relate chiefly as to the manner of putting the question, two of the States, viz: Delaware and Kentucky, being at present unrepresented, at length it was determined that the sense of the House should be taken on 14, and when the Representatives of those two States arrived, a monon might be made to increase the committee to sixteen, and the SPEAKER would, of course, select a member from each of those States.

The question on having the committee consist of fourteen members was accordingly put, when there appeared to be 34 votes in favor of it, and 34 against it. The SPEAKER declaring himself in the negative, the question was not carried. The sense of the House was then taken on nine, and it was carried-yeas 35, nays 30. Ordered. That Mr. HARPER, Mr. GALLATIN, Mr. NATHANIEL SMITH, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. JONES, Mr. ISAAC PARKER, Mr. HINDMAN, Mr. BLOUNT, and Mr. SINNICKSON, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS.

The House having again taken up Mr. HARPER's proposition for printing 20,000 copies of the above laws, to be distributed gratis throughout the United States.

Mr. DAWSON said, when the subject was the other day before the House, he declared that he had no objection to the resolution, as it had ever been his wish to give the fullest information to his constituents-nay, he was disposed to favor it though from reasons, he believed, different from those which actuated the mover of it, as he doubted not a thorough knowledge of these laws would insure their repeal. But he then and now thought that it was prematurely brought forward; that gentleman might have waited, at least, until the Fate of an intended proposition for the repeal of these laws was known; especially when it is recollected that no effect can be produced by the measure during the present session. It was under this idea that he had moved for a postponement of the decision; but, as that motion was negatived, he presumed it was the pleasure of the House to act upon the resolution at present, and, therefore, he wished to make the information as complete as possible. He would move to have printed, with these laws, all the parts of the Constitution which appeared to him to relate to the subject, as well those which may be supposed to give the power to Congress, as those which prohibit the exercise of it. If he had omitted any, should readily agree to their insertion. Mr. D. then moved to add the following:

"And the eighth section, and the first and second clauses of the ninth section of the first article; the first section, and the third clause of the second section of the third article of the Constitution of the United States; and the third, seventh, eighth, eleventh, and twelfth articles of amendment which now form a part of the said Constitution."

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, as he wished to have a correct understanding of the intention of the mover of the amendment, he wished to be informed whether he believed there was any portion of

[H. OF R.

the citizens of the United States who had not read the Constitution, or whether, in his opinion, there were any parts of the Union in which it had not been promulgated? His colleague, in justification of his having moved for a further promulgation of two laws passed in the last session of Congress, had stated, as facts of his own knowledge, that, in certain parts of the Union, where discontents had been manifested, and where resolutions had been entered into censuring the alien and sedition laws, that discontents had been generated by misrepresentation of the provisions of these laws; that resolutions censuring them as unconstitutional had been procured, not by circulating and promulgating what were the laws of the land, but by distributing and publishing copies of two bills which had been projected in the Senate, and which did not pass either House of Congress, and which were very dissimilar to the existing laws. With the knowledge of these facts, it might be proper for the National Legislature to order an additional publication of the sedition and alien laws, for the purpose of diffusing a knowledge of them, and removing those errors and prejudices which had been created by false copies and gross misrepresentations. But why these laws were to have annexed to them certain parts of the Constitution, which the opposers of the laws in question had declared were violated by them, he could not understand, unless there were parts of the United States where the Constitution was not to be procured; if the gentleman from Virginia would declare that to be the case, he would vote for the amendment, but he would not vote for it when intended (as he believed it to be) as "an appeal to the people ;" that measure had been abandoned in the country, where it had its origin, and where its practice had been marked by every species of disorder, and he was not disposed to adopt this popular measure.

Mr. R. said, it was not to be wondered at that, in some parts of the Union, ebullitions of discontent had occurred, when the invitations were remembered which accompanied the sedition bill to the people to resist it. Certain gentlemen had declared it unconstitutional, and expressed their wish that the people would resist its execution; our constituents had been told by them that, to rebel against this law which invaded their Constitutional rights, was a duty they owed their country. When he recollected these attempts to agitate the country, he was surprised that our citizens had discovered so much patience, wisdom, and good sense, as they had by their ready acquiescence in the execution of the laws, which many members of Congress had been active in representing to be unconstitutional. They had, however, after a very learned debate, and persevering opposition, been deemed Constitutional by majorities in both Houses of Congress. The Judges, who had acted under them, had declared them to be perfectly Constitutional, and he was not disposed to make "an appeal to the people," to know whether they deemed them Constitutional; but if any gentleman would declare that there was a difficulty in any part of the country in obtaining

copies of the Constitution, he would have no objection to voting the distribution of a necessary number. He suspected, however, that this was not precisely the object of the amendment.

Mr. HARPER desired to pass by the extreme futility of publishing to the people, at this day, parts of a Constitution which had been in force ten years, and the excessive futility of such an idea; but he would say that, if the gentleman would extend his amendment to the whole of the Constitution, his motion would be better deserving of consideration. For, if these extracts which he proposes were published, who can tell that the gentleman himself might not inform his constituents that they were not true extracts. If it were thought that the people want information with respect to an instrument to which they have so frequently expressed their attachment, let the whole be printed. He would not object to the printing of 50,000 or even of 500,000 of them. But what would the gentleman have thought of me, if, instead of printing the whole of the laws in question, I had proposed to make extracts from them? He would certainly have treated the subject with laughter, instead of argument. Indeed, he thought the making of a proposition like the present, was trifling, and sporting with what ought to be held sacred-the laws of the land.

Mr. DAWSON did not think the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RUTLEDGE) had treated him with candor. He ought to have recollected that the original proposition did not come from him; that he had moved a postponement of it; that he had proposed to add to it, not only those parts of the Constitution which militate, in his opinion, against the laws, but those said to be in favor of them. For his own part, he did not believe that the people of the United States are so ignorant with respect to these laws as they had heen represented; but if it were thought necessary to make the proposed publication of them, he was convinced it was full as necessary to print the parts of the Constitution which he had proposed.

Mr. S. SMITH understood that the ground upon which the gentleman from South Carolina had brought forward his motion, was to remove certain misrepresentations which had been made of these laws. He alluded particularly, as he thought, to the State of Virginia. For his own part, he believed that State, as well, perhaps better informed, with respect to these laws, than any State in the Union, for they are made there the criterion of their elections. They are, therefore, everywhere read and discussed pro and con. What, said Mr. S., is the misrepresentation of these laws complained of? They are represented as unnecessary and unconstitutional. Will the simple publication of these laws do away this opinion? Certainly not; because, when the people read the laws, they will not have the Constitution to compare with them.

[DECEMBER, 1798.

man; but he believed the unconstitutionality of these laws is what is most complained of; and this was the principal reason why their passage was so warmly opposed in this House. He was of opinion, therefore, if the laws were sent out to the people, these parts of the Constitution ought to go too, but he saw no occasion for either.

Mr. HARPER said, he did not particularly allude to Virginia; nor did he mention any place, until he was called upon to do so. He spoke of the Southern States generally, and particularly of his own State. He did, however, believe that these laws are as much misunderstood in Virginia, as anywhere.

Mr. SPRIGG observed, that the gentleman first up from South Carolina, had said that, if any gentleman would state to the House that his constituents are not in full possession of the Constitution and the amendments which have been added to it. he should think the present amendment necessary. He would mention a circumstance which took place at a public meeting, held for an electioneering purpose, in his district, which ought to convince him that, at least, the amendments to the Constitution are not generally known. One of these acts was spoken of at this meeting as unconstitutional; when a gentleman of great respectability (if property can make a man so) held in his hand the Constitution of the United States, to support the opposite opinion; and when he was referred to one of the amendments, as materially affected, he said, that amendment was not to be found in his Constitution, nor had he ever heard of any amendments being added to the Constitution.

Mr. GORDON said, the original motion was only supportable from the nature of the laws and the period of their duration. If promulged only in the usual way, they would scarcely be known before they expired, and he was therefore in favor of this extraordinary publication; for one, if not both of the laws, was to continue in force only two years. The laws intended to be permanent, he believed, were sufficiently known by the ordinary mode of publication.

the manner proposed; but this he was convinced of, that there was as much necessity for the proposed amendment as for the original resolution; and that, therefore, if the resolution was adopted, the amendment ought to be adopted also.

It had been said, by gentlemen who seem in favor of printing these two laws and not the Constitution, that the laws are not known; but that the Constitution is known. He believed those gentlemen lie under a mistake. The laws have been published again and again in every part of the Union, whereas the Constitution, as amended, has never been published and promulgated. The original Constitution had, indeed, been published, and is generally in the hands of the people; but, as to the amendments, many persons do not know how many of them have become a part of that instrument. Nor can it be ascertained anywhere, except in one edition of the laws, it is added by way of note, that ten of the amendments now form a part of the Constitution. Can it be surprising that the people at large should be uninformed as to this point, when only two years ago, a committee of this House, to whom the subject was referred, reported it, as their opinion, that no part of these amendments were become a part of the Constitution, three-fourths of all the States not having concurred in them? It was true their report was reversed; but when Congress itself has so lately determined these amendments to be a part of the Constitution, it is not strange that the people should not be well informed on the subject. It may be said these arguments apply only to the amendments, but as no one could produce a publication of the Constitution as amended, he wished it now, for the first time, to be published.

Have any objections been offered to this proposition which ought to have any weight? The gentleman from South Carolina, who was first up, complained that a publication of this kind would be an appeal to the people. He did not precisely understand what he meant; but if a publication of the Constitution can be called an appeal to the people, what will the gentleman term the proposed extra publication of the laws in question? Has it been said that this promulgation of the laws is necessary, in order to secure the people against prosecutions under them? Is this the object of the publication? No; the avowed object is, to convince the people the laws are good and expedient; which, being an appeal to the people, ought to be accompanied with the Constitution.

Another gentleman, from New Hampshire, has made use of a most extraordinary argument. He says the publication is necessary, because the laws expire in two years; but he was at a loss to know by what kind of logic he makes it more necessary to publish a law in an extraordinary manner which has only an existence of two years, than a law permanent in its nature, and especially than the Constitution itself. Does he think the Constitution should be disregarded, or set aside for two years, on account of these laws? This observation did not fall from him, who was always opposed to these laws, but from one of their support

[DECEMBER, 1798.

ers. But this gentleman had made use of an expression which he certainly had not sufficiently attended to. Speaking of the meetings, or assemblies of the people, which had been held in different parts of the United States on the subject of these laws, he made use of the word "mob." He called these assemblies of the people "a mob." This he conceived improper, and especially at this time, when it is known that not only respectable meetings of the people have been held to consider these laws, but that the Legislatures of some States have taken up the subject.

Upon the observations of the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. THATCHER,) he would make no remark. They appeared too frivolous to merit any. So far as they went, they were as forcible against the proposition as the amendment.

Mr. CRAIK said, as a gentleman from Virginia had called the yeas and nays upon the present question, he wished to state his reasons for voting against this amendment. If any gentleman would declare his constituents in want of information with respect to the Constitution, and, after the proposition for printing these laws shall have been decided, bring forward a substantive, distinct proposition, he would vote in favor of it. He could not allow the State from which he came, however, to lie under the imputation of ignorance, with respect to the Constitution, which had been cast upon it, by voting for the present amendment. He hoped the instance which his colleague had mentioned was a solitary one. Nor could he agree to publish these laws and the Constitution by way of calling the attention of the people to them. He was sorry the original proposition had been made. He did not think any act of Congress ought to he published more than others. The laws were supposed to be sufficiently promulgated to the people; if not, means ought to be adopted for the purpose.

The SPEAKER said, these observations were against the resolution generally, and not the amendment.

Mr. CRAIK wished these acts to be placed on the same ground with all other acts, and not supposed to be particularly obnoxious to the people. He should, therefore, vote against both the amendment and the original proposition.

Mr. J. WILLIAMS was opposed to this amendment. If the amendments to the Constitution had not been sufficiently published, they ought to be so. It was derogatory to this House to suppose this to be the fact. In the State which he represented, the town clerk of every town had the laws of the United States put into his hand. He had hoped every State had done the same. When this resolution was first brought forward, it was on the ground that the newspapers did not give sufficient information on the subject, and it was on this ground that he proposed to vote in favor of the proposition; but he could not consent at this day to publish again either the whole or parts of the Constitution.

Mr. HARTLEY was sorry the original motion was made by the gentleman from South Carolina. It is well known, said Mr. H., that some parts of