WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6th.

No Congress.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH.

On the reconsideration of the resolution for exchanging the two foreign officers, its repeal was unanimously agreed to.

In

A motion was made by Mr. OSGOOD, to assign an early day for filling up the vacancy in the Court of Appeals. It was opposed on the principle of economy, and the expedient suggested by Mr. DUANE of empowering a single judge to make a court until the public finances would better bear the expense. favor of the motion it was argued: first, that the proceedings of the court were too important to be confided to a single judge; secondly, that the decisions of a single judge would be less satisfactory in cases where a local connexion of the judge subsisted with either of the parties; thirdly, that a single judge would be more apt, by erroneous decisions, to embroil the United States in disputes with foreign powers; fourthly, that if there were more than one judge, and one formed a court, there might, at the same time, be two interfering jurisdictions, and that, if any remedy could be applied to this difficulty, the course of decisions would inevitably be less uniform, and the provision of the Confederation for a court of universal appellant jurisdiction so far contravened; fifthly, as there was little reason to expect

that the public finances would, during the war, be more equal to the public burdens than at present, and as the cases within the cognizance of the court would cease with the war, the qualification annexed to the expedient ought to have no effect. The motion was disagreed to, and a committee which had been appointed to prepare a new ordinance for constituting the Court of Appeals was filled up, and instructed to make report. On the above motion, an opinion was maintained by Mr. RUTLEDGE, that, as the court was, according to the ordinance in force, to consist of three judges, any two of whom to make a court, unless three were in actual appointment the decisions of two were illegal.

Congress went into the consideration of the report of the committee on the case of Captain Asgill, the British officer allotted to suffer retaliation for the murder of Captain Huddy. The report proposed:

"That, considering the letter of the twenty-ninth of July last, from the Count de Vergennes to General Washington, interceding for Captain Asgill, the Commander-in-chief be directed to set him at liberty."

Previous to the receipt of this letter from the Count de Vergennes, Congress had been much divided as to the propriety of executing the retaliation, after the professions on the part of the British commanders of a desire to carry on the war on humane principles, and the promises of Sir Guy Carleton to pursue as effectually as possible the real authors of the murder; some supposing that these circumstances had so far changed the ground that Congress ought to recede from their denunciations; others supposing, that as the condition of the menace had not been 25

VOL. I.

complied with, and the promises were manifestly evasive, a perseverance on the part of Congress was essential to their honor; and that, moreover, it would probably compel the enemy to give up the notorious author of the confessed murder. After the receipt of the letter from the Count de Vergennes, Congress were unanimous for a relaxation. Two questions, however, arose on the report of the committee. The first was, on what considerations the discharge of Captain Asgill ought to be grounded. On this question a diversity of opinions existed. Some concurred with the committee in resting the measure entirely on the intercession of the French court; alleging that this was the only plea that could apologize to the world for such a departure from the solemn declaration made both by Congress and the Commanderin-chief. Others were of opinion, that this plea, if publicly recited, would mark an obsequiousness to the French court, and an impeachment of the humanity of Congress, which greatly outweighed the circumstance urged in its favor; and that the disavowal of the outrage by the British General, and a solemn promise to pursue the guilty authors of it, afforded the most honorable ground on which Congress might make their retreat. Others, again, contended for an enumeration of all the reasons which led to the measure. Lastly, others were against a recital of any reason, and for leaving the justification of the measure to such reasons as would occur of themselves. This last opinion, after considerable discussions, prevailed, and the resolution left as it stands on the journal. The second question was, whether this release of Captain Asgill should be followed by a demand

on General Carleton to fulfil his engagement to pursue with all possible effect the authors of the murder.

On one side it was urged, that such a demand would be nugatory, after the only sanction which could enforce it had been relinquished; that it would not be consistent with the letter of the Count de Vergennes, which solicited complete oblivion; and that it would manifest to the public a degree of confidence in British faith which was not felt and ought not to be affected.

On the opposite side it was said, that, after the confession and promise of justice by General Carleton, the least that could be done by General Washington would be to claim a fulfilment; that the intercession of the Count de Vergennes extended no further than to prevent the execution of Captain Asgill, and the substitution of any other innocent victim, and by no means was meant to shelter the guilty; that whatever blame might fall on Congress for seeming to confide in the promises of the enemy, they would be more blamed if they not only dismissed the purpose of retaliating on the innocent, but at the same time omitted to challenge a promised vengeance on the guilty; that if the challenge was not followed by a compliance on the part of the enemy, it would at least promulge and perpetuate, in justification of the past measures of Congress, the confessions and promises of the enemy on which the challenge was grounded; and would give weight to the charges, both of barbarity and perfidy, which had been so often brought against them,

In the vote on this question, six States were in favor of the demand, and the others either divided or against it.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 8TH.

The preceding question having been taken again, on a further discussion of the subject, there were in favor of the demand, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and of the other States some were divided.

A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, of South Carolina, "That the Commander-in-chief and of the Southern department be respectively directed, whenever the enemy shall commit any act of cruelty or violence, contrary to the laws and usage of war, on the citizens of these States, to demand adequate satisfaction for the same; and in case such satisfaction shall not be immediately given, but refused or evaded under any pretext whatsoever, to cause suitable retaliation to be forthwith made on British officers, without waiting for directions from Congress on the subject."

When this motion was first made it was espoused by many; with great warmth, in particular, by the delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina, as necessary to prevent the delays and uncertainties incident to a resort by the military commanders to Congress, and to convince the enemy that, notwithstanding the dismission of Captain Asgill, the general purpose of retaliation was firmly retained.