Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

DEBATES

IN THE

CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION,

FROM NOVEMBER 14TH, 1782, TO FEBRUARY 13TH, 1783.

IN CONGRESS, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4TH, 1782.

ELIAS BOUDINOT was chosen President, by the votes of New Hampshire, represented by John Taylor Gilman and Phillips White-Rhode Island, by Jonathan Arnold and David Howell-Connecticut, by Benjamin Huntington and Eliphalet Dyer-New Jersey, by Elias Boudinot and John WitherspoonPennsylvania, by Thomas Smith. George Clymer, and Henry Wynkoop-Delaware, by Thomas McKean and Samuel Wharton-Maryland, by John Hanson, Daniel Carroll, and William Hemsley. The votes of Virginia, represented by James Madison and Theodorick Bland, and of South Carolina, represented by John Rutledge, Ralph Izard, David Ramsay, and John Lewis Gervais, were given to Mr. Bland. The vote of New York, represented by James Duane and Ezra L'Hommedieu, to Abner Nash. The vote of North Carolina, by Abner Nash, Hugh Williamson, and William Blount, to John Rutledge. Massachusetts, having no Delegate but Samuel Osgood, had no vote. Georgia had no Delegate.

A letter, dated October the thirtieth, seventeen hundred and eighty-two, from General Washington, was read, informing Congress of his putting the army into winter quarters, and of the sailing of fourteen ships of the line from New York, supposed to be for the West Indies, and without troops.

A letter, dated July the eighth, from Mr. Carmichael, at St. Ildefonso, informing Congress of the good effect in Europe of the rejection of the proposal of Carleton, by Congress and the States; that the King of Spain, speaking of the news at table, praised greatly the probity of the Americans, raising his voice in such a manner that all the foreign Ministers might hear him. Mr. Carmichael adds, that he had discovered that the Imperial and Russian Ministers, by directions from their Courts, had renewed their offered mediation to His Most Catholic Majesty, and that he suspected England was at the bottom of it. Quere.

A letter, dated Nants, September the fifth, from Mr. Laurens, notifying his intention to return to America; that being so advised by his friends, he had applied to the Court of London for a passport via Falmouth; that Cornwallis had interested himself therein, and that the passport had been promised.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5TH.

A resolution passed, authorizing General Washington to obtain the exchange of two foreign officers, notwithstanding the resolution of the sixteenth of October, declaring that Congress will go into no

partial exchanges until a general cartel be settled on national principles. This measure passed without due consideration, by the votes of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina. On the motion of Mr. OSGOOD, it was reconsidered, in order to refer the case to the Secretary of War and General Washington, to take order. By Mr. MADISON opposition was made against any partial exchange in the face of the solemn declaration passed on the sixteenth of October, as highly dishonorable to Congress, especially as that declaration was made in order to compel the enemy to a national convention with the United States. All exchanges had been previously made on the part of the former by the military authority of their generals. After the letter of General Carleton and Admiral Digby, notifying the purpose of the British King to acknowledge our independence, it was thought expedient by Congress to assume a higher tone. It was sup

posed also, at the time of changing this mode, that it would be a test of the enemy's sincerity with regard to independence. As the trial had been made, and the British Commander, either from a want of power or of will, had declined treating of a cartel on national ground, it would be peculiarly preposterous and pusillanimous in Congress to return to the former mode. An adjournment suspended the vote on the question for referring the case to the Secretary and General to take order.

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.

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. In 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 connection 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 burthens 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

« ZurückWeiter »