press;" for at crimmon law, libels against the government miv.bt be p.uitifhed with fine md imprifonrrk-Rt at the difcrction of the eourt, whereas the a£t limits the fine to two thousand dollars, and the imprisonment to two years; and it also allows the party ac ■cufed to give the truth in evidence for his justification, which by the common law was exprefslV forbidden. And laflty, it is ani'wered, that had tfte constitution intended to prohibit Congress frojn legfcating at all on the fubjett of the yrefs, which is the conftroAion whereon the objections to this law are founded, it would have used the fame exprefiions as in that part of the clause which relates to religion, and religious tests ; whereas the words are wholly different: " Congress," fays the con stitution, (amendment 3d) " lhall make no law respecting an eftablilhment of reli gion, or prohibiting thefreeexercifethere of, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press." Here it is manifefl that the constitution intended to prohibit Congress from legislating at all on the fubjeft of re ligious establishments, and the prohibition is made in the most express terms. Had the Same intention prevailed refpetfting the pre Is, the fame expreilions would have'been ul'ed, and Congress would have been " prohibited from paiTipg. any law respecting the press." Thty are not, however, •' prohibited" from legislating at all on the fubjedt, but merely •from abridging the liberty of the press. It is evident they may refpe.fting the press, may pass laws for its regulation, and to punilh those who pervert it into an en gine of mifcliief, provided those laws do not' 41 abridge" its " liberty." Its lihehYy, according to the well-known and universally admitted definition, consists in perm"(lion to pubjilh, without any previous raftraint upon the Orel's, and not one. to infiidt punilhment on >vickedand malicious publications, would be a law to abridge the liberty of the press, arid as such, untotiftitutional. The foregoing reasoning is submitted as vindicating the validity of the laws in quef- tion. Although the committee believe that each of the ineafures adopted by Congress during the lad fe(Tio«, is susceptible of an analytical juflification, on trie principles of the consti tution, a«d national policy, yet they prefer to refl their vindication on the trpe ground of coutiflering them as parts of a general system of defence, adapted to a crisis of ex traordinary difficulty and danger. It cannot be denied that the power to de tlare war; to raile and support armies ; to provide and maintain a navy ; to suppress infurreftions, and repel invasions, and also the power to defray the expence by loans or taxes, are veiled in Congress. Unfortunately for the present generation of mankind, a con tefl has arisen and rages with unabated fero city, which has desolated the faireft portions of Europe, and shaken the fabric of society through the civilized world. From the na ture and e-fFefts of this contell, as developed in trhe <-Kpcrifr.ec of nations, tfi.- ferences mull be drawn, that it is unful'cepti ble of the restraints which have either desig nated tfce objedts, limited the duration, or mitigated the horrors of national conten tions. In the internal history of France, and in the condudl of her forces and parti zans in the countries which have fallen un der her power, the public councils of our courttry were required to discern the dangers which threatened the United States, and to guard not only againftthe ufualconfequences of war, but also againll the effects of an un precedented combination 1 to eftablilh new principles of social on the subversion flf religion, morality, law and government. Will it be said, that the railing of a small army, and aneventual provision for drawing into the public service a considerable propor tion of the whole force of the country, was in such a crisis unwise, or improvident ? If such should be the afTertion, let it be candidly considered, wi'tther some of our fertile and flourilhing dates did not, fix months since, present as alluring objefts for the gratification of ambition or cupidity as the inhospitable climate of Egypt What then appeared to be the comparative difficul ties between invad : ng America and subver ting the Britifii power io the East-Indies ? If this was a profetfed, not real objeft, of the enterprize, let it be aiked, if the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire was not really the friend of France, at the time when his un fufpefting dependencies were invaded ; and whether the United States were not at the fame time loaded with irtfults and affiailed with hostility ? if however, it be aflerted, that the system of France n hostile only to despotic, or monarchical governments, and that our security arises front the from of our Conftitution,let Switzerland, firft divided and disarmed by perfidious feduftions, now agonized by relentless power, illustrate the eonfequences of similar credulity. Is it ne eeffary at this time to vindicate the naval armament ; rather may not the inquiry be boldly made, whether the guardians of the public weal wou'd not have deserved and re ceived the reproaches of every patriotic A merican, if a contemptible na»al force had beed longer permitted to intercept our ne cefftry supplies, destroy our principal source of revenue, and seize, at the entrance of our harbours and rivers, the produft of our induliry dtftined to our foreign markets? If fuih injuries were at all to be repelled, is not the reftri&ion which confined captures by our (hips folrly to armed vessels of France a lufficicnt proof of our moderation ? If therefore naval and militaiy prepara tions were ncceffary. a provision of fund to defray thecunfequent exptnfes was ofcourfe tndifpenfible ; a review of till the welfares that have been adopted finte the iiftablifh nient of the government, will prove that Congress have not been unmindful of the wilhes of the American pfople, to avoid an accumulation of the public debt ; and the success which has attended these rneafures, affords conclusive evidi nee of the sincerity of their intent ions. But topurchafe fufficient quantities of military fuppliet, to eftablifli a naT J r » ®nd provide for al! the -contingencies of an army, \eitV jf it recourse to ne»r taxes and loans, was impracticable ; bat!) mea sures were in fa£i adopted—in dc vising a mode of taxation the eonvinience and cafe of the lead wealthy class of the people w<;re consulted as much as pi poflible, and altho' th<* expenses of assessment have furniftied a topic of complaint, it is fnund that the al lowances are barely fufficient to ensure tke execution of the law, even aided as theyare by the difintei-ffttd and patriotic exertion* of worthy citizens—besides it ought to be remembered that the expenses of organizing anew fyftcm, should not on any principle, be regarded as permanspt burden on the pub lic. In authorizing a loan of money, Congress have not been inattentive to prevent a per manent debt ; in this particularalfo the pub lic opinion and interest have been confjil ted. On considering the law, as well as the manner in which it is proposed to be tar ried into execution, the Committee are well fatisfied in finding any excess in the imme diate charge upon the revenue, is likely to be compensated by the facility of redemp tion. which isfecured to the government. The Alien an d Sedition afls so called, form a part, and, in the opipion of the com mittee, an efiential part of these precaution ary and proteftive meafurea, adopted for our security. France appears to have an organized fy item of conduct towards foreign nations— to bring them within the sphere, and under the dominion of her influence and controul. It has been unremittingly pursued under all the changes of her internal polity. Her means are in wonderful coincidence with her ends : Among these, and not Icaft fuccefs ful, is the direftion and employment of the aftive and versatile talents of ber citizens a broad, as emilTaries and fp es. With a nu merous body o r French citizens and other foreigners, and admonished by the palling seen s.in other countries, as well as by af pefts in our own knowingthey had the pow er, and believing it 10 be their duty, Con grtfs pa(Ted the law rcfpe<£ling Aliens, di redling the dangerous and JufpeSed, to be re moved and leaving to the inijfenfiuc and peaceable a fafe asylum- The principles of the sedition law, so c 1- led, are among the moll ancient principles of our government. They have been ingraf ted into (latutes, or pra&ifed upon as max ims of the common law, according as occa (ion required. They were often and juflly applied in the revolutionary war. It is not ilrange, that now they should be denounced as opprefllve, when they have long been re cognized in the jurisprudence of these states ! The necessity that di&ated these afts in the opiniofi of the committee still ex ists. So excentric are the movements of the French government, we can form no opini on of their future defigMS towards our conn try. They may recede from the tone of menace and insolence, to employ the arts of fedu&ion,before they astonish us with their ultimate designs. Our fafeiy consists in the wisdom of the public councils, a co-operati on on the part of the people with the govern ment, by lupporting the menfures provided for repelling aggrcflions, and an obedience to the social laws. After a particular arc} general review of the whole fubjeft referred to therconfi deration, the committee f.c my letters, and those addrefled to the Secretary of the Navy, I trust will meet with the contempt it merits. The treatment and fufferings of my countrymen, who have already returned from captivitV, anc! gi'thofe who are daily expected, will substantiate the fafls already before the public. Justice to myfelf, and the refpeft I con ceive due to the public opinion, N vil! induce me to enter fully into yonr j'etter ; not from inclination to relate fadts that are as well known to you as myfelf, or from ar.y clciire 'oi convincing the party, who I iUfpeft have you in tow, but to elucidate French prin ciples. In reply to the extra ft of a letter written to my friend in St. Bartholomews,which you notice in yotirs, I a%er it to be a faft, from concurrent circumstances, it was my opinion, as well as that of my officers, we (hould be imprisoned. And after'the delivery of iny letter of the 6th Jan. to Mr. Desforneaux, which yon quote,'though not very correftly, my apprehensions were pearly realized—for, on my refuting to accept "the command of the Retaliation, he threatenedimprifonment, treated me cavalierly, and behaved in a very ungentlemanly manner. You mentioned that my franknefs produ ced a different effeft from what I expefted. 1 his I positively deny. The change of sen timent originated from a steady refufal of accepting the schooner, utilefi I was com pelled to do so ; and that he *ould inform the Executive the precise fltuation in which I flood. Probably from political motives a change of sentiment took place, and be then .treated me with rather morepolitenefs, until the evening I left Guadaloupe. The treatment I then received you are no flran ger to ; I shall however mention it for the information of the public. You fay it has been publicly reported, that I was in close confinement 40 or 50 days—l am not accountable for idle reports, and my letters contradift every thing of the kind—you certainly could nai have perufe'd them, or you would not have noticed it. You appeal to me if I was riot treated with politeness by captain St. Laurent and officers—l have already declared, that I re ceived every attention from them, which I acknowledge with gratitude. To capiain St. Laurent, and not to Mr. Desforneaux, myfelf and officers were in- I debted for our liberty on board the different/ | veflcls ; he allured me that he had received : orders to fend us on (hore to be imprisoned | with our crew. After being twelve days detainedon board, I obtained'the liberty of residing on (Lore, " exprelsly ordered.not to wear my uni form great merit no doubt ought to be given to Mr. Desforneaux for his mark of politeness : appeal to your own officers in this country, if they have lyot met with more liberal treatment. You mentiqn Mr. Desforneaux's atten tion and civilities to me, viz. invitations to dinner, lending money, &c.„,Jtfy reply to you, on being asked to dine wkh him, that I confide red it merely as a compliment, and that unless, I was permitted to appear in my uniform, I wouid not accept any invitations. This cireuraftance you communicated to his Secretary Mr. Bevaferly. Did not a con liderable time elapse before I received ano ther invitation, with permiflion to wear my uniform. You no doubt mud remember it was on the ,6th of January, 6 days after the departure of Viftor Hughes, and nearly a month after Mr. Desforneaux's taking pos session of his government, and then, not till he had determined on my departure for the United States. In consequence of his prefling solicitations, I received from him one hundred dollars, which I repaid you. From your mentioning this circumstance which has no kind #f conne&ion with the extraft of my letter, on which you pretend ro ground your address to me—l rather presume it is with an intention that the pub lic should be inforirfd, you affo advanced me one hundred and fifty dollars, which I gratefully repaicf you. You also mention, that he constantly as sured me, he did not consider me as an of. ficer of a nation with whom his country was at war—but as a friend and ally, and that his conduft proved his sincerity. Reft aflured I placed no fait h in his after, tions, as hi-conduct was not conformable to his declarations, and that I confiderrd J rcnch intrigue, with him, as the ruling principle of adion. Admitting for a moment Mr. Desfor neaux's politenefs,in the most extensive point you could wish, to myfelf and officers, can it be put in competition with the fufferings of 200 Americans ? Their treatment will speak more forcibly than any declaration of yours or mine. On ihi» head, I (hall state fads—make no comments, and leave the public to draw their own conclufiont. I stall now state a reJr fa£t» thai cams immediately unaer mjr own observation whilst I remained in Gii*daloupe. Viftor Hughes was a prisoner nearly a month, Hnd had left Guailaloupe 6 days pre vious to the liberation ofi]lhe American mas ters and fupereargoes ; arid it was then on ly effe£led by prtffing fojicitatiom—ftating their miserable situation ;and that their pre sent allowance was infuffi«ient for them to exist on. This fa£l can be attefledby feve tal who have returned, and others whoa'e daily cxpedted.—The jaijors who were in office under Hughes, and; in the habit of exercising savage cruelties, weie continued in office under Desforneaux!; it is true that one of them received a reprimand for not releaflng several matter* of *effels out of a dungeon, when orders were given for that purpose. Can a reprimand be considered as a fufficrent punishment for detaining ref peftable citizens in a.dungeon 6 days after orders were given for their liberation ? Capt. Bingham and Mr. Milnor received their pa. roles under the government of Viftor Hughes, some time previous to the arrival of Desforneaux. The commiflury of pri fonrrs, after the confinement of Hugues, called at their several places of abode, and requested that they demean themselves pea ceably and as prisoners, as Desforneanx had reprimanded him for letting any Americans out of prison, and that he had btcome res ponfible for those who were enlarged. Capt Ducr, and others of this city, are acpnain ted with the sbove circumstance. That many viffeU wot brought into Guadaloupe, after the arrivalof Desforneaux all of which were condemned, as I have al ready stated in my former letters, a vessel from New-Bedford bound to Surinam ex cepted, whose trial was not decided. The cpndemnat onss and protcfts already recei ved in the different insurance offices on the continent, will confirm this assertion. The officers and crew generally, imprifunecl.fre quently ; however, through the influence and solicitations of the owners and com manders of privateers, the captaiis were re leased. The evering I left Guadaloupe, the vef leb that had the American citizens on board, were laying off and on before the town, I went to Desfornt anx's; his secretary inform ed me he haif received orders to prosure a certificate from me, that all the Americans were treated well, and as friends, finoe his command. I replied, was much astonished at his demand, and would not comply with it, as it was contrary to the reprefentatims of the fufferings of the Americans, as rela ted by themselves. I then went with the Secretary and yourfelf to Mr. Desforneaux, when a similar conversation passed ; and al so informed him, if he wished a certificate for myfelf and officers, since the departure of Hughes, I would give it; but not for the Americans that had been that day liberated ; and if he wished for any other certificate, it would come, with more propriety from the persons immediately concerned ; the confcquence was, he in a violent paflion, sent you on board to procure this certificate —aod did you not return as you went, with a positive refufal, and we were immediately ordered to anchor. Were you not also informed after your return, of Desforneaux's conduft in confe rence of my Ready refufal—of his flying into the mod extravagant paroxysm of rage —breaking his plate in ieveral pieces, with his fift—flicking his fori; into the table— (lamping and raring, in the wildest mannei pofiible—and abusing myfelf, the American and government, in the mod appro brious terms. Did you not inform me, that you was obliged to get his mother-in-law to appease his anger, previous to your speaking to him, and that you informed him, it would have no effeft to procuie a certificate by force, as they would protest against it, at the fir ft por.r they arrived at. This infor mation refpe&ing yourfelf, was your own declaration, in the prefeace of Captain Babcock. I (hall now, fir, take my final leave of you—the situation you have compelled me to assume, and the many appeal* made to me, has rendered it necefiary, to enter into the variety of fubje&s, contained in yours. It is my determination, not to be drawn into a paper controversy, as every fa& in already before the public, and retl assured I (hall avoid endless difcujfions. Yours, See. Wm. BAINBRIDGE. CONGR E S S, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Monday, Feb. 25. Mr. Gregg prelented two petitions pray ing for a repeal of the alien and sedition laws, the one from Cumberland county, signed by 270 persons ; the other from Mifflin coun ty in Pennsylvania, iigned by 314 persons. Mr. Gallatin presented another petition of the fame kind from Ghefter county signed by 69a persons. Mr. Livingfton one of a fiinilar nature, signed by 2500 of the citizens of New-York. Mr. lieifter one of the fame kind from 1400 inhabitants of Berks county. Mr. Bayard one frpm the inhabitants of Newcastle county, state of Delaware, signed by between 7 and 800 persons. Mr. Bard and Mr. Brown each of them presented petitions to the fame effed signed by a small number of persons. The whole were referred as usual. On motion of Mr. Livingfton the peti tion presented some days ago from a number of alien Irishmen against the alien bill, was also referred, 44 to 35. The Preftdent cf the United States inform ed the houl'e, that he had approved and sign ed an aft fixing the pay of captains and com manders of ships and veflel of war, an aft to authorise the purchase of timber for naval purposes, an aft t ftabilfhing docks, an aft 1 * ot augmenting the navy of the United States, and an art refpefting quarantine and health law?. Tf.e Prefile-ht alfb informed the senate that he hud approved and signed, an aft mak appropKatiops for the expence ot Carrying into effect certain treaties with certain tribes dr nations f Indians, and in aft allowing Tumes Mathers compenfationfor hisfervites, &C. as ferfeant-at at-ins of -the fen ate. 'The two following bills were then read the third lime and pafftd, viz. a bill to au thorize the ercdlion of 3'"beacori oil Booti Illand, and a bill for the government of the navy of the. United Sta'es. Mr. Harper from the committee of ways and means, reported a bill making addition al appropriations for the year i799> which was committed. Mr. Varnum reported a bill authorizing a detachment of the militia of the U. States which was committed. On motion of Mr. Goodrich, the house went into a cwmmitte of the whol/, on the report of a fel«ft committee, on the peti tions praying for a repeal of the Mien and sedition laws. The cueftion being upon agreeing to the firft resolution, declaring it to be inexpedient to repeal the alien law, Mr. Gallatin spoke at considerable length against its adoption. On his letting down the question was put and carried, 52 votes being in the affirmative. The next question was upon agreeing to the resolution declaring it to be inexpedient to repeal the fcdition law. Mr. Nicholas spoke at lsngth agaiiift a greeing to this resolution. At the conclusi on of his fpeech,and a few obfcrvations having been made infavor of the committee's riling and reporting progress, by Messrs. M'Dow ell and Livingfton ; and against it, and in lav,or of taking the question on the resoluti on, by Messrs. Bayard and Davton, a questi on was taken- on the committee's riling, and negatived, ji to 42. The queftion'oh the resolution was then put and carried by exact ly the fame number of votes, by which the foriver question was carried. The was put and carried on the last res lution, without a decision. The committee then rose, and the house took up the resolutions. The question being on concurring in the agreement of the com mittee of the whole to the firft resolution. Mr. Livingfton entered upon a defence of the sentiments which he delivered when the passage of this law was under conCderation, which he laid had been mnch misrepresented, but after making some progress in his obser vations, the speaker declaring them uncon netted with the question before the house, he fat down, and the firft r solution was decid ed by yeas and nays, as follow : YEAS. MeiTrs. Allen, Baer, Bartlett, Bayard, Brace, Brooks, Bullcck, Champlin, Chapman, Cochran, Craik, Dana, Dennis, Edmond, Evans, A. Foster. D. Fo'fter, J. Freeman, Glen, Goodrich, Gordon, Grifwold, Grove, Harpei;, Hartley,- Hindman, N A Mtffrs. Baldwin, Bard, Blount, Brent, Brown, Cabell, T. Claiborne, W. Claiborne^ Clay, Clopton, Davis, Dawfon, Y S. Messrs. Heifler, Holmes, Jones, Locke, Ly®n, Macon, M'Clenachan M'Uowell, New, Nicholas, J. Parker, Skinner, S. Smith, W. Smith, Sprigg-, ' Stanford, Sumpter, A - Tri gg, J- T "gg, V an Cortlandt Varnum, Venable, - Williams, Havens, Mr. M'Dowell then moved an adjourn rocnt which was negatived, 55 1038. The question was then taken on the se cond resolution, upon which the yeas and nays were exarilv the fame as upon the firft. The question on the third was concurred in, 61 votes being for it. Dent, Egglefton, Elmendorf, Findley, Fowler, N. Freeman, Gallatin, Gillefpie, Gregg, Hanna, Harrifon, Adjourned at half past five. city dancing assemble THE Subfcribert are refpe