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

by United States. Congress

Tuesday, January 11.

The House proceeded to consider the amendment proposed by the Senate to the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Hyde;" Whereupon,

Resolved, That this House do agree to the said amendment.

Cession of Louisiana to France.

Mr. Griswold moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, intending, should he succeed, to call up his resolution presented on the 5th instant, viz:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this House, copies of such official documents as have been received by this Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France, together with a report, explaining the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which that province is to be delivered up, unless such documents and reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge to the House particular transactions not proper at this time to be communicated."

I recollect, said Mr. G., when I proposed on a former day that the House should go into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering this resolution, the principal arguments in opposition were drawn from its supposed connection with a subject which had been referred to a secret committee, and, therefore improper for previous or public discussion. Those arguments have now lost their weight. The House have decided on those confidential subjects, and their resolution was published, and I believe it will appear that I was not incorrect in my opinion, that this resolution has no concern with any confidential communications. When before under consideration, the inquiry contemplated was considered important. The information requested must be in possession of the Executive; it cannot be supposed that such documents as would be useful to the House, do not exist in the Executive cabinet. We cannot legislate with a proper understanding, unless we are informed of all the circumstances, conditions, and stipulations, under which that territory is ceded to France. I will not believe that the Executive has neglected to demand such explanations as the honor and interest of the United States require. It is this official information which we want. As we are unembarrassed by other subjects, either of a public or secret nature, I hope the House will now come to a decision; I shall call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Dawson moved a postponement of the resolution to a future day.

Mr. Mott said he was opposed to the resolution, but was for going into Committee of the Whole, and deciding upon it, rather than to be troubled with it from day to day.

Mr. Dana.—I consider the refusal to go into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union as a negative upon the resolution. We have been told before by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) that it does not amount to a refusal of the resolution. True, it may not be so harsh a mode of putting it aside, but the effect is virtually the same. Will it be made a question whether it is proper to ask for information? The President has recommended the subject to our attention in his message. It is not only proper, but of course becomes our duty, to deliberate, and to request such information from the President, as will assist and enlighten us in our proceedings. It is his constitutional province to do this, and it would be a reflection on him to suppose that he would withhold any information from the House, on a subject which he had thought so important, as to form part of an official message. It could not have been inserted merely for the sake of rounding off a period. No, sir, the President has undoubtedly sufficient reasons for mentioning this, as a subject worthy of our deliberations; he is designated by the constitution as the proper person from whom information on subjects of this nature is to be derived; he is supposed to combine the whole; it is not proper to receive it but from an official source. The general subject is mentioned in the following terms:

"The cession of the Spanish province of Louisiana to France, which took place in the course of the late war, will, if carried into effect, make a change in the aspect of our foreign relations, which will doubtless have just weight in any deliberations connected with that subject."

Are we to suppose the Executive has not been vigilant in ascertaining the circumstances attending this event? No. Are we to suppose he is unwilling to inform us what they are? No. He must be supposed willing to give the information. Therefore, why should gentlemen prevent us from obtaining that intelligence, which is presumed to exist, and which the Executive must be willing to give?

Mr. Randolph was averse to going into a Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, if it were understood that the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was to be taken up. It was not very material to him in what way the House signified their dissent to the measure; but, preferring that which was least circuitous, he hoped they would refuse to take it up in committee. Much pains having been taken to impress a belief that the President had communicated to the House a fact of which he possessed no official information, Mr. R. begged the House to recollect that the tortured ingenuity of gentlemen had been unable fairly to infer the fact from the Executive communications; nor could it be implied from a refusal to concur in the proposed resolution. His opposition to it grew out of the resolution itself. It conveys the suspicion that Spain has ceded Louisiana to France indefinitely, thereby giving to France some color of claim to the countries formerly comprised under that appellation; or that she has made the cession by limits incompatible with her engagements to us; and that in either case our right to the navigation of the Mississippi may have been impaired. For, if you suppose in this transfer of her property that Spain has paid due regard to her stipulations with us, the resolution ceases to have an object. Now, sir, wherefore cast this imputation on Spain?—especially at this crisis, when, as I am informed from a respectable source, one of the first characters in the Union is recently nominated Minister to that Court, for the purpose of adjusting all differences on this subject?

I should have supposed another reason would have deterred the gentleman from persisting in this call. That gentleman and his friends had recorded on the journals of this House their solemn determination, however sensibly they might feel the injuries inflicted on the rights and interests of these States, to refuse all co-operation in the support of those rights and interests so long as the direction of the Government should be retained by those who now possess it. For, after having expressed their disapprobation of that clause in a resolution lately adopted by the House to affect our rights of limits and of navigation through the Mississippi, objecting to no other part of it, they had, nevertheless, refused to give their assent to it because of this objectionable passage. There was a time, sir, when such conduct would have been denounced by a portion of this House as the essence of Jacobinism and disorganization. Mr. R. concluded by saying that he thought it unwise at this time, in the very cradle of the negotiation, to throw out insinuations which would have a tendency to irritate or disgust the Spanish Court.

Mr. Griswold.—I did not expect that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) would, in the face of the journal now on the table, in contradiction to the knowledge of every gentleman in this House, have made the declaration we have just heard. Have we given our vote that we would not defend the free navigation of the Mississippi? Have we not been ready to unite in adopting those measures which the infraction of treaties and our violated rights demand? I appeal to our journals. What has been done, there appears, and will contradict the assertions of that gentleman. When the resolution was under consideration in the secret committee, which the gentleman (Mr. Randolph) emphatically called his offspring, there were two votes taken on certain parts or members of it, previous to the main question. A motion was made to strike out the following clause:

"And relying with perfect confidence on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive, they will wait the issue of such measures as that department of the Government shall have pursued for asserting the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States."

I voted against this part of the resolution for two reasons: first, because I could not express a confidence which I did not feel; and secondly, because I was not satisfied with a resolution to do nothing. I thought we ought to do something; that it was not proper for the Legislature to sit as idle spectators of an important political transaction, which required legislative interference. I thought we ought to prepare for the worst. These were the reasons, Mr. Speaker, which influenced my conduct upon the motion for striking out. But how did we vote on the motion for agreeing to the following clause?

"Holding it to be their duty at the same time to express their unalterable determination to maintain the boundaries, and the rights of navigation and commerce, through the river Mississippi, as established by existing treaties."

Did we refuse our assent? Did we object to a syllable contained in this part of the resolution? No, sir, the vote was unanimous. Every member of the House stands pledged to support the sentiments therein expressed. On this point there was no difference of opinion. I appeal to your journals, sir, and to the recollection of every gentleman who was on that secret committee, whether I am not correct. It is true that there was a difference of opinion in the secret committee upon the other part of the resolution; on one side of the House it appeared proper to express great confidence in the present Executive, and, leaving every thing to that department, to do nothing ourselves; whilst on the other side, as we did not feel that confidence, we could not express it, and believing the occasion demanded legislative interference, we thought it necessary to prepare for the worst. How, then, can we be charged by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) with having recorded our determination not to protect the rights and interests of these States, when our votes, appearing on your journal, not only prove our unalterable determination to defend those rights, but likewise prove that we were willing to leave the vindicating of those rights entirely to the Executive, and were earnestly desirous of adding thereto all the aid which the Legislature could contribute, and that we have been prevented from pursuing this course by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) and his friends? I must be permitted again to express my astonishment that the gentleman can with any face make these charges, and again to appeal to your journal, and the recollection of every gentleman, for a contradiction of these unmerited aspersions.

When the main question was taken we refused our assent. Not because we were unwilling to adopt such measures as circumstances might require; but because we could not sanction those expressions of unbounded confidence in the Executive, and that determination to do nothing which the resolution contained.

As another argument against this resolution, we are told it is calculated to irritate and impede a negotiation, which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has informed us is about to commence, and, I must say, about to commence at a very late period; after an expiration of one year since the cession of that territory to France. Let us recur to the resolution:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this House copies of such official documents as have been received by this Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions, under which that province is to be delivered up; unless such documents and reports will, in the opinion of the President, divulge to the House particular transactions, not proper at this time to be communicated."

Is this the language of irritation? Is there an offensive sentence either to the Court of Spain or the Republic of France? Not one. So far from impeding negotiation, it might lead to measures which would accelerate the agency, and ensure terms more advantageous. To be ready for any and every event, would evince on our part a disposition to demand, and the power to enforce reparation if refused. Inactivity and silence in the Legislative Department will indeed retard successful negotiation, by depriving a Minister of powerful and unanswerable arguments.

Mr. S. Smith said, it would be recollected, that on the first day the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut was offered, it struck him as improper, and that it was at his instance it had been ordered to lie on the table. The more he had considered the nature of that resolution, the more averse to it had he become. So far from his original dislike to it having been removed by the arguments advanced, it had been confirmed, and particularly by what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia. The gentleman from Connecticut does not perceive, or is unwilling to acknowledge, that there is any thing in his resolution that implies unfairness on the part of Spain, or that derogates from the honor of her character; but let him read the resolution. Mr. S. then read as follows:

"That the President of the United States be requested to direct the proper officer to lay before this House copies of such official documents as have been received by this Government, announcing the cession of Louisiana to France, together with a report explaining the stipulations, circumstances, and conditions under which the province is to be delivered up."

Does not the gentleman who drew this resolution seem to believe, from the express words of it, that the conduct of Spain has been unfair, and that she may have adopted measures derogatory to her character and honor? Shall we send a Minister hampered by such a resolution?

Let the gentleman recollect the conduct of this House on a similar occasion. When an order of the British Court issued to seize all American vessels, wherever found, certain spirited resolutions were proposed in that House to show the dissatisfaction of the Government at this unjust measure, and its disposition, if necessary, to resist it. The gentleman will recollect, that at that crisis, and pending those very resolutions, a Minister was appointed. Did not the gentleman's friends immediately state the impropriety of passing those resolutions? The fact was, that gentlemen on both sides felt the force of the suggestion, and the resolutions were withdrawn. Mr. S. thought it wise, prudent, and proper, to pursue on this occasion the same course. He could conceive of no good end which could be answered by the resolution. Is the gentleman really in earnest in his inquiries at this time? and if the effect of his resolution should be to show that the stipulations are injurious to our rights, would he know how to act? He would be for acting spiritedly, no doubt; and yet, at this very moment, when he professed such a declaration, he declares to the world, that he has no confidence in the Executive, who is now pursuing the proper measures! I cannot, therefore, conceive that the gentleman is in earnest, after the vote which he and his friends have given of a want of confidence in the Executive. I cannot consider their conduct as intended to promote the real interests of their country; but as calculated to bring the country into a situation from which it cannot withdraw, without pursuing measures attended with expense and blood.

Mr. Randolph.—I trust neither this House, nor the American people, can be deceived as to this transaction. What I have stated the journals confirm, and I should call for the reading of them, if I were not informed by the Clerk that they were at the printer's. A resolution passed this House, expressing its disposition to assert the rights of the United States, in relation to their established limits, and to the navigation of the Mississippi. That resolution contained an expression of confidence in the Executive. Gentlemen moved to strike it out and failed. In every other part they concurred, separately and distinctly. But to the whole they gave their negative. What is the inference? That they will not assert our rights because they have no confidence in the Executive. Liken this to a bill: A clause is moved to be stricken out; it is retained. Those who object to that clause vote against the final passage of the bill. It is nevertheless carried; it becomes law. Are not those who voted against it fairly to be considered as enemies to the law? So have I a right to enumerate that gentleman and his friends, opponents to the measure which I submitted to the House; and yet, sir, although I stated every fact mentioned by the gentleman himself, (Mr. Griswold,) except the final vote, which he took care to keep out of sight; although I mentioned expressly their concurrence in every other part of the resolution, it is asked with what face I can make such a statement in the teeth of your journals? Sir, let me tell that gentleman, not with the face of a prevaricator, but with the face of a man of honor and a gentleman; not with the face of one using terms intended to convey more than meets the ear, with a view of explaining them away when convenient; not with a design of simulating what I do not believe, or of dissembling my real purpose. The House will recollect, sir, that in the committee, the objection of the gentleman from Connecticut was confined solely to the expression of confidence in the Executive, there was then no reason to believe that there was any other. After protesting against this expression, and suffering it even to prevent his concurrence in any measures for the common good, he comes forward with another resolution, whether to benefit that cause which he has refused to espouse, or to diminish that confidence which appears so much to have disturbed him, I leave the House to determine. But Louisiana is ceded to France. It is so. Of this fact we have official information. But let it be remembered that it is yet in the hands of Spain. The injury which we have received is from officers of that Crown. The reparation is to be demanded from the same quarter. Now what has the information desired by gentlemen to do with any such negotiation? When France shall have taken possession of this province; when she shall have made pretensions inconsistent with our honor, or with our rights in that quarter, then will it be time enough to take up this subject. This is a transaction, which, if it ever does take place, must pass under the immediate cognizance and control of this House. Let gentlemen recollect that the treaty of cession is of an old date, and Louisiana is, notwithstanding, still in the possession of Spain. Shall we then suggest to France our expectation that she will set up a claim inconsistent with our rights; that she may have received a colorable pretence for violating them? Shall we thereby invite her aggressions? In whatever hands this country may be eventually placed, or by whomsoever our rights may be invaded, I doubt not a disposition will always be found to defend them. But it is with the actual possessors that we must negotiate; it is from them we must demand redress, and not from any nation who may possess a reversionary right to the province of Louisiana.

Mr. Bacon said that there was one question before the House, and they were debating upon another, in an animated manner and on an extensive scale, before they come to it. It would be recollected, he hoped, that this question was not then before the House. To what point, therefore, could these discussions lead? He was for going into a Committee of the Whole, and meeting the resolution face to face.

Mr. Dana said that the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts would be correct, were it not for the objections made to the resolution. That question is, therefore, fairly before the House; and the real point is, whether the House will, or will not, adopt the resolution requesting information. To adopting this resolution, one objection is urged by the gentleman from Virginia, and enforced by the gentleman from Maryland. This resolution, say they, may irritate the Court of Spain, and this will be improper. One gentleman has said that the language of propriety is uniform and consistent. Let gentlemen look then at the resolution long since offered by the gentleman from Virginia, requesting papers in relation to a violation of compact on the part of Spain in the late proceedings at New Orleans. Let me ask, is there any thing in this calculated to gratify the courtly delicacy of a Castilian? Here Spain is explicitly charged with a violation of her engagement with us. Look at the resolution that took its birth in secret committee, and which might be termed the offspring of the intellectual energies of the gentleman from Virginia. It is willing to ascribe this breach of compact to the unauthorized misconduct of certain individuals, rather than to a want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty. If this were not the style of direct complaint, it was, at least, harsh, and in no wise courtly. Look now at the resolution proposed by my colleague. Compare them, and if there is not a revolution in the force of language as well as in other things, say if the language of my colleague's resolution is not that of civility, moderation, and even flattery, compared with the language of the other two?

[Mr. Dana having read Mr. Griswold's resolution proceeded.]

What is there here that implicates the character of Spain? If there is any fault in mentioning the cession, if that is calculated to irritate Spain, the fault lies with the President; for he first mentioned it. This argument, then, must be abandoned. There is nothing in this resolution that can impede negotiations; it is not my intention that this House should take any measures to impede, but that we should take measures to give additional force to negotiation. If I understand what will give most efficacy to Executive negotiations, it is when the world are assured that this House will support the President in all proper and necessary measures for vindicating our rights. But, say the gentlemen, is it possible that we can be for vindicating the rights of the citizens when we have withdrawn our confidence from the Executive? It is true we could not agree with gentlemen in their terms when they avowed "a perfect confidence in the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive." The gentleman from Virginia represented this as the theory of the Government. We could not agree with him. We voted for striking this out. It is unnecessary to mention our motives for this in detail. This might be to imitate. What! "relying with perfect confidence in the Executive"—is this the language of the constitution, as it respects any man? The resolution does not limit the confidence reposed to any degree, but ascribes a perfection of wisdom and vigor, which ought not to be reposed in any being subject to the ordinary frailties of human nature. Besides, there is an expression of confidence resulting from the constitutional powers of the Executive, which may be correct. But it will be recollected that the powers of the Executive are not competent to ulterior measures. He has only the power of negotiation; he has no other. Though he may prevent an aggression by employing force, he cannot enforce compensation for injuries received. It was, therefore, improper to agree to a resolution that pledged ourselves to abstain from doing any thing.

The allusion to the case with Great Britain was not correct. Will it be said that less success attended the measures of our negotiation then, because the House manifested a disposition to adopt spirited measures? Or, that there were in that case no measures adopted? Measures were adopted. But here, not a single measure had been.

Mr. Randolph said it was extremely painful to him to be obliged so often to explain what appeared to him almost self-evident. The journals have been quoted, sir, to show that I have cast an imputation on the Spanish Court more injurious than that contained in the resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut. I am perfectly willing that the decision of the question before us should depend upon that fact. The resolution, sir, which I had the honor to submit to you, spoke of a fact notorious to the whole world, of a breach of compact, of a violation of treaty, on the part of Spain, which could be neither denied nor justified. It contained an inquiry into this circumstance, and, information having been received respecting it, was followed by a declaration of our willingness to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of their agents rather than to the Court of Spain. The resolution of the gentleman from Connecticut implies a fact highly dishonorable to the Spanish nation—that the Government, and not subordinate, unauthorized persons, has secretly entered into stipulations repugnant to its engagements with us. Put the case between two individuals; suppose a gentleman of this House to receive an injury from either of the gentlemen from Connecticut. In an open and manly manner he speaks of this injury, and in undignified terms of resentment. He inquires into it; having found that it was the act of a subordinate agent, and, no proof being exhibited that it was at the instigation of the principal, he frankly says: There is a violation on your part of your engagements with me, but I am willing to ascribe it to the unauthorized misconduct of your agent. On the contrary, suppose him to insinuate strongly that his opponent has covertly taken steps to injure him by treacherously entering into engagements incompatible with those previously made with him. Sir, that honor which would feel itself wounded by the first of these proceedings, while it was insensible to the other, is very little allied to the Castilian.

But, sir, it seems that this unfortunate resolution betrays so entire an ignorance of the distribution of the powers of our Government as to clothe the Executive with an authority not only not devolved upon it by the constitution, but which is the peculiar province of this and the other branch of the Legislature. The gentleman (Mr. Dana) denies the power of the Executive to redress injuries received from foreign nations. The resolution, however, speaks only of a disposition to redress those injuries. But let us examine into the fact. Have I, indeed, so far mistaken, and, contrary to my own avowed principles, am so disposed to augment the Executive powers at the expense of the other departments of the Government? Suppose, on the representations of the Executive to the Court of Spain, that Court, which is more than probable, should restore the rights of navigation and deposit, disavow the conduct of their officers in violating those rights, and moreover, punish them for it? Would any person deny that, through the agency of the Executive, constitutionally exercised, the injury was redressed? There were other criticisms of the gentleman which I well remember, and to which he seems willing to call the recollection of the House. They were chiefly of a verbal nature. The gentleman objected to the expression "vindicating the injuries," which he contended implied the justifying, and not the redressing, of them. I could only reply, that I had been in the habit of hearing that word used in the sense in which I applied it as well as in that contended for by the gentleman. That the meaning of terms in our copious and flexible language should not be settled by provincial acceptation; and that by the only authority then accessible to us (knowing the disposition of the gentleman to bow to authority) it was decided that the word "vindicate" extended as well to the avenging of an injury as to the assertion of a right. I am, however, willing to confess that I have never attended to the technical structure of language with a precision so minute as that of the gentleman from Connecticut; and if the House are again to go to school to become acquainted with it, if again we are to be subjected to the lash of the pedagogue, no man shall have my vote for that high office so soon as the gentleman from Connecticut.

When the resolution which I submitted to you was under consideration, I did defend the expression contained in it, of confidence in the Executive, on the theory of our Government. I am still ready to defend it on the same principle. By the Constitution of the United States, the Executive is the representative of the United States to foreign nations. It is furnished with organs by which to receive their propositions, and to communicate our own. The constitution, therefore, presumes that to this department may be entirely confided our negotiations with foreign States. To this House is given the sole power to originate money bills, and the constitution supposes that a perfect reliance may be had upon it for executing this all-important trust. On the Senate, in like manner, is devolved the right of trying impeachments, and perfect confidence is placed in the wisdom and justice of their decision. The same confidence is reposed in the Executive with respect to exterior relations. Without adverting, therefore, to the character of the individual, we had the same right to presume that the constituted authority would take the proper steps in relation to his department, that he has to presume that we will raise the necessary revenue and pass the proper laws. Until, then, it could be shown that some specific act of the Executive had rendered that department unworthy of our confidence, we might consistently express it: and, even if proof of such misconduct could be established, it would not alter the tenor of the constitution, however the individual might be affected by it. For your constitution, sir, is not of that precarious nature which depends on the fluctuating characters of particular men. Mr. R. concluded by declaring his reluctance, then increased by indisposition, to be so frequently called upon the floor, but he felt himself in honor bound to defend a motion made by himself, and which had called forth such repeated animadversions from the other side of the House.

Mr. Goddard.—The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) has complained so much of the objections to which his secret resolution was exposed, that I feel myself called upon to sustain a part of that complaint which he has seen fit to place to the account of my colleague. The motion, sir, to strike out the word "vindicating," which gave the gentleman the trouble of producing his pocket dictionary, came from me. He attempted to show, by the authority of his dictionary, that the word is sometimes used to signify revenge. Admitting it, I asked then, and I ask now, with what propriety it could be used, even in that sense, in the resolution referred to? We were then speaking of measures which had before that time been taken by the President, regarding the subject to which the resolution referred. Were we to suppose that the President had already taken measures to revenge the injuries of the United States? I had heard of no such intimation. Besides, has he the power to do so, in the manner then suggested by the gentleman from Virginia by taking possession of New Orleans? I believe not, without the concurrence of Congress. It was therefore absurd, in the highest degree, to use the expression in that resolution; and we had more than one reason for striking out that part of the resolution which contained it.

But this, as well as every other word and letter of this favorite resolution, was pertinaciously adhered to. The gentleman who framed the resolution seemed determined to compel us to eulogize the President—to extort from us a little praise of the man—or reduce us to the necessity of voting against the principle of the resolution, which asserted our right to the free navigation of the Mississippi. This part of the resolution could have been introduced for no other purpose. It also called upon us to pledge ourselves to wait the issue of such measures as the President might have taken, without any knowledge of the nature of those measures, if any had been taken. And this, the gentleman (Mr. Randolph) now tells us, we might well enough have done, on the ground of the theory of our Government. I did not know, sir, that it belonged to the theory of Government to eulogize the President on all occasions, or express a confidence we do not feel. Nor does it make a part of the theory of our Government, that the President, without the concurrence of Congress, should avenge the injuries of the country. But, sir, we determined not to express a confidence we did not feel, or vote against the principle of a resolution which was agreeable to us; and the rules of the House, notwithstanding all the efforts to the contrary, protected us in carrying that determination into effect. We recorded our votes in favor of such parts of the resolution as we liked, and against that which we deemed exceptionable; and the final vote which was given upon the whole resolution was sufficiently explained by those upon its different parts. But, sir, because we did not vote that we had "perfect confidence" in the Executive, are we now to be told that we are not entitled to the information called for by the resolution on your table? Are those who do not express entire approbation of all the measures of the Administration to be refused all information respecting the most important interests of the country?

Another objection is raised to agreeing to this resolution. Gentlemen say it will offend foreign nations. What does the resolution call for? It calls for information of a fact which we are told in the President's Message exists. Louisiana, says the President, has been ceded by Spain to France. We ask for such documents as he may possess in evidence of that fact. We wish to know the terms and conditions upon which that province is to be delivered up. When this is asked, by the resolution on your table, the right is at the same time reserved to the President to withhold such parts of it (if any such there be) as, in his opinion, ought not to be communicated. And the passage of this resolution is to offend France or Spain! For fear of offending foreign nations we are not to ask or know what is our relative situation with such nations? If, sir, we hold this language, we may indeed avoid the anger of foreign nations, but we shall merit their contempt. But when, in answer to the suggestion that we may offend Spain, the gentleman from Virginia is reminded of his resolution, which charges Spain directly with a violation of treaty, he replies that this language is palliated by our saying that we are "willing to ascribe this violation to the unauthorized conduct of certain individuals rather than to the want of good faith on the part of His Catholic Majesty." But, in making out this apology, the gentleman has blended two resolutions together. The one to which my colleague referred passed early in the session. In that, Spain was charged directly with a violation of treaty. Nothing was then said about unauthorized conduct of individuals. This reluctance at charging Spain with this violation of treaty was not expressed until a long time after, and is found in the resolution which passed in secret. Indeed, this, as well as all the objections which have been offered to the passage of the resolution on your table, appear to me equally fallacious.

Mr. Huger said, that having, on a former occasion, had an opportunity of delivering his sentiments in favor of the present resolution, "requesting the Executive to direct the proper officer to lay before the House such official documents, as were in possession of the Government, relative to the cession of Louisiana to France," he felt no disposition to enter at this time into a further discussion of the merits of that resolution, nor should he have again troubled the House on the subject, but for the assertion repeated more than once by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) that those gentlemen who thought and voted with himself in the secret committee, had recorded, on the journals of the House, their solemn determination (however sensibly they might feel the injuries inflicted on the rights and interests of these States) to refuse all co-operation in support of those rights and interests so long as the direction of the Government should remain in the hands of the present Chief Magistrate. This imputation had already, it was true, been very properly repelled by his friend from Connecticut, and it had been triumphantly shown from the journals themselves, with how little justice the insinuation had been made against those who agreed and voted with him on the different parts of the resolution lately adopted in the secret committee. The gentleman from Virginia had, nevertheless, thought proper again to make the assertion; Mr. H. must, therefore, beg leave again to meet it, and to declare that it was neither authorized by a fair construction of the different votes given on the occasion by yeas and nays, nor to be inferred from any thing which had fallen in debate either from himself or any of his political friends. The very contrary, continued Mr. H., is in truth the fact; and had the resolution in question been debated with open doors, it would have been very evident to every one, that the utmost pains had been taken by the other side of the House to place us in this very predicament, and by availing themselves of a point of order, to oblige us by our votes, not only to declare an implicit and entire confidence in the present Chief Magistrate, but to tie up our hands and bind ourselves not to take a single step in this important business until the Executive was graciously pleased to authorize us to do so. If the doors had been allowed, I say, to remain open during the debate, it would have been evident to every one how much pains were taken to oblige us to commit ourselves on these two points, or to submit to be presented to the world as unwilling to co-operate in any way in the support of the just rights of the nation, and be deprived of an opportunity of showing, as we were anxious to do, our approbation of, and concurrence in, other parts of the resolution; the last sentence in particular, which holds forth our unalterable determination to maintain, in every event, the boundaries and right of commerce and navigation through the Mississippi, as established by existing treaties. Fortunately, however, the point of order was determined in our favor, and we have had an opportunity to show, and did actually show, by our votes, in the most unequivocal manner, that we were, as well as our political opponents, decidedly in favor of every other part of the resolution, save only that which called on us so unnecessarily to declare ourselves the blind and passive tools of the Executive. Nay, more, he recollected to have declared himself, again and again, in the course of the debate, that, although he was not willing at the present moment unnecessarily to express an entire and implicit confidence in the political infallibility of the Executive, yet he certainly had not the smallest hesitation in saying, that he was as ready as any gentleman on the other side, to devote his life and fortune, even under the auspices of the present Chief Magistrate, to the defence of our common country against any and every foreign aggression whatever. He was not, it was true, one of the warm and enthusiastic devotees of the present Administration, and he must honestly acknowledge that he should greatly prefer seeing the reins of Government, at this critical juncture, in the hands of a Washington! He, nevertheless, recollected that the present Chief Magistrate was placed at the head of affairs by the constitutional voice of the majority of the American people. He acquiesced, therefore, in their decision, and hoped he might be permitted to avail himself of the advantage of having the doors now open, to repeat again, in the most unequivocal language, that he was as ready as any of the most devoted friends of the Administration, to risk his life and his all, (even under its auspices,) in asserting the rights and vindicating the injuries of the United States.

He was the more anxious to make a public and open avowal of his sentiments on this subject, because, although it might suit the party purposes for the moment to hold up one side of the House, as so forgetful of their duty, and so hurried away by their political zeal, as to pledge themselves in the face of the world, to give up the most important rights of the nation without a struggle, rather than co-operate with those now at the head of affairs in support of them, yet he thought it all-important that foreign nations at least should be convinced the fact was not so; and that whatever difference of opinion may exist amongst us with respect to our local politics, when called upon to meet and repel the encroachments of any foreign power, we would have but one sentiment on the subject. To bring about, indeed, a unanimous vote and present to the American people the agreeable and consoling spectacle of the National Legislature acting with one mind and with mutual confidence in each other on this great national question, big with such important consequences, had been his sincere wish, as well as that, he was confident, of every member on his side of the House. They had, consequently, left no stone unturned to effect the desirable end: they had called upon and conjured the majority to waive for the moment all party questions; to meet them on such fair and honorable grounds as might enable them to act with perfect unanimity in support of such measures, as it might be found expedient to adopt. Nor could gentlemen have forgotten the eloquent and conciliating speech of the member from Connecticut, and the ardent desire he had evinced, in common with all his friends, to bury the hatchet and lay aside every other consideration but the public good. It was scarcely necessary, however, to remind the House of the manner in which these proffers of conciliation and the anxiety on our part to obtain a unanimous vote on this important occasion were received. It is in the memory of every one, that they were treated with the most sovereign contempt, hooted and spurned at, and the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) in particular, went so far as to declare, that he neither wanted nor wished any thing like unanimity to appear in support of the measures which might be adopted; nay, that unanimity, however attainable, was not desirable. Mr. H. said he would make no comment on these sentiments and this conduct on the part of the majority; and as he did not rise for the purpose of entering into a further discussion of the main question, he should no longer encroach on the time or patience of the House, but leave them and the world to determine whether he or his political friends had, by their votes or conduct, in the course of the transaction alluded to, afforded any just ground for the imputation of the gentleman from Virginia, whatever plausibility he had ingeniously endeavored to give it.

The question was then taken, on the requisition of Mr. Griswold, by yeas and nays, and carried in the negative—yeas 38, nays 52, as follows:

Yeas.—John Archer, John Bacon, James A. Bayard, Phanuel Bishop, John Campbell, Thomas Claiborne, Manasseh Cutler, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, John Dennis, Abiel Foster, Calvin Goddard, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove, Joseph Hemphill, Archibald Henderson, William H. Hill, Benjamin Huger, Samuel Hunt, Thomas Lowndes, Ebenezer Matoon, Lewis R. Morris, Elias Perkins, Thomas Plater, Nathan Read, John Rutledge, John C. Smith, John Stanley, John Stratton, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, Thomas Tillinghast, George B. Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Peleg Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, and Henry Woods.

Nays.—Willis Alston, Theodorus Bailey, Richard Brent, Robert Brown, William Butler, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Condit, Richard Cutts, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, William Dickson, Peter Early, Lucas Elmendorph, Ebenezer Elmer, William Eustis, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, John A. Hanna, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Helms, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, George Jackson, Michael Leib, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, John Randolph, jr., John Smilie, Israel Smith, John Smith, (of New York,) Josiah Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, jr., John Stewart, John Taliaferro, jr., David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, John P. Van Ness, Isaac Van Horne, and Thomas Wynns.

Mr. S. Smith said he had a communication to make, which, in his opinion, required secrecy; whereupon the galleries were cleared.

After a short time they were opened; when the House resumed the consideration of Mr. Griswold's resolution which lay on the table.

Ordered, That the Committee of the whole House, on the State of the Union, to whom was referred, on the fifth instant, a motion respecting official information of the cession of Louisiana to France, be discharged from the consideration thereof; and that the said motion do lie on the table.

Mr. Bayard said he lamented much, that unavoidable occurrences had prevented his attending in his place when the resolution was under consideration upon the motion to go into a Committee of the whole House. Having no knowledge of the arguments then employed to induce the adoption of the resolution, he should abstain from many remarks which obviously presented themselves on the subject, lest he should fall into repetitions of what was familiar to the minds of the House from the observations of other gentlemen. He must, however, be allowed to state that it was a practice little known heretofore, but one which had alarmingly increased of late, to resist a call for information from any branch of the Executive Government. It cannot be on the ground of secrecy, required by the state of affairs, for we have been often told that a Government like ours ought to have no secrets. Though the present times have assumed the character of economical, yet an honorable member of great weight in the House, and whom he did not then observe in his place, had remarked at the last session, with great emphasis and effect, that no disposition to economy should ever induce him to economize information. A stronger case than the present could not exist. The House had been called on to act upon a question touching our foreign relations. On such subjects, it was among the chief duties of the Executive to acquire information. It was for this purpose that Ministers were sent abroad, and their communications were made to the Cabinet, to which we had a right to look upon all occasions for information respecting the proceedings of foreign Governments which implicated the national interest.

It is stated in the Presidential Message, that Louisiana is ceded by Spain to France. This is an important fact. The statement in the Message shows that the President has obtained information relative to the cession after the fact is disclosed, which is the extent of any indiscretion which can be committed on the subject; why conceal from us the circumstances? The naked fact did not furnish sufficient light to enable us to judge of the steps which it would be proper for us to pursue. Though the country had been ceded, yet the possession remained with the Spaniards. This created a presumption that it was not a simple, absolute cession. If the cession be conditional or qualified, or to take effect upon some future contingency, it is extremely material that the House should be informed of the existence of the circumstances.

Mr. B. repeated his regret that he was not present at the discussion of the subject which had taken place, as it was beyond his powers to imagine a ground upon which the information requested by the resolution could be denied. But after the resolution had been in effect negatived on the motion to go into a Committee of the Whole, and, as he understood, by a large majority, he should not have risen to trouble the House but for an occurrence which had taken place since the House had made their determination upon the resolution. An honorable member from Maryland (Mr. S. Smith) has just laid upon our table a resolution calling upon the House to place two millions of dollars at the discretion of the Executive. [The Speaker here remarked to Mr. Bayard, that as the doors were no longer closed, it was not in order to refer to what had been done when the doors were closed.] Mr. B. said he had no disposition to transgress the rules of the House; but it was an awkward situation, when, arguing in support of a measure, he was not at liberty to state the strongest reason in favor of it. He would not repeat what had escaped him; but alluding to what was in the knowledge of every member, he considered himself allowed to urge the probability that the House would be called upon for a grant of money. Now, sir, can gentlemen expect that either we or the nation will in any case be satisfied to make a large grant of money, while no information is given of the grounds upon which the grant is required? When money is asked for, information ought never to be denied; and, for his part, he never would consent to give a cent, while information, which ought to be communicated, was withheld.

Mr. B. concluded by observing, that he hoped he might still flatter himself with the expectation, that what had recently occurred, would induce the House to vary from the determination they had made, and adopt the resolution.

The question was taken, that the House do agree to the resolution of Mr. Griswold, and passed in the negative—yeas 35, nays 51.