It is not my purpose, at this time, to enter into a discussion of the claims of our merchants, because I think this is not the proper occasion. But I will tell gentlemen, that if they were disposed to destroy those claims, they could not have pursued a plan more effectually calculated to do it. Had such been my intention, I would have offered a resolution so broad and vague as to alarm the whole community as to the amount of indemnity. I would have endeavored to throw the censure attached to their losses on the present Administration. I would have opposed their claims to the wish of the nation to repeal the internal taxes. All these steps I would have taken to frustrate any indemnity; and they are just the steps taken by gentlemen who profess so strong a regard for the merchants. Let me tell those gentlemen until they shall pursue a far different plan, we must doubt whether they are in earnest to pay the merchants for their losses.
If the public business is to be thus perpetually procrastinated, I hope the gentlemen with whom I act will be firm enough, after rejecting this motion, to pursue the other business even to a late hour.
The yeas and nays were then taken on Mr. Griswold's motion, to postpone taking up the bill on internal taxes till to-morrow, in order to take up his resolution on French spoliations; and decided in the negative—yeas 33, nays 54.
Tuesday, March 16.
State Balances.
The bill for extinguishing State balances was read a third time, when Mr. Davis moved its postponement to the first Monday in November.
This motion was supported by Messrs. Davis, Bacon, Elmer, and Goddard, who declared themselves adverse to the passage of the bill; and opposed by Messrs. Bayard, T. Morris, Randolph, and Nicholas, who declared themselves in favor of the bill.
Mr. Griswold delivered his sentiments against the postponement, declaring, however, his determination to vote against the passage of the bill.
The question of postponement was taken by yeas and nays, and carried—yeas 48, nays 42.