An engrossed bill making appropriations for the support of Government, for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, was read the third time, and passed.
Monday, December 15.
Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, John Page; and from North Carolina, Benjamin Williams, appeared, and took their seats in the House.
Tuesday, December 16.
Pennsylvania Insurgents.
It was then moved and seconded that the House should go into a committee, on the report of the select committee, on that part of the President's Speech which recommended compensation to the sufferers by the insurgents in the Western counties. The House accordingly went into a committee, Mr. Cobb in the chair, and the report was read.
In the clause for making compensation to officers of Government, and other citizens, Mr. Nicholas was for striking out the three last words, and restricting indemnification to the officers of Government, as the additional words would make room for a set of claims which never could be satisfied or put to an end. It is now ascertained that the majority of the people of the four western counties have always been in favor of Government; but, since it is so, they ought to have suppressed the insurrection, and saved the expense of sending an army into that country. But as they did not do so, Mr. N. did not see what claim they had for compensation any more than the sufferers in the war with Britain.
Mr. Findlay thought that sound policy required an indemnification to the sufferers.
Mr. Hillhouse was in favor of the report of the committee as it stood. The whole affair was but a trifle. He understood that the damages done by the rioters did not altogether exceed twenty thousand dollars; and that three-fourths of this sum was for losses sustained by officers of the revenue. The rest of the account was for persons who had fought in defence of the officers or who had lodged and protected them. He observed that the whole of the select committee were of one mind upon the subject, and agreed in considering the other citizens as equally entitled to indemnification with the officers themselves.
Mr. Nicholas was still against the resolutions as originally worded. He did not see any proof of extraordinary attachment on the part of the claimants, nor any peculiar call on the justice of the House in this particular case.