H. OF R.]

of friends and correspondents, as has preserved an intimate knowledge of his present constituents, and of their sentiments and political views. Indeed, without this, it may safely be affirmed he could not have obtained a nomination, much less an election, against numerous competitors and powerful opposition. Several years since, it is within my personal knowledge, though not included in the printed evidence before the committee, that he was a candidate for the same station, which, however, was at that time conferred on the worthy predecessor in this House of Governor Eustis. Before his appointment to the State department, and while an instructor at Providence, he selected a library, of considerable value, which was placed in his apartment in his father's house, and there still remains. In Washington he had lived in a boarding-house, and devoted his attention exclusively to his official duties, taking no share whatever in the local concerns of the city or the District. He never assembled at the ward or other local meetings, was never a candidate for any office, was never assessed in any tax, or took any other concern in the interests of the place, than any stranger. Had he intended to become a citizen of Washington, it is reasonable to presume he would have intermingled in the various measures which have characterized the citizens of the District. With the ambition which we must admit he has always entertained, of participating in the councils of the nation, an honorable ambition, of which he never lost sight, instead of seeking that distinction from the suffrages of his native district of Norfolk, he would probably have been foremost among those who have so exerted their efforts to obtain a delegate for the District of Columbia upon the floor of this House. In these efforts he might reasonably have expected some distinction; and, could the point have been attained by delivering the citizens from what some of them have recently denominated the "despotism" of Congress a paternal despotism, however, they admit it to be he might fairly have challenged a high place among the "liberators" of the present times. From all these overt acts of citizenship, he wholly abstained; and these, in my opinion, constitute a chain of negative facts, which, in coincidence with his continued and uncontradicted declarations of his intention of remaining a citizen and inhabitant of Massachusetts, which are so explicitly proved, can leave no possible doubt that such was his intention, fixed and unchanging, from the day of his departure to the present hour.

Mr. RANDOLPH, of Virginia, made a short speech in support of the report, and against the right of the sitting member.

The question was then taken on the motion to strike out the word "not," and decided in the negative-ayes 55, noes 105.

So the Committee of the Whole refused to reverse the opinion expressed by the Committee of Elections, adverse to Mr. Bailey's claim to a seat.

[MARCH, 1824. Mr. RANDOLPH then moved that the committee rise, and report their concurrence with that report.

Mr. BAILEY expressed a wish to address the House, and was desirous that the gentleman from Virginia would withdraw his motion, and suffer the committee to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. BRENT opposed the motion of Mr. RANDOLPH.

Mr. FULLER moved to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair pronounced this motion out of order, as it was not yet four o'clock, and the rule of the House forbade such a motion in Committee of the Whole, before that hour, unless to ask leave to sit on a day subsequent to the next succeeding one.

Mr. McDUFFIE contended that the rule did not apply, and appealed from the decision of the Chair.

Some confusion ensued. Several members were up at once. The appeal was withdrawn, and, after much altercation, the question was taken on reporting and asking leave, and decided in the negative-ayes 79, noes 86.

The question was next put on reporting the resolution of the committee without amendment, and carried.

The hour of four having by this time arrived, Mr. FULLER renewed his motion to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again, which was carried.

The committee rose accordingly, reported the resolution, and asked leave to sit again; and the question being put on granting leave, it was decided in the affirmative-ayes 84, noes 80.

And then, on motion of Mr. CULPEPER, the House adjourned.

[The grounds on which this question rests, will be best understood by comparing the report of the Committee of Elections with Mr. Bailey's reply. It may be necessary, summarily, to state that Mr. Bailey, when elected by his constituents at Norfolk, in Massachusetts, was, and for several years had been, residing at Washington, performing the duty of a clerk in the Department of State, and had married in this city; but had taken no share in municipal concerns here, and constantly declared his intention to return to Massachusetts, where his home was stated to be, tended by the Committee of Elections, that he was and where he possessed a valuable library. It is con

not an "inhabitant" of Norfolk in the sense of the constitution, but was an inhabitant of Washington; it is insisted on by Mr. B. and his defenders, that though actually resident at Washington, this resi dence was temporary, his home was in Norfolk, and he was, therefore, an "inhabitant" of the latter place, within the meaning of the constitution, and was to be considered on the same footing with foreign Ministers, who, though bodily absent, on public service, retain, nevertheless, their homes in their own States, and are eligible to Congress, &c.]

THURSDAY, March 18. Mr. Bailey's Case.

Mr. STORES said: Let us discard, sir, these

subtle refinements, which only lead us from perplexity to absurdity, and construe this constitution as we should, according to the plain common acceptation of words. It is a question of common sense merely. The gentleman has resided in this city more than seven years; his family are here; his dwelling-place is here; it is his home. He is eligible to any office under the corporation of the place-a subject of taxation in the District-liable to jury duties. I repeat the question which I put to the committee before. It has not yet been answered. If this District was entitled to a delegate in this House, whose qualification should be that he was an inhabitant of the District of Columbia, would he not be eligible to the place? Is he not now entitled to every privilege or right of an inhabitant of this District, be those rights what they may, civil or political? These questions must be answered in the affirmative; and, unless it can be shown, that he has a sort of double capacity, which may constitute him an inhabitant of two distinct places at one time, and furnish him with two different domicils, he must be considered as an inhabitant of this District. What the nature of his rights may be here, or their extent, is a question of no importance. Be they greater or less, he is entitled to them, whatever they may be. It is enough for us that he has become an inhabitant | of the District, and has lost his inhabitancy in Massachusetts, and is thereby rendered obnoxious to that clause of the constitution which forbids his eligibility in that State.

Against these plain conclusions of common sense, it has been maintained, that he is, nevertheless, to be considered, for the purpose of eligibility, an inhabitant of Massachusetts. It is so contended, for the alleged reason that the removal of a person to this District, for the purpose of executing a public office, shall not work a dissolution of his inhabitancy in the State from whence he comes; but that he shall still be deemed to retain his inhabitancy as a citizen of that State. This doctrine can only be maintained on ground derived either from the peculiar political relative situation of the District, or the nature of a public office or employment. What peculiarity, sir, exists in relation to this territory of ten miles square, not common to all other territories of the United States? We have the "power of exercising exclusive legislation in all cases" over it-a phrase which denotes unlimited sovereignty. We are sovereign here precisely in the same sense, and to the same extent, as over all national territory. The same jurisdiction, for the same purposes, to an unlimited degree, we enjoy over them all. Inhabitancy in this District is precisely of the nature of inhabitancy in any other territory of the United States. Are gentlemen prepared to maintain that all the emigrants to the Arkansas, Michigan, or Florida Territories, retain their inhabitancy, under any technical notion, in the respective States from which they went? or if a different rule is to be

[H. OF R.

applied to their case, I hope gentlemen will point out in what particular such a difference exists from this District, and on what principles it is founded. Is it possible that inhabitancy may be acquired in these Territories by removal to, and settlement in them, and not in this District? It is a distinction altogether untenable.

Is there any thing, then, in the nature of the public employment, or the locality of the duties of the office, which can justly create a distinction? Had the gentleman been appointed collector of the port of Norfolk, to which place he had removed, where he had married, and resided seven years, he would clearly be eligible to this House, as an inhabitant of Virginia. His appointment as a judge in the Territory of Michigan or Florida, and removal to the seat of his duties in such territory, would equally constitute him an inhabitant of the territory, and he would doubtless acquire the capacity of being eligible to this House as a delegate.

If the rule which gentlemen contend for applies to a removal to a Territory by reason of some saving power of original State inhabitancy derived from the nature of the employment, the same reason would preserve the inhabitancy on a removal to other States, and all public functionaries would thus retain or acquire the right of eligibility either in the States from which they removed, or which they had adopted, or both. By such an interpretation of the constitution, all the registers and receivers of your Western land offices, the governors and judges of the Territories, from Lake Erie to Florida, and your Indian agents, are to be deemed inhabitants of their original States and eligible as such to this House. Mr. S. said he hoped gentlemen would also define the extent of this privilege of their original inhabitancy. Were they to be considered as inhabitants of the States from which they emigrated for any other purposes, and for what purposes? Would they be recognized in such States as inhabitants for any local purposes? or must not the argument result in the absurd conclusion that eligibility to this House is the only capacity which they retain during all their migrations? If any such anomalous and incongruous doctrine can be supported, let me, said Mr. S., put a case which has actually occurred and now exists. The present Treasurer of the United States removed from South Carolina to Philadelphia on the organization of the Government-he continued to reside at Philadelphia until the removal of the Seat of Government to this city in 1801. Had he been elected before 1801 as a representative in Congress from the city or county of Philadelphia, would it be seriously urged that he was not an inhabitant of that place, and for that reason ineligible? He has since removed to this city; and I ask whether, by this new doctrine, he is still to be considered as an inhabitant of Philadelphia, or has he been remitted back to his first inhabitancy in South Carolina, because this District is territory, and

not within any of the States-or for any other reason? It has been asked, in general terms, if we are prepared to disfranchise all who hold public offices in the District? No, sir, I am not prepared to outlaw them, if this is what is meant by the question. But, when gentlemen use these extreme expressions, it is well to examine how far the political right of all has been abridged in this respect by the constitution. An inhabitant of one State is deprived of the right of being elected in all the other States. Is there any reason in the imagination of any part of the House, why this District, or those who are inhabitants here, should be more highly favored, and gifted with more unlimited privileges, than the inhabitants of the States? Where, then, is the disfranchisement which has been so often complained of and resounded in this debate, and in what does it consist? The inhabitants of this District are, in this respect, on a perfect equality with all others. If they have not the right of sitting in this House as members, the fault, if anywhere, is in the constitution, which has denied the District a representation, because it is a union of the States and not of Territories.

A motion was now (about 4 o'clock) made to adjourn; lost-ayes 80, noes 95.

Mr. MCDUFFIE offered the following amend

ment:

Mr. ARCHER moved to adjourn; but the motion was lost-ayes 80, noes 100.

The question on the amendment was agreed to be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. TAYLOR called for a division of the question on the amendment.

Mr. SLOANE called for the previous question, which call the House sustained-ayes 93, noes 78.

Mr. MOORE, of Alabama, moved to adjourn, and called for the yeas and nays on the question. The House refused to take it by yeas and nays; and the question being taken, the House refused to adjourn-ayes 41, noes 124.

The main question was then put, (the previous question having precluded all debate as well as amendment,) and decided by yeas and nays, yeas 125, nays 55.

So it was resolved that John Bailey is not en

titled to a seat in this House.

[Pending the call of the yeas and nays, when the vote of Mr. MCDUFFIE was called for, he rose and asked to be excused from voting, and gave as a reason, "that he wished those who should come after him into this House, to understand the grounds upon which his vote rested, for which purpose he offered an amendment,

[MARCH, 1824.

and which had been put aside, without a division, by the previous question."]

FRIDAY, March 19.

Effect of the Tariff, &c.

Mr. VAN RENSSELAER, from the Committee on Agriculture, who were instructed to inquire if an increase of the duty now established by law, on any article of foreign growth or manufac ture, will be for the interest of the agriculturist, and if there be any such article, to name the same, together with the additional amount of duty which they deem beneficial to the agricul tural interest, made a report; which was laid on the table.

The report is as follows:

That, in the apprehension of your committee, whatever increases the consumption of its products, whether at home or abroad, necessarily advances the interest of agriculture. He who cultivates the soil, looks beyond the supply of his own wants for the profits of his labor. He looks to a market for the sur plus products of his industry. The home market, in the opinion of the committee, is at all times to be preferred to the foreign market, when the reward of agricultural pursuits is equal the former is less precarious than the latter; it is, also, more permanent and certain, and above the reach of restraining and prohibitory duties of foreign hostility; and when the home market can be increased in its demands, without diminishing in a greater degree the foreign consumption, it would seem wise and prudent to promote its extension by every rational means within the sphere of legislation.

Your committee consider the increase of duties on many foreign articles now imported into the United States, would promote the agricultural prosperity of the nation. A portion of population engaged in manufactures would necessarily depend on the farmer for subsistence, and create a more perfect and profitable division of labor than now exists. A new market

would be opened, and a new demand created, for all

the raw materials which new manufactures would consume. It cannot be denied, that, if all the manufactured articles now consumed by the people of the United States were manufactured within the bounds of our country, from the raw material furnished by ourselves, the value of our lands would be increased, and the profits of agricultural labor considerably augmented. Demand and consumption would be directly extended-a great extent of soil now devoted to the growing of products that afford no sufficient stimulus to cultivation. The soil and climate of the United States are capable of producing the various articles necessary for such manufacturing establishand of such as would inevitably be consumed, proments as will most naturally flourish in this country, comprehensive and rigorous system of policy, calen vided manufacturing labor should be extended. By a lated to unfold our agricultural resources, a spirit of emulation and industry would be diffused over the land; a vast and active system of internal exchange would rise up; the expense of transportation in heavy articles would be, in a great measure, saved; and, in fact, that which should be ardently wished for, in every agricultural country, a home market, would appear; this, too, would prove a market at once va