Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 2 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

Friday, July 6.

Abrogation of Treaty with France.

Mr. Sewall called up the bill from the Senate, declaring the treaty between France and the United States void, and of no effect.

Mr. Allen wished the resolution that he laid upon the table yesterday, respecting the condition and relation of this country with respect to France, first to be taken up.

Mr. Sitgreaves thought it would be proper first to go into a consideration of this resolution. We are, said he, now in a state of war. The House know that, by the distribution of powers under this Government, it is only competent for Congress to declare the country in war; therefore, until that declaration is made by this department, the Executive and Judiciary cannot act in the same way as if the country was at war. In other countries, the Executive Department can create war; but here it cannot. If it shall be considered expedient to declare war in consequence of the repeated aggressions and injuries we have received from the French Republic, and the hostility urged against us, and the necessity there exists of making defence against them, there can be no occasion for declaring the treaties void; because, if war is declared, it is the major proposition, and, of course, includes all the minor propositions. If discussed at all, therefore, it would be proper to discuss the major proposition first. He supposed it was a subject on which the minds of members were made up. Whether, therefore, the vote is affirmative or negative, it would be best to declare, in the first instance, the state of the country.

Mr. Nicholas hoped, if we are to come to this question of war at all, it might be so taken up as to occupy the least time of the Legislature. The question of setting aside the treaties is evidently included in the other; he hoped, therefore, the proposition of the gentleman from Connecticut, if to be taken up at all, would have a preference.

Mr. Sewall said, if the question of annulling the treaties with France was included in the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut, he should think it ought first to be taken up; but he did not think this was the case. The gentleman from Connecticut wishes a committee to state what is our relation with respect to the French Republic. How could we say what our relation is, except we determine what is our relation with respect to the treaties subsisting between the two countries? He took the two things to be perfectly distinct. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sitgreaves) seems to conceive that the question whether it will be proper to make a declaration of war against France, is included in this resolution, as he could not be so anxious for the declaration of an historical fact, which, in his opinion, the report on this resolution could only be; for gentlemen could not consider that the constitutional power, placed in Congress to declare war, meant no more than a mere report, whether or not the country is in war. A number of acts have been done, which are indicative of war, and if a report was made as to our situation with the French Republic, it must be reckoned at least a state of hostility. But this would be doing nothing. If it was the intention of any gentleman to propose a declaration of war, such a motion would supersede the necessity of taking up the bill from the Senate; but, as the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut did by no means go to this, he hoped the bill he had mentioned would be first considered. If he were to give an opinion on the subject, it would be clearly against declaring war at present. As to the Judicial Courts, they would find no difficulty in acting according to the situation of things, without troubling themselves with the nice distinctions which gentlemen seemed inclined to make between a state of war, and a state of hostility.

Mr. Gallatin wished to know, if the House were to go into a Committee of the Whole on the bill from the Senate, whether a declaration of war might not be moved as an amendment to the bill. To his mind, there seemed to be but little difference between saying the treaties are at an end, and declaring war. If such a motion could be received, it would be desirable to know the will of the House upon it. The shortest way of coming at this question would be the best. He wished the Speaker to say whether he thought such a motion would be in order.

[No answer was given to the inquiry.]

Mr. Allen considered it best to act always with frankness. He wished, by his resolution, that a committee should inquire into, and declare to the House, and to the country, the true state of our situation with respect to France; and if they should report any measures which should supersede the bill from the Senate, it would be the most fair and open way of getting at the business.

The question on taking up the bill from the Senate was put, and negatived—41 to 35.

Mr. Allen then called up his resolution. It had been said that our negotiation with France is yet carrying on, which he denied, and he wished this resolution to go to a numerous committee to report as to that fact, and as to our situation generally with respect to France.

Mr. Harrison hoped the House would go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, in order to inquire into what is the state of the country? Those gentlemen who wish war, and are determined to have it, ought to speak out. The world should understand them, and the people ought not to be deceived. He hoped gentlemen would bring forward their declaration of war at once. He had always been, and should now be, opposed to war, but he wanted to put his negative upon it.

Mr. Harper had no objection to go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, if the gentleman from Virginia had any motion to make, when the House got into that situation.

Mr. Hartley hoped the resolution before the House would be referred to a select committee, that the House might have a report upon it. He wondered that gentlemen who were against going to war, should wish to press the question of a declaration of it upon the House.

Mr. Dana observed that, from what had been now said upon the resolution, he saw no necessity for voting upon it at all.

Mr. Otis spoke in favor of referring the resolution to a select committee, and saw no reason why the House should go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. Harrison said, every one would know he had no proposition to bring forward with respect to war; he wished to remain at peace; but he wished his constituents and the country at large to be informed as to what was to be the state of the country. Seeing, however, that no member is ready to make the declaration which had been so often spoken of, he should withdraw his motion for going into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Sitgreaves observed, with respect to the allusions of the gentleman last up, as to being prepared for a declaration of war, he confessed he felt no hesitation in saying, that he thought this declaration ought to be made in some form or other. He believed it was the duty of the Legislature to make it. He had thought so for some time; but certain considerations with respect to our Envoys, had prevented its being proposed. Such, he said, was his individual opinion; but he owned he had some scruples about bringing it forward, unless he should be assured, from a comparison of the opinions of gentlemen, such a proposition would receive a respectable and firm support. If he supposed this would be the case, he would make the motion at this moment; and it was because the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut looked towards a declaration, that he was in favor of it.

Mr. S. said he had heard it said for months past, by gentlemen of different opinions, that the aggressions of France against this country were lawful cause of war, and all have admitted that it has become a single question of expediency whether we shall declare war, or not. It was said no consideration but that of interest, would prevent its being done, and he did not believe there was any such. We have, said he, for a long time suffered all the mischiefs that can be inflicted upon us in a state of war, and, therefore, the single question is now, whether we will avail ourselves of the advantages which might be derived from declaring war; for, however trifling gentlemen may deem the distinction which he made between a state of hostility and war, he looked upon that distinction as real and material. In case of an invasion taking place before a declaration of war has been made, certain limited authorities are placed in the President, and in the Executives of the several States, with respect to the armed force; but, if a declaration of war has previously taken place, the direction of that force is placed wholly in the hands of the President of the United States. If this declaration should be made, he should still deem it a war of defence on our part. Mr. S. said he rose to declare his opinion on this point, and to say he was in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. Nicholas supposed there could have been no doubt as to the intentions of the gentleman from Connecticut in bringing forward this resolution, though he expected it would have been found necessary to have made it more explicit. If the object was, as he had no doubt it was, to procure a proposition for a declaration of war, he hoped the resolution would be so amended as to embrace that object. At present, it was quite an unmeaning thing.

Mr. Gallatin said, if he understood the resolution, it proposed the appointment of a committee, to declare what is the state of things between this country and France. He could not see with what propriety Congress could declare a statement of facts by a legislative act. It would be a little curious to pass a law to declare Mr. Gerry has no authority to treat with the French Government; or to declare that this room is sixty feet long, or any other fact. If the committee were to report what was necessary to be done, he could see the use of such a report.

Mr. Lyon observed, that though this resolution was not so explicit as gentlemen might wish, yet such as it was, he was desirous it should pass. He wished to know the state of the country. Some say we are at war; others that we are in a state of hostility; others at peace. He wished to see a report on the subject. He had considered the country as in war for some time; if he was mistaken, he was desirous his mistake should be rectified. If we are at war, it would be well to request the President to get us peace as soon as he can.

The question on the resolution was put and negatived, without a division.

On motion of Mr. Otis, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, to take into consideration the bill from the Senate declaring our treaties with France void and of no effect. The committee being formed, and the bill having been read,

Mr. Livingston called for the reading of the treaties.

Mr. Gallatin thought it would be sufficient to have certain parts of the treaties, which he mentioned, read. Mr. Livingston consented; but Mr. Lyon persisted in the motion for reading the whole. On the question being taken, he only rose in favor of it. The parts of the treaties called for by Mr. G. were read.

Mr. Sewall said, some doubts might be entertained, perhaps, as to the propriety of this measure. It is certainly a novel doctrine to pass a law declaring a treaty void; but the necessity arose from the peculiar situation of this country. In most countries, it is in the power of the Chief Magistrate to suspend a treaty whenever he thinks proper; here Congress only has that power. We have, said he, during this session, in a variety of cases, suspended the treaties in question, by authorizing measures of hostility against France, contrary to the stipulations contained therein. He believed it would be proper, therefore, to set aside these treaties by legal authority. But he confessed to do this, in the manner proposed by the Senate, would, at least, be inconvenient. He could not conceive that the Senate meant to go so far as this bill goes. We ought not to say the treaties are void and of no effect. They must have effect as historical facts; they must have effect, in our appeal to the world, on the ground of their having been violated, and in our claim upon France on account of those violations. There are also other articles which must have effect in case of war. He alluded to the articles which respect the situation of French citizens in this country, or American citizens in France, after war shall have been declared by either power. Mr. S., therefore, proposed a new form of a bill, more simple and with a much shorter preface, viz: "that, whereas the treaties have been in numerous instances violated, they are no longer to be considered as law within the United States," &c. It also proposed that any claim or restraint, stipulated by the said treaties, shall be abrogated and annulled.

The Chairman said this motion was not in order, and could not be received.

Mr. Nicholas saw no difference between the substitute proposed and the original bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts wished to retain the provision relative to the residence of the citizens of either country, after the declaration of war shall have taken place; but could that gentleman for a moment suppose that he could annul one part of a treaty and preserve other parts? The idea appeared to him a very extraordinary one.

Mr. Rutledge hoped the committee would rise, and that the bill would be referred to a select committee. He believed it would be better to declare a part of the treaties void than the whole, which he thought might with propriety be done.

Mr. Nicholas had no objection to the committee's rising; but he could not believe we could take such parts of a treaty as we liked, and declare the rest void.

Mr. Dana believed that the gentleman from Virginia did not rightly apprehend what had been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. D. admitted the impropriety of declaring void and of no effect a legal instrument which was originally valid. In his opinion, this impropriety might be avoided, and the object of the bill attained, by a different phraseology. He believed a proper mode of acting upon this business would be, to declare the stipulations of the French treaties no longer obligatory on the United States. This we may justly do, in consequence of their being disregarded by France.

As to the effect of such a declaration, he acknowledged that it must be regarded as abrogating all those articles of the treaties which are executory, such as stipulate for the future conduct of the parties. Agreeing thus far with the gentleman from Virginia, he would consent most cheerfully that all such articles should be set aside, as they respect both countries. But the declaration would not have any effect on articles which are executed, such as contain cessions or renunciations of territorial claims, and where a corresponding possession has taken place. The operation of these articles is completed, and cannot be reversed by the declaration now proposed.

Mr. D. then moved to amend the enacting clause, by expunging all the words after "That," and substituting "the United States are, of right, freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties heretofore concluded between the United States and France, and that the same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States."

Mr. Otis approved of this motion, and, after a few observations by him in favor of it, the question was put and carried upon it without a division.

Mr. O. then moved to strike out the whole of this preamble; which motion being carried,

Mr. Dana proposed that the reasons for passing this bill should be condensed in the preamble, to read as follows: "Whereas, the treaties concluded between the United States and France have been repeatedly violated on the part of the French Government, and the just claims of the United States for reparation of the injuries so committed have been refused; and their attempts to negotiate an amicable adjustment of all complaints between the two nations have been repelled with indignity; and whereas, under the authority of the French Government, there is yet pursued against the United States a system of predatory violence infracting the said treaties, and hostile to the rights of a free and independent nation, therefore," &c.

The question on the preamble was put and carried—41 to 38.

The committee then rose, and the House took up the amendments. On the question being put on agreeing to the new preamble,

Mr. Bayard said he thought it more in detail than was necessary. He thought it more like a State paper than the preamble of a law. He thought the preamble ought to go no further than to state sufficient ground for the act, which was about to be done; and he took it for granted that whenever a nation violates an essential article of a treaty, it is competent for the other party to declare the treaty no longer binding upon them. He, therefore, moved to strike out all the preamble after saying the treaties have been frequently violated. As to the French having committed depredations upon our commerce, and refused to negotiate with our Commissioners, though these circumstances may be a just cause of war, he did not know whether they were sufficient ground upon which to declare a treaty void.

Mr. Kittera was against striking out. He could not agree that there could be causes for a declaration of war, which are not also causes for setting aside a treaty. The reverse of this position appeared to him to be true, viz: that there might be causes for declaring a treaty void, which would not be causes of war.

Mr. Craik was in favor of the preamble as it stood.

Mr. Gordon hoped the amendment would not prevail. It ought to be considered that if this bill passed into a law, it would be considered as a novel thing. It will be tantamount to a State declaration to annul a treaty, and there ought to be the grounds annexed to it which had led to the measure; and though the gentleman from Delaware is desirous of stating a sufficient cause, he did not think his motion went far enough. The practice of nations is, that when injuries are done, reparation is demanded; and it was necessary, in his opinion, to state that this demand had been made in vain, and that the injuries complained of are still continued.

Mr. S. Smith hoped the amendment would be adopted. He disliked preambles very much. The reasons given by the gentleman from Delaware in favor of his motion he thought well founded. It would be much better to give one good reason for declaring the treaties no longer binding, than several doubtful ones. In his opinion there were some of this description as the preamble stands at present. He did not know that a reparation for injuries had been refused by France. He had seen nothing like an absolute demand made upon the French Government. The Envoys were empowered to make the demand; but, from their not having been duly received, the demand was never made. If it were made, it is clear it has not been complied with; but we have no evidence of its having been refused to be complied with. On the contrary, we see that on the 3d of April, Talleyrand had fixed a day on which he proposed to treat with Mr. Gerry on the subject of the disputes between the two countries. We have not heard the result of the conference; but it may have happened that Mr. Talleyrand has offered to make complete reparation for the injuries committed on our commerce, and this intelligence may arrive here a fortnight hence, and then a declaration of this sort would not have a good appearance. He thought, therefore, it would be better to strike these words out than to retain them.

Mr. S. presumed it was not yet sedition for him to say that he believed proposals to treat would be made to our Commissioners, independent of any tribute, and such as this country might with honor accept. He hoped, therefore, no difficulty would be placed in the way, by passing the preamble as it now stands.

Mr. Dana was not generally in favor of fixing preambles to laws. Whenever the subject is such that it is obviously competent for the Legislature to act upon it; whenever the act proposed is, from its nature, completely within the usual Legislative powers, and, without any explanation, appears perfectly consistent with national honor and propriety, a preamble is unnecessary. But ought this to be said of the subject under consideration? Whence is it that the United States may abrogate the treaties with France? Is it because the Legislature may, at pleasure, set aside a treaty? If it is proper to do this, without any external cause, a preamble is needless in the present instance. According to his view of the subject, the act was founded on a different principle. France has violated the faith pledged by her treaties with America: this, by the law of nations, puts it within the option of the Legislature to decide, as a question of expediency, whether the United States shall any longer continue to observe their stipulations. It is owing to the perfidy of the French Government that the abrogation of our treaties with that nation has become justifiable and necessary. As an American, he hoped the United States would always regard the faith due to treaties, and that all their acts would, on the face of them, appear consistent with it. In this respect, he wished the conduct of the American Government to exhibit a marked contrast to French perfidy. It is of importance to the fairness of our national character. Therefore it is that the facts should be stated which have led to this measure.

The gentleman from Delaware, in support of the amendment which he has moved, supposes it sufficient to state one cause for setting aside the treaties. He is understood to admit that a sufficient cause should be stated. In this principle, said Mr. D., we are agreed. But the question arises, whether a violation of the treaties on the part of France is, of itself, sufficient for setting them aside? The idea of Mr. D. was, that it would not be sufficient, according to the liberal principles which should be cherished in the United States. A treaty might be violated by the imprudence of some person in authority, or by persons acting without authority; and yet the foreign Government, on proper representations, might be willing to redress the injury. In such case, it would ill become the Government of the injured party immediately to dissolve friendly connections. Why is it now deemed requisite to abrogate the treaties by which this country has been connected with France? It is because France has not only violated them, but has also refused that attention which was due to our representations on the subject, and persists in the violation. On this account, and in order to show that the United States were completely justifiable in taking the measure, he was against the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware, and in favor of retaining the several clauses of the preamble.

A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) has declared himself in favor of this amendment, because, in his view, there is no proof that our claim for the injuries committed on our rights, as a neutral nation, have been refused to be adjusted by France. The reason assigned for this opinion is so extraordinary that it may astonish every man acquainted with subjects of this nature. It is, that the French would not receive the Envoys charged with this business, or permit their speaking to them, although they waited for months at the palace-gate of Directorial Arrogance supplicating in vain for an audience. Were the gentleman from Maryland to go himself, or send one of his clerks, to present a demand for a sum justly due to him, if his debtor, instead of discharging or attending to the account, would not consent even to hear him on the subject, but should kick him from the door, or order a servant to do it, would not the gentleman consider such conduct as a refusal to satisfy the demand. He who knows that claims of justice merit the respect of Governments, as well as of individuals, and ought never to be neglected without reasonable cause, must know that evasions, intentional procrastination, and affected delays, are equivalent to a refusal of satisfaction. This is the doctrine of reason, of common sense, of municipal law, and of the law of nations. The facts stated in the preamble, therefore, are strictly true; they are established by the very statement which the gentleman has made to disprove them. And since he has made a question on the subject, it is of additional importance for the Legislature to declare its conviction of their truth.

Mr. Craik believed with the gentleman from Connecticut, last up, that from the declaration of his colleague this question was of consequence. He believed gentlemen were now called upon to testify to the truth of this statement, since it had been doubted. The people ought not to be left in doubt on this subject.

Mr. Otis said, exactly the same effect which had been produced upon the mind of the gentleman last up, was also produced upon his. Before he had heard the arguments of the gentleman from Maryland in its favor, he intended to vote for the motion of the gentleman from Delaware, as being more concise, and as he thought stating sufficient ground for the act about to be passed; but when that gentleman says we have no evidence of reparation for the injuries committed upon our commerce being refused to be made, the abhorrence he felt at the idea of being ranked among members of this opinion would lead him to vote against it. He believed the facts stated in the preamble unquestionably true, and he did not think there could have been a man in the United States who had a doubt on the subject. He believed there could be no doubt that when a sum of money is neglected to be paid, when due, though the debtor may refuse to see any person authorized to make the demand, that it is legally refused to be paid.

If the documents on the table were examined, Mr. O. said it would be found, that so far from Mr. Talleyrand having listened to the claims of our Commissioners, he had expressed his surprise that they should have been made, alleging that the priority of claim was on the part of the French Government. Mr. O. made several other observations, when he concluded by saying, that if any offers of pacification were made by men of the description of those at present in power in the French Directory, he should have no confidence in them: he should think them insidious, and that they originated in their fears, and were intended to effect our ruin.

Mr. Harper said he would say only a few words in justification of his vote in favor of the present motion. He disliked preambles altogether. He voted against the one from the Senate, and he should be in favor of reducing this; for, if we must have a preamble, he thought the less the better. It is the business of the Legislature, Mr. H. said, to pass laws; if a manifesto is proper to be published on this occasion, it would more probably fall under the Executive Department. It is his business to issue State papers, and he could do it much better than it could be done in this House. He was sorry it should be thought necessary to have any preface at all to the law, as it was departing from a good old rule laid down by Congress.

Mr. S. Smith was not convinced, by any thing that had been said against this motion, that what he had before stated was ill-founded. It had been asked whether, if he sent three persons to demand a debt, and the debtor ordered them away without seeing them, he should not consider the act as a refusal to pay. He answered, he should. But he would put a case, which he thought more in point. Were he to send three persons to settle an account with a debtor, and he were to send two of them home again, but keep one, and promise to adjust the business with him, he should naturally expect he would do so, and should not think of proceeding to any rigorous measures with him, until he heard the result.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has said that he can never consent to accept of any terms from the present Executive Directory, as he shall consider them insidious, and not to be relied upon. After a two years' war, perhaps, he may be of a different opinion. Mr. S. said he should be as unwilling as any man to accept of any terms from the French Government which would be derogatory to the United States; but if the Directory will engage that all the depredations upon our commerce shall cease, and will offer to treat with us on equitable terms, (which he did not think improbable,) he should be for acceding, most cheerfully, to the proposal.

Mr. Gallatin said he should vote against the motion to strike out a part of the preamble agreed to in the Committee of the Whole. He was of opinion with gentlemen, that it was better to pass laws in general, without preambles; but this proceeding is altogether of a novel nature. He knew of no precedent of a Legislature repealing a treaty. It is therefore an act of a peculiar kind, and it appeared to him necessary that Congress should justify it by a declaration of their reasons. Nor could he understand the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina, when he said the Executive Department was better calculated for the publishing of a manifesto than the Legislature, or, in other words, could assign the reasons that influenced Congress better than Congress themselves. If, then, a preamble is to be adopted, it ought to contain those reasons which operated in producing the law. He thought this would be more correctly stated by leaving the preamble as it is, than by adopting the amendment.

There was also another reason for preserving the preamble as at present. The French have violated the Treaty of Commerce made with this country; but it would be rather difficult for any gentleman to show that repeated violations have taken place of our Treaty of Alliance with France. The ground of complaint is, that France has violated the Treaty of Commerce between the two countries, and the laws of nations, and not the Treaty of Alliance; and, therefore, a breach of that treaty is not the reason why it is set aside. Besides, if repeated violations of a treaty are sufficient reasons for setting it aside, it could not be forgotten that certain orders had been issued by another country, which are not conformable to our treaty with that power. So, that it is not sufficient to say, that because a treaty has been violated, we will repeal it; but we ought to show to the world that repeated attempts have been made, in vain, to obtain redress.

But the gentleman from Maryland is apprehensive that the statement of the French Government having refused to make reparation for the injuries committed upon our commerce could not be correct, from the possibility of Mr. Gerry having succeeded in making a treaty since the date of our last despatches. He acknowledged there was a bare possibility of the fact being so; but this ought to operate as a reason against passing the bill at all, and not against the preamble.

Mr. Edmond said, he voted for rejecting the Senate's preamble. It appeared to him that no preamble was necessary. For, if it were necessary to state the reasons which induced the passing of this act, it would be proper to state all the reasons, and to do that would be a work of considerable time; and, upon the facts stated, there might probably be a considerable difference of opinion. If reasons were stated for passing this law, and, at a future day, when an adjustment of differences should take place, the negotiator on the part of the United States were to adduce other reasons for passing this act than are stated in this preamble, it might be stated by the negotiator, on the part of France, why do you muster up complaints now, which you did not think of when the law passed? He therefore thought it would be best to pass the law without a preamble at all.

No question in the laws of nations, Mr. E. said, was more clear, than that, when a treaty is violated by one nation, the other party, who has maintained good faith, may either discharge themselves from the obligations of it, or, if kindly disposed, they may set on foot a negotiation, or they may declare war, without doing either of the other two. He laid it down as a further principle, that where there are several treaties in existence between two countries, and one of them is violated, the injured party may demand satisfaction; and if it be not given, they may declare the whole of the treaties void. He therefore was of opinion that France having violated our treaty with her, we have a right, without assigning any reason for it, to set it aside; and as we have repeatedly applied to them for redress, and they have refused to grant it, we have a right to reject the whole or to declare war, without assigning any reason whatever. However, if we wish to appear fair in the eyes of the world, we may, if we please, assign a reason for our act; but, in this case, he would either give all the reasons which exist, or make them as precise as possible. He should, therefore, vote in favor of striking out the words in question.

The question to strike out was negatived; and the question being taken on the preamble, it was carried—there being 53 votes for it.

The bill was ordered for a third reading this day. It afterwards received its third reading, and was passed—yeas 47, nays 37, as follows:

Yeas.—John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, Jas A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, George Dent, William Edmond, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Jas. H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William Matthews, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thos. Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Nays.—Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thos. Blount, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, John Dawson, Thomas Evans, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.