Independence Hall Home Search Contents Indexes Help

Article 1, Section 5, Clauses 1--4

Document 13

House of Representatives, Contested Election

22 May 1789Annals 1:397--408

Resolved, That it appears to this House, upon full and mature consideration, that the said William Smith had been seven years a citizen of the United States, at the time of his election.

Mr. Smith.--As the House are inclined to hear the observations I have to make, I shall begin with admitting the facts stated in the memorial of Doctor Ramsay, hoping the House will excuse the egotism into which I am unavoidably drawn. I was born in Charleston, South Carolina, of a family whose ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony, and was sent to England for my education when I was but twelve years of age. In 1774, I was sent to Geneva, to pursue my studies, where I resided until 1778. In November, that year, I went to Paris, where I resided upwards of two months in the character of an American gentleman. Immediately on my arrival there, I waited on Doctor Franklin, Mr. Adams, and Mr. A. Lee, the commissioners from Congress to the court of France, as a citizen of America, and was received as such by them. In January, 1779, I left Paris for London, whither I went to procure the means of embarking for America, from the gentleman who had been appointed my guardian by my father when I was first sent to Europe in 1770, and from whom alone I had any hope of obtaining such means. But in this endeavor, I was disappointed, and remained some time in England, with the hope of receiving remittances from Charleston. Here again my expectation was defeated. The rapid depreciation of the continental money rendered the negotiation of money transactions extremely difficult, and thus I remained till the fall of Charleston. I took this opportunity of studying the law, but could not be called to the bar, because I had not taken the oath of allegiance to Great Britain, which is a necessary qualification. After the surrender of Charleston, the whole State of South Carolina, fell into the hands of the enemy, and it was impossible at that time to return. No sooner, however, did I acquire the means, and an opportunity offered, than I prepared myself to go back to America. I quitted London for that purpose in October or November, 1782, not in a vessel bound to Charleston, then a British garrison, and which I certainly should have done, had I considered myself a British subject, and which would have been most convenient, as there were vessels constantly going from London to Charleston; but I travelled to Ostend, and there embarked in a neutral vessel bound to St. Kitt's, from whence it was my intention to proceed to a Danish island, and thence to some American port in North Carolina or Georgia, from whence I could reach the American camp. In the beginning of January, 1783, I sailed from Ostend, but was detained a considerable time by contrary winds, and in the middle of the month of February, was shipwrecked on the coast of England, and was obliged to return to London in order to procure another passage. These circumstances unavoidably prevented my return to Charleston, until some time in November, 1783.

On my arrival at Charleston, I was received by my countrymen as a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and elected by their free suffrage a member of the Legislature in November, 1784. In the August following I was chosen, by the Governor and Council, a member of the Privy Council, and this election was confirmed by the Legislature the October following. In September, the same year, I was elected one of the Wardens of the City of Charleston. In November, 1786, I was again elected into the Legislature; again in November, 1788; I was elected at the same time that I was elected to the House of Representatives of the United States, the September preceding having been chosen again a Warden of the city.

After having stated these facts, he went on adverting to the laws referred to in the report of the committee, which, he said, he conceived to be applicable to the present case.

In September, 1779, a question was discussed in the Legislature of South Carolina, respecting the young men who were sent abroad for their education, and it was determined there it was most for the interest of the State, that they should be allowed to continue in Europe till they were twenty-two years of age; after which the law provided they should be doubly taxed if they did not return. This law might fairly be supposed to recognise the citizenship of all the young men in a similar predicament with himself. It allowed them all to be absent until they were twenty-two years of age; but even after that period it did not deprive them of the right of citizenship; it only subjected them to the penalty of a double tax. This he contended was a sort of compact with him, that if he chose to be absent after that time, he should suffer a certain penalty, which, in its own nature, implied that his citizenship remained; but before he attained that age, South Carolina was in such a situation that her best friends were compelled to be absent, and take refuge in distant countries. It was not till some time after that the friends of the American cause began to assemble in that State; the absentee law, therefore, never operated on him, and he never was doubly taxed.

In February, 1782, the Legislature met at Jacksonburg, and discriminated between friend and foe, between American and British subjects, by disposing of the estates of the latter, and banishing them; from an inspection of the law passed at that time, it would be evident in what light they viewed him. He had landed property in the State, but was himself in England; yet they did not attempt to confiscate his property, or subject him to an amercement. The absentee law was his safeguard, he had the permission of the State to be abroad.

If the Legislature in 1782 recognised as citizens some of those persons whose estates were confiscated for adhering to Great Britain, and for being disaffected to America a fortiori, did it not recognise as a citizen one whose estate was not forfeited, who had not been deemed worthy of punishment, and who had been absent under the sanction of the law?

By the constitution of South Carolina it appears, that no person was eligible to a seat in the Legislature until he had resided three years, nor to a seat in the Privy Council until he had resided five years in the State. He had a seat in both those bodies before he had resided two years in the State of South Carolina, and no objection was ever made on that score. He could not have been qualified for either, had not the people of South Carolina deemed his residence in that State, such a residence as gained him a qualification; or had they not supposed the qualification required in the constitution applied only to new comers and new citizens, for whom that residence was necessary to wean them from their local prejudices and national habits, and to attach them to the commonwealth. Had they not, in short, supposed him to have been a citizen during the revolution, and attached to his native State by every tie which could bind an individual to any country. Three years residence was either not required of him, or his former residence was deemed within the meaning of the constitution.

An act to confer the right of citizenship on aliens was passed March 26, 1784. For the purpose of possessing the subordinate rights of citizenship, such as an exemption from the alien duty, a residence of one year, and taking the oath of allegiance, was sufficient. To confer a right of voting at elections, a person must have been admitted a citizen two years prior to his voting; but for the higher privileges of a citizen, being eligible to offices of trust, to a seat in the Legislature and Privy Council, the alien must have been naturalized by law. Now, in November, 1784, he was elected into the Legislature, and took his seat without objection in January, 1785, and was elected into the Privy Council, October, 1785; all without being naturalized by law.

In October, 1785, when he was elected to the Council, his election was opposed, but the objection now brought forward was not then made; and the memorialist himself, who was a member of the Legislature, voted in favor of the choice; though, unquestionably, unless he was considered by the Legislature as a citizen before he returned to Charleston, nothing had afterwards occurred to make him so, and the alien act of 1784 positively required a naturalization by act of Assembly to give him a qualification.

The constitution of South Carolina is silent as to citizenship, but allowed any person to vote at elections who had resided a year in the State, and paid a certain tax; to be a member of the Assembly he must have resided three, and to be a Privy Counsellor five years previous to his election, but nothing was said about citizenship. The act of 1784, however, expressly defined who should and who should not be deemed citizens; and, consequently, all persons who did not become citizens must have been held to be aliens, and considered so, till they had conformed to the alien act of 1784. Now, as he was admitted to offices of trust, to which aliens were not admissible, and as he was admitted to them without having the rights of citizenship conferred upon him, in pursuance of that act, it followed clearly, that the people of South Carolina and the Legislature acknowledged him to be a citizen by virtue of the revolution.

He went on to observe, that, from the doctrine laid down by the memorialist, it was difficult to ascertain when he did become a citizen of South Carolina. When he was admitted to the bar in 1784, he did no act which made him a citizen, the bare act of taking an oath of qualification to an office could not convert an alien to a citizen. The constitution seemed to imply a mere residence of a year, by giving a right to vote, gave a right of citizenship; if that were the case, and if his residence prior to the revolution was considered such a residence as the constitution required, then he was a citizen, by virtue of the constitution, after having resided a year in Carolina. Now, it was clear, his residence prior to the war was deemed such a residence as the constitution required; because he was admitted to vote and admitted to a seat in the Legislature and Council by right of such residence, not having had the requisite residence since the war, and yet being deemed qualified. If, therefore, that part of the constitution which gave a right of voting, in consequence of a year's residence and paying a certain tax, virtually conferred citizenship, by giving a right to vote, (and it appeared absurd that a right to vote should be given to persons not citizens,) and if, also, his residence, prior to the revolution, was deemed a sufficient residence, then he was a citizen by virtue of the constitution.

The points that seemed most to be relied upon by the memorialist were:

1st. That residence was actually necessary to confer citizenship, or, in other words, that a person could not become a citizen of a country, till he has resided in it.

2d. That a person could not become a citizen till he was of age to choose his country.

In answer to the first, he denied that residence in the country was absolutely necessary. Was it to be supposed, he asked, that when a man sent his son into another country for his education and improvement, the son was thereby to lose any political benefits which might, during such temporary absence, accrue to his country? If his father had lived a few years longer, would there have arisen any question on this subject? Would he not, though absent, have acquired, according to the petitioner's own positions, a right of citizenship? And should his death, at such an early period, not be deemed a sufficient misfortune for him, without using that as a pretence for making him an alien? Those who represented him in Carolina as his guardians, who were in loco parentis, were residents in Carolina at the declaration of independence.

His property was in Carolina, his money in the treasury, assisting to carry on the war. The declaration of independence affected him as much, though at Geneva, as it did those in Carolina; his happiness, that of his dearest connexions, his property, were deeply interested in it: his fate was so closely connected with that of Carolina, that any revolution in Carolina was a revolution to him. Though a minor, as soon as he heard of the independence of America, he considered himself an American citizen.

If a person could not become a citizen of a country without residing in it, what should be said of those gentlemen who had been in Europe during the war, and were now in high office in America? Several of them went to Europe before the war, were there at the declaration of independence, and did not return to America till after the war, or about the close of it. When did their citizenship commence? According to the petitioner, they could not become citizens of America until they returned to America, and took an oath of allegiance to the States; but Congress employed them in offices of great confidence, before they had returned to America, or taken such oath. Congress, therefore, considered them citizens, by virtue of the revolution.

It had been said, that Carolina had called on her young men to come to her assistance. This was not the true state of the case. Carolina thought that her young men who were abroad for their education, should not be taken from their studies till they were twenty-two years of age, and doubly taxed them after that. His guardian wrote to him that he had permission of the Legislature to be absent till he was twenty-two, and that he should be doubly taxed after that age.

It has been also said, that Carolina tendered an oath, to discover who were friends, and who were enemies. In March, 1778, the Legislature of South Carolina passed an act to oblige every free male inhabitant of that State, above sixteen years of age, to take an oath of allegiance to the State. As there were notoriously many persons then in the State who were inimical to its liberties, such a step was necessary to give a reasonable cause for obliging them to quit the country. With that view, the oath was generally tendered only to those who were suspected or known not to be friendly to the cause. He had been informed by several persons, who were zealous partisans, and then in Carolina, that they had never taken any oath of allegiance, and that it had not been required of them on this occasion.

The act directed, that those who did not take it, should quit the State; and, if they returned, should be dealt with as traitors, and suffer death. Let us examine whether this act can, in any respect, apply to the present question. 1st, It particularly mentioned "inhabitants of the State of South Carolina." It could not, therefore, apply to persons who were abroad. 2dly, It directed that the oath should be taken before a justice of peace in Carolina; this could not, therefore, extend to a person then at Geneva. 3dly, It was directed to be taken in one month after the passing of the act; and it was not possible that I should hear of the existence of such an act in less than three months. 4thly, It was directed, that if the persons refused to take it, they should quit the State; but I was already out of it. 5thly, Those who refused to take it, were prevented from acquiring or conveying property, and rendered incapable of exercising any profession. But on my return to Carolina, I took peaceable possession of my estate, part of which consisted of lands and houses, which had been mine since the year 1770; and I was immediately admitted to the exercise of the profession for which I was educated. 6thly, The act directed, that if any person returned to Carolina, after having refused to take the oath, he should be put to death as a traitor; and, yet, on my return, never having taken the oath, I was elected a member of the Legislature, and a Privy Counsellor; and, instead of being deemed a criminal myself, I acted as Attorney General to punish others; and yet the petitioner, in one of his late publications, lays great stress on the applicability of this act.

2dly, There could be no doubt that a minor might be a citizen, from the very words of the constitution, which admitted a person to be a member of the House of Representatives at twenty-five, and yet required a citizenship of seven years. This was of itself a sufficient refutation of every thing contained in the petition on this head. The constitution acknowledged that a person might be a citizen at eighteen; if so, there was no reason why a person might not be one at sixteen or fourteen.

Mr. Lee said, the committee had now to determine, whether Mr. Smith was a citizen of South Carolina during his absence from home, or not. If the laws of that State recognised him as such, the question was determined, because this House could not dispute a fact of that kind. From the reference that has been made to the constitution and laws of South Carolina, and the circumstances which took place under them, with respect to Mr. Smith, it was convincing that he was acknowledged there to be a citizen in consequence of the revolution.

Mr. Thatcher thought the examination had been full; the facts stated in the memorial were admitted; but, nevertheless, it appeared from other facts, that Mr. Smith was received and respected as a citizen of that standing which the constitution required. He had considered the subject maturely, and was now ready for the decision.

The petition of Dr. Ramsay was again read, in which he stated, "That citizenship with the United States is an adventitious character to every person possessing it, who is now thirty years of age; and that it can, in no case, have been acquired but in one of the following modes: 1st, By birth or inheritance. 2dly, By having been a party to the late revolution. 3dly, By taking an oath of fidelity to some of the States. 4thly, By tacit consent. 5thly, By adoption: and that Mr. Smith cannot have acquired the character of a citizen in either of these modes, seven years ago. He cannot be a citizen by birth or inheritance, for he was born in 1758, in South Carolina, while a British colony; and his parents were both dead many years before the declaration of independence; his birthright and inheritance can, therefore, be no other than that of a British subject; for no man can be born a citizen of a Government which did not exist at the time of his being born; nor can parents leave to their children any other political character than that which they themselves possessed."

After going on to state his reasons why Mr. Smith could not have acquired citizenship in any of the other modes, he proceeds to say, that he "conceives that birth and residence in this country, before the revolution, could not confer citizenship on Americans who were absent when independence was declared, while they were absent, and anterior to their returning and joining their country under its new and independent Government: for, on that supposition, many persons hostile to these States must be admitted citizens; those who have been born for thirteen years before the declaration of independence, within the posts of our northwestern frontiers, which are unjustly detained from us by the British, would be citizens. Our East India trade would be laid open to the numerous natives of this country, who are now dispersed over Europe and the West Indies. If birth and residence within the limits of the United States before the revolution conferred the rights of citizenship, persons of the aforesaid description, who have neither done nor hazarded any thing for our independence, might trade to the East Indies as citizens of the United States, from the circumstance of their having been born, in this country thirty or forty years ago, and, after having glutted our market with extravagant importations, carry the whole profits of their commerce to their present residence in foreign countries. These, and many other dangerous consequences, would, as your petitioner apprehends, follow from the establishment of a precedent, by which it was acknowledged, that a native of this country might be a citizen of the United States before he lived under their Government."

Mr. Madison.--I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this House or not; but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he had been seven years a citizen of the United States or not.

From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. Smith was, on the declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he has forfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of his election to a seat in this House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carolina, so far as they can guide us; and where the laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far as they are applicable to the present case.

It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.

It is well known to many gentlemen on this floor, as well as to the public, that the petitioner is a man of talents, one who would not lightly hazard his reputation in support of visionary principles: yet I cannot but think he has erred in one of the principles upon which he grounds his charge. He supposes, when this country separated from Great Britain, the tie of allegiance subsisted between the inhabitants of America and the King of that nation, unless, by some adventitious circumstance, the allegiance was transferred to one of the United States. I think there is a distinction which will invalidate his doctrine in this particular, a distinction between that primary allegiance which we owe to that particular society of which we are members, and the secondary allegiance we owe to the sovereign established by that society. This distinction will be illustrated by the doctrine established by the laws of Great Britain, which were the laws of this country before the revolution. The sovereign cannot make a citizen by any act of his own; he can confer denizenship; but this does not make a man either a citizen or subject. In order to make a citizen or subject, it is established, that allegiance shall first be due to the whole nation; it is necessary that a national act should pass to admit an individual member. In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has not endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of Parliament.

What was the situation of the people of America, when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born, retained his right of birth, as a member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign. If he were not a minor, he became bound, by his own act, as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he were a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature. What was the allegiance, as a citizen of South Carolina, he owed to the King of Great Britain? He owed his allegiance to him as a King of that society to which, as a society, he owed his primary allegiance. When that society separated from Great Britain, he was bound by that act, and his allegiance transferred to that society, or the sovereign which that society should set up; because it was through his membership of the society of South Carolina that he owed allegiance to Great Britain.

This reasoning will hold good, unless it is supposed that the separation which took place between these States and Great Britain, not only dissolved the union between those countries, but dissolved the union among the citizens themselves: that the original compact, which made them altogether one society, being dissolved, they could not fall into pieces, each part making an independent society; but must individually revert into a state of nature; but I do not conceive that this was, of necessity, to be the case; I believe such a revolution did not absolutely take place. But in supposing that this was the case, lies the error of the memorialist. I conceive the colonies remained as a political society, detached from their former connexion with another society, without dissolving into a state of nature; but capable of substituting a new form of Government in the place of the old one, which they had, for special considerations, abolished. Suppose the State of South Carolina should think proper to revise her constitution, abolish that which now exists, and establish another form of Government: surely this would not dissolve the social compact. It would not throw them back into a state of nature. It would not dissolve the union between the individual members of that society. It would leave them in perfect society, changing only the mode of action, which they are always at liberty to arrange. Mr. Smith being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government; and if afterwards he had taken part with the enemies of his country, he would have been guilty of treason against that Government to which he owed allegiance, and would have been liable to be prosecuted as a traitor.

If it be said, that very inconvenient circumstances would result from this principle, that it would constitute all those persons who are natives of America, but who took part against the revolution, citizens of the United States, I would beg leave to observe, that we are deciding a question of right, unmixed with the question of expediency, and must, therefore, pay a proper attention to this principle. But I think it can hardly be expected by gentlemen that the principle will operate dangerously. Those who left their country, to take part with Britain, were of two descriptions--minors, or persons of mature age. With respect to the latter, nothing can be inferred with respect to them from the decision of the present case; because they had the power of making an option between the contending parties; whether this was a matter of right or not is a question which need not be agitated in order to settle the case before us. Then, with respect to those natives who were minors at the revolution, and whose case is analogous to Mr. Smith's, if we are bound by the precedent of such a decision as we are about to make, and it is declared that they owe a primary allegiance to this country, I still think we are not likely to be inundated with such characters; so far as any of them took part against us, they violated their allegiance, and opposed our laws; so, then, there can be only a few characters, such as were minors at the revolution, and who have never violated their allegiance by a foreign connexion, who can be affected by the decision of the present question. The number, I admit, is large who might be acknowledged citizens on my principles; but there will very few be found daring enough to face the laws of the country they have violated, and against which they have committed high treason.

So far as we can judge by the laws of Carolina, and the practice and decision of that State, the principles I have adduced are supported; and I must own, that I feel myself at liberty to decide, that Mr. Smith was a citizen at the declaration of independence, a citizen at the time of his election, and, consequently, entitled to a seat in this Legislature.

Mr. Boudinot expressed an apprehension, that the principle supported by the gentleman from Virginia would tend to injure the State of New Jersey very considerably. He was afraid it would be construed to embrace all the natives of America who had deserted their country's cause during the late war; and, on this account, he was against deciding in favor of the proposed resolution, though he believed Mr. Smith to be fairly and constitutionally entitled to a seat in that House.

Mr. Jackson.--I differ widely from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Madison) on the subject of allegiance and the social compact, and hold the principles advanced by him exceedingly dangerous to many of the States, and, in particular, to the one I have the honor to represent. The situation of America, at the time of the revolution, was not properly to be compared to a people altering their mode or form of Government. Nor were there two allegiances due, one to the community here, another to that of Great Britain. We were all on a footing; and I contend the principle is right, in some degree, of a total reversion to a state of nature amongst individuals, and to a mere parental or patriarchal authority, where the heads had families dependent on them; the former, or individual, pursued that line which appeared right in his own eyes, and the cause which he thought just; and, in the latter case, the children followed the will of the father, who chose for them, as the person who brought them into life, and whose fortunes they were to inherit. I conceive the whole allegiance or compact to have been dissolved. Many of the States were a considerable period without establishing constitutions or forms of Government, and during that period we were in a little better state than that of nature; and then it was, that every man made his election for an original compact, or tie, which, by his own act, or that of his father for him, he became bound to submit to. And what, sir, would otherwise be the result? And if the gentleman's doctrines of birth were to be supported, those minors who, with British bayonets, have plundered and ravaged, nay, cruelly butchered their more virtuous neighbors--the sons of the most inveterate traitors, whose names deservedly sounded in every bill of confiscation; and the minors, sons of those who sheltered themselves under the shade of the British King, and supported his armies, if not with arms, with the resources of war, until the hour of danger was over--those, I say, after the blood of thousands has been spilt in the establishment of our Government, can now come forward and sneer at the foolish patriots, who endured every hardship of a seven years' war, to secure to them the freedom and property they had no hand in defending. Sir, did we fight for this? Was it for this the soldier watched his numerous nights, and braved the inclemency of the seasons? Will he submit, after having gained his point at the expense of property and the loss of constitution, to have those sentiments established? If he will, he has fought to little purpose indeed.

Sir, I again contend, that when the revolution came on, we were all alike with respect to allegiances, and all under the same social tie. An Englishman born did not conceive himself more liable to be condemned for treason than an American, had the enemy succeeded; nor would there have been any distinction in the laws on coming to a trial. But, sir, how should this primary allegiance be known to belong to the less, or American community, where the majority did not prevail. In Georgia, the majority were opposed to American measures; agreeably to the gentleman's reasoning, the minors must have been all on the British side; and yet many of them, on arriving to years of discretion, behaved well and valiantly with us. To corroborate this, sir, I will remark, that, for a considerable period, we had no general or federal Government, or form of constitution, and yet were in arms. I would ask what state we were in then? Neighbor was against neighbor, and brother against brother. But, sir, the gentleman says, the hardened minor will not return. Sir, experience has proved the contrary. The Middle and Eastern States, except Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, never had the enemy long with them; there was not the same trial of men, and they knew not the audacity of those villains. After having received their equivalent for, in many cases, feigned losses, from the British crown, they are daily returning and pushing into office. It is necessary we should guard against them. Britain, although humiliated, yet has a longing eye upon this country; she has yet posts in it. Although it is improbable that so many of these people will get into Congress as to form a corrupt majority, yet they have ambition and resentment enough to attempt it. At this moment, sir, in Georgia, are some of the most daring bringing ejectments for estates which their fathers had deservedly forfeited, although themselves had imbrued their hands in the blood of their fellow citizens.

Now, to the present case: Highly as I regard the gentleman (Mr. Smith) as a valuable member, and esteem his abilities, I can only form my opinion on the leave given him by the State to be absent. If that principle is introduced into the resolution, I will vote in favor of Mr. Smith's eligibility; but if not, I must decline voting.

Which he accordingly did when the question was put.

Mr. Tucker hoped that the yeas and nays would be taken on this question, not because he had any doubt in his own mind of Mr. Smith's right to a seat, but because he had been solicited by Dr. Ramsay to have the yeas and nays taken.

YEAS.--Messrs. Baldwin, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Carroll, Clymer, Coles, Contee, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Gilman, Goodhue, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenburg, Page, Van Renssclaer, Seney, Schureman, Scott, Sinnickson, Smith, of Maryland, Sturgis, Sylvester, Thatcher, Trumbull, Tucker, Vining, White, and Wynkoop.

Jonathan Grout voted in the negative.

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 2, Article 1, Section 5, Clauses 1--4, Document 13
The University of Chicago Press

Annals of Congress. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. "History of Congress." 42 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834--56.

Easy to print version.

Home | Search | Contents | Indexes | Help

© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000