lution Lee is said to have spoken "2 days ably on the subject, without receiving an answer." The question was then put, and the resolution lost, "no one voting for him but his colleague and Mr. Maclay.' When the news of the defeat of Lee's motion reached Richmond, Virginia, it "occasioned much disgust-but the manner of the rejection seemed to be as offensive, as the rejection itself," David Stuart wrote President Washington. Stuart also believed that the rejection of the motion probably would "be productive of an application from our legislature, to the other States calling on them, to join them in similar instructions to their Members. It is a pity the public wish (as I believe it to be) in so trival a matter, cannot be gratified. Public disgust will be shown of things." 19

In fact, the defeat of Lee's motion on April 30, 1790, to open the doors of the Senate brought before the people the question of whether or not the Senate was a closed corporation and increased public suspicion of that body. As a result of its action in defeating Lee's proposal, the legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Maryland instructed their respective Senators to urge the Senate to open its doors. As Stuart had predicted, when the Legislature of Virginia assembled in its next session, in the autumn of 1790, it not only instructed its Senators to press for the passage of another resolution favoring the opening of the doors of the United States Senate, but went a step further and ordered that a copy of these instructions be sent to the "Legislatures of the Several States in the Union, requesting their cooperation in similar instructions to their respective Senators." 20 Before the resolutions reached North Carolina a similar proposal had been considered in the legislature. In North Carolina the people were finding "fault that so little of the proceedings of Congress were transmitted to them' by their representatives in Congress. On December 14, 1790, the General Assembly of North Carolina resolved:

"Whereas the secrecy of the Senate of the United States, the alarming measures of the late session of Congress, and the silence observed by the Senators from this State, in not corresponding with the legislature or executive thereof, strongly impress this general assembly with the necessity of declaring their sentiments thereon.

"Resolved, That the Senators representing this State in the Congress of the United States be, and they are hereby directed, to use their constant and unremitted exertions to have the doors of the Senate of the United States kept open, that the public may have access to hear the debates of the Senate, when in its legislative or judicial capacity.

"Resolved, That when in Congress they may be directed to correspond regularly and constantly with the legislature, but during recess thereof with the Executive. "Resolved, That they use their endeavors to have such of the journals as are not of a secret nature printed, and transmitted by post or otherwise to the Executive, regularly during each session of Congress.21

21"

It should not be assumed, however, that this resolution represented the unanimous opinion of the Assembly of North Carolina or the people, for it was condemned publicly and privately, especially by the Federalists.22

The legislatures of other States also acted. On December 18, 1790, in accordance with the request of the Legislature of Virginia, Maryland instructed her Senators to use their influence to obtain admission of the public to the Senate.23 South Carolina also responded to the request of Virginia, and on February 4, 1791, her Senate concurred with a resolution of the House of January 18, in which the South Carolina Senators were instructed to express the "wish of the people" of that State for "free admission" of the people to the Senate of the United States.24 18 Stuart to Washington, June 2. 1790, in Washington Papers.

19 Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737 to 1832, with his Correspondence and Public Papers, 2 volumes (New York, 1898), II, 179; Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia 1790 (Richmond, 1791), 59; Journal of the Senate of South Carolina, 1791, p.

136, MSS., Historical Commission of South Carolina; Journal of the House of Representatives of South Carolina, 1791, p. 181, MSS., Historical Commission of South Carolina; Journal of the House of Commons of North Carolina, 1790 (Edenton, n. d.), 39-40; ibid., 1791-1792 (Edenton, n. d.), 59; Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Naryland, November Session, 1790 (no place or date of publication)‘— 95.

20 Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

1790, p. 59.

Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia), January 19, 1791. The resolutions were introduced in the house of commons on November 24, 1790. Journal of the House of Commons of North Carolina, 1790, pp. 39-40, 73, 75; State Gazette of North Carolina (Edenton), December 17 and 31, 1790; North Carolina Chronicle or Fayetteville Gazette, November 29, December 27, 1790; Henry M. Wagstaff (ed.), Papers of John Steele, 2 volumes (Raleigh, 1924), I, 72, 76.

22 Wagstaff (ed.). Papers of John Steele, I, 72, 76-77; Gazette of the United States, February 5, 1791. "Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, November Session, 1790, p. 95.

Journal of the Senate of South Carolina, 1791, p. 136, MSS; Journal of House of Representatives of South Carolina, 1791, p. 53, MSS.

According to available sources, New York was the only State north of the Mason and Dixon Line to consider the question of opening the doors of the Senate of the United States to the public at this time. On January 13, 1791, the House passed a resolution by which the Senators of New York were instructed that it was "the wish of the Legislature of that State that the doors of the Senate of the United States be kept open in the manner practiced by the House of Representatives of the United States." 25 The resolution also directed that the Governor of New York send copies of the resolution to the legislatures of the "several States" requesting "their cooperation in similar recommendations to their respective Senators." Four days later the resolution was defeated in the Senate by the deciding vote of the Speaker of that body.26 The reaction of New York against closed sessions may be explained, perhaps, by the presence of opposition to Hamilton and to his political philosophy. This opposition was further demonstrated in 1791, when Philip Schuyler, father-in-law of Hamilton, lost his seat in the United States Senate to Aaron Burr.

In the meantime, the seat of the Federal Government had been transferred from New York to Philadelphia, where the resolutions of the Legislatures of Virginia and North Carolina were published in the newspapers.27 Members of the Senate doubtless discussed them privately, if not publicly. Maclay, for example, sarcastically recorded in his Journal on January 17, 1791, "I am now more fully convinced than ever before of the propriety of opening our doors. I am confident some gentlemen would have been ashamed to have seen their speeches of this day reflected in the newspapers of tomorrow." 28

In the struggle over secret sessions of the Senate the question of the right of the States to instruct their representatives to the central government was reopened. During the life of the Continental Congresses and that of the Confederation, considerable opposition was voiced as to the right of the States to issue instructions to their Delegates in Congress. Oddly enough, since the days of the Confederation the Southern States had issued no instructions to their representatives in Congress until the question of opening the doors of the Senate arose. The debate on this question was opened in the Senate by James Monroe. In accordance with his instructions from the Virginia Legislature, he proposed on February 24, 1791, that the doors of the Senate be opened to the public on the 1st day of its next session and that the commissioners of Philadelphia be asked to erect galleries.29 This involved the Senate in an acrimonious debate over the right of the States to issue instructions to their respective Senators. Ralph Izard, of South Carolina, a staunch Federalist, despite instructions from his State legislature, argued that "no legislature has any right to instruct at all, any more than electors has a right to instruct the President of the United States." Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, maintained that such instructions "amounted to no more than a wish, and ought not to be further regarded." Robert Morris, of Pennsylvania, was even more violently opposed to the contention that instructions from the State legislatures were binding. While the Legislature of Pennsylvania had not instructed her Senators, Maclay, as on previous occasions, saw no reason for closing any legislative body to the public. Furthermore, he thought it "a compliment due to the smallest State in the Union to indulge them in such a request.” The chief objection voiced against Monroe's resolution was that the Senators would only make "speeches for the gallery and for the public papers." 30 Monroe's resolution was defeated by a coalition of 12 northern and 5 southern Senators, 5 Senators from the South and 4 from the North supporting open debate. The Senate had refused to be bound by instructions from State legislatures.31

But this rebuke by the Senate did not deter the States from issuing instructions in the future. In fact the legislatures of the Southern States lost no time in re25 Journal of the Assembly of New York, 1791 (no date or place of publication), 18. 26 Ibid., 22.

Gazette of the United States, January 19, 1791; James C. Ballagh (ed.), The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, 2 volumes (New York, 1911-14), II, 546; William P. Palmer (ed.), Calendar of the Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, 11 volumes (Richmond, 1873-93), V, 443.

28 Journal of Maclay, 360.

"Senate Journal, First and Second Congress, 281, 287; Annals of Congress, 1 Cong., 3 Sess., 1766–67, 1768. 30 Journal of Maclay, 387-89.

Senate Journal, First and Second Congress, 281, 287. Annals of Congress, 1 Cong., 3 Sess., 1768. The votes of the Senate were as follows: Yeas.--Pierce Butler (S. C.), Theodore Foster (R. I.), James Gunn (Ga.), Benjamin Hawkins (N. C.), Rufus King (N. Y.), Richard Henry Lee (Va.), William Maclay (Pa.), James Monroe (Va.), and Philip Schuyler (N. Y.). It is of interest to note that Schuyler, a staunch Federalist, voted in the affirmative. However, New York refused to return him. Nays.-Richard Bassett (Del.), Charles Carroll of Carrollton (Md.), Tristram Dalton (Mass.), Philemon Dickinson (N. J.), Oliver Ellsworth (Conn.), Jonathan Elmer (N. J.), William Few (Ga.), John Henry (Md.), William S. Johnson (Conn.), Samuel Johnston (N. C.), Ralph Izard (S. C.), John Langdon (N. H.), Robert Morris (Pa.), George Read (Del.), Joseph Stanton (R. I.), Caleb Strong (Mass.), and Paine Wingate (N. H.).

plying. Samuel Johnston, of North Carolina, contrary, to his instructions, had, like other Federalists, opposed Monroe's motion. But in January 1792, during the next session of the assembly of the State, the legislature declared that the Senators from North Carolina were "bound by the instructions of the legislature of this State in all cases whatever, where such instructions are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." 32 In Maryland's letter of instruction, December 13, 1791, to Senators John Henry and Charles Carroll of Carrollton, it was stated that the refusal of the Senate "to comply with the urgent desire" of their constituents could hardly be justified "by any refinement of theory." The legislature addressed the Senators in firm tones: "We, your immediate constituents, satisfied that this free communication of our sentiments will produce the desired effect, assure, that we deem a compliance with wishes expressed from the various parts of the Union, that their doors should be opened whilst sitting in their legislative capacity, as essential to the preservation of the entire confidence which the whole union ought to repose in that honorable body." 33

The instructions issued by the legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina in 1791 and 1792 were even more emphatic in their demands that the Senate of the United States be opened to the public.34 Oddly enough, none of the State legislatures voiced any opposition either to the opening of the doors of the Senate or to the issuing of instructions to Members of the United States Senate.

On March 26, 1792, pursuant to his instructions, Monroe again proposed that the doors of the Senate be opened at the beginning of the next session and that the city of Philadelphia be asked to erect suitable galleries for the accommodations of visitors to its sessions. Lee seconded the motion, but, after debate, it was defeated by a sectional vote almost the same as that which had defeated the measure in the previous year-17 (13 northern and 4 southern Senators) to 8 (6 southern and 2 northern Senators).35 Georgia had not instructed her Senators, but John Henry, of Maryland, and Ralph Izard, of South Carolina, on their own responsibility, voted against the measure.

The legislature of Maryland was so indignant with Henry for disobeying his instructions that it passed a vote of censure against him and affirmed its right to instruct its Senators whenever it saw fit. In spite of the bitter debate that ensued over the resolution, a copy was ordered to be forwarded to Senator Henry and to his colleague, Richard Potts, who had succeeded Carroll.36

In the light of Monroe's motion and a subsequent one in the Senate, it seems reasonable to assume that one argument advanced against the admission of the public was the lack of space. For example, on April 18, 1792, James Gunn, of Georgia, seconded a motion of William Few of the same State to the effect that when the Senate was sitting in a legislative capacity, Members of the House of Representatives should be admitted; and that each Member of the Senate admit a number not to exceed two persons provided "the operation of this resolution be suspended until the Senate chamber is sufficiently enlarged." 37 Only a few weeks before, Gunn and Few had opposed the motion to open the doors of the Senate.38 After debate, by a vote of 16 (12 Senators from the North and 4 from the South) to 6 (4 Senators from the South and 2 from the North) Gunn's motion was lost.39

32 Journal of the House of Commons of North Carolina, 1791-92, p. 48.

33 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, November session, 1791 (no place or date of publication), 89–90.

34 Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia * * 1791 (Richmond, n. d.), 36; Ballagh (ed.), Letters of Richard Henry Lee, II, 546; Palmer (ed.), Calendar of the Virginia State Papers, V, 442, 443; Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, II, 178, 179, 188; Journal of the Senate of South Carolina, 1791, p. 136, MSS.; Journal of the House of Representatives of South Carolina, 1791, p. 181, MSS.; Journal of the House of Commons of North Carolina, 1791-92, p. 59.

35 Senate Journal, First and Second Congress, 415; Annals of Congress, 2 Cong., 1 sess., 113. The members of the Senate voted as follows: Yeas.-Pierce Butler (S. C.), Charles Carroll of Carrollton (Md.), Theodore Foster (R. I.), Benjamin Hawkins (N. C.), Samuel Johnston (N. C.). Rufus King (N. Y.), Richard Henry Lee (Va.), and James Monroe (Va.). Nays-Richard Bassett (Del.), Stephen R. Bradley (Vt.), George Cabot (Mass.), Philemon Dickinson (N. J.), Oliver Ellsworth (Conn.), William Few (Ga.), Jamas Gunn (Ga.), John Henry (Md.), Ralph Izard (S. C.), John Langdon (N. H.), George Read (Del.), Moses Robinson (Vt.), John Rutherfurd (N. J.), Roger Sherman (Conn.), Joseph Stanton (R. I.), Caleb Strong (Mass.), and Paine Wingate (N. H.).

36 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, November session, 1792, pp. 96-97; Rowland, Life and Letters of Charles Carroll of Carrollton II, 188.

37 Senate Journal, First and Second Congress, 429; Annals of Congress, 2 Cong. 1 sess., 126. 38 Senate Journal, First and Second Congress, 415.

39 Ibid., 429: Annals of Congress, 2 Cong. 1 sess., 126. Members of the Senate voted as follows: YeasStephen R. Bradley (Vt.), Aaron Burr (N. Y.), William Few (Ga.), James Gunn (Ga.), Benjamin Hawkins (N. C.), and James Monroe (Va.). Nays-George Cabot (Mass.), Charles Carroll of Carollton (Md.), Philemon Dickinson (N. J.), Oliver Ellsworth (Conn.), Theodore Foster (R. I.), John Henry (Md.), Ralph Izard (S. C.), Samuel Johnston (N. C.), John Langdon (N. H.), Robert Morris (Pa.), George Read (Del.), Moses Robinson (Vt.), Roger Sherman (Conn.), Joseph Stanton (R. I.), Caleb Strong (Mass.) and Paine Wingate (N. H.).

By this time suspicion concerning secret sessions of the Senate was more widespread in the South. The full effects of the democratic movement were undreamed of at this time by any of its supporters or opponents. Some of the minority group seem to have had no purpose in view except the immediate one of opening the doors of the Senate to the public. Their concept of freedom was the satisfaction of the desire of the people to know what their Senators were doing and saying in the Senate. In Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the people were more determined than ever to secure the admission of the public to the Senate. On October 1, 1792, the legislature of Virginia again instructed her Senators to press the matter.40 The legislature of South Carolina resolved that the "citizens of the Union have a right to be present at the debates of their Representatives" in the Senate." In their resolutions the legislatures of North Carolina and Maryland were equally as emphatic.42

The increased pressure of the legislatures of the Southern States produced a series of resolutions concerning the admission of the public to the Senate. Among the resolutions introduced on January 3, 1793, it was resolved that Members of the Senate were "individually responsible for their conduct to their constituents, who are entitled to such information as will enable them to form a just estimate thereof." As the journals were deemed inadequate for this purpose, it was proposed that accounts of the "measures and deliberations” of the Senate should be published in the newspapers, as the best means of "diffusing general information concerning the principles, motives, and conduct of individual members." By withholding this information, the resolution stated, responsibility would become unavailing, and "the influence of their constituents over one branch of the legislature, in a great measure, annihilated." 43 Again it was proposed that the commissioners of the county and city of Philadelphia be requested to erect a proper gallery for the accommodation of an audience. The consideration of the resolutions was postponed until February 4, when the Senate engaged in an acrimonious debate and rejected all of the proposals. Burr was the only senator from the North to vote with the South.44

Despite these rebuffs the legislators of the Southern States continued their efforts to open the Senate to the public. At the next session of these legislatures stronger instructions were issued to their respective senators.45 The resolution of Maryland, issued on December 24, 1793, probably states the major principles involved:

"We, the general assembly of Maryland, your immediate constituents, are of the opinion we should be wanting in duty to our citizens and constituents, should we omit to add our further instructions to those which have already been forwarded from this, and other States in the Union, on the interesting subject. What reasons influence the Senate to continue this unpopular seculsion from the eyes of their fellow-citizens, we are ignorant. * * * We consider the responsibility of the representation to the constituent body not only to be necessary in the House of Representatives, but equally so in the Senate, and that there can be no responsibility unless your proceedings be subject to public inspection. * * * We therefore instruct you, to exert your abilities to effectuate an object so generally desirable. If this object be not obtained, we contemplate an alienation of the affections of a great number of people from that branch of the legislature, and almost a radical destruction of that confidence, without which out laws will be less energetic in their operations, and government deprived of half its benefits.46" The persistent policy pursued by the legislatures of the Southern States was destined to produce results. On January 16, 1794, by a motion of Alexander Martin, of North Carolina, another effort was made to open the doors of the Senate. Martin expressed the opinion that the publication of extracts from the 40 Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia 1792 (Richmond, 1793), 114. For the action of the legislature of Virginia a year later, November 8 and 12, 1793, see Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia * * 1793 (Richmond, 1794), 51.

41 Acts and Resolutions of the General Assembly of South Carolina in December, 1792 (1793), 77; Journal of the Senate of South Carolina, 1792, p. 190, MSS.; Journal of the House of Representatives of South Carolina, 1792, pp. 282, 292, MSS., Historical Commission of South Carolina.

42 Rowland, Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, II, 188; Journal of the House of Commons of North Carolina, 1791-1792, p. 59; Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, November Session. 1792, pp. 96-97.

43 Senate Journal, First and Second Congress, 467-68; Annals of Congress, 2 Cong., 2 Sess., 625–26. 44 Senate Journal, First and Second Congress, 478; Annals of Congress, 2 Cong., 2 Sess., 637-38.

45 Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1793, p. 51; Votes of the Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, November Session, 1793, pp. 103-104. The author has been unable to locate the journals of the house of commons or the senate of North Carolina, for 1793, but Senator Alexander Martin of North Carolina introduced the resolution, which indicated that he had been instructed to do so.

46 Votes of the Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, November Session, 1793, pp. 103-104.

journals of the Senate in the newspapers had proved unsatisfactory. He, like many other Senators, believed that the public was entitled to know what was said in the Senate in its legislative capacity. His resolution, which was tabled until February 19, stated:

"While the principles and designs of the individual members are withheld from public view, responsibility is destroyed, which, on the publicity of their deliberations, would be restored; the constitutional powers of the Senate become more important, in being more influential over the other branch of the legislature; abuse of power, mal-administration of office, more easily detected and corrected; jealousies, rising in the public mind from secret legislation, prevented; and greater confidence placed by our fellow citizens in the National Government, by which their lives, liberties, and properties, are to be secured and protected."""

In the meantime, the question of the constitutionality of the election of Albert Gallatin came up for debate. Although he had been elected by the Federalist legislature of his State, the Senate Federalists, on political grounds, refused to seat him, charging that he was ineligible under the Constitution. On February 11, the Senate voted to open its doors during the debate over this unique and interesting question.48 This experiment proved so satisfactory that, after considerable debate, by a vote of 19 (10 southern Senators and 9 northern Senators) to 8 (7 northern and 1 southern) the Senate agreed to admit spectators after the end of that "session of Congress, and so soon as suitable galleries" were "provided for the Senate chamber" to be opened each morning, so long as the Senate "shall be engaged in their legislative capacity," except in such cases as in the opinion of the Senators might require secrecy.49

A few contemporary accounts concerning the opening of the doors of the Senate have survived. One of these is a letter written by William Barry Grove, representative from North Carolina, to a former North Carolina representative, John Steele, in which he epitomized the attitude of the people:

"Now M. G[rove] be so good as to step upstairs and take a peep into the Senate Chamber that mighty conclave where it has been surmised Majestic Majack dwealt, where the illumed minds of mortals shone so bright as to exclude the rays of light from Heaven-where it has been suggested that Dangerous Vice sits as a minion on a throne, to make the hateful monster aristocracy lose all its proud & surley Features by dressing it in the garb of Davilla. The Deception however is discovered, and the Lords, the mighty Lords, are to be beheld as soon as accomodations can be prepared for the People, who in their compassion must behold some of them with Pity because they may expose their weakness in an unguarded hour to be short with you the Doors of the Senate are to be opened next sessionwhen some of those within will shew their nakedness. I was present at times during the discussion of Galetines Election, he has lost his seat, not having been an actual citizen 9 years tho an Inhabitant-11 years or near it.50">

The galleries to the Senate Chamber were not built until the summer of 1795 and it was not until December 9, 1795, that the doors of that body were thrown open to the public. On December 9, 1795, by a motion of Martin, seconded by Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, in conformity to the resolution of February 20, 1794, the Senate voted to open its doors each morning, except to executive sessions.51 Except the reports of the debates concerning the seating of Gallatin, no debates of the Senate had been published prior to December 11, 1795.

As a larger proportion of the speeches made in the House of Representatives than in the Senate continued to appear in the columns of the newspapers, it is evident that reporting in the Senate was extraordinarily difficult. There was no place in the Senate galleries from which it was easy to hear what was said on the floor. The speaking style of the Senators themselves did little to overcome this handicap. Nor were the galleries provided with tables where these "long handed" reporters could conveniently take notes; so the reporters seldom visited the Senate galleries. The senators did not seem to have been disturbed over the situation, 47 Senate Journal, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Congress, 22, 32-33.

48 Ibid., 29; Annals of Congress, 3 Cong., 1 Sess., 42.

49 Senate Journal, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Congress, 34; Annals of Congress, 3 Cong., 1 Sess., 46-47. The Senate voted as follows: Yeas. Stephen R. Bradley (Vt.), John Brown (Ky.), Aaron Burr (N. Y.), Pierce Butler (S. C.), John Edwards (Ky.), Oliver Ellsworth (Conn.), Theodore Foster (R. I.), Albert Gallatin (Pa.), James Gunn (Ga.), Benjamin Hawkins (N. C.), James Jackson (Ga.), Rufus King (N. Y.), John Langdon (N. H.), Samuel Livermore (N. H.), Alexander Martin (N. C.). James Monroe (Va.), Richard Potts (Md.), John Taylor (Va.), and John Vining (Del.). Nays.-William Bradford (R. I.), George Cabot (Mass.), Frederick Frelinghuysen (N. J.), Ralph Izard (S. C.), Stephen M. Mitchell (Conn.), Robert Morris (Pa.), John Rutherford (N. J.), and Caleb Strong (Mass.).

50 Wagstaff (ed.), Papers of John Steele, I, 108.

$1 Annals of Congress, 4th Cong., 1st sess., 14; Senate Journal, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Congresses, 197.