Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Connecticut, he would notice an observation of
his colleague (Mr. GRISWOLD) that, although on
the mere abstract question, whether the treaty
ought to be carried into effect, information as to
the mode of doing it was necessary; yet, as every
gentleman would be free to move in the Commit-I
tee of the Whole, specific propositions, it was
proper, to enable the House to judge of those pro-
positions, that this information should be previ-
ously possessed by them. But, surely, the House
may believe it expedient to pass these laws with-
out having any idea of the skeletons of the partic-
ular bills. When these specific propositions shall
have been made, they will go to particular com-
mittees, who will obtain of the proper departments
the necessary information—of these committees
the gentlemen and his friends will be members.
So much of the treaty as touches the appropria-
tion of money, on our part, will go, of course, to
the Financial Committee, of which the gentleman
has long and deservedly been a member. Other
propositions will be submitted to other committees.
If the bills which they present are, in the opinion
of gentlemen, inefficient, they will have it in their
power to show it; to demonstrate the hostility of
Spain, and to bring forward other measures better
calculated to insure the desired effect.

H. OF R.

I am disposed to do perfect justice to the pure intentions, the candid views of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. NICHOLSON) in relation to this subject. He may be able to justify himself for voting in favor of that resolution, but I cannot. conceive it would be highly improper. The question was taken on agreeing to the first member of the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before this House a copy of the treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the 1st of October, 1800.

The House divided-ayes 59, noes 59. The Speaker declaring himself in the affirmative, the motion was carried.

Mr. RODNEY suggested an alteration in the second member of the resolution, so as to read "instrument," instead of "deed."

cation.
Mr. GRISWOLD had no objection to the modifi-

The second member, so modified, was read as follows:

from Spain, executed in pursuance of the same treaty conveying Louisiana to France, (if any such instrument exists.")

"Together with a copy of the instrument of cession

Mr. R. apologized for his long and repeated inMr. HUGER confessed his impressions to be fatrusion on the House, which the personal appli-vorable to the treaty, though the arguments urged cation of the gentleman from Connecticut had produced, and he hoped justified, and thanked them for their polite and patient attention.

Mr. NICHOLSON said he should vote for the first part of the resolution, as well as for that part which related to the order by Spain for the delivery. Though it might not be in the power of the Executive to show that the stipulations made by France had been complied with, yet it would be in their power to show an order for the delivery to the French, under the sign manual of His Catholic Majesty, and this would be conclusive evidence of the title of France.

Mr. ELLIOT.-I must again ask the attention of the House to a very few observations. Whatever may be said of newspaper information, there are occasions when we must be governed by it, when we can obtain no other. I am very confident, and I believe every member of this House believes, that the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, of the first of October, 1800, between the First Consul of the French Republic and His Catholic Majesty, was a secret treaty. I believe it never has been published. If it has been, every editor of a newspaper in the United States, every person in the habit of reading, may be supposed to have access to it, equally with the President. There is the greatest probability, however, that neither the First Consul nor His Catholic Majesty could, at this day, publish that treaty without being guilty of a breach of faith, and that, if the President possesses it, it has been confidentially communicated to him. Whether it be a secret or a public treaty, we have no right to take it for granted, as contemplated by the resolution, that it is in the possession of the President; and we have no right to require it from him.

Sth CON.-14

that day, certainly possessed great weight. He was rather of opinion that no such instrument, as that referred to in the resolution, existed. But if it did exist, its publication would certainly be satclared himself ready to vote for carrying the treaty isfactory to the people and the House. He de

into effect.

[blocks in formation]

Motion lost-ayes 24.

The question was then taken on the second member, as above stated, and lost-ayes 34.

The question was then taken on the third member, viz:

"Also, copies of such correspondence between the Government of the United States and the Government or Minister of Spain, (if any such correspondence has taken place,) as will show the assent or dissent of Spain to the purchase of Louisiana by the United States." And lost-ayes 34.

The question was then taken on the last member of the motion, and lost, without a division,

viz:

H. OF R.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Together with copies of such other documents as planck, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, and Richmay be in the Department of State, or any other de-ard Winn. partment of this Government, tending to ascertain whether the United States have, in fact, acquired any title to the province of Louisiana by the treaties with France of the 30th of April, 1803.

The question recurring on the whole of the resolution, as amended,

Mr. NICHOLSON moved to amend the second member by adding to the end thereof:

"Together with a copy of any instrument in possession of the Executive, showing that the Spanish Government has ordered the province of Louisiana to be delivered to the Commissary or other agent of the French Government."

Agreed to-ayes 64.

nays

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of a select committee on propositions of amendment to the Constitution. The report was read, as follows:

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the different States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by threefourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the said Constitution, viz:

[ocr errors]

In all future elections of President and Vice Presi

The question was then taken by yeas and on the whole of the original motion, amended as dent, the Electors shall name in their ballots the person follows:

"Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be laid before the House, a

copy of the treaty between the French Republic and
Spain, of the 1st October, 1800, together with a copy
of any instrument in possession of the Executive,
showing that the Spanish Government has ordered the
province of Louisiana to be delivered to the Commis-
sary or other agent of the French Government."

And lost-yeas 57, nays 59, as follows:
YEAS-John Archer, William Blackledge, William
Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Clifton Claggett,
Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, Thomas Dwight,
John Earle, Peter Early, Calvin Goddard, Peterson
Goodwyn, Thomas Griffin, Gaylord Griswold, Roger
Griswold, Seth Hastings, Daniel Heister, David
Holmes, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, Samuel
Hunt, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Joseph Lewis,
jun., Thomas Lewis, Henry W. Livingston, Matthew
Lyon, William McCreary, Nahum Mitchell, Nicholas
R. Moore, Joseph H. Nicholson, Thomas Plater, Sam-
uel D. Purviance, Jacob Richards, Cæsar A. Rodney,
Erastus Root, Joshua Sands, John Cotton Smith, John
Smith of New York, John Smith of Virginia, William
Stedman, James Stephenson, Samuel Taggart, Samuel
Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, David Thomas, Philip R.
Thompson, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Peleg
Wadsworth, Lemuel Williams, Marmaduke Williams,
Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.

voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the pershall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themson voted for as Vice President, of whom one at least selves. The person having a majority of all the Electors for President shall be the President; and if there shall be no such majority, the President shall be chosen from the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list for President, by the House of Representatives, in the manner directed by the Constitution. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President, and in case of an equal number of votes for two or more persons for Vice President, they being the highest on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President from those having such equal number, in the manner directed by the Constitution."

Mr. DAWSON observed, that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, that part of it which related to the election of a President and Vice President had been objected to; and evils likely that day. Experience had shown that they were to occur had been foreseen by some gentlemen at not mistaken. Every gentleman in that House knew the situation in which the country had been placed by the controverted election of a Chief Magistrate; it was one which he trusted never would return. It had been a subject much reflected on by the people, and by the State Legislatures, several of which had declared their approbation of the principle contained in the resoluNAYS-Willis Alston, junior, Nathaniel Alexander, tion reported by the committee. This House had Isaac Anderson, David Bard, George Michael Bedin- two years since ratified a similar amendment by ger, John Boyle, Robert Brown, William Butler, Geo. a Constitutional majority of two-thirds. At that W. Campbell, Levi Casey, Joseph Clay, Frederick time no objections were made to the principle of Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, John the amendment. All the objection then made Dawson, William Dickson, James Elliot, John W. was on account of the lateness of the day and Eppes, William Eustis, William Findlay, John Fowler, thinness of the House. Mr. D. considered it unEdwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Wade Hampton, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Joseph Heister, William time, as he could not anticipate any objections necessary to make any further remarks at that Hoge, James Holland, John G. Jackson, Nehemiah that might be urged. He moved that the ComKnight, Michael Leib, John B. C. Lucas, Andrew Mc-mittee should rise and report the resolution withCord, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jun., Gideon Olin, Beriah Palmer, John Randolph, jun., Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Ebenezer Seaver, John Smilie, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, Philip Van Cortlandt, Isaac Van Horne, Daniel C. Ver

out amendment.

Mr. J. CLAY, though in favor of the principle of the amendment, was of opinion that, as to some of its parts, it required alteration. He therefore moved

"But if no person have such majority, then the House of Representatives shall immediately proceed to

[blocks in formation]

choose by ballot from the two persons having the greatest number of votes, one of them for President; or if there be three or more persons having an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall in like manner, from the persons having such equality of votes, choose the President; or if there be one person having a greater number of votes-not being a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed than any other person, and two or more persons who have an equal number of votes one with the other, then the House of Representatives shall in like manner, from among such persons having the greater number of votes and such other persons having an equality of votes, choose the President."

Mr. VAN CORTLANDT thought the amendment liable to objection.

H. OF R.

the Constitution. But the present amendment varies this mode, according to which it is to be made without respect to States. Of course a majority of the members are to decide. He submit. ted it to gentlemen whether they were willing in this way to sacrifice the interests and rights of the smaller States. If this be the intention of gentlemen, we ought to have time to deliberate on the subject before it is pressed to a decision. The gentleman from Pennsylvania will explain whether this is his intention.

Mr. J. CLAY begged leave explicitly to state, for the satisfaction of the gentleman from Connecticut, that it was not his intention to change that part of the Constitution which prescribed that the votes should be by States; and if it would induce the gentleman to vote for the resolution he had moved, he would add the words of the Constitution, viz:

These words were accordingly added.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL was in favor of the principle contained in the amendment. He considered to be the duty of this House, in introducing an amendment to the Constitution on this point, "But in choosing the President the votes shall be to secure to the people the benefits of choosing the taken by States, the representation from each State President, so as to prevent a contravention of their having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall conwill as expressed by Electors chosen by them; sist of a member or members from two-thirds of the resorting to Legislative interposition only in ex-States, and a majority of all the States shall be necestraordinary cases: and when this should be ren- sary to a choice." dered necessary, so guarding the exercise of Legislative power, that those only should be capable of Legislative election who possessed a strong evidence of enjoying the confidence of the people. This was the true spirit and principle of the Constitution, whose object was, through the several organs of the Government, faithfully to express the public opinion. For this reason he was in favor of the proposed amendment. By it we shall make a less innovation on the spirit of the Constitution than by rejecting it, and adopting the report of the select committee. There were obvious reasons why the persons from whom a choice may be made should be fewer in case of a designation of the office than heretofore. At present the whole number of electoral votes is one hundred and seventy-six. As the Constitution now stands, four candidates might have an equal number of votes, or three might have a majority, viz: one hundred and seventeen each. According to the proposed amendment, but one can have a majority, and if two persons should be equal and highest, it is not probable that the third candidate will have many votes.

Mr. DAWSON observed that this proposition had been submitted to the select committee, who had considered it more objectionable than that reported. Their object was to innovate as little as possible on the Constitution. A great part of it referred to cases so extremely remote as were not likely to happen. The only material change it made was to reduce the number of persons from whom a choice should be made from three to two. At present the election for a President and Vice President was made from the five highest on the list. As, according to the proposed amendment, a designation of the persons voted for as President and Vice President was to be made, it was considered that by giving the three highest to the House of Representatives, from which to choose a President, and the two highest to the Senate, from which to choose a Vice President, the spirit of the Constitution would not be changed. He hoped therefore the report of the committee would be agreed to. He believed it comprehended all cases which were probable; and he further believed that if they spent a month they would not devise an amendinent that would provide for all possible cases that may happen.

Mr. GRISWOLD said it was very difficult to ascertain the precise import of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania by Mr. CLOPTON said he rose to express his approbarely hearing it read from the Chair. In the bation of the amendment offered by the gentlemeaning therefore which he gave it, he might per-man from Pennsylvania (Mr. CLAY.) He said haps be mistaken. If not mistaken, it involved a principle and implied a change, which he had never before heard suggested on that floor, or in the part of the country from which he came. It is well known to every member, that under the Constitution as it at present stands, the votes given for a President in this House are by States, and not according to the majority of the members of the whole body. The amendment, as reported by the select committee, preserves this original feature of the Constitution by prescribing that the election shall be proceeded with as pointed out by

that indeed the amendment could not but be acceptable to him, inasmuch as it corresponded with the ideas he had the honor to express to the Committee on this subject the other day. He begged leave now to make a few remarks in addition to those which he had then stated. He said, if anything is to be lamented as a defect in the fundamental principles of our Government, that defect perhaps consists in a departure from the plain and simple modes of immediate election by the people as to some of the branches of the Government. He did not mean however now to discuss,

[blocks in formation]

nor did he know that he ever should discuss, this point. The Constitution of the United States having established a different principle in respect to the election of the several departments of the Government, except that branch of the Legislature which this House composes; and the object of the proposed amendment to the Constitution not being the transmutation of a fundamental principle, but merely an alteration in the mode heretofore directed of electing one branch of the Government according to the principle already established, his business and his object was to state to this Committee those ideas which occurred to him on this occasion as suited to the subject as it now stands before the Committee.

When the framers of this Constitution, said Mr. C., submitted it to the consideration of the people of the several States, drawn as it is, directing the election of President and Vice President to be made through the medium of Electors chosen by the people for that purpose, never could it have been their intention in submitting, or the intention of the people in accepting the Constitution, to admit a principle that any eventual Legislative election would be proper, if the object of it did not bear the stamp of public confidence. They never could have abandoned that great political consideration that the people, as the primary source of all power, should first give to those particular citizens, among whom such Legislative choice might be made, the evidence of a very considerable share of their confidence. The Electors are the organs, who, acting from a certain and unquestioned knowledge of the choice of the people, by whom they themselves were appointed, and under immediate responsibility to them, select and announce those particular citizens, and affix to them by their votes an evidence of the degree of public confidence which is bestowed upon them. The adoption of this medium, through which the election should be made, in preference to the mode of immediate election by the people, was no abandonment of the great principle, that the appointment of the constituted authorities ought to be conformable to the public will. It was no abandonment of that principle in respect to the President and Vice President. The adoption of this medium in the first resort, and the adoption of this alternative of a Legislative election in the last resort, were not intended as disparagements to the energy of that principle were not intended to operate any diminution of its force. The spirit. the genius of the Government, is the same. The same principle was intended to influence its operations; the same principle was intended to influence its elections, although in a different form and after a different manner. It is a great characteristic feature of the Government. It is a primary, essential, and distinguishing attribute of the Government, that the will of the people should be done; and that the elections should be according to the will of the people.

Mr. C. said that most seriously considering the principles of the Government in such a point of view as he had the honor to state to the Commit

OCTOBER, 1803.

tee, he was irresistibly impressed with the opinion that a Legislative election of President or Vice President, whenever resorted to, should be restrained to the smallest number above an unit, or to those persons who have equal electoral votes. He considered it as a position clearly and unquestionably true, that if the field of election, when not decided by the voice of the people themselves, should be left too wide, more chances will there always be for the introduction of abuses in determining on a choice, if those whose province it shall be to decide, should be actuated by a spirit adverse to the public sentiment. Results ungrateful to the public feeling might indeed become sources of discontent truly to be lamented. The demon of discord might be called forth, and stalking over our land, might unfortunately produce a state of things very different from that peaceful, tranquil state, which would follow a decision more conformable to the will of the people. Such a decision he believed would be insured were the election to be confined to those two persons only who had received the most ample testimony of the public confidence, or to those who had been stamped with equal testimonials of that confidence.

For the reasons, Mr. C. said, which he had stated, he was in favor of the amendment as proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He had, indeed, he said, prepared an amendment to the same effect, but was anticipated by that gentleman. He said, if it were in order, he would offer it as a substitute for that amendment. He then read it in his place, as follows:

"The Electors shall make two lists, one of which shall contain the names of all the persons voted for as President, and the number of votes given to each person respectively; the other list shall contain the names of all the persons voted for as Vice President, and the number of votes given to each person respectively; which two lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes on the list containing the votes for President shall be the President if such number be a majority of the whole number of for President no person have a majority of the whole Electors appointed. If on the list containing the votes number of the Electors appointed, then from the two highest on that list the House of Representatives shall immediately choose, by ballot, one of them for President, unless more than two persons have an equal number of votes, and that number shall be the highest on the list; in such a case the said House shall, in like manner, choose one of those persons for President; but, if one person only have the highest number on the list, and that number be not a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if two or more other persons have an equal number of votes, if that number be the next highest, then from the person having the highest number and the persons having equal votes, the said House of Representatives shall, in like manner, choose one for President.”

Mr. C. said, he was not tenacious of his own composition, but he believed what he had prepared

[blocks in formation]

went somewhat further than the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and provided more explicitly as to the mode of proceeding of the Electors in making lists of their votes. On a subject of such immense importance,as the present, a subject which might involve the liberty and happiness of millions yet unborn, it was necessary that the expressions should be as clear and as definite as possible, that there ought to be no ambiguity, no expressions which might admit of misconstructions; that he had endeavored so to draw that which he had read to the Committee, in which he had thought it safer to repeat phrases than refer to them by relative expressions. He hoped that the decision would be conformable to the ideas contained in the proposed amend

ment.

The SPEAKER said it was not in order to receive the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, unless that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was previously withdrawn.

Mr. GREGG.-It was impossible fully to comprehend the two propositions offered, barely by hearing them read. Amendments to the Constitution were of great importance. He felt at a loss how to act in the present instance, not clearly understanding the resolutions proposed. He was in favor of the principle they contained, and had always been so. He had been in Congress in the year 1796 when the first proposition to this effect was made by a gentleman from New Hampshire. The inconveniences attending the last election had strengthened his conviction of the propriety of an amendment similar in substance to that offered. He viewed. therefore, with pleasure the attention now paid to the subject by the House, and hoped an amendment would take place at the present time. The more simple that amendment was, the more likely it would be to be approved by the States. In order ultimately to simplify it, so as to render it the least objectionable to the States, he wished every member, who had formed in his mind an eligible proposition, would now bring it forward, that the whole might be printed. Mr. J. CLAY said, as there existed considerable difference of opinion, he would withdraw his motion, in order to move that the Committee should rise, when he would move a recommitment of the report of the select committee.

Mr. NICHOLSON said that, before the question was taken on the rising of the Committee, he would offer an amendment to the resolution reported by the select committee. It was his opinion that the question of principle should be settled in the House; if not so settled, it would be impossible for the report of any select committee to meet the approbation of the House. In the select committee a variety of propositions had been offered; the Committee reported one, to which they had agreed; there were still endless amendments offered, which he was convinced would continue to be offered until some principle was fixed by the House. In making an amendment to the Constitution on this point, they ought to guard against all possible difficulties. The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania goes to guard

H. OF R.

against those difficulties. But cases may arise in which the amendment of the select committee will not be adequate. It says the election shall be made from the three highest persons voted for, but there may be cases where there are no three highest, where four, ten, or twenty of the persons voted for shall be equal in number of votes. This case is not embraced in the resolution. For this reason, Mr. N. said he should have been pleased in having the question taken on the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. But as that amendment had been withdrawn, he would move another, that the principle might be settled. He said he could conceive of no objection to giving the House of Representatives the right of making a choice of President from all those voted for by the Electors. The case, stated some days since by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. CLOPTON,) of one candidate having 87 votes, a second candidate having 86 votes, and three others having one vote, was extreme; and, if it should occur, he could see no inconvenience likely to result from the House of Representatives enjoying the right of making a choice from the whole five. It would be remembered that the House were chosen by the people, and would, in the selection they made, express the public will, as well as the Electors themselves. The feelings of the one would be in unison with those of the other; nor could he conceive that a House of Representatives would ever exist that would dare to choose a person having one vote. None would be found hardy enough to violate the public sentiment. He therefore moved to strike out from the report of the Committee all that part of it which confined the choice to the three highest. If the majority of the Committee should not coincide with him in opinion, he should wish the gentleman from Pennsylvania to renew his proposition, And, if the Committee concurred in neither, he should wish some other gentlemen to bring forward another principle. For, if the principle were not fixed there, he was convinced they would be involved in endless difficulties by the reports of select committees.

Mr. N. then moved to strike out these words: "And if there shall be no such majority the President shall be chosen from the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list for President by the House of Representatives:"

And insert in lieu thereof the following words: "And if no such person have a majority, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose a President from among those persons who have not been voted for as President."

Mr. DAWSON said that when the gentleman from Maryland moved the appointment of a select committee, he had voted against it, and for the very reason now assigned by him. As to the propositions at present offered, they had been severally reflected upon by the select committee; and, if referred to that committee, the House ought, in the first instance, to decide the principle. As to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, he conceived it scarcely necessary to make a single remark upon it, as the House was disposed to reduce rather than to extend the num

« PreviousContinue »