The Enquirer

Mr. Love reported a bill to amend an act entitled "An act for the establishment of a turnpike company in the county of Alexandria, in the district of Columbia." Twice read and referred.

The resolution offered by Mr. Dana, calling for information respecting former detachments of militia was adopted.

The engrossed bills for the relief of John N. Stout; to authorize the removal of slaves from one part of the district of Columbia to another; and for the relief of Harry Caldwell, Amasa Jackson, Jeremiah Reynolds and Levin Jones, were read a third time and PASSED.

The House refused to agree to a motion of Mr. Rhea (T.) to take up the subject of the rules and orders (previous question) 50 to 49.

AMERICAN NAVIGATION ACT.

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of the whole on the bill concerning commercial intercourse with Great Britain and France, and for other purposes.

The amendments reported by the committee of the whole under consideration.

A motion was made by Mr. Livermore to strike out several sections of the bill.

The Speaker decided that such a motion could not be made, until the amendments reported by the committee of the whole were decided on.

Mr. Livermore appealed from this decision—which was reversed by the House, 61 to 48.

Mr. Livermore then moved to strike out the fifth section.

Mr. Haven supported the motion; which was negatived by Yeas and Nays, 72 to 50:

Several amendments made to the bill in committee of the whole were agreed to.

Mr. Macon moved to strike out of the clause limiting the duration of the bill till the end of the next session of Congress the word 'next' and insert the word 'present,' so as to limit the bill to the end of the present session.

Mr. Pinkney expressed his astonishment at such a motion. Could any object be answered by excluding foreign ships, and so forth, for two or three months? Were gentlemen afraid that the British Parliament should hear of the bill and countervail its provisions by that time? If that was the object, he wished it to be stated.

Mr. Rhea (T.) moved to strike out the whole of the clause of limitation. He could not see what reason there could be for limiting the existence of the law even to the next session of Congress. He required the Yeas and Nays on his motion.

Mr. Livermore regretted exceedingly that any opposition should be made to the motion of the gentleman from North Carolina, for certainly the sooner there was an end to the bill the better.

Mr. Macon said that the bill had grown out of the present situation of the United States, and was only intended to meet that situation: It never was intended to make this a permanent regulation; for after the present state of things was done away, there would be no necessity for the bill. He could see no good to be answered by striking out the limitation, because no one had an idea of its remaining in force after our disputes with the belligerents were settled. Before the end of this session, which probably would be a pretty long one, Congress would have had experience of the bill. If it was found to be injurious, it might be suffered to expire; if beneficial, it might be re-enacted. Before the end of the session, also, we should hear from England and France, and it would be known what course they would take. If we were to have war, the bill would be useless.

Mr. Sheffey observed, that striking out this clause would not continue the law after the belligerents should have revoked their edicts against our neutral rights; for there was an express provision in the bill, that whenever they were so revoked, the President should rescind the law, as to the power relaxing its decrees. It was a bill to be in force until the relations with the belligerents were changed either by actual war, by a revocation of their edicts, or by new legislation. There could then be no reason for its limitation. Was it the object of gentlemen, he asked, that this bill should expire before one of these changes took place?—If gentlemen were not satisfied that the bill was proper to be continued in force, 'till a change in our relations, this acting experimentally was improper. Now, Mr. S. said, either England and France would continue their decrees, or they would not. If they did continue them, this bill would operate. Would gentlemen give them a right freely to enter our waters, as long as they continued their edicts? He presumed not. Either England would countervail the provisions of the bill, or she would not. If she did, it would become a new subject of legislation. The course hereafter to be pursued by us would depend on her own conduct. By limiting the bill as proposed, they would throw out to the world the idea, that they were afraid of the experiment, and therefore had limited its duration. It would show, that the whole bill was a mere experiment: and therefore, Mr. S. said, he should vote for striking out the clause altogether.

Mr. Quincy said, that the observations made by the gentleman from Virginia, offered the bill in a new shape. He did not recollect that any gentleman had before advocated this bill, as a mode of coercing G. Britain and France, or that any gentleman had suggested even that it would be an inducement to the belligerents to repeal their edicts.

Mr. Sheffey said, that the gentleman had certainly mistaken him. He had not supported the bill as a measure of coercion, but had bottomed his support of it on this: The United States had received at the hands of the belligerents, nothing but illiberality and injustice. Should we then share our commerce with them? He had not supported it as a measure of coercion, but as a measure of expediency and justice to our own citizens.

Mr. Quincy said, he should know better how to vote on the bill, if gentlemen would explain what they meant by the provisions of it. Mr. Quincy went on at some length, to show that the bill could no operate as a measure of coercion, nor even as an inducement to the belligerents to rescind their decrees, perhaps tending to the mercantile interests of the U. States.
Mr. Randolph (T.) spoke in reply.

Mr. Gardenier spoke at some length in explanation of the reasons why he should vote for the bill. Before he concluded his remarks, the House adjourned.

[This debate on the principle of the bill will be given hereafter.]

Friday, January 19.

SEA LETTERS.

Mr. Newton reported a bill "to prevent the issuing of sea letters, except to certain vessels."

[The following is the bill:

Be it enacted, &c. that in future no sea letter or other document, certifying or proving any ship or vessel to be the property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, shall be issued, except to vessels entitled to be registered. Any law or laws heretofore passed to the contrary notwithstanding.]

The bill was twice read and referred to a committee of the whole.

Mr. Low reported a bill to authorize a jail to be built in the county of Alexandria in the district of Columbia. Twice read and referred to a committee of the whole 55 to 30.

Mr. Van Horn presented a petition praying a modification of the laws respecting the District of Columbia, which relate to judicial proceedings and to insolvent debtors, &c.—Referred to the Committee of the District of Columbia.

CONVOY AND ARMING.

Mr. Burwell rose to submit to the consideration of the House the propositions of which he had given notice a few days ago. He should not now enter into a discussion of them, but wished them to lie on the table and be printed. He said he should, if he had an opportunity, make a motion to recommit the bill now before the House respecting commercial intercourse, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it was the disposition of the House to incorporate these propositions in that bill or to make them the subject of a distinct proposition.

Mr. B. said it had always appeared to him since the abandonment of the embargo, that further commercial restrictions would be unavailing. He had hoped the reasonable course of the government would have ensured a respect to our rights; but he now found the relations between the two countries to be yet unchanged.

He said he had declared some days since, that he was decidedly against war, if it was possible to avoid it, and he was of the same opinion still. He would not, if it could be avoided, engage in a contest with either or both of the belligerents, or connect the nation with either of them. At the same time, however, he was equally confirmed in the opinion that the time had arrived, when it became the duty of the United States to maintain by force, if necessary, their right to carry on commerce to every country which will receive it on fair and honorable terms. The object of the resolution he was about to submit was to obtain a decision of the House, whether they would employ our naval force to convoy our trade to those nations not having in force decrees against our commerce, and whether they would permit associations among our merchants for the purpose of arming and defending themselves in their trade to any foreign nation. At the same time Mr. B. said it was proper to declare it as his opinion, taking a view of the uncertain situation of affairs, and having reference to the late negotiation and the possible course which may be pursued by the British government in relation to this country, that it was a duty which they owed to themselves and to the nation to place the country in the best state of defence. With that view he said he would co-operate in any system which might be digested for preparing for war. - He again declared that it was not his object to promote a war system. His object was merely defensive, as it contemplated nothing more than to defend those rights of the United States which were not questioned in this House or elsewhere by any American, whatever his political opinions. Whenever the nation was called upon to take this course, he hoped it would be able to defend its rights. In presenting this proposition to the House, he had merely offered his view; which it would be presumption in him to say was entirely correct; but it was the result of his mature consideration. Mr. B then read the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President of the U. S. be required immediately to employ the public armed vessels for the purpose of convoying and protecting the ships and vessels, the property of citizens of the United States, laden with goods of their growth, produce or manufacture, and not contraband of war, in their trade to and from ports open for their reception by the regulations of the government under whose jurisdiction they are situated, and not being actually blockaded or invested by a competent force: Provided such government shall not have in force orders or decrees against neutral commerce; and that the owners and crews of merchant vessels owned, laden or destined as aforesaid, be permitted to associate and arm for their defence against illegal capture and molestation, under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law."

Mr B. said there were two other views of this subject, which he had not touched upon. It would be hereafter for the House to decide whether it would be proper to permit the public vessels of the U. States to recaption vessels taken under the orders and decrees; and whether it would be proper to authorize the merchants to associate and arm, and to permit them to capture any vessel by which they may be attacked.

Mr Dana suggested the propriety of the variation of a word in the resolution, which was more peremptorily than the style generally used when speaking of the President of the U. States. Heads of Departments were required, but the President was generally requested or authorized to do any act. As to the general subject of the resolution, Mr. D. said he was glad that it was brought forward; that a specific proposition was presented which the House could readily understand, and which seemed to be approaching somewhat to serious business.

Mr Burwell said he had no objection to the modification suggested, but he thought the expression 'request' was confined to calling upon the President for information, a case in which it was at his option to comply or not.

The resolution was ordered to lie on the table and to be printed.

Mr. Johnson after some remarks on the present desultory mode of doing business, laid on the table for consideration the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the following be added to the said rules & order of the House:

That Friday in each week, be set apart for the consideration on reports and bills originating from petitions."