Friday, December 19.
William Irvine, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.
Pennsylvania Insurgents.
The House resumed the consideration of the resolutions reported on Wednesday last, from the Committee of the whole House, on the report of the committee to whom was referred that part of the Speech of the President of the United States which relates to the policy of indemnifying the sufferers by the depredations of the insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania. Whereupon,
The first resolution being under consideration, in the following words, to wit:
"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the losses sustained by the officers of Government and other citizens, in their property, (in consequence of their exertions in support of the laws,) by the insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania."
The amendment of Mr. Boudinot, on which the House had been debating on Wednesday, was read. It was for the insertion, after the words "and other citizens," of the following addition: "personally aiding and assisting them."
Mr. Hartley then rose, and spoke as follows: I have no great encouragement to speak, when I find that my expressions and language have been totally mistaken, both by gentlemen in this House and by the person who frequently reports the debates. On Tuesday, I had ventured to say, that I thought no great reliance could be had upon the individuals injured obtaining satisfaction by personal actions against the insurgents; that I imagined the civil remedy was merged in the offence of arson against the State, or perhaps a higher offence; that, from the state of things, we could not promise ourselves that the sufferers would be compensated by civil suits.
On Wednesday, I mentioned to the House, that, though there had been much discussion, yet, as I considered part of the House to labor under what I held to be a mistake with respect to the lex loci, or law of the State, which we were obliged to take into view, I held it my duty to observe, that, the day before, I had said that I thought the smaller offence, that is, the civil injury, had been merged in the greater against society; that the offence, so far as related to the State, would be arson, which had been a capital offence, punishable with death, that the punishment had been mitigated by the alteration of the penal code, but still it was a felony. I noticed that I had formerly read law a good deal with considerable attention, but since I had been in Congress, I had not been able to bestow much time upon it. I said that formerly certain principles or maxims had made impression upon my mind; that, among others, was the one under consideration, that, in arson, the injury to the individual was merged in that against society, or, at least, must give way to the other; and public justice must be done in the first place. I mentioned that I had consulted one of the first law officers of the State, which is true, and he agreed with me in opinion. Indeed, he added, that no reliance should be had upon the personal remedy, but that compensation ought to be made to the sufferers.
I have no reason to change my former opinion. Really, when I consider the conduct of the commissioners to those who made their submissions, I should imagine it was the intention of the parties that there was to be an oblivion as well of the civil as the criminal offences to those who submitted; and, as the Legislature has the power to construe the agreement, it becomes her rather to do it with magnanimity than otherwise.
Your officers, and those aiding and assisting them, ought to be protected and supported. I will now say, as I did the other day, that the fear of having their houses or barns burned, terrified many a man in the Western country from joining the standard of the law, and forced him to temporize with rebellion. When the officers know that they are to be protected in their persons and property—when the posse comitatus are informed that they are to be regarded in like manner—we may expect energy in the execution of the laws. The law of Pennsylvania is defective, or at least doubtful; and, if the present punishment for arson continues, the Legislature of that State will, I dare say, point out a decided remedy for the party injured against the offender. It becomes the honor and justice of the Legislature to protect and support the officers, and those aiding them. I shall, therefore, vote for the amendment.
Mr. Venable differed entirely from the gentleman who spoke last. He understood that pardons extended only to the offences against Government. It would, for that reason, be no hardship against the people who had received pardons to prosecute them for civil damages; and, by the statement of the member himself, actions would lie where no public prosecutions had been made.
Mr. Swift was of opinion that the member from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hartley) was most certainly mistaken in point of law, when he imagined that the pardon granted by the commissioners extended, or might be construed to a remission of civil offences. He did not believe it to be in the power of Government to pardon these rioters and trespassers to that length. He did not expect that the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have stood up in the House to recommend an unqualified pardon. When a million of dollars had been expended, were the House to give them fifteen or twenty thousand dollars more? He did not come there prepared to hear of a premium for insurrection. He rejected all idea of so much tenderness for rioters and rebels.
Mr. Boudinot rejected all idea of the rioters being exempted from civil suits. There was but one exception, where they were executed for their crimes. He had no other view of the matter, but as a question of policy—whether it was expedient, or the contrary, to prosecute these people. He believed that, before the new constitution, the law stood as the member from Pennsylvania represented it. But all this was much from the purpose. By far the greater number of the rioters have accepted the amnesty. Nobody imagines them exempted from prosecution. To prevent any misconception of this nature, the commissioners, in the terms of pardon which they held out, expressly warned the people that they were to be liable to civil actions for the damages committed. It was needless, then, to embarrass the question with more difficulties than naturally belonged to it. He was satisfied that this was a mere question of policy, whether it was better to pay off these people at once, or let them first try the effects of civil actions.
Mr. Dayton rose and asked, "Who shall decide, when doctors disagree?" Who shall declare what is the law, when the learned gentlemen of the bar are so directly opposed to each other? The House (Mr. D. observed) had, by some means, imperceptibly, and, he thought, unnecessarily, been drawn into the discussion of a common law question. Law had been aptly compared to a bottomless pit, and the sooner, therefore, that they extricated themselves from it, the better. Very fortunately, (he said,) there existed no necessity for determining, in the present cases, upon any intricate point of law, as the proposals of amnesty, in their very terms, as well as in their nature, left each individual trespasser liable to suits at law on the part of the friends of good order, for the damages sustained by the one and done by the other. Mr. D. was for allowing those prosecutions to go forward, and was well informed, not only that there was far more than sufficient of the property of the insurgents to make compensation, but that it was probable they would agree together, and make up the whole among themselves, rather than be vexed by lawsuits. He could not agree with those gentlemen who expressed a wish to vote for the whole amount of damages, immediately to be paid from the Treasury. He did not believe with them, that such a measure would promote the dignity, or manifest the justice, of the Government. This would be to enter into an improper compromise with guilt. It would be to make peace with sedition, in a way that might tend to encourage rather than, to discourage it in future. We were obligated, upon principle and precedent, to ensure indemnity to those officers of Government, who, in consequence of a prompt and steady discharge of their duty, had suffered in their property from the resentment of the insurgents. But he wished not to do more, until the result of actions at law could be ascertained. Although the Government may offer a pardon for offences against the public, yet nothing was more clear than that the general amnesty did not, and could not, exempt the seditious offenders from answering to private persons for injuries done to them in their property.
Mr. Hartley rose to explain. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Swift) had mistaken his meaning. He was going on, when
Mr. Dayton rose, and declared that he had never put any such construction on the words of the gentleman, who certainly must have misapprehended him.
I did not mean you, sir, (said Mr. Hartley,) I said the gentleman from Connecticut. You made a mistake of the same kind with me last session.
The amendment of Mr. Boudinot was, on a division, lost—only twenty-six gentlemen rising when the question was called for.
The question on the first resolution was then called for; when it was moved to take the previous question, that is to say, "Shall the main question be now put?"
Mr. Fitzsimons rose. He thought that this discussion comprehended a principle of the most important nature. He trusted that it would not be got rid of in this way. He was not of opinion with those gentlemen who were disposed to waive the question just now, under the notion that they should have an opportunity of voting for it at another time. He believed that the true design of moving the previous question was to lay it aside altogether. This expedient should not answer the end; for, if he had only one other gentleman in the House to second him, he would stand by the matter until he obtained an explicit answer.
Mr. McDowell vindicated the propriety of taking the previous question.
Mr. Sedgwick said, that when the British carried on a most unjust war against this country, the Ministry who began it were in time turned out. Their successors had always reprobated the war, but, after the peace, they, notwithstanding, had expended several millions to support the loyalists. While the British had acted with so much liberality, did it become Americans to stick at the paltry sum of seventeen thousand dollars? The House had wrangled so long about this matter, that the very wages which they received for the time spent in this discussion would about have discharged the whole sum in dispute. When a wild, unprincipled, mad attempt had been made to destroy this noble constitution, were the Representatives of this people to make it a doubt whether those who saved it from, perhaps, destruction, were to be indemnified? Mr. S. declared that he felt more unpleasant sensations than he remembered ever to have experienced since he became a member of this House. Gentlemen might argue and argue about this drop in the bucket compared with the ocean. They might go into metaphysical deductions about whether the men who saved this constitution were, some of them, to be reduced to beggary and misery, as the price of having done so. He would bring up the question again and again, until he had the sense of the House again. Mr. S. repeated the following argument, which he, on a former day, had pressed. He asked whether persons who, from the pure, conscious dignity of the republican character, stepped forward to support the Government, did not deserve better of it than excise officers, who were bound to and paid for their services? He was even of opinion that the conduct of the private soldiers in this case was more meritorious than that of the officers. He might be mistaken, but his opinion was so. From this language it is not to be inferred that Mr. S. undervalued the exertions of the officers of the army, or of the excise. He only meant that the less interest or emolument which an individual has at stake in the success of an affair, the greater is his merit in performing it. He asked what better time there was than the present for settling the amount of these claims?
Mr. Heath was for the previous question. He thought the resolution unseasonable at this time. However little the gentleman chose to think of seventeen thousand dollars, they might grow into a precedent for seventeen hundred thousand dollars.
Mr. Boudinot thought that the seventeen thousand dollars were not the whole of the damages that might be claimed. When commissioners were sent to the Westward, the demand might rise to seventy thousand. Numerous other requisitions might start up. He was for taking the previous question.
Mr. Dexter regretted his necessity to differ from a gentleman (Mr. Boudinot) for whose opinions he was in the habit of entertaining the highest respect. He was against the previous question, because he disliked obliquity. Whether he was against or for the first resolution in the report of the select committee, he would give the resolution itself a fair meeting. He then inquired what better time there could be for learning the number and extent of the losses than the present? He again explained, as on Wednesday, that the House appeared to mistake the extent of the resolution, which did not imply any complete indemnification, nor even assure any relief at all. The whole amounted only to the taking of measures for obtaining information. He would not have voted for it, if he had thought that it promised complete indemnification. He thought that no future time could be so proper as the present for deciding.
Mr. Swift, Mr. Kittera, and Mr. Gilbert, also spoke.
Mr. Hillhouse went on the same ground with Mr. Dexter. He was one of the committee who drew up the resolutions. They never understood that the resolution implied an assurance of complete indemnity to the sufferers.
The previous question was called for by five members, to wit: "Shall the main question, to agree to the said resolution, be now put?"
And on the previous question, "Shall the said main question be now put?" it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 52, nays 31, as follows:
Yeas.—Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Jonathan Dayton, Henry Dearborn, Samuel Dexter, Gabriel Duvall, William Findlay, Thomas Fitzsimons, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel Gilbert, Nicholas Gilman, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John Wilkes Kittera, Henry Latimer, Amasa Learned, William Lyman, Francis Malbone, William Montgomery, Peter Muhlenberg, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Andrew Pickens, Thomas Scott, Theodore Sedgwick, William Smith, George Thatcher, Uriah Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg Wadsworth, John Watts, Benjamin Williams, and Richard Winn.
Nays.—Theodorus Bailey, Thomas Blount, Thomas P. Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Joshua Coit, George Dent, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, John Hunter, Richard Bland Lee, Matthew Locke, James Madison, Joseph McDowell, Alexander Mebane, Andrew Moore, Anthony New, John Nichols, Nathaniel Niles, Robert Rutherford, John S. Sherburne, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Paine Wingate, and Joseph Winston.
Mr. Gilbert then moved a resolution, the substance of which was understood to be to ascertain whether the losses in the Western counties were incurred in defence of Government, and how far the sufferers were capable to carry on the lawsuits themselves against the rioters.
Mr. Giles, was against the amendment, the resolution itself, and the whole mode of conducting the business. He had listened to many long speeches, and been surprised that no gentleman had made the observation which he was now going to submit to the House.
[The noise had by this time become so intense, that the Speaker rose and reminded the members of a rule that there must be no private conversation while a member addresses the Chair.]
Mr. G. then proceeded to declare that he disliked the form rather than the substance of the resolution. If people in the Western counties had suffered injuries, why should not they, as well as every other class of citizens, come to the bar of that House and petition? An inquest was, he imagined, intended, which would unite all the back country in one common interest against the Treasury of the United States. The mode proposed by the report of the select committee was the most exceptionable of all that could have been devised. It was said that this was only an affair of seventeen thousand dollars. What evidence have we that the demand will stop there? Sir, there is none. The mode is, besides, totally wrong. Let persons who have suffered come here in the usual manner. It is said that a gentleman has had his house burned. Let him come here and tell us so. Mr. G. entirely scouted the idea advanced by Mr. Dexter, that we might inquire into the extent of the losses, without a design to discharge them. If you do not mean to indemnify, why inquire at all? He did not object to relieving the sufferers, but, to erect a board of inquest, under Presidential direction, was what he never would consent to. He again repeated, that he did not mean to dissent from the principle, but from this most exceptionable of all modes for putting it into practice. Let people lay memorials of their losses before the House, which would then see distinctly what it was doing, and examine the evidence on which the claim was founded. He wondered that none of all the speakers in the debate had adverted to this distinction.
Mr. Hillhouse differed in every particular from the gentleman who spoke last. If petitioners come from the Westward, they are referred to a select committee. They bring all the evidence which they can muster to swell their bill. The committee have no counter-evidence, as we in this House almost never hear more than one of the parties. It is much better to send persons to the spot who can examine the subject on both sides, which we cannot possibly do, and who will be responsible to this House for their conduct. The whole arguments and ideas of Mr. H. were in direct contradiction to every thing advanced by Mr. Giles. He (Mr. H.) was satisfied that, before we undertook to pay the losses of the Western people, it was better, in the first place, to know the extent of them. The resolution amounted to nothing more than the ascertaining of this loss, and Mr. H. could see many good reasons for deferring the payment of a bill until he knew the sum to which it amounted. He could also see reasons why the mode recommended in the resolution was much preferable to that of bringing people so far to the House. Commissioners going to the spot could make themselves perfectly masters of the subject; whereas, if the parties come here, the matter will be decided on ex parte evidence, as it always is.
Mr. Boudinot considered the resolution as too loosely worded. A gentleman who had been on the expedition, and who had heard or read the report, observed to him (Mr. B.) that he himself came within the resolution, as he had suffered considerably in his business by his absence.
Mr. Hillhouse explained, that the resolution extended only to actual destruction. The committee never meant to compensate people for the loss which they had suffered by being banished. He was ready, if the House liked it better, to insert in the first resolution the words "property actually destroyed." This would prevent the misapprehension of the gentleman mentioned by Mr. Boudinot.
The House divided on the amendment of Mr. Gilbert—ayes 39, noes 33.
Mr. Hillhouse then moved to strike out the word "in" from the first resolution, and put into its place, "by the actual destruction of" their property.
Mr. Madison apprehended that this amendment left the resolution as bad as it was before, if not worse. A person in the Western counties had his horse stolen by the insurgents. But this did not imply the actual destruction or annihilation of the horse. The amendment meant either too much or too little. It certainly could be no improvement on the resolution.
After some further discussion, the amendment was agreed to.
And the main question being put, that the House do agree to the said resolution, amended to read as follows:
"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause an ascertainment to be made of the losses sustained by the officers of Government, and other citizens, by the actual destruction of their property (in consequence of their exertions in support of the laws) by insurgents in the Western counties of Pennsylvania; together with a report of the particular condition of the respective sufferers, in relation to their ability to prosecute their several claims, and recover, at law, satisfaction from the insurgent aggressors."
It was resolved in the affirmative.
The second resolution on the subject of indemnification was then taken up in the House.
Mr. Boudinot moved the following amendatory addition:
"To aid such of the sufferers as, in his (the President's) opinion, stand in need of immediate assistance, to be accounted for by them in such manner as may hereafter be directed by law."
The amendment was carried, forty-four gentlemen rising.
The resolution, as amended, is as follows:
"Resolved, That the President be authorized to draw out of the Treasury of the United States the sum of —— dollars, to be applied by him to aid such of the said sufferers as, in his opinion, stand in need of immediate assistance, to be accounted for by them in such manner as may hereafter be directed by law."
Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the said resolutions; and that Mr. Hillhouse, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Lyman, Mr. Watts, and Mr. William Smith, do prepare and bring in the same.