The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fifth Congress, [Third Session] Page: 2,599
[776] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
2599 * HISTORY OP CONGRESS. 2600
H. of R.] Usurpation of Executive Authority, [January, 1799.
grounds of dispute. And this proviso, instead of
saying that an individual shall ask in his own
name, for the justice which he claims, authorizes
an individual to treat for every vessel which has
been captured, for every seaman imprisoned, and
for all the debts that are owing; so that it would
be a complete saving to individuals to do what
ever they pleased, and prove a repeal of the whole
bill; he therefore should be opposed to it.
The yeas and nays were taken upon this proviso,
and decided in the negative—37 to 48, as follows:
Yeas—Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Richard
Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Clai-
borne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, Matthew Clay,
John Clopton, John Dawson, George Dent, Joseph Eg-
gleston, Lucas Elmendorf, William Findley, Albert
Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, John A. Han-
na, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, David
Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Ma-
con, Blair McClenachan, Anthony New, John Nicholas,
Tompson J. Skinner, William Smith, Richard Dobbs
Spaight, Richard Sprigg, Richard Stanford, Abram
Trigg, John Trigg, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Vena-
ble, and Robert Williams.
Nats—John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett,
James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Ste-
phen Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chap-
man, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W.
Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans,
Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry
Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger
Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Har-
per, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H Imlay, John
Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir, Lewis
R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Thomas
Pinckney, John Reed, John Ruttedge, jr , James
Schureman, Samuel Sewall, Thomas Sinnickson, Na-
thaniel Smith, Peleg Sprague, George Thatcher, Rich-
ard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Thomas Till inghast, John
E. Van Alen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Wain, and
John Williams.
Ordered, That the said bill, with the amend-
ments agreed to, be engrossed, and read a third
time to-morrow.
Thursday, January 10.
Joseph McDowell, from North Carolina, ap-
peared and took his seat in the House.
USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY.
The bill for the punishment of certain crimes
therein specified, having been read the third time,
Mr. Nicholas called the yeas and nays upon
its passage.
wlr. Eggleston could not vote for any bill in-
flicting pains and penalties, without great precau-
tion, because, in his opinion, the energy of the
mind, and the activity of personal enterprise,
ought never to be repressed, unless the good of
the society makes the measure apparently neces-
sary. I will use still greater caution, said he,
when those advocating such measures, instead of
addressing themselves to the understanding, apply
wfiolly to the passions, and endeavor to excite
fears and alarms. But when my observation and
knowledge, said he, convince me that those alarms
and fears are groundless, I am obliged to give my
decided negative to a bill which contemplates the
prevention of such imaginary evils.
When he looked around and took a view of the
principles, feelings, habits, and pursuits, of the
people of the United States, he was astonished to
hear gentlemen expressing such dreadful appre-
hensions of French intrigue and domestic dissen-
sion. He was convinced that every gentleman
who heard him would be ready to pledge himself
that the alarm is groundless with respect to his
particular State, and I profess myself ready to do
so, said fce, for the State to which I belong. In
no State in the Union would there be more zeal
and unanimity in repelling foreign aggression.
He could not, then, vote for this bill; for if there
are individuals so stupid, or so wicked, as to at-
tempt to bring about the mischiefs which it means
to prevent, the principles and unanimity of the
people would render their attempts nugatory.
But I have, said he, a stronger motive to vote
against it, and to wish its rejection. I believe the
remedy is worse than the mischief. I believe that
in the zeal of gentlemen to guard against vision-,
ary dangers, which exist only in their own imagi-
nation, that they are running into the contrary
extreme, and that the multiplicity of their penal
regulations will depress that spirit and that enter-
prise, which arc among the most important bene-
fits attendant upon a free form of Government.
In guarding against an ideal danger, we shall in-
cur the real danger of too much increasing the
powers of the Government.
Whilst gentlemen with so much solicitude are
inculcating the necessity of adhering to the prin-
ciple, which he acknowledged to be a good one,
of obeying the will of the majority, they ought to
be cautious of reviving the old exploded doctrine
of passive obedience and non-resistance. Whilst
they so eagerly proclaim the necessity of una-
nimity and unlimited confidence, they appear de-
sirous of precluding the people from discussing
the propriety of public measures, and examining
the conduct of public agents. By such measures,
and by thus multiplying our penal laws, we shall
depress that spirit, and stifle those principles
which gave existence to the Government we now
live under, and which can alone make it per-
manent.
Mr. Nicholas said, that from all the considera-
tion which he had been able to give to this sub-
ject, he could find no known object to which this
bill can apply; that it can have no good effect, but
may have very bad ones. The debate of yester-
day showed, Mr. N. said, how little gentlemen
were agreed as to the objects of this bill, for one-
half of their speeches were employed in showing
that it would not extend to certain objects, and
the other half to show that it would, or its effect
would be nothing. Mr. N. was also satisfied, as
he had before stated, that nothing is to be appre-
hended from the conduct of any person who has
in view the restoration of peace to a country ; and
the opposition which was made to the provjso
proposed yesterday, proved that the exceptions
embraced almost all the cases on which*this bill
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fifth Congress, [Third Session], book, 1851; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29473/m1/94/: accessed April 24, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.