網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

would not dwell upon it, but would dismiss it with a declaration that he felt great pleasure in saying that there were judges to whom he had never heard extra-judicial interference in political matters attributed. Mr. Nicholas observed, that thinking of the measures that he had stated as he did, he could not consent to expunge the clause. Indeed, if he did not give his full assent to what was stated in that clause, he would have been willing to confine the efforts of the House to procure the repeal of the alien and sedition-bills. But considering these as a part of a system that brought into jeopardy the dearest interests of his country, he thought it was their duty to represent to the other states the whole ground of the public uneasiness. As to the alien and sedition-laws, he had intended at an earlier part of the debate to have made some observations, but other gentlemen on the same side with himself, had expressed his opinions better than he could have done. He would therefore only say that he considered them as unconstitutional, and that if the principle was once established that Congress have a right to make such laws, the tenure by which we hold our liberty would be entirely subverted. Instead of rights independent of human control, we must be content to hold by the courtesy and forbearance of those whom we have heretofore considered as the servants of the people. Mr. Nicholas said he had been a member of the convention that adopted the Constitution; that he had been uniformly a friend to it; that he considered himself as now acting in support of it; that he knew it was the artifice of those on the other side to endeavour to attach a suspicion of hostility to the government to those who differed with them in opinion. For his part, he despised such insinuations, as far as they might be levelled at him. He appealed to his past life, and to his situation for his justification. Upon what gentlemen’s claim to exclusive patriotism was founded, he was yet to learn. The friends of the resolutions yielded to none in disinterested attachment to their country, to the Constitution of the United States, to union, and to liberty. The conduct and the motives of all would be judged of by the people of this country, to whom they were all known. Mr. Nicholas had full.confidence that the amendment would be rejected, and the resolutions without further alteration, would meet the approbation of a great majority of that House. |

General LEE said, that he wished to refute the observations of the gentleman last up, in favour of retaining the clause. (He was proceeding to do so, when he was interrupted by Mr. Nicholas, who observed that the gentleman had misunderstood him, and then declared in substance what he had before actually said.)

After such explanation, General Lee proceeded to justify the measures of the General Government in respect to the removal of persons from office. As to Mr. Cove, as far as he could recollect the circumstances of his conduct, he thought his removal proper. And as to Mr. Gardiner, he confessed it was a case with which he was quite unacquainted. In respect to the judiciary being forward in delivering their opinions on public measures, he would observe that the state judges had done, and still did the 'same. He blamed them not for it. For the appointment of men as judges did not deprive them of their rights as citizens. But nothing of this kind,

he said, would prove the propriety cf the clause proposed to be stricken

Out. -
General Lee then observed, that he considered the argument of the gen-

tleman from Amelia, in respect to the connexion between the alien-law,

and the law concerning volunteers, weak. For his army of aliens being

soldiers by compulsion, would turn against the President, instead of assist. ing him. The gentleman, too, had called in question the ends which the government had in view in raising an army and navy. General Lee proceeded to answer the objections upon that head, by pointing out those ends. As to the alien and sedition-laws, he contended that the only real view in passing them, was to protect us from foreign invasion. He denied that there was an inclination in the General Government to crush a party. The construction placed by the gentleman from Amelia, upon the President's answer to the address of the people of Bath was erroneous. Gene. ral Lee then read part of that answer, and placed a different construction upon the expressions which it contained. He conceived the President's meaning only to be, that it depended upon Virginia to say whether or not there was a party in the United States to be crushed, &c.; not positively asserting on his part, that there was such a party. General Lee then observed, that if the people could govern themselves, how could that be done but by obedience to the laws? Their freedom could not be preserved by any other mode. For if the principle of obey. ing the will of the majority was once destroyed, it would prostrate all free government. But the gentleman from Amelia had considered himself as one of the party to be crushed, alluded to by the President. He (General Lee) was surprised at such an idea. That gentleman had committed no crime. He had for some time before, been honoured with a seat in Congress. And there, although he had generally been in a minority, yet it was nothing more than the situation in which he (General Lee) had often been placed here. In neither was there any criminality. A difference, it was true, did exist between these cases; and he derived consolation from reflecting, that though he himself was in a minority here, he was still in a majority with that body which properly had the determination of national matters. He concluded with hoping that the amendment would prevail. Mr. TYLER arose next, and said that an able general would fight and struggle to the last. When driven from one stronghold, he would retreat to another; and finding himself no longer able to oppose superior numbers, he would attempt to divide his enemy. Mr. Tyler believed the plan

on the present occasion, was to divide the republican members, but he

hoped the gentleman's plan would not succeed; and that the clause would be retained. He thought it contained solemn truths. He doubted not but that many of the measures of the General Government had a tendency to monarchy, absolute or limited. These measures had been pointed out by the gentleman from Albemarle. He would however state them over again. , Mr. Tyler did so. . He particularly relied on the growing influence of the executive, and the probability of an alliance with a corrupt monarchy, and an open rupture with a republic, which he said had been openly advocated by gentlemen of high character. He inquired what had been the effects of executive influence in Great Britain He said, that by the revolution of 1688, and by several statutes of Parliament passed

about that time, many of the great rights of the people, and the principles of freedom had been established; but that it might, at this time, be well

doubted if the people were more free than they were before the revolu

tion. This was to be ascribed to the immense influence of the crown,

which had three millions at disposal. He demanded what other cause had prevented a reform in Parliament, upwards of three hundred of whose members were chosen by a fewer number of electors. He asked if there was not some similitude between the systems pursued by our administra

tion, and that of Great Britain? He said that the people of Great Britain

were clamorous for peace, and Lord Malmesbury was sent to make peace;

but he returned, and made no peace. He would not follow the compari

son. Our fears, he said, had been assailed. ' He inquired whom were we to fear? He feared no man, and no measure, but that of offending the people; and he believed that the people were never offended at any effort

to maintain their rights, or to protect their liberties. The gentleman from

Westmoreland had said, that the gentleman from Amelia could not con

sider himself as one of the party to be crushed, and had asked what crime that gentleman had committed. Mr. Tyler said, that the gentleman from Amelia had committed a crime; the crime of differing in opinion with the administrators of the government. This was the crime that had incarcerated Mr. Lyon. He asked what prospect have we of a change of these measures, which he viewed as the harbingers, the forerunners of monarchy, either limited or absolute. Were we not told that they must have more men, and a little more money; augment our standing army, and increase our navy; and force the construction of the Constitution to warrant alien and sedition-bills? Mr. Tyler concluded by hoping that the clause would be retained. He believed it contained the truth, and was very important; and thought that the people of Virginia called for some such measure.

Mr. John Taylor's resolutions, as amended, agreed to by the Committee, and reported to the House (ante, p. 149–50), being read the second time, a motion was made, and the question being put, to amend the same by expunging from them the fourth clause in the following words: “That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a -spirit has in sundry instances been manifested by the Federal Government to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that indications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former articles of confederation, were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration, which necessarily explains and. limits the general phrases, and so as to consolidate the states, by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable result of which would be to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.” It passed in the negative, ayes 68—noes 96. On a motion made by General Lee, seconded by Mr. Bolling, ordered, that the names of the ayes and noes on the foregoing question be inserted in the journal. The names of those who voted in the affirmative, are Messrs. Bailey, Ware, Anderson, Porterfield, Poage, White, Otey, Logwood, Tate, Baker, Breckenridge, M'Guire, Moorman, Spencer, Bedford, Harrison, Herbert, Magill, Bynum, Reives, John Mathews, Cavendish, Royal, Snyder, King, Fisher, Simons, Godwin, Young, Richard Corbin, Thomas Lewis, Turner, Wallace, Pollard, Gregory, Powell, Clapham, Cowan, Evans, Ingles, James Taylor, Watkins, Upshur, Darby, Claughton, Clarke, Divan, Cure. ton, George K. Taylor, Brooke, Robinson, Ellegood, M'Coy, Coonrod, Wilson, Glasscock, Caruthers, Andrew Alexander, Davis, Charles Lewis, Blow, Booth, Lee, Bradley, Drope, Crockett, Griffin, Andrews—68. And the names of those who voted in the negative, are Messrs. Cabell, Nicholas, Walker, Giles, Fletcher, Bolling, William Allen, Colwell, Perrow, John Taylor, Buckner, Tyler, Cheatham, Thomas A. Taylor, Daniel, Roberts, Shackelford, Peterson Goodwyn, Pegram, Booker, Daingerfield, Webb, Jennings, Horner, Haden, Payne, Greer, Benjamin Cooke, Hall, Pleasants, Heath I. Miller, Jones, M'Kinzie, Starke, Thompson, Jackson, Prunty, Selden, Price, Martin, Redd, John Allen, Tazewell, Shearman, Joseph Carter, Callis, Meriwether, Chadwell, Francis Eppes, Hudgins, Litchfield, Roebuck, Hill, Nelson, Mark Alexander, Segar, Richard H. Corbin, Scott, Butt, James S. Mathews, Willis Riddick, Josiah Riddick, Semple, Hurst, Freeman Eppes, Dupuy, M'Kinley, Barbour, Wright, Moseley, Woodson, Purnall, Johnston, Pope, Rentfro, William Carter, Hadden, Barnes, Cockrell, Browning, Gatewood, Dulaney, Mercer, Stannard, Nathaniel Fox, John Fox, Faulcon, Seward, Mason, Cary, Burnham, Hungerford, Meek, Shield, Foushee, Newton–96. A motion was then made, and the question being put, to amend the said resolutions, by striking out from the word “Resolved,” to the end of the same, and inserting in lieu thereof the following words: “That as it is established by the Constitution of the United States, that the people thereof have a right to assemble peaceably, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, it therefore appears properly to belong to the people themselves to petition, when they consider their rights to be invaded by any acts of the general government; and it should be left to them, if they conceive the laws lately passed by the Congress of the United States, commonly called the ‘alien and sedition-laws,” to be unconstitutional, or an invasion of their rights, to petition for a repeal of the said laws.” It also passed in the negative, ayes 60—noes 104. On a motion made by Mr. Brooke, seconded by Mr. Griffin, ordered, that the names of the ayes and noes on the foregoing question be inserted in the journal. • The names of those who voted in the affirmative, are Messrs. Bailey, Ware, Anderson, Porterfield, Poage, White, Otey, Logwood, Tate, Baker, Breckenridge, M'Guire, Moorman, Spencer, Herbert, Magill, Bynum, Reives, J. Mathews, Cavendish, Royall, Snyder, King, Fisher, Simons, Nelson, Evans, Ingles, Jas. Taylor, Watkins, Upshur, Darby, Clarke, Divan, Cureton, George K. Taylor, Brooke, Robinson, Ellegood, M'Coy,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Coonrod, Wilson, Davis, Charles Lewis, Blow, Booth, Lee, Bradley,

Drope, Crockett, Griffin, Andrews, Godwin, Thomas Lewis, Turner,
Wallace, Pollard, Powell, Clapham, Cowan–60.
And the names of those who voted in the negative, are Messrs. Cabell,
Nicholas, Walker, Giles, Fletcher, Bolling, William Allen, Colwell, Per-
row, John Taylor, Buckner, Bedford, Harrison, Tyler, Cheatham, Thomas
A. Taylor, Daniel, Roberts, Shackelford, Peterson Goodwyn, Pegram,
Booker, Daingerfield, Webb, Jennings, Horner, Haden, Payne, Greer,
Benjamin Cooke, Hall, Pleasants, Heath I. Miller, Jones, M'Kinzie, Starke,
Thompson, Jackson, Prunty, Selden, Price, Martin, Redd, John Allen,
Tazewell, Young, Richard Corbin, Gregory, Shearman, Joseph Carter,
Callis, Meriwether, Chadwell, Francis Eppes, Hudgins, Litchfield, Roe-
buck, Hill, Marke Alexander, Segar, Richard H. Corbin, Scott, Butt,
James S. Mathews, W. Riddick, J. Riddick, Semple, Hurst, Claughton,
Freeman Eppes, Dupuy, M'Kinley, Barbour, Wright, Moseley, Woodson,
Purnall, Johnston, Pope, Rentfro, William Carter, Hadden, Barnes, Glass-
cock, Caruthers, Andrew Alexander, Cockrell, Browning, Gatewood, Du-
laney, Mercer, Stannard, Nathaniel Fox, John Fox, Faulcon, Seward,
Mason, Cary, Burnham, Hungerford, Meek, Shield, Foushee, Newton—
104. -
And then the main question being put, that the House do agree with the
committee of the whole House in the resolutions as reported,
It passed in the affirmative, ayes 100—noes 63.
On a motion made by Mr. John Taylor, seconded by Mr. Nicholas,
ordered, that the names of the ayes and noes on the soregoing question be
inserted in the journal.
The names of those who voted in the affirmative, are Messrs. Cabell,
Nicholas, Walker, Giles, Fletcher, Bolling, William Allen, Colwell, Per-
row, John Taylor, Buckner, Harrison, Tyler, Cheatham, Thomas A.
Taylor, Daniel, Roberts, Shackelford, P. Goodwyn, Pegram, Booker,
Daingerfield, Webb, Jennings, Horner, Haden, Payne, Greer, Benjamin
Cooke, Hall, Pleasants, Heath I. Miller, Jones, M'Kinzie, Starke, Thomp-
son, Jackson, Prunty, Selden, Price, Martin, Redd, John Allen, Tazewell,
Young, Richard Corbin, Gregory, Shearman, Joseph Carter, Callis, Meri-
wether, Chadwell, Francis Eppes, Hudgins, Litchfield, Roebuck, Hill,
Mark Alexander, Segar, Richard H. Corbin, Scott, Butt, James S. Ma-
thews, W. Riddick, J. Riddick, Semple, Hurst, Claughton, Freeman
Eppes, Dupuy, M'Kinley, Barbour, Wright, Moseley, Woodson, Purnall,
Johnston, Pope, Rentfro, William Carter, Hadden, Glasscock, Cockrell,
Browning, Gatewood, Dulaney, Mercer, Stannard, Nathaniel Fox, John
Fox, Faulcon, Seward, Mason, Cary, Burnham, Hungerford, Meek, Shield,
Foushee, Newton—100. - *
And the names of those who voted in the negative are Messrs. Bailey,
Ware, Anderson, Porterfield, Poage, White, Otey, Logwood, Tate, Baker,
Breckenridge, M'Guire, Moorman, Spencer, Bedford, Herbert, Magill,
Bynum, Reives, John Matthews, Cavendish, Snyder, King, Fisher, Si-
mons, Godwin, Thomas Lewis, Turner, Wallace, Pollard, William
Clarke, Royall, Powell, Clapham, Cowan, Nelson, Evans, Ingles, James
Taylor, Watkins, Upshur, Darby, Divan, Curéton, George K. Taylor,

« 上一頁繼續 »