become a matter of convenience, instead of an instrument of obligation. He adverted to the report of the Committee of Ways and Means at the last session, on the subject of the National Bank, who had decided that Congress

Mr. TROUP, of Georgia, said it was desirable that these resolutions should be acted on with unanimity; if not, they would be deprived of half their value and consequence-he should not, therefore, object to any course the House might think proper to pursue in relation to them. The report of this morning was intended only as a report in part. In acting on a question so environed with delicacy and difficulty as this, it had been necessary for the committee to prescribe some On motion of Mr. JACKSON, of Virginia, the limitations to itself, and it appeared to them that first, second, and third articles contained in the the House would acknowledge the same necesproposition aforesaid, were recommitted to a Com-sity. The first limit they had agreed on was to mittee of the whole House on the state of the

Removal of the Seat of Government.

Mr. BURWELL, of Virginia, appeared to favor the reference of this motion to a select committee to report a bill. Although against his own opinion, he admired the firmness and decision with which the Speaker on this, as on every occasion, had acted. He was desirous that this question Mr. Fisk, of New York, said he had reported should be decided as speedily as possible-and, that resolution in conformity to the directions of although no person was more sanguine than he a majority of the committee; but he now thought was that, before it was finally acted on, the opinit his duty to move to strike out the word "inex-ion of the House would change on this subject, pedient," and insert the word "expedient."

H. OF R.

Bounty on Prisoners-Removal of the Seat of Government. OCTOBER, 1814. made prisoners. Mr. K. concluded his observations by moving to amend the report by striking out "inexpedient," and inserting "expedient." Mr. PLEASANTS, of Virginia, stated the reasons which had given birth to this report. The principal reason was, that whilst the proposed extension of bounty to such cases would add very little inducement to recapture, it would add very greatly to the hardship and suffering of those of our citizens who might be captured, who would undoubtedly be more rigidly secured, perhaps in irons, in consequence of the passage of the law.

That the petitioner states, that in the years 1804, 1805, and 1806, a Captain Thomas Swain, of the United States' Army, cut and used for the public service a large quantity of timber belonging to the petitioner; that the petitioner sued him for it, and recovered judgment, and that the said Captain Swain has since died insolvent, without making compensation for the timber. The petition is not supported by any evidence of the facts; the committee are of opinion, however, that, taking the facts as true, the petitioner is not entitled to relief. They, therefore, recommend to the House the following resolution: Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought

not to be granted.

Mr. YANCEY also made an unfavorable report on the memorial of Thomas Cutts; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole. The report is as follows:

Mr. KING replied. He did not apprehend that such oppression would be exercised as the gentleman supposed, and believed the objection not valid against the proposition to afford this small reward to our brave seamen for their adventurous

valor. He considered this vote as the test whether the friendship expressed on all hands for our brave tars was substantial or mere profession.

That Tristram Hooper, Moses Lowell, and Benjamin Chandler, were indebted to the United States by a judgment recovered against them on a revenue Mr. LOWNDES, of South Carolina, explained bond; an execution issued against their property, and his ideas of the policy of the act now proposed to was levied by the marshal of the district on three be amended, which he did not look upon in the eighth parts of the schooner Catharine. At the sale of the schooner, the petitioner, Thomas Cutts, became light of a bounty to privateers, but as an inducethe purchaser at the price of four hundred and twenty-ment to them to bring in prisoners when capfive dollars. A claim to the three-quarters of the threeeighths of this vessel was afterwards set up by Asa Stevens; and, in action against the petitioner, it appears he recovered for damages, interest, and costs, the sum of $904 35; which sum the petitioner prays to be remunerated, together with the sum of $455, which he alleges had been paid to counsel and witnesses in the suit, and expended by himself in attendance, and for which it is stated his vouchers are lost.

The committee are of opinion the petitioner is not entitled to relief; they view this as a common case of sale, under an execution in which the plaintiff cannot be considered the warranter of the property. The purchaser buys at his own risk; and it is for him to judge whether the title of the defendant in the execution is good or bad. They, therefore, recommend to the House the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

BOUNTY ON PRISONERS.

Mr. PLEASANTS, of Virginia, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, who were instructed to inquire into the expediency of extending to merchant recaptors the provisions of the bill allowing a bounty on prisoners to the owners and crews of private armed vessels, reported, that it was inexpedient to extend the provisions of the said act to the case just stated.

tured instead of releasing them. The proposed amendment he did not consider as at all essential to, or connected with the policy of that act-and the inducements to recapture he considered to be quite sufficient already without it.

The motion of Mr. KING was negatived, and the report accepted by a large majority. REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. The House, on motion of Mr. Lewis, of Virginia, having taken up this subject, and being about to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole thereon

Mr. NEWTON, of Virginia, observed that he believed much debate was not necessary, as gentlemen had not only deliberated but already made up their minds. He wished to come at the question, and with many others had rather render his vote on this subject than hear any discussion whatever; and, therefore, moved an indefinite postponement of the question.

This motion was opposed by Mr. PICKERING, of Massachusetts, and Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, of Maryland, both of whom placed their opposition on the ground of a desire for further informationthe one, however, declaring his present opinion in favor of, and the other against, removal.

61, against it 77, as follows:

The question was then taken on indefinite postMr. KING, of Massachusetts, opposed the adop- ponement, and decided in the negative, many of tion of this report on various grounds. The risk those opposed to removal, having, with Mr. and importance of the recapture of merchantmen GOLDSBOROUGH, voted against indefinite postwas not, he said, inferior to the risk and import-ponement of the motion. For the postponement ance of captures by private armed vessels. The cause of humanity would be also served by it, as the lives of the enemy's seamen might in some instances be preserved, in consequence of such an inducement, &c. He hoped it would never be said that this House, by a large majority, determined to offer a bounty on deserters from the army of the enemy, and yet refused a small premium on seamen of the enemy thus meritoriously |

YEAS-Messrs. Archer, Avery, Barbour, Bard, Barnett, Bayly of Virginia, Burwell, Chappell, Clopton, Culpeper, Dana, Earle, Evans, Farrow, Fisk of Vermont, Forney, Forsyth, Franklin, Gaston, Gholson, Goodwyn, Griffin, Hall, Hanson, Harris, Hawes, Hawkins, Hubbard, Humphreys, Hungerford, Irving, Kent of Maryland, Kerr, Kershaw, King of North Carolina, Lefferts, Lewis, Lowndes, Macon, McCoy,

OCTOBER, 1814.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

McKee, McKim, McLean, Montgomery, Moore, Nel-
son, Newton, Pearson, Pleasants, Rhea of Tennessee,
Roane, Sage, Sevier, Smith of Virginia, Strong, Stuart,
Telfair, Troup, White, Wilson of Pennsylvania, and
Yancey.

NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Alston, Baylies of Massachusetts, Bigelow, Boyd, Bradbury, Bradley, Brigham, Brown, Butler, Caldwell, Champion, Cilley, Clark, Comstock, Condict, Conard, Cooper, Cox, Crawford, Creighton, Davenport, Davis of Pennsylvania, Denoyelles, Desha, Duvall, Ely, Findley, Fisk of New York, Geddes, Glasgow, Goldsborough, Gourdin, Grosvenor, Hulbert, Ingersoll, Irwin, Jackson of Rhode Island, Jackson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Kent of New York, King of Massachusetts, Law, Lovett, Lyle, Markell, Miller, Moffit, Moseley, Oakley, Ormsby, Pickering, Pickens, Piper, Post, John Reed, Rea of Pennsylvania, Rich, Ruggles, Schureman, Seybert, Sharp, Sherwood, Skinner, Stanford, Stockton, Sturges, Tannehill, Taylor, Thompson, Udree, Vose, Ward of Massachusetts, Ward of New Jersey, Wheaton, Wilcox, and Winter.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report abovementioned.

Mr. PEARSON, of North Carolina, rose to speak against the resolution, and continued to speak with great ability and force of reasoning, as well on the question of expediency as on that of Constitutionality, until about three o'clock; when the Committee rose, reported progress, and the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, October 5.

Another member, to wit: from Rhode Island ELISHA R. POTTER, appeared, and took his seat. REMOVAL OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the select committee on the expediency of a temporary removal of the Seat of Government. The resolu

tion under consideration stands as follows:

Resolved, That it is expedient at this time to remove the Seat of Government from the City of Washington.

H. OF R.

answer;-they might, if unanswered, be thought correct, and would, he feared, delude and mislead those whom that gentiemen had with so much zeal and ability attempted to serve. No gentleman, Mr. S. said, could feel less personal interest in the question than he did; coming from a State having very humble pretensions to consequence or patronage-never himself expecting to be here again after this session-he could view the subject with coolness and impartiality. The honorable member he alluded to had indulged himself in very extensive and wide excursions. Mr. S. would not attempt to follow him in his whole course, but content himself with selecting some of his leading points, leaving it to other gentlemen to remark on the residue if they saw fit. To get at the gentleman's argument at once, he would consider it under two general heads

1st. The legal, Constitutional right of Congress to remove the Seat of Government.

2d. The propriety or expediency of exercising that right if they had it.

The gentleman from North Carolina had denied both; he would contend for the affirmative of each proposition.

1st. Does the Government of the United States possess the legal Constitutional power of removing itself from this District? Mr. S. said, it was obvious that this point must be subdivided into two: 1st. Has the Government the power of temporary removal? 2d. Has it the power of permanent removal? Mr. S. said, that he considered the first as the only question now properly before the Committee. It was true, that the proposition contained in the resolution was general in its terms, yet it seemed to be agreed on all sides, that only a temporary removal was contemplated at present. We were not ready now to act on so siderations of public interest, of private feeling extensive a subject-one involving so many conand justice, as that of a permanent removal. This great point, then, was really not before the committee. But the gentleman from North Carolina supposing, probably, that upon the question of permanent removal he was impregnable, had pressed it into his service; its discussion was, Mr. STOCKTON, of New Jersey, said, he had at therefore, proper, and might be useful. As to the one time determined to take no part in the dis- legal Constitutional right of the Government to cussion now before the Committee, but to remain remove itself for a season on good and sufficient satisfied with a silent vote. The subject had al- reasons, who, Mr. S. asked, could seriously doubt ways appeared to him of such a nature, as to pre- it? What section of the Constitution, what princlude any just expectation of good resulting from ciple of reason, common sense, or common jusmuch debate. We should make no proselytes on tice, could be relied on to take from the national one side or the other-the subject lies level with councils so common and necessary an attribute every man's understanding. Gentlemen need of sovereignty? None could be produced; the only to open the Constitution of their country-gentleman could find none; no gentleman had cast their eyes around-survey the District, and hazarded the assertion. The honorable gentleobserve what was before them, to enable them to man himself from North Carolina, with all his judge correctly. He had, however, been induced zeal, industry, and talent, had not brought his to alter this resolution by the course of argument mind up to such an assertion in direct terms; yet which an honorable member from North Caro- it was necessary to a successful opposition to this lina (Mr. PEARSON, who he was sorry not to see resolution, not only to make, but to make good in his seat) had thought proper to pursue. That this extravagant position. Why, he asked, should gentleman had made many remarks which were the people have thus fettered, thus imprisoned, susceptible of a satisfactory answer; many which their Government? Why should an act, ascerMr. S. thought ought not to go forth without an taining the place where the Government should