Amendments to the Constitution, [8 June] 1789 — reading text

nfelefs lumber according to his prevailing fancy. If gentlemen will take this liep they muft take another, and i'tcure the public good by making it the intereft of the prelident to coniult it ; they mult eleft him for life, or what will be more conliftenc Hill, they muft make his office hereditary : Then gentlemen may fay with fome degree of truth, that he ought to have the power of removal, to i'ecure in his hands a balance in the government. But if gentlemen are willing to remain were they are, and abide by the conlbtution, regarding its true pruiciples, they will not contend that there is a neceiuty, or even a pro- prif^ty in veiling this power in the prelident alone. Gentlemen tell us, they are willing to confider this as a conltiiutional queftion, and yet the bill ihews that they tonlider the conifitution filent ; for the claufe grants the power in exprefs terms ; this alfo implies that the legifia- ture have a right to interfere with the executive power contraiy to their avowed principles. If the legifiature has not the power of removal, they cannot confer it upon others if they have it, it is a Icgifiative power, and they ; have no right to transfer the exercife of it to any other body ; lb view this quefi:ion in whatever point of light you pleafc^ ii is clear the words ought to be itruck out. Mr. Shereman, I wifb, nu-. chairman, that the words may be left out of the bill, without giving up the quefiion either way as to the propriety of the meaiurc. Many of the honorable gentle- men who advocate this clsufe have labored to fiiew, that the pefident has, conilitutionally, the power of removal ; if it be a well-founded opinion, they ought not to. let the words reniain in the bill, becaufe they are of fuch a nature as to imply that he had not the power before it was grant- ed him by the law. if gentlemen v\ould confent to make a general law, de- claring the proper mode of removal, I think we lliould iiouire a greater degree of unanimity^ which^ on this occa-  — A. 17S9. Of C O N G R E S S. 599 (Ion, niuft be better than carrjiiig the queftion againft a large minority. The call for the queftion being now very general, it was put, fhall the words ** to be removable by the prefident," be ftruck out ? It was determined in the negative ; being yeas 20 noes 34. Mr. Carroll propofed a claiife limiting the operation of the aft, under a hope that a time v/ould come when the United States would be difengaged from the neceflity of fupporting a fecretary of foreign affairs. He thought the policy of limiting eitablifliinents, in their nature not always neceflary, evident to every thhiking mind ; and he hoped congrefs woultl purfue the principle on this and every fimilar occation. He viewed the natural fituation of this country as fome fecurity againft our being drawn into the vortex of European politics but the prelent bill afForded ; a means of attrailion which it was prudent to guard a* gainft. Mr. Benson faw no neceflity for the claufe ; for his mind did not contemplate a time when a fecretary of foreign affairs v/ouId be an unneceflary or ufelefs officer. Mr. Madison thought limitations ought never to be made, unlefs for fpecial reafons becauCe it would be de- ; flrudive of the fakitary permanency of the laws, which was an objetl: of no inconfiderable magnitude. Mr. Ames had no doubt of the good intention of the worthy and honorable mover ; but he thought a limita- tion would be injurious. The United States is a member of the fociety conipofed of the aflemblage of all the nations of the earth and it is impofTible, as a member of ; this great fociety, but what there ever will be a natural obligation to maintain an intercourfe with them. If the gentleman difcovered that he had miftaken his principle, he flattered himfelf the motion would be withdrawn. Mr. Stone expreU'ed himfelf in favor of the motion, in order that the houfe might preferve their due Ihare of the government. If the officer became expenfive,and wasfomuch under the control of the prefident, he would never conJent to the repeal of a law which thus extended his influence. Mr. LiVERMORE thought, with the honorable gentle- man from Mai-yland (iVlr. Carroll) that the United States might look forward to a time when the officer would be nnneceflary and therefore was in favor of the propofed ; lijuitation. 6oo DEBATES A.i7g9. am in favour of fomething of this kind. Mr. Gerry. I But I do not fee that it is abfolutely neceflary we. Ihould be obiifred fo remake onr laws every three or four years. This would be givin,^ onrfelves much trouble, and caufing great expence to cur conitituents. I do not know but we may matiage better in another way. If a gentleman has it carriage and horfes, hs may fell the horfes and keep the carriage ;this will not occafion fo much expence he may ; buy horfes again when he wants them. So I would lee the bill remain, but limit the appointment of the officer to a term of years; if his continuance is found unneceH'ary, the law may remain, but his appointment be fufpended. Mr. BoUDiNOT remarked that the houle always had the officer in their power ; becaufe they could limit bisfalary, or determine it altogether, if they judged proper. Mr. Carroll ihouglit the obje^l: of his motion favour- ed by tlie public opinion. His own jentiiuents were clearly in favour of it. He did not prefitme ro lead in this buli- nefs ;but ihonld fubmit to the fate of his aniendnvent. Mr. Sedgwick was of opinion, t'nat the commerce of Arnerica would flouriih under the new government and ; as that extended, he apprehended the necefiity of main- taining this officer would encreafe ;be ihould therefore be again(l the motion. Mr. Stone. If you make this law permanent, and give permanent falaries, which is very likely to be the calc, the houfe will have no control over this department, unlela two- thirds of both houfes acquiefce in the repeal. Mr. White would move to ftrike out the claufe refpecl- ing the {'alary, ar'.d then the houfe might have the check mentioned by the gentleman from Jerley (Mr. Boudinot.) Mr, Madison faid limiting the bill would abridge a power which the committee had declared to belong to the prefident but limiting the officer, as mentioned by the ; gentleman from Malfachufetts, would do fo in a Hill greater degree. He thought the power, witli refpeft to granting falary, always lecured to the houfe its due proportion oi the powers of government. Mr. Carroll withdrew his motion, in order to give an opportunity to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. White) to propofe his for flriking out the falary claufe. Hereupon Mr. White's motion, for flriking out, \\a$ put, and agreed to. The committee then rofe—Adjcurned. A. 1789. Of CONGRESS. 601 The following fpeech was omitted by raiftake, it ought to come in, after the fifteenth line page 395. Mr. Jackson. I differ widelyfrom the gentleman from Virginia (mr. Madifon) on the-fubjeft of allegiance, and the fecial com- pact, and hold the principles advanced by him exceeding dangerous to many of the Hates, and in particular to the one 1 have the honor to reprefent. The fituation of Ame- rica at the time of the revolution, was not properly to be compared to a people alteiing their mode or form of go- vernment nor were there two allegiancies due, one to the ; community here, another to that of Britain we were all ; on a footing, and I contend the principle is right, in fome degree, of a total reverfion to a Itate of nature amongit in- dividuals, and to a mere parental or patriarchial authority, where the heads had families dependent on them the for- ; mer or individual purfued that line which appeared right in his own eyes, and the caufe which he thought jull, and in the latter cafe the children followed the will of the fa- ther, who chofe for them as the perfon who brought them into life, and whofe fortunes they were to inherit :I con- ceive the whole allegiance or compafct, to have been dif- folved. Manv of the Itates were a confiderable period without eftabliOiing conilitutions or forms of government, and during that period we were in a little better Hate than that of nature and then it was that every man made his ; eleSion for an original compatf, or tie, which by his own aG:, or that of his father for him, he became bound to fubmit to And what, fir, would otherwife be the refult, and : if the gentleman's do6hine of birth was to be fupported, thofe minors, who with Bridfli bayonets have plundered and ravaged; nay, cruelly butchered their more virtuous — neighbours The fons of the moll inveterate traitors, "whofe names defervedly founded on every bill of coafifca- tion; and the minors, fons of thofe who iheltered them- felves under the Ihade of the Britilh king, and fupported his armies, -if not with arms with the refource, of war ; un- til the hour of danger was over. Thofe I fay, after the blood of thoufands has been fpilt in the eftablirnment of our government, can now come forward, and fneer at the fool- iih patriots, who endured every hardlhip of a feven years war, to fecure for them the freedom and property they had no hand in defending. Sir, did we fight for this ? Was it for this the the foldier watched his numerous nights, and braved the inclemency of the feafons? Will he fubmit after 4G  e^02 D E 13 A T E S A. 1789 having gained his point, at the expence of property, and lofs of conftitution, to haVe thofe fentiments eflabiilhed ? If he will, he has fought to little purpofe indeed. Sir, I again contend, that when the revolution came on, we were all alike with refpe6l to allegiancies, and all un- der the fame focial tie. An Englifhman born, did not conceive himfelf more liable to be condemned for treafon than an American, had the enemy fucceeded nor would ; there have been an) dilHntiion in the laws on coming to a trial But, fir, how fliould iliis primary allegiance be known : to belong to the leifer, or American community, where the majority did not prevail. In Georgia the majority were oppofed to American meafures agreeably to the gentle- man's reafoning the minors mull have been 511 on the ; Britifli fide and yet many of them, on arriving to years of ; judgment, behaved well, and violently with us. To corro- borate this, fu\ I will remark, that for a conhderable period, we had no general or federal government, or form of confti- tution.and yet in arms. I would afk what Hate we were in then? Neighbour was againff neighbour, and brother againft brother. But, lir, the gentleman fays the hardened minor will not return Sir experience has proved the con- : trary The middle and eaflern ffates, except Pennfylvania, • Jerfey and New-York, never had the enemy long with them there were not the fam.e trial of men, and they ; knew