Mr. Huntington said if the gentleman would vary his motion, so that the expence fhotild be incurred by the Staie, he did 1101 know but he ffiould agree to it. There is one State (said he) in which every person is obliged to provide him ieU with arms and accoutrements—and no diffi culty has resulted from the law—Penalties on default are exacfted and collected—but this pro pofit ion will produce great inequalities—it will excile jealousies and difcoi d between the govern ments— but if left to the States the officers will be moreexacftto prevent impolitions on the par ticular State from which they receive their ap- pointments Mr. Parker agreed to alter his motion agreea ble to Mr. Huntington's idea. Mr. Boudinot said that there did not appear to be any neceflity for the amendment, as the bill makes provision for excepting persons who are unable to purchal'e arms, in cafe the state legi slatures chufe t6 make such exceptions. Mr. Giles said he was opposed to the motion on principle ; but if that was not the cafe lie fliould object to it in its present form as it was not full enough : He did not suppose that it was intended that the United States should make a present of the arms thus furniflied—but the mo tion does not provide for their return, when not inufe. His principal objection to the motion however arose from its being an improper inter ference with the authority of the Itate govern ments : They may, or may not comply with the law—lf they fhouldnot, it would prove nugatory .—and render the authority of the United States, contemptible. For these reasons, and others which had been advanced, he thought the amend ment improper. Mr. Bloodworth observed that as the militia was to be organized and disciplined under the authority of the United States, and to be employ ed for the general defence, whenever andwhere ever Congress should diretft, it appeared but rea sonable that those who were benefited by them, should be at the expence of arming them. Mr. Sherman said it appeared to hitn, that by the Constitution, the United States were to be put to no expence about the militia, except when called into actual service. The clause is not so explicit as might have been wished ; but it will be difficult to fix the conftrudtion mentioned by the gentleman from North Carolina. What re lates to arming and disciplining means nothing more than a general regulation in refpetfi to the arms and accoutrements — There are so few free men i:i the United States who are not able to provide themselves arms andaccoutrements, that anyprovifion on the part of the United States is unneceflary and improper : He had no doubt that the people if left to themselves would pro vide such arms as are neceflary, without incon venience or complaint ; but if they are furnilhed bythe United States, the public Arsenals would soon be exhausted—and experience shews, that public property of this kind, from the careless manner in which many persons use it, is soon loft—The expence and inconvenience would, in liis opinion, far overbalance any good that would be derived from such a provilion. Mr. Vining observed, that the greatest objec tion against the motion is, that it stops short in the regulation of the business : No provision, it is said, is made for the return of the arms to the public—and it gives a discretionary power to the officers to dispose of the property of tlie United States ; but he conceived these difficulties were not beyond the reach of remedies ; the wisdom of the house, he doubted not, would devifefnch as were adequate to the objecft. Healkedby what means minors were to provide tliemfelves with the requiflte articles ? Many of them are appren tices : If you put arms into their hands they will make goodfoldiers ; but how are they to procure them .' It is said, if they are supplied by the United States the property will be loft ; if this is provided against, every objection |may be ob viated. He then offered an addition to the mo tion, providing for the return of the arms to the commanding officer. The Chairman then stated the motion with the amendment. Mr. 'Fucker observed, that the motion in its jv.efent form, differed from- the original propo sed by the gentleman from Virginia, fie con ceived the gentleman had no right to alter it, nor could it be done without a vote of the committee. He prefcred the motion in its original ftate—for the United States may without doubt, furniih the arms—but he very much qneftioned their right io call on the individual States to do it. Mr. Williamfon was in favour of the quefti«n's being taken with the amendment admitted by Mr. Parker. He wilhed to know whether Con gress meant to tax the individual Hates in this unusual manner. Perhaps as they had aflumed the Hate debts upon this principle, or rather with out any principle, they might think they had a right to call upon them to furnifh quotas in pro portion, this would be getting Something for Ibmcthing—and not like the other measure, los ing Something for noihing. Mr. Vining said he could not understand what was meant by faying that the amendment was dictating to the Kates: What is the whole bill but dictating—a law that afFcrts every individual, touches the whole community. With refpecft to the constitutionality of the measure, there can be no doubt—every grant of power to Congrels neceUarily implies a conveyance of every inci dental power requisite to carry the grant into effetft. _ Mr. Wadfworth apologized for detaining the attention of the committee a moment, while he asked the gentlemen who favored the motion, what was the extent' of their wi/hes ?—The mo tion at firft appeared to be in favor of poor men, who are unable to purchase a firelock ; but now it seems, minors and apprentices are to be pro vided for—is there a man in this honfe who would wiflt to fee so large a proportion, of the commu nity, perhaps one-third, armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them ! No thing would tend more to excite suspicion, and rouse a jealousy dangerous to the vtnion. With refpedl to apprentices, every man knew thatthey were liable to this tax, and they were taken un der the idea of being provided for by their mas ters—as to minors, their parents or guardians would prefer furnifhing thein with arms them selves, to depending on the United States when they knew they were liable to having them re claimed. The question on Mr. Parker's motion was loft. On motion of Mr. Heifter, a proviso was added to the fecftion in the following words—" That every citizen so enrolled, and providing liimfelf with the arms and accoutrements required asa forefaid, {hall hold the fame exempt from all ex ecutions, or suits for debt, or for the payment of taxes." Mr. Fitzfimons moved to strike "out the words " provide hiinfelf," and insert " shall be pro vided " Tliis motion was objected to by Meflrs Boudi not, Huntington, Jackson, Partridge, Viningand Madison. It was said that it would be de ftrucftive of the bill, as it would leave it optional with the states, or individuals, whether the mi luia Ihould be armed or not. This motion was loft by a great majority.—The second feclion comprizes the characters that are to be exempted from enrollment or militia duty. Mr. Madison moved to strike out that part which related to members of Congress, their of ficers and servants, attending either house— and to insert " members of the Senate and house of Reprelentatives whilst travelling to, attend ing at, or returning from the feflions of Con gress. He iaw no reason for a total exempti on from militia service—exceptions in favor of the framers of laws ought notto be extended be yond what is evidently neceflary.—The members of Congress during the recess are at liberty to pursue their ordinary avocations, and may parti cipate in the duties and exercises of their fellow citizens. —They ought to bear a part in the bur dens they lay on others, which may check an abufeof the powers with which they arevefted. Mr. Jackson observed that this alteration might interfere with the public intereil—in cases of alarm or invasion, the members might be cal led to a great distance in the militia at the mo ment when their presence was required to attend the session of the legislature. It would be well therefore to consider whether their Cervices in the militia would be of equal importance to the pub lic /ntereft, as their services in Congress. Mr. Boudinot objected to the amendment—not thatlie would exempt Members of Congress from burdens imposed 011 their fellow-citizens—but the motion he conceived was inconsistent with this very idea. The bill provides that exempts ihall pay a certain equivalent ; it would be unjust to impose this equivalent, and compel the Members to turn out in the militia. He con cluded by faying that he conceived the indepen dence of the leigiflature was connected with this exemption. Mr. Wadfworth said that he thought there was no neceflity to exempt Members of Congress : It the Conititution did not grant them such a pri vilege, he doubted whether rhey could afTunie it by an a<ft of tlieir own : He was therefore for leav ing this matter to the discretion ofthe (laic lefi flaiures—llo inconvenience would result if this was done. Mr. Hartley was in favor of the exemptions' being fpecified by ast of Congress ; and he con ceived they had the plainest directions to follow, in the univerl'al practice of all the (late legislatures ■ —and this practice was founded in the reason of things, the incompatibility of the duties ; they are diltindt in their natures, and cannot be exer cifed together. Mr. Maddifon fupportedliis motion, he con sidered it as important that the governors and the governed should feel their mutual relation to each other ; on this principle he thought that 110 exemption ihould be allowed, except in cases where an attendcnce on militia duty, was incom patible with the performance of other duties ; tor these reasons he wished that the whole clause fhoukl be struck oat—in cases of difficulty a court 678 martial would be competent to doing justice t« the parties. Mr. Giles followed Mr. Madison in a similar train of reafoningin refped to rulers fympathiz» ing with the ruled in all public burthens ; he adverted to the diflerent plans of organizing the militia which had been contemplated by the committee, and the reasons which,induced them to adopt that in the bill ; with refped: to the plan of fele<fting particular classes to form a mi litia, it could not in liis opinion be done, but by inliftments, which was a mode that the freemen of America revolted from. He laid that no insu perable difficulties would result from rendering all liable to be called upon. Should the clause be struck MUt, the equivalent mentioned in another part of the bill will be unnecellary, and the arti cle may be expunged. He concluded by faying, that if it was thought proper that the Members ofCongrefs fliouldbe exempted, it would be best that the exemptions fliould be made by the Itate legislatures. Mr. Sherman faidit was the practice of the se veral States to exempt their own legislatures, and the other descriptions of persons mentioned in thp clause : He conceived a feat in the federal legi slature, would equally entitle to an exemption : He was opposed to the amendment, tho he would agree to ltrike out the whole, and leave the busi ness to the state legislatures. Mr. Jackson obierved that leaving the exemp tions from militia duty, to the discretion of the Hate legillatures might be productive ofgreat in equalities; besides it would not comport with the idea of the bill in the grand object of uniformi ty : Some states might make great exceptions, others none at all—this would make the burthen very unequal on the whole, which would be pal pably unjust.—The example of the itate legifla turesisfuriicient said he to (hew that some exemp tions are agreeable to the ideas of the people—& the independence of the legislature being eflenti ally concerned leave 110 room to doubt the pro priety of the nieafure—he informed the commit tee that when they came to the clause fpecifyin* the sum proposed as an equivalent for personal service, he should move for an alteration. Mr. Hartley observed that the conftituiion de clares that the persons of members lliall be privi leged from arrest during their attendance on Congress—in going to and returning from the feflion ; with a Ipecial reference to the independ ence of the legiflature —he conceived that iE would counteract the spirit of the cojiltitution to render the members liable to be called on to dis charge duties incompatible in,' their nature —on this principle alio it would be in the power ef a designing president, ftiouldfucha character ever be eletfted, to prevent the members aflenibling by calling out individuals to attend military duties at the moment when their attendance would be neceflary in Congress.—The ilates in dividually, as well as the parliament of Great- Britain have set us a good example in this refpedt. Mr. Boudinot, agreed in sentiment with Mr. Hartley, that the independence of the members was an important objedt.—The ideas of the gen tlemen from Virginia [Mr. Madison and Mr. Giles] that legislators ought to participate in the burthens imposed on others, ought never to be loft fight of—but in the present inltance, the doctrine would be carried into pracftice—for at the end of every two years, the Members would re vert to the mass of citizens, and feel in common with others the influence of the laws.—The busi ness of legislation is more arduous and momen tous than any other—and ought not to be impe ded, or rendered liable to be fruftrated by any other. This he thought would be the cafe by adopting the amendment. Mr. Madison supposed nothing would be risked by tilt amendment, as the Constitution had fuffi ciently secured the independence of the members —He had not anticipated so much debate on the motion—He was fatisfied in his own mind of its propriety—The poflible cases which had been sta ted, did not in his opinion juftify the violation of the great principle he had mentioned ; but to fimplify thequeftion he would withdraw his mo tion, so far as only to propose to strike out from the exemptions, " the members ofCongrefs." Mr. Tucker said that it appeared to him that foine general ideas on the fubje(ft of exemptions should be incorporated in the bill. If the com mittee descend to particulars they will find it ex tremely difficult to make such diftincftions as are proper. He was opposed to leaving the exemp tions to be made by the state governments —It might create difficulties, as some States inighi exempt their members, and others might not— These partial exemptions would be attended with great inconveniences ; the Members may be ne ceflarily engaged in making their arrangements to attend their duty in Congress, previous to the time of setting out for the feat of government, and be interrupted by being called to the field to attend militia duty. The number of persons it will be found eligible to exempt, will not be so great,as to render the defence of the United States, precarious for want of their personal services iu j ihe militia, He concluded by observing that the
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers