The committee, said he, have applied to the House for a power to send a commission into New Jersey, to take testimony, in contradiction of what has been certified by the Executive Magistrate; now I submit to the House, whether this certificate, admitted to be true on all hands, is not the best evidence the nature of this case requires, and whether it will be necessary to send through that State a commission to examine every person, who chooses to offer evidence on the subject. I think such a measure will produce great evils, as a precedent, and many others in its operation; in the first place, such evidence will be taken ex parte, because it will be next to impossible for the opposite party to attend, in order to cross-examine the witnesses. It will put the petitioners to great expense and inconvenience, and, after all, the uncertainty will be as great as it is at this moment. But the precedent, I conceive, will be extremely dangerous. If a contested election should take place in New Hampshire or Georgia, we shall be obliged to send a commission into those States, for the purpose of obtaining testimony, which, after all, can never be so satisfactory as viva voce evidence; and more time may be spent in executing this commission, where the judges have to travel from district to district, through a State of 5 or 600 hundred miles extent, and examine every judge, inspector, and elector, than the representation is chosen to sit.

We thought it proper to lay these reasons before the House, and there leave the matter to their decision, to which we shall submit with all cheerfulness. We came here with an ardent desire to carry the Constitution into effect: actuated by this motive, we mention to the House the great attention which ought to be paid to secure the freedom of election, upon which alone the whole fabric depends. It is not that we dread the fullest investigation, that we submit these sentiments; it is our anxiety to have the question of our election speedily determined, and not delayed by what we conceive a useless measure.

The question before the House appears to be, whether it is necessary to obtain a few additional witnesses, at great uncertainty and expense; or whether the evidence already before them, and what may further be advanced by the petitioners, viva voce, is not sufficient to decide upon.

Mr. AMES brought forward several resolutions, which he thought would bring the question alluded to by the honorable gentlemen from Jersey (Mr. BOUDINOT) fairly before them; the first prescribed the mode of taking depositions by commission.

This being read, together with the papers containing the charges, &c. and the certificate of the Governor;

Mr. BENSON observed that the House had referred this business to the Committee of Elections, to report facts arising from the proofs; that it appeared to the committee, that certain facts respecting the manner in which the election was conducted, might be material, but the testimony could not be procured by them, without the aid of the House; they had therefore made a report of

[H. OF R.

this nature. He thought the House had better consider whether the facts alluded to by the committee were material or not; if they were not material, the House would not adopt the resolutions proposed by Mr. AMES; but if they were, then those resolutions will come properly before them. Mr. VINING Opposed Mr. AMES's proposition for empowering the judges of New Jersey to take this evidence. He was in favor of receiving this testimony viva voce before the House; the vicinity of that State would render this mode not inconvenient; and if it should be found necessary to form commissions for this purpose in distant States, provision might be made accordingly.

Mr. LAWRENCE remarked, that it had been questioned how far the House had a right to interfere in the election of particular States, but that Congress has received a discretionary power from the Constitution to regulate the time, manner, and place, of holding elections; and it is stated in another clause, that the election and qualification of its own members shall be judged by the House; by this means, all transactions relative to such elections are included; consequently they may determine in what manner the investigation of such a subject shall be prosecuted. If any doubts arise on that point, the sense of the House must be taken thereon.

Mr. BENSON proposed a day to be assigned on which the parties should have a hearing before the House on the question, either by themselves or by counsel, whether, by the Constitution, an inquiry can take place before the House relative to the facts alleged.

Mr. WHITE objected to counsel being introduced in the present instance; he judged the House as competent to decide this business as they had already been to determine many other Constitutional questions.

Mr. JACKSON was of opinion, that no such question could be admitted with propriety: One election has been determined without the aid of counsel or ex parte evidence, and he saw no reason in the present case why a different mode should be substituted. The authority of this House is not to be called in question by an individual; there cannot be a doubt of its jurisdiction in the case. One gentleman has been tried by the House upon the evidence that was brought before us: it will not be pretended that the delicacy and feelings of that gentleman could be less than those of the gentlemen concerned in the present question; it would be inconsistent and unjust to subject one member to a particular mode of trial, and then deliberate whether that same mode shall be adopted with respect to another.

Mr. SENEY said, he did not doubt the jurisdiction of the House, but as some objections had been made by the petitioners, and they had prayed to have the point settled, he thought they ought to be indulged; that every citizen had a right to be heard in his own defence, where he considered his right concerned.

It was then moved that the report of the committee should lie on the table, in order to take up the proposition of Mr. BENSON.

Mr. AMES objected to this proposition, as the greatest inconveniences might arise from it; it would discourage a number of people from applying for justice, especially those who lived remote from the seat of Government, provided they were obliged to attend in person, and give their testimony. The eligibility of taking depositions in many instances, particularly the present, in preference to the delays, uncertainty, and enormous expenses that would inevitably attend the mode proposed by the motion, was clear to his mind. After some desultory conversation, Mr. BENSON withdrew his proposition.

Mr. LEE proposed, that the report should be recommitted, and the committee authorized to send for evidence, papers, and records, and report a special state of facts. He said that it was the custom of the British House of Commons, upon similar occasions, to leave the whole business to a committee; and observed, that the example of so old and so experienced a Legislative body could be followed with safety and propriety.

[JULY, 1789.

House was called in question, it would be proper to hear counsel on that point, because it must be indelicate to determine a question respecting their own jurisdiction, without hearing what could be advanced against it.

Mr. PAGE was in favor of recommitting the report, and letting the committee proceed upon the duty to which they were originally appointed. He said, if the jurisdiction of the House was questioned, the parties had an indubitable right to be heard by counsel, and he hoped no gentleman would refuse the people of the United States a privilege of this important nature, which had been always enjoyed by the subjects of Great Britain.

Mr. STONE thought the authority of the House to determine any question respecting the election of any of its members, was so clearly expressed and understood, from the fifth section of the first article of the Constitution, that no doubt could be entertained by the petitioners, or any one else; consequently, it would be a waste of

The question on the report of the committee then recurred, on the question whether the judges of the Supreme Court in New Jersey should be authorized to take depositions on the subject of facts alleged by the parties; when

Mr. SENEY moved that Wednesday next be assigned for the parties to appear and be heard by their counsel before the House, of which notice should be given; and that the committee be discharged.

Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that the House was much embarrassed; but, sir, I saw it from the first appointment of the committee. I object to counsel being introduced into this House to discuss a previous question. This House is the judge of its own elections. We have appointed a committee to examine, but have not vested them with power to determine. They have not so much as a power to hear. If we have pursued a wrong step, why should we proceed any further? Let the committee be discharged, and a day appointed to hear the parties. It is my determination to hear, before I judge. The committee should be discharged, if they cannot proceed further without our aid. The subject now before the House is material, and of the greatest importance; and although we have been heretofore wrong, we may now set ourselves right.

I have no objection that counsel should be heard upon the merits of the principal question. Though after an investigation of facts, we have determined in one instance, and why we cannot do the same now I cannot conceive.

Each House is to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members. What means the word judge? Why it corresponds with the ancient maxim, to hear and determine. Now how can the House determine without hearing? If the House is to judge, we must bring all the evidence before us, although the committee may have heard it twenty times over. Mr. MADISON thought, if the jurisdiction of the

point. He had no objection to admitting a limited number on the merits of the main question, if required.

Mr. BOUDINOT informed the House that the petitioners meant to withdraw their request to be heard by counsel.

Whereupon Mr. SENEY withdrew his motion for making it the order of the day.

The question again recurred for inserting a commission to go into Jersey to take evidence; but, it growing late, the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, July 16.

A petition of John Christopher Stoebel, of the city of Philadelphia, was presented to the House and read, praying that an exclusive privilege may be granted him for a term of years, to construct and navigate boats with wheels, upon the principles of a model which he has invented, to facilitate the passage of boats up and down streams and rapids, without the use of oars.

Ordered, That the said petition do lie on the table.

Mr. BALDWIN, from the committee appointed, presented, according to order, a bill for settling the accounts between the United States and individual States; which was received and read the

first time.

Mr. FITZSIMONS, from the committee appointed, presented, according to order, a bill to provide for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio; which was received and read the first time.

LIGHT HOUSES, &c.

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the bill for the establishment and support of light-houses, beacons, and buoys, and for authorizing the several States to provide and regulate pilots.

Mr. BOUDINOT took the chair of the committee,

JULY, 1789.1

[H. OF R.

COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT, &c.. The House resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the compensation to the President, Vice President, and members of Congress.

The blank occasioned by striking out on Monday last, was now proposed to be filled.

Mr. LIVERMORE moved to fill it with 18,000 dollars.

Mr. BURKE said there were some members of the committee in favor of 15,000 dollars; others, indeed, were.for a much larger sum-he believed they went so far as 70,000 dollars; that 20,000 dollars was an accommodation, and as such he had agreed to it; but he was of opinion that 15,000 dollars was sufficient; that 20,000 had been once agreed to, but the expenses were added at a subsequent meeting of the committee; now, as the House had concurred in striking out 20,000 dollars, and a proposition had come forward more correspondent to his judgment, he should give it support.

Mr. FITZSIMONS presumed it was not a question before the House what the report of the committee had been, nor were the sentiments any gentleman had there delivered to operate against the sense expressed by the committee in their report; if any thing done in committee was to influence the decision of the House, it must be the report, which spoke the sense of the majority. He further presumed, that when the 20,000 dollars were struck out, after all the expense had been erased, it was in the contemplation of the honorable mover to increase the sum so as to include both articles. It was with this view he voted in favor of striking out the 20,000 dollars.

Mr. TUCKER said it might happen, that the expenses a President would incur at the first entering on the office would be so great as to injure his private fortune, and distress his family. A quarter's salary might be insufficient to defray the expense; yet if the President continued but three months in office, this sum would be all he was entitled to. He thought it just and requisite to provide against accidents of this kind, if it could be done consistently with the Constitution. With this object in view, he would propose that the President's compensation should be 26,000 dollars for the first year, and 16,000 dollars for every other year; that 10,000 dollars should be paid him in advance, on his coming to the chair, and the remainder in quarterly payments. Its amount, he said, would be nearly what was proposed by the gentleman from New Hampshire, (Mr. LIVERMORE ;) and if the House was disposed to fix on that sum as a proper compensation, they might, without any material change, admit his proposition; but if they meant to grant either a greater or less sum, he hoped they would accommodate it to his principle.

Mr. STONE said that a sum of 25,000 dollars would be as small a sum as would answer the purpose; and provided that amount should be

less to the people than that of any Government in the world. If it is considered that the unavoidable expense will be great, and that the assistance of two or more secretaries will be necessary for the President to discharge his high and important trust, and that it cannot be expected that persons in such a station should be in straitened or dependent circumstances, this sum will not be found to exceed the absolute expense, with a moderate compensation for the services of the President. It is also a maxim of sound policy, that Executive officers should be independent.

Mr. WHITE.-Sir, I do not say that 25,000 dollars will or will not be sufficient; but in order to determine the necessary sum, I should wish to know the style in which the President is expected to live. If a style of magnificence and splendor is to be adopted, this sum is too small; and if economy is pursued, it may be too much. Until this is known, it will be extremely difficult to decide upon a proper sum; and when I give my vote, I wish to do it on such information as will satisfy my mind with respect to its propriety, and show my constituents the reasonableness of the measure. Will he live in a more expensive style than the former Presidents of Congress, or will he live nearly in the same? If so, what was that expense, or what will be the probable increase? How was that money applied, and what will now be necessary? If these questions can be answered, gentlemen may decide with more precision than they can while the subject is left afloat.

Mr. BALDWIN said it was impossible to get the information the gentleman required; the committee had made all the examination in their power with respect to the actual expense of supporting the office. They found former Presidents of Congress, whose office, by the by, was less important, and whose assistants were less numerous, expended 7,000, 8,000, and so on to 13,000 dollars annually. From this, some gentlemen were led to believe 17,000 dollars might be sufficient in this instance. But we were, said he, left without any thing satisfactory on this subject; and when the question was pressed on the committee, they varied from 15,000 to 25,000 dollars; we were therefore obliged to average the sum.

We were satisfied that it must be left to experiment to determine what the allowance ought to be; and we were certain that the gentleman who had to make the first experiment would do it in such a manner as to give satisfaction to every body. He knows the way to blend dignity and economy; and I would rather, on this account, make the allowance too much than too little. Í would, therefore, prefer making the experiment at 25,000 dollars; a sum that, in the President's hands, will give umbrage to no one.

Mr. BOUDINOT made some further observations respecting the examination made by the committee, from which it appeared that the expenses of the President of the United States would exceed the expenses of the late President of Congress in a variety of cases. Two secretaries