The Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, 1789-1791

Gazette of the United States

[Text omitted. -Ed.]***
The order of the day was then called for— and the engrossed bill for establishing an executive department, to be denominated the department of foreign affairs, was read a third time.
Mr. SUMTER moved, that the final consideration of the bill should be postponed.
Mr. WHITE proposed, that the bill should be re-committed to a committee of the whole, in order that the other departments might be added, and one system formed, which should embrace the whole— this motion after a short discussion was negatived.[1]
Mr. SUMTER then renewed his motion for postponement, and that the bill should lie on the table till to-morrow. The vote upon this motion passed in the affirmative.
Mr. LAURANCE moved, that the House should take into consideration the amendments to the impost bill, which were yet to be decided— this motion was adopted.[2] And the enacting clause as amended by the Senate being read, which is in these words, "Be it enacted by the Senate and Representatives," & c. Mr. Thatcher proposed, that "House of" should be inserted immediately before Representatives— this motion was agreed to.
The next amendment which the Senate had not receded from was, to strike out the clause which makes a discrimination in the duty imposed on distilled spirits imported from countries with whom the United States were in treaty, and from those with whom no treaties had been formed— It was moved and seconded, that the House should accede to the amendment: This produced an animated debate, in which many new observations occurred, and those which had been adduced in the former discussion, were repeated:[3] The vote being taken, it passed in the negative— twenty-five being in favor of acceding, and twenty-seven against it. So the discrimination remains as it originally stood.
    [1.] The [New York] Daily Advertiser, 24 June, reported:“
This motion was made in order for a reconsideration; it was contended that by the decision of the house upon it on Monday the principles of the bill were materially altered, and that it was important that such a subject should undergo the most thorough canvass.
    [2.] According to The [New York] Daily Advertiser, 24 June, "some debate" occurred before the amendment was adopted.
    [3.] The [New York] Daily Advertiser, 24 June, described this debate as "considerable."