Removal of the Seat of Government.

That this place was not fit to be the seat of the Government of a great and powerful empire, and never could become so, he had long been convinced. There was nothing in its local situation to recommend it, nothing in what had been done toward its improvement, and certainly nothing in the increasing expenses with which they were threatened. The situation of the members was extremely inconvenient to them, both personally and as it regarded the discharge of their official duties, for it was impossible to attend their duty in the House and to do any business at any of the offices. Their duty at one place or the other must be sacrificed. The scattered situation of the buildings rendered this inevitable. You have scarcely been able to form a village capable of accommodating the members of Congress. Yet gentlemen talked of this city! of checking the growth of this city! Yes, sir, a city which, for eight years, has baffled all the liberality, all the profuseness of Government. How long, he asked, are we to go on through dirt and mire beforecious.

H. OF R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

FEBRUARY, 1808.

In the first place, it is contended to be unconstitu-abled them from doing another; as if the power tional. In the second place, it would be a breach of the public faith. If either of these positions be tenable there is an end of the question. These objections had been urged with an appearance of seriousness, and therefore he should answer them seriously.

As to the constitutionality, was there one word in the Constitution which required Congress to fix a seat of Government, which enabled them to fix it? Or, to put the question more broadly and more strongly, which required, which enabled them to fix the seat of Government permanently? He would venture to say not a word in it, could, by the torture of the most rigid interpretation, be brought to amount to it. The words "seat of Government," were, indeed, mentioned in it. But for what purpose? To fix the Government permanently, eternally, to the spot which should be selected? Nothing like it: for the purpose and the sole purpose of giving to Congress power to exercise "exclusive legislation" over that spot. Here Mr. G. read that part of the Constitution which relates to this subject:

"Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, be

come the seat of Government of the United States."

to legislate in all cases whatsoever disabled them from passing an act to remove themselves. But this power is expressly given us. We can legislate in all cases whatsoever. If it belong exclusively to Congress, can they not give it up? Had they only power to take the burden on them-incapacitated ever to lay it aside, even when the national interest demanded it? No. We have perfect, absolute power over this District. It is our own, we can do with it what we please. So much so that this city is not represented in any legislative body. In short, it has no political rights. And it is for this, among other reasons, that I wish to leave it. Not merely to restore the citizens to their franchises, for they seem willing enough to yield them, in consideration of the pecuniary advantages they derive from being near the Government. They have shown us, what it grieves me to see, American citizens yielding to the love of money the privileges of freemen. But, sir, I do not wish the Representatives of the people to see-I am unwilling to trust myself to become familiar with such an exhibition of American debasement. I do not wish foreigners to remark on the paradox of the seat of Government of a free people, which should be the abode of liberty, being the seat of despotism. I would not, in one word, plant a despotism in the vitals of liberty. I would not have, in my country, one spot which should not be consecrated to freedom.

Was there, in this phraseology, anything to lead the mind to fix on it the idea of permanency? Where the officers of the Government are, there is the seat of Government. Thus the seat of Government was formerly at New York, after-it ward at Philadelphia, and subsequently it has been at this place, and from this place it may remove again with the same Constitutional facility with which it came here.

But if Constitutional, it has been said, and this formed the second objection to the removal, that would be a breach of the public faith. With the arguments in support of this position was interwoven, somewhat naturally, but more artfully, the distress and ruin of those who owned real property here. While the judgment was attemptThe same powers Congress now had to legis-ed to be addressed, the heart was assailed too, and late for this District, they might exercise over any on its weakest side. Its compassion was implored, other district which might hereafter be ceded and to save this devoted city from destruction. And accepted. It could not be the intention, because from what cause was this destruction to follow? it was not the language of the Constitution, to es- From the removal of the Government! Is it, tablish permanently the seat of Government, but then, indeed so? Is this, indeed true? Will the merely to give Congress power to legislate in this city perish if Congress remove? Is, then, all its particular case. It is one of the seventeen detail- sustenance derived from the political body? Has ed cases, in which the powers of Congress to legis- it no energies of its own? Has it no power to late are specially delegated. If gentlemen would preserve, none to protect its existence? If all this read it attentively, they would find it to be very be indeed true, and its friends were entitled to bedifferent from what it had been contended to be. lief, with all our liberality, it must continue to To prove this incontestably, it was, in the first drag out its present sickly, miserable existence. place, in the power of Congress to come, or not, And, therefore, the gentleman from Maryland, as they pleased. After coming, it was in their (Mr. KEY,) had at least reasoned consistently option to receive the cession, or not, as they pleas-when he assumed it as a position, that Congress ed. If they did not accept that cession, then they should never be convened in a city. Nay, he reacould not have legislated exclusively. It is allow-sons with a sort of prophetic consistency against ed, on all sides, that if they had not accepted the cession, they might have removed from this with the same Constitutional propriety with which they had removed before, from two other places. But they accepted the cession; in consequence of which they became entitled to legislate; and, because they may legislate, because they have accepted that which enabled them to legislate in all cases, they cannot, it is contended, remove. As if the acceptance of the power to do one thing dis

a removal. For, if they were to remain here, they might calculate with certainty that they would never be in a city for a century to come.

But in what, he asked, does the value of the lots here consist? Is it in the price which may be asked for them, or in that which can be obtained for them? When they saw around them all the symptoms of premature decay-so many houses already built not inhabited, but tumbling into ruin, who would be so foolish as to purchase lots? who

FEBRUARY, 1808.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

would think of building new houses on vacant lots. when those already built remain untenanted? The value which has been put upon town lots by the owners must be fictitious. If this place is to be a city, then we ought to remove, taking the argument of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. KEY.) If cities be so dreadful, we ought not to give our aid to build up another of these public nuisances. He was not, however, governed by arguments of this sort. He would go for a different reason, because he was satisfied it could never become what it ought to be. A great personage had, indeed, said, that great cities were great sores. This was an evil never to be apprehended here. At present it is neither city nor country. Let us, said he, restore it to its original purpose-cultivation. Then the land might be of some service to the United States.

H. OF R.

nation; and that, like a good mother, we must suckle them forever? Is the public faith pledged because some men, who hoped to accumulate unmeasurable wealth, have been and must be forever disappointed? Has the Constitution empowered Congress to pass a law, depriving their successors of the right possessed by the poorest peasant, the right of locomotion? No Congress had the power to do it. That the seat of Government should be permanent is not to be found in that instrument. But, it is introduced in the law of Congress. What did that prove? That as the Constitutional phraseology of this subject would not render the Government permanent here, they would by law do as much as they could to make it so. If the language of the Constitution had been strong enough, that language would have been used in the law too. Hence the appearance in the law He could not conceive that holders of property of the word "permanent." But, he contended could be injured at least to the extent which that no Congress had a right to legislate for its some seemed to fear. The population is com- successors. They could not pledge the national pletely full, and the principal business is the keep-faith in this matter, because no power to do so ing boarding-houses. To those, however, who was given in the Constitution. With whatever had productive property, houses which brought in views it was done, it was an act of usurpation. a yearly revenue, he was disposed to allow an in- They had no power to give the pledge, and no demnity. But those who were rich merely in one, of course, had power to receive it. A little city lots that could be of no value till the third or plain sense on this subject, a correct considerafourth generation, possibly, he could not consenttion of the Constitutional provision, were worth to give anything. And he would give to the others, not because he considered Congress bound to do so, but because he was, and he wished the friends of the resolution were disposed to be, charitable to those whom they should leave under such circumstances.

all the high wrought theatrical appeals which could be made to the House.

This brought him back to the gentleman from Maryland, who had expressed great alarm, lest the agricultural interest should suffer by their removing to a city! A very great proportion of But, to return. It was said that the national the House represented the agricultural interest→→→ faith had been pledged that Congress should for- and of those a great proportion were agricultural ever remain here. The gentleman from Mary men. But there was something in the fascinaland (Mr. KEY) had gone so far as to say, that it tion, the magic of a city, which was to render the was as perfectly pledged to that as it could be Representative of the farmer, himself a farmer, supposed to be for the payment of the national perhaps, insensible not only to the interests of his debt. This was too extravagant a position to be constituents, but even his own! Then, sir, that one moment indulged. To the redemption of the must happen which has never happened yet. national debt the public faith is pledged, and the The age of miracles must return. It had become obligation to discharge it is perhaps perfect with- somewhat fashionable to abuse cities. He felt out it. The nation is bound to pay for what it no peculiar inducements to resent this treatment. has actually received. But, in the case before But he would say, that if the agricultural interthem, Congress has removed to this place. They est had led us through the war of the Revolution had made it the seat of Government; speculators to glory and liberty, he should not be apprehenbad flocked around it; foreigners had pressed into sive of offending them by asserting that that Revthe busy scene-for what, sir? to enrich or even olution originated in a city, and those measures to serve the nation-for the very pure, and lauda- which had brought the nation, with unexampled ble, and disinterested purpose of accommodating rapidity, to its present prosperity, were contrived Congress? Who will believe it? Who so blind in cities, and, in no inconsiderable degree, by the as not to see a different motive? Wealth was the inhabitants of cities. Boston, though not called object. They speculated; Congress has hitherto a city, was one to all practical intents. Boston remained here; and what has become of these dis- was the cradle of the Revolution. There liberty interested, benevolent speculators? Ruined; ruin- was born. There was first displayed the spirit ed long ago. We cannot save them if we would, which led us afterwards to independence. In and what is the compassion worth which would Philadelphia the declaration of independence was provide for the safety of those already lost? made. In Philadelphia the Constitution of the Grant it, say our adversaries; but the public faith United States, which distinguishes us from all the is pledged. Do gentlemen mean to be understood nations of the globe, was formed-not, indeed, by that we must remain here in despite of all the dis- persons from the cities exclusively-but there you advantages and losses to which we may thereby find that the agricultural members did not forget expose the nation; that we are forever to consider the interests of agriculture, nor of the country. the people about this spot as the children of the I The first Congress, under the present Constitu

H. OF R.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

FEBRUARY, 1808.

They gave a different course of proceeding; and he was more disposed to trust in the wisdom of those who formed them than in that of any gentleman whatever.

tion, convened in New York. Did they there For these reasons, and others, he should vote forget, were they there ever tempted to abandon against the motion to postpone. He could not the interests of the country? In Philadelphia, permit himself to stop the measure at this time. subsequently, has the public welfare been impair- If he was even doubtful, he would vote against ed by the interference or conversation of commer- the motion. However intended, the mode of procial men there? A great deal of eloquent decla- ceeding proposed by the motion, was, to say the mation has been thrown out. But let us have least of it, extremely harsh. It was taking this facts. The inhabitants of cities, exactly like subject out of the ordinary course of legislation. those of the country, are bound by the same ties It was an attempt to fix a stigma on the measure of interest and inclination to promote the com- by slapping it in the face on its first appearance. mon welfare. Your merchants are there; with- Surely there was no necessity of provoking unout cities you would have no merchants, and pleasant feelings, while the House was engaged without merchants the produce of the farmer on a subject of this sort. And this motion was would bring him no profit. The merchant and evidently calculated rather to offend the friends of the farmer are but different parts of the same ma- the measure, than to prevent the adoption of the chinery; if one part, and it is no matter which, measure itself. The latter could be done at any is injured, the whole is stopped. To be satisfied time. But the gentleman from North Carolina that, if the merchant is injured, the farmer must | (Mr. MACON) said, that this course of proceeding suffer too, view the operation of the embargo. Its was as proper as any other. He would desire first effects were felt by the merchant, but ulti-that gentleman to read the rules of the House. mately the farmer also has been distressed by it. If the merchant cannot send out his vessels, the farmer cannot sell his produce. If, on the other hand, you oppress the farmer, so that he cannot have anything to sell, the merchant suffers with him. Why, then, did the gentleman from Maryland speak of the radical hostility between agriculture and commerce ?-those handmaids to each other-those two sisters, whose existence is so united that the one cannot live without the other. He was surprised, he lamented to hear such doctrines from any one, and particularly from that gentleman. He contended that the farmer would gather new, and what might prove to himself valuable information concerning the commerce of his country. He might acquire in a city knowledge beneficial to himself, and the diffusion of which might be advantageous to his constituents. It was in the cities, that, together with commerce, the arts and sciences were cultivated and flourished. It was in the intercourse of men, either of a commercial or literary character, that men's minds became liberal and enlarged. But, in this place, nothing could be learned but what was taught in this House; and the country members usually returned as wise or as ignorant, except upon mere State affairs, as they came.

What, then, is the result? If, as we are all willing to acknowledge out of doors, we were not here, we ought not to come, why should we stay? He thought he had shown, that neither the Constitution nor the public faith could be urged to prevent a removal. For the public good we came here. The public good cannot be answered by staying. We have continued here so long, lest we should be accused of instability. The experiment is at length made. It has failed. And, merely because we came, however our calculations have been disappointed, we must stay! Because we came, the public faith is pledged to remain! Surely such propositions needed but to be stated, to prove them ridiculous.

He was willing the removal should be delayed until those who really suffered any loss by the measure, were indemnified. He alluded to the proprietors of houses.

A gentleman from Kentucky yesterday said that he had been informed that $250,000 could be saved to the Treasury annually. This, if true, was an important fact, and its truth ought to be ascertained. This saving, of a single year, would, in that case, pay all the damages of the sufferers.

He wished also to know what accommodations could be obtained at Philadelphia, and at what expense? If they could not remove there without plunging into the same style of ruinous expense, which had prevailed here, he would not vote to go. But he had understood that suitable buildings could be obtained there, and at little or no expense. He wished this inquired into. He wished, also, to know how much this sink of the nation had swallowed up: how much more it required, and hence how much of the public treasure could be saved. If the fact should turn out as stated, he would certainly have no further difficulty. The House itself would feel the mandate of imperative duty, and could not resist it.

But, to avoid the necessity of a removal, arising from the very great inconvenience of transacting the business of the nation, an inconvenience felt and acknowledged by all, they were threatened with a proposition to concentrate the public buildings. He did not like this patching, there would be no end to it. If fifteen millions have done so little, what could they expect from thirty millions more? He had heard of the omnipotence of Parliament. An Emperor of Russia had been able to build a city in a marsh, but the omnipotence of an American Congress is not equal to the task.

In fine, he hoped the opponents of the resolu tion would so far trust themselves as to hear discussion, and particularly to hear facts. And those, they well knew, could not be obtained without the intervention of the House. He hoped, therefore, that the resolution would not be postponed indefinitely; that an opportunity would be given to collect such facts as were important to a correct decision of the question.

FEBRUARY, 1808.

Removal of the Seat of Government.

Mr. EPPES, of Virginia, conceived that the example of the gentleman from New York (Mr. GARDENIER) had shown that there was on the present motion ample room for a full discussion. Was it, said he, reserved for the year 1808 to discover that this is not the best place for the seat of Government? Until 1800 the Government was on wheels; it came here by barter.

Who, inquired Mr. E., gave a hundred guineas for a plan of the Capitol? who arranged the public buildings, and determined their respective sites? The gentleman from New York (Mr. GARDENIER) ought to have been better versed in the secrets of his party before he undertook to condemn this arrangement. It was the object of General WASHINGTON to accommodate all the proprietors of public lots, by giving to some the Capitol, to others the President's house and offices, and to others the navy yard.

Complaints are made of the distance of the public offices. But what have to do with the offices? When in Philadelphia they were, he understood, lounging places for idle members. Mr. E. had never had occasion but once to go to any of the Treasury offices, and then it was in behalf of a man who had attended Chase's trial as a witness.

H. OF R.

of Constantinople, and you will find in Philadelphia a greater destruction of human life.

What measure of the Government to assert the rights of the nation, has not been opposed by the great commercial cipes? In 1783, Congress, when at Philadelphia, were surrounded by armed troops, and the Executive of the State refused, on application made, to remove those troops. In 1797 or 1798, the rogues-march was played by McPherson's Blues at the doors of gentlemen in the minority, some of whom are now members of this House.

Boston was, indeed, the cradle of liberty, and Mr. E. regretted that the same blood did not flow in the veins of the inhabitants of that place as in the beginning of the Revolution. He concluded, with expressing a hope that the House would not agree to put the Government on wheels, and travel about the country like pedlers.

Mr. BACON, of Massachusetts, spoke half_an hour in favor of removing the Government. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. EPPES) admits that our coming here was a matter of bargain and sale. It is now sixteen years since this place was selected for the seat of Government, and the location made. So far, it has been unprofitable to the nation; it has been a constant drain on the Treathis subject, and most of them had been anticisury. He had but few observations to submit on

Mr. E. went into the Constitutional argument, and contended that a removal of the Government was prohibited by that instrument. Would Vir-pated in a much better manner by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. GARDENIER.) ginia and Maryland have consented to disfranThe gentleman from Maryland (Mr. KEY) chise, for ever, a number of their citizens, unless the seat of Government had been supposed to be agrees that there is no such thing in the Constifixed here permanently? Would those States tution as a permanent seat of Government. But, have treated their citizens as a capricious wo- contends that it necessarily follows, it must be having once established a seat of Government, he man treats her lover? This city was a favorite scheme of Federalism, and intended to perpet- the Constitutional argument, and insisted that the permanent. He here went at some length into uate the name of a favorite idol. It was accepted Constitution, neither by express provision, nor by by an act of Congress as the permanent seat of Government. From their journals, it appears establish a post road, and to fix the seat of Govimplication, precluded a removal. The right to that a motion was made to strike out the word permanent, and negatived. He defied the advo-ernment, rested on the same basis; and the one cates of the resolution to show any difference be- might be changed on the same Constitutional tween this act and that for establishing the fund-principles as the other. They were as much ing system. If one might be repealed, the other bound to continue the one as the other, and no might also with equal justice.

The gentleman from New York (Mr. GARDENIER) said something about the little value of property in this city. This language must have been in the spirit of prophecy. Look at the crowd in the gallery, and observe their anxiety. It depends on your vote whether they go out of this House rich men or poor. It is said Washington does not flourish. The reason is found in the fact that, every session, the people are pelted with some measure of removal.

It is said that everything is cheaper at Philadelphia, from a spike to a mast. In reply to this language, he stated that repairs of vessels had been made here as cheap, or cheaper, than at Philadelphia.

Much had been said on the subject of health. How long has it been discovered that Philadel phia is the Montpelier of America? Let her bills of mortality, since 1793, be compared with those

more.

If the object is to place the Government in the centre of population and wealth, as these circumstances vary, successive Legislatures must possess the right of transferring the Government. It was at first limited to Philadelphia for a number of years, and, after the expiration of that term, it was established in this place permanently; or, in other words, it was established here without limitation. All laws which are not limited in express words, or by the nature of their provisions, are as permanent as this law. They are obligatory until they are repealed. There is no charm in this word permanent. If it was the intention of Congress to fix the Government here permanently, and preclude the right of a future Legislature to make a change, the act was beyond their authority, and consequently void.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. KɛY) had said, that the Government ought not to be in a great city. That argument had been noticed with