Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/30

4 military commanders, they had proceeded on doubtful authority. To remove this objection, the amendment was proposed limiting the preamble to the single act of discharging Captain Asgill, This, however, was not entirely satisfactory, because that particular act could have no constructive influence on the reputed authority of the generals. It was acceded to by the votes of several who were apprehensive that, in case of rejecting it, the earnestness of some might obtrude a substitute less harmless, or that the resolution might pass without the preamble, and be more offensive to the commander-in-chief. The first apprehension was the prevailing motive with many to agree to the proposition on the final question.

This day a letter was received from General Washington, enclosing one, of the 25th of October, from Sir Guy Carleton, relative to the demand made on him for a liquidation of accounts, and payment of the balance due for the maintenance of prisoners of war, in which the latter used an asperity of language so much the reverse of his preceding correspondence, that many regard it as portending a revival of the war against the United States.$1$

and.

No Congress.

, November 12.

The reappointment of Mr. Jefferson, as minister plenipotentiary for negotiating peace, was agreed to unanimously, and without a single adverse remark. The act took place in consequence of its being suggested, that the death of Mrs. Jefferson had probably changed the sentiments of Mr. Jefferson with regard to public life; and that all the reasons which led to his original appointment still existed, and, indeed, had acquired additional force from the improbability that Mr. Laurens would actually assist in the negotiation.

"A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, declaring that when a matter wax referred to any of the departments to take order, it was the sense and meaning of Congress that the same should be carried into execution." On this motion some argued that such reference amounted to an absolute injunction; others insisted that it gave authority, but did not absolutely exclude discretion in the executive departments. The explanation that was finally acquiesced in, as most rational and conformable to practice, was, that it not only gave authority, but expressed the sense of Congress that the measure ought to be executed; leaving it so far, however, in the discretion of the executive department, as that, in case it differed in opinion from Congress, it might suspend execution, and state the objections to Congress, that their final direction might be given. In the course of debate it was observed, by Mr. MADISON, that the practice of referring matters to take order, especially where money was to be issued, was extremely exceptionable, inasmuch as no entry of such proceedings was made on the journals, but only noted in a memorandum book kept by the secretary, and then sent to the department, with the reference to take order endorsed by the secretary, but not signed by him; so that the transaction, even where public in its nature, never came before the public eye, and the department was left with a precarious voucher for its justification. The motion was, in the end, withdrawn; the mover alleging that, as he only aimed at rendering an uncertain point clear, and this had been brought about by a satisfactory explanation, he did not wish for any resolution on the subject.

, November 13.

No Congress.

, November 14.

The proceedings were confined to the report of the committee on the case of Vermont, entered on the journal. As it was notorious that Vermont had uniformly disregarded the recommendation of Congress of 1779, the report, which ascribed the evils prevalent in that district to a late act of New York, which violated that recommendation, was generally admitted to be unjust and unfair. Mr. HOWELL was the only member who openly supported it. The delegates from New York denied the fact that any violation had been committed on the part of that state. The temper of Congress, on this occasion, as the yeas and nays show, was less favorable to Vermont than on any preceding one—the effect probably of the territorial cession of New York to the United States. In the course of the debate, Mr. HOWELL cited the case of Kentucky as somewhat parallel to that of Vermont; said that the late creation of a separate court by Virginia, for the former, resembled the issuing of commissions