Mr. J. denied the moral right of Congress to remove the seat of Government; it had been fixed under the constitution, and without its violation could not be changed.
Such a measure would indicate a prostration of plighted faith; would destroy all confidence in the Government, from one end of the continent to the other.
Gentlemen, in favor of this measure, should know its cost. Already had the present seat of Government, in its origination and consequences, cost the nation the assumption of the State debts to the amount of twenty-one millions, and between one and two millions for public accommodation. Would gentlemen be willing not only to lose all that had been expended, but likewise to indemnify the proprietors in the city, whose assessed property amounted to two and a half millions of dollars, and the proprietors of property in the whole District, the amount of which he was unable to state?
Mr. J. concluded by saying, he should vote against the postponement, under the expectation that the Senate would take up the bill and reject it by a majority so great, that no similar proposition should ever again be brought before them.
Mr. ANDERSON declared himself hostile to the postponement, as he was in favor of the passage of the bill, under certain modifications. He considered Congress possessed the constitutional power of altering the seat of Government; and he believed, from an experience of the inconveniences attending the existing seat, it was their duty to change it. He allowed that, in such an event, an obligation would arise to indemnify the proprietors for the losses they would thereby sustain. This, however, he considered the lesser evil; as the sum required to make an indemnity would be less than that required for the improvements contemplated, and which are necessary to accommodate the Government.
Mr. COCKE declared himself decidedly inimical to the bill. The permanent seat of Government was fixed under the constitution, and the power did not belong to Congress to alter it.
Mr. ADAMS strenuously contended against the right of Congress to remove the seat of Government. To do so, would be to prostrate the national faith, and to shake the confidence of the nation in the Government. He considered the proposed measure as inexpedient as it was unconstitutional; as it tended directly to defeat the object of the mover.