A widely-reprinted notice that appeared in the [Philadelphia]
Federal Gazette on 6 April 1790 (see above) serves as an excellent
advertisement for the DHFFC's 5-volume series on the debates in the House of
Representatives. The series began in 1992 with the publication of volumes 10
and 11, covering the first session (April-September 1789), continued in 1994 with
the publication of volumes 12 and 13, covering the second session (January-August
1790), and recenfly concluded in January 1996 with the publication of volume 14,
covering the third session (December 1790-March 1791). Until the appearance of
these volumes, Gales and Seaton's mid-nineteenth century
Annals of Congress was the standard but inadequate documentary source
for most congressional historiography. The DHFFC's debate volumes improve upon the
Annals, effectively doubling the documentary record, by providing all
independent, contemporary accounts of the debates printed in newspapers at the
seat of government.
In some cases, such as Rep. Roger Sherman's (CT) speech for
assumption of the state debts, the text has been retrieved from a First Congress
member's collection of papers; in others, such as Rep. John Page's (VA) speech on
the Quaker antislavery petitions, the text was printed exclusively in the local
newspaper of a member's home district, usually at the request of a member to
clarify some controversial or unpopular measure. The debate volumes also provide
the first printed transcription of Thomas Lloyd's shorthand notes of the debates
taken on the floor of the House. For some dates Lloyd's notes are the only source.
The reader will be rewarded for struggling through Lloyd's terse transcription with
the sense of immediacy they convey, as well as the occasional gems that did not
survive the editorial cut to appear in any printed accounts.
The five volumes will become the source of choice for historians,
lawyers, jurists, and educators for the House debates on such important issues as
the creation of a revenue system, the power of removal of executive officers, the
Bill of Rights, the location of the federal capital, the funding of the Revolutionary
War debt, the creation of the Bank of the United States, the organization of the
militia, and federal regulation of the slave trade. Introductory notes to volumes
10, 12, and 14 bring together current scholarship on precedents for access to and
reporting of congressional debates, major themes of the debates in each of the
three sessions, the political culture of the House gallery, the architecture of
Federal Hall and Congress Hall, and bibliographies of New York and Philadelphia
newspapers. A 450-page appendix to volume 14, containing biographies of every
member of the FFC--from the most prominent to the most obscure--is a source for
all users of the DHFFC.
Users will concur with a correspondent for the Gazette of the
United States of 27 May 1789, who predicted that the publication of the debates
of Congress would gradually disseminate "principles of legislative wisdom and integrity."
More than two hundred years after the fact, his observation still holds true: "Great
advantages will be derived from having it in the power of the rising patriots, and
legislators of our country, to take up a system of practical legislation from the
beginning, and observe the regular gradations of a young nation growing into
opulence, contentment and power."
The more than six hundred petitions presented during the FFC,
and Congress's response to them, are instructive for what they reveal about the
American people at the dawn of the Republic: their concepts of justice, equity,
civil rights, citizenship, and entitlement; their understanding of the Revolutionary
War, their role in it, and their obligations to those who suffered to secure
independence; the promise of their westward empire; their material aspirations;
and their expectations of the federal government and the Constitution.
The impact of petitions on the legislative agenda of the First
Congress transcended private claims, in several instances leading Congress to
promulgate legislation of far-reaching significance. Important initiatives, such
as the establishment of general patent and copyright procedures, a land office,
and the debt funding plan were influenced by petitions seeking private legislation.
Petitions also influenced legislation establishing federal revenues, mitigating fines,
and locating the capital. Petitions influenced or directly led to other initiatives
that failed to result in legislation: these include petitions on bankruptcy, the
encouragement of manufacturing, the exemption from militia duty, the regulation
of harbors, the establishment of public hospitals, and the regulation of the
slave trade.
To render as complete a portrait as possible, a conscious effort
has been made to include all information about the petitions. More non-First
Congress material has necessarily been included than elsewhere in the series: earlier
or later versions of a First Congress petition have been provided, when possible,
from the papers of the Confederation Congress or later federal Congresses. Failing
that, an attempt has been made to include drafts of the petitions from private
collections or summaries culled from letters or newspaper accounts. When extant,
items that originally served as enclosures to secretaries' reports, but were
subsequently alienated, have been retrieved and included from among the papers of
the Continental and Confederation Congresses, from which they were frequently copied
or borrowed during the First Congress. Private correspondence relevant to the petitions
has also been referred to or included. Consequently, the volumes are partly unofficial
in their nature, occupying a proper place between the official volumes which preceded
them and the unofficial volumes which follow.
I last Evening recd. yours by Mr. Dane and this morning had your
box of models carried to Mr. Ramsen and have informd. him I shall pay every expence,
and have desired him to pay particular attention to the sub]ect, he has promised me
he will, and you may rely on my best endeavours to promote your interest-- compliments
to Mrs. Read
with sincerity I am your
Friend & Servt.
B. Goodhue
This letter by Rep. Benjanmin Goodhue of Salem, Massachusetts, to Nathan
Read illustrates the variety and extent of legislator-constituent relations during the
First Congress. Read (1759-1849), a Harvard-educated apothecary living in Salem, first
petitioned the House on 8 February 1790 for "an exclusive privilege for constructing
sundry machines and engines, which he has invented for improving the art of distillation,
for facilitating the operation of mills and other water-works, and for promoting the
purposes of navigation and land carriage." Read's modifications of the steam engine were
discussed widely not only in New England, but also by those interested in their application
to the region's early industries. Under the nation's first Patents Act [HR-41], on 22 April
1790 the patent commission ordered "letters patent" to be issued to Read for his portable
furnace boiler, steam cylinder, and multitubular stills. Read apparently withdrew these
patent applications and submitted others in January 1791. Goodhue--as this letter
attests--served as Read's liaison with the patent commission when he applied for
additional patents at that time. Read went on to patent several more inventions, directed
the Salem Iron Factory from 1796 to 1807, and sat as a Federalist in the Sixth and Seventh
Congresses.
Henry Remsen, Jr., as chief clerk of the Department of State, served as
secretary to the patent commission, which consisted of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson,
Secretary at War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph. "Mr. Dane" almost certainly
refers to Nathan Dane, lawyer of Beverly, Massachusetts, state legislator, and former member
of the Confederation Congress.
Goodhue's letter to Read was discovered during a search of the Nathan
Read Papers at the Phillips Library of the Essex Institute in Salem, Massachusetts, in
September 1995, by Assistant Editor Chuck diGiacomantonio. A preliminary search of this
repository in 1969 failed to uncover the letter. Conducting similar follow-up searches,
principally in the Northeast, is an on-going priority for the First Congress Project.
The First Federal Congress was the most important and
productive Congress in American history, a second sitting of the Federal
Convention. Without its tremendous legislative output, the new
constitutional experiment would almost certainly have failed. By passing
legislation to raise a federal revenue, pay the state and federal war
debt, locate the national capital, and regulate interstate
commerce--issues which had obstructed the functioning of the central
government since at least the end of the Revolutionary War-the First
Congress brought to conclusion the American Revolution and found a way to
retain the North and South in the union when both sides were threatening
an end to it.
The First Federal Congress Project was established
at The George Washington University with the goal of locating and
publishing all documents relating to the implementation of the
Constitution by the First Federal Congress. Twelve volumes of the
projected 19 volume series have been published by the Johns Hopkins
University Press since 1972. The bulk of the project's direct support
comes from federal grants. The project must raise substantial private
funds to retain staff and meet production schedules in the face of federal
budget cuts.
Your tax-deductible gifts made out to The George
Washington University are earnestly solicited. Contributions and inquiries
should be sent to:
Charlene B. Bickford, Director
The First Federal Congress Project
The George Washington University
Washington, D.C. 20052
202-676-6777
FAX: 202-496-9055
e-mail: bickford@gwu.edu
"In no nation, by no Legislature, was ever so much done in so short
a period for the establishment of Government, Order, . . . & general
tranquility" (John Trumbull to John Adams, 20 Mar. 1791).
The National Historical Publications and Records Commission
The
George Washington University
The National Endowment for the Humanities
Project Staff:
Charlene B. Bickford, Co-editor and Director
Kenneth R. Bowling,
Co-editor
Helen E. Veit, Associate Editor
William C.
diGiacomantonio, Associate Editor