H. OF R. Statutes of Limitation-Rules and Orders. DECEMBER, 1811. son, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, acts of limitation, whereby those claims are barred. If NAYS-Abijah Bigelow, Adam Boyd, Epaphroditus Champion, John Davenport, junior, William Ely, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, junior, Elisha R. Potter, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, and Laban Wheaton. SATURDAY, December 21. Although a communication received from the Treasury at a former session holds out an opinion that there are in the possession of that Department sufficient checks and guards to protect the United States from imposition and fraud in the payment of a certain part of those claims, the committee are differently impressed., They have seen a transcript from the books of the Treasury, published to the world, exhibiting the names of a certain class of claimants; and to suppose that a facility of this kind, thus offered to speculative artifice and management, would not be seized upon and used by the speculator to impose upon Government, is to suppose a thing contrary to all experience. The committee feel themselves by no means able to draw a line of distinction between a just claim liquidated and a just one unliquidated; and to attempt the invidious task of distinction in point of merit, where there can be no difference, and to open the statutes of limitation in order to relieve a part or a few favorite classes of claims, does not comport, in the view of your committee, with any principle of fairness, or with that equal system of distributive justice which ought to be dispensed toward all. When they take a retrospective view of the subject, and find that most of those statutes were first passed in the times and under the patriot counsels of the old Congress, and that the more general one which took effect in 1794 was passed under the Administration of General Washington, who was himself the chief of soldiers as he was the chief of their patrons and friends in every station; but he was equally the friend of his country, and gave that act the sanction of his name, as founded, at least, in a policy of general justice and right, which the Government had On motion of Mr. POINDEXTER, the House proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by him on the 19th instant; when, Mr. P. withdrew the resolution, and moved that the letter of Cowles Mead, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Mississippi Territory, with the presentment of the grand jury of Baldwin county, in said Territory, against Harry Toulmin, Judge of the Superior Court of Washington District, be referred to a select committee, to consider and report thereon to the House; which was agreed to, and Messrs. POINDEXTER, BIBB, RHEA, CALHOUN, TALIAFERRO, BIGELOW, and CHAMPION, were ap-been at length obliged to resort to and maintain in selfpointed the committee. STATUTES OF LIMITATION. Mr. GHOLSON, from the Committee of Claims, who were instructed by a resolution of the House of the 11th ultimo, to inquire into the expediency of repealing or suspending the various acts of limitation, so far as they operate to bar the pay ment of certain descriptions of claims, made a report thereon.-Referred to the Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Rees Nanna and others. The report is as follows: That they have bestowed on the resolution that fullconsideration to which it was entitled. They felt, on the one hand, sincere solicitude to devise some just and adequate method of satisfying the claims in question; while, on the other, they were forcibly struck with the unavoidable scenes of speculation and fraud which would ensue the repeal or suspension of any of the defence; that every Congress since has invariably adhered to the general policy of those laws; and, after the lapse of so many years, when the difficulty of doing justice has increased with the increase of time, and when a partial repeal would but tend to increase the discontent and dissatisfaction of every class of claimants which should remain unprovided for, the commitof the subject, recommend the repeal or suspension of tee cannot, from any view they have been able to take any of those statutes. They would, therefore, beg leave to submit the following resolution: Resolved, That it is not expedient to repeal or sus pend any of the acts of limitation, whereby the aforesaid descriptions of claims are barred. The report was ordered to lie on the table. RULES AND ORDERS. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the select committee appointed to prepare such Standing Rules and Orders of Proceeding as are proper to be observed DECEMBER, 1811. Imports, Tonnage, &c.-Rules and Orders. therein. The Committee rose, and reported their agreement to the Rules and Orders of Proceeding as contained therein, with several amendments; all of which were severally concurred in by the House. A motion was made by Mr. LACOCK to amend the said Rules by striking out these words: "He 'shall (meaning the Speaker) have the right to name any member to perform the duties of the 'Chair, but such substitution shall not extend beyond an adjournment;" which was determined in the negative. Mr. NELSON moved to amend the said Rules by adding to the last paragraph, relating to the previous question, the words following: "If the previous question be decided affirmatively, every ' member, who shall not have spoken, shall have a right to speak once upon the main ques 'tion." After debate thereon, an adjournment was called for, and carried. MONDAY, December 23. H. OF R. this House on what terms, under what authority, 2. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before this House a statement of the State and Territory, for each year, from the fourth of district tonnage of the United States, within each March, Anno Domini 1789, to the close of the year 1810, distinguishing, as far as practicable, the amount the fisheries; also, a statement of the foreign tonnage employed in foreign trade, the coasting trade, and in employed in the trade of the United States, for each year, during the same period. 3. Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before this House a statement of the gross and net amount of duties on imports and tonnage within each State and Territory, in each year, from the fourth of March, Anno Domini 1789, to the close of the year 1810, with the charges of collection, together with the amount of drawbacks for each year, Mr. CONDIT presented a petition of sundry manufacturers of bar iron, castings, nails, &c., in the State of New Jersey, praying that the importation of iron from foreign countries may be prohibited, or that additional duties may be laid on the importation thereof.-Referred to the Com-in each State, during the same period. mittee on Commerce and Manufactures. RULES AND ORDERS. The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of Saturday. The amendment proposed by Mr. NELSON being again read, as follows: The resolutions were read, and the first conMr. PORTER presented a petition of the Com-curred in by the House, and the second and third missioners of the State of New York, praying ordered to lie on the table. the co-operation and aid of Congress in opening "a canal navigation between the Great Lakes and Hudson's river."-Referred to the committee appointed, the seventh instant, on the petition of the President and Directors of the Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania; and that Messrs. PORTER, BARTLETT, BRIGHAM, JACKSON, MOSELEY, Hur- "That when the previous question is ordered to be TY, STRONG, PICKENS, WILLIAMS, HALL of Geor- taken, upon the main question being put, every memgia, ORMSBY, GRUNDY, MORROW, and BARD, beber, who has not already spoken, shall have liberty to added to the said committee. speak once.' A Message was received from the President of the United States communicating copies of an act of the Legislature of New York, relating to a canal from the great lakes to Hudson river.Referred, &c. Mr. GHOLSON, from the Committee of Claims, made an unfavorable report on the petition of Joseph Wheaton; which was concurred in, and the petitioner had leave to withdraw his petition and accompanying documents. IMPORTS, TONNAGE, &c. On motion of Mr. PITKIN, Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before this House a statement of the several banks in which the public money is deposited, and the amount which is designated to each bank, together with the greatest amount that has been deposited in each bank at any one period; since the fourth day of March, Anno Domini 1811; and, also, the amount deposited in each bank on the thirtieth of September, Anno Domini 1811; and he is also directed to inform Mr. GOLD said, the amendment now offered to the rules of the House, secures to every member the right of speaking at least once on every question before the House. The liberty of speech, and freedom of debate, are sacred by the Constitution; and to refuse all debate, to deny us the privilege of speaking at all, on the most important questions of peace and war, is a subversion of the first principles of the Constitution. And what is to justify this measure of imposing silence? It is said, the right of debate has been abused. Let gentlemen beware how, for an occasional abuse of a right, they take away-destroy the right itself. What right, in the whole charter of our rights, has not at some time been abused? Man is frail, and why should not, at times of public agitation and concussion of parties, abuses arise ? debate become angry and be prolonged? And for this, is the principle to be adopted, that the right shall be forever suppressed and destroyed? the principle that absolute silence shall be imposed on a minority? Sir, Philip, the tyrant of Macedon, disliked the freedom of speech and de bate in Athens: it annoyed him; for this cause, Demosthenes was pursued to the altar, where he expired. The principle contended for by the majority (supposed abuse) will be found to justify the most odious usurpations recorded in history; liberty is abused, and chains are forged to restrain it. DECEMBER, 1811. put down, when the abuse of this privilege becomes enormous. Mr. QUINCY.-Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this question in the light in which some of its advocates, as well as its opponents, have considered it; as a mere contest for power between the maGentlemen of the majority insist, that the rule acter. It affects the essential principles of civil jority and the minority. It is of an higher charwill not be abused; that the majority will not liberty, and saps its hopes at its very foundation. execute the rule arbitrarily. The amendment, I rejoice that the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. now offered to the rules, stipulates only for liber- NELSON,) has limited his proposition, so as to prety to each member to speak once. Now, sir, if elude any mistake concerning the object of it. this be denied, and the rule is ever executed, the We are not now advocating an unrestrained privabuse is inevitable, it is necessarily involved in ilege of debate. The inquiry is, shall a main questhe very execution of the rule. tion ever be taken in this deliberative body, unNeither the journals of our State Legislatures til every member, who has not already spoken, nor the laws of the Parliament of Great Britain shall have had an opportunity, if he wishes to afford examples for thus arbitrarily proceeding. avail himself of it, to speak at least once upon the Debate is admitted in the British Parliament on question? The ground taken by those who opthe previous question; our rules exclude it on both pose the proposition, is that of necessity and conthe previous and main question. Beside, sir, Ivenience. These are the very points, which, in need only refer gentlemen to the manual of par- a free country, ought most vigilantly to be guardliamentary law, from the hand of the third Presi- ed. For it is here that the spirit of despotism dent of the United States, to show that the previ- always lies in ambush. Under the cover of neous question was confined to subjects of delicacy, cessity, or convenience, itsteals upon the liberties which a due regard to the interests of the State of a people, and never fails, sooner or later, to or its Government forbade to be agitated. How make them its prey. much, sir, has this question been perverted from its proper province, to silence all debate and force some respects difficult to manage, with any hope It is not to be denied, that the subject is in the question, the passage of the law! Such mea-of convincing. There is a state of feeling, both sures are dangerous to freedom, and afford, in evil times, the most fatal examples. within this House and out of it, very unpropitious to an impartial debate. In this House it is argued Mr. SMILIE said, he was a friend to freedom of as a question concerning who shall have the debate, but that there was a difference between this, power, a majority, or a minority. And as it is and that abuse of it, when you cannot get a deci- agreed, on all hands, that, in the exercise of the sion without an exertion of physical strength. power, abuse may happen, the present majority, This has been our case several times. The rule like all other majorities, have a prevailing inclinnow proposed to be altered is the old rule, and is ation to reserve, in their own hands, the exclusive only restored. We very well know, that a debate privilege of abuse. And without doors, the subhas been often prolonged merely to prevent a de-ject is of less difficulty. For, of late years, the cision. We have been kept till ten and twelve o'clock at night, and sometimes till daylight. It is an inconvenience which he at his time of life had seriously felt. There can be no evil from the rule as now established. The responsibility of the majority is such to the people, that, if they should abuse it, as the minority have their privilege, the people will correct it, when the minority shall fairly state it to them. He said the majoriiy were also responsible to the people to transact the public business. popular ear has been so vexed with speech upon speech, wind upon wind, the public patience has been so exhausted, in hunting up the solitary grain of sense, hidden in the bushels of chaff, that it is ready to submit to any limitation of a privilege, which subjects it to so irksome a labor. The people are almost ready to exclaim, "do what you will with the liberty of speech, provided you will save us from that fresh of words, with which we are, periodically, inundated." Mr. STANFORD, in reply to Mr. SMILIE, said, he in which the corruption of essential principles Now, this is the very state of the public mind did not think it proper to give this dispensing commences. Through apparent necessity, or tempower to the majority, if they by the Constitutionporary convenience, or disgust at abuse, the popudid not possess it, as he contended they did not. He said, we have heard of a sedition law, and the reign of terror. The bill, when first introduced for that law, went to prevent freedom of speech, This rule, in his opinion, much more deserved the character of a 66 Gag-law," than the Sedition law did. Mr. WRIGHT mentioned the great abuses of this privilege of the minority the last winter. He said, if we don't establish a written, decent rule, we must have a common law rule, such as they have in the British House of Commons, to shuffle and lar sentiment is made to acquiesce in the introduction of doctrines vitally inconsistent with the perpetuity of liberty. I ask the House to consider what is that principle of civil liberty, which is amalgamated and identified with the very existence of a legislative body. In what does it consist? And what is its character? It consists in the right of deliberation. And its character is, that it belongs not to the body, but the individual members constituting the body. The body has the power to control and to regulate its exercise. But it has not the power to take away that right altogether, by the operation of any general principle. An individual member may render himself unworthy of the privilege. He may be set down; he may be denied the right, because he has abused it. But whenever a legislative body assumes to itself the power of stopping, at its will, all debate, at any stage of deliberation, it assumes a power wholly inconsistent with the essential right of deliberation, and totally destructive of that principle of civil liberty which exists, and is identified with the exercise of that right. The right of every individual member is, in fact, the right of his constituents. He is but their Representative. It is in their majesty, that he appears. It is their right that he reflects. The right of being heard by their Representative is the inherent and absolute right of the people. Now, it is in the essential character of such a right, that it exists, independent, and in despite of any man, or body of men, whatsoever. It is absurd to say, that any right is independent, which depends upon the will of another. It is absurd to say, that any right is absolute, which is wholly relative to the inclination of another; which lasts only as long as he chooses, and terminates at his nod. Now, whether this power be exercised by one, or many, it matters not. The principle of civil liberty is gone, when the inherent and absolute nature of the right is gone. Apply this reasoning to the case before us. It is impossible to conceal the fact, that as our rules and orders stand, independent of the proposition now offered as an amendment, it is in the power of a majority to preclude all debate, upon any question, and force every member of the House to vote, upon any proposition, without giving him the opportunity of explaining his own reasons, or stating the interests of his constituents. This is undeniable. Is it not, then, plain and conclusive, that, as our rules and orders now stand, according to recent construction, every member of this House holds his right of speaking, not on the principle of his constituents, whose Representative he is, but upon the will of the majority of this House? For that which another may at any time take away from me, I hold not by my own right, but at his will. Can anything be more obviously at variance with the spirit of the Constitution and the first principles of civil liberty? Let not any man say this power will not be abused. In the nature of things it must be abused. This is the favorite argument of every despotism, and, of course, will not fail to be urged when it is about to plant itself in the very temple of liberty. I have chosen to consider this subject in relation to the right of the wholy body, and of one of its individual members, rather than to that of a majority and minority. The right to speak is an individual right. -Limit it as you please, consistent with a single exercise of that right. But when this is taken away, or, which is precisely the same thing so far as it respects the principle of civil liberty, when it is in the power of one or many, at its sovereign will and pleasure, to take it away, there is no longer any right. We have H. of R. our tenure of speech as the slave has his-at the will of a master. But it is said that the Legislature must sometimes "act," and that individuals, by an, abuse of this liberty of speech; prevent the whole body from "acting." All I say is, limit the exercise of the right as you please, only do not assume to yourselves the power of taking away the whole right, at your pleasure. It is in this doctrine, of "the necessity of acting," that lies the whole mystery of that error, which we are now combating. Strictly speaking, a Legislative body never "acts." Its province is to deliberate and decide. "Action" is, alone, correctly attributable to the Executive. And it will be found, that all the cases, in which this necessity of "action" has been urged, have been cases in which the Legislative body has departed from its appropriate duties of deliberation and decision, and descended to be an instrument, or engine, of the Executive. I hesitate not to say, that this position may be proved by almost every instance in which this necessity of action has been urged. It was an Executive haste to its own purposes, which prevailed upon the Legislative body to deny, to its own members, their privileges. It has been asserted, that "if this amendment passes, this will be the only deliberative body in the world which cannot stop debate." On the other hand I assert, that if this amendment does not pass, this will be the only deliberative body in the world, pretending to be free, in which it is in the power of a majority to force a decision, without any deliberation. It is not true that, in the British Parliament, the previous question stops debate and forces decision on the main question without deliberation. The previous question there, if decided in the negative, suppresses debate, by postponing the main question. And until 1807, the practice and rules of this House permitted debate of the main question, after an affirmative decision of a previous question. Who ever undertakes to examine the subject will find it as I have stated. It is not true, that this power ever was, or ever can be necessary, in a Legislative body. In every case in which the previous question, according to recent construction, has been pressed upon the House, it will be found that there was no National or State necessity for an immediate decision. That is to say, in every instance it will be found, that it was of no sort of public importance whether the main question were taken on this day, on the next, or on a third day. Always the question might have been taken, in a reasonable time; and every individual member, who chose to speak, might have had the privilege, if he pleased, of speaking, at least once. As far as I observed, all these pretences of necessity have been easily resolvable into party cunning. The subject was one difficult to maintain. It had popular bearings, which it suited not the pleasure of the majority to have investigated. They pressed the minority to instant decision, by refusing adjournment And as it happens in all such cases, re-action is equal to action. The minority were put upon their mettle, and they put to trial the metal of the majority. It is undoubtedly true, that this power may be sometimes convenient. And this is the whole strength of the argument of those who oppose this proposition. The weak and aged members of the majority have been kept all night from their slumbers, by a hale and sturdy minority; which slumbers they might, by the way, at any moment, have enjoyed, if that very majority had yielded the point of adjournment. And is this reason of convenience sufficient, in the estimation of this House, to justify it, in depriving this people, in the person of their Representatives, of the essential right of speaking upon this floor? Is this a justification for such an atrocious and exorbitant grasp at power? Our patriotism, nowadays, can submit to no sacrifices. We are not content with sleeping, if we please, every day in our seats, unless we can sleep also every night of the session in our feather beds. And these feather-bed patriots, as I understand, are all agog for a march into Canada; and, if we believe them, are desirous of nothing so much as showing how those can meet privation and watchfulness in the field, who think of nothing but comfort and sleep upon this floor. I know there is another argument urged in favor of the assumption of this power by the majority, and that is, the haste and clatter which always attend the end of a session. Let our ses sion be long or short, the event is, in this respect, always nearly the same. What with speeches and postponements, and laying down one piece of business half finished, and taking up another, the latter end of a session is a political chaos. The work of this and the other House, and that of the Palace into the bargain, is in fact sometimes to be washed up, in a night-and the members of all branches are knee-deep and shoulder-deep in the suds. Now, this shows the necessity, not of this unlimited power of the previous question, but of conducting public business with more prospective intelligence. The House is just like all other spendthrifts. It first wastes what is its own, and then seeks how it may make up its deficiency out of the property of other people. We pillage the public liberty, in order to compensate for legislative negligence. away through the mouth. In this there was both discretion and patriotism. There is one argument I was near omitting. The great apology for this assumption of power, is the prolongation of debate by the minority. Now, the length of debate must, in a great degree, depend upon the character of our Speaker. His power is, in truth, the power of the House. It is his province to limit debate, where it grows devious and irrelevant. Although this unlimited power of the previous question might be necessary, in times when the Chair was not filled by any distinguished intelligence, yet now, when we are under the superintendence of a mind discriminating and impartial, there seems to be as little apology as there is necessity for a resort to this power. Mr. BRIGHAM said, that although he was forward in life, he was but of yesterday of this House, and that the rules and orders were not familiar with him. But he exceedingly regretted that this House, in their wisdom, ever found it expedient or proper to adopt a rule to deprive a minority, or an individual member of this House, of the freedom of debate, the freedom of speech, a privilege so much boasted of in this land of liberty. He observed that he had his rights in common with the other members of the House, and that he had his duties to perform. He was not ambitious to become a public speaker, nor would he say that he supposed he could speak to the edification or satisfaction of the House. But should he, on great questions, be denied the privilege of speaking? Suppose the question of peace or war should assume the aspect of solemnity, and it should become necessary and important that this House be made acquainted with the circumstances and disposition of the citizens of the several sections of the country-and suppose a member who is not much accustomed to speaking, silently sits until those gentlemen who are in the habit, and are fond of speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in debate-shall he, in that case, be denied the right of speaking-shall he be deprived of his Constitutional privileges and his constituents of their right of representation on the floor of this House? He said, that he was bound by the oath of God I have often been puzzled to imagine a neces- to support the Constitution, and to promote the sity, which could even apologize for such an as-welfare of his country; but, if his mouth is stopsumption of power as the majority, by this new ped, how can he execute his trust or perform his construction of the previous question, are attempt- vows? For this House, by a rule, to interdict the ing; and, until lately, I did not believe that it freedom of speech, is an assumption of power, and could possibly exist. The only case, in which a violation of right. He hoped, that the rule unthere seemed to me to be an apology for resorting der consideration would be modified, and that the to it, was, the other day, when the gentleman proposed amendment would be adopted. He from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) threatened to call the wished that each individual member might be previous question upon the majority themselves. permitted to exercise his right of speaking to any I admired both his manner and the occasion on question before the House, at least once, if he which he introduced that idea. And really there chooses. was something like a necessity. If I understood the view of that honorable gentleman, it was, that he thought there was not fighting matter to spare in the stomachs of the majority; and he threatened them with the previous question, lest, peradventure, the whole war spirit should ooze Mr. NELSON spoke in favor of the amendment. He said he had no hesitation in declaring, that whenever right and expediency shall come in competition, that he should prefer right. He remarked, that the Constitution secured the freedom of speech to the citizen. And are we, he asked, |