“The free and republican spirit of Americaappears in nothing more than in the toleration of taking down the public debates in short hand. …” The publication of the debates of Congress, have proved an unbounded source of information, instruction and amusement to the citizens of the United States. And altho from the circumstances of the noveltyof the business, the various speeches have not been so fully detailed, as some persons have wished, yet upon the whole, more perfect sketches have perhaps never appeared in any country … ( Gazette of the United States, 13 Jan.1790, quoting and commenting on a review of the Congressional Registerin the London Analytical Review, or New Literary Journal).
Access to and Reporting of House Debates
On 26 September 1789, in the closing days of the first session, Representative Aedanus Burkemoved to chastise those who printed the debates for the “misrepresentation and error” in their accounts and threatened to expel them from the House floor, claiming that their privileged location appeared to give them an official sanction they did not deserve. 1 Although Burkeyielded to his colleagues' suggestions and withdrew his motion, the reporters voluntarily removed to the House gallery at the opening of the second session. Just before the daily adjournment on 15 January 1790, Virginia's John Pagecalled the attention of the House to the reporters' position. He wished them to return to their seats on the floor, but he recognized the desire of some members that the invitation be informal and not an official House action. Once Burkeindicated his willingness to allow the reporters back on the floor, the discussion quickly concluded. The reporters resumed their seats behind the speaker facing the members, probably when the House reconvened on Monday, 18 January. One suspects from remarks made during the debate that Pageand others were influenced by a widely reprinted commentary on a favorable Britishreview of volume I of the Congressional Register:
The people have without doubt, been led to entertain the most favorable and honorable sentiments of the Representative body, whose enlightened and candid policy has not only kept the doors of their Gallery open, but suffered their debates to be taken on the floor of the House as a matter of course. Such a privilege once enjoyed (like the precious blessing of freedom) makes an indelible impression on the mind; and it would be infinitely better not to have realized the gratification, than, after having participated [ in] it for a season, to be deprived of it for ever. 2
The debate over Burke's motion may have had an effect on the editors' conduct of their business, for there is greater evidence in the second session that reporters and editors for the various papers and the Congressional Registercooperated with House members. Editors corrected errors that were pointed out to them and asked members to clarify their remarks when the editors did not understand. Members provided written copies of their speeches with greater frequency. For example, a speech delivered by Representative Roger Shermanon 12 April was published by John Fennoin the Gazette of the United Stateson 14 April. Two weeks later, Fennoprinted a much longer version of the same speech from a copy provided by Sherman. Representative Theodore Sedgwickclaimed that Fennogot so far behind in publishing the debates at least in part because members were preparing their speeches for him and Fennocould not deny them the insertion. 3
The newspapers next became an issue in debate on 14 April, when the House discussed and voted down a committee's recommendation that Congress discontinue its practice of supplying members with newspapers at public expense. The vote was not recorded, but the Pennsylvania Packetreported that Burkejoined fellow Antifederalist Elbridge Gerryin supporting the public expenditure. 4 Burkelater argued against moving the seat of government to Philadelphiabecause no gallery existed in the public buildings there and consequently the House would conduct its business in a secret conclave.
The question of Congress and the press came up again in July when the New-York Morning Postpublished a series of verbal sketches of various members of Congress. A member sent one of the House messengers to the printer with a demand that he come to Federal Hallto answer charges of having libeled a member. The editor then published a letter from the anonymous authors of the series, denying the accusation of libel and stating:
that the Constitution of the United Statesdoes not empower any Member of Congress to send threatening messages by any Attendant of the House, or any other Officer, to the Citizens of New-York, or any other City; that you are not under any obligation to give up the name of the Author in this instance. … 5
Nothing shows more clearly that political leaders intended the debates of the House of Representativesto be open to the public than the inclusion of a public gallery in the renovation of New York's City Hall as Federal Hall. That innovation was a conspicuous feature of Peter C. L' Enfant's design of a ninety-foot long, two and a half story addition to the rear of the building.
The visitor to Federal Hallentered the building from Broad Streetthrough one of seven arched entryways leading to a stone-floored breezeway. Passing through a small marble antechamber, the visitor entered a larger vestibule lit by a skylight high above in the roof's cupola. By taking the left staircase to the second floor—the staircase opposite was reserved for Congressmen—the visitor gained access to a gallery that overlooked the vestibule below. Various rooms, including the Senate chamber, opened from this gallery.
Senate rules kept the chamber closed to the public. But it was the ceremonial showcase of L' Enfant's structure, and it, rather than the House chamber, served as the setting for special joint sessions. Frenchchargé d'affaires Louis-Guillaume Ottowas present for one of these rare gatherings, Washington's opening of the session on 8 January 1790. Trained by his monarchical background to appreciate the importance of civic ritual, Otto described the occasion in detail in a letter to the Frenchforeign office. Washingtonarrived at Federal Hallin a carriage harnessed by four horses, preceded by five secretaries on horseback and followed by the carriages of the chief justice, the secretary of the treasury, and the secretary of war. Inside the chamber, Washingtonsat on a raised seat, “made in the form of a throne.” Adamsand the senators sat to his right, Muhlenbergand the representatives to his left. Citizens and foreigners crowded into whatever space was left. 6
For the visitor intent on witnessing the House's deliberations, the real goal lay through another entrance off the second floor gallery. Turning to the left at the head of the staircase, one entered the spectators' gallery, or the “paliadium of liberty,” as Burkecalled it. This gallery projected fifteen feet into the House chamber, one story above the House floor, facing the Speaker's dais at the north end. A second, smaller gallery above was reserved for members' guests. Spectators would not have felt cramped by the two-tiered design; the chamber measured thirty-six feet high with an additional ten feet allowed by the ceiling's cove design.
Ample floor space contributed to the impression of airiness: L' Enfantprovided a sixty-five by fifty-five foot octagonal room for the accommodation of fifty-nine members. Their individual desks were arranged in two semicircles facing the Speaker. Although members sometimes changed their seats, the evidence suggests that members may have continued a precedent from the Continental and Confederation Congresses of regularly sitting in state delegations with representatives from New Hampshirethrough Delawareon one side of the House and the remainder of the representatives on the other. Members could keep their hats on while seated but removed them to speak. To their rear, directly below the galleries and inside the main entrance, was a barred off space where senators, executive officers, visiting dignitaries, and other invited guests were permitted to sit. In February 1790 Speaker Muhlenbergextended this privilege to Otto. Among the diplomatic corps, only the Dutchminister Peter Van Berckelapparently enjoyed the same advantage. 7
When debate lagged, or during periods of momentary distraction, the spectator's attention would have been attracted to any of the several decorative elements with which L' Enfantgenerously endowed the chamber. Wainscoting covered the walls up to the level of the windows, sixteen feet above the floor. Above the wainscoting rose Ionic columns and pilasters, topped by an Ionic entabulature. Spaced between the columns and the windows was an example of L' Enfant's genius for patriotic iconography: the symbolically intertwined letters U.S. , surrounded by a laurel. Light blue damask was the fabric of choice for both curtains and upholstery. It is unknown whether L' Enfant's plan for a “ statue of Liberty” above the Speaker's chair was realized before Congress abandoned Federal Hallat the end of the second session. 8
By the second session, attending the debates at Federal Hallhad become the most popular social activity in New Yorkfor tourists and people of leisure. Women had begun to attend almost the first day the gallery opened. And so from 10 or 11 A.M. (depending on the press of business) until 3 P.M. every day the House was in session, the public came to the gallery. Constituents informed their congressmen that when they came to New Yorkthey intended primarily to listen to the debates. Listeners often ate in the galleries and the noise of teeth cracking nuts and feet walking on nutshells so annoyed one visitor that he sent a letter to an editor asking people to crack their nuts at home in the morning and to put the shells in their pockets. Another newspaper article warned readers that political knowledge was not the only reason people attended the sessions: one absorbed listener had his pocket picked. Fortunately, the wallet was found on the Battery with its papers, but not its cash, intact. 9 Philip Freneaudescribed debate attendance in a poem entitled “ Federal Hall” in the Daily Advertiseron 12 March 1790:
W ith eager step and wrinkled brow,
The busy sons of care
Disgusted with less splendid scenes
To Federal Hallrepair.
In order place'd, they patient wait
To seize each word that flies,
From what they hear they sigh or smile,
Look cheerful, grave, or wise.
Within these walls the doctrines taught
Are of such vast concern,
That all the world with one consent
Here strives to live—and learn.
The timorous heart that cautious shuns
All churches, but its own,
No more observes its wonted rules
But ventures here alone.
Four hours a day each rank alike,
(They that can walk or crawl)
Leave children, business, shop and wife,
And steer for Federal Hall.
From morning tasks of mending soals
The cobler hastes away;
At threereturns and tells to Kate
The business of the day.
The debtor, vext with early duns,
Avoids his hated home
And here and there at random roves
Till hours of Congress come.
The barber at the well-known time
Forgets his lather'dman,
And leaves him, grac'dwith half a beard,
To shave it—as he can.
The taylor, plagu'dwith suitson suits,
Neglects Sir Fopling's call,
Forsakes his goose—disdains his board,
And flies to Federal Hall.
One never knew whether the day's proceedings would be lively. When they were, the members stopped reading newspapers, writing letters, or exchanging notes and even satirical, bawdy poetry among themselves. The first debate to seize public attention concerned Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's report on public credit, and public attendance was high on 8 February. Disappointed when the House decided to read the lengthy report, “the citizens disappeared in an instant.” Attempting to report the public credit debates proved a real trial for the reporters. No doubt the regulars in the gallery soon tired of the debates on debt assumption and agreed with Elias Boudinot's son-in-law, who grew so bored with reading them in the newspaper that he passed over them “as one does over the page of advertisements.” Vice President Adams, on the other hand, persisted and attended regularly in February. 10
On 12 April the gallery was crowded to witness the vote on assumption of state debts. Senators and Secretary of State Thomas Jeffersonwere among those in attendance. William Maclayclaimed that the Massachusettsmen threatened a dissolution of the Union. His diary entry for the day bristled with uncomplimentary physical descriptions of the most prominent supporters of assumption in the moments after the vote, but he refrained from describing his companions in the gallery. 11
Few debates generated as much passion or rhetoric as those on the House's response to several antislavery petitions in February and March 1790. And no more thorough record—public or private—exists to illustrate the full effects of public access to Congressional debates and Congressmen's reciprocal access to a live audience. Quaker meetings in the middle states and the Pennsylvania Abolition Societypetitioned Congress to “Step to the very verge of the Powers vested in you” to regulate the slave trade and even abolish slavery. Seventeen “deputies” accompanied the petitions. The presence of these Quakersthroughout the deliberations of Congress was of key significance. One of them observed that “our appearance in the Gallery tho' our numbers are few has an effect & testify's that we Consider the subject of Importance, tho' it does vex some violent men.” James Jacksonconceded the tactic's merit when he complained that “he heard no argument used for so speedy a consideration, but that the Quakerswere in the Galery.” 12
Congressmen from the Deep South viewed Quaker attendance as threatening and responded accordingly; no debate in the First Federal Congress saw such attention drawn to the gallery. William Smithof South Carolinaused the gallery itself as a prop when he claimed to spy “evil spirits hovering over our heads.” For the first time a member of Congress advised the ejection of specific visitors from the gallery. Disruption and calls to order punctuated the more vicious attacks, such as when Burkecompared the Quakers' attendance to Milton's Luciferentering Paradise disguised as a cormorant. Senator Maclaywitnessed the spectacle from the gallery and heard “base invective indecorous language, 3 or 4 up at a time. manifest signs of passion, the most disorderly Wandering, in their Speeches, telling Stories.” 13
On 31 March, just a week after the inflammatory speeches provoked by the antislavery petitions, spectators in an unusually crowded gallery were entertained by another outburst on the House floor. Representative Aedanus Burkewas pleading South Carolina's case for federal assumption of the state's war debts. Invoking the special sacrifices of his state's militia, he began a long-postponed reply to the public eulogy Alexander Hamiltonhad delivered in honor of General Nathanael Greeneon 4 July 1789. Describing Greene's handling of the war in the South, Hamiltonhad referred to the militia as the “mimickry of soldiery.” Burkepassionately defended the militia and called Hamilton's remarks a lie. Called to order, Burketook a brief respite but was soon on his feet again. William Smithof Marylandcaptured the drama of the moment: “supposing Col. Hamiltonin the Gallery (which was filled with ladies) he faced round to that quarter, & called out aloud, that he threw the lie in Col. Hamiltons face.” Most of New York's papers delicately omitted any mention of the event, but the New York Journalof 15 April reported the speech at length.
“Men of the blade” concluded the challenge must produce a duel. On 7 April an informal Congressional delegation composed of senators King and Henryand representatives Gerry, Mathews, Cadwalader, and Jacksonmediated a resolution. Hamiltonexplicitly declared that his remarks were not intended to describe the militia in general or South Caroliniansin particular, and Burkeconsented “cheerfully and explicitly” to retract everything offensive he had said. Nevertheless, by late April rumor had spread through Virginiathat Hamiltonhad been killed. 14
New York's residents took particular interest in the debate over the Residence Bill [S-12] and, just as they had during the 1789 debate on the Seat of Government Bill [ HR-25], filled the galleries. They were not disappointed, for the rhetoric was ripe and the predictions dire. Senator Richard Henry Leenoted all the ladies whose presence, he protested, implied “as you Vote, so will we smile—A severe Trial for susceptible minds.” Supporters of the bill accused opponents of using language designed to incite New Yorkersto mob action against Congress. Among the dignitaries attending for the final vote on 9 July were the president's aides, who allegedly showed disrespect to the minority who had supported the government's remaining in New York. After Congress decided to move to Philadelphia, the New Yorkeditors showed little interest in reporting House debates, an exception being the one on the Senate amendments to the Funding Bill [ HR-63]. On that occasion, Fisher Amesreported that James Jacksonbecame so loud that the Senate had to shut its windows. 15
The passage of the Residence Act [S-12] assured that Philadelphiawould be the nation's capital for the decade of the 1790s. The elegant Federal Hallin which the First Federal Congress addressed so many important issues as it implemented the Constitution was deserted by Congress to become once again just a city hall. In terms of the access of the citizenry to the debates of its legislature, the first two sessions of the House of Representativesestablished a precedent that has withstood the test of time. Thomas Lloyd, John Fenno, and their fellow shorthand writers and editors were Americanpioneers of a form of reporting. Over the past two centuries access to Congressional debates has been enormously expanded. Gavel-to-gavel coverage of debates on cable television, televised committee hearings, and the word-for-word account of debates in the Congressional Recordare the present day results of opening the doors of the first House of Representativesto the public.
SOURCES: SECOND SESSION
Thomas Lloyd's Shorthand Notes and The Congressional Register
When the second session opened, Thomas Lloydwas still struggling to keep up with his ambitious plan to publish the debates of the House. A few weeks earlier he had gone into partnership with Hodge, Allen, and Campbellin hopes of improving the publication record of the Congressional Register. The partners promised a new issue each Saturday and indicated their desire to complete the first session prior to the start of the second. Nevertheless, the debates of the last six weeks of the first session remained unpublished when Congress reconvened.
No notes for the period 4–18 January have been located and it seems likely that Lloyddid not attend the sessions. Lloydturned to G. Dickinson, 1 a student of his shorthand system, for assistance in notetaking and transcription. Marion Tinlinganalyzed the second session notes 2 and concluded that Dickinsontook notes for Lloydfor the period 19 January through 25 March, the day on which Lloyd's fourth daughter was born. 3 Lloydtook up the notetaking again on 31 March. He had used the interim period to complete publication not only of volume II of the Congressional Register, finishing the first session, but also of volume III, covering 4 January through 23 February 1790.
No shorthand notes exist for the period 25 February through 14 March. By that time Lloydwas so overwhelmed with attending the debates, taking notes, translating the notes, and publishing the text that his project foundered. Only three issues of volume IV were published, the first beginning with 24 February and the third ending in midsentence during the debates of 8 March. The last issue appeared at the end of the first week of May, not long after the New-York Daily Gazettecarried an exchange of articles complaining about and defending the rate of publication of the Congressional Register. 4 With volumes III and IV, Lloydcontinued the practice he began in volume II of intermittently relying upon newpaper accounts for his text. From time to time thereafter, Lloydprovided others with translations of his notes. When Representative Pagewished to defend himself from election campaign charges that he had taken an antislavery position during the debate on the Quaker petitions, he turned to Lloydfor a certified copy of his notes. John Fennoattributed his account of the debate of 10 June to “ Lloyd's Minutes.”
James Rivington, the former loyalist newspaper editor who had provided George Washingtonwith information during the Britishoccupation of New YorkCity, informed a Britishofficial later in 1790 that the collapse of Lloyd's project was due to his drunkenness and other vices. While Madisonwrote late in his life that Lloyd“became a votary of the bottle and perhaps made too free use of it sometimes at the period of his printed debates,” the physical evidence of the notes does not indicate that Lloyd's drinking interfered with his ability to take shorthand. Lloyddid spend two days in the New YorkCity jail in July 1790. 5
Lloyd's notes are a critically important source for the second session debates. For many of the dates after the Congressional Registerceased publication, the notes are either the only substantive account available or are far more extensive than the newspaper accounts. As with the first session, the notes are particularly useful for information about House precedents and procedures. Despite the difficulties in interpretation that will be encountered by researchers, the notes still represent an exciting and rich new source.
As far as we know, Lloydtook no notes during the third session. He did move to Philadelphia, for just after Congress adjourned, on 8 March 1791, the General Advertiserannounced that the debates would henceforth be printed from shorthand notes taken by Lloydand a partner, “whose joint exertions will (it is expected) render the Congressional Registerthe vehicle of the earliest information, and thus enable it to anticipate even newspaper intelligence.” Nothing came of the project and Lloydreturned to Englandlate in 1791. Within a year he was imprisoned as a bankrupt. Upon his release early in 1796 he returned to Philadelphia, where he learned that the House was accepting bids for a stenographer who would act in an official capacity to record its debates accurately. In his bid Lloydasked for one thousand dollars per session to record and publish the debates; this was in addition to a commitment from the House to purchase five hundred copies of each volume. 6 In the end Congress hired no one, and Lloydspent the next thirty years of his life in a variety of occupations, including teaching shorthand, recording court cases, clerking, and census taking. He died in Philadelphiaon 19 January 1827.
Although members of Congress and James Madisonin particular occasionally complained about the accuracy of Lloyd's transcription, probably a more balanced view came from Representative Thatcher, who noted during a speech in the House in 1800 that “the debates as taken down by Mr. Lloyd, were as accurately taken as any taken before or since.” 7
|Issue No. & Pages||Approximate Date Published Volume III||Debates Covered|
|4 January through 23 February 1790|
|1 pp.–56||28 Jan.1790||4–14 Jan.|
|2 pp.57–112||4 Feb.1790||14–18 Jan.|
|3 pp.113–68||11 Feb.1790||18–25 Jan.|
|4 pp.169–224||25 Feb.1790||25 Jan.–4 Feb.|
|5 pp.225–80||25 Feb.1790||4–9 Feb.|
|6 pp.281–336||4 Mar.1790||9–12 Feb.|
|7 pp.337–92||11 Mar.1790||12–17 Feb.|
|8 pp.393–440||18 Mar.1790||17–19 Feb.|
|9 pp.441–502||1 Apr.1790||19–23 Feb.|
24 February through part of 8 March 1790
|1 pp.–48||22 Apr.1790||24–25 Feb.|
|2 pp.49–96||26(?) Apr.1790||25 Feb.–2 Mar.|
|3 pp.97–152||7 May 1790||2–8 Mar.|
The Gazette of the United States
Like Lloyd, John Fennohad not realized the success he hoped for when he founded a newspaper to report on and support the new federal government. While his venture was approved by leaders of the new government such as President Washington, Vice President Adams, and Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton, publishing a newspaper without advertising proved difficult. At the end of the first session Fennoreflected upon his dilemma to his patron, Bostonian Joseph Ward: he needed money for supplies, some of his 650 subscribers owed him money, Congress owed him money, and most congressmen had not continued their subscriptions during the recess. Fenno's solution was to issue a call for new subscribers and to accept advertisements for the first time. He was not pleased about the latter decision, bemoaning as pitiful the fact that there was not enough support in the country for even one newspaper that sustained itself by subscription. 1
During the second session the Gazette of the United Statesoften reprinted lengthy accounts of the debates from the New-York Daily Gazette. When Fennopublished original accounts, they sometimes appeared two weeks to a month or even more late. 2
The [New York] Daily Advertiser
Editor Francis Childscontinued to serve in the New YorkAssembly through early April 1790 and during the second session his reporting of the debates continued to be as spotty as it had become at the end of the first session. His efforts were financially supported in part by his position as the official printer to the state during part of 1790. Childs promised his readers on 6 December 1790that the printers would personally go to Philadelphiaand record House debates if other means of obtaining them should fail. Childs and his partner, John Swaine, continued to be the official printers of the laws of the United Statesand the Journal of the House of Representativesafter Congress moved to Philadelphia. Swaineran the Philadelphiaprinting office that later became the home of Philip Freneau's National Gazette.
The New-York Daily Gazette
Archibald McLeanproved to be the best reporter of second session debates in terms of both promptness and length. Except in those instances in which the Gazette of the United Statescopied them, by which means they would have found their way into the Annals of Congress, McLean's accounts have not previously been republished. The Daily Gazette'sfrequent printing of corrections both of detail and of whole speeches indicates that it was read with attention by congressmen. 1
The New-York Journal
Editor Thomas Greenleaf(1755–98) was born in Abington, Massachusetts, the son of a printer. In 1785 he became the managing editor of the New-York Journaland he purchased the paper in January 1787 from Eleazer Oswaldof Philadelphia. Greenleafbegan to publish articles opposing the Constitution as soon as it appeared in September and by mid-November 1787 turned his weekly paper into a daily. The New-York Journalwas the most important Antifederalist newspaper in the United Statesafter Oswald's Independent Gazetteerin Philadelphia. On 26 July 1788, a Federalist mob celebrating New York's ratification of the Constitution earlier that day broke into Greenleaf's shop and destroyed much of his type. 1 When he resumed publication a few days later, the paper again became a weekly. Despite his political stance, both the House and the Senate hired him to print bills in 1789 and early 1790, and he was the printer of the Senate Journal for its first session. This was probably due to the fact that Greenleafhad the available press capacity. The New-York Journalbecame a semi-weekly paper in May 1790. Greenleafpublished only two original accounts of debates: Burke's 31 March 1790speech attacking Alexander Hamiltonand Gerry's 7 July 1790speech defending himself against charges of using language that had the potential of inciting the local mob to riot during the debate over moving the capital out of New YorkCity.
2 GUS , 13 Jan.1790.
3 Theodoreto Pamela Sedgwick, 4 Mar.1790, SedgwickPapers, MHi; Roger ShermanSpeech, Miscellaneous Manuscripts, MHi.
4 Pennsylvania Packet, 19 Apr.1790.
5 “D.G. & P.N.To the Editor of the M orning P ost ,” New-York Morning Post, 24 July 1790.
6 William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 21(July 1964):412–13.
7 Ibid., p.420.
8 Louis Torres, “ Federal HallRevisited,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians29:327–28. The best contemporary descriptions of the gallery and the other notable architectural features encountered by the typical visitor to Federal Hallappeared in NYJ on 26 March and the Massachusetts Magazineof June 1789.
10 NYDG , 9 Feb.1790; William Bradfordto Elias Boudinot, 10 Apr.1790, Wallace Papers, PHi; MD , p.211.
11 NYDA , 13 Apr.1790; William Maclayto Benjamin Rush, 12 Apr.1790, Rush Papers, DLC; MD , pp.241–42.
12 Johnto James Pemberton, 20 Mar., 11 Feb.1790, Pennsylvania Abolition SocietyPapers, PHi.
13 MD , p.226.
14 Smithto Otho Holland Williams, 4 Apr.1790, Otho Holland WilliamsPapers, Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore; MD , p.231; The Papers of James Madison, Charles F. Hobsonand Robert A. Rutland, eds.13( Charlottesville, 1981):152, 176. The correspondence among Hamilton, Burke, and the Congressional committee can be found in Tbe Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C. Syrettand Jacob E. Cooke, eds.6( New York, 1962):333–37, 353–58.
15 Richard Henry Leeto Thomas Lee Shippen, 6 July 1790, Shippen Family Papers, DLC; “Civis,” NYJ , 13 July 1790; Fisher Amesto Thomas Dwight, 25 July 1790, AmesPapers, Dedham Historical Society, Dedham, Mass.
16 Probably Gileras Dickinson, the only G. Dickinsonlisted in the 1790 census for New York.
17 See HD 10:xlvi-xlviii.
18 Marion Tinling, “ Thomas Lloyd's Reports of the First Federal Congress,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 18( Oct.1961):519–45. Dickinson's shorthand was larger than Lloyd's, with fewer omitted syllables and more words written out in longhand.
19 NYDG , 20, 24 Apr.1790.
20 [Richmond] Virginia Independent Chronicle, 11 Aug.1790; George Chalmersto Hawkesbury, 22, 23 Oct. 1790, Liverpool Papers, Additional Manuscripts 38225, fols. 278–85, British Museum; Madisonto Edward Everett, 7 Jan.1832, as quoted by Tinling, “ Thomas Lloyd's Reports,” p.538.
21 Report on the petition of Thomas Carpenter, 6 Dec.1797, House Records, DNA.
22 Quoted by Tinling, “ Thomas Lloyd's Reports,” p.538.
23 This chart is based on advertisements in the New-York Journal, the New-York Packet, and NYDG.See HD 10:xxxi–xxxiiii for additional publication information.
24 Fennoto Ward, 9 Oct.and 28 Nov.1789, 10 Jan.1790, Ward Papers, Chicago Historical Society; John Fenno, “Postscript,” GUS , 14 Oct. 1789.
25 For example, GUS 's account of the debates of 1 June appeared in the issue for 7 July, while the debates of 10 June were not completed until 24 July.
26 For example, NYDG 's accounts of the debates of February 1790 include eight separate corrections of previously printed texts; four of these, printed on 27 February, were corrections to the debates of 19 February on the report on the public credit. The errors in single words or phrases, in this source as well as in the other newspapers, often seem to be the result of problems relating to shorthand transcription.
27 The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution: Commentaries on the Constitution, John P. Kaminskiand Gaspare J. Saladino, eds.13( Madison, Wis., 1981): xxxvii–xxxviii.