« PoprzedniaDalej »
The names of the senators will appear, so far as the vote taken upon the report is concerned, from the ayes and noes, on the next page.
The vote upon the report, as proposed by the committee, was taken in the House of Delegates on the 7th of January, 1800, and in the Senate on the 18th.
The names of those who voted on either side are as follows:
IN THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES.
In the affirmative.—Messrs. Smith (Speaker), Walker, Woods, Giles,
Chaffin, David S. Garland, Hare, Vance, Calwell, Young, Ruffin, Charles Yancey, Bolling, Buckner, Read, Price of Charlotte), Collier Harrison, Tyler, Cheatham, Thomas A. Taylor, Roberts, Moses Green, William Daniel, Deane, Pegram, Goodwyn, Booker, Westwood, Daingerfield, Garnett, Haden, Payne, Greer, Cook, Hall, Christopher Garland, Pleasants, William Lee, Gaines, John B. Scott, Howson, Calmes, Higgins, Selden, Price (of Henrico), Starke, Thomas White, Jackson, Prunty, Martin, Redd, Driver, James Johnston, Lightfoot, Callis, Francis Epes, Hill, Roebuck, Billups, Litchfield, Blakey, Ro. B. Daniel, Craig, Howe, Riddick, Claughton, Ball, Freeman Epes, Grief Green, Madison, Barbour, M'Roberts, Moseley, Woodson, Peter Johnston, Pope, Thomas Mason, Rentfro, Haddan, Barnes, M'Carty, Bowyer, Moore, Benjamin Harrison, Huston, Cockrell, M'Farlane, Dulaney, Gatewood, Mercer, Stannard, Fox, Seward, Sebrell, Burnham, Meek, Dysart, John Evans, Shield, Waller.-100.
In the negative.-Messrs. Wise, Thomas Bailey, Doake, Anderson, Blackburn, Hancock, Otey, Tate, Alex, White, Breckenridge, Miller, West, Powell, Swann, Richard B. Lee, Clarkson, Edmonds, Magill, Eskridge, John Matthews, Cavendish, Braxton Robinson, Fisher, Simon, Thomas Lewis, Ruffner, Wallace, Ashton, Burwell, Ball, Joseph Lewis Jr., Noland, Cowan, Nelson, Tabb, John Evans, Jr., Thomas Wilson, Sumner, Watkins, James Taylor, Butt, Darby, Satchell, Biggs, Wooding, Charles Scott, George K. Taylor, Cureton, Lawson, James Robinson, M'Coy, Hull, Blow, William Bailey, Garner, Turner, Crockett, Griffin, Cópland, Ro. B. Taylor.-60.
IN THE SENATE.
In the affirmative.--Messrs. Creed Taylor, Richard Kennon, Burwell Bassett, Thomas Royster, Nicholas Faulcon, Holden Hudgins, French Strother, Thomas Ridley, John Preston, John Hoomes, Benjamin Temple, Thomas Newton, Nicholas Cabell, George Penn, Robert Saunders.-15.
In the negative.-Messrs. John Tayloe, Francis Peyton, Charles Magill, Gideon Spencer, John Haymond, John Eyre.-6.
0 The Senate then consisted of twenty-four members, so that three did not vote.
INSTRUCTIONS TO VIRGINIA SENATORS.
IN THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES,
Saturday, January 11, 1800.
The House proceeded to consider the instructions from the General Assembly of Virginia, to STEPHENS THOMPSON Mason and Wilson CARY NICHOLAS, senators from the state of Virginia, in the Congress of the United States. The instructions are as follows :
The General Assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia, though it entertains no doubt of your punctual performance of your duty, or of your faithful adherence to the great principles of constitutional law, and national policy, deems it incumbent on it to communicate its opinions, formed after the most mature deliberation, on certain subjects essentially connected, as it solemnly believes, with the dearest rights, and most important interests of the people.
The General Assembly of Virginia will not now enter into a minute detail of all the facts and reasonings which justify and require the instructions hereto subjoined. It cannot, however, forbear to remind you of some facts and observations, which it deems too expressive and impor. tant to be passed over .in silence. It had indulged a hope, when there was a prospect of an accommodation of differences with the French re. public, or, if even the existing mission should not terminate in that desirable event,* when all the belligerent nations of Europe are too much occupied
* The mission referred to was composed of Messrs. Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, then Chief Justice of the United States, William R. Davie, of North Carolina, and William Vans Murray, of Maryland, then the United States minister at the Hague.
As soon as Talleyrand discovered the gross blunder he had committed in dismissing the American plenipotentiaries, in the manner related in the preface (see page xii.), and that the people of the United States would heartily support their government, he hastened to avert the gathering storm by instructing the French secretary of legation at the Hague to give Mr. Murray, our minister there, assurances, at first informal, but finally distinct and authoritative, that “whatever plenipotentiary the government of the United States might send to France, to put an end to the existing differences
with European concerns, to meditate an invasion of the United States, that the people would have been relieved from the evils and expenses in. cident to a military establishment, such as that authorized by the fifth Con. gress; but it has been with the most painful emotions, that it has seen, at the opening of the present session of Congress, a total disappointment in this just and pleasing expectation. The following intimation is contained in the speech of the President, and approved in the answers of the two houses of Congress. “The result of the mission to France is yet uncertain, but however it may terminate, a steady perseverance in a system of national defence, commensurate with our resources and the situation of the United States, is an obvious dictate of wisdom.” This recommendation, if carried into practice, would materially lessen the advantages which would naturally result from an accommodation with the French republic, the most important of which would be a relief from the evils incident to a preparation for a rupture, and seems to establish a position never before officially advanced in the United States—that war in Europe is of itself a sufficient cause for raising a standing army here, equal at least to the present military establishment. The experience of all ages has shown that the respite from wars amongst the European nations is too short to justify disbanding an existing army, and raising another during the intervals of peace, as a preparation for the next rupture; and of course, if European wars be a sufficient cause for raising military establishments here, a perpetual stand. ing army would be the certain consequence of the recommendation. It cannot have escaped your notice, that the present war in Europe has not hitherto been deemed a sufficient cause for increasing the military establishment of the United States. So far from it, that during the existence of the war, the former establishment was actually reduced. It is equally notorious that the only motive avowed for augmenting the military force, arose from the apprehension of an actual invasion from France; and the same law which gave rise to the army, contains a provision for disbanding it, upon an accommodation with that republic. It cannot therefore but produce much concern, that notwithstanding the existing prospect of accommodation, it should not only be considered as necessary to go on with the immense expense of such an establishment, but that it should be deemed expedient to persevere in a system of defence commensurate with the resources and situation of the United States, even in the event of a successful termination of the pacific mission and a restoration of that state
between the two countries, would be undoubtedly received with the respect due to the representative of a free, independent, and powerful nation,”-employing, it will be ob. served, the very terms which Mr. Adams had used in his message of 21st June, 1798, as expressive of the only condition on which he would again send a minister to France.
Mr. Murray, having acquainted his government with this overture, the President, on the 18th of February, 1799, nominated him to the Senate as minister plenipotentiary to the French republic. On the 25th, however, recalling that nomination, he presented the names of Messrs. Ellsworth, Henry, and Murray, who were confirmed. Mr. Henry having declined the appointment, it was subsequently conferred on Mr. Davie, who, together with Mr. Ellsworth, having joined Mr. Murray in Paris, in March, 1800, a convention was concluded, on the last day of the following September, which adjusted the principal differences between the two countries. (See 2 Am. St. Papers, 239, 240, and 295; 3 Jeff. Mem. 421-423.)
of things which preceded the crisis which was supposed by Congress to require so great an augmentation of the military force. Although the Constitution submits the right of raising armies to the discretion of Congress, yet, it evidently contemplated the militia as the great bulwark of national defence, as well, to use the language of the Constitution, to repel invasions, as to execute the laws of the union and suppress insurrections, and contemplated the right of raising armies for pressing and extraordinary emergencies. That the militia, except in such emergencies, is the only safe and adequate defence of the nation, is a political axiom hitherto held sacred in the United States. This is not only the obvious meaning of the Constitution, but is still more strongly evidenced by the practical construction thereof under the former administration, as will appear by reviewing its proceedings for several successive years after the government was put into operation. Shortly after that event, the first President in his speech on the 8th of January, 1790, called the attention of Congress, to the great business of providing for the national defence in the following words: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined, to which end an uniform and well-digested plan is requisite." Acting under the same impression in his speech on the 25th of October, 1791, he again reminded Congress of the militia, as the great depository of national force. Speaking of the several objects reserred to the consideration of Congress, in referring to the militia, he observes : “ The first is certainly an object of primary importance, whether viewed in reference to the national security, or to the satisfaction of the community, or to the preservation of order; in connexion with this, the establishment of competent magazines and arsenals, and the fortifications naturally present themselves to consideration. The safety of the United States, under divine protection, ought to rest on the basis of systematic and solid arrangements, exposed as little as possible to the hazard of fortuitous circumstances."
These recommendations being considered as relating exclusively to the militia, gave rise to a law more effectually to provide for the national de. fence, by establishing an uniform militia throughout the United States. The President again recurring to the militia, as the safe and adequate defence of the nation, in his speech on the third of December, 1793, aster speaking of the necessity of procuring arms and other military apparatus, emphatically observes :" Nor can such arrangements, with such objects, be exposed to the censure or jealousy of the warmest friends of republican government. They are incapable of abuse in the hands of a militia, who ought to possess a pride in being the depository of the force of the republic, and may be trained to a degree of energy equal to every military exigency of the United States. But it is an inquiry which cannot be too solemnly pursued, whether the act has organized them so as to produce their full effect." And again, after the militia had demonstrated their efficacy in promptly marching to suppress an opposition to the laws in Pennsylvania, on the 19th of November, 1794, in his speech the President observes : “The devising and establishing a well-regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honour, and a perfect title to public gratitude. I therefore entertain a hope, that the present session will not pass, without carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplin