Mr. HARTLEY said, that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. MACON) had voted against both of the bills which had been referred to. He knew no difference between the Constitution of the United States and that of Pennsylvania, yet a vote in their House had been carried unanimously. He thought the law for the relief of the sufferers of St. Domingo perfectly in point; for, notwithstanding what was said about negotiation, the distress of those people had consumed all the money before the six months were expired. If ever there was a case in which they could grant relief, this was one. The losses at New York and Charleston would bear no comparison with that of Savannah; they were rich and flourishing places, whilst Savannah was a small city of a new State, and the sufferers generally poor. He hoped, therefore, the resolution would be agreed to. Mr. MOORE said, the laws which had been adduced as precedents were not in point; for the one sum we were to have credit with the French Republic, and the other was in consideration of past services. The distress of the people of Savannah was not an object of legislation; every individual citizen could, if he pleased, show his individual humanity by subscribing to their relief; but it was not constitutional for them to afford relief from the Treasury. If, however, the principle was adopted, it should be general. Every sufferer had an equal claim. Lexington, in Virginia, contained only one hundred houses, and all except two had been destroyed by fire. He should therefore move to add Lexington to Savannah in the resolution before them; though he would observe, as he did not approve of the principle, he should vote against them both. Mr. VENABLE did not see the difference between the two cases which was so distinguishable to the gentleman last up. Because Savannah was a commercial city, its distress, according to that gentleman, was indescribable, but when a like scene was exhibited in a small town, it was no longer an object which touched his feelings. His humanity went no where but where commerce was to be found. He asked whether the United States might not as well lose revenue in the first instance, as put money into the people's pockets to pay it with? Humanity was the same every where. A person who lost his all in a village, felt the misfortune as heavily as he who had a like loss in a city, and perhaps more so, since the citizen would have a better opportunity by means of commerce of retrieving his loss. He was against the general principle, as he believed, if acted upon, it would bring such claims upon the Treasury as it would not be able to answer.