Rules of the House-Adjournment, and Lie on Table No Debate. [MARCH, 1824. laudable spirit to countenance economy, and to afford the expenditure; and there seems to be a The resolution yesterday offered by Mr. protect domestic industry; and on the princiLLOYD (for expunging the 31st rule of the ples of economy, and for the benefit of industry, House, which is in the words following: "A If adequate sums should be granted, the public among other reasons, I urge the appropriation. motion to adjourn shall be always in order if edifices, in the course of two years, will be after four o'clock p. m.; but, before that hour, brought to such perfection, that the skill and it shall not be in order, if there be at the time superintendence of the architects may be dis any question pending before the House; that, pensed with, together with the principal artifiand the motion to lie on the table, shall be de-cers, and most of the workmen; and hereby a cided without debate,") was taken up for con sideration. great saving of expense will be made to the nation. These considerations address themselves with great force to our passion for economy; and, if we consult its true maxims, we shall certainly grant the appropriation. But there are other reasons. The portico, when completed, will be not merely an ornamental, but a useful appendage. The amendment, on motion of Messrs. LITThe house of the President resembles, in some TLE and McCoy, was successively amended, so respects, a city set on a hill-it cannot be hid as to retain those clauses of it which declare It becomes the dignified resort of citizens and that the motion to adjourn, and the motion to strangers; the attractive point of all official lie on the table, shall be decided without de-characters, both of the United States and of bate. On striking out the residue of the rule, which forbids a motion to adjourn being made until four o'clock, while any question is pending before the House, the yeas and nays were called by Mr. TAYLOR, and were: yeas 95, nays 89. The said thirty-first rule, as thus amended, is as follows: "A motion to adjourn shall be always in order; that motion, and the motion to lie on the table, shall be decided without debate." General Appropriation Bill-North Portico for the President's House. The report of the Committee of the Whole, on the bill making appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1824, was taken up, and the amendments agreed to in committee were in part agreed to. The question being on concurring in the appropriation of $25,000 for the north portico of the President's house Mr. CUSHMAN, of Maine, addressed the House to the following effect: Mr. Speaker: I hope the article under consideration will be retained in the bill; and I appeal to the good sense and patriotism of the House for support; nor do I despair of assistance from gentlemen in whose nature the principles of economy seem to be deeply radicated. It appears from statements already made, that the portico, to erect which the appropriation is required, is a part of the original plan of the house built for the use of our Presidents. It is to be presumed that the edifice, at some period of our Republic, is to be finished. The present, on various accounts, appears to be the proper time to carry on the work to completion. Our country is at peace with all the world, and, rich in resources, can command ample funds; the materials for building are cheap; the price of labor is low; the Treasury is in a condition to foreign Governments. Here, also, are to be seen, on suitable occasions, brilliant assemblages of both sexes-a bright constellation of beauty and accomplishments. If it be asked, For what purpose? The answer is, to smooth the asperities of human nature; to harmonize what is harsh or discordant in the mind; to refine the social affections; to interchange civilities; to pay respect to the Chief Magistrate of the nation and his family; to relieve the State-worn patriot from the monotonous scene of business; to cherish a virtuous emulation, and to foster good feelings. And do not reason and propriety require that the convenience and elegance of the mansion should be adapted to the station and dignity of the occupant, and to the respectability, refinement, and delicacy of his guests? Ought not every circumstance and appurtenance conspire to give pleasure, and to make a favorable impression of our national character and taste! But, sir, what is the fact? Need I remind you of the serious inconveniences to be encountered on an inclement evening, in descending from the carriage, or returning from the saloon? If the healthy and robust of our sex have nothing to fear from the cold and dampening snows, the drenching rains, the piercing winds, or the noxious vapors, are these elemental annoyances attended with no ill effects to the fairer and more delicate portion of our race? Must they be debarred the social pleasures of life, the interviews of friendship, or be obliged to enjoy them at the expense of their health and safety? Shall I, Mr. Speaker, be more explicit? It were useless, before such an assembly as this. I know your urbanity. I duly appreciate the gallant spirit of this House. To these I appeal, in behalf of those to accommodate whom the generous gladly labor, and for whose protection the brave as cheerfully expose themselves to hardships, to sufferings, and wounds. MARCH, 1824.] General Appropriation Bill. [H. or R. Mr. KREMER, of Pennsylvania, said he had no interest in this portico, and he could not vote in favor of it. He was one of those who went upon the old Republican principles; he had There are, however, other strong inducements. | from the Clerk's table-members voted in the I ask, in the language of the Roman orator, but dark-and might be voting away the public not with the same views, "Quam rempublicam money without knowing it, for the want of habemus? In qua urbe vivimus?" Is it not distinctly hearing the resolutions read at the the Republic which owes its existence to the Clerk's table. Government would yet have to wisdom and valor of our sages and heroes? Is abandon it, and build a plain square room, it not the city which bears the proud name of where members could hear what each other WASHINGTON? And are we not emulous to said. He, therefore, thought that the style of give suitable dignity to the one, and appropriate this Hall ought to be no guide in erecting our decorations to the other? The Capitol, in which public buildings; and he hoped never to see it we exert our talents and display our eloquence followed. He called for the yeas and nays on for the common defence and general welfare, agreeing to the appropriation. stands on an eminence which overlooks a vast extent of country. As far as the eye can extend its vision, the rural scenery around borders on the sublime and beautiful; and, to me, it seems that this site, and landscape, and the objects pre-started in '98 on those principles, and he meant sented to view, invite us, with a powerful, though silent eloquence, to give to the metropolis of our nation correspondent magnificence and beauty. The proud oppressors of the earth, at different periods of time, have erected cities to their own fame, and adorned them with spoils of conquered nations. Not so is it with the city of Washington. The people of the United States, prompted by motives which do honor to the Republican character, decreed it, and are rearing it up to perpetuate the name of the Father of his Country. As long as our Republic shall remain, it will be a standing monument to his glory. to adhere to them. He could not see any valuable end to be answered by adding another portico to the President's house, unless, indeed, it was to make a monument of what the gentleman called "simple grandeur." Perhaps the gentleman might think this Hall, too, was a monument of "simple grandeur"-but, for his part, Mr. K. said, he thought it was a monument of pride and extravagance, and not of old Republican principles. He could not undertake to answer the gentleman's fine speech; to him, a great part of it was unintelligible; and, in reply to some quotations he had made in it, from a dead language, he should answer in his Mr. MCARTHUR, of Ohio, rose in reply. He own mother German tongue: Ich habe es nicht should not attempt, he said, to follow the gentle- verstanden.* He did not believe that any man man from Maine, in all the windings of the had a right to entail debt upon posterity. Conlearned speech he had just delivered. For him-gress, to be sure, had the power to do so, but self, he was a backwoodsman, brought up in they could not do it on any moral principle. tents and camps, and not practised in making And, before we set about making monuments fine speeches; but he thought it was sufficiently of "simple grandeur," we had better be sure plain that this portico was not a matter of any that we have the money to make them in our necessity, and had better be dispensed with. pocket. He did not think Congress had a right He believed, according to appearances, that we even to put up a necessary building, till we were should be at no loss in finding a tenant for the able to pay for it-[a laugh, and a call to order.] House without more repairs. The building was As to this portico, it was, in his opinion, as unnow complete, and, in his judgment, better necessary as a fifth wheel to a wagon. without the portico than with it. The portico, gentleman, to be sure, had made a long speech which had just been completed, was, he believ-about it, and it might be oratory, for aught he ed, but little used, if at all. He did not, to be knew, but it certainly had nothing of solid sure, profess to be very intimate at the Presi- reasoning in it. dent's house, but he had frequently passed it, and never yet saw the south portico occupied, or used in any way. As to the difficulty of getting there in bad weather, there is no compulsion which obliges us to visit the President's house while the weather is bad, or, at least, to take the fair ladies there of whom the gentleman had spoken. He could not but consider the proposed item of appropriation as a useless expense, especially when we recollect that the nation has a debt yet hanging over it of ninety millions of dollars. As to the magnificence of this Hall and the Capitol, to which the gentleman had alluded, the expenditure to produce it was, in a great measure, money thrown away. This Hall, as a place for speaking, was nearly useless-it was merely by accident that any thing could be heard at his seat that was read The Mr. HOGEBOOM, of New York, rose for the purpose of obtaining information from the Chairman of the Committee on the Public Buildings, (Mr. CUSHMAN,) whether much expense had already been incurred in preparing materials for the proposed portico. He did not consider the building of this portico as a matter very necessary, but if much expense had been gone into to provide for it, it might, perhaps, be better to go on with it; if not, he thought the money might be much better applied to repairing the injuries in the wall which surrounds the enclosure of the President's house, and in smoothing away some of the precipices in the bank within it, which are now so unsightly. Mr. SHARPE, of New York, made a farther in * I didn't understand the gentleman. quiry about some stone which were dressed, and lay in front of the Capitol. Mr. CUSHMAN explained. When the question was taken on the appropriation, and decided in the negative-yeas 65, nays 115. General Appropriation Bill-Reduction of Diplomatic Corps. The House then passed to the orders of the day, and took up for consideration the bill making provision for the support of Government for the year 1824. Mr. GAZLAY withdrew the amendment offered by him on Saturday, and the question being on concurring in the amendment as reported by the committee Mr. GAZLAY said he hoped the House would not concur, and, if it did not, he should then move to amend the bill, by inserting a proviso to appropriate $49,000, as a sum adequate to the maintenance of European foreign relations. Mr. G. said, the practice of more than twenty years has been to provide, generally, for foreign intercourse, without designating the places of Ministers. This had obtained through the tide of successful and unsuccessful experiment, and he saw no good reason to change it. He was not prepared for the doctrine, that, whenever, and as often as the President might choose to appoint a Minister to the court of any despot in Europe, this House was bound to echo the appointment; and, as often as an appointment should be made by taking a member from the Senate-a principle not surely agreeable to the people that we should do the same; he thought the safest way was, to leave each department to bear the responsibility of its own constitutional discretion. The long practice which gave sanction to the course he proposed, was, to his mind, a sufficient proof of its correctness. He wished the sum reduced for two reasons, viz: because he believed that there were many national objects to which it could be more advantageously appropriated; and, because he saw no good reason for maintaining Ministers of the first grade at the courts of all the despots in Europe, when there was no national object for them to accomplish. Mr. G. said he had always understood that foreign Ministers were intended for the making of treaties, or for settling some great national question; and, as we had neither of these now on hand, with the great crowned heads, he must presume that ours had no other design than the maintenance of a system of espionage; and, although this might do well enough for one tyrant to watch another, he thought it totally inadmissible for a great republic. What have we now, said Mr. G., to do in Europe to justify the number and expense of foreign Ministers? and how many great objects have we which demand all our resources? Mr. G. said he did not believe that this course had, or would meet the wishes of the American people, and he could not reconcile it with any sound principle of democracy. [MARCH, 1824. Mr. McLANE advocated the amendment of the committee, and replied to Mr. GAZLAY. The question being put, the amendment was adopted, as reported by the Committee of the Whole. The remaining amendments having been, also, concurred in, the bill was ordered to be quently read a third time, passed, and sent to engrossed for a third reading, and was subse the Senate for concurrence. TUESDAY, March 16. Monument to General Wooster. A Message from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was received and read, as follows: To the House of Representatives of the United States: In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th of February last, requesting "information whether any measures had been taken for carrying into effect the resolution of Congress of June 17, 1777, directing a monument to be erected to the memory of David Wooster, a Brigadier General in the Army of the United States, who fell in defending the liberties of America, and bravely repelling an inroad of the British forces to Danbury in Connecticut," I have caused the necessary inquiries to be made, and find, by the report of the Register of the Treasury, that no monument has been erected to the memory of that patriotic and gallant officer, nor has any money been paid to the Executive of Connecticut on that account. MARCH 17, 1824. JAMES MONROE. The Message was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. Bailey's Case. Mr. SLOANE moved to postpone all the previous orders, and take up the report of the Committee of Elections unfavorable to the right of JOHN BAILEY, a member of this House, to a seat therein. Mr. BAILEY was proceeding with some remarks, but the Chair pronounced all discussion out of order till the question was taken on considering it. It was then taken, and decided in the affirmative-ayes 103, noes 62. The House accordingly went into Committee of the Whole, (Mr. COBB in the chair,) on the report above mentioned. The report of the Committee of Elections was read. Mr. BAILEY, of Massachusetts, rose and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Chairman: I feel peculiar embarrassment in offering my views of the present subject, from a conviction that I shall be unable to do it justice. Even if my health were perfectly good, I should labor under the disadvantage of being unused-totally unused-to public speaking. This misfortune, joined with a very feeble state of health, renders it impossible that I should do justice to a subject in which I cannot avoid feeling great interest. I hope, therefore, that this committee will do me the favor to believe my cause really much better than my representation of it will be. It cannot escape observation that the ques tion now under consideration is not an ordinary instance in the history of contested elections. Nearly all such questions have for their object to ascertain what is the real will of the people. In the present case, the object is to discover if there be any mode of defeating the will of the people. On this subject, one rule, it is believed, may be laid down with perfect truth. And it is stated with the more confidence, since I have the authority of the chairman of the Committee of Elections for its correctness. In the discussion of a late case, the contested election from New York, which, we all remember, rested mainly on the correctness or incorrectness of the decision of the commissioners of election in that State respecting a single vote, that gentleman remarked, that in order to set aside this decision of the commissioners, it was not sufficient to raise a doubt on the case; there must be made out a clear and "positive" case against the decision. This remark, Mr. Chairman, I heard with particular pleasure; both because it was a just remark, and because I hoped that not only that gentleman, but this House, would extend the same just and liberal principle to my own case. The truth of the principle cannot be doubted. And if it applies to the decision of the commissioners of an election, with how much more force does it apply to the expressed will of the people of a whole district? A strong and positive case indeed ought to be made out, before such an expression of the will of the people is set aside. And I undertake to show that the report of the Committee of Elections has entirely failed to make out such a case. In contested elections, arising under either the General or the State governments, the practice has been to give a liberal construction in favor of the rights of the people. This practice, it is believed, has never been departed from, except in times of great party heat and excitement. In the present times it is trusted that no such excitement will be found to exist. It is not to be denied that efforts have been made, out of doors, both at the time of the election and more recently, to give a party turn to the case now under discussion. But I trust that no such efforts will avail; that this House will permit no such feelings to mingle in the discussion. I appeal with confidence to this House to take that liberal view of the privileges of the people, which has so universally prevailed on questions of this nature. For the first time within my knowledge, we have a departure from this liberal construction in the report of the Committee of Elections now before you. The principles of this report are indeed new; they are wholly unprecedented. In no authorities, either legislative or judicial, do we find the principles here avowed. Inhab itancy, according to this report, means purely and simply "locality of existence"-the mere fact of being in a place. This definition, I venture to say, was never before heard of, and is at war with the spirit of all our free institutions. [H. OF R. When I was elected to this House, in September last, I was employed in the Department of State. The question occurred-Shall I resign that employment, and accept a seat in this House? This was an interesting question to one who depended for his living on his own exertions. In this country nearly all of us are compelled to pursue some course of honest industry for our support; and, Mr. Chairman, it is most fortunate for the country that this necessity is so general. To a person thus situated, the question presented for decision was an important one. Doubts I know were entertained of my eligibility. I extended my inquiries to all analogous cases within my reach; and they were all, without exception, in favor of my eligibility. I learnt the opinions of some of our first citizens on this point; and they too went to the same result. I have learnt, accidentally in most cases, the opinions of at least twelve of the very first statesmen and jurists of the nation; and, what is most remarkable, those opinions are perfectly unanimous-not one, of the whole number, is opposed to what appears to me to be the truth of the question. I do not mention this fact, under the impression that such opinions should have a binding force with this House. With this House, and this House alone, the constitution has left the full control of questions like the present. But the opinions of such persons are entitled to respectful consideration. And it is natural to suppose, that they must have had decided weight with me, when determining in my own mind the question of acceptance. Before examining the principles of the report of the committee, I beg leave to notice several errors in it, in point of fact. The report (p. 6-7) says: "It is contended by Mr. Bailey, that, as he was in the employ of the General Government while in this District, and had expressed an intention of returning to Massachusetts, that he still remains an inhabitant of that State." I certainly never contended, Mr. Chairman, that I remained an inhabitant of Massachusetts, merely from the two facts here stated. But I did contend for it, from those two facts, supported by another most important fact, that this constant declaration of my intention of returning, was confirmed by my whole course of conduct while I was employed in this District-by my total disconnection with the civil affairs of this place. We all know the irresistible propensity of freemen to take part in the civil concerns of those communities in which they intend to make their permanent abode. My entire abstinence from taking such part in this District, most strongly corroborates my uniform declaration, that I intended it as merely a temporary abode. The report (p. 7) further says: "The fact is conceded, that, at the time of the election, and for nearly six years before, Mr. Bailey was actually an inhabitant of the city of Washington." The obvious understanding of this remark would be, that this fact had been conceded by H. OF R.] Mr. Bailey's Case. [MARCH, 1824. me. Such, however, is not the fact. No such | if another case should occur within the next concession has ever been made by me. [Here the Chairman of the Committee of Elections rose to explain. He said that the committee were obliged to state the points of Mr. B.'s defence from recollection merely, as it had never been put into their hands in writing, but merely read to them. Mr. B. replied, that his defence was read to the committee on the 29th of January, from a rough draught—that he was to have given in a correct draught at the next meeting of the committee, on the fourth of February-but that, in the mean time, on the second of February, he learnt from the committee that they had determined on their report. This fact, together with a desire to incorporate some remarks on several points subsequently suggested by the committee, was the reason why the corrected draught was not submitted to the committee.] thirty-five years, and we should both have seats on this floor, I will join him in a vote in favor of an amendment of the constitution, which shall expressly exclude from this House all persons not actually resident in the States in which they are chosen. But I will whisper in the ear of that gentleman, that if he feels alarmed lest the purity of this House should be destroyed, and is anxious for a remedy, there is an amendment which might be made in the constitution, far more efficacious than the one proposed. Let the constitution be amended, so as to prohibit Executive appointments from being made from this and the other branch of Congress. If there is real danger of Executive influence in Congress, here is a field more worthy of the gentleman's labor than the one in which he has been industriously engaged. We are further informed, by the report, that The report (p. 8) also says, that I assumed the wise framers of the constitution must have "the character of the head of a family." This is foreseen, that the Seat of the General Governentirely incorrect, unless there be some peculiar ment would collect a number of persons, "whose and technical meaning of the phrase, different long habit of dependence on those who might from its common meaning. I have been ac- fill the chief places in the Government, would customed to consider, that a person, in order do much towards enlisting them in support of to be the head of a family, must either own or almost any cause which the Administration rent a house-or must have the government of might wish to promote." Without stopping to the domestics of the family-or must regulate inquire whether mankind are really as corrupt its pecuniary expenses, or at least furnish the as this remark implies, I must deny the infermeans. Some one, at least, if not all, of these ence drawn from it in the report. It is inferred, incidents, I have always supposed necessary to that because these framers foresaw this supposed constitute the head of a family. Yet not a sin-state of things, therefore they meant to prohibit gle one of these incidents has attached to me, during my residence in this District. the election to this House of any person so residing at the Seat of Government. I have These errors in point of fact, in the report be- already adverted to the far greater influence of fore us, I have thought it necessary to notice in the Executive in this House, by the unlimited the first instance; as they may have had an un-power of appointment from among its members. favorable influence on the minds of some members of this House. If they have had such influence with a single member, it is hoped these remarks will correct it. I will now proceed, Mr. Chairman, to notice some of the points and arguments contained in this very extraordinary report; and will show, not only that many of them are founded in error, but that many are wholly inconsistent with each other. In the second paragraph of the report, it is stated, that the subject under consideration is "one of great national consequence." This remark could not certainly be intended to apply merely to the individual seat, which is now contested; but must be meant to refer to the general principle involved in the question under discussion. Is the remark correct, even in this respect? Our present National Government has been in operation for thirty-five years. At the end of thirty-five years, one case has occurred, in which a person residing at the Seat of Government has been elected a member of this House. Perhaps in thirty-five years more, another case may occur. Is this an alarming prospect? Is the case one of such "great national consequence?" I will agree with the Chairman of the Committee of Elections, that If the number of members which have been thus appointed for thirty-five years past, be compared with the number (one) elected to this House among those employed at the Seat of Government, we shall see the magnitude of the influence from the former source, compared with that from the latter. Now, to suppose that the framers of the constitution intended expressly to guard against the latter comparatively trifling source of Executive influence, and yet overlooked the former overwhelming one, is to suppose them an assembly of weak and short-sighted men, wholly unworthy of the great trust reposed in them. It is plain, then, that they had no such fears as this report attrib utes to them; but believed that men might be honest though once employed at the Seat of Government, or though even under the far stronger influence of a hope of still further Executive patronage. The report proceeds to state that "the true theory of representative government" requires that the representative be" selected from the bosom of that society which is composed of his constituents;" and that he should possess a knowledge of their character and political views, and for that purpose should "mingle in their company and join in their conversations;" and |