CONGRESS. PHILADELPHIA HOUSE of representatives, W 1 DfsESDAY, Feiruaky 8. hi committee of the -jjholt, on the Fijhery Bill. On the motion to iti ike out the words l( bounty now allowed," and 10 inferx ' ailowaiice now made,' &c. "jVT R - GILES observed, tliac he conceived the -LVJL vote of yesterday againit fti-iking out the firfl fedtion, was a decision in favor of the poli cy of granting governmental aid to the fiiheries ; the inquiry of to-day will be 011 what terms this aid /hall be granted ? lie felt, he laid, but little regret at the deci sion of yelterday, because he had himfelf pre vioutly contemplated some reasons, not unim portant, to jnflify that decision, ancl others had been luggeited by several gentlemen in the course of .he debate : The principles of this policy, lie thought however might be combated by rea sons of at lead equal, and as far as he was able to judge, of paramount importance; but as he admitted r.onfiderable weight in the reasons on each fide of the question, he was not particu larly tenacious of the preference which his own opinion suggested. When he firfl mentioned his doubts respecting the principle of the bill, it was with diffidence, and those doubts in some mea sure arose from an idea that the bill contained a direct bounty upon occupation ; upon a more minute examination lie thought tjie term bounty unneceffiirily introduced into the bill, and that the objetfi of it could be anfvvered without the use of terms, which might hereafter be deemed to contain a decilion upon the general principle of the conditutional right to grant bounties ; it was to avoid any thing which might wear the ap pearance of such a decision, that induced him to make the present motion. He proceeded to remark that as great a dif. ference of opinion often exilled refpedtir.g the precise meaning of the terms used, as the conse quences which flow from them after attaining such precision of meaning ; and it is of impor tance to the present difcufiion that an accurate definition of the terms used in the bill, and those proposed to be used, fliould be had. The avowed object of the bill is not to increase, but to transmute the sum or a portion thereof now allowed to the fifheries in lieu of the draw back upon fait, from the merchant who is now supposed to receive the sole benefit, to the fifh ermen really employed in the fifliing veflels : I his is a mere chimerical project, but if it be ad mitted that this is the object to be effected by the bill, the term bounty is improperly applied. A gentleman from Maflachufetis (Mr. Antes' l who rests the defence of this bill almost folelj upon this position, that those who receive the benefit intended by it, are of right entitled to such benefit in consideration of a previous ad vancement in value, and that this bill contains a nteie permission to them to retain their own, has at the fame time declared, that he thought' the term bounty the most proper and technical, to convey this idea—in this, the gentleman appears to have deviated from his usual accuracy. A bounty is the granting a benefit without a" cor -1 efpondent return in value—a drawback is the retaking of lomething in consideration of a pre vious advancement ; this is always founded up on a consideration pteviouflv received—that is *1 grant of favor ex mero motn. ' But the great charatfteriftic diflinttion between bounties and drawbacks as they efl'entially relate to the adminiltration of this government, con -1,1 tilc governmental objects to which they may severally be applied : Drawbacks are ne ceflarity confined to commercial regulations bounties ma y be extended to every pofiible object »>i government, and may pervade the whole mi nutia of police, they may not only be extended to commerce, bat to Wa/ai, agriculture, ttiaun- Jaatjre j and even the fast tine ft of religion will ue found too feeble to furnifh complete protec tion from their influence. The people of the United States have always been scrupulously te nactous of a conilitutional security for the mofl free and ec-un! exercil'e of this right, but through t>ic mcu'jjmit bounries even this right may be mvac.eJ, and the only security againit such in valion innft be governmental discretion. 1 he fame ch»radteriftfc difliniftion will attend that Jpectei of bounty which may incidentally relult from commercial regulations; and direct 01111 tics i.pon occupation founded upon the broad bafts o( di.c; euonary right : the fpecification in : the ccnfhttuion of the right to regulate com- 1 merce, way pofilbly in fctne cases give rife to ' this indirect species of bounty, not from any right in the conltitution to gra,nt bounties,/but as the necelfary result from tlie fpecified right to make commercial regulations—and this fpecifi cation can be the only foundation of juftification ro this ihdireot species of bounty, but there is no fpecification in the coultitiition of a right to re gulate learning, agriculture, manujatturcs or reli gion, and so far as the sense of the constitution can be collected, it ratherforbidsthan authoi ifes the exercise of that right. Aigunients used to deduce any given authority fiom the term general welfare, abiiractedly from the fpecification of fotne particular authority, are dangerous in the extreme to rights constitution ally i eferved, and ought ever to be viewed with ! g reac caution and suspicion ; they serve diredtly to fliew that this government is not only consoli dated in all its parts, but that it is a consolidated government of unlimited discretion, that it con tains no constitutional limitation or reftriJiion. If any given authority }>e inferred from the term general welfare in the abftrsuft, any other authority is equally deducible from it, 'because the term is applicable to every poflibie object of government, and differs only in degree, as to the several governmental objects. He could not fee the force of the novel andcu rious distinction taken by a gentleman from Con necticut (Mr. Hillhoufe) between general weljare and particular weljare ; for every particular wel fare however minute, maybe in a degree for'the general welfare, and if the- decision refpeiting the existence of this diftinttion, have no other limitation than congreflional discretion—it is e qually deltruitive of all confth'utional rellraint. Gentlemen who have advocated this principle of conltru tl,ac u >nake the difference of th eaflern and font hern, so far as iey differ in their refpedtive flares of maimfac- 370 IS™;' l g n; C ntke e t'ha?p' ar 7 y h S,,tSi artificial The jealousies and fufpieions arifinff from party will then have a fubrtantial founda^ pn, which now have no foundation in fadt but are ingeniously Simulated by a few fnrrh-' r of effecting particular vernment fliall be adminidered liberally & im ally, as long as the principle of reciprocal de inand and supply between east andfouth (hall re main in violate,fo long there can exilt,,o eflential diflmtt interest between them ; but. the instant bounties or governmental preferences are granted to occupation that instant is created a separate* wholly between ealt & foiHr but between the man ufacturer and the cultivato'- ofthe foil ; there will still ex ist a community 0 agricultural intweft throughout theUnitedStates and he hoped the time was not fardiftant when a common sympathy will be felt by the whole of that class of the community. For these reasons, he hoped the motion would prevail. IU WEDNESDAY, Makch 14. A meflage from the Senate was delivered by Mr. Secretary Otis, notifying, that they had, oil their part, agreed to the report of the managers of the conference, on the disagreeing amend ments of both Houses to the " bill to ascertain and regulate the claims to half pay and invalid pensions." ; Th n °I d * r of f l,e d »y bein g called for, oil the contelled Georgia eleifiion, ( , A motion of Genera] Jackfoii's, " that thede cifion of the Senate of the State of Georgia on the impeachment of judge Ofborne, so far'as it refperts the Camden return for a member to re present the slate of Georgia, on, the 3d day of January, 1791, be received as evidence in the prefentfria] of that eleiftion, toeltablift the cor ruption of Judge Olborne," w 3 s the fubjetftofa lengthy debate, in which the extent ofthe right of the Ho life to judge in all cases of concerted eleo' of the freedom of elections, laid the following motion on the tab c. . Resolved, That whenever in the opinion of the Speaker, 01 o the Chairman of the committee of the whole H uufc, any difjru c -' r * YEAS March 16.