University of Virginia Library

FRIDAY, NOVR. 8.

The preceding question having been taken again, on a further
discussion of the subject. There were in favor of the demand,
N. H., R. I., N. Y. Pa. Del. Maryd.. Virga. & of the other States
some were divided.

A motion was made by Mr. Rutledge of S. C. "That the
Comder in chief & of the S. Department be respectively directed
whenever the Enemy shall commit any act of cruelty or violence
contrary to the laws & usage of war on the Citizens of these
States to demand adequate satisfaction for the same, and in case
such satisfaction shall not be immediately given, but refused or
evaded under any pretext whatsoever, to cause suitable retaliation
to be forthwith made on British officers without waiting for
directions from Congress on the subject."

When this motion was first made it was espoused by many;
with great warmth in particular by the Delegates of N. C & S. C.,
as necessary to prevent the delays & uncertainties incident to a
resort by the Military Commanders to Congress, and to convince

---

258

Against the motion it was objected 1. that the time & place in
which it stood would certainly convey an indirect reprehension of
Genl Washington for bringing before Congress the case of Capt:
Asgill & Huddy: 2. that it manifested a distrust in Congress which
however well founded it might be with respect to retaliation
ought not to be proclaimed by themselves. 3. that political &
national considerations might render the interference of the
Supreme authority expedient, of wch the letter from the Ct. de
Vergennes in the late case furnished an instance; that the resort of
the Military Commanders to the Sover̃ign for direction in great
and difficult cases, such as those of retaliation would often prove,
was a right of which they ought not to be deprived; but in the
exercise of which they ought rather to be countenanced. These
objections reduced the patrons of the motion to the Delegates of
N. C. & S. C. alone or nearly so. In place of it the declaratory
motion on the Journals was substituted. This again was objected
to as implying that in the cases of retaliation taken up by the
Mily. commanders, they had proceeded on doubtful authority. To
remove this objection, the amendment was proposed, limiting the
preamble to the single act of discharging Capt: Asgill. This
however was not entirely satisfactory because that particular act
could have no constructive influence on the Reputed authority of
the Generals. It was acceded to by the votes of several who were
apprehensive that in case of rejecting it, the earnestness of some
might obtrude a substitute less harmless, or that the Resolution
might pass without the preamble, & be more offensive to the Commander
in Chief. The first apprehension was the prevailing motive
with many to agree to the proposition on the final question.

---

259

This day a letter was recd. from Gel Washington, inclosing one
of the 25 of Ocr. from Sr. G. Carleton relative to the demand made
on him for a liquidation of accts and payment of the balance due
for the maintenance of Prisoners of war, in which the latter used
an asperity of language so much the reverse of his preceding
correspondence that many regard it as portending a revival of the
war against the U S.