Vessels of War. growth of the country, good vessels may be built in every part of our country. mation I possess: though it would unquestionably be a great public advantage to have a dock near the entrance into the Chesapeake bay, and another still further South, if circumstances will admit. Docks for repairing ships ought to be convenient enemy. Yards for building the ships, where large quantities of materials would be deposited, (the destruction of which would always be an object with an enemy,) should be, according to the opinion of Mr. Humphreys, a gentleman of considerable science, and experience in naval architecture, "in the vicinity of a commercial city, for the convenience of procuring able workmen-within the reach of good white oak timber-in fresh water, where timber may be deposited without danger from the worm; on a river running east and west, or nearly so, with a high bank, and where the harbor is secure from freshets, and stormy weather; out of the reach of an enemy; and near a good stream of water, 18 or 20 feet higher than the surface of the river, for the convenience of making lock docks, sawing timber, and for many other valuable uses." The islands on the coast of Georgia, on which the live oak is found, are supposed to be more healthy than the main land near the coast-they are also thought to be very important for the pro-to the sea, and yet not easily accessible to any duction of cotton; hence this valuable timber is becoming scarce everywhere convenient to water transportation. Two methods suggest themselves for obtaining supplies, beyond the immediate demand: To buy one or two of the most valuable islands, and cause the timber to be preserved for the future uses of the Navy: or to purchase the timber as the islands are cleared by the owners, and have it transported to the places fixed on for building our ships, and docked until it will be wanted. With respect to a purchase, the lands are held at prices greatly beyond what was the supposed value of them, a few years ago; and it is believed they have become less valuable for public purposes, in consequence of the efforts which have been made, and are daily making, to clear them for cultivation. On the subject of other kinds of timber, possibly when it is seen by the citizens that it is worth pre- Perhaps the most expeditious mode of building serving, it may be sufficient to trust in a great ships immediately wanted, will be to set them up degree to their attention to private interest, for the in several different places, and by such means avail preservation of a quantity equal to the public de- ourselves of the resources of different parts of the mand. It would, however, be but provident to ex-country. I am by no means certain that this mepend one hundred thousand dollars, in a way to secure enough of the white oak and yellow pine, both of which are indispensable in the construction of good vessels, to last the public, in aid of supplies from individuals, for ages-$100,000 could be so laid out; and I believe the expenditure would be judicious. thod will not also be most economical under present circumstances, and with little seasoned timber in the country: and it will certainly distribute more equally among all the States, the advantages which may arise from supplying the materials and the labor. But the subject being new, I am not possessed of sufficient information to state, with preNo extraordinary means are necessary to be used cision, where these ought to be. At a future time, for procuring naval and military stores, except the when the pressure may be less, and our experience articles of hemp, canvass, and copper. Cannon can greater, two or three places, uniting the greatest be made in many of the States equal to any that number of advantages, may be fixed on for buildcould be obtained from foreign countries, also mus-ing all the large ships of the United States. kets and bayonets, pistols, swords, boarding pikes, and indeed every other article necessary for ships of war. Although copper mines are found in many parts of the country, yet the certain means of procuring present supplies will be by importation. The enterprising spirit of the merchants has heretofore furnished enough for the public demand, and may be trusted for future supplies, so far as may be necessary for the ships now contemplated to be added to our navy. It is to be presumed that before more ships are wanted, and possibly before any that may now be authorized, are in a state to require the copper, means may be devised for obtaining it in the United States. The mode heretofore pursued for obtaining naval stores, for the ships in public service, has been to get such supplies on the spot, as could be procured on moderate terms by the agent for building or equipping the ship-sending from Philadelphia, or elsewhere, such articles only, as could not be so supplied, Until it can be ascertained, what places should be selected for permanent building yards, no great inconvenience will result from pursuing the mode already adopted, for supplying the naval stores. Deposites of masts, to supply quickly vessels which may come in dismasted, will be made at Boston, and Norfolk-measures indeed have already been taken for this purpose-and like deposites must be made at New York or Rhode Island; other articles required by vessels in distress, can generally be had in those places, and in our other commercial cities. Docks will be highly necessary in repairing our ships, to avoid the tedious, expensive, and sometimes dangerous operation of heaving down. They can undoubtedly be made in the Eastern States, The business of naval armaments being new in where the tides rise very considerably: probably this country, and complicated, it is impossible, in in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, or Rhode Isl- this early stage, to devise a perfect system on the and. Whether they can be made with equal ad-subject. Every day's experience will add to the vantage, or to answer valuable purposes, to the southward of Rhode Island or New York, I cannot form any accurate judgment, from any infor stock of knowledge possessed by the country; and it may be best for the public interest that the Congress, at their present session, should rely a little Vessels of War. $40,000 30,000 more on Executive discretion than may hereafter be necessary. At the present session, it may be expedient and sufficient that the President be authorized to procure, by purchase or otherwise, 12 ships of 74 guns, and six brigs or schooners to mount not exceeding 18 guns; to take measures for procuring and depositing in docks of fresh water and in places of safety such quantity of live-oak timber, proper for ships of 74 guns and frigates, not exceeding in the whole such parts of the frames of twelve 74-gun ships, and as many frigates, as may be deemed essential to be of this species of timber; to cause to be laid out in securing other kinds of timber for the future uses of the Navy, a sum not exceeding 100,000 dollars: and to cause not exceeding three docks to be erected for the convenience of repairing ships. For so much of these objects as can be accomplished before the next session of Congress, an appropriation of 1,200,000 dollars, with a promise of further appropriations, may be sufficient. I have suggested no plan for the encouragement of the manufacture of sail cloth. This subject will be better understood in Congress. A certainty of sale, as already observed, will be encouragement enough for the growers of hemp. I shall take the liberty to lay before you in a few days, such alterations in the rules for the government of the Navy, as have been suggested by some of the most experienced captains, with my own observations. I have the honor to be with great respect and esteem, sir, your obedient servant. BENJAMIN STODDERT. Cost of building and equipping a seventy-four gun ship. of 1,620 tons, exclusive of military stores, $342,700. Annual expense of a seventy-four gun ship, per estimate, is $216,941. The following estimates accompanied the above letter of the Secretary of the Navy. Amount of cost of building and equipping a seventyfour gun ship, of 1,620 tons, exclusive of military stores Live-oak timber White oak and pine, &c. One hundred and sixteen rations per day, amounts to 42,340 for twelve months 11,885 20 80 borrels Indian meal, at $4 1,660 cwt. of bread, at $3 33 235 gallons lamp oil, at $1 Evidence in cases of Contested Elections. 1,186 bushels of potatoes, at 50 cents 287 cwt. salt fish, at $6 RECAPITULATION. Pay and subsistence Provisions Medicines and hospital stores $126,029 20 45,911 91 5,000 00 40,000 00 $216,941 11 Amount of cost for building and equipping a ship of war of eighteen guns. Per ton. 300 tons. $44 00 $13,200 00 18 00 12 00 2.00 3.00 two 8 25 1 00 Rigger's bill 2. 00 0 33 900 00 2,475 50 675 00 300 00 3,600 00 225 00 7,800 00 - $162 40 $48,720 50 The subject contemplated by these resolutions naturally presents itself under two points of view: the inconveniences resulting from the want of permanent regulations, and the difficulties which stand in the way of their establishment. These inconveniences have been felt and complained of from the commencement of the Government till the present day; and they must continually augment with the natural increase of those causes which give rise to contests in elections, while their pressure will become more and more heavy as the progress of population on the frontiers shall add new and more remote districts to the Union. They have been so frequently experienced, and are so universally admitted, that a particular enumeration of them does not appear necessary. These inconveniences, the committee suppose, may, in a very considerable degree, be avoided by the establishment of some permanent regulations respecting evidence in cases of contested elections. As to the difficulties which oppose themselves to the adoption of such regulations, they have been considered by the committee under a two-fold point of view: first, as respects the powers of one House of Representatives to establish rules binding upon future Houses; and, secondly, as respects the propriety of permitting the other branches of the Legislature to interfere, even in the most indirect manner, in the trial of contested elections for the House of Representatives, to which the sole decision, in such cases, is referred by the Constitution. It is said that if resolutions merely are adopted, they can last no longer than the House which made them, and, consequently, cannot be permanent. It is said that such resolutions, even could they be permanent, could confer no power to compel the attendance of witnesses before the persons $2,603,293 32 authorized to take examinations, without which the whole process would be imperfect and ineffectual; and that this object cannot be accomplished 211,934 60 without a law. It is said that to pass a law, by the consequences of which the decision of contested elections might be effected, would be to give the other branches of the Legislature a control over objects which the principles of the Constitution, no less than its express directions, require to be confined exclusively to the House itself. It is said, in fine, that such a law, even if permitted by the Constitution, would be ineffectual, because it could enact no sanctions under which the admission of testimony, taken pursuant 34,051 04 $2,949,278 96 2,434,261 10 $5,383,540 06 Debtors of the United States. to its directions, could be enforced on any future House of Representatives. moreover, preclude those inconveniences which result from the discussion of general principles in connexion with particular cases. Conformably to these ideas, the committee re Upon a careful review of these various objections, it has appeared to the committee that the most proper and most effectual method of estab-commend that a law be passed prescribing the lishing permanent regulations on this subject, if not the only practical method, would be to pass a law for that purpose; nor do they consider as well founded the objections which are urged againt that measure. The Constitution does, indeed, provide that "each House shall be the judge of elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members." But the committee conceive that to pass a law for the object in question, far from admitting the other branches of the Legislature to a participation in the peculiar powers of the House, would be, in effect, to call in the aid of the whole Legislature for enabling the House to exercise those powers in a manner more complete and effectual. As to the objection that such a law could enact no sanctions by which the admission of testimony, taken in pursuance of its provisions, could be enforced on any future House of Representatives, the committee do not consider it as of sufficient weight to prevent the adoption of the measure, even the utility of which they do not suppose would be in any considerable degree diminished by this objection. mode in which, and the persons before whom, testimony in cases of contested elections for this House shall be taken, and giving power to compel the attendance of witnesses for that purpose. The details of this law, they apprehend, will appear best in a bill; but, not being authorized to report in that form, they forbear at present to enter into those details, and confine themselves to the following resolutions, which they present for the consideration of the House, to wit: Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision, by law, for taking evidence in contested elections for the House of Representatives, and for compelling the attendance of witnesses in such cases. Resolved, That the committee have leave to bring in a bill pursuant to the foregoing resolution. DEBTORS OF THE UNITED STATES. [Communicated to the House of Representatives, January 4, 1798.] The Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, to whom was referred the petition of William Bell, made the following report: The proper and the only necessary functions of such a law would be to prescribe the mode in which testimony should be taken, and to grant powers for compelling the attendance of witnesses. That he is confined in the jail of the city and Whether testimony thus obtained should be ad- county of Philadelphia, at the suit of the United mitted in any particular case, or whether further States, on a custom-house bond executed by him testimony should be required, must depend on the for duties on goods imported by one Joseph Ritdecision of that House before which such case tenhouse, who, as he says, induced him to become should come for discussion; and it would be in principal in the bond, contrary to his intentions. the power of each House, at the commencement This circumstance, (on which, together with his of its first session, to adopt a rule declaring that, poverty and good character, the petitioner relies in all cases of contested elections to come before for relief,) is not a sufficient ground for the interit, testimony taken pursuant to such law should position of legislative aid; for the committee bebe received. This, it is presumable, would believe that, whether principal or surety only, he is done, and would gradually grow into a constant bound to pay the debt. and well known regulation, to which all persons engaged in contested elections might with safety conform. It would still be in the power of each House to refrain from passing such a resolution, and to reject the testimony; but it ought not to be presumed that, when the mode should have been perfected by experience, and become generally known, testimony fairly taken in conformity to it would be rejected. On the contrary, there would be a strong and well-founded presumption that such testimony would be received; and this presumption, joined to the aid which the law would afford in compelling witnesses to attend, would enable persons concerned in contested elections to come at first duly prepared for the trial, while the Constitutional rights of each House would be saved by its power to adopt or reject the rule for the admission of the testimony. But having been well informed that the petitioner was extremely poor, they directed their inquiries to the operation of the act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt, passed the 28th May, 1796, supposing the provisions of that law were competent to the petitioner's relief. On inquiry, however, they found that various opinions were entertained, by different judicial officers of the United States, on the subject; some of them construing the law to extend to debtors of the United States, others confining it solely to the case of individuals. In order to obtain the most precise information on this point, the committee directed a letter to be written to the Attorney General of the United States, which, with his answer, are annexed to this report. Upon consideration of all the circumstances stated in this report, your committee think it To adopt this rule at the beginning of each would not be advisable to pass any law exCongress, before it should be known to what par- planatory of the act before cited, until a judicial ticular cases it was intended to apply, would. [ decision of the Supreme Court shall make it ne Debtors of the United States. cessary; nor can they recommend any special interference in a law of individual insolvency. They are therefore of opinion that the petitioner cannot obtain the relief he desires, and that he have leave to withdraw his petition. is nothing to be paid. Thus, if this reasoning be just, an act of Parliament, similar to the act of May 28, 1796, would bind the King, though not expressly named. It is true the bankrupt laws of England, though the words are general, do not bind the King, and for this reason-that the debt all creditors alike, which distribution would interfere with the King's prerogative right of priority ; cannot be abridged but by express words. This and his prerogatives, as I have before remarked, is not like our insolvent law, which can operate in no case where the debtor has any property of greater value than thirty dollars, or sufficient to pay the debt for which he is imprisoned. SIR: I am directed by the Committee of Com-or's estates, after assignment, are to be applied to merce and Manufactures to request your opinion on the construction of the act of Congress "for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt," passed the 28th of May, 1796. The point they wish to have determined is, whether the relief contemplated by this act can be extended to persons imprisoned in civil causes, at the suit of the United States. You will much oblige the committee by Again, it may be observed that a statute in giving your opinion of the true construction of the law, and also by mentioning such decisions some cases binds the King, though not named.— thereon as have come to your knowledge; it hav- 2 Inst. 142, 169. And, if in any case, surely the ing been intimated to the committee that differ- general words of a statute in favor of personal ent determinations have taken place on this sub-liberty ought to bind the King, though not named. ject by the judges of different districts. I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, EDWARD LIVINGSTON. The ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States. PHILADELPHIA, December 21, 1797. SIR: I have considered the question proposed in the letter which I had the honor to receive from you as chairman of the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, bearing date the 29th of November. It is my opinion that the act for the relief of persons imprisoned for debt, passed on the 28th day of May, 1796, extends as wel! to persons imprisoned in civil causes, at the suit of the United States, as to other prisoners in civil causes. In Great Britain, the King in some instances is not bound by the general words of a statute, unless he be expressly named. These instances are where his prerogative would be impaired or divested by the general words; and the correct rule is that general words, in an act of Parliament, bind the King, though not expressly named, unless his prerogative is touched, and all his other rights are to be no more favored than the rights of his subjects. For this let me refer you to 8 Mod. 8, King vs. Bishop of Armagh; Dyer, 250; Cro. Eliz. 500; 2 Inst. 191. The statute 32 Hen. VIII. chap. 28, binds the King, though not named, because its object is to suppress wrong, and give a speedier remedy.-2 Inst. 681. A fortiori, a statute in favor of releasing from perpetual imprisonment an insolvent citizen, ought to hind, by its general words, the sovereign as well as the subject. These arguments, if used on a question of this sort in Great Britain, would, in my judgment, be decisive there; and they seem to me to have even more weight when applied in this country, where a priority of payment has been established by law. and not considered as a right belonging to the United States as a sovereign prerogative. If the sovereign power of the United States possess certain rights different from the rights of individual citizens, they must be of a nature essential to the care or promotion of the public good. Surely it will not be contended that the right to imprison forever an insolvent debtor is of this kind. Our law gives to the United States a priority of payment before other creditors; but, construing the act of the 28th May, 1796, to include the United States as well as individuals within its general words, does not interfere with their right of priority, as has been already shown; nor does it interfere with any right of sovereignty vested in the United States, or any right essential or contributory to the national good, which they should possess. I have been the more full upon this subject because I have heard of one instance where an adjudication contrary to this opinion has been given. I have been told that Judge Peters, in the case of one Rittenhouse, who was a prisoner in a civil cause at the suit of the United States, refused to administer the oath of an insolvent to him, on the ground that the act did not bind the United States they not being expressly named in it. It is probable the subject was not investigated at that time. However that may be, for the reasons before stated, I cannot concur in opinion with the learned Every statute for the advancement of justice, &c., shall bind the ordinary right of the King, by general words, as well as the right of the subject. -2 Inst. 681; 5 Rep. 14; 11 Rep. 66. The right of the King to arrest the body of his debtor, till his debt is paid, is of the ordinary kind; the like right is possessed by the subject also. The same reason exists, in both cases, for this proceeding. But the King is entitled to priority of payment, which is a part of his prerogative, and founded on the preference due to the public treasury before any private interest; yet to discharge a debt-judge. or from jail, who has no sort of property, cannot I beg leave to refer the committee to a report of interfere with this prerogative. In such a case the Attorney General on Mackey's petition to there can be no priority in payment, because there | Congress, in the Winter of 1796, which suggested |