DECEMBER, 1799.

Census of the United States.

H. OF R.

tant of Delaware resided for a time in Pennsyl-solidate them into one regular return, how would vania, his return might have been made in Del- they be understood, or who know the result? Difaware, and again in Pennsylvania, because it was ferent would be the forms of returns; some would in the hands of two different Marshals, whereas be more, and some less intelligible; they must all if left with the Secretary of State, this evil would be sent to the Secretary of State; that officer must, be avoided. without a law or instructions, reduce them into a form at a great expense; whereas it ought to be provided in the law that they may be more readily reduced to form, and this was done by the discreition given to that officer. Farther, the assistants to the Marshal, many of them young men, and inexperienced, would have to ascertain facts about which they had no instructions, as, what is the name of the head of the family? how many reside in this house? &c.

Nor was this a new principle, as contended by some gentlemen. He instanced the act for the relief of American seamen, respecting whom the collectors at the different ports had to transmit a report once in three months, for which the Secretary gives instructions how to make out the abstract. It was similar in the Treasury Department, and in all cases where it was necessary to make a general provision, it was the practice of the Head of the Department to give directions.

Mr. LEE could not but suspect there was more than "mere matter of form" intended by the introduction of this new principle in the broad words in which it was comprised, "under the direction of the Secretary of State"-broader words could not be found in the English language. The Secretary of State being placed paramount to the Marshal, the Marshal acting conscientiously would disobey the Secretary of State rather than his conscience; what would then be his mode of acting under this imperious mandate? Mr. L. said he looked with a jealous eye upon every law coming from the Legislature, lest it should be improperly used by Executive authority. This was a Constitutional duty. The wisdom and genius of our Government, as well as the feelings of our people, alike made it necessary to keep the Executive and the Legislative power separate, for on this our safety depended; but here was the Executive power brought in to aid the Legislative. We doubt, It was suggested by the gentleman from Virsaid he ; are we not to realize these doubts by sup-ginia, (Mr. LEE) that there was danger in taking posing they may take place in this extensive community? Thus situated, the people will charge us with what we all disclaim-that we mean to give a power to the Executive authority over our laws. If we desire to escape this suspicion, we should make our laws in themselves explicit, and not give any discretionary power as to their execution elsewhere.

Mr. DANA said, that the discussion which this subject had undergone had decided him in the opinion that the words ought not to be stricken out. The whole execution of the laws was entrusted to Executive officers, and they were to execute those laws uniformly throughout the United States. The construction was wrong to suppose that this influence was improper, because the President or Secretary of State should think this or that a proper way of executing it; and the argument was weak that a particular local attachment would be used. It was no more improper that the Secretary of State should have his particular bias, even if he should make use of it, than that a Marshal should have his particular bias. This, in his view, instead of operating against the measure, was a decisive argument in its favor, in order that the bias of a number should not be left to act so variously as they naturally would, but upon uniform princíples. It would not have done to have left that power in the hands of that officer if he was not to be restricted to the meaning of the act, but with this restriction it was necessary.

the instructions of the Secretary and of the Marshals. If the conscientious Marshal should still go on and conform to the law, all the facts must appear in the Department of State, and would be submitted to the Legislature for inspection, and it would be in the power of the House to say whether the Marshal or the Secretary of State was wrong: whether or not he had conformed to the law. Therefore, in the event, it would be in his power to do his duty notwithstanding the contrary instructions he might receive, and the House would decide the matter with strict justice.

Mr. JONES thought, as had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia, that these words conveyed too much power to the Department of State. besides it was not the province of any Executive officer to construe the laws. Laws, after they passed, were generally referred to the Judiciary department of the Government for construction; once out of the hands of the Legislature and they were no longer in their power; but this high and solemn power ought not to be entrusted to the Secretary of State, because it was not a part of his business, and might materially involve the interests of the community. Under this extensive clause the Secretary of State might establish a rule which may operate very severely upon some parts of the United States, and his regulations and instructions were made absolutely final. The gentleman last up thought that the House could determine upon the conduct of the Secretary of State, but had they Mr. Oris said his great desire to have this law not the same power over the Marshal's return? carried into beneficial execution induced him to be The Marshals, if the words were stricken out, would averse to striking out the words, for unless they exercise their own judgments, and when the reremained, in vain might the Legislature expect turns were made to the House, they could deterany accurate census to be made at any future pe-mine whether they would militate against the inriod. If the particular form of a schedule was to be made by the different Marshals and there were no provisions to be made by law, by which to con

terest of any particular parts of the United States or not, and it would be with that House to say how far these returns should operate on the apportion

ment of representation. He hoped it was not the disposition of the Legislature of this country to throw this increase of power into the hands of any department, however much that department might merit and obtain confidence.

DECEMBER, 1799.

to him to be an unfounded jealousy harbored by gentlemen, which must be removed by a due attention to the law, and the necessary circumstances of it. The direction was entrusted, where difficulty should occur, to the Secretary of State. Did not all the gentlemen know, that when difficulties occurred to the inferior officers, employed in the execution of all laws, they must be removed by the Heads of the Department to which they were attached? Thus in the direct tax, the Secretary of the Treasury prescribed the mode of its operation

That this law must be under the direction of some one department of the Government, in order to obtain a uniform operation, he admitted was necessary: this might be done by a clause in the law authorizing the Secretary of State, or some other officer of Government, to forward to the Marshals and Secretaries, exemplified copies of the act-but when that power was given, it was not even and schedule; this would make the operation uniform. To effect this the words might be struck out, and the whole of the 11th section, and the direction, incorporated into the act. It appeared to be the general sense of the House that the instructions should be uniform; this was the most that gentlemen on the other side contended for; he therefore supposed they would agree to some such mode as that.

suggested, nor was it ever experienced, that he exercised anycontrol over the law itself; he only directed the form and manner of filling the schedule. and this power was delegated that the return might be accurate and uniform, and this unformity was indispensable.

Gentlemen coming into the House in this stage of the debate would conceive, from the opposition made to these words, that the House Mr. EDMOND thought the words ought not to were about to invest the Secretary of State with be struck out, for, unless they were retained, there full control over the law. Although the motion certainly would not be an uniform return. Where was so strongly enforced, yet no gentlemen had the execution of a law was entrusted to a great pretended to say that the Secretary possessed any variety of hands, there must necessarily be a differ-controlling power over the law, but they were jealence in their returns, unless by the intervention of ous of a power which could not be executed; yet some general instruction they were made uniform. those gentlemen allowed that the instructions Gentlemen appeared to be jealous of the power must come from somewhere. It appeared to him, they were delegating, but surely it was a necessary Mr. R. said, that the whole alarm was by shadow, power. They seemed to forget that there were and upon a complete investigation it would appear other officers to be employed in this business be- that the substance did not, nor ever would, exist. sides the Marshals; assistants were to be appointed He said he had attended minutely to the argument, by sixteen different tribunals; in some States the wishing to be convinced of the impropriety of the number of assistants would be more, in some less. words moved to be stricken out, if there existed As the Marshals could not dictate to the "consci- any, but he was not convinced of any, nor could ences" of their assistants, (for they must give them he conceive how anything else could be substituinstructions,) would they not be subjected to as ted to answer the purpose contended for. These much difficulty as was supposed might exist be- difficulties would never be dispelled nor the law tween the Secretary of State and the Marshals? If put into execution if the Marshals were to come the Marshals were left to instruct their assistants, to the House and ask information. The only efeach might give different directions, and the con- fectual way, in his opinion, to get the law execusequence would be that sixteen different modes ted was by entrusting the instructions with the would be brought to the House. proper department-the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State, as it now stands, undertakes to prescribe to the Marshal a certain mode for the execution of the law; if the Marshal should conceive that prescription required more than the law pointed out, he would not execute it thereby, but by the law. On the other hand, if the prescription does not point out as much as the law, he will certainly still act as the law directs; neither result would lessen the information he might think it necessary to obtain. If the provision remained, perhaps twelve out of sixteen might think the mode established by the Secretary right, and so far there would be uniformity. This would be the most likely way, he thought, to produce it; and sure he was that nothing would control the conscience of the Marshal, for, after all the instructions, he must be governed by his oath.

Mr. RUTLEDGE believed that, if in every stage of proceeding in this very difficult business, the mode of executing the law was not prescribed, the law could not be carried into effect during the ten years the Constitution had pointed out. There appeared

Mr. MACON could not conceive how the effect supposed by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) could be produced for a want of this provision, to wit, the non-execution of the law in the ten years. It could not have that effect, nor was the suspicion warranted by experience. The former law had none of these words, but was well executed, and the case which occurred in South Carolina was not from that cause. It appeared to him that the House were giving up the benefit of experience, merely for the sake of novelty. The return and apportionment were made under the former law without difficulty, or complaint of irregularity in the proceeding.

The case stated by the gentleman from Virginia was possible, and if an injury could possibly occur therefrom it must be felt by every part of the Union, which ought not to be hazarded by any new introductions, the beneficial effects of which could not be known It may be useful, or it may not. To put it on its best footing, therefore, as there was a possibility of inconvenience from the different

Respect to the Memory of Washington.

ters of legislation; as therefore no difficulty was formerly found, none could exist under the operation of the same law at present. He objected to the principle, farther, because it furnished a latitude of construction to the Secretary of State which might defeat the salutary effects of the law. It also went to establish a precedent for increasing authority, which the history of mankind forbade, in the numerous evils attendant thereon. New power was generally injurious, and, unless from peremptory necessity, ought never be delegated. In his opinion it was as important a question as could come before the Legislature, because the object of this law was to affect the very sinews of the Republic by affixing its representation, which if wounded would be felt in our dearest interests. From this important view, and to introduce what was declared to be the wish of many, and yet suffer the avowed object of others to remain, in the bill, he thought a short time would be well spent in its reconsideration.

Mr. GRISWOLD thought, from the explanation yesterday given to the bill, and the opportunity gentlemen then had to amend it, there could be no necessity for its reconsideration.

Mr. DANA declared himself perfectly satisfied with the safety of the bill from any undue interposition. Yet, in order to give gentlemen every opportunity of a full and fair discussion, he should

DECEMBER, 1799.

Census of the United States.

H. OF R.

from which it was just to infer none would be; ity would obtain their wish, because it appeared and as the bill then passed to engrossing without to be determined already, but he hoped the princieven a motion to the contrary, he hoped no recon-ple would be again opened for discussion. sideration would be allowed. Gentlemen appeared surprised that suspicion Mr. JONES observed, that in the former debate, should be felt by any member; for himself, he degentlemen seemed astonished at the alarm enter-clared without shame, that he had suspicion, and tained by the members who were in the minority. he believed it well grounded; but it originated in As to himself, he said, he was not alarmed on the conduct of gentlemen on the other side of the account of this bill alone, for he did not suppose question, as much as from the words themselves. the Secretary would disgrace his character by tak- How far the instructions or regulations of the Secing any injurious steps, even if he had the power; retary of State to the Marshals would extend, could but he was alarmed to see any power vested in any not be ascertained without the introduction of some department that was unusual; not on account of boundary. Although it had been said that it was this particular power vested in this particular only the introduction of a matter of form and not Secretary of State. But, could he have been easy of substance, yet the Secretary could go a great at the present moment as to this innovation, he way by the power which the bill committed to him. asked whether gentlemen did not now justify an In his opinion it placed the Marshal, between his alarm, when they merely wished the introduction oath and the instructions of the Secretary, in the of the principle on account of form and not of sub- exact situation mentioned yesterday by the gentlestance? If only matter of form, what in the name man from Virginia (Mr. LEE.) As this might hapof God could be their objections to say so in the pen, and as considerable injuries might occur if law? Let the bill be recommitted and the alter- the power was improperly used, he hoped the secation be made, and no alarm would exist for a tion would be recommitted for the necessary moment. But, when this reluctance was so ap- amendment. parent, to say there was not just cause for alarm was an absurdity. If the words were not intended to have an injurious operation, on which the alarm was built, gentlemen would admit the amendment into the bill to express what they themselves avowed to be their only object. But if they persisted in opposing this explanatory provision, at least the minority were justified in being alarmed. If, therefore, the Secretary was to have no power over the law, then of course his authority would be designated and confined as to the form and tenor of the instructions.

Mr. DANA said, agreeably to his declaration before, he had determined to vote for the reconsideration of the section, until he heard the observations of the gentleman last up; that gentleman having taken up the subject upon such general principles-extending his observations to the great question of Executive power-as to make him desist from that determination. What had Executive power to execute under this act? May not the discretion be as well and properly entrusted to the Secretary of State as to other Executive officers-the Marshals? This question has no kind of relation to any Constitutional principle; but, the discussion having gone upon that ground, Mr. D. said, if he agreed to a reconsideration, it would comprehend him as voting with others in favor of the great alarm, and declaring himself not to know the difference between Executive and Legislative authority, and, therefore, upon the ground which the gentleman had meant to vote for, he was now decidedly against it.

Mr. MARSHALL was persuaded that there was no member in the House who wished to commit to the Executive officers any power which they did not possess by the Constitution. So far as his own convictions and opinion went, the fears of gentlemen on that head were perfectly void of foundation. But, though he thought so, he should vote for the recommitment, out of that respect which he thought was due to every gentleman. A member supposing the 8th section might be reconsidered, supposing that some amendment might be brought forward, and supposing that his own opinions might be heard, and have their weight with the House, had voted in a manner different from his wish: should not that member be indulged with a reconsideration?

From this consideration, Mr. M. said he felt himself extremely inclined to vote for a reconsideration; and, feeling so, he should not think himself justifiable in being prevented that duty from any observations which should have fallen from another gentleman. Supposing another gentleman did wrong in extending his ideas beyond the precise limits of the question, should that operate as a reason to vote against that motion? In this he differed from his friend from Connecticut (Mr. DANA.) He did not place it upon that ground, and, therefore, should not be deterred from his duty by that consideration.

Mr. NOTT, after expressing his design to rise only where his duty called him, on account of the number of gentlemen of superior talents which he beheld around him, observed that his desire of reMr. SMILIE was surprised at the attempt of gen- consideration was not on account of any alarm tlemen to insert an entirely new principle into this which he felt, because he did not conceive the law, and that surprise arose from the consideration section gave that extraordinary power to the Exthat the law had operated as well as gentlemen ecutive which was apprehended by some gentlecould wish; but, notwithstanding no fault could men; but as it was considered that the power be found which might reasonably be expected to given might extend further than was contemplated be mentioned as the ground of its introduction, a by the friends of the bill, in the differences which principle that never before had existence was in- might exist between the Marshals and the Secreserted! He had no hopes that the former minor-tary of State, so as to prevent the execution of the

6th CON.-8