| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Journals of the Continental Congress --MONDAY, MAY 24, 1784.
Mr. Francis Dana, a delegate for Massachusetts, attended, and produced Credentials, under the seal of the State; whereby it appears, that on the 11 day of February last, the said Francis Dana was elected a delegate to represent the said State in Congress, until the first day of November, 1784.
Page 419 | Page image
Commonwealth Of Massachusetts.
By His Excellency John Hancock Esqr. Governor [SEAL] of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
To all unto whom these Presents shall come ... Greeting
Whereas the General Court of the Commonwealth aforesaid did on the Eleventh day of February last agreeable to the Constitution of said Commonwealth appoint the Honble Francis Dana Esqr. a Delegate to represent this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States of America--
Now therefore Know Ye that I do by these Presents and in pursuance of the said Appointment Commission the sd. Francis Dana Esqr. to represent this Commonwealth in Congress & vest him with all & Singular the Powers & Authorities to the said Office or place of Delegate belonging by Virtue of the Constitution of this Commonwealth & the Appointment aforesaid. And to hold this Office until the first day of November 1784: And the said Francis Dana Esqr. is hereby required to observe the Instructions which from time to time shall be given to him by the General Court of this Commonwealth--
In Testimony whereof I have caused the Public Seal of the Commonwealth aforesaid to be hereto affixed-- Witness John Hancock Esqr. Governor of the said Commonwealth--
Dated at Boston the Tenth day of March Ao. Di. 1784 and in the Eighth Year of the Independence of the United States of America--
John Hancock.
By His Excellency's Command
John Avery, Secretary.1
[Note 1: 1 The original is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, Massachusetts, Credentials of Delegates. It was entered in No. 179, Record of Credentials, and not in the Journal.]
Congress assembled: Present, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pensylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina.
A letter, of this day, from Major General H. Knox, was read; Whereupon,
Page 420 | Page image
Resolved, That Congress approve of the proposition of Major General Knox, to send a confidential field Officer into Canada, for the purpose of ascertaining with precision and expedition the time when the posts within the United States now occupied by the british troops, shall be evacuated; and endeavouring to effect an exchange of the cannon and stores at those posts, agreeably to a resolution of Congress of the 12th of May instant.1
[Note 1: 1 This motion, in the writing of Edward Hand, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 36, IV, folio 93.
Knox's letter is in No. 167, folio 393.]
A motion was made by the delegates of Virginia, seconded by the delegates of South Carolina, in the words following:
The delegates representing the states of Virginia and South Carolina, in the Congress of the United States, have maturely considered the report of the committee of qualifications on the case of Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [David] Howell, who claimed to represent the State of Rhode Island in Congress, which report is entered on the journal on the 13th day of the present month, and also the resolution reported by the said committee; whereon four states in Congress voted that the time of service of the said Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [David] Howell, had expired on the 7th instant, agreeably to the sense and letter of the Articles of Confederation, two states only voting in the negative, and three states being divided. They have given all due attention to the proceedings of Congress on the said case of Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [David] Howell, as they appear on the journals of the 15 instant, together with the facts, evidences and arguments adduced, as well by the said Committee, as by the said Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [David] Howell. And after full consideration of the same, they judge it to be their duty as members of the United States in Congress and on behalf of the states they
Page 421 | Page image
represent, to object to and protest against the exercise of those sovereign powers delegated by the citizens of these states to the United States in Congress assembled, by the said Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [David] Howell, or either of them, as being persons unauthorised according to the Articles of Confederation. They contend that consistently with the invariable laws of reason, and the universal practice of representative bodies, all persons who claim to exercise jointly with others, the powers of government, must, if that claim is contested either when first offered, or at any time posterior thereto, show by what right they do claim: and more especially the said delegates do assert, that in a body constituted as Congress is, where sovereign states have agreed to invest persons chosen by other states, with the power of governing themselves respectively, and have designated by compact how those persons shall be constituted, each State ought to have, and has, an undoubted right to enquire, whether the rules laid down in that compact have been adhered to in the appointment of those persons; to whom, without the power of election or removing or punishing, they have submitted their dearest rights and interests. When such enquiry is made, and the powers of persons so contested, they do insist on it as a right, which no State ought or can of right be deprived of, to have such questioned powers clearly proved, and judicially established, before they shall be exercised. For otherwise the exercise would determine the question of the right. The said Delegates consider Congress as the only tribunal competent to decide on the right of persons claiming to act as members of their body. This is a power, which all legislative bodies invariably exercise, and which must of necessity reside in them alone. And they are decidedly of opinion, that to have such right established by Congress, an affirmative vote is indispensably requisite. A direct affirmation of a right in order to
Page 422 | Page image
establish it, is required by reason, and is used in practice; as on the contrary, to ground a right on an inference to be drawn from a proposition passed in the negative, is equally contradictory to reason and custom. A proposition not carried, determines nothing. How absurd then would it be to establish a right by a vote which determines nothing! They apprehend that to admit that one or two states may continue a representation in Congress, contrary to the opinion of a much greater number of states, who are decided that such representation is unauthorised by the Confederation, would be establishing a principle fraught with dangerous consequences to the Union, and justly alarming to the citizens thereof, who have right to expect that those, and those alone, whom they have constitutionally authorised to govern them, shall be admitted to exercise sovereign authority; who have a right to demand from their delegates to be defended and protected from such usurpation and violence. When the acts of the United States go forth as the acts of persons, whose right to govern is unimpeached, their validity will be unquestioned by the people. But when vitiated acts passed by the voice of persons whom a large majority of the members representing the Confederacy, consider as intruding into the councils of the Union, are issued, Obedience cannot be expected and ought not to be wished. If representations may be continued by the voice of one or two states, that check provided by the constitution, which directs that representatives in Congress shall exist there only by the voice of their constituents and the Confederation is lost; and suspicions may be excited among the people at large, that persons may, at some future period, by the act of a few designing members, be continued in Congress, to the destruction of the constitution and establishment of Oligarchy. On the contrary, they must observe, that to require an affirmative voice of the United States, to
Page 423 | Page image
establish the right of members, may possibly be productive of some delay of business, until states, advertised of the errors which vitiate their appointments, shall have time to rectify them. On this side they see a possible temporary inconvenience: but on the other they discover a certain and actual violation of the Constitution. Still however reduced, by the perseverence of Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [David] Howell, to the alternative of stopping the business of the United States at a very critical moment, or proceeding to act with them; they have judged it most advisable to prefer the latter under a determination, on all questions, where the interest of the Union at large, or that of the states they represent, may be materially affected, to have it stated by the yeas and nays, the manner in which they are carried; saving to themselves and to the states they represent, the right they may have to invalidate all acts passed in Congress, wherein the voices of Mr. [William] Ellery and Mr. [David] Howell, are deciding on the question; and also declaring and protesting against such acquiescence in the conduct of those gentlemen, which they deem to be irregular and unjustifiable, and violent being ever hereafter considered as a precedent in similar cases; effectually to prevent which, and in order to establish a rule of proceeding, which they consider as required by reason and the Confederation, they propose the following resolution:
Resolved, That when any State shall object to the credentials under which persons may claim to act as Members of Congress, such credentials shall be submitted to the committee of qualifications, who shall forthwith report to Congress a state of facts and evidences as they appear to them, but giving no opinion whatever thereon. And seven states in Congress then agreeing, that such credentials convey to persons so claiming a right to act as Members of Congress, then such persons shall be admitted to act under such credentials:
Page 424 | Page image
and if seven states shall not so agree, they shall not be permitted to sit in Congress, but the President for the time being shall, and he is hereby directed, to transmit to the State issuing such credentials, an authenticated copy of the Objections, as they appear on the report of the committee of qualifications, in order that any errors therein may be rectified.1
[Note 1: 1 This motion, in the writing of John Francis Mercer, is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 36, IV, folio 491.]
A motion was made by Mr. [David] Howell, seconded by Mr. [William] Ellery, to postpone the consideration of the foregoing motion, in order to take up the following, to wit:
Whereas the question on the report of the committee of qualifications, on the credentials of the delegates of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, was taken and lost on the 15 instant; and whereas since that period, the said delegates have been continually called to order, and have not been permitted to speak or vote in Congress without interruption from some members:
Resolved, That after delegates shall have been received as members into Congress, on sufficient credentials for one year, such delegates so admitted, shall not be excluded the house but by the voices of seven states.
On the question to postpone for the purpose above-mentioned, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [David] Howell,
{table}
Page 425 | Page image
So the question was lost.
On the question to agree to the resolution proposed by the delegates for Virginia and South Carolina, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [Samuel] Hardy,
{table}
So the question was lost.
A motion was made by the delegates for New York as follows:
Whereas the delegates of the State of New York, move in Congress for a reconsideration of the act of Congress of the 18 day of April, 1783, respecting the quotas of the several
Page 426 | Page image
States, with a view to obtain an abatement in the quota of the said State.
Resolved, That Friday next be assigned to reconsider the said act.
On the question to agree to this, the yeas and nays being required by Mr. [Ephraim] Paine,
{table}
So it passed in the negative.1
[Note 1: 1 On this day, as the indorsement indicates, was read a memorial of B. Johnson for himself and partners and referred to Mr. [Hugh] Williamson, Mr. [Roger] Sherman and Mr. [Edward] Hand. It is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 41, IV, folio 471.
Also, a memorial of Joseph Nourse was referred to the next Congress. It is in No. 41, VII, folio 111, and is a duplicate of the one presented October 29, 1783. Nourse's letter of transmittal is on folio 107.
Also, a petition of William Coleman was ordered to lie on the table. It is in No. 42, II, folio 186.
Also, a letter of May 23 from Joseph Carleton which was referred to Mr. [Edward] Hand, Mr. [John] Beatty and Mr. [Hugh] Williamson. It is in No. 60, folio 79.
Also, a letter of May 1, from Edward Vaill Brown. It was referred to the Agent of Marine. It is in No. 78, IV, folio 429.
Also, a letter of May 6, from John Bradford was referred to Mr. [Hugh] Williamson, Mr. [Edward] Hand and Mr. [Roger] Sherman. It is in No. 78, IV, folio 435.
Also, a letter of May 23 from John Pierce, Paymaster General, which was referred to Mr. [Hugh] Williamson, Mr. [Edward] Hand and Mr. [Roger] Sherman. The indorsement adds: "Vide resolution of Congress June 3d, 1784." It is in No. 62, folio 25.]
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | NEW SEARCH |