H. OF R.

On motion, Ordered, That the call of the House directed by a vote of this day, to be at two o'clock, be postponed until four o'clock in the afternoon. GEORGIA LIMITS.

a

Mr. GRISWOLD moved the appointment of committee to bring in a bill to repeal an act for the amicable settlement of limits with the State of Georgia, &c.

[The object of this motion was to prevent the agreement lately made between the Commissioners of the United States and of Georgia from going into effect before the next session of Congress; the said agreement declaring that the settlement shall be conclusive, unless Congress shall repeal within six months the above law.]

This motion was supported by Messrs. GRISWOLD, HENDERSON, and DAVIS, and opposed by Messrs. MILLEDGE, S. SMITH, and ELMENDORF. When the yeas and nays were taken, and the motion lost-yeas 24, nays 36, as follows:

YEAS-Thomas Boude, John Campbell, Manasseh Cutler, John Davenport, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, John A. Hanna, Seth Hastings, Archibald Henderson, Thomas Lowndes, Lewis R. Morris, Thomas Morris, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, William Shepard, John Stanley, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods. NAYS-Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fowler, Edwin Gray, William Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, John Milledge, Thomas Moore, James Mott, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., John Smilie, John Smith, of New York, John Smith, of Virginia, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed the bill, entitled "An act additional to, and amendatory of, an act, entitled An act concerning the District of Columbia," with several amendments; to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

The most material amendments authorize the erection of a jail, appropriating therefor $17,000, and the organization of the militia by the President.

The amendment which authorizes the erection of a jail gave rise to some debate; in which it was supported by Messrs. TALIAFERRO and HUGER, and opposed by Messrs. ELMENDORF, DAVIS, and VARNUM.

Mr. SOUTHARD moved to strike out $17,000 and insert $8,000. This last motion prevailed; and, so amended, the amendment of the Senate was agreed to-yeas 32, nays 26, as follows:

YEAS-Willis Alston, John Archer, John Bacon, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, John Campbell, John Clopton, Manasseh Cutler, John Dawson, Wm. Dickson, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Archibald Henderson, David Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Lewis R.

MAY, 1802.

Morris, Thomas Morris, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Smith, of Virginia, Henry Southard, John Taliaferro, jr., Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, and Henry Woods. Richard Cutts, John Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, Lucas Elmendorf, John Fowler, John A. Hanna, Joseph Heister, Michael Leib, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thos. Moore, James Mott, John Smilie, John Smith, of New York, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, Benjamin Tallmadge, David Thomas, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, and Robert Williams.

NAYS-Thomas Boude, Robert Brown, John Condit,

On the question that the House do agree to the said twelfth amendment of the Senate, as amended, it was resolved in the affirmative.

Resolved, That this House doth also agree to to the said bill. all the other amendments proposed by the Senate

The House then adjourned until five o'clock, post meridian.

FIVE O'CLOCK, P. M.

The House met pursuant to adjournment. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have disagreed to the resolution of this House, in the form of a concurrent resolution of the two Houses, "proposing an article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, respecting the election of President and Vice President;" two-thirds of the members present in the Senate not having concurred in their agreement to the same.

On motion, Ordered, That Mr. GRISWOLD and Mr. SAMUEL SMITH be appointed a committee, on the part of this House, jointly, with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him of the proposed recess of Congress.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have appointed a committee on their part, jointly, with the committee appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him of the proposed recess of Congress.

Mr. GRISWOLD, from the committee appointed on the part of this House, jointly, with the committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him of the proposed recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service; and that the President signified to them he had no farther communication to make during the present session.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House, having completed the business before them, are now about to adjourn until the first Monday in December next; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having completed the Legislative business before them, are now ready to adjourn. Whereupon,

The SPEAKER adjourned the House until the first Monday in December next.

PLEMENTAL SPEECH.

ing is the conclusion of the speech of MORRIS, delivered in the Senate on the 1, 1802, on the Repeal of the Internal which was unavoidably omitted, in its while the volume was in course of printid have been inserted in page 235, imme• Mr. MASON.]

Is, in conclusion.-I have heard it wever improper it may be to repeal t is now too late to object; for that, .commendation of our First Magistrate, they are considered by the people as no longer to be paid. I will not question the veracity of those who make this assertion, but I must beg leave to withhold my assent. The people of this country know, that to their Representatives alone, is delegated the right of taxation. This is no part of the Executive power. I will not say that the recommendation was unconstitutional. I will not say that it was unjustifiable. But I will say that it was imprudent. And if it does, indeed, involve the consequence which has been stated, I must add that it is injurious. It would have been more proper to have left the unbiassed consideration of this great subject to the two Houses of Congress. But, sir, though I cannot approve, I will not condemn the conduct of our First Magistrate. He, I presume, acted from what he conceived to be his duty. Let us then imitate his example, and perform what on due advisement shall appear to be our duty. Let me say, sir, that there is too much of precipitancy, too much of rashness, in this repeal. It would be wiser to wait, until we possess a knowledge of those facts on which a sound system must be founded. Our experience of the past gives no sufficient light for the future. There is, moreover, during the present, and there will be for some succeeding years. an unusual pressure of our public debt, arising from heavy instalments of foreign loans. This therefore, is not the moment to make a change. I have indeed heard the advocates of the proposed repeal say, they are desirous of paying the public debt, not only according to the terms to which we stand pledged, but at an earlier day. If this be so, how can they think of taking off taxes, or by what strange invention or device do they expect to pay debts by diminishing income? I should have supposed that the best way to effect that object would be to increase our revenues, lessen our expenses, and apply our whole means to the payment of what we owe, steadily and faithfully.

Mr. President, one word more. Hitherto, I have considered this question on the broad ground of policy, of expediency, and of public economy. I have endeavored to show that duties are the most expensive species of tax. That, from a change in the political affairs of the world, and in our own particular situation, there is reason to suppose our revenue will suffer considerable diminution. And that it is more than probable, duties so high, as those under which our commerce now labors, will be evaded. And thence. I have endeavored to draw the natural conclusion, that,

instead of repealing the internal taxes, we should lessen the duties, and raise that part which is taken off in the seaports, by direct tax in the country. All this was under the idea, that you had a right to repeal these taxes. But, by recurring to the first volume of your laws, in the 335th page, I find that the sixtieth section of an act laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States, runs thus:

"And be it further enacted, That the net product of the duties hereinbefore specified, which shall be raised, levied, and collected by virtue of this act, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be, and is hereby, pledged and appropriated for the payment of the interest of the several and respective loans, which had been made in foreign countries, prior to the fourth day of August last; and also upon all and every the loan and loans which have been and shall be made and obtained pursuant to the act, entitled 'An act making provision for the debt of the United States;' and, according to the true intent and meaning of the said ́act, of the several provisions and engagements therein contained and expressed, and subject to the like priorities and reservations as are made and contained in and by ated, and subject to this farther reservation; that is to the said act, in respect to the moneys therein approprisay, of the net amount or product during the present year, of the duties laid by this act, in addition to those heretofore laid upon spirits imported into the United States, from any foreign port or place, and of the duties laid by this act on spirits distilled within the United States, and on stills; to be disposed of, towards such purposes for which appropriations shall be made during the present session. And to the end, that the said moneys may be inviolably applied in conformity to the appropriation hereby made, and may never be diverted to any other purpose, until the final redemption or reimbursement of the loans or sums for the payment of the interest whereof they are appropriated, an account shall be kept of the receipts and disposition thereof, separate and distinct from the product of any other duties, impost, excise, and taxes whatsoever, except those heretofore laid, and appropriated to the same purposes."

And, sir, I find that the sixty-second section of the same act runs thus:

"And be it further enacted, That the several duties imposed by this act shall continue to be collected and paid, until the debts and purposes for which they are pledged and appropriated shall be fully discharged and satisfied, and no longer: Provided always, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the Legislature of the United States, from substituting other duties or taxes of equal value to all or any of the said duties and imposts."

This law was approved by GEORGE WASHINGTON, on the third day of March, in the year 1791.

Now then, I ask, can we rightfully take off this tax without laying on an equivalent, before our debts are paid? I will not say that it is unconstitutional; though while we yet had a Constitution, I should have opposed it on that ground. I will not say you have not the power to do it, because, under the new doctrine of your Legislative omnipotence, I see not the bounds of your power. But I remember well, and let me now call back to the recollection of this Senate, what passed on a late important occasion. It was asked, when we have

made a grant, can we resume it? When we have contracted a debt, can we refuse to pay it? When we have made a promise, can we violate it? To these questions it was answered no! Here is a vested right in third persons. The Government is bound. In the case of a debt it has received a consideration, and the engagement taken with the public creditor cannot be broken. I ask, then, what words in our language, or in any language, can be more full, more solemn, or form a contract more sacred than those I have just read. The net amount of the duties is pledged to our creditors, and appropriated to the payment of our debt; and to the end that it may be inviolably applied in conformity to that appropriation, and may never be diverted to any other purpose, a separate account is to be kept, and it is again declared that the duties shall continue to be collected and paid

till the debts for which they are pledged shall be fully discharged and satisfied. If these terms be not binding on the Legislature, let us hear the form, if any can be found, of a contract more obligatory. I ask those who mean to vote for this repeal, what they meant by the declaration that vested rights could not be resumed, and that engagements taken with public creditors could not be broken? If by a wild exertion of licentious force we tear asunder these bands, can we again ask of mankind any share of their confidence? Can we expect to enjoy credit when we show ourselves regardless of our plighted faith?

Sir, I consider this repeal as inconsistent with the true interest of the great body of our people. It appears to me dangerous both to our revenue and to our commerce. But above all, I consider it as a flagrant violation of the public faith.