The penalties and forfeitures in this section are limited and restricted solely to vessels prepared, fitted, &c., "in any port or place within the jurisdictional limits of the Governmont of the United States." How easy will it be to evade the penalty of this section, by preparing or fitting vessels in a foreign port or place? And, sir, if the statement, just now made, by the honorable gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. ALSTON,) be correct, it will not be more difficult to avoid the penalties and forfeitures of the third section. That gentleman has stated that it would be very easy for a vessel, in the course of an hour or two, to land a cargo of negroes on some one of the numerous islands along the Southern coast, and be off. If so, this part of the bill must be very inefficient, indeed. It says:

"That, if any ship or vessel, laden in whole or in part, with persons, the importation or bringing of whom is, by this act, prohibited, shall, after the 31st day of December, aforesaid, be found in any river, port, or bay, or harbor, within the United States, or the territories thereof, or anywhere on the high seas, within the jurisdictional limits of the Government of the United States, such ship or vessel, together with her cargo, &c., shall be forfeited, aud the owner and master, &c., forfeit and

pay

dollars."

Now, sir, according to this section, no vessel is forfeited, nor is the owner or master liable to a penalty, unless she is actually found within the jurisdictional limits of the Government of the United States. And here a very serious question may arise, how far, on the high seas, the jurisdictional limits of our Government extend; on this subject there is a diversity of opinion. Some contend that it extends but a marine league, or three miles from the shores, as the shores run; others, three miles beyond a line drawn from headland to headland; others extend it still further-the question is not yet finally settled in this country. But, sir, would it not be easy for a vessel to unlade her cargo by the means of lighters and boats, at a place clearly beyond our jurisdictional limits? In which case, she would not be liable to a forfeiture. In addition to this, the vessel must not only be "found" within our limits, but she must be "found laden in whole or in part, with persons, the importation or bringing of whom is by this act prohibited;" otherwise the forfeiture is not incurred, nor can any penalty be exacted from the owner or master. Thus, sir, for aught that is contained in this section, a vessel may unload just within our limits, and afterwards enter our ports in safety, or she can come within our limits, and if she can unload her cargo before she is found or seized, she will escape the forfeiture. These two sections, and the second and third, contain all the penal clauses in the bill; and I would submit it to the consideration of the Committee, whether it will not be necessary to add some further clauses more highly penal, if we really intend to prohibit this infamous traffic. Perhaps we may insert some of the provisions contained in the present laws against the slave trade, between the United States and foreign countries: That the owner or master of every vessel clearing for the coast of

DECEMBER, 1806.

Africa, or suspected to be intended for the slave trade, shall give bond, that no slave shall be taken on board of his vessel, to be transported to this country; and provide, likewise, that the owner or master should forfeit and pay a certain sum for every slave he should put on board. I would go further, and say, that every person who should land a slave on our shores, should not only forfeit all his property, but should suffer the punishment of imprisonment.

For these reasons, sir, I hope the Committee will rise, and that the business will be referred to a select committee.

Mr. EARLY. In answer to the gentleman from Connecticut, I will acknowledge that there is an inconsistency in this bill. But it seems very wonderful that the gentleman has at last found it out. I offered an amendment, a short time since, in order to obviate this inconsistency; but, unless I am much mistaken, that very gentleman voted against it.

In the name of all the friends of this bill, I offer my most grateful acknowledgments to the gentleman for proving, in the most incontestable manner, the absolute necessity of that very provision in the bill which he opposes. He has shown, most undeniably, that you must forfeit the negroes, that you cannot possibly get at the vessel or the captain, to operate on them. In the name of common sense, I ask you, then, what can you find to operate on, but the negroes imported? and yet, with these truths staring them in the face, gentlemen are opposed to the measure. I wish the gentleman from Connecticut, from the immensity of the resources which he has displayed on this subject, would tell us what, beside the negroes, can be found for the law to operate upon.

I am willing that the Committee rise, but not for the purpose mentioned. The gentleman moves you to rise, and refer the bill to a select committee; and for what? To determine the principle of the bill; not to specify the detail. What can the select committee report? Unless instructions are given them, they must report the same bill, and then you will be just where you are now.

Mr. BIDWELL thought it was premature to refer the subject to a select committee.

Mr. PITKIN. I beg leave, Mr. Chairman, to explain myself. I am sorry I was so unfortunate as to be misunderstood by the honorable gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. EARLY.) He has stated that the objections which I made on the fourth section of the bill, were inconsistent with the vote I gave on the amendment to the same section, which he had proposed; and that, in case his amendment had been adopted, the difficulties which I had mentioned would have been removed. I trust, sir, I shall be able to satisfy the Committee, that no such inconsisteney can be imputed to me. What was the amendment proposed? It was, in substance, that the negroes, "if they had not been condemned before by a court having jurisdiction of the same," should be forfeited. I voted against the amendment, because I conceived it wholly unnecessary, as no one would suppose they could be condemned twice; and, also, because I was op

posed to that part of the section which was proposed to be amended. But how this amendment, if adopted, would have obviated my objections to the inconsistency of the two clauses in this section, is difficult for me to conceive. If the amend ment had been adopted, the negroes were to be forfeited, once at least, and of course to be sold; but, by the last clause, no one could either buy or sell, without being liable to a heavy penalty.

As to this section in general, I did say, what I again repeat, sir, that unless absolutely necessary, I never would consent that those unfortunate blacks should be sold at auction, by the United States, in the same manner as they would sell a bale of goods.

The gentleman from Georgia has likewise said, that I have proved, conclusively, that the section must be retained, and the negroes must be sold, because I have declared, that the other parts of the bill are insufficient to prevent the importation of slaves. I leave the Committee to judge whether this is a just inference. I have endeavored to satisfy the Committee that the second and third sections of the bill are so limited in their provisions, that the penalties may be so easily evaded, that the object intended by the law, will not be enforced.

But, sir, if I have succeeded in this, if I have proved the inefficiency of the present bill to answer the important object we have in view, that is, to prevent the importation of the people of color into the United States, does it follow, that we must retain a section, which says, that the importer shall not make slaves of them, but that the United States will make slaves of them themselves? I should suppose that the just inference would be, that we ought to insert clauses which would be more efficient, and that, for this purpose, the bill ought to be referred to a select committee.

The question being taken on the Committee's rising, it was carried-ayes 72.

PITKIN hoped they would not have leave to sit again.

Mr. SLOAN. Notwithstanding the very high respect I entertain for the gentleman who reported this bill, I think it is easier to make an entire new one, than to undertake to amend this, so that it will answer.

The question being taken on the Committee having leave to sit again, it was lost-ayes 45, noes 57.

The bill was then recommitted to a committee of seven, consisting of Messrs. EARLY, T.M. RANDOLPH, KELLY, J. CAMPBELL, KENAN, COOKE,

and VAN RENSELLAER.

Mr. SMILIE invited the attention of the House to the introduction of a new principle into the bill-a principle which, in his opinion, involved the reputation of the country. In looking over the bill, he had been struck with surprise to find no penalty attached to one of the highest crimes man could commit. He believed there was not a State in the Union that did not inflict the punishment of death on wilful murder. A captain

H. of R.

of a ship engaged in this traffic was guilty of murder.

Mr. S. said he was well aware of the propriety of proportioning punishments to crimes. In this instance, he thought, by annexing death to the perpetration of this crime, this proportion would not be violated. He did also believe that the people of the United States viewed the subject in the same light. He was certain those of the State in which he lived did. Under this impression, he would offer for the consideration of the select committee a new section, prescribing that if any person should take any negro or mulatto, without their consent, with an intent to sell them as slaves, and transport them into any place within the jurisdiction of the United States, they should be considered as guilty of felony, and on being convicted, suffer death.

The SPEAKER observed that it was not at present in order to receive this motion, unless in the shape of an instruction to the committee to whom the bill had been recommitted.

Mr. SMILIE said, as the hour was late, he would withdraw the motion for the present, and take occasion to renew it on a future day.

FRIDAY, December 19.

Another member, to wit: ABRAM TRIGG, from Virginia, appeared, and took his seat in the House. Mr. BOYD, from the Committee on the Public Lands, presented a bill to revive and continue in force, an act, entitled "An act for the relief of the refugees from the British Provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia ;" which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

Mr. EARLY, from the committee to whom was yesterday recommitted the bill to prohibit the importation or bringing of slaves into the United States, or the Territories thereof, after the thirtyfirst day of December, one thousand eight hunwith the same title; which was twice read and dred and seven, reported an amendatory bill

committed to a Committee of the Whole on

Monday next.

The House resolved itself into a Committse of the Whole on the bill to change the name of the district of Nanjemoy to that of St. Mary; and, after some time spent therein the Committee rose and had leave to sit again.

REFINED SUGAR.

Commerce and Manufactures, made a report on Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, from the Committee of the petitions of sundry inhabitants of Philadelphia and Baltimore, praying for a drawback of duties on refined sugar exported.

The report states that the subject was fully examined by the committee in the last Congress, to which report they refer for their reasons against granting the prayer of the petitions, concluding with a resolution, declaring it inexpedient to grant the prayer of the petitioners.-Referred to a Committee of the Whole on Tuesday.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD then moved the following resolution:

DECEMBER, 1806.

of the Highland Turnpike, in the State of New York, which was received and read, praying the aid of Congress to enable the said company to complete the turnpike road from Kingsbridge, on the east side of Hudson river, across the Highlands to the city of Hudson, in the said State of New York.-Referred to Mr. VAN CORTLANDT, Mr. SOUTHARD, Mr. VARNUM, Mr. TRIGG, and Mr. RHEA, of Tennessee; to examine and report their opinion thereupon to the House.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act regulating the grants appropriated for the refugees from the British provinces of Canada and Nova Scotia ;" and, after some time spent therein the Committee rcse, and had leave to sit again.

H. OF R.

has, by Messrs. Lewis and Clarke. been traced nearly to its source; the Mississippi, by Lieutenant Pike, to its source; and the Red River, by Mr. Freeman, about six hundred miles from its mouth, nearly as far as the French settlements extended.

The important surveys made by Messrs, Lewis, Clarke, and Freeman, in addition to those before made, furnish materials for commencing an accurate map of the Mississippi and its western waters; some principal rivers, however, remain still to be explored. The ridges or mountains from which the sources of these rivers spring, in a great measure form the exterior boundary of the newly acquired territory of the United States on the west side of the Mississippi. It therefore makes it the more important that the work commenced of exploring the western waters should be carried on and finally completed.

Your committee, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

MAIL CONTRACTS.

Some conversation ensued on the disposition of these papers.

Mr. ELLIOT was of opinion that, considering their nature and the mode of presentation, no notice ought to be taken of them.

Mr. ALSTON said he had seen Bruce in North Carolina, who was there using language similar to that contained in the letter. When he came to this place he had made inquiry on the subject, of the proper officer, and had learned that Bruce h previously been a contractor, and had failed in several contracts-and that it was for this reason that his proposals had not been accepted.

Mr. EARLY called for the reading of the documents, from which it would appear that one of Bruce's own sons, who had been a contractor, had robbed the mail. Mr. E. added that he knew this to be a fact, and that the man was now in jail suffering for the crime.

Mr. BIDWELL moved that the communication should be referred to the Post Office Committee. Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS opposed the motion, which was lost without a division. No further order was taken on the subject.

EXPLORATION OF WESTERN WATERS. Mr. ALSTON, from the Committee to whom was referred so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the farther exploring of the western waters, made the following report:

[NOTE. These petitions were alike, being signed only by different petitioners.]

Mr. CLINTON moved that they be printed. On dividing the House, the motion was lost.

Mr. THOMAS, of New York, called for the reading of the petitions. As the House had decided that they should not be printed, it was proper the members should hear them read. This motion was carried.

The Clerk bad read a few sentences only, when Mr. THOMAS called for order. There was so much noise and disturbance in the House, he could not hear the Clerk read. The SPEAKER having restored order, the Clerk finished the reading of the petitions.

Mr. VARNUM, of Massachusetts, rose to inquire by whom the petitions were signed, whether by the Corporation of New York, or by individuals.

The SPEAKER replied, that they were signed by individuals only.

Mr. VARNUM then moved that the petitions be printed, in order that the public might know who were the persons that had signed the petitions.

The SPEAKER observed, that a motion for printing the petitions was not in order, as the House had already decided that question. It might, however, be done, if a motion to reconsider that vote should be made and carried.

H. OF R.

Mr. DANA, of Connecticut, called for a division of the question.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD inquired, if the signers were numerous. If they were, the printing would be expensive.

The SPEAKER replied, that they were very nu

merous.

Mr. SMILIE thought, if the House agreed to printing the names, the precedent would be very inconvenient.

Mr. BIDWELL, of Massachusetts, expressed his opinion in favor of printing.

Mr. DANA objected to printing the names. The object of the memorial is of general importance; and if the facts stated are true, and the arguments solid, it makes no difference whether there are few or many petitioners.

Mr. QUINCY Concurred in sentiment with the gentleman from Connecticut. If, therefore, the original motion, included the names, he would wish not to be understood as seconding it. He would withdraw.

Mr. ELLIOT, of Vermont, hoped the names would be printed. He wished that the name of every man in the Union, who is willing to defend his country in this alarming crisis, could be printed. He wished that the yeas and nays, on the question of defence, could be taken throughout

the seventeen States.

The SPEAKER rose to state the question, when Mr. ALSTON, of North Carolina, began to speak. The SPEAKER said, he would state the question, if the gentleman from North Carolina would permit him. He understood the motion to be, that the petition, with the names of the subscribers, be printed.

Mr. ALSTON understood the question differently from the SPEAKER. He concurred in sentiment with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG,) in the impropriety of printing.

Mr. SMILIE understood the motion to be, that the petition be printed without the names, and that the amendment proposed was to print the names also.

The SPEAKER declared himself willing to be corrected, if he had mistaken the motion.

Mr. VARNUM said, he moved for the printing of the petitions generally. That motion would not comprehend the names. This was his view of the subject.

Mr. QUINCY understood his colleague otherwise. He (Mr. VARNUM) had certainly said that he wished the petition printed, in order that the public might know who had signed them.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS inquired if the motion to print the names was withdrawn. If it was, he

DECEMBER, 1806.

would renew it. He wished all the information on the subject he could obtain, and for that reason, he wished the names of the petitioners published. The printing of the petition could furnish no new information, for it had been already printed all over the continent before it was presented to Congress. This Mr. W. thought very unfair and indecorous, in the petitioners. He concluded, by moving that the motion be amended so as to comprehend the printing of the names.

Mr. VARNUM agreed that his colleague (Mr. QUINCY) had correctly stated his observations. He had, indeed, expressed a wish that it might be known who were the petitioners.

Mr. DANA was opposed to printing the names, but was solicitous that the petition might be printed. It would be convenient for the members to have it on their desks to refer to. Mr. D. conceived that the petitioners did not deserve the imputation of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS.) The petitions had been distributed in all the wards of New York for signers, and the publication of them could not be prevented.

The question being taken on the amendment offered by Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, to print the names of the petitioners, it was lost-ayes 11. The question was then taken on the motion to print the petitions, which was also lost-ayes 46, noes 60.

MANHATTAN COMPANY.

Mr. CLINTON presented a petition from the President and Directors of the Manhattan Company in New York. The petition states that the law which directs that custom-house bonds shall be exclusively deposited in the United States Bank, affects their interests very injuriously; that the monthly deposits at New York amount, on an average, to $250,000. That the merchants dealing at the Manhattan bank, make in Manhattan notes large payments on account of custom-house bonds into the United States Bank, which, by means of their notes, draws largely on the Mhattan bank for specie; that, by these and similar means, the United States Bank regulate the discount, and contract the business of all the other banking institutions in the city. That the reasons which once existed for giving the United States Bank a preference, have since ceased, by the sale of the public stock. But the stockholders in the United States Bank are now almost entirely foreigners, which circumstance is favorable to the erection of foreign influence in this country, and ought to excite alarm.

Mr. C. said that as the subject related to the revenue, he moved the reference of the petition to the Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD thought that the subject had no connexion with the revenue. In his opinion, however, the petitioners stated very strong reasons in support of their petition. They also seem to intimate a wish that they should be allowed a share in the deposits, which Mr. C. thought no more than reasonable. He concluded, by moving a reference of the petition to a select committee.