Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/129

1787.] acceded to by the other friends of the proposition, on the principle of accommodation, it had a vote of seven states.$58$

, April 19.

The instructions of Virginia against relinquishing the Mississippi were laid before Congress by the delegates of that state, with a motion that they should be referred to the department of foreign affairs, by way of information.

The reference was opposed by Mr. KING and Mr. BENSON, as unnecessary for that purpose, the instructions having been printed in the newspapers.

In answer to this, it was observed, that the memorial accompanying the instructions had never been printed; that if it had, no just objection could be thence drawn against an official communication; that if Congress would submit a measure, as they had done yesterday, to the opinion of their minister, they ought at least to supply him with every fact, in the most authentic manner, which could assist his judgment; and that they had actually referred to the same minister communications, relative to the western views, less interesting and authentic, and which he had made the basis of a report to Congress.

The motion was lost, Massachusetts and New York being against it, and Connecticut divided. Mr. MITCHELL, from the latter state, was displeased at the negatives, as indicating a want of candor and moderation on the subject.$59$

, April 23.

Mr. Jay's report, stating objections against the motion of Mr. Madison for sending Mr. Jefferson to Madrid, was taken into consideration.

Mr. MADISON observed, that Mr. Jay had not taken up the proposition in the point of view in which it had been penned; and explained what that was, to wit, that it was expedient to retract the step taken for ceding the Mississippi, and to do it in a manner as respectful and conciliating as possible to Spain, and which, at the same time, would procrastinate the dilemma stated by Mr. Jay. He said he was not attached to the expedient he had brought forward, and was open to any other that might be less exceptionable.

Mr. GORHAM avowed his opinion that the shutting the Mississippi would be advantageous to the Atlantic States, and wished to see it shut.

Mr. MADISON animadverted on the illiberality of his doctrine, and contrasted it with the principles of the revolution, and the language of American patriots.

Nothing was done in the case.

, April 25.

Mr. MADISON, observing to Congress that he found a settled disinclination in some of the delegations to concur in any conciliatory expedient for defending the Mississippi against the operation of the vote of seven states, and that it was hence become necessary to attack directly the validity of that measure, to the end that the adversaries to it, and particularly the instructed delegations, might at least discharge their duty in the case, made the following motion:—

Whereas it appears by the report of the secretary for the department of foreign affairs, made on the 11th instant, that, in consequence of a vote entered into by seven states on the 29th day of August last, he has proceeded to adjust with Mr. Guardoqui an article for suspending the right of the United States to the common use of the river Mississippi below their southern boundary: And whereas it is considered that the said vote of seven states, having passed in a case in which the assent of nine states is required by the Articles of Confederation, is not valid for the purpose intended by it; and that any further negotiations in pursuance of the same may eventually expose the United States to great embarrassments with Spain, as well as excite great discontents and difficulties among themselves: resolved, therefore, that the secretary for the said department be informed that it is the opinion of Congress that the said vote of seven states ought not to be regarded as authorizing any suspension of the use of the River Mississippi by the United States, and that any expectations thereof, which may have been conceived on the part of Spain, ought to be repressed.

Mr. KING reminded Congress that this motion was barred by the rule, that no question should be revived which had been set aside by the previous question, unless the same states, or an equal number, be present, as were present at the time of such previous question. This rule had been entered into in consequence of a