noon. If these were punctually attended it would be perhaps as much as could be spared from committees, other business which must be done out of Congress hours. Nine States make a Congress, some States have delegates so very negligent, so much immersed in the pursuit of pleasure or business, that it is very rare we can make a Congress before near eleven o'clock, and this evil seems incapable of a remedy as Congress has no mean to compel gentlemen's attendance, and those who occasion the delay are callous to admonition and reproof, which have been often tried in vain. When we are assembled several gentlemen have such a knack at starting questions of order, raising debates upon critical, captious, and trifling amendments, protracting them by long speeches, by postponing, calling for the previous question, and other arts, that it is almost impossible to get an important question decided at one sitting; and if it is put over to another day, the field is open to be gone over again, precious time is lost, and the public business left undone 2 I am sorry to add that the opposition between the States, and the old prejudices of North against South, and South against North, seem to be reviving, and are industriously heightened by some, who, I fear, would be but too well pleased to see our union blasted and our independence broken and destroyed I wish what I have wrote may not seem too much like complaining of Congress; but besides that, I am sure it is a just picture of our present situation. When I look back and see how little has been done since I came here, and consider how much there was to do, and the vast importance that it should be done without loss of time, I feel myself under an obligation to account for my own conduct among others, and can think of no better way to do it, than by telling the truth, which I do the more freely 2 Cf. no. 132, note 2, ante. The practice of holding morning and afternoon sessions (10 to 1 and 4 to adjournment) was adopted by resolution at York Town Oct. 1. The rule was rescinded Nov. 19, but returned to on Dec. 16 (the adjournment to be from I to 3). An effort, Jan. 24, 1778, to restore the practice of one session a day failed, but succeeded Mar. 24, the hours established being 9 to 2, though occasionally varied from in practice. Apr. 29 a rule was adopted, "for the space of ten days", fixing the hours at 10 to 1 and 3 to 6 "precisely". At the end of the ten days Congress returned to the one-session practice, and four days later began to make the hour of assembling nine o'clock instead of ten (although no special vote to this effect is found recorded). May 30 two sessions were once more adopted "for the space of one month" (10 to 1 and 3 to 6, except Wednesdays and Saturdays), the hours of adjournment being fixed, "if any one State insists on adjourning". The rule had lapsed of course when Congress reassembled at Philadelphia in July, and the one-session practice was resumed, the hour of assembling being at nine o'clock (with an occasional exception), the adjournment (presumably) at two. Aug. 12, in connection with a resolve to set apart certain days for the consideration of the treasury and finance, a motion that Congress meet twice a day was defeated, and Aug. 27 a similar motion was postponed. Hosmer, writing on the 31st, had evidently not recovered from some bitterness engendered by the discussion on the 27th. Sept. 3 the subject was stirred again, and there appears to have been much wrangling. There was even a motion to have Congress meet at five o'clock in the morning, which had nine affirmative votes out of a total of thirty and carried three states (New York, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina). The outcome was a resolution setting the sessions "till the first of November next" at 9 to 1 and 3 to 6, with certain provisos, and excepting Wednesdays and Saturdays. Sept. 17 the duration of the session on Wednesdays and Saturdays was fixed at ro to 3. Oct. 20 it was once again resolved to meet only once a day (10 to 3), and this was the prevailing practice thereafter. There were, however, during the last few weeks of the year 1778, frequent evening sessions at six o'clock. because I can appeal to every gentleman in Congress whether any blame lies upon Connecticut, whether she hath ever been an hour unrepresented, or whether any time hath been lost by the remissness or captiousness or long windedness of her delegates; besides, tho' while hopes of a speedy reform prevailed I thought it prudent to be silent, now those hopes have vanished I thought it best, and my duty, to state our real, though unhappy situation to Your Excellency, that we might have the benefit of your wisdom and advice in concerting proper measures to retrieve us from the unhappy lethargy (shall I call it phrenzy?) into which we have fallen. Major Adams hath seen what I have wrote above, as far as it respects Congress and their mode of doing business, and permits me to fortify my narration with his concurrent testimony. I have not taken the liberty to hint anything of the above to any friends, except to Colo. Dyer in a letter of this date, as I hope yet some measures may be fallen upon to remedy the evil, and it may not be so proper to throw out anything that may become public to lessen Congress in the general estimation, at a time when the British Commissioners are preparing to appeal from them to the people at large, and would be pleased to lay hold of anything which might affect their character in the minds of their constituents, in hopes to derive an advantage from it. Dear Sir 495. JOHN PENN TO [WILLIAM WOODFORD?].1 [August? 1778.]2 I send you a copy of the Resolve you desired. General Weedon was not well pleased with the determination of Congress, indeed he was quite the reverse as I have been informed. If he is not employed soon, I do not expect he will, as no Gentn. can. think of permitting any officer to return to the line, a little before the end of the war to entitle him to receive half pay. It never was intended by Congress that General Weedon should have any other rank than what was given him in March should he be employed again. I shall take pleasure in obliging you in any thing I can you will therefore inclose me your letters and I will forward them and also send those directed to you by express for this purpose. . . . In a letter to Governor Trumbull Sept. 5 (Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, seventh ser., II. 268) Adams expressed his "full approbation" of what Hosmer had written, adding that he most sincerely lamented "the disagreeable truths" contained in the letter. He also remarks, "Yesterday we began to meet twice a day, which is to continue till the first of November,-a measure this, extremely disagreeable to many members, but it has been long urged by the New England States". [495]1 Library of Congress, U. S. Revolution. 2 This letter is without date, but was probably written shortly after Aug. 18, for the resolve mentioned in the beginning of the letter, a copy of which was enclosed, was of that date. Maj. John Taylor wrote to Woodford Oct. 9 (see no. 586, note 3, post): "I have heard that Genl. Weedon's friends have been lately attempting to scrape up that old determined affair of his and yours tho' without success.' Concerning the cases of Woodford and Weedon, see no. 178, note 2, ante; also Joseph Jones to Washington, May 23, 1780, in the next volume of these Letters. 496. SAMUEL ADAMS TO JAMES WARREN.1 My dear Friend, My Enemies in Boston are exceedingly mistaken if they think I have condescended to become a Party Man in their unimportant Disputes about Manly and McNiel; neither of whom, in my opinion, derivd much Honor from the Decisions of the late Courts Martial. I wonder that Manly should attribute his Disappointment to me. At my Request he calld to see me. I found him to be one of those Men who stand in Need of Advice, and gave him the best I could. I told him what Questions I thought would be put to him, that he might be prepared to answer them. In short I said every thing to him as a Friend which was proper for me to say. Perhaps I was too candid to be thought a Friend. I intended to have been present at the Committee but was unavoidably hinderd. He left the City without calling on me a second time. McNeil is still here. He has called on me twice or thrice. I know not in what Part of the City he lives. His Friends and his Enemies may be assured that I shall give my Voice upon the Subject Matter of his Petition according to my best Skill and Judgment. In this I am sure to be justified by those to whose good opinion alone I pay the least Regard, the candid and impartial.3 PHILADA. Sept. 1, 1778. 497. SAMUEL HOLTEN, DIARY.1 [September 1-4, 1778.] Sept. 1. Congress sit late. By invitation the Delegates from Mass'a dined with Mr. Duer, Mr. Dean and Genl. Arnold at their lodgings. 2. By invitation I dined at the City Tavern with the Delegates from South Carolina, Congress and a number of other Gentlemen dined with us. 3. Congress resolved to meet twice a day for 2 months.2 4. Congress received a letter from General Sullivan informing of a Battle at Rhode Island and our army took possession of the ground. [496]1 Mass. Hist. Soc., Warren MSS.; Writings (ed. Cushing), IV. 52. 2 Adams is replying to a letter of Aug. 18 (Warren-Adams Letters, II. 41), in which Warren says: "Manley has returned here greatly Chagrined, and full of Bitterness and resentment against you, who he Considers as the principle Occasion of his disappointment. it is Circulated with Industry that you are the patron of McNeil and Intend to have the decision of the Court Martial set aside." Warren's reply to this letter and that of Sept. 12 (no. 518, post) is ibid., II. 47, dated Sept. 30. 3 In a letter to John Bradford, entirely pertaining to McNeill, Adams wrote, Sept. 8: "I suppose he is preparing to meet the Marine Committee to whom his Petition is referrd. When it may be proper for me to give my Opinion, I intend to do it, with Freedom and Impartiality, not feeling my self interested in the Party Disputes which I perceive there are in Boston between the two Men, neither of whom in my opinion has derivd much Honor from the Decisions of the Courts Martial respecting them" (Writings, IV. 57). See, further, no. 532, post, also the letter to Warren Sept. 12, and that to S. P. Savage Sept. 14 (Writings, IV. 58, 61). Cf. no. 440, ante. [497] Essex Inst. Hist. Colls., LV. 171. 2 See no. 494, note 2, ante. Dear Sir, 498. SAMUEL ADAMS TO JAMES BOWDOIN.1 A few days ago I received a letter from your son in law Mr Temple dated New York, August 23d, requesting me by the first opportunity to inform you of his and Mrs Temple's arrival there, and that, for particular reasons he should be exceedingly happy if your affairs would permit you to meet them at Philadelphia, or as near it as might be convenient to you. He requested this of me, because excepting that letter and another to Mr President Laurens, he had not written a line since his arrival at N. Y., and he had still weighty reasons for declining it. He also desired me to cause it to be made as convenient as might be (at his expence) for Mrs Temple and her little boy, who had not been well since their arrival, to get to Philadelphia. His baggage which is both heavy and bulkey, he intended to get transported in a Flag, if any should be suffered to pass, to Boston, or some port as near it as might be, and hoped to see me soon in this city. His letter to the President was read in Congress. It was short and contained little more than to sollicit leave to come to Philada to pay his respects to Congress. This was refus'd upon the idea that he might be a secret emissary from the British Court. I think it is best for him that his request is not granted; for the jealousy of the people at large would, I believe, render his residence here very uncomfortable. A certain Doctor Burkenhout, who came from London in the same packett with Mr T is now in prison in this city, committed by the authority of this State, under the same suspicion. I took occasion to inform Congress from my own knowledge of Mr Temple, that although he had been formerly an officer of the Crown of Great Britain, and in the Customs, yet he had constantly given great offence to his brother Commissioners and other friends of that government, particularly Bernard and Hutchinson, by his attachment to those who espoused the liberties of America; that he went to England seven years ago, where, I understood, he had since lived the greater part of the time, entirely out of favor at Court and in private life; and that I had reason to think his connexions in Boston had long expected his return to spend his days there. Congress afterwards orderd the Secretary to inform Mr Temple, that if it was his intention to reside in any one of the United States, the same should be signified by him to the State in which he intends to reside, and the approbation of that State obtaind before a passport could be granted to him. Thus the matter stands in all its particulars, a view of which I thought it proper you should be acquainted with. I wish Mr Temple had turned his attention first to Boston. It is probable he will now do it, and that you will receive a letter from him.2 PHILADELPHIA, Septr. 3, 1778. [498]1 Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, sixth ser., IX. 423; Writings (ed. Cushing), IV. 54. 2 See the Journals, Sept. 1; cf. ibid., Dec. 3, 8. See also nos. 671, 672, 685, 689, 698, 699, post. Concerning Dr. Berkenhout, see no. 487, ante, and nos. 500, 502, 564, 566, 635, 671, 697, post. . Dear Sir, 499. JOHN WITHERSPOON TO 1 PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 3, 1778. Your very acceptable letter of the 21st of March, I received about the middle of June, and would have answered it long ago, if there had been any encouraging prospect of conveying it safely. Your letter came to me sealed, and apparently never opened, in a packet from the British commissioners, which arrived at York-town while the Congress was sitting; and consequently it, as well as one from Mr. F was delivered to me in presence of the whole members. As the same packet, besides the public message, contained some private letters addressed to particular members, some of them from Governor Johnstone, one of the commissioners, a proposal was made by a member, who read publicly one received by himself, that every gentleman who had received private letters from any person with the enemy, should deliver them to Congress, that they might be read. This would have been attended with no difficulty as to me; except some family affairs in Mr. F's letter very improper to be publicly read, and some expressions in his letter a little offensive speaking of Congress. However, it was not done at that time; and afterwards, in a diet at many days distance, every member who had received any such letters, was called upon to read from them what related to public affairs, which was done." 500. RICHARD HENRY LEE TO THE VICE-President of PHILADELPHIA Septr. 4. 1778. Mr. President Laurens having this day informed Congress that your honorable board desired he would write to Gen. Maxwell concerning Doctor Berkenhout, it was desired by Congress that I should furnish you with the Generals letter to me upon the subject, which I have now the honor of doing.2 I must do Dr. Berkenhout the justice to say, that when I informed him General Maxwell had written me that he, the Doctor, said he had "intelligence of much import for Congress " he replied it was a mistake, and that he attributed it to the General being at the time engaged in business with many people, and to his having said his business was to see a Member of Congress, meaning myself. He has further, in conversation told me, that his plan in coming to America was, to find a proper place to fix himself and his family in a Country of freedom, and where he might advantageously practise physick which is his profession. For this he assigned. many reasons that appeared to me very forcible ones. [49911 Works (Edinburgh, 1815), IX. 166. 2 See the Journals, June 17, July 9, 16. Cf. nos. 340, 355, 358, 373, ante. [500]1 Library of Congress, Portfolio 104. 2 See no. 487, ante, and no. 502, post. |