Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

H. of R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

resolution itself is couched in captivating phraseology, begins with expediency and the public good, high sounding words, but which should be well weighed before they are acted on. We are all desirous to do what the public good requires, although we may differ as to what constitutes the public good. I had hoped to hear some advocate for this removal give some reasons for it; but in this I have been disappointed. Whenever a great and imperious public duty calls for the destruction of a portion of a free country, that call and that duty must be manifestly imperious, or not carried into effect to the ruin of individuals. What is the necessity which makes this a duty? An honorable member from Kentucky, who has not made up his mind, says he has heard that so much will be saved. Why, in the name of sense, are not calculations produced? Gentlemen, advocates of the measure, must have thought on the subject and made calculations. I cannot for my part see how such a saving can exist, I will reserve myself to that moment when a statement is exhibited, to prove to the House that it is on false ground; that there will result in time advantages which will more than meet any present expenditures that it is the statement of a person taking a narrow view of the subject, looking at the present population of the city, instead of taking a liberal view, and considering what its consequence will be to our great and growing nation.

An honorable member from New Jersey, whose motives no doubt are correct, (and here permit me to say what I trust will always be found correct, that I consider the motives of every gentleman to be correct, and will always suppose them so, and endeavor to show that they are mistaken in practice;) has said this is a sickly place. I pray you where is the authority for the assertion? Have gentlemen that information which every one ought to have before he pronounces on its sickness or health? There is no place possessing a population so thin in which more instances of longevity can be produced. Those who come from different parts of the Union with the seeds of disease in their frames cannot exist longer here than in their native clime. It is, I know, ridiculous to make comparisons, but I undertake to say that this city has been as remarkable for health as any spot in the United States. I will go farther and say, from my own knowledge of the fact, that, there is not in the United States an instance of greater longevity or more health of natural born subjects or citizens than within this District. Did the gentleman's observations flow from the case of his late colleague? The gentleman must have been thus alarmed and had his fears thus excited by his regret for his friend. But I will venture to say, that in a congregation of any given number of gentlemen in the same stage of life as those here convened, that there is no portion of country where an equal number of deaths may not be expected as have taken place from this body in preceding years. The gentleman convened here are not in the flower of youth; they are gentlemen sent here from their experience. and whose regularity at home is changed by their

FEBRUARY, 1808.

occupation here, being deprived of their regular habits and prevented from taking that exercise to which they have been accustomed. And take the population of the city, and I will undertake to say and prove that there never has happened a proportionate number of deaths to those which usually occur in other situations. But granting the assertion made, should we better our situation by removal? Look at the times, at the crisis at which it is thought proper to propose a removala possibility of impending war, in which case may occur a Summer session of Congress; and will any gentleman say that the disorder prevalent in that city in the Summer months (whether native or not, is not necessary to inquire—it is sufficient to know that it exists,) does not leave a greater chance for ill health than the general salubrity of this place? No man can say that the prospect of sickness would be diminished by a removal to Philadelphia; by comparison it would be increased.

This measure ought to be shown to be politic. After seven years' stay in this place, what at this moment calls for a removal? Is it the crisis of our political affairs? Is there not as much safety here as at Philadelphia? Doubtless. If no imperious necessity calls for a removal, I hold a better opinion of the heads and hearts of the gentlemen composing this honorable body, than to suppose they will hesitate when they look at the subject. I am convinced that they would not sacrifice to personal inconvenience the welfare of ten times their number, that they might be fed on more dainty food, see more company, or enjoy somewhat more of personal gratification. They would not by a removal consult mere personal accommodation at the expense of those so greatly to suffer.

But are we at liberty to remove ourselves? Can we remove the seat of Government? Is there no doubt on the constitutionality of a removal? Does not this proposition contemplate a violation of the public faith, which imperiously calls upon us to respect the honor of the country! The faith of our Government, like Cæsar's wife, must be preserved not only inviolate, but unsuspected. How came we here? By the wisdom of the Convention which framed the Constitution. The framers of our Constitution selected a district of ten miles square, to be under the immediate and exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; they ingrafted it into the Constitution and authorized the acceptance of a cession of this territory from one or more States; for what? For a temporary seat of Government? However it may be the fashion of the present day to cherish this changing disposition, those patriots who framed this instrument never did suppose that this was not to be the seat of Government. This District of ten miles square was intended when selected to be the permanent seat of Government, the depository of the nation's archives. This spot was selected. By whom was the whole projected? By him who was inferior to no man living; by him whose judgment will be venerated till the foundations of liberty are sapped and gone. In the maturity of his judg

[ocr errors]

FEBRUARY, 1808.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

H. OF R.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I am mistaken in the Constitutional requisition; and that the fixing the seat of Government was a simple legislative act as all other acts, and predicated not upon the Constitution but upon expediency. Reflect, and say, whether in consequence of that act you would not by removal violate the public faith. I mean not by this to say that any gentlemen on this floor has less respect for it than me, or that any one would wantonly concur in vio

ment, experience, and attachment to his native land, he called the Constitution into effect by placing the seat of Government on this spot; from its central situation, its health, its convenience to the Atlantic, and its easy access to the Western waters for all these causes combined together, I hold the most profound respect and place the most implicit confidence in his judgment. And, appealing from his judgment, we are called upon to move from here before we are scarcely warm in our seats, from no better consideration than a lit-lation of it; but it is fair argument. When the tle personal inconvenience, without considering the merits of the question on public policy.

The resolution on your table contemplates a limited fixture at Philadelphia. It is well known and calculated upon that the population of Phil-derness, whether on the faith of its being permaadelphia may do things which this poor place cannot. They calculate upon the superior talents and overbearing wealth and influence of Philadelphia, to retain the seat of Government there not for a few years, but as long as Government exists. Expediency and the public good!—a man must be hoodwinked who cannot look under the curtain and see what these words mean.

I am for retaining the Government here, where it was originally fixed by the sage whose name it bears, and the establishment of which may almost be considered as an act of the Constitution, because the act was done by a law emanating from and carrying into effect a provision of the Constitution. The erection of a permanent seat of Government was the only mode on earth by which the Constitutional provision could have been fulfilled. Did our predecessors consider this as a temporary seat of Government? Every word of the law which they enacted, and which was considered as an interpretation of the Constitution, expresses the reverse. Refer to chapter 28, vol. 1. of the Laws of the United States. Let us see the contemporary construction given to the Constitution by the members of that Congress, some of whom were members of the Convention who framed it, men distinguished for their vigilance in guarding the Constitution. "That a district of territory, not exceeding ten miles square, to 'be located as hereafter directed on the river Potomac, at some place between the mouths of the 'Eastern Branch and Connogocheague, be and is 'hereby accepted"-for what? "for a permanent seat of the Government of the United States," &c. And in succeeding laws on this subject the same language is repeated. No man living ever construed that instrument to give exclusive jurisdiction over a certain territory for a temporary seat of Goverment. We all know the disadvantages attendant on a temporary situation; there are gentlemen within the hearing of my voice who know the contests which arose whether it should be held at Philadelphia, New York, or elsewhere, previous to its being made stationary. Neither the framers of the Constitution, or the Legislature who carried it into effect, ever did dream that this was to be any other than the permanent seat of Government. The expenses incurred here also incontestably demonstrate that to have been the intention of the Legislature.

[ocr errors]

cession of the territory was accepted, and the City of Washington designated as it was to become the permanent seat of Government, I ask the honorable members of this House, being then a wilnently the seat of Government, individuals did not come forward and invest vast property in lots and improvements on it? Did you not by law solemnly say that this should be the permanent seat of Government, and invite numbers of persons to come here, to build houses and make improvements which necessarily grew out of that law? Was not the investment of their property a legitimate act, in pursuance of a public law? Unquestionably it was. If you remove hence, what will be the consequence? Are the people who have reposed their confidence in the faith of a public law to be sacrificed? Have they no right to complain of a violation of the national faith by a removal, if agreed to? I ask if this law did not hold out to them a permanency? And if after a lapse of seven years the seat of Government is removed, if that act has not been a decoy to all those people who, confiding in a public act, have settled in the city? Say that we are capable of repealing that law; if we do it, is not the repeal an infraction of good faith and contract with those who advanced their money? Is it less a breach of contract to induce a man to come here in hopes and confidence in the permanency of the Government here, than it would be to borrow money on the faith of the nation, and by a simple act of legislation to wipe away the obligation to repay that money? Foreigners were by law competent to hold real estate. Large sums were by these men vested in the property of this city, relying on the faith of the United States. How so? Here is the law, I hold it in my hand, fixing a permanent seat of Government. If persons embark their property in this stock, on what do they do it? On the faith of this law. Repeal this law, remove the seat of Government, and our faith is gone in Europe; for those nations who hold stock in our funds will as soon expect that the obligation to pay that shall be cancelled, as that we should violate our faith by repealing a law in which it is pledged. Take the question in this view, and it is all-important.

An honorable gentleman, whose liberality I approve, has no idea that ample compensation for these losses should not be made. If this measure should carry, he would not find many seconders of that motion; more especially at this time. Do gentlemen believe that compensation is seriously intended? No such belief can be cherished. Gen

H. OF R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

tlemen will not feel themselves bound to attend to the dictates of conscience when they disregard the obligations of a law: they will not leave the people as they found them; they will leave them ruined, by coming forward with their property to furnish those accommodations which we now enjoy. I trust, however inconvenient or dispersed the situation of our places of residence, however indifferent our accommodations, that these minor and petty considerations will be thrown out of view, when gentlemen consider the situation of those who have a right to be remembered when this measure is considered.

I do most ardently hope, that this question, when once agitated, may forever be laid to rest, so that a confidence in the permanency of the Government may inspire persons with a disposition to settle here and better our accommodations; for, so long as this question is agitated, so long proportionably will confidence be diminished and hope extinguished. Accommodations will grow worse from year to year, and at length be made a pretence for removal. From year to year you will prevent others from making improve ments, and then easily make it a pretext for complaint against accommodations. The House, I feel convinced, will not do this; they will act differently; they will encourage and promote this place from its peculiar situation; for nothing has yet been said to justify an act pregnant with such mischievous consequences to the people and the

nation.

But, says an honorable gentleman, you wish to stifle inquiry. I ask for discussion, for information, for calculations; and if any honorable member will convince me that it is Constitutional and proper, and that it is demanded of us by the public good, I myself, for public good must be preferred to private feelings, will vote for it. But the case is so plain that he who runs may read. If the affairs of Government be not better transacted here than at Philadelphia, they will not be worse. Shall we gain by going to Philadelphia, in preference to staying here? Shall we gain by removal to a large commercial town, whose capital and interests are much in the hands of foreigners domiciliated among them, a motley crew, a heterogeneous mixture, coming from every portion of the globe? Are we likely to increase in our attachment to republican habits, by such a change? Certainly not.

On another account I should object to a removal to Philadelphia, if no other objection existed. Honorable and independent men may be influenced and biassed by external objects without themselves knowing it; and this would be greatly promoted by going to a large commercial town. Shall we acquire more local information there? No. Can a member from Georgia there procure better information in relation to his duty to his constituents, than he can here? No. Information, then, he can give you none, except it be to prejudice you in favor of commerce, for which reason it is the worst place you can go to, as it may insensibly induce you to sacrifice agriculture at the shrine of that commerce now jeopardizing

FEBRUARY, 1808.

the best interest of the country, and leading us to war. These are evils likely to grow out of a removal; I do not say they will, but it is right to consider what may possibly exist in the one place, and which cannot exist in the other. I do verily believe from my soul that was it not for the single circumstance of obtaining information from Europe with greater ease, that the National Legislature should sit in the heart of the agricultural interest instead of running into cities. A removal into a large commercial city, where all the inhabitants would give us good dinners and handsome entertainments, operating on our prejudices and taking advantage of unguarded moments, would insensibly bias our better judgment. The agricultural and commercial interests are not the same. Agriculture can never amalgamate with commerce, but commerce may involve agriculture in the expense of a war. There is nothing under Heaven to induce me to remove to Philadelphia. If the seat of Government must be moved, take it to any considerable inland town, where honorable gentlemen may long enjoy great health. If you wish for good health and living, go to Lancaster. But as in my heart and soul I believe that almost all the benefits are enjoyed here that could be enjoyed in any other place, and as this is fixed as the permanent seat of Government by the law and the Constitution, I think it most unwise on any consideration to attempt a removal, supposing no individual injury to result from removal.

An honorable gentleman from New York (Mr. GARDENIER) supposes that the motion of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Lewis) was intended to stifle discussion. I would not for a moment jeopardize the property of the citizen, or give rise to a supposition that we had an idea of violating the Constitution or the laws. Does the gentleman suppose the minority could be convinced by reason or argument? I never yet saw a minority which could. The gentleman says if we now strike it down, it will be brought forward next year. If there be a minority they will no doubt bring it forward next year, if they have the whole session now allowed for discussion. It is neither improper nor impolitic at this time to decide it.

The gentleman from New Jersey has mentioned society. If we remove to a place where there are abundance of ladies and good cheer, it is likely we shall now and then be remiss in our duty. That might be a reason why this of all others is the place to sit in. If ever you want men to do their duty, I have found it a good thing to place them where they have nothing to take off their attention; and rely upon it, wherever you increase temptation, you encourage neglect of duty.

I have no doubt that the honorable member who made this motion has given the sense of his constituents; but something of local interest is to be given up to a Government of compromise like ours; much was given up to its origin and much must be surrendered now. If I am not mistaken Philadelphia herself is now tremblingly alive, watching the direction of a great western road which is contemplated to lead to Baltimore, and

FEBRUARY, 1808.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

by which she will feel herself injured. The honorable gentlemen who feel it their true interest to have communication with the Western country by any road which shall terminate at Fort Cumberland, are, in the true spirit of commerce, looking for pecuniary advantage over each other. I see the honorable gentleman smile. Let Philadelphia yield her rights to where they are better placed for the national security. This road is the great connecting link between the Western country and the Atlantic waters; and the struggle is to remove it so as to go nearer to Philadelphia. The same objection which applies to Philadelphia applies to Baltimore. No great commercial town is suited for the seat of Government. The honorable members of the House, duly weighing this question, will certainly find it their duty to give faith to a law which they themselves have enacted.

H. or R.

transact cannot do it without neglecting their duty. This city, as it is called, is about sixteen years old, and is yet apparently in its very infancy. We are told that about from ten to fifteer millions have been expended in bringing it to its present state. I ask how long it will be before we can possibly be accommodated with any convenience? Is there to be no end to the expenditure? We have not only expended these large sums for the erection of buildings, but after that we must appropriate more for watching them and keeping them in repair. This very House has caused an increase of the contingent expense of not less than $5,000 at this time, which must be continued and perhaps increased every session.

It is acknowledged by members and citizens, that the city is laid out on an impracticable plan, and that in its present form it never will assume the shape of a city. Is it possible to produce an Mr. MILNOR said this was a subject of great instance of any city laid out on this plan arriving importance, as was evinced by the anxiety of to perfection? All the inhabitants, if gathered those who had spoken against removal. He should together in one spot, would not be able to pay have hoped that the importance of the subject the expense of paving, lighting, and watching, would have induced gentlemen to wish for time the avenues and streets, on account of their great to consider it maturely, that every gentleman width. It is said that the city must be concenmight have an opportunity fairly to deliberate, trated, and it is allowed that it would be absurd weigh well, and decide wisely upon it. It ap- to expect it to grow into importance unless it is pears, however, that gentlemen are determined to concentrated. If, then, we consider the policy of bring the principle to immediate discussion and the measure, it will be considered as impolitic in decision. This looked to him as if gentlemen the extreme to go on expending millions from were afraid that the House should have an oppor- year to year in endeavoring to effect objects which tunity of deliberating upon this subject. He re- cannot be finally effected after all that is lavished. collected that the subject was introduced in dis- A comparison has been made between the healthcussion of another question a few days ago, and iness of this city and Philadelphia. I am not treated with lightness by a gentleman who has prepared with documents now to make the comthis day moved an indefinite postponement; an-parison; but one fact I will state which can be other gentleman, to-day, could scarcely believe it serious. Thus some who were opposed to it told them that they cannot believe it is seriously meant, while others on the same side deem it very serious indeed, and therefore wished to strangle it in its birth without further discussion. He hoped the good sense of the House would induce them to pause and consider before they decided on the present question. He did not propose now to enter fully into a discussion of its merits, but just reply to a few observations of the gentlemen who had spoken against the resolution.

A gentleman from Virginia (Mr. LEWIS) has asked, if we can think of giving up the place after so much money has been expended? I will in turn ask him a question; where have these ten or fifteen millions been expended? Let us look around and see what we have for them. It is true that here we are convened in a splendid mausoleum, in which we are buried alive for four or five hours a day, and which, notwithstanding all the efforts of gentlemen in speaking, is so ill constructed for understanding, that we might almost as well be immured in the silence of the tomb. We have a very splendid house also for the President of the United States; but where is it? A mile and a half hence, in another village; for as to city, it is a burlesque upon the term to call this a city. We have also public offices, so distant that members who have the slightest business to

proven; that during the long sitting at Philadelphia the deaths among the members of Congress were but three, perhaps only two, and I need only recur to the last session to show that as many deaths have occurred here in one session as in Philadelphia during the whole time Congress sat there.

Having no documents, I cannot go into minutiæ upon the comparative healthiness of the two places; but having been born and brought up in the city of Philadelphia, and having also resided several years in the neighborhood of this place, I am seriously of the opinion that Philadelphia is by far the more healthy place.

It has been said by the gentleman from Maryland that he should be at all times opposed to the seat of Government being fixed in any large city, and he has alluded to the influence which it might possess over members of Congress. I will ask the honorable member whether he feels that he should be influenced by considerations of that nature? I have put this question home to individual members who have made this suggestion, but have never yet found the man who thought that he himself should be influenced in that way. He has no suspicion of himself, but mistrusts his weaker friends. I cannot suppose that the Representatives of the nation can possibly be so weak or wicked as to suffer considerations of this kind to influence their better judgment. But I will

H. OF R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

admit it for a moment, for argument's sake. Is it not contemplated by the friends of this place that it will become a large city? And do they not bring forward as an argument that we will not give this city a fair chance; that if we cease to agitate this question, the city will grow and flourish? Whenever that time arrives, agreeably to the gentleman's argument. it will be necessary to remove, because a large city is not the place where Congress ought to sit.

I have been always of opinion that the interests of agriculture and commerce are intimately blended with each other; that the interests of the one cannot be greatly promoted without essentially aiding those of the other. This being the second commercial nation in the world, it is necessary that the Legislature of the Union should meet in a place where they can obtain the best commercial information. From the very nature of our Government there is no danger, nor can any be apprehended, but that the agricultural interest of the nation will be fully represented on this floor. The growing interest of the Western country, and their rapidly increasing population, will assuredly give a full representation to the agricultural interest of the country; but I cannot believe, at the same time not wishing to derogate from their merits, that gentlemen born and educated in the interior can be as capable of legislating here on commercial subjects, or that they can so clearly discern the connexion between agriculture and commerce as in a large commercial city. I am sorry that, upon various occasions, I have discerned a degree of prejudice on the minds of some gentlemen against the commercial interest of this country. It never can be dangerous to the agricultural interest while the representation of the latter on this floor so greatly overbalances the former, which must always be the case.

[ocr errors]

It has been objected to this proposition by some gentlemen, that the Constitution has fixed this as the permanent seat of Government, and that with. out a violation of the Constitution we cannot change it. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. KEY) did not seem to insist so strongly upon this as some others, while however he was inclined to this idea. What says the Constitution on this subject? "Congress shall exercise exclusive legis'lation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by ces'sion of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of 'the United States." The same section also goes on and says, "And to exercise like authority over 'all places purchased by the consent of the Legis'lature of the State in which the same shall be, 'for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, 'dock-yards, and other needful buildings."

Thus the two subjects are blended in the same section. The same contract appears to be made in relation to the one as in relation to the other. I will ask gentlemen do they believe that Congress has not a right to discontinue a navy yard or a dock-yard? Not a gentleman in the House will say that Congress has not full power to do this. I can see nothing to restrain them in the

FEBRUARY, 1808.

one case which would not restrain them in the other. Suppose that the seat of Government should be fixed in a place so extremely unhealthy that members would not go to the spot designated, feeling such a degree of terror for its character (this I state merely as a possible case) as to induce them rather to decline the honor of an election than come to the seat of Government; or suppose it should be found that the city or place was in danger of immediate invasion, so that there was a probability that the Congress might be seized and carried off. Even this is a possible case. Would there in these cases be no remedy? A great many other reasons might be brought forward to show that the place for the seat of Government was not a proper one, and yet it is contended that we must submit, and no alteration could be made. Nothing more is meant by this provision of the Constitution than that during the time in which the seat of Government shall be fixed in any place, we should have exclusive jurisdiction of that place; it never could be understood to tie us down to that district.

It has been said that this would be a violation of private contract, and that if we remove we must make all losses good? I do not believe that an implied contract of this nature is strictly binding on the Government. But I believe that those individuals who have made purchases and improvements on the faith of the Government ought to be remunerated, and I hope they will be, if it should be thought the interest of the United States that the seat of Government should be removed.

This subject was not contemplated by myself as being likely at this moment to occupy the attention of the House. I certainly expected the opponents of the measure would be willing to postpone a discussion that every gentleman might inform himself, and that it might be fairly and deliberately decided. We have heard many things asserted which ought to be inquired into. I have been informed that a high and responsible officer of Government has said that the Government does sustain a loss by continuing here. I wish this to be ascertained. Why are we to be forced into a discussion? Why are gentlemen so averse to inquiry? It appears to me that their fears are alarmed; that they are convinced that a mature consideration will operate against them. I must, therefore, conclude that those gentlemen so desirous of immediate discussion must be of opinion that further time will operate against them and in favor of the measure. I hope the House will see the propriety of postponing the subject at least for a few days.

An adjournment was now called for, and carried.

WEDNESDAY February 3.

A Message was received from the President of the United States transmitting certain orders of the British Government against the maritime rights of neutrals, bearing date the eleventh of November, 1807. The Message, and documents laccompanying the same, were read, and referred

« ZurückWeiter »