If he had, indeed, conceived that the question of war or peace was before the House, he might have wished its decision to be delayed until every fact relative to the negotiation had been before them; but, as he did not conceive that any such measure had been started, but only that such defensive measures should be taken as a much less degree of danger than at present existed would authorize, he was not willing to take any share of the responsibility as to the inconveniences and evils which may result from publishing the correspondence in question. If the disclosure should endanger the safety of our Commissioners, or operate as a discouragement to the future free communications of our agents abroad, he should wish to steer clear of any blame on the occasion.

Mr. GALLATIN observed, that the same reasons, or nearly so, which have been mentioned by the gentleman from Massachusetts, as inducing him to vote against the resolution, would induce him (Mr. G.) to vote for it. He had already stated that, viewing the question in the light he did, he did not want further information to enable him to decide upon it. He concluded the statements made by the President is correct; that it is true that there is no hope of accommodation with the French Republic, and that all negotiations is at an end; and, taking this as a ground upon which to act, he was willing to act upon it to the best of his judgment. Mr. G. said, he considered part of the measures proposed, to be measures of war, though gentlemen called them measures of defence; but, when the subject should be gone into, he would prove them to be those of war; and that the measure adopted by the President in relation to arming merchant vessels, is a war measure. On this ground he was ready to vote against any such acts, and in favor of anything which tended to counteract their effect.

But, said Mr. G., if there are gentlemen on this floor who conceive that, in addition to the information which has been given to the House, the despatches will give to them more irritating matter than they have yet had, which may have a tendency to change the opinion of those who, like him, are in favor of peace measures, he had no objection to their being communicated. He did not expect, however, that anything of this kind would change his opinion. The House had had enough of this matter last session, and in the late communications; but, on his mind, these would produce no effects as to the question of peace or war. It is true, as hinted by the gentleman last up, that some inconveniences may arise from the despatches being communicated, as it may prevent diplomatic characters from expressing themselves freely in future; but the President of the United States was not afraid of this, as during the last session he had communicated information of this kind, without being applied to for it. But if, after having examined the despatches, he is convinced it will be highly injurious to the public welfare, or endanger the safety of our Commissioners, or prevent the happy issue of our negotiation, to communicate the information, he will either give it, or state his reasons for withholding it to the House.

The question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 65, nays 27, as follows:

YEAS-John Allen, George Baer, junior, Abraham Baldwin, David Bará, Bailey Bartlett, James A. Bayard, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Demsey Burges, Samuel J. Cabell, John Chapman, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, William Craik, John Dawson, John Dennis, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, William Findley, Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, Walter Jones, Edward Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Nathaniel Macon, William Matthews, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Josiah Parker, Thomas Pinckney, John Rutledge, jr., Tompson J. Skinner, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Peleg Sprague, Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, Peleg Wadsworth, John Williams, and Robert Williams.

NAYS-Stephen Bullock, Joshua Coit, Samuel W. Dana, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Henry Glen, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, John Reed, Jas. Schurman, Samel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Nathaniel Smith, George Thatcher, Mark Thomson, Thomas Tillinghast, and John E. Van Alen.

Messrs. ALLEN and HANNA were apppointed a committee to wait upon the President with the said resolution.

Mr. KITTERA reported a bill for authorizing certain officers to administer oaths; which was committed for to-morrow.

DEFENCE OF NEW YORK HARBOR

Mr. SEWALL, from the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the Defense of the Country, made a report on the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, on the subject of the insecure state of the harbor of that port. The report states, that Congress had this subject under consideration at the last session, and provided that any State should be authorized to expend any such sum upon their fortifications as they should deem proper, not exceeding the sum of which such State was found indebted to the United States in the settlement of the accounts between the States and the United States. This proposition having been wholly neglected by the State of New York, and no cession having been made of the soil, the committee recommended, after stating that it will be proper to include a sum for purchasing cannon and ammunition for the said fortifications, the following resolution:

“Resolved, That a bill be reported to repeal the provision of cession in the act providing for the further defence of the ports and harbors of the United States, and provide in lieu thereof that the fortifications which shall be erected and allowed for by the United States pursuant to that act, shall become the property of the United States; also to provide that any State which shall accept of the proposal made by the said act, and proceed to finish any fortification heretofore commenced, and which by the President of the United States shall be judged of use in the defence of any port or harbor, or in making any additional fortifications, under his direction, shall be allowed, in the manner proposed by the said act, as well for all previous expenditures made since March 20, 1794, as for the expenses which shall be made pursuant to the said proposal, not exceeding the balance in which such State respectively has been found indebted to the United States."

The report was committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

FOREIGN CONSULS

On motion of Mr. Ors, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill appropriating a sum of money for defraying expenses incurred by our Consuls and Vice Consuls; and, after filling the sum appropriated with $30,000, the committee rose, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.

FRENCH RELATIONS

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union; when, after a suggestion from Mr. PINCKNEY, that it would be best to pass over the first resolution and go on to the others; and some observations from Mr. N. SMITH against passing over the first resolution, and in favor of coming to an immediate vote upon it, as being of no consequence, and deciding nothing, a motion was made by Mr. HARPER for the committee to rise, in order that the business might be postponed until the information or an answer from the President on the subject should be received; which was carried, and the committee rose accordingly.

Mr. ALLEN informed the House that the committee appointed to wait upon the President with the resolution which had been agreed to, had performed that service, and he had informed them that he would take the matter under consideration, and to what the public safety should seem to require.

ORGANIZING THE MILITIA

The order of the day was next called for on the bill for organizing and disciplining the militia of the United States, and the House went into a Committee of the Whole on this subject; when the first section, which provides for the establishment of a select corps, having been read, a motion was made by Mr. VARNUM to strike it out, in order to try the principle of the bill. This motion was advocated by Messrs. VARNUM, NICHOLAS, and W. C. CLAIBORNE; and opposed by Messrs. J. WILLIAMS, MACON, SHEPARD, S. SMITH, HARPER, BROOKS, and DAYTON. No question was taken. The committee had leave to sit again.

TUESDAY, APRIL 3

Mr. HARRISON reported a bill providing compensation for the marshals, clerks, attorneys, jurors, and witnesses, in the Courts of the United States, and for repealing certain parts of acts therein mentioned, and for other purposes; which was committed for to-morrow.

SURVEY OF NORTH WESTERN LANDS

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from Rufus Putnam, Surveyor General, stating the difficulty and impractability of running north and south lines, according to the true meridian, in the survey of the Northwestern Territory lands, and suggesting the propriety of repealing that part of the law, and requiring, instead thereof, that all instruments used in the said survey be adjusted to one meridian. Referred to the committee on the subject of Northwestern Territory lands.

MEMORIAL ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. GALLATIN presented the following memorial from forty members of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, viz:

To the Congress of the United States:

The Memorial of the subscribers, members of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, respectfully sheweth:

That your memorialists, faithfully attentive to the prosperity and happiness of their constituents, cannot contemplate the present crisis in the affairs of the United States, without feeling the strongest solicitude, by every honorable means, to avert the horrors of the war which threatens: and, although they claim no other influence on your deliberations and transactions than that to which they are entitled in common with all their fellow-citizens, they are persuaded that the public confidence reposed in them will at once justify the expression of their sentiments, and insure a liberal interpretation of the motives which actuate them in addressing those sentiments to your honorable body.

That your memorialists will not, on this occasion, take a retrospective view of the events of the American Revolution, in order to awaken a sense of gratitude for former services, nor advert the peculiar character of European war, in order to mitigate the feelings of resentment for recent injuries on the part of France; but regarding only the existing state of their country, its policy, its interests, and its independence, every principle of patriotism impels them, not merely to deprecate a public annunciation of hostilities, but firmly to discountenance every measure which tends to inflame the spirit of animosity, and to dissolve the bond of amity with that Republic.

That, whether your memoralists contemplate the independent resources of the Union, or the aid to be derived from a foreign alliance the principles of a Republican system, or the means of gratifying the best wish of their constituentsthey are alike impressed with the importance of pursuing a conciliatory and pacific course. They perceive, indeed, no glory, no benefit, to be attained for their country, through the medium of a war, that can compensate for the stagnation of commerce, the suspension of agriculture, the effusion of blood, the waste of treasure, the desolation of property, and the depravation of morals, which are its inseparable concomitants; while the issue of the European contest must either leave the United States without an efficient friend, or fatally associate them with the rival of their commerce, and the enemy of Republicanism.

That your memorialists, under these general impressions, submit the subject with great anxiety, but with great deference, to the consideration of your honorable body, trusting that your wisdom, co-operating with the wisdom of other departments of the Government, will be competent to the preservation of peace, without the sacrifice of any essential right, or the violation of any important trust. But, above all, your memorialists earnestly hope, that while the constituted authorities shall deem it unjust or inexpedient to engage in a public war, the neutrality and peace of the nation may not be put at hazard by authorizing private citizens to arm and equip, under any pretence, the vessels of the United States. William Maclay, M. Leib, Samuel Maclay, P. Muhlenberg, John Moore, Ralfer Geehr, Chas. Shoemaker, John Coningham, N. B. Boileau, P. Frailey. David Krause, Isaac Van Horn, Aaron Lyle, Jacob Painter, Abraham Horn, W. Sterrett, Samuel Snyder, Thomas Newhorter, W. Linnard, W. Hoge, Isaac

Weaver, jr., Manuel Eyre, John Smilie, James Harris, John Rea, Wm..
Findlay, John Wright, Abraham Hendricks, J. Bonnett, Issac Worrell,
Robert Philson, Robert Whitehill, A. Baird, John Hamilton, John Starbird,
Christopher Lower, J. Kean, Samuel Dale, J. Brandon, G. Wilson.

Mr. GALLATIN moved that this petition be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union.

Mr. ALLEN was stating some objections to the petition on account of its purporting to be from members of the Legislature of Pennsylvania; he thought no more weight was due to this petition than would be due to a petition from forty other individuals; when

A Message was announced from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It was in the following words:

Gentlemen of the Senate, and

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

In compliance with the request of the House of Representatives, expressed in their resolution of the 2d of this month, I transmit to both Houses the instructions to and despatches from the Envoys Extraordinary of the United States to the French Republic, which were mentioned in my Message of the 10th of March last, omitting only some names, and a few expressions descriptive of the persons.

I request that they may be considered in confidence until the members of Congress are fully possessed of their contests, and shall have had opportunity to deliberate on the consequences of their publication; after which time, I submit them to your wisdom.

UNITED STATES, April 3, 1798.

JOHN ADAMS.

The above Message having been read, the galleries and House were cleared of strangers, and the House was occupied in reading the papers accompanying until past three o'clock, when they adjourned, without making any order respecting them.

Extract from Madison Notes on Debates of Constitutional Convention
Concerning Treaty Making Powers

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1787

TREATY MAKING POWER

Mr. MADISON then moved to authorise a concurrence of two thirds of the Senate to make treaties of peace, without the concurrence of the President.-The President he said would necessarily derive so much power and importance from a state of war that he might be tempted, if authorised, to impede a treaty of peace. Mr. BUTLER 2ded the motion

Mr. GORHAM thought the precaution unnecessary as the means of carrying on the war would not be in the hands of the President, but of the Legislature.

The CHAIRMAN. Since these pieces of legislation deal with the same subject, I wonder whether it wouldn't be more efficient to have Mr. Eagleton testify. Then we could question both of you and get your views together. Is it agreeable to you? Can you stay? Senator JAVITS. Yes. It is agreeable to me.

COMMENDATION OF SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 59

Mr. Chairman, may I say this, I consider the Eagleton resolution to be a very creative exercise in the effort to improve upon the framework which I have had the great gratification to author, and I am very hopeful that there are things in that resolution that we will find very useful in the final product.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

You may stay right there if you would like.

Senator JAVITS. I may just go next door briefly to the Education Subcommittee meeting, where I am needed for a quorum, Mr. Chair

man, while Senator Eagleton presents his prepared statement which I have already read.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Senator Eagleton will you give your statement and then we will proceed to examine both of you at the same time.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS F. EAGLETON, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

Senator EAGLETON. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Senate Joint Resolution 59 regarding the powers of the Congress and the President to commit the Armed Forces of the United States to hostilities.

At the outset let me say that I echo the sentiments as expressed by Senator Javits. I deem this matter to be of singular importance. Senator Javits pointed out that during his long tenure in both the House of Representatives and the Senate he would point to the war powers area and his bill as perhaps the single most important item that he dealt with during his tenure.

I have only been here 2 years but I, too, believe that during that brief period of time the war powers is the single most important area with which I have dealt.

CONFUSION CONCERNING AUTHORITY FOR U.S. COMMITMENT IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Today as we poke through the historical debris of the Vietnam era, it is difficult to identify why, and by what authority, the decisions were made which so deeply committed us in Southeast Asia.

Secretary Rusk brought out a something-for-everyone shopping list of Vietnam justifications on January 28, 1966, when conceding that the SEATO treaty was not necessarily self-triggering. He stated:

I would not want to get into the question of whether-if we were not interested in the commitments, policy, and principle under the Southeast Asia treaty-of whether we have some legal way in order to avoid those commitments. I suppose that one could frame some argument which would make that case. But it would seem to us that the policy, which was discussed and passed upon by the executive and the Senate of that day, is that we are opposed to aggression against these countries in Southeast Asia, the members of the organization as well as the protocol states. In addition to that we have bilateral assistance agreements to South Vietnam. We have had several actions of the Congress. We have had the annual aid appropriations in which the purposes of the aid have been fully set out before the Congress. We have had special resolutions such as the one of August 1964, and we have had the most important policy declarations by successive Presidents with respect to the protection of South Vietnam against Communist aggression.

And recently, new Presidential powers to insure a just peace and facilitate an unspecified withdrawal schedule, have been discovered and engrafted to past executive claims.

Congress remains confused. At the end of a colloquy on repeal of the Tonkin Gulf resolution between Senator Robert Dole and myself