which the offence is committed; but if the offence be not committed in a particular district, Congress may fix the place where the trial shall be had. Mr. B. said it appeared to him that the true spirit of the Constitution was pursued by this law, which provides that a man may be tried in either district where any part of the offence is committed; and that when so tried there shall be a bar in any other trial for the same offence. So far from introducing a new principle, Mr. B. was of the opinion that the same course would be pursued without any special provision, which however was desirable, as making the point explicit, and placing it beyond all doubt. He said he had no other objection to the Committee rising, than that arising from delay. The sooner the bill was passed the better; for although it could not operate on past offences, if passed in season, it might perhaps operate on acts which might take place after its passage. Mr. SMILIE said the provision in the bill had been so well explained by the gentleman from Massachusetts that he was surprised how any doubt could be entertained respecting it. It was well known that in case of treason a man might commit an act in one State, and a different act in another State. Was he in this case to be tried twice for the same offence? This would be unconstitutional. So in this case a conspiracy might be composed of various acts committed in different States. Would gentlemen be for trying the man accused of a conspiracy in different States, and for every act committed by him? Surely not. Mr. EPPES said he would call the attention of the Committee to two clauses of the Constitution. "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been com mitted; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Mr. N. WILLIAMS said he apprehended, though he was sorry to make the observation, that the honorable gentleman from Virginia who objected to the second section of the bill, did not correctly understand it. That, according to his own understanding, the section did not contemplate the trial of distinct offences in any district or territory in which the offence should not have been committed. The words of the section are," that the trial of the above offences may be had in any of the districts, where any of the acts constituting the offence shall have been committed," &c. By this it clearly appeared, that when the offence to be tried was made up of various acts, some of which were committed in one district and some in another, the offence might be tried in either of these districts. Mr. W. said he should vote against the postponement, as he did not see the least difficulty in the case. The bill contained no new principle none that was not known and applied in cases of treason, familiar to every one, and in cases of lar9th CoN. 2d SESS.-9 H. OF R. ceny, in which it was every day's practice to prosecute an offender in any county where the goods were found upon him, although stolen in another county. He said the bill appeared to him highly important, and he was sorry to discover a disposition in the House to delay the business under discussion. Mr. ALSTON did not agree with the gentleman last up. On the contrary, he considered this section as exceptionable. What does it say? That you may try a man in one of the districts where he may have committed an offence. This was putting a power into the hands of the prosecutor to harass the accused beyond that which the Constitution even contemplated. He thought the section might be so worded as to obviate the objections that had been raised. Mr. EPPES said it was very possible, as stated by the gentleman from New York, that he did not understand the section correctly, as he did not pretend to his high genius. His strongest objection to the section was that it gave the prosecutor a right to try the offence in the place where the strongest prejudice might exist against the accused. Mr. EPPES here recapitulated his first remarks, and added that, according to the second section, a man could be tried for any of the offences enumerated in the first section, in any one of the districts of the United States, provided any of those acts shall have been committed in it. He would ask whether this would not be a violation of the Constitution, which guarantied a jury of the vicinage to the accused? He would ask how a man could be tried here by an impartial jury collected from New Orleans, Kentucky, and Indiana? Mr. JACKSON said that the section, according to the construction given it by his colleague, was highly objectionable, and stared the Constitution in the face, and ought not to receive the patronage of the House. He, however, believed that the object of his colleague, as well as the friends of the bill, might be effected by taking a middle course; by confining the trial of the accused to the district in which he shall be arrested. This would preclude the possibility of an individual being transported for trial from one place to another, and his being thus dragged to a place where the rage of implacable passions may condemn him though innocent. If some such amendment were not made Mr. J. said he should vote for striking out the section; and if the section should neither be amended or stricken out, he should vote against the bill. Mr. SLOAN said that while they were so jealous of the rights of the citizens, it became them not to be indifferent to the safety of the community. He apprehended that the intention of this law was to nip in the bud plans that were treasonable and destructive of the peace of the United States. The provision contained in the second section appeared to him highly necessary to guard the rights of the community. Mr. DAWSON said it was the opinion of the committee that introduced the bill, that a man must be tried in the district where he was apprehended, and this, he considered as the true construction. He did not think that a man could be transported from one district to another. Indeed he was at a loss to know under what legal authority this could be done. He believed this the fair construction of the law; but if gentlemen wished to make its language more explicit, he had no objection to an amendment to that effect. Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL observed that the section might be so modified as to make it correspond with the ideas of both sides of the House. It was essential to fix some place for the trial of crimes, which should be partly committed in one State and partly in another. It was material to determine in which State the crime should be tried, which circumstances ought not to be left to the option of the prosecutor or the Government. If the bill was so amended, it would answer every valuable purpose for which it was framed. He therefore proposed, in case the Committee did not rise, to offer an amendment to the second section, providing that the trial should take place in the district in which the defendant shall be arrested, or into which he shall be first brought." Mr. EPPES withdrew his motion for the rising of the Committee, when the question was taken on his motion to strike out the second section, which was disagreed to-yeas 21. ment. JANUARY, 1807. presented a bill to provide for surveying the coasts of the United States; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. Mr. CLINTON presented to the House a petition the third time. The bill makes provision for a claim preferred by Captain Little, commander of a ship of the United States, arising out of the following circumlaw was passed inhibiting commercial intercourse stances. During our differences with France, a given by the Executive Government, Captain Litwith France. Under this law, and the orders dication by the courts of the United States, was tle captured the Flying Fish, which, on an adju Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL then offered his amend-restored as an illegal prize and damages awarded against Captain Little, who claims an indemnity from the Government, on the ground of having the Secretary of the Navy. in the capture executed the orders given him by Mr. JACKSON said it did not remove his objections to the section. Suppose a man were apprehended in a place where the offence with which he is accused was not committed. Would it not be competent under this provision to carry him to a place where he might be the victim of the most implacable feelings? Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL replied that the provision embraced such cases, and that the effect apprehended by the gentleman would not follow. On motion of Mr. SMILIE, the Committee rose, without coming to a decision on the amendment when the House adjourned. TUESDAY, January 6. Mr. SOUTHARD, from the committee appointed on the second instant, presented a bill authorizing the President to lease the public ground in the City of Washington; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-mor row. On motion of Mr. PARKE, Ordered, That the Committee on the Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of establishing an office for the sale of the lands of the United States west of the Greenville Treaty boundary line, and east of the Vincennes and Delaware purchases; and that they report by bill or otherwise. An engrossed bill authorizing the discharge of William Hearn from his imprisonment, was read the third time and passed. HASTINGS, QUINCY, and ALEXANDER, advocated; Messrs. HOLMES, TALLMADGE, COOK, DANA, and Messrs. SMILIE, GREGG, CHANDLER, BEDINGER, and FISK, opposed the passage of the bill, when the question was taken by yeas and nays, and the bill passed-yeas 70, nays 51, as follows: YEAS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Joseph NAYS-Isaac Anderson, John Archer, David Bard, George M. Bedinger, Barnabas Bidwell, Phanuel Bishop Mr. EARLY, from the Committee of Commerce John Blake, jr., Thomas Blount, Robert Brown, Wiland Manufactures, who were directed by a reso-liam A. Burwell, Levi Casey, John Chandler, Matthew lution of the House, of the sixteenth ultimo," to inquire into the expediency of making provision for a survey of the coasts of the United States," Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Cov ington, Ezra Darby, Elias Earle, Ebenezer Elmer, John W. Eppes, William Findley, James Fisk, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, John Hamilton, James The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Postmaster General, stating the respective sums paid to his clerks, which was referred to the Post Office Committee. Mr. STANTON, from the Committee on Claims barred by statutes of limitation, made a report, recommending that all just and equitable claims for services rendered, or supplies furnished during the Revolutionary war with Great Britain, &c., now barred, ought to be provided for by law. Referred to the Committee of the Whole on Thursday. PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMES. Mr. EARLY called for the order of the day on the bill providing for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States. Mr. EPPES moved to recommit the bill to a select committee. He said he trusted the bill in its present shape would not pass. The object contemplated by it, was to give the same powers to prevent or punish an expedition against the United States that was already provided in the case of the expedition against a foreign Power. This would be found by consulting the Message of the President delivered at the commencement of the session. The President observes: "Where an ' enterprise is meditated by private individuals. against a foreign nation, in amity with the United States, powers of prevention, to a certain extent, are given by the laws. Would they not be as reasonable, and useful, where the enterprise prepar'ing is against the United States?" H. OF R. begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise, with intention of taking possession of any fort, arsenal, magazine, dock, navy yard, or any public vessel of the United States, or of invading or occupying with an armed force any part of the United States or the territories thereof, or with intent, in any other manner, of levying war against the United States, or of adhering to the enemies of the said States, or who, with intent, as aforesaid, shall combine or conspire together, or shall counsel, advise, or attempt to set on foot, provide, or prepare the means for any such military expedition or enterprise, or to procure any insurrection, unlawful assembly, or comenterprise shall not be carried into effect, and whether bination, for such purpose, although such expedition or such conspiracy, counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the proposed effect or not; every such person or persons so offending, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall suffer fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court in which the conviction shall be had, so as that such fine shall not exceed thousand dollars, or be less than dollars, nor the term of imprisonment be more than cretion of the court, be holden to find sureties for his years, or less than years; and further, at the disor their good behaviour, in such sum, and for such term, as the said court may direct; Provided always, That nothing herein contained, shall be construed so as to prevent the trial and punishment of any person or persons guilty of treason, murder, or any other offence punishable by any law or laws of the United States." Mr. EPPES said the objection he had to the bill which could not be defined, or reduced to any was this: it introduced a description of offences known standard. What was a combination or conspiracy, but just what a court may please to make it? He had another objection. In the first section the committee who reported the bill had adopted the very words of a statute which had ever been considered odious and oppressive, and which he never wished again to see adopted in whole or in part. He alluded to the memorable sedition act. And that gentlemen might see the This is the recommendation of the President-affinity of this bill to it, he would call the attenthis is the provision deemed necessary by him. tion of the House to its first section, which was as Let us compare it with the provisions of the ex- follows: isting law. In the 3d volume of the laws of the United States, 5th section, we find the following provision: เ "Be it enacted, That if any person shall unlaw fully combine or conspire together, with intent to op"That if any person shall, within the jurisdiction of pose any measure or measures of the Government of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide or the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, to impede the operation of any laws prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the terri- of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any tory of any foreign Prince or State with whom the Uni- person holding a place or office in or under the Governted States are at peace, every such person so offending,ment of the United States, from undertaking, performshall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a high mising, or executing his trust or duty; and if any person demeanor, and shall suffer fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court in which conviction shall be had, so as that such fine shall not exceed three thousand dollars, nor the term of imprisonment be more than three years." This is the provision at present in force in respect to an enterprise against a foreign nation. But in addition to this the committee are for giving the following power. Mr. E. here read the first section of the bill under consideration, as follows: "Be it enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, vise, or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlaw or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall consult, adful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months, nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his or their good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct." Here then we have the very offences designated in that statute, a combination and conspiracy; and all that is necessary to make this act precisely the same with the sedition bill, is to introduce the words, navy yard and arsenals. Mr. EPPES said these were his objections to the first section. He had yesterday fully explained his objections to the second section; and although some attempt had been made to obviate them, he believed it would be impossible in a Committee of the Whole so to arrange the wording of the section as to prevent an interference of its provisions with the principles of the Constitution. He had another ground for recommitting the Dill the entire omission of what he conceived an important provision. He would again recur to the passage. "While adverting to this branch of law, it is proper to observe that in enterprises medita'ted against foreign nations, the ordinary process of binding to the observance of the peace and good behaviour, could it be extended to acts to 'be done out of the jurisdiction of the United 'States, would be effectual in some cases, where 'the offender is able to keep out of sight every indication of his purpose which could draw on him 'the exercise of the powers now given by law." He believed this a valuable provision, and one which might be so framed as not to infringe the rights of the citizen. If indeed the provisions of the bill were made conformable to those of the act providing against expeditions against foreign Powers, it would in his opinion suffice. That act constituted such offence a high misdemeanor, gave to the Executive the power to use the armed force for the purpose of its suppression, and authorized the binding over to good behaviour. For these reasons he hoped the motion to postpone the bill would be rejected, that the Committee of the Whole would be discharged from its further consideration, and that it would be referred to a select commitee. The question was then taken on postponing the bill till to-morrow, which was disagreed to-ayes 44, noes 61. Mr. EPPES then offered his motion to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of the bill. Mr. DAWSON said he was at a loss to know what advantages would result from such a course of procedure, unless the bill should be recommitted to a different committee from that which introduced it. It had been already recommitted; and the committee to whom it had been recommitted had reported it unanimously. As an answer to some of the objections of his colleague, he would observe that the committee, in reporting this bill, had only reported in part; and that they had it in contemplation to make the provision he had alluded to in a special bill. He did not consider it the duty of a committee to draught a bill in precise conformity to the ideas of the President, but in correspondence with their own sentiments. As to the objection that the bill was similar to the first section of the Sedition act, Mr. D. observed that if his colleague had been in the House when that bill was passed, he would have known that JANUARY, 1807. the section read by him had not been objected to by any one, and that it was only the second section which had been opposed. He hoped, if the bill were recommitted, it would be sent to some other committee than the one which had introduced it. The question was then put on discharging the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of the bill, and passed in the negativeayes 50, noes 50, the SPEAKER declaring himself in the negative. WEDNESDAY, January 7. Mr. J. RANDOLPH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred, on the third ultimo, so much of the President's Message as relates "to a suppression of the duties on salt, to a continuation of the Mediterranean fund, and to the state of our revenues," presented a bill repealing the acts laying duties on salt, and continuing in force, for a further time, the first section of the act, entitled "An act further to protect the commerce and seamen of the United States against the Barbary Powers:" which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next. Mr. J.RANDOLPH, from the committee appointed on the twenty-fourth ultimo, presented a bill authorizing the President of the United States to accept the service of a number of volunteer companies, not exceeding thirty thousand men; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. IMPORTATION OF SLAVES. The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole on the bill to prohibit the importation or bringing of slaves into the United States after the 31st of December, 1807. Mr. EARLY, after some preliminary remarks, offered the following amendment: "In all actions, suits, or informations, which shall be brought under the 3d, 4th and 5th sections of this act, the burden of proof shall lie on the claimant, or party sued or prosecuted, where probable cause is shown for the seizure or prosecution, to be judged of by the court before whom the seizure or prosecution shall be tried." After a few remarks from different members, this amendment was agreed to. A motion was then made by Mr. BIDWELL, further to amend the third section of the said bill, in the following paragraph, to wit: "and such ship or vessel, if brought into any port or place within a State or Territory, the Constitution and laws of which permit slavery, shall, together with her cargo, tackle, apparel, and furniture, be forfeited," by striking out from the said paragraph, the word "cargo." The yeas and nays were called on the amendment, and were-yeas 39, nays 77, as follows: YEAS-John Archer, David Bard, George M. Bedinger, Silas Betton, Barnabas Bidwell, John Blake, jr., James M. Broom, Robert Brown, John Chandler, Sam JANUARY, 1807. ver, uel W. Daha, Ezra Darby, Theodore Dwight, James the United States. The object of the provision Elliot, William Ely, William Findley, James Fisk, was to prevent this. Its advocates declared that Isaiah L. Green, John Hamilton, Seth Hastings, Wil- they did not mean by it in the least to interfere with liam Helms, Nehemiah Knight, John Lambert, Ed-the existing laws of the State on the subject, ward Lloyd, John Morrow, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jere- to turn persons of color imported loose on the miah Nelson, Gideon Olin, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John States where slavery was permitted. Should the Porter, John Pugh, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer SeaJames Sloan, John Smilie, Joseph Stanton, Lewis present provision be adopted, it might become neB. Sturges, Benjamin Tallmadge, Thomas W. Thomp- for the purpose of introducing into its details, a cessary to recommit the bill to a select committee, son, and Joseph B. Varnum. NAYS-Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac provision for the disposition of the persons who Anderson, Burwell Bassett, Thomas Blount, John may become forfeited to the United States; that Boyle, William A. Burwell, William Butler, George this might be done by binding them out for terms W. Campbell, John Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin of years, or transporting them to a foreign country; Chittenden, John Claiborne, Joseph Clay, Mathew and that if forfeited in States where slavery was Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Leonard Cov-allowed, provision might be made for their remoington, John Davenport, jr., Elias Earle, Peter Early, val to States where different laws existed. The Caleb Ellis, Ebenezer Elmer, John Fowler, Charles power of the General Government might not, it Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Silas was admitted, be competent to their liberation in the Halsey, James Holland, David Holmes, Thomas Kenan, former States; but becoming, by their forfeiture, Henry W. Livingston, Duncan McFarland, Patrick the property of the United States, they would Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah Masters, William possess the right of removing them to those States McCreery, David Meriwether, Nicholas R. Moore, with whose laws, there would be no interference. Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, John Rea, of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sandford, Martin G. Schuneman, Dennis Smelt, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Samuel Tenney, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Uri Tracy, Abram Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, Peleg Wadsworth, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill, Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan Williams, Alexander Winston, and Thomas Wynns. Mr. BIDWELL moved to add a proviso to the end of the 7th section, of the following tenor: "Provided, That no person shall be sold as a slave by virtue of this act." Messrs. BARKER, FINDLEY, QUINCY, VARNUM, SMILIE, CONRAD, SLOAN, CHANDLER, BIDWELL, BEDINGER, SOUTHARD, and FISK, supported; and Messrs. J. CLAY, ALSTON, and EARLY, opposed the amendment. The opponents of the amendment contended that the plan contained in the bill was the only effectual and practicable one that could be devised for preventing the importation of persons of color; that their forfeiture to and sale by the United States was an essential provision, as, without it, no person would be found to give information of the infraction of the act; and that without such information the act would be a dead letter, as in the indirect trade with the adjacent provinces of European Powers it would be altogether impossible to render the vessel or master importing them liable to be seized, from the inability of reaching them. They also contended that Congress did not possess the right to say that persons of color brought into the Southern States should not be sold as slaves, because as soon as they become the property of the United States by their forfeiture, the United States, in character of owner, became equally subject with an individual to those laws, The advocates of the amendment observed that which in several of the States directed their sale they could never agree to sanction the existing pro- as slaves as soon as introduced into them; with visions of the bill, which authorized the sale of which laws consequently the proposed provision persons of color imported into the United States; directly interfered. They said they were also opthat while they respected the sentiments and feel-posed to the amendment, because the principle on ings of the people of the Southern States, so far as to be opposed to adopting any course which would be injurious to them, they claimed an equal respect for the sentiments and feelings of their constituents, which were so repugnant to slavery that no consideration whatever could induce them to give it their sanction; that nothing could be more abhorrent to their feelings than the legal authorization of the sale of persons as slaves, and the drawing money into the public Treasury from such sale; that indeed, such a provision, so far from inhibiting the trade, would in a measure tend to its encouragement; that as the bill stood, without the proposed provision, persons forfeited would be sold under the authority of the United States, a title be given to the purchaser by the United States, and the sale be for the benefit of which it was advocated went to affect nine-tenths of the property of the Southern States, and might in its effects strike at all the property held in slaves; that consequently it became their duty to resist it. The friends of the amendment claimed an equal respect to their feelings; but this declaration came with a bad grace from those who on a former occasion had supported a motion to turn these people loose in a state of freedom in the Southern country. This was disavowed by Messrs SMILIE and SLOAN. The question was taken on the amendment by yeas and nays,, which were-yeas 60, nays 60. The SPEAKER having declared himself in the negative, the amendment was lost. The yeas and nays were as follows: |