ABRIDGMENT
OF THE
DEBATES OF CONGRESS,
FROM 1789 TO 1856.
FROM GALES AND SEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS; FROM THEIR REGISTER OF DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C. RIVES.

[Pg 2]

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
D. APPLETON AND COMPANY,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Table of Contents

Tenth Congress.—Second Session. Proceedings in the Senate.
Tenth Congress.—Second Session. Proceedings and Debates in the House of Representatives.
Eleventh Congress.—First Session. Proceedings in the Senate.
Eleventh Congress.—First Session. Proceedings and Debates in the House of Representatives.
Eleventh Congress—Second Session. Proceedings in the Senate.
Eleventh Congress.—Second Session. Proceedings and Debates in the House of Representatives.
Eleventh Congress.—Third Session. Proceedings in the Senate.
Proceedings in the Senate, in Secret Session, at the Third Session of the Eleventh Congress.
Eleventh Congress.—Third Session. Proceedings and Debates the House of Representatives.
Twelfth Congress.—First Session. Proceedings in the Senate.
Twelfth Congress.—First Session. Proceedings and Debates in the House of Representatives.
Confidential Supplemental Journal
Twelfth Congress.—Second Session. Proceedings in the Senate.
Twelfth Congress.—Second Session. Proceedings and Debates in the House of Representatives.
Index to Vol. IV.
Transcriber's Notes

[Pg 3]

TENTH CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION.
BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 7, 1808.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

Monday, November 7, 1808.

Conformably to the act, passed the last session, entitled "An act to alter the time for the next meeting of Congress," the second session of the tenth Congress commenced this day; and the Senate assembled at the city of Washington.

PRESENT:

• George Clinton, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
• Nicholas Gilman and Nahum Parker, from New Hampshire.
• Timothy Pickering, from Massachusetts.
• James Hillhouse and Chauncey Goodrich, from Connecticut.
• Benjamin Howland and Elisha Mathewson, from Rhode Island.
• Stephen R. Bradley and Jonathan Robinson, from Vermont.
• Samuel L. Mitchill and John Smith, from New York.
• John Condit and Aaron Kitchel, from New Jersey.
• Samuel Maclay, from Pennsylvania.
• Samuel White, from Delaware.
• William B. Giles, from Virginia.
• James Turner, from North Carolina.
• Thomas Sumter and John Gaillard, from South Carolina.
• William H. Crawford, from Georgia.
• Buckner Thruston and John Pope, from Kentucky.
• Daniel Smith, from Tennessee.
• Edward Tiffin, from Ohio.

James Lloyd, jun., appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, to supply the place of John Quincy Adams, resigned, took his seat in the Senate, and produced his credentials, which were read, and the oath prescribed by law was administered to him.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed to business; and that Messrs. Bradley and Pope be a committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives on their part, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House is assembled and ready to proceed to business; and that the House had appointed a committee on their part, jointly with the committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled.

Resolved, That James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the Doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after.

On motion, by Mr. Bradley,

Resolved, That two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed to Congress during the present session, one by each House, who shall interchange weekly.

Mr. Bradley reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the President of the United States, agreeably to order, and that the President of the United States informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses at 12 o'clock to-morrow.

Tuesday, November 8.

Samuel Smith and Philip Reed, from the State of Maryland, attended.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States:

The Message and papers were in part read, and one thousand copies ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

A confidential Message was also received, with sundry documents therein referred to, which were read for consideration.

Wednesday, November 9.

Jesse Franklin, from the State of North Carolina, attended.

Friday, November 11.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have appointed the Rev. Mr. Brown a Chaplain to Congress, on their part, during the present session.

Monday, November 14.

Joseph Anderson, from the State of Tennessee, and Andrew Moore, from the State of Virginia, attended.

Wednesday, November 16.

Andrew Gregg, from the State of Pennsylvania, attended.

Monday, November 21.

The Embargo.

This being the day fixed for the discussion of the following resolution, offered by Mr. Hillhouse:

Mr. Hillhouse opened the debate. When the reporter entered the Senate chamber, Mr. H. had been speaking for a few minutes, and was then discussing the effect which the embargo had had upon France, and the light in which it was viewed by her rulers. He alluded to the declaration of satisfaction at the measure, contained in a late French exposé, and made many observations tending to show that it was not a measure of hostility or coercion, as applied to France.

On England it had little or no effect. Her resources were immense. If deprived of a supply of grain here, she could obtain it elsewhere. The Barbary Powers were at war with France[Pg 6] and at peace with England, who might thence obtain wheat in any quantity she pleased. Great Britain, he said, was a nation with the whole world before her; her commerce spread over every sea, and she had access to almost every port and clime. Could America expect to starve this nation? It was a farce, an idle farce. As to her West India Islands, they raised Indian corn; all their sugar plantations could be converted into corn-fields, and would any man say that they would starve because they could not get superfine flour? Was this a necessary of life without which they could not subsist? On the contrary, a great proportion of the American people subsisted on it, and enjoyed as good health as if they ate nothing but the finest of wheat flour. The moment people understood that they could not get their necessary supplies from a customary source, they would look out for it in another quarter, and ample time had been given to them to make arrangements for this purpose. A man of the first respectability in the town in which Mr. H. lived, had been there during this embargo, under the President's permission. What accounts did he bring? Why, that the trade in corn-meal and live cattle, articles of great export from Connecticut, and comprising not only the product of that State, but of parts of the neighboring States, would be entirely defeated; that, where they had formerly sent a hundred hogsheads of meal, they would not now find vent for ten; and that, from South America, where cattle had, in times past, been killed merely for their hides and tallow, cattle in abundance could be procured. Were these people to be starved out, when they could actually purchase cheaper now from other places than they had formerly done from us? No; the only consequence would be, and that too severely felt, that we should lose our market; the embargo thus producing, not only present privation and injury, but permanent mischief. The United States would have lost the chance of obtaining future supplies, they would have lost their market, and ten or twenty years would place them on the same footing as before. Mr. H. said the West Indians would have learnt that they can do without us; that they can raise provisions cheaper on their own plantations than we can sell them; and knowing this, they would never resort to us. Though we might retain a part of this commerce, the best part would be lost forever. The trade would not be worth pursuing; though this might answer one purpose intended by the embargo, and which was not expressed.

Having considered the article of provisions as important to various parts of the Union, Mr. H. said he would now turn to another article, cotton. It had been very triumphantly said, that the want of this article would distress the manufacturers of Great Britain, produce a clamor amongst them, and consequently accelerate the repeal of the Orders in Council. Mr. H. said he would examine this a little, and see if all the evil consequences which opened on him at the time of the passage of the embargo law were not likely to be realized. He had hinted at some of them at that time, but the bill had gone through the Senate like a flash of lightning, giving no time for examination; once, twice, and a third time in one day, affording no time for the development of all its consequences. This article of cotton was used not only by Britain, but by France and other nations on the Continent. Cotton, not being grown in Europe, must be transported by water carriage. This being the case, who would now be most likely to be supplied with it? Not the Continental Powers who have so little commerce afloat nor any neutrals to convey it to them; for the United States were the only neutral which, of late, traded with France, and now the embargo was laid, she had no chance of getting it, except by the precarious captures made by her privateers. To Great Britain, then, was left the whole commerce of the world, and her merchants were the only carriers. Would not these carriers supply their own manufacturers? Would they suffer cotton to go elsewhere, until they themselves were supplied? America was not the only country where cotton was raised; for he had seen an account of a whole cargo brought into Salem from the East Indies, and thence exported to Holland, with a good profit. Cotton was also raised in Africa, as well as elsewhere; and this wary nation, Great Britain, conceiving that the United States might be so impolitic as to keep on the embargo, had carried whole cargoes of the best cotton seed there for the purpose of raising cotton for her use. Great Britain had possessions in every climate on the globe, and cotton did not, like the sturdy oak, require forty or fifty years to arrive at maturity; but, if planted, would produce a plentiful supply in a year. Thus, then, when this powerful nation found America resorting to such means to coerce her, she had taken care to look out for supplies in other quarters; and, with the command of all the cotton on the globe which went to market, could we expect to coerce her by withholding ours? Mr. H. said no; all the inconvenience which she could feel from our measure had already been borne; and Great Britain was turning her attention to every part of the globe to obtain those supplies which she was wont to get from us, that she might not be reduced to the humiliating condition of making concession to induce us to repeal our own law, and purchase an accommodation by telling us that we had a weapon which we could wield to her annoyance. Mr. H. wished to know of gentlemen if we had not experience enough to know that Great Britain was not to be threatened into compliance by a rod of coercion? Let us examine ourselves, said he, for if we trace our genealogy we shall find that we descend from them; were they to use us in this manner, is there an American that would stoop to them? I hope not; and neither will that nation, from which we are de[Pg 7]scended, be driven from their position, however erroneous, by threats.

This embargo, therefore, instead of operating on those nations which had been violating our rights, was fraught with evils and privations to the people of the United States. They were the sufferers. And have we adopted the monkish plan of scourging ourselves for the sins of others? He hoped not; and that, having made the experiment and found that it had not produced its expected effect, they would abandon it, as a measure wholly inefficient as to the objects intended by it, and as having weakened the great hold which we had on Great Britain, from her supposed dependence on us for raw materials.

Some gentlemen appeared to build up expectations of the efficiency of this system by an addition to it of a non-intercourse law. Mr. H. treated this as a futile idea. They should however examine it seriously, and not, like children, shut their eyes to danger. Great Britain was not the only manufacturing nation in Europe. Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, manufactured more or less, and most of them had colonies, the exclusive supply of whose manufactures they had heretofore reserved to themselves. While we had enjoyed the carrying trade, we had supplied the deficiency in navigation of those nations; and all the inconvenience felt for the want of it ceased because we stepped in and aided them. This trade had been cut up, and perhaps it was not a trade which the energies of the nation should be embarked in defending. Who was there now to supply all these various colonies that used to be supplied by us? None but England, the sole mistress of the ocean. Whose products, then, would Great Britain carry? Would she carry products of other nations, and let her own manufacturers starve? No; and this exclusion from the colonies of other manufactures, and leaving her merchants the sole carriers of the world, produced a greater vent for her manufactures than the whole quantity consumed in the United States.

This, however, was arguing upon the ground that the United States would consume none of her manufactures in case of a non-intercourse. Mr. H. said he was young when the old non-intercourse took place, but he remembered it well, and had then his ideas on the subject. The British army was then at their door, burning their towns and ravaging the country, and at least as much patriotism existed then as now; but British fabrics were received and consumed to almost as great an extent as before the prohibition. The armies could not get fresh provisions from Europe, but they got them here by paying higher prices in guineas for them than was paid by our Government in ragged continental paper money. When the country was in want of clothing, and could get it for one-fourth price from the British, what was the consequence? Why, all the zealous patriots—for this work of tarring and feathering, and meeting in mobs to destroy their neighbor's property, because he could not think quite as fast as they did, which seemed to be coming in fashion now, had been carried on then with great zeal—these patriots, although all intercourse was penal, carried on commerce notwithstanding. Supplies went hence, and manufactures were received from Europe. Now, what reliance could be placed on this patriotism? A gentleman from Vermont had told the Senate at the last session, that the patriotism of Vermont would stop all exportation by land, without the assistance of the law. How had it turned out? Why, patriotism, cannon, militia, and all had not stopped it; and although the field-pieces might have stopped it on the Lakes, they were absolutely cutting new roads to carry it on by land. And yet the gentleman had supposed that their patriotism would effectually stop it! Now, Mr. H. wanted to know how a non-intercourse law was to be executed by us with a coast of fifteen hundred miles open to Great Britain by sea, and joining her by land? Her goods would come through our Courts of Admiralty by the means of friendly captors; they would be brought in, condemned, and then naturalized, as Irishmen are now naturalized, before they have been a month in the country.

Mr. Pope said it had been his opinion this morning that this resolution should have been referred to that committee, but after what had been said, it was his wish that some commercial gentleman, whose knowledge of commercial subjects would enable him to explore the wide field taken by the gentleman from Connecticut, would have answered him. He had hoped, at this session, after the Presidential election was decided, that all would have dismounted from their political hobbies, that they would have been all Federalists, all Republicans, all Americans. When they saw the ocean swarming with pirates, and commerce almost annihilated, he had hoped that the demon of party spirit would not have reared its head within these walls, but that they would all have mingled opinions and consulted the common good. He had heretofore been often charmed with the matter-of-fact arguments of the gentleman from Connecticut; but on this day the gentleman had resorted to arguments from newspapers, and revived all the old story of French influence, in the same breath in which he begged them to discard all party feelings and discuss with candor. The gentleman had gone into a wide field, which Mr. H. said he would not now explore, but begged time till to-morrow, when he would endeavor to show to the nation and to the world that the arguments used by the gentleman in favor of his resolution were most weighty against it. If patriotism had departed the land, if the streams of foreign corruption had flowed so far that the people were ready to rise in opposition to their Government, it was indeed time that foreign intercourse should cease. If the spirit of 1776 were no more—if the spirit of commercial speculation had surmount[Pg 8]ed all patriotism—if this was the melancholy situation of the United States, it was time to redeem the people from this degeneracy, to regenerate them, to cause them to be born again of the spirit of 1776. But he believed he should be able to show that the proposition of the gentleman from Connecticut hardly merited the respect or serious consideration of this honorable body. Mr. P. said he had expected that in advocating his resolution the gentleman would have told the Senate that we should go to war with Great Britain and France; that he would have risen with patriotic indignation and have called for a more efficient measure. But to his surprise, the gentleman had risen, and with the utmost sang froid told them, let your ships go out, all's well, and nothing is to be apprehended. Mr. P. said he would not go into the subject at this moment; he had but risen to express his feelings on the occasion. He wished the subject postponed, the more because he wished to consult a document just laid on their table, to see how the memorials presented a short time ago from those whose cause the gentleman from Connecticut undertook to advocate, accorded with the sentiments he had this day expressed for them.

Mr. Lloyd said he considered the question now under discussion as one of the most important that has occurred since the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It is a subject, said Mr. L., deeply implicating, and perhaps determining, the fate of the commerce and navigation of our country; a commerce which has afforded employment for nearly a million and a half of tons of navigation; which has found occupation for hundreds of thousands of our citizens; which has spread wealth and prosperity in every region of our country, and which has upheld the Government by furnishing the revenue for its support.

A commerce which has yielded an annual amount of exports exceeding one hundred millions of dollars; an amount of exports three times as great as was possessed by the first maritime and commercial nation of the world at the commencement of the last century, when her population was double that of the United States at this time; an amount of exports equal to what Great Britain, with her navy of a thousand ships, and with all her boasted manufactures, possessed even at so recent a period as within about fifteen years from this date; surely this is a commerce not to be trifled with; a commerce not lightly to be offered up as the victim of fruitless experiment.

Our commerce has unquestionably been subject to great embarrassment, vexation, and plunder, from the belligerents of Europe. There is no doubt but both France and Great Britain have violated the laws of nations, and immolated the rights of neutrals; but there is, in my opinion, a striking difference in the circumstances of the two nations; the one, instigated by a lawless thirst of universal domination, is seeking to extend an iron-handed, merciless despotism over every region of the globe; while the other is fighting for her natale solum, for the preservation of her liberties, and probably for her very existence.

The one professes to reluct at the inconvenience she occasions you by the adoption of measures which are declared to be intended merely as measures of retaliation on her enemies, and which she avows she will retract as soon as the causes which occasion them are withdrawn. The other, in addition to depredation and conflagration, treats you with the utmost contumely and disdain; she admits not that you possess the rights of sovereignty and independence, but undertakes to legislate for you, and declares that, whether you are willing or unwilling, she considers you as at war with her enemy; that she had arrested your property, and would hold it as bail for your obedience, until she knew whether you would servilely echo submission to her mandates.

There is no doubt that the conduct of these belligerents gave rise to the embargo; but if this measure has been proved by experience to be inoperative as it regards them, and destructive only as it respects ourselves, then every dictate of magnanimity, of wisdom, and of prudence, should urge the immediate repeal of it.

The propriety of doing this is now under discussion. The proposition is a naked one; it is unconnected with ulterior measures; and gentlemen who vote for its repeal ought not to be considered as averse from, and they are not opposed to, the subsequent adoption of such other measures as the honor and the interest of the country may require.

In considering this subject, it naturally presents itself under three distinct heads:

1st. As it respects the security which it gave to our navigation, and the protection it offered our seamen, which were the ostensible objects of its adoption.

2dly. In reference to its effect on other nations, meaning France and Great Britain, in coercing them to adopt a more just and honorable course of policy towards us: and,

3dly. As it regards the effects which it has produced and will produce among ourselves.

In thus considering it, sir, I shall only make a few remarks on the first head. I have no desire to indulge in retrospections; the measure was adopted by the Government; if evil has flowed from it, that evil cannot now be recalled. If events have proved it to be a wise and beneficial measure, I am willing that those to whom it owes its parentage should receive all the honors that are due to them; but if security to our navigation, and protection to our seamen, were the real objects of the embargo, then it has already answered all the effects that can be expected from it. In fact, its longer continuance will effectually counteract the objects of its adoption; for it is notorious, that each day lessens the number of our seamen, by their emigration to foreign countries, in quest of that employment and subsistence which they have been[Pg 9] accustomed to find, but can no longer procure, at home; and as it regards our navigation, considered as part of the national property, it is not perhaps very material whether it is sunk in the ocean, or whether it is destined to become worthless from lying and rotting at our wharves. In either case, destruction is equally certain, it is death; and the only difference seems to be between death by a coup de grace, or death after having sustained the long-protracted torments of torture.

What effect has this measure produced on foreign nations? What effect has it produced on France?

The honorable gentleman from Connecticut has told you, and told you truly, in an exposé presented by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Emperor, that this measure is much applauded: it is called a magnanimous measure of the Americans! And in a conversation which is stated to have passed recently at Bayonne, between the Emperor of France and an American gentleman, it is said, and I believe correctly, that the Emperor expressed his approbation of the embargo. I have no doubt that this is the fact; the measure is too consentaneous with his system of policy, not to be approbated by him. So long as the extreme maritime preponderancy of Great Britain shall continue, with or without the existence of an American embargo, or with or without the British Orders in Council, France can enjoy but very little foreign commerce, and that little the Emperor of France would undoubtedly be willing to sacrifice, provided that, by so doing, he could insure the destruction of a much larger and more valuable amount of British and American commerce.

It is therefore apparent, that this measure, considered as a coercive measure against France, is nugatory in the extreme.

What, sir, are, or have been its effects on Great Britain?

When the embargo was first laid the nation were alarmed. Engaged in a very extended and important commerce with this country, prosecuted upon the most liberal and confidential terms, this measure, whether considered as an act of hostility, or as a mere municipal restrictive regulation, could not but excite apprehension; for most of our writers, in relation to her colonies, had impressed the belief of the dependence of the West India settlements on the United States for the means of subsistence. Accordingly, for several months after the imposition of the embargo, we find it remained an object of solicitude with them, nor have I any doubt that the Ministry, at that time, partook of the national feeling; for it appears, so late as June, that such a disposition existed with the British Ministry, as induced our Minister at the Court of London to entertain the belief, and to make known to his Government the expectation he entertained, that an adjustment would take place of the differences between this country and Great Britain.

But, sir, the apprehensions of the British nation and Ministry gradually became weaker; the embargo had been submitted to the never-erring test of experience, and information of its real effects flowed in from every quarter.

It was found that, instead of reducing the West Indies by famine, the planters in the West Indies, by varying their process of agriculture, and appropriating a small part of their plantations for the raising of ground provisions, were enabled, without materially diminishing their usual crops of produce, in a great measure to depend upon themselves for their own means of subsistence.

The British Ministry also became acquainted about this time (June) with the unexpected and unexampled prosperity of their colonies of Canada and Nova Scotia. It was perceived that one year of an American embargo was worth to them twenty years of peace or war under any other circumstances; that the usual order of things was reversed; that in lieu of American merchants making estates from the use of British merchandise and British capital, the Canadian merchants were making fortunes of from ten to thirty or forty thousand pounds in a year, from the use of American merchandise and American capital: for it is notorious, that great supplies of lumber, and pot and pearl ashes, have been transported from the American to the British side of the Lakes; this merchandise, for want of competition, the Canadian merchant bought at a very reasonable rate, sent it to his correspondents in England, and drew exchange against the shipments; the bills for which exchange he sold to the merchants of the United States for specie, transported by wagon loads at noon-day, from the banks in the United States, over the borders into Canada. And thus was the Canadian merchant enabled, with the assistance only of a good credit, to carry on an immensely extended and beneficial commerce, without the necessary employment, on his part, of a single cent of his own capital.

About this time, also, the revolution in Spain developed itself. The British Ministry foresaw the advantage this would be to them, and immediately formed a coalition with the patriots: by doing this, they secured to themselves, in despite of their enemies, an accessible channel of communication with the Continent. They must also have been convinced, that if the Spaniards did not succeed in Europe, the Colonies would declare themselves independent of the mother country, and rely on the maritime force of Great Britain for their protection, and thus would they have opened to them an incalculably advantageous mart for their commerce and manufactures; for, having joined the Spaniards without stipulation, they undoubtedly expected to reap their reward in the exclusive commercial privileges that would be accorded to them; nor were they desirous to seek competitors for the favor of the Spaniards: if they could keep the navigation, the enterprise, and the capital of the United States from an interference with[Pg 10] them, it was their interest to do it, and they would, from this circumstance, probably consider a one, two, or three years' continuance of the embargo as a boon to them.

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, said he was not prepared to go as largely into this subject as it merited, having neither documents nor papers before him. He would therefore only take a short view of it in his way, and endeavor to rebut a part of the argument of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and perhaps to notice some of the observations of the gentleman from Connecticut. He perfectly agreed with the latter gentleman that this subject ought to be taken up with coolness, and with temper, and he could have wished that the gentleman from Connecticut would have been candid enough to pursue that course which he had laid down for others. Had he done it? No. In the course of the discussion, the gentleman had charged it upon some one, he knew not whom, that there was a disposition to break down commerce for the purpose of erecting manufactures on its ruins. If this was the disposition of those who had advocated the embargo, Mr. S. said he was not one to go with them, and perfectly corresponded with the gentleman in saying that such a plan would be extremely injurious; that possibly it could not be enforced in the United States; and that, if it could, merchants would conceive themselves highly aggrieved by it. But the gentleman's ideas had no foundation. Mr. S. said he had before seen it in newspapers, but had considered it a mere electioneering trick; that nothing like common sense or reason was meant by it, and nobody believed it. The gentleman surely did not throw out this suggestion by way of harmonizing; for nothing could be more calculated to create heat.

The gentleman last up, throughout his argument, had gone upon the ground that it is the embargo which has prevented all our commerce; that, if the embargo were removed, we might pursue it in the same manner as if the commerce of the whole world was open to us. If the gentleman could have shown this, he would have gone with him heart and hand; but it did not appear to him that, were the embargo taken off to-morrow, any commerce of moment could be pursued. Mr. S. said he was not certain that it might not be a wise measure to take off the embargo; but he was certain that some other measure should be taken before they thought of taking that. And he had hoped that gentleman would have told them what measure should have been taken before they removed the embargo. Not so, however. A naked proposition was before them to take off the embargo; and were that agreed to, and the property of America subject to depredations by both the belligerents, they would be foreclosed from taking any measure at all for its defence. For this reason this resolution should properly have gone originally to the committee on the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles.)

Mr. S. said he was not prepared for a long discussion, he should take but a short view. He would not go back to see which nation had been the first offender. He was not the apologist of any nation, but, he trusted, a fervent defender of the rights, honor, and interests of his own country. By the decrees of France every vessel bound to or from Great Britain, was declared good prize. And still further; if spoken alone by any British vessel, they were condemned in the French prize courts. When a vessel arrived in the ports of France, Mr. S. said, bribery and corruption were made use of in order to effect her condemnation. Every sailor on board was separately examined as to what had happened in the course of the voyage; they were told, you will have one-third of the vessel and cargo as your portion of the prize-money, if you will say that your vessel has touched at a British port or has been visited by a British cruiser. Of course then, by the decrees of France, all American property that floats is subject to condemnation by the French, if it had come in contact with British hands. Were gentlemen willing to submit to this: to raise the embargo, and subject our trade to this depredation? Yes, said the gentleman from Connecticut, who was willing, however, that our ships should arm and defend themselves. Mr. S. said that he had hoped the honorable gentleman would have gone further, and said not only that he would in this case permit our vessels to defend themselves, but to make good prize of any vessel which should impede the trade admitted by the laws of nations. But the gentleman had stopped short of this.

By the orders in Council, now made law, (said Mr. S.,) all neutrals—all neutrals, this is a mere word ad captandum, as it is well known there is no neutral commerce but American—all American vessels, then, bound to France, or countries in alliance with her, are made good prize in the British courts. When bound to any part of the continent of Europe, or any possessions in Turkey or Asia, they are a good prize, Sweden alone excepted. We are then permitted to trade—for it is a permission to trade, since we must acknowledge ourselves indebted to her for any she permits—we are graciously permitted to go to Sweden, to which country our whole exports amount to $56,157! This petty trade is generously permitted us as a boon, and this boon will be struck off the list of permission, the moment any difference arises between Great Britain and Sweden. I am aware, sir, that gentlemen will say this may require explanation. I will give it to them. Great Britain says you shall not trade to any of the countries I have interdicted till you have my leave; pay me a duty and then you may go to any port; pay me a tribute, and then you shall have my license to trade to any ports you choose. What is this tribute? Not having the documents before me, I may make an error of a fraction, but in the principle I am correct.[Pg 11] On the article of flour, they tell us, you may bring flour to Great Britain from America, land it, and, if you re-export it, pay into our treasury two dollars on every barrel. For every barrel of flour which we send to Spain, Portugal, or Italy, where the gentleman from Massachusetts has correctly told us much of it is consumed, little of it being used in Great Britain or France, you must pay two dollars besides your freight and insurance. And this tribute is to be paid for a permission to trade. Are gentlemen willing to submit to this?

On the article of wheat, exported, you must pay in Great Britain a duty of, I believe, two shillings sterling a bushel, before it can be re-exported. On the important article of cotton they have charged a duty on its exportation of nine pence sterling per lb., equal to the whole value of the article itself in Georgia or South Carolina. This is in addition to the usual import duty of two pence in the pound. Thus, if we wish to go to the Continent, we may go on condition of paying a tribute equal to the value of the cotton, in addition to risk or insurance. It is generally understood that two-thirds of the cotton exported by us, may be consumed in England, when all her manufactures are in good work. On the remaining third the people of the Southern country are subject to a tribute—on twenty millions of pounds, at the rate of 17 cents per pound. Let this be calculated, and it will be seen what tax we must pay for leave to sell that article.

The English Orders had told us we might trade as usual with the West India Islands; but now, believing no doubt that this Government has not strength or energy in itself to maintain any system long, what has she done? Proclaimed a blockade on the remaining islands of France, so that we are now confined to British islands alone! We are restricted from trading there by blockade, and what security have we, that if the embargo be taken off—for I wish it were off: no man suffers more from it, in proportion to his capital, than I do; but I stand here the Representative of the people, and must endeavor to act in such a manner as will best secure their interests; and I pledge myself to join heart and hand with gentlemen to take it off, whenever we can have a safe and honorable trade—that, from our submitting to these interdictions, as a right of Great Britain, she may not choose to interdict all trade, she being omnipotent, and sole mistress of the ocean, as we were told by the gentleman from Connecticut. I have seen a late English pamphlet, called "Hints to both Parties," said to be by a ministerial writer, to this effect: that Great Britain, having command over all the seas, could and ought to exclude and monopolize the trade of the world to herself. This pamphlet goes critically into an examination of the subject; says that by a stroke of policy she can cut us off from our extensive trade; that she has the power, and, having the power, she ought to do it.

Tuesday, November 22.

The Embargo.

Mr. Moore said the gentleman from Connecticut had asked if the embargo had been productive of the consequences expected to result from it when passed? Had it not been more injurious to the United States than to foreign nations? It is certainly true (said Mr. M.) that it has not been productive of all the effects expected by those who were its advocates when it passed, but it has not had a fair experiment. The law has been violated, and an illicit commerce carried on, by which the belligerents have received such supplies as to have partially prevented its good effects.

The publications throughout the United States, and thence in England, that the embargo could not be maintained, have induced the belligerents to believe that we wanted energy, and that we are too fluctuating in our councils to persevere in a measure which requires privations from the people. Under these circumstances, it appears to me that the embargo has not had a fair trial. I have ever been of opinion that the only warfare which we could ever carry on to advantage, must be commercial; and, but for evasions and miscalculations on our weakness, we should before this have been suffered to pursue our accustomed trade.

It has been asked whether the embargo has not operated more on the United States than on the European Powers? In estimating this, it will be proper to take into consideration the evils prevented, as well as the injury done by the embargo. If the embargo had not passed, is it not certain that the whole produce of the United States would have invited attack and offered a bait to the rapacity of the belligerent cruisers? If a few have accidentally escaped them, it is no evidence that, if the embargo had not been laid, the whole would not have been in the hands of the belligerents. That both belligerents have manifested hostilities by edicts which prostrated our commerce, will not be denied by any gentleman. Great Britain, on a former occasion, passed an order, sent it out secretly, and before our Minister was officially notified, it was in full operation. Their late orders included all our commerce which was afloat. Was it not to be expected that such would have been the policy of Great Britain in this case, and such our proportionate loss, if the embargo had not been laid, and thus snatched this valuable commerce from their grasp?

Wednesday, November 23.

The Embargo.

Mr. Crawford said that one of the objects of the gentleman from Connecticut was, no doubt, to obtain information of the effects of the embargo system from every part of the United States. This information was very desirable at the present time, to assist the Councils of the[Pg 12] nation in an opinion of the course proper to be pursued in relation to it. A Government founded, like ours, on the principle of the will of the nation, which subsisted but by it, should be attentive as far as possible to the feelings and wishes of the people over whom they presided. He did not say that the Representatives of a free people ought to yield implicit obedience to any portion of the people who may believe them to act erroneously; but their will, when fairly expressed, ought to have great weight on a Government like ours. The Senate had received several descriptions of the effects produced by the embargo in the eastern section of the Union. As the Representative of another extreme of this nation, Mr. C. said he conceived it his duty to give a fair, faithful, and candid representation of the sentiments of the people whom he had the honor to represent. It was always the duty of a Representative to examine whether the effects expected from any given measure, had or had not been produced. If this were a general duty, how much more imperiously was it their duty at this time! Every one admitted that considerable sufferings have been undergone, and much more was now to be borne.

Gentlemen have considered this subject, generally, in a twofold view, (said Mr. C.,) as to its effects on ourselves, and as to its effects on foreign nations. I think this a proper and correct division of the subject, because we are certainly more interested in the effects of the measure on ourselves than on other nations. I shall therefore thus pursue the subject.

It is in vain to deny that this is not a prosperous time in the United States; that our situation is neither promising nor flattering. It is impossible to say that we have suffered no privations in the year 1808, or that there is a general spirit of content throughout the United States; but I am very far from believing that there is a general spirit of discontent. Whenever the measures of the Government immediately affect the interest of any considerable portion of its citizens, discontents will arise, however great the benefits which are expected from such measures. One discontented man excites more attention than a thousand contented men, and hence the number of discontented is always overrated. In the country which I represent, I believe no measure is more applauded or more cheerfully submitted to than the embargo. It has been viewed there as the only alternative to avoid war. It is a measure which is enforced in that country at every sacrifice. At the same time that I make this declaration, I am justified in asserting that there is no section of the Union whose interests are more immediately affected by the measure than the Southern States—than the State of Georgia.

We have been told by an honorable gentleman, who has declaimed with great force and eloquence against this measure, that great part of the produce of the Eastern country has found its way into market; that new ways have been cut open, and produce has found its way out. Not so with us; we raise no provisions, except a small quantity of rice, for exportation. The production of our lands lies on our hands. We have suffered, and now suffer; yet we have not complained.

The fears of the Southern States particularly have been addressed by the gentleman from Connecticut, by a declaration that Great Britain, whose fleets cover the ocean, will certainly find a source from which to procure supplies of those raw materials which she has heretofore been in the habit of receiving from us; and that having thus found another market, when we have found the evil of our ways, she will turn a deaf ear to us. By way of exemplification, the gentleman cited a familiar example of a man buying butter from his neighbors. It did not appear to me that this butter story received a very happy elucidation. In the country in which he lives there are so many buyers and so many sellers of butter, that no difficulty results from a change of purchasers or customers. Not so with our raw material. Admitting that Britain can find other markets with ease, there is still a great distinction between this and the gentleman's butter case. When a man sells butter he receives money or supplies in payment for it. His wants and wishes and those of his purchasers are so reciprocal, that no difficulty can ever arise. But Great Britain must always purchase raw materials of those who purchase her manufactures. It is not to oblige us that she takes our raw materials, but it is because we take her manufactures in exchange. So long as this state of things continues, so long they will continue to resort to our market. I have considered the gentleman's argument on this point as applied to the feelings of the Southern country. No article exported from the United States equals cotton in amount. If then we are willing to run the risk, I trust no other part of the United States will hesitate on this subject.

Another reason offered by the gentleman from Connecticut, and a substantial one if true, is, that this measure cannot be executed. If this be the case, it is certainly in vain to persevere in it, for the non-execution of any public law must have a bad tendency on the morals of the people. But the facility with which the gentleman represents these laws to have been evaded, proves that the morals of the evaders could not have been very sound when the measure was adopted; for a man trained to virtue will not, whatever facility exists, on that account, step into the paths of error and vice.

Although I believe myself that this measure has not been properly executed, nor in that way in which the situation of our country might reasonably have induced us to expect, yet it has been so far executed as to produce some good effect. So far as the orders and decrees remain in full force, so far it has failed of the effect hoped from it. But it has produced a consider[Pg 13]able effect, as I shall attempt to show hereafter.

In commenting on this part of the gentleman's observations, it becomes proper to notice, not an insinuation, but a positive declaration that the secret intention of laying the embargo was to destroy commerce; and was in a state of hostility to the avowed intention. This certainly is a heavy charge. In a Government like this, we should act openly, honestly, and candidly; the people ought to know their situation, and the views of those who conduct their affairs. It is the worst of political dishonesty to adopt a measure, and offer that reason as a motive for it which is not the true and substantial one. The true and substantial reason for the embargo, the gentleman says he believes, was to destroy commerce, and on its ruins to raise up domestic manufactures. This idea, I think, though not expressly combated by the observations of the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. White,) was substantially refuted by him. That gentleman, with great elegance and something of sarcasm, applied to the House to know how the Treasury would be filled in the next year; and observed that the "present incumbent of the Presidential palace" would not dare to resort to a direct tax, because a former Administration had done so and felt the effects of it, insinuating that the present Administration did not possess courage enough to attempt it. Now, I ask, if they dare not resort to a direct tax, excise laws, and stamp acts, where will they obtain money? In what way will the public coffers be filled? The gentleman must acknowledge that all our present revenue is derived from commerce, and must continue to be so, except resort be had to a direct tax, and the gentleman says we have not courage enough for that. The gentleman from Connecticut must suppose, if the gentleman from Delaware be correct, that the Administration seeks its own destruction. We must have revenue, and yet are told that we wish to destroy the only way in which it can be had, except by a direct tax; a resort to which, it is asserted, would drive us from the public service.

But we are told, with a grave face, that a disposition is manifested to make this measure permanent. The States who call themselves commercial States, when compared with the Southern States, may emphatically be called manufacturing States. The Southern States are not manufacturing States, while the great commercial States are absolutely the manufacturing States. If this embargo system were intended to be permanent, those commercial States would be benefited by the exchange, to the injury of the Southern States. It is impossible for us to find a market for our produce but by foreign commerce; and whenever a change of the kind alluded to is made, that change will operate to the injury of the Southern States more than to the injury of the commercial States, so called.

But another secret motive with which the Government is charged to have been actuated is, that this measure was intended and is calculated to promote the interests of France. To be sure none of the gentlemen have expressly said that we are under French influence, but a resort is had to the exposé of the French Minister, and a deduction thence made that the embargo was laid at the wish of Bonaparte. The gentleman from Connecticut told us of this exposé for this purpose; and the gentleman from Massachusetts appeared to notice it with the same view.

Now we are told that there is no danger of war, except it be because we have understood that Bonaparte has said there shall be no neutrals; and that, if we repeal the embargo, we may expect that he will make war on us. And this is the only source from whence the gentleman could see any danger of war. If this declaration against neutrality which is attributed to the Gallic Emperor be true, and it may be so, his Gallic Majesty could not pursue a more direct course to effect his own wishes than to declare that our embargo had been adopted under his influence. And unless the British Minister had more political sagacity than the gentleman who offered the evidence of the exposé in proof of the charge, it would produce the very end which those gentlemen wished to avoid—a war with Great Britain; for she would commence the attack could she believe this country under the influence of France. I would just as much believe in the sincerity of that exposé, as Mr. Canning's sincerity, when he says that his Majesty would gladly make any sacrifice to restore to the commerce of the United States its wonted activity. No man in the nation is silly enough to be gulled by these declarations; but, from the use made of them, we should be led to think otherwise, were it not for the exercise of our whole stock of charity. Now, I cannot believe that any man in this nation does believe in the sincerity of Mr. Canning's expressions, or that Bonaparte believes that the embargo was laid to promote his interest. I cannot believe that there is any man in this nation who does candidly and seriously entertain such an opinion.

The gentleman from Massachusetts says it is true that a considerable alarm was excited in England when the news of the embargo arrived there; that they had been led to believe, from their writers and speakers, that a discontinuance of their intercourse with this country would be productive of most injurious consequences; but that they were now convinced that all their writers and statesmen were mistaken, and that she can suffer a discontinuance of intercourse without being convulsed or suffering at all. To believe this requires a considerable portion of credulity, especially when the most intelligent men affirm to the contrary. In the last of March or the first of April last, we find, on an examination of merchants at the Bar of the British House of Commons, that the most positive injury must result from a continuance of non-intercourse. It is not possible that our merchants on this side of the water, however intelligent they may be, can be as well acquaint[Pg 14]ed with the interests of Great Britain as her most intelligent merchants. This alarm, however, the gentleman has told us, continued through the spring and dissipated in the summer. It is very easy to discover the cause of the dissipation of this alarm. It was not because the loss of intercourse was not calculated to produce an effect, but it proceeded from an adventitious cause, which could not have been anticipated—the revolution in Spain; and there is no intelligent man who will not acknowledge its injurious effects on our concerns. No sooner did the British Ministers see a probability that the struggle between the Spanish patriots and France would be maintained, than they conceived hopes that they might find other supplies; and then they thought they might give to the people an impulse by interesting the nation in the affairs of Spain, which would render lighter the effects of our embargo. This is the cause of the change in Mr. Canning's language; for every gentleman in the House knows that a very material change took place in it in the latter part of the summer. If then the embargo has not produced the effects calculated from it, we have every reason to believe that its failure to produce these effects has been connected with causes wholly adventitious, and which may give way if the nation adheres to the measure. If, however, there be any probability that these causes will be continued for a long time, we ought to abandon it. I am not in favor of continuing any measure of this kind, except there be a probability of its producing some effect on those who make it necessary for us to exercise this act of self-denial. When I first saw the account of the revolution in Spain, my fears were excited lest it should produce the effect which it has done. As soon as I saw the stand made by the Spanish patriots, I was apprehensive that it might buoy up the British nation under the sufferings arising from the effects of their iniquitous orders, which, compared with the sufferings which we ourselves have borne, have been as a hundred to one. If there be evidence that the effects of this measure will yet be counteracted by recent events in Spain, I will abandon it, but its substitute should be war, and no ordinary war—I say this notwithstanding the petitions in the other branch of the Legislature, and the resolutions of a State Legislature which have lately been published. When I read the resolutions, called emphatically the Essex resolutions, I blush for the disgrace they reflect on my country. We are told there that this nation has no just cause of complaint against Great Britain; and that all our complaints are a mere pretext for war. I blush that any man belonging to the great American family should be so debased, so degraded, so lost to every generous and national feeling, as to make a declaration of this kind. It is debasing to the national character.

How are these orders and decrees to be opposed but by war, except we keep without their reach? If the embargo produces a repeal of these edicts, we effect it without going to war. Whenever we repeal the embargo we are at war, or we abandon our neutral rights. It is impossible to take the middle ground, and say that we do not abandon them by trading with Great Britain alone. You must submit, or oppose force to force. Can arming our merchant vessels, by resisting the whole navy of Great Britain, oppose force to force? It is impossible. The idea is absurd.

By way of ridiculing the embargo, the gentleman from Connecticut, in his familiar way, has attempted to expose this measure. He elucidated it by one of those familiar examples by which he generally exemplifies his precepts. He says your neighbor tells you that you shall not trade with another neighbor, and you say you will not trade at all. Now this, he says, is very magnanimous, but it is a kind of magnanimity with which he is not acquainted. Now let us see the magnanimity of that gentleman, and see if it savors more of true magnanimity than our course. Great Britain and France each say that we shall not trade with the other. We say we will not trade with either of them, because we believe our trade will be important to both of them. The gentleman says it is a poor way of defending the national rights. Suppose we pursue his course. Great Britain says we shall not trade to France; we say we will not, but will obey her. We will trade upon such terms as she may impose. "This will be magnanimity indeed; this will be defending commerce with a witness!" It will be bowing the neck to the yoke. The opposition to taxation against our consent, at the commencement of the Revolution, was not more meritorious than the opposition to tribute and imposition at the present day. I cannot, for my soul, see the difference between paying tribute and a tacit acquiescence in the British Orders in Council. True, every gentleman revolts at paying tribute. But where is the difference between that and suffering yourself to be controlled by the arbitrary act of another nation? If you raise the embargo you must carry your produce to Great Britain and pay an arbitrary sum before you can carry it elsewhere. If it remains there, the markets will be glutted and it will produce nothing. For it appears, from the very evidence to which I have before alluded, that at least four-fifths of our whole exports of tobacco must go to England and pay a tax before we could look for a market elsewhere, and that out of seventy-five thousand hogsheads raised in this country, not more than fifteen thousand are consumed in Great Britain. Where does the remainder usually go? Why, to the ports of the Continent. I ask, then, if the whole consumption of Great Britain be but fifteen thousand hogsheads, if an annual addition of sixty thousand hogsheads be thrown into that market, would it sell for the costs of freight? Certainly not. The same would be the situation of our other produce.

The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. White) has said, that, by repealing the embargo, we[Pg 15] can now carry on a safe and secure trade to the extent of nearly four-fifths of the amount of our domestic productions. There is nothing more delusive, and better calculated to impose on those who do not investigate subjects, than these calculations in gross. If the gentleman will take the trouble to make the necessary inquiries, he will find that instead of Great Britain taking to the amount he supposes of our domestic productions, she takes nothing like it. It is true that a large proportion of our domestic exports is shipped ostensibly for Great Britain; but it is equally true that a very large proportion of these very exports find their way into the continental ports. For the British merchants in their examination before the House of Commons, already alluded to, say that three-fourths of their receipts for exportation to the United States have been usually drawn from the Continent; and that even if the embargo was removed and the Orders in Council were continued, they must stop their exportation, because the continental ports would be closed against American vessels; because their coasts swarm with English cruisers, the French must know that the American vessels attempting to enter have come from an English port. That they had facilities of conveyance to the Continent prior to the Orders in Council, the merchants acknowledged; and when requested to explain the mode of conveyance, they begged to be excused. No doubt every gentleman has seen these depositions, or might have seen them, for they have been published in almost every paper on the Continent. They have opened to me and to my constituents a scene perfectly new. They tell you that the Berlin decree was nothing. Notwithstanding that decree, they had a facility of conveying produce into the continental ports; but the Orders of Council completely shut the ports of the Continent against the entrance of American vessels. On this point there was no contrariety of opinion; and several of these merchants declared that they had sent vessels to the Continent a very few days before the date of the Orders of Council. This clearly shows that any conclusion to be drawn from the gross amount of exports must be fallacious, and that probably three-fourths ought to be deducted from the gross amount. This statement of the gentleman from Delaware, which holds out to the public the prospect of a lucrative trade in four-fifths of their exports, will certainly have a tendency to render them uneasy under the privations which they are called upon to suffer by the iniquitous measures of foreign nations. Although the statement was extremely delusive, I do not say that the gentleman meant to delude by it. This, however, being the effect of the gentleman's assertion, I am certainly warranted in saying that the evidence of the British merchants who carry on this trade, is better authority than the gentleman's statements.

But admit, for the sake of argument, and on no other ground would I admit it, that these gross statements are correct; and that, at the time the embargo was adopted, these Orders in Council notwithstanding, the trade of the United States could have been carried on to this extent. What security have we, if the embargo had not been laid, after submitting and compromitting the national dignity and independence, that the British aggressions and Orders in Council would have stopped at the point at which we find them? Have we not conclusive evidence to the contrary? Are we not officially notified that the French leeward islands are declared by proclamation in a state of blockade? And do we not know that this is but carrying into effect a report of the committee of the British House of Commons on the West India Islands, in which this measure is recommended, and in which it is stated that His Britannic Majesty's West India subjects ought to receive further aid by placing these islands in a state of blockade? I can see in this measure nothing but a continuation of the system recommended last winter in this report, and published—for the information of the United States, I suppose.

If the embargo should be repealed, and our vessels suffered to go out in the face of the present orders in Council and blockading decrees and proclamations, Mr. C. said, they would but expose us to new insults and aggressions. It was in vain to talk about the magnanimity of nations. It was not that magnanimity which induced nations as well as men to act honestly; and that was the best kind of magnanimity. The very magnanimity which had induced them to distress our commerce, would equally induce them to cut off the pitiful portion they had left to us. In a general point of view, there was now no lawful commerce. No vessel could sail from the United States without being liable to condemnation in Britain or France. If they sailed to France, Mr. C. said, they were carried into Britain; if they sailed to Britain, they were carried into France. Now, he asked, whether men who had any regard to national honor would consent to navigate the ocean on terms so disgraceful? We must be cool calculators, indeed, if we could submit to disgrace like this!

The last reason offered by the supporters of the present resolution, Mr. C. said, may properly be said to be an argument in terrorem. The gentleman from Massachusetts says, by way of abstract proposition, that a perseverance in a measure opposed to the feelings and interests of the people may lead to opposition and insurrection; but the gentleman from Connecticut uses the same expressions as applicable to the embargo. It may be a forcible argument with some gentlemen, and most likely may have had its effect on those who intended it to produce an effect on others. But I trust that this House and this nation are not to be addressed in this way. Our understandings may be convinced by reason, but an address to our fears ought to be treated with contempt. If I were capable of being actuated by motives of fear, I should be unworthy of the seat which I hold on this floor.[Pg 16] If the nation be satisfied that any course is proper, it would be base and degrading to be driven from it by the discordant murmurs of a minority. We are cautioned to beware how we execute a measure with which the feelings of the people are at war. I should be the last to persist in a measure which injuriously affected the interest of the United States; but no man feels more imperiously the duty of persevering in a course which is right, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of a few; and though I may regret and respect the feelings of these few, I will persist in the course which I believe to be right, at the expense even of the Government itself.

Mr. Mitchill said he was not prepared to vote on the question of repealing the embargo laws, in the precise form in which it had been brought before the Senate. There was as yet a want of information; for certain additional documents, expected from the Executive, had not yet been communicated, and the select committee to which the part of the Message concerning the foreign relations of the country was lately referred, had not brought forward a report. He would have been better pleased if the proposition had been so framed as to have expressed indignation at the injuries our Government had received from foreign nations. Then he would cheerfully have given it his concurrence. But now, when those who are willing to do something, though not exactly what the motion proposes, are made to vote directly against a removal of the existing restrictions upon our commerce, their situation is rather unpleasant; indeed, it is unfair, inasmuch as they must either give their assent to a measure, to the time and manner of which they may be averse, or they must vote negatively in a case which, but for some incidental or formal matter, would have met their hearty approbation. He could, therefore, have wished that the question had been presented to the House in such terms as to afford an opportunity of expressing their sense of the wrongs our nation had endured from foreign Sovereigns, and of the restrictions laid upon American commerce by their unjust regulations, as well as on the further restrictions that, under the pressure of events, it had been thought necessary for our own Legislature to impose.

I now come to the year 1806, an eventful year to the foreign commerce of our people. An extravagant and armed trade had for a considerable time been carried on by some of our citizens with the emancipated or revolted blacks of Hayti. The French Minister, conformably to the instructions of his Government, remonstrated against this traffic as ungracious and improper; and under an impression that our citizens ought to be restrained from intercourse with the negroes of Hispaniola, Congress passed an act forbidding that altogether. This was the second time that our Government circumscribed the commercial conduct of its citizens. It was also during this year that memorials were forwarded to the Executive and legislative branches of our Government by the merchants of our principal seaports, stating the vexations of their foreign commerce to be intolerable, and calling in the most earnest terms for relief or redress. These addresses were mostly composed with great ability; it seemed as if the merchants were in danger of total ruin. Their situation was depicted as being deplorable in the extreme. The interposition of their Government was asked in the most strenuous and pressing terms; and your table, Mr. President, was literally loaded with petitions. The chief cause of this distress was briefly this: These citizens of the United States were engaged during the war in Europe, in a commerce with enemies' colonies not open in time of peace; by this means, the produce of the French West Indies was conveyed under the neutral flag to the mother country. Great Britain opposed the direct commerce from the colony to France through the neutral bottom. The neutral then evaded the attempt against him by landing the colonial produce in his own country, and after having thus neutralized or naturalized it, exported it under drawback for Bordeaux or Marseilles; this proceeding was also opposed by the British, and much property was captured and condemned in executing their orders against it. Their writers justified their conduct by charging fraud upon the neutral flag, and declaring that under cover of them a "war in disguise" was carried on, while on our side the rights of neutrals were defended with great learning and ability in a most profound investigation of the subject.

This same year was ushered in by a proclamation of General Ferrand, the French commandant at St. Domingo, imposing vexations on the trade of our citizens; and a partial non-importation law was enacted against Great Britain by Congress about the middle of April. But these were not all the impediments which arose. Notices were given to the American Minister in London of several blockades. The chief of these was that of the coast, from the Elbe to Brest inclusive, in May. And here, as it occurs to me, may I mention the spurious blockade of Curaçoa, under which numerous captures were made. And lastly, to complete the catalogue of disasters for 1806, and to close the woful climax, the French decree of Berlin came forth in November, and, as if sporting with the interests and feelings of Americans, proclaimed Great Britain and her progeny of isles to be in a state of blockade.

Hopes had been entertained that such a violent and convulsed condition of society would not be of long duration. Experience, however, soon proved that the infuriate rage of man was as yet unsatisfied, and had much greater lengths to go. For early in the succeeding year (1807), an order of the British Council was issued, by which the trade of neutrals, and of course of American citizens, was interdicted from the port of one belligerent to the port of another. And in the ensuing May, the rivers Elbe, Weser, and Ems, with the interjacent coasts were declared[Pg 17] by them to be in a state of blockade, and a similar declaration was made on their part to neutrals in regard to the straits of the Dardanelles and the city of Smyrna. But these were but subordinate incidents in this commercial drama; the catastrophe of the tragedy was soon to be developed. "On the 22d of June, by a formal order from a British Admiral, our frigate Chesapeake, leaving her port for a distant service, was attacked by one of these vessels, which had been lying in our harbors under the indulgence of hospitality, was disabled from proceeding, had several of her crew killed, and four taken away." Immediately the President by proclamation interdicted our harbors and waters to all British armed vessels, and forbade intercourse with them. Under an uncertainty how far hostilities were intended, and the town of Norfolk being threatened with an immediate attack, a sufficient force was ordered for the protection of that place, and such other preparations commenced and pursued as the prospect rendered proper.

In furtherance of these schemes, a proclamation was published, holding all their absent seamen to their allegiance, recalling them from foreign services, and denouncing heavy penalties for disobedience. The operation of this upon the American merchant service would have been very sensibly felt. Many British born subjects were in the employ of our merchants, and that very Government, which claimed as a British subject every American citizen who had been but two years a seaman in their service, refused to be bound by their own rule in relation to British subjects who had served an equal term on board the ships of the United States. But this was not all. The month of November was distinguished by an order retaliating on France a decree passed by her some time before, declaring the sale of ships by belligerents to be illegal; and thus, by virtue of concurrent acts of these implacable enemies, the poor neutral found it impossible to purchase a ship either from a subject of Great Britain or of France. That season of gloom was famous, or rather infamous, for another act prohibiting wholly the commerce of neutrals with the enemies of Great Britain, and for yet another, pregnant with the principles of lordly domination on their part, and of colonial vassalage on our, by which the citizens of these independent and sovereign States are compelled to pay duties on their cargoes in British ports, and receive licenses under the authority of that Government, as a condition of being permitted to trade to any part of Europe in possession of her enemies.

This outrageous edict on the part of Britain was succeeded by another on the side of France, equalling, or if possible, surpassing it in injustice. In December came forth the decree of Milan, enforcing the decree of Berlin against American trade; dooming to confiscation every vessel of the United States that had been boarded or even spoken to by a Briton, and encouraging, by the most unjustifiable lures, passengers and sailors to turn informers. The abominable mandate was quickly echoed in Spain, and sanctioned by the approbation of His Most Catholic Majesty. It has been executed with shocking atrocity. In addition to other calamities, the property of neutrals has been sequestered in France, and their ships burned by her cruisers on the ocean.

Such, Mr. President, was the situation of the European world, when Congress deemed it necessary to declare an embargo on our own vessels. Denmark and Prussia, and Russia, and Portugal, had become associated or allied with France; and, with the exception of Sweden, the commerce of our citizens was prohibited, by the mutually vindictive and retaliating belligerents, from the White Sea to the Adriatic. American ships and cargoes were declared the prize and plunder of the contending powers. The widely-extended commerce of our people was to be crushed to atoms between the two mighty millstones, or prudently withdrawn from its dangerous exposure, and detained in safety at home. Policy and prudence dictated the latter measure. And as the ocean was become the scene of political storm and tempest, more dreadful than had ever agitated the physical elements, our citizens were admonished to partake of that security for their persons and property, in the peaceful havens of their country, which they sought in vain on the high seas and in European harbors. The regulations, so destructive to our commerce, were not enacted by us. They were imposed upon us by foreign tyrants. Congress had no volition to vote upon the question. In the shipwreck of our trade, all that remained for us to do, was to save as much as we could from perishing, and as far as our efforts would go, to prevent a total loss.

I touch, with a delicate hand, the mission of Mr. Rose. The arrival of this Envoy Extraordinary from Britain was nearly of the same date with an order of his Government, blockading Carthagena, Cadiz, and St. Lucar, and the intermediate ports of Spain, and thereby vexing the commerce of American citizens. The unsuccessful termination of his negotiation has been but a few months since followed by a refusal on the part of his Government to rescind its orders, that work so much oppression to our commerce, on condition of having the embargo suspended in respect to theirs. And the French Ministry has treated a similar friendly and specific overture, from our Executive, with total disregard. In addition to all which we learn, from the highest source of intelligence, that the British naval commander at Barbadoes did, about the middle of October, declare the French leeward Caribbean Islands to be in a state of strict blockade, and cautioning neutrals to govern themselves accordingly, under pain of capture and condemnation.

[Pg 18]

Thursday, November 24.

The Embargo.

Mr. Giles addressed the Senate:

Mr. President: Having during the recess of Congress retired from the political world, and having little agency in the passing political scenes, living in a part of the country, too, where there is little or no difference in political opinions, and where the embargo laws are almost universally approved, I felt the real want of information upon the subject now under discussion. I thought I knew something of the general objects of the embargo laws, and I had not been inattentive to their general operations upon society, as far as I had opportunities of observing thereupon.

When I arrived here, and found that this subject had excited so much sensibility in the minds of many gentlemen I met with, as to engross their whole thoughts, and almost to banish every other topic of conversation, I felt also a curiosity to know what were the horrible effects of these laws in other parts of the country, and which had escaped my observation in the part of the country in which I reside. Of course, sir, I have given to the gentlemen, who have favored us with their observations on both sides of the question under consideration, the most careful and respectful attention, and particularly to the gentlemen representing the eastern section of the Union, where most of this sensibility had been excited. I always listen to gentlemen from that part of the United States with pleasure, and generally receive instruction from them; but on this occasion, I am reluctantly compelled to acknowledge, that I have received from them less satisfaction and less information than usual; and still less conviction.

It was hardly to have been expected, Mr. President, that after so many angry and turbulent passions had been called into action, by the recent agitations throughout the whole United States, resulting from the elections by the people, to almost all the important offices within their gift, and particularly from the elections of electors for choosing the President and Vice President of the United States, that gentlemen would have met here perfectly exempt from the feelings which this state of things was naturally calculated to inspire. Much less was it to have been expected, sir, that gentlemen who had once possessed the power of the nation, and who, from some cause or other, had lost it; (a loss, which they now tell us they but too well remember, and I fear, might have added, too deeply deplore,) gentlemen too, sir, who at one time during the electioneering scene had indulged the fond and delusive hope, that through the privations necessarily imposed upon our fellow-citizens, by the unexampled aggressions of the belligerent powers, they might once more find their way to office and power, and who now find themselves disappointed in this darling expectation—it was not at all to be expected, sir, that these gentlemen should now appear here, perfectly exempt from the unpleasant feelings which so dreadful a disappointment must necessarily have produced. It was a demand upon human nature for too great a sacrifice; and however desirable such an exemption might have been at the present moment, and however honorable it would have been to those gentlemen, it was not expected.

But, sir, I had indulged a hope that the extraordinary dangers and difficulties pressed upon us by the aggressing belligerents, attended, too, with so many circumstances of indignity and insult, would have awakened a sensibility in the bosom of every gentleman of this body, which would have wholly suppressed, or at least suspended, these unpleasant feelings, until some measures, consulting the general interests and welfare of the people, could have been devised, to meet, resist, and if possible, to subdue the extraordinary crisis. But, sir, even in this hope, too, I have been totally disappointed. I was the more encouraged in this hope, when upon opening this debate the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Hillhouse) seemed sensible of this sacred obligation, imposed by the crisis; when he exhorted us, in conducting our deliberations, utterly to discard the influence of party spirit. It would have given me great pleasure, sir, if the gentleman had afforded us a magnanimous example of a precept so admirably suited to the present state of things. But in this too, sir, I have been unfortunately disappointed. That gentleman's observations consisted almost exclusively of retrospective animadversions upon the original objects and horrible effects of the embargo laws, without seeming to think it was worth his attention to favor us with any reflections upon the prospective course of measures which the people's interests, the public safety, and general welfare, so imperiously demand. That gentleman represented the embargo laws as mere acts of volition, impelled by no cause nor necessity; whilst the British orders, and French edicts, were scarcely glanced at, and certainly formed the least prominent feature of his observations. He represented these laws as a wanton and wicked attack upon commerce, with a view to its destruction, whilst he seemed scarcely to have recollected the extraordinary dangers and difficulties which overspread the ocean—indeed, sir, he described the ocean as perfectly free from dangers and difficulties, unruffled by any storms, and that we had nothing to do but to unfurl our canvas to the wind, that it would be filled with prosperous gales, and wafted to the ports of its destination, where it would be received with open arms of friendship and hospitality. I wish, sir, with all my heart, the gentleman could but realize these dreaming visions; their reality would act like a, magic spell upon the embargo laws, and dissipate them in a moment! But, alas! sir, when we come to look at realities, when we turn our eyes upon the real dangers and difficulties which do overspread the ocean, we shall find them so formidable, that the wisdom of our undivided[Pg 19] counsels, and the energy of our undivided action, will scarcely be sufficient to resist and conquer them. To my great regret, sir, we now see, that the United States cannot even hope to be blessed with this union of mind and action, although certainly their dearest interests demand it.

Mr. President, perhaps the greatest inconvenience attending popular governments, consists in this: that whenever the union and energy of the people are most required to resist foreign aggressions, the pressure of these aggressions presents most temptations to distrusts and divisions. Was there ever a stronger illustration of the truth and correctness of this observation than the recent efforts made under the pressure of the embargo laws? The moment the privations, reluctantly but necessarily imposed by these laws, became to be felt, was the moment of signal to every political demagogue, who wished to find his way to office and to power, to excite the distrusts of the people, and then to separate them from the Government of their choice, by every exaggeration which ingenuity could devise, and every misrepresentation which falsehood could invent: nothing was omitted which it was conceived would have a tendency to effect this object. But, Mr. President, the people of the United States must learn the lesson now, and at all future times, of disrespecting the bold and disingenuous charges and insinuations of such aspiring demagogues. They must learn to respect and rally round their own Government, or they never can present a formidable front to a foreign aggressor. Sir, the people of the United States have already learnt this lesson. They have recently given an honorable and glorious example of their knowledge in this respect. They have, in their recent elections, demonstrated to the nation and to the world that they possess too much good sense to become the dupes of these delusive artifices, and too much patriotism to desert their Government when it stands most in need of their support and energy.

The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Hillhouse) has made the most strict, and I had almost said, uncharitable scrutiny into the objects and effects of the embargo laws, in the delusive hope, I presume, of obtaining a triumph over his political adversaries. I propose to follow the gentleman, in a fair and candid comparison of information and opinions upon this subject; and I shall do so in the most perfect confidence, that whenever a thorough examination of the objects and effects of the embargo laws shall be made known, and the merits of the measure fully understood, that there is not a man in the United States who will not applaud and support the Administration for its adoption, who has the uncontaminated heart of an American throbbing within his bosom.

Sir, I have always understood that there were two objects contemplated by the embargo laws. The first, precautionary, operating upon ourselves. The second, coercive, operating upon the aggressing belligerents. Precautionary, in saving our seamen, our ships, and our merchandise, from the plunder of our enemies, and avoiding the calamities of war. Coercive, by addressing strong appeals to the interests of both the belligerents. The first object has been answered beyond my most sanguine expectations. To make a fair and just estimate of this measure, reference should be had to our situation at the time of its adoption. At that time, the aggressions of both the belligerents were such, as to leave the United States but a painful alternative in the choice of one of three measures, to wit, the embargo, war, or submission. I know that this position has not been admitted, though but faintly denied in the discussion. I shall however proceed upon this hypothesis for the present, and in the course of my observations will prove its correctness by the statements of the gentlemen in favor of the resolution.

Before the recommendation of the measure, the laudable and provident circumspection of the Administration had obtained tolerably correct estimates of the amount and value of the ships and merchandise belonging to the citizens of the United States then afloat, and the amount and value of what was shortly expected to be afloat; together with a conjectural statement of the number of the seamen employed in the navigation thereof.

It was found that merchandise to the value of one hundred millions of dollars was actually afloat, in vessels amounting in value to twenty millions more. That an amount of merchandise and vessels equal to fifty millions of dollars more, was expected to be shortly put afloat, and that it would require fifty thousand seamen to be employed in the navigation of this enormous amount of property. The Administration was informed of the hostile edicts of France previously issued, and then in a state of execution, and of an intention on the part of Great Britain to issue her orders, the character and object of which were also known. The object was, to sweep this valuable commerce from the ocean. The situation of this commerce was as well known to Great Britain as to ourselves, and her inordinate cupidity could not withstand the temptation of the rich booty she vainly thought within her power. This was the state of information at the time this measure was recommended.

The President of the United States, ever watchful and anxious for the preservation of the persons and property of all our fellow-citizens, but particularly of the merchants, whose property is most exposed to danger, and of the seamen whose persons are also most exposed, recommended the embargo for the protection of both; and it has saved and protected both. Let us now suppose, for a moment, that the President, possessed of this information, had not apprised the merchants and seamen of their danger, and had recommended no measure for their safety and protection; would he not in that case have merited and received the reproaches[Pg 20] which the ignorance or ingratitude of merchants and others have so unjustly heaped upon him, for his judicious and anxious attentions to their interests? It is admitted by all, that the embargo laws have saved this enormous amount of property, and this number of seamen, which, without them, would have forcibly gone into the hands of our enemies, to pamper their arrogance, stimulate their injustice, and increase their means of annoyance.

I should suppose, Mr. President, this saving worth some notice. But, sir, we are told that instead of protecting our seamen, it has driven them out of the country, and into foreign service. I believe, sir, that this fact is greatly exaggerated. But, sir, suppose for a moment that it is so, the Government has done all, in this respect, it was bound to do. It placed these seamen in the bosoms of their friends and families, in a state of perfect security; and if they have since thought proper to abandon these blessings, and emigrate from their country, it was an act of choice, not of necessity. But, what would have been the unhappy destiny of these brave tars, if they had been permitted to have been carried into captivity, and sent adrift on unfriendly and inhospitable shores? Why, sir, in that case, they would have had no choice; necessity would have driven them into a hard and ignominious service, to fight the battles of the authors of their dreadful calamities, against a nation with which their country was at peace. And is the bold and generous American tar to be told, that he is to disrespect the Administration for its anxious and effectual attentions to his interests? for relieving him from a dreadful captivity? Even under the hardships he does suffer, and which I sincerely regret, every generous feeling of his noble heart would repel the base attempt with indignation. But, sir, the American seamen have not deserted their country; foreign seamen may and probably have gone into foreign service; and, for one, I am glad of it. I hope they will never return; and I am willing to pass a law, in favor of the true-hearted American seamen, that these foreign seamen never should return. I would even prohibit them from being employed in merchant vessels. The American seamen have found employment in the country; and whenever the proper season shall arrive for employing them on their proper element, you will find them, like true birds of passage, hovering in crowds upon your shores.

Whilst considering this part of the subject, I cannot help expressing my regret that, at the time of passing our embargo laws, a proportion of our seamen was not taken into the public service; because, in my judgment, the nation required their services, and it would have been some alleviation to their hardships, which the measure peculiarly imposed upon them, as a class of citizens, by affecting their immediate occupation; and the other classes, as well as the public Treasury, were able to contribute to their alleviation; and I am willing to do the same thing at this time. Indeed, its omission is the only regret I have ever felt, at the measures of the last Congress. I like the character—I like the open frankness, and the generous feelings of the honest American tar; and, whenever in my power, I am ready to give, and will with pleasure give him my protection and support. One of the most important and agreeable effects of the embargo laws, is giving these honest fellows a safe asylum. But, sir, these are not the only good effects of the embargo. It has preserved our peace—it has saved our honor—it has saved our national independence. Are these savings not worth notice? Are these blessings not worth preserving? The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. White) has, indeed, told us, that under the embargo laws, the United States are bleeding at every pore. This, surely, sir, is one of the most extravagant effects that could have been ascribed to these laws by the frantic dreams of the most infatuated passions. Bloodletting is the last effect that I ever expected to hear ascribed to this measure. I thought it was of the opposite character; but it serves to show that nothing is too extravagant for the misguided zeal of gentlemen in the opposition. I have cast my eyes about in vain to discover those copious streams of blood; but I neither see nor hear any thing of them from any other quarter. So far from the United States bleeding at every pore, under the embargo, it has saved them from bleeding at any pore; and one of the highest compliments to the measure is, that it has saved us from the very calamity which the gentleman attributed to it; but which, thanks to our better stars and wiser counsels, does not exist.

Mr. President, the eyes of the world are now turned upon us; if we submit to these indignities and aggressions, Great Britain herself would despise us; she would consider us an outcast among nations; she would not own us for her offspring: France would despise us; all the world would despise us; and what is infinitely worse, we should be compelled to despise ourselves! If we resist, we shall command the respect of our enemies, the sympathies of the world, and the noble approbation of our own consciences.

Mr. President, our fate is in our own hands; let us have union and we have nothing to fear. So highly do I prize union, at this awful moment, that I would prefer any one measure of resistance with union, to any other measure of resistance with division; let us then, sir, banish all personal feelings; let us present to our enemies the formidable front of an indissoluble band of brothers, nothing else is necessary to our success. Mr. President, unequal as this contest may seem; favored as we are by our situation, and under the blessing of a beneficent Providence, who has never lost sight of the United States in times of difficulty and trial, I have the most perfect confidence, that if we prove true to ourselves, we shall triumph over our enemies. Deeply impressed with these considerations, I am prepared to give the resolution a flat and decided negative.

[Pg 21]

Friday, November 25.

John Milledge, from the State of Georgia, attended.

Wednesday, November 30.

The Embargo.

Mr. Pickering.—Mr. President: I am aware, sir, of the consequences of advancing any thing from which conclusions may be drawn adverse to the opinions of our own Administration, which, by many, are conceived to be indisputably just. Merely to state these questions, and to mention such arguments as the British Government may, perhaps, have urged in their support on her side, is sufficient to subject a man to the popular charge of being under British influence, or to the vulgar slander of being a "British tory." He will be fortunate to escape the accusation of touching British gold. But, sir, none of these things move me. The patrons of the miscreants who utter these slanders know better, but are, nevertheless, willing to benefit by the impression they may make on the minds of the people. From an early period of my life I was zealously engaged in every measure opposed to the attempts of Great Britain to encroach upon our rights, until the commencement of our Revolutionary war; and during its whole continuance, I was uninterruptedly employed in important civil or military departments, contributing all my efforts to bring that war to a successful termination.

I, sir, am not the advocate of wrong-doers, to whatever country they belong, whether Emperors, or Kings, or the Administrators of a Republic. Justice is my object, and Truth my guide; and wherever she points the way I shall not fear to go.

Great Britain has done us many wrongs. When we were Colonies, she attempted to deprive us of some of our dearest birth-rights—rights derived from our English ancestors, rights which we defended, and finally established, by the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary war. But these wrongs, and all the wounds of war, were intended to be obliterated and healed by the treaty of peace, when all enmities should have ceased.

Great Britain wronged us in the capture and condemnation of our vessels under her orders of 1793, and she has made reparation for these wrongs, pursuant to a treaty, negotiated on practical principles by a statesman who, with liberal views and real candor, sought adjustment and reparation.

Monday, December 12.

Enforcement of the Embargo Laws.

Mr. Giles, from the committee appointed the 11th of November last, on that part of the Message of the President of the United States which relates to the embargo laws, and the measures necessary to enforce due observance thereof, made a further report, in part, of a bill to authorize and require the President of the United States to arm, man, and fit out for immediate service, all the public ships of war, vessels, and gunboats of the United States; and the bill was read, and passed to the second reading.

The bill is as follows:

Saturday, December 17.

The credentials of Michael Leib, appointed a Senator by the State of Pennsylvania, were presented and read, and ordered to lie on file.

Enforcement of the Embargo.

The Senate resumed the bill making further provision for enforcing the embargo.

Mr. Goodrich rose, and addressed the Senate as follows—

Mr. President: This bill, making further provision for enforcing the embargo, requires all our attention. We are not on ordinary business. An embargo for an indefinite period, over a great country like ours, abounding in rich staples and domestic products, and carrying on in its own vessels an extensive and profitable commerce, is a phenomenon in the civilized world. We are about entering on the second year of this novel measure, and even in defiance of the lessons which experience teaches, that without producing any beneficial results, it is embroiling the choicest interests of the nation. On foreign powers it has made no impression, and its ruinous effect on our own country, we see in the waste of private property and public revenue; in the discontents of our citizens; in the perplexed state of the public councils, and the increasing difficulties that are fast gathering round the Government. The friends of the embargo say, that it has been evaded and violated, but that when[Pg 22] strictly enforced, it will compel foreign nations to respect our rights. Under these impressions, the system is to be maintained. To enforce it, the powers of the Government are to be put in array throughout our country, especially in places where discontents are manifested; and an extension is to be given to that system of arbitrary seizures of vessels, goods, merchandise, and domestic products, on suspicion of their being intended for exportation, which came in with the embargo laws, and has attended their execution.

In all this, sir, I see nothing that is to conciliate the conflicting opinions and passions of our citizens, and restore concord amongst them. I see nothing that will invigorate the public councils, and resuscitate the dormant spirit and resources of the nation. To me it seems that the Administration, without presenting to public view any definite object or course, are pressing forward our affairs into a chaos of inextricable difficulties. And I cannot but regard this bill as holding a prominent place among the measures leading on that unfortunate issue.

This bill bears marks of distrust entertained by the Government of the people, or a considerable portion of them, and of the State authorities; it places the coasting trade under further and vexatious restraints, as well as its general regulations under the control of the President. It intrenches on the municipal polity of the States, and the intercourse of the people in their ordinary business. And, what above all will wound the public sentiment, for the accustomed and mild means of executing the laws by civil process through the tribunals of justice, it substitutes military powers to be called out and exercised, not in aid, but in place, of the civil authorities.

The coasting trade is placed under the regulation of the President by this bill:

1st. Collectors may refuse permission to put a cargo on board of any ship, vessel, or boat, in any case where they have their own personal suspicions that it is intended for foreign exportation, and in every case which may be comprehended within the scope of any general instructions, issued by command of the President. But there is a proviso as to coasting vessels uniformly employed in the navigation of bays, sounds, rivers, and lakes, which shall have obtained a general permission.

2d. General permissions may be granted to the last-mentioned vessels, under such general instructions as the President of the United States may give, when it can be done without danger of the embargo being violated, to take on board such articles as may be designated in such general permission or permissions.

By these general instructions, the President may prescribe the kind and quantity of exports from, and imports into the individual States, and from and to the particular districts within a State. He may suspend them in part or in whole.

The power of issuing general instructions now proposed to be given to the President by law, he exercised in the recess of Congress, and in my opinion, without law. The Governor of Massachusetts was authorized to give certificates, or licenses for the importation of flour into that State; and, under general instructions from the President, without personal suspicion of his own, the collector at Charleston, in South Carolina, detained a vessel; which called forth the independent exercise of the judicial power of the circuit court in that State, to control the President's instructions. I am sensible the Administration and its friends have an arduous task in executing the embargo; difficulties beset them on every side; difficulties inherent in the measure itself, and not to be overcome by accumulating rigorous penalties, and an extension of the Executive power. The power to regulate commerce is vested in Congress, and by granting it to the President, do we not transfer to him one of the most important and delicate of the legislative powers? What State would have adopted the constitution, if it had been foreseen that this power would be granted to any man, however distinguished by office?

The sections I have considered, principally affect merchants and seafaring men in their business, at stores, custom-houses, about wharves, ships, and vessels. But other sections take a wider range, and intrench on the ordinary concerns of the great body of the people, by the powers they give for unreasonable and arbitrary searches for, and seizures of their property.

Collectors of the customs throughout the United States, by the tenth section, are empowered to take into custody specie, or any articles of domestic growth or manufacture, under these circumstances, when deposited in unusual places, in unusual quantities, in places where there is reason to believe they are intended for exportation in vessels, sleighs, or other carriages, or in any manner apparently on their way towards the territories of foreign nations, or a place whence such articles are intended to be exported. And, when taken into custody, they are not permitted to be removed without bonds being given for their being relanded in some place whence, in the opinion of the collector, there is no danger of their being exported.

Without warrant founded on proof, from suspicion only, may this unbounded license be exercised. Our houses, heretofore our castles, and the secure abodes of our families, may be thrown open to the visits of collectors to search for and seize our money and goods, whenever instigated by suspicion, prejudice, resentment, or party spirit.

No place is to be protected; the people may every where be exposed, at home, on the way, and abroad. Specie and goods thus seized without warrant, and on suspicion only, are not to be removed unless and until bond with sureties shall be given for landing or delivering the same in some place of the United States, whence, in the opinion of the collector, there[Pg 23] shall not be any danger of such articles being exported. These provisions strike at the vital principles of a free government; and are they not contrary to the fourth and sixth articles of amendments to the constitution? Are not these searches and seizures, without warrant, on the mere suspicion of a collector, unreasonable searches and seizures? And is not a man thereby to be deprived of property without due process of law?

The military may be employed by such person as the President may have empowered. He may designate, at certain places in the States, persons to call out such part of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia, as may be judged necessary. Those will be selected who are most convenient and in all respects qualified to act in the scenes to which they may be called. In these appointments the Senate is to have no concurrence. They are to be Presidential agents for issuing requisitions to the standing army, for militia, and not amenable to any tribunal for their conduct. Heretofore a delicate and respectful attention has been paid to the State authorities on this subject. The requisitions of the General Government for the militia have been made to the Governors of the States; and what reason is there for taking a different course to enforce the embargo?

Under our present system have not insurrections been suppressed, rebellions quelled, and combinations and resistance against lawful authority overcome, by the force of the General Government in co-operation with the State Governments? Is not the authority of the marshals competent to the execution of the laws? I see no cause for these arrays of the military throughout the country, and the unrestrained license that is to be given to its operations. It is a fundamental principle of a free government, "that the military be kept in subordination to the civil power," and never be put in motion until those be found incompetent to preserve the public peace and authority. But, by the provisions of this bill, these Presidential agents may call out the standing army or militia, or part of them, to follow in the collector's train, to seize specie and goods in houses, stores, and elsewhere, and generally for executing the embargo laws. And even the public peace, so far as respects the suppressing armed and riotous assemblages of persons resisting the custom-house officers in the exercise of their duties, it would seem can no longer be confided to the States, and it is thought necessary to surround custom-house officers with bands of the standing army or militia.

The bill before us is bottomed on a report of the Secretary of the Treasury. How often were his strenuous remonstrances, and those of the chairman of the committee who reported the bill, (Mr. Giles,) formerly heard against the extension of the Executive patronage and influence; the interference of the General Government in the local policy of the States, and, the ordinary concerns of the people; and, above all, against standing armies? Then no such Executive prerogatives were claimed as this bill contains; no such attempts made as here are made for intrenchments on the internal policy of the States, and the ordinary concerns of the people; and then our army, small in comparison with the present establishment, was kept aloof from the affairs of the State, and the persons and property of the citizens. Our country was happy, prosperous, and respected. The present crisis is portentous. Internal disquiets will not be healed, nor public sentiment controlled, by precipitate and rash measures. It is time for the public councils to pause. This bill, sir, ought not to pass. It strikes at the vital principles of our republican system. It proposes to place the country in a time of peace under military law, the first appearance of which ought here to be resisted with all our talents and efforts. It proposes to introduce a military despotism, to which freemen can never submit, and which can never govern except by terror and carnage.

Tuesday, December 20.

Enforcement of the Embargo.

Mr. Giles said, I am sensible that I owe an apology to the Senate, as chairman of the committee, for not having made an exposition of the objects and principles of the bill, reported for consideration, at an earlier stage of the discussion. This omission has not in the smallest degree been influenced by any apprehension, that these principles are indefensible; but, in some degree, from a desire to screen myself, as much as possible, from intermixing in discussions; a task which is never agreeable, but is at present peculiarly distressing and afflicting to my feelings. I also thought that the session had already been sufficiently fruitful of discussions intimately connected with the bill before us; and that the public interests, at this time, required action. I know, too, sir, that I owe an apology to the Senate, for the great number of amendments which, under their indulgence, has been made to this bill after it was first presented to their consideration. But, sir, you will find some apology in the intrinsic difficulty and delicacy of the subject itself, and also in the disposition manifested by the committee, to give to the objections made by the opponents of the bill, that respectful attention to which many of them were certainly entitled, and to accommodate its provisions, as far as possible, to the views of those gentlemen. After every effort, however, to effect this object, it still appears that the bill presents temptations for addressing the popular sensibility too strong to be resisted by gentlemen in the opposition. They have, accordingly, with great zeal and ability, described the provisions of the bill as dangerous and alarming to the rights and liberties of the people. This, sir, is the common course of opposition, and applies to every strong measure requiring the exercise of much Executive dis[Pg 24]cretion. I think, however, I shall be able to show that there is no new principle contained in the provisions of that bill; but that every provision it contains is amply justified by precedents in pre-existing laws, which have not been found to be so destructive to the rights of the people, as gentlemen strenuously insist similar provisions in this bill will be, if they receive the sanction of law. In performing this task, I shall bring into view only such parts of the bill as have been objected to by gentlemen, presuming that, as their objections have evidently been the result of great industry and deliberation, all other parts of the bill remain unobjectionable. I shall also, perhaps, avoid some of the observations respecting minute details; apply my remarks generally to principles; and thus bring my observations and replies into as short a compass as possible.

The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Goodrich) commenced his remarks by declaring the embargo to be a permanent measure, deprecating its effects, as ruinous at home and ineffectual abroad. These observations have been repeatedly made by others, and already replied to by several gentlemen, as well as myself; and I am strengthened in the correctness of those replies by all the further reflections I have been enabled to bestow upon them. This part of the subject will, therefore, be passed over without further notice, except to remark, that perhaps one of the causes of the inefficacy of the measure abroad, has been the unprincipled violations of its provisions at home; and the great and leading object of the present bill is to prevent such violations. Upon this part of the subject I am happy to find that one of its most strenuous and judicious opposers (Mr. Hillhouse) has candidly informed the Senate, that the provisions of the bill are admirably calculated to effect that object—and if in their practical operation they should realize the character anticipated by that gentleman, I shall feel no regret for that portion of labor I have bestowed upon them. Indeed, I shall congratulate the committee as well as myself in having been so fortunate as to find a competent remedy for so great an evil.

The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Goodrich) informs us, that the public councils are pressing on to measures pregnant with the most alarming results. I hope the gentleman is mistaken in his apprehensions, and I should have been much pleased if the gentleman had been good enough to point them to a better course; but, sir, he has not done so, nor has any gentleman on the same side of the question. Indeed, sir, it would give me great pleasure to do something that would be agreeable to our Eastern friends; but, unfortunately, amidst all the intrinsic difficulties which press upon us, that seems to be not among the least of them. The gentlemen themselves will not explicitly tell us what would produce the effect—and I am inclined to think that nothing short of putting the Government in their hands would do it. Even this would not be exempt from difficulties. The gentlemen from that part of the United States are nearly equally divided among themselves respecting the proper course of measures to be pursued, and there is an immense majority in every other part of the United States, in favor of the measures proposed; we are therefore surrounded with real and intrinsic difficulties from every quarter, and those of a domestic nature are infinitely the most formidable, and most to be deprecated. Indeed, sir, under present circumstances, the administration of the Government cannot be a pleasant task; and, in my judgment, it requires a great effort of patriotism to undertake it, not on account of external pressures, but on account of internal discontents, stimulated, too, by so many artful intrigues. But for these unfortunate circumstances, every gentleman would feel an honorable pride in contributing his efforts to devise measures for repelling foreign aggressions, and he would court the responsibility attached to his station. I would not, Mr. President, give up a scintilla of that portion of the responsibility which the crisis imposes on me. Indeed, sir, to have the honor of bearing my full share of it, is the only inducement I have at this moment for occupying a place on this floor. Without that consideration I should now be in retirement. But when I turn my eyes upon internal divisions, discontents and violations of law, and am compelled to think of measures for their suppression, it produces the most painful sensations and distressing reflections.

The great principle of objection, the gentlemen tell us, consists in the transfer of legislative powers to the Executive Department. This is an old an abstract question, often heretofore brought into view, and leads to endless discussion. I think I shall be able to show that the bill introduces no new principle in this respect, but only applies an established principle to new practical objects. The general principle of the separation of departments is generally admitted in the abstract; but the difficulties in this discussion arise from applying the principle to practical objects. The great difficulty exists in the attempt to fix on the precise boundary line between legislative and Executive powers in their practical operation. This is not possi-[1] You might attempt the search for the philosopher's stone, or the discovery of the perpetual motion, with as much prospect of success. The reason of this difficulty is, that the practical objects and events to which this abstract principle is attempted to be applied, are perpetually varying, according to the practical progression of human affairs, and therefore cannot admit of any uniform standard of application. This reflection might have saved the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lloyd) the trouble of reading to us the constitution or bill of rights of Massachusetts, in which the principle of separation of departments is very clearly and properly laid down, and which will be very readily assented to in the abstract, but which[Pg 25] forms no part of the question in dispute. It cannot, however, escape observation, that this principle is not laid down, even in the abstract, in the Constitution of the United States; and, although it is the leading principle of the constitution, and probably was the principal guide in its formation, it is nevertheless in several respects departed from.

This body partakes essentially both of the legislative and Executive powers of the Government. The Executive Department also partakes of the legislative powers, as far at least as an approbation of, and a qualified negative of the laws extend, &c. I make these observations, however, not in derogation of the general principle of the separation of powers among the several departments, so far as is practicable, but merely to show that there must necessarily be some limitations in its practical operation. Perhaps the best general rule for guiding our discretion upon this subject will be found to consist in this: That legislation ought to extend as far as definition is practicable—when definition stops, execution must necessarily begin. But some of the particular provisions of this bill will furnish more precise illustrations of my opinions upon this question; it will, therefore, be waived until I shall come to their consideration.

I will now proceed to examine the more particular objections urged against the detail of this bill. Its provisions respecting the coasting trade are said to be objectionable in the following respects:

First objection: The penalty of the bonds required, is said to be excessive. To enable us to decide correctly upon this point, the object proposed to be effected, and the penalty required, should be considered in reference to each other. The object is to prevent, by means of coasting vessels, domestic articles from being carried abroad. Flour, for instance, to the West Indies. The price of that article here is less than five dollars; in the West Indies it is said to be thirty and upward. The penalty of the bonds required is six times the amount of the value of the vessel and cargo. Is any gentleman prepared to say a smaller penalty will effect the object? I presume not. Indeed, the committee were disposed to put it at the lowest possible point, consistently with an effectuation of the object; and probably it is rather too low for that purpose. As to the penalty, according to the tonnage of vessels, it is believed no alteration in the existing laws is made in that respect. These penalties will appear the more reasonable, when it is recollected, that through the indulgence given of the coasting trade, most of the violations of the embargo laws have been contrived and effected.

Second objection: The collectors may be influenced by party spirit in the exercise of their discretion. It is hoped that this will not be the case, and if it were, it would certainly be much to be regretted. It may, however, probably happen, and is one of the inconveniences of the system.

Third objection: The high penalties of the bonds will drive many persons of small means from their accustomed occupations. They will not be able to procure the competent security for their prosecution. It is not to be presumed that this will be the effect to any great extent. If the owner is known to be honest, and has in view legal and honest objects, I have very little apprehension of his not being able to get the security required. But here the question recurs, are these apprehended inconveniences of such a nature as to render it necessary to abandon a great national object, for the accommodation of a few individuals who are affected by them? Is the last effort to preserve the peace of the nation, to be abandoned from these considerations? I should conclude, certainly not.

The next objections are made to the seventh section of the bill, which provides that stress of weather, and other unavoidable accidents at sea, shall not be given in evidence in a trial at law to save the penalty of bonds given as security against the violation of the embargo laws. It is known that, through pretexts derived from this permission, at present, most of the violations of these laws have been committed with impunity—it is, therefore, important to the future execution of the laws, to take away these pretexts. But it is objected that this regulation manifests a distrust of oaths. It does, of what is called custom-house oaths; their violation is already almost proverbial; it does not, however, produce nor encourage this profligacy; it takes away the temptation to it. It is further said, it impairs the trial by jury—very far from it; the trial by jury still exists; this provision only regulates the evidence to be produced before the jury. Gentlemen state particular hardships which may take place under this regulation. It is easy to state possible hardships under any general regulation; but they have never been deemed sufficient objections to general regulations producing in other respects beneficial results. This bill, however, contains a provision for relief in all cases of hardships under the embargo laws. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to grant relief in all such cases. This power, vested in the Secretary, is also objected to. It is said to manifest a distrust of courts, and to transfer their powers to the Secretary of the Treasury. Whatever may be my distrust of some of the courts of the United States, I can say that consideration furnished no inducement to this provision. It is a power not suited to the organization of courts, and it has for a long time been exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury without being complained of. Congress proceeded with great caution on this subject. On the third day of March, 1797, they first introduced this principle into their laws in relation to the collection of the revenue; and, after an experiment of nearly three years, on the eleventh day of February, 1800, they made the law perpetual. This will appear from the 12th section of this bill, which merely borrows this provision from pre-existing laws. It intro[Pg 26]duces no new principle whatever. This doctrine is carried still further, by an act passed the 3d of March, 1807, in the eighth volume of the laws, page 318:

Here the President is authorized to use the military force to remove settlers from the public lands without the intervention of courts; and the reason is, that the peculiarity of the case is not suited to the jurisdiction of courts, nor would their powers be competent to the object, nor, indeed, are courts allowed to interfere with any claims of individuals against the United States, but Congress undertakes to decide upon all such cases finally and peremptorily, without the intervention of courts.

This part of the bill is, therefore, supported both by principle and precedent.

While speaking of the distrust of courts, I hope I may be indulged in remarking, that individually my respect for judicial proceedings is materially impaired. I find, sir, that latterly, in some instances, the callous insensibility to extrinsic objects, which, in times past, was thought the most honorable trait in the character of an upright judge, is now, by some courts, entirely disrespected. It seems, by some judges, to be no longer thought an ornament to the judicial character, but is now substituted by the most capricious sensibilities.

Wednesday, December 21.

Enforcement of the Embargo.

Mr. Pope spoke in favor of the bill.

And on the question, Shall this bill pass? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 20, nays 7, as follows:

Wednesday, December 28.

The Vice President being absent by reason of the ill state of his health, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro tempore, as the constitution provides; and Stephen R. Bradley was appointed.

Friday, January 6, 1809.

Return Jonathan Meigs, jun., appointed a Senator by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of John Smith, and, also, for six years ensuing the third day of March next, attended, and produced his credentials, which were read; and the oath prescribed by law was administered to him.

Tuesday, January 10.

James A. Bayard, from the State of Delaware, attended.

Monday, January 16

The credentials of Michael Leib, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Samuel Maclay, were read, and ordered to lie on file.

Thursday, January 19.

Michael Leib, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of the Honorable Samuel Maclay, attended, and the oath prescribed by law was administered to him.

Tuesday, January 24.

Foreign Intercourse—the Two Millions Secret Appropriation—Florida the object.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States:

The Message and documents were read, and one thousand copies thereof ordered to be printed for the use of the two Houses of Congress.

Monday, January 30.

The Vice President having retired, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro[Pg 27] tempore, as the constitution provides; and the Hon. John Milledge was appointed.

Thursday, February 2.

The credentials of Samuel White, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Delaware, for six years, commencing on the 4th of March next, were read, and ordered to lie on file.

Tuesday, February 7.

Examination and Count of Electoral Votes for President and Vice President.

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, from the joint committee appointed to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President and Vice President, and of notifying the persons elected of their election, and for regulating the time, place, and manner, of administering the oath of office to the President, reported in part the following resolution, which was read and agreed to:

Ordered, That Mr. Smith, of Maryland, be appointed teller on the part of the Senate, agreeably to the foregoing resolution.

A message from the House of Representatives brought to the Senate "the several memorials from sundry citizens of the State of Massachusetts, remonstrating against the mode in which the appointment of Electors for President and Vice President has been proceeded to on the part of the Senate and House of Representatives of said State, as irregular and unconstitutional, and praying for the interference of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, for the purpose of preventing the establishment of so dangerous a precedent."

The message last mentioned, referring to the memorials of sundry citizens of the State of Massachusetts, was read.

Ordered, That the message and memorials lie on the table.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House agree to the report of the joint committee "appointed to ascertain and report a mode of examining the votes for President and Vice President, and of notifying the persons elected of their election, and to regulate the time, place, and manner of administering the oath of office to the President," and have appointed Messrs. Nicholas and Van Dyke tellers on their part.

Wednesday, February 8.

The two Houses of Congress, agreeably to the joint resolution, assembled in the Representatives' Chamber, and the certificates of the Electors for the several States were, by the President of the Senate, opened and delivered to the tellers appointed for the purpose, who, having examined and ascertained the number of votes, presented a list thereof to the President of the Senate, which was read, as follows:

The whole number of votes being 175, of which 88 make a majority.

Whereupon the President of the Senate declared James Madison elected President of the United States for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next; and George Clinton Vice President of the United States for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next.

The votes of the Electors were then delivered to the Secretary of the Senate; the two Houses of Congress separated; and the Senate returned to their own Chamber.

On motion, by Mr. Smith of Maryland,

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause to be delivered to James Madison, Esq., of Virginia, now Secretary of State of the United States, a notification of his election to the office of President of the United States; and to be transmitted to George Clinton, Esq., of New York, Vice President elect of the United States, notification of his election to that office; and that the President of the Senate do make out and sign a certificate in the words following, viz:

And that the President of the Senate do cause the certificate aforesaid to be laid before the President of the United States with this resolution.

Tuesday, February 21.

The credentials of Joseph Anderson, appointed a Senator for the State of Tennessee, by the Executive of that State, from and after the expiration of the time limited in his present appointment, until the end of the next session of the Legislature thereof, were presented and read, and ordered to lie on file.

Franking Privilege to Mr. Jefferson.

The bill freeing from postage all letters and packets to Thomas Jefferson was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment having been proposed, on the question, Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time? it was determined in the affirmative.

Non-Intercourse.

Mr. Tiffin, from the committee, reported the bill to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes, correctly engrossed; and the bill was read the third time, and the blanks filled—section three, with the words twentieth and May in two instances.

On motion by Mr. Bradley, the words, "or being pursued by the enemy," were stricken out of the first and third sections, by unanimous consent.

Mr. Lloyd addressed the Senate as follows:

Mr. President: When the resolution on which this bill is founded was brought forward, I had expected it would have been advocated—as a means of preserving peace—as a menace to the belligerents, that a more rigorous course of conduct was about to be adopted towards them, on the part of the United States, provided they continued to persist in their injurious decrees, and Orders in Council—as giving us time to prepare for war—or as a covert, but actual war, against France and Great Britain.

I feel indebted to the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Giles,) for not only having very much narrowed the consideration of this subject, but for the open, candid, and manly ground he has taken, both in support of the resolution and the bill. I understood him to avow, that the effect must be war, and that a war with Great Britain; that, notwithstanding the non-intercourse attached to this bill, the merchants would send their vessels to sea; those vessels would be captured by British cruisers; these captures would be resisted; such resistance would produce war, and that was what he both wished and expected. I agree perfectly with the gentleman, that this is the natural progress, and must be the ultimate effect of the measure; and I am also glad, that neither the honorable Senate nor the people of the United States can entertain any doubts upon the subject.

I understood the gentleman also to say, that this was a result he had long expected. Now, sir, as there have been no recent decrees, or Orders in Council issued, if war has been long looked for, from those now in operation, I know not what excuse those who have the management of our concerns can offer to the people of the United States, for leaving the country in its present exposed, naked, and defenceless situation.

What are our preparations for war? After being together four-fifths of the session, we have extorted a reluctant consent to fit out four frigates. We have also on the stocks, in the navy yard and elsewhere scattered along the coast, from the Mississippi to the Schoodick, one hundred and seventy gunboats, which, during the summer season, and under the influence of gentle western breezes, may, when in commission, make out to navigate some of our bays and rivers, not, however, for any effectual purposes of defence, for I most conscientiously believe, that three stout frigates would destroy the whole of them; and of the enormous expense at which this burlesque naval establishment is kept up, we have had a specimen the present session, by a bill exhibited to the Senate, of eight hundred dollars for medical attendance, on a single gunboat for a single month, at New Orleans. If other expenditures are to be made in this ratio, it requires but few powers of calculation to foretell that, if the gunboats can destroy nothing else, they would soon destroy the public Treasury.

We have also heard of a project for raising fifty thousand volunteers, which has, I believe, been very properly stifled in its birth, and we have appropriated, during the present session, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards the erection, repairing, and completion of our fortifications. A sum about equal to the expenditure of the British Government for six weeks, or two months, on a single fortress in the Province of Canada, and which sum, with us, is to put into a state of defence, against the naval power of Great Britain, an exposed and accessible maritime frontier of two thousand miles in extent!

In contemplating war, it is also proper to advert to the state of the Treasury. Under such[Pg 29] an event, and with any serious preparation for war or actual prosecution of it, the present funds would soon be exhausted. How soon cannot be stated, because the amount of them cannot be accurately ascertained. A part, and a considerable part, of the money now on hand, does not belong to the public. It is the property of the merchants; it is deposited in the Treasury as in a bank, to be checked for, whenever that commerce, which Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, most emphatically says, our country will have, shall be again reopened.

And thus situated, what are the projects offered for replenishing the public coffers in future? It is the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to develop the resources of the nation, and to point out new sources of supply, whenever the usual channels are impeded. He has designated three modes. The first, if executed, embraces, in my view, and I am sorry to say it, a marked violation of the public faith. It is the suggestion of stopping drawbacks on merchandise, which, in many instances, the merchants, from a reliance on the stability of your laws, and the integrity of the Government, have imported expressly for exportation, and not for domestic use or consumption in this country, and which exportation you have prevented them, alike contrary to their inclinations and their interests, from making for a longer period than ever was known or endured in any other nation.

The second project is one which, in my opinion, would do little honor to the genius of any man. It is a sweeping project for doubling, at the moment, the duties on every description of imported merchandise, on which a duty is now payable. Without notice to the merchant, without inquiry, without discrimination, without distinction between the necessaries of the poor man and the luxuries of the rich one; between the indispensable raw materials of the manufacturer and the useless decorations of fashion. By which, bohea tea and Madeira wine, brown sugar and cosmetics, coaches and carpenters tools, are all, by a single stroke of the pen, raised in the same ratio; and a duty of 100 per cent. on the present rates, without favor or affection, equally recommended to be imposed on the whole of them.

The third project is certainly not a novel one; it is simply that of shifting the burden off our own shoulders on to those of our successors: it is that of borrowing money on loans.

I have been, sir, among those who have respected the intelligence and acuteness of the Secretary of the Treasury. I have thought the office very ably filled; nor has my estimation of his talents been diminished from the few personal conferences I have had with him since I have been in this city; but if his fame rested on no firmer a basis than the reports made to Congress the present session, in relation to enforcing the embargo laws, and to our fiscal concerns, then an infant's breath might easily burst the bubble. At any rate, it may very truly be said, that if such are our preparations for commencing, and our resources for continuing a war, they are those which will serve neither to inspirit ourselves, nor to frighten our enemies.

If we are to have war, with whom is it to be prosecuted—not in terms I mean, but in fact? Certainly not with France. Her few possessions in the West Indies have probably, by this time, ceased to belong to her, and between her European territories and the United States a gulf intervenes, a power is interposed, which neither the Emperor of the West nor the King of the two Americas can either fathom or resist.

It then appears, if we are to have war, it is to be a covert war with the two belligerents, but in reality an actual war with Great Britain alone, and not a war with both France and Great Britain, as the face of this bill seems to import.

If this be the determination of our Government, and the war is to commence at a future day, and not instantly, what is the course which policy would dictate to this country to pursue? Certainly not a prohibition of the importation of her manufactures. A long period of years must elapse before we can furnish for ourselves many articles we receive from her even of the first necessity, or those which, from habit, have become such to us. We should, therefore, sedulously endeavor, not only to guard against exhausting our present stock, but to adopt every means in our power to replenish it.

It would be expedient to throw wide open the entrance of our ports for importations, to overstock as much as possible the United States with British manufactures. This would procure for us a double advantage; it would promote our own accommodation, by giving us the means of commencing and prosecuting war with fewer privations, and it would powerfully tend to unite the interests of a certain class of the inhabitants of that country with our own—for, as the mass of importations from Great Britain are made on long credits, should a war ensue before such credits are cancelled, it is obvious that, until the conclusion of the war, those debts could not be collected, and this circumstance alone, to a certain extent, might operate as a preventive check to war, or, at any rate, would secure in the bosom of the British nation a party whose interests and feelings would be intimately connected with a speedy return of peace.

By adopting a non-intercourse antecedent to a state of war, our own stock of supplies becomes exhausted, the British merchants have time and notice given them to collect, or alienate, by assignment, their debts in this country. A warning is given them to buckle on their armor; their good disposition towards us is not only changed, but embittered, and the very persons who, in the one case, might possibly prevent a war, or be instrumental in effecting the restoration of peace, would, in the other, probably be among the most willing to rush into the contest, from the impulse of temper, and[Pg 30] from the conviction that their own circumstances would not be deteriorated by its consequences.

A non-intercourse would also be attended with great hazard and disadvantage. It would be as well understood by others as by ourselves; it could alone be considered as the precursor of war; and the blow would be struck, not when we were prepared, but when our opponents were ready for the contest; and should this bill go into operation, it is very possible that during the ensuing summer, some of our cities may exhibit heaps of ruins and of ashes, before expresses could convene at the seat of Government even the heads of our departments.

Another evil would arise, and that a permanent one; whether a non-intercourse eventuated in war or peace, it would materially and adversely affect both the habits of the people and the revenue of the State. Many of the articles which are now imported from Great Britain are indispensable for our comfort, and some of them for our existence. The people cannot do without them: the consequence must be, that, instead of being regularly imported, the articles will be smuggled into this country, and thereby the price not only becomes greatly enhanced to the consumer, but the duties are wholly lost to the Government.

Hitherto, the revenue of the United States, arising from impost, has been collected with a degree of integrity and punctuality highly honorable and unexampled in the history of commercial nations. This successful collection of duties has not however been effected by the employment of swarms of revenue officers, spies, and informers, as in other countries; it has been infinitely more effectually secured, by an honorable pride of character, and that sentiment of affection which was naturally excited in the hearts of freemen towards the Government of their choice, and a Government under which, in the main, they have experienced much prosperity. But barriers of this description, like other high-toned sentiments of the mind, being once broken down, can with difficulty be restored, and the chance of materially impairing this, in reality, "cheap defence of nations," should, in my opinion, of itself, afford a sufficient reason for the rejection of all measures of doubtful policy.

In a country nearly surrounded by, and everywhere intersected with navigable waters, encompassed by a frontier beyond the ability of ten Bonapartean armies to guard, and inhabited by a race of men unrivalled for hardihood and enterprise, and at present in a state of poverty, the temptation of great prices will be irresistible—for there is no truism in morals or philosophy better established than the commercial axiom, that demand will ultimately furnish a supply.

There are, undoubtedly, periods in the history of a nation, in which a contest would be both honorable and indispensable, but it should ever be the result of great deliberation, and in an extended republic, perhaps, of necessity. That government is most wise and most patriotic, which so conducts the affairs of the nation over which it presides, as to produce the greatest ultimate good; and when a nation is attacked at the same time by two assailants, it is no reflection on its honor or its bravery, to select its opponent; and on principles of reciprocity, independently of those of interest, the first aggressor would undoubtedly be entitled to the first notice.

Who then has been the first aggressor? I answer, France. The Berlin Decree is in a great measure the cause of our present difficulties. In justification of France in doing this, I know gentlemen resort to the convention between Russia and Great Britain in 1793, to prohibit a supply of grain to France; but this is by no means sufficient justification to France, even without referring to a decree to the same effect issued in May of the same year by France, while she was ignorant of the secret stipulation between Russia and Great Britain.

For a long period, and among most of the maritime nations of Europe, the right of inhibiting a supply of provisions to an enemy, was tacitly acquiesced in, or expressly admitted. This practice existed even so long ago as the Mithridatic war, and has probably been followed up, without an interval at any one time of fifty years, from the commencement of the Christian era to the present day. This attempt, therefore, of Great Britain to injure France, formed no excuse for France to attempt to injure Great Britain by violating the commerce of the United States.

On the 31st of December, 1806, the British Government formally notified the American Government, that Great Britain would consider an acquiescence in the Berlin Decree on the part of neutral nations, as giving to her (Great Britain) the right to retaliate in the same way against France.

Had the American Government, at this period, manfully and explicitly made known its determination to support our rights at all hazards, I have no belief that our present difficulties would ever have existed.

In May succeeding, advices were received of French privateers, under this decree, depredating upon American vessels in the West Indies; and during the same month the ship Horizon, in distress, was thrown by the act of God on the French coast, and was seized under the same authority.

In November, 1807, the British, in conformity with their notice, issued their retaliating order. A prior Order in Council of January, 1807, had been issued, but this only affected vessels trading between different ports of France, or between ports of France and her allies; a trade always obnoxious to suspicion, and one which during war must ever be expected in a great degree to be restricted, and which is also interdicted by a standing law of the French Government, passed in 1778, and confirmed by the present Emperor.

[Pg 31]

Then followed in succession, on the part of France, the Milan and Bayonne decrees. The last of which dooms an American vessel to condemnation from the exercise of a right universally acknowledged to belong to belligerents, and one which the neutral has no possibility of preventing, that of being spoken with by an enemy cruiser, which from her superior sailing there was no possibility of avoiding. In point of principle, this is the most outrageous violation of neutral rights ever known, and this, too, took place under the existence of a treaty made within a few years by the same person who issued these very decrees. While with Great Britain we have no treaty, and whose orders are expressly bottomed upon and limited in duration by the French decrees, and issued after having given twelve months' notice of her intention to oppose them in this way, and the Orders in Council are even as yet not co-extensive in principle with the French decrees.

I have, in taking this brief view, confined myself exclusively to the decrees and orders of the two Governments, without adverting to other causes of complaint on either side. I consider myself as warranted in doing this, from the American Government having explicitly taken this ground, and made known that, on the removal of the decrees and orders, it would, on our part, remove the embargo, and restore the accustomed intercourse between the two countries.

From this consideration of the subject, it irresistibly follows, that France was the first aggressor on us, in issuing her decrees—that in point of principle, they are much more outrageous violations of right than the British Orders in Council—that the latter originate from, and co-exist only with the former, and that France should of consequence be the first object of our vengeance.

The effects of a war with one or the other nation, would be as distinctly perceptible. With France it would make no difference to us. For as long as she continues her decrees, commerce with her could not be prosecuted—no man would be mad enough while her coast is lined, and the ocean covered with British cruisers, to send his vessel to France, where she would meet with certain condemnation for being even seen and spoken with by a British frigate. With France, therefore, the actual difference arising from passing this bill, and declaring a non-intercourse, would be next to nothing.

With Great Britain the effects would be reversed. No one now doubts her ability or disposition to carry her orders into effect, nor her preparation to extend the theatre of war. If we commenced war upon France, as she would be the common enemy of both nations, there is no doubt in my mind that our differences with Great Britain would be favorably settled, that the commerce of the world, excepting as it respects France and her allies, would be again open to us, and that a trade, which has hitherto employed nearly seventy millions of our capital, might be again accessible to the industry and enterprise of our citizens.

Reverse this picture, admitting that you have a war with Great Britain, what will be its consequences? If your citizens are united, you can capture Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick; when you have effected this, what remains next to be done? You have reached the ne plus ultra of your ability. Thenceforward your ports are hermetically sealed. Privateering, from the convoy system adopted by Great Britain, could not be successfully prosecuted; no food for enterprise remains, and thus you would remain, five, ten, or fifteen years, as the case might be, until the wisdom and good sense of the nation predominated over its passion, when an accommodation would be made with Great Britain, following her example with regard to her West India conquests, restoring the captured provinces, enriched by American population and industry, and giving us perhaps a treaty still less favorable than the much execrated instrument of 1794, which, bad as it was said to be, has proved a cornucopia of wealth to our country, if it produced nothing less than a thirteen years' peace, and which, to my view, is vastly preferable to its abortive successor of the year eighteen hundred and six.

The question was now taken on the passage of the bill, and determined in the affirmative—yeas 21, nays 12, as follows:

So it was resolved that this bill pass, and that the title thereof be, "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes."

Friday, February 24.

Additional Duties.

The bill, entitled "An act for imposing additional duties upon all goods, wares, and merchandise, imported from any foreign port or place," was read the third time as amended.

Mr. Lloyd moved to postpone the further consideration of this bill until the first Monday in June next; and addressed the chair as follows:

Mr. President: After the observations which I have before made, sir, on this bill, and the detailed consideration which was given to it yesterday, I should not again rise, were the subject not a commercial, and an exceedingly important one; nor is it now my intention to make more than a few remarks, and these the Senate will probably think entitled to more than usual respect, when I inform them they will princi[Pg 32]pally be, neither my own, nor wholly accordant with my opinions.

This bill can only be advocated upon the ground that a war is about to ensue, and that, to prepare the public Treasury to sustain the prosecution of such war, this proposed duty is necessary. My purpose is to cite some authorities to show that neither the one nor the other is either expected or necessary; and the authorities I shall adduce to prove this, are those to which the Senate is accustomed to pay the highest respect.

Now, sir, it is clear, from the showing even of this honorable gentleman whose calculations are received with so much respect here, that whether there is peace, war, or embargo, our resources are yet abundant to carry us on, at least until the next winter; and as we are to meet again in three months, it follows that the present undigested project must be worse than useless.

To all this mass of evidence and authority against both the necessity and policy of laying this duty, I have only to add a few observations to show that it will, in its operation, be both unequal and unjust.

It is well known that permanent duties, except on their first imposition, are paid by the consumer; but whenever duties are to be of short duration, as in the present instance, or until the stocks of merchandise prior to the assessment of the duty are run off, the price does not rise in ratio with the duty, and that, of consequence, the whole, or part of the duty, is thus much of loss to the merchant. This, in a degree, cannot be avoided, nor is it even a subject of complaint, where due notice has been given of the intention to lay the duty; but if it be imposed without notice, or giving time for preparation, then the interest of the merchant is sacrificed.

The basis of all commerce is calculation; what calculation can be found for distant enterprises when the data are perpetually shifting? If a merchant rests on the stability of the laws of the Government, and sends away his vessel, and on her return finds a new duty of 50 per cent. imposed, which, for the circumstance of it, the consumer does not pay, his whole calculations are defeated, and he pockets a loss instead of a profit for his industry.

Commerce is very probably as well understood in England as any where. In that country new duties on imports are imposed with great caution; whenever contemplated, the subject is generally a long time under consideration, sometimes hanging over from one session to another. The Ministry make it a point frequently to consult committees of merchants from most of the principal seaports in the kingdom. The result is, the subject is well considered; and, when the duties are imposed, they are submitted to with cordiality and cheerfulness. Mr. Pitt, in the latter part of his life, always adopted this mode. He did not think it condescension to consult merchants on subjects with which they were better acquainted than himself. In the early part of his administration, I have understood, he rashly imposed some additional and heavy duties on imported merchandise; the consequence was, the revenue diminished, and smuggling increased. With his characteristic vigor he determined to stop it, and lined the coast with luggers, revenue cutters, and frigates; still the revenue did not increase. He consulted the merchants—they told him the articles were taxed beyond their bearing; he manfully retraced his steps, and took off the additional duty—and immediately smuggling did not pay its cost—his luggers, cutters, and frigates, became useless, and the revenue advanced to its ancient standard. This is one among many memorable instances that might be adduced to show that an unwise augmentation of duties is very far from producing an increase of revenue.

There is another view of the subject on which I shall say a few words. This new duty will operate as a bounty to monopolizers, forestallers, and speculators. Gentlemen are not aware of the avidity with which mercantile men have regarded the proceedings of this session. I am told that, within half an hour after the question was taken, about a fortnight since, in the other House, ten expresses started for different parts of the United States. It is notorious that English and West India goods, and most articles of foreign merchandise in the United States, have been bought up by speculators; it is now in the hands of a few persons; by passing this law, you discourage new importations, and enable the present holders to grind the poor, by extorting high prices for the articles they hold, from a want of competition in the market. From all these views of the subject, and from the sentiments I have quoted from the President, Mr. Gallatin, and General Smith, it is apparent that this measure is unwise, unnecessary, and impolitic.

I am unwilling, sir, to take up the time of the Senate; but, however unavailing may be the efforts of my friends and myself, I wish to have it recorded that I was neither ignorant of the very injurious operation of this bill upon my constituents, nor unwilling to endeavor to prevent it. I therefore ask the indulgence of the Senate, that the ayes and noes may be taken when this question is decided.

And on the question, it was determined in the negative—yeas 10, nays 19, as follows:

On motion, by Mr. Smith, of Maryland, the[Pg 33] further consideration of the bill was postponed to Monday next.

Friday, March 3.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House disagree to the first and fourth amendment of the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act further to amend the several acts for the establishment and regulation of the Treasury, War, and Navy Departments, and making appropriations for the support of the Military Establishment and the Navy of the United States for the year 1809;" and they agree to the other amendments to the said bill.

Oath of Office to the President elect.

The President communicated to the Senate the following letter from the President elect of the United States:

Five o'clock in the Evening.

Adjournment.

Mr. Mitchill, from the committee, reported that they had waited on the President of the United States, who informed them that he had no further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that the Senate having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

The Secretary having performed that duty, the Senate adjourned without day.

EXTRA SESSION.

Saturday, March 4.

In conformity with the summons from the President of the United States, the Senate assembled in the Chamber of the House of Representatives.

PRESENT:

• John Milledge, from the State of Georgia, President pro tempore.
• Nicholas Gilman, and Nahum Parker, from New Hampshire.
• Timothy Pickering, from Massachusetts.
• Chauncey Goodrich, from Connecticut.
• Elisha Mathewson, from Rhode Island.
• Stephen R. Bradley, from Vermont.
• John Smith, from New York.
• Aaron Kitchel, from New Jersey.
• Andrew Gregg, from Pennsylvania.
• James A. Bayard, from Delaware.
• Philip Reed, from Maryland.
• William B. Giles, from Virginia.
• James Turner, and Jesse Franklin, from North Carolina.
• Thomas Sumter, and John Gaillard, from South Carolina.
• William H. Crawford, from Georgia.
• Buckner Thruston, and John Pope, from Kentucky.
• Daniel Smith, from Tennessee.
• Edward Tiffin, from Ohio.

John Lambert, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey for six years, and Samuel Smith, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of Maryland, attended, and their credentials were read.

James Lloyd, junior, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, attended, stating that he was elected, but not in possession of his credentials.

Joseph Anderson, from the State of Tennessee; Richard Brent, from the State of Virginia; James Hillhouse, from the State of Connecticut; Michael Leib, from the State of Pennsylvania; Return J. Meigs, from the State of Ohio; Jonathan Robinson, from the State of Vermont; Samuel White, from the State of Delaware, severally attended.

The oath required by law was administered to the Senators above mentioned, in the six years' class, respectively, except to Mr. Brent.

The President of the United States attended, and communicated the following

ADDRESS:

After which, the oath prescribed by law was administered to the President of the United States, by the Chief Justice.

The President of the United States then retired, and the Senate repaired to their own chamber.

Ordered, That Messrs. Anderson and Bayard be a committee to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that the Senate are ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

Monday, March 6.

Francis Malbone, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island, for six years, commencing on the 4th instant, attended, and produced his credentials, which were read.

The credentials of Richard Brent, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Virginia, for six years, commencing on the 4th instant, were read.

The oath required by law was administered to Messrs. Brent and Malbone, respectively.

[Pg 35]

On motion, by Mr. Robinson,

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to pay, out of the contingent fund of this House, to George Thomas, Walter Reynolds, and Tobias Simpson, the sum of fifty dollars each, in addition to their annual compensation.

Mr. Anderson reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the President of the United States, who informed them that he should this day make a communication to the Senate.

Soon after, a communication was received from the President of the United States, submitting sundry nominations to office, which were mostly confirmed.

Tuesday, March 7.

Adjournment.

After the consideration of Executive business, Messrs. Bayard and Reed were appointed a committee to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that, unless he may have any further communications to make to them, the Senate are ready to adjourn.

Mr. Bayard reported, from the committee, that they had waited upon the President of the United States, who informed them that he had no further communications to make to them. Whereupon,

The Senate adjourned without day.

[Pg 36]

TENTH CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION.
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES
IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Monday, November 7, 1808.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present session, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, and took their seats, to wit:

Two new members, to wit: Nathan Wilson, returned to serve in this House as a member for New York, in the room of David Thomas, who hath resigned his seat, and Thomas Gholson, jr., returned to serve as a member from Virginia, in the room of John Claiborne, deceased, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present, a message was received from the Senate, informing the House that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; the Senate have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may be pleased to make to them.

The oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States was then administered to Mr. Nathan Wilson and Mr. Gholson, by Mr. Speaker, according to law.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that a quorum of this House is assembled, and ready to proceed to business; and that the Clerk of this House do go with the said message.

The House proceeded to consider the resolution of the Senate for the appointment of a joint committee of the two Houses to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communication he may be pleased to make to them: Whereupon, the House agreed to the said resolution; and Mr. Macon, Mr. Quincy, and Mr. McCreery, were appointed the committee on their part.

Mr. Macon, from the joint committee ap[Pg 37]pointed to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, reported that the committee had performed that service; and that the President signified to them he would make a communication, in writing, to this House, to-morrow at twelve o'clock, by way of Message.

Tuesday, November 8.

Several other members, to wit: from Pennsylvania, Jacob Richards; from Virginia, Matthew Clay, and Walter Jones; and from South Carolina, Robert Marion, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A new member, to wit, Samuel Shaw, returned to serve in this House as a member from the State of Vermont, in the room of James Witherell, who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have resolved that two Chaplains, of different denominations, be appointed to Congress for the present session, who shall interchange weekly; to which they desire the concurrence of the House.

The House proceeded to consider the foregoing resolution of the Senate, and it was agreed to.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Governor of the State Of Pennsylvania, enclosing a letter to him from Joseph Clay, the Representative for the district composed of the city and county of Philadelphia, and county of Delaware, in the said State, containing his resignation of a seat in this House; also a proclamation of the said Governor, and a certificate of the election of Benjamin Say, to serve as a member for the said district and State, in the room of the said Joseph Clay; which were read, and referred to the Committee of Elections.

Wednesday, November 9.

Another member, to wit, Robert Jenkins, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

The House proceeded in the reading of the documents accompanying the President's Message; which being concluded, on motion of Mr. Dawson, they were referred, together with the Message, to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and ordered to be printed.

On the question as to the number to be printed, it was moved by Mr. Fisk, and seconded by Mr. Dana, that ten thousand copies be printed. Negatived by a considerable majority.

Five thousand copies were then ordered to be printed.

The House was then cleared and the doors closed for the purpose of reading the confidential part of the President's Message.

Thursday, November 10.

Several other members, to wit: from Virginia, Wilson Cary Nicholas and John Randolph; and from North Carolina, James Holland, appeared and took their seats in the House.

The House then proceeded, by ballot, to the appointment of a Chaplain to Congress, for the present session, on the part of the House; and upon examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was found in favor of the Rev. Obadiah Brown.

Friday, November 11.

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Samuel Taggart; and from Maryland, John Campbell, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A new member, to wit, Richard S. Jackson, returned to serve in this House, as a member for the State of Rhode Island, in the room of Nehemiah Knight, deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Monday, November 14.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, Josiah Masters; from Maryland, Philip B. Key; and from North Carolina, Thomas Kenan, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Tuesday, November 15.

Another member, to wit, James Kelly, from Pennsylvania, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, November 16.

Another member, to wit, Roger Nelson, from Maryland, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

A new member, to wit, Benjamin Say, returned to serve in this House as a member from the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of Joseph Clay, who has resigned his seat, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Miranda's Expedition.

Mr. McCreery presented the petition of thirty-six American citizens, confined at Carthagena, in South America, under the sentence of slavery. The petition was read as follows:

Carthagena, August 12, 1808.

Names of British subjects under sentence of transportation at Carthagena.

John Moore, Peter Nautly, John Hayes, Thomas Gill, Joseph Bennett, James Grant, Samuel Tozier, Robert Stevenson, and Hugh Smith, (a boy.)

Territorial Governments.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

Mr. Poindexter, from the committee appointed on the subject, reported a bill concerning the power of the Territorial Governments. [The object of it is to take away from Governors of the Territories the power of proroguing or dissolving their Legislatures.]

The bill was twice read; and

Mr. Poindexter observed, that as the bill must stand or fall on its principle, and could not want amendment, he should wish to dispense with the usual course of reference to a Committee of the Whole, and that it should be engrossed for a third reading.

Mr. Troup hoped the House would not be precipitated unadvisedly into a decision of a question of this kind; that they would not break in upon a system which had served them so well without maturely deliberating upon it. The ordinance for the government of the Territories he considered as constitutional law, and it should be viewed and treated with as much delicacy as the constitution of the General Government itself. It had served them well, it had nurtured the Territories from infancy to maturity, and he hoped the house would not innovate on the system, but for the most substantial reasons. He therefore wished this bill to take the course of all other business, and go to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Poindexter said it was not his object to exclude deliberation by his motion; as the day for its third reading might be fixed a fortnight hence, if the gentleman from Georgia wished it. He knew the difficulty of getting up such bills when committed to a Committee of the Whole; he also knew that in a few days the House would be engaged in great national con[Pg 40]cerns, which would occupy their entire attention to the exclusion of other business of minor importance. The gentlemen seem to think (said Mr. P.) that to leave to the Governors of Territories of the United States powers which are fitted but for the Sovereigns of Europe, is highly decorous; whilst I think they should be spurned from the statute book. The gentleman is mistaken when he says that we should view the ordinances in the same light as the constitution; they are mere statutes. Placed by the constitution under the particular care of Congress as the Territories are, the ordinances enacted for their government are mere statutes, subject to the revision of Congress, as other laws are.

Mr. Pitkin said the ordinances for the government of the Territories had been framed with great deliberation, and should always be considered as a compact between the General Government and its Territories. Whether an alteration could or could not be made without their consent, he would not undertake to say. He thought therefore in this case the usual rule should not be violated, for it was well known that no amendment could be received on the third reading of a bill.

Mr. Troup said the gentleman from the Mississippi Territory had totally mistaken his object. It was not procrastination that he wanted, but a mature consideration of the question, whether on this day or on this day fortnight. When he had considered the ordinance as a compact equally sacred with the constitution of the United States, and as unalterable without the consent of the parties to it, it was then that he considered this a question of such great and signal importance that he wished time for deliberation. And when he said this, he expressed the opinion of a man than whom no man in the country was more deeply read in its constitution—St. George Tucker—who had described it as a compact unalterable, but with the consent of both parties. The gentleman would take away from the Territorial Governors the power to prorogue and dissolve the Assemblies. What would then be the state of the Territorial Legislatures? They would (said Mr. T.) be as completely independent of the General Government as the General Government is, I hope, of Great Britain at this moment. Retain the qualified veto, and take away the power to prorogue and dissolve, and what will be the consequence? The moment a misunderstanding takes place between the Legislature and Executive, legislation is at an end; and where legislation ends, revolution begins, and there is an end of government.

Mr. Poindexter said, at the suggestion of several gentlemen, he should consent to a reference of the bill to a committee, as he did not wish now to hasten the discussion. But the gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that taking away the power to prorogue, would deprive the Governors of their veto on laws. The Governors had an unqualified veto on the acts of the Legislature. The gentleman said, (observed Mr. P.,) that take away the power of prorogation, and if a misunderstanding arise between the Governor and the Legislature, there is an end of legislation. That is now the fact. If there be any misunderstanding between them, the Governor sends the Legislature home; and I agree with the gentleman from Georgia, "where legislation ends, revolution begins." In this situation, I wish to take some power from the Governor and place it in the people, which would render the Government more congenial to the spirit of the constitution and of the people of the United States. But I waive discussion and consent to reference.

The bill was made the order of the day for to-morrow.

Thursday, November 17.

Another member, to wit, Dennis Smelt, from Georgia, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Foreign Relations.

Mr. Macon said, already had many resolutions been submitted to the consideration of the House on the subject of our foreign relations, and the embargo; some for a total and some for a partial repeal of it. As none of the motions had met his entire approbation, and as he considered this as one of the most important questions that could come before the House, he wished to submit to the House two or three propositions; which he wished to take a course different from that which had been given to the others on the same subject.

I have been astonished (said Mr. M.) to see so many resolutions on the subject of the embargo, and none contemplating its entire continuance. Is the American nation ready to bow the neck? Are we ready to submit to be taxed by Great Britain and France, as if we were their colonies? Where is that spirit which for this reason separated us from the nations of Europe? Where is that spirit which enforced a simple resolution of the old Congress, not then binding upon the people, as a law from Heaven? Is it extinct? Is it lost to this nation? Has the love of gain superseded every other motive in the breasts of Americans? Shall the majority govern, or shall a few wicked and abandoned men drive this nation from the ground it has taken? Is it come to this, that a law constitutionally enacted, even after a formal decision in favor of its constitutionality, cannot be enforced? Shall the nation give way to an opposition of a few, and those the most profligate part of the community? I think the stand we took last year was a proper one; and I am for taking every measure for enabling the nation to maintain it. Just as our measure is beginning to operate, just as provisions are becoming scarce in the West Indies and elsewhere, notwithstanding the evasions of our law, we are called upon to repeal it. I should not have made this motion at this time, had it not been for the petition just[Pg 41] presented. When I stand here, sir, charged by a part of the community with being one of "the enemies of the people," notwithstanding I am willing to commit the petition, treating it with that respect which I conceive to be due from us to the prayer of any portion of the people, I wish my sentiments on this subject to be seen.

A proclamation has been issued by one of the belligerents since the passage of our embargo law, sir. Look at it. What says it? Clearance or no clearance, we will receive any neutral vessel into our ports; and, in speaking of neutrals, recollect that there is no nation in the civilized world that has a claim to the title, except ourselves. This proclamation then tells our citizens, "Evade the laws of your country, and we will receive and protect you." This is the plain English of it.

If the mad powers of Europe had entered into compact to injure us as much as they could, they could not have taken a more direct course to it. I consider them both alike, and the measures I would take would place them both on the same footing. I have made my resolutions as general as possible, to give all latitude to the committee.

Mr. M. then read his resolutions as follows:

On the subject of the first of these resolutions (said Mr. M.) it might be proper to interdict the entrance of all armed vessels, although I have confined the interdiction to the belligerents. A certain time might be fixed on which the second should go into operation.

I have thought proper, sir, to bring forward all these resolutions together to show my own opinion on what ought to be done. It is time for those who think the embargo a lawful and proper measure, to come forward and declare it. No other person having as yet thought proper to do it, I have now done it. I believe the embargo was right; that it was right to pass laws to enforce it; and believing this, I feel no hesitation in avowing it. Time has been when the impressment of our seamen was cried out against by a large majority of Congress. Now the cry is, that we will not let them go out and be taken. For if they go out they must be taken. Neither of the two great powers of Europe have shown the least disposition to relax their measures; neither I hope shall we. I believe we have but three alternatives—war, embargo, or submission. The last I discard; this nation never would submit; nor are there many people in it that would. That is out of the question; then, the only question is, whether in the present state of the world, the embargo or war is the best for us? Arm your merchantmen, as has been proposed, send them out, and you have war directly? If we are to have war, I should rather have it openly, and let the nation know that we mean it. I am for the embargo yet. I am told flour is from thirty to fifty dollars a barrel in the West Indies; I am also told that wheat is fourteen shillings sterling a bushel in England. This must have an effect, if adhered to, through Spain and Portugal. France, if she carries her armies into that country, cannot support them. Nor can Spain support her own armies, and at the same time those Great Britain sends there; for where war is waged, almost all agriculture is destroyed; and it only requires firmness in us to force them both by this measure to acknowledge our rights. If I am mistaken in my opinion, I wish that measure to be adopted which may best maintain our rights and independence.

It is not the embargo which causes the pressure on the people. No, sir, it is the orders and decrees of England and France. Take a license from England, and you may trade, but on no other terms. Let an officer of the British fleet visit your vessel, and France will condemn it. These are the things which destroy commerce. The country in which I live feels the measure as much as any; there are agriculturists, and their crops remain unsold; and if they will do without the principal, and resist imposition by withholding their produce, those who make a profit by the freight of our produce, may afford to lose that profit. Can any man tell what would be the consequence of war, in these times? In common war some regard is had to the laws of nations by belligerents, and they fight each other. In the present war the belligerents disregard the laws of nations, and fight every one but one another.

Mr. Quincy said he wished the last resolution to be separated from the first, as the House would be committed by its adoption. Not that he wished to avoid a discussion of that subject, for he wished for nothing so much as that the House would permit them to go into a discussion of the subject in Committee of the Whole. [Mr. Macon consented that the last resolution should lie on the table.] Mr. Q. said he wished to press a discussion on the subject of the embargo; for such was the state of public opinion in the Northern part of the Union, that but one general sentiment prevailed, that the embargo would be immediately raised. Instead of postponing the subject from day to day, he only wished it to come before the House that gentle[Pg 42]men might understand one other, and put an end to the doubts that now existed.

The first and second resolutions offered by Mr. Macon were agreed to without a division. The third was ordered to lie on the table—yeas 78.

Friday, November 18.

Territorial Governments.—Ordinance of 1787.

On motion of Mr. Poindexter, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill concerning Territorial Governments.

The bill having been read—

Mr. Bibb said, that if the House were now called upon for the first time to pass an ordinance for the government of the Territories of the United States, he should attach very little importance to the decision of the present question. But he considered it not now an abstract question of expediency, but as one of great moment, from the circumstances with which it was connected. He denied the right of the House to pass the bill; and if they had not the right, it was surely unnecessary to argue the question on the ground of policy. It would be recollected that the Mississippi Territory was formerly the property of the State of Georgia, and ceded by that State to the United States on certain conditions, one of which was that the ordinance for the government of the Territory Northwest of the Ohio should be the basis of the government of the Mississippi Territory.[2] If this, said he, be one of the conditions of a compact between the United States and Georgia, surely the United States have no right to infringe it without the consent of Georgia; and I, as one of her Representatives, formally protest against the passage of this bill. It may be said that Georgia is very little interested in the abstract question, whether the Governor should or should not have the power of prorogation; but, if a right exists to alter one part of the ordinance without the consent of Georgia, it certainly implies a power to alter it in every part.

Mr. Poindexter said he would state the reasons for which he had introduced the bill, and which would, he hoped, insure it the sanction of the committee. I will, in the first place, said Mr. P., advert to that part of the ordinance which is proposed to be amended by the bill under consideration. In the ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory will be found this article: "The Governor shall have power to prorogue and dissolve the General Assembly, when, in his opinion, it shall be expedient." The bill proposes to take away this power, as being arbitrary and oppressive in the extreme, and incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. This ordinance was passed previous to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and if it had been the subject of consideration subsequent to its adoption, this provision had never been inserted, giving to Governors of Territories a power paramount to any power possessed by the President of the United States. Take away this power and a [Pg 43]Governor will still have left the power of negativing all acts, so that none can pass without his assent; and, being the agent of the General Government, he would give consent to no law incompatible with the interests of the United States.

It has been said that the ordinance cannot be altered without the common consent of the parties to it, and that the State of Georgia must be called upon to give its assent before the Congress can alter it. There are two parts of this ordinance; the first contains the form of government, and the second several articles of compact which are declared unalterable but with common consent. After reciting the form of government, the ordinance says:

[Here follow six articles.] The ordinance declares that which follows the declaration to be unalterable, but by common consent; it follows of consequence that that which precedes the declaration is alterable. Independent of this reasoning, which cannot be refuted, at every session since we have been a Territory, there have been laws passed altering the ordinance in some shape or other. For example, the ordinance requires two judges to hold a court; and, in a variety of instances, Congress has legislated with respect to the form of government of the Territory. I had supposed that the articles of agreement between the United States and Georgia had become obsolete, with respect to the imagined necessity of the consent of Georgia to legislation on the subject of the Territory. It was urged at the last session with all the eloquence which the gentlemen from Georgia are in so great a degree possessed, and disregarded; for it was decided by both Houses that the United States had a right to rule the Territory without the consent of Georgia.

The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall "have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Can an agreement arising from the exercise of this power, supersede the right of exercising the power expressly delegated by the constitution itself? Certainly not.

On the ground of policy I presume that there is no gentleman who will contend that the power of which I wish to deprive the Governors, ought to be retained. The gentleman from Georgia himself says, that if he were about to frame an original ordinance, he would not think of such a power. As the opinion of Judge Tucker has been referred to on one subject, I will refer to it on the subject of prerogative. Let it be recollected, that the power to prorogue and dissolve is one of the highest prerogatives of the King of England: that it crept into the governments of his colonies, and thence into this ordinance, previous to the adoption of the constitution. It now remains for the United States to say, whether they will copy after Great Britain, and because it is a high prerogative, give the Governors of the Territories of the United States the same powers as she gives to her Territorial Governors. I trust it will be expunged.

This is the opinion of Judge Tucker. Is not this sufficient to induce us to take away from Governors this prerogative? Is not this feature modelled after the feature in the Government of England? Certainly; and that it is transferred from her Colonial Government, I can show by the present ordinance for the government of Canada, [to which Mr. P. referred.] It is the same principle, and we have copied it.

I will not object to retain this power, if any gentleman can show any advantage to be gained by it. I will suppose an extreme case; that any of the Territories designed to commit treason, and the Legislature were to pass an act giving it their sanction; (and they have shown less treasonable disposition than some of the elder States, if we may judge from occurrences of a few years past)—could not the Governor put his negative on this law? There could be no such law without his consent. It is therefore entirely unnecessary, in any possible case, to give the Governor the arbitrary power of dissolving the Legislature.

There is a special reason which has operated upon my mind as forcibly as the general reason in favor of the bill on the table. In the Territory which I have the honor to represent, we have been nearly twelve months without any Legislature. The Governor thought proper to dissolve the Assembly without any reason given, for the ordinance does not bind him to assign reasons for his acts. Within a few days, a new Council has been chosen, which may again be dissolved as soon as it meets, and the Territory again left without a Legislature, and no reason assigned for the procedure. Is it possible that this Government will sanction such arbitrary practices? If it does, it will be the first case since the Revolution in which such a procedure has been sanctioned. I beg leave to refer gentlemen to the glorious year 1776. I beg them to revert to that instrument, in which all the sins of our political father, George III., were delineated, and they will find that one of the charges against him was that he permitted his Governors to dissolve the Legislatures from time to time. Are we prepared to ingraft these arbitrary principles into our constitution, and cherish them when practised in so arbitrary a manner? Instead of this ordinance being[Pg 44] passed with deliberation, it must have passed originally sub silentio, and been adopted for all the new Territories without any discussion at all; for, if the principle had been investigated, it would never have been enacted into a law. In the Declaration of Independence it is stated that "he (George III.) has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people." Here we see that, at that day, we complained of the arbitrary exercise of power, and I hope that, at this day, we shall give it a death-blow. If any gentleman wishes to retain it, let him show a single possible case in which it can properly be exercised—never, but to gratify the ambition or caprice of an individual. The people elect Representatives and send them to legislate; if they do not please the Governor, he can say, "gentlemen, go to your homes—I dissolve you." Can there be any necessity for this? But I will not detain the House longer, except to express a hope that the committee will not rise, unless it be to report the bill.

Mr. Troup said he would state, in as few words as he could, his objections to the passage of the bill. It was only the day before yesterday that this bill had been introduced into the House, proposing to alter one part of the ordinance. To-day, a petition came from another territory to alter another part of it. Before they adjourned, it was ten thousand to one that not a remnant of the ordinance would be left, with their good will.

I have before stated it as my opinion, said he, that the articles of the ordinance are a compact between the people of the States and of the territories, unalterable but with the consent of both parties. With the permission of the House, I will read the opinion of Judge Tucker on this subject:

In this case there are not only two but three parties to the articles—the United States, the State of Georgia, and the people of the Territories. You will recollect, as my colleague properly stated to you, that the right of soil and jurisdiction of this territory was originally in the people of Georgia. Of course Georgia had power to prescribe for the territory what form of government she pleased, provided it was republican. By the articles of cession, the right of soil and jurisdiction was ceded to the people of the United States, on the express condition that the articles of the ordinance should form the government of the Mississippi Territory, and that they should not be governed otherwise. The inference inevitably is, that the State of Georgia would not have ceded but upon the express condition; and this inference is the more inevitable, inasmuch as, in this clause, Georgia has made an express exception to a particular article in the ordinance;[3] from which, I say that Georgia intended that no other alteration should be made.

What was the policy of the ordinance, and what the object of its framers? Why, assuredly, to render the governments of the Territories dependent on the Government of the United States. And how was it to be effected? By making the Territorial Legislature in a great degree dependent on the Governor, and him absolutely dependent on the Federal Executive. The moment we make the Legislature of a Territory independent of its Executive, we make it independent of the Federal Government.

And again, as my colleague has correctly told you, if you have a right to repeal one part of the ordinance, you have a right to repeal another part, and so overturn the whole system at a blow. If so, what will be the effect on the articles of cession and agreement between you and Georgia? I will tell you. By the articles of cession you reserve to yourself the right of disposing of the territory; you also agree to pay Georgia one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars out of the product of the first sales of the land. Suppose you transferred to the independent Legislature of the Mississippi Territory the right to dispose of this Territory, what security has Georgia for the payment of her one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars? Moreover, I feel every disposition to treat with respect the people of the Mississippi Territory, and particularly as I perceive that they approve of that course of our Government, in which I most heartily concur; yet I must say that a large majority of the people have a landed interest distinct from that of the Government of the United States. Take away from the Governor his power to prorogue and dissolve, leave him the veto, and there will soon be collision. The Legislature passes an act; the Governor puts his veto on it. The Legislature stands out, and the Governor will not yield, and eventually you may, perhaps, have to decide the question of territorial property by the sword. Recollect, that upward of six thousand people have gone over in the present year, with every apparent intention to force a settlement against your interest and that of Georgia. I am very glad that the military have received orders to disperse them. I trust that they will be dispersed, and that every man who stands forth in resistance will be put to the sword.

But the gentleman from Mississippi Territory[Pg 45] is certainly mistaken as to one point. He seems to consider the Constitution of the United States as giving to the people of the Territories the same rights as the people of the States. It is a mistaken idea, neither warranted by the letter or spirit of the constitution. For although the constitution has declared that the people of one State are entitled to all the rights and privileges of another, yet it has not declared that the people of the Territories have the same rights as the people of the States. In another part of the constitution it is, indeed, expressly declared that Congress shall make all laws for the disposal of the Territories; but there is a salvo, that all acts done and contracts made previous to the adoption of the constitution, shall be as binding as if done afterward. The articles of the ordinance were enacted previously, and are consequently binding under the constitution. It cannot be controverted, that they were wisely adopted, and have been salutary in their operation. They were framed by the Congress of '87, composed of men whose integrity was incorruptible, and judgment almost infallible. These articles, from that time to this, have remained unaltered, and carried the Territories through difficulties, almost insuperable, to prosperity. And now, for the first or second time, an alteration is proposed, the consequence of which cannot be foreseen, without any evidence that it is either necessary or expedient.

The population of every new country must necessarily be composed of a heterogeneous mixture of various tempers, characters, and interests. In a population thus composed, it would be highly ridiculous to expect that love of order and obedience to law would always predominate. Therefore the old Congress wisely reserved to itself the right to control them; to give the Governor power, when a Legislature became disorderly, to dissolve them; and for the exercise of this power he is accountable to the General Government.

The gentleman from Mississippi wishes us not to treat the Territories as children, whose wild extravagances may require correcting by the indulgent hand of their parents, but as the equals of the States, without any other reason than that which he states to be the situation of the people of his Territory. They will next wish us to admit them into the Union before their population will authorize it; tell us that that Territory does not grow fast enough, and we must demolish the system for their convenience.

Mr. T. adverted to the representation made by Mr. Poindexter, of the state of things now existing in the Mississippi Territory. If such were the situation of the Territory, and Mr. T. said he sincerely regretted it, he could put the gentleman in a way of settling the dispute in a regular and constitutional way, and which would be the most prudent and advisable. Certainly, in this dispute, one of the parties must be right and the other wrong. They had nothing to do but prefer their complaints before the proper authority, and, if they were there substantiated, they would obtain redress of their wrongs. If, on the contrary, the people were wrong and the Governor right, the wisdom of this part of the ordinance would be proved beyond question.

Mr. Poindexter observed that the gentleman from Georgia had set out with telling the House that if the Legislature were made independent of the Governor, they could pass any law they pleased respecting land titles. The gentleman could not have looked at the ordinance, for there was an express provision that the Legislature should "never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil," &c. Independent of this, it is control sufficient if the Governor have a veto on the laws. The gentleman has told you, said Mr. P., that these articles are unalterable but with common consent. When up before, I read that part which is unalterable. It is the articles of ordinance and not the form of government; and to this Judge Tucker refers when he speaks of it. The gentleman has said, that the situation of the people would not be bettered by taking away the power, if the veto were left. In my opinion it would be ameliorated. Let the Governor retain his veto, but let them remain in session, and pass laws, that the General Government may see whether such laws are worthy of rejection or of approbation. Now, if the Governor discovers them about to pass a law or do an act he does not like, he sends them home. Lop off a little of this Executive power, and let the Legislature pass laws which he may negative, and the General Government will have an opportunity of seeing that the Governor will not consent to proper laws. Trust your Executive and distrust the people, and you sap the foundation of the Government. Whatever leads to the conclusion that the people are always wrong and the Executive right, strikes at the root of republican institutions.

The gentleman has spoken of the wildness and extravagance of the people of the Mississippi Territory. Does he recollect the invasion of the Spaniards two years ago? That, at a few days' notice, at the requisition of the Commander-in-chief, a detachment of two hundred and fifty militia were sixty miles on their march? When an arch traitor from the East designed to sever the Union, the people of the Territory, without call, assembled near the city of Natchez, and arrested the traitor. These proceedings cannot be exceeded even by the spirit or prudence of the State of Georgia. I hope the indignation of this House will be displayed at these insinuations against the motives of people who have manifested the greatest patriotism. In respect to the late measures of the General Government, no people feel them more severely than the people of Mississippi, and no people better support them. There may be symptoms of wildness and extravagance, but they show a submission to the laws and measures of the Union.

[Pg 46]

The gentleman talks of tender parents. If he considers the State of Georgia as one of our tender parents, I protest against it. Although she be one of our parents, there has been no proposition ever made on this floor, for the good of the Territory, which has not met the opposition of that State. But these are subjects on which I will not dwell.

The gentleman has stated that a number of people have gone over to the Mississippi Territory to settle lands, against the express provisions of the law. That, under the pretext of a purchase from an Indian, named Double Head, people have gone over to settle lands, is true; but from where? From Georgia. They are citizens of Georgia; people nurtured by this tender parent into a state of manhood, and unwilling to participate longer in the tender cares of the State of Georgia. They have been, very properly, ordered to be driven off by military force, because they have infringed a law of the United States. But these things do not touch the present question. I now propose to take away a power which has been, by mistake, incorporated into the constitution of a free people.

Mr. Bib said that the State of Georgia had never undertaken to legislate for the Mississippi Territory; but there was a compact existing between the United States and Georgia, and he called upon the United States to adhere to it. They dared not violate it, except they could violate the most solemn compact—the constitution.

Mr. Troup observed that it had been said this power of the Governor was a badge of slavery copied from the British Constitution. That in many things they had been copied too far, he agreed; but as to this prerogative, it was no such badge of slavery, and was found not only in the articles of the ordinance, but in the constitutions of various States, qualified in a greater or less degree. Mr. T. quoted the constitutions of New York and Massachusetts, both which States had been considered republican. Massachusetts, to be sure, was a little wavering now, but he hoped she had not quite gone over to the enemy yet. These constitutions gave a qualified prerogative to the Governor of the State.

The committee now rose—58 to 36.

Mr. Troup moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed indefinitely—[equivalent to rejection.]

Mr. Poindexter calling for the yeas and nays on the motion, it was decided—yeas 57, nays 52, as follows:

So the bill was postponed indefinitely.

Monday, November 21.

Another member, to wit, John Boyle, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Naturalized British Subjects.

Mr. Howard presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the State of Kentucky, stating that the King of Great Britain having, by his proclamation of the sixteenth of October, one thousand eight hundred and seven, claimed the allegiance of all persons who may have been born in his dominions, and were not inhabitants of the United States of America at the period of their Revolution, and disregarding the laws of naturalization in other countries, hath authorized the impressment into his service of his pretended subjects, and treated as traitors such as may have taken up arms against him in the service of their adopted country; the petitioners being, at the present time, precluded from the privilege of following commercial pursuits on the high seas in safety, therefore pray that such measures be adopted by Congress as may effectually resist the unjust assumption of power claimed and exercised by a foreign nation; and pledging themselves to support with their lives and fortunes whatever steps may be taken, or acts passed, by the General Government, for the welfare of the Union.—Referred to Mr. Howard, Mr. John Morrow, and Mr. Harris, to examine the matter thereof, and report their opinion thereupon to the House.

Miranda's Expedition.

Mr. Love, from the committee to whom was referred, on the sixteenth instant, the petition of thirty-six citizens of the United States now con[Pg 47]fined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery, made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered to be referred to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

The report is as follows:

Tuesday, November 22.

Two other members, to wit: from New York, Philip Van Cortlandt, and from South Carolina, Richard Wynn, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Additional Revenue Cutters.

Mr. Newton called for the order of the day on the bill authorizing the President to employ twelve additional revenue cutters.

The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole,

Mr. Newton rose to state that the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures had understood, from the proper authorities, there was a necessity for the proper execution of the revenue laws, that the force under the direction of the Treasury Department should be considerably increased.

Mr. Dana inquired whether any written information touching the necessity there might be for twelve revenue cutters had been received by the committee—any letter from the Secretary of the Treasury? He thought it was necessary, if so, that it should be submitted to the House.

Mr. Newton replied that there had been no written communication from the proper Department to the committee. They had not thought it essential, having also understood that the Secretary of the Treasury was particularly occupied. However, he had taken the shortest method, by waiting upon the Secretary himself, and had received the information before alluded to. He had understood that the probable expense of each cutter would be about $10,000,[Pg 48] or $120,000 for the whole, each cutter to carry about twenty men.

Mr. Quincy thought that the correct mode of proceeding would require other than mere verbal information. Respect for themselves should induce gentlemen not to act without official communication upon the subject. They could not, upon any other conditions, agree to so great an augmentation of the force under the direction of the Treasury Department. There had, heretofore, been but ten cutters employed. There were never more than ten when commerce was at its height and the revenue flourishing. But now, the House was called upon to vote twelve additional cutters, when we are without revenue, without commerce, and there is no information of an official nature before the House upon which it might act.

Mr. Newton could not see that it was of any consequence to the House, whether there had been a written communication to it upon the subject, so that the information came through the proper organ, from the proper authority. It was necessary, in times of difficulty like the present, to act with spirit and promptitude. The laws should be executed with the greatest strictness; and it was always wise to take time by the forelock.

Mr. Blackledge said that the expense of building the cutters would be defrayed by the detection of goods attempted to be smuggled. There had already been many condemnations. They were taking place every day. And it was to support the laws that these cutters had been called for.

On the motion of Mr. Newton, that the committee rise and report the bill, it was carried—yeas 47, nays 46.

Thursday, November 24.

Another member, to wit, Barent Gardenier, from New York, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Monday, November 28.

Another member, to wit, Matthew Lyon, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Foreign Relations.

On the motion of Mr. Campbell, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of the committee on the subject of our foreign relations.

The first resolution, in the following words, having been read:

Mr. Campbell opened the debate. He said that ill health had hitherto prevented and might hereafter prevent him from giving that attention to the subject which the all-important crisis would seem to require; it was, however, his duty to bring the subject before the House. The committee having in their report presented to the House the view in which they had considered the subject referred to them, and the reasons generally which induced them to present these resolutions to the House, he said it was not his intention at this time to enter into a discussion of their merits. Those reasons had been deemed sufficient by the committee to justify them in presenting these resolutions to the House; and as the objections to this, if any there were, could not be foreseen, he would not attempt to anticipate them. According to the view which he himself had taken of the first resolution, it could require no discussion, it was too clear to require demonstration, and too self-evident to need proof of its propriety. It might indeed seem to require an apology from the committee for presenting a proposition which every American must long since have determined for himself. When the question had been first presented to his consideration, it had appeared to him that it was totally superfluous, and to be doing little more than announcing to the world that the United States were still independent; but on further consideration, it had been deemed by the select committee of some importance that in the present critical situation of the United States, they should fix on some point at which all would meet. After a perusal of the documents laid before the House at the opening of the session, Mr. C. said it had been supposed that no one would hesitate in declaring his indignation at the flagrant violations and encroachments on our rights by the belligerent powers, while it had been supposed that some difference of opinion might exist as to the mode of resistance. After it was once determined that they would not submit, that they would repel aggression, it had been supposed that they might, with greater probability of unanimity, discuss the course proper to be pursued. With a view to this the committee had presented this resolution to the House. It was expected that all would unite in it and prove to the world that the Representatives of every portion of the American people were determined to maintain their rights, for the belligerent powers really seemed to suppose that the American people had forgotten them, and had therefore assumed the right of prescribing the course of conduct which we should pursue. To submit to regulations of foreign powers, which limited the conduct of the American people, and prescribed the rules by which they were to be governed, which pointed out the very ports to which they should or should not go, which fixed the tribute or tax which they should pay, would be not only to abandon their dignity and honor, but to surrender, shamefully surrender our independence. Mr. C. said he would not take up the time of the committee in showing that the Orders of Council of Great Britain and the Decrees of France, were, on the part of those nations, an assumption of power[Pg 49] to give laws to this country, in direct violation of our neutral rights, and an encroachment on our sovereignty. This would require no argument. The real question is, said he, shall we govern ourselves or be controlled by the will of others; shall we become tributary or not, shall we submit or be independent? And to the committee he cheerfully left the decision of this question.

Mr. Mumford next addressed the Committee of the Whole. He observed, that although he had the honor of being one of the Committee of Foreign Relations, who framed the report under consideration, he dissented from that report in some respects. We had now arrived at a momentous crisis in the affairs of our country, and he hoped the House would deliberate with that firmness and moderation which became the Representatives of the free and independent people they had the honor to represent on this all interesting concern. However they might differ on smaller points of minor importance, yet when the best interest of the country was at stake, he hoped they would unite in some mode to secure our rights and promote the interests of the United States. The proposition which he had the honor to move a few days ago, was consonant in some degree to the instructions offered by our Ministers to Great Britain and France, offering to remove the embargo in relation to either that should rescind their obnoxious decrees. Neither of them having receded, Mr. M. said he would continue the embargo in relation to them both. Nay, further, he would inflict the severest penalties on any one who should receive a license or voluntarily pay tribute to either of them. He considered them both alike. He wished to see the country placed in a complete posture of defence; but he could not see any good reason why we should not trade with those nations who were willing to receive us on friendly terms, and to trade with us on the principles of reciprocity and mutual interests. This would not compromit the honor of the nation. Even admitting that it might possibly lead to war, which he doubted, he was convinced that the citizens of this country would rise en masse in support of that commerce which neither France nor England had any right to interdict. He did presume, with all the zeal of some gentlemen for irritating measures, it was not seriously contemplated to declare war against all mankind; he was for having at least a few friends in case of need. What was our situation now? The President of the United States had told them, after speaking of France and England, that "our relations with the other powers of Europe had undergone no material change since the last session." This being the case, our commerce was open with them all except France and Great Britain and their dependencies.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Chairman, I am not, in general, a friend to abstract legislation. Ostentatious declaration of general principles is so often the resort of weakness and of ignorance, it is so frequently the subterfuge of men who are willing to amuse, or who mean to delude the people, that it is with great reluctance I yield to such a course my sanction.

If, however, a formal denunciation of a determination to perform one of the most common and undeniable of national duties, be deemed by a majority of this House essential to their character, or to the attainment of public confidence, I am willing to admit that the one now offered is as unexceptionable as any it would be likely to propose.

In this view, however, I lay wholly out of sight the report of the committee by which it is accompanied and introduced. The course advocated in that report is, in my opinion, loathsome; the spirit it breathes disgraceful; the temper it is likely to inspire neither calculated to regain the rights we have lost, nor to preserve those which remain to us. It is an established maxim, that in adopting a resolution offered by a committee in this House, no member is pledged to support the reasoning, or made sponsor for the facts which they have seen fit to insert in it. I exercise, therefore, a common right, when I subscribe to the resolution, not on the principles of the committee, but on those which obviously result from its terms, and are the plain meaning of its expressions.

I agree to this resolution, because, in my apprehension, it offers a solemn pledge to this nation—a pledge not to be mistaken, and not to be evaded—that the present system of public measures shall be totally abandoned. Adopt it, and there is an end of the policy of deserting our rights, under pretence of maintaining them. Adopt it, and we can no longer yield, at the beck of haughty belligerents, the right of navigating the ocean, that choice inheritance bequeathed to us by our fathers. Adopt it, and there is a termination of that base and abject submission, by which this country has for these eleven months been disgraced, and brought to the brink of ruin.

That the natural import and necessary implication of the terms of this resolution are such as I have suggested, will be apparent from a very transient consideration. What do its terms necessarily include? They contain an assertion and a pledge. The assertion is, that the edicts of Great Britain and France are contrary to our rights, honor, and independence. The pledge is, that we will not submit to them.

Concerning the assertion contained in this resolution I would say nothing, were it not that I fear those who have so long been in the habit of looking at the orders and decrees of foreign powers as the measure of the rights of our own citizens, and been accustomed, in direct subserviency to them, of prohibiting commerce altogether, might apprehend that there was some lurking danger in such an assertion. They may be assured there can be nothing more harmless. Neither Great Britain nor France[Pg 50] ever pretended that those edicts were consistent with American rights; on the contrary, both these nations ground those edicts on the principle of imperious necessity, which admits the injustice done at the very instant of executing the act of oppression. No gentleman need to have any difficulty in screwing his courage up to this assertion. Neither of the belligerents will contradict it. Mr. Turreau and Mr. Erskine will both of them countersign the declaration to-morrow.

With respect to the pledge contained in this resolution, understood according to its true import, it is a glorious one. It opens new prospects. It promises a change in the disposition of this House. It is a solemn assurance to the nation that it will no longer submit to these edicts. It remains for us, therefore, to consider what submission is, and what the pledge not to submit implies.

One man submits to the order, decree, or edict of another, when he does that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands; or when he omits to do that thing which such order, decree, or edict prohibits. This, then, is submission. It is to take the will of another as the measure of our rights. It is to yield to his power—to go where he directs, or to refrain from going where he forbids us.

If this be submission, then the pledge not to submit implies the reverse of all this. It is a solemn declaration that we will not do that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands, or that we will do what it prohibits. This, then, is freedom. This is honor. This is independence. It consists in taking the nature of things, and not the will of another, as the measure of our rights. What God and Nature has offered us we will enjoy, in despite of the commands, regardless of the menaces of iniquitous power.

Let us apply these correct and undeniable principles to the edicts of Great Britain and France, and the consequent abandonment of the ocean by the American Government. The decrees of France prohibit us from trading with Great Britain. The orders of Great Britain prohibit us from trading with France. And what do we? Why, in direct subserviency to the edicts of each, we prohibit our citizens from trading with either. We do more; as if unqualified submission was not humiliating enough, we descend to an act of supererogation in servility; we abandon trade altogether; we not only refrain from that particular trade which their respective edicts prescribe, but, lest the ingenuity of our merchants should enable them to evade their operations, to make submission doubly sure, the American Government virtually re-enact the edicts of the belligerents, and abandon all the trade which, notwithstanding the practical effects of their edicts, remain to us. The same conclusion will result, if we consider our embargo in relation to the objects of this belligerent policy. France, by her edicts, would compress Great Britain by destroying her commerce and cutting off her supplies. All the continent of Europe, in the hand of Bonaparte, is made subservient to this policy. The embargo law of the United States, in its operation, is a union with this continental coalition against British commerce, at the very moment most auspicious to its success. Can any thing be more in direct subserviency to the views of the French Emperor? If we consider the orders of Great Britain, the result will be the same. I proceed at present on the supposition of a perfect impartiality in our Administration towards both belligerents, so far as relates to the embargo law. Great Britain had two objects in issuing her orders. First, to excite discontent in the people of the continent, by depriving them of their accustomed colonial supplies. Second, to secure to herself that commerce of which she deprived neutrals. Our embargo co-operates with the British views in both respects. By our dereliction of the ocean, the continent is much more deprived of the advantages of commerce than it would be possible for the British navy to effect, and by removing our competition, all the commerce of the continent which can be forced is wholly left to be reaped by Great Britain. The language of each sovereign is in direct conformity to these ideas. Napoleon tells the American Minister, virtually, that we are very good Americans; that, although he will not allow the property he has in his hands to escape him, nor desist from burning and capturing our vessels on every occasion, yet that he is, thus far, satisfied with our co-operation. And what is the language of George the Third, when our Minister presents to his consideration the embargo laws? Is it Le Roi s'avisera? The King will reflect upon them. No; it is the pure language of royal approbation, Le Roi le veut. The King wills it. Were you colonies he could expect no more. His subjects as inevitably get that commerce which you abandon as the water will certainly run into the only channel which remains after all the others are obstructed. In whatever point of view we consider these embargo laws in relation to these edicts and decrees, we shall find them co-operating with each belligerent in its policy. In this way, I grant, our conduct may be impartial; but what has become of our American rights to navigate the ocean? They are abandoned, in strict conformity to the decrees of both belligerents. This resolution declares that we shall no longer submit to such degrading humiliations. Little as I relish, I will take it, as the harbinger of a new day—the pledge of a new system of measures.

Wednesday, November 30.

Foreign Relations.

Mr. Richard M. Johnson.—I am more than astonished to see this House inundated by every mail with publications, from the East, declaring that we have no cause of complaint[Pg 51] against Great Britain; that we should rescind the proclamation of interdict against British armed vessels; that we should repeal the non-importation law; that the embargo should be taken off as to Great Britain; that we should go to war with France; that punctilio prevents a settlement of our differences with Great Britain; inviting the people to violate and disregard the embargo, to put the laws and the constitution at defiance, and rise in rebellion.

These considerations induced me to examine this matter, and to prove to every honest American, what we all believe in this place, that the object of one power, is to destroy our neutrality and involve us in the convulsing wars of Europe; and the object of the other, a monopoly of our commerce, and the destruction of our freedom and independence. Let evidence as conclusive as holy writ put the enemies of this insulted country to shame. We are informed by our Minister in London, (Mr. Monroe,) in a communication dated August, 1807, that a war party of powerful combination and influence existed in Great Britain, who wanted to extend their ravages to this country; that we could not make calculations upon the justice of Great Britain; that in her many assumptions of power and principle she would yield but from the absolute necessity. Who is this war party? The British navy, to whom we have opened our ports, and extended all the hospitalities of a generous nation; while in the enjoyment of which that very navy waged war against our unoffending citizens. The ship owners, the East and West India merchants, and what cause have they for war? The enterprising citizens of the United States have been their rivals and superiors in a lawful and profitable commerce; and, lastly, political characters of high consideration. These compose this war party. In January, 1804, in an official communication of Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe is charged with the suppression of impressment as his primary object; 2d, the definition of blockade; 3d, the reduction of the list of contraband; 4th, the enlargement of our trade with hostile colonies. The negotiation opens, and what is done? With industry and exertion our Minister was unable to bring the British Cabinet to any amicable arrangement. Lords Hawkesbury, Harrowby, Mulgrave, and Mr. Fox, succeeded each other, and every attempt to negotiate was in vain. Each of them brings expressions of good will and good disposition towards the United States, and a wish for amicable arrangement. But these professions and dispositions evaporate in invitations to the country and the city—in promises and procrastinations. To-day we are amused with a conversation at the foreign office, which animates with a lively hope—to-morrow hope is swallowed up in despair—and the third day announces some new injury. Affairs on the continent now call the attention of the British Ministry, and with every disposition of good will there must be a pause. In this amicable pause business required that our Minister should go to Old Spain; but upon his return to England, what astonishment seized his mind at the sad spectacle the changing scenes presented. Under the old rule of '56, and other interpolations upon public law, our merchant vessels are swept from the bosom of the ocean without notice, by British cruisers, and carried into British ports for condemnation. But why this change? A coalition had been formed in the North against France. British gold effected it. Russia and Austria had combined against France, and here the hopes of England rested.

But we all know her hopes were blasted. This is the reason why the blow was aimed, and your commerce sacrificed. The remonstrances of our Minister could not keep pace with new aggressions. This temporizing policy of England, and the destruction of our commerce, buried party spirit in America for the moment, and produced an indignant protest against her conduct from the great commercial cities in the Union, in which their lives and their property were pledged to support the Government in measures of just retaliation. And on this occasion the merchants of Boston requested the President to send a special Envoy to England, to give a greater solemnity to our claims of indemnity and future security. The cause of the merchants became a common cause, and the non-importation law was enacted, and Mr. Pinkney sent as a special Minister, agreeably to request. Let the commercial interest cease to complain. It is for them principally that we now suffer. These deeply-inflicted wounds upon the commerce of America, ingulfed for a moment the consideration of the primary object of Mr. Monroe's mission—the impressment of seamen—and it would seem, that when our Minister pressed one great subject of complaint, some greater outrage was committed to draw our attention from the former injury. Thus the unavailing exertions of our Minister for upwards of two years at the Court of St. James, eventuated in an extraordinary mission, and the non-importation law; a measure of retaliation, and which rendered us less dependent upon a foreign Government for such articles as can be manufactured at home. To bring further evidence of British hostility, let us attend a little to the Administration of Mr. Fox. He came into office about the 1st of February. On the 31st of May, information was received in London of the extra mission of Mr. Pinkney. Mr. Monroe, therefore, had an opportunity of about four months with Mr. Fox to settle our differences, without any interruption, not even the ideal one which has been suggested, as giving a temporary stay to the negotiation, viz: the waiting the arrival of Mr. Pinkney. The United States had a right to expect something like justice from this able Minister, because he entertained a sincere desire to conciliate the friendship of this nation by acts of justice. But in this just expectation we were disappointed. The hostility of other members of the Cabinet with whom he was associat[Pg 52]ed, was the real cause of difficulty, joined perhaps with his sudden indisposition and death. Mr. Fox acknowledged our right to the colonial trade; he promised to stop the capture and condemnation of our merchant vessels; but when pressed to answer our complaints in writing, he promised, but broke that promise, and ultimately refused to give any orders with respect to the capture and condemnation of our vessels. Thus the golden apple was presented to our grasp, and then snatched forever from our sight.

Now let the committee attend to the chapter of negotiation, which produced the rejected treaty. First, the subject of blockade is proposed, and a definition demanded. We denied the doctrine of paper breastworks, spurious and illegitimate blockades, to be executed in every sea by the British Navy, of which our neutral rights were the victims. Such as the blockade of the coast of Europe from the Elbe to Brest, of the Elbe, the Weiser and Ems. The whole coast of Old Spain, of the Dardanelles, and Smyrna, and of Curaçoa. Upon this subject, Great Britain would yield nothing.

2. No duty can be laid upon American exports, but Great Britain imposes a duty of four per cent. upon her exports to the United States, under the name of a convoy duty; by which duty the citizens of the United States pay to Great Britain an annual amount of $1,300,000; but upon this unfriendly discrimination she will yield nothing.

3. Upon the search of merchant vessels she would yield nothing.

4. Upon the colonial trade she imposed new restrictions. She would yield nothing; a trade which produced the United States revenue to the amount of $1,300,000 per annum; and furnished exports from the United States of $50,000,000 annually.

5. Upon the West India trade she would yield nothing, and upon the East India trade she imposed new restrictions.

6. Upon the impressment of seamen, the subject was too delicate; she was fighting for her existence; she would yield nothing.

7. Upon the mutual navigation of the St. Lawrence, so important to the Northern States, they would yield nothing; but would demand a monopoly of the fur trade, and influence over the Indians within our own limits. Thus ended the chapter of negotiation.

I turn with indignation from this to a new species of injury, involving the events connected with and preceding the President's proclamation interdicting the armed vessels of Great Britain from our waters. I allude to the conduct of the officers of the British navy, and the evident connivance of the British Government. I will only mention three prominent cases:

1st. The Cambrian, and other British cruisers, commanded by Captain Bradley, who entered the port of New York, and in defiance of the Government arrested a merchant vessel, and impressed into the ships of war a number of seamen and passengers, refused to surrender them upon demand, and resisted the officers, served with regular process of law for the purpose of arresting the offenders.

2d. The case of the Leander, Capt. Whitby, with other British armed vessels, hovering about New York, vexing the trade of that port, arresting a coasting vessel of the United States by firing a cannon, which entered the vessel and killed John Pierce. The murder of Pierce, a fact so notorious, could not be proved in a sham trial in England, though the most unexceptionable characters are sent as witnesses from the United States; and not even an explanation is made to satisfy this country for the murder of a citizen. Call upon the citizens of New York, who saw the body of their slaughtered countryman; ask the mourning relatives of the murdered Pierce, whether he was slain or not! But from this tragic scene we must turn to one of a deeper hue.

3d. The attack upon the Chesapeake. This vessel had just left the shores of Virginia, leaving the British ship of war, the Leopard, enjoying the hospitalities of our laws. The Chesapeake was bound to the Mediterranean in defence of our rights. One hundred and seventy American tars were on board, who had undertaken this honorable enterprise. Unsuspicious of harm, while their rough cheeks were bedewed with tears in parting from their friends and country, their powder-horns empty, rods mislaid, wads too large, guns not primed—all was confusion. In this unhappy moment the messenger of death comes. The unfortunate Barron refuses to permit his men to be mustered by any but an American officer. His Government had given the command. This is the provocation. The vessel is attacked, and, without resistance, eight are wounded, three are killed, and four taken and carried into British service, one of whom has been hung as a malefactor in Nova Scotia. It has been said that the Goddess of Liberty was born of the ocean. At this solemn crisis, when the blood of these American seamen mingled with the waves, then this sea nymph arose indignant from the angry billows, and, like a redeeming spirit, kindled in every bosom indignation and resentment. A nation of patriots have expressed their resentment, and the sound has reached the utmost bounds of the habitable world. Let a reasoning world judge whether the President's proclamation was too strong for this state of things, and whether it should be rescinded without atonement.

Do the wrongs of this nation end with this outrage? No. Clouds thicken upon us; our wrongs are still increased; during the sensibility of this nation, and without atonement for the attack upon the Chesapeake, on the 16th October, 1807, a proclamation issues from the British Cabinet respecting seafaring persons, enlarging the principles of former encroachments upon the practice of impressment. This proclamation makes it the indispensable duty of her naval officers to enter the unarmed mer[Pg 53]chant vessels of the United States, and impress as many of the crew as a petty and interested naval officer may without trial point out as British subjects. The pretension is not confined to the search after deserters, but extended to masters, carpenters, and naturalized citizens of the United States—thus extending their municipal laws to our merchant vessels and this country, and denying us the right of making laws upon the subject of naturalization. The partners of British and Scotch merchants can cover their property and their merchandise from other nations under the neutral flag of the United States to Leghorn, Amsterdam, Hamburg, &c. But the patriotic Irishman or Englishman who has sought this protecting asylum of liberty, are not secured by our flag from the ruthless fangs of a British press-gang. And at this very moment our native citizens and adopted brethren, to a considerable number, are doomed to the most intolerable thraldom in the British navy by this degrading practice. There the freedom of our citizens depends upon the mercy of naval officers of Great Britain; and, upon this subject, every proposition for arrangement is trampled down by these unjust pretensions. Information was just received of the execution of the Berlin Decree, when the papers from every quarter announced the existence of the British Orders in Council, making a sweeping dash at our rightful commerce. Something must be done. The events which been have retraced, all pressed upon us. The treatment of our Minister, and his unavailing exertions; the result of the negotiation which gave birth to the rejected treaty; the memorials of the merchants; the outrageous conduct of the British naval officers upon our seaboard; the connivance at their conduct by the British Government; the proclamation of October 16, 1807; the execution of the Berlin Decree, and the Orders in Council. These considerations required the arm of Government, and at this inauspicious period, when the clouds which had so long threatened and darkened our political horizon gathered to a thick and horrible tempest, which now seemed about to burst upon our devoted nation, the embargo snatched our property from the storm, and deprived the thunderbolt of its real calamities. The effects of this measure at home and abroad, notwithstanding its inconveniences, will best attest the wisdom of the measure, which will be increased in its efficacy by a total non-importation law. As a measure of coercion upon other nations, I not only have the strongest hopes, but also a rational confidence in it, founded upon the most conclusive evidence. The misrepresentations in this country, the violations of the embargo, and the hope of changing the parties in the United States, or of producing a separation of the States; these miscalculations have destroyed entirely the efficacy of this measure, and been a main cause why Great Britain has not relaxed in her injustice towards America. And if we can rigidly enforce this system, my confidence is undiminished, my faith strong, that the United States will have reasonable terms offered to them. Yet the violators of your laws have been the great cause why the present state of things has been protracted. They are as infamous as the cowboys in the Revolution, who embodied themselves to feed our enemies with the only cow of a weeping widow, or a poor soldier who was fighting for his country. The commerce of the United States with the West Indies, the Continent of Europe, and Great Britain, will present to this committee the evidence upon which this faith is bottomed. The United States have furnished the West Indies with the essentials of existence, and also have afforded a market for the colonial produce of those islands. In fact, they cannot live without provisions from the United States in the present state of the world. These islands have been reduced to wretchedness and want already, notwithstanding the violations of the embargo, and flour, we learn, has been as high as $20, $30, $40, $50, and $60 per barrel. The vast importance of these possessions alone, to the mother country, might have been sufficient to have produced a settlement of our differences, if other considerations had not prevented. Attend to the trade with England and the continent previous to the Orders in Council. The annual exports of British manufactures to the United States amount to twelve million pounds sterling. In exchange for these manufactured articles, Great Britain receives to the amount of four million pounds sterling in tobacco, cotton, wheat, and the substantials of life. The eight millions which remain due must be paid in money or bills. To raise this money, the American merchants carry to the Continent of Europe produce of the United States to the amount of this eight millions, which is sold, and the amount remitted to the merchants in London to pay the debts of our merchants. This trade is now destroyed by the Orders in Council, and not the embargo—for this very measure has saved our vessels from capture, our merchandise from condemnation, and our seamen from impressment.

Thursday, December 1.

Another member, to wit, Thomas Moore, from South Carolina, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Jesse B. Thomas, the delegate from the Indiana Territory, returned to serve in the room of Benjamin Parke, who hath resigned his seat, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Tuesday, December 6.

Foreign Relations.

The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations being again before the House, and the question still on the first resolution—

Mr. Gholson said: Mr. Speaker, were I to[Pg 54] yield to my embarrassment on the present occasion, I should not trespass on your indulgence. But when I reflect upon the great national importance of the question now before the House, and upon the high responsibility which its decision must attach to me as one of the Representatives of the people; I am impelled, from considerations of duty, to assign to you the reasons by which I am influenced.

It has been said, sir, with great truth, that the present is an extraordinary crisis. It seems indeed to have been reserved for the age in which we live, to witness a combination of political events unparalleled in the annals of time. Almost the whole civilized world has been within a few years convulsed by wars, battles, and conquests. Kingdoms and empires have been revolutionized; and we behold a vast continent assuming a new aspect under a new dynasty. Those laws which from time immemorial have prescribed and limited the conduct of nations, are now contemptuously prostrated, innocent neutrality is banished from the ocean, and we hear a grim tyrant asserting himself the sovereign of the seas. Thus the most essential part of the globe is attempted to be partitioned between two domineering rival belligerents. Sir, it would have been a subject of the sincerest felicitation if our happy country could have been exempt from this universal concussion. But we are fated to share evils in the production of which we have had no participation. In inquiring, Mr. Speaker, into the causes of these evils and the policy by which we are to be extricated from them, I am conscious of two things—of my utter incompetency to the elucidation of so great a subject, and of the unavoidable necessity of touching upon ground already occupied by gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate.

When, sir, I recur to the resolutions reported by the Committee of Exterior Relations, I find one which proposes resistance to the edicts of Great Britain and France; and another which recommends a system of non-intercourse between the United States and those countries.

In hearing the first resolution treated as an abstract proposition, my astonishment has been not a little excited. I have always understood an abstract proposition to be the assertion of some general principle without any specific application. Here is a distinct position, with a direct reference to particular orders and decrees. The resolution therefore is itself specific and appropriate, to use the apt terms of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana). But before we can determine upon the propriety or impropriety of the resolutions, to me it appears indispensable that we should examine attentively and minutely, not only the situation of this country in relation to France and Britain, but also the injuries and aggressions they have committed upon our neutral rights.

In doing this I regret extremely that I shall wound the delicate taste and exquisite sensibility of my learned colleague (Mr. Randolph), who addressed you yesterday. I shall take no pleasure in the retrospection which seems so much to disgust that gentleman; but I do not know how else to find justification for the measures we, I trust, shall pursue, and to expose the profligacy of our enemies. The regular discussion of the first resolution would seem naturally to lead us to a review of the edicts of Great Britain and France. When we say we will not submit to their edicts; it cannot be amiss, although I acknowledge, sir, the undertaking is an unpleasant one, to inquire into the nature and extent of those edicts; I therefore will endeavor, within as narrow limits as possible, to exhibit to the view of the indignant American, the various wanton aggressions which have been committed by both these powers upon his commercial rights. And, sir, whenever we look for the chief source of our difficulties, we must turn towards Great Britain. Then let us examine the principal items in her account.

On 8th June, 1793, the British Government issued an Order of Council to stop and detain for condemnation, vessels laden with corn, flour, or meal, and bound to France, whose people were then almost in the act of starving, and of course we were deprived of an excellent market for those articles.

On 6th November, 1793, an order issued to stop and detain ships laden with the produce of, or carrying provisions to, the colonies of France.

On 21st March, 1799, she issued a proclamation declaring the United Provinces in a state of blockade, and thereby excluding neutral commerce without any actual investment.

On 16th May, 1806, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast from the Elbe to Brest, inclusive.

On 7th January, 1807, an order prohibiting neutral vessels from trading from one port to another of the enemy or his allies.

On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the coast between the Elbe, Weser, and Ems.

On 11th May, 1807, a proclamation declaring the blockade of the Dardanelles and Smyrna.

In October, 1807, a proclamation, ordering British officers to impress from American vessels all such of their crews as might be taken or mistaken for British subjects.

On 11th November, 1807, Orders in Council were issued interdicting all neutral commerce to any port of Europe from which the British flag was excluded; directing that neutrals should trade to such ports only, under British license and with British clearances—that all ships destined before the issuing of the orders to any of the said ports, should go into a British port, and that all vessels having "certificates of origin" should be lawful prize.

On 11th November, 1807, an Order in Council was issued, declaring void the legal transfer of vessels from the enemies of Britain, to neutrals or others.

In 1808, various acts of Parliament have been passed, carrying the orders of the 11th of Novem[Pg 55]ber, 1807, into execution. They impose a specific tax on a variety of articles of American merchandise allowed to be re-exported to the continent of Europe, for example, on tobacco, 12s. 6d. sterling per cwt.; on indigo, 2s. per lb.; pork, 17s. 6d. per cwt.; cotton, 9d. per lb.; and on all other articles not enumerated in the act, a duty of forty per cent. is exacted on re-exportation.

On 8th January, 1808, a proclamation issued declaring the blockade of Carthagena, Cadiz, and St. Lucar, and all the ports between the first and last of these places.

In the Autumn of 1808, in order that plunder might commence from the very moment of the expected repeal of the embargo, the French West India islands were declared in a state of blockade.

I will forbear, sir, at this time from commenting on the habitual impressment of American citizens, by Great Britain; the illegal condemnation of American vessels under what they call the rule of 1756; the spurious blockades of British commanders, and the consequent spoliations on our commerce. Nor will I detain the House by relating the story of Captain Bradley, commander of the Cambrian, who in the face of the city of New York, and in contempt of the civil authority of the United States, dragged your citizens into slavish captivity. The case too of the British ship Leander may remain untold—the enormity of that transaction is written in indelible characters, with the blood of our countrymen. The invitation of the British Ministry to your merchants to violate the embargo, and the burning of a friendly ship of war (the Impetueux) in your own waters, are circumstances too light to be noticed. I feel no disposition, either, to portray the affair of the Chesapeake. The ghosts of the murdered are yet unavenged for that horrid and perfidious deed!

I will now advert, sir, to the principal injuries committed by France on the neutral commerce of the United States. They consist in the execution of three decrees, to wit:

The Berlin decree of the 21st November, 1806, declaring the British islands in a state of blockade, and that no vessel having been at or coming directly from England or her colonies, shall enter at a French port.

The Milan decree of the 17th December, 1807, declaring lawful prize every vessel that has suffered the visit of an English vessel, submitted to an English voyage, or paid duty to the English Government; and also, every vessel coming from the ports of England and her colonies.

The Bayonne decree of April, 1808, which subjects, as it is said, and I believe not doubted, all American vessels found upon the high seas since the embargo, to capture and confiscation.

Here, Mr. Speaker, I will end the black catalogue of iniquitous outrages and restrictions upon neutral commerce—restrictions which are acknowledged to depend for their support upon no other ground than that of retaliation. Whilst I protest against the principle of retaliating upon an enemy through the medium of a friend, yet these orders and decrees have no claim even to that principle. Because France and Britain both agree that the right of retaliation does not accrue before the neutral has acquiesced in the aggressions of the enemy. We have never acquiesced in the aggressions of either, and therefore, upon their own reasoning, ought not to be liable to the operation of the principle for which they unjustly contend. But, sir, can we quit this subject without looking more particularly at the consequences which result from this series of injuries?

In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards this country, we perceive a continuation of encroachments, designed only for the utter destruction of our commerce. This disposition is manifest in every order and proclamation she has issued since the year 1793. If this were not her object, why such a continued system of illegitimate blockades? Why so many vexatious restrictions upon neutral trade, tending to destroy competition on our part in the continental markets? I might trace the scheme a little further back, and ask, whence the outrages? the orders of June and November, 1793, which produced Jay's treaty? A treaty which I am sorry to say, did not guarantee to us mutual and reciprocal rights, and which was no sooner ratified than violated by British perfidy. But, sir, I will not speak of trivial matters, like these; they are of no consequence when we reflect upon other topics. The pretended blockade of almost every port upon the Baltic; the blockade of the eastern and southern coasts of the North Sea, unaccompanied by any naval force; the nominal investment of the ports on the south of the British channel, and on the European coast of the Mediterranean sea; the occlusion of the Black Sea, by the blockade of the Dardanelles and Smyrna, and in fine the blockade of all the places from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Arctic Ocean, are acts which, notwithstanding their unexampled enormity in themselves, sink into perfect insignificance, when we consider the base attempts meditated by the orders of November, 1807, and the consequent statutes of Parliament, to reduce this country again to a state of colonial slavery! Sir, at the very thought of these infamous orders and acts of the British Government, I feel emotions of indignation and contempt, to repress which would be dishonorable. What, sir? American vessels to be arrested in a lawful commerce, upon "the highway of nations;" to be forcibly carried into British ports, and there either condemned, or else compelled before they can prosecute their voyage to take British clearances and pay a British tax! And if the owner of the cargo shall be unable to pay the amount of tax, he has the consolation left him of seeing his property burnt! Sooner would I see every vessel and every atom of our surplus produce make one general conflagration in our own country. For what purpose was[Pg 56] the Revolution, in which the blood and treasure of our ancestors were the price of independence, if we are now to be taxed by Britain? The highest authority in the Union cannot constitutionally tax the exports, which are in part the products of the labor of the American people; yet the British Government has presumptuously undertaken to do it. I, sir, for one must protest against any thing like submission to this conduct. But let us see what we should get by submission. So far from gaining, it will be easy to demonstrate, that if we were to submit, we should be only remunerated with disgrace and ruin.

Wednesday, December 7.

Mr. Say presented memorials from sundry late officers in the Pennsylvania line of the Revolutionary army, stating that, from the peculiar circumstances of the memorialists, they have been compelled to dispose of the certificates of pay and commutation granted them for military services rendered to the United States; and praying such relief in the premises as to the wisdom and justice of Congress shall seem meet.

Mr. Wharton presented a petition from sundry late officers of the Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina lines of the said Revolutionary arm, to the like effect.

The said memorials and petition were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Durell moved that the House do come to the following resolution:

The resolution was read, and, on motion of Mr. Bacon, ordered to lie on the table.

Foreign Relations.

The House then resumed the consideration of the first member of the first resolution reported on Thursday last, from the Committee of the Whole, which was depending yesterday at the time of adjournment, in the words following, to wit:

Mr. G. W. Campbell concluded his observations of yesterday, as given entire in preceding pages.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker, I offer myself to the view of this House with a very sensible embarrassment, in attempting to follow the honorable gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell)—a gentleman who holds so distinguished a station on this floor, through thy blessing, Mr. Speaker, on his talents and industry. I place myself with much reluctance in competition with this, our great political Æneas, an illustrious leader of antiquity, whom, in his present relations, and in his present objects, the gentleman from Tennessee not a little resembles; since, in order to evade the ruin impending over our cities—taking my honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) by one hand, and the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Montgomery) by the other (little Iülus and wife Creusa)—he is posting away into the woods with Father Anchises and all the household gods.

When I had the honor of addressing this House a few days ago, I touched this famous report of our Committee of Foreign Relations perhaps a little too carelessly; perhaps I handled it a little too roughly, considering its tender age, and the manifest delicacy of its constitution. But, sir, I had no idea of affecting very exquisitely the sensibilities of any gentleman. I thought that this was a common report of one of our ordinary committees, which I had a right to canvass or to slight, to applaud or to censure, without raising any extraordinary concern, either here or elsewhere. But, from the general excitement which my inconsiderate treatment of this subject occasions, I fear that I have been mistaken. This can be no mortal fabric, Mr. Speaker. This must be that image which fell down from Jupiter, present or future. Surely, nothing but a being of celestial origin would raise such a tumult in minds tempered like those which lead the destinies of this House. Sir, I thought that this report had been a common piece of wood—inutile lignum—just such a piece of wood as any day-laborer might have hewed out in an hour, had he health and a hatchet. But it seems that our honorable chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, maluit esse Deum. Well, sir, I have no objections. If the workmen will, a god it shall be. I only wish, that when gentlemen bring their sacred things upon this floor, that they would blow a trumpet before them, as the heathens do, on such occasions, to the end that all true believers may prepare themselves to adore and tremble, and that all unbelievers may turn aside, and not disturb their devotions.

I assure gentlemen that I meant to commit no sacrilege. I had no intention, sir, of canvassing very strictly this report. I supposed, that when it had been published and circulated, it had answered all the purposes of its authors, and I felt no disposition to interfere with them. But the House is my witness that I am compelled, by the clamor raised on all sides by the friends of the Administration, to descend to particulars, and to examine it somewhat minutely.

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was pleased the other day to assert:——Sir, in referring to his observations, on a former occasion, I beg the House not to imagine that I am about to follow him. No, sir; I will neither follow nor imitate him. I hang upon no man's skirts; I run barking at no man's heel. I canvass prin[Pg 57]ciples and measures solely with a view to the great interests of my country. The idea of personal victory is lost in the total absorption of sense and mind in the impending consequences. I say he was pleased to assert that I had dealt in general allegations against this report, without pointing out any particular objection. And the honorable chairman (Mr. Campbell) has reiterated the charge. Both have treated this alleged omission with no little asperity. Yet, sir, it is very remarkable, that, so far from dealing in general allegations, I explicitly stated my objections. The alternatives presented by the report—war or suspension of our rights, and the recommendation of the latter, rather than take the risk of the former, I expressly censured. I went further. I compared these alternatives with an extract from an address made by the first Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Great Britain, and attempted to show, by way of contrast, what I thought the disgraceful spirit of the report. Yet, these gentlemen complain that I dealt in general allegations. Before I close, sir, they will have, I hope, no reason to repeat such objections. I trust I shall be particular, to their content.

Before entering upon an examination of this report, it may be useful to recollect how it originated. By the third section of the second article of the constitution, it is declared that the President of the United States "shall, from time to time, give to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." It is, then, the duty of the President to recommend such measures as in his judgment Congress ought to adopt. A great crisis is impending over our country. It is a time of alarm, and peril, and distress. How has the President performed this constitutional duty? Why, after recapitulating, in a formal Message, our dangers and his trials, he expresses his confidence that we shall, "with an unerring regard to the essential rights and interests of the nation, weigh and compare the painful alternatives out of which a choice is to be made," and that "the alternative chosen will be maintained with fortitude and patriotism." In this way our Chief Magistrate performs his duty. A storm is approaching; the captain calls his choice hands upon deck; leaves the rudder swinging, and sets the crew to scuffle about alternatives! This Message, pregnant with nondescript alternatives, is received by this House. And what do we? Why, constitute a great Committee of Foreign Relations, and, lest they should not have their attention completely occupied by the pressing exigencies of those with France and Great Britain, they are endowed with the whole mass—British, Spanish, and French; Barbary Powers and Indian neighbors. And what does this committee do? Why, after seven days' solemn conclave, they present to this House an illustrious report, loaded with alternatives—nothing but alternatives. The cold meat of the palace is hashed and served up to us, piping hot, from our committee room.

In considering this report, I shall pay no attention to either its beginning or its conclusion. The former consists of shavings from old documents, and the latter of birdlime for new converts. The twelfth page is the heart of this report; that I mean to canvass. And I do assert, that there is not one of all the principal positions contained in it which is true, in the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee. Let us examine each, separately:

Here is a tri-forked alternative. Let us consider each branch, and see if either be true, in the sense assumed by the committee. The first—"abject and degrading submission"—takes two things for granted: that trading, pending the edicts of France and Great Britain, is submission; and next that it is submission, in its nature, abject and degrading. Neither is true. It is not submission to trade, pending those edicts, because they do not command you to trade; they command you not to trade. When you refuse to trade, you submit; not when you carry on that trade, as far as you can, which they prohibit. Again, it is not true that such trading is abject and disgraceful, and that, too, upon the principles avowed by the advocates of this report. Trading, while these edicts are suspended over our commerce, is submission, say they, because we have not physical force to resist the power of these belligerents; of course, if we trade, we must submit to these restrictions, not having power to evade or break through them. Now, admit, for the sake of argument, (what however in fact I deny,) that the belligerents have the power to carry into effect their decrees so perfectly; that, by reason of the orders of Great Britain, we are physically disabled from going to France; and that, by the edicts of France, we are in like manner disabled from going to Great Britain. If such be our case, in relation to these powers, the question is, whether submitting to exercise all the trade which remains to us, notwithstanding these edicts, is "abject and degrading."

In the first place, I observe, that submission is not, to beings constituted as we are, always "abject and degrading." We submit to the decrees of Providence—to the laws of our nature. Absolute weakness submits to absolute power; and there is nothing in such submission shameful or degrading. It is no dishonor for finite not to contend with infinite. There is no loss of reputation if creatures, such as men, perform not impossibilities. If then it be true, in the sense asserted by some of the advocates of this report, that it is physically impossible for us to trade with France and Great Britain and their dependencies, by reason of these edicts, still there is nothing "abject or degrad[Pg 58]ing" in carrying on such trade as these edicts leave open to us, let it be never so small or so trifling; which, however, it might be easily shown, as it has been, that it is neither the one nor the other. Sir, in this point of view, it is no more disgraceful for us to trade to Sweden, to China, to the Northwest coast, or to Spain and her dependencies—not one of which countries is now included in those edicts—than it is disgraceful for us to walk, because we are unable to fly; no more than it is shameful for man to use and enjoy the surface of this globe, because he has not at his command the whole circle of nature, and cannot range at will over all the glorious spheres which constitute the universe.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) called upon us just now to tell him what was disgraceful submission, if carrying on commerce under these restrictions was not such submission. I will tell that gentleman. That submission is "abject and disgraceful" which yields to the decrees of frail and feeble power, as though they were irresistible; which takes counsel of fear, and weighs not our comparative force; which abandons the whole, at a summons to deliver up a part; which makes the will of others the measure of rights, which God and nature not only have constituted eternal and unalienable, but have also endued us with ample means to maintain.

My argument on this clause of the report of the committee may be presented in this form: either the United States have or they have not physical ability to carry on commerce in defiance of the edicts of both or of either of these nations. If we have not physical ability to carry on the trade which they prohibit, then it is no disgrace to exercise that commerce which these irresistible decrees permit. If we have such physical ability, then, to the degree in which we abandon that commerce which we have power to carry on, is our submission "abject and disgraceful." It is yielding without a struggle; it is sacrificing our rights, not because we have not force, but because we have not spirit to maintain them. It is in this point of view that I am disgusted with this report. It abjures what it recommends; it declaims, in heroics, against submission, and proposes, in creeping prose, a tame and servile subserviency.

It cannot be concealed, let gentlemen try as much as they will, that we can trade, not only with one, but with both these belligerents, notwithstanding these restrictive decrees. The risk to Great Britain against French capture scarcely amounts to two per cent.; that to France against Great Britain is unquestionably much greater. But, what is that to us? It is not our fault, if the power of Britain on the ocean is superior to that of Bonaparte. It is equal and exact justice between both nations for us to trade with both, as far as it is in our power. Great as the power of Britain is on the ocean, the enterprise and intrepidity of our merchants are more than a match for it. They will get your products to the Continent in spite of her navy. But suppose they do not; suppose they fail, and are captured in the attempt; what is that to us? After we have given them full notice of all their dangers, and perfect warning, either of our inability or of our determination not to protect them, if they take the risk, it is at their peril. And, upon whom does the loss fall? As it does now, through the operation of your embargo, on the planter, on the farmer, on the mechanic, on the day-laborer? No, sir; on the insurer—on the capitalist—on those who in the full exercise of their intelligence, apprised of all the circumstances, are willing to take the hazard for the sake of the profit.

I will illustrate my general idea by a supposition. There are two avenues to the ocean from the harbor of New York—by the Narrows, and through Long Island Sound. Suppose the fleets, both of France and Great Britain, should block up the Narrows, so that to pass them would be physically impossible, in the relative state of our naval force. Will gentlemen seriously contend that there would be any thing "abject or disgraceful," if the people of New York should submit to carry on their trade through the Sound? Would the remedy for this interference with our rights be abandoning the ocean altogether? Again: suppose, that instead of both nations blockading the same point, each should station its force at a different one—France at the mouth of the Sound, Britain at the Narrows. In such case, would staying at home, and refusing any more to go upon the sea, be an exercise of independence in the citizens of New York? Great philosophers may call it "dignified retirement," if they will. I call it, and I am mistaken if the people would not call it, "base and abject submission." Sir, what in such a case would be true honor? Why, to consider well which adversary is the weakest, and cut our way to our rights through the path which he obstructs. Having removed the smaller impediment, we should return with courage, strengthened by trial and animated by success, to the relief of our rights, from the pressure of the strongest assailant. But, all this is war; and war is never to be incurred. If this be the national principle, avow it; tell your merchants you will not protect them; but, for Heaven's sake, do not deny them the power of relieving their own and the nation's burdens, by the exercise of their own ingenuity. Sir, impassable as the barriers offered by these edicts are in the estimation of members on this floor, the merchants abroad do not estimate them as insurmountable. Their anxiety to risk their property, in defiance of them, is full evidence of this. The great danger to mercantile ingenuity is internal envy—the corrosion of weakness or prejudice. Its external hazard is ever infinitely smaller. That practical intelligence which this class of men possesses, beyond any other in the community, excited by self-interest—the strongest of human passions—is too elastic to be confined by the limits of exterior human powers, however great or uncom[Pg 59]mon. Build a Chinese wall, and the wit of your merchants, if permitted freely to operate, will break through it or overleap it, or undercreep it.

The second branch of the alternatives under consideration is equally deceptive—"War with both nations." Can this ever be an alternative? Did you ever read in history, can you conceive in fancy, a war of two nations, each of whom is at war with the other, without a union with one against the other immediately resulting? It cannot exist in nature. The very idea is absurd. It never can be an alternative, whether we shall find two nations each hostile to the other. But it may be, and if we are to fight at all, it is a very serious question, which of the two we are to select as an adversary. As to the third branch of these celebrated alternatives, "a continuance and enforcement of the present system of commerce," I need not spend time to show that this does not include all the alternatives which exist under this head—since the committee immediately admit, that there does exist another alternative, "partial repeal," about which they proceed to reason.

The report proceeds. "The first" (abject and degrading submission) "cannot require any discussion." Certainly not. Submission of that quality which the committee assume, and with the epithets of which they choose to invest it, can never require discussion at any time. But, whether trading under these orders and decrees be such submission, whether we are not competent to resist them in part, if not in whole, without a total abandonment of the exercise of all our maritime rights, the comparative effects of the edicts of each upon our commerce and the means we possess to influence or control either, are all fair and proper subjects of discussion; some of which the committee have wholly neglected and none of which have they examined, as the House had a right to expect.

The committee proceed "to dissipate the illusion" that there is any "middle course," and to reassert the position before examined, that "there is no other alternative than war with both nations, or a continuance of the present system." This position they undertake to support by two assertions. First, that "war with one of the belligerents only, would be submission to the edicts and will of the other." Second, that "repeal in whole or in part of the embargo, must necessarily be war or submission."

As to the first assertion, it is a miserable fallacy, confounding coincidence of interest with subjection of will; things in their nature palpably distinct. A man may do what another wills, nay, what he commands, and not act in submission to his will, or in obedience to his command. Our interest or duty may coincide with the line of conduct another presumes to prescribe. Shall we vindicate our independence at the expense of our social or moral obligations? I exemplify my idea in this way. Two bullies beset your door, from which there are but two avenues. One of them forbids you to go by the left, the other forbids you to go by the right avenue. Each is willing that you should pass by the way which he permits. In such case, what will you do? Will you keep house forever, rather than make choice of the path through which you will resume your external rights? You cannot go both ways at once, you must make your election. Yet, in making such election, you must necessarily coincide with the wishes and act according to the commands of one of the bullies. Yet who, before this committee, ever thought an election of one of two inevitable courses, made under such circumstances, "abject and degrading submission" to the will of either of the assailants? The second assertion, that "repeal in whole or in part of the embargo must necessarily be war or submission," the committee proceed to maintain by several subsidiary assertions. First—"a general repeal without arming would be submission to both nations." So far from this being true, the reverse is the fact; it would be submission to neither. Great Britain does not say, "you shall trade with me." France does not say, "you shall trade with me." If this was the language of their edicts, there might be some color for the assertion of the committee, that if we trade with either we submit. The edicts of each declare you shall not trade with my adversary. Our servile knee-crooking embargo says, "you shall, therefore, not trade." Can any submission be more palpable, more "abject, more disgraceful?" A general repeal without arming, would be only an exercise of our natural rights, under the protection of our mercantile ingenuity, and not under that of physical power. Whether our merchants shall arm or not, is a question of political expediency and of relative force. It may be very true that we can fight our way to neither country, and yet it may be also very true, that we may carry on a very important commerce with both. The strength of the national arm may not be equal to contend with either, and yet the wit of our merchants may be over-match for the edicts of all. The question of arming or not arming, has reference only to the mode in which we shall best enjoy our rights, and not at all to the quality of the act of trading during these edicts. To exercise commerce is our absolute right. If we arm, we may possibly extend the field beyond that which mere ingenuity would open to us. Whether the extension thus acquired be worthy of the risk and expense, is a fair question. But, decide it either way, how is trading as far as we have ability, made less abject than not trading at all?

I come to the second subsidiary assertion. "A general repeal and arming of merchant vessels, would be war with both, and war of the worst kind, suffering the enemies to plunder us, without retaliation upon them."

I have before exposed the absurdity of a[Pg 60] war with two belligerents, each hostile to the other. It cannot be true, therefore, that "a general repeal and arming our merchant vessels," would be such a war. Neither if war resulted, would it be "war of the worst kind." In my humble apprehension, a war, in which our enemies are permitted to plunder us, and our merchants not permitted to defend their property, is somewhat worse than a war like this; in which, with arms in their hands, our brave seamen might sometimes prove too strong for their piratical assailants. By the whole amount of property which we might be able to preserve by these means, would such a war be better than that in which we are now engaged. For the committee assure us, that the aggressions to which we are subject, "are to all intents and purposes a maritime war, waged with both nations against the United States."

The last assertion of the committee, in this most masterly page is, that "a partial repeal must from the situation of Europe, necessarily be actual submission to one of the aggressors, and war with the other." In the name of common sense, how can this be true? The trade to Sweden, to Spain, to China, is not now affected by the orders or decrees of either belligerent. How is it submission, then, to these orders for us to trade to Gottenburg, when neither France nor Britain command, nor prohibit it? Of what consequence is it to us what way the Gottenburg merchant disposes of our products, after he has paid us our price? I am not about to deny that a trade to Gottenburg would defeat the purpose of coercing Great Britain, through the want of our supplies, but I reason on the report upon its avowed principles. If gentlemen adhere to their system, as a means of coercion, let the Administration avow it as such, and support the system, by arguments, such as their friends use every day on this floor. Let them avow, as those friends do, that this is our mode of hostility against Great Britain. That it is better than "ball and gunpowder." Let them show that the means are adequate to the end; let them exhibit to us, beyond the term of all this suffering, a happy salvation, and a glorious victory, and the people may then submit to it, even without murmur. But while the Administration support their system only as a municipal regulation, as a means of safety and preservation, those who canvass their principle are not called upon to contest with them on ground, which not only they do not take, but which, officially, they disavow. As partial repeal would not be submission to either, so, also, it would not be war with either. A trade to Sweden would not be war with Great Britain; that nation is her ally, and she permits it. Nor with France, though Sweden is her enemy, she does not prohibit it. Ah! but say the committee, "a measure which would supply exclusively one of the belligerents, would be war with the other." This is the State secret; this is the master-key to the whole policy. You must not only do what the letter of these orders prohibits, but you must not sin against the spirit of them. The great purpose is, to prevent your product from getting to our enemy, and to effect this you must not only so act as to obey the terms of the decrees, but keeping the great purpose of them always in sight, you must extend their construction to cases which they cannot, by any rule of reason, be made to include.

Sir, I have done with this report. I would not have submitted to the task of canvassing it, if gentlemen had not thrown the gauntlet with the air of sturdy defiance. I willingly leave to this House and the nation to decide whether the position I took in the commencement of my argument is not maintained; that there is not one of the principal positions contained in the 12th page, the heart of this report, which is true, in the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee.

It was under these general impressions that I used the word "loathsome," which has so often been repeated. Sir, it may not have been a well chosen word. It was that which happened to come to hand first. I meant to express my disgust at what appeared to me a mass of bold assumptions, and of illy-cemented sophisms.

I said, also, that "the spirit which it breathed was disgraceful" Sir, I meant no reflection upon the committee. Honest men and wise men may mistake the character of the spirit which they recommend, or by which they are actuated. When called upon to reason concerning that which, by adoption, is to become identified with the national character, I am bound to speak of it as it appears to my vision. I may be mistaken. Yet, I ask the question: is not the spirit which it breathes disgraceful? Is it not disgraceful to abandon the exercise of all our commercial rights, because our rivals interfere with a part; not only to refrain from exercising that trade which they prohibit, but for fear of giving offence, to decline that which they permit? Is it not disgraceful, after inflammatory recapitulation of insults, and plunderings, and burnings, and confiscations, and murders, and actual war made upon us, to talk of nothing but alternatives, of general declarations, of still longer suspension of our rights, and retreating farther out of "harm's way?" If this course be adopted by my country, I hope I am in error concerning its real character. But to my sense, this whole report is nothing else than a recommendation to us of the abandonment of our essential rights and apologies for doing it.

Before I sit down, I feel myself compelled to notice some observations which have been made in different quarters of this House on the remarks which, at an early stage of this debate, I had the honor of submitting to its consideration. My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was pleased to represent me as appealing to the people over the heads of the whole Government, against the authority of a law which had not only the sanction of all the legislative branches[Pg 61] of the Government, but also of the Judiciary. Sir, I made no such appeal. I did not so much as threaten it. I admitted, expressly, the binding authority of the law. But I claim a right, which I ever will claim, and ever will exercise, to urge, on this floor, my opinion of the unconstitutionality of a law, and my reasons for that opinion, as a valid ground for its repeal. Sir, I will not only do this, I will do more. If a law be, in my apprehension, dangerous in its principles, ruinous in its consequences, above all if it be unconstitutional, I will not fail in every fair and honorable way to awaken the people to a sense of their peril; and to quicken them, by the exercise of their constitutional privileges, to vindicate themselves and their posterity from ruin.

My honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) was also pleased to refer to me, "as a man of divisions and distinctions, waging war with adverbs, and dealing in figures." Sir, I am sorry that my honorable colleague should stoop "from his pride of place," at such humble game as my poor style presents to him. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot but confess that, "deeming high" of the station which I hold; standing, as it were, in the awful presence of an assembled people, I am more than ordinarily anxious, on all occasions, to select the best thoughts in my narrow storehouse, and to adapt to them the most appropriate dress in my intellectual wardrobe. I know not whether, on this account, I am justly obnoxious to the asperity of my honorable colleague. But, on the subject of figures, sir, this I know, and cannot refrain from assuring this House that, as on the one hand, I shall, to the extent of my humble talents, always be ambitious, and never cease striving to make a decent figure on this floor; so, on the other, I never can be ambitious, but, on the contrary, shall ever strive chiefly to avoid cutting a figure like my honorable colleague.

The gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Troup,) the other day, told this House that, if commerce were permitted, such was the state of our foreign relations, none but bankrupts would carry on trade. Sir, the honorable gentleman has not attained correct information in this particular. I do not believe that I state any thing above the real fact, when I say that, on the day this Legislature assembled, one hundred vessels, at least, were lying in the different ports and harbors of New England loaded, riding at single anchor, ready and anxious for nothing so much as for your leave to depart. Certainly, this does not look much like any doubt that a field of advantageous commerce would open, if you would unbar the door to your citizens. That this was the case in Massachusetts I know. Before I left that part of the country, I had several applications from men, who stated that they had property in such situations, and soliciting me to give them the earliest information of your probable policy. The men so applying, I can assure the House, were no bankrupts; but intelligent merchants, shrewd to perceive their true interests; keen to pursue them. The same honorable gentleman was also pleased to speak of "a paltry trade in potash and codfish," and to refer to me as the Representative of men who raised "beef and pork, and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages." Well, sir, I confess the fact. I am the Representative, in part, of men, the products of whose industry are beef and pork, and butter and cheese, and potatoes and cabbages. And let me tell that honorable gentleman, that I would not yield the honor of representing such men, to be the Representative of all the growers of cotton and rice, and tobacco and indigo, in the whole world. Sir, the men whom I represent, not only raise those humble articles, but they do it with the labor of their own hands, with the sweat of their own brows. And by this, their habitual mode of hardy industry, they acquire a vigor of nerve, a strength of muscle, and spirit of intelligence, somewhat characteristic. And let me say to that honorable gentleman, that the men of whom I speak will not, at his call, nor at the invitation of any man or set of men from his quarter of the Union, undertake to "drive one another into the ocean." But, on the contrary, whenever they once realize that their rights are invaded, they will unite, like a band of brothers, and drive their enemies there.

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Johnson,) speaking of the embargo, said, that this was the kind of conflict which our fathers waged; and my honorable colleague (Mr. Bacon) made a poor attempt to confound this policy with the non-intercourse and non-importation agreement of 1774 and 1775. Sir, nothing can be more dissimilar. The non-intercourse and non-importation agreement of that period, so far from destroying commerce, fostered and encouraged it. The trade with Great Britain was indeed voluntarily obstructed, but the enterprise of our merchants found a new incentive in the commerce with all the other nations of the globe, which succeeded immediately on our escape from the monopoly of the mother country. Our navigation was never suspended. The field of commerce at that period, so far from being blasted by pestiferous regulations, was extended by the effect of the restrictions adopted.

But let us grant all that they assert. Admit, for the sake of argument, that the embargo, which restrains us now from communication with all the world, is precisely synonymous with that non-intercourse and non-importation which restrained us then from Great Britain. Suppose the war, which we now wage with that nation, is in every respect the same as that which our fathers waged with her in 1774 and 1775. Have we from the effects of their trial any lively hope of success in our present attempt? Did our fathers either effect a change in her injurious policy or prevent a war by non-intercourse? Sir, they did neither the one[Pg 62] nor the other. Her policy was never changed until she had been beaten on our soil, in an eight years' war. Our fathers never relied upon non-intercourse and non-importation, as measures of hostile coercion. They placed their dependence upon them solely as means of pacific influence among the people of that nation. The relation in which this country stood at that time with regard to Great Britain, gave a weight and a potency to those measures then, which in our present relation to her, we can neither hope nor imagine possible. At that time we were her Colonies, a part of her family. Our prosperity was essentially hers. So it was avowed in this country. So it was admitted in Great Britain. Every refusal of intercourse which had a tendency to show the importance of these then colonies to the parent country, of the part to the whole, was a natural and a wise means of giving weight to our remonstrances. We pretended not to control, but to influence, by making her feel our importance. In this attempt we excited no national pride on the other side of the Atlantic. Our success was no national degradation, for the more we developed our resources and relative weight, the more we discovered the strength and resources of the British power. We were the component parts of it. All the measures of the Colonies, antecedent to the Declaration of Independence, had this principle for their basis. As such, non-importation and non-intercourse were adopted in this country. As such, they met the co-operation of the patriots of Great Britain, who deemed themselves deviating from none of their national duties, when they avowed themselves the allies of American patriots, to drive, through the influence of the loss of our trade, the ministry from their places, or their measures. Those patriots did co-operate with our fathers, and that openly, in exciting discontent, under the effect of our non-intercourse agreements. In so doing, they failed in none of their obligations to their sovereign. In no nation can it ever be a failure of duty to maintain that the safety of the whole depends on preserving its due weight to every part. Yet, notwithstanding the natural and little suspicious use of these instruments of influence, notwithstanding the zeal of the American people coincided with the views of Congress, and a mighty party existed in Great Britain openly leagued, with our fathers, to give weight and effect to their measures, they did not effect the purposes for which they were put into operation. The British policy was not abandoned. War was not prevented. How then can any encouragement be drawn from that precedent, to support us under the privations of the present system of commercial suspension? Can any nation admit that the trade of another is so important to her welfare, as that on its being withdrawn, any obnoxious policy must be abandoned, without at the same time admitting that she is no longer independent? Sir, I could indeed wish that it were in our power to regulate not only Great Britain, but the whole world, by opening or closing our ports. It would be a glorious thing for our country to possess such a mighty weapon of defence. But, acting in a public capacity, with the high responsibilities resulting from the great interests dependant upon my decision, I cannot yield to the wishes of lovesick patriots, or the visions of teeming enthusiasts; I must see the adequacy of means to their ends. I must see, not merely that it is very desirable that Great Britain should be brought to our feet, by this embargo, but that there is some likelihood of such a consequence to the measure, before I can concur in that universal distress and ruin which, if much longer continued, will inevitably result from it. Since, then, every dictate of sense and reflection convinces me of the utter futility of this system, as a means of coercion, on Great Britain, I shall not hesitate to urge its abandonment. No, sir, not even although, like others, I should be assailed by all the terrors of the outcry of British influence.

Really, Mr. Speaker, I know not how to express the shame and disgust with which I am filled, when I hear language of this kind cast out upon this floor, and thrown in the faces of men, standing justly on no mean height in the confidence of their countrymen. Sir, I did, indeed, know that such vulgar aspersions were circulating among the lower passions of our nature. I knew that such vile substances were ever tempering between the paws of some printer's devil. I knew that foul exhalations like these daily rose in our cities, and crept along the ground, just as high as the spirits of lampblack and saline oil could elevate; falling, soon, by native baseness, into oblivion, in the jakes. I knew, too, that this species of party insinuation was a mighty engine, in this quarter of the country, on an election day, played off from the top of a stump, or the top of a hogshead, while the gin circulated, while barbecue was roasting; in those happy, fraternal associations and consociations, when those who speak, utter without responsibility, and those who listen, hear without scrutiny. But little did I think, that such odious shapes would dare to obtrude themselves, on this national floor, among honorable men;—the select representatives, the confidential agents of a wise, a thoughtful and a virtuous people. I want language to express my contempt and indignation at the sight.

So far as respects the attempt which has been made to cast such aspersions on that part of the country which I have the honor to represent, I beg this honorable House to understand, that so long as they, who circulate such insinuations, deal only in generals and touch not particulars, they may gain among the ignorant and the stupid a vacant and a staring audience. But when once these suggestions are brought to bear upon those individuals who in New England have naturally the confidence of their countrymen, there is no power in these calumnies. The men who now lead the influences[Pg 63] of that country, and in whose councils the people on the day when the tempest shall come will seek refuge, are men whose stake is in the soil, whose interests are identified with those of the mass of their brethren, whose private lives and public sacrifices present a never-failing antidote to the poison of malicious invectives. On such men, sir, party spirit may indeed cast its odious filth, but there is a polish in their virtues to which no such slime can adhere. They are owners of the soil; real yeomanry; many of them men who led in the councils of our country in the dark day which preceded the national independence; many of them men who, like my honorable friend from Connecticut on my left, (Mr. Tallmadge,) stood foremost on the perilous edge of battle; making their breasts in the day of danger a bulwark for their country. True it is, Mr. Speaker, there is another and a much more numerous class, composed of such as through defect of age can claim no share in the glories of our Revolution; such as have not yet been blest with the happy opportunity of "playing the man" for their country; generous sons of illustrious sires; men, not to be deterred from fulfilling the high obligations they owe to this people by the sight of foul and offensive weapons. Men who, with little experience of their own to boast, will fly to the tombs of their fathers, and questioning, concerning their duties, the spirit which hovers there, will no more shrink from maintaining their native rights, through fear of the sharpness of malevolent tongues, than they will, if put to the trial, shrink from defending them through fear of the sharpness of their enemies' swords.

When Mr. Quincy had concluded, the House adjourned without taking a question.

Thursday, December 8.

On motion of Mr. Newton, that the unfinished business of yesterday, depending at the time of adjournment, do lie on the table; and that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the amendatory bill authorizing the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters: and the question being taken thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

The House accordingly resolved itself into the said committee; and, after some time spent therein, the bill was reported without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-day.

Foreign Relations.

The House then resumed the consideration of the first member of the first resolution reported on Thursday last from the Committee of the Whole, which was depending yesterday at the time of adjournment, in the words following, to wit:

Mr. Key said that it was with much regret that he had seen the course which the debate on the first resolution had taken; as the propositions contained in that resolution met his entire and full approbation, he could have wished that instead of the discussion which had taken place, a silent, dignified vote, the spontaneous effect of feeling and judgment, had at once passed. It would have been a better course, would have had a better effect, and kept the American mind from the impression which the protraction of the discussion must have occasioned, when taken in connection with the subject. A view however of the embargo had been gone into in respect to its past effects at home, and its probable future effects at home and abroad. As that course had been adopted, he said he should find an apology for the time which he should occupy, in the present eventful crisis, and the interest it universally excited.

I did myself believe (said Mr. Key) that the first resolution was an abstract proposition, and I still think so, although gentlemen consider it special; but surely a special proposition may be an abstract one. That which I consider an abstract proposition, is one out of which no future legislative proceedings can grow; but I agree that the crisis well warrants an expression of the public voice.

I shall take up the report and resolutions as a system, not with a view to condemn the report at all, for I take it as gentlemen wish it to be considered. I understand the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) as stating that the committee on our foreign relations had said nothing of the embargo. It was not necessary, Mr. Speaker, that they should, for the embargo law continues in operation until repealed. But surely it must be recollected that the Committee on Foreign Relations in their resolutions seemed to consider the system which they recommend, as including a continuance of the embargo; and I trust I meet the committee on fair and firm ground, when I consider their assent to be implied to the continuance of the embargo, and that it is their opinion that the measures which they recommend, united with the embargo, form an efficient system proper for the American people to adopt at this time. I shall necessarily therefore endeavor to answer gentlemen who have considered the embargo as a wise measure for the American people; that they are competent to bear it; and that it will, if guarded more sedulously, yet work out the political salvation of our land.

That the embargo is a measure severely felt by our country at large, and by some portions of it to a very eminent degree, cannot be denied. I did not expect to hear its effects contradicted; but they have been in some measure softened by the honorable chairman of the committee. I think the pressure of this measure great, and in some places requiring all the exertion of patriotism to support it. And as a proof of it, the members on this floor from[Pg 64] different parts of the Union have only contended which section suffered most. A member from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) because he conceives that thirty millions of dollars have been lost to the Eastern country by the measure, hence concludes that the Eastern country suffers most. The gentlemen from the Southern country say that they raise seventy millions of pounds of cotton, of which but ten millions are consumed at home, and the whole of the residue remains on hand; and that having seven-tenths of their produce unsold, conceive that they most sensibly feel the weight of this affliction in their country. A member from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) will not yield the palm of oppression to either. "I live (said the gentleman) in the centre of the tobacco country, whether you draw the line from East to West, or from North to South. We are not less pressed than others, for we have no vent for this article so obnoxious in itself, but which the taste of mankind has rendered necessary." Now, with great deference to all these gentlemen, I say that my country suffers most. The Southern country possesses its staples, which but remain on hand; their value only diminished by the non-export. Tobacco and cotton may be preserved without material injury for a length of time. We know that at the close of the Revolutionary war tobacco bore a greater price than previous to its commencement, and amply remunerated the holders. But I represent an agricultural country. What can resuscitate wheat devoured by the fly? What restore flour soured in the barrel? Our produce perishes, the subject is destroyed. So far therefore as I represent an extensive and fertile farming district, I will not yield the palm of pressure to the cotton and tobacco country. So great has been the feeling of the people that it has wrought a wondrous change in the State which I have the honor to represent; not in men who are either deluded or deceived, as intimated by the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Campbell,) but men who, by the pressure of the embargo itself, have been driven to reflection, and by reflection removed the film from their eyes, and thereby seen their true interests more distinctly. In the course of the last Winter, the Legislature of the State of Maryland, believing that the Orders in Council justified the embargo, and that it was a wise measure, approved of it. Succeeding elections have taken place, and the present House of Representatives tells you that it is most ruinous and oppressive. Such certainly are its effects in the State of Maryland; and I should illy represent my own district, if I did not so declare. Gentlemen will say that I should rather be pleased with the change than regret it; but, so help me God, Mr. Speaker, I am much less anxious what description of citizens administers the affairs of the country, than that they should be well administered; that it should protect the liberty, give to labor its just reward, and promote the happiness and prosperity of the citizens.

But it is alleged, by the honorable chairman of the committee, (Mr. Campbell,) that this is a delusion; that the people do not comprehend the subject; for that it is the Orders in Council which have produced our embarrassments, and not the embargo. Here then, sir, I am precisely at issue with that learned and honorable gentleman. I contend that the pressure on the people is caused by the embargo, and not by the Orders in Council. However speculative theorists may reason, there is proof abroad, and stubborn facts to contradict their reasoning. Test the market from Boston to Savannah, as to the price which you may get at ninety days credit, the embargo being continued, or on condition that the embargo be repealed in thirty days. Is there no difference in the price under these circumstances? I know well from experience, and the whole country knows, that if the embargo be now taken off, the price of every species of produce will rise fifty per cent. The depreciation in price then flows from the embargo. Remove it and they will give you more; keep it on and they will give you less. These are stubborn facts, and every man who has gone to the market will attest their correctness. You may reason as you please; but there is not a farmer that can be reasoned out of his senses, especially when they are sharpened a little by necessity. I hold these facts to be more conclusive than any abstract reasoning to prove that the embargo does work a diminution in the value of the articles which we have for sale. If this be the case, it results, sir, that we must ascribe to the operation of that measure the loss our country now so greatly feels. Our citizens are not so uninformed as the gentleman from Tennessee imagines. He thinks, and I agree with him, that the public voice will be generally right when the people are well informed. They have seen all the official communications which have been published, and are competed to judge whether the Orders in Council justified the embargo, and whether, if the embargo had not been laid, they would have wrought that effect which we now so sensibly feel. Instead of being deluded, sir, their eyes are open, and the film removed; and they see that the embargo was not justified by necessity, and as far as their opinion has been expressed, that it was impolitic and unwise.

The gentleman seems to think that the country cannot feel much because it feeds well; but we may feel and feed at the same time. It is plenty that we complain of. Our surplus is touched by this torpedo, the embargo, and is thereby rendered useless. But gentlemen say that if the embargo were now taken off, we could not trade; and a calculation has been entered into by the gentleman from Tennessee in opposition to one made by me at the last session. I have not seen my calculation for months, sir; it is before the public—the gentleman's statement will go to the same tribunal, and I am willing to commit my slender reputation to the country for the accuracy of mine,[Pg 65] and let the people judge between us. The gentleman tells you that we have no commerce to resort to which would be either safe or profitable. It is strange we cannot confide the decision of this question to commercial men—for what commercial man would undertake a voyage which shall be attended with certain ruin? I had thought that men of great experience and information, and whose knowledge was sharpened by interest, might be safely confided in. But merchants, whose habits of life have led them to calculate, whose information extends to every part of the world, are not to be trusted with the prosecution of their own interest, but we must kindly take it in hand for them! Sir, I contend that commerce had better be left free for merchants to find a market, which every one knows they would do, from their eagerness now to ship. If they could not export with safety, or profit, they would lay a voluntary embargo, ten thousand times better than a coercive one; the very necessity of coercion shows that our merchants would sail, were it not for the embargo. I contend that the embargo is ruinous and oppressive. Need I say any thing further on the subject? Look at the country. The courts of justice shut in one of the Southern States; executions suspended in a State contiguous to this; and Maryland reduced to the same necessity, from the circumstance of there being no market for our produce. So great is the pressure that the people have it not in their power to pay their ordinary debts; and how eloquent is the fact that in a moment of peace (for certainly there is not war) we are compelled to arrest the current of justice. The legislative acts depict the situation of the country more strikingly than volumes of argument. The State Legislatures know the inability of their citizens to pay, and hold out a kind hand to assist them.

In point of revenue how does it work? The honorable chairman of the committee, (Mr. Campbell,) in a speech of great learning and investigation, told us that the Treasury never was more full. I wish the documents were before the House to convince us of it. But did an atom of it flow in from the operation of the embargo? If there be such a surplus, it only shows the beneficial operation of the system pursued anterior to the embargo. What is to fill your Treasury now, if the people cannot sell their products? What will in this case become of your source of wealth in the Western country? The people can neither buy lands, nor buying, pay for them. Where is the impost duty which has supported the Government, and sunk to a considerable degree the national debt? The moment you prevent all importation, there is an utter extinction of impost revenue; and at home a physical inability to produce any from the people at large. We are a rich country, abounding in the necessaries of life; we have money's worth, but no money. Nor can our people by any practical means raise money to defray the expenses of State Governments, much more of that of the United States. I am in the country, sir; I cannot collect my rents, my neighbors cannot sell wheat or tobacco. All is stopped. I ask then what physical ability we have to discharge the State taxes, or any other? We have no other way of getting money but through the sale of our produce. Gentlemen say that our revenue would fall just as short, supposing the embargo to be raised. That is begging the question, sir. They assume that for a truth which they ought to prove in the first instance. Leave commerce open, and you will soon have money in return for our produce, or that which will procure it. Revenue is the life of Government, and let me suppose gentlemen to be sitting here thirteen months hence, on the first of January, 1810. Where is your revenue then to come from? You have dried up every source of the national wealth. What must you do? Either borrow or raise money by direct taxation. There is no doubt what must be resorted to; and it was touched with great ability, though slightly touched, by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) as to the consequences which must grow out of such a system of direct taxation. This species of taxation is consonant to the genius of the country, to the habits of our people—it comes too close to the pocket of the agriculturist, and is besides a source of revenue which ought to belong exclusively to the States. I hold it as a political truism, that upon the sovereignty and independence of each State, as guarantied by the constitution, do our liberties depend. I know that some of the ablest men in America opposed the adoption of the Federal Constitution on this ground: that the General Government being raised and supported on external matters only, if the time should ever arrive at which foreign commerce should cease, and internal taxes be resorted to, that great would be the conflict between the officers of the State and General Governments, which would ultimately end in the prostration of State rights. Gentlemen call the embargo, in silken phrase, a temporary suspension of commerce. I will call it by its own name; it is better known to the people by it. I contend that the embargo now laid is a perpetual embargo, and no member of this House can constitutionally say it is otherwise; for the immediate Representatives of the people have so played the game as to leave the winning trump out of their own hands, and must now have a coincidence in opinion both of the Senate and of the President of the United States to effect its repeal. If the whole of this body were to consent to a repeal, and a majority of the Senate, yet the President might resist them both. Is there any limitation to the law on the statute book? No; but there is a power given to the President to suspend it in the whole or in part, in the event of certain contingencies. Have those contingencies happened? Are they likely to happen? No, sir; and these are the views which I take of the subject. America, anxious[Pg 66] to get red of this burden, has proffered to take it off, if either of the two belligerents would relax their edicts in our favor in relation to such one, keeping it on in relation to the other. What says the sarcastic British Minister? Why, sir, that they have no cause of complaint; that it was laid by the President as a precautionary measure; and they were told by our Minister that it was not to be considered as a hostile measure. What says France? She gives us no answer, say gentlemen. Aye, sir—and is that true? Have we indeed received no answer? I think we have one that wounds our feelings as deeply as the answer of Mr. Canning. It is the situation of our Minister abroad, who says he dare not ask for an answer, because the asking it might be injurious to our cause. What, have we a Minister abroad, and is he afraid or unwilling to make a proposition to the Government where he is resident? Surely, sir, that state of things furnishes as definite an answer as any that could be given. We have no hopes that either will remove its edicts. Sir, I consider the embargo as a premium to the commerce of Great Britain. Gentlemen say that she is a great power, a jealous power, and possessed of a monopolizing spirit. If these views be correct, by annihilating our commerce, do we not yield the seas to her, and hold out an inducement to her forever to continue her orders in force? What prospect is there that the embargo will be removed? It cannot now be got rid of by a vote of this House. We are saddled with it. If we cast our eyes to proceedings elsewhere constitutionally held on the same subject, we shall find that it is to remain still farther to oppress and burden the people of this country with increased rigor.

As a measure of finance it has laid the axe to the root. The tree is down that bore the golden fruit, and will not again grow till we ease ourselves of this measure. In a fiscal point of view I cannot then for my life think it a wise or provident measure. But as a preparation for war, it is still worse; because it produces a deficiency of that out of which war alone cannot be sustained. Instead of having money for your surplus produce, it rots upon your hands; instead of receiving a regular revenue, we have arrested its course, and dried up the very source of the fountain. As to preparation at home, which is the only preparation contemplated to make, what or whom is it against? Against France? She cannot come here. Or against England, who, with the monopoly of commerce which you leave her to enjoy, has no object further to annoy you? I believe, as a preparation for war, the best expedient would be to get as much money as we could, to send out our surplus produce and bring back the supplies necessary for an army if to be raised at all—to arm and discipline the militia. A raising of the embargo would be a preparation for war—it would bring us articles of the first necessity for our surplus. But on a continuation of the embargo, things must progress from bad to worse.

Another thing, sir; I do not now mean to take a constitutional view of the subject—but will not gentlemen pause and reflect on the continuance of the embargo? It is well known that the General Government grew out of a spirit of compromise. The great authors of that instrument were well acquainted with the term embargo. A temporary embargo for the purpose of sending out a squadron or concealing an equipment, was well understood. But I ask every one who hears me, if a question had been agitated in convention to give Congress a power to lay an embargo for one or two years, if the Eastern or commercial States would have agreed to it? Does any man believe it? No man who knows the country can believe it. With what sedulous anxiety did they say, in a negative provision of the constitution, that Congress should not lay an export duty! You are prohibited the minor power of taxing exports, and yet you stop exports altogether for an indefinite term. It is utterly inconceivable, that the States interested in commerce should have given their assent to any such powers so self-destructive. If they had given them, they ought to be most clear; not by implication, but most manifest. The exercise of powers counteracting principles most dear to every part of the community, ought to be assumed with the utmost caution. Under that view, except the measure be most wise in itself and its effects most clear, the Government ought not to continue the embargo. But why is it to be continued? We have taken some view of its effects at home. Let us see what effects may be expected to be produced by it abroad. An honorable gentleman told us an hundred millions were saved by having the embargo, a sum nearly equal to the whole exports of the United States for one year, excluding the capital employed. The first two or three seizures of vessels, sir, would have sent an alarm abroad, and the danger been so imminent, they would have voluntarily retired from destruction. There are no reasonable data from which to infer that one hundred millions of our property could at any one time have fallen a prey. Some few vessels might have been taken, but the rest would have escaped the grasp of the power which harassed them.

I will now examine the character of this measure; for upon my word, sir, it seems a political nondescript, though we feel its effects so severely. The President tells you it is a measure of precaution only; and yet we are told by the gentlemen that it is a species of war, which America can best use to coerce the two greatest powers on the earth, commanding land and sea, to truckle at our feet. I know not how gentlemen can place our connection with foreign nations in such a predicament; whilst the President officially holds out to the world that the embargo was a peaceful measure, gentlemen now say that it is a coercive one, a sort of quasi war. I recollect a gentleman at the last session making an estimate of the West Indies being worth an hundred millions to[Pg 67] Britain, and predicting that before the measure was ninety days known in the West Indies, it would bring that nation to our feet, that it would act as a great political lever, resting its fulcrum on Jamaica, and move all Europe to our wishes. Double the number of days have elapsed, and they hold out insulting language. How then can we trust to the future predictions of gentlemen? Their error arises from a want of knowledge of the country; a little experience is worth all the theory in the world. In the years 1774-'5, an honorable feeling adopted a non-exportation and non-importation agreement, more faithfully executed by patriotism than any law since made or enacted; for every family refused to use an article which was not raised within the bosom of its own country. Did it produce starvation in the West Indies? No, sir; the politicians of that day did not so calculate. They knew the resources of those islands, and told them that if they would convert a part of their sugar plantations into corn-fields, they would not suffer. We are now in the habit of overvaluing ourselves and undervaluing our enemies. Come the day when it will, we shall have no ignoble foes to meet.

In the Revolutionary war how did England stand—how her islands? For several years she was at war with America, with Holland, with Spain, with France, whose fleets in the East and West Indies were often equal, sometimes superior to her own, and an armed neutrality in the North—during this period a French fleet blockaded the Chesapeake, and aided the capture of Cornwallis, and threatened the British islands—but how was this conflict with the world sustained? Were the islands starved during these years? did they fall? No, sir; the British nation braved the storm, and was only conquered by her sons—America was victorious and independent; but Europe retired discomfited. Sir, America can again prove victorious, but it must be by other measures than embargoes—destructive only at home and without effect abroad.

It is said that one reason why the embargo has not pressed so hard on Great Britain as it might, is, that it has not been so tightly drawn as it may be; that our citizens have evaded it. And, sir, if I have not any geographical knowledge of the country, tighten the cords as you may by revenue cutters and gunboats on the seaboard, and collectors and military on land, they will escape both. Interest, ever alert, will avail itself of our extensive coast and elude the law.

But gentlemen say they are not accountable for the failure in England, from another cause—the language of the public papers and pamphlets of the anti-embargoists. The enemy, we are told, has been induced to hold out under the idea that America will yield. Sir, would Great Britain rely for her oracles on the newspapers or pamphlets of this country? Have those causes wrought on her a perseverance in her measures? I wonder, sir, that, in the anxiety to find causes, gentlemen never cast their eyes to official documents—to a very important State paper issued on this side the Atlantic—saying that the marshals and civil force were not adequate to enforce the embargo. When the President's proclamation arrived in England, no doubt could have remained of the effect of the embargo. Another public record accompanied it—an act of one of the States arresting executions for debt during the continuance of the embargo, and for six months afterwards. With these public documents before them, the British nation would be more apt to judge, and more correctly judge, of the internal situation of the country, than from all the periodical publications of the day put together. Pamphlets also have been written in this country, of which it is said the British Ministry have availed themselves, to induce their people to believe that the United States are not capable of suffering. I believe we are. The people of America are as patriotic as any on earth, and will respect the laws, and must be made to respect them. They will obey them from principle; they must be made to obey them if they do not; for, while a law is in existence, it must be enforced. But I am somewhat surprised that gentlemen who talk of opposition publications in this country, as influencing England, should derive all their political data from British newspaper publications or opposition pamphlets. British opposition papers and pamphlets are with them the best things in the world; but nothing said here must be regarded there as correct. Even Mr. Baring has been quoted, who is a commission merchant, to the greatest extent perhaps known in the world. The Louisiana purchase of fifteen millions was nothing to him as a commission merchant. The next writer referred to, is Mr. Brougham, brought before Parliament, to assert the rights of a body of merchants confined almost exclusively to the continental trade. He came forward on their account, and the fact was demonstrated, notwithstanding his exertions, that the Orders in Council did not, but the prior French decrees did, curtail that commerce. So the majority thought and acted on that supposition. If the continuance of the embargo, then, does not produce a change in the policy of Great Britain, by its operation on the West Indies, if they resort to documents in this country, or even to speeches on this floor, they will probably continue the conflict of suffering as long as we are able to endure it, and continue our measures. For my opinion is, sir, that the extent of our seaboard affords such opportunities for evasion, that, unless we station cutters within hail of each other, on our whole coast, they will not be competent to carry our laws into effect. It will be benefiting the British colonies at the expense of our own country.

The continuance of our measures may be productive of another consequence, attended with more serious mischief than all others together—the diversion of trade from us to other channels. Look at both sides of the case. If Great[Pg 68] Britain holds on, (and my predictions are not fulfilled, or she will persevere,) she will look for other resources of supply, that, in the event of a war, she may not be essentially injured. She will endeavor to arrange her sources of supply, so that no one nation refusing to deal with her shall have it in their power materially to impair her interests. As to cotton, large quantities of this article were formerly drawn from the West Indies. The destruction of the sugar estates in St. Domingo gave a new direction to cultivation. They ceased to grow in many of the West India islands that article which they formerly had raised to a considerable extent, (cotton,) and which, if the increased labor employed in the sugar estates, now adequate to the supply of Europe, be not profitable, they will again cultivate. The Brazils will assist to take a sufficient quantity for consumption, (and, as well as my memory serves me, they produce seventy or eighty thousand bags annually;) and South America will add her supplies. I grant that we can now undersell these countries; but I beg gentlemen to pause before they drive England into a change of commercial habits, which in the hour of future peace may never be fully restored, and thus inflict deep and lasting wounds upon our prosperity. Sir, we are told that we are to produce great effects by the continuance of the embargo and non-intercourse with this nation. Do gentlemen who were in the majority on the subject of the embargo when laid (for I was anxious then that at least foreign nations might come and give us what we wanted in exchange for our product) recollect their argument against permitting foreign vessels to come and take our produce; that it was privilege all on one side; that it would be nominal to France, while England would be the sole carrier? Now, sir, as to the non-intercourse system—how does that operate? France has no commerce—cannot come here—and therefore is not injured by her exclusion from our ports. It operates solely on England. If the argument was then correct, to avoid the measure because it operated to the sole benefit of England, what shall we think of the non-intercourse measure which operates solely against her? In a commercial view, therefore, and in point of interest, this country will be deeply benefited by a removal of the embargo.

But, gentlemen say that the honor of the country is at stake; that a removal of the embargo would be submission to Great Britain, and submission to France. How is our honor affected by removing it? We say we will not trade—with whom? With them alone? No, sir; the embargo says we will not trade with anybody. All nations, when they find it convenient, can pocket their honor for profit. What is it we do for a license to go into the Mediterranean? Do we not pay an annual tribute to Algiers for liberty to navigate the sea safer from its corsairs? Have we not an undoubted right to navigate the Mediterranean? Surely; and yet we pay annually a tribute for permission to do it—and why? Because the happiness and interest of the nation are promoted by it. In a monarchy, the Prince leads his subjects to war for the honor of his mistress, or to avenge a petty insult. But, what best consults the honor of a Republican Government? Those measures which maintain the independence, promote the interest, and secure the happiness of the individuals composing it. And that is the true line of honor which, if pursued, shall bring with it the greatest benefits to the people at large. I do not know, sir, strictly speaking, whether the destruction of any commercial right is destructive to the independence of the country; for a nation may exist independent, and the happiness of the people be secured, without commerce. So, that the violation of commercial rights does not destroy our independence. I acknowledge that it would affect the sovereignty of the country and retard its prosperity. But, are not the measures which have been adopted, submission? No train of argument can make more clear the fact, that, withdrawing from the ocean for a time is an abandonment, instead of an assertion, of our rights. Nay, I think I have the authority of the committee for it, for I speak of submission as applicable to the measure recommended by the committee. They say, that "a permanent suspension of commerce, after repeated and unavailing efforts to obtain peace, would not properly be resistance; it would be withdrawing from the contest, and abandoning our indisputable right freely to navigate the ocean." If a permanent embargo, after repeated offers of peace, would not properly be resistance, but an abandonment of our rights, is not a temporary embargo—and this has been a year continued—an abandonment for the time? Unquestionably it is. So long as it continues, it does abandon our rights. And now I will show that it is submission, and not resistance. I maintain that the embargo, aided by the second and third resolutions of the committee, does complete an abandonment of our maritime rights, and is a submission to the orders and decrees.

Of what nature are the rights in contest? They are maritime rights, and not territorial; and, to be used, must be exercised exterior to the limits of our territory. Whatever measures are confined within our territorial limits, is not an assertion or enjoyment of our exterior rights. Their enjoyment must be abroad, consisting of the actual use of them. If, then, all our measures be confined within our jurisdictional limits, they cannot amount to an enjoyment of the rights exterior to those limits. I will illustrate this, to every man's comprehension. There is a street in Georgetown, through which every one has a right to pass—it is a highway. A merchant, with whom I have dealt for many years, because I purchase some articles of another merchant, says I shall not go through that street. I cross over, and his enemy says I shall not pass by him. I retire home and call a consultation[Pg 69] of my friends. I tell them that I have entered into resolutions, first, that, to submit to this will be an abandonment of my right to pass and repass. Well, what then, say my friends? Why, I declare I will neither go nor send to either of their houses—have no intercourse with them. Well, what then? Why, I will buy a broadsword and pair of pistols, and lock my door and stay at home. And do I enjoy my right of walking the street by making myself a prisoner? Surely not, sir. Now, this is precisely our case, under these resolutions. We say, that to submit, would be a wound on our honor and independence. We call a consultation. What is the result of it? We say we will have no intercourse with the nations injuring us, nor with any other; and, lastly, that we will arm and defend ourselves at home. And, I ask, is this resistance? Is it an enjoyment of our rights, or a direct, full submission? Is it not an abandonment of those rights to which we are entitled?

It has been said, that the little portion of commerce which would remain unaffected by the belligerent edicts, would belong to us as a boon from England, were we to prosecute it. I do not understand it in this light. Our right to navigate the ocean is inherent, and belongs to us as a part of our sovereignty; but, when interdicted from any one place, if we go to another, we certainly do not accept that commerce as a boon. I might as well say, if a man interdicted me from going down one street in Georgetown, that I accept a boon from him in going down another. This is certainly not the case. The trading to these places is exercising our original right, not interfered with; and, so far as those orders and decrees do not operate, we could carry on a legitimate trade, flowing from our indisputable right, as a sovereign nation, to navigate the ocean. It does seem to me then, sir, that the residue of our trade might be carried on without submitting to the belligerent edicts. But, an honorable gentleman (Mr. G. W. Campbell) asked me, yesterday, if we were to permit our enemies to take any part, whether they would not take the remainder? This, like the horse's tail in Horace, would be plucked, hair by hair, till it was all out. True, sir, this might possibly happen. But, what have we done? Why, we have cut the tail off, for fear all the hair should be taken out. We have ourselves destroyed all that portion of our trade which the belligerents have not interdicted.

Taking the whole into view, then, I think that the continuance of the embargo, as an assertion of our rights, is not an efficient mode of resistance.

But gentlemen say, in a crisis like the present, when each individual ought to contribute his mite, it is very easy to find fault; and they ask for a substitute. I want no substitute. Take off the embargo. That is what I want. But when called upon in this manner, I cannot help looking around me to the source whence I expected higher and better information. The crisis is awful. We are brought into it by the means recommended by the head of our foreign relations. I think the President advised the embargo. If he did not, he certainly advised the gunboats and the additional military force. In these minor measures, which have been in their consequences so interesting, there was no want of advice or responsibility. Why then, in this awful crisis, shall we not look to the same quarter? The responsibility is left on us. We anti-embargoists show that things would not have been thus, had our advice been taken; and, not being taken, we have little encouragement to give more. Our advice is on the journals. We said, let us have what commerce we can get, and bring home returns to stimulate our industry. I believe the declarations of gentlemen when they say that they are friendly to commerce; but their fondness for it is the embrace of death. They say they will protect it; but it is strange that they should begin to protect it by abolishing it. I contend that their measures have not answered the purposes of protection, but on the contrary they have been prejudicial to it; and I trust in their candor that they will join us in giving elasticity to commerce, and removing this pressure. The interests of commerce and agriculture are identified; whenever one increases, the other extends. They progress pari passu. Look at your mercantile towns; and wherever you find one, like a pebble thrown into water, its influence extends in a circle more or less remotely, over the whole surface. Gentlemen from the agricultural country vote to support commerce, because it increases the value of their own product; they are not so disinterested as they suppose, and I believe the best way is to consider the two inseparable. As I am at present disposed, could I not obtain a total repeal, I would prefer a resolution laid on the table by a gentleman (Mr. Mumford) from one of the largest commercial cities in the Union, and who must be supposed to know the opinion of commercial men. I can scarcely with my knowledge or understanding point out any thing; but if I have not capacity to be one of the ins, I can readily perceive whether the present system be adequate or not. I would let our vessels go out armed for resistance; and if they were interfered with, I would make the dernier appeal. We are able and willing to resist; and when the moment arrives, there will be but one heart and hand throughout the whole Union. All will be American—all united for the protection of their dearest rights and interests.

Mr. Lyon opposed the report in a speech of an hour.

Mr. Desha said he had been particularly attentive to the whole of the debates during the very lengthy discussion of this important subject, and, said he, I am at a loss how to understand gentlemen, or what to conclude from their observations. Am I to conclude that they are really Americans in principle? I wish to do so; and I hope they are; but it appears[Pg 70] somewhat doubtful, or they would not tamely give up the honor of their country by submitting to French decrees and British Orders in Council—that is, by warmly advocating the repeal of the embargo, without proposing something as a substitute. Do gentlemen mean an abject acquiescence to those iniquitous decrees and Orders in Council? Do gentlemen mean that that liberty and independence that was obtained through the valorous exertions of our ancestors, should be wrested from our hands without a murmur—that independence, in the obtaining of which so much virtue was displayed, and so much blood was shed? Do they mean that it should be relinquished to our former masters without a struggle? Gentlemen assign as a reason why the embargo should be removed, its inefficacy—that it has not answered the contemplated purpose. I acknowledge that as a measure of coercion it has not come entirely up to my expectations. It has not been as efficient as I expected it would have been. But what are the reasons why it has not fully come up to the expectations of its supporters, as a measure of coercion? The reasons are obvious to every man who is not inimical to the principles of our Government, and who is not prejudiced against the present Administration. Was it not for want of unanimity in support of the measure? Was it not in consequence of its having been wantonly, shamefully, and infamously violated? and perhaps winked at by some who are inimical to the principles of our Government; but who have had address and ingenuity sufficient to procure themselves to be appointed to office, and in which situation they have obtained a certain influence, and by misrepresentations as well as clamorous exertions have, in many instances, led the unwary astray, and caused the measure to become unpopular in some parts of the country? By improper representations and fallacious statements of certain prints, apparently, and I might add, undoubtedly, hostile to civil liberty and free Government, and advocates of British policy; by the baneful opposition of British agents and partisans, together with refugees or old tories, who still recollect their former abject standing, and who have never forgiven the American independence, and who, in all probability, are doing all in their power at this time to assist their master George the Third in bringing about colonization and vassalage in this happy land—by keeping up party spirit to such a height, that the tyrant of the ocean was led to believe that he had a most powerful British party in the bosom of our country—and that, by an extraordinary opposition made to the embargo, we would become restless, and could not adhere to a suspension of commerce—consequently would have to relax, and fall into paying tribute, under the Orders of Council, to that corrupt Government, Britain. These are part of the reasons why the embargo, as a measure of coercion, has not proved completely efficacious; and had it not been for this kind of conduct, our enemies would have been brought to a sense of justice, an amicable adjustment of differences would have taken place. By this iniquitous conduct they have tried to wrest from the hands of Government an engine, the best calculated of all others that could have been imagined, to coerce our enemies into a sense of justice, and bring about reciprocity of commerce, that most desirable object, a system of all others the best suited to the peaceful genius of our Government. But if it has not been entirely efficacious as a measure of coercion, it has been particularly serviceable in many instances—by keeping us out of war, which is at all times to be deprecated by civilized men, by preserving our citizens from becoming victims of British tyranny on board their war ships, and securing an immense amount of American property that was sailing on the ocean, supposed to amount in value to between sixty and a hundred millions of dollars, the principal part of which would inevitably have fallen into the voracious jaws of the monster of the deep, or into the iron grasp of the tyrant Napoleon—by which, if we are involved in war, we have preserved the leading sinews, wealth; and above all, for preventing us from becoming tributary to those piratical depredators, whose inevitable determination is to monopolize the whole trade of the world, by which they rob us of our inherent rights. If gentlemen had come forward with propositions to adopt any thing as a substitute for the embargo, that would have prevented us from the degradation of submission, or from falling into the hands of those monsters of iniquity, they no doubt would have met with support. The friends of this measure are not so particularly attached to it, but what they would willingly exchange it for one that was less sorely felt, less oppressive, and one that would preserve national honor, and bring about a redress of grievances; as it was with extreme regret that they had to resort to the measure of the embargo, and which could only be warranted by the necessity of the case. I am as anxious for the repeal of the embargo as any gentleman in this House, or perhaps any man on the continent, whenever it can be done consistent with the honor and welfare of the nation. The citizens of Kentucky, whom I have the honor to represent, feel its effects in common with their fellow men throughout the continent; but their patriotism is such that they bear it with cheerfulness, and magnanimity, and very justly consider it as a preventive of greater evils. I think that a retrograde step at this time would have the appearance of acquiescence, and be calculated to mark the Government with pusillanimity; therefore I deprecate war, believing as I do, that in a Government constructed like ours, war ought to be the last alternative, so as to preserve national honor. As such it would perhaps be advisable to adopt something like the second resolution that is under consideration, which, in addition to the embargo, would amount to a complete non-intercourse—which if systematically adhered to must produce the desired[Pg 71] effect. If it should not, it will at least give time to make preparations for a more energetic appeal, which may probably have to be the result. But let it not be understood, because I am for avoiding war, as long as it can be avoided upon honorable terms, that I am against going to war when it becomes actually necessary. No, sir, my life and my property are at all times at my country's command, and I feel no hesitation in saying that the citizens of Kentucky, whom I have the honor to represent, would step forward with alacrity, and defend with bravery that independence in which they glory, and in the obtaining of which some of the best blood of their ancestors was spilt; for the degradation of tribute they would spurn with manly indignation. I would even agree to go further. From my present impression, I would agree to a recall of our Ministers from both England and France, and to a discharge of theirs; and have no intercourse with the principal belligerents until they learned to respect our rights as an independent nation, and laid aside that dictatorial conduct which has for years been characteristic of those European despots; for I am almost certain, under existing circumstances, that our Ministers in neither England nor France can do us any possible service, and that their Ministers here can, and in all probability do a great deal of harm, by fomenting division and keeping up party spirit, at a time, too, when unanimity is of the utmost consequence.

As to our commerce being driven from the ocean, I am not disposed to take a lengthy retrospect, or to examine minutely in order to discover which of our enemies, England or France, was the first aggressor; it is sufficient for me that both France and England have done nearly all in their power to harass and oppress us in every imaginable way. I am not the apologist of either France or England. I am an American in principle, and I trust whenever it is thought necessary to call my energies into action I shall prove myself to be such, by defending and protecting the rights and independence of my own country, from any encroachments, let them come from what quarter they may. By those iniquitous decrees of France, all vessels bound to or from England are deemed lawful prize, and if spoken by an English ship they were condemned in the prize courts of France. When a ship arrived in any of the French ports, bribery and corruption was practiced; in order to succeed in her condemnation, a separate examination of the crew would be resorted to, as to the events that happened on the voyage; offers made of one-third of the ship and lading as their portion of the prize money, if they would give information of their vessel having touched at any of the ports of England, or that any English cruiser had visited her on the voyage. Consequently, by the French decrees, all property afloat belonging to the Americans was liable to seizure and condemnation. Are gentlemen, possessing the feelings of Americans, prepared to submit to such degradation? Are they prepared to say the embargo shall be raised, while our commerce is subjected to this kind of depredation? I trust not.

As respects the British Orders in Council, all American vessels bound to French ports, or to any of the allies of the French, are considered good prize in the courts of Britain. England says you must not carry on any trade to any of the places that I have interdicted, without obtaining my leave—pay me a duty, and then you shall be permitted to go to any port—by paying me a tribute you may trade to any port you please. Degrading to freemen! Britain in her goodness says, you shall have the liberty to bring flour from the United States of America to England, land it, and re-export it, by paying two dollars on every barrel into my coffers. On cotton, which is certainly a very important article, a duty is charged on its exportation of about nine pence per pound sterling; nearly equal to the full value of that article in the parts of America where it is raised, exclusive of the import duty, which is two pence in the pound. Therefore, if our traders wish to go to the Continent of Europe, the condition is, a tribute must be paid nearly equal to the value of the cargo, exclusive of the insurance and risk. If I mistake not, about two-thirds of the cotton exported from this country is made use of in England; on the balance a tribute must be paid of about nine pence sterling per pound, which is about twenty millions of pounds—on a calculation the sums will be found to be enormous—purely for the liberty of selling cotton; as also high and oppressive duties on other articles. If these impositions are submitted to, I pronounce your liberties gone—irretrievably lost—a blot made in the American political character, never to be obliterated. No man possessing an American heart will submit to the degradation of paying tribute to any nation on earth, nor suffer the freemen of America to be taxed without their consent. Will gentlemen say the embargo law must be repealed, and suffer our commerce to flow in its usual channel, while the decrees of France and the British Orders in Council are enforced, by which they would not only be liable to seizure and condemnation, but what is more degrading, pay a tribute of many millions of dollars annually, too degrading to be thought of with patience? We received liberty in its purity from our heroic ancestors—it is a duty incumbent on us to transmit it to posterity unsullied, or perish in the undertaking.

But, sir, it has been said that the people of the East would not bear the continuance of the embargo any longer—that they would force their way in trade; hinting, I presume, that they would openly rebel against your laws if they were not allowed to pursue their usual course in commerce, by which they subscribe to those nefarious Orders in Council, which is tribute of the most degrading kind. Who are these people of the East that have the hardihood to insinuate any thing like rebellion against the[Pg 72] laws of the land, or that would wish to degrade themselves so far as to pay tribute? It cannot be the descendants of the heroes of '76, that bravely stepped forth and fought against a tyrant for liberty! It cannot be the descendants of those brave fellows that struggled on the brow of Bunker's Hill for independence! No. It must be the descendants of refugees or old tories, or otherwise it must be British agents or partisans; for no man possessing the feeling that an American ought to feel, would throw out such threats, or degrade himself by coming under tribute. If patriotism has left the land of freedom—if it has taken its flight from the mild and peaceful shores of Columbia—if foreign influence and corruption has extended itself so far that the people are disposed to rebel against the Government of their country—if the dissemination of foreign gold has had the baneful effect of suppressing all noble and patriotic sentiments, it is indeed time that foreign intercourse should cease. If the spirit of commercial speculation and cupidity had surmounted all patriotism, it is time that more energetic measures should be resorted to, in order that the chaff might be separated from the wheat; in a word, that traitors might be known.

Mr. Nelson said it was with very considerable reluctance that he rose to make a few remarks on this subject, after the very lengthy and very eloquent discourse of the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Key.) I did not intend, said he, to have troubled the House upon this question; but as I am a man who generally speaks off-hand, it is necessary for me to answer the arguments of any gentleman promptly, if I intend to do it at all. For this reason I rise to do away some false impressions which may have been made by the gentleman's eloquence on the House, and on the by-standers, in the galleries, for I must say that his speech was better calculated for the galleries than for the sober members of this House. The gentleman commenced his argument with stating, what I do not believe, with due submission, is true in point of fact, that, although at their last session the Legislature of Maryland passed resolutions approving the embargo, yet another election having taken place, the present Legislature have passed contrary resolutions.

Mr. Key said he had spoken of the House of Representatives of Maryland, and not of the Legislature.

Mr. Nelson said the House of Representatives have, to be sure, passed resolutions bottomed on the same principles as those on which the gentleman himself has spoken, and which I have heard echoed in the electioneering campaign from almost every stump in the district in which I live. Whilst the gentleman was on this subject, I wish he had told us of the philippic these resolutions got from the Senate of Maryland. The fact is not, as I understood the gentleman to say, that the Legislature of Maryland have passed resolutions disapproving the measures of the Government. But the gentleman intimates that the politics of Maryland have undergone a great change, and that the party formerly uppermost, is now under. Sir, the question which turned out the old members of the Legislature in the county where I live, was not the embargo system, but a question as to a State law. The militia system was the stumbling-block which caused many of the old members to be turned out, and thus the opposite party got the ascendency in one branch of the Legislature of Maryland. But, since that election, another has taken place for members of Congress; and how has that turned out? Why, sir, that gentleman and two other anti-embargoists are elected, whilst six men, who have always approved of it, are also returned; making six to three. Does this prove a change? No, sir. But we have had another election since that. Out of eleven electors, nine men are returned as elected who have approved this system of measures. Does this prove that the embargo was the cause of the change of the politics of the Maryland Legislature? I think not, sir.

But the gentleman has said that the embargo, and not the Orders in Council and decrees, has destroyed the commerce of this country. I do not know, after all the arguments which I have heard, if the gentleman listened with the same attention as I did, how he could make such an assertion. When our ports are blockaded, and all the world is against us, so that, if the embargo was raised, we could go nowhere with perfect freedom, can gentlemen say that the embargo has ruined our commerce? Is it not these acts which have shut us out from a market? The gentleman says we may trade to England. Yes, sir, we may, provided we will pay all such duties as she chooses, and go nowhere else. And would not the doing this place us in precisely the same situation as we were in before the Revolution? England says we may trade with her, paying heavy import and export duties, but says we shall go nowhere else. If you go anywhere else, she says you shall go by England, take a license, and pay a duty, and then you may trade. Is it to be supposed that the people of the United States will agree to this? Are they reduced to that situation, that they will become the vassals of a foreign power—for what? Why, sir, for the prosecution of a trade with that foreign power, who, if her present impositions be submitted to, may cut up our trade in any manner she pleases; for, through our trade, she will raise a revenue to almost an equal amount with the value of your whole produce carried hence. She levies a higher tribute on some articles than the article itself is worth, and this trade the gentleman wants to pursue. He wants no substitute; "take off the embargo," says he, "and let us trade." Sir, if we could trade upon equal terms, I, too, should say, "take off the embargo, and let us trade." But if we cannot trade, except under the license of a foreign power, I say it would be ruinous to us. And has it come to this, for all the arguments go to[Pg 73] this, that the American people, for the sake of pounds, shillings, and pence, for the sake of hoarding up a few pence, are to give up their independence, and become vassals of England and France? I hear nothing from the gentleman about the honor of the nation. It would appear as if gentlemen on the other side of the House are willing to sell their country if they can put money in their pocket. Take off the embargo, they cry—for what? money. Pay tribute—for what? money. Surrender your independence—for what? all for money, sir. I trust the people have a different feeling from these gentlemen. The people love money, sir; but they love liberty and independence much better. If money had been the sole object, the Revolution would never have happened; and if that be our sole object now, the blood spilt and money spent in our Revolution was all in vain. But the gentleman says, that our honor is not concerned; that Republics have none; that their honor is to pursue that course by which they can make the most money.

Mr. Key said that he did not say that the honor of the nation was money; but that the line of conduct was most honorable which best secured the happiness and independence of the people.

Mr. Nelson.—I ask pardon of the gentleman if I misrepresented him; because the gentleman's argument was quite vulnerable enough, without my making it more so than it really was. I did understand the gentleman to say, and had he not contradicted me, should still believe so, that the honor of the Republic is precisely that which brings the most riches to the nation. But I ask, whether the line of conduct recommended by that gentleman be such a one as would be proper to secure and take care of the independence of the people? Is it to secure the independence of the people, to suffer a foreign nation to impose upon them any terms which it thinks proper? Is it for the honor or happiness of this nation that we should again pass under the yoke of Great Britain? Is it for the honor of the nation to remove the embargo, without taking any other measure, and to bear with every indignity? No, sir; and yet the gentleman tells you, "take off the embargo, I want no substitute." I did not suppose, sir, that gentlemen who oppose our measures (for I have great charity for them) would openly tell us to take off the embargo, and trade as foreign nations choose to dictate.

But the gentleman talks about the pressure of the embargo. That it does press hard is beyond doubt. It is an evil thing in itself; something like the dose a doctor gives us; it is a disagreeable thing in itself, but it cures your complaint. Thus the embargo is a disagreeable thing; but if we swallow it, however disagreeable, it may bring the political body to health. The gentleman gilds the pill he would give us; but it is a slow poison that would creep upon us, and bring on a distemper heretofore unknown to us, that sooner or later would carry us to the grave. We take off the embargo, and trade on their terms; what will be the consequence? Will they not forever hereafter compel us to trade as they please? Unquestionably. And is it not better to submit to some inconveniences, eventually to insure a free trade?

The gentleman says that, if produce be offered for sale, on condition that the embargo be raised, it will bring a higher price than if on a certainty that the embargo is to be continued. No doubt, sir, when the embargo is taken off, a momentary spur will be given to exportation; but how long will it continue? It will last but a very few weeks. Produce will soon be reduced to its proper level in the market. Take flour, for instance, the principal article raised for exportation in the gentleman's district and mine. It would rise, on a removal of the embargo, to ten or twelve dollars; and how long would that price last? It would be a thing of a day, and to the people who live in our districts of no sort of consequence; it would be of no benefit but to those who have flour at the market; to the merchants who have bought it up at a low price. Before the honest farmer can bring his produce to market, the great price will be all over; and though no embargo affects it, will be down to its present price, of four or five dollars; so that, although a removal of the embargo would reduce the price of produce at first, I cannot see how gentlemen would make that an argument for taking off the embargo. If the gentleman can show that the price will continue, and that we can traffic without dishonor, then, sir, would I cordially join hands with him to take off the embargo.

But the gentleman says, that the pressure is so very great that some of the States have passed laws for suspending executions. I know not what has been done in other States on this subject, nor what has been done in my own. If the gentleman has any information on the subject, I should like to hear it. A bill was before the House of Delegates for that purpose, but I did trust in God that it would be unanimously rejected. That such a law would pass in Maryland I never had an idea, because it is totally unnecessary. There are fewer men confined in jail for debt on this day than there ever were before for sixteen years that I have been in the practice of the law in that State. No man has gone to jail but those who, to use an emphatic expression, have broken into jail, who were too idle to work to pay their debts; who would get a friend to put them into jail, if they could get no other; and who stay there awhile, and then come out new men. This being the case, there can be no reason for shutting the courts of justice there.

On the subject of revenue, I can only say, that at present there appears to be no deficiency of money in the Treasury. It is very certain that if this embargo and non-intercourse system be continued long, our Treasury will run short, and we shall have no means of filling it but by[Pg 74] loans or direct taxation. But I trust and hope that before the money already in the Treasury is fairly expended, if we pursue our object we shall get over our embarrassments. Rather than pursue this subject much further, I would not only arm our merchantmen at sea, but our citizens on the land, and march to the North and East, and see if we could not do them some injury in return for all that we have received from them, even if we should do ourselves no good by it. It would do me some good to be able to do them some injury. I confess I do not like this Quaker policy. If one man slaps another's face, the other ought to knock him down; and I hope this will be our policy.

But the gentleman says that the President recommended this measure to Congress as a measure of precaution. I do believe that, at the time the embargo was laid, it was done as a measure of precaution, and the President viewed it in that light. After its having answered every purpose as a measure of precaution, I am for continuing it as a measure of coercion. For, whatever gentlemen say about turning sugar plantations into cotton-fields, if the embargo be rigidly enforced, that we shall distress the West Indies very considerably, I do believe. I am unwilling to involve this country in a war if I can avoid it, but I am still more unwilling to take off the embargo and embrace the proposition of my colleague: for I have no idea of a free trade being permitted to us. In any country a war is to be deprecated; in this country particularly, where every thing depends on the will of the people, we ought to be well aware that war meets the approbation of the people. We might make many declarations of war without effect, unless the people follow us. We try every method to obtain honorable peace; and if we do not succeed, the people will go with us heart and hand to war.

I shall enter into no calculations on this subject, sir. When the great question is presented to us whether we will submit or maintain our independence, we must determine either to do one or the other: that nation is not independent which carries on trade subject to the will of any other power. Then, to my mind, the only question is, shall we defend ourselves, or shall we submit? And on that question I will make no calculations. If a man submits, of what use are calculations of money, for it may be drawn from him at the pleasure of his master? Let us have as much trade as we may, if we can only carry it on as others please, we need not calculate about money. We shall be poor, indeed; and, having lost our independence, we shall not even have money in return for it. But this nation will not submit, sir, nor will any man, who is a real American, advocate such a doctrine.

As to the embargo, Mr. N said he was not wedded to it. If any better system were devised, he would give up the present system and embrace the better one, let it come whence it would.

The House adjourned without taking a question.

Friday, December 9.

Mr. Lewis presented a petition of the President and Directors of the Washington Bridge Company, praying a revision and amendment of an act passed at the last session of Congress, entitled "An act authorizing the erection of a bridge over the river Potomac within the District of Columbia."—Referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Jeremiah Morrow, from the Committee on the Public Lands, presented a bill to revive and continue the authority of the Commissioners of Kaskaskia; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

An engrossed bill to authorize the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters was read a third time: Whereupon, a motion was made by Mr. Durell that the said bill be recommitted to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, farther to consider and report thereon to the House: it passed in the negative.

The main question was then taken, that the said bill do pass, and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 90, nays 26, as follows:

Resolved, That the title be, "An act to authorize the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters."

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill, entitled "An act farther to amend the judicial system of the United States;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

Foreign Affairs.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business depending yesterday at the time of adjournment—the report of the committee still under consideration.

Mr. D. R. Williams said: It has become very fashionable to apologize to you, sir, for every trespass which a gentleman contemplates making on the patience of the House, and I do not know but in ordinary cases it may be very proper; but the present question is certainly such a one as exempts every gentleman from the necessity of making any apology whatever. I shall offer none, and for the additional reason, that I have given to every member who has spoken the utmost of my attention.

Upon this question, which presents itself in every point of view too clear to admit of a single doubt; equally unsusceptible of sophistical perversion or misrepresentation; a question which involves a political truism, and which is undenied; a debate has grown out of it, embracing the whole foreign relations of this country. I shall not attempt to follow the gentlemen in the course which they have pursued, but will confine my observations to a justification of the embargo, and to the proof, that the orders and decrees of the belligerents, and not the embargo, as was said by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Key,) have produced the present embarrassments. Bad as our situation was at the close of the last session, it has now become infinitely worse. The offer to suspend the embargo laws, for a suspension of the Orders in Council, made in a sincere spirit of conciliation, has been contemptuously rejected, those orders justified, and an extension of their operation threatened: this is a state of things insufferable. At a crisis of this sort, the importance of which every gentleman acknowledges, I deem it proper that every man who feels an ardent love of country should come forward to save that country, to rescue his sinking parent from the jaws of pollution. The effort should be, who shall render our common country the most good; who will be foremost in the ranks; we should not shrink behind the irresponsible stand of doing nothing, ready to raise ourselves upon the mistakes of others; perhaps, the virtuous misfortunes of our political brothers. I am willing to take my share of the responsibility of asserting the wisdom of the original imposition of the embargo, and the correctness of its present and future continuance. Gentlemen have been frequently called upon, while they make vehement declamation against the embargo, to say what they wish in its stead; they declare the utmost hostility to the measure, and yet they offer no substitute. Can they for one moment forget, that upon this question as upon every other national subject, we must all hang together or be hung separate! It inevitably follows from the organization of our Government, that this is the fact.

I consider the original imposition of the embargo, as wise in a precautionary point of view; and notwithstanding all that has been said, and eloquently said, by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Key,) I believe it was called for by the most imperious public necessity. Every one must know, that had it not been for the embargo, millions of property, and (what is worse) thousands of our seamen, must have fallen a sacrifice to the cupidity of belligerent cruisers. No need of calculations on this subject—I shall not stop to enter into one. I appeal to the common sense of the nation and of this House, whether or not the orders and decrees were calculated to have swept from the ocean all our floating property and seamen. But, no, say gentlemen, the seamen are not saved; and here we are amused with the old story, new vamped, of the fishermen running away. The seamen gone, sir! This is a libel on their generous and patriotic natures. Where are they gone? Every man who ventures such an allegation, is bound to prove it; because it is, if true, susceptible of proof. Surely, sir, the assertion, or even proof, that British or other foreign seamen have left your service, does not establish that American seamen have deserted their country. The British seamen gone! I am glad of it, sir. I wish there had never been one in our service; and if there is an American tar who would, in the hour of peril, desert his country, that he would go also. The thing is impossible sir; every vessel which has sailed from the United States since the imposition of the embargo, has passed under such a peculiar review before the officers of the revenue, that had any number of American seamen shipped themselves, proofs of their departure might, and certainly would, have been had. Read the intelligence from Nova Scotia; it informs us that none but English sailors have arrived there. I call upon gentlemen then to show how, where, and when, an American seaman has left his country, except in the pursuit of his ordinary vocation.

If the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) will apply to his political—I beg pardon—to his mercantile barometer, the insurance offices, he would find that, after the operation of the Orders in Council was known, insurance could not have been effected at Baltimore to the Continent of Europe for 80 per cent., and not at London, on American property, for 90 guineas per cent. The proof of this is before me. Does not this prove that so much danger existed on the ocean that it was next to impossible to pass without seizure and condemnation? And surely[Pg 76] he will not contend that this advance of premium was caused by the embargo? If the embargo then has saved any thing to the country—and that it has there can be no doubt—exactly in the proportion that it has saved property and seamen to you, it has lessened the ability of the enemy to make war upon you, and what is primarily important, lessened the temptation to war. The rich plunder of your inoffensive and enlarged commerce, must inevitably have gone to swell the coffers which are to support the sinews of war against you. The reaction thus caused by the embargo, is in your favor, precisely to the amount of property and men which it has saved to you from your enemies.

But we are told that the enterprising merchant is deprived of an opportunity—of what? Of ruining himself and sacrificing the industry of others. Has any capitalist said he would venture out in the present tempest which blackens the ocean? No, sir, they are your dashing merchants; speculators, who, having nothing to lose and every thing to gain, would launch headlong on the ocean, regardless of consequences. No commerce can be now carried on, other than that which is subservient to the Orders in Council. I appeal to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Jackson)—no man is better informed on this subject—would he venture his property on the ocean in a trade contravening those orders? I would ask him further, would Brown and Ives, merchants, as remarkable for their prudence as for their enterprise, and for their capital as either; would they send their vessels to the Continent of Europe? I believe their opinion would corroborate the opinion of Mr. Gray.

The mercantile distresses have been described, with every possible exaggeration, as insufferable. The real distress, sir, is quite sufficient, without any undue coloring. I regret extremely, indeed, sir, from my heart and soul, I lament that the embargo should be considered as falling heavier on the merchant than on the planter. If I know my own heart I would share with them to the last loaf. But compare their situation now with what it would have been if their whole property had been swept away. Compare their present situation with that which must have been the necessary consequence of the seizure of all the floating, registered tonnage of the United States, and which would have happened, but for the embargo. Their vessels are now in safety; if the embargo had not been laid they would have lost both vessel and cargo. They must have either imposed an embargo on themselves, or exposed their capital to total destruction.

Another reason why I approve of the embargo, and which, really to my mind, is a very consolatory reason, is, it has at least preserved us thus far from bloodshed. I am one of those who believe the miseries of this life are sufficiently numerous and pressing without increasing either their number or pungency by the calamities inseparable from war. If we had put the question to every man in the nation, the head of a family, whether we should go to war or lay an embargo, (the only choice we had,) nineteen out of twenty would have voted for the embargo. I believe, sir, the people of the United States confiding their honor and national character to your guardianship, would this day decide the same question in the same way. The people have nothing to gain by war, nothing by bloodshed; but they have every thing to lose. From this reason results another, equally satisfactory; we are still free from an alliance with either of the belligerents. Upon a loss of peace inevitably follows an alliance with one of those two powers. I would rather stake the nation on a war with both, than ally with either. No, sir, I never will consent to rush into the polluted, detestable, distempered embraces of the whore of England, nor truckle at the footstool of the Gallic Emperor.

But the embargo has failed, it has been triumphantly asserted on one side of the House, and echoed along the vaulted dome from the other. If it has, it is no cause of triumph; no, indeed, sir; but it is a cause of melancholy feelings to every true patriot, to every man who does not rejoice in the wrongs of his country. Why has the measure failed of expected success? The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) used an argument incomprehensible to me, as an argument in his favor; on my side it is indeed invincible. He has established it was the evasion of the laws which prevented their being effectual. He tells you that certain evaders of the laws have so risen up in opposition to them, that the President of the United States was obliged to issue his proclamation in April last; that this proclamation told the British Cabinet the people had rebelled against the embargo—but I will pass over the subject; it imposes silence on me, because it must speak daggers to the hearts of some men.

My friend from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) urged one argument against the embargo, which, to be sure, is a most serious one. He asked if we were prepared to violate the public faith? I hope not, sir. I beg to be excused for asking him (for I know he scorns submission as much as any man) if submission will pay the public debt? To that gentleman's acute and comprehensive mind, the deleterious consequences of the present system of the belligerents to our interests, must be glowing, self-evident. He will see that their present measures carry destruction to the most valuable interests, and are subversive of the most sacred rights of the people; and if they are submitted to, every thing dear to an American must be afflicted with the slow, lingering, but certain approaches of consumption. I had rather go off at once. I have no opinion of a lingering death. Rather than the nation should be made to take this yoke, if so superlative a curse can be in store for us, may the hand of Heaven first annihilate that which cannot be nurtured into honor. I had much rather all[Pg 77] should perish in one glorious conflict, than submit to this, so vile a system.

But we are told, that the embargo itself is submission. Indeed, sir! Then, with all my heart, I would tear it from the statute book, and leave a black page where it stood. Is the embargo submission? By whom is it so called? By gentlemen who are for active offence? Do these gentlemen come forward and tell you that that the embargo is submission? No such thing, sir. My memory deceives me, if any man who voted for the embargo thinks it submission. They are the original opponents of the embargo who call it submission, and who, while they charge you with the intention, are by every act and deed practising it themselves. It is incorrect, sir. Every gentleman who has spoken, and who has told you that the embargo is submission, has acknowledged the truth of the resolution under consideration; it has not been denied by a single individual. Suppose then we were to change its phraseology, and make it the preamble to a resolution for repealing the embargo, it will then read: "whereas the United States cannot without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain." Therefore resolved, that the embargo be repealed, and commerce with Great Britain permitted. Do these two declarations hang together, sir? That, because we cannot submit to the edicts of the belligerents, we will therefore open a free trade with them? The first part of the proposition is true, no man has denied it; the addition which I have made to it then, is the discordant part, and proves the embargo is not submission. I wish to know of gentlemen, whether trading with the belligerents, under their present restrictions on commerce, would not be submission? Certainly, sir. Is then a refraining from so doing, submission? In a word, is resistance submission? Was the embargo principle considered submission in the days of the stamp act? Did the nation call it submission when it was enacted under General Washington? Was it so considered by the Republicans, when resorted to for redress against the primary violations in 1793? Or was it ever contended that had not the embargo been raised, the terms of Jay's treaty would have been worse? Do gentlemen of the "old school" undertake to say that the Father of their country submitted then to George III.? I hope not, sir. If the embargo was not submission under George Washington, it is not under Thomas Jefferson. Again, I ask, were the principles of the embargo submission in 1774-'5-'6? But it has been replied, it is not meet that the remedies of that day should be applied to the present case. Why not, sir? The disease was the same; and lest gentlemen have forgotten what it was, I will tell them how the old Congress described it: "You exercised unbounded sovereignty over the sea, you named the ports and nations to which alone our merchandise should be carried, and with whom alone we should trade." Draw the parallel, sir, and if the remedy of that period will not suit the present crisis, let us look out for others. I will not stop here; I am willing to go further; I would carry fire and sword into the enemy's quarters; but I would first exhaust every means to preserve peace.

You will excuse me, sir, for giving an opinion in this place, which, perhaps, some gentlemen may think does not result from the subject immediately before us. I will tell you what description of people in the United States are most anxious that the embargo should not be repealed. It is a new sect, sir, sprung up among us—ultra-federalists. They are the persons, in my belief, who are most desirous the embargo should be continued. They see that upon its removal a war with Great Britain follows. An alliance with her is the object nearest their hearts—not a resistance of the wrongs and insults practised by her. If this embargo be submission, if non-intercourse be submission, if a prompt preparation for war be submission, I ask them what is it to sit still and do nothing? Do you mean to submit? Come out and tell the nation whether you will or will not resist the Orders in Council—let us know it—it is desirable that we should know it—it will conduce to the public weal.

I, for one, sir, will vote to continue the embargo, because I do still consider it a coercive measure—as the most deadly weapon we can use against Great Britain. I am induced to consider it so, when I take a view of what is the nature of our products—what is the nature of her exports and imports—what is the nature of her wants, and what her capacity and means of supply. Look at the West Indies, where the embargo has a decided ascendency over every other measure you can adopt. You will find that her colonial and navigation system has, in that quarter, never been maintained since the Revolution. Perhaps I ought, in presuming to speak further about the West Indies, to apologize to the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Key,) not indeed for his very courtly conduct, because if a man is ignorant, he does not like to be told of it. The gentleman will be pleased to pardon me, if I blunder on in my ignorant way, and talk a little more of that part of the world. [Mr. Key explained that he had not intended any reference to the gentleman from South Carolina in his remarks.] I am extremely obliged to the gentleman for his explanation. Entertaining great respect for his talents, I am happy to find, upon such authority, the charge is neither applicable nor intended. The colonial system has been always regarded as essential to all the vital interests of Great Britain. Every relaxation of that system has excited murmurs and great discontent in the mother country, and yet they have been constantly produced by the wants of the colonies. Would they have been permitted in favor of the United States, could those wants be supplied from any other quarter? I must contend, then, that their profitable existence depends upon an in[Pg 78]tercourse with the United States, notwithstanding every thing which has been said to the contrary. I do not mean to involve the idea of absolute starvation; much less to insinuate that the embargo is so coercive as to humble Great Britain at our feet; far from it—but I do say, from the nature of their products, their profitable existence depends upon us. There are not contained within the whole British empire at this time, whatever they may have been previous to the American Revolution, supplies for the home and colonial consumption. Will gentlemen tell us from whence they are to procure the principal articles of provisions and lumber? I might rest the argument in safety on these articles alone; these are essential, and of our produce. All the evasions of the embargo have been made with a view to that supply; enforce it, and from whence will they procure the article of lumber? It bears a higher price and is more scarce in Great Britain, even in ordinary times, than in the West Indies. The opinion that Nova Scotia and Canada were adequate to that supply, has been long since abandoned. The articles of their produce require a constant supply of our materials, some of them cannot be procured from any other part of the world; of the lumber received, we have heretofore furnished ninety-nine parts out of one hundred. But we are told they can raise corn. Who denies it? I will grant to gentlemen all they ask on that point, and add, too, that their corn is actually more valuable per bushel than that of this country; but when their labor and industry is directed to that object, what becomes of their cotton, sugar, and coffee cultivation? What becomes of the immense revenues derived from those sources? Gentlemen must not forget that at least one-third of her revenue accruing from commerce, is derived from the West India trade alone. I do not know that I should be wrong, if I were to say from coffee and sugar only. If you drive them to the cultivation of corn for subsistence, they must necessarily abandon the cultivation of their most valuable staples. And do gentlemen believe Great Britain is willing to sacrifice all these considerations to a refusal to do you justice? We do not require justice, for all we ask of her is to abstain from plundering us. We say to her "hands off;" we wish not to come into collision with you; let us alone. These sacrifices will not be much longer hazarded, unless indeed she is deluded into a belief that she has sufficient influence, in this country, to excite disaffection and insurrection, and thereby remove the cause of pressure.

Another objection with me to removing the embargo is, it will betray a timid, wavering, indecisive policy. If you will study the sentiments contained in Mr. Canning's note, you will find they afford a lesson of instruction which you ought to learn and practise upon: "To this universal combination His Majesty has opposed a temperate, but a determined retaliation upon the enemy; trusting that a firm resistance would defeat their project; but knowing that the smallest concession would infallibly encourage a perseverance in it." I beg the House to draw instruction from this otherwise detestable paper—it preaches a doctrine to which I hope we shall become proselytes. A steady perseverance in our measures will assist us almost as much as the strength of them.

I conceive the supplies necessary for the maintenance of the war with Spain and Portugal will fairly come into the calculation. It has become the duty and interest of Great Britain to maintain the cause of Spain and Portugal—she has made it so. Where will those supplies be drawn from? Does she produce them at home? Certainly not; for it cannot be forgotten that the average importation of flour alone at Liverpool is ninety thousand barrels annually. The Baltic is closed against her. The demand must be great; for Spain and Portugal in times of peace have regularly imported grain for their own consumption. And here I will observe, there is no attribute in my nature which induces me to take sides with those who contend for a choice of masters. So far as they are fighting for the right of self-government, God send them speed; but at this peculiar crisis I think it extremely important that our sympathies should not be enlisted on the side of either of the contending parties. I would, therefore, from Spain and Portugal withhold our supplies, because through them we coerce Great Britain.

But that pressure which Great Britain feels most, is most alive to, is at home. The last crop is short, and injured in harvesting; wheat is fourteen shillings the bushel, and rising. Her millions of poor must be supplied with bread, and what has become almost equally important, she must furnish employment for her laborers and manufacturers. Where can the necessary supply of cotton be procured? For, thank God! while we are making a sacrifice of that article, it goes to the injury of Great Britain who oppresses us, and whose present importation is not equal to one-half her ordinary consumption. If the manufacturer is to be thrown out of employ, till that raw material which is now the hypothesis of the day, is produced from Africa, the ministry who are the cause of it will not long rule the destinies of that nation. No, sir, I am not alarmed about supplies of cotton from Africa. Nor am I to be frightened out of the embargo by a fear of being supplanted in the market, from that quarter; they must be but little read indeed in political economy, who can dread a competition with barbarians, in the cultivation of the earth.

Another strong inducement with this House to continue and enforce the embargo is, that while it presses those who injure us, it preserves the nation in peace. I see no other honorable course in which peace can be maintained. Take whatever other project has been hinted at, and war inevitably results. While we can procrastinate the miseries of war, I am for procrastinating; we thereby gain the additional advan[Pg 79]tage of waiting the events in Europe. The true interests of this country can be found only in peace. Among many other important considerations, remember, that moment you go to war, you may bid adieu to every prospect of discharging the national debt. The present war of all others should be avoided; being without an object, no man can conjecture its termination; for as was most correctly observed by my friend, (Mr. Macon,) the belligerents fight everybody but one another. Every object for which the war was originally begun and continued to 1806, has since that time become extinct. The rupture in the negotiations of that day was made not on points affecting directly the British interest, but grew out of the indirect concern she felt in maintaining those urged by Russia, which Power, having since declared war against Great Britain, has obliterated the then only existing object of the war. Embark in it when you please, it will not procure you indemnity for the past; and your security for the future must ultimately depend on the same promises, which you can obtain by peaceable means. I have no disposition, sir, to hazard the interest of my country in a conflict so undefined, so interminable!

But, say gentlemen, it is certainly not submission to trade to those ports which the edicts of the belligerents have not prohibited us from trading with. Granted—I will not enter into a calculation on the subject, as to how much importance the trade would be of to us. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has told you it would be contemptible in amount; but, sir, I say this, because I consider it expedient to continue the embargo, to withhold our supplies from those who need them, I will not permit you to go to those countries. Repeal the embargo in part! No, sir. Give merchants one single spot anywhere out of the jurisdiction of your own country, as large as the square of this House, and they would carry away the whole of our surplus produce. Give them a little island on which to place the fulcrum of their lever, and Archimedes-like, they will move your whole trade. Let them go to Demarara, to Gottenburg, or any other burg, and it is to the whole world. But the trade to Spain and Portugal has been held up as highly profitable to the merchants of the United States. The gentlemen who venture this opinion have not, perhaps, considered the subject with all the attention it is entitled to. It appears to me to be demonstrable from the documents, and the knowledge of circumstances which we possess, that Great Britain, with the extension of plunder the Orders in Council warranted, is not satisfied. She was not content that she had laid a snare whereby she intercepted our whole commerce to Europe. She then permitted us (no doubt from extreme moderation) to trade with the French colonies, taking care, at the same time, to force a direction of that trade in a channel which could not fail to yield a tributary supply to her exchequer. She has now interdicted, by orders secretly issued, that commerce also. The language of Cochrane's proclamation cannot be misunderstood. What a harvest he would have reaped from the robbery of your merchantmen, had the embargo been raised, as was expected by the British Cabinet, at the commencement of the session. The Orders in Council would have taken all your property going to continental Europe, and those of the Admiralty would have swept the West India traders. I believe the idea of enjoying a free trade to Spain and Portugal is altogether illusory. Mr. Canning has told us, not in totidem verbis, but certainly in effect, that we should be permitted to trade with those countries, only under the Orders in Council. In answer to the proposition made by Mr. Pinkney to suspend the embargo as to Great Britain, for a suspension of the Orders in Council as to the United States, the British Minister replied in the most peremptory manner possible. Here let me observe, that had that suspension been agreed to, the embargo would have co-operated with the Orders in Council against France. It would have been even much more efficacious than those orders, inasmuch as our own regulations would have interdicted all commerce with France. The professed object of the Orders in Council, retaliation on the enemy, cannot therefore be real—they originated, as they have been executed, in a spirit of deadly hostility against us. That the operation of those orders would be extended to Spain and Portugal, should the embargo be repealed in part, I infer from this positive assertion of the British Secretary: "It is not improbable, indeed, that some alterations may be made in the Orders in Council, as they are at present framed; alterations calculated not to abate their spirit or impair their principle, but to adapt them more exactly to the different state of things which has fortunately grown up in Europe, and to combine all practicable relief to neutrals with a more severe pressure upon the enemy." Here is not only a denial of suspension, but a threat that alterations will be made, (no doubt in tender mercy to us,) not to abate their spirit, but to adapt their operation more extensively to our ruin. What is the state of things alluded to? Let every gentleman who seeks after truth, candidly inquire for himself, what is the state of things which Mr. Canning considers has so fortunately grown up in Europe. Can it be any thing but the revolutions in Spain and Portugal? If the Orders in Council are not to be impaired, but their operation rendered more applicable to the present state of things, a fortiori, you are to be cut off from the South of Europe, in the same manner as you are from France and her dependencies. And are you ready to repeal the embargo under such a threat as this? This note, sir, is sarcastic to the last degree; in it I read insult added to the atrocious injuries my country has received; there is but one part of it which can be looked at with patience, and that is the valuable admonition I have read.

[Pg 80]

Some gentlemen have gone into a discussion of the propriety of encouraging manufactures in this country. I heard with regret the observations of the gentleman from Virginia on this subject. I will be excused by him for offering my protest against those sentiments. I am for no high protecting duties in favor of any description of men in this country. Extending to him the equal protection of the law, I am for keeping the manufacturer on the same footing with the agriculturist. Under such a system, they will increase precisely in that proportion which will essentially advance the public good. So far as your revenue system has protected the interests of your merchants, I am sincerely rejoiced; but I can consent to no additional imposition of duty, by way of bounty to one description of persons, at the expense of another, equally meritorious. I deplore most sincerely the situation into which the unprecedented state of the world has thrown the merchant. A gentleman from Massachusetts has said, they feel all the sensibility for the mercantile interest, which we feel for a certain species of property in the Southern States. This appeal is understood, and I well remember, that some of their representatives were among the first who felt for our distressing situation, while discussing the bill to prohibit the importation of slaves. I feel all the sympathy for that interest now, which was felt for us then; but I ask if it is not sound policy to encourage the patriotism of our merchants to support still longer the sacrifices, which the public exigencies call for, with spirit and resolution? If they should suffer most from our present situation, it is for their immediate advantage that we are contending. I must be allowed in continuation to say, that, although I do not profess to be one of the exclusive protectors of commerce, I am as willing to defend certain rights of the merchant, as the rights of the planter. Thus far I will go; I will assist in directing the physical strength of the nation to the protection of that commerce which properly grows out of the produce of the soil; but no further. Nor am I therefore disposed to limit the scene of his enterprise. Go up to Mocha, through the Dardanelles, into the South seas. Search for gums, skins, and gold, where and when you please; but take care, it shall be at your own risk. If you get into broils and quarrels, do not call upon me, to leave my plough in the field, where I am toiling for the bread my children must eat, or starve, to fight your battles.

It has been generally circulated throughout the Eastern States, in extracts of letters, said to be from members of Congress, (and which I am certainly sorry for, because it has excited jealousies, which I wish to see allayed,) that the Southern States are inimical to commerce. So far as South Carolina is concerned in the general implication, I do pronounce this a gross slander, an abominable falsehood, be the authors who they may. The State of South Carolina is now making a most magnanimous sacrifice for commercial rights.

Will gentlemen be surprised when I tell them, South Carolina is interested, by the suspension of our trade, in the article of cotton alone, to an amount greater than the whole revenue of the United States? We do make a sacrifice, sir; I wish it could be consummated. I should rejoice to see this day all our surplus cotton, rice, flour and tobacco burnt. Much better would it be to destroy it ourselves, than to pay a tribute on it to any foreign power. Such a national offering, caused by the cupidity and oppression of Great Britain, would convince her she could not humble the spirit of freemen. From the nature of her products, the people of South Carolina can have no interest unconnected and at variance with commerce. They feel for the pressure on Boston, as much as for that on Charleston, and they have given proofs of that feeling. Upon a mere calculation of dollars and cents—I do from my soul abhor such a calculation where national rights are concerned—if South Carolina could thus stoop to calculate, she would see that she has no interest in this question—upon a calculation of dollars and cents, which, I repeat, I protest against, it is perfectly immaterial to her whether her cotton, rice, and tobacco, go to Europe in English or American vessels. No, sir, she spurned a system which would export her produce at the expense of the American merchant, who ought to be her carrier. When a motion was made last winter for that kind of embargo which the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) was in favor of; for he says he gave his advice to do that very thing, which if adopted would cut up the navigation interest most completely, (an embargo on our ships and vessels only;) South Carolina could have put money in her pocket, (another favorite idea with the gentleman,) by selling her produce to foreigners at enormous prices; her representatives here unanimously voted against the proposition; and her Legislature, with a magnanimity I wish to see imitated throughout the United States, applauded that vote—they too said they would unanimously support the embargo, at the expense of their lives and fortunes. She did not want an embargo on our ships, and not on produce. No, sir; she knows we are linked together by one common chain—break it where you will, it dissolves the tie of union. She feels, sir, a stroke inflicted on Massachusetts, with the same spirit of resistance that she would one on Georgia. The Legislature, the representatives of a people with whom the love of country is indigenous, told you unanimously, that they would support the measures of the General Government. Thank God, that I am the Representative of such a State, and that its representatives would not accept of a commerce, even at the advice of a gentleman from Maryland, which would profit themselves at the expense of their Eastern brethren. Feeling these senti[Pg 81]ments, I cannot but say, in contradiction to what fell from the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Gholson,) I should deplore that state of things which offers to the merchant the lamentable alternative, beggary or the plough. I would say to the merchant, in the sincerity of my heart, bear this pressure with manly fortitude; if the embargo fails of expected benefit, we will avenge your cause. I do say so, and believe the nation will maintain the assertion.

It is with reluctance I feel compelled, before I resume my seat, to make a few observations in reply to what fell from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) yesterday. The gentleman commenced his address by contradicting the statements made by a gentleman from Massachusetts, and my worthy friends from Virginia and Georgia, (Messrs. Randolph and Troup.) He told you their districts could not feel the embargo most, as it was in his the sufferings were most severe. I shall not waste the time of the House by an inquiry into the truth of this assertion; nor, sir, will I enter into a competition of this sort. I aim at a distinction far more glorious. The State I represent in part, bears the embargo the best. This it is my pride to boast of. There, sir, there are no murmurs, no discontent at the exertions of Government to preserve the rights of the nation. And as long as respect for the honor, and a hope of the salvation of the country exists, so long will they bear it, press as hard as it may.

The gentleman told you, in speaking of the Maryland elections, that the film is removed from the eyes of the people, and that in discerning their true interests, they saw it was the embargo, and not the Orders in Council, which oppresses them. He must feel confident indeed in the knowledge that he is two years in advance of his constituents, or he would not have ventured such an assertion. [Mr. Key explained that he had said the film was removed, and the people saw that their distress arose more from the embargo than from the Orders in Council.] Mr. Williams continued: I have no intention to misrepresent the gentleman, but I understood him to say that the Orders in Council did not affect the continental market, but the Berlin decree; that the embargo caused all the pressure at home; that the Orders in Council had no part in producing that measure, and therefore I infer as his opinion, that the Orders in Council have not injured us. [Mr. Key said that the few observations which he had made on this subject, were in reply to the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. G. W. Campbell,) that the people should be no longer deluded. In answer to this Mr. K. said he had observed that the people were not deluded—that the film was removed from their eyes, and that he then had gone on to show that the depression of produce arose from the embargo. But that he never had meant to say that the Berlin decree and Orders in Council were not injurious, because they lopped off a large portion of our commerce.]

I understood the gentleman to say (observed Mr. W.) that it was very strange we would not trust our merchants upon the subject of the embargo, who were the best judges. I wish to represent the gentleman's sentiments correctly, and shall not consider him impolite, if I have misstated him, should he again stop me. Why, sir, is it strange? Are the merchants the guardians of the public honor? This I conceive to be the peculiar province of Congress, because to it alone has the constitution confided the power to declare war. Will the gentleman trust the merchants with the guardianship of his own honor? No, sir, he chooses to protect it himself. And would he advise the nation to pursue a course disgraceful, and to which he would not expose himself? I will not trust the merchants in this case, nor any other class of men; not being responsible for the national character, they will trade anywhere, without regard to principle. So true is this, Dessalines felt no uneasiness when informed of the law prohibiting all intercourse with St. Domingo; he replied, "hang up a bag of coffee in hell, and the American merchant will go after it." I am not sure that, in the evasions of the embargo, some of them have not already approached near its verge: certain I am, that, in a fair commerce, such is the enterprise and perseverance of their character, they will drive their trade as far as it can be driven. No, sir, I will not trust the merchant now, because he would do the very thing which the gentleman seems to wish, trade under the Orders in Council.

The embargo should be removed, because, says the gentleman, it has operated as a bounty to the British trade. I should be disposed to doubt this, if for no other reason than a knowledge of who advocates its removal. Before the embargo was laid, agricultural labor in the British West India islands, particularly on sugar estates, could scarcely support itself. I refer the gentleman to the documents printed by order of Parliament, and the memorials of the agent of Jamaica. He will find that the planters are in a distressed situation, not from their failure in the cultivation of the soil, but from the enormous duties on their produce in the mother country. Are the extravagant prices of articles of the first necessity, superadded to their former embarrassments, to operate as a bounty on their trade? I should be extremely gratified if the gentleman will inform us what would have been the amount of bounty on the trade, if evasions of the embargo had not taken place. If the price of flour has been sixty dollars per barrel, and other articles in proportion, what would have been the price had there been no evasions of the law? They could not have been procured at all: and yet we are told the embargo is a bounty on British trade! When the gentleman was, I had like to have said, justifying the Orders in Council, he should have favored us with a vindication of the smuggling proclamation also. Such a degree of corruption and of immorality never before, in any[Pg 82] one paper, disgraced a civilized nation. The citizens of a country, at peace and in amity, enticed to evade their own laws! Is such an act calculated to induce the belief that the embargo operates as a bounty on British trade?

I shall not enter upon another question stirred by the gentleman, the constitutionality of the embargo law; the subject has become so stale, that even he could scarcely make it interesting. It has been laid asleep—a solemn adjudication has taken place and put it at rest. But the gentleman will excuse me for observing he made a most unfortunate allusion in the course of his argument. He said it was strange that, not having the power delegated to us to tax exports, we should undertake to prohibit them. The Orders in Council, which if the gentleman did not justify, he was certainly very tender of, do exercise that very power of taxing our exports, which by the constitution we are prohibited, and that too when they are destined to a government equally sovereign and independent with that of Great Britain.

We have been referred by the gentleman to the history of the Revolution, and after a kind of encomium on the resources of Great Britain, the triumphs of her navy and her present imperious attitude, he demanded to know if we can expect she will yield to us now, when during the Revolution she maintained a war against the whole world, at the same time that she kept us at bay seven years and succeeded with every nation but her own sons—will she truckle at our feet now? The gentleman knows we do not seek to make her truckle at our feet; we wish her no injury; we ask of her no boon whatever; we only entreat her to let us alone; to abstain from wanton, unprovoked acts of oppression. What is the object of this language? Is it to tell us she never will redress our wrongs; or is it to divert us from a prosecution of our rights? The contest was very different with her at that time from what it is now. She then contended against the dismemberment of her Empire. Will the gentleman say she values the principles of the Orders in Council, as she did the sovereignty of her colonies? What will the gentleman discover, by examining the history of the period he referred to? England, at that time, when France, Spain, Holland, and the United States, were opposed to her, when the armed neutrality in the north of Europe assailed her, when all these brought the principle of embargo to bear upon her, was nearer ruin than she ever was before or since. I refer him to Playfair's tables for the year 1781; there he will find the very principle proven, for which we are now contending. Does Great Britain now prize the plunder of your merchantmen, the impressment of your seamen, insult to your national flag, as much as she did the sovereignty of the soil? Certainly not; and yet she must, precisely the same, or she will not hold out now as she did then. When I recollect that her necessary annual expenditure is greater than the gross rent of all the landed property in her kingdom; that the armed neutrality affected her so materially, that the same principle is brought into operation again; that by withholding our custom, our supplies, our raw materials, we must necessarily destroy a large portion of her revenue, I cannot but hope she will see her own interest in redressing our injuries. This is all we contend for, allow the experiment to be made; if not, at least propose some better remedy.

But said the gentleman, at the close of the Revolutionary war we alone triumphed over the arms of Great Britain; defeat befell all the rest of the world. I will not contest that point with him, as he is old enough to speak from experience.

We were informed by the gentleman, that it was the Berlin decree, and not the Orders in Council, had destroyed our trade to the Continent of Europe. Here too we are directly at points. The gentleman has not made himself master of his case, or has totally mistaken his evidence. I hold a document in my hand which, perhaps, the gentleman may object to, as coming from the opposition party in Great Britain; it is the depositions of sundry merchants of great wealth and respectability, taken before the British House of Lords, on the subject of the Orders in Council. Here Mr. W. read from the depositions the following questions and answers:

Considering (continued Mr. W.) these are the sentiments (delivered under the sacred obligation of an oath) of that very description of men who the gentleman believes are the best judges and ought to be trusted, I am warranted in saying, they prove his position wholly unfounded. The gentleman's project last year was to lay the embargo on our ships and vessels, and to dispose of our produce, the effect of which would have been destruction to our own vessels, constant encouragement to those of Great Britain. I beg him to remember, that if two or three years hence, he should not stand as high with the American merchants as he could wish, it may be fairly attributed to this friendly protection of their immediate interests, which he would have extended to them.

The gentleman was equally unfortunate in saying, the destruction of St. Domingo had caused such a demand for sugar, that the cultivation of cotton in the British West India islands had been abandoned; he is not well versed on the subject, the fact not being as he has stated it. However great an impetus the destruction of St. Domingo may have given to the cultivation of sugar and coffee, in the British West Indies, it certainly had no effect in any way on that of cotton, the quantity of that article formerly exported from thence being too small to have any influence whatever. Our cotton will never be supplanted from that quarter. Could the sugar estates be converted to cotton plantations, so depressed has been their situation, that conversion would have been long since effected. Nor, sir, is it true that the cultivation of cotton in the British West India islands has been abandoned; on the contrary, it has been regular though slow in its increase, compared with that of coffee. Crops of that kind are frequently precarious, owing to a natural enemy of the plant in those islands, and therefore the cultivation has not kept pace with the demand.

I heard the gentleman with pain and mortification, I repeat it, with pain and mortification I heard him declare that nations like individuals should pocket their honor for money. The act is base in an individual, in a nation infinitely worse. The gentleman was corrected by his colleague (Mr. Nelson) on this subject. He evidently, to my apprehension, expressed an opinion, that money was to be preferred to honor. He told us that honor in arbitrary governments was identified with the monarch, who went to war for his mistress; that in republics honor consisted in the opportunities afforded to acquire wealth, and by way of illustration said, we pocketed our honor for money in paying tribute to the Barbary Powers, for the security of a paltry trade. Does the gentleman mean to assimilate a tribute exacted by Great Britain with that paid to Algiers? Or does he mean to be understood as advising us, because we purchase peace with barbarians, involving no honorable consideration, to barter for a pecuniary reward, with Great Britain, our rights, our honor, and our independence? Detestable as this inference is, it results from his arguments. Repeal the embargo, throw open your trade to Great Britain; you can put money in your pocket by it. I want no substitute. Sir, if my tongue was in the thunder's mouth, then with a passion would I shake the world and cry out treason! This abandonment of our rights, this sacrifice of our independence, I most solemnly abjure. Astonished indeed am I, that a gentleman so eloquent, so well qualified to uphold the honor and dignity of his country, should so abandon them! Is it possible such doctrine should be advocated on the floor of Congress? Has it come to this? Was it for this the martyrs of the Revolution died? Is this great continent and the free millions who inhabit it, again to become appendages of the British Crown? Shall it again be held, in its orbit by the attractive, the corruptive influence of the petty island of Great Britain? No. Sooner may you expect the sun with all the planetary system will rush from their shining spheres, to gravitate round a pebble. Remember, sir, it is no longer a contest singly about the carrying trade, or the impressment of seamen, or the insult to the national flag, but all united with the rights and attributes of sovereignty, even to the violation of the good old United States. You stand on the verge of[Pg 84] destruction, one step, one movement backwards will stamp your character with indelible disgrace. You must now determine whether you will maintain the high station among nations, to which the virtues, the spirit of the people have elevated you, or sink into tributary vassalage and colonization. By all your rights, your duties, your awful responsibility, I charge you "choose ye this day whom ye will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Mr. Culpeper spoke in opposition to the report.

Mr. Cook moved to adjourn. Mr. J. G. Jackson called for the yeas and nays on the motion; but a sufficient number did not rise to justify the taking them. Motion to adjourn negatived. Mr. Cook renewed the motion, observing that he had some remarks to make, which might occupy the House some time.—Carried, 54 to 50, and the House adjourned.

Saturday, December 10.

Mr. Lewis, from the Committee for the District of Columbia, presented a bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An Act for the establishment of a Turnpike Company in the county of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia;" which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act further to amend the judicial system of the United States," was read twice, and committed to Mr. Marion, Mr. Holland, and Mr. Kelly, to consider and report thereon to the House.

Mr. Nelson, from the committee appointed the eleventh ultimo, on so much of the Message from the President of the United States as relates to the Military and Naval Establishments, presented a bill authorizing the appointment and employment of an additional number of navy officers, seamen and marines; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

Foreign Relations.

The House again proceeded to the consideration of the first resolution of the report made by the Committee of Foreign Relations.

Mr. Cook addressed the House at considerable length.

Mr. R. Jackson said: Mr. Speaker, not having been in the habit of public speaking, it is with great diffidence I rise, to make any observations on the resolutions now under consideration, after so much has been said upon the subject. But, sir, knowing the deep stake that the portion of citizens which I have the honor to represent, and the United States at large, have in the present embarrassed state of our political affairs, was I to remain silent, sir, I should feel as if I was guilty of treachery to their interests. I shall not attempt to follow gentlemen in their arguments who have gone before me in the debate, but confine myself to making such observations on the resolutions and the state of our political affairs, as appear to me to be necessary and proper. By the first resolution we are called upon to declare "that the United States cannot, without a sacrifice of their rights, honor and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and France." Why we are called upon to make this declaration, I cannot conceive. I do not see the use of it, unless it is considered by the committee as a kind of test act, which they think ought to be administered to every member of the House to ascertain whether they are of sound principles or not. I do not like such abstract propositions; I think them useless, as nothing can come from them in a legislative way; no bill can be formed from it; however, I do not see anything at present to prevent me from voting for it. By the second resolution we are called upon to declare "that it is expedient to prohibit, by law, the admission into the ports and harbors of the United States of all public or private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great Britain or France, or to any other of the belligerents having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce and neutral rights of the United States; and also the importation of any goods, wares, or merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the dominions of any of the said powers, or imported from any place in the possession of either."

Here, sir, I shall take the liberty to dissent from the committee, for I do not think it to be expedient to join them in such a resolution as this. For I would ask, what are we to promise to ourselves from such a system as this; what will be the probable effects of it? Will it compel the great belligerent Powers to do us justice for past injuries and secure us for the future? If I thought it would, I would most cheerfully vote for it. But, sir, I have no reason to suppose it will, for we have now had considerable experimental knowledge of the effects of the embargo system, both as it respects ourselves and foreign powers, and we have found from experience, that, as a coercive measure, it has had no effect. It has not compelled France or England to do us justice, or to rescind their unlawful edicts and decrees, issued against neutral commerce. And those nations having now experienced the effects of the embargo for nearly one year, whatever alarm it might have given them, when first laid on, that alarm has ceased. And we have it from high authority, that France cares nothing about it, and that in England, owing to the great events now passing in Europe, it is forgotten. And shall we still, with all this information and experience, adhere to this system, and still think we can legislate France and England into a comitance to do us justice, and bring them to the bar of justice in this way? Far be it from me to censure any one for the part they have taken in endeavoring to maintain the rights of our country, and giving security[Pg 85] to the interest of our citizens. But, sir, I think, in the business of legislation, that the same line of conduct ought to be pursued, that we would pursue in the common and ordinary proceedings of life; for should any of us undertake to do any thing, suppose it be to get a vessel afloat that had been stranded, and the means employed were totally inadequate to its accomplishment, should we not abandon those means and try some other? We have tried the embargo, and found it altogether ineffectual, and we have no reason to suppose, that by a further continuance of it, it will answer any of the purposes for which it was intended.

I will now take some view, as it appears to me, of what has been, and will be the effect of the embargo, if continued, as it respects ourselves. The burden of it has already been very great, on a large proportion of our citizens. It has been grievous, and very sore. For how otherwise can it be, when we consider that all the navigation business, from one end to the other of these United States, is totally stopped, excepting a small remnant of our coasting trade, and that remnant under very great embarrassments; and all that numerous class of our citizens, dependent on commerce, deprived of their usual means of gaining a livelihood, and in consequence thereof thousands of them have been obliged to live on their former earnings, and consume that little property they had treasured up for their future support? And if the embargo is continued, the inevitable consequence must be, bankruptcy to many of our merchants, and absolute distress, misery, and want, to a large proportion of our citizens who live in the seaport towns, and great embarrassments to all classes of citizens throughout our country. And if this system is continued, we must incur the hazard of having civil commotions in our country, for experience has proved, that when great distress prevails among the people, and that distress arises from political measures, which the people are divided in sentiment upon, the hazard is very great that civil commotions will take place. Some gentlemen have undertaken to show how much we have already lost by the embargo. But I shall not go into any calculation of this sort, for I am convinced that it defies calculation; it is impossible to follow it into all its turnings and windings. It is enough for me to know that the loss is immense, and that we have received such a shock by it, that it will require a long time to come, to recover from it. Gentlemen have also endeavored to point out such parts of the Union as they think are suffering the most by the embargo. There is no doubt but that it does bear harder upon some portions than on others, and that it is unequal in its operation. But, sir, my idea is, that it bears the hardest upon that part of our citizens where they are the most dependent on commerce for their living; and this being the case, in nearly as great a degree, perhaps, with the citizens of Rhode Island as in any part of the Union, it follows that my constituents are suffering as much as any portion of the United States.

But, sir, its pressure is upon the whole country, and it carries misery throughout our land; and if continued, the distress occasioned by it must still be much greater than it has been, and will become intolerable in some parts of the Union, and the consequences may be dreadful to the nation. And as to its effects on France or England, for myself, I am of opinion, that the Emperor of France and King of Italy is well pleased with it, for, as it is observed by Mr. Canning, "it certainly comes in aid" of his grand design of destroying the commerce of the English, and trying to give that nation the consumption of the purse; and, until he is satisfied with that speculation, he will wish us to keep on the embargo. And since Spain and Portugal have refused any longer to be under the control of Bonaparte, and have bid him and all his hosts defiance, and have connected themselves with the English, I believe the English care nothing about the embargo, but would give us their free leave to keep it on forever; for, sir, it gives the greatest activity to their colonies of Canada and Nova Scotia, and must be the means of increasing their settlements with astonishing rapidity. Experience has already proved to them, that their colonies in the West Indies can be maintained without us, and Spain and Portugal and their colonies having become open to them, to vend their manufactures, and with what can be smuggled into the continent and into our country, in spite of all the laws that can be made against it, will furnish them market enough; and our navigation being all laid up, and out of the way, their ships will obtain great freights from Spain and Portugal to the colonies, and from the colonies back to the mother country; and in consequence of our retiring into a state of dignified retirement, as it has been called, they will have nearly the whole trade of the world in their own hands. And it appears to me, sir, in every point of view that I can place the subject, if we continue the embargo, it will operate to distress ourselves a hundred times more than it will anybody else. I will now, as I have heard the call so frequently made, that, if you do not like this system, point out a better, and if it appears so, we will adopt it—I will, therefore, point out what appears to me a better line of conduct for the United States to pursue, and if I am so unfortunate as not to find a man in this House of my opinion, I cannot help it, for I feel myself constrained, from a sense of duty to my suffering constituents, to inform this House and the nation, that I wash my hands of it, and protest against it. I therefore, sir, with great deference to superior abilities, propose that the law imposing an embargo on all ships and vessels of the United States, and all the laws supplementary thereto, be immediately repealed, and that we authorize our merchants to arm their vessels, under proper regulations, in defence of our legitimate and lawful commerce; that the Government from[Pg 86] time to time afford the commerce of the country such protection as may be found necessary and prudent. If this was done, I have no doubt but that the citizens of the United States would soon be relieved from their present embarrassments and distress. This, sir, would produce a circulation in the body politic, our planters and farmers would immediately find a sale for their surplus produce, our merchants would find employ for their vessels, and all that numerous class of citizens who have heretofore been engaged in the active and busy scenes of commerce, would again find employ in our seaports. In lieu of beholding dismantled ships covered with boards and mats, we should see in them spars and rigging aloft, and the ports whitened with their sails, and again hear the cheering sound of industry. But it has been said that if the embargo was removed and our merchants should send their vessels to sea, most of the property would be taken by one or other of the great belligerent powers, and thus be lost to our country; and that we have so little trade left that it is not worth our notice. But let us examine this, and see if it be so. Could we not, sir, in the present state of the world, trade to England, Scotland, and Ireland, to Sweden, Spain, and Portugal, to some of the islands in the Mediterranean, and some of the Turkish ports on that sea; to nearly all the ports in the East and West Indies, to both sides of the continent of South America, and some other places, and have the obstruction occasioned by the embargo laws removed from our own coast? Is all this trade of no importance to trading people? Gentlemen have gone into statements to show, from our former trade, how much of our domestic produce could be exported to the different parts of the world, under the present embarrassments, occasioned by the great belligerent powers; but for myself I put no confidence in such statements. I consider trade may in some measure be compared to water; if the channel it has been used to run in becomes obstructed, it will find new channels to vent itself in. For instance, sir, suppose we should adopt the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mumford). He mentioned that we could trade to the little Swedish island of St. Bartholomews, in the West Indies. Now suppose we should look over our former exports to this island in any one year, what should we find the amount to be? I do not know, sir, perhaps one hundred thousand dollars, but double, triple it if you please, and what comparison would it bear with the amount that would be shipped there under his system? Would it not immediately become a distributing point for the whole of the West India Islands, and the amount increased to an astonishing degree, when compared with what used to be exported there? And so it would be in other parts of the world. The articles will go where they are wanted, in a greater or less degree; and if they cannot be carried directly, they will find their way in an indirect manner. And as to the danger of the property being captured and confiscated, I think our merchants and underwriters are the most competent to judge of that. They do not wish the Government to become guardians for them in this respect. All they wish for Government to do is to let them manage their own affairs in their own way; and the Government to afford the commerce of the country as much protection as shall be for the real interest of the whole nation. Have we not seen, in the summer past, with what eagerness the merchants in the United States availed themselves of the special permission granted to fit their vessels in ballast, and go abroad to collect debts? And was not every old and obsolete claim hunted up that existed in the country, to make out the amount necessary to avail themselves of this permission? Is not this proof that the merchants did not consider the risk very great? And were not several hundred sail of vessels fitted out under this permission; and have they not nearly all returned back to the United States in safety? Many of these vessels were insured to the West Indies, out and home, at premiums of about eight and nine per cent., and this in the midst of the hurricane season. This proves that the underwriters did not estimate the political risk at more than two or three per cent., for the natural perils in time of profound peace would be considered equal to six per cent. And the calculation of the underwriters has proved correct, for they have made money by the business. And was our embargo removed, I am of opinion that the premiums of insurance would not be more than six or seven per cent. to any port in Great Britain, and about the same to Spain and Portugal. This, if correct, proves that the political risk is not considered to be very great by those who are the best judges of it. But, sir, it appears to me there are many gentlemen in this House who think it will not do to trade, until all political risk is removed out of the way. If we wait for this, we shall never trade any more, for the natural perils of traversing the ocean always exist, and always remain nearly the same, allowing for the variation of the seasons. And the political perils always exist, but they vary according to the state of political affairs among the nations of the world. But, sir, I have repeatedly heard it said, and the same thing is expressed in the report of the committee, that our situation is such, that we have no other alternative than a war with both Great Britain and France, submission, or a total suspension of our commerce.

The committee have, sir, after a long statement, brought our affairs up to this point, and I do not like any of the alternatives out of which they say we must make a choice, for I do not believe that we are reduced to this dilemma; and I will not agree to go to war with both England and France, nor will I agree to submit, or to totally suspend our commerce. But I will agree to give our merchants liberty to arm their vessels, under proper regulations, in defence of our legitimate commerce, and leave it to them[Pg 87] to send their vessels for trade where they please; and if any of them are so unwise as to trust their property to France, or to any ports in Europe where the French control, let them fight their way there if they choose. I see no other course, sir, that we can pursue, that will be so much for the interest and honor of our country, as the one pointed out. The American people are a cool, calculating people, and know what is best for their interest, as well if not better than any nation upon earth, and I have no idea that they will support the Government in a ruinous war with England, under the present existing circumstances, nor in measures depriving them of all trade and commerce.

Mr. Mumford then offered a few observations in answer to the remarks of Mr. Gholson of Virginia. During the discussion, six different motions were made for an adjournment, the last of which, offered by Mr. Gardenier, was carried—yeas 58, nays 48.

Tuesday, December 13.

On motion of Mr. Thomas,

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of dividing the Indiana Territory; and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

Ordered, That Mr. Thomas, Mr. Kenan, Mr. Bassett, Mr. Taggart, and Mr. Smilie, be appointed a committee pursuant to the said resolution.

On motion of Mr. Thomas, the resolutions of the House of Representatives of the Indiana Territory, which were read and ordered to lie on the table on the fourteenth ultimo, were referred to the select committee last appointed.

Mr. Marion, from the committee to whom was referred, on the tenth instant, the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act further to amend the Judicial System of the United States," reported the bill to the House without amendment: Whereupon the bill was committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of Andrew Joseph Villard," was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

On motion of Mr. Alexander,

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether any, and if any, what farther provision ought to be made by law, prescribing the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of one State, shall be proved and given in evidence in another State, and the effect thereof; and that they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

Ordered, That Mr. Alexander, Mr. David R. Williams, Mr. John G. Jackson, Mr. Key, and Mr. Quincy, be appointed a committee, pursuant to the said resolution.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill, entitled "An act supplemental to an act entitled 'An act for extending the terms of credit on revenue bonds, in certain cases, and for other purposes;'" also, a bill, entitled "An act to change the post route from Annapolis to Rockhall, by Baltimore to Rockhall;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

Foreign Relations.

The following is Mr. Gardenier's speech entire:

Mr. Speaker: I had intended to defer the delivery of my sentiments upon the second resolution, until that resolution should come before the House. But the course which the debate has taken, has produced a change in my original intention.

That the first resolution is an unnecessary one, because no clear, definite, practical results can flow from it, appears to me self-evident. Are the people of this country suspected of an intention to abandon their rights or their independence? Indeed, sir, they are not. Why then is it, that we are called upon to make a new declaration of independence? Or was the Administration conducted in such a manner as to make the firmness and patriotism of the nation itself doubted abroad? Even I, sir, who am not suspected of a blind confidence in our rulers, will not advance such a charge.

The true question is not, Is the matter expressed in this abstract proposition true? But, Is it necessary that a resolution containing it should be passed by this House? I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Campbell) that it would be no less ridiculous to pass this resolution than to pass one that the sun shines. Allowing both to be true, both are equally unnecessary to be embodied in a resolution of this House. Begin this system of abstract legislation, and where are you to stop? Sir, it partakes too much of the character of disturbed, revolutionary times. To such a blasphemous height was this notion of voting abstract propositions, or declarations, or truisms (call them what you will) carried at one time in France, that their Convention very gravely decreed "that there was a God!" This was a self-evident truth; and being so could not become more so by being decreed. And if the edicts of Great Britain and France go to the destruction of our "rights, honor and independence," our voting that such is their operation, makes it neither more nor less true.

But, it is said, a select committee have placed the resolution before us, and we are bound to vote whether the assertions it contains are true or false. Why, sir, if I should offer a resolution that at this moment the sun shines, and some one should second me, would it be contended that this House ought gravely to proceed to the question? and if any member should say, "I vote against this resolution because it is too true to be made more so; and because, therefore, I think it unnecessary to be passed," that he, sir, should be considered blind?

Again, gentlemen, some too with whom I am in the habit of acting, say, at the worst, the res[Pg 88]olution is harmless—it ties you down to no specific course, and therefore you may as well vote for it; that to vote against it, will afford a handle against our popularity—that the resolution itself is an artful one—a trap set to catch the Federalists, as it will hold them up to suspicion, if they vote against it—for the vote will appear upon the Journals, when the argument is not to be found there. Well, sir, if it be in truth a trap to catch poor Federalism in, I, for one, sir, am willing to be caught. I never deceived the people whom I have the honor to represent, either by giving a vote to the propriety of which my judgment was opposed, or by professing opinions which I did not entertain; and, sir, I trust in God I never shall. The applause of my constituents is dear to me. But I would rather strive to deserve it—than, not deserving it, to receive it. Yes, sir, my course shall be always a plain one—a straightforward course. I have not acquired the confidence of my constituents by increasing their delusions. I have always labored to disperse them. At my first election to this House, a decided majority of them were opposed to my politics. The thought has often distressed me. But the cause of that distress exists no longer. And, therefore, sir, I will go on discharging my duty with the most scrupulous obedience to my judgment, and where the weight of a hair ought to turn the scale, it shall turn it.

But if I had no other objection against this abstract "harmless" resolution, there is one which would be decisive: I would reject it on account of "the company it keeps." The committee, for reasons which I shall not stop to disclose, have thought it important to introduce this, by way of propping the second one. That second one, sir, the undoubted object and inevitable tendency of which my whole soul recoils from, which I abhor and deprecate, as fatal to the prosperity and happiness of my country—as the grave of its honor—and I fear I do not go too far when I add, of its independence! that resolution is not alone submission to France; but, under the pretence of resisting her infractions of the laws of nations, her violations of the sacred rights of hospitality, her laughing to scorn the obligation of treaties—it makes us submit to all—to encourage a perseverance in all. Nay, sir, it throws the whole weight of our power into her scale, and we become not only the passive, but, to the whole extent of our means, the active instruments of that policy which we affect to abhor. This, sir, unhappily, is capable of the most clear demonstration; and, in the proper place it shall appear so. I enter now upon the discussion of the second resolution. And although I am aware how little professions of sincerity and embarrassment are generally regarded, and, indeed, how little they ought to be regarded, yet I cannot approach this awful subject without declaring that I feel as if I was about to enter the sanctuary of our country's independence; and I tremble with the same fearful distrust of my powers, the same distressing perplexity which would embarrass me if I had entered the labyrinth in which was concealed the secret of that country's honor, prosperity and glory. I do feel, sir, that we should enter upon the discussion of this question divested of all the prejudices and passion of party—no less than all foreign predilections and animosities—with clean hearts, sir; yes, hearts seven times purified, to prepare them for the discharge of the sacred, the holy duties of this awful crisis. He who can come to this debate with other motives than to save his country, placed as it is on the brink of a dreadful precipice, deserves to be heard nowhere but in the cells of the Inquisition. The sound of his voice should never be suffered to pollute the Hall of the Representatives of the American people. But he who, thinking that he has traced the causes and the progress of our misfortunes, and that he may, perhaps, point the nation to a path which may lead it back to the prosperous position it has been made to abandon, would be a traitor to the State, if any considerations could keep him silent.

In my view, sir, we have gone on so long in error—our affairs have been suffered to run on, year after year, into so much confusion, that it is not easy to say what should be done. But if it is magnanimous to retract error, certainly it is only the performance of a sacred duty, which their servants owe the people, to abandon a system which has produced only disappointment and disasters hitherto, and promises only ruin and disgrace in future.

The time, sir, has been, when the Government was respected at home and abroad, when the people were prosperous and happy, when the political body was in high, in vigorous health; when America rejoiced in the fulness of her glory, and the whole extent of the United States presented a scene unknown in any other country, in any other age. Behold now the mournful contrast, the sad reverse! We are "indeed fallen, fallen from our high estate!" The nation is sick—sick at heart. We are called upon to apply a remedy; and none will answer which shall not be effectual. No quack prescriptions will answer now. And the cure, to be effectual, must not persevere in a course which has not only produced no good, nor promises any; but which has brought the patient (if I may use the figure of the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Nelson) to his present forlorn condition. Such a perseverance may seem to argue great hardihood, or, if you please, spirit; but, after all, it is nothing but the desperate frenzy of a losing, half-ruined gamester.

It becomes, therefore, at last, indispensable to take a retrospective view of our affairs. And, if in taking this view, we should find the cause of our disasters, we must not fear to contemplate it, to hold it up; and, having grown wise by experience, we must not be prevented by false pride, from profiting by it; we must not shrink from the exercise of a virtue because it is also an imperious duty. And I hope that no[Pg 89] gentleman who hears me is unwilling to sacrifice the popularity of the Administration to the salvation of the country.

Permit me then, sir, to go back to that period in our history which immediately preceded the adoption of our present form of Government. What was then our condition? The people were poor—for there was no commerce to assist agriculture—there was no revenue for general objects. Many States were hardly able to collect enough for State purposes. And, of course, there was no such thing as public credit, although there was an immense floating debt. We had no reputation abroad—there was no confidence even at home. But, sir, we had a Washington, and we had the pupils of Washington, men whom he knew to be faithful in the Cabinet, for he had found them faithful in the darkest stages of the Revolution. The nation, happily, had not been deluded—they knew their friends by their deeds—they had not yet yielded to the sweet fascination of the seductive popular declamations of these latter times. Men were known by what they did, not by what they said. These men, sir, had the sagacity to discover the secret springs of our prosperity and happiness and glory. And they were able to strike them with a powerful hand, and with a powerful hand they did strike them; and, instantly, as if by enchantment, the scene changed. Suddenly, agriculture raised her drooping head, for commerce beckoned her to prosperity. Your people began to pay their debts and to become rich. Public credit was restored; the Treasury began to fill readily. Sources of revenue were explored, certain of continually increasing, equally certain of being never exhausted, except by folly and madness. Indeed, sir, so perfect was the financial machinery that it admitted of no improvement. It required no more skill in the successors of the illustrious Hamilton to make this instrument "discourse most excellent music," than it would a child to play a hand-organ. An end was put to our Indian wars; our Algerine captives were redeemed—our reputation was established abroad, and the United States assumed their just rank among the nations of the earth! This was, indeed, a work worthy of the illustrious patriots who achieved it. It was the result of that profound practical wisdom, which, never yielding to the deception of brilliant theory, saw the public interest with a clear eye, and pursued it with a firm and steady step; and it was no wonder that it was successful. Let me add, too, that all this was accomplished without taxation being felt by the people.

But this great prosperity was not without interruption. It received a stroke, sir, deep and dangerous, and almost mortal, from the tremendous system of spoliations commenced by Great Britain in 1793. Misfortunes cast themselves across the path of nations as well as individuals. They are often unavoidable, and no nation can hope to be always exempt from them. The wisdom of the human mind is displayed in putting an end to them in private affairs, and in public that statesman only is great who can overcome and disperse them, who, though he cannot avert the bolt, can prevent the ruin it threatens. At the period of which I speak, we had such statesmen. Yes, sir, the alarm was depicted on every countenance—though the nation staggered to its centre under the severity of the blow it had received, yet was the Administration equal to the dreadful emergency—it had brought the nation into existence and prosperity, and it was equal to the preservation of both. And they showed it not by venting their rage in idle reproaches, but by applying efficient remedies to the diseases of the country.

Let it be remembered that justice was to be obtained from Great Britain; from that power which is now represented and held up to our indignation as "proud, unprincipled, imperious, and tyrannical;" and which certainly was at least as much so then; for then she had on her side all Europe engaged in combination against France, and France was alone as England is now. In short, she was then on the continent of Europe what France is now. Yet, from this same country did our Government succeed in obtaining not only reparation for the spoliations committed, but a surrender of the Western posts also. I repeat, sir, all this was accomplished when Great Britain was not less imperious in disposition, but more formidable in power than she is now. And surely all this ought to appear strange and wonderful indeed to those who have been deluded into the idea that, when Great Britain was struggling, gasping for existence, the same thing was impossible: that has with ease, and under more inauspicious circumstances, been accomplished, which the men now in power pretend they have attempted in vain. Still strange as it may seem to them, it is a fact—it is history. Well, sir, how was this miracle brought about? By a process very plain and simple. The Administration was sincerely desirous of peace; and that single object in their eye, they exerted their abilities to obtain it and consequently did obtain it. The instructions of the Minister breathed a desire of peace—of reconciliation upon terms compatible with the honor of both nations. The Administration did not send with their Minister a non-importation act, a proclamation, or a permanent embargo, by way of exhibiting their love of peace. The refinement in diplomacy which sends with the negotiator a new cause of quarrel for the purpose of accelerating the adjustment of an old one, was not yet invented. No, sir, Mr. Jay, (and the name of that stern, inflexible patriot and Republican, I always repeat with delight and veneration, because he is a patriot and a Republican)—

[Here Mr. Upham took the advantage of a pause made by Mr. G. to observe that, as the gentleman appeared considerably exhausted, &c., he would move an adjournment, which was taken by ayes and noes and lost—ayes 47, noes 65—Mr. G. voting in the affirmative.]

[Pg 90]

Mr. G. continued.—Mr. Jay had no disposition to bully the British Government into justice; he had no objection that they should have all the merit of returning voluntarily to a sense of justice, provided his country might have the benefit of substantial reparation. The stern sage of the Revolution became the courteous ambassador, and, appealing "to the justice and magnanimity of His Britannic Majesty," he demanded redress and he obtained it. The British Government saw that ours was sincerely disposed to be at peace with them, and, pursuing the natural direction of their interests, there was no difficulty in making peace. Our plundered merchants were compensated—paid, sir, bona fide. We did not purchase redress; we did not pay for the surrender of the Western posts, which were our right, and out of the purchase money indemnify a portion of our own citizens. No; the payment was to all; and in right old-fashioned "British gold," all counted down on the nail. I wish that I could, with equal truth, say the same thing of more modern treaties.

And now, sir, compensation being made by Great Britain for the spoliations on our commerce, the Western posts being surrendered, a commercial treaty being established, the dark cloud which obscured our prospects being dispersed, the sun of our prosperity once more burst forth in all its radiance, and again all was well.

I care not what were the objections of the day, begotten in the brain of faction, and cherished in mobs; under the treaty we were prosperous and happy, and that one fact is enough for me. Bad as the treaty was represented to be, and the worst feature of it most probably was, that it was a British Treaty—bad as it was, the continuance of its existence has been precisely co-extensive with the progress of our prosperity—it made our people rich and happy; and, bad as it was, they would have cause to rejoice indeed if the present Administration had furnished them with just such another.

France saw with uneasiness the return of a good understanding between America and Great Britain. And she, in her turn, let loose her plunders upon our commerce. Again the wisdom of our Government was called into action, and again it produced the most happy result. What did they do? An embassy was despatched to France, redress was demanded, but the Ministers were not received, nor could be, till a douceur—a tribute—was paid. From a nation which returned such an answer, redress could not be expected; and there was an end of negotiation. Britain and France had acted toward us with equal injustice—the disposition of our Government, its desire of peace, was the same with both. Its conduct was the same to both, but France would not even hear our demands. The American Government were at no loss how to act. The case was a plain one. One nation robs another—that other demands reparation—prevarication is the reply. It requires no skill to see, in such a case, that, to coax the offender into reparation is impossible. Accordingly, our Government did not hesitate as to the course it should pursue; they did not wait to be spurred on by any Government to an assertion of their rights; they would not leave it one moment doubtful whether they had the disposition and the courage to assert them. They proceeded immediately to annul the French Treaty, to pass non-intercourse laws; they built ships of war, and sent them upon the ocean, to protect our commerce. They were not so obstinate but that they could receive instruction, even from the author of the "Notes on Virginia," who, in that work, so judiciously recommends a navy. Our little armament picked up the French cruisers, great and small; the coast, the sea, was soon cleared of them. And our commerce again visited every clime in safety.

I will here remark, sir, that, during all this time, the staple commodities (particularly of the Northern States) suffered no diminution, but an increase in price. Well, sir, France very soon discovered that she had nothing to gain, and we nothing to lose by such a state of things. Even then, when she had some naval power, she discovered this. She was, therefore, very soon disposed to change it. A treaty was patched up, in the end, and something like the appearance of redress provided for.

Now, sir, for the result. A former Administration were able to settle our differences with Great Britain, although she governed all Europe, although she was unjust, haughty, and imperious. Now the same thing is said to be impossible! A former Administration were able, after a fair negotiation had failed, to bring France, who had then some maritime power, on her marrow-bones. And now, when she has none, again the same thing is impossible! How happens all this? Sir, I am afraid your Administration have committed most capital mistakes. They have been unwilling to learn wisdom from the experience and success of their predecessors. I do fear, and I shall be obliged to prove, that, on the one hand, they have been actuated by, certainly they have never (following the example of a former Administration) manifested a sincere disposition to accommodate our difficulties with Great Britain. And, on the other hand, they have in no instance shown to France that bold front which, in more unpromising times, brought the terrible Republic to her senses. These two errors, these wilful, wanton aberrations from established policy, are the true causes of all our misfortunes. It is owing to them that we have, if we believe the Administration sincere, two enemies who are already at war with each other, and we, the only instance of the kind since the creation of the world, are to step out a third and distinct belligerent, a sort of Ishmaelite belligerent; our hand against every nation, and every nation's hand against us. We are in a situation which defies hope, one in which we have but a single miserable[Pg 91] consolation, that though it promises nothing but ruin, yet it is so ridiculous, so ludicrous, that we can but smile at it.

These remarks are extorted from me a little out of their order. I return to the period of the restoration of peace between the United States and France.

The Administration now (1801) passed into the hands of other men. They received a country, rich, prosperous, and increasing in prosperity. A people contented and happy; or discontented only with those who had been the authors of their prosperity. They received a Treasury full and overflowing, giving a vigor and a spring to public credit almost unknown before, and to the reputation of the country a dignity unsullied; they found us in peace and friendship with all nations, our commerce whitening every sea, and rewarding agriculture for all its industry, and every one sitting in peace under his own vine and fig tree. Our country presented to the animated philanthropist one uninterrupted display of liberty, of gaiety, and of felicity. Oh! happy, happy period of our history—never, never, I fear to return. And, if ever truth dropped from the lips of man, it was when the nation was declared to be in "the full tide of successful experiment." Never were the destinies of a nation in more wonderful prosperity committed to men. That prosperity had been acquired at a price no less unparalleled, at the expense of the destruction and disgrace of those whose wisdom and energy had produced it.

The new men, sir, were not required to bring order out of confusion; that had been done already.

They were not called upon to lay the deep and strong foundations of national prosperity and happiness; that had been done already.

They were not enjoined to "multiply" the talents committed to their stewardship; that was unnecessary—they were merely commanded to preserve them undiminished.

They were not required to create a paradise—but to keep uninjured that which was committed to their guardianship.

They promised, indeed; they were so rash, in the fulness of their exultation, as to promise to do more; but folly alone could believe them; and for breaking this promise I forgive them, for to do more was impossible. And if they had but preserved unimpaired, if they had not totally destroyed the inestimable treasures intrusted to them, I would have endeavored to overcome my resentment, my indignation, and my despair.

In performance of their lofty promises, in disregard of sacred duties, what have they done? In what condition do they leave the country, which, eight years since, "in the full tide of successful experiment," fell into their hands? They present to us, sir, the gloomy reverse of all it was. The people discontented and distressed—all becoming daily more and more poor—except, indeed, that class of rich speculators, whose wealth and whose hearts enabled them to prey upon the wants of their countrymen. The despair and dismay of 1786 are returned! The prosperity of twenty years is annihilated at one stroke! The sources of revenue are dried up. The Treasury, indeed, may be now full—but it must continually diminish—and, without its usual supply, it must soon be empty. We have still some credit. But how long, sir, can that be maintained, when it is known that we have no longer the means, allowing us to possess the disposition, to fulfil our pecuniary engagements? When you cannot collect a cent upon imposts, and dare not lay a direct tax, how far you will be able to obtain money on loan, is, to say the least of it, very questionable. But, I will hasten to finish the contrast I was about to make. Commerce, sir, has perished, and agriculture lies dead at her side—for these twin sisters must flourish or die together. No nation in the world is our friend—our paradise is becoming a wilderness; our soil is stained with the blood of our own citizens; and we look around us, in vain, for one solitary benefit to compensate us for all the dreadful effects of the present system.

Perhaps, sir, I may be answered: "Though all you have said be true, though our former prosperity exists no longer, it is ungenerous, it is unjust to impute the change to the agency of the Administration. What has happened could not be prevented." Though such a rebuke were reasonable, I will still insist that the Administration, if they deserve no censure, are certainly entitled to no praise, and can ask for no confidence. If they have not been the authors of the public calamities, they have not, like their predecessors, discovered the ability to prevent them from coming thick upon us. If their hearts are honest, their heads have not discovered much soundness. No set of men, however ignorant, however stupid, could have placed the country in a worse or a more deplorable situation. The truth is plain and palpable. Judging of the wisdom of the Administration by the result of its measures, I cannot sing praises to them for their skill and ingenuity in diplomacy. No, sir; I delight in that diplomacy which makes the poor rich; which makes industry prosperous; which spreads contentment through the land, and happiness among the people. I delight in the diplomacy, whose skill and wisdom can be read in the countenance of my countrymen, and makes the face of my country the evidence of its prosperity. I like not, I abhor that diplomatic skill which can be found only in a book! which has produced nothing but calamity, and whose praise is written in the blood of my countrymen.

But, sir, how happens it that we still remain under the distresses occasioned by the belligerents? Is there, indeed, a physical impossibility of removing them? From Great Britain, and that, too, when she had the whole continent on her side, we could once obtain justice, not only for the past, but security for the future.[Pg 92] From France, too, we could once obtain justice, but now we can gain justice from neither. What change, sir, has occurred in the state of things to produce this strange impossibility? Our commerce is more an object to Great Britain now, than it was formerly—and France can oppose to us no resistance on the ocean. And yet no remedy can be found for our calamities! Sir, I will not be the dupe of this miserable artifice. What has been done once can be done again by employing the same means.

The Administration have committed greater errors. They have conducted all their affairs in such a style as to leave Great Britain no room to doubt that, when they asked for peace, they wanted it not. To this cause may be traced all our difficulties, so far as they proceed from that power. As it regards France, I fear that they have not acted the proper, the manly part. In short, sir, they have not pursued toward England the policy which saved us in 1795, nor toward France the policy which was successfully opposed to French rapacity and French obstinacy in '93.

I think an error was committed, when, affecting to desire an amicable arrangement with Great Britain, instead of treating with her as a nation not to be intimidated, much less bullied, the non-importation act was passed. For, sir, if she was so proud, so haughty, so imperious, as some gentlemen delight to describe her, then to bring her to justice by assuming an attitude of menace, was evidently impossible. When, therefore, you passed the non-importation act, under a pretence that it would be a successful auxiliary to friendly negotiation, what could you expect but to alarm the pride, and the haughtiness, and imperiousness of that nation? And, doing that, how could you expect an amicable result? No, sir, it was not, and it could not be expected. You obtained a treaty indeed—but it was from a Fox Ministry. Yet such as it was, it was not so good as a Jay's Treaty, and the Executive rejected it without so much as laying it before the Senate.

In support of the embargo system, gentlemen say, if we suffer our commerce to go on the ocean, or wherever it goes, it will be crippled either by France or Great Britain. Although this is not true in the extent laid down, yet it will hold tolerably true as respects the European seas. From what gentlemen are pleased to represent as the impossibility of sailing the ocean with safety, result (say they) the propriety and necessity of the embargo system. And they say, it is not the embargo, but the decrees and orders which are the true cause of all we suffer; that the embargo, so far from being the cause of, was advised as a remedy for the evils we endure. Well, sir, for the sake of the argument, be it as they say. Has the embargo answered? Is there any probability, the slightest indication, that it will answer? Has it operated, to any perceptible extent, except upon ourselves, during the twelvemonth it has been in existence? If, then, neither the remembrance of the past, nor the prospect of the future, gives the least encouragement to hope, why will gentlemen persist in the system? And that too, sir, at an expense to their own country so enormous in amount? Will they go on obstinately amid all the discontents, or clamors (as gentlemen in very anti-republican language call the voice of the people) in the Eastern and Northern States? And that from mere obstinacy—an obstinacy not encouraged by the least glimmering of hope? If I could be pointed to a single fact, produced by the operation of the embargo, which would prove that it had any other effect on the disposition of Great Britain than to irritate—or any other on France than to please, than to encourage her to a perseverance in that system of injustice which we pretend to oppose, but to the policy of which we give all our support with an infatuated wilfulness, and which, therefore, increases the hostility Great Britain has felt from the measure—if they could show me, sir, that the embargo will bring either to terms, I would abandon the opposition at once, and come heart and hand into the support of your measures. The other day, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Williams) almost persuaded me that it ought to operate upon Great Britain; but I looked and I found it did not, and I was convinced it would not.

But, have gentlemen reflected that, if all the evils were drawn from Pandora's box, to vex Great Britain, you could have hit on none so well calculated to call out all her resistance, and all her obstinacy, as this same expedient, the embargo! If she yields to us, under the pressure of such a system, she discloses to us the secret of her independence! Sir, the embargo is war; it was intended as such against Great Britain. And she understands its meaning and its character too well for us to disguise it, under a pretence of its being a mere precautionary municipal measure. Its efficacy as a coercive measure has been too often and too loudly boasted of in this House, to make its real object a secret to her. Nay, in so far as the great and prominent feature of war is coercion; in so far as war is always intended to make the adversary yield that which he will not yield voluntarily; in so far, are the embargo and the non-importation act WAR. Each was intended to coerce Great Britain to yield to us points which it had been ascertained she would not yield voluntarily. It was a system of coercion, a new-fangled sort of philosophical experimental war; novel, to be sure, in its character, but, to all substantial purposes, war. Instead of bloodshed, there was to be ink shed—instead of bayonets, pens—instead of the bloody arena, huge sheets of paper! Whenever Great Britain shall yield to the coercion of the non-importation, embargo, or non-intercourse system, she virtually tells the people of the United States, "we are in your power whenever you choose to make a claim upon us, whether just or unjust; threaten us with an embargo and a non-intercourse, and you bring us to your feet." Does[Pg 93] any gentlemen believe, even allowing the pressure of the embargo to be great upon her, that she can yield, that she can afford to yield? That she can admit that we have her always perfectly in our power? Sooner would she give up in battle—sooner would she see her soldiers retreating before our bayonets; sooner would she see her armies perish under our valor, than acknowledge herself the slave of this magic wand. Her children might grow to be men, and she might try the fortune of another day; the hair of Samson might grow on again, and his strength be renewed; but in yielding to the chance of the embargo, she places her existence in our hands, and becomes dependent upon our will for the existence of her sovereignty. Sir, the King of England cannot, he dare not, yield to our embargo.

But, sir, he has not told us that he considers our embargo hostile to him; nor has our Government ever told him that it was; such a declaration has never been put to paper. No, sir; when you look into the correspondence, it would seem that the embargo was never intended as a coercive measure, nor even understood so by Great Britain. Every thing on both sides is conceived in a sincere spirit of "friendship." Our non-importation act, our proclamation, our embargo, are all acts of friendship and kindness toward Great Britain, for aught we find there. And Great Britain issues her Orders in Council in a reciprocating spirit of amity toward us. She is not offended with our non-importation act, nor our embargo. Not at all. Her orders are not intended to harm us. She means nothing in the world, but simply to retaliate upon France—and she is sorry that almost the whole force of the blow falls upon us, but it is unavoidable. She, by the laws of nations, has as perfect a right to retaliate upon France as we have to make our innocent municipal regulations—and she is full as sorry that her retaliation system should wound us, as we are that our municipal regulations should incommode her. Sir, this diplomatic hypocrisy (begun, I acknowledge, by us) is intolerable. Sir, there is not one word of truth in the whole of it, from beginning to end. The plain state of the case is this: Anterior to the non-importation act, the British Treaty had expired—there were points of dispute, particularly concerning the impressment of seamen, which could not be adjusted to the satisfaction of our Government. In this state of things, either we ought to have gone to war, or we ought not. If we had intended to do so, stronger measures should have been resorted to than a non-importation act. If we had not intended to do so, the act should never have been passed. Those who passed it could have but one of two objects in view; either to coerce Great Britain to the terms we demanded—or, by vexing and irritating her, to raise up in due time an unnecessary fictitious quarrel, which (as this country is known to be extremely sensitive of British aggression) might ultimately end in a real old-fashioned war. No men could have been so weak as to calculate upon the first result. As to the other, the wisdom of the calculation is pretty strongly proved by the situation in which we now find ourselves. Sir, this is the whole mystery—and it must be explored—it must be exposed. We must understand the real character of our controversy with Great Britain—the real character, intent, and aim, of the different measures adopted by us and by her, before we can hope to heal the wounds our peace has received, or to restore the prosperity we have been unnecessarily made to abandon. I know, sir, how difficult it is to overcome matured opinions or inveterate prejudices; and I know, too, that, at this time, the individual who shall venture to lay open "the bare and rotten policy" of the time, makes himself the butt of party rancor, and strips himself to the unsparing "lacerations of the press." But these are considerations too feeble to deter me from my duty.

[Mr. G. appearing much exhausted, and Mr. Quincy having intimated to the House that Mr. G. suffered under a pain in the side, moved for an adjournment. The Speaker inquired whether Mr. G. yielded the floor? Mr. G. replied, he had himself little inclination to continue his remarks, but the House appeared so eager to hear him, (a laugh,) he hardly knew what answer to make. However, he said, he would give the floor. The House then adjourned.]

The object, sir, of our present deliberations is, or ought to be, to relieve our country from the distresses under which it groans; to do this, we should be prepared to legislate with a single eye to the welfare and happiness of the nation. It is of the first necessity that we should deliberate with calmness, if we mean to apply an effectual remedy to the diseases of the State. In the remarks which I had the honor to make yesterday, I was constrained to draw a contrast between the measures and prosperity of former times and those of the present times. Under circumstances of the same character, we were formerly able to overcome our misfortunes. Now we are not. And I did this for the purpose of impressing upon the House an opinion, that if the Administration had practised upon the principles of their predecessors, all had been well; or, that if retracing their steps, or relinquishing the path of error and misfortune, they would still be the learners of wisdom and experience, it would not even now be too late to retrieve the affairs of the country. If I know my own heart, I did not make the comparison from any invidious purposes; but merely to turn the minds of gentlemen back to former times; that they might reflect upon the perils and calamities of those times, and the means by which an end was put to them; but in doing this, I could not avoid paying the tribute of deserved praise and of sincere gratitude to the men under whose agency we prospered abundantly. In contrasting the conduct of the present with that of the former Administration, I meant to subserve no purposes of party. Nay, sir, I could have much[Pg 94] desired to have been spared the necessity of presenting that contrast before the nation. I could have wished to have avoided these references, lest I might excite party feeling in others; lest I might appear to be governed by them myself. But truth could not be attained by any other course, and I have been compelled to take it.

The first resolution, contained in the following words, was divided, so as to take the question first on the part in italic:

The question was then taken on the first clause of this resolution, and carried—yeas 136, nays 2.

The question being about to be put on the remaining part of the resolution, viz: on the words "and France"—

The question then recurred on the second member of the first resolution; and the same being taken, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 113, nays 2.

The main question was then taken that the House do agree to the said first resolution as reported to the Committee of the Whole, in the words following, to wit:

And resolved in the affirmative—yeas 118, nays, 2.

Saturday, December 17.

A division of the question on the resolution depending before the House was then called for by Mr. David R. Williams: Whereupon, so much of the said resolution was read, as is contained in the words following, to wit:

The question then recurring on the first member of the original resolution, as proposed to be divided on a motion of Mr. D. R. Williams, and hereinbefore recited, a division of the question on the first said member of the resolution was called for by Mr. Gardenier, from the commencement of the same to the words "Great Britain," as contained in the words following, to wit:

The question being taken that the House do agree to the same, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 92, nays 29.

A farther division of the question was moved by Mr. Elliot, on the said first member of the resolution, on the words "or France," immediately following the words "Great Britain," hereinbefore recited: And the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 97, nays. 24.

And on the question that the House do agree to the second member of the said second resolution, contained in the words following, to wit:

It was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 96, nays 26.

The question then being on the residue of the said resolution contained in the following words:

The question was taken, and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 82, nays 36.

The main question was then taken that the House do agree to the said second resolution, as reported from the Committee of the whole House, and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 84, nays 30, as follows:

And on the question that the House do concur with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the third resolution, in the words following, to wit:

It was unanimously resolved in the affirmative.

On motion of Mr. George W. Campbell,

Ordered, That the second resolution be referred to the committee appointed on so much of the Message from the President of the United States, at the commencement of the present session, as respects our relations with foreign powers, with leave to report thereon by way of bill or bills.

On motion of Mr. George W. Campbell,

Ordered, That the third resolution be referred to the committee appointed, on the 8th ultimo, on so much of the said Message from the President of the United States as relates to the Military and Naval Establishments, with leave to report thereon by bill, or bills.

Monday, December 19.

Miranda's Expedition.

Mr. Love called for the order of the day on the report of the committee on the subject of the thirty-six persons confined in Carthagena, South America. The following is the resolution reported by the committee:

Mr. D. R. Williams moved to postpone the consideration of the subject indefinitely. Negatived—50 to 36.

The House then went into a Committee of the Whole on the subject—39 to 33.

Mr. Love moved to amend the resolution by striking out the words in italics, and inserting "authorized to request."—Carried, ayes 54.

Those gentlemen who supported this resolution in the debate were Messrs. Love, Lyon, Bacon, Nelson, Sloan, and Wilbour. Those who opposed it were Messrs. D. R. Williams, Taylor, Smilie, Macon, and Southard.

The gentlemen who opposed the resolution, among other objections, contended that an agreement to the resolution would but involve the Government in difficulty without answering any good purpose; that it would in fact be aiding the attempt of a certain party to prove that the General Government had some connection with this expedition originally, which it certainly had not; that the facts set forth in the petition were wholly unsupported by evidence; that these persons had engaged themselves in a foreign service; that they had become weary of the privileges of freemen, and had entered into a hostile expedition against a foreign country, and, in so doing, had been taken, condemned for piracy, and immured as a punishment for that offence; that the British Government, having been at the bottom of this business, was the proper power to release these persons, and indeed had applied to the Spanish commander for the purpose; that even were the United States bound by the laws of justice or humanity to intercede for these persons, they knew not to whom to make application, and would probably meet with a refusal, perhaps a rude one, if any judgment could be formed from the present situation of our affairs with Spain; that if gentlemen wished for objects on which to exercise their humanity, they might find them in the lacerated backs of our impressed seamen, without extending it to criminals. In reply to an observation of Mr. Lyon, that if we did not get these men Great Britain would do so, and employ them to extend her naval force, Mr. Macon replied, if she did, she was welcome to keep them; but she was in the habit of supplying her navy with seamen from our vessels, without the trouble which the acquisition of these men might occasion her.

In reply to these objections, and in support of the resolution, the humanity of the House was strongly appealed to. It was urged that the Government could in nowise be involved by an appeal to the generosity of the provincial government; that these men had not wilfully committed piracy, but had been deluded under various pretences to join the expedition; that they had joined it under a belief that they were entering into the service of the United States; that, even admitting them to have been indiscreetly led to join the enterprise, knowing it to be destined for a foreign service, yet, that they had been sufficiently punished by the penalty they had already undergone; that it was wholly immaterial what inference any persons might draw from the conduct of the United States in this respect, as to their concern with the original expedition; that such considerations should have no weight with the House; that if these poor fellows were guilty, they had repented of it; and Mr. Nelson quoted on this point the Scriptures, to show that there should be more joy over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine who have no need of repentance. In reply to an intimation that it was not even ascertained that they were American citizens, Mr. Bacon observed that one of them had been born in the same town in which he was, and was of a reputable family.

The resolution was negatived by the committee—49 to 31.

The committee rose and reported the resolution, which report the House agreed now to consider—ayes 57.

[Pg 96]

The question of concurrence with the committee in their disagreement to the resolution, was decided by yeas and nays, 50 to 34.

On motion, the House adjourned.

Tuesday, December 20.

A new member, to wit, Joseph Story, returned to serve in this House, as a member for the State of Massachusetts, in the room of Jacob Crowninshield, deceased, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, December 21.

Captain Pike's Expedition.

On motion of Mr. J. Montgomery, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill making compensation to Z. M. Pike and his companions.

[The first section of this bill grants to Captain Pike and his companions a certain quantity of land. The second section allows them double pay during the time they were engaged in exploring the western country.]

Mr. Stanford moved to strike out the first section of the bill; which was negatived—53 to 38.

The second section was stricken out—42 to 35.

A considerable debate took place on this bill, in which Messrs. Montgomery, Lyon and Alexander supported the bill, and Messrs. Macon, Durell, Stanford and Tallmadge opposed it.

The bill being gone through, was reported to the House.

Saturday, December 31.

Division of the Indiana Territory.

Mr. Thomas, from the committee appointed on the thirteenth instant, to inquire into the expediency of dividing the Indiana Territory, made a report thereon; which was read, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. The report is as follows:

Mr. Thomas, from the same committee, presented a bill for dividing the Indiana Territory into two separate governments; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

A motion was made by Mr. Wynn, that when this House adjourns, it will adjourn until Tuesday morning, eleven o'clock: And the question being taken thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 60, nays 45.

Monday, January 9, 1809.

Another member, to wit, John Rowan, from Kentucky, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Naval Establishment.

The amendments of the Senate to the bill sent from the House for employing an additional number of seamen and marines, were taken up. [The amendments propose the immediate arming, manning, &c., all the armed vessels of the United States.]

Mr. G. W. Campbell expressed a hope that the House would disagree to the amendments. The President was already authorized by law to fit out these vessels, whenever, in his opinion, the public service should require it; and the expense which would attend them was a sufficient argument against it, if no urgent occasion existed for their service, which he believed did not.

Mr. Story entertained a very different opinion from that of the gentleman from Tennessee. In case of war there must be some ships of war of one kind or other; and it would take six months at least to prepare all our ships for service. At present they were rotting in the docks. If it were never intended to use them, it would be better to burn them at once than to suffer them to remain in their present situation. He believed if out at sea they might be useful and would be well employed. Why keep them up at this place, whence they could not get out of the river perhaps in three weeks or a month? He believed that a naval force would form the most effectual protection to our seaports that could be devised. Part of our little navy was suffered to rot in the docks, and the other part was scarcely able to keep the ocean. Could not a single foreign frigate enter almost any of our harbors now and batter down our towns? Could not even a single gunboat sweep some of them? Mr. S. said he could not conceive why gentlemen should wish to paralyze the strength of the nation by keeping back our naval force, and now in particular, when many of our native seamen (and he was sorry to say that from his own knowledge he spoke it) were starving in our ports. Mr. S. enumerated some of the advantages which this country possessed in relation to naval force. For every ship which we employed on our coasts, he said, any foreign nation must incur a double expense to be able to cope with us. The truth was, that gentlemen well versed in the subject, had calculated that it would require, for a fleet competent to resist such a naval force as the United States might without difficulty provide, four or five hundred transport ships to supply them with provisions, the expense of which alone would be formidable as a coercive argument to Great Britain. He wished it to be shown, however small our naval force, that we do not undervalue it, or underrate the courage and ability of our seamen.

Mr. Cook followed Mr. Story on the same side of the question. He compared the nation to a fortress on which an attack was made, and the garrison of which, instead of guarding the portal, ran upon the battlements to secure every small aperture. He thought their attention should first be directed to the gates, and that a naval force would be the most efficient defence for our ports.

Mr. D. R. Williams called for the yeas and nays on the amendments.

Mr. Smilie said that raising a naval force for the purpose of resisting Great Britain, would be attacking her on her strong ground. If we were to have a war with her on the ocean, it could only be carried on by distressing her trade. Neither did he believe that these vessels[Pg 98] of war would be of any effect as a defence. They did not constitute the defence on which he would rely. If we had a navy, it would form the strongest temptation for attack upon our ports and harbors. If Denmark had possessed no navy, Copenhagen would never have been attacked. The only way in which we could carry on a war on the ocean to advantage, Mr. S. said, would be by our enterprising citizens giving them sufficient encouragement. Were we to employ a naval force in case of war, it would but furnish our enemy with an addition to her navy. He hoped the House would disagree to the amendments of the Senate and appoint a committee of conference.

Mr. Dana said that the amendments sent from the Senate presented a question of no small importance to the nation. Without expressing any opinion on the question, it appeared to him to be at least of sufficient importance to be discussed in Committee of the Whole. Coming from the other branch of the Legislature, and being so interesting to the nation, he wished that it might be discussed fairly and fully; and, therefore, moved a reference to a Committee of the Whole.

Messrs. Dana, Tallmadge, and Story, urged a reference to a Committee of the Whole on account of the great importance of the subject, on which a full discussion would be proper; and Messrs. Macon, G. W. Campbell, and Holland opposed it, because the seamen proposed by the original bill were now wanted, and the subject of the amendment was already referred to a Committee of the Whole in a distinct bill. Motion lost, 58 to 55.

Mr. Macon observed, that the immediate expense of this arrangement, if agreed to, would be at least five or six millions of dollars, and but four hundred thousand were appropriated by the bill. When he compared this bill with the report of a select committee made to the House of Representatives, he said he was astonished. A part of that report was a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, in which the very number (two thousand) contained in the bill as it went from this House, was desired. Mr. M. adverted to the observation of Mr. Story, that it would cost Great Britain as much to keep one frigate as it would cost us to keep two. He thought the expense would be about equal. The expense of the transportation of provisions would be counterbalanced by the difference of expense between the pay of the British and American seamen, the latter being double of the former generally. He objected to this bill from the Senate because no estimate accompanied it. He thought they would go far enough if they gave the departments all that they asked. This House had indeed as much right to judge of the force requisite, as any other department; but he did not wish to be called upon to supply a deficit in the appropriation, which never failed to occur even in the ordinary appropriations for the Navy Department. Give the four hundred thousand dollars asked for, and the deficit in the appropriation will be at least ten times the amount of the sum appropriated.

Mr. Cook contended strenuously in favor of a naval force. He detailed the advantages which would accrue to the nation from a few fast sailing frigates. He said they were essentially necessary to defence. He expatiated on the difficulty with which any foreign power could maintain a force on our coast.

Mr. Holland did not profess to have much knowledge on this subject, but he said it did not require much to overthrow the arguments of gentlemen on the subject. What defence a few frigates would be to the extensive coast of this country, he could not understand. There certainly never had been a time when this country should rely on a maritime force as a sufficient protection. Indeed, he said, if we had fifteen or twenty or more sail-of-the-line, he should hesitate much before he would go to war with Great Britain, because these would undoubtedly be lost. Our power of coercion was not on the ocean. Great Britain had possessions on this continent which were valuable to her; they were in the power of the United States, and the way to coerce her to respect our rights on water, would be attacking them on land. He said he certainly did not undervalue the disposition and prowess of our seamen; and it was because he valued them, that he did not wish them to go into an unequal contest, in which they must certainly yield. Gentlemen might understand naval matters; but it was no reason that they should therefore understand the efficiency of a naval force. There was sufficient evidence in history to warn the United States against it.

Mr. Troup said he rose but for the purpose of stating facts which struck him as being applicable to the subject before the House. He referred chiefly to an extract of a letter written to himself and published in the paper of to-day. [Mr. T. then read the extract which appeared in the National Intelligencer on the 9th instant.] In addition to these facts, letters had been received, in the course of this morning, containing further particulars, which he begged leave to state to the House. After the officer (commander of a British armed vessel) had been forced on board his vessel, and while lying in our waters and within our jurisdiction, he had fired several shots at pilot-boats, passing and repassing, had been very abusive, and threatened the town with what he called vengeance; and, in addition to these facts, letters had reached Savannah from Liverpool, giving satisfactory information that vessels of fifteen or twenty guns had been fitted out for the purpose of forcing a cotton trade with South Carolina and Georgia. This information, Mr. T. said, came from unquestionable authority. And it was because he was unwilling that the people of this country should longer submit to the abuse of British naval officers; because he was unwilling that they should be exposed to the insolence of[Pg 99] every British commissioned puppy who chose to insult us; because he was unwilling that armed vessels should force a cotton trade, when every man knew that nine-tenths of the people of Georgia would treat as traitors the violators of the embargo; it was for this reason that he was disposed to vote for the amendments from the Senate. The great objection which had been taken to them was the expense which they would produce. Economy, Mr. T. said, was a good thing in time of peace; but if this contracted spirit of economy predominated in our war councils, if we were forced into a war, so help him God, he would rather at once tamely submit our honor and independence than maintain them in this economical way. If we went to war, we ought not to adopt little measures for the purpose of executing them with little means; neither should we refuse to adopt great measures, because they could not be executed but with great means. It was very true that, in war as well as in peace, calculation to a certain extent was necessary; but, if they once resolved on an object, it must be executed at whatever expense. He was no advocate for standing armies or navies, generally speaking; but, in discharging his duties here, he must be governed by the circumstances of every case which presented itself for his decision, and then ask himself, Is it wise, politic, and prudent, to do this or omit that? He said he would never go back to yesterday to discover what he had then said or done, in order to ascertain what he should now do or say. Political conduct must depend on circumstances. What was right yesterday might be wrong to-day. Nay, what was right at the moment he rose to address the House, might, ere this, be palpably wrong. Conduct depended on events, which depended on the folly or caprice of men; and, as they changed, events would change. It might have been a good doctrine long ago that this country ought to have a navy competent to cope with a detachment of the British navy; it might have been good doctrine then, but was shocking doctrine now.

At that time England had to contend with the navies of Russia, Denmark, France, Holland, Spain, &c. Now England was sole mistress of the ocean. To fight her ship to ship and man to man, and it was impossible that gentlemen could think of fighting her otherwise, if they fought her at all, we must build up a huge navy at an immense expense. We must determine to become less agricultural and more commercial; to incur a debt of five hundred or a thousand million of dollars, and all the loans and taxes attendant on such a system, and all the corruption attendant on them. He should as soon think of embarking an hundred thousand men for the purpose of attacking France at her threshold, as of building so many ships to oppose the British navy. It was out of the question; no rational man could think of it. But that was not now the question. It was, whether we would call into actual service the little navy we possessed. It was not even a question whether we would have a navy at all or not. If that were the question, he would not hesitate to say that even our present political condition required a navy to a certain extent, to protect our commerce against the Barbary Powers in peace, and in time of war for convoys to our merchantmen. He only meant a few fast-sailing frigates, such a navy as we have at present, for the purpose of harassing the commerce of our enemies also. He therefore thought our present naval force ought to be put in service. As far as the appropriation ($400,000) would go, it would be employed; but if Congress should hereafter see cause to countermand or delay the preparation, they would have it in their power to do so by refusing a further appropriation.

Mr. D. R. Williams said it was his misfortune to differ with gentlemen upon all points on the subject of the navy. He was opposed to it from stem to stern; and gentlemen who attempted to argue in favor of it as a matter of necessity, involved themselves in absurdities they were not aware of. When money had been appropriated for fortifications, there had been no intimation that it would be necessary to prop them up with a naval force. If our towns could not be defended by fortifications, he asked, would ten frigates defend them? The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Story) had even gone so far as to say that a single gunboat could sweep one-half of our harbors. If a single gunboat could now sweep most of our harbors, Mr. W. said he should like to know what eleven hundred and thirty vessels of war could do, even when opposed by our whole force of ten frigates! The gentleman from Massachusetts had said it would be cheaper to keep these vessels in actual service than in their present situation. Mr. W. said he supposed that the gentlemen meant that they would rot faster in their present situation than if they were at sea. He said he was for keeping them where they were, and would rather contribute to place them in a situation where they would rot faster. Mr. W. combated the arguments that employing the navy would afford relief to our seamen, and that the maintaining a navy on our coast would be more expensive to an European power than the support of a larger naval force by us. And he said we should never be able to man any considerable fleet except the constitution were amended to permit impressments, following the example of Great Britain.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Story) had said that except we begun with this bill, and got his fast-sailing frigates, we should never regain our rights. If that were really the case, Mr. W. said he was ready to abandon them. He considered that the sort of maintenance of our rights adverted to by the gentleman from Massachusetts, would be destructive to those rights. Gentlemen must have forgotten that when Hamburg was in the greatest state of prosperity, she did not possess even a single gunboat. Why! there was not wealth enough[Pg 100] in this whole nation, if every one were to carry his all, thus to maintain our rights against the navy of Great Britain. If we were carried into a war, and every thing really seemed to be tending that way, we must rely upon the enterprise of our citizens; and that, when set at liberty, would be found more desperate than the navy of any country. When we arrived at the end of the Revolutionary war we had but one frigate, and the best thing we ever did was to give that one away. The State of South Carolina had not yet got clear of the curse. She embarked one frigate in the general struggle, and she had not rid herself of the debts incurred by it yet. Private enterprise must be depended upon. The people from the Eastward had shown in the last war what they would do. When vessels were loaded with sugar they would fight like bull-dogs for it. He recollected a story, he said, of one of our privateers being beat off by a Jamaica man, whom they attacked. The captain not liking to lose the prize, and finding his crew disheartened, told them she was full of sugar. "Is she?" said they, "by G—d; let us at them again." They scarcely ever failed in their enterprises.

In allusion to the case at Savannah, Mr. W. regretted that an insult should be offered to the people of the country. The insult at Savannah had by this time been redressed, he had no doubt. He had no information to induce him to believe so, but the knowledge that the sloop-of-war Hornet was stationed off Charleston, and of course cruised near the place. The Hornet was perfectly adequate to drive any vessel of twenty guns out of our waters. She was one of the best vessels of the United States, and as well officered as any. [Mr. Troup observed that the Hornet was off Charleston. Now, he wanted a frigate at Savannah.] Mr. W. said that Savannah was the very place where gunboats would be perfectly effectual. He meant to make no reflection against the proposer of the gunboat system, but he did against those who had only given one-half of the system, and omitted the other—the marine militia. And now, when an attack was menaced at Savannah, gentlemen wanted a frigate! If nine-tenths of the people were opposed to the evasions of the embargo law, Mr. W. said it would not be evaded. The evaders would be considered as traitors—as the worst of traitors. As to preparing a force for the protection of navigation, the gentleman from Georgia must well know that the whole revenue of the United States would not be competent to maintain a sufficient number of vessels to convoy our merchantmen.

Mr. W. concluded by saying, that he wished the nation to be protected, and its wrongs to be redressed; but when he reflected that at Castine the soil had been most abominably violated, he could not view the insults in our waters as being equal to it; for, said he, touch the soil and you touch the life-blood of every man in it.

Mr. Durell considered the present subject as one of the most important which had been introduced at this session. It would indeed be difficult to reason gentlemen into a modification of a principle to which they were opposed throughout; but he trusted that this House was not generally so disposed. He believed that a large majority of the House were at the present moment in favor of embargo or war, because the House had been so distinctly told by a committee on our foreign relations, that there was no alternative but submission; and almost every gentleman who had the honor of a seat within these walls, had committed himself on the subject, either to persevere in the embargo or resort to war. What would be the object of a war? Not the right of the soil, not our territorial limits, but the right of navigating the ocean. Were we to redress those wrongs, those commercial injuries, on the land? Not altogether, he conceived. Would it be good policy, he asked, to let our means of carrying on war on the ocean rot in our docks, and not make use of them? These vessels would also be useful as a defence. Why then should they not be manned and put in readiness for service? It was said that we could not cope with the British navy. Mr. D. said this argument proved too much, if it proved any thing. If he did not feel perfectly comfortable in a cold day, should he therefore divest himself of all clothing? Why send out the sloop of war Hornet, alluded to by the gentleman last up—why rely upon it for redressing the insult at Savannah, if naval force was useless? It was no reason, because Great Britain had more vessels than we, that we should not use what we had. Indeed, those gentlemen who objected to naval force, appeared to be mostly from the interior, and of course could not properly estimate its value.

Mr. Sawyer was wholly opposed to the amendments from the Senate. The objection to this particular increase of naval force on the score of expense, was not to be disregarded. He called the attention of gentlemen to the state of the Treasury. The expense of this system would be three millions; and when this sum was added to other sums which would be requisite if measures now pending were adopted, it would render it necessary for Congress now to borrow money on the credit of posterity. The expedient of direct taxation would not be resorted to. It had already been the death-blow to the political existence of one Administration. This Government, he said, was founded on public opinion, and whenever the approbation of the people was withdrawn, from whatever cause, the whole superstructure must fall.

Mr. S. dwelt at some length on the disadvantage of loans. He said, if this nation was destined to raise a navy for the protection of commerce, it should have begun earlier, in the year 1793, when such outrageous violations had been committed on our commerce. The expense of such an establishment would have far exceeded the amount in value of captures made since that period. He concluded, from a number of obser[Pg 101]vations which he made on this subject, that, on the score of the protection of trade, it would not be proper to fit out a navy. This proposition, he said, was the mere entering-wedge. The system was either unnecessary, or would be wholly futile in practice. Our seamen would cost us at least double of what is the expense of her seamen to Great Britain; and it required her utmost exertions to pay the interest of the enormous debt with which her unwieldy navy had saddled her. He therefore certainly thought that an attempt to justify it on the score of profit would not succeed. He deprecated the extension of Executive patronage, which would result from an increase of the Naval Establishment. Need he go back, he asked, to the time when the black cockade was necessary, in some parts of the country, to secure a man from insult from the officers of the navy? He wished to limit the Executive patronage; to adhere closely to the maxims of our forefathers. By sending out a navy, too, he said, we should volunteer to support the ascendency of the British navy, become the mere jackals of the British lion. Mr. S. went at some length into an examination of the former Administration in relation to a navy. There was nothing, he observed, in the nature of our Government, or of our foreign relations, to require a navy. If we could not carry on foreign commerce without a navy, he wished to have less of it and more of internal commerce, of that commerce which the natural advantages of the country would support between different parts of it. If we were to build a navy for the protection of foreign commerce, we should throw away our natural advantages for the sake of artificial ones. He was in favor of the embargo at present. There was more virtue in our barrels of flour as to coercion than in all the guns of our navy; and we had lately given our adversaries a supplementary broadside, which he hoped would tell well. Mr. S. stated the origin and progress of navies at some length, commencing with the Republic of Genoa. Our chief reliance as to defence must be on our militia. So little did Great Britain now rely on her navy for defence of her soil, that she had called upon every man in the country to be at his post, if danger came. Other nations might be justified in supporting a naval force, because they had colonies separated from them by the sea, with whom they were obliged to have means of intercourse, but we had not that apology for a navy. Mr. S. concluded his observations, after speaking near an hour, not, he said, that he had gone through the subject; but, as it was late in the day, he yielded the floor to some other gentleman.

Mr. J. G. Jackson said, that gentlemen should not be influenced, in discussing the present question, by a belief that they were now discussing the propriety of raising a naval force for offensive purposes. This was not the question. It was only whether, at this crisis, the House would employ a little force for the purpose of resisting attacks made on our territory at home. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Williams) had said that an attack on the soil touched the life-blood of every man in it. Yes, Mr. J. said, it did; whether the invasion was on our jurisdiction, on land or water, it touched equally the life-blood of the nation. He would as soon resist an attack on our territorial jurisdiction on sea as on land. It made no difference with him whether a foreign frigate came up to the piles of Potomac bridge and fired over into the town, or whether its crew came on shore and assaulted us with the bayonet. The territory, he said, was equally invaded in either case. Were we not to resist Great Britain because of her 1,130 sail of armed vessels? This would amount to a declaration that we must succumb to her, because she could at any time send a squadron sufficient to destroy our naval force at a single blow. This was the tendency of the argument. Mr. J. said it would be more honorable to fight, while a single gun could be fired, notwithstanding her overwhelming force. This mode of reasoning had a tendency to destroy the spirit of the people. He would never consent to crouch before we were conquered; this was not the course of our Revolutionary patriots, and he trusted it was one which we should not follow. He would rather, like the heroic band of Leonidas, perish in the combat, although the force of the enemy was irresistible, than acknowledge that we would submit. This naval force was not, however, intended to cope with the navy of Great Britain, but to chastise the petty pirates who trespassed on our jurisdiction; pirates, he called them, because the British Government had not sanctioned their acts. It had not justified the murder of Pierce, or asserted the right of jurisdiction claimed by an officer within the length of his buoys, &c., because, if she had, it would have then been war. For this reason he wished our little pigmy force to be sent on the ocean, notwithstanding the giant navy of Great Britain. Some gentlemen had opposed this on the score of expense. Our most valuable treasure, Mr. J. said, was honor; and the House had almost unanimously declared that it could not submit without a sacrifice of that honor.

Saturday, January 21.

Extra Session.

On motion of Mr. Smilie the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to alter the time of the next meeting of Congress.

Mr. J. G. Jackson moved to strike out the "fourth" Monday in May, and insert the "last," stating as a reason, that as the Virginia elections took place in April, the Representatives could not arrive here in time.

Mr. Macon wished a division of the question so as first to strike out, with a view to insert "September," instead of May. The motion to strike out was negatived—62 to 35. It was[Pg 102] supposed that this question tried the principle of the bill.

The committee rose and reported the bill.

Mr. D. Williams moved to strike out May for the purpose of inserting "September."

Mr. Milnor hoped the motion would not be agreed to. If the new Congress could commence its session on the 4th day of March next, he said he should think it extremely proper that it should do so. And, if he could think that the majority would fix an earlier day than the fourth Monday of May for the meeting, he should vote for the present motion. He agreed with gentlemen that this was a momentous crisis; that the country was in a situation of extreme difficulty and danger. It appeared to him, therefore, that Congress, who were the guardians of the public welfare; to whom were confided the destinies of the nation, so far as the nation could control them, should be constantly in session, till a more favorable state of affairs took place. It was possible, but was it probable that any event would occur to alter our situation for the better? There was no hope that the belligerents would recede from their injurious restrictions on our commerce. It was not probable that any thing would occur which would do away the necessity of an extra session. The present Congress having determined to persevere in the embargo and the present system of measures a while longer, the peace and welfare of the country required that a different system should be adopted. The present had been sufficiently tested, and would never produce those effects anticipated from it. It was proper that an early opportunity should be given to the next Congress to approve the present system, or give it up and adopt some other in its stead.

Mr. D. R. Williams said he was opposed to Congress coming here at the time proposed. Why should they come here then? He wished some one to answer, and let him understand why they were coming. In his opinion there was every possible objection to such a procedure. On the fourth day of March, a new President comes into power. Is it not presumable that the President would choose to have some communication with our Ministers abroad before the meeting of Congress? Could any man say that it was not proper that he should have it? Mr. W. said he hoped that the President would send special messengers, unfashionable as that policy was. If you are willing to wait for a declaration of war till the fourth Monday in May, will there be any necessity of declaring it before the first Monday in June or July? You have suffered the public mind to assuage in its resentment, and I very much doubt, that before a full experiment be made of the embargo, it will be wholly allayed. It has been said through the nation, and indeed avowed on this floor, that the Administration does not wish for peace. Having failed to take hold of the affair of the Chesapeake for a declaration of war, you have nothing now to give the people that interest which I hope they always will have in a declaration of war. Suppose you were to send special Ministers, and they were to be treated as our Ministers to France were under a former Administration, would not this treatment make every man in the nation rally around you? Would it not prove beyond doubt that the Administration was sincere in its wishes for peace? Undoubtedly it would. Why are your Ministers now loitering in foreign Courts? With a hope of accommodation, sir, I would send other Ministers there, and if they failed of immediate accommodation, would order them all home. If they are compelled to return, you will have the whole nation with you, which you must have when you go to war.

Mr. J. G. Jackson replied to Mr. Williams. The gentleman had asked emphatically why Congress should convene here in May. Occurrences of every day, said Mr. J., are presenting themselves in such a way as to render it highly important and necessary that some other ground should be taken. Are we to adhere to the embargo forever, sir? I have said, and again say, that a total abandonment of the ocean would be submission. I think, by passing this bill, we give the nation a pledge that it shall be the ne plus ultra, which shall give to foreign nations time to revise their conduct towards us, and will give them time to consider whether or not they will have war with us. The gentleman wants a special mission. Sir, are we to continue in this state any longer? Shall negotiation be spun out further? No man can doubt the capacity of our Ministers abroad, and their disposition to represent their Government correctly. The doors are shut in the face of our Minister at the Court of St. James, and worse than shut at the Court of St. Cloud—for, from the latter, contemptuous silence is all the answer we have received, if indeed silence can convey an answer. Are we to renew negotiation, then, when every circumstance manifests that it would be useless? Need I refer to what took place the other day—I allude to the publication of a letter by Mr. Canning, in a highly exceptionable manner, through Federal presses, or presses more devoted to the interests of that country than any other? One universal burst of indignation accompanied the publication of that letter in this House. And are we, under such circumstances, to renew negotiation by extra missions? I conceive that the cup of negotiation and conciliation is exhausted to the dregs, and that we should but further degrade ourselves by sending further extra missions. It has been stated to me that a proposition had actually been reduced to writing by a member of this House the other day for sending away foreign Ministers and calling our Ministers home, and I am sorry that the proposition was not offered to the House, for, under present circumstances, it might not have been improper to have adopted it.

Mr. Smilie said, if there were no other reason, the present suspension of commerce, and discontents at home, were sufficient reasons for calling[Pg 103] Congress earlier than the first Monday in December. When the new Administration should come into office, it was proper that they should have an opportunity of meeting Congress as early as possible. It was his opinion that, at the next session, a change of measures would take place. What would be the substitute for the present measure he could not say; but, at this time, he must say that he could see no way of avoiding war. With regard to extra missions, he really had no idea of a measure of that kind. If there should be any other means to secure the interest and honor of the nation but war, he hoped in God that it would be adopted, but he did not now see any such prospect.

Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, said it was of no importance in the consideration of the present question what the next Administration should think or do. He wished that there could be an understanding with foreign nations for our good, but he much doubted such a result. He would not undertake to say whether war, or what other measure, ought to be adopted at the extra session; but, it was his opinion, that Congress ought to meet, and he should vote against every proposition going to defeat the object of the bill. Although this nation had not immediately retaliated the attack on the Chesapeake, would any man rise on this floor and say that the act of dishonor was done away because the House refused immediately to avenge it? He believed not; and, as long as it remained unatoned, it was cause for this nation to act. The only question for the House now to determine was this: Are there reasons to induce gentlemen to believe that a meeting of Congress is necessary on the fourth Monday of May next? As it appeared to him that such reasons did exist, he said he was bound on his responsibility to vote for the bill.

Mr. Durell asked if gentlemen meant to continue the embargo forever. He believed somewhat in the doctrine that an explosion might take place under it in a certain portion of the country. Gentlemen said an extra session was, therefore, necessary to save the nation. Mr. D. asked if the nation was to be saved by long speeches? He had seen almost two whole sessions of Congress pass away, the one of six months, the other of three, and the nation in the same situation still, and still told, in long stories, from day to day, that it was in a critical situation. He had no idea that the nation was to be saved by much speaking. He did firmly believe, that more than forty-eight hours would not be necessary to pass all laws to meet the impending crisis. If a declaration of war was thought proper, this would be sufficient time for it; if an extraordinary mission, as suggested by the gentleman from South Carolina, forty-eight hours would be time enough for the House to decide on recommending it. The present was a state of suspense, from which the nation ought to be removed, and he was unwilling to prolong this state by the passage of the bill.

Mr. Burwell said he was one of those who would vote for an earlier meeting of Congress than usual. In Great Britain, in whose government there were some features approximating to ours, there was always an uneasiness, lest the Parliament should not meet often enough. Whence could be the objection to Congress meeting at an earlier day? If the public sentiment was not then prepared for war, it would not be adopted. It appeared to him that an early session, instead of producing mischief, would essentially contribute to tranquillize the minds of the people. If peace was attainable, we must have peace; but if not, we have no choice but war. The gentleman from South Carolina suggests the propriety of sending a special mission, said Mr. B. Let me ask him, if Administration should not take this course, whether it would not be perfectly proper that Congress should be in session? Certainly it would. With respect to a special mission, Mr. B. said he was perfectly at a loss to conceive what could be the nature of any proposition which could be made to Great Britain. A proposition had already been made to her, in effect, to go to war with her against France, and insultingly refused; for no other interpretation could be made of the offer to suspend the embargo, if she would rescind her Orders in Council, except Mr. Canning chose to misunderstand everything that could be said. Unless gentlemen would point out some new proposition, which could be made to Great Britain or France, he could not see the propriety of the course recommended. As to the continuance of the embargo, Mr. B. said it seemed to be perfectly well understood by every man, that when the Government determined on that course, it did not determine to persevere in it eternally. If it could be made manifest to him that any particular favorable consequence would be produced by postponing the session beyond the fourth Monday in May, he might be induced to accede to it. As to the disposition of the Administration to preserve peace, could the gentleman conceive it possible to remove the impressions of those who were determined not to be convinced? This nation had sued for peace, but in vain; they had offered to give up almost every thing in contest, if Great Britain would yield a thing which neither Mr. Canning nor any other member of the British Government ever said they had a right to do, and which was only justified on the ground of necessity. There was therefore no plausibility in the assertion that peace had not been earnestly sought for.

Mr. G. W. Campbell said that if nothing occurred between this time and the time proposed by the bill for the next meeting of Congress, which would particularly render a change necessary, he was yet of opinion that it would be then necessary to change our situation; for this reason: that at that period, time sufficient would have elapsed to give us information as to what ground Great Britain would take, after[Pg 104] she had heard of the position which Congress had maintained. After that ground was taken, Congress would know how to act. I never voted for the embargo as a permanent measure, said Mr. C., nor did I ever use an expression which would authorize such a supposition; nor do I suppose that any other gentleman entertained such an idea. As to a special mission, I should as soon think of sending a special messenger to the moon as to Great Britain or to France, for the cup of humiliation is exhausted already, and I will never put it in their power to offer us another cup.

Mr. Macon said he had not intended to have said any thing, but that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Burwell) had broached a doctrine which he did not approve—that this Government was like that of Great Britain.

Mr. Burwell explained that he had said that the Governments were, in some of their features, alike.

Mr. Macon said that the reason of the fear in Great Britain that the Parliament would not meet often enough, was extremely obvious. The only voice which the people had was in the House of Commons, and they wanted them to be always in session, to keep the King and nobility off from them. In Great Britain the King dissolved Parliament at his pleasure. Here, he said, there was no power to dissolve Congress. Indeed, there was no similarity in the two Governments. He said he had no fear of any mischief being done by Congress meeting earlier; but he was opposed to their meeting earlier, because they would do more good by staying away. Could any man say what would take place between this day and the third of March? And yet the House were now called on to determine on an extra session. He was for giving such time, after the deliberations of the present session closed, as that Great Britain might see what we had done, and consider whether she would retract or go to war, for if she did not retract, war must be the consequence. Mr. M. said he would give every opportunity for peace; he would not be for hurrying the matter. He had no opinion that Congress being in session would have any effect on the people. The cry of an intention to destroy commerce was not to make him do a single thing which he would not otherwise do. No man can believe that we who raise produce should wish it to lie on our hands, as is now our situation. It is maritime rights for which we contend. For these we planters are making sacrifices, and we know it. As to the grower it is immaterial in point of interest into what ship or wagon his produce goes; but he is contending for the interests of his mercantile brethren. A great deal has been said about repealing the embargo to put an end to discontents. Let gentlemen beware of it, lest in trying to please everybody, they please nobody. Let us do what is right, that is the only ground for us to take. Whenever we begin to temporize, that principle is abandoned. I disagree with the gentleman from Tennessee as to the expediency of continuing the embargo; I do not believe that it would be inexpedient to try it beyond May. I believe we ought to try it beyond September. This is my opinion. What effect do gentlemen expect that the embargo will have had in May? Not more than at this moment. While every day from that time till September, it will be more and more effectual. I never voted for it as a permanent measure; but my opinion was, as I stated it, that it might be necessary to hold on to it for one, two, or three years. I might be wrong, but this was my opinion then, and I have not changed it. As to an extra session, I have never thought of it; but I am willing to leave it to the Executive. It has been so suddenly suggested, however, that I would not undertake to decide positively on the subject. I should rather incline to let them send to us now; we have sent to them long enough. As to the people being tired of the embargo, whenever they want war in preference to it, they will send their petitions here to that effect. When gentlemen from the Eastern States say, that the people there are tired of it, perhaps they speak correctly. As to all the talk of insurrections and divisions, it has no effect on me. When the sedition law was passed under the former Administration, it was said that the people would not bear it. I thought then as now, that the elections would show their disapprobation, and that they would manifest it in that way alone. When the people are tired of the embargo, as a means of preserving peace, they will tell you so, and say, "Give us war!" But none have said so; and yet, sir, I know well that myself and some others are blamed for our adherence to this measure. I can only say, that it is an honest adherence. I do believe that the continuance of that measure, with the addition of a bill now on your table, (non-intercourse bill,) is the best thing you can do; and if I thought that Congress would declare war in May, I should be much more averse to meeting then than I am now; but I do not believe it will.

The question was now taken on the motion of Mr. D. R. Williams to strike out the words "fourth Monday in May," and lost.

No other amendment being offered to the bill, it was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The bill being brought in engrossed, a motion was made that the same be read the third time to-morrow: and the question being put thereupon, it passed in the negative.

A motion was then made by Mr. Smilie, that the bill be now read the third time; and the question being taken thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

The said bill was, accordingly, read the third time: Whereupon, Mr. Speaker stated the question from the chair, that the same do pass? And, the question being taken, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 80, nays 26.

[Pg 105]

Monday, February 6.

Presidential Election.

Several petitions having been presented, in addition to those heretofore stated, against the mode in which the late election in the State of Massachusetts was conducted—

Mr. Bacon offered the following resolution:

Mr. J. G. Jackson said he saw no objection to the resolution, or even to going farther than it proposed. The constitution had declared that the election of Electors in each State should be held in such manner as the Legislature should direct; and, he said, he never could consent to the doctrine that any set of men, without the authority of law, could make an election of Electors. He believed that the case was not provided for; and as the present case could not vary the general result of the Presidential election, gentlemen appeared not to be disposed to interfere in it. But, he hoped it would operate on the House to induce them to consider the propriety of providing some mode of hereafter distinguishing between legal, and illegal or surreptitious election.

Mr. Van Horne moved to strike out the words in italic, as he understood them as committing the House to express an opinion on the subject of the petitions. Motion lost—yeas 18.

Opening and Counting the Electoral Votes for President and Vice President.

Mr. Nicholas offered the following order:

Mr. Randolph said it had sometimes been the case, he did not say it had been the practice, that this House had met the other branch of the Legislature in their Chamber, for the purpose of counting the votes; in which cases, very properly indeed, this House being in the Chamber of the Senate, the President of that body had taken the chair. Mr. R. said he now understood that it was proposed, without any vote of this House for the purpose, that the President of the Senate was to take the chair of this House; that the Speaker was to leave the chair, to make way for the President of another body. To this, he, for one, could never consent. I conceive, said he, that such a proceeding would derogate, very materially, from the dignity, if not from the rights of this body. I can never consent, Mr. Speaker, that any other person than yourself, or the Chairman of the Committee of the whole House, should take the chair, except by a vote of the House. I hope, therefore, that this matter may be well understood. I conceive it to be a respect which we owe to ourselves, and to the people, whose immediate representatives we are, never to suffer, by a sort of prescriptive right, the privileges of this House to be in anywise diminished, or its dignity to fade before that of any other assembly of men whatever.

Mr. Nicholas said he was as unwilling as any other gentleman to surrender the privileges of the House. When assembled as the House of Representatives, he agreed that none but the Speaker should take the chair; but, on the occasion of counting out the votes, he did not consider the House of Representatives to be formed as a distinct body. In meeting on this occasion, he said, it always had been usual, since the establishment of the Government, for the Vice President of the United States, or the President pro tempore of the Senate, to take the chair. There was, also, a propriety in this course, because, by the constitution, the Vice President is to open the votes. For twenty years the practice had been that the President of the Senate presided in joint meeting.

Mr. Nicholas moved, in order to do away any difficulty in this case, that when the members of the Senate were introduced, the Speaker should relinquish the chair to the President of the Senate.

Mr. Davenport supported this motion. He had no doubt of the propriety of the President of the Senate presiding at a joint meeting, more especially, as he was the person designated by the constitution for counting out the votes.

Mr. Randolph said that if this course were taken, the Senate ought to be notified of this act of courtesy on the part of the House; if not, it might appear that the President of the Senate took the chair as a matter of right. He said he knew that, to many persons, matters of this sort appeared to be of minute importance, but in every thing touching the privileges of this House, as it regarded the claims of the other co-ordinate branches of the Government, he would stickle for the ninth part of a hair. It was well known that, in England, the privileges of the Commons had been gained inch by inch from the Kings and Nobles by a steady perseverance; and that man must have very little knowledge of mankind, indeed, who was not persuaded that those privileges might be lost, as they were gained, by gradual and imperceptible encroachment on the one hand, and tacit yielding on the other. This was not a matter of great consequence in itself; but power always begot power. It was like money, he said; any man could make money who had money. So any man, or body of men, who had power, could extend it. I have no objection,[Pg 106] said Mr. R., very far from it, to the constitutional exercise of the powers and privileges of the Senate. Let their President count the votes, sir; there is a very good chair for him in which the Clerk now sits. But, on what principle is he to come into the House with the consciousness that he has a right to throw you out of the chair, sir, and take possession of it? I have no idea of suffering a man to come through those folding-doors with such a sentiment. If he comes into this House, he comes from courtesy, and cannot assume your chair, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of right, but as a favor. And, if the President of the Senate takes possession of your chair as a favor, it ought to be announced to the Senate as such; for, the mere vote on our side amounts to nothing, provided that he, and the body over whom he presides, come into this House under the knowledge, (without an intimation from us,) that you are to leave your chair, and he is to take possession of it.

Mr. Smilie observed that there was no fear of the privileges of this body being encroached upon by any other, for there was a written constitution, prescribing the powers of each body; and, at the same time that it was proper to be careful of their own rights, he said the House should be careful not to infringe on the rights of the other body. In respect to this question, there was a case in point. In one instance while Congress sat at Philadelphia, the Senate had come into the Representatives' Chamber to count out the votes, and the President of the Senate had taken the chair as a matter of right. We, said Mr. S., are sitting as a convention of the two Houses, for a special purpose, viz: to count out the votes. Who is properly the presiding officer in this case? Unquestionably the officer directed by the constitution to open the votes. And I consider the Speaker of the House, on this occasion, as acting in the same capacity as any other member of the House.

After some further observations on the subject from Messrs. Masters, Lyon, and Macon, the motion of Mr. Nicholas was agreed to—yeas 98.

Mr. Randolph then moved that the Senate be acquainted, by message, of this arrangement. Agreed to—yeas 73.

The resolution first offered by Mr. Nicholas was then agreed to.

On the suggestion of Mr. Van Dyke, it was agreed that the members should receive the Senate standing and uncovered.

The time for counting the votes having arrived, the members of the Senate, preceded by their Sergeant-at-Arms, entered the Representatives' Chamber, Mr. Milledge, the President pro tempore, took the Speaker's chair, and the members took their seats on the right hand of the chair. The tellers were ranged in front, and the Clerks of each House on the right and left of the tellers. The President of the Senate opened the electoral returns, one copy of which was handed to the teller of the Senate, Mr. S. Smith, who read it; the tellers of the House, Messrs. Nicholas and Van Dyke, comparing the duplicate returns handed to them.

When this business, which occupied about two hours, was concluded, the tellers handed their report to the President of the Convention, who was proceeding to read it, when

Mr. Hillhouse observed that the returns from one of the States appeared to be defective, the Governor's certificate not being attached to it. He thought that this might be as proper a time to notice it as any.

Nothing farther being said on the subject, however, the President of the Senate read the following statement of the votes, as reported by the tellers:

Thursday, February 9.

Non-Intercourse.

Mr. Taylor said it would be recollected that, in the course of the public business of this session, a resolution reported by a committee on our foreign relations arising out of a motion of a member from North Carolina, for the purpose of interdicting commercial intercourse with such belligerents as had in force decrees or edicts against the lawful commerce of the United States, had been agreed to and referred to the same committee, who had reported a bill for non-intercourse. This bill in fact, however, comprised but one-half of the whole subject embraced by the words "non-intercourse." The bill as reported to this House provided for the non-importation of the goods, wares, and merchandise, the growth and manufacture of these particular countries. That (said he) may be readily accounted for, from the circumstance that the House was then actually engaged in passing a law for the enforcement of the embargo, the committee therefore having only in view the other part of the question, so as to complete a non-intercourse. After that bill was reported, a gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Rhea,) in order that the whole might be incorporated into one, offered a resolution for that purpose. I did think it unnecessary at that time; but as the course of business seems to look towards a repeal of the embargo, in order that the whole subject of non-intercourse may be incorporated in the bill before the House, I move that the Committee of the Whole be discharged from the consideration of the bill, and that it may be referred to a committee, in order that it may be made in fact what the title imports it to be, completely, a bill for non-intercourse between this country and those nations having in force decrees affecting our neutral rights.

The Committee of the Whole was discharged from the further consideration of the bill, ayes 72.

The effect of the votes of this day, is to re[Pg 107]fer to the Committee on Foreign Relations, composed of Messrs. G. W. Campbell, Nicholas, Bacon, Taylor, Fisk, J. Montgomery, Mumford, Champion, and Porter, the several propositions for the repeal of the embargo, for arming the merchant vessels, for non-intercourse, for excluding armed vessels from our waters, and for declaring the first capture made in violation of the neutral rights of the United States to be a declaration of war, &c., with leave to report by bill.

The chief argument in favor of this general reference was, that these propositions might be merged in one bill which should present a general system, and thus render less complicated the proceedings of the House on these resolutions. The main arguments against it were, that it would destroy all that had already been done in Committee of the Whole, and probably present a system at length to the House which would not be approved, and thus produce no other effect at this late period of the session than to protract discussion; and also that it would encourage that speculation now going on in the mercantile towns, and be ruinous to many men of moderate capitals who had embarked their all in the purchase of produce, in the certainty that the embargo would be raised on the 4th of March.

Tuesday, February 14.

Additional Duties.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for imposing additional duties on all goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States.

[This bill provides "that an additional duty of —— per centum on the permanent duties now imposed by law upon goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States from foreign ports or places, shall be laid, levied and collected upon all goods, wares, and merchandise, which shall, after the thirty-first day of January, 1809, be imported into the United States from any foreign port or place; and a farther addition of ten per centum shall be made to the said additional duty in respect to all goods, wares, and merchandise, imported in ships or vessels not of the United States; and the duties imposed by this act shall be levied and collected in the same manner, and under the same regulations, mode of security, and time of payment, respectively, as are already prescribed by law, in relation to the duties now in force on the importation of articles imported from any foreign port or place. That this act shall continue in force until the first day of April, 1810, and no longer: Provided that the additional duties laid by this act, shall be collected on such goods, wares and merchandise, as shall have been imported previous to the said day."]

Wednesday, February, 15.

Non-Intercourse.

On motion of Mr. Nicholas, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes.

Mr. Milnor moved to strike out the first section of the bill, with a view to try the principle of the non-intercourse system. In support of this motion, he alleged the impossibility of carrying the system into effect; for he conceived that the embargo had been ineffectual from the impossibility of carrying it into complete effect, and the proposed system would be as difficult to enforce. He thought that it would be impossible to carry a non-intercourse system into effect, as long as vessels were permitted to go to sea. He had many other objections to this bill, among which were these: that, although it raised the embargo only in part, the permission to vessels to go out, would render the provision for a partial embargo nugatory; that, if the bill were to pass in its present shape, it was to be doubted whether any revenue officer of the United States would understand the duty enjoined on him by it; that a time only two days previous to the meeting of the next Congress was fixed upon as the day upon which the non-importation should go into operation, and thus the bill appeared to manifest a distrust of that Congress, who certainly would be more competent than the present Congress to decide on its propriety at that time; that a non-intercourse between these countries, would but compel our citizens to pay a double freight to and from the entrepôt, without producing any other effect than injuring our own citizens; that goods from these countries, although their importation were interdicted by law, would be introduced nevertheless; that the extent of the territory and seacoast of the United States was so great that all efforts to interdict the importation of goods must be ineffectual, for they would be introduced contrary to law; thus depriving the United States of the revenue which would be derived from them, if their importation were permitted by law. Rather than accept this system, Mr. M. thought it would be better that this country should remain yet longer under the pressure of the embargo, which he had no doubt must be repealed early in the next session.

Mr. Quincy entered at considerable length into an examination of the system of coercion on foreign nations, by means of commercial restrictions. The idea of the efficacy of this system, he traced to a deeper root than any Administration under this Government. It was an error of the American people, originating in a period antecedent to the Revolution; it grew out of our colonial regulations. It began to be a favorite belief with the people, antecedent to the year 1760, and was then fostered by the patriots of that day, the idea being also encour[Pg 108]aged by the patriots of England. Mr. Q. entered into a comparative statement of the exports from and imports to Great Britain from America at two different periods, viz: the nine years preceding the year 1775, and the nine years succeeding it, with a view to show that the average imports into Great Britain from all the world, during the nine years' peace with this country, amounted to about one-thirteenth more than the average imports during the same period of war; and the exports diminished, nearly in the same proportion. From his statements on this head and a comparison of the present relative situation of the two countries, Mr. Q. drew the inference that this supposed means of coercing the European powers, did not exist. He deemed it peculiarly unfortunate that a confidence in this power of coercion had so long existed, as it had prevented the United States from making preparations which they otherwise might have made. He hoped the idea would now cease. In relation to our present situation, he recommended a plain remedy, comprised in two words: "Follow nature." What did she first dictate for remedying any complaint? The removal of all obstructions on her operations. Mr. Q. therefore recommended the removal of the embargo, the repeal of the non-importation act, and the abandonment of the non-intercourse system. He wished "peace if possible; if war, union in that war;" for this reason, he wished a negotiation to be opened unshackled with those impediments to it which now existed. As long as they remained, the people in the portion of country whence he came, would not deem an unsuccessful attempt at negotiation to be cause for war; if they were moved, and an earnest attempt at negotiation was made, unimpeded with these restrictions, and should not meet with success, they would join heartily in a war. They would not, however, go to war to contest the rights of Great Britain to search American vessels for British seamen; for it was a general opinion with them that if American seamen were encouraged, there would be no occasion for the employment of foreign seamen. A removal of the embargo, without adopting any other measure, until the event of negotiation had been tried, Mr. Q. said, would first prevent any collision with the belligerents which might tend to embarrass negotiation; and, secondly, would give an opportunity to the country to ascertain what would be the practical operation of these orders and decrees, on our commerce; and give an opportunity to the next Congress to shape its measures according to their actual effect. If commerce did not suffer, the knowledge of this fact would supersede the necessity of any other measure, and peace would follow of course; if, on the contrary, a general sweep was made of all the property afloat, it would unite all parties in a war. Mr. Q. concluded a speech of two hours in length, by lamenting the state of the country, and invoking the spirit which "rides the whirlwind and directs the storm," to guide the nation to a happy result.

Mr. Nicholas replied to the observations of Mr. Quincy on the subject of the legal opposition to the embargo laws in Massachusetts. He said if the laws of the nation were to be resisted in the manner in which he lamented to say that he saw it contemplated in one part of the community, it became the duty of this Legislature to meet it; it was not compatible with their duty to shrink from it. He could not consent that thirteen or fourteen States should submit to one. As men vested with certain powers by the constitution, Congress could not transfer the powers to any State Legislature or to any town. In relation to negotiating with measures of coercion in existence, Mr. N. asked, when did the violations of our rights commence? So long ago that the precise time could not be fixed. When did our coercive measures commence? In 1806. Mr. N. noticed the negotiators during whose Ministry abroad these injuries had commenced, and continued. Mr. King, Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pinkney, all honorable men, had successively represented the United States in Great Britain. And could any thing be gathered from any thing they had ever written or said, to induce a belief that this Government had not acted with sincerity? There was the most conclusive evidence to the contrary. Mr. N. said, he would ask nothing of Great Britain or France that would tend to sacrifice their honor; and he wished, when gentlemen dwelt so much on the regard of foreign nations for their national character, that they would respect a little the character of our own country.

Mr. D. R. Williams said he had been decidedly in favor of issuing letters of marque and reprisal at once; he believed it would have cut off all that fungus matter now deteriorating the body politic—for the people of New England were as patriotic as any, and when the choice was between their own and a foreign country, they would cling to their own. It was the hot-bed politicians who stirred them up; and it was necessary to do something promptly to put an end to their intrigues. Mr. W. disliked the non-intercourse system throughout. If he could not get war, or a continuance of the embargo, he wished, inasmuch as Great Britain and France had each interdicted us from going to the other, to declare that neither their armed nor unarmed ships should contaminate our waters. This was a system which required no exertion of patriotism to carry into effect, which could excite no animosities between the North and South. In relation to the non-intercourse, he believed that it could not be enforced, and used a variety of arguments to show that it could not. If it could be enforced, he believed it would be prodigiously partial. If the embargo was to be taken off, and war not to be substituted; if the nation was to submit, he wished to do it profitably. If the embargo were raised as to a single spot, it was raised entirely to all effectual purposes. Then let your vessels go, said he, without let or hindrance; let them go and be burnt; your merchants will[Pg 109] then feel that the embargo was a shield spread over them, and will come back to your protection, like the prodigal son, and unite like brethren in the common cause. Mr. W. said, his plan was to interdict the entrance of our ports to belligerent vessels, armed or unarmed, and lay a tax of fifty per centum on their manufactures. Great Britain must, then, either go to war or treat with us. If she was inclined to go to war in preference to revoking her Orders in Council, let her do so. But he was inclined to believe that she would treat. If she seized our vessels, however, the effect would be inevitable. Division amongst us would be done away, all would unite heart and hand in war. Mr. W. replied to a number of the observations of Mr. Quincy, particularly in relation to his position that all obstructions ought to be removed with a view to negotiation. He asked, what security had the United States, if they did all this, if they submitted to such abject humiliation, that Great Britain would treat? Was it to be expected that she would treat more liberally with us, when we solicited as slaves, than she would while we magnanimously contended for our rights? The gentleman from Massachusetts, when repeating his creed, had forgotten a part, viz: "Unfurl the banners of the Republic against the imperial standard!" This would complete a project he had lately seen proposed from the East; and, as to its application, coinciding with the wishes over the water, would be just such a project as Mr. Canning might dictate. "Revoke your proclamation, remove the embargo," and "unfurl the republican banners against the imperial standard." Mr. W. concluded a speech of an hour and a half in length, with giving notice that he should move to amend the bill, when the present motion was decided, by striking out all that part of it relating to non-intercourse, and inserting a provision interdicting the entrance of our harbors to any vessels of Great Britain and France, and imposing an additional duty on all goods imported from those countries.

When Mr. W. concluded, the committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again.

Thursday, February 16.

Additional Duties.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, on the bill for imposing additional duties on all the goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States.

The bill was amended so as to take effect "from and after the passage thereof."

The proposition offered by Mr. D. R. Williams, when the bill was before under consideration, was withdrawn.

Mr. Cook renewed the proposition, viz: to confine the duties to be increased, to goods imported from Great Britain and France, and the colonies of either; and spoke an hour and a half in support of his motion, and in opposition to the non-intercourse system. He was in favor of discriminating duties, because he was opposed to the non-intercourse, which he considered the best means of depressing our navigating interest and advancing that of Britain; because the produce of the United States would be carried to some place of depot in the vicinity, and thence be carried to Europe in British bottoms, while a large proportion of American shipping would be inactive. He thought that, under the arming system, we could trade with at least as much honor and with much more profit than under the non-intercourse system. He contended that the non-intercourse system was precisely calculated to destroy that moral principle which had heretofore so strictly enforced our revenue laws; that the system of restriction was partial, operating so equally on the people of the South, that no individuals particularly suffered from it, while in the North and East individuals were ruined by it, and thus a general distress produced; that it would be the most discouraging act to the mercantile interest, ever passed by the Government, for it would throw the trade in all the produce kept in the country by the embargo into foreign hands at the expense of the American merchant; that the system could not be enforced with so extensive a frontier and seacoast as we possess; that it was a measure calculated to produce irritation on foreign nations, without having the least coercive effect; that it was a political suicide, without the consolation of company in it. Mr. C. was, with his constituents, in favor of further negotiation, and a firm assertion of our rights, which, if refused to be acknowledged, he would maintain. It was high time to abandon visionary schemes and impracticable projects, and to pass good, plain, common sense laws. He believed that this discrimination of duties and arming our merchant vessels would be such a law. He spoke more than an hour and a half.

Mr. C.'s motion was negatived by a very large majority. The committee then rose, and reported the bill.

The amendments made in Committee of the Whole were severally agreed to by the House; and, on the question that the bill be engrossed for a third reading, Mr. Livermore called for the yeas and nays. There were for it 85, against it 27.

Non-Intercourse.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for interdicting commercial intercourse.

Mr. Milnor's motion for striking out the first section being under consideration—

Mr. Nicholas rose and addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I shall not conceal or disguise my opinion; it has been and continues to be, that when the embargo shall cease, war will be the only proper and honorable course for this country to pursue, if reparation shall not have been made for the injuries we have received.[Pg 110] Under this conviction, I proposed a resolution limiting the duration of the embargo, and authorizing, at the same time, the issuing of letters of marque and reprisal. I trust, sir, I shall be pardoned for expressing the deep regret and affliction I feel for the failure of a measure so important in my judgment, to the best interests of my country. I voted for the embargo as a precautionary and as a coercive measure. In its first character, its wisdom must be admitted by all. Its effects as a coercive measure would, I believe, have been equally certain, if the misconduct of some of our own people, and the revolution in Spain, had not impeded its action. Unless we were determined to persevere in our claims for redress, and to assert our rights, the embargo, even as a measure of precaution, was unnecessary. It gave no protection to our property abroad, it gave it no security on its way home, it only preserved it after its return. When the injuries of which we complain were inflicted, our choice was between submission and resistance. We determined to resist, and commenced our resistance by laying an embargo, with the hope that it might of itself induce the belligerents to do us justice; and if this expectation were disappointed, that we might prepare for war, by preserving in our own possession our essential resources—men and money. If resistance was not our determination, I do not hesitate to say, that the embargo was unwise and unnecessary. If we intended ultimately to abandon our rights without another effort, we should have suffered less both in reputation and in property, by immediate submission, than by now receding from the ground we have taken. I do not believe that a single supporter of the embargo looked to it as the last resort of this country. For myself, I disclaim the impression, and declare that I was ready to abandon it for war, when its primary objects should be attained, and its coercive power fairly tested. I have stated that I considered the return of our citizens, the security of our property, and the employment of time in preparation for war, as the great and more certain effects of the embargo. All these advantages we have derived from it. I believe it is time to change our measures, and to place our future reliance upon Providence, and upon the energies and valor of our citizens. Upon this point, however, I think with a minority. There has been a vote of this House against immediate war. Under these circumstances what ought I to do? I must either vote against every expedient which falls short of what I deem the most proper course, or assent to that which accords most with what I think right. If it were my individual concern, I should certainly rely upon my own judgment: but when every thing dear to my country is at stake, I cannot justify to myself a pertinacious adherence to a proposition already rejected by a great majority, which would hazard the loss of a measure, the best, in my opinion, that can be obtained. After having offered what I thought the best, and seen it rejected, I think with the gentleman from South Carolina, that I am at liberty, and that it is my duty, to unite with others in support of attainable measures which appear to me to be conducive to the interest of the country. The bill upon your table appears to me to be such a measure. It maintains our attitude towards the belligerents better than any measure which I have heard proposed, and if it be not the most effectual resistance, at least, it is not submission. It continues our solemn protest against their violations of our rights; it takes new, and in some respects, stronger grounds against them. It excludes from our waters, ports, and harbors, all their vessels, public and private; it excludes from our country all their products and manufactures; and forbids our citizens to debase and degrade their country by a commercial intercourse which would stain and pollute them with the payment of an ignominious tribute to a foreign nation. It reserves the great question to be decided by the next Congress, which will be informed of the wishes of the American people; who can best determine how far they will submit to have their rights trampled on, at the will and pleasure of foreign nations. By keeping the question open for their discussion, I have the utmost confidence that our rights, honor, and independence, will be maintained. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asked yesterday, why not repeal the embargo laws, and provide for the enforcement of this system by a new law? In addition to the reasons I have stated, I will mention another, which has great weight. We are told that one of the States of this Union is about to pass a law, imposing penalties on persons employed in the execution of those laws within that State. I will never consent, under these circumstances, to adopt any measure which might wear the aspect of yielding to a threat like this. No man laments more sincerely than I do, that the Legislature of any State should take such a step, but I think it of the utmost importance that the Government of the United States should maintain its authority, and that it should be ascertained whether its measures may at any time be embarrassed by the Legislatures of one or more States, or its laws annulled by their authority. Such could not, I believe, have been the impression either of the people or of the States when the General Government was formed; and if this conduct be persevered in or submitted to, it will, in effect, supersede the Government, and must speedily terminate in its dissolution. I hope and trust that the wisdom and patriotism of the Legislature of Massachusetts will not permit such a law to be enacted. Otherwise, I do not doubt that the people at the Spring elections, will choose men solicitous to heal, by every means within their power, the wounds inflicted on the constitution. It is a painful duty to notice this subject. I have ever been devoted to the Union of the States. I would cherish and support it at every hazard, and would sacrifice to its preservation every[Pg 111] thing but the rights and liberties of one section, in compliance to the wishes of another. On such conditions it would be vassalage, not union. To yield in the present instance, would be yielding the Government to a minority. It is not practicable, however, to act upon the subject during the present session, nor do I wish it. I have the utmost confidence in the people of Massachusetts, and have no doubt but that their good sense will apply the proper corrective. If they do not, it will then remain for the other States, after giving to the subject the solemn and deliberate consideration which it merits, to decide whether they have a Government or not, whether it is compatible with their happiness and interests to preserve a Government whose acts are binding on them only who are willing to obey them; whether they will submit that the public officers of the United States shall be punished for the faithful performances of their duty.

I have confined my observations within as narrow limits as possible. It is not now necessary to speak of our injuries, of the necessity of resistance, nor even of the superior advantages of any particular mode of resistance; for it is, I believe, a very prevalent opinion in this House, as well as with the nation, that we have already deliberated enough, and that it is incumbent on us to act. I will, therefore, very briefly notice some objections I have heard to the bill. It is urged that our products will find their way to Great Britain and France, but certainly to Great Britain, by circuitous routes, and that we shall derive less profit from them on that account, than if a direct intercourse were permitted. This cannot be denied, nor is there a man who would not prefer a free trade with the whole world, if it could be enjoyed upon equal and honorable terms, to a commerce so limited and shackled as ours is at this time by the belligerent edicts. The question is not now how we can most advantageously avail ourselves of a momentary commerce, but how we can assert the national sovereignty, and best secure the permanent interests of the United States. No gentleman, I presume, will contend that it is better for us to permit a disgraceful intercourse with any nation, than to endure a temporary privation, until we can trade on fair and honorable terms. Gentlemen cannot delude themselves with any expectation of advantage from the commerce now allowed to us. The two most valuable products of this country must ruin and beggar those interested in their culture—I mean cotton and tobacco. It is well known that the quantity of tobacco annually produced, is fully equal to the annual consumption, and that we have now two crops on hand; while the edicts of Great Britain and France are continued, it would be folly to cultivate this plant, and it is more or less true of every other product of our soil. If we were at war with these nations, our products would reach them through the same circuitous channels into which they will be forced by this law, but certainly that consideration would not be deemed a good argument for permitting direct intercourse with our enemies. As to the difficulty of excluding their products and manufactures, it is very possible that we may not be able to do it entirely, but I am satisfied that we shall do it essentially. The great avenue through which British goods can be most easily smuggled into this country is Canada, and that, I doubt not, will soon be closed if the edicts be not rescinded. The present state of things cannot long continue; I have no hesitation in saying that it ought not, and that the next Congress must either abandon the contest, or resort to more effectual means for the maintenance of our rights than commercial restrictions and prohibitions. The gentleman from South Carolina, whose eloquence I admire, and whose patriotism I honor, speaks of this measure as submission, and considers that which he proposed as resistance—not indeed as the measure of his choice, but as the one which is next to it in his estimation. It must be obvious to the House, and I am sure it will be equally so to the gentleman himself, that if his system would be resistance, the course indicated by the bill has in that view superior merit. The gentleman acknowledges the principal advantage of his plan to consist in this, that it would deprive British vessels of the transport of our produce; if it can be shown that this object will be accomplished more effectually by the bill in its present form than by the proposed alteration, it is fair to expect for it his support. If this plan were adopted, Great Britain would regain her full share of the transport of our produce by augmenting the duties in favor of her own bottoms to an amount that would be an indemnity for a short voyage, by opening the port of Halifax, and another port at St. Mary's, to our vessels, and all that would then remain to our own vessels would be the profits of the coasting trade from our harbors to those ports of deposit. If I believed this course the most honorable and effectual mode of resisting, I would willingly embrace it; but, sir, I can never consent to any plan by which a direct commercial intercourse is to be produced between this country and Great Britain and France, while their edicts continue in force. Nor will I ever abandon the hope and belief that my countrymen possess the manly spirit of independence, the honorable pride and character which will disdain to barter for gold, or for a miserable fragment of commerce, those rights which were purchased by the valor and the blood of their fathers.

The question was taken on striking out the first section of the bill and negatived—yeas 24.

Saturday, February 18.

Another member, to wit, Marmaduke Williams, from North Carolina, appeared and took his seat in the House.

[Pg 112]

Clarkson's History of Slavery.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from Thomas P. Cope, offering to the acceptance of Congress, in behalf of the American Convention for promoting the abolition of slavery and improving the condition of the Africans, lately assembled in the city of Philadelphia, a book, entitled "Clarkson's History of Slavery," which is requested to be deposited in the Library of Congress. The said letter was read; whereupon a motion was made by Mr. Milnor, that the House do come to the following resolution:

And the question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the affirmative—64 to 16.

Non-Intercourse.

Mr. Clopton said: Mr. Chairman, being one of those who are not willing to exchange the embargo for the system of non-intercourse now proposed, I move you to strike out this section of the bill. In making this motion, sir, I cannot say that I entertain much hope of success, although indeed I do sincerely wish that the motion may prevail. It has been uniformly my opinion, sir, and still is, that the embargo ought to be adhered to until a majority of the great body of the people of the United States should prefer war itself to a longer continuance of it. I cannot perceive any middle course between those two alternatives, which can truly maintain the honor of the nation; and shall this nation descend from that ground to any degree of submission, either openly or covertly, to any nation on earth? God forbid, sir. Forbid it every thing that is dear and valuable to us as members of a free and independent nation!

Long indeed has our country sought the establishment of neutrality, but sought it honorably. The great and prominent object with the United States, as to their exterior relations, always has been to maintain peace—but to maintain it honorably and consistently with the rights of the nation. In pursuit of this object Great Britain will receive the principal benefit of the trade, notwithstanding the prohibitions of this bill. If American vessels are permitted to go out at all, most of them will go, if not to British ports, to some particular ports, as has been observed, from whence Great Britain will finally receive their cargoes; and in a short time, perhaps, upon cheaper terms than they could be obtained for in our own ports; and I do not know what is to secure them from capture when bound to other ports, if they fall in with British cruisers, unless indeed they should go into British ports, pay the detestable tribute and accept licenses; and the law will be abundantly evaded by smuggling into the country articles of British manufacture—and no doubt, many of French manufacture too. Besides, sir, the consequence of this measure very probably will be war at last, and at no distant period; a war, too, which will commence under great disadvantages to our own country.

In this situation of things, Mr. Chairman, under this accumulation of injuries, the measure of embargo was resorted to—a measure having in view a counteraction to the whole system of aggression carried on against the United States—a measure which has been pursued as a means of bringing about a relinquishment of that atrocious system on the part of the belligerents, and a redress of injuries inflicted on us, together with the preservation of peace. This measure has been thus far pursued for these great purposes; and it has been patiently borne with to this day, by the nation at large, the partial discontents which have appeared in some particular parts of the country only excepted. The nation at large has cheerfully acquiesced in the privations, the inconveniences, and the difficulties incident to such a state of things. It has exhibited a memorable example of self-denial in sustaining this situation, with a view to obtain redress of wrongs and recognition of its maritime rights, without a sacrifice of peace. With this object, fair and honorable negotiation has been resorted to from time to time for a series of years. By this means redress of wrongs has been repeatedly sought, and sought in vain. By this means the Government of the United States has exercised itself to procure relinquishment of outrages and violation of our neutral rights; but as often have all its efforts proved unavailing. No wrong redressed—no cessation of outrage yet appeared: on the contrary more numerous and more aggravated ones followed in quick succession. A long series of injurious acts, the offspring of new and (if possible) more atrocious principles than what constituted the pretended ground of former outrages, were pressed with accumulating weight into the train of former outrages, insomuch that those which followed after, taken along with those which had preceded, made up a combined system which threatened to sweep from the ocean almost every particle of canvas, and all the floating property of this great Republic.

These, sir, are the objects for which this measure has been thus far and so patiently pursued. Great and momentous objects, and worthy of a great and magnanimous nation! Why, then, should it be now determined at all events to abandon this measure? Why should it be so determined, at a period of all others most propitious to the embargo, if continued and executed—a period, of all others, I think, best calculated to give it effect by this House manifesting a firm disposition to adhere to it? For, sir, I consider this as the most critical period, which could possibly arrive, as to the real effect of the embargo. I consider it as the most important period, at which the conduct of this House might render that measure effectually coercive,[Pg 113] if it ever can be made so at all—and why, sir, do I think so? Because, in the first place, I conceive it cannot even be a question whether the British Government has not calculated on the discontents, which appeared in some particular parts of the Union, so as to derive at least some expectation therefrom that those discontents might make such impression on Congress as to induce them to raise the embargo in the course of this session. Those discontents, no doubt, excited grateful expectations of its removal. It is perfectly natural to suppose that such events taking place in any part of this country must have produced calculations of that sort. I cannot but believe, sir, that they have looked forward to the period of this session, with anxious solicitude, to mark the temper of Congress in relation to this very interesting subject; and, as they must have presumed that Congress could not view such serious events with indifference, some expectation that the effect might be so strong as to induce a repeal of the system could scarcely fail to be the conclusion. Such conclusion was to be expected, even if the extent of dissatisfaction had been fairly reported to them—even had it been in no degree misrepresented. But, sir, there are a thousand chances to one that the reports, which conveyed the information to that country, greatly exaggerated the facts—that the picture was drawn in much stronger colors than were consistent with the real truth—that the instances of discontent were stated not only to have been deeper in their nature than they really were, but that a much larger number of persons had partaken of it than really did—that a spirit of disaffection had spread itself far and wide. Not a shadow of doubt rests on my mind, sir, that, in all respects whatever, the unpleasant occurrences to which I have alluded, were greatly magnified. With these circumstances others have combined to render the embargo inefficacious as yet, or at least to prevent it from having its full effect. It is to be recollected, sir, that very soon after the law laying an embargo was passed efforts were made to render it unpopular and to excite dissatisfaction. Dissatisfactions were not only excited; but many unprincipled persons found means to evade the law and make exportations contrary to its provisions. Under a combination of circumstances, then, so encouraging to the hopes of the British Government as those must have appeared to them, the continuance of their Orders in Council until the temper of Congress, during this session, could be known to them, is not much to be wondered at. The hope of ultimate success in rendering our commerce tributary to them, which those circumstances, no doubt, contributed not a little to inspire, with such a government, was of itself sufficient ground to induce a continuance of those orders. Long experience of British policy, which the United States have had, justifies this opinion. Long experience of a systematic design in that government to shackle our commerce and subject it to their arbitrary restrictions, leaves no room to doubt of their disposition to pursue that design until the conduct of this Government should convince them of its total inefficacy to produce the object sought for. The slightest prospect of succeeding in their design, however delusive that prospect might be, keeps up their hopes until the delusion vanishes. It remains, then, for the Congress of the United States, at this very interesting crisis, to dispel that delusion by a firm adherence to this measure, and thus to disperse every gleam of hope which may have resulted from the circumstances of discontent which had appeared, and the evasions of the law which took place in the country. At this truly critical period, to which their anxious attention has been directed, let this body manifest an inflexible perseverance, and demonstrate to them that all their hopes, founded on those or any other circumstances, are vain indeed. Let it be demonstrated to them that this Government cannot only resolve upon, and carry into effect, measures of energy, though attended with inconveniences and difficulties, but that it can pursue such measures so long as they shall be deemed expedient for the object in view. Let every declaration and every conception concerning the American character, as a nation, in respect to its cherishing an overweening attachment to gain, so as to be willing to submit to indignities for the sake of it, be completely falsified. Let it be demonstrated, beyond a possibility of doubt, that there exists not in the great body of the people of this country any love of gain comparable to the love of real national independence and freedom; that this love of national independence and freedom animates the true American soul far beyond any other sentiment, and that, in support of it, the greatest sacrifices of interest are cheerfully acquiesced in. But, sir, what will be the inference drawn from this measure proposing a repeal of the embargo, as it does, after it shall have been adopted. Will it not justify assertions, that this Government has not stability or firmness enough to carry into effect energetic measures, or such as check the current of wealth for any considerable time from flowing into the country? Such assertions, or assertions to that effect, have, I believe, been frequently made; and they have been often repelled by words as slanderous reproaches on the Government. Sir, let us not take from them the demerit of being slanderous, by affording any ground for the justification. But I fear, sir, I greatly fear, that a repeal of the embargo laws, as now proposed, will go far towards justifying such assertions.

This is a period of our political existence, Mr. Chairman, which renders firmness in the councils of the nation peculiarly requisite. The crisis is vastly momentous and trying, and attended with circumstances, both from within and from without, which strongly call for decision in the Legislature. The existence of the Government seems almost to depend upon their firmness and decision. Whilst the members of this body respect the rights of individuals, let[Pg 114] them consider the consequence of being driven from a measure of great importance by the conduct of a small part of the community. It is the duty of each part equally to respect and obey the laws; and if apprehension of the consequence of a faction, clamoring against the acts of the Government, should deter it from pursuing its course, such would be an alarming manifestation of its weakness. Sir, I fear for the Government, almost to trembling. I feel emotions which I cannot express. It is at a point of awful trial and responsibility. The system which, it appears, is about to be abandoned, will be exchanged for a miserable one, which, on our return to our homes, will not draw on us many smiles.

The motion of Mr. Clopton was negatived, 59 to 35.

Mr. Milnor moved to amend the same section so as to strike out the exception, and making the repeal of the embargo total.

Mr. Varnum supported this motion. If the non-intercourse system was to prevail, he thought it made much more intelligible to the revenue officers by repealing the embargo laws, and enacting the non-intercourse as a new system throughout. He spoke in favor of the repeal of the embargo laws, stating the evasions which had taken place, and that these evasions had not been confined to any particular section of the Union. He observed that a partial repeal of the embargo would destroy all the coercive effects of the measure, inasmuch as produce would be let out, and would find its way to every quarter of the world. Mr. V. observed that were the amendments agreed to, he should be ready to go with gentlemen in any other practicable measure which they would select for maintaining our rights.

The motion of Mr. Milnor was negatived, 57 to 53.

The committee then rose and reported the bill; and the House adjourned without considering the report.

Friday, March 3.

Adjournment.

A message was received from the Senate, stating that they had appointed a committee in conjunction with such committee as should be appointed by the House, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that they had concluded the business pending before them, and were ready to adjourn. A committee was appointed on the part of this House to join the committee of the Senate.

Mr. Smilie offered the following resolution:

Mr. Rowan moved that it be postponed indefinitely. Messrs. Rowan and Lyon supported the motion; and Messrs. Eppes and Jackson opposed it.

The resolution passed, 68 to 9.

The Speaker returned his acknowledgments to the House for this tribute of their approbation, as follows:

Mr. Cutts, from the committee appointed to wait on the President, reported that they had performed that duty, and that the President had informed them that he had no further communication to make.

And the House adjourned sine die.[4]

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION.
BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, MAY 22, 1809.
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,—JAMES MADISON.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.[5]

Monday, May 22, 1809.

Conformably to the act passed at the last session, entitled "An act to alter the time for the next meeting of Congress," the first session of the eleventh Congress commenced this day, and the Senate assembled in their chamber, at the city of Washington.

PRESENT:

George Clinton, Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate.

Nicholas Gilman and Nahum Parker, from New Hampshire.

Timothy Pickering, from Massachusetts.

James Hillhouse and Chauncey Goodrich, from Connecticut.

Elisha Mathewson and Francis Malbone, from Rhode Island.

Jonathan Robinson, from Vermont.

John Lambert, from New Jersey.

Andrew Gregg and Michael Leib, from Pennsylvania.

Samuel White, from Delaware.

Samuel Smith, from Maryland.

William B. Giles, from Virginia.

Jesse Franklin and James Turner, from North Carolina.

John Gaillard, from South Carolina.

Buckner Thruston, from Kentucky.

Return Jonathan Meigs, jr., from Ohio.

Joseph Anderson, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth day of March last; and Obadiah German, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New York, for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth day of March last, severally produced their credentials, which were read; and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to them, they took their seats in the Senate.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed to business.

Resolved, That each Senator be supplied, during the present session, with three such newspapers, printed in any of the States, as he may choose, provided that the same be furnished at the usual rate for the annual charge of such papers: and, provided also, that if any Senator shall choose to take any newspapers other than daily papers, he shall be supplied with as many such papers as shall not exceed the price of three daily papers.

Resolved, That James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the Doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after.

Messrs. Anderson and Gilman were appointed a committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives on their part, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the [Pg 115]
[Pg 116]two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House is assembled, and that the House have elected Joseph B. Varnum, Esq., one of the Representatives for the State of Massachusetts, their Speaker, and are ready to proceed to business. The House of Representatives have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with the committee on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

Tuesday, May 23.

Mr. Anderson reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the President of the United States, and that the President of the United States informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses at 12 o'clock this day.

James Lloyd, jr., appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, for six years, commencing on the fourth day of March last, attended and produced his credentials; which were read.

President's Message.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States:

The Message and papers accompanying it were read and five hundred copies thereof ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

Wednesday, May 24.

John Condit, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of New Jersey, in the place of Aaron Kitchel, resigned, took his seat, and his credentials were read; and the President administered the oath to him as the law prescribes.

John Pope, from the State of Kentucky, attended.

Mr. Giles submitted the following motion for consideration:

Friday, May 26.

Jenkin Whiteside, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, for two years, commencing on the fourth of March last, in place of Daniel Smith, resigned, took his seat, and his credentials were read; and the President administered the oath to him as the law prescribes.

Richard Brent, from the State of Virginia, attended.

Monday, May 29.

Senator Samuel Smith, of Maryland.

DURATION OF A PRO TEM. APPOINTMENT.

The President laid before the Senate a letter from Mr. Smith of Maryland, stating that being appointed by the Executive of that State a Senator in conformity with the constitution, until the next meeting of the Legislature, which will take place on the 5th day of June next, he submits to the determination of the Senate the question, whether an appointment under the Executive of Maryland, to represent that State in the Senate of the United States, will or will not cease on the first day of the meeting of the Legislature thereof? and the letter was read; and, after debate, it was agreed that the further consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow.

Wednesday, May 31.

Stephen R. Bradley, from the State of Vermont, attended.

Batture at New Orleans.

Mr. Giles presented the memorial of Edward Livingston, of New Orleans, stating that, for a long time prior to the 25th January, 1804, he was in peaceable possession of a parcel of land called the Batture, in front of the suburb of St. Mary's, in the city of New Orleans. That, on the 25th of January, he was forcibly removed by the Marshal of the district, under the orders of the President of the United States, notwithstanding an injunction had been granted by the superior court against the execution of the warrant; and praying that the possession may be restored to him, and that such measures may be pursued as the wisdom of Congress may devise, for providing a legal decision on the title of the United States, if it shall be supposed they have any, to the property in question; and the memorial was read, and referred to Messrs. Giles, Anderson, Hillhouse, White, and Whiteside, to consider and report thereon.

Thursday, June 1.

Non-Intercourse Act—Extended to all public armed Vessels.

Mr. Giles offered the following amendment to the first section, to be inserted after the word "assembled:"

Mr. G. said he felt himself constrained to move this amendment at this time, because he found it impossible to avoid a consideration of the subject involved in it, although he had heretofore hoped that it would not necessarily pass in review during the present session. He said this necessity arose from the limitation of these sections of the act at the last session. The connection of these sections with the commercial non-intercourse system, was contrary to his opinion at that time; he then wished the subject to be taken up and acted upon in a separate bill, and made the permanent law of the land. His opinion then gave way to the respect he felt for the opinion of others. This will appear from the resolution he then moved, "to extend the interdiction to the public armed ships and vessels of all foreign nations." In consequence of connecting that subject with the general commercial non-intercourse, and limiting its duration with that act, it was now rendered a very delicate question. His proposition, however, was, to do now, what it was right to have done at the last session. He said that the proposition was founded upon the principle, that the United States had as absolute and unqualified a right to exclusive jurisdiction over the marine leagues usually attached to independent nations, as to their territorial jurisdiction, and as a consequence from that principle, foreign nations had no more right to send armed ships within our acknowledged marine jurisdiction, than they had to send an army within our territorial jurisdiction. This proposition is, therefore, merely municipal, formed upon an unquestionable right, and it is dictated by the same spirit of impartiality as that which dictated the original non-intercourse law. Indeed, it appeared to him the only impartial course now left us, as it respects the belligerents. It ought to preserve the most perfect impartiality, which, Mr. Canning so justly tells us, "is the essence of neutrality."

Mr. G. said it could not escape observation, that, in the overtures made by the British Cabinet for the revocation of the Orders in Council of the 7th of January and the 11th of November, the obligation to protect our neutral rights against France, heretofore offered on the part of our Government, in case of her perseverance in her hostile edicts, had been entirely overlooked, or unconditionally dispensed with. He said he derived much satisfaction from this liberal conduct on the part of the British Government, because it manifested a confidence in the honor and firmness of our Government, which must be peculiarly gratifying to every American; but it rather increased than lessened the obligation to persevere in protecting our neutral rights against French aggressions, if they should be persevered in, contrary to his expectation.

The motive or ground of resisting the aggressions of France cannot, under this overture, be mistaken. In the former case, it might have seemed as if the resistance was dictated by a stipulated obligation to Great Britain to make it in this; it can only be dictated by a just sense of our own honor, character, and interests, which is left perfectly uncontrolled by the British overture. As this latter motive is the more honorable, it ought to be the more scrupulously adhered to and enforced. He had no hesitation in saying he had uniformly been influenced by this motive alone, entirely disconnected with any stipulated obligation to Great Britain; and under this influence, alone, he would be found at all times as ready to resist the aggressions of France, as he had at any time been those of Great Britain, if they should, unfortunately, be persevered in; but, at the same time, he wished to take away every pretext for such perseverance, by persevering in a conduct of the strictest and most scrupulous impartiality toward all the belligerents.

At the last session he had supposed, under the general interdiction of all foreign armed vessels, some regulations and modifications, as exceptions from the general rule, might be made by law, but further reflection had satisfied him that the preferable mode was by treaty.

He would state two or three reasons for this preference:

1. It will tend to avoid collisions with all foreign nations. Regulations made by law might not suit the views of foreign nations, whereas their consent would be necessary in treaties.

2. It will give us the aid of a stipulated obligation on the part of the foreign nation making the treaty, to enforce the arrangement. In the case of Great Britain this consideration is of great importance. Its importance results from the strength of her navy, compared with the weakness of ours.

3. By treaty we may obtain what the lawyers call a quid pro quo. We may want, at some future time, the use of some British ports, which she would readily give for the use of ours. He said he would act liberally with her in this respect; and, he believed, considering Great Britain now at war, and the United States at peace, it would rather accelerate than retard the expected negotiation. He said he was as much opposed to throwing any impediment in the way of the expected negotiation as any gentleman in the United States.

Great Britain cannot, and will not complain. The municipal right now proposed to be carried into effect, is admitted by Great Britain in its broadest extent, and will not be disputed by Mr. Canning at the present moment. This will appear from Mr. Canning's declarations in the debates of the last session of Parliament. He said he did not know whether it was correct to read newspapers in evidence, to ascertain the opinions and expressions of the speaker, but if the Senate would be content with this species of evidence, contained in a Ministerial paper, he would read it for their information. Mr. G.[Pg 119] then read the following extract of Mr. Canning's speech, taken from a British Ministerial paper:

It will be observed that two important conclusions may be deduced from these observations: 1. That the exercise of this municipal right is unquestionable. 2. That Mr. Canning's objection to its former exercise by proclamation was to its limitation, not its extension.

His objection is to its exercise against Great Britain exclusively and not against her enemies. At the time of making his speech, Mr. Canning thought the interdiction was extended to all the belligerents; in which case, so far from complaining of its exercise, he says it would furnish an inducement to an accommodation, and his instructions to Mr. Erskine were, no doubt, given under this expectation. This was the ground taken by the report of the committee of the House of Representatives, in the last session, and the Senate went further, by extending the interdiction to the public armed ships of all foreign nations; those of peace as well as those of war. This gave the transaction more strongly the character of a mere municipal regulation. This principle was narrowed down, in this bill, to apply merely to Great Britain and France, and left out altogether the other belligerent powers. Mr. Canning will probably be much surprised at this limitation; and conceive hostility more pointed than he had anticipated; some of the points may, however, be a little blunted by including France, the most operating and unmanageable of her enemies. He said he did not wish to go one atom beyond Mr. Canning's opinion upon this occasion. He took great pleasure in concurring with Mr. Canning upon this point. It was the first instance in which he had concurred in opinion with the gentleman; but he hoped it would not be the last, especially when the opinion favored the rights and promoted the interest of the United States.

Mr. Canning must have acted under this impression when he agreed to make the honorable reparation he had done for the unauthorized attack upon the Chesapeake, without requiring a previous revocation of the interdiction of British ships. As this revocation was not demanded nor promised, the arrangement now ought to be made on general principles of justice. He said, without feeling or expressing any regret at any thing he had said or proposed at the last session, he was now as willing as any gentleman to reciprocate the temper lately manifested by the British Government, so opposite in its character and tendency from that manifested by the Cabinet for several years preceding. He said that no gentleman had yet manifested an intention of removing the interdiction upon British armed ships, until she had actually executed her promise of reparation; and, if the execution of the promise were to precede the revocation of the interdiction, the mode of revocation by treaty, as pointed out by his proposition, would be nearly contemporaneous with that proposed by gentlemen, if now enacted into a law, and it would have an evident advantage, as it respected the feelings of Great Britain. The mode recommended by gentlemen is founded upon a want of confidence in the promise of Great Britain, and an ungracious demand for its execution, as preliminary to the revocation, while the mode pointed out by treaty, is founded upon a confidence in the promise; and, without requiring its execution, will insure our own safety by the mere exercise of municipal right; a right which is unquestionable; vouched to be so by Mr. Canning, and the exercise of which is impartial toward all nations, by extending its provisions equally to all. He said that almost all the injuries and insults sustained by the United States from public armed ships of the belligerents within our waters, were attributable to an inattention to the exercise of this right, and, relax the interdiction when you may, without a stipulated obligation on the part of the belligerents, to respect your neutrality, and your marine jurisdiction, they will be renewed and continued.

The principle contended for is not new. It has been before the Senate several times, and was adopted at the last session in its broadest extent, as will appear from the following reso[Pg 120]lution, which he then had the honor of moving. It does not appear from the Journals of the Senate, that there was any opposition to the following resolution, which was adopted on the 15th of February last:

He said he was extremely happy to find the spirit of harmony and conciliation which had hitherto characterized the Senate, and he should endeavor to preserve and continue it; and, while he was strongly impressed with the propriety and policy of the amendment, yet he was willing to listen to any other which might be more agreeable to gentlemen, provided it was founded upon a principle of strict impartiality toward the belligerents, which he could not be induced to depart from under any circumstances.

When Mr. G. had concluded, the further consideration of the subject was postponed until to-morrow.

Friday, June 2.

Philip Reed, from the State of Maryland, attended.

Stanley Griswold, appointed a Senator by the Executive of the State of Ohio, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Edward Tiffin, was qualified, and took his seat.

John Smith, from the State of New York, attended.

Monday, June 5.

Death of Senator Malbone.

Mr. Mathewson announced the death of his colleague, Francis Malbone, who deceased yesterday morning.

On motion of Mr. Lloyd,

Ordered, That Messrs. Lloyd, Gilman, and White, be the committee.

On motion, by Mr. Lloyd,

On motion of Mr. Lloyd,

And the Senate adjourned.

Tuesday, June 6.

Senator Smith's pro tem. Appointment.

Mr. Giles submitted a resolution, which was amended, and is as follows:

On motion, by Mr. Anderson, to amend the motion, by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and inserting:

And a division of the motion for amendment was called for, and the question having been taken, on striking out, it passed in the negative; and the motion for amendment having been lost, the original motion was agreed to—yeas 19, nays 6, as follows:

Wednesday, June 7.

James A. Bayard, from the State of Delaware, attended.

Thursday, June 8.

William H. Crawford, from the State of Georgia, attended.

Monday, June 12.

Exiled Cubans, with their Slaves.

On motion, by Mr. Giles,

Ordered, That Messrs. Giles, Bradley, Anderson, Crawford, and Franklin, be the committee.

Monday, June 19.

Exiled Cubans.

On motion, by Mr. Giles,

Friday, June 23.

Foreign Armed Vessels.

Mr. Leib, from the committee, appointed on the 20th instant, to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for the exclusion of foreign armed vessels from the ports and harbors of the United States, made report; which was read, as follows:

Saturday, June 24.

The bill freeing from postage all letters and packets from Thomas Jefferson, was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment having been proposed, on the question, Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time? it was determined in the affirmative.

Monday, June 26.

The Vice President being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro tempore, as the constitution provides; and the honorable Andrew Gregg was elected.

Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United States, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the Vice President, elected the honorable Andrew Gregg President of the Senate pro tempore.

Tuesday, June 27.

Public Credit.

The bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the act, entitled 'An act making further provision for the support of public credit, and for the redemption of the public debt,'" was read the third time as amended.

On motion, by Mr. Hillhouse, to postpone the further consideration thereof until the first Monday in November next, it was determined in the negative—yeas 9, nays 15.

Wednesday, June 28.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 17, nays 9, as follows:

[Pg 122]

Six o'clock in the Evening.

Adjournment.

Resolved, That Messrs. Pope and Brent be a committee on the part of the Senate, with such as the House of Representatives may join, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that, unless he may have any further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress, they are ready to adjourn.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives therewith, and request the appointment of a committee on their part.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have appointed a committee on their part, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him of the intended recess of Congress.

Mr. Pope, from the committee, reported that they had waited on the President of the United States, who informed them that he had no further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that the Senate, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

The Secretary having performed that duty, the President adjourned the Senate, to meet on the fourth Monday of November.

[Pg 123]

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—FIRST SESSION.
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES
IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.[6]

Monday, May 22, 1809.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of the present session, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats, to wit:

Election of Speaker, &c.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present, the House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Speaker.

Messrs. N. R. Moore, Cutts, and Porter, were appointed tellers of the votes.

Mr. N. R. Moore reported that the result of the ballot was, that there were—

For Joseph B. Varnum, 60; Nathaniel Macon, 36; Timothy Pitkin, junior, 20; Roger Nelson, 1; C. W. Goldsborough, 1; blank ballots, 2.

Mr. Varnum having 60 votes, it was submitted to the decision of the House by the tellers whether the blank ballots could be considered as votes; if not, there being but 118 votes, Mr. Varnum having 60, had a majority.

Mr. W. Alston conceived that there could be no doubt on the subject; that blank pieces of paper could not be considered as votes. He instanced the case which occurred in the famous balloting for President in the year 1801; at which time, after a number of ballotings, the State of Maryland, which was divided, gave in four blank votes, and thus decided the election.

Mr. Macon thought there could be no question on the subject; he also recollected the case of the Presidential election instanced by his colleague, and was of opinion that blank ballots could not be counted. He hoped that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Varnum) would be conducted to the Chair.

Mr. Randolph said this was no ordinary question which the House were about to determine, at the instance of his friend, (Mr. Macon,) in his opinion, in a very irregular manner; and Mr. R. said that he was certain, if his friend were not himself implicated in the question, he would have been one of the last men in the House to give such a decision against himself; but perhaps this was a peculiarity in his friend's character. Are we, gentlemen, (said Mr. R.,) to have a Speaker of the House of Representatives without any election? The committee have not reported that one of the persons voted for had a majority of the whole number of votes even; on the contrary, they have expressly reported that no one had a majority. And will the House consent in this manner to choose a Speaker to preside over this body, and perhaps eventually over the destinies of this nation?—for perchance the Speaker might become President of the United States. With respect to the precedent in the case of the election of the President of the United States, there was not, he said, the smallest analogy between the two cases. What was that case? It was on a question whether or not there should exist in this country a Government, that this device had been used, after some forty or fifty ballotings. In order to give a President to the United States, certain gentlemen had thought proper not to vote at all. But, said Mr. R., is time now so precious? Is the Secretary of the President of the United States knocking at the door for admittance? Is the enemy at the gate? Is there not time, I beseech you, gentlemen, to proceed in the regular mode to the election of our officers? Or, shall we, to avoid the trouble of writing a name twice, establish a precedent, which, if established, may put an end to this Government, which is founded on the principle that the majority shall govern? Mr. R. said he was more free in expressing his ideas, because he believed that a second ballot would not affect the result; and he put it to his friend (Mr. Macon) to say whether he himself would consent to take the Chair on the vote of a minority. He said he knew him too well; he would not consent to it. He conceived that there was no question before the House, that they had not elected their Speaker; and that it was their business to proceed to an election. They were certainly competent, he said, to elect the officers of their own body; and he hoped they would do it more majorum—after the fashion of their ancestors.

Mr. Stanford denied that the case which had been cited from the Presidential election in 1801 had any bearing on the present question. That was a case in which, a State being divided, one-half the representation voted blank, and left to the other half of the representation the right of voting for the State. As, at the same time, a gentleman now from Kentucky, (Mr. Lyon,) then the only representative present from Vermont, had, by his single vote, his colleague being absent, decided the vote of that State, he thought there was no analogy.

Mr. Randolph moved that the House proceed to ballot a second time for Speaker.

The Clerk having put the question, it was carried—67 to 43.

Mr. Macon said he certainly felt a sense of gratitude towards those who had voted for him; but he should be obliged to them to vote for some other person. He had rather remain on the floor of the House than be placed in the Chair. He had experienced the difficulties of the situation; besides, by an illness during last[Pg 125] winter, his lungs had been so affected that he did not feel himself adequate to the task. As his declining the situation might be unexpected to some gentlemen, to accommodate them he would ask a postponement of the ballot for a time. He considered the office of Speaker of the House as one of the most honorable in the nation. Perhaps none was more so, after that of President and Vice President. Notwithstanding this, were there a probability of his being chosen, he must decline being placed in the Chair.

The House then proceeded to a further ballot; and Mr. N. R. Moore reported the result to be:

For Mr. Varnum, 65; Mr. Macon, 45; Mr. Pitkin, 6; Mr. Howard, 1; Mr. Nelson, 1, and Mr. Goldsborough, 1.

Mr. Varnum having a majority of votes was declared elected, and conducted to the Chair; whence he addressed the House as follows:

The Speaker having been sworn, the oath to support the Constitution of the United States was by him administered to the members, by States.

The House then proceeded to the choice of a Clerk, by ballot. The votes having been counted, there were—

For Patrick Magruder, 63; Daniel Brent, 38; Nicholas B. Van Zandt, 14; William Lambert, 7, and Mr. Scott, 1.

Mr. Magruder having a majority of votes, was declared to be re-elected.

Mr. George Poindexter having appeared and produced his credentials, as the Delegate from the Mississippi Territory of the United States, the oath was administered to him by the Speaker.

Mr. Macon, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States, reported that the committee had performed the service assigned to them, and that the President signified that he would make a communication to Congress, to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that that body was formed, and ready to proceed to business; and that they had appointed a committee to wait on the President of the United States, in conjunction with such committee as the House should appoint, to inform him that they were ready to receive any communication he might have to make.

On motion of Mr. J. G. Jackson, a committee was appointed to act with the committee of the Senate. Messrs. Macon and Jackson were named as the committee.

[Pg 126]

The House, after hearing a memorial from Joseph Wheaton, stating his services, and praying a reinstatement in the office of Sergeant-at-Arms, from which he had been ejected, proceeded to the choice of a Sergeant-at-Arms. The whole number was 122, of which Thomas Dunn had 80. He was therefore declared to be re-elected.

On balloting for a Doorkeeper, the whole number of votes was 116, of which Thomas Claxton had 115. He was therefore declared re-elected.

On balloting for an Assistant Doorkeeper, there were—

For Benjamin Burch, 68; Jesse Edwards, 50.

Mr. Burch was therefore elected.

Mr. Dawson.—Before we adjourn, it will be necessary to fix on some hour at which we shall meet; that hour heretofore has been eleven; but, as the mornings are now long, as some of the reasons which caused the present sessions have probably ceased, as the select committees will have but little to do, and every gentleman must be anxious to end the session and return home, I would prefer an earlier hour, and therefore offer the following resolution:

Agreed to, 52 to 39; and the House adjourned.

Tuesday, May 23.

Several other members, to wit: From Massachusetts, Samuel Taggart; from New York, Vincent Matthews; from Pennsylvania, Daniel Heister; and from North Carolina, Joseph Pearson, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

The Journal of yesterday's proceedings having been read—

Mr. Randolph moved to amend it, so as to record the precise state of the two ballots for a Speaker, with a view to a correct understanding of the case, if it should ever be drawn into precedent hereafter.

After a discussion of nearly two hours on the subject of the decision of yesterday, and the analogy betwixt it and the case of the Presidential election of 1801, Mr. Randolph's motion was agreed to—ayes 70.

President's Message.

The Message of the President of the United States was received, agreeably to the intimation given by the President yesterday to the committee appointed to wait on him. The Message having been read, was referred to a Committee of the whole House on the State of the Union, and 5,000 copies ordered to be printed of the Message, with the documents accompanying it. [See Senate proceedings of this date, ante page 117, for this Message.]

[Pg 127]

Thursday, May 25.

Swedish and Portuguese Vessels.

Mr. Newton offered a resolution to instruct the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures to inquire into and report on the expediency of permitting vessels of those nations with whom intercourse was permitted, to take cargoes, &c. He stated to the House that at present vessels of Sweden and Portugal, with whom intercourse is permitted, could not load and depart; and on this subject a letter was read from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. Burwell said there was another subject connected with the resolution, which ought to be taken into consideration. The proclamation of the President declares that on the 10th of June next, the operation of the non-intercourse law, as relates to Great Britain, shall cease. It went into operation on the 20th of this month. Of course there were many vessels on the coast which could not get in before the 20th of May. He submitted it to the Chairman of the Committee, whether it would not be proper at once to do away all restriction, because the policy of its existence had ceased in relation to Great Britain from the restoration of harmony with her; and if the goods on our coast were not permitted to be regularly landed, they might be smuggled in, and injure the revenue. He thought it would be proper to inquire into the expediency of doing away at once, by law, all interdiction of commerce.

Mr. Newton said he had no objection to act on the subject mentioned by his colleague, but he did not conceive it to be connected with the present motion.

Mr. Newton's motion having been agreed to, he immediately reported "a bill respecting the ships or vessels owned by citizens of foreign nations with whom commercial intercourse is permitted."—Twice read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

Non-Intercourse Act.

Mr. Livermore said that he did not distinctly hear all that fell from the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Burwell,) but, from what he had heard, he apprehended that it was on a subject of great importance. There were many vessels on the coast, which, were they to enter our harbors, would fall within the description of the 4th, 5th, and 6th sections of the non-intercourse act. From the happy commencement of the settlement of our differences with Great Britain, he did not believe it was the design of any gentleman that the non-intercourse should be enforced in this particular. He therefore offered a resolution for suspending the act, as follows:

Friday, May 26.

Another member, to wit, Robert Weakley, from Tennessee, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Vote of Approbation.

Mr. Randolph said that for the last eight years or thereabouts an alteration had taken place in the manner of doing business at the commencement of each session of Congress. He said he recollected when the first Congress under the administration of Mr. Jefferson had met at this place, instead of Congress being opened as heretofore by the President in person and by a speech, a note in these words had been received by the Speaker, enclosing a Message from the President:

It is unnecessary, I believe, (said Mr. R.,) to state that the hint contained in the Message that no answer was to be expected, was taken by the House; and from that day no answers have been given to the Message of the President at the opening of Congress. It would ill become me, sir, who so highly approved then, and who so highly approve now the change introduced by communicating to the two Houses by message instead of by speech, to say any thing that might imply a disapprobation of it. I like it, sir. To tell the truth, the style of communicating by speech was more in the style of the opening of the British Parliament by the king. I therefore like the mode of communication by message. But I am not so clear, though we were then half-right, that we were wholly right; though on this subject I do not mean to give a definite opinion. No man can turn over the journals of the first six Congresses of the United States without being sickened, fairly sickened, with the adulation often replied by the Houses of Congress to the President's communication. But nevertheless the answer to an address, although that answer might finally contain the most exceptionable passages, was in fact the greatest opportunity which the opposition to the measures of the administration had of canvassing and sifting its measures; and, in my mind, whatever goes to take away this opportunity, goes so far to narrow down the rights[Pg 128] of the minority or opposition, commonly so called, and in fact to enlarge the rights of the majority and the administration party so called; and I beg leave not to be understood as speaking of the state of parties at this time, but of that which has always existed. This opportunity of discussion of the answer to an address, however exceptionable the address might be when it had received the last seasoning for the Presidential palate, did afford the best opportunity to take a review of the measures of the administration, to canvass them fully and fairly, without there being any question raised whether the gentlemen were in order or not; and I believe the time spent in canvassing the answer to a speech was at least as well spent as a great deal that we have expended since we discontinued the practice. I do not say that any answer is proper or ought to be given; but I do believe that when this House goes into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, it is for purposes a little more elevated than to dissect the Message of the President of the United States, or to strip it up and transfer it to select and standing committees. If that be the whole object of going into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I can see no reason for having any such committee, nor why the Message should not be taken in the first instance, dissected by the knife of the operator most in the fashion of the day, and referred to different committees. And it has a tendency to cast a sort of ridicule on our proceedings, when this august assembly resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and resolves that the Message shall be referred to such and such committees; and would induce shallow observers to believe that in fact there is little or no use for such a committee. But whatever may be my opinion on the subject of opening the two Houses by message, I do think that there are occasions, and that this is one, on which it behooves this assembly to express its opinion on the state of public affairs. I will not recall to your recollection, sir, because perhaps, and most probably it passed over your mind without making any impression, that some time during the last session of Congress, I stated that if the gentleman in whose hand the reins of Government were about to be placed did not even tolerably perform the task assigned to him, some allowance ought to be made for the state in which he found the nation. And, sir, when I see the situation of the country so materially changed for the better, am I and is this House to sit still and regard it but as newspaper talk of the day, and express no opinion on it? And what is our opinion? It is either in approbation or disapprobation of the conduct of the Executive. In my opinion it is due to the Executive that he have an expression of sentiment on this subject. In the part of the country in which I live, dinners have been given, feasts have been held, and the song and toast have passed round in commemoration of the event: and is this House to be insensible, and to leave the President of the United States in ignorance or doubt whether his conduct has or has not received the sanction of their approbation? Or is he to get that information from inofficial sources? I hope not. I hope he will get it from ourselves. I therefore move you—

Mr. Findlay said that this proposition contemplated a novelty in the legislative proceeding of this country. Where would it end if the House were now to make a solemn resolution approving of the conduct of the President? The answer returned to the speech of the King in monarchical Governments committed the House making it to all that was contained in it. The practice in this country had been long considered an evil; indeed, he thought he could show by the journals one instance in which the discussion of a single section in an answer occupied the House fourteen or fifteen days. It was a practice, too, which introduced at the very opening of the session all that irritation that commonly arose in the course of a session. Mr. F. said he supposed there was not a member in the House but did approve of the President's exercise of the authority vested in him. He presumed that they approved equally also of the same offer heretofore made to the Court of London. If the House were to approbate the conduct of one President, they must approbate that of others; and the conduct of the different administrations under the constitution might be brought into view. Mr. F. was totally against this motion, or any other of the kind.

Mr. Dana said that at the present time he should certainly not be for adopting the resolution. The adopting it at this time would certainly not comport with the object professed by the mover, which he had understood to be, to present a question on which there might be a general view of the conduct of the Executive in relation to the object in question. If the object was to bring up the question in a regular form, that gentlemen might express themselves fully in relation to our affairs, it was very proper that this subject should be discussed in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. For himself, Mr. D. said that he thought the mode of answering speeches might do very well in such a Government as this, and whatever might be said of economy of time, by an attention to the actual expense, it would be found that in fact very little time was lost by it. At the last session of Congress a committee had reported a resolution to which there was but two dissentients; the discussion occupied nearly three weeks. All agreed as to the result, but gentlemen combated each other's arguments. And undoubtedly, Mr. D. said, the rapidity with which the Message was shot through a Com[Pg 129]mittee of the Whole, was rather a farcical piece of business—and, indeed, it was not without some little surprise that, when he had come to the House this morning, he found the whole subject disposed of.

Mr. W. Alston said, that when a resolution like the one proposed was presented to him, the substance of which met his approbation, if he was compelled to vote directly upon it, he would rather vote for it than against it. But if it were the object to bring before the House a discussion upon the Message of the President, and to return an answer to his Excellency's most gracious Message, he should certainly be opposed to it. If ever there had been one particular part of the conduct of the former administration which had met the approbation of the Republicans of this country generally, it was the discontinuance of this practice. The result of the alteration was, that although more was done during the sessions of the Republican Congresses, they terminated them three or four weeks sooner than ever had been done before. As to the opportunity which the answers afforded for debate, could any one say that sufficient latitude had not been taken in debate? Had not gentlemen even called others by name, and introduced every subject on any question? Mr. A. said he was pleased with what had been done, and he could not vote that he was not pleased; but he was certainly opposed to entering into a full discussion, at the opening of each session, of every thing which was to come under the consideration of the House. If they were to take up this resolution, they might as well take some abstract act of Mr. Adams's, he being still living, and discuss his political life. Washington, at least he hoped, having departed from us, would be permitted to rest in peace.

Mr. Bacon said that with other gentlemen, he could not but regret that this proposition had been brought forward. If he were brought to vote upon it, he need not tell the House that he should cordially vote for it; but it was really one of the last observations which he had expected to have heard from any gentleman that we wanted field for debate. He had thought that the grievance was the other way; that the cause of complaint was, that they consumed too much time in debate. He said he should certainly vote for the resolution, were it brought to a direct vote; but, for the purpose of placing before the House the view of the subject which he entertained, he should take the liberty to move an amendment to it, and then move to refer it to a Committee of the Whole. The amendment was in these words, proposed to be added to the motion:—"And furnishes an additional proof of the spirit of accommodation on the part of the Government of the United States, which has at no time been intermitted."

Mr. J. G. Jackson moved that the whole subject be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. Randolph said that as an indefinite postponement was considered as tantamount to a rejection—for it prevents a renewal of the subject during the session, and a rejection does nothing more, as the House had heretofore had a woful experience in the case of certain very pertinacious petitioners; and, as he was afraid, they would again have from a certain body of petitioners, who, he presumed, had not entirely given up their hopes of quartering themselves on the public property—an indefinite postponement, then, being equivalent to a rejection, he certainly was opposed to the rejection of his own motion. He could not have believed that this motion would have been rejected by the House, though he said he had certainly calculated on its being opposed by those who condemned the promptitude and frankness with which the President had proceeded to restore, as far as depended on him, the intercourse between the two nations. It is this part of the conduct of the President of the United States, said Mr. R., on which I mean to give an opinion—"By the President of the United States, a proclamation"—and in that proclamation, in my opinion, he has deserved well of his country. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Findlay,) if he is near enough to hear me in this vast room, when have I proposed bringing in review the whole measures of former administration; when have I proposed an answer to an address to the two Houses? I have proposed no such thing, sir, although my motion is nearly tantamount to it; because it so happens that the only act of which we have any knowledge, except the laying up the gunboats in dry dock, which I also most cordially approbate, is this very thing. Now, I have not the slightest objection, if the gentleman chooses, that the honorable and worthy gentleman from Massachusetts should insist on a venire on the conduct of any former President of the United States, but I beg myself to be excused from serving on it. As an unqualified juror, I choose to except myself; for, really, as to one of those Presidents, his career does not yet seem to be finished. It would seem as if he meditated another batch of midnight judges, and another midnight retreat from the Capital. I do, therefore, except to myself as a juror as to him or any other President. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. Agreed, sir. Let the good that men do live after them, and the evil be interred in their graves. But, I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, also, if this be one of their abstract propositions? How abstract, I pray you? Or, if it be one of those unmeaning propositions, the discussion of which could answer no good to this House? It would be idle in us now to be trying Mr. Adams on the merits of the sedition law, the eight per cent. loans, or any other such act. It would answer no purpose; and it would be equally idle and futile to pass any opinion on the merits or demerits of the first four or last four years of the late administration, for this plain reason, the question bolts upon you, cui bono? What earthly good can result from it? But is that the case in relation to the Executive, on whose[Pg 130] future dispositions rest the best interests of this nation? Is that a mere idle discussion? And is it come to this? Is this House so sunk in the Executive opinion, (I trust not, sir; I abhor the idea,) that its approbation of a great course of national policy is to pass for nothing; is it to have no influence on the conduct of the Executive of the United States? This, sir, is taking higher doctrine than was ever advanced by those who wished to see the President open Parliament by a speech from the throne. It is taking higher ground than the Minister of that country from which the precedent was derived. The weight of the House of Commons is felt too sensibly there for their inclinations not to be sounded by motions from their Chancellor of the Exchequer, and their members of opposition, in relation to the great course of foreign affairs. And, sir, shall we now be told that it is a mere matter of moonshine, a thing of no moment, whether this House really does approve the conduct of the Administration of the Government of the United States, or disapproves it? Praise, in my opinion, properly and not prodigally bestowed, is one of the best resources of a nation. Why is this House called upon, and I am sorry to say it is, too often, and too lightly, to give its sanction to the conduct of individuals in the public service, if its approbation is estimated so trivially? No, sir; this is a great question which I have presented to you, and gentlemen may hamper it with as many amendments as they please; they cannot keep the question out of sight. Some may be against it because they are for it; some because it does harm, and some because it does no good. The question cannot be kept out of sight; it has been presented to the American people and they have decided it, decide you how you may.

With respect to the gentleman's amendment, I need not tell him, I presume, that I shall vote most pointedly against it, because, in my opinion, it does not contain the truth. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bacon) will be among the last of the members of this House to attribute to me an improper sentiment in regard to him, when I say that it does not contain the truth. If the gentleman from Massachusetts chooses, in imitation of another Eastern nation—not those who tried their Kings after they were entombed, but those who consigned to one common grave the living and the dead; if he be willing to attach the sound, healthy body of the present Administration—healthy so far, and, I trust, fortifying itself against contagions—to the dead corpse of the last, let him. He shall not have my assistance in doing it; nor have I the least desire to draw a marked distinction between the two Administrations. The gentleman will hardly suspect that I am seeking favor at court. My object is plain. It is to say to the President that, in issuing that proclamation, he has acted wisely, and we approve of it. I know, sir, that there are men who condemn the conduct of the President in issuing the proclamation; and why? They say he was precipitate. Where was the necessity, they will tell you, of declaring that the Orders in Council will have been withdrawn? This is the language of objection. There is a difference of opinion subsisting in this country on these two points. There are men who condemn this proclamation, and men who condemn the construction given by the Executive to the non-intercourse law. I approve both. I wish the President of the United States to have the approving sentiment of this House, and to have that approbation as a guide to his future conduct; and I put it to the gentleman from Massachusetts whether it be fair to mingle it with the old, stale, refuse stuff of the embargo? No, sir; let him not put his new wine into old bottles. There is a difference of opinion in this country. The President of the United States stands condemned by men in this nation, and, as I believe, in this House, for having issued that proclamation, and put that construction on the non-intercourse law. I wish to see by how many he is thus condemned. I do not wish to see the question shirked—to see it blinked. If there be a majority of the House, as I believe there is, in favor of the conduct of the President, I wish him to have that approbation expressed as a guide to his future, and a support to his present conduct. It is due to him. Sir, have I moved you a nauseous, sickening resolution, stuffed with adulation? Nothing like it; but, a resolution that the promptitude and frankness with which the President of the United States has met the overtures of the British Government towards a restoration of the ancient state of things between the two countries—the state prior to the memorable non-importation act of 1806—meets the approbation of this House. Either it does, or it does not. If it does, let us say so. If it does not, let us say so. If gentlemen think this House never ought to express an opinion, but leave the President to grope in the dark as to our views, or get them through inofficial channels, I presume the previous question will be taken, or motion made that the resolution lie upon the table. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says, shall we go back, and approve of what he conceives to be similar conduct of the late President of the United States in relation to the embargo? I hope not, sir. But if a majority of this House choose to do so, let them. I shall say no. But, why mingle two subjects together, on which there does exist—and I am afraid it will leak out on this very vote of indefinite postponement—so very material a difference of opinion in different parts of the House? For example: I do not think of the offer about the embargo as the gentlemen from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania think; and I think it probable that those two gentlemen do not think of this proclamation and the construction given to the non-intercourse law, as I think. And why should we make a sort of hotch-potch of two subjects, on which we do not think alike, for the purpose of getting us all united against[Pg 131] both? It is an old adage, and a very homely one, perhaps too much so for the delicate ears of this assembly, that if you put one addled egg into a pudding, you may add fresh ones, ad infinitum, but you can never sweeten it. And, sir, I defy the gentleman from Massachusetts, with all his political cookery, by pouring out of the jar of our present situation into the old mess, to sweeten it.

In the year 1806, we passed that miserable old non-importation act, which last session we repealed; and really, sir, we got rid of it with an adroitness which pleased me exceedingly. Never was an obnoxious measure more handsomely smothered by its avowed friends. Gentlemen said it was merged in the non-intercourse act, and therefore, as a matter of indifference, they would repeal it; and when the non-intercourse act shall expire by its own limitation, at the end of this session, or be suspended by the President's proclamation, as it is in relation to Great Britain, there is an end of both; and thus, the old measure, the old, original sin to which we owe our first difficulties, was as much gotten rid of as if a majority of this House had declared it an unwise measure, and therefore repealed it. I do recollect to have heard one gentleman (Mr. Eppes) say, that unless the section repealing this law were stricken out, he should be compelled to vote against the bill. He conjured the House to cling to the old non-importation act as the last vestige and symbol of resistance to British oppression; but the House was deaf to his call, and the non-importation act was plunged beneath the wave, never, I trust, to rise again. When, therefore, the late President of the United States made an offer to Great Britain to suspend the embargo as to her, provided she would withdraw her Orders in Council, I will suppose that she had accepted that offer. In what situation would she have stood in relation to the United States? Her fine cloths, her leather, her watches, her this and her that, would have been prohibited admittance into this country under the old non-importation act of 1806, which would have been in force. That act, in point of fact, had no operation on her adversary. Her ships would have been prohibited the use of our waters, while the ships of war of her enemy were admitted. Did that make no difference? That, sir, would have been the situation of the two countries, provided she had accepted the offer to suspend the embargo as to herself—the old non-importation act in operation, her ships of war excluded, and her rival's admitted. I pray you, was not that the condition of the country when Mr. Rose arrived? Was there not some difficulty, under the proclamation, in the admission of the Statira frigate, bearing that Minister into our waters? And were not French ships of war then, and have they not since been riding quietly at Annapolis, Norfolk, and elsewhere? Has not, in fact, the gallant Captain Decatur taken our own seamen out of one of them? And yet, sir, the offer at that time made by us has been identified with the negotiation between Mr. Secretary Smith and Mr. Erskine. What then was her situation? The non-importation act in force, her ships excluded and those of France admitted, and nothing in force in relation to France except the embargo. What is now the situation of affairs? Trade with her is restored to the same situation, in point of fact, in which it stood when Congress met here in 1805 and 1806—at the memorable first session of the ninth Congress, which generated the old non-importation act of 1806. Her ships of war are admitted into our waters, her trade is freed from embarrassment, while the ships of her adversary are excluded and the trade between us and her adversary forbidden by law. While, therefore, I am ready and willing to approve the conduct of the present Administration, it is not because I conceive that they have effected any thing so very difficult—that they have obtained any such mighty concession—but, because they have done their duty. Yes, sir; we all recollect that the objections made to the treaty negotiated by Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pinkney, on two great leading accounts: 1st. That it contained no express provision against the impressment of seamen. Is there any provision now made? No, sir. The next objection to the treaty was the note attached to it by Lords Holland and Auckland. What, sir, did gentlemen on this floor say was the purport of this note? That its object was to put us in a state of amity in respect to Great Britain, at the expense of the risk of collision with France. On account of this note, the treaty and the treaty-makers have been politically damned. And yet, we are now, in point of fact, in that very situation, in relation to the two nations, in which it was said that the British Commissioners, by the note, aimed to place us, and which was a sufficient reason, according to the arguments of gentlemen, for rejecting the treaty. The note was a sort of lien, gentlemen said, that would put us in a state of hostility with regard to France, and amity with regard to England. We refused to give our bond, for such it was represented (however unjustly) to be, to be sure, sir; but we have paid the money. We have done the very thing which gentlemen say the note aimed to induce us to do. We have put ourselves in a situation endangering collision with France, and almost insuring amity with England. We have destroyed the old non-importation act. The non-intercourse act is suspended as to her. Trade is again free. There is nothing now to prohibit her ships, whether for commerce or war, from coming into our waters, whilst our trade with France is completely cut off, and her ships excluded from our waters. I cannot too often call the attention of the House to this fact, on which I am compelled to dwell and dilate to get rid of this merciless motion, which kills while it professes to cure. When Mr. Rose came into this country, French ships of war were freely admitted; English ships were excluded.

[Pg 132]

As "the physician, in spite of himself," says in one of Moliere's best comedies, on a changé tout cela—the thing is wholly reversed. We are likely to be on good terms with England, maugre the best exertions of some of our politicians. Trade with Great Britain is unshackled, her ships are admitted, trade with France is forbidden; and French ships excluded, as far as it can be done by paper. Now, in the name of common sense, what more could Mr. Canning himself want, than to produce this very striking and sudden change in the relations between the two countries? For a long time previous, it was the ships of England that were excluded, while those of her adversaries were admitted. And we know that we could not have touched her in a more jealous point than in her navy. Things are now reversed—we have dexterously shuffled the non-importation act out of the pack, renewed trade with her, admitted her ships, and excluded those of France. And what, I ask this House, has the British Minister given us in requital for this change of our position in relation to him and his rival belligerent? The revocation of the Orders in Council—this is the mighty boon. For, with respect to his offer in relation to satisfaction for the attack on the Chesapeake, he made that offer to Mr. Monroe spontaneously, on the spur of the occasion, and there is not a doubt in my mind but that we had nothing to do but to receive it at that time, provided the instructions of our Minister had permitted him to receive it; but, perchance, sir, if he had received it, we might have been at this day discussing his message, and not the message of another President. All that Mr. Canning has given this country is a reiteration of his offer to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake, and his withdrawal of the Orders in Council; and to what did they amount? So soon as you, by your own law, cut off your trade with France, he agrees to revoke the orders interfering with it. Mr. Canning might as well have withdrawn blank paper. They had nothing left to operate upon. The body upon which they were to operate was destroyed by our own act, to wit, the trade of France. And, sir, while I compliment the present state of things, and the conduct on the part of our Government which has led to it, I cannot say that we have greatly overreached Mr. Canning in this bargain, in making an exchange of the old non-importation act with the admission of English, and exclusion of French ships and trade, for the Orders in Council. Mr. Canning obtained as good a bargain out of us as he could have expected to obtain; and those gentlemen who speak of his having heretofore had it in his power to have done the same, did not take into calculation the material difference between the situation in which we now stand, and the situation in which we before stood—to say nothing at all of Great Britain's having taken a stand against the embargo, having declared that she had nothing to offer in exchange for it; that we might keep it as long as we pleased. If she had accepted our offer, as I before stated, the old non-importation law would have been in operation, her ships of war would have been excluded, whilst those of France were admitted. Now, the non-importation act is not in force, her ships are permitted to enter our waters, and those of France excluded. And what has this sarcastic Minister of Great Britain given us in exchange? The Orders in Council, which had completely ceased to operate by the cutting off of the trade between us and France. Let me state this argument in a shape most favorable to ourselves, and least so to the British Government. I speak as to argument; for, as to friendship between nations, there is no friendship in trade. We ought to get the best bargain out of them that we could, and it was the duty of their Minister to get the best out of us. Let us throw out of view the exclusion of French ships and French commerce. Is the removal of the non-importation act, and the admission of British vessels, nothing? What has Mr. Canning given you in return? The Orders in Council—and what were they worth to him? Not a straw.

Mr. Holland said he had no doubt that the President had done his duty in the case referred to in the proposition under consideration; and as he had entertained no doubt but the President would, on this and every other occasion, do his duty, he said he felt no excessive joy on the occasion. It was only an ordinary act of duty well performed, and therefore he was not willing to distinguish it from those numerous acts which he trusted would be, as they had heretofore been performed, by the Executive. Were he the author of the proposition, he should have many scruples as to the propriety of offering such a one. Were the precedent to be set by the passage of this resolution, the House might hereafter witness a struggle on the floor to determine who should be first to come forward with a proposition expressive of approbation. The human mind might be so operated upon that the Executive might feel himself under an obligation to promote the person bringing forward such a motion. I, said Mr. H., would be one of the last to introduce such a motion were I a friend to the President; and if I were not a friend to the President, I would not bring it forward, lest it should be thought that I was courting favor in his eyes. But why, sir, should this House give an expression of approbation of the President? Because, we are told, it may be a guide to him hereafter. Let this House be careful how it acts, and attend to its own duties. The President does not stand in need of this kind of support. I never will step forward as a member of this House, to excite him to his duty by a vote of this kind. I believe he possesses an attachment to his duty sufficient to induce him to perform it. I believe that the voice of the people of the United States is such, in relation to the present and late President, that they believe they were well disposed to do their duty, and that they have done their duty; but it does not follow that we ought to[Pg 133] express our approbation as to any particular act. The gentleman himself says that the President has only done his duty. Is it not surprising, then, that we are called upon to give him the approbation of this House? What would be inferred from this procedure? Why, that it is so seldom our Presidents have done their duty, that, in the very first instance in which they have done it, the House of Representatives had discovered and applauded it. If the gentleman thinks so, I wholly disagree with him. If our officers do their duty properly, they will receive the thanks of the nation; and where is the propriety of singling out for approbation or disapprobation this particular act? I see none. It is asked, will you leave the President of the United States to grope in the dark, and not let him know whether he has received our approbation or not? And is the President to judge from the thanks of the House that he has done his duty? How is he to know that they have expressed their sense of his conduct from proper motives? Would he not be right to suspect those who vote for, and more especially those who bring forward such a proposition, of improper motives? He would be left still worse to grope in the dark. It has been said that former Presidents have been deceived in consequence of votes of approbation; and the same would again occur. On every ground I am opposed to the passing such resolutions on principle, and shall therefore vote for indefinite postponement. It was indefinitely postponed.

Saturday, May 27.

Sedition Law.

Mr. Stanford said he had risen to offer a resolution, which he wanted to have offered immediately after that which had been offered by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) and adopted by the House, on the subject of prosecutions for libel at common law; but not being able to get the floor, he would now beg leave to move his by way of instruction to the same committee. That committee, Mr. S. said, had been charged with an inquiry into what prosecutions for libel at common law had been instituted in the courts of the United States, which he hoped the committee would duly make, and lay before the House. Thus the House would see what system of persecution, if any, had been resorted to, and cherished by the late Administration or its friends, in any part of the United States; and he equally hoped some remedy might be devised at this time, the beginning of a new Administration, to obviate any like occurrence in future. But, said Mr. S., let it not be that any thing be done partially. While we are about to bring to our view all the cases of prosecution for libel under the common law, we are not likely to know any thing about prosecutions for libel which had occurred under the sedition law, and that too under a different Administration. We have not authorized any such inquiry. That abuses have occurred under both, is but too probable, and I think it will be liberal, as it is just and fair, to make the inquiry more general on the subject. If any citizen has been oppressed or injured by such prosecutions, let it be known, and let justice be done him; even now, if with propriety any way can be devised to do so. Inquiry, however, is all that is asked for the present.

It may be perceived, said Mr. S., and if not, I wish it should be understood when I speak of justice being done, that I speak with rather peculiar reference to a gentleman of this House, who has been a principal sufferer under the well-known sedition law. I think it never too late to do justice, under whatever circumstances or motives of policy it may have been withheld for a time. I trust no gentleman will, upon this occasion, suspect me of a design to excite any party feelings. It certainly is not my wish, whatever may be the effect. The resolution I am about to offer is not so framed, nor would it necessarily involve the question of the constitutionality of the law. I feel persuaded, therefore, that the different gentlemen of the House may, from a spirit of liberality and fair concession, indulge the inquiry asked for.

But, sir, said he, since the other inquiry has been gone into, it cannot be unfair to say that the majority of the House owe it to themselves to extend the inquiry, as well to cases of prosecution under the sedition law, as to those under the common law; and I shall be permitted to say also, they owe it as well to the feelings and sufferings of the gentleman to whom I have alluded. Whatever may be the aspect of political opinions and parties now, it is known to you, sir, and a few others on this floor, that to him much is due for the present ascendency of the majority; perhaps to no one more, to the extent of his sphere of action and influence. In the famous contested election for President in this House, eight or nine years ago, he gave the vote of a State, which sufficed to decide the contest; and more especially so, if the blank votes of the State of Maryland could have rendered that vote doubtful. But, however such considerations may or may not avail, nothing is more clear to me than that the inquiry should be indulged on the most liberal principles.

Mr. Sawyer moved to amend the resolution by adding, at the end of it, the words "and that the committee also inquire whether any and what private compensation has been made to such suffering persons."

Mr. Macon said he did not know how the[Pg 134] committee could go about to make such an inquiry as that contemplated by the amendment. The gentleman must be well satisfied that the Government could not rightfully inquire into transactions between individuals.

Mr. Dana said that he had no particular objection to meet this inquiry. As to the disclosure of facts as to the reimbursement by individual contribution, it might be amusing, if this House had authority to make it. He said he should like to know who contributed to the relief of James Thompson Callender, when he was prosecuted; but he had some doubt whether it was proper to enter into any inquiry or whether it was proper to pass the resolution pointing to the remuneration of sufferers under the sedition law. He should have supposed that it might be proper to leave it at large for the committee to report. He said he had certainly no objection to inquire, though he conceived that prosecutions at common law and under the sedition law were essentially different; because, supposing the Congress of the United States to pass such a law, the courts of the United States might take cognizance of it; but, without such a law, it did not belong to the judiciary to extend its care to the protection of the Government from slander. Such was the decision of Judge Chase, (said Mr. D.,) who decided that the court had no jurisdiction at common law in suits for libel; and the Supreme Court of the United States never did decide the question. The strong contrast is this: that while there was a description of men who said that no prosecution could be had at common law for libel, nor under the statute which modified the common law so as to allow the truth to be given in evidence—who, while they excited indignation against this statute, should afterwards undertake to institute prosecutions at common law where there was no limitation in favor of the defendant. There is this difference in the cases: that we find practice precisely different from professions. I do not say that the heads of departments were instrumental in instituting these prosecutions; but it marks some of the subordinate men who were active in making professions. I am very willing that the proposed inquiry should be made; but I cannot see the propriety of our undertaking to give any opinion as to remunerating those who suffered.

Mr. Stanford said:—Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my colleague's motion of amendment can be in order? It is no concern of this House, or of the Government, what private contributions may have been made to the gentleman from Kentucky; and, if it was, the inquiry is impossible. [The Speaker said, not being able to enter into the views of the mover of the amendment, he considered the motion in order.] Then, said Mr. S., if my colleague is anxious to know what he could not otherwise know, I will tell him I had contributed a small sum to the gentleman from Kentucky, as a sufferer in what was then considered a common cause; but, upon his return to his seat in the House, he could not brook the idea of such a contribution, and returned the amount to myself I know, and to others I believe. My colleague would do well to tell us how much he contributed. It was well known contributions were made in a quarter not far from him; and if he did not, I am well persuaded it was not for the want of sympathy on his part, or extreme zeal in the democratic cause; for I am confident I have seen as much or more seditious matter from under his pen, than I ever saw from under that of the gentleman from Kentucky. Be that, however, as it may, I am for one willing, if no constitutional difficulty can be shown, to remunerate the sufferers—at least to take such money out of the treasury, and restore it to its original, rightful owners; and if it cannot be consistently done, why the inquiry can do no harm. But, indeed, we have great examples in the case before us. Did not the late President, when he came into place, refuse to let such money come into the treasury in the case of the worthless Callender? As the proper authority, he thrust it from him as unworthy the coffers of his country; and did not his doing so meet general approbation? I confess it met mine most cordially, and I believe it did that of my colleague also. Have we not, moreover, the best recorded proof that the present President holds similar opinions on this subject? His splendid opposition to the sedition law is the proof to which I allude, and is, in my mind, conclusive on this subject. But if it were not, where is the impropriety of an inquiry? The House will be better able to decide when the whole matter shall come fairly before them.

Mr. Quincy said this appeared to be a proposition to aid a single individual; and, by the amendment, gentlemen who had aided that individual were anxious to prevent him from gaining more than he had paid. It was a kind of application to the House to repay to those persons who relieved the sufferers under the sedition act, the sums which they had paid. If this were the object, Mr. Q. suggested whether it would not be proper for them to come forward and lay their claim in the ordinary form before the House.

Mr. Sawyer said he was, as he always had been, willing to contribute his mite to the relief of the sufferers; but he did not wish to see them remunerated from the public treasury.

Mr. Lyon.—I have for some time been in suspense whether I ought, or ought not to make any observations on the subject before the House; delicacy on the one hand bids me be silent, while a duty I owe to myself, to my family, and to the nation, requires (that since my particular case has been alluded to) the members of this House and the public should be made acquainted with many of the circumstances of that case, which have either never come to their knowledge, or have long been buried up among the consumed heap of political occurrences, disputations and publications of these days. Besides, sir, I have it in my[Pg 135] power to throw much light on the subject of the inquiry wished for, by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Sawyer,) who has proposed the amendment under consideration, and I will assure the gentleman that I shall not be backward in doing so. It is true, sir, that I was unjustly condemned to pay a fine of one thousand dollars and to suffer an ignominious imprisonment of four months in a loathsome dungeon—the common receptacle of felons, runaway negroes, or the vilest malefactors—and this when I was the Representative of the people of Vermont in this House of Congress. It cannot be said there was no other room in the prison, there were rooms enough; yes, sir, one of my judges during my imprisonment, found another room in the same jail to be imprisoned for debt in, until he gave bonds for the liberty of the yard. To heighten the picture exhibited by official tyranny, and to add to the cruel vexation of this transaction, I was carried out of the county in which I lived, fifty miles from my family, kept six weeks without fire in the months of October and November, nearly the whole of which time the northwest wind had free admittance into the dungeon, through the same aperture that admitted the light of heaven into that dreary cell. And let it be asked, in these days of the mild reign of republicanism, for what crime was all this extraordinary, this ignominious punishment inflicted?

I hold a copy of the indictment in my hand, which includes the charge against me. I will not trouble the House with a recital of the technical jargon and tedious repetition of words, of course, which constitute the bulk of such instruments. No, sir, but I will read the identical words of the charge, which says, that on the 20th of June, 1798, Matthew Lyon wrote a letter to Alden Spooner of Windsor, Vermont, in which he said, "as to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and uniform support. But whenever I shall, on the part of the Executive, see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice—when I shall behold men of real merit daily turned out of office for no other cause but independence of sentiment—when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities, and experience, discarded in their application for offices for fear they possess that independence; and men of meanness preferred for the ease with which they take up and advocate opinions the consequence of which they know but little of—when I shall see the sacred name of religion employed as a state engine to make mankind hate and persecute one another, I shall not be their humble advocate."

This is the whole of my crime, and what do those words amount to. Who is here that hears these words, but what approves the sentiment they contain? What do I say in these words, other, or more, or less, than that when the Executive is doing right, I will support him—when doing wrong I will not be his humble advocate? This ought to be the creed of every member who enters these walls. Was there to be an oath or abjuration added to the constitutional oath to be taken by the members of this House, can any person who hears me, devise a better, or one more proper? Could any person who really thought Mr. Adams quite clear from all those improprieties, as merely possible from the nature of man, mentioned in my letter, have thought of my libelling the President by this declaration? I presume not, sir. Yet this, my crime, received one of the condemnations which you are called upon by this motion to constitute an inquiry into—an inquiry I cannot persuade myself will be refused. The letter, sir, was an answer to a violent invective against me, published in the same paper a short time before, in which besides a number of other charges against me, it was imputed to me as a crime that I acted in opposition to the Executive.

I did not begin the altercation. A person who was a friend to the Adams Administration, in the act of libelling me, (one of the constituted authorities,) ushered the Executive into his performance. My character, ever dearer to me than life, was concerned. I deigned to answer him, after expostulating with him on my right as one of the constituted authorities of the nation to exercise my own judgment in my official conduct, and showing that my merely differing with the Executive proved no more than that the Executive differed with me. I incidentally proceeded in the words for which I was indicted, the very words I just now read. I was charged with neither more nor less as coming from my pen. As if to outrage every principle of law and every sentiment of decency and propriety, this indictment, founded on the sedition law passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, charges me with having in Philadelphia on the 20th of June prior, written a letter to Alden Spooner of Vermont, which contained those words I have been reciting. My letter was produced in court and carried the Philadelphia post-mark of some day in the same June, I do not recollect which day; Judge Patterson himself admitted this fact, and that it was out of my power and control in the June before the sedition law was passed. Thus the indictment, which was the foundation of the barbarous treatment I received, carried on its front its own condemnation; but this defect was remedied by the ingenuity of the party judge, who dexterously mingled his assertions that the crime was cognizable under the common law, with his admonitions to a pliant jury not to be deterred from finding a verdict where the man who wrote was a member of Congress, and knew the sedition law was about to be passed, and probably hurried his letter to evade the law.

[Pg 136]

It may be said, sir, that I was charged in the indictment with publishing a copy of a letter, from an American diplomatic character in France, to a member of Congress, commonly called the Barlow letter. I was so, and there was a third count in the indictment for aiding and abetting in the publication of said letter. The words selected as seditious were as follow: "The misunderstanding between the two governments has become extremely alarming: confidence is completely destroyed; mistrust, jealousy, and a wrong attribution of motives, are so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action that are to come from your Executive; I mean if your object is to avoid hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall of Monroe, before the coming and the second coming of Pinkney, had it guided the pens that wrote the bullying speech of your President, and the stupid answer of your Senate, in November last, I should probably have had no occasion to address you this letter; but when we found him borrowing the language of Edmund Burke, and telling the world that although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no dependence to be placed on their engagements; that their religion or morality was at an end, and they had turned pirates and plunderers; and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though you were at peace, we wondered that the answer of both Houses had not been an order to send him to a madhouse! Instead of this, the Senate have echoed his speech with more servility than ever George the Third experienced from either house of Parliament." No proof appeared on the trial of my printing, or aiding or abetting in printing, or circulating a printed copy of this famous letter. I had read the copy of the letter in company, but the advocates of the sedition law would never admit that such reading was punishable by that law. The printer who printed the letter, swore that he had been anxious to get the letter from me, and that I had refused to suffer it to be printed, and repelled every attempt to persuade me to the printing; that he had obtained the copy of the letter in my absence. The fact was, that my wife was persuaded by a gentleman who is now a member of this House, that the Republican cause and my election (which was pending) would be injured if the letter was not published; and, as I understood, she gave it to him, the letter was printed, and that gentleman had some of the copies before I came home. I suppressed the remainder of the edition. The judge, finding no proof to support this part of the charge, directed the jury to find a verdict of guilty generally, as there could be no doubt of my being guilty on the first count. I had acknowledged my having written the letter to Alden Spooner. They did so. I will not detain the House by going into a detail of the manner in which that jury was packed. After all the care and management in the original selection, there was one man on it whose honesty my persecutors feared; and, to get him off, a wretch falsely swore that the summoned juryman had expressed to him something like an opinion that I could not be found guilty. I will not here dwell upon the judge's denial to me of a challenge upon the jury—as great a crime as any Judge Chase was charged with. I look for an investigation of this business when all the features of it shall come fairly to public view. Should that investigation be refused at this time, I shall not fail to look for it at some future time. I can never forgive the unjust stigma that has been placed on my character; and should justice be refused me during my whole life, I will leave it with my children and theirs to seek it. When my enemies wounded my feelings, robbed me of my property, and affected temporarily my reputation, I consoled myself that my friends would soon be in power, and they would make every thing right. My wounded honor would be consoled; the wound would be healed—a share at least of the property of which I had been deprived, would be reimbursed. How cruelly have I been thus far disappointed! Generous men, at the time I suffered, said it is enough for you to bear the mortification of the temporary insult—we will share with you the loss of property. Under this impression much money was collected, the greater part of which went to relieve oppressed Republican printers—it has all been charged to me. I never asked, nor would I have received a cent of this gratuity, could I have avoided it without insulting the benevolent views of the good man (Gen. Stevens Thompson Mason, deceased) who set the subscription on foot. That good man gave me a list of those to whom he considered me beholden, and the amount; while the thing was fresh in every one's mind I made a compliment, which he considered ample, and more than ample, to every one of those on that list that was within my reach; to those few that remain on that list uncompensated, I feel beholden and much indebted. As the thing has grown old, and as I have come in contact with those gentlemen, I have felt myself in an embarrassed, awkward situation, from which I wished to be relieved by being able to say to them, the public have restored your money—here it is—it is yours, not mine. Judging other men to have feelings like myself, I am at a loss how to get rid of the obligation I feel, in any other way than the restoration of their money when it comes in a way they cannot refuse it. From this source my anxiety for the restoration of the money unjustly taken from me, arises more than any other; and on every review of the subject, I am bound to say that I have been more cruelly treated by the neglect of a duty to which my friends had pledged themselves, when they declared me innocent and patriotic, than by enemies who thought me guilty, and found me goading them in their progress toward the destruction of the liberty and republicanism of this country. As if to make their cruelty more insupportable, in[Pg 137]sult is added to the injury, by daily insinuations that I am bound by gratitude to stand by those who call themselves Republicans, in all their projects, right or wrong. Before I was elected a member of Congress from the State of Kentucky, I sent to a member of this House, who had promised me to bring it forward, a petition to be laid before the House of Representatives for redress in this case. He returned the petition to my son in a letter, which I have in my hand—in which he says, "I am sorry and ashamed that I have not presented the petition. I have not wrote to your father, and confess I am ashamed; pray you, the first time you write to Colonel Lyon, do endeavor to make an excuse for me." Such I believe was the impression of most of those I had acted with in the reign of terror, as we called it; but that impression has been wearing off, it seems, while my feelings have been every day increasing in their poignancy at their neglect of a duty, to which they had solemnly pledged themselves, while they were struggling with their adversaries for pre-eminence and power. Happily the awful silence which surrounded this extraordinary business has been broken. I consider this a prelude to investigation and a correct issue; and, let the event of the vote now about to be taken be what it may, I shall not despair.

I shall at this time say no more on this subject than to declare I wish not to have my case singled out for reparation. I wish the investigation general; the provision for remuneration general, to all who suffered under the lash of that unconstitutional sedition law.

Mr. Sawyer's amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. Ross rose to propose another amendment to the resolution. It was a fact, he said, well known in almost every part of the United States, that the people in the district from which he had just been returned, had suffered as much in the cause of democracy as that of any other; that they had presented as firm a barrier to Federal oppression, and perhaps had as just claims as any other people in the United States to remuneration for losses in the cause. It was well known that at the time that high-handed measures were taken in this country, an insurrection had taken place in Pennsylvania, commonly known by the name of the Hot-water Insurrection; that it occurred in consequence of the oppression of the law for the collection of a direct tax. Many persons who had opposed the law, under the idea of its being unconstitutional, were prosecuted, punished, and some of them, in consequence of those prosecutions and the sentence resulting from them, expired in prison. To some who remained after the aspect of the affairs of the country was changed, mercy was extended by the United States; but to those whose prosecutions and convictions were of an earlier date, lenity was not extended; they were compelled to pay their fines before they could be relieved from imprisonment. Mr. R. declared his object in rising to be, to move to amend the resolution in such a way as to instruct the committee to inquire whether any, and if any, what compensation and remuneration should be made to the persons who suffered and were punished in consequence of an act to lay and collect a direct tax in the United States.

Mr. Dana said the gentleman's amendment contemplated remunerating those who suffered by their opposition to a statute. He would propose an amendment to inquire into the propriety of remunerating those who had suffered by their submission (not by their opposition) to the several acts respecting the embargo, certainly so much more meritorious conduct than that of opposition. As respected the whole of this subject, he said he was very free to declare that as regarded those who had been prosecuted at common law in the State of Connecticut, who had certainly been at very considerable expense, their defence perhaps having cost them several thousand dollars, yet, on the principle of correct legislation, he had not the least idea of remunerating them. Where shall we stop, said Mr. D., if we tread back on the steps of each other? We shall have opportunity enough for censure in reviewing our conduct. Perhaps it might be as well to draw the veil of oblivion over past transactions, and learn from experience to err no more.

Mr. Johnson said, that however much the act laying a direct tax was disapproved, and arose from measures which were improper, yet he had never deemed it an unconstitutional law, as he had the sedition law. He should therefore vote against the amendment and for the resolution.

Mr. Gardenier suggested to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since he had brought the subject before the House, the propriety of going the whole length of his principle. To my mind it is very clear, said he, that if those who oppose the law are to be remunerated, for what it cost them in consequence of prosecution, you must go only on the principle that the direct tax never ought to have been laid at all. If the law was right, it was improper to oppose it. If it was improper, perhaps according to modern democracy, it might be proper to oppose it by force. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous doctrine for legislators to broach; it is a doctrine to which I myself can never agree, for it is making Government a nullity. The suggestion which I wish to make is this: that if those men who suffered in the Hot-water Insurrection are to be remunerated, it is no more than fair that those should be remunerated who have quietly paid this tax. They were at least respectful to the laws. The committee therefore ought to be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repaying to the several contributors in the various States the direct tax, collected from them, unless there be something so admirable, so lovely, so worthy of encouragement in insurrection, that those concerned in it have peculiar claims to encourage[Pg 138]ment by Government. If that be the case, the gentleman stopped at the proper point. If there was nothing in insurrection, however, which the Legislature would feel it proper to cherish, the gentleman should either go the whole length of his principle or not touch it at all.

Mr. Ross said he had not undertaken to state any principle at all. His object was to refer the subject to a committee to decide upon. He had not said that he considered the original resolution to contain a correct principle; it was a point left for the committee to consider and for the House to determine on. But if it was a correct principle that those who suffered under the sedition law should be remunerated, he said he had no hesitation in saying that his constituents, who had suffered as materially and as much as any for the democratic interest in this country, should be placed on the same ground as those who were asking for the favor of the House for no better reason; and when the gentleman calls upon me, said Mr. R., to go the whole length of a principle which he states, it is calling upon me to do that which is consequent on a principle which I have not assumed. The gentleman from Kentucky conceives that there is a difference between the cases alluded to in my amendment and the cases arising under the sedition law. Where is the difference, sir? In both cases they were laws of the United States: in both cases the judges of the courts of the United States were authorized to proceed. In neither of the cases did they decide the law unconstitutional. If, then, persons were punished by the sedition law in its full operation, carried into effect by the constituted authorities, where, I ask, is the distinction between that and any other law? To all the purposes of legality, that law is as much legal as that under which the direct tax was instituted. Whether the law under which a direct tax was collected, was constitutional or not, has it not as equally received the disapprobation of the Republicans of the United States as the sedition law? If then it was the object of the democratic party to rid the country of such a law as much as of the sedition law, I ask whether those who suffered under each law have not equal claims? There can be no legal claim upon the House under either law; but we know that it was the hardy yeomanry who presented a firm phalanx to the irresistible torrent of injurious laws of the Federal Administration, and who gave the present party the ascendency, and many of them have not, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been, compensated for their suffering by a long continuance in an honorable and lucrative office which he enjoys by the confidence of his constituents.

Mr. Potter declared himself at a loss to know whether the House was sitting here as a branch of the Legislature to pass laws, or as a body to remunerate those concerned in the violation of them. The House sit here to make laws and not to encourage those who resisted them; but if they determined to give premiums for the violations of laws, they had better depart home at once.

Mr. Rhea wished the House to get rid of this motion and the amendment as speedily as possible. If the House were to go on as it had commenced the session, the whole time of the House would be spent about nothing, discussing propositions which could not possibly produce good to the nation. He therefore moved to postpone the whole subject indefinitely.

Mr. Macon said he had been in hopes when this motion had been made, that it would be one of the happy days of the House; that the question proposed would occupy the whole day in debate, and that all would agree in it at last. As to comparing this case with that of the direct tax, it was notorious that the discussion on the sedition law and the public opinion also took a very different turn from that which it took on any other law. The whole discussion (said Mr. M.) as well as I recollect, turned upon the constitutionality of the law. Then, if it is still believed that the law was unconstitutional, I leave it to gentlemen to say whether it can be viewed in the same light as a law, the constitutionality of which is not disputed. In the one case, trials took place for speaking and writing; in the other case for opposing the execution of a law. I wish this question to be settled for this reason: In all governments where liberty and freedom have existed, parties also have had existence. Thinking honestly produces parties. That those gentlemen who were in power when the sedition law was passed, should step a little too far, was not so much to be wondered at as that those who came after them should do so; because they were making the first experiment of the instrument. I then believed, and do still believe, that the law was unconstitutional. Taking up this question, the original resolution of my colleague is that remuneration should be made to those people who suffered under it; but seeing that the question with respect to the constitutionality of the law had always been matter of dispute, it proposes that a committee shall inquire into the subject. The House is no farther committed by passing this resolution, than to consent to the inquiry being made. I submit it to the candor and reflection of gentlemen of all parties, whether this thing, in a national point of view, can produce any evil—on the contrary, may it not produce good? All that has been said about the direct tax laws can have no other effect than to draw off the attention of the House from the true question before them. The question on this law, in my mind, is a different one from any other law which has been passed. I feel no hesitation in acknowledging that it is my opinion that all the sufferers ought to be remunerated, both those who suffered under the sedition law, and those who suffered under the common law. It is the business of all parties to settle amicably as they can any subject of contention between persons[Pg 139] of different political persuasions. If this first resolution should be referred to a committee, and they report that the law was unconstitutional, I will venture to pronounce that no majority will ever again make a law of that kind. If, sir, the sufferers under the sedition law did suffer contrary to the constitution, ought not their expenses to be reimbursed? On the subject of contribution, I know that that party to which I was attached, did contribute, and did consider it an honorable cause. I was willing (and there are gentlemen in this House who know it) to open my purse when a man of a very different political creed from myself, Peter Porcupine, was oppressed. I care not of what party a man be, that is oppressed. I can prove that the party opposed to me in politics have also subscribed. It is all no more than the subscriptions for printing speeches which are occasionally made in the House, in which gentlemen of all parties unite. Suppose that the whole fine in any particular case had been paid by individual subscription, what has the Government to do with that? Will it be contended, because an old soldier who received a pension also received individual contributions, that the pension should be taken from him, or that the Government is thereby acquitted of what it owed him? Surely not; the Government has nothing to do with transactions between individuals. As to the particular gentleman brought into this discussion, I believe that every man that contributed any thing towards paying the fine levied on him, was remunerated to his satisfaction. I have thought proper to state these opinions of mine, and to avow myself in favor of reimbursing the sufferers. But before I sit down, I must say that my opinion of modern democracy is very different from that of the gentleman from New York. I consider it as neither leading to insurrection, rebellion, nor any such thing. I believe that the true principle of every modern democrat, is, that the law constitutionally made is supreme, and is to be obeyed; that it has nothing to do with riots, rebellion, and insurrection. I know very well, and shall not deny it, that there are times when insurrection is a holy thing, but it is not peculiarly attributable to democracy. With us, election puts every thing to rights; and on them every man of pure democratic principles depends. It is doubtful whether the question of the constitutionality of the sedition law can be settled in a more easy way, and in a mode less liable to irritation, than that proposed by my colleague. If the committee report as I wish, it is well; if not, it settles the question forever; and it is surely desirable that the question should be settled. However gentlemen may differ, as to the principle proposed to be investigated, they might with propriety vote for the inquiry, as it is the ordinary course of every day. I do not consider this as proposing to give a premium to violators of the laws. I know that much depends in this world on names; and that if you give any man or thing a bad name, whether merited or not, it is difficult to get rid of it. I hope the House will not be deterred from this inquiry by any name attempted to be given to it. It is proper that this question should be settled; and if considered now, it will be settled by a body which did not partake of the heats of those times, and when, to say the least of it, there is a little division in the great parties of the nation; and it seems to me that the gentleman who moved it has been fortunate in the selection of his time. Eight years have elapsed, a new President is just inducted, and the question is now brought up for our decision. I am sorry that any member of this House should make a motion with no other view but for procrastination. I do not believe that my colleague who made this motion is more in the habit of procrastinating the public business than other members of the House; and I was in hopes that there would have been no dissentient voice to his motion. He only asks of you to let the inquiry be made. He does not ask a single member of the House to commit himself upon the question, but merely asks that a committee may be permitted to inquire into it; and this, it seems to me, is no extraordinary request. I hope that the resolution, without being trammelled with any extraneous matter, will be passed.

Mr. Key said he should vote for indefinite postponement of the resolution. What good purpose could its adoption answer, unless the House had the power to take money from the Treasury of the United States for the purpose of remunerating any person who had suffered? Had Congress that power? He apprehended not. He could see no such power amongst those delegated to Congress. The gentleman from North Carolina admitted the House were under no obligation to remunerate the sufferers; and if the gentleman would turn to the rules laid down for the definition of the powers of Congress, he would see that there was no authority to draw money from the Treasury for this purpose. Under that view of the constitution, Mr. K. said he must vote for indefinite postponement.

Mr. Macon asked under what clause of the constitution Captain Murray and others had been remunerated? Under what clause money paid into the Treasury had been returned in various instances? The right to take, gave the right to return that which was taken. In many instances this principle had been practised on. There was no law to authorize the punishment of a man for robbing the mail; but it was derived from the power of establishing post roads. The power of refunding money was one which had been often exercised.

Mr. Gardenier was in favor of an inquiry. It was not only proper that an inquiry should be made, but it was the bounden duty of the House to make it. A member of the House in his place had stated facts which if true undoubtedly entitled him to their interference. Our duty (said Mr. G.) is imperative. The case of[Pg 140] the gentleman does not rest upon the question whether the sedition law was constitutional or unconstitutional, but upon the fact that he was not a proper object for the exercise of that law. For, if the statement made be correct, he was punished for uttering a creed which would not be improper for every member of the House; and I will say that subsequent events have shown the sincerity with which the gentleman did make it; that he had kept his promise most religiously; that it was not applicable to those men, or that time, any more than to the present, but was a creed on which he practised before and ever since, so far as his political course is known to me. It is a case in which the privileges of the members of this House are materially concerned. If under the sedition law for a letter written by a member of this House to his constituents, giving his view of public measures, he has been punished, it concerns the safety of this House that complete and perfect remuneration should be made. It is as important that every member should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents, as that he should without restraint address the Chair of the House. It was a case, therefore, which never ought to have been the subject of a judicial investigation, much less considered as a crime. The gentleman at the time followed the dictates of his conscience. To his conscience and his God alone should he be responsible. Sir, should we refuse an inquiry into this case, when we know that the fine of James Thompson Callender, for one of the most atrocious libels ever written in the United States, was remitted? When we know that it was remitted by the President of the United States, after the money had been received by the proper receiving officer of the United States, when it had passed out of the hands of James Thompson Callender into the hands of the officer of Government, and was, to all intents and purposes, in the Treasury of the United States, because there is no such thing as a treasury in which money is actually deposited—for a libel, too, in which the great Father of his Country was treated with a shameless indignity, which could not but have gone to the heart of every man? When the President of the United States was in that libel called a hoary-headed incendiary, should that fine be returned, and shall a gentleman in this House be fined and imprisoned for that which was not even improper? Shall we not restore to him that which others have been suffered to retain, and for which we have not brought to question him who restored it after it was in possession of the receiving officer of the United States—in fact, after it was in the Treasury? Let us not be guilty of this inconsistency. If the sedition law has gone to the tomb of the Capulets, and I believe it has, I am not one who wishes to bear up against the people's voice; the Government is theirs, and when they speak we obey. If under that law the Government has received money for an act which really, if the statement of the gentleman be true, could scarcely be considered an offence within the purview of that law, will you not give it back to him? Either give back the money in the case, or take measures to recover that money which was given back in the other. I am not for making fish of one and flesh of another. Whilst on this subject I will declare that I never did consider the sedition law as unconstitutional. Congress were competent to pass it. But, that parties will sometimes in the ardor of their course exceed the limits of discretion, and do violence to the milder feeling of the community in which they live, has been proved in the Adams Administration, and in that which has lately disappeared; and when they have cooled down, it is but rendering justice to the sense of the country to acknowledge their errors. No, sir, I am satisfied that all prosecutions for libels on the Government should be at least very hesitatingly sustained. You cannot draw a precise line by which you shall limit the right of investigation. The two things are so blended together that you cannot separate them. You must either make the Government supreme or the people supreme. I am for the latter. As Dr. Johnson makes Lord Chesterfield say, liberty and licentiousness are blended like the colors in the rainbow; it is impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. Licentiousness is a speck on the eye of the political body, which you can never touch without injuring the eye itself. I hope and trust that with this investigation will be connected an inquiry into the prosecutions at common law in Connecticut. I have seen in the State of New York, but not under the present Administration, a defendant coming into court, begging only to be permitted to prove that what he had said was true; I have seen also an Attorney-General rise to prevent it: I have seen the truth smothered on the trial by men who were as clamorous against the sedition law as any loud-mouthed patriot in the country. I have seen them bringing almost to the block the victim who may only wish to prove the truth of what he said—which was denied him. I mention this to show that where parties are contending against each other, where there is a majority on one hand and a minority on the other, that which appears on paper proper for the protection of the Government, turns out to be for the oppression of the minority. In the nature of parties it cannot be otherwise. Therefore, in my opinion, the Government of the United States cannot render a greater service than by declaring it will not be accessary to any diminution of the rights of the citizen; that free investigation shall in all cases be permitted. Mr. G. made some further observations on the particular case of Mr. Lyon, and concluded by expressing his hope that the resolution would pass.

The question that the resolution be postponed indefinitely, was decided by yeas and nays—yeas 69, nays 50.

[Pg 141]

Monday, May 29.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Orchard Cook; and from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Say and John Smilie, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

Wednesday, May 31.

Julian Poydras appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat, as the Delegate for the Territory of Orleans.

Mr. McKim presented a petition of thirty-five American citizens confined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery, stating that, through means of falsehood and deception, they were induced to engage in the unlawful expedition of Miranda, fitted out from the city of New York, in the year one thousand eight hundred and six, and that they were captured by the Spaniards, and condemned to slavery, and praying that Congress will take their distressing case into consideration, and effect their release and return to their native country.—Referred to Mr. McKim, Mr. Say, Mr. Emott, Mr. Roane, and Mr. Cochran, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House.

Monday, June 5.

Two other members, to wit: Ezekiel Whitman, from Massachusetts, and Richard Wynn, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been informed of the death of the Honorable Francis Malbone, one of the Senators from the State of Rhode Island, have directed the same to be communicated to this House.

On motion of Mr. Potter,

Resolved, unanimously, That this House will attend the funeral of Francis Malbone, Esquire, late a member of the Senate of the United States.

Resolved, unanimously, That this House do wear mourning on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the memory of the deceased.

Tuesday, June 6.

Another member, to wit, Wilson C. Nicholas, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, June 7.

Another member, to wit, Erastus Root, from New York, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Friday, June 9.

Another member, to wit, Nicholas Van Dyke, from Delaware, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Monday, June 12.

Mississippi Territory.

The Speaker presented a petition enclosed to him from a number of inhabitants of the district east of Pearl river, in the Mississippi Territory, praying for the division of the Territory.

Mr. Poindexter moved that the petition lie on the table. It would perhaps be disrespectful to the petitioners to reject it, although its contents would merit that course. There were three parties who must, by the ordinance for the government of the Territory, consent before the Territory of the Mississippi could be divided. One party was the Mississippi Territory, the other the State of Georgia, and the third the United States. Neither of these parties had consented. There was, therefore, an absolute interdiction to all legislation on the subject; and the House could, with as much propriety, refer a petition from a State to be exempt from general taxation, or to recede from the Union, as to refer this petition.

Mr. Burwell said he felt himself bound to oppose the motion for its lying on the table. If the request was wholly improper, the report of a committee to that effect would settle the question at once.

Mr. Bibb was in favor of the motion; though, had a motion been made to reject it, he should have voted against it.

Mr. Macon was in favor of a reference of the petition. No harm could arise from an inquiry into it.

Mr. Troup admitted the correctness of the remarks of the delegate from the Territory, but wished the petition to be referred to a committee for the purpose of an inquiry as well into the amount of population in that country as into its quality; whether it was lawful or unlawful. There were certain facts connected with this subject, perhaps not generally known to the House. In the course of last year, he had understood that a great many persons, amounting to perhaps three or four thousand, had crossed the Tennessee river, and fixed themselves on its banks, not only contrary to law, but the impression was that they had set out in defiance of the law, and had even gone so far as to organize themselves into military associations for the purpose.

Mr. Poindexter observed that there had been a settlement contrary to the existing law on Tennessee near about a year ago; but that they were ordered to be driven off by the military force, except they would take permission to reside as tenants at will. Some had done so, and some had been driven off.

Mr. Troup said he knew that orders had[Pg 142] been given to remove them, but of their removal and dispersion he had not heard. He said he had further understood that there were, in the county of Madison alone, two or three thousand intruders, and many of them settled on Indian lands, whose owners they excited to hostilities. There was another fact, of which the House might keep possession. Among these intruders was one of the name of Harrison, he believed, who claimed under what was called the Tennessee Yazoo claims, and who settled on the land with his retainers, and deliberately began to apportion it among them. Whether he had been dispossessed, Mr. T. said he did not know. It was absolutely necessary to ascertain the situation of that country, and therefore he should vote for the reference of the petition to a committee.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table—67 to 27.

Tuesday, June 13.

Miranda's Exhibition.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following resolution, reported by the committee appointed to consider the petition of thirty-six citizens concerned in Miranda's expedition, and now confined in the vaults of Carthagena, South America:

Mr. McKim observed, that he believed nothing further would be necessary for the attainment of this object than an application by the Government of the United States; he then moved to fill the blank in the resolution with such a sum ($3,500) as would defray the expense of sending a vessel there and clothing the prisoners previous to their return.

Mr. Randolph said he believed there would be no better time than on this motion to express the disapprobation which he felt of the report; for he was unwilling in his representative capacity, to give one cent of the public money for bringing back into the bosom of the body politic these unfortunate but guilty men. He knew how invidious a task it was to appear to lean to the side of inhumanity; he knew how very natural it was for the mind of man to relent after the commission of a crime, and to see nothing in a culprit but his misfortunes, forgetting his guilt; but there were occasions, and he took this to be one, where to lean apparently to the side of humanity is an act of as great injustice and cruelty to society as the Legislature can commit. What were the House about to do? To make an appropriation of money for an extraordinary purpose of foreign intercourse. Was not the President of the United States already invested with power to negotiate with the Spanish Government on this, as well as with any other Government on any subject? Was the President of the United States presumed to have turned a deaf ear to the cries of our suffering countrymen in captivity in a foreign nation? Mr. R. said this was not like a question of redeeming our countrymen from slavery in Barbary or Tripoli; but it was a question whether this Government would lend its countenance to that class of men who were concerned in the expeditions of Miranda and Aaron Burr. He for one said, that he would not consent to it; and that those persons who, above the dull pursuits of civil life, had enlisted under these leaders, might take for him, however he might feel for their situation as men, the lot which they themselves had selected. He said he considered them as voluntarily expatriated from this country, and among the articles of commerce and manufacture, which it might be contemplated to encourage by bounty and premiums, he confessed for one, that the importation of such citizens as these was not an article of traffic which would meet with any encouragement from him. So far from being afraid of any ill consequences resulting from the sparseness of our population, he was afraid that our population, (and experience has tested the fact,) sparse as it was in number, in quality was redundant. We have been told, said Mr. R., and I believe it, that but the other day the Foreign Office in Great Britain cast its eyes on Colonel Burr, and that they either did commit him—I understand that he was committed and stood so for some time, and was only released on condition of quitting the country—that they either did commit or threaten to imprison that unfortunate man. I want to know, sir, if he had stood so committed, in what respect his case, in a political point of view, would have stood contradistinguished from that of these petitioners? I can see no difference but such as, in my mind, would have operated to his advantage. There is an equality of guilt, but on his part a superiority of intellectual character which would have rendered him, if there is to be an accession to the State by bringing back to its bosom those who have voluntarily thrown themselves out of the protection of the country, a more valuable acquisition, or rather a less valuable loss, than these unfortunate men.

It appears to me, sir, that in passing this resolution we shall hold up a premium to vice; for, if this proposition be agreed to, when some new Miranda or Burr comes forward with his project, he will tell his conspirators that they will have nothing more to do, should the matter turn out adversely, than to put up a face and tell Congress that they were involuntarily drawn into it. An extraordinary mode, to be sure, of volunteering to go against their will. These involuntary volunteers will be told they will have nothing to do but throw the whole weight of the blame on the original mover of the expedition, and Congress will tax their fellow-creatures—who, poor souls, had not enlarged[Pg 143] and liberal minds, and were content with the dull pursuits of civil life—for redeeming them, clothing them, and bringing them back again to society. I wish the committee to take the thing into consideration. As men and Christians our conduct is to be governed by one rule; as representatives of the people other considerations are proper. There is, in the proposed interference, no justice; there may be much mercy, but it is a mercy which carries cruelty, if not deliberate, the most pernicious of all possible species of cruelty, along with it. Suppose these men had been arrested and tried in this country, what would have been their lot? It is difficult for me to say. I am no lawyer; but I suppose, under the mild institutions in some of our States, they would have been condemned to hard labor for life. In what do they differ, to their advantage from other felons? In nothing. Who would step forward to rescue them from that punishment due to their crime if convicted by our own courts? Nobody. Everybody would have said that they deserved it. Now, on the contrary, having escaped the hand of justice in this country, and fallen into the grasp of the strong hand of power in another country, we are not contented to let them reap what they have sown; we are not contented to leave them in the hands of justice. I believe that there exists a proper disposition in the Executive to interfere, where American citizens are wrongfully treated abroad. And, shall we come forward and open the public purse, and assume on ourselves the responsibility of that act which the President refuses to do, and thus share among us the imputation, such as it may be, which society chooses to cast upon us in consequence of it, instead of letting it fall singly and individually upon him, in case he chooses to incur it? No, sir. I have no disposition to pass this resolution to take the responsibility upon myself. In short, I should have been glad, if instead of telling us that these men are unfortunate and miserable, (for who are so unfortunate and miserable as the truly guilty?) that the members of that committee, or the respectable chairman himself, had come forward and shown the claim of these petitioners to the peculiar patronage of the country. So far from any disposition to bring them back, I would allow a drawback or bounty on the exportation of every man of similar principles.

Mr. Emott said, that as he had been a member of the committee whose report was now under consideration, he felt the propriety of making a few observations to show the expediency of adopting the resolution. In order to obtain the release of these miserable and deluded men, it was necessary that the Government should interfere, because the Spanish Government never would release them till such application was made. The only money necessary to be paid was not to the Spanish Government, but to defray the expense of bringing back the prisoners. It was not to buy their liberty, but to employ a person to go there to request it.

It had been said that the President had power to attempt the release of these persons without any resolution of the House. Mr. E. said he would not enter into that consideration. He knew, if the President had the power, that he had not chosen to exercise it; and if the House could find from the statement of the situation of these men that they ought to be relieved, they should not refrain from expressing their opinion, merely because the President had the power and would not exercise it.

It might be necessary, Mr. E. said, to call to the minds of the committee the situation of these men. They were persons employed by Miranda, in his expedition, who, he undertook to say, did not know that they were going on any expedition contrary to the laws of the country. When taken, they had been tried by the Spaniards on a charge of piracy, and condemned to lie in a dungeon for a term of years. They prayed the Congress for its interposition in their behalf.

It had been said that these men knowingly engaged in this expedition. Mr. E. said he believed that they did not; but, admitting, for a moment, that this was the case; that they did know the pursuit on which they were entering, they should not, for that reason alone, be suffered to lie in prison. Let it be understood, said Mr. E., that this expedition, whatever it was, was carried on, in the face of day, in the city of New York, and that equipments of the vessels and enlistments were made without interruption in the face of day. And would these persons believe that they were going on an unlawful expedition? They might have enlisted from the best motives; and, supposing that they had enlisted under the knowledge that they were going on an expedition, yet seeing that it was carried on in open day without interruption from the Government, he much doubted whether these poor men ought to be suffered to lie in prison.

But, putting motives aside, these men declare that they did not understand the nature of the service for which they were engaged; and this statement the committee who made the report had brought themselves to believe. Let it be recollected that these unfortunate individuals were lying in prison; and, although they had, by some means, forwarded a petition here, they could not attend in person to urge their claim to relief by proofs presented to the House. The persons who procured these men to go on this expedition certainly would not be very willing to come forward and give testimony; because, by so doing, they might criminate themselves and render themselves liable to the operation of the laws of their country. Considering that these persons were removed thousands of miles from us, that they were unfriended, and that the persons who alone could prove that their intent was innocent, would not come forward for fear of criminating themselves, he thought these men were entitled to commiseration, and he believed that it was in his power to show[Pg 144] two or three circumstances which would convince the House that they had no knowledge of the nature of this expedition. The first circumstance was the extreme improbability that these men would have engaged in this expedition, if the nature of it had been explained. Had Mr. Smith or General Miranda gone to these men and said, "we are going on an expedition against the laws of the country, and, if taken, you will be punished under the laws of one country or the other," it is extremely improbable that they would have engaged. It is not likely that Miranda or Mr. Smith avowed their purposes, and told them that they were going on an expedition hostile in its nature, and against the laws of the country, because its object was to revolutionize a nation in amity with the United States. It is impossible that these men should have known the nature of the expedition, when it was not known to the Government here, however public. This circumstance, to me, is conclusive, to show that these young men did not know it. There might have been persons who did; if you please, Mr. Ogden, who furnished the ship, or others, but it is impossible to believe, that these men, who were mere soldiers for carrying on the expedition, knew the nature of it. I am convinced that these persons, all privates—for the officers were executed—did not know why they did enlist, or that the corps was for the purpose to which it was actually designed.

I have said, and perhaps every person here knows, that the whole of the business was carried on in the face of day. Here were General Miranda and Mr. Smith coming to the seat of Government, and back to New York, procuring clothes, enlisting men. Can it be conceived that all this could have been carried on, if General Miranda had not meant to conceal it from the Government? But it is in my power to furnish something more than mere conjecture on this subject. The committee will recollect that a greater part of this transaction took place at New York. There the men were to rendezvous, there the vessel was furnished, and to that State most of the young men who are now in South America did belong. In that State this matter was the subject of judicial investigation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Ogden were indicted. I will read a part of the evidence given on the trial, which will satisfy any one, at least it has satisfied me, that these men had no hand in it. Mr. Fink, who was produced as evidence on the part of the Government to convict Mr. Smith, was the person who was intrusted with enlistments.

On the same trial there was one of the persons who has actually enlisted who deposed that the same information which Peter Rose received was given to others. This man also was a private in the expedition, and swears that the person who employed him told him that he was to be employed in the service of the Government; that he was to be carried to Washington by water and thence to New Orleans. The men who now petition Congress are persons who are placed precisely in the same situation. We find, in the course of the trial, that the person employed to enlist the men, declares that the person employing him refused to tell him for what purpose they were to be enlisted, and, of course, he could not inform those whom he enlisted.

Mr. E. said he had already remarked the extreme difficulty under which these persons labored, that they were at a distance of several thousand miles from this country, incarcerated, and friendless. He had satisfied his mind that they had engaged in this business unknowingly and unwillingly—and, what was now asked of the Government? That they should expend large sums of money for the purpose of buying them out? No. All that the Spanish Government wanted, he undertook to say, was, that a request should be made by the Government of this country for those men; and all the money required for this service, was money enough to send an agent there and facilitate his return.

Nothing had been said by him, Mr. E. remarked, of the peculiar sufferings of these men; but there were representations enough, to show that they were chained naked in a dungeon, without clothing, and without wood. Some had died and others must die. He hoped, therefore, for the reasons which he had given, that the committee would be satisfied that these men were not guilty of crime. If not guilty, he hoped there could be no doubt that they were a proper subject for the interference of the Government.

Mr. Bacon observed that the conclusion which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) had drawn, rested upon the idea that the men were guilty. If they were guilty, they certainly should not receive the benefit of the interposition of the Government of the United States. They had no claim on the United States when considered as criminals, or as men who had voluntarily engaged in this service. The report of the committee did not state this to be the case. I acknowledge, said Mr. B., that they are guilty in some respects, having innocently transgressed the laws. If they are guilty in the eye of justice, I contend they ought not to have relief. The report of the committee states, that, under a persuasion that the facts set forth by the petitioners were true, they were induced to submit this resolution. The committee had evidence, which they deemed competent, to prove that these men were not guilty men. In what respect, then, are they to be compared to Aaron Burr? No man will say that he did not proceed on his expedition with his eyes open, or that he could plead ignorance. The fact in relation to these men appears to be that they were inveigled; that their offence was involuntary, not as respected engaging in what they thought the service of the United States, but as to going abroad, for against their consent they were forced into the[Pg 145] service. Therefore, with great truth, it might be said that they were scourged to the service. If this was the fact, as the committee appear to have believed, I ask, in what their case differs from that of men taken captives by the Algerines? Those men taken by the Algerines are engaged in lawful commerce; these poor men are engaged in an unlawful act, but not knowing it to be unlawful, and believing it to be correct, they are as innocent, in fact, as those who act innocently. The gentleman says, suppose they were to return to their country, would they not be punished? If the facts, as they state them, are correct, as I believe them to be, I do not believe that they would be punished. The law does not punish a man because he does not act, but for the quo animo with which he does it.

Mr. Taylor said if he could view this subject in the light in which it had been viewed by most of its advocates, and particularly by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Pearson,) he should think it was the duty of this Government to make exertion for the release of these people; but even then he should inquire whether any exertion in their favor would not rather do them an injury than a service; for it would be recollected that every gentleman who had spoken seemed to consider the mercy which was asked to depend upon and to be bestowed by the United States. Were I a Spaniard, and attended the debate in this House, I should think that gentlemen in favor of the resolution contemplated an infraction of the rights of the nation before whose courts, and by whose laws, these men were condemned. These fine appeals to mercy and humanity would apply well before the power possessing the right to bestow mercy, but are not applicable to the feelings proper to be exercised on this occasion by this House. I say that it is one of the attributes of Government to punish those who have infringed or broken the laws of the country. These people have been condemned by a Spanish tribunal; it is by that Government alone that mercy is to be shown; and an exertion by this House in attempting to bestow mercy upon these people is an infringement of that right. I challenge gentlemen to show me an instance in the annals of diplomacy of a like nature with this proposition. I recollect one instance, but I have heard no gentleman propose to go so far. Oliver Cromwell, when a member of the British Commonwealth, was imprisoned by the inquisition, ordered his admirals to draw up before the harbor and demand his release. This is the only case I have met with in the course of my reading, of an attempt by one nation to relieve criminals condemned by another nation under its own laws. If this view be a just one, it certainly becomes a matter of great delicacy. If this Government had never been by the most secret whisper implicated (unjustly, as I firmly believe) in this transaction, still it would have been a subject of the greatest delicacy for the Government of the United States to interfere. What will the Government of Spain, Junta, King, or Governors of Spanish provinces to whom you apply, say to you on this subject? Why they will say—"We have long suspected, we have heard from your own quarter, that you were implicated in this expedition; you now give us proof; you have come forward in an unprecedented manner and interfered in a case with which you have no business, a case which is fully embraced by the sovereignty which we ourselves exercise over our own courts." Will it not at once be inferred that these assertions throughout the United States had been true, and that this Government was implicated or concerned, or, to use the words of yesterday, that this Government had connived at such an expedition? You will but render the sufferings of these people more rigorous. It is not to be conceived, although the gentleman from Massachusetts and others have acquitted the Government of participation, that the Spanish Government will do so also. Why, even in our cool and calm situation, you see that suspicion of the connivance of the Administration is not yet quite done away—and do you suppose, sir, that the Spaniards, against whom repeated expeditions have been made, at a distance from those sources whence conviction might flash upon their minds, will form the same opinion of the subject that we do? Fear forms a bias on their mind; and we form a conviction on the side on which we feel interested.

Gentlemen, in order to induce us to grant pardon to these men, which we have no power to do, have told us that they are innocent; because, forsooth, they themselves have said so. I recollect, sir, once in a conversation with a most eminent barrister in the State in which I live, who had often performed the duty of counsellor and advocate in our State, he informed me that in a practice of thirty years, in the course of which he had been concerned in the cases of many culprits, on many, nay, on all occasions, he put this plain question to his client: "I am your counsel; it is necessary for me, in order to make the best possible defence of your cause, to make the best statement in your favor, to know whether you are guilty or not." He declared that he had never yet met with a man who acknowledged that he was guilty. I believe that this disposition to appear innocent, is inherent in human nature. It is natural for these men to say that they are not guilty; they said so to the court before whom they were tried. Why were they not liberated? Why was not that mercy which is so pathetically called for bestowed on them by that tribunal before whom the case was examined? If they are the immaculate and almost sainted victims which they are described to be, why did not the court which heard the testimony on both sides of the question bestow that clemency asked of us? I should presume, that when all the circumstances came out before the court, they were not favorable to the petitioners; and it is a respect due from this Government to the acts of that Government that such a construction should be put[Pg 146] upon this matter. If we are to distrust the acts of the Spaniard, because, as we are told, he is vindictive and cruel, he might justly say that we have not done to others as we would be done by.

We should place the President of the United States in a very unpleasant situation indeed by requiring him to demand these men, if we would not also be willing to go to war for them. As our navy is now afloat I would propose as an amendment to the project, if gentlemen are serious in their determination to rescue these men, that our fleet shall sail before Carthagena and compel the Spanish Governor or Junta to give them up. This is the only mode of interfering with a matter of this kind, which is sanctioned by precedent, as I have before stated.

It would seem, sir, as if the passing scenes of this world were entirely forgotten. The British Government has been suspected of having connived at this expedition as well as the Government of the United States. They have received Miranda into their bosom; and on the examination on the trial of Sir Home Popham, it did appear that he had received orders to sail for a particular port of that continent to create a diversion of an attack expected to be made in another part of it. But what have the British Government done on the subject? Have they not considered it a delicate one? Have they not in their conduct given us the most sound and wholesome advice on the subject? Although I believe these men were employed to answer a purpose all-important to her, yet she has not extended towards these sufferers in her own cause that clemency which is asked at our hands. These men who were suffering in her employ, demonstrably acting in furtherance of her interest, have not met with the clemency of the Government; and the case is more strong when it is recollected that since the capture of these men, although previously at war with Spain, Great Britain was not only at peace but in alliance with that nation. With all these favorable circumstances, when but a hint from the British Ministry in favor of these people might have released them, yet being so delicate a subject that it has not been touched by them, shall we, who have been crusading and exerting every nerve for the releasement of our seamen, and with all our efforts have been unsuccessful, shall we start on a fresh crusade for these men, when the efforts of the Government in the other cause, in so noble, so just, and so humane a cause, have as yet proved unavailing? Shall we engage in a contest for these people, who are acknowledged justly to be in the power and under the sentence of the courts of another nation, whilst the honest American tar, guiltless of harm, is writhing under the lash of every boatswain on board a man-of-war? If you will go on and reform the whole world, begin with one grievance first; to use a homely phrase, do not put too many irons in the fire.

Sir, if the Spanish nation has any feeling for its sovereignty, it would spurn your request. Only suppose that nation to possess the same feelings which actuate every breast in this House; which actuate the American people. Suppose the claim of Mr. Burr to citizenship in Britain, on the ground of once a subject always a subject, had been recognized by the British Government. Suppose that he was suffering in chains in some of your prisons, and because they had heard that Mr. Burr might have been innocent, the British Government had asked his release, would not the people of America have spurned the request as an indignity to the nation? And may we not suppose that these proud Spaniards, as they are called, may have feelings of a like nature? I believe, sir, that the course proposed would only add rigor to their sufferings, weight to their chains.

Mr. Livermore asked if the committee which made this report had not before it evidence that certain British subjects concerned in Miranda's expedition had been liberated on the application of some officers of that nation? If they had it would be a fair answer to the eloquent speech of the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Randolph said he did not think that the information asked for by the gentleman was at all material to this case. It was a matter of no consequence at all, as respected the statement made by the gentleman from South Carolina on (he had no doubt) very good grounds. What, said Mr. R., has been the situation of Great Britain in relation to Spain? Great Britain, at the time the expedition was undertaken, was an enemy of Spain—was at actual war with Spain—and therefore in a subject of Great Britain it might have been highly meritorious to annoy Spain, either at home or in her colonies to the utmost extent in his power, without any direct authority from his Government. Subsequently to that time, however, Great Britain has become the ally of Spain in consequence of the revolution; and at that time Great Britain obtained from persons exercising the authority of government in Spain the release of these prisoners, which it is perfectly natural Spain should then have granted. But suppose, instead of that change having taken place in the relations between Great Britain and Spain, Bonaparte had quietly succeeded in putting King Joseph on the throne of Spain and the Indies, and applications had then been made; or suppose that the application had been deferred until now, and the power of the House of Bonaparte was as complete over the colonies in South America as we have every reason to believe it is over the European possessions of the mother country, would the British subjects in that case have been released? It is an unfortunate circumstance that no question can be agitated in this House and tried upon its own merits; that every thing which is, has been, or may be, is to be lugged in on the question before us, to the total exclusion of the merits of the case, and in this way, instead of a session of three and[Pg 147] six months for doing the business of the nation, if every question is to be tried in the manner in which it appears to me this has been, we may sit to all eternity and never get through it.

I lay no claim to greater precision than other men; but really I cannot perceive what kind of relation, what kind of connection exists between most of what I have heard on this subject, and the true merits of the case. Gentlemen get up and abuse the Spanish Government and people, and what then? Why, it appears all this is preliminary to our making an humble request of this Government and people that they shall grant us a particular boon. To be sure, sir, all this time we do plaster ourselves unmercifully—we lay it on with a trowel—and gentlemen seem to think that if we sufficiently plaster ourselves, our President, and people, and be-devil every other Government and people, it is sufficient to illuminate every question. And this is the style in which we speak to Governments perfectly independent of us!—A very wise mean, to be sure, of inducing them to grant the pardon of these people as a favor to us. Sir, it would be a strange spectacle, to be sure, when this Minister that is to be, this sort of anomalous messenger whom you are going to send, I know not exactly to whom; whether to the Junta, or persons exercising the power of government in the provinces, or to the Government in Europe; when this Minister goes to Carthagena or elsewhere, if he should carry to the Viceroy along with his credentials a file of papers containing the debates on this question. Why, sir, like Sir Francis Wronghead, we appear all to have turned round. My honorable friend, the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Taylor,) spoke of the crimes of these men. Gentlemen on the other side, who wish them to be pardoned, tell you of nothing but of their innocence, and the injustice of those who condemn them and now have them under punishment. Two more such advocates as have appeared in favor of this proposition would damn the best cause ever brought before any House or any court in Christendom. The gentleman from New York, (Mr. Emott,) who spoke yesterday, certainly very pertinently, and very handsomely, tells the House that in this case no other money than that of the United States, will be received; that with a sort of Castilian fastidiousness, those persons acting for the Government of Spain will not touch any money which shall not be offered in the quality of public money. I believe no such thing; and moreover, I wish it to be distinctly understood that the question of money is not the question with me; and that to suppose it necessary for the Government of the United States to interfere for the purpose of raising so pitiful a sum as $3,500 for the relief of these unfortunate men, whose situation I most seriously deplore, is a libel upon the charity of this country. I believe, notwithstanding the public impression on this subject against the petitioners, that the money could be raised in half an hour in any town in the United States. I believe it might be raised in that time in the city of Washington. It is not a question of the amount of money wanted; it is, whether the Government of the United States shall lend its countenance to persons situated as these unfortunate people are? Sir, had we at that time been at war with Spain, as Great Britain, something might be said in favor of these persons. But we were not at war with Spain, and these men knew it; and I believe they knew at least as well as I know, that when a man is recruited for public service, as they say they thought to be their case, he is immediately taken before a justice of the peace and sworn. This part of the ceremony, however, is not stated to have taken place. To be sure, sir, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Emott) said, I believe, every thing that could be said in favor of those unfortunate people, and really almost convinced me that we ought to make this interference; but unfortunately for him and for his cause, other advocates rose up in its favor and placed the subject in a situation not only as respects the majority of this House, but as respects that Government with whom intercession is to be made, which will completely foreclose any attempt at relieving the sufferers. It is not possible that the majority of this House, or that the Spanish Government, can be affected in any other manner than with disgust and indignation at such stuff. The gentleman from New York told us that these were ardent young men, who were anxious to go to Caraccas for the purpose, I think, of correcting the despotism which existed in that country; or otherwise, political Quixotes. This, I take it, will operate little in their favor with the Spanish Government, however it may in ours. I confess I feel very little sympathy for those who, overlooking their own country, and the abuses in their own Government, go in search of political adversaries abroad—go a tilting against political despotisms for the relief, I suppose, of distressed damsels compelled to live under them.

The question was now taken, and the votes being affirmative 62, negative 61, the Speaker voted in the negative—the votes then being equal, the question was lost.

Monday, June 19.

The Batture at New Orleans.

The House proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Macon, on the sixteenth instant, in the words following, to wit:

Mr. Burwell thought that this was not the proper course to pursue; but that the course recommended at the last session was the one, viz: to give the petitioners the right of appeal from the decision of the Orleans court to the Supreme Court, or to give the United States the same right, should the decision be against them. He could see no advantage in the procrastination now proposed, nor any injury to the United States or the city of New Orleans, in the course which he advocated. He doubted, although the letter of the law of 1807 might cover this case, whether it was ever intended that that law should operate as this had done. My intention, said he, in voting for it, was that it should apply exclusively to the Western lands, commonly called the Yazoo lands, and such other lands as were occupied by hundreds who might be formidable from their numbers. To undertake jurisdiction on questions of property is taking upon ourselves the functions of another department of the Judiciary. The case involves important points of law—and let me ask, whether the gentlemen in this House are so well read in law as to be able to decide such an important point as this? It does appear to me that on all the questions of private property arising in the United States, where the question of right is not to be brought before this House, we ought to consult the convenience of the parties by promoting dispatch. On the question whether this property belong to the United States or to the petitioners I am completely ignorant. Nor would I have it inferred that I believe the petitioner to have a right to the property; I take it that the claim of the United States must be good, or the inhabitants of Orleans would not be so zealous in the support of it.

Mr. Poydras asked for the reading of a letter which he had received from the Governor of Orleans Territory, which was accordingly read. The letter states, that if it were possible that the committee to whom Mr. Livingston's claim was referred could now visit New Orleans, they would be convinced that the batture, now covered with water, was in fact the bed of the river, and, therefore, could not be private property. Mr. P. stated the history of this piece of alluvion at some length, and the circumstances under which it had always been deemed public property.

Mr. Sheffey said that before passing this resolution, gentlemen ought to ascertain what the Attorney-General could do in this case. He could not compel the attendance of witnesses, or collect testimony of circumstances which occurred a hundred years ago; and unless he could do this, it was impossible he could examine the title, for testimony as to facts was essential to enable him to form a correct opinion. What influence could the opinion of the Attorney-General have? Was the right of the citizen to fall prostrate before such an ex parte opinion or statement as that might be? If it was not to have influence, why thus evade a decision on the prayer of the petitioner? If it was to have any influence, it must be a pernicious one, because founded on ex parte testimony. Would the House go into the merits of the case on this opinion, when obtained without affording an opportunity to the party interested to prove that the law was not correctly expounded nor the facts correctly stated? Surely not. If they did not, if they heard opinions on both sides, they converted this House into a judiciary tribunal. Was this body calculated for that branch of Government? No; this, Mr. S. said, is a Government of departments, each of which ought to be kept separate. What, sir! is this a question of right between the United States and an individual, and we are about to take it into our own hands, to wrest it from the constitutional authority, and decide it ourselves? I hope we shall not; and, therefore, I am against this proposition. What does the Attorney-General state in his report? Aware of the impropriety of his deciding, he tells you—what? That the usual course, where the rights of the United States have been involved, has been to appoint commissioners to hear and decide. Here the Attorney-General tells you it is not proper for him to decide. And I should never wish to see the case in which the Attorney-General's opinion is to give authority for dispossessing an individual of his property; for if it can be done in one case it may be in every case. Any individual may be driven from his property by military force, and then his title be decided by an ill-shapen, one-sided statement and opinion of the Attorney-General. Against such a decision I do protest. Is it because you have power on your side, sir, that you will not submit to a judicial decision of this question? If there be a controversy about a right, there ought to be a judicial decision.

I, sir, have been unable to see how an individual having property, in which he was put in possession in 1804 or '5 by a judicial decision, could be disposed of it by the act of 1807, the operation of which was limited to acts done hereafter, that is, after the passing of that act in 1807. That law too speaks of "lands ceded to the United States." Was the batture ceded to the United States? I say not, because it was private property before the United States possessed the sovereignty of the country. By the treaty of 1803 with the Government of the United States, the rights and property of the inhabitants of Louisiana was secured to them. What then is the inference from this state of the case? That the United States got possession illegally, in defiance of judicial authority. I am sorry to see that the judicial authority has been set at defiance, and the Presidential mandate carried into effect at the point of the bayonet, right or wrong. This was the case.[Pg 149] Those who were put in possession were ousted by military force. Let me not be understood as throwing odium on the Executive; far from it. I believe the Executive acted conscientiously, but upon an ex parte statement. The President was never told that the case had been judicially investigated. Those facts were taken for granted, on the other hand, which did not exist, and those which formed the foundation of the true merits of the case, were withheld.

Mr. Poydras spoke at some length in reply to Mr. Sheffey, and in defence of the title of the United States. The batture had many years ago been considered as public property, and no one who examined the circumstances of the case could for a moment doubt it. He said that it had never been claimed as private property until after it came into the possession of the United States. He hoped the rights of the public and of the people of New Orleans would not be trampled upon to grant the petitioner his prayer.

Mr. Macon said that he was himself in favor of giving the right of the United States to the property to the people or corporation of New Orleans, and letting them and the individual contest it. There was nothing new, however, in the reference of a subject to the Head of a Department, whose opinion would have no more weight than reason, and so far only ought it to have weight. Mr. M. said he had no more desire to interfere with the judiciary than either of the gentlemen who had spoken. If provision was made for trying this case, must it not be extended to all others? In order to do justice, it must be done to all. Had not a special court been refused in relation to a property of much greater value than this? Before Congress made a special court for a certain case, they ought to look at the consequences. It was departing from the general system of the nation to appoint a court for a special case. Perhaps there was something in this case which differed from other cases: but he doubted whether it would warrant the appointment of a special court. Mr. M. said he saw no other way of treating this subject but by letting it go before the courts already organized. If the right was in the petitioner, be the consequences what it might, the city of New Orleans had no right to take it away from him.

Mr. Troup observed that this case was probably one which would fall under the old maxim, nullum tempus occurrit regi or reipublicæ. It appeared to him that there was a constitutional difficulty in this case, which did not appear to have suggested itself to the mind of any gentleman. First, has the United States a claim, either real or disputed, to this territory? Whether disputed or otherwise, provided the claim be asserted on its part, the question is, has the Congress of the United States a power to decide the validity of that claim? And if it has, is it proper so to decide it? What is the subject-matter in dispute? Public property; and what species? Landed. Then the question results, has Congress a right, in order to determine its title, to refer it to any tribunal whatever? I contend not; the right to public property was originally in the people of this country; they could never be divested of their great public right to the landed property of the nation, but by their express consent. They did give that right to the Congress of the United States, in declaring that it should have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning public territory. Would it have had that power, if this right had not been expressly delegated? I know that, under the old Articles of Confederation, Congress did undertake to legislate as to property; but it was always questionable whether they had a right to do so—and this was not the only point on which Congress did exercise powers which were brought into question. The right to determine claims to public property is not only guarantied exclusively to Congress by the constitution, but the practice has been invariably pursuant to it; it was so in 1807. The Government not only asserted its right in the first instance, but asserted its power to enforce the right at the point of the bayonet. If the public have always been in possession of a certain property, the man who enters on it without their consent is a trespasser on that property. Upon this view of the subject, there is a constitutional difficulty on which the House should decide, before it entertains a motion for delegating a power to decide this question to any tribunal or commission whatever.

Mr. Boyd said, admitting all the gentleman had said to be true, his observations did not apply to this case. He had spoken of the right to public property. The question now was, whether this was public property or not; if it were certainly public property, on which ground the gentleman rested his argument, there could be no question on the subject. It was asked only before they decided between the individual and the United States on the right to land, not confessedly public property, but claimed as such, that fair investigation should be had. Mr. B. disclaimed the power of deciding judicially upon the subject; it was a right which he had never thought of this House claiming. A delay of justice was a denial of it. The individual petitioning had been in possession of the property; it had been taken from him by force, and he now asked a trial of his title before a competent court—and this opportunity, Mr. B. said, he ought to have as speedily as possible.

Mr. Randolph said he should vote against that report. He said it was no part of his intention to deliver any opinion on the merits of the claim, although he had devoted not a little of his time to the study of that question, for two reasons: first, that it would be a prejudicated opinion, inasmuch as that was not the question which the House were called upon to decide, even if it were competent to decide it. I am extremely sorry, said he that the law of[Pg 150] 1807 has been brought into view of this House by my friends from North Carolina and Georgia, and for this reason: that that law has no bearing at all on the present question. Its object was wholly different from that to which it has been misapplied. What, sir, was the object of that law? To defend against a conspiracy, I may properly term it—against the lawless violence of confederated associations, a vast property. How has it been applied? Not to a great public property, but to a speck of land, to which, as I understand it, a single individual, or at most three or four, put in a claim. Such an application as that of the law in question was never intended by the Legislature; and, if applied to such a property as the batture, and to the case of a single individual, may be applied to the property of every man in society. What is the doctrine of my friend from Georgia? That the public are always supposed to be in possession of the national domain. True, sir, and it is also true that those who enter upon it and endeavor to appropriate it to themselves, are trespassers, and as such, may be resisted by force. But that is not the case in the present question—very far from it—for the public never had been in possession of the property in question.

Without attempting to enter into the merits of the real title to the land in question, let us take it on the ground of the right of the citizen. A citizen comes before this House, and complains that he is dispossessed of his common right by arbitrary power. If, after a cause has been heard by a court, and a citizen put in possession of a property, by a decree of that court, he is dispossessed of it by military violence, where, if not before this House, is he to prefer his claim for redress? There is no court before which he can go, because the court which is the last resort in this case has already unavailingly given its decision. There is no court of appeal, no superior tribunal, and if there were, and a decree of the Supreme Court obtained in his favor on the appeal, what is any decree to avail against armed men—against muskets and bayonets? But this is not the only reason why I am sorry that the act of 1807 has been brought in to apply to this case. It is because, if this House can be once prevailed upon to consider this case as analogous to the Yazoo case, many most injurious consequences must follow therefrom. The first is, that that odious and supremely infamous claim will be put upon a ground which it is by no means entitled to occupy; and I entreat my friend from Georgia, and those whose minds are unalterably made up on the Yazoo question, not to give their enemies such a prize as they must have on us, if we agree to confound the Yazoo claim with that before the House. There is no sort of analogy between them. On the other hand, sir, supposing the right to be in the United States, I beg gentlemen not to create so forcible an interest against the rights of the United States as will infallibly be embodied against it if we confound the two. I have no idea of giving the Yazoo men such a handle. Again, let us suppose, if we can suppose it, that the right is in the petitioner; may it not, supposing a great majority of the House to be against the Yazoo claim—we do not know how they are disposed—may it not create an unjust bias against the petitioner? So that in whatever aspect we view it, it is not only impolitic, but, what is worse, extremely unjust to attempt to identify the two cases. And, sir, it is a matter of curious speculation, that while the act of 1807 has been brought into operation in the case of a solitary individual and a little speck of property to which it was not intended to apply, even supposing the case in question to to have arisen subsequently to the passage of that act; that, although it has been misapplied in this case, it has not been applied to the case to which it was intended to apply, and for which it was enacted; for, if I understood my friend from Georgia a few days ago, some hundreds or thousands of intruders have set themselves down on the public lands, and the public force has never been employed against them. On the contrary, the artillery of Government has been brought into play against a single individual. It was, indeed, said that these intruders had agreed to remain as tenants at will; but, let them remain till they are sufficiently strong, and they will give you another chapter in the history of Wyoming; for, after they are sufficiently strong to hold territory, although the arm of Government has been applied successfully to oust a single individual put in possession by a decree of a court, you will find it nerveless to expel these men.

With regard to the doctrine nullum tempus occurrit reipublicæ, it is a dangerous doctrine, if carried to the extent to which I apprehend my friend from Georgia would carry it. I venture to say that the abuse of that doctrine in the celebrated case of Sir John Lowther and the Duke of Portland, which created one general sentiment of indignation in the British nation—an attempt under that maxim to deprive a subject, hostile to the Court, of property of which he had been long in possession, for the purpose of transferring it to a minion of the Court—that case, with all its aggravated enormities, does not come up to the case before the House; and I speak without reference to the question whether the petitioner has a right or not to the property in this case. The question of right is not before the House, and that question, decide which way you will, can have no sort of weight in the vote which the House ought to give. The question is this: Having been long in possession of a piece of land, the title deeds destroyed, records burnt, and possession the only title you have to show, an attempt is made to dispossess you of the property; a decree of court confirms your right; if the individual, under these circumstances, can be turned out of possession by main force and strength, and that, too, military force, there is[Pg 151] an end in the right to property of every man in the country. Sir, I have been astonished, and grieved and mortified, to see so little sensation created in this nation by the procedure in question. It strikes at the root of every thing dear to freemen. There is an end of their rights.

What, then, is this case? An individual comes before us, and says, that after having been put in possession of a piece of land, (I speak not of the validity of his title; it is not concerned in this question,) he was dispossessed by military force of this property. These two facts I do not understand any member of this House to deny. And what does he claim? He claims of you, as the guardians of the rights of every man in society, justice. And where do you send him? To the Attorney-General. I will suppose that in the Lowther and Portland case, the Duke of Portland had been referred to the Attorney-General. Would the English nation have endured it? No, sir. Much less would they have endured, military as the nation is becoming by the introduction of large standing armies, that he should have been dispossessed of his property by an armed military force, at the fiat of the Crown. The question is, what should be done? Sir, what should not be done is perfectly clear. It ought not to be done that the petitioner should be sent to the Attorney-General, who has already given an opinion on his claim, though that is very immaterial, which opinion it seems we cannot find. If I understand any thing of this Government, however, it ought to be on record, and this return of non est inventus ought not to have been received. All that we have to do, it appears to me, is to make a provision, in the nature of a declaratory law, not amending the act of 1807, but, declaring what the law is; and we ought to quiet the rights, and the mind too, of every man in society, by declaring that, by the act of 1807, it was not intended to authorize the President of the United States to interpose the bayonet between the courts of justice and the individual. This power never has been given, never was intended to be given.

Mr. Gold said that this was one of the most important subjects that had ever been brought before the House. He did not mean to enter into the merits of the case. The gentleman from Virginia had very clearly expressed all those sentiments which every man must feel on hearing the history of this case; and as regarded the ground taken, of nullum tempus occurrit, the gentleman had repelled it very properly—and indeed in that country whence the maxim had been derived, whenever it was attempted to be put in force against ancient possessions, it had been executed with great difficulty. It is in the very teeth of Magna Charta, which says that a freeman shall not be dispossessed of his freehold without a better right is ascertained. There are a variety of forms by which the right is guarded. If I, said Mr. G., understood the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Troup,) he considers it a sacrifice of the rights of the United States to permit a decision on its property to pass into the hands of third persons. Even in England the prerogative is not carried so far. The Crown has frequently consented that the right of Government should pass into the hands of third persons, viz: of commissioners, for the purpose of investigation.

I will not trouble the House with lengthy remarks on this subject. I can hardly advert to it without feeling all that has been much more eloquently expressed by the gentleman from Virginia than it is in my power to express it. Let gentlemen look around and see if they can find a precedent for this transaction. And when we consider it, every man's feelings must be operated upon too strongly to permit him to argue. The course suggested by the gentleman from Virginia must prevail, or we no longer live under a Government of laws, and those principles on which it is founded are destroyed. The man ousted must be put in possession, must be restored to the possession of the property which the hand of violence has wrested from him; and I hope that a proposition to this effect in a proper shape will be presented.

Mr. Gholson said he thought it would better become the character of this assembly to discuss every subject with calmness and deliberation, and on its own merits, than to endeavor to influence the decision by an appeal to the passions. It was important that such a course should be pursued, whether with reference to a great political principle or to the interest of the individual whose rights were said to have been wantonly prostrated at the Executive will. I (said Mr. G.) have been early taught, and the doctrine has grown with my years, that the right of property is not one of the least consideration in a free constitution. It is of a nature so sacredly inviolable that, when clearly ascertained, I would never encroach upon it by any means but through the regular constituted authority. It would have been under this impression that, had I been a member of the Legislature when the law of 1807 was introduced into the statute book, I should have been opposed to it. But receiving all the sanctions of a law, and as such containing a rule of conduct in certain specified cases, what was the Executive to do? Was he to set at defiance the law of the land? A doctrine like this can never be contended for. It seems, however, that to satisfy gentlemen the President should have refused to carry this law into execution, which I acknowledge does usurp judicial authority.—[Mr. Randolph said that his ground was that the President had not executed the law. If a law were ever so unconstitutional, the President having signed it, it would become his duty to carry it into effect. But he denied that he had carried it into effect.] Upon that point, continued Mr. G., my colleague and I are at issue. I rise not to discuss the merits of the claim, which I have no disposition to do. I rise to defend the late President of the United States,[Pg 152] to endeavor, to the extent of my feeble powers, to place this question in a proper point of view. If the President of the United States has gone beyond the letter of the law, which itself tends to encroach on the rights of the citizen, I would be the last person to justify him in thus trespassing on the dearest rights of a freeman. But it is very easy to show that he has not exceeded the express provisions of the law in question.

The act of 1807 contains two clauses having a bearing on the subject; the first ascertaining the character of the persons to be ousted, and the second providing the means of ousting them. The President is authorized to exercise this power, either where property was previously in possession, in which case he is to give notice, or where it was subsequently entered on, in which case he is not required to give notice. It is easy to show that this is one of the cases contemplated by that act. It is well known that the feudal law did exist in Louisiana, previous to its acquisition by the United States, and that by that law alluvion does accrue to the Crown. Now, if the feudal law did exist, and by that law alluvion did accrue to the Crown of France, does it not follow that the same right did accrue to the United States by the deed of cession from France, who owned the territory? If the claimant was in possession when this act passed, it became the duty of the President of the United States to give him three months' notice previous to his removal; if not, no such notice was necessary. On this point I need only refer to the fact that it was not so early as the passage of the act, indeed not till the 23d of May, that the claimants came into possession. They were quieted in possession, so far as the rights of the United States were not concerned, on the 23d of May, 1807.

The decision of the corporation court of New Orleans is relied on as giving a title to the petitioner. That that decision did at all affect, in the remotest possible degree, the right of the United States, is a position which no man acquainted with the principles of law will contend for. The decision cannot affect the right of the United States, because it was not contested or defended before that court.

It is said that the feudal law does not exist in France. From time immemorial it has existed all over Europe. That it exists at this time in this country there can be no doubt. The right to lands is allodial, but is inherent in the Government. Is it denied that the Government can take property from an individual, making him compensation therefor? If the right to land be indefeasible, could the Government run a road through it? It certainly could not. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do not attempt to say where the real right to the property in question does reside. But I do say, that, according to the treaty of cession, it did become the Government of the United States to exercise the power which the President under the law of 1807 did make use of.

If there has been any violation of right, it was in the passage of the law under which the President acted. It was such a one as, under present persuasion, I could not have voted for, even to remove a Yazoo purchaser. I would even give to such a one his right to a fair trial. I would not have agreed to pass it, for a reason given a day or two ago, that the right to trial by jury is inalienable; it is a right which descends to us with our other birth-rights; it is one without which liberty is but a name. It was an unfortunate circumstance that such a law did pass. But if the Legislature thought proper to enact such a law, let them not, in the name of the great God, throw the blame on their instrument, on the President, who was innocent of fault, and bound to carry the statute into effect. There is undoubted proof that the President only acted in pursuance of the statute. The retroactive part of the statute is the most horrible feature in it.

But it is said that this is an extreme case, that this small spot was selected as the object of Executive vengeance. I am informed that in almost every instance of intrusion on the public lands, settlement was made by individual claimants. I would rather give up fifty times the value of land of the United States than to encroach against law on that of any individual. It was not the execution of the law which encroached on the rights of the citizen, but the law itself. I would ask, how can it be contended to the contrary? Who was in possession of the land when the law passed? It had been used as public property, and had every requisite to that character; and as such, when any one took possession of it, the President would not have done his duty under the act of 1807, had he not caused them to be removed.

Monday, June 26.

Non-Intercourse.

On motion of Mr. Smilie, the House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole, on the bill from the Senate, to revive and amend certain parts of the act interdicting commercial intercourse.

Mr. Dana said the amendment moved to the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sheffey) went to give a construction to the bill which would operate as a complete exclusion of the vessels of both powers until a satisfactory adjustment of all existing differences shall have taken place. What, said Mr. D., is the situation in which we are now placed? On what principle is it that British ships were first excluded and on which their exclusion was confirmed by the non-intercourse law? They were originally excluded by the proclamation of the President of the United States in consequence of the attack on the Chesapeake. The President of the United States now in office has declared his acceptance of the proffered terms of satisfaction for that outrage. And, after that, is it proposed that we shall continue the meas[Pg 153]ure of hostility when the cause alone which led to it is completely done away? I should suppose that in the very act of adjustment, which took place between the British Minister and the American Secretary, it is implied that we should do nothing further on this subject. The President of the United States has accepted the satisfaction offered; he has declared those terms, when performed, to be satisfactory. And are gentlemen considering the restoration of the seamen taken from the Chesapeake as a reason why we should continue the interdict? If we examine this subject fairly, the great principle of reparation was disavowed of the claim to search our armed vessels, and a homage to our rights. That matter must be deemed to be settled, if the President of the United States had authority to settle it. If the President had not power to settle it, this furnishes strong evidence that the vote of approbation of his conduct was a proper proposition.

As to the interdiction by the non-intercourse act, I apprehend that was founded on the violation of our neutral rights by the belligerent powers, the President of the United States being authorized to renew trade whenever the edicts violating our lawful commerce should be revoked. Whether or not the President has done right in accepting the assurance instead of the fact, gentlemen have considered it unnecessary for them to express any opinion upon it. If there be no edict affecting our lawful commerce in force by one belligerent, the interdict is at an end in point of fact in relation to that one. The question of the affair of the Chesapeake is settled, if the President had power to settle it; and as to the other cause of interdiction, the President has declared that the British orders will have been revoked on the 10th of June. Has the President acted correctly or not? If he has acted correctly in taking the assurance for the fact, the very principle of the non-intercourse is at an end as respects one of the belligerents, and there can be no ground for the exclusion of British armed vessels.

Mr. Taylor said he thought the gentleman from Connecticut used the word hostility in relation to this measure of including British armed vessels from the United States. Now, I believe, sir, said Mr. T., that if we go to the opinions entertained, not by the President of the United States, but entertained and expressed in the very foundation of the arrangement which was made, it will be found that the very hostility intended to be produced by the President's proclamation ceased at the moment when we passed the non-intercourse act in which we excluded the vessels of both the belligerents. The hostility was in the admission of the armed vessels of one, and excluding those of the other. It ceased by the non-intercourse law, and so satisfactory was this law of the last session, that it was the very foundation on which the overture was made which ended so much to the satisfaction of this nation. So that, in fact, when we perpetuate the order of things produced by that act, we do not perpetuate the state of things produced by the interdictory proclamation of the late President. It was matter of satisfaction to the British Government, as expressed by their Minister here, that the quality of hostility in the exclusion of her vessels was taken away by the non-intercourse law. Have we promised, in the negotiation which has taken place, that we will commit an act of hostility against France for the boon which we have received from the hand of Great Britain? No, sir; and yet, if we take the definition of Mr. Canning, as to excluding the vessels of one belligerent and receiving those of the other, according to the mode proposed by the amendment, without the sentence moved to be admitted to it, it will in fact be agreeing to go to war with France. According to the opinion of Britain, promulgated not only to this Government but to the world according to the demonstration made by the British Government, you will undertake a measure of active hostility against France; for what? For any great boon that this Government has received from the hands of Great Britain? No, sir. If all the promises were fulfilled to their full extent, we should then receive but justice at her hands. It was acknowledged, too, in the discussion which took place, that any nation, particularly a neutral nation, has a right to exclude the armed vessels of both belligerents; but that, on the contrary, the state now proposed to be produced, the exclusion of one and admission of the other, is an act of hostility of the party excluded. As I would not be compelled by the utmost ill usage by either belligerent to take part with the other against that one, neither will I take a consent or refusal from one or the other to do us justice as a motive for alliance, or a war which shall compromit our neutrality. I now speak of both, for both have used us as ill as was in their power. As kicks and cuffs have not compelled us to take part with them, neither shall caresses or fawning, for we will mete out an equal measure of justice to both. I consider the state of things produced by the non-intercourse as totally distinct from that produced by the proclamation of our late illustrious President.

Mr. Fisk.—It was my intention not to have troubled the House with any remarks on the bill now under consideration. I could readily have reconciled it to my feelings to have given a silent vote in favor of the bill, had not so many and various objections been made against it. But as it seems to be objectionable, and susceptible of so many amendments, in the opinion of so many gentlemen, the House will indulge me, while I offer the reasons which will govern my vote.

This bill for which we were convened, has, during the time we have been here, received as yet but a small portion of our attention; and it is so important that upon its passage, and the principles it shall embrace, may depend the destinies of our country. It deserves our im[Pg 154]mediate and most serious attention. I hope it may be coolly and dispassionately examined, and treated according to its real importance. Its principles have been carefully and scrupulously investigated by the committee who reported it, or a bill similar in its provisions, of which committee I had the honor to be a member.

The language is plain; public ships are not interdicted. There is but one question to be decided in disposing of this bill, and that is respecting public ships; for I believe all will agree to renew the non-intercourse act as respects France. The question is, what regulation shall we make respecting public ships, and one of three courses is to be pursued? Shall we exclude both, admit both, or discriminate?

There are many who would be willing to exclude the armed ships of every foreign power from our harbors and waters. And considering what we have suffered by admitting them, it may be well questioned whether it would not be the best policy of this nation to interdict them by a permanent law. Yet many gentlemen object to this, as being inexpedient at this period. It is said, and it is the principal argument urged against it, that it might embarrass our impending negotiations with Great Britain to interdict her public ships by this act. As I feel as much disposed for an amicable adjustment of our differences with that nation as any member of this House, and would be as unwilling to embarrass the negotiation, I would not insist on this interdiction.

It is also said that England has made reparation, or agreed to make reparation, for the aggression which caused the interdiction of her public ships, and that as the cause no longer exists the interdiction should cease. Be it so; and may we never have fresh cause to renew it!

But, say gentlemen, we must not now recede from the ground we have taken with respect to France, we must discriminate. Let us for a moment view the ground we have taken—not only as relates to France, but England also.

We are not at war with either of the belligerents. Our Ministers at their respective Courts are endeavoring to negotiate, and by negotiation to obtain redress for the injuries of which we complain, and whatever precautionary measures we might adopt would not be deemed a violation of our neutral character, so long as those measures were equally applicable to both the belligerents. We could not be deemed to have taken part with either to the prejudice of the other, while no other was benefited by our measures. While British public ships were interdicted, and our embargo existed, an offer was made to both the belligerents to resume our trade—the same equal terms were tendered to both. The nation refusing is left without a cause of complaint against us, for resuming our trade with the nation accepting the offer.

Before either nation does accept, America changes her position. The embargo is abandoned, and a general interdiction of the public ships of England and France, and a non-intercourse with these nations and their dependencies, is substituted. By this non-intercourse act, the particular interdiction is merged in a general regulation. This was to exist until the end of the next session of Congress only. This was virtually saying, that the proclamation interdicting British public vessels from our waters for a particular aggression shall be revoked; and a general municipal regulation, over which the President shall have no control, shall be substituted in its stead. It was then, in order to preserve our neutral character, necessary that this rule should embrace both the belligerents. It may be said, and has indeed been frequently said, that the reason of extending this restriction to France, was her having burnt our vessels and imprisoned our seamen. But never, at least in the history of diplomacy, have cause and effect been more distant and unconnected. France, on the high seas, burns our vessels, and in her own territories imprisons our seamen. We, at the distance of three thousand miles, interdict our ports and waters to her public ships, which do not or dare not come within five hundred leagues of the line of our interdicted territory, and this is to retaliate for the aggression. Can this interdiction be defended on this ground? It cannot. There must have existed some other reason. It was to preserve our relations with the belligerents in that state that should be consistent with our professions of neutrality.

Had the interdiction been confined to British vessels by this law, what would Great Britain have said to this discrimination? In vain might we have told her that we meant to preserve our neutral character, and not to take a part with her enemies in the war against her. Our acts would have been directly opposed to our professions. With this discriminating, permanent, municipal law, could we expect Great Britain to treat with us as a neutral? If we did, we should be disappointed. If, then, it be inexpedient to make this discrimination against Great Britain, how is it less so, when directed against France? We are to admit British and exclude the French. And, are we to endeavor to negotiate, as neutrals, with France, upon this ground, with any reasonable prospect of success? It is desirable that the commercial intercourse between this country and France should be restored. Peace and free trade is the interest and the object of America. While we throw wide open the door of negotiation to England, why should we shut it against France? While we facilitate negotiations with the British, why should we embarrass and prevent the same with the French? I wish to leave the Executive and treaty-making powers of our Government free and unshackled, to enter on negotiation with both these Governments, under every advantage of success which we can give. On what ground can this discrimination be defended? You adopt this measure. Our Minister at Paris is requested to explain it. Is there any advo[Pg 155]cate for this discrimination in this House, who can conceive the grounds upon which our Minister or our Government are to justify this measure with our relations of neutrality? It cannot be defended. I am not for yielding to either nation, but, let our conduct be consistent, impartial, and defensible. If then, we are to be involved in a war with either, the resources of the country and the hearts of our citizens will support the Government, and we need not be afraid of the world. But those men, or that Administration that will, upon a mere useless, punctilious point of etiquette, commit the peace and happiness of this country to the ravages of war, will meet the indignation, and feel the vengeance of the intelligent citizens of the country. This temerity would meet its merited punishment. The people of America can see, and will judge for themselves; they can readily discern the difference between shadow and substance; they are neither to be deceived or trifled with, especially on subjects of such immense moment to their liberties and happiness.

Mr. Burwell said he deemed it in some degree his duty to make some remarks on the bill before the House. He intended to vote against both the amendments proposed to the bill. I think (said Mr. B.) that if my colleague who moved the first amendment, (Mr. Sheffey,) had taken that view of this subject which might have been presented to his mind, he would not have found such error in the course proposed to be pursued. He seems to have taken another ground, when by the clearest demonstration it might have been shown that the system proposed is one of impartiality to the belligerent powers of Europe. It will be recollected by gentlemen of this House, that at the time the exclusion of French armed ships took place, it was upon the express ground that the British Government objected to come to an accommodation with us, because we excluded her vessels and nominally admitted those of her enemy. On that ground I venture to say that the exclusion took place; because, at the time that it took place, it was considered a measure absolutely favoring Great Britain, yet not injuring France by a nominal prohibition of the entrance of her vessels. It was stated that there was not perhaps in the course of a year a single French public armed vessel in the harbors of the United States. Have we any French frigates now in our seas? None. Is there any probability that there will be any? No, sir; for France having now lost her West India Islands, if her vessels are freely admitted, it is probable that there would not, in the course of five years, be a single French vessel within our waters. As the exclusion would be perfectly nominal, I would not adopt any thing to prevent a settlement of our differences with France. I am not now sanguine in my belief that we shall settle our differences with her; for every one acquainted with that Government knows, I fear, that it is not to be diverted from its object by any arrangement we may make. But I would do away every possible justification that could be urged by France for not meeting our overtures for peace. This conduct would produce at home more union among our citizens; and, when our rights are attacked without a pretence for their infraction, there can be but one sentiment in the nation. I have always determined to admit British vessels as far as my vote would go; and should the House determine to exclude French vessels I should still vote for the admission of English vessels, because their former exclusion has been so artfully managed by the British Government, and the doctrine has been so admitted by the presses in this country, as to give rise to the most unjustifiable conduct ever pursued by one nation towards another. As to the idea advanced by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Taylor,) that, if we do admit them to take possession of our waters, they will take advantage of the privilege to our injury in negotiation, it has no force with me, for this plain reason; that, although the exclusion of them from our waters was not carried into execution by physical force, yet they did not enter our waters, which they might have done, in defiance of the proclamation. And why did they not? Because, I presume, they had no desire to rouse the indignation of this nation by an open violation of the laws of the land.

If, sir, you wish to gain the advantage of union at home, take away every pretext for the violation of your rights. Let me ask if it be not better to admit them? By so doing you give up a principle which does not benefit you, and receive an accession of physical strength by union at home. I do not say that every one will be satisfied, because I have no doubt England has agents in the country, but so few in number as to be unworthy of notice. If Great Britain, on the other hand, attacks us when we have taken away every possible ground of collision and violates her promise, the people in every part of the country will be satisfied that her deliberate object is to destroy our commerce. We should have no more of those party divisions which have distracted us for some months past.

It cannot be said that we are bound by any part of the negotiation to admit English vessels. I have seen nothing of the kind, if it exist; and I call upon gentlemen to point it out. Why do it, then? It may be considered a concession; and certainly manifests that disposition which we feel to settle all the points of difference in agitation betwixt us. And here I beg leave to say that, according to the most explicit declarations of the British Minister, you would not give the smallest umbrage by pursuing that course. On this subject Mr. B. quoted a speech of Mr. Stevens in the British Parliament. If we were to be governed by reference to expressions which existed in that country of our partiality to France, it did appear to him that this speech was entitled to weight, because it justified the course proposed by the bill, and stated[Pg 156] a position which the British Government admitted was all that could be required from a neutral State. From this speech it appeared that placing the two belligerents on an equal footing was all that was required. Did not this bill completely come up to their wishes? Did it not interdict all trade with France under the most severe and heavy penalties? Mr. B. said he did not wish it to be understood that he would shape his conduct by the wishes of the British Ministry; but, as it had been said that the bill was somewhat hostile to that country, he had quoted the speech of a ministerial member to show that no such inference could be drawn. The same person, in his speech, also states, said Mr. B., that the reason why our offer in August last was not accepted, was, that, if it had been accepted, such was the situation of the law, that a commerce might always be carried on with the enemy; that, through the ports in Europe, her enemy might be as efficiently supplied as if the embargo did not exist in relation to him. But, sir, what is now the state of things? If it is possible to operate on France by commercial restrictions, let me ask if this bill will not accomplish that object? Let me ask if an American vessel under it can go to any port of France? It not only cuts off direct intercourse, but prohibits the importation of the products of France; and any attempt to carry on a circuitous commerce must be ineffectual, inasmuch as the produce will be liable to seizure when it comes into the ports of the United States.

If, according to the ideas of the British Government itself, this state of things be a sufficient resistance to France, let me ask of gentlemen how they can infer a partiality to France? What more can you do? If you exclude the armed vessels of France, though it may display a disposition to injure her, I defy any gentleman to show that it can, in the smallest degree, coerce or affect her. Let me call the attention of gentlemen to the present situation of Europe. If accounts lately received are to be credited, we may calculate on the universal control of the French Emperor over the ports of Europe. Is it to our advantage to be excluded from the trade of the continent? Is it not known that all the surplus product of the agriculture of this country finds its vent on the Continent of Europe? Is it not known that, of the whole of our tobacco, seven out of eight parts are consumed on the continent? That of our cotton, at least one-half finds its market there? Does not flour find a great proportion of its consumption on the continent? This cannot be denied. Then, let me ask of gentlemen, whether it be so much to our advantage to exclude this trade; and, if not, why we should take a step which can do France no injury, but which may, and probably would, be made a pretext for cutting off so valuable a part of our trade? With respect to partiality to France, let me call upon the gentleman from Virginia, or any other, to show if, from the conduct of the United States, and such thing can be inferred. Look at our relative situation. Have we opened our ports to her traders? Have we renewed commercial intercourse with her? Let me ask, which have we placed in the best situation, France or England? Every gentleman must answer—England. Whilst she gets all our commerce, her enemy is wholly excluded from any participation in it.

Another argument has been used against discrimination, viz: that France has no public armed ships. If this is the case, gentlemen need not be alarmed; for, if they cannot come here, we need not be afraid of their resentment, because we will not admit them. But we know that her cruisers can steal out of their ports, go into foreign seas, and destroy our trade in spite of the ships of Great Britain. If an American vessel has British property on board, or has been spoken by a British cruiser, a French public armed vessel is bound to make prize of her. This being the case, let us for a moment consider the subject as respects ourselves. Our feelings ought to be for ourselves and our country. Here is a nation having public ships, having a right to come into your ports. Does it comport with our honor and dignity to admit into our ports and harbors the very vessels destroying our commerce? Not to go into an inquiry what has been the fact heretofore, but what may be now—if you pass a law that a French frigate may come into your waters and partake of your hospitalities, where is the obligation that it may not take advantage of the opportunity to make its prey more sure by watching it in port and then going out and entrapping it? If, from the intoxication of the man who rules the destinies of the nations of Europe, he does not feel disposed to treat with us on terms of reciprocity, that circumstance should have no effect on our measures. But the question on that point is no doubt already settled; time sufficient has been allowed for the vessel to go and receive an answer to the instruction sent to our Minister. I certainly would so far respect myself as to fulfil what I conceive to be good faith toward both, without respect to the wish or dictation of either.

As to the amount of produce sent to the continent, it cannot be great. Some few may have adventured there on desperate voyages; but that there is much property in jeopardy, I cannot believe, for France is known to be, in respect to mercantile property, the lion's den, easy of access, but impossible to return. Those, therefore, who have risked their property must have been extremely rash.

If the French Government would do us justice, I should be glad; if not, we must abide by the consequences. We must not do improper things because they will not do us justice. It is proper that we should assert what we conceive to be our rights. I believe, however, that the question of peace with France will not turn on this bill. I believe the point to be already settled. If it be not, and the exclusion of French armed vessels would be an impedi[Pg 157]ment to it, the same objection would be valid against the whole bill.

Mr. Holland asked the indulgence of the House whilst he stated a few reasons why he should vote for the amendment under consideration. It had been asked whether it was consistent with the honor of this nation to admit French ships within our waters. Mr. H. said he would answer, that, as things now stood, he did not consider it consistent with our honor and dignity so to do; and the reason why was, that that Government had done sundry injurious acts towards this nation for which it had not made reparation, nor even intimated an intention of doing so. He therefore answered that it was inconsistent to admit the vessels of France within our waters. It was in consequence of injuries which they had done, according to my conception, that I voted for their exclusion. I was not influenced to vote for the prohibition of the ships of France from coming into our waters by any desire to produce an equality in our relations with the belligerents. It was no impression of that kind that influenced my vote; and yet I voted that French ships of war should not come into our waters. It was not the opinions of editors of newspapers, or the clamors of individuals, that influenced my vote, and I hope they never will. I think that every gentleman, on taking his seat in this House, should consider himself beyond suspicion. The only question for consideration of the members of this House, when a measure is presented to them, is the expediency of it; and on that ground alone I voted for the exclusion of French ships or of British ships. I was chiefly influenced to vote for the exclusion of British armed ships by the variety of acts committed in our waters, and the great disposition which she had shown to commit the most wanton acts of treachery. I can say for myself that my conduct was only partially influenced by the acts of British officers within our waters; I had in view a variety of other acts committed against the rights of the people of this country. Supposing the affair of the Chesapeake to have been authorized, I never wish to see the British ships of war within our waters, till they recede from the right of impressment. I wish the British Government to know that it was the determination of the major part of the citizens of the United States to resist her till she surrendered that right. I think it was a sacrifice of the dignity of the United States to receive British vessels so long as they committed those acts. It was therefore that I voted to exclude them.

It is said, by the gentleman last up, that we are at peace with Great Britain. Does it follow, from that, that they are entitled to all the rights of hospitality that one nation could possibly show to another? Certainly not. We ought yet to hold up some indication that we are not perfectly reconciled to them. When they abandon the outrageous principles which govern that nation with respect to neutrals; when they abandon the practice of impressment; when they make restitution for spoliations of our trade; we will hold the hand of fellowship to them. It is not enough for me to hear the British Minister say that an Envoy Extraordinary is to come out and settle all differences. I have heard something like this long ago. I heard that a Minister was to be sent out to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake. We have experience on this subject. Have we forgot that every thing which accompanied that mission was evidence that the British Government was not sincere, and that it did not intend to accommodate? When I see an abandonment by Great Britain of the principles destructive to neutrality, I can consent to admit that nation to the rights of hospitality.

Mr. Johnson observed, that, to say any thing on this subject, after the time which had been already consumed, and the speeches which had been made, was contrary to a rule which he had laid down for his own conduct. But his excuse would be found in the introduction into the House of a proposition, which, it was said, proposed to place us on a neutral ground. Nothing, said Mr. J., is dearer to me than neutrality as to our foreign relations; but, the bill submitted to the House by the committee of which I had the honor to constitute one, and which is the same with that now before us, so far from being in hostility to Great Britain, and partiality to France, I contend, is a concession to Great Britain, at the same time that I admit that it is not hostility to France. The admission of the belligerent vessels into our waters, so far from being hostility to Great Britain, is concession. I bottom the remark upon the fact, that, at this moment, as many and as heavy causes of complaint exist unsettled between this Government and Great Britain, as between this Government and that of France. If then, the same causes exist to exclude from our waters the vessels of both, I ask whether the admission of both will not be an actual benefit and concession to Great Britain, and a nominal benefit to France? And, still, it is to go forth to the nation that we are about to commit an act which will sink the nation, from the elevated situation in which it is now placed by our former measures! I hope that we shall continue to convince the world that the United States of America are incapable of other than neutral conduct. Is it a fact, that greater injuries exist from France than from Great Britain? What injuries have been received from France? Have they been committed within our waters? Has our hospitality been violated and our officers insulted in our very ports by the vessels of France? or is her hostility merely commercial? It is of the latter description. Is it not admitted that we may lawfully exclude or admit the vessels of both belligerents? If you admit the vessels of one nation with whom you have cause of difference, and exclude those of another nation with whom you have only the same cause of difference, I[Pg 158] ask whether you do not commit the dignity of the nation, and jeopardize its peace?

I will put this question to gentlemen: what has Britain done which would require a discrimination as to her public vessels? She has rescinded her Orders in Council. And what have we done in return? Have we done nothing? Has Great Britain held out the hand of friendship, and have we refused to meet her? Has she withdrawn her Orders in Council, and have we insisted on a continuance of our commercial restrictions? I have understood that she has done nothing but rescinded her Orders in Council, and we have renewed intercourse with her therefore. I am more astonished at the proposal to discriminate, when we see that, at this moment, orders are in existence blockading countries to which your merchants have, long ago, taken out clearances, in violation of stipulations which Britain had proposed to us. When she has violated our rights, I am more astonished that gentlemen should wish to go beyond this letter of the law. And, let the consequence be what it may, it would result to the benefit of this nation that we should not be influenced by idle fears of imaginary dangers. My better judgment tells me we should exclude the armed vessels of both nations; but the general sentiment appears to be against it. It is asked of us, why admit the vessels of France, whilst injuries which she has done us are unatoned for? And, I ask, sir, why, then, admit the vessels of England standing in the same relation to us? I only make these remarks as going to show that we ought to be strictly neutral. If, sir, you wish to take part in the broils of Europe, embody your men, and send them over to the disposal of England at once, and let her send them to Spain or Austria. But, if you would remain neutral, either admit or exclude the armed vessels, as you would armies, of both belligerents.

I had thought, sir, not only from the acts of our Government, but from conversing with gentlemen, that we hailed the present as an auspicious moment, as a political jubilee; I had thought that we had been on the verge of war with the two most powerful nations of the earth, but that our situation was changed, and that, at the same moment we now offer the only asylum to the victims of European wars. And are you now about again to jeopardize the peace of this nation, without any cause whatever?

The exclusion of French and British armed vessels at the last session, may be taken on this ground. It was a defensive war, not only for the injuries we had received, but in expectation of actual hostility. Has it occurred? No, sir. Would you have excluded British vessels since 1793, for taking the vessels engaged in your lawful trade, and for impressing your seamen? You did not do it; and it was not for that alone that you did it at the last session, but for other causes, which have nearly or quite disappeared.

I have done, sir. I shall not vote for any proposition which makes a difference between France and Great Britain; not that I am afraid of the conscripts of Napoleon, or the navy of George III. But I cannot consent to adopt a course which will again obscure with clouds our political horizon.

Mr. Smilie said, that if he now took up five minutes of the time of the House, he could not excuse it to himself; and he should not have risen, but to explain the reasons for the course which he should take. As to the amendment, to that he could never agree. The question which the Legislature often had to decide, was not what was best, but what is practicable. Now, he thought it a happy circumstance that parties in the other House had united on this subject. However we may differ as to local affairs, said he, I think it good policy, if it can be done without a sacrifice of principle, to meet in concert on measures of external relations. What may be the effect, if you introduce either of these two principles into this bill? We know that, if this bill does not go to the Senate till to-morrow, if amended, a single member of the Senate can, according to their rules, prevent the bill from passing altogether. My opinion is, that it is our duty to pass the bill in its present form. If any material alteration be made in the bill, I believe it will not pass. If it does not, all that has taken place between this country and Great Britain is at an end. And I hope that this reason will induce gentlemen to permit the question to be taken.

Mr. J. G. Jackson said he had intended, before the day had so far progressed, to have explained to the House the motives by which he was actuated in relation to the bill. He said he would still take the liberty of stating to the few members present, (the House being very thin,) why he offered the amendment to the amendment. It will be recollected, said Mr. J., that the other day I stated that a construction had been given to the law contemplated to be re-enacted by the bill on the table, which, notwithstanding the renewal of intercourse, excluded armed vessels from our waters; and, for the purpose of doing away completely that construction, I moved an amendment which, gentlemen conceiving it unnecessary, I withdrew. If gentlemen are correct in the opinion which they advanced, and which induced me to withdraw that motion, they cannot, consistently, vote for the amendment of my colleague providing an exception to a provision which the bill does not contain. Where is the necessity of a proviso if the law does not bear such a construction? Is the Executive to infer from the proviso that something exists in the law which the friends of the proviso declare does not exist? The amendment proposed by my colleague provides for the admission of the armed vessels of those nations with whom commercial intercourse shall have been (not has been) permitted. Are you, by this phraseology, about to devolve upon the President a discretionary[Pg 159] power, holding the scale of national honor in one hand, and the injury and atonement in the other, to decide which nation shall be thus favored, when it is conceded on all hands that the admission of the armed vessels of one nation and the exclusion of those of the other, is an act ipso facto of hostility?

Gentlemen have observed that there ought to be an exclusion of French and admission of English armed ships, and that any other course would be an acquiescence in the views of "sister France," and hostility to England. This language, sir, does not help the cause which the gentleman advocates. What must be the effect of such insinuations? They must excite feelings which, I am happy to say, have not been displayed on this floor during the session. Might it not be retorted, as a natural consequence, that gentlemen who wish to admit British and exclude French ships, and thus serve the interest of England, are desirous of subserving the views of mother Britain? The attachment to sister France on the one hand, is about as great as the attachment to mother Britain on the other. I believe it has been emphatically declared to the nation that we would not go to war for existing differences. If, however, gentlemen, since the last session, have so materially altered their ideas of the policy proper in relation to one belligerent, let us go to war openly; I am not for using the stiletto, or for stabbing in the dark.

The interdict of British armed vessels from entering our ports was not on account of the affair of the Chesapeake only. It is unnecessary now to repeat the cause which led to it. If gentlemen will turn to the letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Rose, they will find the causes detailed. Since that time other injuries have been committed; and it has been justly observed that the burning the Impetueux was an insult to the sovereignty of this nation scarcely less than the affair of the Chesapeake. If we permit hostility from one belligerent to another within our territory, we become party to the war, as we do, by admitting the enemy even to pass through our territory to attack another nation. It is in vain to say that a nation preserves a neutral attitude, when it permits one of the belligerents repeatedly to violate its sovereignty. If there be as much injury unatoned on the part of Britain as on the part of France, then a discrimination will be a departure from the ground which we took last session, that both should be excluded. And the President had no power over that part of the law. Inasmuch as we know that Great Britain has the command of the ocean, and that a French ship of war cannot, without a miracle, escape across the Atlantic, we, in fact, by the operation of the bill as it came from the Senate, admit English and exclude French ships.

We throw open our ports and admit the thousand ships of Britain, without opening our eyes to the consequences which have heretofore resulted from so doing. And shall we now refuse admission to the vessels of France? It is indeed difficult to say what led to their exclusion; for it has been with truth observed that the non-intercourse bill had not an advocate in the House. It was something like throwing all our discordant opinions into one crucible, and after fusion, extracting what was expected to be gold, but which all called dross. When gentlemen speak of their zeal to maintain the ground taken last winter, I beg of them to recollect their own speeches, from which it will be found that the bill was so obnoxious to them that they would not even extend its operation to the next winter, and that it was with difficulty that it was extended to the end of the present session.

Gentlemen ask, has there not been a satisfactory adjustment of our differences with Great Britain? I deny it. What is the expression of the British Envoy on which gentlemen rely, and on which they are about to sit down quietly under the vine and fig tree? "In the mean time, with a view to contribute to the attainment of so desirable an object, His Majesty would be willing to withdraw his orders," &c. In the mean time, still persisting in the principle of taxing our exports, a right denied even to us by the constitution. It is to be hung up in terrorem, to be let loose upon us hereafter, if we shall not do every thing which is required of us. There is a marked cautious style of language in this letter, which shows that Great Britain in fact has promised nothing. She does not say that she will repeal or revoke her orders, but that in the mean time she will withdraw them; and, sir, in the mean time she has withdrawn them, and substituted other orders or proclamations equally obnoxious. This is reason sufficient for not going beyond the letter of the agreement; which however I will consent to do, by admitting instead of excluding British armed vessels.

When Mr. J. G. Jackson concluded, Mr. Sheffey, in order to obtain a direct question on his own amendment, adopted Mr. Jackson's rider to it, as a part of his own motion, and called for a division of the question, taking it first on his own amendment as first moved.

Some doubt arising whether it was correct thus to act, according to the rules of the House, Mr. Macon produced a precedent in which he had himself done the same in the case of a motion for the repeal of the second section of the sedition act, nine or ten years ago.

Mr. Taylor said that, as the House had decided that they would not discriminate between the admission of British and French public vessels, he wished to try the question on the exclusion of both. He made a motion having in view that object; which was decided without debate, fifteen for it, one hundred against it, being a majority of eighty-five against the exclusion, at this time, of the public vessels of both belligerents.

Mr. Montgomery observed that the decision of the courts of the United States had been[Pg 160] that, after a law had expired, they had dismissed all suits pending for the recovery of penalties incurred under the act. He conceived that this bill should have a saving clause, that penalties and forfeitures incurred under it, should be recoverable and distributable after the act itself had expired. He therefore moved an amendment to that effect.

Tuesday, June 27.

Non-Intercourse.

The bill to revive and amend certain parts of the act "interdicting commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," was read the third time.

Mr. Pickman hoped that he should be excused for making a few observations at this stage of the bill, not having before partaken of the debate. He said he felt a strong objection to the bill, because it admitted French vessels into our ports and harbors. Gentlemen had asked why a discrimination should be made. He answered, that the reasons for this conduct were to his mind very plain. He had considered the outrage on the Chesapeake as a gross violation of our rights and of the law of nations, and he believed no one had felt more indignation at it than he did. But that was now atoned for. I consider (said Mr. P.) that the Orders in Council are repealed; that Great Britain has stipulated to send on an envoy with instructions to negotiate for a settlement of all differences. I consider these things as done, because I consider the faith of the British nation as solemnly pledged to do them; for, if it had not been, the United States would not have been justified in taking the attitude which we have taken.

It has been said, that since the arrangement here has taken place, Great Britain has modified her Orders in Council in a most exceptionable manner. I admit that this modification was posterior in point of date to the arrangement here; that is to say, that the proclamation of the President of the United States was issued on the 19th, and that the orders were modified on the 29th of April; yet, in strict propriety, the new orders may be said to have issued before the arrangement, because it was before it was known. Viewing the subject in this light, I do not believe that the modification of the Orders in Council did proceed from the arrangement here; and I now declare that if such modification as has been made is to be considered as rescinding the orders, according to the stipulation made with Mr. Erskine, I should consider it a mere mockery. I do, however, consider it in a very different light, and have no doubt that the Government of Great Britain will adopt such modification of their orders as they have stipulated to do. These are my ideas, and on this ground I did and do still believe that we ought to have made a discrimination, because I consider one nation to have complied with the conditions of the non-intercourse act, whilst the other has not varied its position.

Mr. Macon said he was against admitting the armed vessels of either belligerents into our waters. He would place our foreign relations precisely in the state in which the President had left them, saying neither yea or nay on the subject of their armed vessels, leaving it where it had been left by both the parties to the late arrangement. He should have been glad that the same disposition had been manifested towards us by France as by Great Britain; but because there had not he would do nothing towards her to prevent it. Some gentlemen had conceived that an indiscriminate admission would be more advantageous to France than to Great Britain. Mr. M. said he did not agree with gentlemen in this; for Great Britain had Canada and her West India Islands, to which she was in the habit of sending out vessels; whilst France, having no possessions on the American coast, had no occasion for our hospitality.

Mr. M. said he sincerely hoped that we should now act, as we had heretofore done, so as to give to neither of the belligerents cause to charge us with partiality. He was decidedly of opinion that we ought to leave both nations in the same state as they were left by the President's proclamation. He had no doubt that Great Britain would send a Minister to negotiate. But what was left, as to her, for the surrender or repeal of which she had any anxiety? Nothing. As to France, she would have no shipping at sea, so long as the war lasted in Europe, unless an event took place which he hoped would not. You give France a right to enter your waters, said he, and take away any inducement she might have had to rescind her decrees. I believe the passage of the bill will extend the difficulties of the nation. I know it is not a very pleasant thing to be opposed to the evident sentiment of a majority of the House; but it is the bounden duty of those who think as I do to vote, as I shall, against the bill.

Mr. Taylor said it appeared to be desired on all hands that nothing should be done by the House to embarrass the negotiation; and he presumed that the majority, in the different stages of this bill, had been actuated by that wish. If, said Mr. T., I could see the present measure in the light in which its friends appear to view it, I certainly should be in favor of it. But, when it is recollected that your legislative acts have been held out to your fellow-citizens and to foreign nations, promising a perseverance in our restrictive measures against such nation as shall continue to oppress our commerce by her unlawful edicts, I consider our faith as pledged to the nation, that, according to the recession of one belligerent, or perseverance of the other, we were to shape our course.

[Pg 161]

The gentleman from Virginia aimed a side blow at those who, in the discussion of this subject, had spoken of the ground which we have taken. On the effects supposed to be produced by the non-intercourse, I had a right to say we. The sense of the House was taken distinctly as to a repeal of the embargo, on the first report of the Committee of Foreign Relations. It was then that the principle was decided, and it was that act which was taken hold of across the Atlantic, and made the ground of the instructions which came out by Mr. Oakley to the British Envoy here, and on which the arrangement did take place. Now, though the gentleman seems unwilling that any part of the House should say we, I vindicate the claim which I have to use it. In fact, I would claim for the mover of the original proposition to this House for the interdiction of armed vessels, the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Macon,) the merit of the late negotiation, if it attach anywhere. But I am not willing to carry on the copartnership. I will not now say we. I, who voted for the motion going to give power to the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal against that nation which persevered in its edicts after the other had withdrawn them, am not willing, on the passage of this bill, to say we, as by it you admit instead of continuing the exclusion against armed vessels, where, instead of a recession, injuries have rather been added. When gentlemen are asked why they have admitted French vessels, in our present situation in relation to France, after the temper displayed and the votes given at the last session on the subject, theirs must be a feeling in which I would not participate, and therefore I will not say "we."

Mr. Dana observed that, by the Journals of the Senate, it appeared that this bill had been unanimously passed by that body. This unanimous vote of the Senate might be regarded as a consideration to operate very strongly on the minds of members of the House, as respected the propriety of adopting the present bill; it certainly must have weight in favor of a measure, when it was found that men differing widely in political opinions joined in voting for it. I, said Mr. D., have myself very strongly felt the force of this consideration. But you know, sir, that the rules of proceeding and order established in this House do not admit of our urging in debate the conduct of the Senate of the United States as a motive for deciding the opinion of this House. Why is it out of order? Because the excellence of our constitution is, that the Legislature shall consist of two Houses, each of which shall act on its own ideas of propriety. If it is not proper to mention the conduct of the Senate in debate, it is not proper to suffer it to overthrow our opinions. In this view I feel myself bound, with all due deference to the Senate, to examine this subject for myself. I cannot but feel the weight of that vote; but I cannot forget that the bill respecting the writ of habeas corpus was once passed in that House, and rejected unanimously in this, without being permitted to be read a second time.

On examining this bill, sir, I do not find that its various provisions appear to constitute one whole, to conform with any system of policy, or to be consistent with the principles of any man in this country. It is certainly not the course which I would have chosen; it is not consistent with the course marked out at the last session of Congress. I was certainly not in favor of the embargo; I disapproved of that system; and when I saw the non-intercourse system, I considered that as retaining the embargo principle, but not with so much precision. I consider this bill to be receding from a weak position. If the embargo was a decisive measure, it ought to have been taken more completely at the outset than it was. But it failed. The non-intercourse was abandoning one part and retaining another of the system. This bill was abandoning a part of the non-intercourse system and retaining a part. When I look at it, I see nothing in it at which any portion of American citizens can rejoice or be proud of; nothing of a firm, dignified, matured, sound, consistent policy, to be maintained on general principles against all the world. Am I then required to vote for a measure of this kind? If, with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy) I could suppose that voting for a system which I did not like would destroy it, I should vote for it. For, if I understand him, he dislikes the whole, and therefore will vote for this part of it. The whole would die at the end of this session; but to show his anxiety for its death he must keep it alive till the next session of Congress. I was very much pleased with a great part of his remarks; I approbated his premises, but his conclusions appeared to be directly the reverse of the proper result. But as he is a gentleman of strong powers of mind, he may well be able to draw a conclusion which I cannot.

Gentlemen have alluded to the declarations of the Emperor of France in relation to his decrees. When Bonaparte talks of the freedom of the seas, does he mean the same idea which we attach to these words when we use them? When he talks of the principles of maritime law, does he mean the same as we? On the subject of maritime law, has he not stated things which before were unheard of? Certainly, sir. On the contrary, I have always understood the claims of the United States as a neutral nation to be, not to assert new pretensions, but to assert such claims as they may think reasonable with respect to principle, and such as have been formerly admitted in practice.

With respect to the bill before you, there has been one argument used, and an imposing one certainly, provided that it appeared completely founded in fact. It is said this bill is considered as comporting with the views of the Executive[Pg 162] Government of the country; and that the Executive has acted so well in conducting the preliminary arrangement for removing certain obstacles to negotiation, that on the whole we ought to assist his administration. On this subject, sir, I have to observe that we are utterly without official evidence on this point. We have no evidence whatever, of an official nature, that this bill comports with the Executive views. If we have, it is to me unknown. We have not, during the present session, had any report in detail from the Committee of Foreign Relations. If that committee had made a report, stating facts and reasoning as the basis of the bill, I might consider that committee as having consulted the Executive of the country, and as having adopted its disposition as the basis of its proceedings. But, as we have no such thing, are we to suppose that there are certain gentlemen in the House who are organs of communication of the Executive wishes? Have we any other evidence of the disposition of the Executive in relation to this bill than that certain gentlemen are in favor of it? If, on this subject, the opinion of the Executive should properly decide our judgment, ought we not to have had some official exposition of the views of the Government? As we have no such information, we are to examine whether this bill comports with the arrangement made with Great Britain. But, as to that, I beg leave to be deemed as not considering myself pledged by that arrangement merely. As to myself, as an American, I am by no means gratified that we should contend with one nation because another does us justice. A stipulation of that kind I should consider as degrading to my country.

In my remarks therefore, I disclaim owing any thing for any boon which Great Britain may have given us, because I do not consider it as a boon that they have ceased to injure us. But in the face of the world such declarations have been formally made by the Congress of the United States. The fact is known to ourselves, to our countrymen, to such portions of the foreign world as may take an interest in our concerns. And in comparing this bill with those declarations, will it be possible to conceive that we are consistent? When you had differences with both the belligerents, what was your language? You talked as though you would throw the gauntlet to the globe, as though you would stretch out your arm and smite the world. When an adjustment is made with one of those powers, what is your language? Really, sir, the difficulty under which the Government formerly labored was said to be this: that if we went to war with both nations.—[Mr. D. quoted a part of the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations of last session on this subject.] I consider this part of the report, said he, as proceeding upon assumptions which are erroneous, and founded upon grounds untenable and inaccurate. But as to this report, which appeared to receive the approbation of a majority of the members of the House, it seems to be clear from it, that were it not that you were so equally wronged by both belligerents, and that both persisted, you certainly would have engaged in war with one; but that, as a treble war was rather a difficult plan, it was best to continue the restrictive system.

What is the declaration made to the British Minister at this place, by our Secretary of State, on this subject? Is it pretended to enter into any stipulations with Great Britain as to our conduct? No, sir; it is that our measures are adopted on the principle that the Government would assert the rights of our country against any power on the globe, without any reference to pledges. On this point I would call the attention of the House to a sentence which is the most extraordinary surely that ever was put together. And, unless it be a dash of the pen, like that of the brush of the painter who painted at one dash a perfect horse, it must have been the elaborate labor of twenty-four hours; in either case not detracting from the skill of the author of it. The sentence is as follows: "As it appears at the same time, that, in making this offer, His Britannic Majesty derives a motive from the equality, now existing, in the relations of the United States, with the two belligerent powers, the President owes it to the occasion, and to himself, to let it be understood, that this equality is a result, incident to a state of things, growing out of distinct considerations." If any mortal, from the depth of his knowledge, can specifically tell what this means, he may pass for an oracle. It proceeds upon this idea: that in making our arrangements at the last session we did not mean, as respects saying that whatever nation insulted us we would resent it, to please Great Britain alone, but equally to please any other nation whatever. If the saying this was an annunciation by our Government to the British Government, that in making this arrangement we are not making any stipulation in respect to France, but you and the world may know that whoever invades our rights shall meet with resistance, adequate to the crisis, if the Government can find means to accomplish it. If the paragraph be thus considered, we may respect the declaration itself, and admire the skill with which it is so worded as to convey nothing offensive in the expression. In this view, I am willing to admit it, because it conduces to the reputation of the Government and of the Secretary of State, who in this business appears to have conducted with the frankness of a man of talents, and the manner of a practical man of sense. I consider this bill as not corresponding with the resolutions of last session, as not corresponding with the general sentiment in regard to the non-intercourse law when it passed; nor with the general sentiment fairly to be collected from the correspondence of our officers with the British Minister.

If it be asked, what other system would be proper, I acknowledge it to be a question of difficulty. But, for myself, I think I would say that I would prefer an armed neutrality; not[Pg 163] such a one as distinguished the confederacy in the Baltic, not one to assert new pretensions; but one temperate in its claims, specific in its object. And I could really wish that in the present state of the world we should turn our attention to a system of policy which shall be founded on general principles, and at least say what are the rights which as neutrals we claim, and what the pretensions to which as neutrals we will submit; and if our legislation were of that character, we never should be embarrassed as we are. We pass a law that if edicts of the belligerents be revoked or modified, trade shall be renewed. Now, the edicts then in existence might be revoked, and others substituted, and the law would be complied with. The whole system has been constituted too much in reference to particular cases.

But I have one further objection to this bill, viz: that by it you do permit trade with French trading vessels, thus. There is no prohibition to the furnishing supplies to French vessels. The French vessels, going to sea, go armed and under the authority of their Government; and coming into the ports of this country may be supplied with any thing they wish without an infraction of the letter of the law. Let any public armed vessel come into the waters of the United States, and they may purchase whatever they please. There is no law to prohibit it, nor any authority placed in the Government of the United States to prevent them from purchasing. The state of the case now is, that your vessels shall not be cleared out to carry any thing to France, but your boats and every thing that sails may be employed to carry provisions to French armed ships in your harbors, and they may be completely loaded. If this be the intention of gentlemen, I have nothing further to say; if it be not their intention, they will have in this case, as they have had in others, a very great experience of the disadvantages of undertaking to chop up law.

From these general views of the subject, sir, I am opposed to the passage of the law.

Messrs. Pitkin and Quincy stated their reasons for voting against the bill.

And on the question, "Shall the bill pass?" it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 72, nays 15, as follows:

Absent, 54 members.

Wednesday, June 28.

Emigrants from Cuba.

On motion of Mr. Marion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the remission of certain fines and penalties.

[This bill provides for the remission of penalties incurred by the captains and owners of vessels which have been compelled to take on board emigrants from Cuba, with their slaves, the landing of the latter in the United States having, under present laws, forfeited the vessels and cargoes and fined the persons concerned.]

Mr. Marion observed that he had, a day or two ago, presented petitions from persons bringing in slaves, amongst which were some documents, one of which was the opinion of the district court of South Carolina, by which it appeared that, if the bill passed in the present shape, no relief would be afforded by it; for, it had not appeared on the trial that the slaves were forcibly expelled from the island, though the owners were. He therefore moved an amendment to include slaves owned by persons who were expelled from the island.—Motion agreed to without opposition.

Mr. M. then moved to add a proviso: "And provided, also, that such slaves shall have been brought in at the same time as their owners, respectively."—Agreed to.

Mr. Ross observed that a former act on the subject of the importation of slaves said, that it should not be lawful to bring into the United States any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intention to sell the same or hold them as slaves. The present case appeared to him to be one in direct violation of that law. Under the act of 1807, it had become the duty of the court to examine whether it was the intention of the parties to infringe or violate the laws. After a fair examination by a court, under a desire to relieve those interested, and a failure of every attempt to show that they were compelled to take on board these slaves, was the House about to sit in judgment and reverse the decision? Mr. R. said that provision was also made in the bill as to slaves that may hereafter arrive in the[Pg 164] United States, giving a power to the President of the United States, at his discretion, to set aside the law. What reason could there be for enacting this law, if the principles of the law of 1807 were correct? If it was intended, by a side blow, to repeal that law, he had rather see it done at once; and not, whilst in appearance we had such a law, to give the President a dispensing power over it. It was said that the persons concerned in bringing them in were distressed. How distressed? Only because they could not prove they were compelled to bring them into the country. Mr. R. said he did not wish to irritate the feelings of gentlemen from any portion of the Union, but he was sorry to see a bill introduced to unsettle what he conceived to be a valuable provision, enacted some sessions ago.

Mr. Newton said he felt as much repugnance as the gentleman from Pennsylvania to touch that law; but, if the gentleman would consider that this was a case of a peculiar nature, attended with singular circumstances, he would withdraw his objection. And he verily believed, that had the Legislature foreseen what had taken place, they would certainly have inserted a provision to meet the case which had occurred. Let it be recollected, said he, that the unfortunate Frenchmen driven on our coast, were some time ago driven from St. Domingo, and were obliged to take shelter at Cuba. Since the commencement of the war in Spain, Cuba has almost witnessed the same scenes as St. Domingo. These people were forced to leave the island in distress, and take what portion of property they could collect. They could not go to France, because no vessels of that country were permitted to touch at the island of Cuba, neither could they go to the French islands in the West Indies. There was no country open to them but America. The American captains, then, were forced to take the French on board, and with them, a few body servants; and, under the former law, these vessels are seized, and liable to forfeiture, our merchants to suffer the loss of vessel and cargo, and the poor emigrants to lose all their little property. Let it be recollected that the law of 1807 does not interfere with the State rights on the subject. This bill only goes so far as to remit all fines and penalties incurred by the captains of vessels, and release the property which would otherwise be condemned, and relieve the perfectly innocent merchants who would otherwise suffer. Let us say to these unfortunates, as Dido to Æneas, when he was exiled from Troy: "I have suffered misfortune myself, and therefore know how to extend the hand of relief to others."

Mr. Marion said that if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ross) thought that he had a wish or intention to increase the number of slaves, he was much mistaken. The laws of South Carolina prohibited the bringing these slaves, or any other, into the State; yet they had been brought there, and the persons bringing them there must give security that they would have them carried out of the State. Now, by the non-intercourse law, the State was prevented from sending them away; they would, of course, remain here till the law permitted them to be sent off, for they could go nowhere but to France and her dependencies, France being at war with all the rest of the world. Mr. M. said that there were several captains now in jail under sentence of court for having brought those people into the country; he submitted to the House whether, under the circumstances of the case, the captains had not good reason to suppose that they would not be subject to the penalty of the law. The law prohibiting the importation of slaves was of a highly penal nature, and different from all other laws of that nature, having no clause in it giving a power of remission of penalties; and this bill was guarded in such a manner that no evil could arise.

Mr. Macon said it was certainly true that the Southern country wanted no more slaves. The sole object of the bill was to get them away. However desirous the people might be to hold that property, there could be no fear of their wanting them from the West Indies.

Mr. Montgomery said it was peculiarly necessary to pass this bill to get rid of the immense number of slaves brought into New Orleans; for every one must know that they were not wanted there. They were too numerous to continue there, and this bill was intended to make provision for their exportation.

Mr. Newton produced a letter from the collector of New Orleans on this subject.

Mr. Taylor said it never could have been the intention or spirit of the law of 1807 to increase our population in free blacks. It was not to set free the people of this description that the law had been passed, but to prevent them from being brought here at all. For even in Pennsylvania he had no doubt the gentleman would be content to have no further population of this sort. Mr. T. said that he knew that in the Southern States there was an extreme aversion to receiving an additional free black population. The intent of this bill, so far from being in hostility to the law quoted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, was in furtherance of it. It was to remove them out of the country.

Mr. Ross said that it was strange that the House should have a bill before it contemplating the removal of a certain description of persons out of the country, when nothing of the kind appeared on the face of it. If that was its intention, there should be a condition that the persons bringing in these slaves should carry them out again.

Mr. Newton observed that unless this law passed, the inevitable consequence must be that the negroes must remain here. He did not want them, they brought principles which it was known would not promote our interest or happiness.

[Pg 165]

The committee then rose and reported the bill.

Mr. Newton moved a new section for the relief of Foster and Girard, of New York, whose ship had been forfeited under the law prohibiting the importation of slaves.—Agreed to.

And the bill was ordered to a third reading, and subsequently passed without opposition.

Evening Session.

Mr. Root reported that the committee had waited on the President according to order, who was pleased to say that he had no further communications to make.

About nine o'clock, all the bills having been enrolled and signed, a motion was made to adjourn, and carried; and the Speaker, after wishing the members of the House a pleasant journey home, and a happy meeting with their friends, adjourned the House to the fourth Monday in November next.

[Pg 166]

ELEVENTH CONGRESS—SECOND SESSION. BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 27, 1809.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

Monday, November 27, 1809.

Conformably to the act passed at the last session, entitled "An act to fix the time for the next meeting of Congress," the second session of the eleventh Congress commenced this day; and the Senate assembled, in their Chamber, at the city of Washington.

PRESENT:

• Nicholas Gilman, from New Hampshire.
• Timothy Pickering, from Massachusetts.
• Chauncey Goodrich, from Connecticut.
• Stephen R. Bradley and Jonathan Robinson, from Vermont.
• John Lambert, from New Jersey.
• Andrew Gregg and Michael Leib, from Pennsylvania.
• William B. Giles, from Virginia.
• James Turner, from North Carolina.
• Thomas Sumter and John Gaillard, from South Carolina.
• Buckner Thruston and John Pope, from Kentucky.
• Return Jonathan Meigs and Stanley Griswold, from Ohio.

The number of Senators present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow morning.

Tuesday, November 28.

The Senate assembled—present as yesterday; and Obadiah German, from the State of New York; James Hillhouse, from the State of Connecticut; Elisha Mathewson, from the State of Rhode Island; and Nahum Parker, from the State of New Hampshire, severally attended.

Andrew Gregg, President pro tempore, resumed the chair.

The President communicated a letter from the Surveyor of the Public Buildings, stating the difficulties that have prevented the entire completion of the permanent Senate Chamber; which letter was read.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to attend to business.

Ordered, That Messrs. Gilman and Gaillard be a committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives on their part, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives therewith.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House have appointed a committee, on their part, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

Resolved, That James Mathers, Sergeant-at-Arms and Doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the Doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after.

Mr. Gilman reported, from the joint committee, that they had waited on the President of the United States, agreeably to order, and that the President of the United States informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses to-morrow, at 12 o'clock.

Wednesday, November 29.

James Lloyd, from the State of Massachusetts, attended.

[Pg 167]

President's Message.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States:

The Message and documents therein referred to were read, and five hundred copies of the Message, and also five hundred copies of the Message together with five hundred copies of the documents, were ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.

On motion, by Mr. Goodrich,

Thursday, November 30.

Philip Reed, from the State of Maryland, attended.

John Condit, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, in the place of Aaron Kitchel, resigned, produced his credentials, which were read; and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

Monday, December 4.

Richard Brent, from the State of Virginia, and William H. Crawford, from the State of Georgia, severally attended.

Samuel Smith, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Maryland from the 15th of November, 1809, to the 4th of March, 1815, produced his credentials, which were read; and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that the House concur in the resolution of the Senate of the 30th of November, for the appointment of Chaplains, and have appointed the Rev. Jesse Lee Chaplain on their part.

Tuesday, December 5.

The British Minister.

Mr. Giles, from the committee appointed on the first instant, reported in part the following[Pg 169] resolution; which was read the first time, and passed to the second reading:

Privileges of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Giles, from the same committee, also reported the following bill, which was read and passed to a second reading:

Mr. Giles gave notice that he should call for the consideration of this subject on Thursday next.

Friday, December 8.

The British Minister.

The resolution reported by Mr. Giles, approving the conduct of the Executive in refusing to hold any further communication with Mr. Jackson, was taken up in the Senate as in Committee of the Whole. The resolution having been read,

Mr. Giles rose, and spoke as follows:

Mr. President: Before I proceed to perform the duties enjoined upon me as chairman of the committee who reported the resolution before you, permit me to express my regret that the consideration of a subject which justly excites so much sensibility should have been delayed, even only one day, on my account; and be assured, sir, that nothing less than an indisposition, sufficient to justify it, would have caused me to have been absent from my place yesterday. Perhaps, sir, I owe an apology to the Senate at this time for entering into this debate under a state of hoarseness, which must necessarily disqualify me, in some degree, from discharging my duty on the present occasion. But, sir, it is a subject of great consolation to me, to reflect that I am fortunately favored with associates on the committee, either of whom could perform the task I am now engaged in better than myself, and some of whom will certainly do me the favor of correcting any errors I may unintentionally commit, or supplying any omissions I may inadvertently make.

Although it appears to me that the propriety and urgency of the resolution now under consideration must be strongly addressed, both to[Pg 170] the judgment and sensibility of every gentleman who has carefully attended to the distribution of powers under our constitution, and who has also carefully attended to the correspondence which gave rise to the resolution, yet, in a case of so much delicacy, it would naturally be expected, and is a respect due to the Senate, from the chairman of the committee, to present to it at least some of the general motives which induced the committee to report the resolution at this time.

It is to be observed, Mr. President, that our constitution is peculiar in the organization and distribution of its powers; and in no respect is it more peculiar than in the distribution of the particular powers embraced by the resolution. In all other Governments known to us, the same department which possesses the power to receive and negotiate with foreign Ambassadors and other public Ministers, also possesses the power to make war. It has been thought wise in our constitution to separate these powers. With a simplicity of language, and a solidity of wisdom almost peculiar to our constitution, the President is invested with the power to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; thus using the broadest terms in granting this power, without even an attempt at limitation or specification; evidently with a view that all the incidental or consequential powers might flow from this general expression to the department thus invested with this general power. It was easy to foresee (and no doubt the framers of our constitution did foresee) that the multiplicity and diversity of cases which would arise in the course of various diplomatic manœuvres and negotiations, would set at defiance all attempts to limit or specify the powers of the department, in this respect, to which these powers were confided, and to be exercised on the part of the United States; and, therefore, every attempt of that kind was wisely avoided, leaving to the President to exercise his authority upon his own responsibility, to be regulated by the only established standard amongst nations, to wit: the laws and usages of nations. For, it never can be presumed, sir, that the wise sages who framed our excellent constitution could for a moment have tolerated the idea that the Ministers of foreign nations residing near the Government of the United States, should possess greater privileges and immunities than the Ministers of our Government residing near foreign Courts. Of course, the same laws—to wit, the laws and usages of nations—were left reciprocally to govern in every reciprocal case.

But, sir, notwithstanding the President is invested with the power "to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers," and, as I think, all other incidental or consequential powers applicable to the various agencies with such Ambassadors and other public Ministers, yet Congress is invested with the power, without limitation or qualification, "to declare war." Now, sir, it must be obvious to every understanding, that these several powers are so intimately connected, and may be so dependent upon each other, that the exercise of the power conceded to the President may consequentially involve the necessity of the exercise of the power conceded to Congress, as in the case now under consideration. The refusal of the Executive to receive any further communications from His Britannic Majesty's Minister, (Mr. Jackson,) may consequentially involve us in war with Great Britain; or, in other words, may serve as a pretext for Great Britain to make war upon us, if she should conceive it her interest to do so, which I think not very improbable. Hence arises, in my judgment, the propriety and urgency of expression of the Congressional opinion upon this Executive act, and a declaration of the Congressional will as to the course of conduct Congress will pursue under any consequences which may flow from, or possibly be attributed to, this Executive act.

I conceive, sir, that the expression of this opinion, and the pledge of a solemn declaration, by Congress, are due to the people, because the people have the greatest interest in the character of their Government; and in no part of its attributes have a deeper interest than in its efficacy to resist and impel injuries and insults from foreign Governments. The people, also, are the mediate or immediate electors of Congress, and as such have a right to expect and demand that Congress will execute all their duties, and will never shrink from their constitutional responsibility in any case; and, last of all, in a case of so high and solemn a character as the one under consideration.

This course of conduct is essentially due to the Executive. The President ought to know whether, with the indispensable co-operation of Congress, he ought to proceed with dignified moderation and intelligence to assert and maintain the rights, the honor, and the interests, of the American people; or whether, for the want of that co-operation, he shall with shame and confusion of face be compelled to retrace his steps, and leave to Congress to abandon these high attributes of the nation, and, with their degradation, to record their country's ruin and disgrace. No, sir, it is not possible that an American Congress does exist, or can ever exist, that would not spurn from themselves every vestige of an idea that they could be brought, under any circumstances, to perform so degrading and dishonorable a task. It is imperiously demanded by the dignity and candor of Congress itself. What, sir, shall the exercise of one of the highest constitutional functions of Congress be brought into question, and every individual in the nation engaged in expressing an opinion on it; and shall Congress alone stand aloof, for fear of incurring a responsibility imposed on them by the constitution? Shall Congress stand by as idle spectators, and see a contest before the people, between the President and a foreign Minister, and feel no interest and take no share in such an unprecedented scene,[Pg 171] especially when one of their highest constitutional functions may be affected by it! No, sir. Congress must speak—Congress must act. Congress never can shrink from its constitutional responsibility. It is due to the dignity—it is demanded from the candor—of Congress.

Above all, sir, it is important to the United States as a nation, that the Congressional will should be proclaimed upon this delicate and solemn occasion. It is of importance, it may be of the last importance, to the United States, that Great Britain should know, before she decides upon this subject, what is the Congressional will in relation to it. Whether she will be called upon to act against an united, harmonized Government and people—or whether she shall have for her prey, a divided people and a discordant Government.

Do you believe, Mr. President, that the conduct of Great Britain would be very different under these different conditions of the people and Government of the United States? Let me ask you this question, sir: would you not, sir, if you were Prime Minister of Great Britain, consulting her interest alone, pursue a very different course of conduct under this different state of things? Let every gentleman put the question to himself; and the answer of every one would be the same. Why then, sir, do we not unanimously take the ground here which, if we were called upon to act in an opposite hostile character, would most certainly deter us from persevering in that hostile character against the United States? Sir, if there had been any doubt upon this subject, our late experience ought to have removed it; for, sir, I have no hesitation in saying, and with pain at heart I shall be compelled to show it in the course of this debate, that, in my judgment, our present embarrassments are too much to be ascribed to our former manifestations of indecision, to our unfortunate dissensions and divisions. Sir, whenever I approach this sorrowful and awful subject, my heart feels as if it were bleeding at every pore, when I am compelled to reflect, and to believe, that this our beloved and happy country may shortly become a bleeding victim, from wounds—if not inflicted by the hands of her own sons, at least by their unhappy divisions and dissensions. Yes, sir, with a full knowledge of what is past, and strong presages of what is to come, is it not deplorable to be compelled to think, that, in a very few months, perhaps in a still shorter time, American blood must be shed, to repel the hostile spirit of Great Britain, now rendered too manifest to every understanding; and worse than all, sir, to wash away the stains of our own unfortunate divisions and dissensions; and is it not wonderful, as it is deplorable, that the virtuous and patriotic American people, and sometimes called the most enlightened in the world, with the experience of the horrible consequences, through all ages, of the divisions of a people amongst themselves, should permit themselves from the same cause, to fall a prey to the same inevitable calamities?

Look, Mr. President, through all history, from the first dispute between Cain and Abel, down to the late disastrous dissensions between the Spanish branch of the Bourbon dynasty, and find if you can, sir, a single instance of a people who gained any advantage from dissensions among themselves, and especially, sir, when they carried them so far, as to join a foreign against their country's standard! I believe, sir, not one solitary instance of this kind stands recorded. Nor is it possible or practicable in any state of human affairs—because in all cases, the foreign interference in the internal concerns of its neighbors is always for its own and never for its neighbor's benefit. With these monitory lessons before our eyes, and a full conviction of their truth upon our hearts, is it not wonderful, that we should voluntarily give up ourselves victims to the same calamities? But, sir, gentlemen may ask, where is the remedy? How can we make a sacrifice of our own opinions? Sir, the case is a plain one. Let gentlemen exercise their opinions and persevere in their arguments at all times respecting our internal concerns, as well before as after the measures are adopted; let them, respecting our foreign relations, urge their arguments with a zeal proportioned to the magnitude of the subject; they will be pleasurably received, and respectfully considered; but after the Government has taken its attitude against a foreign nation, it would be going too far to desert its standard, and to join that of the enemy. It is then time for opinion to pause and reflect, whether any consequence can be worse, or more disgraceful, than joining a foreign against its country's standard? Whether it would not be better, more patriotic, more virtuous, to support your country even in a supposed unwise course of policy, than to join a foreign standard, and use it to correct and change the course of policy thus disapproved?

Sir, in a contest between your own and a foreign nation, it never can be wrong to join the standard of your own country; nor right to join the standard of your enemy. Then, sir, here is a rallying point. It is a plain and obvious one. No understanding can mistake it. No heart can disapprove it. It is our own Government. Let that be the rallying point. There never can be a more propitious moment than the present for casting into oblivion all former irritations and dissensions. There can never be a plainer case presented to the human understanding. There never were more urgent considerations in favor of the course recommended. Whether we respect their repulsive effects upon British hostility or their harmonizing effects among ourselves, they appear to me to be equally strong and persuasive. May I not then, sir, indulge the pleasing hope, that the resolution before you will be received as the signal of unanimity in Congress, and joyfully hailed in that character through the whole of this great and extended country? Sir, does it not manifest a strange perverseness in the human character, for us to observe that, when[Pg 172] it is perfectly at our option, we should choose to distress and injure ourselves by irritations and resentments, rather than delight ourselves with union and harmony and mutual good offices? Especially, sir, when the latter choice would command the respect, if not excite the alarm of our enemy. For, sir, do you believe that if Great Britain saw the strong arm of this nation stretched out to oppose her unjust spirit of hostility, guided in all its operations by one undivided will, she would so readily encounter its powerful influence, as if she saw it paralyzed in all its efforts from the want of a unity of will and action? No, sir, we undervalue our energies and importance, if we were to suppose that her conduct would be the same in both of these situations; or that she is at all indifferent to the course of conduct now to be pursued by us. Let us then all unite, sir, in this proposition, and disappoint her mistaken calculations upon her influence in this country. I verily believe, that union is all that is wanting to appease her hostile spirit towards us. But perhaps, sir, every gentleman present will admit, and it appears to me that no human being can deny, that if the facts stated in the resolution be supported by the correspondence upon which it is founded, that then every gentleman would readily assent to the resolution. But, sir, it is possible, although it appears to be scarcely possible, that some gentlemen may doubt whether the facts stated in the resolution be supported by the correspondence or not. This I admit is a fair though delicate inquiry, and I will therefore immediately proceed to the examination of that question—and I beg the most critical attention of the Senate in the course of the investigation.

I will now proceed, Mr. President, to inquire whether the facts stated in the resolution are supported by the correspondence upon which it is founded? In performing this task, I propose to read the whole of the correspondence which I conceive bears any material relation to the subject of the resolution, and no other; although the whole may not be entitled to, nor receive any animadversions from me, yet as my sole object is to get at the true exposition and meaning of the correspondence, if I should unfortunately omit, misconceive, or misinterpret any material part of it, I shall have the consolation to reflect, that, by presenting the whole, the means of my correction in either case will be presented to the Senate and the world, if the observations I propose now to make should ever find their way out of the walls of this Chamber. I shall also present this correspondence in its responsive order, which will be found to be indispensable to the due comprehension of some of its most essential parts.

Permit me, then, sir, to call your attention first to the letter of Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith, dated the 11th October, 1809, pages 32, 33, of the printed documents. For, sir, although this letter is not mentioned in the resolution, yet it furnishes the original offensive insinuations, and is referred to and reiterated in the letter of the 23d October, which is noticed in the resolution, and therefore the offensive expressions of the letter of the 11th are entitled to, and shall receive, the most accurate and critical attention and analysis.

Now, sir, after thus stripping this extraordinary sentence of all its disguises, and translating it into plain English, to what does it amount? Why, sir, certainly and unquestionably to this:—You, Mr. Smith, Secretary of State of the United States, have entered into an arrangement with my predecessor, Mr. Erskine, under such scandalous and dishonorable circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal of it; and you yourself were so well apprised of them, and so conscious of their inevitable operation, as even to think it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal. I defy gentlemen to give to this offensive paragraph any other fair and correct interpretation; and if this be the fair and correct one, can you conceive, sir, of an insult more outrageous and premeditated? And will you not be surprised, sir, to be told that the insult does not stop here; that, as offensive as it already appears, it does not stop here; that it is still further aggravated? Yes, sir, Mr. Jackson, not content with making this extraordinary and insolent communication in its ordinary form, underscores the words "could only," containing the point or gist of the insult, thus aggravating the act, either by the distrust thus manifested of Mr. Smith's mental perceptions; or by letting Mr. Smith know, that the insult was known to, and intentionally given by Mr. Jackson; for the underscoring could not have had any other object in view. In this impudent act of underscoring, Mr. Jackson reminds me, sir, of a set of miserable, conceited pretenders to wit, who, having great confidence in the acuteness of their own mental perceptions, and very little in that of their hearers, will kindly and compassionately explain the point of wit to their hearers, before they approach it in the recital of the story, to prepare and qualify the hearers' minds to join in the laugh intended to be produced by it. Yes, sir, this underscoring was as much as saying to Mr. Smith, I am afraid that I have so nicely wrapped this insult in the veil of mysteries and disguises, that it may escape observation from the obtuseness of your mental perception, but am determined it shall not. I have underscored it for you; you shall look at it; you shall know that I, Mr. Jackson, understand and mean it. I have wrapped it up in mystery and disguise to be sure, but I will rend the veil, I will make an eyelet hole for you, that you shall look through, and behold the insult in all its front of grossness and impudence.

But, sir, if Mr. Jackson had then known, as well as he now does, the dignified character, the high sensibility, and the correct intelligence of the Secretary of State, he would have found[Pg 173] it more honorable to himself to have spared his insult altogether, or at least might have spared himself the trouble of underscoring. Sir, I conceive this insult so gross and outrageous that I am surprised how the Executive Government could reconcile it to itself to proceed another step in the communications with Mr. Jackson. Certainly, sir, proceeding beyond this point manifests on the part of the Executive great moderation, great forbearance, and a condescension scarcely excusable; and, sir, I am perfectly sure, that nothing could have induced it to consider such gross intimations argumentatively, but the ardent and sincere desire which has invariably actuated the present, as well as the last, Administration to preserve peace and cultivate harmony and a good understanding with Great Britain. And, sir, we shall see, in the course of this investigation, how it has been requited for this, as well as for all former acts of moderation, forbearance, and condescension.

Let me now, sir, select out of the quotation another extraordinary expression, for a few animadversions, in the following words: "But the very act of substitution evidently shows that those original conditions were in fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you, of course, laid before the President for his consideration."

It is somewhat curious to observe what stress Mr. Jackson placed through the whole of his correspondence, upon what he is here pleased to term "the very act of substitution," and demonstrates to every impartial mind how slender are the pretexts with which Mr. Jackson is furnished, to apologize for, or rather to equivocate about the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement. Let me, therefore, inquire, in what this horrible act of substitution, as Mr. Jackson would make it appear, consists? Why, sir, simply in this: That the three inadmissible conditions mentioned in one of the despatches to Mr. Erskine, were verbally communicated to Mr. Smith, and insisted upon by Mr. Erskine, and that Mr. Smith, in rejecting those conditions verbally, and with great propriety and frankness, told Mr. Erskine what conditions he might obtain. Mr. Erskine, upon a review of all his letters of instructions, finding it impossible to obtain his, the three conditions first proposed, conceived himself fully empowered to propose those which possibly might have been intimated to him by Mr. Smith in conversation; and the arrangement was accordingly and promptly made between these two gentlemen on the part of their respective Governments. And now let me ask you, sir, what is there dishonorable, unfair, or even unusual in this proceeding, which is the whole amount of Mr. Jackson's "very act of substitution." Sir, it is very easy to see, that Mr. Jackson keeps his ingenuity constantly upon the stretch respecting this very act of substitution, evidently with a view of producing an impression by the insinuation, that the Executive Government of the United States had more than its share in that arrangement, and, in fact, was concerned in a dishonorable and scandalous combination with his predecessor, Mr. Erskine, for the purpose of producing the arrangement. Which insinuation, if true, must represent Mr. Erskine as a fool, a knave, or a traitor, or all three, and our Executive Government still further lost to every honorable sentiment, and utterly destitute of even the most ordinary understanding. An insinuation so insidious and affronting, cannot fail to excite the indignation and contempt of every patriotic heart in America. But, fortunately for the Executive Government, Mr. Erskine's previous explanation of this point to our Government strips the transaction of every shadow of a shade of a doubt, of which Mr. Jackson perhaps was not apprised at the time he was employed in devising the gross insinuation. Yes, sir, this was one miserable effort of Mr. Jackson to reproach our Executive Government for an act, for which it merited, and universally received, the sincere applause and grateful thanks of the American people. It restored the Executive, as it ought to have done, to universal confidence, and utterly rooted out every doubt of its sincerity in its diplomatic intercourse with Great Britain, under which some of our misled and mistaken citizens, for a while, unfortunately labored. For the moment terms were proposed on the part of Great Britain, which could, with honor or propriety, be accepted by the United States: they were frankly and promptly accepted by the Executive, regardless of all consequences from any other quarter. Sir, there is another part of this quotation which requires a few animadversions.

I allude, sir, to the first solemn declaration made to this Government by Mr. Jackson, respecting the despatch, in which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine. It is in the following words:

It is to be observed from this quotation, in the first place, sir, that Mr. Erskine explicitly disavows ever having shown the Executive Government the despatch containing the inadmissible conditions; and thus entirely exculpates it from the odious imputation attempted to be thrown on it by Mr. Jackson, and for this respectful forbearance to our Government, he is certainly entitled to the applause of his own. In the next place, Mr. Erskine explicitly states that the despatch in question contained but one part of his instructions, and that he thought that, from the spirit at least of his several letters of instructions, he was fully authorized to make the arrangement he had done. And I think there is very little doubt but he had—[Pg 174]that Mr. Erskine still thinks so, there can be no doubt—for he nowhere says he is now convinced that his powers were incompetent—he only says, that the disavowal by His Majesty is a painful proof to him, that he had formed an erroneous judgment of His Majesty's views and the intentions of his instructions. Whether or not he had formed an erroneous view of His Majesty's views, or the intention of his instructions, I imagine, will depend very much upon the point of time to which the judgment he had formed is referable. If it be referred to the time of Mr. Oakley's mission, I am inclined to think he had neither formed an erroneous judgment of His Majesty's views, nor the intentions of his instructions; but, if he refers to the time of the disavowal, then I think it pretty certain, he had formed an erroneous judgment of both—for I have no doubt but His Majesty's views at least had completely changed between these two periods of time, and the real cause of this change, and of the disavowal itself, is to be looked for in the occurrences which took place, both in Europe and in the United States, during that interval. No, sir, the want of powers on the part of Mr. Erskine is not the true cause of the disavowal. I will now venture to conjecture the true cause, and, if it be the right one, the case will be a plain one, and all equivocations in the explanations rendered unnecessary. To do this, sir, I must call your attention to the state of events in Europe and in the United States, at these different periods of time. Mr. Oakley's mission was immediately after the British Government was apprised of the precipitate retreat of Sir John Moore's army from Spain, and the fortune escape of the remains of it from Corunna. The affairs of Spain, which had before excited such high expectations in the British Cabinet, were given up as hopeless, &c. Contemporaneously with a knowledge of these events, the British Government was also informed of the measures of resistance against her outrageous aggressions, contemplated by Congress; which she then believed would certainly be carried into effect, &c. Such was the state of things at the time of sending the despatches by Mr. Oakley. At the time of the disavowal, a new coalition had been formed, Austria had boldly entered into the war against France, and the Spaniards had been animated into further efforts at resistance, which excited new hopes of success, &c.

In this country, too, sir—it pains my heart to be compelled to recite the circumstances—our contemplated measures of resistance had been relaxed, and the whole country exhibited such scenes of divisions and disaffections as paralyzed in some degree the movements of the Government. I wish, sir, I could throw a shade of oblivion over these unfortunate scenes, or recollect them only as they furnish the strongest argument. Indeed, sir, they point with an infallible index to the course it now becomes us to pursue. Yes, sir, it is to these changes in the state of things, you are to look for the real causes of the disavowal, and not to the want of competent instructions on the part of Mr. Erskine; and it would have been more dignified on the part of the British Government to have told us so at once. She would then have said to us, the state of things is changed; at the time of giving the instructions, I was depressed from a combination of untoward events; I am now flushed with new hopes of elevation and of triumph. Besides, you have convinced me that you are untrue to yourselves—that you will shrink from the assertion and support of your own rights—if you will not, I am not bound to respect them, &c. I was then down, I am now up, and therefore I cannot grant you, in a spirit of triumph, what I solemnly promised in a spirit of despondency—I now find this the most favorable moment for establishing my favorite doctrine of the despotism of the ocean; and I cannot, and will not deprive myself of the advantage merely to avoid the imputation of bad faith. Yes, sir, this would have been a much more correct and dignified course on the part of Great Britain than the miserable effort made by Mr. Canning in devising an ingenious mental retort, for converting the bad faith of his own Government, in the disavowal of the arrangement, into a reproach upon ours, for the circumstances under which that arrangement was pretended to have been made. It is true, sir, that in the one case there would have been an admission of mala fides, which is basely attempted to be avoided by a miserable subterfuge in the other; but, then the British Cabinet would have had the consolation of having told the truth, taken the responsibility upon themselves and set us at defiance; and we should have been left to our own remedy, with a perfect understanding of the case. She would, also, have had the plea of necessity, the old-fashioned plea of tyrants, and, indeed, of everybody else, who has no better; but this is not Mr. Canning's mode of doing business; he chooses to act by tricks and contrivances; and, in the case of the disavowal, by a mental retort, flowing solely from his own visionary mental conceits, without a fact or pretext for its support.

Mr. President, I am told that Mr. Canning is a professed punster. But, sir, I would not condescend to make the observation here, had he not, after heaping upon us, during the whole of his administration, every injury and insult in his power, at the close of it placed us in a ludicrous situation by imposing on us an obligation, in a grave and serious concern to the nation, of expounding his equivoques, and unriddling his riddles. I really feel some condescension in being compelled, in my place, to hunt out for his and Mr. Jackson's meaning, through a transition of sentences, a collocation of words, and a shifting of verbiage. And indulge me, sir, with remarking, that I conceive the situation of a nation never can be more disastrous, calamitous, and lamentable, than when its great and serious affairs are placed in[Pg 175] the hands of a parcel of punsters. For, sir, men of minds of that description are too much employed in the pleasing amusement of looking out for coruscations of wit and sentiment, to have any leisure for the more dull and unpleasurable business of observing and marking the great occurrences in human affairs, and of devising means of giving them a direction favorable to their own views, or to their country's interests. No, sir, this is too dull and plodding a pursuit for men of such light, flitting, brilliant imaginations, and if ever they unfortunately undertake it, they soon find the woful misapplication of talents. If, sir, any illustration were wanting of the correctness of these observations, it could nowhere be found better than in an attentive review of the historical events which occurred during the late British administration—the administration of the energetic, the brilliant, the sarcastic, the facetious, the joking Mr. Canning. He has carried his joking propensities far indeed. It may be truly said he jests at scars indeed—at scars of the blackest disgrace and ruin inflicted upon his bleeding country—upon a great nation, which probably would have received, and certainly merited, a better fate, if it had fortunately placed its destinies in better hands. Sir, it appears to me, that all the military enterprises during his whole administration, from the abominable attack on Copenhagen, down to the last expedition against the islands of Zealand, were nothing more than belligerent puns and conundrums. It has been constantly announced that some grand, secret expedition was on hand, and each succeeding one grander than the preceding, until the last expedition to Walcheren, which was the grandest of all; and, when the secret really came out, it appeared either that the object was abominable or contemptible, and the means of executing even the contemptible object, upon experiment, were generally found incompetent. Yes, sir, probably these enterprises have cost the British nation the lives of fifty thousand brave officers and soldiers, and I will not undertake to count the millions of dollars. Sir, the same little-minded course of policy has also been uniformly manifested during the same time against the United States; and in no respect more than in the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement—in avoiding to avow the real motives for it—and in the uncandid attempt to convert the bad faith of the British Government into a reproach upon our own; and this was to be done by an ingenious mental device, prettily conceived by Mr. Canning, and adroitly executed by Mr. Jackson, who, if not equal to Mr. Canning in the mysterious art of punning, I think can be very little way behind his prototype in the art of equivoques. Sir, the disavowal, in my judgment, was not for the want of competent powers. Too great a share of the real cause of the disavowal, unfortunately, is attributable to ourselves, and now is the moment to relieve ourselves from the imputation.

Sir, it is painful for me to be so often compelled to question the candor of any gentleman, particularly one clothed with the high functions of Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty; but permit me to ask you, sir, how it is possible for Mr. Jackson not to conceive that offence would be taken at his offensive insinuations after Mr. Smith's letter of the 1st of November, telling him in strong and decisive terms that offence had been taken at them? or how can Mr. Jackson reconcile it to himself to say that in adhering to these gross insinuations, he did not intend to give offence? Let me ask you, sir, what else he did, or could intend? For my part, I can see nothing else that he could either rationally intend or expect. Here then, sir, is another false or fallacious disguise thrown out before the people of the United States, as will always be the case in every appeal to them, calculated, or evidently intended, to excite their resentments and distrusts against their own Government.

Now, sir, upon the most critical review of this exposition, is there a single gentleman present, who is not prepared to say, that the facts stated in the resolution are fully justified by the correspondence? And if they be, sir, what inducement can possibly prevent unanimity on the present occasion? Surely those, who wish peace with Great Britain, will find unanimity upon this occasion the most likely to deter from war; and surely, sir, every gentleman must feel and see that the declarations contained in the resolution are imperiously due to the dignity and honor of our own Government, as well as to our respect for the people and ourselves. Sir, what would be the effect of passing by unnoticed these gross and insidious insults to both the people and Government? Why, sir, foreign Ministers would begin to conceive, that an appeal to the people was amongst the most sacred of their privileges and immunities. The frequency of them already is almost sufficient to establish and sanctify the rule. The cases of Genet, Yrujo, the publication of Mr. Canning's letter in one of the Boston newspapers, &c., never received sufficient animadversions from Congress; and if this most aggravated case of all should pass over unnoticed, I should not be surprised to see Mr. Jackson during the present winter set himself up as a British President in New York, contesting the point of jurisdiction before the people, with the American President at Washington; whilst Congress, regardless of their own constitutional powers, &c., should stand by and behold the extraordinary scene in a state of perfect neutrality. Sir, is it possible that Congress can so far forget their duties to the people and their respect for themselves? Independently of the obvious propriety of this proceeding in itself, have we, sir, no examples of the course of conduct recommended by the resolution? Let me remind you, sir, of the case of Count De Palm in the British Parliament. In that case, sir, the Count De Palm presented a memorial to the British King by the express order of his Government, complaining of the mis[Pg 176]representation of facts made in the King's speech to Parliament, which complaint the British historians admit was well founded. After presenting the memorial, he caused it to be published and circulated through the country, etc. What, sir, was the conduct of the British Parliament and nation upon that occasion? Sir, the Parliament unanimously entered into resolutions expressing the highest indignation at the insolent procedure; and presented an address to His Majesty requesting him to order the Count De Palm out of the country immediately. Sir, I will not trouble the Senate with reading the proceedings of the House of Commons upon this memorable occasion; because I presented them to the Senate last winter in the case of the publication of Mr. Canning's letter in the Boston paper, and I, therefore, presume they are now fresh in the recollection of every gentleman. And what, sir, was the conduct of the opposition in the British House of Commons, when their King and country were insulted by a foreign Minister? Did they hold back, did they attempt to paralyze the proceedings of their Government in resenting this conduct and retrieving its wounded honor and dignity? No, sir, they were Englishmen, and felt the indignity to themselves! They were patriots, and could not see their Government and nation insulted with indifference! They stepped forward, sir, and were the first to move the resolution and address. The proceeding was unanimous; and what benefit did the British nation receive from this unanimous and prompt proceeding? Why, sir, from the year 1726 to the present time, the insult has not, I believe, been repeated, and probably never will again.

Sir, how honorable, how patriotic, was this course of conduct to the British opposition! How honorable and laudable would be its imitation here! Especially, sir, when union is all that is wanting to make us happy and victorious. Why then, sir, should we not have union, when it is so easy and efficacious a remedy for all our difficulties? Sir, the nation expects it; the nation has a right to demand it. May I not then hope, sir, that the hitherto dominant spirit of party will now yield to an occasion, so obvious, so urgent, so honorable! Sir, I cannot express to you the pleasure I should feel at my heart, if I could see all irritations banished, and harmony and mutual good will universally pervading all political scenes and all social intercourse. That the present occasion may be improved to this desirable end, is the most fervent prayer of one, who, in the present delicate, interesting crisis of the nation, feels a devotion for his country beyond every thing else on this side of Heaven!

After Mr. Giles concluded, the question was taken on the passage of the resolution to a third reading. There were twenty-four members present, besides the President pro tem.; of whom twenty voted in favor of it. It was ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.

Monday, December 11.

Mr. Gilman, from the committee, reported the resolution relating to the official correspondence between the Secretary of State and Francis J. Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, correctly engrossed; and the resolution was read the third time.

On the question, Shall this resolution pass? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 20, nays 4, as follows:

Monday, December 18.

John Smith, from the State of New York, attended.

Thursday, December 21.

Joseph Anderson, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

Tuesday, December 26.

Jesse Franklin, from the State of North Carolina, attended.

Thursday, December 28.

Charles Tait, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Georgia, in the place of John Milledge, resigned, produced his credentials; which were read, and, the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

Tuesday, January 2, 1810.

James A. Bayard, from the State of Delaware, attended.

Thursday, January 4.

Jenkin Whiteside, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

Friday, January 12.

Alexander Campbell, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Ohio, in place of Edward Tiffin, resigned; and Christopher G. Champlin, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Rhode Island, in the place of Francis Malbone, deceased; severally produced their credentials, which were read. And the oath prescribed by law having been administered to them, they took their seats in the Senate.

Tuesday, January 23.

Naval Armament.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill authorizing the fitting out, officering, and manning, the frigates belonging to the United States.

[Pg 177]

Thursday, February 1.

The President communicated a letter from the Governor of the State of Kentucky, enclosing a certificate of the appointment of Henry Clay a Senator of the United States, in place of Buckner Thruston, resigned. And the certificate was read, and ordered to lie on file.

Monday, February 5.

Henry Clay, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, in the place of Buckner Thruston, attended, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

Thursday, February 22.

Non-Intercourse.

Mr. Gilman, from the committee, reported the amendments to the bill, entitled "An act respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes," correctly engrossed; and the bill was read the third time as amended.

Mr. Clay.—Mr. President: At all times embarrassed when I have ventured to address you, it is with peculiar diffidence I rise on this occasion. The profound respect I have been taught to entertain for this body, my conscious inadequacy to discuss, as it deserves, the question before you, the magnitude of that question, and the recent seat I have taken in this House, are too well calculated to appall, and would impel me to silence if any other member would assume the task I propose attempting. But, sir, when the regular troops of this House, disciplined as they are in the great affairs of this nation, are inactive at their posts, it becomes the duty of its raw militia, however lately enlisted, to step forth in defence of the honor and independence of the country.

I voted yesterday against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, because, while that vote did not pledge me for the ultimate passage of the bill, it would have allowed me to give it my support if no better proposition was tendered. I do not like the bill as sent from the House of Representatives. It was a crazy vessel, shattered and leaky; but it afforded some shelter, bad as it was. It was opposition to the aggressive edicts of the belligerents. Taken from us without a substitute, we are left defenceless, naked, and exposed to all the rage and violence of the storm.

Sir, have we not been for years contending against the tyranny of the ocean? Has not Congress solemnly pledged itself to the world not to surrender our rights? And has not the nation at large in all its capacities of meetings of the people, State, and General Government, resolved to maintain at all hazards our maritime independence? Your whole circle of commercial restrictions, including the non-importation, embargo, and non-intercourse acts, had in view an opposition to the offensive measures of the belligerents, so justly complained of by us. They presented resistance—the peaceful resistance of the law. When this is abandoned without effect, I am for resistance by the sword.

No man in the nation wants peace more than I; but I prefer the troubled ocean of war, demanded by the honor and independence of the country, with all its calamities and desolation, to the tranquil and putrescent pool of ignominious peace. If we can accommodate our differences with one of the belligerents only, I should prefer that one to be Britain; but if with neither, and we are forced into a selection of our enemy, then am I for war with Britain, because I believe her prior in aggression, and her injuries and insults to us were atrocious in character. I shall not attempt to exhibit an account between the belligerents of mercantile spoliations inflicted and menaced. On that point we have just cause of war with both. Britain stands pre-eminent in her outrage on us, by her violation of the sacred personal rights of American freemen, in the arbitrary and lawless imprisonment of our seamen, the attack on the Chesapeake—the murder, sir. I will not dwell on the long catalogue of our wrongs and disgrace, which has been repeated until the sensibility of the nation is benumbed by the dishonorable detail.

But we are asked for the means of carrying on the war, and those who oppose it triumphantly appeal to the vacant vaults of the Treasury. With the unimpaired credit of the Government invigorated by a faithful observance of public engagements, and a rapid extinction of the debt of the land, with the boundless territories in the west presenting a safe pledge for reimbursement of loans to any extent, is it not astonishing that despondency itself should disparage the resources of this country? You have, sir, I am credibly informed, in the city and vicinity of New Orleans alone, public property sufficient to extinguish the celebrated deficit in the Secretary's report. And are we to regard as nothing the patriotic offer so often made by the States, to spend their last cent, and risk their last drop of blood, in the preservation of our neutral privileges? Or, are we to be governed by the low, grovelling parsimony of the counting room, and to cast up the actual pence in the drawer before we assert our inestimable rights?

It is said, however, that no object is attainable by war with Great Britain. In its fortunes, we are to estimate not only the benefit to be derived to ourselves, but the injury to be done the enemy. The conquest of Canada is in your power. I trust I shall not be deemed presumptuous when I state that I verily believe that the militia of Kentucky are alone competent to place Montreal and Upper Canada at your feet. Is it nothing to the British nation; is it nothing to the pride of her Monarch, to have the last of the immense North American possessions held by him in the commencement of his reign wrested from his dominion? Is it nothing to us to extinguish the torch that lights[Pg 178] up savage warfare? Is it nothing to acquire the entire fur trade connected with that country, and to destroy the temptation and the opportunity of violating your revenue and other laws?

War with Great Britain will deprive her of those supplies of raw materials and provisions which she now obtains from this country. It is alleged that the non-intercourse law, constantly evaded, is incapable of execution. War will be a non-intercourse, admitting of but partial elusion. The pressure upon her, contemplated by your restrictive laws, will then be completely realized. She will not have the game, as she will if you press this bill without an efficient system, entirely in her own hands. The enterprise and valor of our maritime brethren will participate in the spoils of capture.

Another effect of war will be, the reproduction and cherishing of a commercial spirit amongst us. Is there no danger that we shall become enervated by the spirit of avarice, unfortunately so predominant? I do not wish to see that diffusive military character, which, pervading the whole nation, might possibly eventuate in the aggrandizement of some ambitious chief, by prostrating the liberties of the country. But a certain portion of military ardor (and that is what I desire) is essential to the protection of the country. The withered arm and wrinkled brow of the illustrious founders of our freedom are melancholy indications that they will shortly be removed from us. Their deeds of glory and renown will then be felt only through the cold medium of the historic page. We shall want the presence and living example of a new race of heroes to supply their places, and to animate us to preserve inviolate what they achieved. Am I counting too much on the valor of my countrymen, when I indulge the hope, that, if we are forced into war, the American hero now lives, who, upon the walls of Quebec, imitating his glorious example, will avenge the fall of the immortal Montgomery? But we shall, at least, gain the approbation of our own hearts. If we surrender without a struggle to maintain our rights, we forfeit the respect of the world, and (what is worse) of ourselves.

We are often reminded that the British navy constitutes the only barrier between us and universal dominion. When resistance to Britain is submission to France, I protest against the castigation of our colonial infancy being applied in the independent manhood of America. I am willing, sir, to dispense with the parental tenderness of the British navy. I cannot subscribe to British slavery upon the water, that we may escape French subjugation on land. I should feel myself humbled, as an American citizen, if we had to depend upon any foreign power to uphold our independence; and I am persuaded that our own resources, properly directed, are fully adequate to our defence. I am therefore for resisting oppression, by whomsoever attempted against us, whether maritime or territorial.

Considering then that the bill as amended in this House, in furnishing no substitute for the law of non-intercourse, which it repeals, nor the proposition of the other House, intended to take its place, is a total dereliction of all opposition to the edicts of the belligerents, I cannot vote for it in its present form. I move a recommitment of the bill to supply this defect. What ought to be the substitute, I confess I have not satisfied myself—not expecting that it would fall to my lot to make you this motion. The committee, however, can deliberate upon the subject, and propose one. I would suggest two for consideration—either a total non-importation, which our laws can doubtless enforce, or to arm our merchantmen, and authorize convoys. A day may be fixed, allowing sufficient time for the last effort of the negotiation. That failing, our merchants then to be permitted to arm, and to receive all the protection by convoys which the public vessels can give. This latter measure may lead to war, but it is not war. Our neutral rights are violated by the belligerents. Each places our commerce under restrictions, not warranted by the law of nations. We must then submit, or protect it. Whilst we confine ourselves within the pale of that law, neither has a right to complain. When so armed, and pursuing our lawful destination, let those who attempt to molest us take to themselves the consequences of their own violations. On our part, a war thus produced will be a war of defence.

But, Mr. President, if, after all our deliberation, it shall be deemed unwise to adopt either of these expedients, perhaps some other unexceptionable course may occur. I insist that you do not return the bill to the other branch of the Legislature in its present form. They have sent you a measure, I acknowledge, weak; it is, however, not submission. It professes to oppose (in form, at least) the injustice of foreign Governments. What are you about to do—to breathe vigor and energy into the bill? No, sir; you have eradicated all its vitality, and are about to transmit back again the lifeless skeleton. I entreat the Senate to recollect the high ground they occupy with the nation. I call upon the members of this House to maintain its character for vigor. I beseech them not to forfeit the esteem of the country. Will you set the base example to the other House of an ignominious surrender of our rights, after they have been reproached with imbecility, and you extolled for your energy? But, sir, if we could be so forgetful of ourselves, I trust we shall spare you the disgrace of signing with those hands, so instrumental in the Revolution, a bill abandoning some of the most precious rights which it then secured.

The motion of Mr. Clay to recommit the bill, for the purpose of amendment, was determined in the negative—yeas 13, nays 20, as follows:

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 26, nays 7, as follows;

So it was resolved that this bill pass with amendments.

On motion, by Mr. Smith of Maryland, it was agreed that the title of the bill be amended, to read as follows: "An act to interdict the public ships and vessels of France and Great Britain from the ports and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes."

Wednesday, February 28.

The Vice President being absent, the Senate proceded to the election of a President pro tempore, as the constitution provides, and the honorable John Gaillard was appointed.

Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United States, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the Vice President, elected the Honorable John Gaillard President of the Senate pro tempore.

Tuesday, March 6.

Non-Intercourse.

The Senate resumed the resolution of the House of Representatives disagreeing to their amendments to the bill, entitled "An act respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes."

The question pending, when the Senate adjourned yesterday, was on adherence to their amendments to the bill.

Mr. Anderson observed that, when he had made the motion yesterday to adhere, he had done it under the impression that it was proper to bring the subject to a conclusion, and because he believed the interest of the country required that it should be finally acted on. He said he was still impressed with that idea; but, paying a deference to the opinion of his friends, desiring also to treat the House of Representatives with the respect due to that body, and because it was more conformable to the rules of proceeding generally observed, he withdrew the motion to adhere, and moved to insist on the amendments. He said he should, by parliamentary practice, have been fully justified in the motion to adhere before insisting. But it was proper that the two Houses of Congress should be courteous in their conduct to one another, and the state of affairs at present peculiarly required it; he therefore varied his motion. The question was then taken to insist, and carried without a division.

Mr. Anderson then moved to appoint a committee of conference, to confer on the subject with such committee as should be appointed by the House of Representatives.—Agreed to.

Messrs. Anderson, Leib, and Smith of Maryland, were accordingly appointed on the part of the Senate.

Thursday, March 8.

Demands upon Great Britain—Reprisal.

Mr. Leib submitted the following resolutions:

Monday, March 12.

Withdrawal of Resolutions.

Mr. Leib, on request, had leave to withdraw his resolutions submitted for consideration on the 8th inst.

Mr. Leib remarked that he had submitted the resolutions upon the table of the Senate under a conviction that the honor and interests of the nation required such a course of measures. He believed that it was time to have done with trifling, with a war of words, and with what had been termed gasconade; that the cup of expedients had been drained to the last dregs, and that a new mode of warfare became indispensable, to vindicate our honor and assert our rights. His impressions were, that a determined attitude alone could rescue us from the oppressor's wrong, awaken a sense of justice, or lead to that necessary alternative which an injured nation is sometimes obliged to resort to, to avoid greater calamity. He said that he was no friend to war—that peace was the first wish of his heart—but that he could not consent to preserve it by a prostitution of the attributes[Pg 180] of freemen. Insult, robbery, and murder, cried aloud for justice or for vengeance; and duty requires of him the aid of his feeble efforts to rescue the nation from degradation. He remarked, that the resolutions were directed against one of the belligerents only, and he would assign his reasons for the discrimination, and why he had selected Great Britain for their object. It had been admitted that we had a right to choose our enemy, and Great Britain was selected, because she was first in the career of maritime despotism, and had exercised it with unrelenting severity; because she stands alone in the impressment of our citizens, and dooms them to ignominious punishment, or compels them to fight her battles; because the national honor had been vitally wounded, in the attack upon our flag; and because she had heaped outrage upon aggression, and had imbrued her hands in the innocent blood of our citizens. Since the resolutions were offered, he further remarked, the aspect of things seemed to be somewhat varied, and a hope is entertained, from the advices received, that a change of attitude may be rendered unnecessary; and that, under present circumstances, such change is inexpedient, and may prove injurious. However skeptical he might be on this subject, he had no wish to embarrass the Administration in its negotiations; but, on the contrary, he wished to give full scope to any efforts for an amicable adjustment of our differences. He wished not to throw in a cloud to intercept that glimpse which was supposed to be breaking upon us. His enmities, he said, were national, and would cease with the cause of excitement. Under these impressions, and in deference to the judgment of political as well as personal friends, to whose opinions he was always ready to render a willing homage, he said that he would withdraw the resolutions, reserving to himself the right to renew them under other circumstances.

Monday, March 19.

Non-Intercourse.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the managers at the conference on their part, on the bill, entitled "An act respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and for other purposes."

On motion, by Mr. Clay, to postpone the further consideration thereof until to-morrow, it was determined in the negative. And the question recurring on the original motion—

Mr. S. Smith said: Mr. President, the question before the Senate is, to adhere to their amendments made to the bill "respecting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France."

It is with extreme reluctance that I rise on the present occasion. I feel, sensibly feel, the situation in which I place myself by opposing a measure countenanced by the vote in the other House, of almost all those with whom I have been accustomed to act, and by many in the Senate, for whose superior judgment and correct opinions I have ever had the highest respect. Finding, however, that I differed with those gentlemen, I took the bill to my lodgings, and considered it with a disposition to find in it something that should induce me to give up my own opinion to that expressed by the vote in the other House; but I looked in vain, and I found myself compelled to take the ground of opposition to the bill. In doing this, I must hope for the indulgence of those with whom I differ, and of the Senate, for detailing the reasons for the motion I made to amend the bill. To do this, it may not be unprofitable to take a review of the causes that led to the measures adopted by the United States, and the course taken by Congress to resist the injuries imposed upon us by Great Britain and France.

The insult offered to the honor of the nation in the affair of the Chesapeake, so far from being redressed, was heightened by a proclamation from the King of Great Britain, authorizing publicly, in the face of the world, the boarding of our merchant ships, and taking therefrom whomsoever their officers should call a British subject; to palliate this outrage on our independence, it was recommended to the boarding officer to execute this indignity with politeness. About the same time the Government was informed of the case of the Horizon, condemned under the Berlin decree, and that the Emperor had determined that that decree should embrace Americans as well as other neutrals. This determination was directly contrary to the assurance given General Armstrong, by the French Minister of Marine, as well as to the practice under the decree. This was the first intimation given to our Government that the Berlin decree would operate on the interest of the United States.

The President (as was his duty) laid both of those subjects before Congress in a Message, and it was well known at the same time, (although not officially,) that the British Order of Council of November had been issued.

What was then our situation with those nations? France had declared every American vessel that was bound to or from Great Britain, or having on board goods, the produce or manufacture of Great Britain, to be lawful prize. Great Britain declared that every American vessel bound to any port of Europe, should first come into her ports, there land her cargo, pay a transit duty, and depart (if they pleased) to their original port of destination; and any vessel failing to do so, should be liable to condemnation; that any American vessel having a certificate of origin on board, should be considered good prize. Thus situated, we had a choice of war or embargo. To make war on France would have been idle; we could inflict no wound on her by war, except that of withholding our supplies from her West and East India colonies, and this would as effectually be done by an em[Pg 181]bargo. In a war with England, we could inflict severe wounds on her immense commerce, and she is always vulnerable on the side of Canada. A more pacific system was however adopted—the embargo. Had that measure been rigidly enforced, it could not have failed to have compelled a removal of the unjust conduct of those nations, most certainly of that of Great Britain. The Senate, aware that a measure of that kind could not be enforced without a physical force, sensible that the prospect of profit would induce many to prevent its intended operations by evasions, did immediately pass a bill authorizing the President to fit out and put to sea all the armed vessels of the United States, for the purpose of preventing evasions of the law, to employ our seamen who were thrown idle, and to be prepared for events should a war ensue. The bill slept in the other House, and, by an ill-timed economy, was ultimately rejected, by which a free scope was given to evaders of the law, and the system (which was a wise one) was in some degree frustrated; yet it had an effect highly salutary on Great Britain, it compelled her to modify the Orders of Council of November, and no longer were our ships compelled to go into her ports, and there pay tribute; no longer were our vessels subjected to condemnation for having a certificate of origin on board. The embargo was severely felt by Great Britain while in force, every article which they had been accustomed to receive from us rose immediately in price, and I am confident that had it been continued and executed, full satisfaction would have been given by Britain for the various outrages which had been committed on our honor and independence. It was relinquished, and a non-intercourse was substituted as to both nations. This measure, although less strong, was such as would have been very severely felt by the British nation. It completely excluded the importation of her manufactures into the United States; it took from her a market for more than one-half of her manufactures; it turned idle a large number of workmen, and although it did not prevent her from getting our productions, yet she obtained them in such a way, that they cost her, in some instances, double their usual price. This new system was however checked in its course by the arrangement made with Great Britain through Mr. Erskine. Our ports were thrown open, and our vessels (then nearly all in our harbors) soon filled Great Britain with every thing she wanted at low prices; flour fell instantly in England to nine and a half and ten. dollars the barrel.

Great Britain, in lieu of the Orders of Council, excluded us from France and Holland, and their colonies, and from Italy, by a paper blockade; an iniquitous, illegal system, which she had adopted in 1793, and has either contracted or extended at her pleasure ever since. Our own law excluded us from France and Italy. This tended to give a direction to a great proportion of our trade to Great Britain, and thereby completely supplied her wants. On the disavowal of Mr. Erskine's arrangement, the non-intercourse was renewed, and a stop put to our exports to Great Britain; the consequence was, that flour rose immediately to fourteen and fifteen dollars in England; cotton, tobacco, and other articles, in a proportion still greater. I mention this to show, that whenever we stop our trade to Great Britain she feels it sensibly in the high prices she has to give for our exports, and thus to show the efficacy of the system that had been taken, if it had been duly executed. But in her exports Great Britain felt little, for our merchants had given their orders under the arrangement, and it would have been unjust to have prevented them from receiving the goods they had ordered; the non-importation part, which I conceive the most essential part of the non-intercourse, had in consequence been inoperative.

What, then, was our situation when Congress met? The French privateers were capturing our defenceless merchant ships, burning those of little value, and carrying into their ports for condemnation those which were valuable. Great Britain had, by a pretended blockade, excluded us from entering the ports of Holland, France, Italy, and their West and East India colonies. She had sent a Minister to succeed Mr. Erskine, who, so far from offering any explanations on the disavowal of the arrangement made with his predecessor, added insult to injury, and bearded us to our teeth; he gave us to understand that the terms proposed in the instructions to Mr. Erskine would be insisted on—terms that I am confident no citizen of the United States would accede to.

In this state of our foreign relations Congress met, the members brought with them the feelings of the people, who were all alive to the late indignity offered their Government, all expected that measures of energy would be pursued. This House felt and acted. Resolutions passed almost unanimously, expressive of their sense of the insult offered by the British Minister.

The Senate passed a bill ordering the whole of the vessels of war to be put in commission, (which bill sleeps still in the other House,) and were progressing in preparations for the defence of the honor and safety of the nation, when the bill now under consideration was reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations. It operated instantly like an electric shock, it paralyzed every effort, and gentlemen were astonished when they were told that this bill was the great measure that was to preserve our honor in the eyes of all the world; that it was the grand panacea which was to heal the wounds that had been inflicted on our rights by the belligerents. In fact, it was the only measure on which we were to rely for a redress of all our grievances.

Mr. President, I read this grand effort with attention. In vain did I look for something therein that would tend to obtain satisfaction[Pg 182] for the insult on the Chesapeake; in vain for any thing that would tend to prevent the future impressment of our seamen; in vain for any thing that would induce or coerce the belligerents to repeal their unjust orders and decrees against our lawful commerce. One great feature, and one only, was to be discovered, to wit: the repeal of the non-intercourse law—covered by a thin veil, composed, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) has said, of shreds and patches. Not so, Mr. President; if it had been patchwork alone, I should not have disturbed its arrangement. But I found in it, or believe I did, that which would be ruinous to the commerce of the United States, and therefore felt myself bound by the duty I owe to my constituents to remove the veil, and leave the measure open to public view; the Senate concurred with me in opinion, to wit: to strike out the injurious sections, to which opinion I shall vote to adhere.

I have been asked, shall Congress rise and do nothing? I answer, that it is better to do nothing than to do that which will only injure ourselves. But, sir, I wished to do something; I proposed, in select committee, to strike out those sections which would only do us injury, and then fill their place with sections (which I had draughted and presented for consideration) authorizing the arming of the merchant ships, not for defence alone, but with authority to capture and make prize of any vessel that might assail them while engaged in lawful commerce, and to employ the public ships of war in convoying the trade of the nation. I met with no support in this system; there were in committee four against my motion. Discouraged by so large a proportion voting against me, I neglected, or was deterred from making the same motion in Senate, and this error I regret, although I know not whether I should have been more successful in Senate than I had been in committee; but I should have been better pleased with my own conduct. I had, it is true, an expectation that, in a committee of conference between the two Houses, that something might be introduced that would please both branches of the Legislature; and I presumed that the convoy system would be substituted. I have been mistaken. The conferees met, and the committee of Senate submitted a section, "authorizing the President, under his instructions, made conformably to the laws of nations, to grant convoy to the merchant ships of the United States engaged in lawful commerce." That proposition spoke this language to the belligerents: The United States have taken every pacific means of obtaining justice from you without success. We will no longer deprive ourselves of commerce; we will open our trade, and we will defend it. We are ready to meet the consequences that may arise, and will stand prepared for war, if war shall ensue. This, Mr. President, appeared to your committee as a course that would be honorable to the nation. It was unanimously rejected by the committee on the part of the House, who, in turn, proposed that "British ships should be permitted to bring into the United States the produce and manufactures of that nation, but should not be permitted to carry from the United States any of the produce thereof," and the same as to France. This most extraordinary proposition was unanimously rejected by the conferees on the part of the Senate. Strip the proposition, and what language does it speak? That the British merchant may send into your ports his ships and fill your market with British goods, to the great injury of your infant manufactories; he may enter into competition with them and work their destruction. But he must not enter into competition with the merchants in the purchase of a return cargo, nor with the ship owners in the carrying of the produce of the country. No, sir, that was hallowed ground, and must not be trodden. The conferees of the two Houses could not agree, and the question now before the Senate is, to adhere to their amendments. For which I shall vote, although the bill will then not be such as I wish it had been. But, sir, it cannot in this stage be amended. I am aware that my vote will be disapproved by many of my friends. But, sir, I trust that time, and a further consideration of the subject, will convince them that my objections to the rejected sections have not been unfounded.

The question being then taken that the Senate adhere to their amendments, it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 17, nays 15, as follows:

Thursday, March 22.

National Bank.

Mr. Bayard, from the committee appointed on the subject the thirteenth instant, reported a bill making provision for the establishment of a National Bank; and the bill was read and passed to a second reading.

Wednesday, April 4.

Bank of the United States.

The President laid before the Senate the[Pg 183] following report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made in pursuance of the resolution of the Senate of the 2d instant:

Dividends on United States Bank Stock.

Statement of the capital of the several branches, and of the Bank of the United States, and of the amount of discounts by the last received returns.

Estimate of the expenses and losses of the Bank.

Tuesday, April 10.

The Mississippi River Pirate, Mason.

Mr. Clay presented the petition of Elisha Winters, stating that, in the years 1801, 1802, and 1803, the wilderness from Natchez to Kentucky, and the river Mississippi, was infested by a notorious gang of highway robbers, headed by a certain Samuel Mason, and that the petitioner was the means by which the said Mason was killed, two of his accomplices apprehended and executed, and the remainder of the banditti dispersed, and praying he may be allowed the reward offered for the apprehension of the said Mason by the President of the United States, or by the then Governor of the Mississippi Territory; and the petition was read, and referred to a select committee, to consider and report thereon; and Messrs. Clay, Whiteside, and Crawford, were appointed the committee.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill for the establishment of a Quartermaster's department; and it was agreed that the further consideration thereof be postponed until to-morrow.

Tuesday, April 17.

The Vice President being absent, the Senate proceeded to the election of a President pro tem., as the constitution provides; and the Hon. John Gaillard was elected.

Ordered, That the Secretary wait on the President of the United States, and acquaint him that the Senate have, in the absence of the Vice President, elected the Hon. John Gaillard, President of the Senate pro tempore.

Ordered, That the Secretary make a like communication to the House of Representatives.

Wednesday, April 18.

National Bank.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill making provision for the establishment of a National Bank.

On motion, by Mr. Hillhouse, to strike out the first section of the bill, the Senate was equally divided—yeas 15, nays 15, as follows:

So the question was lost.

Friday, April 20.

Territory of Orleans.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes; and on motion, by Mr. Clay, to amend the bill, by adding at the end of the third section the following words:

It was determined in the affirmative—yeas 17, nays 12, as follows:

Wednesday, April 25.

National Bank.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill making provision for the establishment of a National Bank. And on motion, by Mr. Bayard, that the further consideration thereof be postponed until the first Monday in December next, it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 17, nays 14, as follows:

Thursday, April 26.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill, entitled "An act providing for the sale of certain lands in the Indiana Territory, and for other purposes;" and having agreed to the amendments reported by the select committee, the President reported it to the House accordingly; and on the question, Shall this bill be read the third time, as amended? it was determined in the affirmative.

Mr. Gilman, from the committee, reported the bill allowing compensation to Robert Robinson correctly engrossed; and the bill was read the third time; and the blank having been filled with the words five hundred—

Resolved, That this bill pass, and that the title thereof be "An act allowing compensation to Robert Robinson."

The Senate resumed the motion made yesterday on the subject, which was amended and agreed to, as follows:

[Pg 185]

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to lay before the Senate a statement of all claims which have been adjusted and allowed at the Treasury Department, in virtue of the law entitled "An act providing for the settlement of the claims of persons, under particular circumstances, barred by the limitations heretofore established;" and also, a statement of the balances standing in the books of the Treasury against the United States, which are barred by the statute of limitations, together with his opinion whether the said statute can be modified or repealed, as to that or any other description of claims, without subjecting the Government to imposition.

Mr. Clay gave notice that to-morrow he should ask leave to bring in a bill, supplementary to an act, entitled "An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States."

The bill entitled "An act authorizing a loan of money, for a sum not exceeding the amount of the principal of the public debt reimbursable during the year one thousand eight hundred and ten," was read the second time, and referred to a select committee, to consist of five members, to consider and report thereon, and Messrs. Smith of Maryland, Crawford, Lloyd, Franklin, and Hillhouse, were appointed the committee.

Territory of Orleans.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes; together with the amendments reported thereto by the select committee. On motion, by Mr. Hillhouse, to add, at the end of the bill, the following words:

It was determined in the negative—yeas 8, nays 20, as follows:

And the report of the select committee having been agreed to, and the bill further amended, the President reported it to the House accordingly. On the question, Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time as amended? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 18, nays 9, as follows;

Monday, April 30.

Barred Claims.

The President communicated the report of the Secretary for the Department of the Treasury, made in pursuance of the resolution of the Senate of the 26th instant, on the subject of claims barred by the statute of limitations; and the report was read, as follows:

[Pg 186]

Tuesday, May 1.

Barred Claims.

Mr. Hillhouse, from the same committee, further reported as follows:

And the report was considered and agreed to.

Adjournment.

Mr. Crawford, from the joint committee, reported that they had waited on the President of the United States, who informed them that he had no further communication to make to the two Houses of Congress.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that the Senate, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn.

The Secretary having performed that duty, the President adjourned the Senate without delay.

[Pg 187]

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION.
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES
IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Monday, November 27, 1809.

This being the day appointed by law for the meeting of Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, and took their seats, to wit:

Adam Seybert, returned to serve as a member of this House, for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of Benjamin Say, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Jonathan Jennings, returned to serve as a Delegate from the Territory of Indiana, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being present, Mr. Goodwyn and Mr. Root were appointed a committee on the part of the House, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may be pleased to make to them.

Tuesday, November 28.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, John C. Chamberlain and James Wilson; from Rhode Island, Elisha R. Potter; from Pennsylvania, William Findlay and Daniel Heister; from Virginia, Matthew Clay and Jacob Swoope; and from North Carolina, John Stanley, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that a quorum of the Senate is assembled, and ready to proceed to business. They have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with the committee appointed on the part of this House, to inform the President that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make them.

The Speaker laid before the House a certificate of the election of Adam Seybert, to serve[Pg 188] as a member for the State of Pennsylvania, in the room of Benjamin Say, resigned; which was read, and, together with the certificate of the election of Jonathan Jennings, the delegate from the Territory of Indiana, referred to the Committee of Elections.

Wednesday, November 29.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, John Nicholson; from Maryland, John Brown; and from Virginia, Walter Jones, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Thursday, November 30.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, William Hale; from Massachusetts, Gideon Gardner and Ezekiel Whitman; and from New York, Vincent Matthews, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

The Speaker laid before the House the following letter, which was read:

[No order having been taken on it, the letter lies on the table of course.]

Friday, December 1.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, Edwin Gray; and from North Carolina, Meshack Franklin, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Navigation Laws.

Mr. Macon said he wished early to call the attention of the House to two motions, the object of which he deemed to be very important. The first of them had been formerly submitted to the House by a gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Early) but never acted on, and afterwards by a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. D. R. Williams;) the other had been presented by Mr. Macon himself at the last session, but at so late a period that it had not been acted on. It appeared to Mr. Macon that these motions combined with one submitted at different times by a gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Dana,) would form something like a system. The object of the first motion he was about to submit, was to prohibit any foreign vessel from coming from any port or place to which the vessels of the United States could not go. Gentlemen would at once observe that there were many places whence vessels came to this country, to which we cannot go, and would perceive the extent of the motion. The other motion related to sea-letter vessels only. Mr. Macon said he wished to put them out of the nation, and to have no vessels belonging to the United States which were not perfectly American. He would have our vessels wholly American, or they should not at all partake of the character of American vessels.

After declaring that he considered his motions as calculated for permanent regulations, Mr. Macon submitted the following resolutions:

Mr. Newton having seconded these motions, Mr. Macon moved to refer them to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

Mr. Dana observed that these resolutions had in view merely an investigation by the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures into the subject of them. On such a question it was but necessary to ask whether the subject be of itself interesting, and whether or not the proposition bears on the face of it so much of probability and propriety that there could be no objection to it on the score of its being utterly inadmissible. Unless, therefore, the propositions were utterly inadmissible, if they related to a subject interesting to the nation in time of peace as well as of war, if they had a connection with one great branch of national policy, there could be no objection to have them investigated by a committee. Without expressing any opinion on the first proposition, which embraced a variety of important considerations, Mr. D. said that the motions were recommended to the House by their being founded on permanent principles, to which the nation may adhere in every alternative; and in addition to the attention due to them because they were of a permanent character and not merely temporary expedients, they might contribute to some of those measures of temporary policy deemed proper, and without a possibility of thwarting, might perhaps aid any project the Government might adopt. As to the second resolution, that he considered important in another point of view,[Pg 189] as tending to encourage American manufactures. If there be any manufacture which requires great precision of science and experimental skill, any one which embraces more of the profound and elevated principles of science, and requires more dexterity in practical execution than any other, it is the constructing of ships. With these ideas, which Mr. Dana said were not applicable to the merits of the proposition, but to the question of reference, he should vote for referring them. He was extremely glad the motions had been brought forward, and particularly that they had been introduced by a gentleman so well qualified to sustain them, by his character and talents.

The motion for referring Mr. Macon's propositions was carried.

[The following gentlemen compose this committee: Messrs. Tallmadge, Clay, Butler, Rea of Pennsylvania, Weakley, Hale, Turner.]

7. Resolved, That so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the finances of the United States, be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

8. Resolved, That so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the fortifications of the ports and harbors of the United States, be referred to a select committee.

[This committee is composed of the following gentlemen: Messrs. Clopton, John Porter, Emott, McKim, Gardner, McBryde, and Witherspoon.]

Monday, December 4.

Several other members to wit: from Maryland, Alexander McKim; from North Carolina, Thomas Kenan; from South Carolina, Robert Witherspoon; from Kentucky, Henry Crist; and from Georgia, William W. Bibb, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Committee of Manufactures.

Mr. Sawyer asked leave to lay upon the table the following resolution, of a nature similar to one which he had proposed at the last session, which, from the shortness of the session, he presumed, rather than from any unfriendly disposition, never had been acted on:

Mr. S. said it was certainly too much to expect any one committee to do justice to two such important subjects, becoming daily more so, as those of commerce and manufactures. He wished to have employed on the subject of manufactures the undivided energies of the best talents of the House; he hoped that all the rays of patriotism and genius in the House would be directed to this subject as to a focal point at which they should all converge. How could one committee properly attend to the mass of business before the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures? The subject confided to them could not be acted on, and yet important matters were continually dropping into this gulf of oblivion. This committee, however, did all that could be expected of them; he did not believe that any member of it was hostile to manufactures; he could answer for the chairman, (Mr. Newton,) whom he knew to be friendly to manufactures, both from precept and example. It was because it was impossible for the committee to attend to all the business before it, that he offered the resolution.

Mr. S.'s motion lies on the table one day, of course, according to the rules of the House.

Violations of Neutral Rights.

Mr. Troup begged leave to submit to the consideration of the House several resolutions, which had for their object the vindication of the commercial rights of the United States against the belligerent nations of Europe. He submitted them at this time with less reluctance, because the introduction of them was in nowise inconsistent with the most friendly negotiation which might be pending with foreign Governments. It is high time, said Mr. T., in my opinion, that these commercial rights were either vindicated or abandoned. The remnant of commerce, which the joint operation of the belligerent decrees has left to us, is scarcely worth carrying on. To designate what this little is, would be no difficult matter, but it would be superfluous; every one who hears me understands it.

But, it would be well to inquire, on what principle the belligerents pretend to justify these commercial restrictions? The avowed principle is retaliation, but is it the true principle? Unquestionably not. And why? Because it is equally asserted by both belligerents. Both cannot be retaliators; one must be the aggressor, the other the retaliator. If this principle, then, be equally urged by both, who is to judge between them? If the alleged principle of retaliation be not the true one, what is? As respects France, the true principle of her decrees is to be sought in the policy of embarrassing England by excluding from the continent British merchandise; and as to Great Britain, the principle of her Orders in Council may be found in the consideration of her interest and her power. She avowedly contends that it is her interest to engross the commerce of the world; that she has the power to engross it, and, therefore, she will engross it.

But, what are the principles more specifically asserted by Great Britain? First, the right of blockade by proclamation; second, the right to turn your vessels into her ports to pay duty and take out a license. This right of blockading by proclamation is not a right growing out of a state of war; it is no belligerent right; it is a pretension, as applicable to a state of peace as to a state of war, and if we submit to it in a[Pg 190] state of war, we must submit to it in a state of peace. The only principle of blockade which we recognize is that which gives to belligerents a right to turn from ports so closely invested as to make the entry of them dangerous, and after due warning, vessels bound to them. But the right asserted by Great Britain to blockade by a piece of parchment or paper, issued from her Council Chamber, a port or ports, a kingdom or kingdoms, a continent or continents, is a right no more relative to a state of war than to a state of peace; and, if we submit to the pretension in a state of war, we must equally submit to it in a state of peace. It is founded on the most arbitrary tyranny, it goes to the annihilation of your commerce. As to the other right, of forcing our vessels into her ports, to pay duty and take out license, this is equally applicable to a state of peace as to a state of war. We acknowledge the right of Great Britain, or any other nation, to shut her ports against us, provided there be no treaty stipulation to the contrary. But the right of Great Britain or of France to shut the ports of any other nation against us is a right no more appertaining to a belligerent than to a neutral. If we submit to it in war, we must equally submit in peace; and this right, like the other, is founded in the most arbitrary tyranny. What right has Britain to tyrannize on the ocean, and prescribe limits to our trade? She will not permit to us a trade which she cannot herself enjoy; she prohibits to us a trade which our Government permits, because it is her interest to monopolize it. It is equally our interest to monopolize, and, therefore, if you please, sir, we will prohibit the trade which her Government permits, and which it is our interest to monopolize.

If Great Britain can rightly prohibit our trade, because it is her interest to prohibit it, have we not the right to prohibit her trade for the same reason? If she, with right and justice, can stop and seize, and confiscate our vessels because they attempt a trade which she forbids, and only because she forbids it, cannot our Government do the same in relation to her trade? If she can turn our vessels into her ports to pay duty and take out license, what prohibits us from doing the same as to her vessels? England is a nation, so are we. England is independent, so are we. What prohibits us from doing to England what England does to us? Unquestionably nothing. To say that we have no right to do to England what England does to us, is to acknowledge our own inferiority; it is to acknowledge that she may demand without limitation, and that we are under obligation to submit without limitation.

I am aware that it may be objected to the resolutions that the adoption of them would lead to hostility: but the same objection is equally applicable to any resolution which would go to the vindication of our commercial rights. They ought not to lead to hostility; they are merely retaliatory. They follow the spirit of the British Orders in Council and French decrees, and therefore cannot be complained of by either power. There is a great and profitable commerce, and rapidly increasing, passing not indeed before our doors, but near enough to make the capture of vessels engaged in it convenient to us, which the resolutions have chiefly in view. I allude to the Brazil and Spanish Main trade.

Is it not matter of surprise that a commerce so profitable, so extensive, and so convenient, should have been permitted to a Government which permits no commerce to us but what her convenience and her interest suggest? Is it not strange that we should have suffered that Government to participate in a commerce which both our interest and our convenience stimulate us to engross? But, above all, is it not inexplicable that we should passively have suffered the monopoly of it by her, when we ourselves were willing and able to engross it? The House will perceive, on the face of the resolutions, that, as they regard France, they are equivalent to a war measure—neither by a war measure, nor by that which I have the honor to submit, can we come in contact with France; she has no commerce on the ocean. In relation to England it is short, infinitely short, of war; because by war her Continental Colonies would fall; her West India Islands would be distressed, and our privateers would cut up her commerce; but the resolutions propose merely to retort the evils of her own injustice, to do to her what, and no more than what, she has done to us. Reserving for another occasion any further remarks, I beg leave to read the resolutions to the House.

Mr. T. then read the following resolutions:

The House having agreed to consider these resolutions—

On motion of Mr. Troup, they were ordered to lie on the table, as he stated, to give every member the same time to consider them as he had himself taken.

Tuesday, December 5.

Two other members, to wit, from Maryland, John Campbell; and from Georgia, Dennis Smelt, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Tuesday, December 7.

Another member, to wit, from New York, Uri Tracy, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Challenges, Duels, &c.

Mr. Bacon said he held in his hands three propositions which deemed it his duty to submit to the House. They were not for the regulation of the great concerns with foreign nations, but for the necessary object of regulating themselves. It would be seen that these resolutions had not grown out of any personal considerations, nor out of any particular case, but out of the serious evils to which the House had been exposed by the want of such regulations from the commencement of the Government. In 1796, the evil had risen to such a height that the House had unequivocally expressed its opinion on it.[10] Mr. B. said he felt it his duty to express his sense on the subject by laying the resolutions on the table, and more particularly as he understood that the subject was now agitated in the committee appointed to draught rules and orders for the government of the House. He would merely remark that the resolutions might not be correct in form, or they might be altogether erroneous in principle. He was not anxious as to the particular form; but he was decidedly in favor of the general object, and wished to take the sense of the House upon it. For himself he was well prepared to act on them; but for the convenience of others he wished them to lie on the table.

Ordered to lie on the table.

Friday, December 8.

Two other members, to wit: from Maryland, Philip B. Key, and from Virginia, Daniel Sheffey, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Monday, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, William Stedman and Edward St. Loe Livermore; from New York, Barent Gardenier; and from Pennsylvania, John Ross, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from Wilson C. Nicholas, resigning his seat as one of the members of the House, for the State of Virginia. The letter was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Batture at New Orleans.

A motion was made by Mr. Sheffey, that the House do come to the following resolutions:

The said resolutions were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

British Minister—Mr. Jackson's Circular.

Mr. Quincy observed that he perceived that in the letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney accompanying the Message from the President of the United States of the 29th November, 1809, an allusion was made to an important paper headed "Circular," which had not been communicated to Congress. He perceived, also, that by the resolution just received from the Senate, a specific declaration was required as to the contents of that very paper. It appeared to him extremely proper that the House should have that paper on its files, and within the reach of its members, before a declaration was made respecting it. Under this impression he offered the following resolution:

Mr. Dana observed that there was another document which it might be of some importance to have on the file of the House, and which it might be also necessary to consult—that was, the despatch from Mr. Canning, which it appeared was sent by Mr. Pinkney to the Secretary of State. He moved to add that paper to the resolution.

Mr. Quincy accepted the amendment as a part of his resolution.

Mr. Eppes asked for a division of the question. He said he was willing to call for any paper which was, or might be presumed to be in possession of the Department of State; but it could not be presumed that the circular of Mr. Jackson was in that office in any other form than that referred to in Mr. Smith's letter, viz: in a printed form. Certain it was that it could not be in the Department of State, because it was dated subsequently to the intimation that no further communication would be received from that source by the Secretary of State. The only reason, he presumed, why the other paper alluded to had not been communicated to Congress, was, that it was a printed paper, purporting to be a despatch from Mr. Canning. He had no further objection to the call for either of these papers, other than it was neither decorous nor proper to call upon the President for that which could not be officially in his possession.

Mr. Gardenier observed that, in addition to other forcible considerations, it would be treating the Executive rudely, when he had called their attention to a particular paper, to go to any other source to procure it; besides that, in the latter case, a spurious copy might be imposed upon the House. If the President referred to a certain document as justifying his conduct, by procuring that document the House would have the whole ground before it. What would be the situation of the House, if, pursuing the ideas of some gentlemen, every member was to bring forward a document which he believed to be the legitimate one, and all these copies should differ? Who was to decide which was the correct one? If the House were to act at all on this subject, it was not only respectful and just to the President, but extremely civil, to inquire of him on what ground he has acted. As a true American, and staunch republican, Mr. G. was desirous to give the President every opportunity of doing himself justice.

Mr. Quincy said that a copy of this circular having been forwarded to our Minister in England, a copy must remain on the files of the Secretary of State's office; and, therefore, he asked for it merely that the House might have on this occasion precisely that information which the Secretary of State had communicated to Mr. Pinkney.

The question was taken on the first part of the resolution, viz: on that part moved by Mr. Quincy, and finally carried—yeas 53, nays 52.

The question was then taken on Mr. Dana's amendment, viz: on that part calling for a copy of the paper purporting to be a despatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, and carried without opposition.

Mr. Whitman offered an amendment understood to be intended to embrace in the papers to be called for, the note from Mr. Erskine to Mr. Smith containing the "three conditions" which are admitted in Mr. Smith's letter of October 19, to have been submitted to him by Mr. Erskine.

On the suggestion of Mr. Quincy, this motion was declared to be out of order, as it was now too late to receive an amendment to the resolution, both clauses of it having been affirmed by the House.

The question was then put on the whole resolution, as amended, and the yeas and nays being demanded on its passage.

Mr. Rhea said he should vote against the resolution, as by passing it the House could add nothing to its stock of information, nor receive any official document; in both cases it could receive only a printed paper.

The question was then decided by yeas and nays, in the affirmative—yeas 69, nays 46.

[Pg 193]

Mr. Quincy and Mr. Dana were appointed a committee to present the foregoing resolution to the President of the United States.

Tuesday, December 12.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, Ebenezer Seaver, appeared, and took his seat.

Committee of Manufactures.

Mr. Sawyer called for the consideration of the motion submitted by him for appointing a separate Committee of Manufactures.

The House agreed to consider the resolution, ayes 68.

Mr. Seybert supported the motion on the ground of the propriety of paying a more particular attention to the subject of manufactures, which had lately become of great importance.

Mr. Newton opposed the motion as unnecessary, because the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures was competent to the performance of all the business assigned it, and had always manifested a disposition to foster the manufactures of the United States.

The question on the resolution was decided in the negative, 24 members only rising in the affirmative.

Friday, December 15.

Mr. Jackson's Circular.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States:

[The first paper enclosed was the "Independent American" of November 21, containing a copy of the "Circular." The second was a piece cut out of a London newspaper.]

The circular is as follows:

On motion of Mr. Quincy, these papers were ordered to be printed—for the motion 59, against it 40.

Monday, December 18.

Another member, to wit, from New York, Herman Knickerbacker, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Thursday, December 21.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the resolution from the Senate.

Mr. Emott concluded his speech against it, as given entire in preceding pages.

Mr. Gholson said, that notwithstanding much had already been said on the subject before the committee, he hoped he should be pardoned for occupying a small portion of their attention. The resolution before us seems to embrace several objects pre-eminently entitled to the dispassionate consideration of Congress; objects altogether unconnected with those factions and political dissensions which have unhappily too long prevailed among brethren of the same common family, and which may one day prove fatal to political liberty. The first question which presents itself in the investigation of this subject, involves on the one hand the veracity and dignity of the American Government, and, on the other, the character and reputation of a British Envoy, and, in some degree, of the British Ministry.

In my remarks on this subject, I consider it regular to commence with the origin of the mission from Great Britain to the United States; out of which has arisen the present unpropitious posture of the affairs between the two countries. What, sir, were the circumstances under which that mission was despatched here? In the[Pg 194] month of May last, it was known to the British Ministry that a commercial arrangement had been made by their Envoy resident here, (Mr. Erskine,) with the American Government, but under the allegation that it was made contrary to instructions, it was no sooner known than it, and the Minister making it, were disavowed. Mr. Jackson was then appointed to substitute Mr. Erskine, the disavowed agent, and at the time he (Mr. Jackson) was sent to this country, it was well known by the British Ministry that the Government of the United States stood solemnly pledged to the American people to maintain, and that they had inviolably and steadily adhered, to certain points and principles in our differences with England, a surrender of, or departure from which, would be a sacrifice of the honor and best interests of this nation.

Yes, sir, when they well knew that, in the affair of the Chesapeake, our Executive would not, and the voice of almost the whole nation had pronounced that he ought not to make the first advance to a reconciliation, Mr. Jackson was charged, not only to require the first advance from us, to wit: that in the document which should contain the adjustment of that affair, the revocation of the President's proclamation of 1807, interdicting the British armed ships from our own water, should be recited as an indispensable preliminary; but to require from us also the violation of the principles of our naturalization laws, by insisting on the surrender of foreigners who had become naturalized. As to the Orders in Council, we know not what specific propositions he was charged with in relation to them. As far as we are able to deduce any thing from facts before us, it must be understood that the British Government had determined to accept of no conditions for the repeal of the Orders in Council except such as had been previously declared on the part of the American Government to be inadmissible. Notwithstanding what has been said by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Emott,) I think it is easily to be demonstrated that the British Government did not intend to make any arrangement different from that contemplated by the celebrated instructions of the twenty-third of January, transmitted to Mr. Erskine. If the British Government, so recently as May last, disavowed an arrangement, and recalled its Minister, under an allegation that he violated his instructions, was it to be supposed that they would, in two or three months, so far change their policy as to authorize an arrangement on the same principles that they had just rejected? Certainly not, sir. It is evident that such an accommodation could not have been designed, because Mr. Canning says that such measures must be adopted as should secure the objects of the Orders in Council. That they did not by this mean the mere continuance of the non-intercourse law as to France, is manifest; for Mr. Canning says to Mr. Pinkney, that a repeal as to Great Britain, would be a repeal as to the whole world, unless the British Navy were to be permitted to enforce the law interdicting intercourse with France by the seizure of such vessels as should be found violating it.

These, sir, were the circumstances under which the mission commenced. What were those that characterized its progress and termination? I think it very easy to show that the conduct of the Minister himself, after he arrived, partook strictly of the same character as the conduct of the Ministry who sent him. I think I have shown that the disposition manifested by the Ministry in sending him here was insulting to this country. Let us next inquire into the character disclosed, and the conduct displayed by that Minister after his arrival. And, in this inquiry, without wading through all the documents, which gentlemen can as well understand by perusing them in their chambers as by hearing them read here, I will merely advert to the offensive expressions used by Mr. Jackson, and to the manner in which those expressions were met by the Secretary of State. By doing this, it will be very discernible, not only that the facts stated in the resolution are sustained by the correspondence, but that the resolution does not go so far as facts would warrant. In Mr. Jackson's letter of the 11th of October, he says, that the arrangement with Mr. Erskine was made under such circumstances as could only lead to a disavowal. If the circumstances were such as could only lead to a disavowal, they must have been dishonorable, and Mr. Jackson, by intimating that our Government had a knowledge of these circumstances, charges it with being particeps criminis. Can any thing be more palpable than this? He expresses this idea in still stronger terms when he intimates that Mr. Smith had a principal agency in the misconduct on this occasion. It certainly was not in Mr. Smith's power to substitute conditions for those which he declined accepting, but it must have been done by Mr. Erskine. But, notwithstanding this, he charges Mr. Smith, not only with conniving at a conduct improper in itself, because it could only lead to rejection of the arrangement growing out of it, but insinuates that he was the principal actor in the scene. In Mr. Smith's letter in answer to Mr. Jackson, the animadversions are too clear in their object to be mistaken. Mr. J. is informed of the displeasure of the American Government at such insinuations; and, in the very first letter which was written by the Secretary of State, he disclaims pointedly having had any knowledge whatever of the deficiency of Mr. Erskine's instructions at the time of making the arrangement. And what says Mr. Jackson in reply? He says again, that Mr. Erskine's instructions were known to Mr. Smith. Sir, I acknowledge very candidly, that on a superficial perusal of the correspondence, the charge of falsehood, from the art and adroitness with which it is wrapt up, does not appear so palpable as when it is more closely examined. Yet, sir, notwithstanding all knowledge of the instructions had[Pg 195] been denied by Mr. Smith, Mr. Jackson reiterates the assertion that they were known. Do gentlemen say that there is no insult in this? That there is nothing wrong in the assertion of a knowledge on the part of the Secretary of State which he had before formally and solemnly disclaimed. In Mr. Smith's letter to Mr. Jackson, of the first of November, he intimates to Mr. Jackson that a language implying such a knowledge on the part of the American Government, was altogether inadmissible. What is Mr. Jackson's reply in his letter of the 4th of November, which is the last communication that a proper self-respect on the part of the American Government would permit it to receive from him? After again insinuating that our Government had a knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, he says: "That any thing therein (in his former letter) contained may be irrelevant to the subject, it is of course competent to you to endeavor to show; and as far as you succeed in so doing, so far will my argument lose of its validity; but, as to the propriety of my allusions, you must allow me to acknowledge only the decision of my own Sovereign, whose commands I obey, and to whom alone I can consider myself responsible." In speaking of the propriety of his allusions, he acknowledges that he had made them, and does not deny that they are of the character ascribed to them. This insolent letter is concluded by expressions too plain for any misconception whatever. He says: "I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions which did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact." He here, in fact, recognizes the insinuation imputed to him, and says he would not have made it if he could not have substantiated it. Collecting all his insinuations, on the one hand, and the refutation of them, on the other, I draw the conclusion that Mr. Jackson not only insulted the Government, but charged it with one of the foulest crimes—with direct falsehood.

If the circumstances under which he was sent, and his conduct after he arrived here, were such as I have described, I ask if the occasion does not require that the American Government should take a firm and dignified stand? That we should repel insults and respect ourselves? Shall the authority to whom only is entrusted the most solemn act of government which can be performed, the act of deciding on the last appeal of nations, stand by and see the Executive insulted by an emissary, such as Mr. Jackson was? I hope not, sir.

Sir, I consider the present no time for the causeless crimination of our own Government, and much less is it a time to countenance any other. We should discard domestic differences and party spirit, which, at a juncture like this, may be disastrous to our country. If we differ among ourselves, in the name of God let us unite against foreign aggression and foreign insult. It is admitted by gentlemen on the other side, that both Great Britain and France have done us wrong. If so, why not unite against the one as well as against the other? A conduct like this must produce the happiest consequences. If any thing like union is discovered against insult and injury, I believe in God that it would not be long ere we met on reciprocal terms of amity. Sir, for my country, I only desire the rule of right; that we must obtain. If it is thought I wish any disaster to befall the British nation, I am misunderstood. I am willing that Great Britain should be great, happy, and prosperous. I should view her downfall as an inauspicious event; consequences might result from it which I will not undertake to estimate; but I hope that the expectation never will be encouraged from this Hall, that Great Britain can or will receive any terms from us other than such as are fair, honorable, and reciprocal.

The terms which have been offered to us are not of that kind. I submit it to gentlemen's own decision. We have long experienced injustice, and if we are only capable of being firm to our purpose, and adhering to the principles of neutrality which have hitherto guided the councils of our country, and especially the enlightened policy of the Executive department, we shall no doubt obtain justice.

In every view, therefore, it appears to me that the resolution from the Senate not only is supported by the correspondence laid before us, but is rendered peculiarly important by the occasion. The appeal made by Mr. Jackson from the Executive, from the organ with which alone a foreign Minister can have communication, to the people, to a tribunal with which he cannot communicate, adds great force to the arguments in favor of a firm stand on our part. I hope it will be made, and that it never will be abandoned till we receive that justice which has been but too long delayed.

Mr. Ross observed: I, for one, am an Administration man, if that Administration act correctly, whether it shall, in a time of great difficulty and doubt, insure a prospect of peace with Great Britain, or whether it may find it necessary in asserting the rights and independence of the Government to involve the nation in war. I think the importance of the one course is as great as the other, and I will, under such circumstances, equally support them when they are likely to make war as to make peace, however other gentlemen may differ from me on this head.

Before I proceed to state, sir, what I conceive necessary to be understood, in order to come to a correct judgment on these resolutions, permit me to premise that there is more than a presumption that Mr. Erskine had a power to enter into the arrangement which he made. 1st. Because he himself declared he had such power. 2dly. Because he acted in conformity to that declaration; and, 3dly. Because Mr. Jackson does not deny he had such power. Mr. Jackson does not pretend to say that Mr. Erskine[Pg 196] had not other despatches and other instructions than those of the 23d of January, and that, in them, there were not other conditions of a different grade and character from those contained in that despatch. Hence, I think it is fairly to be concluded, that Mr. Erskine had the power to enter into the agreement. It has, however, been said by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Dana,) that this is not so much a question of what our Government was ignorant of, as of what they knew, or what they ought to have known; and he has entered into a long examination of the mode of commissioning diplomatic characters, whether by letters of credence or by full powers, and has drawn a distinction between the two. In the first place, I apprehend it is in nowise material, to enable the House to decide on the resolution, whether the President did or did not know the nature of Mr. Erskine's powers. But it is necessary to rescue him from the imputation which those are disposed to cast on him who are desirous to pull down the Administration. What was the amount of the gentleman's showing on this occasion? That in all cases, in order to complete a treaty, it is necessary there should be a commission or full power. But has he shown that it is necessary in order to make a preliminary arrangement similar to that entered into? I apprehend he has not. On referring to the letter quoted by him from Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, to Mr. Hammond, we find the former calling upon the latter to exhibit his powers to enter into a negotiation; but Mr. Jefferson afterwards recedes from that demand, and receives the word of Mr. Hammond that he is possessed of power to negotiate as sufficient evidence of his being clothed with the proper power without the exhibition thereof. But the ratification was not withheld, as has been justly said, because there was an absence of a full power on this occasion. Mr. Jackson himself states that this was not the ground on which the ratification was withheld. It must first be proved that it was obligatory on the Executive to call for Mr. Erskine's full power, and it must then be proved that he did not, before his observations can be brought to bear on the question. Where is the proof that the Executive did not call for those powers? It is not pretended that Mr. Erskine had not a power to make an arrangement, but that it was not concluded in pursuance of his instructions. Therefore, if he had produced ten thousand powers, unless his instructions had authorized him to do what he did, the British Ministry would have rejected the terms stipulated for them, as they have done. But why is it necessary to know, on this occasion, whether the President did call for these powers or not? The inquiry composes no part of the resolution; it is neither expressly mentioned nor glanced at; and why this inquiry is raised, I confess I am utterly at a loss to know, unless it was to prove that the President of the United States had a knowledge of the instructions, and that they restricted Mr. Erskine's powers. The gentleman has not ventured to infer that the President of the United States had this knowledge, but the course of his argument goes to show that, in his opinion, he did possess this knowledge. He lays down the position, that it was the duty of the President to have seen those powers, and, I presume, supposes that the conclusion will be drawn that the President performed his duty; and, of course, taking it for granted that there were no other instructions than those of the 23d of January, that the President must have seen those instructions, and consequently have known that Mr. Erskine had not power to conclude the arrangement. All his argument went to raise a structure to induce a belief in this House, and in the public at large, that this knowledge must have been in possession of the President. The gentleman, at the same time, professes the utmost regard and respect for Mr. Madison. This, I confess, is following the direction of the poet, who says:

But let us inquire if the President had any knowledge that Mr. Erskine had no full power; for if I show, beyond all doubt, that the President did not know it, all this insidious fabric, which is designed to produce so many delusions, will vanish at once. I think it is to be presumed that the President had no knowledge that Mr. Erskine had not full powers, because he entered into the arrangement. What object could he have in view which should induce him to conclude an arrangement, except with full confidence of its being carried into effect? Not to get rid of the embargo—that had long before been interred by its fathers with a truly Christian spirit. Not to get rid of the non-intercourse—because the moment the arrangement was disavowed, the President breathed life and spirit into that act, and gave it renewed existence. It was not from any hostile disposition to England, because he could have no reason to wish for a war. And because, if he had desired a war with that country, he had no occasion to seek a pretext therefor, inasmuch as long antecedents, and up to the very time of making the arrangement, the causes for war against Great Britain were great and numerous, as has been agreed by all parties. If not to get rid of the embargo, nor of the non-intercourse, nor for war, what object could he have, with such knowledge as has been imputed to him, not expressly, but by inference, in making the arrangement of April? Will gentlemen be good enough to condescend so far as to assign some object that the Executive could have had in view from such conduct? For it is not to be presumed that men, in or out of office, act without motive and without object. Therefore, hearing no reason assigned why the President should act thus preposterously, as it is attempted to be insinuated he did, by those in opposition, it would be reasonable to conclude that he had no[Pg 197] such knowledge. But, in opposition to this insinuation, also, you have the solemn declaration of the President of the United States, through the Secretary of State. Humiliating in the extreme must it be to hear this solemn asseveration questioned, even in a side-way, in order to support the insolence of a British Minister! Was it not enough that the country has been enabled to endure, in order to secure the great object of remaining in peace, insult after insult, outrage after outrage, and even that the Government should be insulted by foreign diplomatic characters, without doubts and suspicions being insinuated by members of this House? Pray, sir, let me ask this House, or the whole of the United States, what the President of the United States has ever done in any official character, among the many which he has filled with honor to himself and reputation to his country, that the correctness of his declarations, made through his Minister of State, should be disputed? But I might suffer the humiliation of going still further into the subject. We have the word of the recalled Minister, if that be considered more conclusive by gentlemen than that of the President of the United States, that he did not communicate his instructions to Mr. Smith. We have, 1st. The presumption that the Executive had no knowledge of Mr. Erskine's instructions, because he could have no object in view in concluding an arrangement with that knowledge; 2d. We have his declaration to that effect through the Secretary of State; 3d. We have the declaration of the Minister, whose act was disavowed, to the same effect. What have we to destroy this proof? The deceptive, poisonous insinuations of Mr. Jackson. Mr. Erskine repeatedly declared that he had ample powers. On the news being received during the last session of the issuing of the order of the 26th April, he declared that he had no doubt his arrangement would be carried into effect. He, to the last moment, declared that he acted in the spirit, if not in the letter, of his several letters of instructions. How, therefore, was it possible for the President to receive information from Mr. Erskine that he was not invested with competent power, when Mr. Erskine himself declared and believed he was, and acted accordingly.

From these considerations I apprehend it most clearly appears that the President of the United States had not a knowledge, neither was it his duty to have had a knowledge that Mr. Erskine did not possess powers to make the arrangement which he did.

Tuesday, December 26.

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Benjamin Pickman, jr.; and from Virginia, William A. Burwell, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Thursday, December 28.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House again resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole on the resolution from the Senate approving the conduct of the Executive in refusing to receive any further communications from Francis J. Jackson.

The motion for indefinite postponement being still under consideration—

Mr. Stanford said, so many were the objectionable features of the present resolution before the House, he should vote for its indefinite postponement, and with permission of the House he would give his reasons for his vote. In the first place, he thought the language and style of the resolution highly objectionable, and calculated to render that which was already bad enough still worse; that it was, in the second place, a strange innovation upon all former practice and usage under our present Government; and lastly, that it was clearly unconstitutional. Thus much he should endeavor to show, and trusted he would be able to do it to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. S. then premised that he had disapproved the introduction of the resolution of approbation at the last session; that he considered unnecessary; but the present he considered not only unnecessary, but even pernicious. That was a pacific one; this belligerent in all its aspects. He had suggested a mode to one or two gentlemen, of getting rid of that one, if they had thought proper, and in which case he would have contributed his vote to have got clear of it. But, had the question been put in a direct form, he should have differed from his colleague, (Mr. Macon,) inasmuch as he should have voted for it. He could not have done honestly otherwise, as he had most cordially approved the arrangement made by our Government with Mr. Erskine. Further, that as respected the rejection of Mr. Jackson, he thought entirely with his colleague, that he might well have been dismissed on the receipt of his first letter. He tells us for what he had been sent and commanded to do. In the case of the Chesapeake, to make "declarations" and to receive counter "declarations" simultaneously. In other words, for the arrogance, insults, and murders, we had borne and suffered, he came to stipulate atonement, if we would stipulate a sort of counter atonement at the same time. Stipulation for stipulation, at any rate. It had "not appeared to His Majesty necessary to command him to propose to our Government any formal agreement" to take place of the rejected one. For the matter, said Mr. S., of Mr. Jackson's instructions, much rather than for the manner of his negotiation, might the communication have been cut off with him. Both matter and manner were, to be sure, objectionable, but the former, in his estimation, formed much the most solid ground of dismissal. It was but too obvious the mission of Mr. Jackson would end as[Pg 198] the former one had done. That he did not come to propitiate us was but too manifest.

While the resolution before us, sir, affects to support the Executive Government against insult, and language "highly indecorous," it descends into a style of expression, itself more culpable and degrading; unworthy, indeed, of the country and the dignity of its Government. It was a flattering truth to know that in the style of diplomatic correspondence the American side of the question suffered not in comparison with that of any other. In the late, as well as former instances, the advantage has been calculated, as he presumed, to inspire every American bosom with just sentiments of pride. Had it, therefore, been recommitted, as his colleague (Mr. Macon) had advised, he had no doubt it could have been amended, and rendered more worthy of consideration as a State paper, than it is likely to be in its present dress and form.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, if the measure be intended to have any effect, it must be a bad one. It looks toward war. Already are our difficulties with Great Britain critical enough, but if gentlemen wish war, the thing is altogether appropriate to its end; well calculated not to support, but to thwart the pacific views and intentions of the Executive. We may, in this way, foreclose the door of amicable negotiation which the Executive by his first Message showed us he had kept open. If rudeness of expression had been resorted to on the part of the British Minister, in his correspondence with our Government, had it not been repelled on their part? Had they not amply redressed the insult of the individual? It might well afford some consolation to ourselves and the country, if other wrongs and insults have been even as well repaired as this. Besides the murder of Pierce, the more horrid murders on board the Chesapeake, the continuation of impressments for years, we have had instances, more than one, it is said, of other Ministers conspiring with your conspirators, menacing you with war, and putting your Government at defiance, here in the ten miles square, and the sensibility of Congress had never before been awakened to a resolution of this kind in defence of the Executive. The truth is, sir, it never needed it, nor does it now. We have, in very deed, Mr. Speaker, refined upon the more substantial insults we have suffered, till we have literally reduced it to a war of words. It is the expressions of the individual we are combating, and pledging the whole force of the country to protect the President against the consequences of, and not the more palpable injuries received. Would to Heaven, sir, such a resolution had not been brought forward! It is unworthy of us—unworthy of the political professions we heretofore made, even those made at our last session.

That a resolution of approbation, Mr. Speaker, is against all example for the last eight years; that it is an innovation upon all usage and practice, reference need only be had to the speeches of gentlemen during the last session. They afford the most ample proof. They were then unwilling to pour out the oil of adulation upon the Executive head. It was deemed unnecessary, anti-republican, to do so. He hoped gentlemen understood him. He was using their own language upon that occasion, and not his own. He borrowed it for its excellence and fitness upon the present occasion. Such language conveyed his sentiments then, and still did; and, for his part, he could not comprehend how it could be correct then, and now the reverse of correct. Some gentlemen on the floor perfectly remembered that when Mr. Jefferson came into the Presidency, eight years ago, he changed the mode of personal address into that of written message. "In doing this," said he, in his first Message, "I have had a principal regard to the convenience of the Legislature, to the economy of their time, to their relief from the embarrassment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them, and to the benefits thence resulting to the public affairs." All acquiesced in this new course, and from that time to the late instance mentioned, no time had been wasted in pouring back the oil of adulation or approbation, in any form, on the Executive head. The only instance which could be cited during the last eight years, was found incidentally incorporated in a resolution relating to the navigation of the Mississippi. The words were, "and relying with, perfect confidence on the vigilance and wisdom of the Executive." This, then, was the only drop of this oil which the last Administration produced, and has been called up at this first ordinary session of a new Administration to form an example to follow; or rather, might we not say, to resume the exploded practice of former times, and thus echo back messages in this new form of joint resolution. But what was the style in which gentlemen spoke at our last summer session, when the subject of approbation was then before us? The language of one was, if it were the object to bring before the House a discussion upon the Message of the President, and to return an answer to his Excellency's most gracious Message, he should certainly be opposed to it. If there had ever been a particular part of the former Administration which had met the approbation of the Republicans generally of this country, it was the discontinuance of the practice. Another had told us that he was "opposed to a deviation from what he conceived to be the duty, and becoming the dignity of the House." He thought the House had nobler duties to perform than passing abstract resolutions, out of which no legislative act is contemplated, merely for the purpose of pouring the oil of adulation upon the head of the Chief Magistrate. And again, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Findlay,) whose opinions are always so much relied upon and respected in this House, and he, Mr. S., trusted by few more sincerely than himself, had, upon that occasion, with singular happiness and force, spoken thus: "Law," said the gentleman, "is[Pg 199] the only language of a Legislature. It is the only language that can command obedience and respect. Any equal number of citizens met in a tavern, and there passing a resolution of approbation, would have equal force with such a resolution passed in this House, and would be more in character. They are acting without authority from the constitution or the rules of the House." It would be for that gentleman to tell us, to tell the House, and he would beg the gentleman's pardon for the particular request—but he must request that he would take the occasion to let us all know how his doctrine then is now to be got over. For his own part, he could not comprehend how right and wrong could change their respective sides in so short a time.

His colleague, (Mr. Macon,) in referring to former times, had expressed some doubt whether the majority were the same party now they were then. He felt no doubt himself they were the same; but there was no room to doubt, from the present question itself, they had undergone some strange modification since former times. The doctrines then must be well remembered by him, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and a few others on this floor. The advocates of this sort of adulation must go back beyond the times of the late and last Administration, if they would introduce the fashion again. At the opening of the fifth Congress, in the answer of this House to the speech of the President, these words are used: "We cannot omit to testify our approbation of the measure, and to pledge ourselves that no considerations of private inconvenience shall prevent, on our part, a faithful discharge of the duties to which we are called." And again, this sentence: "Whilst we view with great satisfaction, the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which have marked the measures of the Supreme Executive of our country in its attempt to remove, by candid explanations, the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full force of that indignity which has been offered our country in the rejection of its Minister." This language was too much in the style of adulation for us then to brook, and our names, sir, stand recorded together against it. Let gentlemen compare for themselves.

It is the peculiar misfortune, sir, of this system, if again to be revived, that the right of approbation fully implies the right of disapprobation and censure; and during the same Administration of which we are speaking this right of disapproving and censuring was also attempted to be exercised. The resolution was introduced at the first session of the sixth Congress, by a gentleman then from the city of New York, (Mr. Livingston,) in the case of Jonathan Robbins. The same gentleman is occasionally present here at this time, and seems yet to be a stickler for judicial decision, and still thinks the Executive, against an individual, matchless odds. The part of the resolution alluded to, runs thus: "that the decision of those questions by the President of the United States against the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, in a case where those courts had already assumed and exercised jurisdiction, and his advice and request to the judge of the district court, that the person thus charged should be delivered up, provided, only, such evidence of his criminality should be produced as would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, is a dangerous interference of the Executive with judicial decisions." Hence, then, sir, it might be easily seen from a practice of this sort, that a whole session might be wasted without doing any part of the public business. The thing would be endless.

In the fourth Congress, on a subject of a call for papers in relation to the British Treaty, an unhappy difference arose between this House and the Executive. General Washington was the President. His reply to the House was, "that a just regard to the constitution, and to the duty of his office, forbid a compliance with their request." The House, again by resolution, asserted their right, disclaiming, however, at the same time, any agency in making treaties. Notwithstanding the violence and passion of the moment, this House did not then think they had any right to meddle with the making of treaties; but now it would seem the present House were disposed to join the Senate in this sort of interference in the negotiations of the Executive to form a treaty.

In all the cases alluded to, sir, it should be distinctly kept in view, that each House had acted for itself in voting their approbation and homage to Executive speeches and proclamations. He had reference to the proclamation of neutrality by General Washington. This was the first time Congress ever legislated approbation before.

Mr. Quincy.—It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to offer any common-place apology for the few observations I shall submit to the House on the subject now under consideration. Such is the character, and such the consequences of these resolutions, that no man, who had at heart the honor and happiness of this country, ought to continue silent, so long as any topic of illustration is unexhausted, or any important point of view unoccupied.

It is proposed, sir, that this solemn assembly, the representative of the American people, the depositary of their power, and in a constitutional light, the image of their wisdom, should descend from the dignity of its legislative duties, to the task of uttering against an individual the mingled language of indignation and reproach. Not satisfied with seeing that individual prohibited the exercise of his official character, we are invited to pursue him with the joint terrors of legislative wrath, couched in terms selected to convey opprobrium and infix a stigma. "Indecorum," "insolence," "affront," "more insolence," "more affront," "direct, premeditated insult and affront," "disguises, fallacious and false:" these are the stains we[Pg 200] are called upon to cast; these the wounds we are about to inflict. It is scarcely possible to comprise, within the same compass, more of the spirit of whatever is bitter in invective, and humiliating in aspersion. This heaped up measure of legislative contumely is prepared; for whom? For a private, unassisted, insulated, unallied individual? No, sir. For the accredited Minister of a great and powerful Sovereign, whose character he in this country represents, whose confidence he shares; of a Sovereign who is not bound, and perhaps will not be disposed to uphold him, in misconduct; but who is bound, by the highest moral obligations, and by the most impressive political considerations, to vindicate his wrongs, whether they affect his person or reputation, and to take care that whatever treatment he shall receive shall not exceed the measure of justice, and above all, that it does not amount to national indignity.

Important as is this view of these resolutions, it is not their most serious aspect. This bull of anathemas, scarcely less than Papal, is to be fulminated, in the name of the American people, from the high tower of their authority, under the pretence of asserting their rights and vindicating their wrongs. What will that people say, if, after the passions and excitements of this day shall have subsided, they shall find—and find I fear they will—that this resolution is false, in fact; that a falsehood is the basis of these aspersions upon the character of a public Minister? What will be their just indignation, when they find national embarrassments multiplied, perhaps their peace gone, their character disgraced, for no better reason than that you, their representatives, following headlong a temporary current, insist on making assertions, as they may then, and I believe will, realize to be not authorized by truth, under circumstances, and in terms, not warranted by wisdom?

Let us not be deceived. It is no slight responsibility which this House is about to assume. This is not one of those holiday resolutions, which frets and fumes its hour upon the stage and is forgotten forever. Very different is its character and consequences. It attempts to stamp dishonor and falsehood upon the forehead of a foreign Minister. If the allegation itself be false, it will turn to plague the accuser. In its train will follow severe retribution, perhaps in war; certainly in additional embarrassments, and most certainly, in worse than all, the loss of that sentiment of self-esteem, which to nations, as well as individuals, is "the pearl of great price;" which power cannot purchase, nor gold measure.

In this point of view, all the other questions which have been agitated in the course of this debate dwindle into utter insignificance. The attack or defence of administration, the detection of fault, or even the exposure of crime, are of no importance when brought into competition with the duty of rescuing this House and nation from the guilt of asserting what is false, and making that falsehood the basis of outrage and virulence. I avoid, therefore, all questions of censure or reproach on either the British Minister or the American Secretary of State. I confine myself to an examination of this resolution, particularly of the first branch of it. This is the foundation of all that follows. I shall submit it to a rigid analysis, not for the purpose of discovering how others have performed their duties, but of learning how we shall perform ours. The obligation to truth is the highest of moral and social duties.

It is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that of all the gentlemen who have spoken, no one has taken the precise terms of the resolution as the basis of his argument, and followed that course of investigation which those terms naturally prescribe. Yet the obvious and only safe course, in a case of such high responsibility, is first to form a distinct idea of the assertion we are about to make, and then carefully to examine how that assertion is supported, if supported at all, by the evidence. With this view I recur to the resolution, in the form in which it is proposed for our adoption, and make it the basis of my inquiries.

[The Resolution.]

This part of the resolution, it will not be denied, is the foundation of the whole. For if no such "idea was conveyed" in the letter of the 23d of October, then there could be no "repetition" of that idea, in the letter of the 4th of November; and if in the former part of his correspondence Mr. Jackson had made no such "insinuation," then the assertion in this letter that he had made none, was perfectly harmless and justifiable. This part, therefore, includes the pith of the resolution. If we analyze it, we shall find that it contains two distinct assertions. First, that the expressions alluded to convey a certain idea. Second, that this idea, so conveyed, is indecorous and insolent. Here again we are enabled to limit the field of our investigation. For, if no such idea, as is asserted, was conveyed, then the inquiry, whether such idea is indecorous and insolent, is wholly superseded. The true and only question, therefore, is whether the expressions alluded to, do convey the asserted idea. I place the subject in this abstract form before the House to the end that, if possible, we may exclude all those prejudices and partialities which so naturally and imperceptibly bias the judgment. In the light in which it now stands, it must be apparent to every one who will reflect, that the question has, so far as it respects the principles on which our decision ought to proceed, no more to do with the relations between Great Britain and the United States, than it has with those between the United States and China, and has no more connection with Mr. Francis J. Jackson and Mr. Robert Smith, than with the late Charles of Sweden, and the old Duke of Sudermania. It is a simple philological disquisition, which is to be decided by known rules of construction. The only investigation is, touching[Pg 201] the power or capacity of certain terms to convey an alleged idea. However illy suited a question like this may be for the discussion of an assembly like the present, yet if we would be just to ourselves and the people, we must submit to an examination of it, in that form in which alone certainty can be attained. It is only by stripping the subject of all adventitious circumstances, that we can arrive at that perfect view of its nature which can satisfy minds scrupulous of truth, and anxious concerning duty. It is only by such a rigorous scrutiny that we shall be able to form that judgment which will stand the test of time, and do honor to us and our country when the passions of the day are passed away and forgotten.

The natural course of inquiry now is, into the idea which is asserted to be conveyed, and the expressions which are said to convey it. Concerning the first there is no difficulty. The idea asserted to be conveyed is, "that the arrangement made between Mr. Erskine and Mr. Smith was entered into by the American Government, with a knowledge that the powers of Mr. Erskine were incompetent for that purpose." It would save a world of trouble if the expressions in which this idea is said to be conveyed were equally easy of ascertainment. But on this point, those gentlemen who maintain this result are far from being agreed. Some being of opinion that it is to be found in one place, some in another, and others again assert that it is to be found in the whole correspondence taken together. Never was an argument of this nature before so strangely conducted. Gentlemen seem wholly to lay out of sight that this resolution pledges this House to the assertion of a particular fact, and expresses no general sentiment concerning the conduct of Jackson, or the conduct of his Government. Yet, as if the whole subject of British relations was under discussion, they have deemed themselves at liberty to course through these documents, collect every thing which seems to them indecorous, insolent or unsuitable in Mr. Jackson's language, and add to the heap thus made the whole list of injuries received from Great Britain—impressments, affair of the Chesapeake, murder of Pierce—and all this, for what purpose? Why, truly, to justify this House in making a solemn asseveration of a particular fact! As if any injury in the world could be even an apology for the deliberate utterance of a falsehood. Let the conduct of Mr. Jackson, or of Great Britain, be as atrocious as it will, if the fact which we assert do not exist, we and this nation are disgraced. It is evident, then, that irksome as such a task is, it is necessary that we should submit to a precise inquiry into the truth of that to which we are about to pledge our reputation and that of this people.

In our investigation, let us follow the natural course that is pointed out in the resolution. This alleges that the obnoxious expressions are contained in a letter of the 23d of October, and to this limits our assertion. In this letter, therefore, either directly, or by way of reference to some other, this obnoxious idea or insinuation must be found. For if it be not in this, even if it should be contained in other parts of the correspondence, which is not, however, pretended, still our assertion would be false. Concerning this letter of the 23d of October, I confidently assert, without fear of contradiction, that the obnoxious idea, if contained in that letter, is conveyed in the paragraph I am now about to quote. No man has pretended to cite any part of this letter, as evidence of the asserted insult, except the ensuing, and although there is not a perfect coincidence in opinion as to the particular part in which it resides, yet all agree that it lurks somewhere in this paragraph, if it have any dwelling-place in this letter.

[The paragraph.]

I have quoted the whole paragraph because, in that obscure and general mode of argument in which gentlemen have indulged, it has been read as that entire portion in which the insult is conveyed. It is difficult to conceive how some parts of this paragraph can be thought to convey any insult. However, in prosecution of my plan, I shall first exclude all those parts in which the obnoxious idea cannot be pretended to exist, and then limit my investigation to that part in which it must exist, if, in the letter of the 23d of October, it be conveyed at all.

With respect to the first sentence in this paragraph, I say confidently that the insult is not contained there. It is simply a declaration of the causes of the disavowal, so far from including the obnoxious idea of a knowledge in our Government of the incompetency of Erskine's powers, that in a manner it excludes that idea, by enumerating violation of instructions and want of authority as the only causes of the disavowal. In the first sentence, then, the insult is not. I pass by the second, as it will be the subject of a distinct examination hereafter. The third and fourth sentences it will not even be pretended convey this obnoxious idea. They simply acknowledge the frequency of graduated instructions, and assert the fact that Mr. Erskine's were not of that character. In this there is no insult. As little can it be pretended to exist in the fifth sentence. It merely asserts that Mr. Smith "already," that is, at or before the time Mr. Jackson was then writing, is acquainted with the instructions, (a fact not denied, and not suggested to be an insult,) and that the fact of these instructions being the only ones, Mr. Smith knows from the information of Mr. Jackson—an assertion, which so far from intimating the obnoxious idea of a knowledge in Mr. Smith at the time of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, that it conveys a contrary idea, by declaring that he was indebted for it to his (Mr. Jackson's) information. Here, then, the insult is not. With respect to the last sentence in this paragraph, the only assertions it contains, are the fact that the terms[Pg 202] accepted were not contained in the instructions, and the evidence of this fact derived from the statement of Erskine that those acceded to were substituted by Mr. Smith in lieu of those originally proposed. In all this, the knowledge of Mr. Smith of the incompetency of Mr. Erskine's powers is not so much as intimated. Indeed, no one has pretended directly to assert that they have found it in the parts of this paragraph, from which I have thus excluded the obnoxious idea. Yet, as the whole has been cited, and made the basis of desultory declamation, I thought it not time lost to clear out of the way all irrelevant matter, and to leave for distinct examination the only sentence of this paragraph in which the insult lurks, if it has any existence in this letter. This point we have now attained. And as little inclined as gentlemen may be to precise investigation, they must yield to it. I say, therefore, confidently, and without fear of contradiction, that if the assertion contained in this resolution be capable of justification by any part of the letter of the 23d of October, it is by the following, the only remaining sentence of the cited paragraph which I have not yet examined: "These instructions I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were, at the time, in substance made known to you; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation from them which occurred than by a reference to the terms of your agreement." The latter part of this sentence being merely a conclusion from the preceding part, and having no relation to the knowledge of our Government at the time of the arrangement, will be laid out of consideration as being obviously wholly without the possibility of any agency in conveying the obnoxious idea. There remains only the preceding part of this sentence for the residence of the insult. Here, if anywhere, it must exist. Accordingly this is usually shown as the spot where the ghost of insinuation first appeared before the eyes of our astonished Administration. Here we shall again find it; unless, indeed, it were in fact a mere delusion of the fancy, formed of "such stuff as dreams are made." Let us examine by way of analysis.

[Here Mr. Quincy analyzed the paragraph.]

I have thus far proceeded by way of a strict analysis of every part of the correspondence, in which the insulting idea, asserted in this resolution, has been said to be conveyed. I have omitted no part which has been cited in support of this first resolution, and think that I have shown that it exists nowhere in the letter of the 23d of October, either in direct assertion, or by way of reference. And it is concerning what is contained in that letter alone, that the resolution under consideration makes assertion. The House will observe that, according to all rules of fair reasoning, it would have been sufficient for me to have limited myself to show the fallacy of the arguments of the advocates of this insult; it being always incumbent on those who assert the existence of any thing to prove it. I have not, however, thought my duty on so important an occasion fulfilled, unless I undertook to prove what the lawyers call "a negative," and to show, with as much strength of reasoning as I had, the non-existence of the idea asserted in this resolution; with what success, I cheerfully leave to the decision of such thoughtful men in the nation who will take the trouble to understand the argument. There is, however, a corroborative view of this subject, which ought not to be omitted.

The insulting idea said to be conveyed is, that Mr. Smith had a knowledge, at the time of the arrangement, of the incompetency of Erskine's powers, and this because such a knowledge was one of the essential circumstances which could only lead to a disavowal. Now, it does happen that neither Mr. Erskine nor his Government enumerate this knowledge of our Government as one of those essential circumstances. On the contrary, they constantly omit it, when formally enumerating those circumstances. Mr. Canning places the disavowal, solely, on the footing of Mr. Erskine's having "acted not only not in conformity, but in direct contradiction to his instructions." Mr. Jackson, also, in his letter of the 23d, when formally enumerating the causes of the disavowal, says expressly, that the disavowal was "because the agreement was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it." Now, is it not most extraordinary, that after such formal statements, not including the knowledge of our Government among the essential circumstances, that it is on this knowledge the British Government intend to rely for the justification of their disavowal? I simply ask this question, if the British did intend thus to rely on the previous knowledge of our Government, why do they always omit it in their formal enumerations? And if they do not intend thus to rely, in what possible way could it serve that Government thus darkly to insinuate it? But as if it were intended to leave this House wholly without excuse in passing this resolution, Mr. Jackson expressly asserts, in this very letter of the 23d of October, that the information of that fact was derived from him, the knowledge of which, this resolution asserts, he intended to intimate was known at the time of the arrangement with Erskine. For he specifically says: "I have had the honor of informing you that it (Mr. Erskine's instruction) was the only one by which the conditions on which he was to conclude were prescribed." Now, if Mr. Jackson had remotely intended to intimate that Mr. Smith had a previous knowledge of that fact, would he have asserted that he was indebted to him (Mr. Jackson) for the information? Conclusive as this argument is, there is yet another in reserve, which is a clincher. And that is, that this very knowledge which we propose[Pg 203] solemnly to affirm Mr. Jackson intimated our Government possessed at the time of the arrangement, it is, from the nature of things, impossible they should have possessed. The idea asserted to be intended to be conveyed is, a knowledge in our Government that the arrangement was entered into without competent powers on the part of Mr. Erskine. Now, the fact that Mr. Erskine's powers were incompetent, it was impossible for our Government to know, except from the confession of Mr. Erskine. But Mr. Erskine before, at the time, and ever since, has uniformly asserted the reverse. So that, besides all the other absurdities growing out of this resolution, there is this additional, that it accuses Mr. Jackson of the senseless stupidity of insinuating as a fact, a knowledge in our Government, which from the undeniable state of things it is not possible they should have possessed. Mr. Speaker, can any argument be more conclusive? 1. The idea is not conveyed by the form of expression. 2. Mr. Jackson, though expressly enumerating the only causes which led to a disavowal, does not suggest this. 3. Mr. Jackson expressly asserts the knowledge that these were the only instructions derived from him; of course it could not have been known previous to the arrangement. 4. Had he been absurd enough to attempt to convey such an idea, the very nature of things shows that it could not exist. I confess I am ignorant by what reasoning the non-existence of an insinuation can be demonstrated, if it be not by this concurrence of arguments.

Before I conclude this part of the subject, it will be necessary to make a single observation or two, on the following passage in Mr. Jackson's letter of the 4th of November, for although our assertion has relation, in the part of the resolution under consideration, only to the letter of the 23d of October, yet this subsequent passage has been adduced as a sort of accessory after the fact. "You will find that, in my correspondence with you, I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation, where I was unable to substantiate a fact. To facts, as I have become acquainted with them, I have scrupulously adhered." This the subsequent part of the resolution under debate denominates, "the repetition of the same intimation." But if the argument I have offered be correct, there was no such "intimation" in the preceding letters, and of course no repetition of it here. For if he had, as I think I have proved, in his former letters uttered no such insinuation as is asserted, then all the allegations in this paragraph are wholly harmless and decorous, neither disrespectful nor improper. "But this," says the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Milnor) "is conclusive to my mind, that Mr. Jackson did intend to insult, for if he had not would he have refrained from giving an explanation when it was asked?" That gentleman will recollect that the assertion of this House is as to the idea which Mr. Jackson has conveyed in the letter of the 23d, not as to the idea which he intended to convey. Suppose he intended it, and has not done it, our assertion is still false. But will that gentleman seriously conclude, contrary to so obvious a course of argument, that he has asserted, or even intended to assert, this particular idea, merely because he does not choose to explain it? Are there not a thousand reasons which might have induced Mr. Jackson not to explain, consistent with being perfectly innocent of the intention originally to convey it? Perhaps he thought that he had already been explicit enough. Perhaps he thought the explanation was asked in terms which did not entitle Mr. Smith to receive it. Perhaps he did not choose to give this satisfaction. Well that now is "very ungentlemanly," says the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Milnor.) I agree, if he pleases, so it was. But does that justify this resolution? Because he is not a gentleman, shall we assert a falsehood?

I briefly recapitulate the leading points of my argument. When Mr. Jackson asserts "that the substance of the instructions was known to our Government," the expression cannot convey the obnoxious idea, because it is not pretended that, in those instructions, the existence of other powers was excluded. When he says, "you must have thought it unreasonable to complain of disavowal," the time of knowledge implied is confined by the structure of the sentence to the time of a disavowal known, and cannot be limited backwards to the time of arrangement made. It is also absurd to suppose that Mr. Jackson would intimate by implication the knowledge of our Government of Erskine's incompetency of powers at the time of arrangement, as an essential circumstance on which the King's right of disavowal was founded, and yet omit that circumstance in a formal enumeration; and lastly, it is still more absurd to suppose that he would undertake to insinuate a knowledge, which, from the nature of things, could not possibly exist.

I have thus, Mr. Speaker, submitted to a strict and minute scrutiny all the parts of this correspondence which have been adduced by any one in support of the fact asserted in this resolution. This course, however irksome, I thought it my duty to adopt, to the end that no exertion of mine might be wanting to prevent this House from passing a resolution, which, in my apprehension, is pregnant with national disgrace, and other innumerable evils.

Friday, December 29.

Another member, to wit, from North Carolina, James Holland, appeared and took his seat.

COL. ISAAC A. COLES.

Breach of Privilege.

Mr. Taylor, from the committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances alluded to in[Pg 204] the letter of I. A. Coles to the Speaker of the House, made the following report:

Ordered to lie on the table.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House resumed the consideration of this subject. At four o'clock Mr. Livermore commenced a speech, but gave way for a motion to adjourn which was carried, 53 to 51.

Saturday, December 30.

A motion was made by Mr. Dawson, that the report made yesterday, on the occurrence between I. A. Coles and a member of this House, and the documents accompanying the same, be printed for the use of the members: and the question being taken thereon, it was resolved in the affirmative—yeas 76, nays 25. The report and documents were referred to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next.

Conduct of the British Minister.

Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee—Mr. Speaker, it is not deemed necessary in the observations I will make on the resolution under consideration, to take into view any relations of the United States with Great Britain or France, because it does not clearly appear that any exist, except in this, that the United States are suffering loss and damage. If there be any relations with Great Britain, as they respect the United States, they are negative and suffering; as they respect Great Britain, positive and active. Be they what they may, they are not properly within the range of a discussion on this resolution, which merely respects the conduct of an Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty near the United States. How the relations, if there be any, between the United States and France are connected with the subject of this resolution, will require the greatest civilian, the most wise master of public law, to discover; the consideration of these subjects, except so far as mentioning only circumstances which have existed, will be omitted. Neither does it appear very necessary to recur, in examining this question, in the view I intend to take of it, to writers or authorities, as they are called, on public law or laws of nations, because, if any time heretofore, there was a public law acknowledged and practised by all civilized nations, that law is, in these times, become obsolete and disused; and the great nations of the old world have severally adopted particular systems of law respecting other nations, adapted to their own several existing circumstances, and bottomed on principles different from those which heretofore were denominated principles of public law. When, therefore, in the course of these observations, said Mr. R., I may use the words "public law," my intention is to express thereby an idea of some system named public law, not the law of nature, which, gradually becoming obsolete, has been very little, if any, in use since the commencement of the American Revolution—a system which, notwithstanding it is often appealed to, if ever it did exist, is now only to be found in books, and not in practice. Neither is it intended in this case to draw into notice any diplomatic proceedings many years heretofore transacted, by way of argument, in support of what I may say on the subject of this resolution; inasmuch as the truth and merits of it do rest and depend on the Message of the President of the United States, and the documents accompanying the same, and the other documents relative thereto, which have been received from[Pg 205] him since the commencement of this session of Congress, together with some other documents relative to the arrangement of April last, made between the American Government and the honorable David Montague Erskine, late Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from His Britannic Majesty, near the United States.

This resolution is not an answer to a Message from the President of the United States; there are not in it any words of relation between it and a message evidencing an expression or intended direction of that nature; neither are there in it any words manifesting an intention to transmit it to him as an address; for these and other reasons, which, if necessary, might be mentioned, it does not appear that this joint resolution can, with any propriety, be named an answer or response to a Message from the President, or an address to him. It may, therefore, be reasonably expected, that any objection raised against it, on the opinion of its being an answer to a Message from the President, or an address to him, will not prevail.

This resolution is not a declaration of war; it is predicated on a specified conduct of an Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, near the Government of the United States, and on the denial of the Executive Government of the United States to receive any further communications from him in consequence of that conduct. And it may be observed that, how ancient soever among nations the custom or usage of sending or receiving Ambassadors, Plenipotentiaries, and public Ministers of that kind may be, the custom or usage, it is reasonable to believe, is bottomed only on the great principle of humanity, and does not impose a perfect obligation either to send such minister, or to receive him, or to continue him after being received; therefore, not to send an Ambassador, Plenipotentiary, or public Minister—not to receive such Minister—to recall such Minister—or to refuse to receive any further communications from such Minister, is not a just cause of war; and it follows that the acting or not acting, in either of the cases, is not a declaration of war. True it is, that the resolution states, that "the Congress of the United States do solemnly pledge themselves to the American people, and to the world, to stand by and support the Executive Government in its refusal to receive any further communications from the said Francis James Jackson, and to call into action the whole force of the nation, if it should become necessary, in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in this respect, to repel such insult, and to assert and maintain the rights, the honor, and the interests of the United States;" but, it is to be observed, that that pledge goes only to the doing of certain things which may become necessary in consequence of the conduct of the Executive Government in respect to that thing which is alluded to. But if any gentleman is disposed to continue to this resolution the name of an answer to a Message from the President, or address to him, or to call it a declaration of war, he certainly may give it any name he pleases; and I hope, said Mr. R., that I may also have the liberty to give it a name that appears appropriate to it.

The whole civilized world is a spectator in the discussion of this resolution; and all the civilized nations in the world are and will be anxiously desirous to know, whether the United States of America, after having hitherto, with impunity, suffered all the aggressions of Great Britain, and after having suffered Great Britain, with impunity, to impress thousands of their seamen, and retain them on board of their armed ships and vessels, and compelling them to fight against nations with whom the United States are at peace; after having suffered Great Britain, with impunity, to murder their citizens, and after having suffered Great Britain with impunity to attack their sovereignty, in case of the Chesapeake frigate, will, after all these outrages and hostile acts, tamely, meekly, and patiently, submit and bow down to the lowest degree of debased degradation, and suffer Francis J. Jackson, Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, with impunity, to abuse their Executive Government, and to impute to it with impunity the detestable charge of untruth.

Tuesday, January 2, 1810.

Another member, to wit, from Pennsylvania, Robert Jenkins, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, January 3.

Trade to the Baltic.

Mr. Burwell said that he had given to the subject of our foreign relations as much consideration as he was capable of doing, and digested some plan which appeared to him best adapted to the present situation of the country. It would be recollected, however, that they had seen in the papers that France either had blockaded or did contemplate the blockade of all the ports not embraced in the British orders; and they had seen in the papers a paragraph intimating that a project existed to close the northern ports against all vessels but those of France. He conceived it necessary to call for any information which by possibility might be in possession of the Executive on this subject, as such information, if to be obtained, might have some influence upon his mind as to the[Pg 206] course proper to be pursued; and therefore moved the following resolution:

The motion was agreed to without opposition, and Mr. Burwell and Mr. Gardner appointed a committee to wait on the President accordingly.

Conduct of the British Minister.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, being the resolution from the Senate approving the conduct of the Executive in refusing to receive any further communication from Francis James Jackson, &c.

The resolution was ordered to be read a third time.

To-morrow was named as the day on which it should be read a third time, and negatived, ayes, 32.

The resolution was then ordered to be read a third time to-day.

Mr. Newton.—Mr. Speaker: It is with regret, sir, I feel myself constrained to offer some observations on the resolution from the Senate now on its passage.

I am not ignorant that I am trespassing on your patience, and that, at this late period of the discussion, I address you to no little disadvantage; but I derive, under such discouragement, great satisfaction in knowing that your politeness and indulgence are at all times the same.

I lament, sir, that the discussion has not been confined to the subject which the resolution presents for consideration, but as I had no control over the debate, I am compelled to pursue it through the meanders it has taken.

As silence on the observations which have been made, though on points foreign to the one in debate, may be ascribed to an acquiescence in their justness, I cannot refrain from apprising you that I hold myself bound to answer such as shall, in my judgment, demand an answer. This course will compel me to discuss points no ways related to the one before the House.

I shall endeavor to atone for taking this range by giving to each subject a separate consideration, and by observing a due regard to brevity. With this apology, I hasten in the first instance to the discussion of the competency of Mr. Erskine's powers to conclude the provisional agreement of the 19th of April last.

I put aside from this discussion the instructions of Mr. Erskine authorizing him to tender reparation for the attack on the Chesapeake, because his power so to act has not been distinctly questioned. The gentlemen who have preceded me on the same side of the question have sustained, I trust to your satisfaction, and that of the House, the competency of Mr. Erskine's powers to make and conclude the arrangement of the 19th of April last. Persuaded, as I am, that they have performed this task with great ability, I will not tire your patience by passing over the same ground, nor by citing the same authorities on which they relied to support their arguments.

I will permit myself only to take up the discussion of the points which terminated their remarks. I will content myself with furnishing some authorities not pressed into service, in support of the positions taken by them. That Mr. Erskine was a Minister Plenipotentiary, cannot be denied; in that character he was received, and in that he acted until he was recalled, is equally true. The propositions made by him in that character were received and acted upon as the propositions of his Government. The Executive of the United States had no control over his private instructions; no right to demand an exhibition of them; they were given for the government of the Minister's conduct. If he acted in contravention of his secret orders, over which his power was absolute, he became responsible to his sovereign for his non-observance of them; but his public acts must necessarily be binding and obligatory, originating, as they must be considered, in the general and avowed powers of the Minister, exercised in conformity to his private instructions. If his secret instructions limit his general commission, he is bound honestly to apprise the Government with which he is negotiating of the fact. He ought to say, to this boundary I can go; beyond it I cannot pass. To illustrate this doctrine, which I hold to be sound and correct, I will give as an instance the chaste conduct of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinkney, who, previous to affixing their signatures to the treaty concluded by them with the British Commissioners, publicly apprised the Commissioners that they had no authority to bind the Government of the United States, as their instructions did not permit them to conclude a treaty which should not contain stipulations against impressments. The fate of that treaty is known. It was rejected. The British Government could not complain, because it was previously informed that the Ministers of the United States had no power to form such a treaty.

Mr. Erskine never entertained a doubt but that his powers were competent to the formation of the arrangement of April last. He unhesitatingly declared, in submitting his propositions for suspending as to the United States the operation of the Orders in Council, that he was commanded by his Majesty to submit them to the consideration of the Executive of the United States. I will prove this statement by his letter of April 18, 1809, and others, addressed to the Secretary of State. He says:

In another letter, of April 19, he says:

The above extracts from Mr. Erskine's letters leave us in no suspense as to the opinion he had formed of his instructions. In this settled belief that he had conformed strictly to the instructions of his Court, we find him so late as June 15, 1809, when he notified to the Secretary of State the new Order in Council issued on the 26th of April last. In this letter he says:

Thus it appears that Mr. Erskine, from communications, subsequent to the 26th of April, from this Government, is decidedly of opinion that he acted within the pale of his instructions. His language is free from ambiguity. He says: "In consequence of official communications sent to me from His Majesty's Government, since the adoption of the order of the 26th of April, I am enabled to assure you it has no connection whatever with the terms of agreement concluded by the recent negotiation." Nothing can be clearer than that his opinion was made up on a full consideration of all the instructions received by him from his Government. This must be evident to the most superficial observer on reading the following extract from a letter of the 14th August, 1809, addressed by him to the Secretary of State. It is as follows:

The British Government could not, from this view, disavow the act of its Minister without incurring, and that justly, the charge of bad faith. To give support and nerve to this inference, I will read a passage from an author of great celebrity, Burlamaqui. The author says: "If he who has a commission to treat has kept within the bounds of the power annexed to his office, though he acts contrary to his private instructions, the sovereign is to abide by what he has done; otherwise, we could never depend on engagements contracted by proxy." This authority is full, and in point; it covers the whole ground; it leaves no fissures through which crafty politicians can make an escape. On the reputation of the British Government it fixes a blot which nothing short of the power of time can efface.

Past transactions are worthy of remembrance, and sometimes of repetition. The chameleon may take the hue of surrounding objects, but his change of color does not new-model his figure, form, or character.

Let us, for a moment, bring to our recollection the occurrences which took place, and the orthodox opinions which were held, at the time when the honor and dignity of this nation were deeply wounded, (a wound not yet healed,) in the attack of the Chesapeake; when the blood of American citizens was wantonly shed, and when the British squadron, after the commission of an act so atrocious, in violation of the jurisdiction of the United States, anchored in Hampton Roads and interrupted the regular communication between Norfolk and other places. After having taken a review of facts, let us compare the opinions of that day with those subsequently delivered; and, by the standard of consistency, test them.

The President, soon after the commission of those outrages, issued his proclamation, interdicting the entrance of the waters of the United States to the public armed vessels of Great Britain. That act of the President was considered as just and proper, as flowing from moderation[Pg 208] and wisdom. The propriety of it was defended on the declaration to the Executive by Mr. Erskine, that it was his firm belief that Admiral Berkeley had acted without orders. Keep in force the proclamation, was the language of that memorable day, until reparation, ample and satisfactory, should be made. Such was the state of the public mind. Mr. Rose arrived; his mission, instead of having the salutary tendency of removing the irritations excited, was eminently calculated to nurture and increase them. Insults were added to injuries. Before he would deign to make known to the President the nature and extent of the reparation he was authorized to offer, he demanded the revocation of the President's proclamation; in plain terms informing this nation that its Government should make concessions to His Majesty for using precautionary measures against the lawless acts of his officers, as a prerequisite to a tender of the reparation His Majesty had condescended through him to offer. This new mode of redress proving no ways satisfactory, Mr. Rose's mission terminated. No sooner was it known that the negotiation with Mr. Rose proved abortive, in consequence of the inadmissible demands made by him, as already stated by me, than the President was openly accused as being the cause of it, by adhering to a "mere punctilio."

Thus, sir, we see, that no Republican President can do right, when his actions are viewed through the medium of party spirit.

Mr. Stanley said he did not flatter himself he could add any thing to the information which the House already possessed on this subject. Yet, as a measure was about to be adopted, which, without the possibility of yielding any advantage, would, in his opinion, fix a stain on the national character, and put at hazard the peace and prosperity of the country, he felt impelled by the imperious call of duty, to raise his feeble voice against it. Permit me here, said Mr. S., to express the surprise and regret with which I have heard observations from those who support the resolution, which, having no connection with the resolution itself, are calculated, if not intended, to excite the passions of the House or of the people; to furorize the public mind; to mislead our judgments in deciding the question, and to obtain a result rather from passion than reason. I allude to the repeated recital of British outrages, the bombardment of Copenhagen, and the attack on Constantinople. A calm discussion of the question itself, would probably lead to as correct a decision, and be not less honorable to the American Congress. The danger of foreign influence has been mentioned to us, by way of caution, I presume. A solicitude on this point can be but commendable, though I hope unnecessary. It may be the fate of this country to be cursed with men whose ill-directed ambition, and predominant selfish views, lead them to support the interest and the designs of foreign nations, though adverse to the interests and honor of their own. If such there be, let them be marked as objects of suspicion, scorn, and contempt.

It has also been the fate of other countries, and may be the misfortune of this, to possess in its bosom, and to cherish in its confidence, men, who from an equally base and corrupt self-love and ill-directed ambition, become supple courtiers, political sunflowers, cringing demagogues; who, worshipping the idol power, whether in the hands of a military commander, a protector, or a consul, tender an implicit obedience and united support to every measure which emanates from the Executive, the source of office and profit. Such men bring upon a country the curses of undue domestic influence. Not to know and not to fear the dangers both of foreign and domestic influence, is to close our eyes on the light of history, and to disregard the testimony of ages. The States of Greece, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) reminds us, fell from foreign influence; the unhappy Kingdom of Spain at this moment groans and bleeds from the same cause. And, sir, from domestic influence, Rome had her Cæsar, England her Cromwell, and France now drags the chains of Bonaparte. Should it ever become the settled doctrine in this country, that the opinions and the measures of the Executive are entitled to our prompt acquiescence and blind support; that, like the devoted soldier, a mere military machine, we are not to pause over a vote; that free discussion of the merits of the Executive shall authorize suspicion of the purity of the citizen; the time will be fast hastening when a throne shall be erected upon the ruins of the Constitution of the United States, and the name of America be added to the list of those Republics which have "risen like the rocket, and fallen like the stick." Whether either of these parties exist in this country, I need not at this time inquire; no circumstance could render such an inquiry in this place other than unpleasant. I have suggested the possibility of their existence, and their evils, with a view equally pure, I hope, with that of those who have before alluded to them, and to excite a caution which well merits the attention of the American people.

Associated in this House with gentlemen, all of whom, I am to presume, are actuated by the same love of country; who alike feel the obligations of honor, conscience, regard to the constitution and responsibility to our constituents—I cannot but believe they act on this occasion with motives as pure as my own. Yet, sir, feeling myself bound by these high sanctions to pursue the course pointed out by my own judgment, and the dictates of my own conscience, I am compelled to declare, that I disapprove the conduct of the administration in the affair with Mr. Jackson, and that I am decidedly opposed to the resolution before us.

From the view I have taken of the correspondence between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jackson, my mind is satisfied—

That the letters of Mr. Jackson do not con[Pg 209]tain the insult to our administration which is imputed to them by the resolution. That, if they did, the Congress of the United States are not required either by duty or policy to interfere in the business—and that if they will interfere, the resolution under consideration is improper. On each of these points I will submit a few observations.

In regard to the insult said to be contained in Mr. Jackson's letters, my remarks shall be brief, with no other reference to the letters already so often repeated, as to have become "dull as a tale twice told," than I may conceive necessary to be intelligible. The offensive idea "that the Executive Government of the United States had a knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine in behalf of his Government with the Government of the United States, was entered into without competent powers on the part of Mr. Erskine for that purpose," is said in the resolution to be conveyed in Mr. Jackson's letter of the 23d of October, and to be repeated in that of the 4th of November. Yet, as if it was on all hands admitted that no such idea could be found in these letters, all who have most anxiously desired to find it, have endeavored to establish it by recurring to Mr. Jackson's letter of the 11th of October, and there point us to that part of the letter, where Mr. Jackson, in reply to Mr. Smith's declaration, that an explanation was expected of the grounds of the disavowal by His Britannic Majesty of the arrangement made between Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine, informs Mr. Smith, that he had seen with pleasure the forbearance of Mr. Smith, to complain of this disavowal, "inasmuch as you could not but have thought it unreasonable to complain of the disavowal of an act done under such circumstances as could only lead to the consequences that have actually followed." He adds, "It was not known when I left England whether Mr. Erskine had, according to the liberty allowed him, communicated to you in extenso his original instructions; it now appears that he did not. But in reverting to his official correspondence, and particularly to a despatch addressed on the 20th of April to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I find that he there states, that he submitted to your consideration the three conditions specified in those instructions, as the groundwork of an arrangement which, according to information received from this country, it was thought in England might be made, with a prospect of great mutual advantage. Mr. Erskine then reports, verbatim et seriatim, your observations upon each of the three conditions, and the reasons which induced you to think that others might be substituted in lieu of them. It may have been concluded between you that these latter were an equivalent for the original conditions; but the very act of substitution evidently shows that those original conditions were in fact very explicitly communicated to you, and by you of course laid before the President for his consideration. I need hardly add, that the difference between these conditions and those contained in the arrangement of the 18th and 19th of April, is sufficiently obvious to require no elucidation; nor need I draw the conclusion, which I consider as admitted by all absence of complaint on the part of the American Government, viz: that under such circumstances His Majesty had an undoubted right to disavow the act of his Minister."

As the offensive idea is alleged to be an allusion to the circumstances under which the arrangement with Mr. Erskine was concluded, which justified the King in disavowing it; intimated to be known to our administration at the date of this letter; it is necessary to search, from the evidence before us, what those circumstances were upon which the King justified his disavowal; these found, we shall be at no loss to fix Mr. Jackson's allusion, and then to inquire whether these circumstances thus alluded to, were in fact known to our administration. It appears from the documents before us, that the King's Order in Council of the 24th of May, 1809, announcing the provisional agreement concluded by Mr. Erskine and the disavowal of it, assigns as the sole ground of the disavowal, that the said agreement "was not such as was authorized by His Majesty's instructions." And Mr. Pinkney, on the 28th of May, informs Mr. Smith that the British Minister, Mr. Canning, had in their interview on the 25th of May declared "that the British Minister (Mr. Erskine) had acted in his late negotiation and engagements with you, not only without authority, but in direct opposition to the most precise instructions;" that these facts were communicated by Mr. Pinkney, and known to our administration before the arrival of Mr. Jackson, appears from the correspondence between Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine in July and August. Mr. Jackson also, in his letter of the 11th of October, says that his Government "with frankness, promptitude, and a most scrupulous regard to national honor, gave notice to the American Minister in London of the disavowal, of the motives of it, and of the precautions spontaneously taken by His Majesty to prevent any loss or injury accruing to the citizens of the United States from an agreement, however unauthorized, made in His Majesty's name." And in his letter to Mr. Smith, 23d of October, explicitly declares "His Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it." And to dispense with a recital of each particular in which the instructions were disregarded, Mr. Jackson adds, "These instructions I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were at the time in substance made known to you; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation from them which occurred, than by a reference to the terms of your agreement."

[Pg 210]

We thus find the British Government on every occasion, and through every agent, assigning the violation of instructions, and the want of authority in Mr. Erskine to conclude the agreement, as the sole ground of the disavowal, and relying on that ground, and no other, to shield them from the charge of perfidy. With this evidence before us; with the admission of Mr. Jackson "that the instructions were not made known in extenso;" with the correspondence of Mr. Smith and Mr. Erskine showing the knowledge of our administration of the instructions to Mr. Erskine and of the grounds of the disavowal of his arrangement prior to the arrival of Mr. Jackson in the United States, does it consist with candor and good sense; is it not a palpable violation of both, so to torture the language of Mr. Jackson in his letter of the 11th of October, in allusion to the circumstances which "could only lead to the disavowal," and to the knowledge of them by our administration, which prevented their complaints to him on his arrival, as to make them convey an idea that a distinct and different ground of disavowal existed than that which his Government and himself had before repeatedly assigned; to impute to him the insinuation that the restricted authority of Mr. Erskine was known at the time of the arrangement, when he had explicitly declared "that the instructions were not made known in extenso," and thus to fix upon him the absurdity of contradicting himself?

Such construction, and such an imputation, in my opinion, is at war with every sound rule of construction, and every honorable principle of just and fair dealing. It is worthy the observation of those gentlemen who so clearly see an insult in this letter of the 11th of October, that they have found what had escaped the jealous perspicacity of Mr. Smith, and the patient research of the draughter of the resolution; since Mr. Smith, in his reply of the 19th of October, gives no intimation of any thing offensive in this letter, and the resolution confines the insulting idea to the letter of the 23d of October. We come now to the letter of the 23d of October, in which, according to the resolution, is contained the "insolent and indecorous expressions, conveying the idea that the Executive Government of the United States had a knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine with the Government of the United States was entered into without competent power on the part of Mr. Erskine." The offensive idea is said to be found in the following part of Mr. Jackson's letter: "I have no hesitation in informing you that his Majesty was pleased to disavow the agreement concluded between you and Mr. Erskine, because it was concluded in violation of that gentleman's instructions, and altogether without authority to subscribe to the terms of it. These instructions, I now understand by your letter, as well as from the obvious deduction which I took the liberty of making in mine of the 11th instant, were at the time in substance made known to you; no stronger illustration, therefore, can be given of the deviation from them which occurred than by a reference to the terms of your agreement." There is no equivocation in this language. He says the instructions were made known in substance—an expression which from its very terms excludes the idea of being made known in full extent; and that it is true, as Mr. J. here alleges, that the substance of Mr. Erskine's instructions were made known, appears from Mr. Smith's letter of the 19th of October. "Certain it is that your predecessor did present for my consideration the three conditions which now appear in the printed document; that he was disposed to urge them more than the nature of two of them (both palpably inadmissible, and one of them more than merely inadmissible) could permit, and that on finding his first proposals unsuccessful, the more reasonable terms comprised in the arrangement respecting the Order in Council were adopted." And Mr. Erskine himself declared to his Government, 20th of April, as stated by Mr. Jackson to Mr. Smith, 11th of October, and not questioned by him, "that he had submitted to the consideration of Mr. Smith the three conditions specified in his instructions, as the groundwork of an arrangement," and adds the reasons which induced Mr. Smith to think "that others might be substituted in lieu of them." These expressions of Mr. Jackson are unequivocal, free from obscurity, and cover no insinuation. They assert a single fact, the existence of which is established by the letters of Mr. Smith himself. To find in them a meaning "conveying the insolent and indecorous idea that our Government knew of Mr. Erskine's restricted authority," is to give to language a signification different from that heretofore received, and to exert a strength of imagination to which I have no pretensions. But in the letter of Mr. Jackson of November 4th, is said, by the resolution, to be found "the still more insolent and affronting "repetition of the same insinuation. In the conclusion of this letter Mr. J. complains, not intemperately, of the liberty Mr. Smith claimed of styling his remarks "irrelevant and improper," a freedom which I should regret to believe would be justified by our Secretary's ideas of decorum. Mr. Jackson concludes in the words which are said to contain this offensive repetition of the imaginary insult: "You will find in my correspondence with you, that I have carefully avoided drawing conclusions that did not necessarily follow from the premises advanced by me, and least of all should I think of uttering an insinuation where I was unable to substantiate a fact."

If Mr. Jackson had really uttered an unfounded insinuation, he here certainly repeats it, because he adheres to all he had before said, and retracts nothing. But if, as I believe, he had not made any insinuations, but had directly and obviously referred to facts which were either admitted or had been, substantially proved, and more especially as he has not anywhere made the insinuation charged, "that our Government[Pg 211] were acquainted with Mr. Erskine's restricted authority," the conclusion seems to be irresistible, that he could not here repeat an insinuation which he had not previously made. This paragraph obviously means that he had abstained from such an insinuation because "he was unable to substantiate the fact." Nor can I conceive how this declaration could be offensive to Mr. Smith, unless received by him as presenting a contrast to his own deportment, in which case he owes his feelings to his own conscious sensibility.

Were it, however, otherwise, and if, instead of an insinuation so hidden that a Secretary of State only can discover it, Mr. Jackson had given a direct and unequivocal insult, the Congress of the United States are not required either by duty or policy to interfere. The constitution has wisely created different branches of the Government, committed to each its separate cares and duties, made each independent of the other, intending thereby to secure the separate deliberation and separate responsibility of each. To attain its blessings, these valuable objects of the constitution ought not to be defeated. To the President alone is given the power to receive Ministers and to treat with them, and as in the course of this duty he becomes personally interested in the deportment of foreign Ministers, if they demean themselves disrespectfully towards him, he is clothed with the power to break off intercourse with them at pleasure, and so far to suspend their ministerial functions. This power has been repeatedly exercised by our Presidents, as the constitution intended it should be, upon their own responsibility. And it is the highest policy of this Government, in order to obtain the advantages of the free judgment and decision of the President, so to conduct towards him that he should learn to act without fear of the censure of Congress on the one hand, and without any hope on the other, that their countenance shall shelter his measures from scrutiny. This policy, and the strict inviolability of the Executive power in all cases of treaty, were emphatically settled in the case of Jay's Treaty, in which the President, (whose independent example deserves more respect than it has met from his successors), standing upon his own responsibility refused to submit to the House of Representatives any papers relating to that negotiation, except the treaty itself. Yet if the plan proposed by these resolutions be adopted; if we by formal resolutions approve the conduct of the President in an affair so exclusively his own, as that of the rupture with Mr. Jackson, may we not on some future occasion, as observed by my honorable colleague, (Mr. Macon,) claim the right of censuring in matters equally within his sole and peculiar province? If, then, we are to interfere with Executive duties, not merely as sycophants, applauding his every act, but as freemen condemning what we do not approve, the inevitable consequence must be, a conflict between the Executive and Legislative Departments, in which the wounds of either can only be inflicted through the constitution; or (an issue equally fatal) the advantages intended to be derived from separate deliberation, distinct responsibility, and mutual jealousy and watchfulness of the separate departments disappear, in a miserable complaisance of acting by previous concert, and thus propping each other before the people.

The question was then taken on postponement as moved by Mr. Gardenier, and negatived without a division.

And at length, at half past five o'clock, the main question on the final passage of the resolution was taken, and carried—yeas 72, nays 41, as follows:

[On this vote were absent 27 members, viz: Messrs, Campbell, Clopton, Cook,* Crist, Denning,* Goldsborough, Gray, Heister, J. G. Jackson, Jones, Key, Lyon,* Matthews, Miller, T. Moore, Mumford,* Nelson, Randolph,* Sawyer, Shaw, Sheffey, J. Smith, S. Smith, Troup, Van Dyke,* Van Horne, and Wynn*; of whom those marked (*) have not appeared in their seats during the present session, and those in italic are known to be absent from the city.]

The House then adjourned, at a quarter be[Pg 212]fore six, after a session of nineteen hours, during the whole of which time the Speaker presided in the Chair with dignity and moderation, to Friday next.

Friday, January 5.

Another member to wit, from Delaware, Nicholas Van Dyke, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Claim of Elizabeth Hamilton.

Mr. Johnson, from the Committee of Claims, made a report on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, referred on the 5th ultimo; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Wednesday next. The report is as follows:

Monday, January 15.

Two members, to wit: from New York, Gurdon S. Mumford, and from Kentucky, Matthew Lyon, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

Tuesday, January 16.

Another member, to wit, from South Carolina, Richard Wynn, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, January 17.

A new member, to wit, David S. Garland, returned to serve as a member of this House for the State of Virginia, in the place of Wilson Carey Nicholas, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Wednesday, January 31.

Officers of the Revolution.

Mr. Nelson, from the committee appointed on the twenty-fourth instant, made a report on the several petitions of the surviving officers of the late Revolutionary Army; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next. The report is as follows:

Friday, February 9.

Robert Fulton and Torpedoes.

The following letter was laid before the House:

Leave was given to present the pamphlets mentioned in the above letter, as requested.

Navigation of the Mobile.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States:

Monday, February 12.

Torpedoes.

Mr. Dawson.—On hearing the Journal read, I find that on last Friday a letter was received by the Speaker from Mr. Fulton. What merit is due to his invention I will not pretend to say; but I know Mr. Fulton to be a man of science and successful experiment; of which he has given proofs, both in Europe and this country. It seems to me that some attention ought to be paid to his communication. I therefore move you that his letter be referred to a select committee.

Mr. Dawson's motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed, consisting of Messrs. Dawson, Taylor and Bacon.

Wednesday, February 14.

Torpedoes.

Mr. Dawson made the following report:

Mr. Rhea moved to recommit the report to the committee who reported it, with a view to obtaining a report on the merits of it.—Motion negatived.

Mr. Livermore called for a division of the resolution reported by the committee, so as to take a question separately on the words, "Resolved, That, when the House shall adjourn, it adjourn to meet on Monday."

The question on this part of the resolution was decided by yeas and nays—yeas 90, nays 29.

Mr. Livermore moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject indefinitely.

A desultory debate took place on these various questions. It was said that the Hall of the House of Representatives was exclusively appropriated to Legislative purposes, and that, at this time, to appropriate it to the purpose of experimental lectures, would afford a precedent which would be injurious; that such a measure, if admissible at all, should not be taken unless the House were convinced of the practicability of the system proposed to be illustrated, because it would hold out the idea that the House of Representatives had sanctioned it. It was also said that this system could quite as conveniently be illustrated in one of the other apartments of the Capitol, without spreading on the Journals a formal record allowing Mr. Fulton the use of this House. In reply, it was said, that this was an invention which promised to be of great public utility, and it was but reasonable, as the inventor was known to be a scientific man, that he should have an opportunity of demonstrating its efficacy, when he has offered his services for that purpose. If it succeeded, it might be a saving of many millions to the United States; and if it failed, the House would, by paying attention to it, have shown their disposition to encourage science. The argument against the report of the committee, that this Hall was exclusively devoted to legislation, it was said, would operate with equal force against permitting Divine service to be performed there on Sundays.

Before any question was taken on the latter clause of the report of the committee, the House adjourned.

Thursday, February 15.

Torpedoes.

A motion was made by Mr. Burwell, that the unfinished business of yesterday do lie on the table; and the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative.

The House then resumed the consideration of the said unfinished business, and the question recurring on the motion to postpone indefinitely the further consideration of the second member of the resolution, Mr. Speaker decided that the said motion to postpone indefinitely was, at the time the same was under consideration, out of order.

[Pg 215]

A motion was then made by Mr. Ross, to amend the said resolution by striking out the words, delivering a lecture on, for the purpose of inserting the word explaining. And the question being taken thereon, it was resolved in the affirmative.

The question was then taken upon concurring in the second and last member of the said resolution, and determined in the negative—yeas 55, nays 61.

On motion of Mr. Troup, the question was then stated on concurring in the first and second members of the said resolution; when Mr. Speaker decided that, a question being divided, one part affirmed and the other rejected, a question cannot be put upon the whole of the resolution as originally proposed. From which decision of the chair, an appeal was made to the House by Mr. Troup, and being seconded, the question was taken, "Is the decision of the Chair correct?" and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 78, nays 21.

Friday, February 16.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, widow of Alexander Hamilton, praying for the compensation due to her deceased husband.

[This report is one of the class of those favorable to the prayers of the petitioners on grounds of equity, but declaring, because they are barred by the statute of limitations, that they, therefore, ought not to be granted.]

The resolution reported by the Committee of Claims is as follows:

The report was supported by Messrs. Montgomery, Varnum, Helms, and Bacon, on the ground that the late General Hamilton had no claim on the Government under the resolutions of the old Congress; because he was, on the 25th of November, 1782, a delegate in Congress, and, by the 6th article of the Confederation, incapable of holding, at the same time, a military commission. He was in that Congress, a member (if not the chairman) of the committee which reported the resolutions under which his heirs are now said to be entitled to compensation. Had no statute of limitations ever been passed, therefore, it was said that General Hamilton or his heirs had no claim on the Government; because in accepting a seat in Congress, he had virtually resigned his commission before the close of the war. The case might be a hard one; but there were hundreds of cases at least equally so, and cases too in which the sufferers had not, as General Hamilton had, subsequently enjoyed lucrative employments by the favor of his country. It was said that Congress ought to be just before they were generous. Before they granted a claim of this doubtful character, influenced by the character or standing of the individual, they should relieve the impoverished old soldiers who daily begged of them for a pittance of bread, whose claims were equally just and whose necessities were much more pressing.

Mr. Boyd spoke in favor of the report of the committee. Either the statute of limitations was just or it was unjust. If unjust, it ought to be repealed; if just, Congress ought to be careful how they made exceptions in favor of particular claims.

Messrs. Johnson, Gholson, Dawson, Sheffey Gold, Key, Pitkin and Gardenier, oppose the report of the committee. It was said that General Hamilton's having received a brevet commission at the close of the war was evidence of his having been considered in service until the end of the war; for unless he had, such a commission could not have been issued to him. But a short time before the peace, he was seen at the head of his regiment gallantly storming a redoubt at the siege of York, and contributed not a little to the capture of Cornwallis and his army. By accepting a seat in Congress he did not resign his commission, but held himself liable to be called into service at any time, if necessary. But if he had, from the best of motives, accepted a seat in Congress, and thereby resigned his commission, it was said that his heirs ought not, therefore, to be deprived of the compensation equitably due to him. Congress had extended the hand of relief to the daughters of Count de Grasse, who had no shadow of a legal claim; but their father had assisted by sea, as General Hamilton did on the land, at the capture of Cornwallis; they were in this country in distress, and Congress had relieved them. Should the same relief be denied to the representatives of a citizen who had served during the war, and whose legal claim, if barred at all, (except by the statute of limitations,) was only barred by his zeal in the service of his country, which prompted him to accept a seat in Congress? The statute of limitations, it was said, was never intended to bar Congress from discharging a just claim, but merely to prevent the accounting officers of the Treasury from allowing all the old, and perhaps fraudulent claims which might have been pressed upon them. Every gentleman who spoke, dwelt upon the obduracy of heart and injustice, as it was termed, which could refuse to the claim of the war-worn soldier, the compensation due to him for his assistance in achieving the liberties of his country.

Before the question was taken on the report, the committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

And the House adjourned to Monday.

Monday, February 19.

Bank of the United States.

Mr. Montgomery, from the committee appointed, on the twenty-ninth ultimo, on the[Pg 216] memorial of the Stockholders of the Bank of the United States, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. The report is as follows:

Wednesday, Feb. 28.

Amey Dardin.

Mr. Gholson, from the committee appointed on the seventh of December last, on the petition of Amey Dardin, made a report thereon; which was read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

The report is as follows:

Friday, March 2.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the following resolution reported by the Committee of Claims on the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton:

Messrs. Nelson and Taylor opposed, and Messrs. Root, Boyd, and Montgomery, supported the report—each at considerable extent.

At length the question was taken in committee, and the report disagreed to, 60 to 52. The committee rose, and reported their disagreement.

The House concurred with the Committee of the Whole in their disagreement—yeas 62, nays 52.

After some conversation as to the proper course now to be pursued,

Mr. Gholson moved that the Committee of Claims be instructed to report a bill, pursuant to the prayer of Elizabeth Hamilton.

The motion was agreed to by yeas and nays—61 to 46.

Friday, March 9.

The bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of Charles Minifie," was read twice, and committed to the Committee of Claims.

Torpedoes.

The bill from the Senate, entitled "An act making appropriation for the purpose of trying the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine explosion," was read the first time.

A motion was made by Mr. Livermore, that the bill be rejected; and the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative—yeas 27, nays 76.

The bill was then read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

Monday, March 12.

Another member, to wit, from Virginia, John Randolph, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Wednesday, March 14.

Claim for Indian Depredations.

Mr. Witherspoon, from the committee appointed on the fourteenth ultimo, on the petition of Alexander Scott, made a report thereon, which was read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next. The report is as follows:

Friday, March 16.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for the relief of Elizabeth Hamilton.

Messrs. Smilie, Root, W. Alston, Bacon, Macon, Clay, and Boyd, opposed the bill, and Messrs. Johnson, Sheffey, and Nelson, supported it.

The committee rose about four o'clock, and reported the bill.

Mr. Macon moved to amend the said bill by striking out the following words: "five years' full pay for the services of her said deceased husband as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Revolutionary war, which five years' full pay is the commutation of his half-pay for life;" for the purpose of inserting, "whatever may be due to her for his services as an officer during the Revolutionary war."

Mr. Gholson called for a division of the question.

And the motion to strike out was negatived, yeas 57, nays 54.

Mr. W. Alston moved to amend the bill by adding the following proviso:

The question on Mr. Alston's amendment was decided in the negative—yeas 55, nays 56.

And on motion, the House then adjourned, about five o'clock.

Saturday, March 17.

Amey Dardin's Claim.

The bill for the relief of Amey Dardin was read a third time.

Mr. Stanford moved to recommit the bill to obtain a more particular report on the claim than had been made. Motion negatived.

The passage of the bill was opposed by Messrs. Macon, Bacon, Pickman, and Stanford, and advocated by Messrs. Gholson, Smilie, W. Alston, and Sheffey.

[It was opposed on three grounds—the main objection being that it opened the statute of limitations; 2, that the claim ought not to be allowed, because the horse, for which compensation was asked, might have been reclaimed if the deceased Mr. Dardin had chosen to have received it; 3, that interest ought not to be allowed on the sum at which the horse was valued.]

The bill was passed—yeas 82, nays 24.

Mrs. Hamilton's Claim.

The consideration of the bill for the relief of Mrs. Hamilton was called for.

Mr. Wynn moved to adjourn. For it, 23.

Mr. Root moved to postpone the further consideration of it till Friday next. Negatived, 57 to 43.

Mr. Root opposed the bill at length, and Mr. Fisk replied.

The question "Shall the bill be engrossed for a third reading?" was then taken and carried, by yeas and nays.

On the question, when the bill should be read a third time, Mr. Root named Friday, and Mr. Nelson to-day.

For Friday 44—For Monday 50.

To-day was fixed as the day; and a motion was made by Mr. T. Moore to adjourn. Lost, 63 to 50.

The bill was read a third time and passed, 63 to 53, the votes being precisely the same as those last taken, except that Mr. R. Brown was absent on this vote.

Monday, March 26.

Torpedo Experiment.

The bill making an appropriation for the purpose of making an experiment on the practical use of the torpedo, or submarine explosion, was taken up.

Mr. Dana, said that the question now before the House did not relate to any degree of reputation which any individual might claim for any invention, nor to any interest he might have in any discovery he had made. The question was, whether this proposition now appeared before the House under such circumstances that they should step out of the ordinary course of encouragement, given by law to inventors, to provide the means of making an experiment at the public expense. This, Mr. D. said, was the simple inquiry to be made; and, however eminent or distinguished in the walks of science, or however irradiated by the splendor of genius, it belonged to no individual to demand of the Legislature that they should adopt any system previous to its utility being ascertained. No individual could arrogate it to himself; and, when any individual pressed himself upon the Legislature, it was a question whether this experiment was worthy to be made; whether the invention promised any possible good worthy of this experiment.

[Pg 219]

Mr. D. said he had no wish to detain the House, but he had really doubted, for himself, whether, with the views he entertained on this subject, it was compatible with the respect due to the House to withhold some of the sentiments which occurred to him in opposition to this bill. In every instance in which a sum of money had heretofore been appropriated to encourage inventions, it had been for some object admitted to be of value, for something intended to be of use, and which, prior to making the appropriation in relation to it, had been, in a degree, examined. This, however, was a thing which, on the face of it, appropriated a sum of money for the purpose of making experiments to ascertain the use of the invention. It was therefore, perhaps, the first appropriation of the kind ever proposed.

Mr. D. said he did not perceive that any experiment could be made, in time of peace, to ascertain this thing, so as to decide the question of the practical use of the torpedo; for, with respect to every question stated in the publication laid on the table, with respect to any principle which the inventor proposed to establish by any specific experiment, with respect to any question which related to natural agents or their physical effect, he thought it proper to admit the whole.

In the first place, Mr. D. said that he admitted that the explosive force of gunpowder, placed at the keel, might destroy any ship. Another thing he would admit, that a person might deposit powder in a metallic case, which should remain under water; that the case might be made water-tight, and that the clock-work contained in it might be put in motion. He would admit, also, that this machine might be balanced so that its gravity should be nearly equal to that of the water; that the action of the current or tide might bear such a magazine, so specifically apportioned, beneath the bottom of the vessel.

But, when all these things were admitted, Mr. Dana said that he did not perceive that any one point was gained as respected the object of the experiment, for it must be considered that all this experiment could only go to decide the action of natural physical powers, where the efforts of genius were not combined.

As respects the whole of the thing itself, as far as I understand it, I perceive nothing new in it. I do not conceive that, on this subject, there is any thing very novel in point of principle. There may be something in the modification of it; but, as respects the main principle, there is nothing new. The idea was started during the war of the American Revolution, and various experiments were made on it. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the United States, at that time, was not, as I have understood, impressed himself with much confidence in the experiment. But a gentleman of his family, and an officer of his army, who had more confidence in it, made the experiment; and, ultimately, the experiment was pretty much given up.

As he did not speak at random, Mr. D. asked leave to call the attention of the House to the principles of the invention of David Bushnell, of Connecticut. [Mr. D. here read, from the Philosophical Transactions, an account of a machine invented by Mr. Bushnell, in many respects similar to that invented by Mr. Fulton.]

The principal difference between these two inventions, Mr. D. said, appeared to be in the mode of conveying the machine to the keel of the ship. The plan of Mr. Fulton was, instead of conveying it by means of a diving-boat, to convey it by the action of the current to the place where it was to operate. To do this he proposed two modes. As respected the first, the action of the current on the torpedo placed obliquely, Mr. D. said he had no doubt. It was the principle on which the helmsman steers his ship, and the seaman manages his sails; the principle on which boats are made to pass ferries by the oblique action of the current. As respected the second mode, the use of the harpoon-gun, there was no novelty in that certainly. It had been used in Europe in the whale fishery, where they were not trained in this species of fishing so as to produce dexterity in throwing the harpoon. Premiums had been given, and attempts made to discharge a harpoon from a ring and rope attached to it, at the distance of ten fathoms, which was a greater distance than the most experienced and skilful could strike with effect.

The question which Mr. D. said he proposed, was, whether obstacles could not be interposed by naval men. As respected firing the harpoon-gun, he should suppose it a want of skill or attention in the experiment if it failed to take effect. That a harpoon might be fired into a vessel, that the torpedo would go under her, and that a vessel which could be bought for $5,000, might be blown up in this way, he had no doubt; but when all this is done, what does it ascertain? As respects making a torpedo, any person who is in the neighborhood of a good gun and locksmith, and has good powder, can construct one. Mr. D. said he did not see the necessity of spending this sum of money rather for amusement than for any thing else. He did not see the necessity of it, because he did not perceive any one thing to be learnt from an experiment. He was, therefore, against the bill.

Mr. Lyon said that the gentleman from Connecticut had shown his own conviction of the utility of torpedoes, and it would be worth while to give five thousand dollars to establish the same conviction in others. If I had the twentieth part of the certainty on the subject which that gentleman has, said Mr. L., I should not vote for the experiment. I have no desire, in voting for any thing of this kind, to give up any other kind of defence. I know it is all-important in us to defend our ports and harbors.[Pg 220] If it was not for our extensive seacoast, I should not be so extremely averse to going to war. I would leave no means untried to protect this seacoast. However little the hope might be, if there was the least thing to hang hope on, I would give $5,000 for the experiment. I have voted for the highest sum ever called for, for the defence of New York; but still, when I look to the steeples of the fine churches, and to the banks, &c., of that city, exposed as it is and must be, I am struck with horror. Notwithstanding all the exertions which have ever been made for them, they must still be insecure. If $5,000 would carry conviction as far on the rest of the House as with the gentleman from Connecticut, the money would be well laid out to enable us to go on with a further experiment of this plan.

The gentleman from Connecticut read a long history of the torpedo experiment made many years ago. I believe, sir, Mr. Fulton has but little merit in originating the thing. Let gentlemen recollect what an alarm this thing made, and how uneasy the British were during the Revolutionary war, till they thought they had got rid of these machines. I cannot forget the alarm which they excited, and will take the liberty to quote Hopkinson on the subject, who was a witness to the transaction:

If a parcel of kegs, in those days, alarmed them so much, what will Fulton's torpedoes do now?

Mr. McKim said, that what had fallen from the gentleman from Connecticut had operated powerfully on his mind to satisfy him of the propriety of the appropriation. He says, observed Mr. McK., that he has no doubt they will produce the desired effect. Now, sir, when I am informed, from so respectable a source, of their effect when properly placed under the ship, I am induced to vote for this appropriation. If one of these machines in a hundred should take effect, the object would be perfectly gained. If we could only blow up one or two in a squadron, we should not hereafter be disturbed by British squadrons in our waters. I have listened with great pleasure to the lecture of the gentleman on pneumatics, hydraulics, &c., for I know not where I could have derived so much information as from that gentleman, and I take the opportunity of returning my thanks to him.

Mr. Fisk said he was against the bill, but from different reasons than other gentlemen were. I do believe, said he, that in some cases, the anchored torpedoes may be effectual; but I do not believe that any thing to result from this bill will be of service to the country. I do not entertain any doubt that a vessel may be blown up. The explosion will take place, the wreck will be left in the bed of the river, and it may cost $5,000 to raise it, or it may remain as an obstacle to the invasion of the capital. If Congress are at this time seriously to resort to the torpedo system of defence, let us do it in a more serious manner; let us make a respectable provision to purchase torpedo munition, and create a torpedo corps under certain regulations. We have got military and naval armaments; let us make a torpedo armament. At the same time, it was but justice to the inventor to say, that he considered the anchored torpedo as a very useful invention. Mr. F. moved to recommit the bill, to inquire into the propriety of appropriating such a sum of money as the Secretary of the Navy should deem adequate to the object, for the sum proposed certainly was not.

Mr. Quincy said he agreed with the gentleman from New York in his opposition to the bill, because, if a fair experiment was intended, the appropriation was totally insufficient. This morning, in a conversation with the Secretary of the Navy, I understood that this sum will not enable a vessel to be placed in that situation which will give a fair experiment. If we pass this bill, it will be utterly useless to the purpose proposed. If the object be to have gentlemen who never saw such a thing gratified with an explosion, that object will be attained, but no other. Let us have an estimate from the Secretary of the Navy of the probable expense, or the whole sum appropriated may be lost, and the law will prove utterly disgraceful to those who passed it.

Mr. Holland said he had understood from the torpedo inventor himself, that $5,000 would be amply sufficient.

Mr. Dana said he had no belief that any vessel could be purchased for five thousand dollars, on which a sufficient experiment could be made. He conceived that the experiment could only[Pg 221] be made in hostile operations. We are told that these torpedoes would destroy the navy in the British channel. Do we doubt the inveteracy of the French hatred of the British navy when it has existed so many years? If this invention would command the British Channel—and millions are but dust in the balance for this object—to enable Bonaparte to strike at the British soil, why has not the invention been patronized by France? It has been rejected by France, and rejected by England after an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars—and now are we to take it up? It is as a stationary resistance to be made to a naval force where there are fortresses also, that the torpedo may be made use of, if they can be used at all; where chains, or chevaux-de-frises are made use of, it may be made use of as auxiliary to other aids in terrifying the enemy. As to setting these machines afloat, firing harpoons into vessels, calculating the chance of boats getting away when a single shot may send them to the bottom, I have no opinion of it at all.

Mr. Lyon said he would not vote for recommitment, not that he had not rather that ten thousand dollars were appropriated than five thousand; but the House had the Senate's opinion on that point before them. He agreed with gentlemen entirely, that there never could be a complete experiment until time of war. But that was no reason why we should not, before war came, be in a fair state to try the experiment in war.

Mr. Fisk said he had not seen the experiment which had been made in New York, but he had conversed with hundreds who had. He had no doubt but the invention might be useful, but how was its utility to be ascertained, unless in the vessel to be attacked, there was a crew prepared to resist the approach of the boats, or prevent the operation of the torpedo? The nation would be no more convinced of their utility after an expenditure of five thousand dollars than they now are. It is because I have confidence in the effect of anchored torpedoes, that I am for recommitting the bill. By passing the bill as it is, we shall demonstrate nothing but the expenditure of money. I am for making an actual experiment on an enemy's vessel. To attack a well-manned frigate, is a very different thing from attacking an old hulk, perfectly at the disposal of the projectors. If we were to pass a bill constructing a torpedo corps, and offering a bounty on every ship blown up, it would be much better calculated to make an impression of our seriousness than this bill.

Mr. Tallmadge said, that having been absent from the House at the time this bill was first introduced, he knew not what arguments had been offered in favor of it. He said he was always ready to encourage inventions, &c., but when a measure was presented which had no novelty in it, he could not be satisfied to give a silent vote on the bill for encouraging it.

My honorable colleague stated fairly the principles on which the submarine boat was constructed; and I believe, said Mr. T., that there is no gentleman in this House who doubts the power of gunpowder, placed under the bottom of a vessel, to destroy it. I have seen it tried during the war in a great variety of ways. I became perfectly satisfied that the principle was just; the only difficulty was to place the magazine in such a situation that it should have the greatest possible effect.

I well recollect that, in 1777, when Bushnell was called on to make an experiment on a British brig of thirty-two guns, lying in North river, a detachment of troops was directed to proceed down the river to enable him to make the experiment free from interruption. I had the honor to command the detachment, and continued there one month. The object of the troops under my immediate command was to keep off all hostile persons, whether of the enemy or persons unfriendly to the invention, that he might have every opportunity to make his experiment with success. His object was at ebb tide to get into the river a boat constructed for the purpose, and pass down the river, and, if possible, fix his magazine of powder to the bottom of the enemy's vessel. He tried it over and over again. Sometimes he would entirely miss the vessel; sometimes he would come so near that he would get intimidated and retire again; till, sir, I became so heartily sick of the business, and of that sort of duty, that I wished the boat and men were both at the bottom of the ocean. I state this to show the difficulty, danger, and what I myself conceive to be the impossibility of placing the magazine under the vessel. So much for this; and I take Mr. Fulton's machine to be bottomed precisely on the same principle, the difference only being in the mode of application.

I have no idea of laughing the subject out of the House; but how can gentlemen see the least probability of success in the invention? Suppose a frigate at anchor, and a few boats endeavoring to harpoon this vessel. Do gentlemen suppose that boats can approach without the most imminent danger? And, granting that the harpoon strikes, where is all the nautical skill of the men when they see this, if they do not prevent it from taking effect. Suppose a perfectly sure shot, and that the harpoon should be fastened in the bow, is it possible that the rope to which the torpedo is attached would not be cut, and the torpedo left to float below perfectly harmless? Do gentlemen consider harpooning a vessel to be like harpooning a whale, which has no men on board of it to take out the harpoon? I cannot bring myself to believe it possible that a crew on board a ship could see all around her, and yet permit a torpedo to be attached to her and place her in such a condition as to be liable to be totally destroyed with every person on board.

It does seem to me that this sort of philosophical experiment ought not to be gone into by this House. If it be necessary to employ any[Pg 222]thing it would be vastly preferable that we should not go through all this solemn farce of passing a law for the purpose of exhibiting a sort of playful experiment, and there is probably a day of our time to be devoted to it, when, in truth, no solid advantages can accrue from it. I am unwilling on another ground, because the thing itself would expose the Government to a sort of ridicule. If we pass this bill, and the experiment be made; if a brig be bought for this money and totally destroyed, there will still be as much proof wanting to demonstrate that this is an experiment on which we can rely, as there was before. I am against it on another ground: that if we trust to this kind of doubtful defence, we shall get into the habit of giving up the more substantial defence of the country. This is my solid reason for voting against this bill. No one ever yet found any way of getting along in solid defence but by solid preparation. I should rather come into honorable combat than fight with this underhand explosion, when especially there is so much doubt in it. If an experiment could be made, however, without all this solemn farce, I do not, know that I should have any objection to it.

The motion for recommitment was lost—50 to 45.

The question on the passage of the bill was then taken by yeas and nays, and decided in the affirmative—yeas 65, nays 53.

Wednesday, March 28.

First Meridian.

Mr. Pitkin, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 25th of January last, the memorial of William Lambert, made the following report thereon:

In presenting the above report, Mr. Pitkin observed that the object of the committee was to have a first meridian established for the United States, from which computations of longitude might be generally made, that maps, charts, and nautical tables, might not, as heretofore, be calculated from the observatory at Greenwich, or from the varying points of Philadelphia, New York, Washington, or Charleston. Mr. P. dilated upon the advantages of such a measure. Congress would fix upon the place most proper for a first meridian; and, perhaps, as Washington was the seat of Government, it would be as proper a place as any. As the longitude must be taken very exactly, various instruments would be necessary for the purpose of making astronomical observations. As he was desirous that a bill should pass on the subject at this session, he did not move a reference of the report to a Committee of the Whole, but moved that it lie on the table, to give gentlemen time to consider it before he asked a decision on it.

The report was accordingly ordered to lie on the table.

Friday, March 30.

Batture at New Orleans.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill providing the means to ascertain the title to the batture near New Orleans.

Mr. Bibb's motion yet under consideration, and a division of the question being called for,

The question on striking out the sections of the present bill (providing for a judicial decision) was taken, and carried—yeas 95, nays 22.

The question now recurred on Mr. Bibb's amendment, to insert, in lieu of those stricken out, several new sections.

[Mr. Bibb's amendment proposes that the right of the United States shall be vested in the Corporation of New Orleans, so as to enable them to defend any suit which may be instituted for the recovery of the batture, and that the batture shall be used and enjoyed as a public highway and landing place, &c.; as well by citizens of the United States as by the inhabitants of New Orleans.]

This motion was decided by yeas and nays and lost—yeas 36, nays 84.

Saturday March 31.

The Batture at New Orleans.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday, on the bill providing the means to ascertain the title to the batture in front of the suburb St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans.

The question having recurred on the amendment of Mr. Pitkin, the said amendment was withdrawn by the mover.

The question was then taken on concurring with the Committee of the Whole in their first amendment to the said bill, and carried in the affirmative.

The question then recurred on concurring with the Committee of the Whole House in their second amendment to the said bill, amended in the House to read as follows:

Messrs. Nelson, Smilie, Holland, and Bibb, opposed the amendment; and Messrs. Sheffey, Key, and Lyon, supported it.

The question being taken, it was determined in the negative—yeas 62, nays 55.

Monday, April 9.

Apportionment of Representation.

Mr. Fisk said he rose to offer a resolution, which he had for some time wished to present for the consideration of this House. It is to provide for fixing the apportionment of the Representatives of the several States according to the third census. The last ratio was one Representative for every thirty-three thousand souls; which, gave one hundred and forty-two mem[Pg 224]bers to this House—a number as large as may be considered necessary for the despatch of legislation, or to preserve the liberties of the people. It is estimated that the next census will give seven millions two hundred thousand souls, which, according to the present ratio of representation, would give to this House two hundred and eighteen members—a greater number than could be accommodated within these walls, and a greater body of men than could progress with the business of the House.

After the census shall be taken, the amount in each State ascertained, and the fractional numbers known, it will be much more difficult to fix the ratio than at this time. I therefore beg leave to submit the following resolution. And as it embraces a subject of great importance, I have no objection that it lay on the table a few days for the consideration of the members:

A motion was made that the resolution lie on the table.

A motion was also made to postpone it for a week.

Mr. Pickman moved to postpone the further consideration of the resolution indefinitely. He thought the question could be decided to much greater advantage in the two first months of the next session of Congress than in the two weeks remaining of the present session.

Mr. Macon was against indefinite postponement. Every one, on reflection, must be satisfied that it would be better to decide the ratio of apportionment now than after the result of the census was known. He thought the resolution had better have been in blank as to the ratio. The ratio might be settled either by fixing the number of Representatives of whom the House should consist after the next census, or by fixing the number of souls which should entitle a district to a Representative.

Mr. Gold said, however desirable it might be at this time to fix the ratio, he doubted very much whether a decision would now settle the question. If a law were now to be passed, and there should be several large fractions on any given ratio, there would be a strong disposition to alter the ratio at the next session. He thought it would be expedient also to postpone the apportionment, because it might be affected by the proportion in which the population of the United States may have increased since the last census, which could not be ascertained till after the census.

Mr. Quincy said he understood the object of the resolution to be to settle a principle before the facts were ascertained. Now it was his opinion that the House should know the facts first and settle the principle afterwards. Suppose the principle to be adopted—perhaps one or two States might be entitled to but one Representative, which, had the ratio been fixed at forty thousand, might have been entitled to two. This would appear to operate unjustly. The House must know the facts in order fairly to apportion representation. The apportionment ought to be made not merely in relation to population, but to the weight of the different States in the Union—and these considerations could not have their due weight till after the relative numbers were ascertained.

Mr. W. Alston was in favor of deciding on the subject at this session. He had no fear of difficulty resulting from fractions remaining unrepresented. It would be recollected that at the last apportionment, Delaware had a fraction of thirty-one thousand left, and Carolina twenty-nine thousand. The small States could not object to the course proposed; for if this question was postponed till after the census, and a particular ratio should appear to suit the returns of the three large States, they would support it and carry it too, notwithstanding the large fractions it might leave to smaller States. A disadvantage would therefore result to the small States from postponement rather than from a decision now.

Mr. Fisk said there was one other reason why an apportionment should be made at this session, viz: that it would enable the State Legislatures at their ordinary winter sessions to divide the States into districts, and not subject them to the necessity of an extra session for the purpose.

Mr. Livermore was against indefinite postponement, because he was inclined to the opinion that the subject ought to be acted on at this session, but wished the resolution to lie on the table a day or two. He said he was convinced, from his experience in the manner of doing business in this House, that it would take nearly the whole of the next session of Congress to make the apportionment, if it was postponed till after the census was taken. He had rather the resolution had been blank as to the ratio.

Mr. Fisk modified his motion, so as to leave it blank as to the ratio.

Mr. Burwell thought that the present was the proper time to fix the proportion; because, after the respective numbers of each State were received, it would be in the power of the larger States to fix the ratio as they pleased, and at present none of the State jealousies could be brought into action, which would, when the returns were actually made. To get over the difficulty said to exist in settling a principle before the facts were known, it was only necessary to say that so many members should compose the House. If the population was smaller than expected, there would still be the number deemed proper to constitute the House; and if it was larger there would be no great increase of members, to the detriment of public business. Mr. B. said he was fully impressed with the necessity of acting on the subject at the present session. If postponed till the result of the census was known, and the particular interest of[Pg 225] each member of the House became implicated in the decision of it, there would be extreme difficulty in coming to a decision.

Mr. Smilie said he could not conceive any objection to passing the resolution in its present shape. In this question there was an inconvenience on one side and evil on the other. It was an inconvenience that the House could not with precision ascertain the population of the United States; but, from the increase in times past, the increase for the last ten years might be estimated. The evil of postponement on the other hand was great. Mr. S. said he had been in Congress when the ratio of representation had been settled heretofore, and he had never seen a more difficult question—and it ended at last in a bargain between the members of the different States; and from these bargains no good could arise. He much preferred deciding on the subject at the present session.

Mr. Rhea of Tennessee was anxious that the subject should lie on the table a day or two, the more especially as there was such a disagreement of opinion as to the operation of the measure of fixing the ratio beforehand. Coming from a small State himself, he feared lest the principle should operate to the injury of the small States. He said he had been much surprised at the declaration of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the question would be decided eventually (if postponed) by individual interest. If on such a question the House was to be governed by individual interests, what was the nation to expect from them? This suggestion was another reason in his mind for the resolution's lying on the table.

Mr. Smilie had spoken of human nature as he found it, even in the gentleman from Tennessee as well as all others—a degree of self-concern always influenced individual conduct. Whoever had assisted at settling the representation of a State would conceive the difficulty of deciding these questions.

The motion for indefinite postponement was negatived, ayes 23. The motion to postpone to Monday shared the same fate, ayes 33. The motion to lie on the table was carried—53 to 41.

Wednesday, April 11.

Colonel Washington.

Mr. Randolph said that the House was already apprised of the death of Colonel William Washington, in whom our country had lost one of her most illustrious sons. It is very far from my intention, sir, said he, by any amplification of mine to lessen the impression of that merit which the bare mention of his name is calculated to make on the mind of every man who hears me. It is not the least unequivocal proof of that worth that it was not extinguished by the effulgence of his great kinsman's glory, with which it was daily brought into comparison. The reputation which can stand such an ordeal as this, is far beyond the praise or blame of an humble individual like me. If, to the proposition which I am about to offer, an objection should arise in the breast of any man who hears me on the score of the rank which that gentleman bore in the late American army, permit me to suggest that it is a testimony to valor and not to rank. It is not a mere respect to rank which I wish the House to pay. It is not in rank to add to the infamy of an Arnold, or to the glory of a Washington. I will, therefore, move the following resolution:

Mr. Smilie said he hoped there was no man who felt more respect or gratitude to those men who served their country during the Revolutionary war than he did, but this resolution appeared to be improper on several grounds. I agree, said Mr. S., with the gentleman from Virginia, that rank should have no effect on the opinions of the members of this House on such a subject as this. But, is it not singular that as to the many heroes who have served us during the Revolution, who have now gone to their long home, no notice has been taken of their merits by us, nor any step taken to confer upon them the honor now proposed to be conferred on this officer, whom I acknowledge to be meritorious? We have seen a Greene die, and certainly no man exceeded him in rank or merit, the General-in-chief excepted. We have seen a Wayne also die; and I do not recollect that such a tribute was proposed to any man who served us during the Revolution. Shall we, then, by passing this resolution, sanction an idea that Lieutenant-Colonel Washington was entitled to more respect than others? Would not the passage of this resolution be considered as an indirect censure on the other Revolutionary characters who have gone from us? When the other heroes fall that are still existing, we must, if we pass this resolution, pay the same respect to their merits, or suppose them to have been inferior. This would introduce into the Legislature invidious comparisons, and, instead of legislating, we shall be sitting as judges upon character. In every respect, I think the resolution objectionable.

The question was taken on the resolution without further debate, and passed in the negative—yeas 30.

Thursday, April 12.

The Convoy System.

Mr. Eppes said that, some time ago, a bill had been reported by him to the House, authorizing the President of the United States to employ the public armed vessels to convoy the lawful commerce of the United States. The motion to adjourn, which had been agreed to, would leave but a small portion of the time of the House for the discussion of the several subjects before[Pg 226] them. As he was compelled by ill health to leave the city at an early day, having already obtained leave of absence, he was anxious to obtain a vote on this before he departed, and therefore asked to discharge the Committee of the Whole from the further consideration of the bill, in order to take the sense of the House whether it should go to a third reading or lie on the table for the present.

This motion was opposed by Messrs. Macon, Taylor, Pickman, Randolph, Livermore, and Wilson, on the ground of its being out of the usual course of proceedings; and it was objected to the more especially as this was a subject involving very important principles, and one which, of all others, ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Eppes expressed his willingness to take a silent vote on the subject, and thought a vote might be obtained on the bill without much debate.

Mr. Johnson expressed great anxiety to vote on the bill.

Mr. Livermore intimated that he was strongly against the bill, and, if it took every hour in the session, he was determined to expose what he believed to be its injurious features.

On the question, Mr. Eppes' motion was negatived—yeas 50, nays 61, as follows:

Friday, April 18.

Colonel Washington.

Mr. Quincy rose to move a resolution. He said he very deeply regretted the situation in which this House had been placed in relation to the memory of that distinguished officer of the Revolution, General William Washington, in consequence of the resolution moved on the 11th instant. He thought that the impression exhibited on the journals was not such as either did justice to that individual or to the feelings of every member of the House. He hoped that to the resolution which he was about to offer, and which had for its object an explanation of the grounds on which he knew a majority of the House had voted, would not find an objection. It would take away the appearance that this House had not that deep sense of the merits and services of that officer which he knew they possessed. He then read the following resolution:

The House agreed to consider the resolution—58 to 13.

The resolution passed—ayes 63; about seventy-five members were present.

Friday, April 20.

General Wilkinson.

The Speaker laid before the House the following letter, which was read:

Naval Establishment.

Mr. Randolph, from the committee to whom was referred the resolution respecting the reduction of the Naval Establishment, reported the following bill; which was twice read, and referred to a Committee of the Whole:

[Here follows the Bill.]

Monday, April 23.

Loan Bill.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill authorizing a loan for a sum of money not exceeding the amount of the principal of the public debt reimbursable during the year 1810.

[In the discussion which took place on this bill, there was no objection to the principle of it. Every gentleman who spoke assented to the propriety of placing at the disposal of the Government a sum of money fully adequate to meet the appropriations authorized by law for the present year.]

Mr. Dana wished to ascertain the precise amount of the principal of the debt reimbursable during the year 1810, with a view to inserting the sum in the body of the bill.

Some difference of opinion appeared to exist as to the exact amount of principal reimbursable. The sum annually applicable to the payment of the public debt is eight millions of dollars. The sum left, after paying the interest of it for the year, is annually applicable to the extinguishment of the principal. The exact amount of interest payable on the public debt during this year not being known, there was a difficulty in ascertaining the exact amount of principal reimbursable.

The sum of $4,800,000 was mentioned.

Mr. Dana moved to amend the bill so as to authorize a loan "not exceeding $4,800,000, being the amount of the principal reimbursable," &c. This motion was supported by the mover, and Messrs. Gold, Sheffey, Quincy, Upham, Tallmadge, and Pickman, and opposed by Messrs. Bacon, W. Alston, and Montgomery.

The arguments in favor of the motion were, generally, that it was improper to attempt to disguise any thing by giving to it a specious name; that borrowing money should not be called paying the public debt; that all authority given to borrow money should be express and specific as to the sum. It was said in reply, that there could be no objection that the truth should appear on the face of a bill; that this sum not being wanted to defray the ordinary expenses of the Government, but to pay debts heretofore contracted, the phraseology was perfectly correct; that it was as specific in fact as if expressed in so many figures.

Mr. Dana varied his motion, after debate, on account of the uncertainty which appeared to exist as to the sum reimbursable, and of course as to the sum to be loaned. He moved to amend the bill so as to give authority to borrow a sum of money "not exceeding four millions of dollars."

This motion was supported and opposed by the same gentlemen who debated the former motion. In support of the motion it was said, that this sum was all that the Secretary of the Treasury had asked for, and was therefore as much as ought to be given. The advocates of the amendment also said that they were averse to legislating blindfold, to voting millions without knowing for what, or to surrendering up their judgments to Executive discretion, under an idea that the President would not borrow more than was necessary.

In reply it was said, that since the Secretary of the Treasury had made the estimate in question, other expenses had been incurred; that it was impossible to tell the precise amount which was wanted until Congress should adjourn, as it was impossible to tell on one day what appropriations they would make the next day; that, if not necessary, the authority to borrow would not be used; as in the case of the loan authorized at the last session of Congress, not a cent of which had been actually borrowed. That law had granted an authority nearly similar to this in nearly the same language.

Mr. Dana's motion was negatived—52 to 29.

Mr. Quincy observed that he felt but one difficulty on this subject. He could not agree to borrow an amount greater than the Secretary of the Treasury had said was necessary. He, therefore, moved to amend the bill by adding to it the following proviso:

The motion was lost—ayes 28.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time to-morrow.

Tuesday, April 24.

Reduction of the Navy.

The House in Committee of the Whole on the bill to reduce the Naval Establishment of the United States.

The bill having been read—

Mr. McKim moved to amend that part of the bill which directs the sale of all the gunboats, by adding the following words: "belonging to the United States, unfit for service, and unworthy of repairs."

This motion was agreed to without debate, ayes 56.

Mr. Key said he was friendly to the reduction[Pg 228] of the Navy, but not to its annihilation. He therefore moved to strike out so much of the bill as provides that all the frigates but three shall be "sold," and to insert in lieu thereof, "laid up in ordinary."

Messrs. Dana and Mumford supported the motion.

Mr. Rhea of Tennessee made a motion, which superseded that made by Mr. Key, to strike out the whole of the section, except so much as related to gunboats. He was wholly opposed to the reduction of the Navy at present.

Mr. Smilie said he should vote for the motion with a view to inserting a substitute going to place the Navy now on the footing of the Peace Establishment of 1806.

Mr. Dana was in favor of Mr. Rhea's motion, but expressed himself very pointedly in favor of a reform in the expenditures and conduct of the Naval Establishment generally.

Mr. Bassett also was in favor of Mr. Rhea's motion. He supported the policy of a small navy, and vindicated the establishment generally from charges of waste or extravagance, though he was friendly to reform wherever necessary. Mr. B. spoke nearly an hour.

Mr. Cook and Mr. Rhea of Tennessee also spoke in favor of the motion to strike out the whole of the first section.

Mr. Macon spoke against the motion, and against the policy of a navy as applicable to the situation of this country.

Mr. Stanford followed Mr. Macon on the same side of the question, and particularly reprobated the extravagant expenditure of money incident to the naval system.

Mr. Dana spoke again on the subject of reform in the system.

Mr. Macon and Mr. Stanford explained.

Mr. Boyd was against the reduction of the Navy under present appearances.

The motion to strike out the remainder of the section was carried, 61 to 25.

Mr. Smilie moved to insert, in the place of that part which was stricken out, the following:

Mr. S. read the law alluded to in this amendment, which would go to retain in service thirteen captains, nine masters commandant, seventy-two lieutenants, one hundred and fifty midshipmen, and nine hundred and twenty-five able-bodied seamen, ordinary seamen and boys.

Mr. McKim opposed the amendment, because he was altogether opposed to a reduction of the Navy in the present state of the world.

Mr. Smilie replied. He said he had no apprehension of danger to his country from laying up a few frigates.

Mr. Bassett stated that the whole number of seamen now in service, was but two thousand seven hundred and twenty-three. If the number was reduced, the expense of reducing and re-enlisting them within a short period, would exceed the expense of keeping them in service during the interval.

Mr. Montgomery spoke in favor of the amendment, under the impression that there was no disposition in Congress to make use of the Navy. Although the number of seamen in service might not exceed two thousand seven hundred and twenty, as stated, yet the President now had power to authorize the employment of five thousand four hundred and ninety men. The adoption of the amendment, he said, would curtail the present annual expense, $778,000.

Mr. Mumford spoke against the amendment. He remarked that the counting-house calculation of pounds, shillings, and pence, heretofore imputed as a fault to the merchants, seemed to have been transferred to the planters of cotton and tobacco. He did not regard a little expense when put in competition with the national safety.

Mr. Smilie's amendment was negatived.

The section for disusing all the navy-yards except those at Boston, New York, and Norfolk, having been read—

Mr. Key moved to insert "Washington" after New York, and, speaking in support of his motion, expatiated on the advantages possessed by a navy-yard at the seat of Government.

Mr. Bassett concurred with Mr. Key in opinion; but, as he presumed the section was only meant as an accompaniment to that part of the bill already stricken out, he moved to strike out the whole section.

Mr. Dana opposed the amendment. Six navy-yards were certainly not necessary for the service of the United States, and he particularly opposed the retention of the yard at Washington.

Mr. Key spoke in reply to Mr. Dana, and in support of Mr. Bassett's motion. He defended the navy-yard at Washington against the imputations cast on it.

Messrs. Tallmadge and Dana spoke against the amendment.

Mr. Smilie spoke in favor of the amendment, and expressed his astonishment at the change which appeared to have taken place in the House since they had voted, 60 to 31, a few days ago, to reduce the Navy.

Mr. Key expressed his surprise that a gentleman having as much parliamentary experience as the gentleman who preceded him, should be surprised at the change of votes. A majority had voted to reduce, having different objects of reduction in view; but, when a reduction in any one branch of expenditure was proposed, it appeared that a majority could not agree in it. Mr. K. spoke again in favor of the amendment.

[Pg 229]

The motion to strike out the section was lost, 52 to 40.

Mr. Key renewed his motion to insert "Washington."

Mr. Randolph opposed the motion on the ground of the unfitness of the situation of Washington, compared with others, for a navy-yard.

Mr. Macon supported the motion; because he was utterly opposed to a navy, he said he wished that a navy-yard should be kept here, as members of Congress would be much sooner disgusted by seeing the expenditures of the Navy system, than by hearing of them.

Mr. Dana, as a friend to a navy, said he wished the amendment not to prevail. The gentleman from North Carolina, an enemy to navies, wished to retain the yard at this place; he, Mr. D., a friend to them generally, wished to dispose of or disuse it. They therefore thought alike, though they should vote differently.

The motion to insert "Washington" was carried—54 to 42.

The section for reducing the marines was struck out, without debate—ayes 59.

The committee rose, and reported the bill as amended.

The Speaker resumed the Chair, and the House resolved now to consider the report of the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Milnor said the bill had been much amended in committee, and as the remnant left amounted to very little, and the discussion of that little would probably cost more than would be saved by passing it into a law, he moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject indefinitely.

Wednesday, April 25.

Loan Bill.

The engrossed bill authorizing a loan for a sum of money, not exceeding the amount of the principal of the public debt, reimbursable during the year 1810, was read a third time.

All the gentlemen who spoke against the bill professed to be willing in a proper manner to authorize a loan of any sum of money necessary to meet the appropriations made; but they contended that the bill was objectionable because the sum was not stated in the face of the bill, because the bill bore a deceptive appearance of borrowing money to pay the public debt, when, in fact, it was to meet the ordinary expenses of the Government; because the bill authorized a loan of five millions five hundred and sixty thousand dollars, more by one million one hundred and sixty thousand dollars than the Secretary of the Treasury had declared to be necessary, and because no loan ought to be authorized until bills now before the House were decided on, which involved a reduction of the annual expenditure.

In reply to the objections to this bill, it was urged that the amount authorized (not required) to be borrowed was as definitely expressed as though in figures; that there could be no deception on the face of the bill, for, if no debt heretofore contracted was now to be paid off, there would not only be no occasion to borrow, but there would be an immense annual surplus in the Treasury; that, since the estimate of four millions had been reported to the House, various appropriations had been made, and it was impossible yet to say how much might be wanted, and no more would be borrowed than actually was wanted; that if the passage of the bill was delayed but a day or two, it would be very easy for gentlemen to prevent its passage at all.

The bill was passed—yeas 77, nays 35.

Reduction of the Navy.

The House then resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.

Mr. Milnor said when he had made the motion for the indefinite postponement of the bill, he had supposed that the sense of the House had been fully expressed on it; but as it appeared that the motion would occupy much time in debate, and as some gentlemen had thought proper to insinuate that the motion was made for the purpose of avoiding meeting a direct question on the bill, he now rose to withdraw the motion.

The question was then stated on the first amendment made in Committee of the Whole, viz: to strike out so much as requires the sale of all the gunboats.

Mr. Mumford hoped that the frigates would not be laid up in ordinary. He said he was no politician by profession; he had been called from mercantile pursuits against his inclination, but he had always understood that government was instituted for the protection of the citizen. He was chagrined when he saw the events unfolding in the Old World, and witnessed such a paralyzing system going on in his own country. He had hoped that some system would have been adopted for the protection of our commerce at sea. If gentlemen were determined to abandon the ocean altogether, he begged to know it in time before merchants were totally ruined, for it was impossible at present to carry on any commerce whatever. The part of the country which he represented (city of New York) felt it strongly; agriculture would feel it sooner or later. The enormous captures made of their property had reduced merchants to the alternative of staying at home, or having no commerce but with Great Britain. If gentlemen are disposed to surrender commerce to the discretion of the belligerents and retire from the ocean, it is time to know it. Mr. M. said he was no motive-monger; he never arraigned gentlemen for their motives. We have heard gentlemen say, "millions for defence and not a cent for tribute;" and a noble and popular sentiment it was. It seemed now to be reversed with them, and a plain translation of their speeches was, "millions for tribute; not a cent for defence." Various projects had been offered. Some gentlemen were for putting down[Pg 230] the whole Army and Navy; others were for a sort of snail system, alarmed at the least apprehension of danger. Viewing the subject as he did, Mr. M. entreated that gentlemen would consent to protect commerce. The island of St. Domingo now possessed seventeen armed vessels. They were gaining strength daily, and what was the situation of our Southern borders? If our naval force was entirely withdrawn from the ocean, it was impossible for an army of militia to defend the mouth of the Chesapeake. He understood that two vessels were now building in Chesapeake Bay for St. Domingo. He knew that the Haytian agents had been in this country for the purpose of purchasing vessels. Under all these circumstances was it wise and prudent to discharge the Navy? He presumed the best course would be to put to sea what little navy we have to protect our own coasters, for they would be necessary without any view to commerce in the European seas. Under every view, instead of laying up those vessels in service, Mr. M. said he hoped that gentlemen would consent to fit out every vessel in the possession of the United States, and send them out to protect American commerce.

A motion having been made by Mr. Smilie to amend the bill so as to place the Navy on the footing on which it stood in 1806—

Mr. Dana said he was not for pausing with merely replacing the former system; he was also for guarding against the waste of public property and treasure which had taken place in the Naval Establishment. He believed that for the number of fighting men afloat the United States had been put to a much greater expense than was necessary. He was not speaking, he said, of our having few brave men on the water, nor of the great sums given anywhere to those who give us their blood; but the system of the navy-yards, he believed, required a thorough reform. If he was to judge of the general economy on board the frigates and smaller vessels from the little he had seen of them, he must set it down for certain that waste did not exist on board the vessels after they were fitted for service, and manned, and officered. As far as he had an opportunity to observe, he had marked a strong sense of subordination, and the practice of command at the same time sustained with gentleman-like propriety, without any unnecessary torture or rigor. In all this business, Mr. D. said, where you employ warriors, whether by land or water, that department called the staff, the agents, purveyors of supplies, &c., is the branch of the service to which you most look for waste. On merely casting the eye along the decks of our vessels, the conduct of the officers, and the manner in which the men behaved, indicated a sort of conduct which appeared to him incompatible with waste, laxity of discipline, or want of attention to duty. Generally speaking, the civil branch of the service was the reverse of this. Mr. D. adverted to the mode of equipping vessels, and reprobated the scrambling, which he had understood often took place for equipments, as incompatible with methodical arrangement, and correct distribution of supplies. It was wasteful and inconsistent with regular accountability. It was not the course pursued in the navy-yards of other nations. The commander of a man of war in other countries was not permitted to go into a navy-yard; he could not there claim to have every thing new on board his vessel. When every man was suffered to manage as he would, there was no security for the economical conduct of an establishment; for the more anxious was each commander to have his own vessel exclusively well equipped, the more would the public suffer. He was, therefore, for adopting some system of rigorous retrenchment—what it should be he did not know. In the nature of the thing he was confident it could be done; without it there must be much waste. At present, therefore, he was against striking out the frigates from the Naval Establishment. A reform in the expense was the great desideratum, not the abolition of the Navy.

Mr. D. said he would submit to the House one consideration: the appearance which the passage of such a bill would present to the world after the resolutions passed at the commencement of the present session. For his own part, indeed, he had deemed it useless to make declarations of national independence, or to resolve against submission; but at the commencement of the session a resolution had been passed respecting what had taken place between Executive and the British Minister, and then Congress had pledged themselves to call forth the whole force of the nation to stand by and support the President. He had supposed this unnecessary, improper, and exceptionable in some respects. But at the same session, when the controversy was chiefly respecting maritime privileges, if they should not only reduce but sell the Navy, what would the world say, when they had seen the beginning and end of the session? Would it be possible that foreign powers could look up with any reverence to their acts? We shall, said he, be reduced to such a situation that even the apprehension of our hatred could not insure respect from foreign Governments, if we suffer our conduct to be so completely at war with our own acts. In order to possess some appearance of respectability in the estimation of others, the most expedient course would be to establish economy and provide for a less profuse distribution of the public moneys, but to retain the public armed vessels, that we may be in the condition for effectual service whenever it is deemed expedient. By this course we may save more of property as well as character than by an abolition of the Navy; and if we save both it is better than to save the one and lose the other.

In allusion to a remark of Mr. Mumford against the bill, Mr. D. said that in regard to what was formerly said respecting millions for defence and not a cent for tribute, that doctrine[Pg 231] was a very good one, but it had no connection with crawling within ourselves in time of danger—with the terrapin policy—with drawing in head and claws so that no part of the body should be exposed; and those who were for that course, (because really they had not provided any shell,) could not very well appeal for their justification to the doctrine of "millions for defence and not a cent for tribute," and yet he believed that the gentleman from New York himself had voted for that system of terrapin defence. Although, said Mr. D., I was against that thing, yet there were men distinguished for talents and worth, and who are eminent in the councils of their country, who entertained sentiments widely different. This policy was borrowed from the colonial system; we did not assume the spirit of a nation, perhaps; we recollected what we had done before when we were colonies, and perhaps gentlemen thought the efforts of children might succeed when they had attained to manhood. It was a delusion. If gentlemen, however, now see through their error, their desire to correct it ought not to be condemned.

Mr. Bassett was of opinion with Mr. D. that reform rather than reduction of the Naval Establishment ought to be their object. He was glad to find that when the Navy was brought into view, other ideas than those of mere commerce began to be associated with it. Heretofore it had only been advocated as a means for the protection of commerce. Mr. B. said he lived in a district which was sensibly alive to the benefits of a navy. The district which he represented had within it more water than land. It therefore became essential to the defence of his constituents that they should have a floating protection. It was impossible, in the nature of things, that they could be defended but by a floating defence. Surely there could be no gentleman in the House who was not sensible of the necessity of protection! It might be a favorite point in a monarchy to keep the country unprotected, and thus under the control of the Government, but the motto of Republics should be universal justice, equal rights, and common defence. He asked gentlemen to look at the magnitude of the object of defending our seacoasts, which could not be less than three thousand miles in extent, and, taking into consideration the sides of our navigable rivers, that extent would be doubled. If gentlemen would but for a moment consider the immense space which was exposed, they would see all the importance of securing an adequate defence. The House had been told, and certainly very truly, that there was a maritime force rising in our neighborhood. The House had been told, also, and told correctly, too, that at least two large vessels were building in their own waters for the use of that growing maritime power. At the very moment, said Mr. B., that we know that the blacks of St. Domingo are building vessels, shall we dispose of Our public armed vessels? Let me ask who will buy them when put into the market? Who but Christophe and Petion? It is reduced to a certainty that if we put them now to the hammer, they must go in that direction. I ask gentlemen seriously to weigh that consideration.

The situation of our Navy is at present sufficiently reduced. We have only five frigates in actual service. The Chesapeake, for want of repairs, is now in harbor. If gentlemen are anxious that she should be laid up in ordinary, I would accord in it; but I would prefer to leave this subject entirely to the discretion of the Executive. I know, sir, how apt a proposition of this sort is to be met by a suggestion of Presidential confidence; but when we come to consider our particular situation, that we are putting it into the power of the President, not to add to the burdens of the people, but to relieve them, that will be thought a sound argument to justify the course of leaving the whole matter to the discretion of the President. The wisdom of the last and of the present Congress has kept in service five frigates. We cannot remain in session at all times; and we are at this moment, extremely doubtful as to the aspect our affairs will assume as to foreign nations. I would ask gentlemen if former experience does not warn us that if we have an accommodation with one belligerent, it will but lead to a wider breach with the other? But if this occurrence does not take place, and every thing should turn out happily, my proposition would leave it in the power of the Executive to secure the public against loss. The expense is not drawn upon us by the Executive, but it is such as the wisdom of the National Legislature has thought proper to incur. Therefore I think it fair to consider the subject in this way. As we are about to separate, and as present appearances would not warrant our giving up any species of protection, we shall be justified in giving a discretionary power to the Executive to put down such part of the Naval Establishment as he may in future think it justifiable to part with.

I am not one of those who think the expense of the Navy a sufficient argument for disposing of it altogether. I have been asked what has the Navy done. I can answer for a large portion of my constituents, that it has kept them quiet in mind. Is it not important that the men who live on the seaboard should know that we have a force to repel attack? What sort of attack have we cause to expect? A serious invasion? Certainly not. The sort of attack which we ought to guard against is the predatory attack, made at small expense, to our great injury. If we do away the naval system entirely, our whole seacoast will be liable to be ravaged. A single frigate, a single privateer, a single pirate, might come into your waters and injure your citizens to a considerable amount. It has been mentioned, and I have seen an official intimation of it, that two or three vessels, in the shape of pirates, had stopped vessels at the mouth of the Mississippi. The force now[Pg 232] embodied on the ocean is not more than adequate to the security of the nation against predatory warfare. I am willing, notwithstanding this, to leave it to the Executive discretion to lessen the burden.

I regret much that at this period of the session we cannot go into an examination of the expenditures the gentleman from Connecticut complains of. I think it proper to observe that for one I shall be willing to receive his assistance in detecting abuses. I believe the gentleman at present at the head of the Navy Department has every disposition to correct them. But at the same time that is not sufficient for us. I do not know of any unnecessary expenses, or I should bring them to public view; I do believe there is not that want of system which the gentleman seems to suppose. This much I know, that at all the navy-yards are proper officers for distributing stores. There all the rigging, ropes, &c., &c., are kept apart, and, as far as a landsman, a lubber like myself, can judge, appear in great order.

In relation to the smaller vessels it appears by the report of the Secretary of the Navy that they are in perfect repair. The expense of sailing them is the only expense. I cannot but again repeat, because I think it of the last importance, that the security which these small vessels gives us greatly outweighs all disadvantages of expense. If we can lessen the expense, let us do it, in the hope that at another session we shall be able to find out where the evil exists. It is generally said, when this subject is under consideration, that we cannot attempt to cope with Great Britain. Because we cannot, are we to succumb to others? To provide no protection against smaller powers? At this moment the master of an American merchant vessel is employed in the service of the Emperor of China, a country possessing the greatest population in the world, for the purpose of protecting the citizens of the Emperor against some small pirates. Is there a fact can speak more strongly to us, that, without some sort of naval defence, with such a seacoast as we have, (and let it be recollected, sir, that our seacoast is much greater in proportion to our population than the Chinese,) we shall be at the mercy of the worst of the human race?

It was asked what mighty good the Navy has done. Let me ask the gentleman who asked that question, what mighty good our Army has done by land? When we consider the point of expense, let us consider the evils of different sorts. Let me ask gentlemen if the evils depicted to exist in Peru, where gold abounds, do not equal any thing they can imagine to proceed from the want of money? We must forget the evils that force produces in the necessity which exists for having it. We cannot say, because some evil results from force, that we will not have it; for, if you have it not, others will. Our own experience should teach us the necessity of it. What was the effect of our eloquent addresses, when colonies, placed at the foot of the British throne? They (the British) sent a fleet and army to Boston. They did not tell you power was right; but they said it with their fleet and army. Reason will tell us the same now; it is impossible to meet force but by force. The effects of naval force are well remembered. It is well recollected that in the Revolution Cornwallis marched from Charleston to Virginia. When he got there, a French fleet was on the coast. The very moment the fleet advanced by water, Cornwallis surrendered. Here was evidence of the effect of naval force. And it is by its efficiency that we must balance the great objection of expense. I have heard it stated here how much more expense a sailor is than a soldier. If we look to the fact, and contrast the efficiency of the two, we shall find that the superior efficiency of the sailor greatly outweighs the additional expense. There is one fact, very strongly illustrative of this principle, drawn from British history. It is found, by the papers laid before Parliament, that the present naval establishment costs seventeen millions annually. The expense of the army is nearly the same. With seventeen millions of water force, the navy of Great Britain makes her mistress of the ocean; with seventeen millions, the land force of Great Britain is contemptible. As concerns ourselves, all the attack we can expect to receive is on the ocean or on the seacoast, and we can by this fact see demonstrably that we can procure more protection for a certain number of dollars expended on the water than we can from the same number of dollars expended on the land. History shows that Republics are always naval powers; and navies have preserved their existence. The history of England, instead of destroying this argument, is in favor of it; the celebrated exploits of the Dutch confirm it. England, though a monarchy, is the freest in Europe, and all nations have enjoyed the greatest naval celebrity when they have been most free. A navy has no great general at the head of it, wielding an immense body of armed men. The commanders of ships have a very different influence. The admiral himself cannot act on the land. History does not show an instance where an attack was made on the liberty of a nation from that quarter. I am therefore disposed to give my feeble aid to support an efficient force upon the water rather than upon the land; and I believe the present establishment is by no means beyond what ought to exist.

Mr. Randolph said, that as his objections to the Navy went to the whole system, he would make his observations at large, in preference to reserving them in detached parts on the various details of the bill. My object, said Mr. R., is to endeavor to persuade the House that they ought not to concur in the report of the Committee of the whole House. I have ever believed that the people of the United States were destined to become, at some period or other, a great naval power. The unerring indications of that fact were presented to us in a[Pg 233] tonnage and number of seamen exceeding those of any other nation in the world, one only excepted. When, therefore, I proposed to reduce the Naval Establishment of the United States, it was not for the pitiful object of putting down some five or seven gunboats and two or three unimportant navy-yards, or of making the mighty reduction contemplated in the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. In other words, it was for the purpose of making barely such a retrenchment in the naval expenditure as might enable Government, after such retrenchment was effected, to go on with the aid of loans and taxes. We had two views of the probable state of the nation presented to us during this session. The first was a view of war, in which case it was agreed on all hands that loans and taxes would be necessary; the next was a view of peace, in which case it was believed that loans and taxes were unnecessary, and was so pronounced from the highest authority in the country on financial concerns. But now it seems to have a view of reduced military and naval expenditure which does not obviate the necessity of loans and taxes. My object in the proposed reduction was not to enable the Government to get on with the aid of loans and taxes, but to make such a reduction as would have enabled the Government to dispense with a recurrence to them.

I have said, sir, that the United States were, in my opinion, destined to become a great naval power; and I have read unerring indications of it in the commercial prosperity of our country, out of which alone it can grow. But I believe, if any thing could retard or eventually destroy it—if any thing could strangle in the cradle the infant Hercules of the American Navy—it would be the very injudicious mode in which that power has been attempted to be prematurely brought into action, and kept in action, during the two last administrations. Again, a naval power necessarily grows out of tonnage and seamen. We have not only driven away our tonnage, but have exerted ourselves with no little zeal, even at this very session, to prevent its ever coming back. We have not been willing to consent that vessels polluted by the unpardonable sin of a breach of the embargo should return. True it is, that we have not made the same provision in relation to seamen: we have conceived the guilt rather to reside in the wood or iron, than in the men who conducted it. But, although we have no provision for the express purpose that they should not return, unfortunately they have not returned; and the proof of this fact is evinced by another, viz: that landsmen are at this moment employed on board our few ships of war, because seamen cannot be procured. Our tonnage and seamen, then—the sinews of naval power—are wounded by our own measures, to a considerable degree. Again: it has always been understood, according to my view of the subject, that one of the principal uses of a navy was to protect commerce; but our political rule for some time past has been that of inverse proportion, and we have discovered that commerce is the natural protector of a navy. The proof of this is found, if not in every act of this House, certainly in most of the speeches delivered on this floor. I need only allude to a speech made by a colleague of mine, (Mr. Gholson,) who usually sits on my right hand, a few days ago, in which he stated that the power to regulate commerce was specially given by the constitution to the United States—not as a means of raising revenue, equalizing duties throughout the United States, and making all in fact one family—but, that it was put into the hands of Congress as a scorpion-whip to bring the other nations of the world to our terms; that, by turning away the light of our countenance—the sunshine of our commercial bounty—they might wither and decay.

I had always thought too, sir, that the revenue which a Naval Establishment naturally calls for was to be founded on commercial greatness; in other words, that commerce was to give us revenue, and revenue was to support a navy, which in return was to protect commerce. But, it seems we have changed all this—we have perverted the whole course of procedure—and why? Sir, shall we keep up an expensive Naval Establishment, necessarily driving us into loans and taxes, for the protection of a commerce which the Government itself says we shall not carry on; and when members of this House tell us that the natural protection of commerce is the annihilation of it? The Navy has now become a sort of fifth wheel to the political coach, and I am unwilling to keep it up, at this expense, on these grounds.

If, sir, the construction which I have taken of the sense of the House and of the Government be not correct, whence comes it that we have such cases before us as that of Daniel Buck? Whence comes it that we hear of Treasury instructions, not issued in the first instance for the purpose of expounding a law touching the clearances of vessels, that uniformity may prevail in the different districts, but supplementary instructions, becoming in practice the actual law of the land? In other words, if my construction be not correct, whence comes it that every principle formerly called federal—every principle of Executive energy and power—has been strained of late to an extent heretofore unparalleled? Whence comes it, that in the archives of this Assembly, we find copies of licenses given by the Executive power of the nation—to do what? To permit one part of this confederacy to supply another part with bread! We have had Executive licenses, graciously permitting that a portion of our citizens should not starve while the rest were revelling in plenty, and suffering for want of a market! Let us suppose, that in the fragments of history of the ancient nations of the earth, of those periods which are most involved in obscurity, we should find an Imperial rescript to this effect,[Pg 234] what would be the inevitable conclusion of the historian? That, if the Chief Magistrate of the Government could at pleasure starve one part of the people while another was rioting in plenty, that the individual who held this power was the greatest despot on earth, and the Government a purely unmixed despotism. But, sir, it would be improper to draw any such conclusion here, because we are the most enlightened people on earth—I believe we have placed that on record. It was nothing but the protection of the Navy of the United States, and a desire of avenging the attack on the Chesapeake—for, among all the causes of the embargo, we hear of none oftener than the attack on the Chesapeake;—it was nothing but a defence, not only of the commercial interests, but of the naval strength of the nation, which created this dictatorship in the person of the Chief Magistrate. It was not that we are naturally more prone to slavery than others, but it was for the preservation of our national defence, (if that be not positively opposed to national defence which costs four millions, and which, when Greek meets Greek, and the tug of war comes, must take refuge under such measures as those I have mentioned.) No, sir; my object in the bill which I presented to the House was a great one: it was to enable us to dispense with a loan to the acknowledged amount of $5,150,000—to enable us to dispense with taxation, to an amount which no man can calculate, (if, indeed, the system which passed this House was constructed to bring in revenue at all). It was not a little, paltry affair of reducing a couple of navy-yards; not to bury the dead, who have been already interred in the marshes of the Mississippi; not twice to slay the slain: it was for a great public object. Really, sir, the reduction of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smilie) reminds me very forcibly of an incident which is said to have taken place at the discovery of the gunpowder plot. When commissioners were sent into the Parliament vaults, to examine into the situation of the gunpowder and combustibles collected together for the purpose of blowing up the King, the Parliament, and the whole constitution, they returned and reported that they had found fifty barrels of gunpowder; that they had removed five-and-twenty barrels, and humbly trusted that the remaining five-and-twenty would do no harm! This is precisely the reduction which the committee and the gentleman from Pennsylvania have agreed to make. It is a reduction which will not do any effectual service, and I therefore hope the House will not accord in it.

But, we are told that great and gigantic events in Europe are to be arrested. That which the British navy cannot do, I suppose, or that which the combined Continental forces opposed to her cannot effect, is to be decided here by three frigates; for that is precisely the extent to which, if I understand him, he is willing to go. It seems, we are also to suffer a total loss of the ships to be sold, they being unfit for every other purpose. Are they unfit for the East India trade? Was not the first vessel which ever doubled the Cape of Good Hope, under the flag of the United States, the old frigate Alliance? And would not these vessels, if sold, be purchased for that and for other purposes; more especially when we consider the immense loss of tonnage which the United States have sustained—I will not say how, but when—within the last two years? But this, if well founded, would be no objection with me to the reduction of the Navy. I am willing to put a clause in the bill to authorize the President to give the frigates away, if he cannot sell them. My objection to the expense is not merely to pounds, shillings, and pence—not merely to the counting-house calculation—but to expenses utterly incommensurate to the object to which those expenses profess to go, and to a system of organized public plunder. If we agree to make this reduction, however, according to the statement of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Bassett,) foreigners will purchase from us ships of the best construction in the world, on the best terms. I believe, if the gentleman's knowledge on the state of our public ships was as accurate as perhaps it is on other subjects, he would hardly suspect foreigners of coming to our markets for the purpose of buying those ships to annoy our commerce. Who will become the purchasers—Great Britain? After having given her hundreds of thousands of tons of your shipping now sailing under the British flag, and manned her navy with your seamen driven from your employment, do you believe the Admiralty will send across the Atlantic to buy the hulks rotting at the navy-yard; or would it be a formidable accession to the British navy, especially when four of these vessels are absolutely unfit for any purpose whatever? I presume that even the Emperor of France, if it were an object with him to have these famous models of naval architecture at Antwerp, would hardly venture to purchase them, and run the risk of getting them across the ocean. I conceive you could hardly get insurance done on them at Philadelphia or Baltimore. The idea of keeping these vessels is absolutely idle, unless gentlemen are disposed to send their commerce on the ocean, and employ force in the protection of it.

Sir, I am extremely exhausted already—and I presume the House are fully as fatigued with me as I am with myself—but I will endeavor to go along with my loose remarks. The panegyric which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) has been pleased to bestow on the American naval officers, I have not the least indisposition to subscribe to, so far as my knowledge will permit me to go. As far as my information extends—as far as I have the pleasure, and I may add the honor, of being acquainted with those gentlemen—there is no class in society whom I think more highly deserving. And I did hope, when the gentleman went into this eulogium on the one hand, and inference at[Pg 235] least of censure on that which he has been pleased to term "The Staff of the Navy"—but which I suppose I may as well call the civil branch, who have the control and management of the civil service; not the men who fight the battles, but who pocket the greatest part of the emolument—that he would have been more particular. Sir, I do know that comparisons are extremely unpleasant, and no consideration would induce me to go into them, especially after the observation of my friend before me, (Mr. Macon,) but the discharge of an imperious public duty. I can have no hopes of deriving any thing further than experience from the past Administrations. It is to make use of this experience that I call the attention of the House to the comparative expenses of the Navy under the several Administrations.

I find, from the Treasury statement in my hand, made on the 5th of this month, that the Navy under General Washington's administration, cost $1,100,000; that during the four years of Mr. Adams's administration, it cost $9,700,000, in round numbers; that, in the eight years of the succeeding Administration, it cost $12,700,000. I make these remarks, because the statement differs from that made by the worthy gentleman from Connecticut in this respect; that, when he made the expenditure under the last Administration to amount to fourteen millions, he did, in my opinion, improperly saddle that Administration with the expenditure of the year 1801, viz: $2,111,424, authorized and voted under Mr. Adams's administration. From the mere glance at this paper it will be seen, that from 1801 to 1802, the expenditure fell from the above sum of $2,000,000, to $900,000, marking distinctly the retrenchment at the period of Mr. Jefferson's accession. The first year properly chargeable to the last Administration is that succeeding the one in which they came into office, viz: 1802. I find, also, from a comparison of the statements in the same document, that the most extravagant year of the second Administration was the year 1800—the year after I first had the honor of a seat in this House—when the expenditure amounted to $3,448,716. The most extravagant year of the last Administration was the year succeeding its going out of office, the expenses of which were incurred and voted by it, viz: to the amount of $2,427,758.

Against the administration of Mr. Adams, I, in common with many others, did and do yet entertain a sentiment of hostility, and have repeatedly cried out against it for extravagance, and for profusion, and for waste—wanton waste—of the public resources. I find, however, upon consideration—whether from the nature of man, or from the nature of things, or from whatever other cause—that that Administration, grossly extravagant as I did then and still do believe it to have been, if tried by the criterion of the succeeding one, was a pattern of retrenchment and economy; and I ask the House to put the question to themselves, whether we are likely to see, at any future period, an Administration more economical than that of which we have just now taken leave? And this I say, without meaning to cast the slightest imputation on the present. The person now at the head of affairs, has, at least in one respect, conducted himself in his high office in a spirit dear to my heart—it is the spirit of a gentleman. The first session of Congress under the last Administration was a period of retrenchment. Throw the session of last summer out of the question, and this must be the session of reform under the present. Have we any reason to conclude, from what we have seen or heard, that we can look forward to any policy more economical than that of the Administration of which we have just taken leave? I wish it to be clearly understood, that in the year 1800, in which our expenses amounted to $3,448,060, we had three 44-gun frigates; six frigates, from 44 to 32; two of 32, of a large size; four of 32, smaller; eight from 32 to 20; three sloops of war and four brigs, from 18 to 16; and five brigs and schooners, from 14 to 12 guns—employing a total of 7,296 seamen. This Administration, too, it should be remarked, not only built every frigate, every vessel of respectable force—yes, sir, built them from the stump—which the United States now have, but many others, which have been since sold, and the proceeds of which have gone into the Treasury. At this time, then, when the United States had this formidable force afloat; when nearly 8,000 seamen were employed; (I know the documents only state 7,300, but I am told from the best authority there were nearly 8,000;) when our flag at least triumphed in our own seas; when we had nothing of that system of drawing within our shell, which the gentleman from Connecticut so justly derides; when we had not reached the soft-shelled state in which we were placed by the non-intercourse law;—at that time, the Navy of the United States cost nearly three millions and a half, making for each seaman about $472. I know, sir, that these statements are dry, but they are useful in proportion as they are dry. According to the statement which my colleague (Mr. Bassett) has made, and which he has told you not only came from the Secretary of the Navy, but was in the Secretary's own handwriting, the number of seamen which he had last year in employ was 2,723, which cost the nation $2,427,000—for each man employed, within a trifle of $900! Now, sir, if every seaman under the last Administration cost double the expense which was incurred for the same man under the preceding one, if the same system is continued, we have no reason to doubt that the seamen next year will cost double of their present expense. But, even suppose the expense to remain the same as it now is, will the Representatives of the American people agree to maintain a naval force which costs us $900 (within $13) per man, the use of which no man has attempted to guess, much less to demonstrate!

I wish to be indulged in a little further com[Pg 236]parative political economy. I believe, sir, that the same good results in politics from comparing the merits of different Administrations, that results in medicine and surgery from the dissection of the human body—that they are fairly to be tried by the same rules. I find, then, that in the year 1800 the estimated pay of the officers is $391,000, and that the estimated pay of the seamen in the same year is $818,000. And yet, sir, by the estimate now before me, and which any gentleman can turn to, made for the year 1800, the subsistence of the officers, their pay, and that of the seamen, amounts only to $296,000—a sum less, by nearly $100,000, than the estimated pay alone of the officers in 1800—while the expense of the whole Establishment approach for the last year within $1,000,000 of the expense of the year first mentioned. I am at a loss to account for these manifest inconsistencies, and I might say solecisms, in our political arithmetic. We have a Navy which we are told employs 2,700 men, which costs within a third as much as a Navy employing nearly 8,000 men, and yet, when we come to compare the great objects of expense—to wit: pay and subsistence of the officers and seamen, the reward of valor and merit—we find a contrast which I believe no man in this House is prepared to explain.

Now, sir—for the whole subject, thank God, is now before us—let us look at the expenses of the Marine corps. I have always understood that marines were necessary in proportion to the extent of the Navy—that such a force is put on board of every ship of such a number of guns. I find that in the year 1800, when we had nearly forty ships of war in commission, manned with nearly 8,000 men, the expenses of the Marine corps amounted to $162,000; and in 1809, when we have ten or fifteen vessels of all sorts, manned with 2,300 seamen, the expense of the Marine corps amounts to $211,000. And yet, sir, if we look at the items, there does not seem to be a very great variation between some of the most important—for instance, I find that the clothing in 1800 was estimated at $33,000, in 1809 at but $32,000—and yet, the troops whose clothing costs $1,000 less, cost in the aggregate $50,000 more. But, if we look at some of the items of this account, we shall be struck at once with the difference. The pay and subsistence for instance in 1800 was $102,000, in 1809 it was $160,000. I have been at the pains even to note the prices of the most material articles of provision, and find that in the old estimate beef is rated at $13, pork at $14, and flour at $10 per barrel; while in the last year the same articles stood in the estimate of $14, $18, and $8. The material article (flour) being much lower than in 1800, and the market value of the others also, I believe the inference would necessarily follow, that the subsistence ought to have been cheaper. But, sir, look at their establishment at the navy-yard, and I believe we shall want no ghost—certainly no argument of mine—to show the cause of this difference of expense.

Then comes the navy-yards. Of these, that of Washington alone has cost nearly one-half of the sum expended on them all. Well might my colleague say it was worth as much as the whole, when it had cost as much; when, indeed, we have witnessed a considerable town—and the most flourishing town, too, in this wide region called the City of Washington—built out of the public treasury.

Yes, sir, we have economized until we absolutely have reduced the annual cost of a seaman from $472—as it was under the very wasteful expenditure of Mr. Adams's administration—down to the moderate sum of $887! We have economized until a paltry fleet, consisting of vessels built to our hand—to say nothing of those that have been sold, and the warlike stores of which have been retained and preserved; which fleet was built, equipped, and every cannon and implement of war purchased under the old Administration—has cost us $12,000,000, when it cost the preceding Administration but $9,000,000! Is this no argument for reduction? The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) tells you he does not wish an annihilation, but a reform of the Naval Establishment. Sir, as long as a single chip remains in that navy-yard, you will never see any thing like reform; as long as you have a chip of public property—one chip of live oak belonging to the United States—you will have a man riding in his carriage, with a long retinue and deputies and clerks to take care of it. And, sir, if the gentleman from Connecticut does not mean utterly to disgust the people of the United States against a navy—if in truth he is a friend to a navy—he ought to join and put down this navy-yard, and not, with my friend from North Carolina, (Mr. Macon,) keep it up, in hopes the enormity of the evil will at some time or other correct itself. Among the many reasons offered to this House for retaining the various parts of this Establishment, no one said a word in favor of the Marine corps—that went sub silentio—but a great deal was said in favor of Washington. We were told that our fleet might be Copenhagened, and that it was therefore necessary to stow it away here. We also heard of the great press of work in the large towns—of the mercantile employ which there came in competition with that of the United States. I believe, sir, that our workmen, and men of all descriptions, from the highest to the lowest—I speak of subordinates—have long ago found the truth of the old proverb, that "The King's chaff is better than other men's corn." But it seems, that in order to get a commodity cheap, we are not to go where it is to be had—oh no, there is competition!—but we must bring workmen here in the mail-coach, by which conveyance I understand not only live stock for the navy-yard but copper bolts, and such light articles, are sometimes brought, I suppose, to get out of[Pg 237] the way of competition—competition in the markets of Philadelphia and Baltimore, where they are bought at private sale. In this way have seamen, in some instances, been conveyed; and unquestionably every material of ship timber and naval store has been repeatedly brought from Norfolk to this place at an immense cost, worked up here by men collected from Baltimore, Philadelphia, &c., in order that, so worked up, it might go back to Norfolk, there to remain. But, sir, if our object really be to prevent our fleet from being Copenhagened, we had better put it above the Falls of Niagara. There it would unquestionably be most secure, unless the party on the other side of the lake should fit out a fleet to attack it; in which case, I suppose, we must resort to another series of measures similar to those lately adopted for the protection of commerce and the Navy. An embargo to protect ships of war! This is, indeed, putting the cart before the horse. We are to have a navy for the protection of commerce, and all our measures in relation to it are calculated on the basis of keeping it (poor thing! like some sickly child) out of harm's way! On the same principle of economy on which the navy-yard is kept up here, viz: for fear that merchants and others should come into competition with the Government, I presume, we have sent abroad for workmen to carry on the public buildings. If the navy-yard is to be kept up here merely that it may be under our eye, I would humbly suggest, sir, that we first pluck out the beam that has so long blinded us. We need only to do that to see this building falling to pieces over our heads; and yet an enormous appropriation is called for towards finishing it, which I have no doubt my worthy colleague (Mr. Lewis) will press very strongly before the close of the session.

I had forgotten the gunboats; and perhaps the best notice which can be taken of them, is that which is taken on some occasions of other things—to pass by them with contempt. They are not worth bringing into account, except for their expense. Children must have toys and baubles, and we must indulge ourselves in an expense of many millions on this ridiculous plaything!

But, sir, the sale of our superfluous vessels met with the high objection that they were to be purchased up by Christophe and Petion, and that the constituents of my colleague (Mr. Bassett) are to be terrified, if not into bodily fear, at least out of their peace of mind, by these vessels; and, at the same time, we are told that Christophe was in such good credit, only forty miles off, that vessels are building at Baltimore for his use; and yet, sir, no gentleman has brought forward a bill making it penal to supply these barbarians with ships of war and warlike stores. In other words, sir, to avoid the possibility of Christophe and his seamen foundering on board these rotten hulks, my colleague would much rather drive him into Baltimore, where he can purchase good vessels, which will answer his purpose much better than these frigates, which the barbarians would not know how to manage, and which are not calculated, from their great draught, for predatory warfare in the West India seas. My worthy colleague has given us a curious illustration of the superiority of naval over military force, by comparing the navy of Great Britain with her army. I suppose, if the argument were retorted on my colleague by a comparison of the army of Bonaparte with his navy, he would say that the same amount was not there expended upon the navy as upon the army; whereas in England, the amount of money expended on each is equal. But, does not my colleague know that one and the chief cause of the superiority of the British navy over the army, is, that in the navy men rise by merit—that they do not get in, to use a seaman's phrase, at the cabin windows—and that the army, if we give credit to the Parliamentary investigation, is a mere sink of corruption—a mere engine of patronage—a place in which a corrupt commander-in-chief acts according to his vile pleasure, and the pleasure of all the pimps and parasites and harlots who environ him. This, sir, is the cause of the superiority of the naval over the military force of Great Britain. But, when the British navy shall have effected what the armies of other nations from time immemorial have done—when it shall have subjugated whole continents—then will I agree in the superior power of naval over military force. I have no hesitation in saying that I would rather vote for naval than military force, and it is because a naval force has not the same power as a military one. I have never heard of a despotic power created by a naval force, unless perhaps in the chieftain of a band of pirates.

But it would appear that the politics of my unfortunate friend from North Carolina, (Mr. Stanford,) who sits near the Speaker, are a mere counting-house business of pounds, shillings, and pence, or dollars and cents; that, in fact, the spirit of lucre is transferred from the warehouses and counting-rooms of the merchants to the tobacco-fields and cotton plantations of the Southern planters; and that, to such a pitch has the patriotism of the mercantile class risen, that they are really ready to sacrifice one-half of their property for the protection of the Government of their country. If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mumford) will permit me, I will protest against this idea. I have once before protested in company with that gentleman, and I hope he will permit me to protest, even when I have not the sanction of his respectable authority. With regard to the politics of my worthy friend from North Carolina, I recollect very well, in the days which were called the days of profusion, patronage and terror, his politics were not of that minute and microscopic grade that no scale could be graduated sufficiently low to measure them; that, if his republicanism was a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence, then and now, it was not that[Pg 238] sort of republicanism which was too cheap to be measured by the value of the smallest known coin, even by a doit. I really feel something like sympathy with the gentleman from North Carolina—and it is not at all to be wondered at; for the republicanism of that gentleman used to be that which I always have professed—and if the remark applied to the gentleman from North Carolina, who I believe is not yet quite out of the pale of the political church, how much more forcibly did it apply to an unpardonable political sinner like myself! With respect, sir, to this patriotism, or this republicanism, that has left the tobacco fields and cotton plantations, and taken up its dwelling in the counting-house, I beg leave to express my doubt of the fact. I never have had that high opinion of the mercantile class expressed by some gentlemen in this House. I think of them as of other men—that in proportion to the temptations to which they are exposed, so are they virtuous or otherwise. But, sir, I have not and cannot have confidence in a man to whom the great Emperor has given a paternal squeeze, whose property is sequestered at Bayonne or St. Sebastian—I disclaim any thing like personal allusion; I speak of a class—I cannot have the confidence, on the subject of our foreign relations, in a man so situated, that I can have in the planter or farmer whose property is growing on his land around the house in which he nightly sleeps—and why? Because, mutatis mutandis, I should not have the same confidence in myself. I should not believe it possible, if I had rich cargoes under sequestration in France, that I could vote free from the bias which the jeopardy of that property would throw on my mind.

Sir, I have been very irregular, because I have been compelled to follow, not the current of my own ideas, but the objections started by gentlemen in different quarters, and (as it is the fashion to express it) on different sides of the House, whom I have found united against the bill as reported by myself. I would ask, in a few words, if we ought to continue this establishment in its present state? I ask if it is necessary? For the expense of a navy has been proved to be in inverse ratio to its utility. To what purpose do we keep up the Marines, another branch of the Establishment? If I am correctly informed, these men are willing to run away whenever they have a chance to desert—if they can get an opportunity—and I am willing that they shall quit the service without being exposed to be brought to a court martial for desertion. Nothing, indeed, was said on the subject of the Marine corps, when the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) moved to strike out the whole section of the bill. Fertile as the gentleman may be in reasons, he did not offer one. He must have supposed it to be perfectly correct that a Marine establishment should be kept up for a navy employing 2,700 seamen, more expensive than the same establishment for a navy employing 8,000. It was, indeed, facetiously urged in the select committee, as a reason why these men should be retained, that they came to this House regularly on Sundays to serve the Lord—to assist at the weekly pageant here performed. Sir, far be it from me to say, or even to think, with the Protector Cromwell, that this is a House where the Lord has not been served for many years. But, permit me to state, that in our country, it is the practice to pay no man out of the public purse, even for advocating the cause of other people with the Most High, much less for advocating his own. In other words, that when men with us serve the Lord, they do it at their own expense.

We have heard to-day, sir—and I hope the report of Congress at their next session will verify it—that a grant of power to the Executive in relation to any subject—say borrowing of money—does not necessarily imply an exercise of that power. We have heard, too, that notwithstanding the power devolved on the President of the United States, by the bill authorizing him to borrow to an amount of upwards of five millions of dollars, which this day passed this House, to enable the Government to get along, we shall at our next session probably be presented with the joyful tidings that it is not necessary to make use of the power, at least in its full extent; but it depends upon our own act, whether this expectation be realized or not. We are, in this instance at least, of that description of prophets who have it in their power to bring about the event they predict. And I do earnestly hope that the House will not, by a disagreement with the report of the select committee, insure the defeat of their hope—the nonfulfilment of the prediction. I hope we shall take up the subject, and go through with it; that we shall account, and account rationally too, for some of the facts at least which I have presented to the House this day, in terms extremely defective, I know; but the time was short—now or never—and I presented them in the only mode in which I could possibly do it.

In the course of my observations, I think I forgot to mention that when the United States kept forty sail of armed vessels afloat, and employed 8,000 seamen, we had no navy-yards at all. If we had, there must have been some extraordinary oversight committed by the then Secretary of the Treasury; and I believe politicians were not any more apt then than now to omit any items of public expense; they crowded in all they could. In the estimate which I hold in my hand, there is no item of that expense. I hope, if the House agree (which God forbid!) to so much of the report of the Committee of the Whole as retains the frigates and ships of war, that they will at least consent to put down the navy-yard at this place, and break down the supernumerary Marines. Really, sir, I am fond of music, but I do not mean to grant $211,000 of the people's money annually for a song. I hope at least that the[Pg 239] Marines will be reduced, and that we shall retain at least not more navy-yards than ships. What would an honest Dutchman in the West think of a man who kept as many stables as horses, and those of the most expensive construction, too?

I have done, sir. I have endeavored to discharge my duty. No man is more sensible of a failure in the manner than I am; but I will thank any one to convince me of the utility of a navy, according to the doctrines and practice of the new school, and to facts, as far as they have been stated.

Mr. Bassett said that his colleague could not always adhere to the principle that it was his duty to ferret out every error. Error is the lot of human nature, said Mr. B., and no one is infallible. Give a small authority to-day, and it will increase to an unexpected amount before to-morrow. I am authorized to state that such has been the case in the Navy Department; that under the late Secretary of the Navy large expenses had been incurred; and that before he left his office he commenced a reduction of them. Since the present Secretary (Mr. Hamilton) has been in office, the expenditures have been much reduced. In the navy-yard at this place, for example, a permanent reduction has been made in the expenses to the amount perhaps of 30 or 40 per cent., and a very considerable reduction also as to immediate disbursements. It is nevertheless our duty, after the suggestions that have been made, to commence a thorough investigation, and I can only regret that the subject has been introduced to our attention at so late a period of the session. Instead of regretting what has been said, I am glad of it, and hope that at an early period in the next session an investigation will be made. Without any particular direction of the House, the committee of the Naval Establishment thought it their duty to examine the whole establishment at the navy-yard in this city. All the good expected from doing so was to convince them that the eye of the Government was upon them. I am proud to say that not only myself, but every gentleman of the committee with me, was much pleased with the appearance of things as they stood. It was not in our power to investigate minutiæ. On visiting the establishment of the Marine corps we saw every thing in order; we saw the armory establishment, wherein we discovered that arms which had been injured were usefully and handsomely repaired. As well as we could discover by the eye, every thing was pleasing to my mind—and one innovation in discipline in the Marine corps gave me very great satisfaction, viz: the substitution of solitary confinement for personal chastisement. In the navy-yard, the expense of which has been much complained of, we saw great piles of useful buildings. These were not constructed without cost. The present establishment there, in addition to store-houses, &c., consists of an extensive forgery, where all the iron work for the navy is done, a lead foundry, a brass foundry, where articles are made out of worn-out old metals, which otherwise would be of no use. I was desirous, both for my own information as well as that of the House, to procure an account of the work done at the navy-yard, to compare it with the expense—for that is the only way of fairly estimating the value of the establishment; but the time allotted to us during this session is not sufficient to attain that object.

Some facts I will also mention, which, though not from an official source, are known to me as matter of fact, viz: that the vessels now in service have been lately repaired in so complete a manner that they are worth more than when they were built. The President, the United States, the Chesapeake, Essex, John Adams, and others, were repaired at the navy-yard at this place, besides the Congress, now repairing. There have been several small vessels also built here. In short, I believe that since the establishment of the navy-yard here, there has been but one vessel repaired any where but at this yard. The Constitution was repaired at Boston. When we come to get the account of the expenses of that ship's repairs and compare them with the expenses of repair at the navy-yard in this city, we shall know how to appreciate that object. A full examination of it would, I feel convinced, entirely reconcile us to the great amount apparently expended here. A remark made by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Dana) here applies with great force: that it was indispensably necessary to economy that there should be system and order; and how shall we accomplish that object but by regularly established navy-yards? Can you have economy when you go into market to bid for what you want? Can you expect system and order unless you pay for it? You cannot. Money is well laid out if it be done with honesty and integrity to pay for system and regularity.

I did not yet mention one particular fact on the subject of naval equipments, which I should have done, in the article of sail cloth, making an immense difference in the expenditure of 1799 and 1809. The gentlemen acquainted with the prices at these times could inform the committee that the difference in the prices of sail duck is somewhere about 100 per cent.

I will mention another fact: that although the President has power to employ 5,000 seamen, he has employed but 2,700 men, who have received bounties. Sound economy would authorize the retaining them a few months longer, till we come here again in the fall, till we know whether it be proper to disband them or not.

Although friendly to a naval force, I am not for keeping up any great naval force when there is no appearance of danger. At the present evil time, when every thing is uncertain, I am not for giving up one single atom of defence. If gentlemen will but cast their eyes along our seacoast, and look at our unprotected waters, at the situation of my particular district, they[Pg 240] would like me feel the necessity of some floating security; they would feel the value of that peace of mind necessary to me and to my constituents. With these observations I shall dismiss the subject.

Some further remarks were made by Mr. Macon and Mr. Randolph.

The question was stated on concurrence with the Committee of the Whole in striking out so much of the bill as directs the unconditional sale of all the frigates but three.

Mr. Randolph called for the yeas and nays on this question, considering it the pith and marrow of the business; and as the vote would show who were the navy and who the anti-navy men in the House.

Mr. Smilie said it would be remembered that his object in voting to strike out this part of the bill was to introduce the amendment he had offered in Committee of the Whole, viz: to place the Navy on the same footing as in 1806.

The following were the votes on concurrence with the Committee in striking out so much of the bill as relates to the frigates—yeas 76, nays 32.

So that part of the bill was struck out.

The first section, which requires the dismissal of all the seamen in service, except so many as sufficient to man three frigates, &c., was struck out—ayes 60.

The next amendment made by the committee was to insert "Washington" among the navy-yards to be retained.

The yeas and nays on concurrence with the committee—58 to 46.

So the navy-yard at Washington is among those to be retained.

The next amendment was to strike out the section of the bill which reduces the Marine Corps to two companies.

Mr. Randolph said on recurring to the documents he found the price of the ratio in 1800 to have been 28 cents, whilst in the last year it was put 20; so that rations were now nearly a third cheaper than they were nine years ago, and the difference in the expenses of the Naval Establishment was, therefore, the more unaccountable. I had also taken it for granted, said Mr. R., that my colleague (Mr. Bassett) was right in his statement of the seamen's wages being only eight dollars per month. But, sir, here is a statement on the subject—and I only wish that in the estimate of last year we had had the same valuable details as there are in the estimate of the year 1800—for the estimate in relation to the Navy Department for the last year is most shamefully deficient, as I could demonstrate if the House had time and patience and I had lungs. I find that there is in this estimate of 1800 a minute and detailed statement of every item of expense. Instead of the wages being eight dollars then and twelve now, as my colleague has been told, the pay was then for able-bodied seamen seventeen dollars per month, ordinary seamen twelve, and boys eight; so that this saving in the pay does not account for the monstrous difference. I have not time to examine into the article of duck, but I believe the gentleman's duck will not swim any more than the rest of his arguments.

I trust, sir, that the House will not agree to the report of the committee for this reason: Referring to these documents, I discover that in 1800, when we had nearly 8,000 seamen, we had 890 marines; and in the year 1809, when we have only 2,700 seamen employed, we have agreeably to estimate precisely the same number of 890 marines. It would appear that something has taken place to render this species of force peculiarly valuable, or that these gentlemen possess a very successful art of keeping in, of not going out with others. And, sir, when I recollect the statements which I have heard on this floor and the sources whence some of them have probably been derived, I am not at all surprised that this navy-yard and this Prætorian camp, and everything connected with it, should keep up to the old height when every thing else has diminished. Eight hundred and ninety men! Call them 900, and you have one mariner for every three seamen. I have no doubt, if the House act on the principle on which they have done heretofore, that we shall have very polite assurances that these men are of the greatest imaginable service and have wrought wonders in defence of the country, but I cannot for my soul understand how this species of force goes to quiet the mind of my colleague or of his constituents on the Chesapeake.

I have done my duty on this subject, sir. From whatever motive, of that motive I am alone the human judge. I have acted the part of a real friend to the Administration of this Government. Like my friend from North Carolina, I belong to that "faction" which brought him from a minority to a majority on the very ground I now occupy. I have heard before of a people being their own worst enemies—but what shall we say to an assertion that persons selected from the people for their wisdom and discretion, should be their own worst enemies? Is it to the interest of the Administration that these abuses should continue, and that loans and taxes should be resorted to to cover them? Who, sir, are the true friends—I do not speak of motives—who in fact are the true friends of Administration? Those who move to abolish and retrench, or those who persevere in keeping up such establishments and resort to loans and taxes to defray the expense of them? Are you willing that any part of the loan authorized by the act which unhappily passed this House this morning should be borrowed for the purpose of keeping up as many marines as were deemed necessary in 1800, for treble the amount of naval force—and we then said it was a Government of profusion and patronage—yes, sir, we heaped a great deal of opprobrium and many hard epithets on it. I am just as tired now of maintaining idlers, and dissolute idlers too, out of the proceeds of my property as I was when I first came into Congress—and I care not whether it be under the Administration of a[Pg 241] President called Republican, or of a man called a Federalist. I could repeat the very words then used. I do say that I never see one of those useless drones in livery crawling on the face of the earth that my gorge does not rise—that I do not feel sick. I see no reason why we should not maintain sturdy beggars in rags as well as beggars of another description in tinsel. I have as much respect as any one for the man who risks his life in his country's service—and I have shown it; but the man who has drawn on a livery and quartered himself on the public because he has not sufficient capacity to get a living elsewhere, I will not foster. The change may be rung to the end of time—gentlemen may talk about pounds, shillings, and pence, as long as they please, but these men shall never have a single cent of money with my consent. I wish every ploughman in the country could come and see these people, keeping equipages, living in splendor, in palaces almost—I hardly know five men in Virginia who could afford to live in such a house if their fathers had left it to them, much less if they had it to build, as some of these people occupy at the public cost. But because this proposition for reduction is made by a somebody, the cut of whose face or the cut of whose coat we do not like, we are to go on maintaining these locusts for spite. It is impossible to prevent the people from reading this. It may be said these are Federal lies. Ten years ago the same things were said to be Democratic lies; but they were tested by the most enlightened among the people, and found to be truth—even the story of Jonathan Robbins was then all a Democratic lie. You are to keep up the same number of marines that Mr. Adams kept up, but you maintain them at one-fourth greater expense, when not a man who hears me can pretend to designate the service they perform. I know you may be told these marines may be useful on shipboard, which, however, has not relation to the question before the House. The question is, how many marines are necessary, and in what battles are they employed? Recollect, sir, that in this estimate of the expenses of these marines, the Prætorian camp erected for their accommodation is not taken into question—nor do I believe there is a man in the House who can guess within a hundred thousand dollars what it has cost. I cannot—I do not even know the authority under which it was built. I suppose it was erected, like some other public buildings, without law, by authority unknown to the law. Yes, sir, and this is the place for Aaron Burr and such choice spirits. When they wish to turn us out of the House, where do they look but to men who are incarcerated and would run away at a bare invitation, much more would follow a military leader to plunder, to office, to cordons and legions of honor? I cannot consent to retain them. I feel indignant—I feel mortified at the conduct of that part of the House of Representatives calling itself Republican—because I believe, sir, that the hint given by my worthy friend from North Carolina, has been taken by the gentlemen of another denomination, and they have thrown their weight so equally on both sides as to poise the balance—they have worked a sort of political equation there. Yes, sir, we must have fifty per cent. increase of the present ad valorem taxes, and an additional third upon molasses and brown sugar, upon the articles on which the poorest families on the seaboard make their daily meal—and in return we shall have a man, the texture of whose coat, whether homespun or imported, you cannot tell for the gold lace with which it is covered, and an establishment of marines at an expense of more than two hundred thousand dollars—and whom to protect? To protect the constituents of my worthy colleague, in the enjoyment of their peace of mind? When you consider in what manner every claim of merit is treated in this House—when you consider the poverty and misery in which thousands and tens of thousands of the people of the United States live, from whose earnings you daily take a part, I hope you will pause and reflect before you dispose of one doit of this sum on such objects. Why, sir, should a poor man laboring out of doors not be suffered to take his breakfast or give it to his children without paying a tax to the Government, in order that the man who does not labor, and whose head is of no more use to the community than his arms, should live in idleness?

But, unfortunately for myself, I have been here too long—I have seen the profits made by individuals with no other visible resources than the cheese-parings and candle-ends of the Government; and it has got to that now that every branch of our establishments has become a department—we have almost got a door-keeping department—not only in this House but elsewhere. But all I have said is wrong, very wrong—we are all Republicans, all Federalists—all is right—this is all an idle clamor, made to effect a given purpose. Sir, I might go on and compare these two books of 1800 and 1809 and take up every item of expense, military, naval, or civil—the civil branch of the Army as well as the military, the civil as well as the naval branch of the Navy—they are all, all alike. In this book (the estimate of 1800) is such a detailed statement that the value of every ration is stated, and the amount of force in detail. What have we here, in the estimate of last year? In relation to the Navy you have some three or four pages. I really had not a conception, till I came to examine it, that there could be such a difference between the estimates of 1800 and 1809. But if I am overruled, which I think highly probable from the appearance of things, we shall have the satisfaction, in case I return here next year, and Messrs. Pepin and Breschard give their attendance, of a fine band of music to entertain the audience—and for this undoubtedly the good people, the fishermen of Marblehead, and the planters of Virginia, will be proud to pay $260,000. But this[Pg 242] is all right—it is all Republicanism! All Federalism!

Mr. W. Alston spoke in favor of reducing them, and Messrs. Lyon, McKim, Bassett, and Dana, against it.

The question on concurring with the committee in striking out this section was decided in the affirmative—yeas 49, nays 43.

So the section for reducing the marines was stricken out.

A motion having been made by Mr. Randolph to amend the bill so as to disband the master commandants now belonging to the Navy,

Mr. McKim said he should like to know the gentleman's reason for getting rid of them. The gentleman had appealed to the House to know why they would retain them? The onus probandi, however, lays with the gentleman himself. He ought to show why they should be dismissed. Mr. McK. said he did not like to vote in the dark. His vote given without knowledge might derange the whole system. He hoped the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) from his extensive knowledge on the subject, would favor them with the reasons why these men should be dismissed.

Mr. Boyd said he did not rise to make a long speech but to tell the House that he felt much imposed upon by the comparisons made between the late and Federal Administrations. If I were to do all this, said he, I might get into the newspapers and make believe that I am the first man in the nation; but I take things as I find them. The former Administration may have acted rightly in their day; but reason is to guide us. Sir, is it parliamentary, is it genteel, or agreeable to common sense, that a hundred and forty men should sit here listening to what one man says, and he having recourse to papers in every one's reach? I had rather consult the papers for myself: for I should not garble them, taking just what suited me, but should read the whole. No doubt gentlemen do what they think answers their own purpose and I what answers mine; and my purpose is the good of the nation. If a larger navy was necessary, I should vote for it; if an army of thirty thousand men was wanted, I should vote for it. Sir, have we no rights to defend? There never has been a time, in my opinion, since the Government was formed, that so preposterous a proposition was offered as this one to reduce the Army and Navy at this time—for what? Are the orders and decrees altered? I understand all Spain is in a state of blockade. For what have you given money to build fortifications? Pounds, shillings, and pence, are the order of the day—we sell a little tobacco, a little cotton—and our independence goes to wreck. But gentlemen even on their own principles go to work the wrong way. If they submit to get a little this year, they will get less the next, depend upon it. I think it my duty to speak in this open manner—not to please gentlemen, but for my country's good.

Mr. Randolph said in reply to the gentleman from Maryland, who wished to know why he wanted to get rid of the masters commandant, that it was because there never had been a reason assigned in this House for their creation. The act which established them had come from the other House at the end of a session; it had not originated in this House, and he had never heard a reason assigned in favor of them—and he had no knowledge that the public service had suffered from the want of them during the whole of Mr. Adams's Administration, and more especially not from the 4th of March, 1801, to April 1806. That gentlemen who voted against the proposition to reduce the Army and Navy, said he, should vote against my amendment is nothing more than natural; and I suppose if those averse to reduction had been put on the committee, we should have had no such bill reported. If gentlemen who voted for the general proposition that it is expedient to reduce the Army and Navy are willing to be held up as bowing the knee to foreign powers, let it be so. They were a large and certainly not disrespectable majority. I feel no sensibility on the subject. The House may act as it pleases; in whatsoever manner it may act, it will not affect my vote or conduct. I stand here, as I always have done, and always will do, on ground independent of all party considerations. If this amendment be submission to the belligerents, what is the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Smilie,) which is acknowledged to go further in reduction than the bill as first reported? It is in vain to oppose a reduction of the Army and Navy on the ground of submission. Gentlemen should prove that they are resistance. What resistance do they afford against their decrees or confiscation? Have they taken a single man out of a ship of war, or one man out of the dungeons of Paris or Arras? This is as plain a question of expediency as whether you will alter the time of holding the courts of the State of Maryland or any other question. Mr. R. had however some expectations that they should have some war speeches on this occasion, and they had them accordingly. They had heard some on the general proposition for reduction, and one this morning from the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rhea) on the bill. Was it proposed now to declare war? Was it believed that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smilie) was disposed to submit to the belligerents? That the gentlemen on the other side of the House were divided on that subject, as they were upon the question of the reduction of the Navy? Was the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) who represented the town of Boston, so strenuous an advocate at this moment for war (and he supposed especially for war with England) that he was obliged to oppose a reduction on that ground? Was the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) who represented the adjacent district, in the same belligerent temper? Did he too oppose this proposition on the ground of resisting the belligerents or of[Pg 243] making war with England? The very moment any political touchstone was brought to test the objections to the bill which the committee had offered, they dissolved at once, and the opposition to it resolved itself into the principle of old Federalism. It was nothing else. It was office! patronage! expenditure of public money! And hence it was said (and for no other cause whatever) that these strange votes were seen. The gentleman from Connecticut, perhaps the only member or one of the very few on that side of the House who had a seat on this floor during the Administration of Mr. Adams, opposed the bill because, as he had told the house, he preferred his old principles—they had triumphed over his recent disgust, though even he acknowledged that great abuses had taken place. The gentleman had declared that he would stick to his old principles; and I, said Mr. Randolph, am for sticking to mine; and my two friends from North Carolina (Messrs. Macon and Stanford) who were also members under Mr. Adams's Administration, stick to their old principles, and I will venture to say will never relinquish them. It has not effected a change in the gentleman from Connecticut, that he and his friends are out, nor a change in my friends from North Carolina—I will not say that they are in the power, for of that they have not much to boast; but that their friends are in power. And why should this clamor be raised on the question whether you will or will not make a formal renunciation of the old articles of political faith? Although, on reconsideration, perhaps I have no cause to be surprised, and ought to pardon gentlemen. It is a situation in which no man likes to be placed, to be brought up and compelled either to forego present gratification or make a formal renunciation, something like the Christian at Algiers, who hesitates whether he will put on the turban and share the plunder of the day, or consent to abide by those principles which he received from his parents and from heaven. No doubt there are many who would infinitely prefer to slip over or slide under this question; and I am therefore glad, sir, that the decision of the chairman has enabled me to present the chalice to their lips and compel them to swallow it to the dregs.

Mr. Rhea said that the gentleman from Virginia held no obnoxious cup to him; for he should vote against the gentleman with the greatest imaginable pleasure. As to all that had been said about patronage, it had no weight with him. He had no relation in office, nor did he ever expect to have one. He had no object in view but the well-being and safety of the nation. He was unwilling to give the least evidence of a determination to relinquish any kind of opposition (though it was scarcely apparent) to the wrongful doings of other nations against the United States. He had made no war speech; if he had intended that, he should have made rather a different speech from any the House had heard from him yet. If they went on in this way he said they would hold out an inducement to all the marauders in the universe to come and plunder the trade of the United States as they pleased. He repeated that he did not make war speeches; but he thought our situation required a war speech against somebody—he would not say who. We have indeed, said he, had sufficient provocation for war; and I say now, as I have said often before, that had we taken a proper stand at a former time, the United States would have avoided all their present difficulties. But so long as we go on as we have gone, and encourage a peace in war and a war in peace, so long as the Federalists teach us to acquiesce in all the iniquitous decrees of the belligerents, so long will our difficulties continue. I shall vote to continue the Navy, and I hope that this proposition, and any other to reduce the Naval Establishment, will be negatived; for on this establishment depends the protection of our maritime border, and safety of the people upon and near it. It may be said that I and my constituents are safe, but I will act for others who are not so.

Mr. Dana congratulated the House that the only point of controversy now with gentlemen who had heretofore complained so loudly of Federalism, was, that in coming up to the mark of Federalism they should not do it with so much violence as to go beyond it. He thought it would be well if our relative expenditures could be brought back to the worst year of Mr. Adams's Administration, and our measures as to foreign affairs to the first eight years of the Federal Administration, which, when it resolved, did it so sincerely and so unalterably. He congratulated the nation that it was no longer an argument against a measure that it had been adopted by those called Federalists; he rejoiced that this slang of party was scouted from the House—that it was no longer a piece of artillery successfully wielded on all sides. He hoped it would forever be dismissed, and that gentlemen, convinced of their error, would come up and place their recantation on record. If for the same sum as was expended for those objects by the Federal Administration they could obtain the same number of fighting men on land and water, he thought they would make an extremely good bargain, when compared with the state of things which now existed. Until this session he said he had been unapprised of the enormities of expenditure in the Navy Department for so little effect; that there had been so much of waste and so much done instrumental to the extension of patronage. He wished it however to be understood that he deemed it essential that those who compose the main body of the Army and Navy, those on whom the brunt of the battle falls, those who stand in the front of danger, should be well paid, well fed, and well clad, in such a manner that one need not blush to see them on parade appearing like the ragged recruits of Sir John Falstaff. When he saw the soldier[Pg 244] placed in this unfortunate situation, and the squalid unfortunate troops pointed at as objects of pity, and when this situation was the result of a want of attention in those who had the care of them, he could scarcely give utterance to his indignation.

Mr. D. said he did not feel disposed to diminish the number of fighting men afloat at the present time; though he was not influenced at all by the resolution which the House had passed not to submit. He had sometimes thought that they had passed too many resolutions to be resolute. No, sir, said he, if, when we were insulted on the water; if, when a British squadron remained in our waters in defiance of our laws, we had made use of our navy, our officers and men would have done their duty; but it was then deemed more expedient to deal in paper than in powder and shot. I feel that we have gone far enough, and too far, in the downhill course of debasement; by much too far. I would dismiss all this parade of words. I really would cease to think to terrify the French or British nation by them. Although those nations have hated each other for years, they look up to each other with reverence, because they know that victory would be glorious. I wish, too, that we should proceed in such a manner as that our actions should not wear the appearance of gasconade, and that we should march up to the works with a steady eye. I think, sir, that the population and strength of the United States and their commercial capital being augmented, it may be proper, after a lapse of ten years, to have a Peace Establishment somewhat extended beyond the former; and I am therefore against so great a reduction as is proposed.

On motion, the House then adjourned—41 to 38—at six o'clock, after a sitting of eight hours.

Thursday, April 26.

Reduction of the Navy.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business.

Mr. Smilie moved the following as a substitute for the sections stricken out:

Mr. S. spoke in support of his motion, and remarked that it would produce a saving in the next year's expenditure of near a million of dollars.

Mr. Bacon, after observing that the amendment now offered would go to reduce the number of seamen in service to two hundred and ninety-five, a number smaller than that authorized by the bill as originally reported, as it would not man more than one frigate, three armed vessels, and the twenty-two gunboats at New Orleans, moved to amend the section by including also the seamen (five hundred additional) authorized by the act of the 3d day of March, 1807.

Mr. Rhea said that this proposition amounted to just the same as the original bill, as respected the number of men to be employed. He asked whether it was proper to ask this House to do (in other words to be sure) that which they had the day before refused to do. This was no time for those who voted to increase the Navy to vote to reduce it. What reason had been given for such a course? Gentlemen had said that they believed if nobody attacked us, we should attack nobody, and that, therefore, we should have no war. Gentlemen might have some internal evidence, incomprehensible to him, that we should continue in a state of peace, or might have some reasons evident to themselves; but unless these reasons were communicable, Mr. R. said he could not consent to the amendment. They had been told that there was no such thing as a disposition in this House to go to war. How had this indisposition for war got into the House? Mr. R. could not account for this dread of war. He said he had not the least disposition to give evidence of submission to foreign powers by putting down the small naval force we have; for doing so would evince our apathy and indisposition to protect our rights. If we go on in this manner, said he, we shall be the prey of every picaroon on the ocean. We shall become a prey to our black neighbors of St. Domingo. For what reason are we to subject even our coasters to plunder and abuse? To save money! Why, sir, if we do it we shall be plundered to an amount sufficient to fit out a little navy. At least let us defend ourselves against these black people of St. Domingo. We shall have nothing to prevent the barbarian cruisers from coming on our coast, and there is hostility enough in Europe against us to set those people, as well as the cruisers from St. Domingo, against us. The reduction will not comport with the safety of the nation. The House has already declared by its vote that it will not sell any of the frigates. Will it contradict itself by taking away the seamen? Now that our naval force consists of picked men and the very best officers, I am unwilling to disband them and pick up men just as they are wanted. I am utterly against any reduction now, when we have no evidence of better times; for we have no official information before us to that effect.

Mr. Bassett said he was about to have proposed an amendment, but was prevented from so doing by Mr. Bacon's. He wished to retain the first part of Mr. Smilie's amendment, and to add to it a proviso that the number of seamen should not exceed two thousand seven hun[Pg 245]dred and twenty-three, (the number now in service.) The effect of the amendment thus amended would be to give to the President an authority which he has not now, to cause the frigates to be laid up at any time he thought proper.

Mr. Tallmadge spoke of the obscurity in which the amendment was involved by a reference to so many different laws. He could not vote for it, he said, unless he could understand it.

On the suggestion of Mr. Bacon, Mr. Smilie modified his motion by making the proviso to read as follows: "Provided, That the number of seamen and boys to be retained in service shall not exceed ——." This blank Mr. Bacon proposed to fill with one thousand five hundred.

Mr. Randolph said he was afraid, after the pledge that this House had given to reduce the Naval Establishment, that that pledge was not to be redeemed; that the whole business was to end in smoke, unless some pitiful, paltry retrenchment, to the amount of a hundred thousand dollars, was made to enable them to swear by—to say here and out of doors, and to enable the public prints to say, that they had reduced the Naval Establishment. It is a matter of fact, said Mr. R., that when the Administration of Mr. Adams went out of power, they made the only reform which has ever taken place in the Naval Establishment of the United States, and that at the succeeding session no reform was made. The act of the 3d of March, 1801, authorized the President, when the situation of public affairs in his judgment should render it expedient, to cause to be sold all the vessels of the Navy except the frigates of the United States, Constitution, President, Chesapeake, Philadelphia, Constellation, Congress, New York, Boston, Essex, Adams, John Adams, and General Greene; and of that number the President was further authorized to lay up all except six. To the vessels laid up were attached one sailing master, one boatswain, one gunner, one carpenter, and one cook, one sergeant or corporal, and eight marines, and from ten to twelve seamen, according to the size of the frigate. This was the act which we found already passed when we came into power—I do not wish to be arrogant, but say we to save circumlocution. By the same act were retained in service—mark that, sir—nine captains, thirty-six lieutenants, and one hundred and fifty midshipmen, to receive only half pay when not in actual service; and the officers dismissed under that act (and a very considerable number they were) received four months' pay in addition to their other emoluments as a gratuity on quitting the public service. This is the act on which we proceeded; and under that act you will find that the expenses of the Navy amounted, in 1802, to $915,000. Well, sir, it seems we were then of opinion that even our predecessors had in one branch of reform gone far enough. It was not my opinion; but it was the opinion of a majority of this House and of the other. In 1803 the President was authorized to buy or build four vessels, to carry not exceeding sixteen guns each, for the protection of our commerce in the Mediterranean, and towards this object $96,000 were appropriated. It was not until 1803 that any increase took place in the naval establishment left us (if the expression may be pardoned) by the Federalists. We had slept long enough, I suppose, on reform, and we made this little addition. But, sir, in the unfortunate year of 1806, the memorable year of the schism, as it is called, the year of non-importation-act memory, in that year when we had a war message against Spain on the table, and a message of a different character locked up in the drawer—in that year we passed an act which has been quoted, by which we repealed the second and fourth sections of the act to provide for the Naval Peace Establishment; that is to say, we undid the reform which had been carried into execution by our predecessors—with a very ill grace, I acknowledge, and at the very last time of asking, on the 3d of March, 1801, late at night—it was a forced put, no doubt of it—we passed an act in which we repealed the second and fourth sections of that act, and added to the officers of the Navy as follows: instead of nine captains, to which number the Federal Administration had reduced them, and which number we believed for four years to be amply sufficient, we added five new captains—and yet we ought to recollect that in the interim between these two acts the frigate Philadelphia had been wholly lost, and another frigate (the General Greene) retained in the service by the act of the 3d of March, 1801, worse than totally lost, as any one may see who will go and look at her remains in the navy yard—so that the number of officers made by Congress in 1806 was in the inverse ratio to the number of ships, and, with two frigates less, we determined to have five captains more. This same act of April 21st, 1806, only doubled the number of lieutenants. The act of the 3d of March, 1801, reduced the number to thirty-six; the act of 1806 repealed that reduction and authorized the appointment of seventy-two lieutenants—it is true, sir, that the same act made no addition to the number of midshipmen, nor to the number of ordinary seamen then in service. Then again the act of the 3d of March, 1807, added to that number five hundred seamen, making the whole number of seamen 1,425. Subsequently they have been increased by the act of January 31, 1809, as the House knows, to 2,700—and an increase is authorized to the number of 5,000, with 300 additional midshipmen. I do hope that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, will be prepared to give this House some reason, when we have not added a single frigate to the number retained by the act of 1801, when we have even lost two of those retained by that act, when several others are almost in the last stage of decay, why we should require five captains more than the Fed[Pg 246]eral Administration required for a greater number of vessels, and why we should double the number of lieutenants? In other words, why the number of officers should now be fixed agreeably to the act of April 21, 1806, rather than that of the 3d of March, 1801? Sir, the gentleman from Massachusetts has already demonstrated to the House, and I am thankful to him for it—I know with what authority any statement comes from that gentleman—that the real protection afforded to the constituents of my worthy colleague by the bill, as reported by the select committee, is greater than that afforded by the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania—that is to say, that it would keep a greater number of seamen employed, with fewer officers to be sure, because we retain only as many as we want. The efficient protection afforded by the bill as it originally stood is greater at a less expense—because that branch of the naval service of which I have been compelled to present so hideous a picture to this House is left by the amendment untouched. My worthy colleague (Mr. Bassett) stated yesterday—and I confess it was quite novel to me; I felt so astonished at it as not only to be unable but absolutely to forget to reply to it—that before he left the Department, the ex-Secretary of the Navy had commenced a system of economy, which system it seems is now prosecuting with renovated vigor by the present Secretary—the mantle of Elijah has descended on the shoulders of his successor. I am sorry, sir, to differ with my worthy colleague on so many points; but I am really not sorry that circumstances have put it in my power to prove, from the most incontestable authority, that where I have the misfortune to differ from him, I am most indubitably supported by facts. Now, sir, the first year's expenditure under the late Secretary of the Navy was $915,000. Even in that year the appropriation was exceeded, and we had to pass an appropriation bill to make up the deficit; and from that time to his going out of office, the expenditure of that department has regularly increased. The second year, the expenditure was $1,246,000; the next year, $1,273,000; the next year (and this was the year the Philadelphia was taken—she was taken about December, 1803, and that year, I believe, was about the most vigorous of the war) the expenditure was $1,597,000; the next year, $1,649,000; the next year, $1,722,000; the next year, $1,884,000; the next, two millions and a half within a trifle. Now, sir, this is a specimen of such economy as does not suit my taste, nor, I believe, the taste of the people of this country. I believe it is in proof and in the recollection of every member of experience on this floor, that that Department has long ago passed into a proverb of prodigality and waste; and if my honorable colleague will give himself an opportunity to probe it, he will find such was the fact. With respect to the present Secretary of the Navy, I have the best reason to believe that, on his coming into office, he did take various steps to introduce reform into the civil branch of the department—in regulating and checking the pursers, for instance.

Sir, a few days ago a bill was before this House for appropriating a small sum of $20,000 to prevent the most precious archives not only that this country but that any other country possesses, the evidence of the titles of our political independence, the title-deeds of the great American family, the great charters of our liberty, from destruction. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smilie) did on that occasion vehemently oppose this bill, and on this ground—(the bill was brought in by a gentleman from Massachusetts—Mr. Quincy) that though there was no impropriety perhaps in gentlemen on that side of the House voting for unnecessary expenditures of the public money, which in the present unexampled state of the Treasury, might tend to embarrass the Government—a strange doctrine to be sure—yet it did not become him to do it. I do hope that the worthy gentleman from Pennsylvania, who could not find it in his heart to loosen the purse-strings of the nation for the purpose of preserving the valuable archives of the country, and which, if another fire should break out in the building at the other end of the palace, between this time and the next session of Congress, might be irredeemably destroyed, for which those who were the cause of the destruction would have been answerable—if he would not vote money for this object, I hope he will not insist upon exceeding, in point of expense, as relates to the Navy, the reform which our predecessors, the Federalists, made before they went out of office, which we accepted at their hands and were contented to practise on for four years, and not compel us to go into unnecessary and wanton expenses authorized by the act of April, 1806—when, I have no hesitation in making the assertion, and am prepared to prove it, a material change was effected in the principles of those in Administration, such as I knew them, and such as they were practised upon for about the term of four years, when we began to find that patronage was a very comfortable thing, that office was desirable, that navies were not the bugbear we had thought them, and that armies were very good depositaries for our friends and relatives and dependents who had no better resource. I, therefore, move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania so as to reduce the Navy to the standard of the act of 1801.

This is indeed, said he, a novel situation in which I find myself—it is unprecedented. Little did I believe that the time would ever come when it would be my lot thus to press economy upon a Republican majority—to intreat that they would come down, not to any ideal imaginary standard of perfection—not to any theoretical proposition of mine—but that in practice they would come down, on the subject of naval expenditure, to the standard established by their Federal predecessors: and that too when we have lost, as I stated before, the[Pg 247] Philadelphia and General Greene, and when, I believe, the John Adams is in a condition that I will not attempt to describe—I understand this vessel is so cut down and metamorphosed that nobody knows what to make of her; that she retains nothing of her former character. When I make this motion, sir, I do it with an intention of moving other amendments to other sections of the bill, so as to make the service of the United States in relation to the navy-yards and marine corps comport with the reduction which will have taken place, provided I have the good fortune to succeed.

Mr. R. then moved to amend Mr. Smilie's proposition by adding the following:

Mr. Johnson expressed his hope that the House would come to some decision, without consuming more of the time of the House in debate.

Mr. Smilie said he was seriously in favor of a reduction in the Navy, and was therefore opposed to Mr. Randolph's amendment to his amendment.

After some further remarks of Messrs. Randolph and Dana in favor of a reduction, and Messrs. McKim, Boyd, and Rhea of Tennessee against it, the question was taken on Mr. Randolph's motion to amend Mr. Smilie's amendment, and negatived—yeas 36, nays 67.

Mr. Newton then said he was anxious to do his duty; but could not consent to stay here when one-third of the House at least had deserted their seats and fatigue oppressed the remainder. He therefore moved to adjourn.—Carried—yeas 60, after seven hours' sitting.

Friday, April 27.

Mortality of the Troops at Terre aux Bœuf.

Mr. Newton, from the committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the mortality which prevailed in the detachment of the army ordered for the defence of New Orleans, made a long report, accompanied with various depositions and other papers. The report concludes as follows:

The report and documents were ordered to be printed.

Saturday, April 28.

Reduction of the Navy.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for reducing the Naval Establishment of the United States.

Mr. Smilie's amendment was modified so as to fix the number of officers, &c., to be retained in service, as follows: thirteen captains, nine masters commandant, seventy-two lieutenants, ---- midshipmen and —— seamen, ordinary seamen and boys.

Mr. Mumford again moved to postpone the further consideration of the subject indefinitely—lost, yeas 40, nays 54.

Mr. Randolph moved to strike out the numbers thirteen, nine, and seventy-two, in the amendment, being desirous of reducing the officers, if any part of the establishment. Motion lost, ayes 40, noes 46.

Mr. N. R. Moore called for a division of the question on Mr. Smilie's amendment.

And the question was taken on that part of it which authorizes the President to keep in service so many of the armed vessels as he may think proper, and to lay up the rest in ordinary in convenient ports. This part of the amendment was agreed to—yeas 61, nays 38.

The second clause of Mr. Smilie's amendment being under consideration—

Mr. Smilie moved to fill the blank for the number of midshipmen with "one hundred and fifty" (about half the number at present in service)—Agreed to, ayes 51, noes 37.

[Pg 248]

The question was stated on filling the blank for the number of seamen to be retained with "two thousand seven hundred and twenty-three," as moved by Mr. Bassett, and rejected, yeas 46, nays 52; also the question was taken on filling with 2,000, and rejected, yeas 39, nays 56; also on filling with 1,400, which was carried; and the House then adjourned.

Tuesday, May 1.

General Wilkinson.

Mr. Butler, from the committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of Brigadier General, James Wilkinson, rose to make a report.

The question on reading the report was taken and carried, 58 to 32.

The report is as follows:

Mr. Gholson observed that the reading of the documents accompanying the report would take until midnight, at least, and he hoped there would be no objection to dispense with the reading of them.

No one objecting, the reading of the documents was dispensed with, and the whole was ordered to be printed.

Adjournment.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of this House, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him of the proposed recess of Congress.

The House proceeded to consider the resolution from the Senate to appoint a joint committee to wait on the President, and acquaint him of the proposed recess of Congress; and the same was concurred in by the House; and Messrs. Crawford and Roane were appointed the committee on the part of the House.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having completed the legislative business before them, are ready to adjourn.

Mr. Crawford, from the joint committee to[Pg 249] wait on the President of the United States, and inform him of the proposed recess of Congress, reported that the committee had performed that service, and that the President informed them that he had no further communication to make to Congress during the present session.

Ordered, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that this House are now ready to adjourn; and that the clerk do go with the said message.

The clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, being returned, the Speaker adjourned the House until the first Monday in December next.

[Pg 250]

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—THIRD SESSION.
BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 3, 1810.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.

Monday, December 3, 1810.

The third session of the eleventh Congress, conformably to the Constitution of Government of the United States, commenced this day; and the Senate assembled at the city of Washington.

PRESENT:

• Nicholas Gilman and Charles Cutts, from New Hampshire.
• Chauncey Goodrich and Samuel W. Dana, from Connecticut.
• Jonathan Robinson, from Vermont.
• Obadiah German, from New York.
• Michael Leib, from Pennsylvania.
• Outerbridge Horsey, from Delaware.
• Samuel Smith, from Maryland.
• William B. Giles, from Virginia.
• John Gaillard, from South Carolina.
• William H. Crawford and Charles Tait, from Georgia.
• John Pope, from Kentucky.
• Alexander Campbell, from Ohio.
• John Gaillard, President pro tempore, resumed the chair.

The number of Senators present not being sufficient to constitute a quorum, the Senate adjourned.

Tuesday, December 4.

John Lambert, from the State of New Jersey, Elisha Mathewson, from the State of Rhode Island, and Philip Reed, from the State of Maryland, severally attended.

The credentials of Charles Cutts, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New Hampshire, in place of Nahum Parker, Esq., resigned; also, of Samuel W. Dana, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Connecticut, in place of James Hillhouse, Esq., resigned, were severally read; and the oath required by law was, by the President, administered to them, respectively.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and ready to proceed to business.

Ordered, That Messrs Smith, of Maryland, and Gilman, be a committee on the part of the Senate, together with such committee as may be appointed by the House of Representatives on their part, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that a quorum of the House of Representatives is assembled and ready to proceed to business. The House of Representatives have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with such committee as may be appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

On motion, by Mr. Smith, of Maryland,

Resolved, That James Mathers, sergeant-at-arms and doorkeeper to the Senate, be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ one assistant and two horses, for the purpose of performing such services as are usually required by the doorkeeper to the Senate; and that the sum of twenty-eight dollars be allowed him weekly for that purpose, to commence with, and remain during the session, and for twenty days after.

Mr. Smith, of Maryland, reported from the joint committee that they had waited on the President of the United States, and that the President informed the committee that he would make a communication to the two Houses to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

Wednesday, December 5.

Timothy Pickering, from the State of Massachusetts, and Stephen R. Bradley, from the State of Vermont, severally attended.

President's Annual Message.

The following Message was received from the President of the United States[Pg 251]:

Friday, December 7.

Joseph Anderson, from the State of Tennessee, attended.

Tuesday, December 11.

Richard Brent, from the State of Virginia, attended.

Wednesday, December 12.

The Vice President of the United States resumed the chair.

Jesse Franklin, from the State of North Carolina, also took his seat in the Senate.

Thursday, December 13.

Henry Clay, from the State of Kentucky, took his seat in the Senate.

Monday, December 17.

James Lloyd, from the State of Massachusetts, took his seat in the Senate.

Tuesday, December 18.

John Condit, from the State of New Jersey, and John Smith, from the State of New York, severally took their seats in the Senate.

Bank of the United States.

Mr. Leib presented the petition of the President and Directors of the Bank of the United States, praying a renewal of their charter, for reasons therein stated; and the petition was read, and referred to a select committee, to consist of five members, to consider and report thereon; and that the petition be printed for the use of the Senate.

Messrs. Crawford, Leib, Lloyd, Pope, and Anderson, were appointed the committee.

Territory of Orleans.

Mr. Giles, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 8th instant, so much of the Message of the President of the United States as relates to the occupation of that part of West Florida which is included within the boundaries described by the treaty for the acquisition of Louisiana, reported a bill declaring the laws now in force in the Territory of Orleans, to extend to and to have full force and effect to the river Perdido, pursuant to the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th day of April, 1803, and for other purposes; and the bill was read, and passed to the second reading.

Wednesday, December 19.

Christopher Grant Champlin, from the State of Rhode Island, took his seat in the Senate.

[Pg 253]

Thursday, December 27.

Jenkin Whiteside, from the State of Tennessee, took his seat in the Senate.

Occupation of West Florida.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill declaring the laws now in force in the Territory of Orleans, to extend to, and to have full force and effect, to the river Perdido, pursuant to the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April, 1803; and for other purposes.

The question was on the bill's passage to a third reading.

Mr. Pope.—Mr. President, I regret that the honorable chairman of the committee who reported this bill is not here to give it that support which his talents, information, and the importance of the subject authorize us to expect. His absence has devolved on me, as a member of the committee, and a representative of that section of the Union more immediately interested in the subject before us, to explain to the Senate some of the grounds which induced them to make this report. The first important question which the proclamation of the President and this bill presents for consideration is, whether or not the United States have a good title to the territory in question. Before I examine the treaty of cession from France to the United States, of 1803, the source of our claim, permit me to inquire what were the limits of Louisiana in that quarter to which this subject leads us before the treaty and cession of 1762-'3, between France, Spain, and Great Britain? On this subject, however, I believe there is no contrariety of opinion. Before this period, Louisiana extended east of the river Mississippi to the river Perdido. France and Spain, by the Treaty of 1719, established this boundary between Florida, now called East Florida, and Louisiana. The ancient limits of Louisiana have been so fully ascertained by the documents laid before Congress at different times, and the numerous discussions the subject has undergone, that I should only waste the time of the Senate in attempting to throw any new light on it. I shall only refer the Senate to one additional evidence that this river was the ancient eastern boundary of this province. Mr. Smollet, in his continuation of "Hume's History of England," states the answer of the British Government to the propositions made by France for peace early in the year 1761, from which it appears that France then claimed the river Perdido as their eastern limit, nor does this fact appear to have been contested by the British Minister. It appears that previous to the war which terminated in 1763, Louisiana comprehended nearly the whole country watered by the Mississippi and its branches. I find it stated in a pamphlet published in New York, that France, by a secret cession, contemporaneous with the treaty called the Family Compact of 1761, transferred this country to Spain, to induce her to become her ally in the war against Great Britain; and although I can find no evidence to support this statement, yet the events of that war, previous to that period, renders it at least probable. It will be remembered that the arms of Great Britain had triumphed over those of France, both by sea and land. France had lost Canada, and a great number of ships of war. Spain was not then a party in the war, and, to induce her to become so, it seems probable that France, under the pressure of adverse fortune, ceded to her this province. But, as this statement does not correspond with the documents on our tables, nor the views of others who have examined this subject, we are compelled to take it for granted, that the cession of West Louisiana, with the island of New Orleans, to Spain, and of East Louisiana, since called West Florida, to Great Britain, were made at the same time, in the year 1762. It is, however, well known that France made the cession to Great Britain at the instance, and for the benefit of Spain, to enable her, with the cession of Florida, now called East Florida, to obtain a restitution of Cuba. The whole of Louisiana, not conquered by Great Britain, may, with propriety, be said to have been given up, or ceded to Spain. Let us now examine that part of the treaty of cession between the United States and France of 1803, which relates to this question. By that treaty we acquired Louisiana as fully, and in the same manner, as it had been acquired by France from Spain, in virtue of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso of the 1st of October, 1800. By this treaty, Spain retroceded Louisiana to France, "with the same extent it then had in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States." That this extract from that treaty is correct, cannot be doubted, as it has never been denied by Spain. The word "retrocede" in this treaty has, I believe, occasioned more doubt with regard to the meaning of this cession that any expression contained in it, but cannot, when the subject is properly examined, have the effect contended for. It is said that as France ceded to Spain, in 1762, Louisiana west of the Mississippi, including the island of New Orleans, the word "retrocede" must limit the cession to what had been previously ceded by France to Spain; but if it be true that Louisiana east and west of the Mississippi was ceded to Spain in the year 1761, although East Louisiana was afterwards ceded by France, with the consent of Spain, to Great Britain, the word "retrocede" might, with propriety, be used with reference to the original grant to Spain in 1661, or if, what will not be denied, the cession of East Louisiana to Great Britain by France, was at the instance, and for the benefit of Spain, Spain, in 1800, after she had acquired East Louisiana, alias West Florida, so called by Great Britain after 1763, could well say to France, I re-grant to you what you ceded to me, and on my account, or at least, so much as I can re-grant consistently with the treaties I have since made; and this seems to be the[Pg 254] plain and evident meaning of the instrument. If the parties had meant to confine the retrocession to the limits of the cession, made by France to Spain, of Louisiana west of the Mississippi, including the island of New Orleans, they would have used the same deception. They would certainly have stopped after saying the extent it then had in the hands of Spain. But to prevent mistake or misconstruction, they add, "that it had when France possessed it," and, what is still more conclusive of the meaning of the parties, they go on to say, "and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States." As Spain had never entered into any treaty with regard to the western boundary of Louisiana, and as the only treaties to which the parties could have alluded was that of 1783 with Great Britain, and of 1795 with the United States, both relative to limits on the east side of the Mississippi, it is perfectly clear that the contracting parties meant to comprehend whatever of Louisiana, on the east side of the Mississippi, Spain had a title to. If the construction I contend for is not admitted, then the latter parts of the description will have no effect, contrary to a settled principle of law and common sense, that every part of an instrument shall have effect, if it can by any reasonable construction. To strengthen the construction for which I insist, it may not be amiss to consider the views of the French Government at the time this treaty of St. Ildefonso was made. They no doubt acquired this province with an intention of holding it, and it was an object of national pride to regain as much as practicable of the colonies which had been lost under the old Government. Besides, they could not be ignorant of the importance of East Louisiana, now West Florida, to the security of New Orleans; and, as the practicability of obtaining it at that time from Spain cannot be doubted, the presumption is irresistible that the cession was intended to embrace it. I had intended to have ascertained at the Department of State the ground of objection with Spain to the surrender of that country to the United States, but have not made the inquiry. I do not, however, think it difficult to account for the conduct of Spain. My conjecture is, that France, after she had sold Louisiana to the United States, and received the price stipulated, secretly advised Spain not to surrender it, having at that time formed the project which she is now attempting to execute, of acquiring the whole Spanish Empire. Her interest was, therefore, identified with that of Spain, and she was, no doubt, willing to unite with Spain in giving the most limited construction to the cession to the United States. I find that Congress, by an act passed on the 24th of February, 1804, have solemnly asserted our right to this territory, and authorized the President to take possession of it and to establish a port of entry, &c., on the Mobile, whenever he should deem it expedient. The time when, and circumstances under which, this step should be taken, were submitted to the discretion of the Executive. I may be permitted to ask why, if we had no title to this territory, the President was urged to take possession by force, and censured for not doing it? If my recollection is accurate, all parties agreed we ought to have the country—they only differed as to the mode of acquiring it. The President, influenced by that policy which has hitherto guided the present Administration, of avoiding making this nation a party in the present European war, in the exercise of the discretionary power vested in him by that act, did not think proper to seize upon it by force, but to wait for the occurrence of events to throw it into our hands without a struggle.

The expediency of taking possession of this territory cannot, it appears to me, admit of a doubt. If the President had refused or hesitated to meet the wishes of the people of West Florida by extending to them the protection of the American Government, and they had sought security in the arms of a foreign power, what should we have heard? He would have been charged with imbecility, and fear of incurring responsibility. He would have been denounced as unworthy of the station his country had assigned him. Let it be remembered that the Orleans country is our most valuable part—remote from our physical force—a climate more fatal to our people than the sword of a victorious enemy—and that an enemy in possession of West Florida can with great facility cut off New Orleans from the upper country. If the fortunate moment had not been seized, this province would have fallen into the hands of a foreign power, or, if time had been given for intrigue to mature itself, another Burr plot would probably have risen from the ashes of the first, more formidable to the integrity of this empire. Burr, like Archimedes, fancied that if he had a place to stand upon—a place beyond the jurisdiction of the United States to rally his followers—he could overturn the Government. He has, it is true, fled from the frowns of an indignant country; but he was not alone. Let an opportunity be afforded, and a thousand Burrs would throw off the mask and point their arms against the Federal Union. On a subject of such interest, it would have been criminal in those appointed to watch over the national safety to have hesitated. I was surprised to hear this procedure pronounced a robbery, and making of war. Why should our sympathies be awakened in favor of Spain? What claim has the Spanish Government upon our moderation and forbearance? What has been her conduct? From the moment we became an independent nation she has been intriguing to separate the Western country from the Atlantic States. She has made, at different periods, and as late as the year 1797, in violation of her treaty of 1795 with this country, direct propositions to the Western people to secede from the Union, and to accomplish her object, at least attempted the use of means the[Pg 255] most corrupt. What has been her conduct since we acquired Louisiana? If I am correctly informed, our deserters and slaves who have taken refuge in Florida, in many instances have not been surrendered, and enormous duties have been imposed on our vessels navigating the Mobile. Under all these provocations, sufficient to have drawn upon them from almost any other nation an open declaration of war, our Government, influenced by that pacific policy which has hitherto regulated its course towards foreign nations, exercised patience and forbearance. And since the late revolution in Spain, I believe it will not be pretended that this Government has manifested any disposition to throw our weight into the scale of France against the Spanish party. Our Government has taken no step in relation to West Florida, until compelled by a regard to our own safety. The Executive in the proceeding under consideration has used language the most conciliatory, and on the face of his proclamation given a pledge that this Government will at any time enter into amicable negotiations on the subject of our claim to this territory, if it shall be disputed.

There are other at least plausible grounds upon which this bill as an original proposition might be supported entirely independent of the cession. Spain is indebted to us a large amount for spoliations committed on our commerce; and as there is no Government at present towards which the ordinary proceeding can be pursued to obtain payment, could we not, on the principle of the attachment law, as an act of self-justice, seize on this territory to secure satisfaction?

As this measure has been emphatically called an act of robbery and war, it may not be amiss to consider the political state of the Spanish colonies in relation to the Spanish Government in the hands of the Junta, and the new dynasty about to be established by Bonaparte. It may be said, perhaps, that the late alienation of the Spanish Crown and the revolution in Spain have dissolved the tie which connects them with the mother country. On this point I will not detain the Senate. If the French arms shall be successful in Spain, of which I believe few entertain much doubt, and the Junta shall be driven from Old Spain to any of the colonies, their political character must cease, and they can no longer claim the exercise of any jurisdiction or sovereignty over the colonies. The colonies are not bound together by any political bond unconnected with the mother country; they are subject to the mother country, but the moment she is conquered, they are at liberty to provide for themselves, unless, indeed, the Emperor of France or King Joseph can claim them. France, in an official exposé, and King Joseph, by proclamation, have declared their willingness that the colonies should become independent, provided they did not connect themselves with Great Britain. If France, therefore, shall, which is probable, conquer the mother country, we are fully authorized by her public declaration to the world to acquire, with the consent of the inhabitants, not only West but East Florida, Cuba, or any other province which we shall deem it expedient to connect with the United States. This bill may be justified, independent of title, by the law of self-preservation. Have we any assurance that the Spanish Government will maintain their neutrality in this territory if we should be involved in a war with either France or Great Britain? Can they, or will they, prevent the march of an enemy's forces through that territory into the United States? No, sir; we have every reason to expect the contrary. Considering how vulnerable we are from this territory, its present state, and the aspect of our foreign affairs, it appears to me we are authorized to take possession of it as a measure of national security. It may be objected that taking the property of others by force tends to relax the morals of the people, by destroying that criterion of right and wrong, the observance of which is so necessary to the purity of our Republic; and I am ready to admit that we ought to proceed upon this principle of necessity and expediency with great caution, and never to act upon it but in extreme and evident cases. Had we a colony on the coast of England or France, similarly situated, we know they would not hesitate. When we reflect that our property is seized by almost every nation; that the laws and usages of nations are disregarded by nearly all Europe; that their conduct has been lately marked with a degree of perfidy and rapacity unexampled in the history of the civilized world; that they have in fact become States of Barbary; it appears to me that we ought not, as regards them, to be over nice or squeamish upon questions of this sort. Shall we sit here with our arms folded until the enemy is at our gates? If we waste our time in discussion and refining abstract questions of right and wrong, we shall lose our independence, and we shall deserve to lose it. I had hoped this bill would have passed without much debate; I know the people are tired of long speeches and documents. This fondness for lengthy discussions, has even drawn upon Congress the reproaches of the ladies; they begin to say—less talk and more action.

Friday, December 28.

Occupation of West Florida.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill respecting the territory west of the Perdido.

Mr. Horsey addressed the Senate as follows:

Mr. President: The bill under consideration contains two important provisions. The first in effect incorporates with the Territory of Orleans the province of West Florida east of the Mississippi, as far as the river Perdido; the second extends to that part of the province thus incorporated the laws now in force within the said Territory.

These provisions naturally involve two ques[Pg 256]tions: first, whether the United States have a good title to that part of the province described in the bill; and secondly, whether it would be expedient for the Government of the United States to take possession of it by force.

Before I proceed to consider these questions, I beg leave, Mr. President, to advert to what may be considered a preliminary question. I refer to the authority of the President of the United States to issue his proclamation and the accompanying orders of the 27th of August last, directing the forcible occupation of that territory. I deem it material to consider this point, because, if the proclamation were unauthorized, then Congress are not committed by it, nor are they bound to give it their sanction.

If the President had any authority to issue this proclamation, that authority must have been derived either under the Constitution of the United States or under some act or acts of Congress. The President has no power which does not proceed from one or the other of these sources. The constitution has given to Congress the exclusive power of making laws and declaring war—to the President the power of executing the laws of the Union. The powers of the one are legislative, of the other executive. The question then would be, whether the President in issuing this proclamation has not transcended the limits of his powers.

Sir, what is the nature and import of this proclamation? In my humble conception both legislation and war. War—because it directs the occupation of this territory by a military force. The regular troops of the United States are ordered to march, and if they should not be found adequate to the object, the Governors of the Orleans and Mississippi Territories are directed to call out the militia of their respective territories, to co-operate with the regular forces. But we shall be told, sir, that the President, in issuing this proclamation, has taken the precaution to direct that in case any particular place, however small, should remain in possession of a Spanish force, the commanding officer is not to proceed to employ force against it, but to make immediate report thereof to the Secretary of State. Suppose while your commanding officer is making this report, the Spanish force sallies out and makes an attack upon your army, or suppose a Spanish army, with Governor Folch at their head, should march from East Florida with the view of repelling the invasion of this territory; what are Governor Claiborne and his army to do? Ground their arms and surrender themselves prisoners of war; or are they, sir, to drop their muskets and take to their heels? These are the only alternatives presented—they must either surrender, run, or fight. And who will doubt which of these alternatives the gallantry of an American army would impel them to choose! Sir, a conflict would be inevitable.

But while the President has been so affectedly cautious with respect to Spanish force, he has overlooked altogether the contingency of resistance on the part of the revolutionists. These patriots it would seem had called a convention and issued a declaration of independence, and now it appears have formed and established a regular Government, which is organized and in operation. If these proceedings are not all a sham, the territory in question is now in the possession of a people claiming to be sovereign and independent; and is it supposable that this people can behave so dastardly as to submit, without a struggle, to the incursion of a hostile army, whose avowed object is the conquest of the country and the subversion of its constitution and independence? And here permit me to remark, that the style and tenor of the letter from the Secretary of State of the 15th of November, 1810, to Governor Holmes, in answer to the letter of the President of the convention praying the recognition and protection of the United States, are not admirably calculated to give a welcome reception to the American Army. If then assistance should be offered on the part of the constitutionalists, what is your army to do? The orders contain no proviso in this particular, requiring that the fact should be reported to the Department of State; but their clear intent is, that force should be employed. Under such circumstances is it not to be expected that this measure of the Executive will result in war? Is it not to be expected, that either the Spaniards or the Conventionalists will attempt to repel this palpable infringement upon their rights and territory?

But, sir, this proclamation is not only war, but it is an act of legislation too. It annexes the territory in question to the Orleans Territory; it creates a Governor; it enacts laws, and appropriates money. It gives the Governor of the Orleans Territory all the authorities and functions over this particular territory which he possesses by virtue of his office as governor, and makes an appropriation of a sum of money, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars. This proclamation is substantially the bill under discussion, except that it goes much further. The first section of the bill only contains an annexation of the territory in question to the Orleans Territory—this the proclamation has already done. The second section only extends the laws of that territory to the particular territory in question—and this too the proclamation has already done. The only material difference in fact existing between the proclamation and this bill is, that the proclamation contains the further and important provision for raising the troops and the money necessary for carrying it into execution. And here, sir, I will take the liberty to remark that I do not consider this bill the only one intended on this subject. This is a mere entering wedge—when this is passed, Congress are permitted to pass another, providing the necessary military and pecuniary means to carry this act into execution; and, indeed, I should not be surprised, if, before the close of[Pg 257] the session, a bill were introduced to take possession of East as well as West Florida.

If the President had no power under the constitution to issue this proclamation, I think it equally clear he had none under any existing laws of Congress. The act of the 31st of October, 1803, authorizing the President of the United States to take possession of and occupy the territory ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the 30th of April, 1803, I apprehend, expired on the 1st day of October, 1804; to which period it was limited by the first section of the act for erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof, passed the 20th day of March, 1804.

This section enacts, that "the act passed the 31st day of October, entitled 'An act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris, on the 30th day of April, 1803; and for the temporary government thereof,' shall continue in force until the 1st day of October, 1804, any thing therein to the contrary notwithstanding; on which said 1st day of October, this act shall commence, and have full force, and shall continue in force for and during the term of one year, and to the end of the next session of Congress, which may happen thereafter." Let it be recollected that at the time this last-mentioned act passed, the President had fulfilled his powers, under the act of the 31st of October, 1803, so far as it respected the taking possession of Louisiana. Possession had been actually and formally delivered, and the stock created and transferred to the French Government, according to the stipulations of the treaty. Besides, the very nature and design of the act of the 26th March, independent of the express limitation, superseded the act of the 31st of October.

But it is said, there are acts of Congress which, though contemplating a present possession in a foreign authority, also contemplate an ultimate possession by the United States, under which the proclamation may be justified, even though the act of the 31st of October should have expired. The acts here referred to, I understand to be the act of the 24th of February, 1804, for laying and collecting duties within the territories ceded by France to the United States, the act above mentioned of the 26th of March, erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and the act of the 2d of March, 1805, authorizing the establishment of a Government in the Territory of Orleans, similar to the Government of the Mississippi Territory. The President himself admits, in his message at the opening of the session, that those laws contemplate a present possession in a foreign Power; but he further says, they contemplate an eventual possession by the United States. But, sir, let me ask what sort of possession? A possession by force? No, sir, not a single provision can be shown to justify such a construction. But a possession to be obtained by a friendly negotiation. I am warranted in this construction, not merely by the letter of those laws, by the lapse of time since their enactment, by the express official declaration of Mr. Madison himself, while Secretary of State. It is a notorious fact, that when the act of the 24th of February passed, the Marquis D'Yrujo, then the Minister of his Catholic Majesty in the United States, in a solemn form protested against that law; and that Mr. Madison, by a letter dated on the 19th of March, assured the Marquis that the provisions relating to Louisiana "would not be extended beyond the acknowledged limits of the United States, until it shall be rendered expedient by friendly elucidation and adjustments with His Catholic Majesty."

Upon the whole, sir, I have not been able to discover the shadow of authority, on the ground of which the President issued this proclamation. He has recited none, amidst all his recitals, and none appears to me but his own mere will and pleasure.

The act I therefore cannot view in any other light than an unwarrantable assumption of power and a violation of the constitution.

Considering then, sir, this act of the Executive as illegal and unauthorized, we are fully at liberty to enter into the discussion of the great questions of title and expediency; a task which I will proceed to discharge to the best of my ability.

The first I propose to examine is, the title of the United States to the territory in question. With respect to this, I perceive, it unfortunately happens that honorable gentlemen who support the bill do not precisely accord in sentiment. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Bradley) has frankly conceded that the United States acquired no title under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. Another gentleman (Mr. Smith, of Maryland) has declared that the United States did derive a title under that treaty, and disclaims the title set up by the honorable gentleman from Vermont. I shall not undertake to decide which of the two gentlemen is right, if either be, but shall contend, and humbly expect to prove, that both are wrong.

What is the nature of the title set up by the gentleman from Vermont? Not under the treaty, he has candidly owned, but he supposes a title to exist on the ground of certain quaint principles of the common law, relative to the doctrines of estoppel and occupancy. I am extremely happy, sir, to find that honorable gentleman introducing the common law as authority upon this floor, especially on so great an occasion. His doctrines certainly evince both research and ingenuity, and show that he, like many with whom he acts, has not absolutely lost his veneration for the black letter. What are his doctrines? Why in the first place, he says, admitting that Spain did not cede Florida to France by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, and admitting that France had no title to Florida on the 30th of April, 1803, when she ceded Louisiana to the United States, yet, as France[Pg 258] has since acquired a title to the crown of Spain and her colonies, and as the French Plenipotentiary, when the treaty of 30th of April, 1803, was executed, did state and induce the American Ministers to understand and believe that Florida was comprehended in the cession, why the title, though France had it not when the treaty was signed, yet having it subsequently, immediately attached in the United States, and France is estopped from saying any thing to the contrary. This argument, sir, begs every thing: 1st. That the declarations on the part of the French Minister were made; 2dly, that being made they would operate to pass the title contrary to the express letter of the treaty; and lastly, that France has acquired a good title to the crown of Spain and her colonies. I will yield to the gentleman his first proposition, and grant, as he seems to desire it, that these representations were made—and what do they prove? Not that the title passed, but that the French Minister was too deep for the American Plenipotentiaries, and, to use a jockey phrase, took them in. Sir, the only legal effect of such a fraud would be, to violate the treaty—to annul the contract. France, to be sure, would be bound upon principles of equity to refund the purchase money.

If then, sir, I am correct in stating, that no conversations or verbal declarations, however fraudulent, would operate to control or vary the plain letter and intent of the treaty, as appearing on the face of it, then upon the gentleman's own acknowledgments no title to Florida could have passed to the United States under the treaty of 1803. For the gentleman has unequivocally admitted that Florida was not ceded by Spain to France by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, and France, it is admitted on all sides, by the treaty of 1803, only ceded to the United States Louisiana, as fully, and in the same manner she acquired it from Spain by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso; nor, sir, can I admit that France has acquired a legitimate title to the crown and colonies of Spain, which must also appear before the gentleman can avail himself of his argument. What, Mr. President, is the nature of this title? Was it obtained bona fide for a fair and full consideration? No, sir, but by the most abominable perfidy, corruption and duress, of which the pages of history furnish an example. Was not the royal family decoyed by artifice from Madrid to Bayonne? Was not the old Monarch compelled to resign his crown to Ferdinand the Seventh, and was not that Prince a prisoner of Bonaparte; and, while in this condition, and, for aught we know, the bayonet at his breast, or the cup to his lips, constrained to resign his crown to the Emperor of France? Sir, what sort of title is this? Upon the eternal principles of justice, upon the principles of the common law and common sense, an instrument thus obtained is not obligatory on the party executing it.

But have the people of Spain acquiesced? No, sir; the instant publicity was given to the transaction they became indignant, and with one voice rose, resolved to resist this usurpation. To this hour they have not submitted.

But the gentleman has said that Spain is no longer able to hold Florida; that foreign emissaries will take it if the United States do not, and that it may be lawfully taken by the United States on the ground of the law of occupancy.

That title may be acquired by occupancy is not to be doubted. It is the mode by which title to property was originally acquired; but to obtain a title in this way the country must be vacant, uninhabited and not claimed by another proprietor. But in this instance is the territory vacant—or uninhabited—or abandoned by its proprietors? No, sir. The territory is either in the possession of Spain and claimed by her, or of the revolutionists, and if either be in possession, by the law of occupancy, you have no right to disturb them. Clearly then, sir, upon the principles and admissions of the honorable gentleman from Vermont, the United States have no title to Florida.

And now, sir, with the indulgence of the Senate, I will proceed to consider as briefly as possible the nature of this title as derived under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. Here, it will be granted, I meet the question fairly. This, I presume, is the title relied upon, as well by the Executive as the majority of the supporters of this bill.

In order fully to understand this subject, it is necessary to inquire into the principal cause of the war of 1756. The eastern boundary of Louisiana, I believe, was the chief cause of that war. The French were in the possession of the Mississippi, and claimed as part of Louisiana not only the country to the west of that river, but east as far as the Alleghany mountains. France, having this claim, and being in possession of Canada, conceived the project of uniting Louisiana with Canada. To accomplish her purpose she established a line of posts from the Lakes to the Ohio, and commenced encroachments upon the then British colonies. These encroachments she was pressing so far that Great Britain perceived it would be necessary to repel them. This brought on the war of '56, which, after a bloody conflict of seven years, terminated disastrously to France and her allies, and resulted in the establishment of the Mississippi, the Iberville, and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, as the boundary of Louisiana, giving to Great Britain all the territory on the east of that boundary, except the island and town of New Orleans, and to France all upon the west, including the island and town of New Orleans.

A more particular examination of the results of this war is important. By it France lost Canada and most of her West India islands. Spain, the ally of France, lost Cuba. By the preliminary articles of peace between Great Britain, France, and Spain, signed at Fontainebleau, and dated the 3d November, 1762, France renounced all pretensions to Nova Scotia, and ceded and guarantied to his Britannic Majesty,[Pg 259] in full right, Canada with all its dependencies. The 6th article stipulates, "In order to re-establish peace on the most solid and lasting foundations and to remove every subject of dispute with regard to the limits of the British and French Territories on the continent of North America, it is agreed that for the future the confines between the dominions of His Britannic Majesty and those of his most Christian Majesty, (French King,) in that part of the world, shall be irrevocably fixed by a line drawn along the middle of the river Mississippi from its source, as far as the river Iberville, and from thence by a line drawn along the middle of this river, and of the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the sea; and to this purpose, the most Christian King cedes in full right, and guaranties to His Britannic Majesty, the river and port of Mobile, (now West Florida,) and every thing that he possesses, or ought to have possessed on the left (east) side of the river Mississippi, except the town of New Orleans, and the island on which it is situated, which shall remain to France." By the 18th article, Great Britain restores to Spain all that she had conquered in the island of Cuba, with the fortress of Havana. In consequence of which His Catholic Majesty (King of Spain) by the 19th article "cedes and guaranties in full right, to His Britannic Majesty, all that Spain possesses on the continent of North America, to the east or the south-east of the Mississippi, including Florida, with Fort St. Augustine and the bay of Pensacola." (Now consisting of East and a part of West Florida.) By the definitive treaty of peace and friendship between the Kings of Great Britain, France, and Spain, concluded at Paris on the 10th day of February, 1763, the preliminary articles were adopted, ratified, and confirmed. By another treaty bearing date the 3d day of November, 1762, the same day and year the preliminary articles are dated, as appears by the letter to M. L'Abbadie, which I will presently refer to, France cedes Louisiana to Spain, together with the town and island of New Orleans. This last-mentioned treaty has never been published, but the letter of the King of France to M. L'Abbadie recites the purport as well as date of it. This letter purports to be an order signed by the King of France, dated at Versailles, the 21st April, 1764, and directed to M. L'Abbadie, director-general, and commandant for His Majesty in Louisiana. This letter was published at New Orleans in October, 1764, and circulated amongst the French inhabitants there. It recites:

From this document, and the treaties referred to, it appears that in the month of October, 1764, when the whole of Louisiana, with the island and town of New Orleans, was delivered to Spain, that Great Britain was in the peaceable possession of all the country on the east of the Mississippi. That with respect to Florida particularly, Great Britain was in possession, and nobody dreamed at that time, that Florida either East or West, was any part of Louisiana. Had it been so considered under the orders of the French King, to deliver the whole of the province to Spain, undoubtedly Florida would have been delivered.

Immediately after the cession of '62-3, Great Britain took possession of all the country on the east of the Mississippi, except only the town and island of New Orleans, and, in the year 1763 or '4, erected Old Florida, Pensacola, the river and port of Mobile, &c., into two distinct provinces, under the name of East and West Florida, names which they have borne ever since. In 1783, at the close of our Revolutionary war, Great Britain ceded to Spain East and West Florida, which, from that period to the present time, have been held by Spain under these names, as separate provinces from Louisiana. In the year 1800, when Spain was in possession of East and West Florida and Louisiana, as three several and distinct provinces, the famous Treaty of St. Ildefonso was concluded, whereby Spain "retrocedes to France the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States." This treaty likewise has not been published, but the part just referred to is cited in the treaty between the United States and France of the 30th of April, 1803, whereby France cedes to the United States Louisiana, as fully and in the same manner as she acquired it of Spain by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. Spain delivered possession in pursuance of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso to France, and France, in pursuance of the treaty of 1803, delivered possession to the United States, both powers receiving the country on the West of the Mississippi, with the[Pg 260] island and city of New Orleans, like Spain originally received it from France, as the whole of Louisiana.

I have now, I believe, sir, given a full and I trust fair and correct statement of the evidences and facts relative to the question of title. A few remarks will close what I have to say on this head. The letter from the King of France to M. L'Abbadie, is a very important document. It shows that the King of France, under whom we claim, and by whose admissions we are bound, so long ago as 1764, treated and considered the country on the west of the Mississippi as the whole of Louisiana. That, so considering it, he ceded and delivered it to Spain, together with the island and town of New Orleans, from which latter words it may be inferred that even the island and town of New Orleans were then not considered a part of Louisiana. In 1800, when Spain ceded back the colony of Louisiana to France, that country was only known on the west of the Mississippi. The war '56, and the treaties of '62-3, had fixed the line and obliterated forever the name of Louisiana on the east of that river.

The Treaty of St. Ildefonso, of 1800, is a mere treaty of retrocession. The translation purports to be a treaty of cession, it is true, but acknowledged on all sides to be erroneous. The original treaty was in the French language, and it is by that we are to be governed. The expression in the original is "Sa Majesté Catholique promit et s'engage, de son cote, à retroceder à la Republique Française," &c. A retroceder signifying to retrocede, to restore, or to use a term familiar in the State I have the honor to represent, reconvey the colony of Louisiana to France, as it was when France conveyed it to Spain. The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Pope,) pressed by this argument, could only get round it by alleging that the original treaty between France and Spain was dated in 1761, prior to the settlement of the line and the cessions to Great Britain. But, unfortunately, he could not produce one title of authentic evidence to establish his position, a position absolutely negatived by the official letter to M. L'Abbadie. But that gentleman has further told us, that from the words "with the same extent it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between other States," an intention may be raised to include Florida. I fully subscribe to the gentleman's rule, that we must give such a construction to the treaty, and particularly to the passage just referred to, as will give effect, if possible, to all the parts; and this I apprehend may be done without having recourse to the forced construction contended for. In the first place, the two first members of the passage may be reconciled and have effect by considering them as a twofold description of the same territory. From abundant caution it is not uncommon to give various descriptions of the same object. Sometimes the name is simply used, sometimes it is described by metes and bounds, and sometimes by the names of the adjacent countries. Sometime a twofold, and sometimes a threefold description is given. And upon a critical examination, I think it will be found that this is the only true construction the instrument will bear. If you give it the construction the gentleman contends for, to wit: that the second member of the passage is an extension of the description given by the first, then the second includes the first, and of consequence the first would be nugatory and superfluous; which would be doing violence to the gentleman's own rule of construction. But if the gentleman will insist on giving to the second member an enlarged or extended sense, it may be done by applying it to the western boundaries of Louisiana. It is said that when France ceded Louisiana to Spain, in '62, the country extended on the west to the river Sabine, and that Spain, prior to the treaty of 1808, detached from Louisiana the territory south of the waters emptying into the Red River, and erected it into a new province under the name of the "Province of Texas." Sir, the operations on the Sabine are memorable. It is well known how mysteriously they were suspended by an arrangement in 1806, by which it was agreed that the Spaniards should not cross the Sabine, and that the Americans should not extend their settlements as far as that river. And for this purpose, to prevent collisions, until the difference should be settled, instructions were given that no surveys should be made west of a meridian passing by Nachitoches.

If the gentleman is not satisfied by travelling to the west, by going to the east he may find an application—the town and island of New Orleans, which, though named in the cession to Spain, are not named in the treaty of retrocession to France.

As to the third member of the passage, it is a formal provision introduced into most treaties, and would be understood if not expressed. Of course the cession would be subject to prior treaties with other States. In 1795, Spain concluded a treaty with the United States, whereby she agrees that the navigation of the Mississippi, in its whole breadth from its source to the ocean, shall be free to the citizens of the United States, and that they shall have the right to deposite their merchandise and effects in the port of New Orleans, free of duty for three years, and after that period, if the privilege is not extended at the port of New Orleans, she is to assign to the United States, on another part of the banks of the Mississippi, an equivalent establishment. To these provisions the clause in question I apprehend refers.

The holding or possession of Louisiana is correspondent with the construction I have given the treaty. When possession was originally delivered by France to Spain, Florida was not delivered or considered any part of the cession. When Louisiana, under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso was restored to France, Florida[Pg 261] was not delivered. When Louisiana, under the treaty of 1803, was delivered to the United States, Florida was not comprehended. Indeed the Government of the United States then treated the country on the west of the Mississippi, including the town and island of New Orleans, as the whole of Louisiana, by receiving it and paying the purchase money, which by the terms of the treaty they were not bound to do, and which by the act of Congress creating the Louisiana stock they were not authorized to do, till after full and entire possession had been delivered.

Mr. President, is it conceivable that after the boundary in question had been established by the most solemn compact of nations, and consecrated by a long and bloody war, and, too, by a lapse of near forty years—is it conceivable that the territory in question, excluded by that boundary, and raised into a distinct province under a distinct name—a name it ever bore after the establishment of the boundary—is it, I say, sir, conceivable, if the parties meant to have included this province in the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, that it should not have been specifically named?

Mr. Clay.—Mr. President, it would have gratified me if some other gentleman had undertaken to reply to the ingenious argument which you have just heard. But not perceiving any one disposed to do so, a sense of duty obliges me, though very unwell, to claim your indulgence while I offer my sentiments on this subject, so interesting to the Union at large, but particularly to the western section of it. Allow me, sir, to express my admiration at the more than Aristidean justice, which, in a question of territorial title between the United States and a foreign nation, induces certain gentlemen to espouse the pretensions of the foreign nation. Doubtless, in any future negotiations, she will have too much magnanimity to avail herself of these spontaneous concessions in her favor, made on the floor of the Senate of the United States.

It was to have been expected, that in a question like the present, gentlemen, even on the same side, would have different views, and although arriving at a common conclusion, would do so by various arguments. And hence the honorable gentleman from Vermont entertains doubts with regard to our title against Spain, while he feels entirely satisfied of it against France. Believing, as I do, that our title against both powers is indisputable, under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso between Spain and France, and, the treaty between the French Republic and the United States, I shall not inquire into the treachery by which the King of Spain is alleged to have lost his crown; nor shall I stop to discuss the question involved in the overthrow of the Spanish monarchy, and how far the power of Spain ought to be considered as merged in that of France. I shall leave the honorable gentleman from Delaware to mourn over the fortunes of the fallen Charles. I have no commiseration for princes. My sympathies are reserved for the great mass of mankind, and I own that the people of Spain have them most sincerely.

I will adopt the course suggested by the nature of the subject, and pursued by other gentlemen, of examining into our title to the country lying between the Mississippi and the Rio Perdido (which, to avoid circumlocution, I will call West Florida, although it is not the whole of it)—and the propriety of the recent measures taken for the occupation of it. Our title depends, first, upon the limits of the province or colony of Louisiana, and secondly, upon a just exposition of the treaties before mentioned.

On this occasion it is only necessary to fix the eastern boundary. In order to ascertain this, it is proper to take a cursory view of the settlement of the country; the basis of European title to colonies in America being prior discovery or prior occupancy. In 1682, La Salle migrated from Canada, then owned by France, descended the Mississippi and named the country which it waters, Louisiana. About 1698, D'Iberville discovered by sea the mouth of the Mississippi, established a colony at the Isle Dauphine or Massacre, which lies at the mouth of the bay of Mobile, and one at the mouth of the river Mobile, and was appointed, by France, governor of the country. In the year 1717, the famous West India Company sent inhabitants to the Isle Dauphine, and found some of those who had been settled there under the auspices of D'Iberville. About the same period Biloxi, near the Pascagoula, was settled. In 1719, the city of New Orleans was laid off, and the seat of the Government of Louisiana was established there. In 1736, the French erected a fort on Tombigbee. These facts prove that France had the actual possession of the country as far east as the Mobile at least. But the great instrument which ascertains, beyond all doubt, that the country in question is comprehended within the limits of Louisiana, is one of the most authentic and solemn character which the archives of the nation can furnish. I mean the patent granted in 1712, by Louis XIV. to Crozat. [Here Mr. C. read such parts of the patent as were applicable to the subject.] According to this document, in describing the province or colony of Louisiana, it is declared to be bounded by Carolina on the east and Old and New Mexico on the west. Under this high record evidence, it might be insisted that we have a fair claim to East as well as West Florida, against France at least, unless she has by some convention or other obligatory act, restricted the eastern limit of the province. It has, indeed, been asserted that by the treaty between France and Spain, concluded in the year 1719, the Perdido was expressly stipulated to be the boundary between their respective provinces of Florida on the east and Louisiana on the west; but as I have been unable to find any such treaty, I am induced to doubt its existence.

[Pg 262]

About the same period, to wit, towards the seventeenth century, when France settled the isle Dauphine and the Mobile, Spain erected a fort at Pensacola. But Spain never pushed her actual settlements or conquests further west than the bay of Pensacola, whilst those of the French were bounded on the east by the Mobile. Between those two points, a space of about thirteen or fourteen leagues, neither nation had the exclusive possession. The Rio Perdido, forming the bay of the same name, discharges itself into the Gulf of Mexico between the Mobile and Pensacola, and, being a natural and the most notorious object between them, presented itself as a suitable boundary between the possessions of the two nations. It accordingly appears very early to have been adopted as the boundary, by tacit if not express consent. The ancient charts and historians, therefore, of the country so represent it. Dupratz, one of the most accurate historians in point of fact and detail of the time, whose work was published as early as 1758, describes the coast as being bounded on the east by the Rio Perdido. In truth, sir, no European nation whatever, except France, ever occupied any portion of West Florida, prior to her cession of it to England in 1762. The gentlemen on the other side do not indeed strongly controvert, if they do not expressly admit, that Louisiana, as held by France anterior to her cession of it in 1762, reached to the Perdido. The only observation made by the gentleman from Delaware to the contrary, to wit, that the island of New Orleans being particularly mentioned could not for that reason constitute a part of Louisiana, is susceptible of a very satisfactory answer. That island was excepted out of the grant to England, and was the only part of the province east of the river that was so excepted. It formed in itself one of the most prominent and important objects of the cession to Spain originally, and was transferred to her with the portion of the province west of the Mississippi. It might with equal propriety be urged that St. Augustine is not in East Florida, because St. Augustine is expressly mentioned by Spain in her cession of that province to England. From this view of the subject I think it results that the province of Louisiana comprised West Florida, previous to the year 1762.

What is done with it at this epoch? By a secret convention of the 3d of November of that year, France ceded the country lying west of the Mississippi, and the island of New Orleans to Spain; and by a contemporaneous act, the articles preliminary to the definitive Treaty of 1763, she transferred West Florida to England. Thus at the same instant of time she alienated the whole province.

Posterior to this grant, Great Britain, having also acquired from Spain her possessions east of the Mississippi, erected the country into two provinces, East and West Florida. In this state of things it continued until the peace of 1783, when Great Britain, in consequence of the events of the war, surrendered the country to Spain, who for the first time came into the actual possession of West Florida. Well, sir, how does she dispose of it? She re-annexes it to the residue of Louisiana; extends the jurisdiction of that Government to it, and subjects the Governors or commandants of the districts of Baton Rouge, Feliciana, Mobile, and Pensacola, to the authority of the Governor of Louisiana, residing at New Orleans; whereas the Governor of East Florida is placed wholly without his control, and is made amenable directly to the Governor of the Havana. And I have been credibly informed that all the concessions or grants of land, made in West Florida, under the authority of Spain, run in the name of the government of Louisiana, You cannot have forgotten that about the period when we took possession of New Orleans, under the Treaty of Cession from France, the whole country rung with the nefarious speculations which were alleged to be practising in that city, with the connivance, if not actual participation of the Spanish authorities, by the procurement of surreptitious grants of land, particularly in the district of Feliciana. West Florida, then, not only as France has held it, but as it was in the hands of Spain, made a part of the province of Louisiana, as much so as the jurisdiction or district of Baton Rouge constituted a part of West Florida.

What, then, is the true construction of the Treaties of St. Ildefonso and of April, 1803, from whence our title is derived? If an ambiguity exist in a grant, the interpretation most favorable to the grantee is to be preferred. It was the duty of the grantor to have expressed himself in plain and intelligible terms. This is the doctrine not of Coke only, (whose dicta I admit have nothing to do with the question,) but of the code of universal law. The doctrine is entitled to augmented force when a clause only of the instrument is exhibited, in which clause the ambiguity lurks, and the residue of the instrument is kept back by the grantor. The entire convention of 1762, by which France transferred Louisiana to Spain, is concealed, and the whole of the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, except a solitary clause. We are thus deprived of the aid which a full view of both of those instruments would afford. But we have no occasion to resort to any rules of construction, however reasonable in themselves, to establish our title. A competent knowledge of the facts, connected with the case, and a candid appeal to the treaties, are alone sufficient to manifest our right. The negotiators of the treaty of 1803 having signed with the same ceremony two copies, one in the English and the other in the French language, it has been contended, that in the English version the term "cede" has been erroneously used instead of "retrocede," which is the expression in the French copy. And it is argued that we are bound by the phraseology of the French copy, because it is declared that the treaty was agreed to in that language. It[Pg 263] would not be very unfair to inquire if this is not like the common case, in private life, where individuals enter into a contract, of which each party retains a copy, duly executed. In such case neither has the preference. We might as well say to France we will cling by the English copy, as she could insist upon an adherence to the French copy; and if she urged ignorance on the part of Mr. Marbois, her negotiator, of our language, we might, with equal propriety, plead ignorance on the part of our negotiators of her language. As this, however, is a disputable point, I do not avail myself of it; gentlemen shall have the full benefit of the expressions in the French copy. According to this, then, in reciting the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, it is declared by Spain in 1800, that she retrocedes to France the colony or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it then had in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it, and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between Spain and other States. This latter member of the description has been sufficiently explained by my colleague.

It is said that since France in 1762 ceded to Spain only Louisiana west of the Mississippi, and the island of New Orleans, the retrocession comprehended no more—that the retrocession ex vi termini was commensurate with and limited by the direct cession from France to Spain. If this were true, then the description, such as Spain held it, that is in 1800, comprising West Florida, and such as France possessed it, that is in 1762, prior to the several cessions, comprising also West Florida, would be totally inoperative. But the definition of the term retrocession, contended for by the other side, is denied. It does not exclude the instrumentality of a third party. It means restoration or reconveyance of the thing originally ceded, and so the gentleman from Delaware acknowledged. I admit that the thing restored must have come to the restoring party from the party to whom it is retroceded, whether directly or indirectly is wholly immaterial. In its passage it may have come through a dozen hands. The retroceding party must claim under and in virtue of the right originally possessed by the party to whom the retrocession takes place. Allow me to put a case: You own an estate called Louisiana. You convey one moiety of it to the gentleman from Delaware, and the other to me; he conveys his moiety to me, and I thus become entitled to the whole. By a suitable instrument I reconvey or retrocede the estate called Louisiana to you as I now hold it, and as you held it; what passes to you? The whole estate or my moiety only? Let me indulge another supposition: that the gentleman from Delaware, after he received from you his moiety, had bestowed a new denomination upon it, and called it West Florida, would that circumstance vary the operation of my act of retrocession to you? The case supposed is in truth the real one between the United States and Spain. France in 1762 transfers Louisiana west of the Mississippi to Spain, and at the same time conveys the eastern portion of it, exclusive of New Orleans, to Great Britain. Twenty one years after, that is in 1783, Great Britain cedes her part to Spain, who thus becomes possessed of the entire province; one portion by direct cession from France, and the residue by indirect cession. Spain then held the whole of Louisiana under France, and in virtue of the title of France. The whole moved or passed from France to her. When, therefore, in this state of things, she says, in the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, that she retrocedes the province to France, can a doubt exist that she parts with, and gives back to France, the entire colony? To preclude the possibility of such a doubt, she adds, that she restores it, not in a mutilated condition, but in that precise condition in which France had, and she herself possessed it.

Having thus shown, as I conceive, a clear right in the United States to West Florida, I proceed to inquire if the proclamation of the President directing the occupation of property, which is thus fairly acquired by solemn treaty, be an unauthorized measure of war and of legislation, as has been contended.

The act of October, 1803, contains two sections, by one of which the President is authorized to occupy the territories ceded to us by France in the April preceding. The other empowers the President to establish a provisional government there. The first section is unlimited in its duration; the other is restricted to the expiration of the then session of Congress. The act, therefore, of March, 1804, declaring that the previous act of October should continue in force until the first of October, 1804, is applicable to the second and not the first section, and was intended to continue the provisional government of the President. By the act of the 24th of February, 1804, for laying duties on goods imported into the ceded territories, the President is empowered, whenever he deems it expedient, to erect the bay and river Mobile, &c., into a separate district, and to establish therein a port of entry and delivery. By this same act the Orleans Territory is laid off, and its boundaries are so defined as to comprehend West Florida. By other acts the President is authorized to remove by force, under certain circumstances, persons settling or taking possession of lands ceded to the United States.

These laws furnish a legislative construction of the treaty, correspondent with that given by the Executive, and they vest in this branch of the Government indisputably a power to take possession of the country, whenever it might be proper in his discretion. The President has not, therefore, violated the constitution, and usurped the war-making power, but he would have violated that provision which requires him to see that the laws are faithfully executed, if he had longer forborne to act. It is urged that he has assumed powers belonging to Congress in undertaking to annex the portion of West[Pg 264] Florida between the Mississippi and the Perdido to the Orleans Territory. But Congress, as has been shown, has already made this annexation the limits of the Orleans Territory, as prescribed by Congress, comprehending the country in question. The President, by his proclamation, has not made law, but has merely declared to the people of West Florida what the law is. This is the office of a proclamation, and it was highly proper that the people of that Territory should be thus notified. By the act of occupying the country, the Government de facto, whether of Spain, or the revolutionists, ceased to exist; and the laws of the Orleans Territory, applicable to the country, by operation and force of law, attached to it. But this was a state of things which the people might not know, and every dictate of justice and humanity required, therefore, should be proclaimed. I consider the bill before us merely in the light of a declaratory law.

Never could a more propitious moment present itself for the exercise of the discretionary power placed in the President of the United States, and, had he failed to embrace it, he would have been criminally inattentive to the dearest interests of this country. It cannot be too often repeated, that if Cuba on the one hand, and Florida on the other, are in the possession of a foreign maritime power, the immense country belonging to the United States, watered by streams discharging themselves into the Gulf of Mexico—that is, one-third, nay more than two-thirds of the United States, comprehending Louisiana, is placed at the mercy of that power. The possession of Florida is a guarantee absolutely necessary to the enjoyment of the navigation of those streams. The gentleman from Delaware anticipates the most direful consequences from the occupation of the country. He supposes a sally from a Spanish garrison upon the American forces, and asks what is to be done? We attempt a peaceful possession of the country, to which we are fairly entitled. If the wrongful occupants under the authority of Spain assail our troops, I trust they will retrieve the lost honor of the nation in the case of the Chesapeake. Suppose an attack upon any portion of the American army within the acknowledged limits of the United States by a Spanish force? In such event there would exist but a single honorable and manly course. The gentleman conceives it ungenerous that we should at this moment, when Spain is encompassed and pressed on all sides by the immense power of her enemy, occupy West Florida. Shall we sit by, passive spectators, and witness the interesting transactions in that country—transactions which tend to jeopardize, in the most imminent degree, our rights, without interference? Are you prepared to see a foreign power seize what belongs to us? I have heard in the most credible manner that, about the period when the President took his measures in relation to that country, the agents of a foreign power were intriguing with the people there to induce them to come under his dominion.

Whether this be the fact or not, it cannot be doubted, that if you neglect the present auspicious moment—if you reject the proffered boon, some other nation, profiting by your errors, will seize the occasion to get a fatal footing in your southern frontier. I have no hesitation in saying, that if a parent country will not or cannot maintain its authority in a colony adjacent to us, and there exists in it a state of misrule and disorder, menacing our peace, and if moreover such colony, by passing into the hands of any other power, would become dangerous to the integrity of the Union, and manifestly tend to the subversion of our laws; we have a right, upon eternal principles of self-preservation, to lay hold of it. This principle alone, independent of any title, would warrant our occupation of West Florida. But it is not necessary to resort to it, our title being in my judgment incontestably good.

Monday, December 31.

John Taylor, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of South Carolina, in place of Thomas Sumter, resigned, produced his credentials which were read; and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

Wednesday, January 2, 1811.

Andrew Gregg, from the State of Pennsylvania, took his seat in the Senate.

Monday, January 7.

James A. Bayard, from the State of Delaware, took his seat in the Senate.

Tuesday, January 8.

Thomas Worthington, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Ohio, in place of Return Jonathan Meigs, resigned, produced his credentials, which were read; and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him, he took his seat in the Senate.

Monday, January 14.

James Turner, from the State of North Carolina, took his seat in the Senate.

Tuesday, January 29.

Mississippi Territory.

Mr. Anderson presented the memorial of the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the Mississippi Territory, praying that the said Territory may be admitted as a State into the Union, upon the footing of the original States, and the memorial was read, and referred to a select committee to consider and report thereon by bill or otherwise; and Messrs. An[Pg 265]derson, Bayard, and Dana, were appointed the committee.

The memorial is as follows:

Wednesday, January 30.

Territory of Orleans.

The Senate took into consideration the amendment proposed yesterday, by Mr. Dana, to the bill, entitled "An act to enable the people of the Territory of New Orleans to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes:" and, on motion, by Mr. Clay, it was agreed to divide the question; and, on the question to agree to the first division of the amendment, to wit:

It was determined in the negative—yeas 10, nays 18, as follows:

On the question to agree to the second division of the amendment, to wit:

It was determined in the negative—yeas 8, nays 17, as follows:

On motion, by Mr. Bradley, to postpone the further consideration of the bill to the second Monday in February next, it was determined in the negative.

On the question, Shall the bill be read a third time as amended? it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 17, nays 10, as follows:

Friday, February 1.

The credentials of James A. Bayard, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Delaware, for the term of six years from the third day of March next: and of William H. Crawford, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Georgia, for the[Pg 266] term of six years from the third day of March next, were severally read, and ordered to lie on file.

Wednesday, February 6.

Mr. Bradley presented the petition of Charlotte Hazen, relict of the late Brigadier General Moses Hazen, praying a grant of land may be made to her, as a Canadian refugee, or that a small addition, in lieu thereof, may be added to her present pension from Congress, for reasons stated at large in the petition; which was read, and referred to a select committee, to consider and report thereon by bill or otherwise; and Messrs. Bradley, Franklin, and German, were appointed the committee.

Monday, February 11.

Bank of the United States.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to amend and continue in force an act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," passed on the 25th day of February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one.

Mr. Anderson said that having been a member of the committee who reported the bill before the Senate, and not feeling himself at liberty to oppose the introduction of the report, yet, thinking it might be advisable to try the principle before they proceeded to discuss the details, he should move to strike out the first section of the bill. He would barely observe that, was this not a question which was generally understood, on which not only every member of this House, but every citizen of the United States had made up his mind, he should feel himself bound to offer reasons in support of the motion; but, inasmuch as it was a question which every gentleman had doubtless decided in his own mind, he felt unwilling to take up any more of the attention of the Senate, especially so late in the session, when there was so much business of importance before them which required to be acted on.

Mr. Crawford said that he should proceed, though reluctantly, to explain the reasons of the committee for reporting the bill, which is now under consideration. After the most minute examination of the constitution, the majority of that committee were decidedly of opinion that the Congress of the United States were clearly invested with power to pass such a bill. The object of the constitution was twofold: 1st, the delegation of certain general powers, of a national nature, to the Government of the United States; and 2d, the limitation or restriction of the State sovereignties. Upon the most thorough examination of this instrument, I am induced to believe, that many of the various constructions given to it are the result of a belief that it is absolutely perfect. It has become so extremely fashionable to eulogize this constitution, whether the object of the eulogist is the extension or contraction of the powers of the Government, that whenever its eulogium is pronounced, I feel an involuntary apprehension of mischief. Upon the faith of this imputed perfection, it has been declared to be inconsistent with the entire spirit and character of this instrument, to suppose that after it has given a general power it should afterwards delegate a specific power fairly comprehended within the general power. A rational analysis of the constitution will refute in the most demonstrative manner this idea of its perfection. This analysis may excite unpleasant sensations; it may assail honest prejudices; for there can be no doubt that honest prejudices frequently exist, and are many times perfectly innocent. But when these prejudices tend to destroy even the object of their affection, it is essentially necessary that they should be eradicated. In the present case if there be any who, under the conviction that the constitution is perfect, are disposed to give it a construction that will render it wholly imbecile, the public welfare requires that the veil should be rent, and that its imperfection should be disclosed to public view. By this disclosure it will cease to be the object of adoration, but it will nevertheless be entitled to our warmest attachment.

The 8th section of the 1st article of the constitution contains among others the following grant of powers, viz: to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; to raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; to establish post-offices and post roads. This selection contains five grants of general power. Under the power to coin money it is conceived that Congress would have a right to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the money after it was coined, and that this power is fairly incidental to, and comprehended in, the general power. The power to raise armies and provide and maintain a navy comprehends, beyond the possibility of doubt, the right to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; and yet in these three cases, the constitution, after making the grant of general power, delegates specifically the powers which are fairly comprehended within the general power. If this, however, should be denied, the construction which has been uniformly given to the remaining powers which have been selected, will establish the fact beyond the power of contradiction. Under the power to regulate commerce, Congress has exercised the power of erecting light-houses, as incident to that power, and fairly comprehended within it. Under the power to establish post-offices, and post roads, Congress has provided for the punishment of offences against the Post-Office Department. If the Congress can exercise an incidental power not granted in one case, it can in all cases of a similar kind. But it is said, that the enumeration of certain[Pg 267] powers excludes all other powers not enumerated. This is true so far as original substantive grants of power are concerned, but it is not true when applied to express grants of power, which are strictly incidental to some original and substantive grant of power. If it were true in relation to them, Congress could not pass a law to punish offences against the Post-Office Establishment, because the constitution has expressly given the power to punish offences against the current coin, and as it has given the power to punish offences committed against that grant of general power, and has withheld it in relation to the power to establish post-offices and post roads. Congress cannot, according to this rule of construction, so warmly contended for, pass any law to provide for the punishment of such offences. The power to make rules for the regulation and government of the land and naval forces, I have shown to be strictly incidental to the power to raise armies, and provide and maintain navies; but, according to this rule of construction, all incidental powers are excluded except the few which are enumerated, which would exclude from all claim to constitutionality, nearly one-half of your laws, and, what is still more to be deprecated, would render your constitution equally imbecile with the old articles of confederation. When we come to examine the 4th article, the absurdity of this rule of construction, and also of the idea of perfection which has been attributed to the constitution, will be equally manifest. This article appears to be of a miscellaneous character and very similar to the codicil of a will. The first article provides for the organization of Congress; defines its powers; prescribes limitations upon the powers previously granted; and sets metes and bounds to the authority of the State Governments. The second article provides for the organization of the Executive Department, and defines its power and duty. The 3d article defines the tenure by which the persons in whom the judicial power may be vested shall hold their offices, and prescribes the extent of their power and jurisdiction. These three articles provide for the three great departments of Government called into existence by the constitution, but some other provisions just then occur, which ought to have been included in one or the other of the preceding articles, and these provisions are incorporated and compose the 4th article. The 1st section of it declares, that "full faith and credit shall be given in each State, to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." In the second section it declares, that a person, charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the Executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime. A similar provision is contained in the same section, relative to fugitives who are bound to labor, by the laws of any State. In the first case which has been selected, express authority has been given to Congress, to prescribe the manner in which the records, &c., should be proved, and also the effect thereof, but in the other two, no authority is given to Congress, and yet the bare inspection of the three cases will prove that the interference of Congress is less necessary in the first than in the two remaining cases. A record must always be proved by itself, because it is the highest evidence of which the case admits. The effect of a record ought to depend upon the laws of the State of which it is a record, and, therefore, the power to prescribe the effect of a record was wholly unnecessary, and has been so held by Congress—no law having been passed to prescribe the effect of a record. In the second case there seems to be some apparent reason for passing a law to ascertain the officer upon whom the demand is to be made; what evidence of the identity of the person demanded and of the guilt of the party charged must be produced before the obligation to deliver shall be complete. The same apparent reason exists for the passage of a law relative to fugitives from labor. According, however, to the rule of construction contended for, Congress cannot pass any law to carry the constitution into effect, in the two last cases selected, because express power has been given in the first and is withheld in the two last. Congress has nevertheless passed laws to carry those provisions into effect, and this exercise of power has never been complained of by the people or the States.

Mr. President, it is contended by those who are opposed to the passage of this bill, that Congress can exercise no power by application, and yet it is admitted, nay, even asserted, that Congress would have power to pass all laws necessary to carry the constitution into effect, whether it had given or withheld the power which is contained in the following paragraph of the 8th section of the 1st article: "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof." If this part of the constitution really confers no power, it at least, according to this opinion, strips it of that attribute of perfection which has by these gentlemen been ascribed to it. But, sir, this is not the fact. It does confer power of the most substantial and salutary nature. Let us, sir, take a view of the constitution upon the supposition that no power is vested in the Government by this clause, and see how the exclusion of power by implication can be reconciled to the most important acts of the Government. The constitution has expressly given Congress power "to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," but it has nowhere expressly given the power to constitute a supreme court. In the 3d article it is said, "the judicial power[Pg 268] of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The discretion, which is here given to Congress, is confined to the inferior courts, which it may from time to time ordain and establish, and not to the Supreme Court. In the discussion which took place upon the bill to repeal the judicial system of the United States in the year 1802, this distinction is strongly insisted upon by the advocates for the repeal. The Supreme Court was said to be the creature of the constitution, and, therefore, intangible, but that Congress, possessing a discretionary power to create or not to create inferior tribunals, had the same discretionary power to abolish them whenever it was expedient. But if even the discretionary power here vested does extend to the Supreme Court, yet the power of Congress to establish that court must rest upon implication, and upon implication alone. Under the authority to establish tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, the power to establish a Supreme Court would, according to my ideas, be vested in Congress by implication. And, sir, it is only vested by implication, even if the declaration, that Congress shall have power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the power vested in any department or officer of the Government should be held to be an operative grant. Under this grant, Congress can pass laws to carry into effect the powers vested in the judicial department? What are the powers vested in this department. That it shall exercise jurisdiction in all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, &c., in all cases affecting ambassadors, &c., but the power to create the department and to carry into effect the powers given to or vested in that department, are very different things.

The power to create the Supreme Court cannot be expressly granted in the power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the powers vested in that court, but must, as I have endeavored to prove, be derived from implication. Let me explain my understanding of a power which exists by implication, by an example which will be comprehended by all who hear me. In a devise, an estate is granted to A, after the death of B, and no express disposition is made of the estate during the life of A; in that case A is said to have an estate for life, by implication, in the property so devised. So when the constitution gives the right to create tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, the right to create the Supreme is vested in Congress by implication. Shall we after this be told that Congress cannot constitutionally exercise any right by implication? By the exercise of a right derived only from implication, Congress has organized a Supreme Court, and then, as incidental to power, existing only by implication, it has passed laws to punish offences against the law by which the court has been created and organized. Sir, the right of the Government to accept of the District of Columbia, exists only by implication. The right of the Government to purchase or accept of places for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and dockyards, exists only by implication, and yet no man in the nation, so far as my knowledge extends, has complained of the exercise of those implied powers, as an unconstitutional usurpation of power. The right to purchase or except of places for the erection of light-houses, as well as the right to erect and support light-houses, must be derived by implication alone, if any such right exists. The clause in the constitution which gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings," certainly gives no express power to accept or purchase any of the places, destined for the uses therein specified. The only power expressly given in this clause is that of exercising exclusive legislation in such places; the right to accept or purchase must be derived by implication from this clause, or it must be shown to be comprehended in or incidental to some other power expressly delegated by the constitution. I shall now attempt to show, that according to the construction which has been given to other parts of this constitution, Congress has the right to incorporate a bank to enable it to manage the fiscal concerns of the nation. If this can be done, and if it can also be shown that the correctness of such construction has never excited murmur or complaint—that it has not even been questioned, I shall have accomplished every thing which it will be incumbent on me to prove, to justify the passage of the bill upon your table. The power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, together with the power to pass all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into effect the foregoing powers, when tested by the same rule of construction which has been applied to other parts of the constitution, fairly invests Congress with the power to create a bank. Under the power to regulate commerce, Congress exercises the right of building and supporting light-houses. What do we understand by regulating commerce? Where do you expect to find regulations of commerce? Will any man look for them any where else than in your treaties with foreign nations, and in your statutes regulating your custom-houses and custom-house officers? What are the reasons for vesting Congress with the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States? The commerce of a nation is a matter of the greatest importance in all civilized countries. It depends upon com[Pg 269]pacts with other nations, and whether they are beneficial or prejudicial depends not so much on the reciprocal interest of nations as upon their capacity to defend their rights and redress their wrongs. It was therefore highly important that the right to regulate commerce with foreign nations should be vested in the National Government. If the regulation of commerce among the several States had been left with the States, a multiplicity of conflicting regulations would have been the consequence. Endless collisions would have been created, and that harmony and good neighborhood, so essential between the members of a Federal Republic, would have been wholly unattainable. The best interest of the community, therefore, imperiously required, that this power should be delegated to Congress. Not so of light-houses. The interest of the States would have induced them to erect light-houses, where they were necessary, and when erected they would have been equally beneficial to their own vessels, the vessels of their sister States, and of foreign nations. The performance of this duty could have been most safely confided to the States. They were better informed of the situations in which they ought to be erected than Congress could possibly be, and could enforce the execution of such regulations as might be necessary to make them useful. How then has it happened that Congress has taken upon itself the right to erect light-houses, under their general power to regulate commerce? I have heard and seen in the public prints a great deal of unintelligible jargon about the incidentality of a law to the power delegated and intended to be executed by it, and of its relation to the end which is to be accomplished by its exercise, which I acknowledge I do not clearly and distinctly comprehend, and must therefore be excused from answering. I speak now of the public newspapers, to which I am compelled to resort to ascertain the objections which are made to this measure, as gentlemen have persevered in refusing to assign the reasons which have induced them to oppose the passage of the bill. But, sir, I can clearly comprehend that the right to erect light-houses is not incidental to the power of regulating commerce, unless every thing is incidental to that power which tends to facilitate and promote the prosperity of commerce. It is contended that under the power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and duties, you can pass all laws necessary for that purpose, but they must be laws to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and duties, and not laws which tend to promote the collection of taxes. A law to erect light-houses is no more a law to regulate commerce, than a law creating a bank is a law to collect taxes, imposts and duties. But the erection of light-houses tends to facilitate and promote the security and prosperity of commerce, and in an equal degree the erection of a bank tends to facilitate and insure the collection, safe-keeping, and transmission of your revenue. If, by this rule of construction, which is applied to light-houses, but denied to the bank, Congress can, as incidental to the power to regulate commerce, erect light-houses, it will be easy to show that the same right may be exercised, as incidental to the power of laying and collecting duties and imposts. Duties cannot be collected, unless vessels importing dutiable merchandise arrive in port; whatever, therefore, tends to secure their safe arrival may be exercised under the general power; the erection of light-houses does facilitate the safe arrival of vessels in port, and Congress therefore can exercise this right as incidental to the power to lay imposts and duties.

But it is said the advocates of the bank differ among themselves in fixing upon the general power to which the right to create a bank is incidental, and that this difference proves that there is no incidentality, to use a favorite expression, between that and any one of the enumerated general powers. The same reason can be urged, with equal force, against the constitutionality of every law for the erection of light-houses. Let the advocates for this doctrine lay their finger upon the power to which the right of erecting light-houses is incidental. It can be derived with as much apparent plausibility and reason from the right to lay duties, as from the right to regulate commerce. Who is there, now, in this body who has not voted for the erection of a light-house? And no man who reads one of these will believe it to be a regulation of commerce. And no man in the nation, so far as my knowledge extends, has ever complained of the exercise of this power. The right to erect light-houses is exercised, because the commerce of the nation, or the collection of duties, is greatly facilitated by that means; and, sir, the right to create a bank is exercised because the collection of your revenue, and the safe-keeping and easy and speedy transmission of your public money is not simply facilitated, but because these important objects are more perfectly secured by the erection of a bank than they can be by any other means in the power of human imagination to devise. We say, therefore, in the words of the constitution, that a bank is necessary and proper, to enable the Government to carry into complete effect the right to lay and collect taxes, imposts, duties, and excises. We do not say that the existence of the Government absolutely depends upon the operations of a bank, but that a national bank enables the Government to manage its fiscal concerns more advantageously than it could do by any other means. The terms necessary and proper, according to the construction given to every part of the constitution, imposes no limitation upon the powers previously delegated. If these words had been omitted in the clause giving authority to pass laws to carry into execution the powers vested by the constitution in the National Government, still Congress would have been bound to pass laws which were necessary and proper, and not such as were unnecessary and improp[Pg 270]er. Every legislative body, every person invested with power of any kind, is morally bound to use only those means which are necessary and proper for the correct execution of the powers delegated to them. But it is contended, that if a bank is necessary and proper for the management of the fiscal concerns of the nation, yet Congress has no power to incorporate one, because there are State banks which may be resorted to. No person who has undertaken to discuss this question has, as far as my knowledge extends, ventured to declare that a bank is not necessary. Every man admits, directly or indirectly, the necessity of resorting to banks of some kind. This admission is at least an apparent abandonment of the constitutional objection; for, if a bank is necessary and proper, then have Congress the constitutional right to erect a bank. But this is denied. It is contended that this idea rests alone upon the presumption that the Government of the United States is wholly independent of the State governments, which is not the fact; that this very law is dependent upon the State courts for its execution. This is certainly not the fact. The courts of the United States have decided, in the most solemn manner, that they have cognizance of all cases affecting the Bank of the United States. Sir, it is true that the Government of the United States is dependent upon the State governments for its organization. Members of both Houses of Congress, and the President of the United States, are chosen by the State governments, or under the authority of their laws. But it is equally true, that wherever the constitution confides to the State governments the right to perform any act in relation to the Federal Government, it imposes the most solemn obligation upon them to perform the act. The Constitution of the United States, as to these particular acts, is the constitution of the several States, and their functionaries are accordingly sworn to support it. Can it, then, be seriously contended, that because the constitution has in some cases made the Government of the United States dependent upon the State governments, in all which cases it has imposed the most solemn obligations upon them to act, that it will be necessary and proper for Congress to make itself dependent upon them in cases where no such obligation is imposed? The constitution has defined all the cases where this Government ought to be dependent upon that of the States; and it would be unwise and improvident for us to multiply these cases by legislative acts, especially where we have no power to compel them to perform the act, for which we have made ourselves their dependents. In forming a permanent system of revenue, it would be unwise in Congress to rely, for its collection and transmission from one extreme of this extensive empire to the other, upon any accidental circumstance, wholly beyond their power or control. There are State banks in almost every State in the Union, but their existence is wholly independent of this Government, and their dissolution is equally so. The Secretary of the Treasury has informed you that he conceives a bank is necessary to the legitimate exercise of the powers vested by the constitution in the Government. I know, sir, that the testimony of this officer will not be very highly estimated by several honorable members of this body. I am aware that this opinion has subjected him, and the committee also, to the most invidious aspersions; but, sir, the situation of that officer, independent of his immense talents, enables him to form a more correct opinion than any other man in the nation of the degree of necessity which exists at the present time for a national bank, to enable the Government to manage its fiscal operations. He has been ten years at the head of your Treasury; he is thoroughly acquainted with the influence of the bank upon your revenue system; and he has, when called upon, declared that a bank is necessary to the proper exercise of the legitimate powers of the Government. His testimony is entitled to great weight in the decision of this question, at least with those gentlemen who have no knowledge of the practical effects of the operations of the bank in the collection, safe-keeping, and transmission of your revenue. In the selection of means to carry any of your constitutional powers into effect, you must exercise a sound discretion; acting under its influence, you will discover that what is proper at one time may be extremely unfit and improper at another. The original powers granted to the Government by the constitution can never change with the varying circumstances of the country, but the means by which those powers are to be carried into effect must necessarily vary with the varying state and circumstances of the nation. We are, when acting to-day, not to inquire what means were necessary and proper twenty years ago, not what were necessary and proper at the organization of the Government, but our inquiry must be, what means are necessary and proper this day. The constitution, in relation to the means by which its powers are to be executed, is one eternal now. The state of things now, the precise point of time when we are called upon to act, must determine our choice in the selection of means to execute the delegated powers.

Mr. Lloyd.—Mr. President: This is indeed, sir, an up-hill, wind-mill sort of warfare—a novel mode of legislative proceeding. That a bill should be brought in on a very important subject which has been long under consideration, and that a gentleman should move to strike out the first section of the bill, which comprises all its vitality, (for it is the first section which provides for the continuance of the bank,) and should be supported in it, without deigning to assign any other reasons than may be derived from newspaper publications, which are so crude and voluminous that not one man out of ten will so far misspend his time as to take the trouble to read them, is indeed extraordinary.[Pg 271] Still, if gentlemen choose to adopt this dumb sort of legislation, and are determined to take the question without offering any arguments in support of their opinions, I certainly should not have interfered with their wishes, had I not been a member of the committee who had reported the bill, who had heard the testimony offered by two very respectable delegations from Philadelphia; one from the master manufacturers and mechanics of the city, and the other from the merchants; and had I not taken minutes of this testimony, which I find it is expected from me that I should relate to the Senate.

Sir, I consider the motion to strike out, now under consideration, as going to the entire destruction of the bill, without any reference to its details or modifications; it therefore appears to me in order, to take into consideration only the material principle of the bill; that is, whether it be proper that the charter of the bank should be renewed on any terms whatever, let those terms be what they may.

Sir, it is admitted by the Secretary of the Treasury, in his communications to Congress, that the concerns of this bank have been "skilfully and wisely managed," that the bank has made a very limited and moderate use of the public moneys deposited with it; and that it has greatly facilitated the operations of Government by the safe-keeping and transmission of the public moneys. It has at all times met the wishes of the Government in making loans. It has done this even at six per cent., while the Government have been obliged, in one instance, for a considerable amount to pay eight per cent. to other persons for the loans obtained from them. It is admitted, sir, that the bank, at the request of the Treasury Department, has established branches for the purpose of facilitating the operations of the Government at places where such establishments could not but be inconvenient to them in point of management, and disadvantageous in point of profit. I allude more particularly, sir, to the branches of the bank which has been established at New Orleans and at Washington. We have been told this session, sir, by a gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Smith,) that the Territory of Orleans is a very wealthy one, that it probably contains a greater number of rich inhabitants, for its population, than any other district in the Union. Sir, if this be the fact, of whom does this wealthy population consist? Not of the inhabitants, but of the planters; men who are not borrowers of the bank, who, when they realize the sales of their produce, invest the surplus proceeds of it beyond their expenditure in the funds, or in the acquisition of new lands, or in the purchase of an additional number of negroes. Sir, it is notorious, that from the recent possession by the United States of Louisiana, and the certainty that New Orleans must soon be the emporium of an immense western commerce, that city has become more the resort of the young, the adventurous, the enterprising and the rash among the mercantile men of our country, than any other city in the Union; and it is obvious, sir, in proportion as the borrowers from a bank consist of persons of this description, in the same proportion must the circumstances of such bank be unsound; and without possessing any particular knowledge whatever on the state of this bank, if the collections of its debts are speedily made, I would not make the purchase at a discount of twenty-five per cent. from the nominal amount of them.

Sir, we can judge with more accuracy when we come nearer home. What is the state of the bank in this city? What the ability of its debtors to meet their engagements? It is stated the branch has a loan out here of four hundred thousand dollars. Where is the navigation?—where the wealthy merchants?—where are the opulent tradesmen?—the extensive manufacturers, to refund this money, when they are called on to do it? Sir, they are not to be found; they do not exist here; there are but very few opulent men in the city, and those are either not borrowers of the bank, or not borrowers to an amount of any importance. Where, then, is the money to be found, or what has been done with it? It has probably been taken out of the Bank of the United States to build up the five or six District banks which you have chartered the present session; to furnish the means of erecting the fifty or sixty brick houses which we are told have made their appearance during the last Summer; to encourage speculations in city lots, and to enable the proprietors to progress with the half-finished canal which nearly adjoins us. Well, sir, if the bank promptly calls in its loan of four hundred thousand dollars, will the debtors be enabled to meet their payments? Can they sell these lots, these brick houses, these canal shares? No, sir, in such a state of things they could find no purchasers, they could nearly as well create a world as to furnish the money; and if the bank is to stop, and the payment of this debt be speedily coerced, I would not give two hundred thousand dollars for the whole of it.

In addition to this, I shall show presently, from testimony which cannot be controverted, that the conduct of the Bank of the United States, or its directors, or rather the stockholders, whose agents they are, in addition to being wise and skilful, and moderate, as the Secretary of the Treasury states them to have been, that they have also been honorable, and liberal, and impartial; and if, in addition to this, it be proved that the bank has, in every instance where it had the ability to do it, met the wishes of the Government, and to facilitate its views in the security and collection of the revenue, it has also established branches where it must have been obviously and palpably to the disadvantage of the bank to do it—if it has furnished capitals for the extension of our commerce, if it has provided means for the establishment of important manufactories, if it has had a tenden[Pg 272]cy to raise the price of our domestic produce, and has thus encouraged industry, and improved and embellished the interior of the country—it would seem pretty strongly to follow, that if it be expedient to preserve the existence of an institution similar to this, then these gentlemen, on the score of merit, added to the experience of twenty years' successful operation, have a fair claim on the Government for a preference in favor of that which is already in operation.

I am aware, sir, that it may be stated in opposition to this claim, that these stockholders have enjoyed a boon for twenty years from which others of their fellow-citizens have been deprived, except on such terms as the sellers of shares chose to prescribe; that the charter expires by its own limitation, and that beyond this period they have no right to expect any thing which may not arise from the interest and convenience of the Government. I admit, sir, there is considerable strength in these objections. The exclusive right contained in the charter ever appeared to me as furnishing the most solid constitutional objection against the bank. The creation of monopolies; the granting of exclusive privileges, except so far as to secure to the authors of useful inventions the benefit of their discoveries; the tying up of the hands of the Legislature, and depriving itself of the power of according to a set of citizens, who may come into legal existence to-morrow, or ten years hence, what it had given to another; ever appeared to me hostile to the genius and spirit of the people of the United States, and of all their institutions. Highly then, sir, as I am induced to think of the conduct of this bank, from the best evidence I can obtain, still, from the considerations I have just mentioned, did the question now before us simply affect the stockholders, I should certainly not trouble the Senate with any remarks in reference to it, and should sit down in entire acquiescence, whether the prayer of their petition for the renewal of the charter of the bank were granted or rejected.

Sir, before quitting this idea of constitutional objection, permit me to make one or two brief remarks in regard to it. It is impossible for the ingenuity of man to devise any written system of government, which, after a lapse of time, extension of empire, or change of circumstances, shall be able to carry its own provisions into operation—hence, sir, the indispensable necessity of implied or resulting powers, and hence the provision in the constitution that the Government should exercise such additional powers as were necessary to carry those that had been delegated into effect. Sir, if this country goes on increasing and extending, in the ratio it has done, it is not impossible that hereafter, to provide for all the new cases that may rise under this new state of things, the defined powers may prove only a text, and the implied or resulting powers may furnish the sermon to it.

Permit me, sir, to put one question on this head, in addition to those so ably, and to my view, unanswerably put yesterday by the honorable gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Crawford.) Whence, sir, do you get the right, whence do you derive the powers to erect custom-houses in the maritime districts of the United States? To attach to them ten, fifteen, or twenty custom-house officers; and clothe these men with authority to invade the domicile, to break into the dwelling-house of perhaps an innocent citizen? Whence do you get it, sir, except as an implied power resulting from the authority given in the constitution "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises?" If, under this authority, you can erect these custom-houses and create this municipal, fiscal, inquisitorial gens d'armerie, with liberty to violate the rights of the citizen, to break into his castle at midnight, without even a form of warrant, on a plausible appearance of probability, or probable cause of suspicion of his secreting smuggled goods, which the event may prove to be unfounded—and it will be recollected that a majority of Congress voted for the grant of this power in its most offensive form, when two years since they voted for the act enforcing the embargo—I say, sir, if under this general power to collect duties, you can erect the establishment and give the offensive power just mentioned, can you not, with the concurrence even of the citizens, adopt another more mild and useful mode, and create an establishment for the collection and safe-keeping of the revenue, and place it under the direction of ten or twelve directors, and christen it an office of discount and deposit, or of collection and payment, as you like best? And can you not, when you have thus created it, give to the directors a power, which perhaps they would have without your grant, to receive and keep the cash of those who choose to place it with them and to loan them money at the legal rate of interest, and in some places, as at New York, at nearly fifteen per cent. above the legal rate of interest? If you can do this, then you have your bank established, sir—and, most assuredly, if you can do one of these things you can do the other.

Sir, the constitutional objection to this bank, on the ground that Congress had not the power to grant an act of incorporation, has ever appeared to me the most unsound and untenable. Still gentlemen of intelligence and integrity, who have thought long and deeply on the subject, think differently from me: and I feel bound to respect their opinions, however opposed they may be to my own. Yet, sir, I will venture to predict, without feeling any anxiety for the fate of the prophecy, that should this bank be suffered to run down, such will be the state of things before this time twelve months, that there are other gentlemen, who at present have constitutional objections, but who have not thought so long and deeply upon them, who will, before that time, receive such a flood of[Pg 273] intelligence, as on this head perfectly to dispel their doubts, and quiet their consciences.

Sir, I shall now proceed as briefly as may be in my power to state the situation of this bank on the expiration of its charter, and the effects on the community consequent on it. There is now due to the bank from individuals fifteen millions of dollars. These fifteen millions of dollars must be collected—the power of the bank to grant discounts will have ceased, and the duty of the directors must require them to make the collection. Sir, how is this to be done? Whence can the money be obtained? I shall demonstrate to you presently, that already, from an apprehension of a non-renewal of the charter of the bank, business is nearly at a stand—that navigation, real estate, and merchandise are unsalable; and that a man worth one hundred thousand dollars, at the recently rated value of property, and owing ten thousand dollars, must still be utterly unable to meet his engagements. Suppose, sir, this property consists in houses or shipping; suppose his warehouse is full of goods, and he has a large sum placed at his credit in England? If, sir, he can neither sell his ships nor his goods—if he cannot sell his real estate nor scarcely give away his exchange, which hitherto, to men who had money in England, has been a never-failing source of supply in case of need; I say under these circumstances, sir, whatever may be his property, he cannot meet his engagements. Sir, can men thus situated, solvent as they ought to be ten times over, find relief from the State banks? Certainly not, sir. These banks have already gone to the extreme length of their ability; they have always discounted to an amount in proportion to their capital exceeding that of the Bank of the United States, which is incontrovertibly proved by the dividends they have declared, which have at most universally equalled and frequently exceeded those of the Bank of the United States, notwithstanding the advantage enjoyed by the latter from the deposit of public moneys. Sir, so far from having it in their power, in the case of the dissolution of the Bank of the United States, to assist the debtors to that bank in meeting their engagements to it—I affirm the fact, on which I have myself a perfect reliance, that, take the State banks from Boston to Washington, and after paying their debts to the Bank of the United States, they have not, nor do I believe they have had, for six months back, specie enough to pay the debts due to their depositors, and the amount of their bills in circulation. And here I beg it to be observed, that bank bills and bank deposits, or credits, are precisely the same thing—with this difference, that the latter, from the residence in the neighborhood of the banks, and the vigilance of the proprietors, would be the first called for. How idle is it then to expect to obtain relief from banks which have already extended themselves beyond the bounds of prudence, and have not even at present the ability to meet their existing engagements? It might nearly as well be expected, that a man who was already a bankrupt should prop and support his failing neighbor.

Sir, much has been recently said of the amount of specie in the United States. Theoretical men have made many and vague conjectures about it, for after all it must rest upon conjecture; some have estimated it at ten millions of dollars—some twelve, some twenty, and some newspaper scribblers at forty millions of dollars. Sir, I do not believe that for the last ten years the United States have at any time been more bare of specie than at the present moment. A few years since, specie flowed in upon us in abundance. This resulted principally from an operation of a very singular and peculiar nature. The Spanish Government, as it was then understood, agreed to pay to France a very large sum of money—many millions of dollars, the precise number I am unable to state, from her possessions in South America. France contracted with a celebrated English banking house, as was said at the time, with either the concurrence or connivance of the English Government, that this money should be obtained through the United States. These bankers, by their agent, contracted with certain American houses, principally I believe in Baltimore, for the importation of this specie from La Vera Cruz into the United States, from whence it was not transmitted in coin to Europe, but invested in adventures in the shipments of produce, the proceeds of which ultimately go into the hands of these bankers in London, or of their friends on the continent, from whom it was finally realized by the French Government, either by drafts from Paris, or remittances to that city. This operation had a trebly favorable effect on the United States—it made fortunes for some of the merchants, it furnished the means of shipments to Europe, and it also provided the funds for adventures to the East Indies and to China. But this contract has now been finished some years; and since that time there has been a constant drain of specie from the country. Where it is in future to be procured from, I know not. Not from South America. Specie is, I believe, protected from exportation there, except to Spain. From Spain we cannot get it—to a great part of what was Spain we have now scarcely any trade. From France it cannot be obtained, for if we can get it there even by license, we are obliged to bring back her produce or manufactures. From England it cannot be imported—it is now made highly penal to attempt to send it out of the kingdom. With South America we have but little trade—hitherto we furnished them with smuggled or licensed European and India goods; but now the markets are flooded with these goods by importations direct from England, and which have been attended with great loss to the shippers. For these reasons, it is difficult to find a vessel sailing from the United States to the Spanish ports in South America. These[Pg 274] are among the reasons why the amount of specie now in the country is small, and has for some time past been gradually lessening. Sir, without indulging in vague conjectures, what are the best data we have to form an estimate of the amount of specie in the country? The Bank of the United States has five millions of dollars in its vaults. In Boston there are three State banks—in New York I believe four, Philadelphia four, and Baltimore eight—call these nineteen twenty, and allow on an average one hundred and fifty thousand dollars specie, which probably is as much as they generally possess, and this will make three millions of dollars; this amount, united to the sum in the vaults of the Bank of the United States, gives eight millions of dollars—to which, if you allow two millions of dollars for a loose circulation of specie, you get an aggregate of ten millions of dollars. We are sometimes told of the large sums of money hoarded in our country by individuals—probably there may be some among the German farmers in Pennsylvania—perhaps more in that State than in any other, or all the others in the Union; but still of no great amount—the reputation of a little money possessed in this way easily swells into a large sum. At any rate, let the amount be what it may, in time of distress and mistrust, it would afford no addition to your circulating medium; for it is precisely in times like these, that men who hoard money will lock it up most securely.

Sir, the circulation of our country is at present emphatically a paper circulation—very little specie passes in exchange between individuals—it is a circulation bottomed on bank paper and bank credits, amounting perhaps to fifty millions of dollars. And on what, sir, does this circulation rest? It rests upon the ten millions of dollars, if that be the amount of specie in the country, and upon public confidence.

The Bank of the United States has fifteen millions of dollars to collect—call it ten, sir—nobody will dispute this—no one will pretend that this bank is not solvent—the remnant of its surplus dividends, and the interest it will have earned, will be sufficient to cover its losses at New Orleans, at Washington, and perhaps elsewhere. In what are these ten millions of dollars to be collected? In bank bills, the credit of which is at least doubtful? No, sir, in specie; and when this is entirely withdrawn from the State banks, and the banks are unable to pay the money for their bills, who does not see that this confidence is instantly destroyed—that the bubble bursts—that floods of paper bills will be poured in upon them, which they will be unable to meet, and which will for a time be as worthless as oak leaves—that the banks themselves must, at least temporarily, become bankrupts, and that a prostration of credit, and all those habits of punctuality which for twenty years, we have been striving so successfully to establish, will inevitably ensue, and, with them, also, there must be suspended the commerce, the industry and manufactures of the country; and a scene of embarrassment and derangement be produced, which has been unexampled in our history.

I will now make a very few remarks on the effects which the dissolution of the bank will have on the revenue and fiscal concerns of the country. Can it be supposed, sir, that the source to which will be imputed the distress that will have flowed from this event, will be the first to be thought of to be guarded against a participation of the evils that will result from it, in preference to the claims of the most intimate friends and connections? No, sir, the bonds due to the United States will be collected only at the tail of an execution. But I mean not to press this consideration. Admit, for a moment, that they will all be equally well collected—that they will be paid as usual, although it is palpable that for a considerable time the merchants will be unable to find the means to pay them: yet, admit, sir, that the money is collected in the State banks, how is it to be transmitted? It must come to the centre of the seat of Government; very little of the public money is expended in the Northern section of the Union. Will it come from the Eastward, in bills of the State banks? Penobscot bank bills sometimes will not pass in Boston; Boston bills pass with difficulty in New York or Philadelphia; and the bills of New York State banks probably would not be readily current in Washington. You must, then, sir, if Boston gives you a revenue of two millions of dollars, transmit the greater part of it to the seat of Government, or wherever it may be wanted in specie. Can this be done? We have not two millions of dollars of specie in our town, and, I may almost venture to say, never had. Suppose you make this transmission once, can you do it a second time? No, sir, the thing is utterly impracticable. You must adopt some other mode. Exchange between the different cities will not reach the case; frequently it cannot be purchased even for an insignificant amount.

Sir, will your money, when collected, be safe in the State banks? Of this I am extremely doubtful. Solicitations will undoubtedly be made for it from all quarters. They have already been made. In one instance, I am told, sir, the agent of a bank, even during the few past weeks, has been here for the purpose—that suddenly the agent was gone, and in a few days it was discovered that, owing to the failure of one of the debtors to the bank which he represented, (a great broker,) the stock had fallen in one day near 20 per cent. What was this the evidence of, but that those who were most interested in this bank, the stockholders who were on the spot, and best acquainted with its solidity, were willing to wash their hands of their concern in it, at almost any rate of sacrifice? Sir, I only state this, as it was here reported. I have no personal knowledge on the subject. But will you trust your funds with an institution thus precarious, and whose solidity is distrusted even by its best friends?

[Pg 275]

Wednesday, February 13.

The credentials of Nicholas Gilman, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New Hampshire, for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th day of March next, were read, and ordered to lie on file.

Thursday, February 14.

Bank of the United States.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to amend and continue in force an act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," passed on the 25th of February, 1791.

The question being to strike out the first section—

Mr. Giles.—Mr. President: It is with great reluctance that I find myself compelled to enter into the discussion of the subject now under the consideration of the Senate, but the observations which fell from the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crawford) were of such a character as to impose on me an irresistible obligation to present that view of the subject which has resulted from the best reflections I have been enabled to bestow on it. This obligation arises from the very high respect I entertain for the Legislature of the State I have the honor to represent, the great respect I feel for the gentleman who made the observations, as well as from the respect which is manifestly due to myself. In executing this unpleasant task, I labor under circumstances of peculiar embarrassment. This embarrassment arises from a conviction that the views of the subject now proposed to be exhibited will disappoint the expectations both of the opposers and the favorers of the bill, and that they will not be acceptable to either. I shall not, however, in this instance, depart from my invariable habit, when urged by duty to participate in debate before this honorable body, of disclosing in the most undisguised manner my real opinions upon the whole subject, free of any consideration of political difficulties or inconveniences which may consequently affect myself.

In the first place, I find myself called upon to oppose a law, on constitutional grounds, which has been in existence for nearly twenty years, and during that period, I am compelled to admit, has been acquiesced in by the several State governments, as well as by the General Government, and its republican administrations. It is peculiarly irksome to me to question the constitutionality of a law which has been thus and so long acquiesced in, because it tends to give the character of instability to the laws generally, and in my judgment, tends also to impair the sacred character of the laws, and of course, to lessen their efficacy. In a Government like ours, where the laudable boast of every citizen is that he lives under a government of laws, and not of men, no subject should be touched with more caution and delicacy than one which questions the validity of the laws, lessens the confidence of the citizens in them, or impairs the obligation of obedience to them. Yet, sir, the course of observations I propose to make may have some of these tendencies, which I should extremely regret, and this apprehension, of course, produces embarrassment. Connected with this idea is another circumstance of embarrassment. I cannot help observing the inordinate zeal manifested by the opposers of this bill, evidently resulting from a belief that its rejection will lessen the powers of the Federal Government. Although it may be properly directed in the present instance, yet I think I have seen, and fear I may hereafter see the same spirit directed against some of the powers and proceedings of the Government which I have deemed indispensable to its own preservation, and its beneficial efficacy towards the people. It may, perhaps, be thought by some not becoming in me to say that I have not been an inattentive observer of the progress of this Government for twenty years, and more particularly, since the Republican party came into power. Some of the scenes through which I have passed, have produced an impressive influence on my mind. Such is the nature of the Government that its administration will vibrate from one principle to another, and it will always require great wisdom to keep its oscillations from wandering too far. Whilst those who preceded us in power endeavored to legislate into the constitution an unnecessary constructive energy, leading to what has been called consolidation, it appears to me that we have taken too much the opposite course, leading to disunion and dissolution, by depriving it constructively of its legitimate, necessary, and proper powers. If this course should be unfortunately persevered in, it requires no spirit of prophecy to foresee that the Government will fall to pieces from the want of due energy in the administration of its legitimate powers, or that some extraordinary means must be resorted to for its resuscitation.

The honorable gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Crawford,) who reported this bill, as the chairman of the committee, to whom the subject was generally referred, excited not a little surprise in my mind by the prefatory remarks which fell from him in support of it. The gentleman prefaced his arguments by observing, "that it had latterly become the fashion to eulogize the Constitution of the United States; and that whenever he heard lavish encomiums applied to it, he could not help apprehending mischief." I acknowledge I could not comprehend the bearing of this remark upon the question under discussion. I, sir, have long been in the habit of venerating the constitution, and have often expressed my admiration at the wisdom of its provisions; and I really had hoped that I might have been indulged in these sentiments and prepossessions, and even the expression of them upon proper occasions, without exciting in the mind of any gentleman apprehensions of mischief; nor can I divine what species of mis[Pg 276]chief the gentleman apprehends from that cause. Mr. President, when we look over the whole world known to us; when we particularly cast our eyes over that part of it with which we have the most intimate relations; when we see the rapid strides which despotism is making over the whole human race; when we observe the various and powerful means now in use to rivet its immovable dominion upon mankind; when we reflect that the Constitution of the United States now affords the only practical experiment upon the republican principle, and the only and last hope for the preservation and extension of the liberties of man; is it wonderful or alarming, that we should feel and express some partiality and even veneration for an instrument of so peculiar a character? or should even endeavor to teach others to venerate, to cherish, to support it? An instrument, whose provisions at least exempt us from the general scene of despotism, and may eventually extend their blessings to the whole human race? Or if, in dwelling upon the wisdom and importance of its provisions, we might pass over some possible defects from scrutinizing them with an hypercritical eye, might not the omission be indulged without producing animadversion or censure? Sir, we all venerate the republican principle. I know the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crawford) does; nor do I pretend that my devotion to it is greater than his; but, sir, I have given the greatest attention to the observations of the gentleman upon the constitution; and I can now say that my veneration for the instrument, and admiration at the wisdom of its provisions, are not at all impaired nor diminished, notwithstanding the gentleman's criticisms, &c. I will now, Mr. President, endeavor to exhibit the general character of the constitution; to point out the mode for its correct interpretation, and apply it to the subject now under consideration. In doing so, I propose to follow the course of observations made by the honorable chairman of the committee who reported the bill.

The gentleman proceeded to remark, that in taking a review of the constitution he found general as well as incidental powers enumerated therein. I did not see the precise application the gentleman intended to make of this remark, but I have been induced to review the constitution in reference to this subject, and it does appear to me, that the classification and definition of powers is as well arranged as human wisdom could devise. I know that nothing is perfect which is the work of man; that no language is capable of perfect definition. But, as far as definition can be drawn from language, I conceive the constitution exhibits as perfect an example as is in existence. In the next place, the gentleman remarked that there was a number of cases in which Congress had departed from the particular enumerated powers in the constitution and had resorted to implication or construction for the derivation of its powers. The remark is perfectly correct, and I am very ready to admit that there is no such thing as carrying into effect enumerated powers in any instrument whatever, without the intervention of certain derivative and implied powers. But if the gentleman had succeeded in showing that there had been aberrations by the Congress of the United States from the enumerated powers of the constitution, would he think it correct to use those aberrations as precedents for still further aberrations? Ought they not rather to be considered as mementoes on the part of Congress to induce them to tread with more care, and, if they find that their former errors could not be supported by a fair and candid construction of the constitution, to restrain the laws within its wholesome provisions? Certainly that is the use to which the history of errors presented by the honorable gentleman from Georgia ought to be applied. But, before I proceed to examine the subject with more accuracy, I cannot avoid to express my surprise at another observation which fell from the gentleman. The gentleman observed, that the argument drawn from the distinction between ends and means was "incomprehensible;" and he went so far as to call it "nonsensical jargon." It is not only comprehensible to me, sir, as I conceive, but, in my opinion, is the only way in which a just construction of the constitution is to be attained. This results from the peculiar nature and organization of the instrument. Permit me here to endeavor to illustrate my idea by a reference to the constitution itself? The constitution is an instrument which grew out of the situation of the United States at the time of, and preceding its adoption; and to show that the constitution recited the great objects of its formation, and then prescribed the means for carrying them into effect, I beg leave to refer to a part of the instrument itself. The preamble, like all other preambles, was designed to express the objects of the instrument or the ends to be effected by its provisions. "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." What is the plain language of this preamble? The answer is obvious. That certain great ends or objects are here proposed to be effected. In what mode, or by what means are they to be effected? The preamble tells you, sir, "by establishing this Constitution for the United States of America." That is the mode in which these great ends are proposed to be effected, and the body of the instrument prescribes the means which were deemed necessary and proper to the effectuation of these ends. The subject will be better understood by throwing the mind back to the period of time when this constitution originated, and reviewing the peculiar political situation of the United States then, and for some time antecedently thereto.

[Pg 277]

At the time, and antecedently to the establishment of the present constitution, the existing State Governments were in possession of all the powers of sovereignty, subject only to feeble and inefficient articles of confederation, without the means of executing their own will, and resting for its execution solely on requisitions upon the respective States, which might either comply or refuse to comply with such requisitions at their discretion. A non-compliance was almost invariably the result of State deliberations, and hence the feebleness of the old Confederation. The present constitution was adopted as the remedy for this great and alarming evil. Without it, disunion and ruin to the States would have been the inevitable consequence, because, upon actual experiment, the States were found utterly incompetent to the due administration of all the powers of sovereignty intrusted to their management. The reason of this incompetency was, that some of the most important powers of sovereignty inherently possessed a geographical influence beyond the geographical limits of the several States individually, and their jurisdiction could not transcend their geographical limits. Of this description of powers is the power to declare war, &c., to regulate commerce, &c., and all the other enumerated powers of the constitution. In consequence of the conflicting systems adopted by the several States in relation to some of these powers, which were then in practical operation; particularly in the conflicting regulations of commerce, the States were getting into the most serious collisions, &c. The formidable evils necessarily growing out of the state of things required a formidable and competent remedy. The great subject for the contemplation of every reflecting mind in America was, what that remedy should be? The wise framers of our admirable constitution, after great deliberation, conceived and executed the only practical expedient. It consisted in separating the powers of sovereignty; in establishing a General Government, and conferring on it all the powers of sovereignty whose geographical influence was found co-extensive with the geographical limits of the United States, and reserving to the State Governments respectively those powers which were of a mere local character, and which possessed no influence beyond the limits of the States respectively. And also to confer on the General Government "all the means necessary and proper" for executing its own laws in relation to these enumerated powers, without any dependence upon requisitions from the respective State Governments for this indispensable object. The idea was a grand one, and executed with an admirable simplicity, and the most consummate wisdom. Hence it appears that the great object of the framers of the constitution was to establish a General or Federal Government, and to confer on it all the powers of sovereignty, which in their nature and character possessed an influence co-extensive with the United States, and to reserve to the previously-existing State Governments all the powers of sovereignty of a more local character, and whose influence did not extend beyond the geographical limits of the States respectively, and therefore could be rendered completely subservient to State jurisdiction and management. These are the means prescribed in the constitution for effecting the ends expressed in the preamble. To the administrators of the General Government the framers of the constitution have said: We give to you all the powers of sovereignty of a general character; and to the administrators of the State Governments they have said: We reserve to you all the powers of sovereignty of a local character. I verily believe, that if those various Governments should be administered with the wisdom with which this separation of powers was made in the body of the constitution, the people of the United States will not be disappointed in the great and interesting objects proclaimed in its preamble. From this short history of the origin of the constitution, and the causes which produced it, it evidently appears, that the General or Federal Government is in its nature and character a Government of enumerated powers, taken from previously existing State Governments, enumerated and conferred on it, reserving all unenumerated powers to the State Governments, or to the people in their individual capacities. But if any doubts had existed upon this subject, two amendments to the constitution, growing out of some jealousies lest a contrary interpretation should be given to the constitution, have been adopted, which ought to put this question to rest forever. The 9th and 10th articles of amendments to the constitution are as follow:

"The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now, sir, can language be more explicit than this, in declaring that this charter contains certain enumerated powers, and that all not enumerated are reserved to the States or to the people? There is one article reserving rights to the people, and afterwards another article reserving them to the States and to the people. While on this subject, I beg leave to read a clause in the constitution, which I find among the enumerated powers, and which has been construed by some, as intended to convey a general grant of powers among the enumerated powers: "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." The words "and to provide for the common defence and general welfare," have by some been considered as conveying a general grant of power. Nothing is necessary to show that this is not a fair and correct construction of the constitution, but reading it[Pg 278] with attention. These terms contain no grant of power whatever, but are used to express the ends or objects for which particular grants of power were given. Paying the debts and providing for the common defence and general welfare are great objects, intimately connected with the particular grants of power which are given for their effectuation; and without these particular grants of power, it would not have been possible for Congress to effect them. The framers of the constitution have simply selected some of the objects expressed in the preamble, and declared that to effect them, and to pay the debts of the United States, were the considerations which induced them to give to Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes," &c. Thus taxes are to be laid, &c. "to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare." Could they have chosen a more appropriate phraseology? The plain language to Congress is: "You shall have power to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts," &c., and to provide for the common defence and general welfare, or, in other words, for the purpose of paying the debts, &c., and of providing for the common defence and general welfare. These words do not contain a general grant of powers, but express the objects of a particular grant of powers. The framers of the constitution could not have done an act so absurd as to make a general grant of powers, among an enumeration of specified powers.

I will now, Mr. President, proceed to examine those instances which the gentleman has presented of the supposed aberrations of the Congress of the United States from the enumerated powers, and I think it will not be difficult to show that there is not a single instance quoted, but which is deducible from a fair and correct interpretation of the express words of the constitution, giving them their common and appropriate meaning.

The first instance presented to our consideration by the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crawford) of the exercise of a power by Congress not enumerated in the constitution, was the erection of light-houses. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Lloyd,) to whose dispassionate observations I listened with great pleasure, superadded the instance of the erection of custom-houses. On these, both of the gentlemen seemed to place great reliance, as cases in point with the one under consideration. Both these powers I conceive are given to Congress by the express words of the constitution; but if I should be mistaken in this idea, they are certainly comprehended as incidental and subservient to, or in other words, "necessary and proper" for carrying into effect some of the enumerated powers.

The express words of the constitution give to Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," &c.; "to regulate commerce with foreign nations among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatever, &c., over all places purchased by consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings." From these clauses of the constitution, taken in connection with each other, I think Congress possesses the power to erect light-houses and custom-houses by the express words of the constitution; for both of these descriptions of houses must necessarily be included within the term "needful buildings," or the only construction which is at all applicable to these cases is, that needful buildings is the general term, and light-houses and custom-houses are particular instances or examples under the general term; or, if I may be so allowed to express my ideas, needful buildings may be considered as the genus, of which light-houses and custom-houses are particular species. The reason with the framers of the constitution for using this general term is obvious. It was, because it was impossible for them to foresee all the particular species of needful buildings which might become necessary to the salutary operations of this Government in the course of its complicated and due administration; they therefore wisely left that subject to the discussion of Congress, restrained and limited, nevertheless, by the requisition of the consent of the Legislatures of the States respectively, in every case proposed for the exercise of this discretion. That this is a plain and correct interpretation of the constitution is evinced by the concurrent opinions of every Legislature of every State, which has heretofore ceded lands for any of these objects; and it is to be remarked, that Congress has never attempted to erect any of these buildings without the constitutional requisition of the consent of the States respectively. But if this term "needful buildings" had not been expressed in the constitution, I should not hesitate to admit with these gentlemen that the erection of light-houses and custom-houses might properly be deduced from the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, &c., which are particular grants of power enumerated in the constitution. Because custom-houses are appropriately necessary to the collection of duties, and have always been deemed indispensable for that object, as are light-houses to the due regulation of commerce.

These two powers are indispensably connected with, and subservient to, particular enumerated powers, and are therefore among the means which are necessary and proper for their effectuation; and as such are given to Congress by the express words of the constitution, which are: Congress shall have power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." From this course of interpretation, the gentlemen, reasoning from a supposed analogy, have asked, if Congress can derive the right to erect [Pg 279]light-houses and custom-houses from their necessary agency in effectuating the particular powers to which they are said to be appendant or appurtenant, why may it not in the same way derive the right of granting charters of incorporation for the same objects? Or, in other words, if Congress can constitutionally erect custom-houses for the purpose, or as the necessary means of collecting duties; why may it not establish a bank for the same object, &c.? The question is admitted to be a fair one; and if a clear distinction cannot be made in the two cases, it will be admitted either that Congress may constitutionally establish a bank, or that it has heretofore transcended its powers in erecting custom-houses, &c. A clear and most obvious distinction appears to me to exist in the cases suggested by the gentlemen to be analogous, arising from the striking difference in the nature and essential character of these powers. A custom-house is in its nature incidental and subservient to the collection of duties. It is one of the common, necessary, and proper means to effect that end. It is believed that in no commercial country in the world are duties collected without them. Besides, the erection of custom-houses does not involve in it the exercise of any other higher or consequential powers. The same remarks will apply to light-houses, as among the common, necessary, and proper means for the regulation of commerce, &c.

Is the incorporation of a bank of this character? It is not among the common, necessary, and proper means of effecting either of the foregoing enumerated powers, nor of any other enumerated in the constitution; still less is it incidental or subservient to any of the enumerated powers. It wants that connection, affiliation, and subserviency, to some enumerated power, which are clearly pointed out in relation to the two powers, to which it has been said to be analogous. Besides, does granting a charter of incorporation to a bank involve no other higher or consequential power than merely erecting a needful building for collecting duties, &c.? It certainly does. It involves the power to grant charters of incorporation generally; and in this respect, principally, its character is essentially different from both of the powers cited by the gentleman. The power to grant charters of incorporation is not an incidental, subordinate, subservient power; it is a distinct, original, substantive power. It is also susceptible of the clearest definition; and not being among the enumerated powers, it seems to me that Congress can have no fair claim to its exercise in any case. If Congress had been expressly authorized to grant charters of incorporation generally, then granting a charter of incorporation to a bank would have been an instance, or among the means, of carrying into effect that enumerated power, and would have been as much connected and affiliated with it as is the erection of custom-houses with the collection of duties; but the power to grant charters of incorporation generally not being expressly given in the constitution, no particular instance involving the exercise of that power can be inferred by a fair and candid interpretation of the instrument. I do not mean to exaggerate the consequences which might result from an assumption of the power to grant charters of incorporation, &c. It is sufficient for me to say that it is a power of primary importance; that it involves as many incidental powers in its exercise as any one of the enumerated powers; that it is equal, if not paramount, to any; and, therefore, in my judgment, cannot be assumed by fair construction as incidental and subservient to any; and, of course, not as among the necessary and proper means for carrying any into effect. In fact, in its nature it does not in the smallest degree partake of the derivative, incidental character. It is original, substantive, distinct in itself, and susceptible of the plainest definition. Hence, whilst I am willing to admit that a power, which is in its nature incidental and subservient to any enumerated power, and also among the necessary and proper means for carrying it into effect, may be exercised by Congress without the express words of the constitution, I should be very unwilling to admit that Congress should also exercise a power neither incidental nor subservient to any of the enumerated powers, nor among the necessary and proper means for carrying any into effect; still less should I be inclined to this admission, when the power thus proposed to be derived, incidentally or constructively, involves in it the exercise of almost unlimited powers. To illustrate my idea still further in this respect, I would observe, that the power to regulate descents, and to regulate the distribution of intestates, I conceive to be original, distinct, substantive powers; and, being among the powers which could in all respects be limited by the geographical boundaries of the individual States, and were therefore among the powers reserved to the management of the States, might as easily be assumed by Congress as incidental to some one of the enumerated powers, as the assumption of the power to grant charters of incorporation, which I conceive was, for the same reason, left to the management of the States. I believe no gentleman will contend that Congress can, under any candid construction, go so far in relation to those powers; nor do I see how it can in relation to the power of granting charters of incorporation.

Friday, February 15.

Bank of the United States.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to amend and continue in force an act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," passed on the 25th day of February, 1791.

Mr. Clay.—Mr. President: When the subject involved in the motion now under consideration was depending before the other branch of the Legislature, a disposition to acquiesce in their decision was evinced. For although the[Pg 280] committee who reported this bill had been raised many weeks prior to the determination of that House on the proposition to recharter the bank, except the occasional reference to it of memorials and petitions, we scarcely ever heard of it. The rejection, it is true, of a measure brought before either branch of Congress, does not absolutely preclude the other from taking up the same proposition; but the economy of our time, and a just deference for the opinion of others, would seem to recommend a delicate and cautious exercise of this power. As this subject, at the memorable period when the charter was granted, called forth the best talents of the nation—as it has, on various occasions, undergone the most thorough investigation, and as we can hardly expect that it is susceptible of receiving any further elucidation, it was to have been hoped that we should have been spared a useless debate. This was the more desirable because there are, I conceive, much superior claims upon us for every hour of the small portion of the session yet remaining to us. Under the operation of these motives, I had resolved to give a silent vote, until I felt myself bound, by the defying manner of the arguments advanced in support of the renewal, to obey the paramount duties I owe my country and its constitution; to make one effort, however feeble, to avert the passage of what appears to me a most unjustifiable law. After my honorable friend from Virginia (Mr. Giles) had instructed and amused us with the very able and ingenious argument which he delivered on yesterday, I should have still forborne to trespass on the Senate, but for the extraordinary character of his speech. He discussed both sides of the question, with great ability and eloquence, and certainly demonstrated to the satisfaction of all who heard him, both that it was constitutional and unconstitutional, highly proper and improper to prolong the charter of the bank. The honorable gentleman appeared to me in the predicament in which the celebrated orator of Virginia, Patrick Henry, is said to have been once placed. Engaged in a most extensive and lucrative practice of the law, he mistook in one instance the side of the cause on which he was retained, and addressed the court and jury in a very splendid and convincing speech in behalf of his antagonist. His distracted client came up to him whilst he was progressing, and interrupting him, bitterly exclaimed, "you have undone me! you have ruined me!"—"Never mind, give yourself no concern," said the adroit advocate; and turning to the court and jury, continued his argument by observing, "May it please your honors, and you, gentlemen of the jury, I have been stating to you what I presume my adversary may urge on his side. I will now show you how fallacious his reasoning and groundless his pretensions are." The skilful orator proceeded, satisfactorily refuted every argument he had advanced, and gained his cause! A success with which I trust the exertion of my honorable friend will on this occasion be crowned.

It has been said by the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crawford) that this has been made a party question, although the law incorporating the bank was passed prior to the formation of parties, and when Congress was not biased by party prejudices. [Mr. Crawford explained. He did not mean that it had been made a party question in the Senate. His allusion was elsewhere.] I do not think it altogether fair to refer to the discussions in the House of Representatives, as gentlemen belonging to that body have no opportunity of defending themselves here. It is true that this law was not the effect, but it is no less true that it was one of the causes of the political divisions of this country. And if, during the agitation of the present question, the renewal has, on one side, been opposed on party principles, let me ask if, on the other, it has not been advocated on similar principles? Where is the Macedonian phalanx, the opposition in Congress? I believe, sir, I shall not incur the charge of presumptuous prophecy, when I predict that we shall not pick up from its ranks one single straggler! And if, on this occasion, my worthy friend from Georgia has gone over into the camp of the enemy, is it kind in him to look back upon his former friends, and rebuke them for the fidelity with which they adhere to their old principles?

I shall not stop to examine how far a representative is bound by the instructions of his constituents. This is a question between the giver and receiver of the instructions. But I must be permitted to express my surprise at the pointed difference which has been made between the opinions and instructions of State Legislatures, and the opinions and details of the deputations with which we have been surrounded from Philadelphia. Whilst the resolutions of those Legislatures—known, legitimate, constitutional and deliberative bodies—have been thrown into the back ground, and their interference regarded as officious, these delegations from self-created societies, composed of whom nobody knows, have been received by the committee with the utmost complaisance. Their communications have been treasured up with the greatest diligence. Never did the Delphic priests collect with more holy care the frantic expressions of the agitated Pythia, or expound them with more solemnity to the astonished Grecians, than has the committee gathered the opinions and testimony of these deputies, and through the gentleman from Massachusetts, pompously detailed them to the Senate! Philadelphia has her immediate representatives, capable of expressing her wishes upon the floor of the other House. If it be improper for States to obtrude upon Congress their sentiments, it is much more highly so for the unauthorized deputies of fortuitous congregations.

The first singular feature that attracts atten[Pg 281]tion in this bill is the new and unconstitutional veto which it establishes. The constitution has required only, that after bills have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, they shall be presented to the President for his approval or rejection, and his determination is to be made known in ten days. But this bill provides, that when all the constitutional sanctions are obtained, and when according to the usual routine of legislation it ought to be considered as a law, it is to be submitted to a new branch of the Legislature, consisting of the President and twenty-four Directors of the Bank of the United States, holding their sessions in Philadelphia, and if they please to approve it, why then it is to become a law! And three months (the term allowed by our law of May last, to one of the great belligerents for revoking his edicts, after the other shall have repealed his) are granted them to decide whether an act of Congress shall be the law of the land or not! An act which is said to be indispensably necessary to our salvation, and without the passage of which, universal distress and bankruptcy are to pervade the country. Remember, sir, that the honorable gentleman from Georgia has contended that this charter is no contract. Does it, then, become the representatives of the nation to leave the nation at the mercy of a corporation? Ought the impending calamities to be left to the hazard of a contingent remedy?

This vagrant power to erect a bank, after having wandered throughout the whole constitution in quest of some congenial spot whereupon to fasten, has been at length located by the gentleman from Georgia on that provision, which authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes, &c. In 1791, the power is referred to one part of the instrument; in 1811, to another. Sometimes it is alleged to be deducible from the power to regulate commerce. Hard pressed here, it disappears, and shows itself under the grant to coin money. The sagacious Secretary of the Treasury in 1791 pursued the wisest course—he has taken shelter behind general, high-sounding, and imposing terms. He has declared in the preamble to the act establishing the bank, that it will be very conducive to the successful conducting of the national finances; will tend to give facility to the obtaining of loans, and will be productive of considerable advantage to trade and industry in general. No allusion is made to the collection of taxes. What is the nature of this Government? It is emphatically federal, vested with an aggregate of specified powers for general purposes, conceded by existing sovereignties, who have themselves retained what is not so conceded. It is said that there are cases in which it must act on implied powers. This is not controverted, but the implication must be necessary, and obviously flow from the enumerated power with which it is allied. The power to charter companies is not specified in the grant, and I contend is of a nature not transferable by mere implication. It is one of the most exalted attributes of sovereignty. In the exercise of this gigantic power we have seen an East India Company created, which has carried dismay, desolation, and death throughout one of the largest portions of the habitable world. A company which is, in itself, a sovereignty—which has subverted empires and set up new dynasties—and has not only made war, but war against its legitimate sovereign! Under the influence of this power, we have seen arise a South Sea Company, and a Mississippi Company, that distracted and convulsed all Europe, and menaced a total overthrow of all credit and confidence, and universal bankruptcy. Is it to be imagined that a power so vast would have been left by the wisdom of the constitution to doubtful inference? It has been alleged that there are many instances, in the constitution, where powers, in their nature incidental, and which would have necessarily vested along with the principal power, are nevertheless expressly enumerated; and the power "to make rules and regulations for the government of the land and naval forces," which, it is said, is incidental to the power to raise armies and provide a navy, is given as an example. What does this prove? How extremely cautious the convention were to leave as little as possible to implication. In all cases where incidental powers are acted upon, the principal and incidental ought to be congenial with each other, and partake of a common nature. The incidental power ought to be strictly subordinate and limited to the end proposed to be attained by the specified power. In other words, under the name of accomplishing one object which is specified, the power implied ought not to be made to embrace other objects which are not specified in the constitution. If then you could establish a bank to collect and distribute the revenue, it ought to be expressly restricted to the purpose of such collection and distribution. It is a mockery, worse than usurpation, to establish it for a lawful object, and then extend it to other objects which are not lawful. In deducing the power to create corporations, such as I have described it, from the power to collect taxes, the relation and condition of principal and incident are prostrated and destroyed. The accessory is exalted above the principal. As well might it be said that the great luminary of day is an accessory, a satellite to the humblest star that twinkles forth its feeble light in the firmament of heaven!

Suppose the constitution had been silent as to an individual department of this Government, could you, under the power to lay and collect taxes, establish a judiciary? I presume not; but if you could derive the power by mere implication, could you vest it with any other authority than to enforce the collection of the revenue? A bank is made for the ostensible purpose of aiding in the collection of the revenue, and while it is engaged in this, the most inferior and subordinate of all its func[Pg 282]tions, it is made to diffuse itself through society, and to influence all the great operations of credit, circulation, and commerce. Like the Virginia justice, you tell the man, whose turkey had been stolen, that your book of precedents furnishes no form for his case, but then you will grant him a precept to search for a cow, and when looking for that he may possibly find his turkey! You say to this corporation, we cannot authorize you to discount—to emit paper—to regulate commerce, &c. No! Our book has no precedents of that kind. But then we can authorize you to collect the revenue, and, while occupied with that, you may do whatever else you please!

What is a corporation such as the bill contemplates? It is a splendid association of favored individuals, taken from the mass of society, and invested with exemptions and surrounded by immunities and privileges. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lloyd) has said that the original law, establishing the bank, was justly liable to the objection of vesting in that institution an exclusive privilege, the faith of the Government being pledged that no other bank should be authorized during its existence. This objection he supposes is obviated by the bill under consideration; but all corporations enjoy exclusive privileges—that is, the corporators have privileges which no others possess; and if you create fifty corporations instead of one, you have only fifty privileged bodies instead of one.

I contend that the States have the exclusive power to regulate contracts, to declare the capacities and incapacities to contract, and to provide as to the extent of responsibility of debtors to their creditors. If Congress have the power to erect an artificial body and say it shall be endowed with the attributes of an individual—if you can bestow on this object of your own creation the ability to contract, may you not, in contravention of State rights, confer upon slaves, infants, and femes covert, the ability to contract? And if you have the power to say that an association of individuals shall be responsible for their debts only in a certain limited degree, what is to prevent an extension of a similar exemption to individuals? Where is the limitation upon this power to set up corporations? You establish one, in the heart of a State, the basis of whose capital is money. You may erect others whose capital shall consist of land, slaves, and personal estate, and thus the whole property within the jurisdiction of a State might be absorbed by these political bodies. The existing bank contends that it is beyond the power of a State to tax it, and if this pretension be well founded, it is in the power of Congress, by chartering companies, to dry up the whole of the sources of State revenue. Georgia has undertaken, it is true, to levy a tax on the branch within her jurisdiction, but this law, now under a course of litigation, is considered as invalid. The United States own a great deal of land in the State of Ohio; can this Government, for the purpose of creating an ability to purchase it, charter a company? Aliens are forbidden, I believe, in that State, to hold real estate—could you, in order to multiply purchasers, confer upon them the capacity to hold land, in derogation of the local law? I imagine this will hardly be insisted upon; and yet there exists a more obvious connection between the undoubted power, which is possessed by this Government, to sell its land, and the means of executing that power, by increasing the demand in the market, than there is between this bank and the collection of a tax. This Government has the power to levy taxes—to raise armies—provide a navy—make war—regulate commerce—coin money, &c. It would not be difficult to show as intimate a connection between a corporation, established for any purpose whatever, and some one or other of those great powers, as there is between the revenue and the bank of the United States.

Let us inquire into the actual participation of this bank in the collection of the revenue. Prior to the passage of the act of 1800, requiring the collectors of those ports of entry, at which the principal bank or any of its offices are situated, to deposit with them the custom-house bonds, it had not the smallest agency in the collection of the duties. During almost one moiety of the period to which the existence of this institution was limited, it was noways instrumental in the collection of that revenue, to which it is now become indispensable! The collection, previous to 1800, was made entirely by the collectors; and even at present, where there is one port of entry, at which this bank is employed, there are eight or ten at which the collection is made as it was before 1800. And, sir, what does this bank or its branches when resort is had to it? It does not adjust with the merchant the amount of the duty, nor take his bond; nor, if the bond is not paid, coerce the payment by distress or otherwise. In fact, it has no active agency whatever in the collection. Its operation is merely passive; that is, if the obligor, after his bond is placed in the bank, discharges it, all is very well. Such is the mighty aid afforded by this tax-gatherer, without which the Government cannot get along! Again, it is not pretended that the very limited assistance which this institution does in truth render, extends to any other than a single species of tax, that is, duties. In the collection of the excise, the direct and other internal taxes, no aid was derived from any bank. It is true, in the collection of those taxes, the farmer did not obtain the same indulgence which the merchant receives in paying duties. But what obliges Congress to give credit at all? Could it not demand prompt payment of the duties? And in fact does it not so demand in many instances? Whether credit is given or not, is a matter merely of discretion. If it be a facility to mercantile operations (as I presume it is) it ought to be granted. But I deny the[Pg 283] right to ingraft upon it a bank, which you would not otherwise have the power to erect. You cannot create the necessity of a bank, and then plead that necessity for its establishment. In the administration of the finances, the bank acts simply as a payer and receiver. The Secretary of the Treasury has money in New York and wants it in Charleston; the bank will furnish him with a check, or bill, to make the remittance, which any merchant would do just as well.

I will now proceed to show by fact, actual experience, not theoretic reasoning, but by the records themselves of the Treasury, that the operations of that department may be as well conducted without as with this bank. The delusion has consisted in the use of certain high-sounding phrases, dexterously used on the occasion. "The collection of the revenue"—"The administration of the finance"—"The conducting the fiscal affairs of the Government," the usual language of the advocates of the bank, extort express assent, or awe into acquiescence, without inquiry or examination into its necessity. About the commencement of this year there appears, by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury of the 7th of January, to have been a little upwards of two millions four hundred thousand dollars in the Treasury of the United States; and more than one-third of this whole sum was in the vaults of local banks. In several instances, where an opportunity existed of selecting the bank, a preference has been given to the State bank, or at least a portion of the deposits has been made with it. In New York, for example, there was deposited with the Manhattan Bank $188,670, although a branch bank is in that city. In this District, $115,080 were deposited with the bank of Columbia, although here also is a branch bank, and yet the State banks are utterly unsafe to be trusted! If the money, after the bonds are collected, is thus placed with these banks, I presume there can be no difficulty in placing the bonds themselves there, if they must be deposited with some bank for collection, which I deny.

Again, one of the most important and complicated branches of the Treasury Department is the management of our landed system. The sales have some years amounted to upwards of half a million of dollars, are generally made upon credit, and yet no bank whatever is made use of to facilitate the collection. After it is made, the amount in some instances has been deposited with banks, and according to the Secretary's report, which I have before adverted to, the amount so deposited was in January upwards of three hundred thousand dollars, not one cent of which was in the vaults of the Bank of the United States, or in any of its branches, but in the Bank of Pennsylvania, its branch at Pittsburg, the Marietta Bank, and the Kentucky Bank. Upon the point of responsibility, I cannot subscribe to the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, if it is meant that the ability to pay the amount of any deposits which the Government may make under any exigency, is greater than that of the State banks; that the accountability of a ramified institution, whose affairs are managed by a single head, responsible for all its members, is more simple than that of a number of independent and unconnected establishments, I shall not deny; but, with regard to safety, I am strongly inclined to think it is on the side of the local banks. The corruption or misconduct of the parent, or any of its branches, may bankrupt or destroy the whole system, and the loss of the Government in that event will be of the deposits made with each; whereas in the failure of one State bank the loss will be confined to the deposit in the vaults of that bank. It is said to have been a part of Burr's plan to seize on the branch bank at New Orleans. At that period large sums, imported from La Vera Cruz, are alleged to have been deposited with it, and if the traitor had accomplished his design, the Bank of the United States, if not actually bankrupt, might have been constrained to stop payment.

It is urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Lloyd,) that as this nation progresses in commerce, wealth, and population, new energies will be unfolded, new wants and exigencies will arise, and hence he infers that powers must be implied from the constitution. But, sir, the question is, shall we stretch the instrument to embrace cases not fairly within its scope, or shall we resort to that remedy, by amendment, which the constitution prescribes?

Gentlemen contend that the construction which they give to the constitution has been acquiesced in by all parties, and under all administrations; and they rely particularly on an act which passed in 1804, for extending a branch to New Orleans, and another act, of 1807, for punishing those who should forge or utter forged paper of the bank. With regard to the first law, passed no doubt upon the recommendation of the Treasury Department, I would remark, that it was the extension of a branch to a Territory, over which Congress possesses power of legislation almost uncontrolled, and where, without any constitutional impediment, charters of incorporation may be granted. As to the other act, it was passed no less for the benefit of the community than the bank—to protect the ignorant and unwary from counterfeit paper, purporting to have been emitted by the bank. When gentlemen are claiming the advantage supposed to be deducible from acquiescence, let me inquire what they would have had those to have done who believed the establishment of the bank an encroachment upon State rights? Were they to have resisted, and how? By force? Upon the change of parties, in 1800, it must be well recollected that the greatest calamities were predicted as consequences of that event. Intentions were ascribed to the new occupants of power of violating[Pg 284] the public faith and prostrating national credit. Under such circumstances, that they should act with great circumspection was quite natural. They saw in full operation a bank, chartered by a Congress who had as much right to judge of their constitutional powers as their successors. Had they revoked the law which gave it existence, the institution would, in all probability, have continued to transact business notwithstanding. The Judiciary would have been appealed to; and, from the known opinions and predilections of the judges then composing it, they would have pronounced the act of incorporation, as in the nature of a contract, beyond the repealing power of any succeeding Legislature. And, sir, what a scene of confusion would such a state of things have presented—an act of Congress, which was law in the statute book, and a nullity on the judicial records! Was it not wisest to wait the natural dissolution of the corporation, rather than accelerate that event by a repealing law involving so many delicate considerations?

When gentlemen attempt to carry this measure, upon the ground of acquiescence or precedent, do they forget that we are not in Westminster Hall? In courts of justice, the utility of uniformity of decision exacts of the judge a conformity to the adjudication of his predecessor. In the interpretation and administration of the law, this practice is wise and proper; and without it, every thing depending upon the caprice of the judge, we should have no security for our dearest rights. It is far otherwise when applied to the source of legislation. Here no rule exists but the constitution; and to legislate upon the ground merely that our predecessors thought themselves authorized, under similar circumstances, to legislate, is to sanctify error and perpetuate usurpation. But if we are to be subjected to the trammels of precedents, I claim, on the other hand, the benefit of the restrictions under which the intelligent judge cautiously receives them. It is an established rule, that to give to a previous adjudication any effect, the mind of the judge who pronounced must have been awakened to the subject, and it must have been a deliberate opinion formed after full argument. In technical language, it must not have been sub silentio. Now, the acts of 1804 and 1807, relied upon as pledges for the re-chartering this company, passed not only without any discussions whatever, of the constitutional power of Congress to establish a bank, but I venture to say, without a single member having had his attention drawn to this question. I had the honor of a seat in the Senate when the latter law passed; probably voted for it; and I declare, with the utmost sincerity, that I never once thought of that point; and I appeal confidently to every honorable member who was then present to say if that was not his situation.

This doctrine of precedents, applied to the Legislature, appears to me to be fraught with the most mischievous consequences. The great advantage of our system of government over all others is, that we have a written constitution defining its limits and prescribing its authorities; and that, however for a time faction may convulse the nation, and passion and party prejudice sway its functionaries, the season of reflection will recur, when calmly retracing their deeds, and all aberrations from fundamental principle will be corrected. But once substitute practice for principle, the expositions of the constitution for the text of the constitution, and in vain shall we look for the instrument in the instrument itself. It will be as diffused and intangible as the pretended constitution of England; and it must be sought for in the statute book, in the fugitive journals of Congress, and in reports of the Secretary of the Treasury. What would be our condition if we were to take the interpretations given to that sacred book, which is or ought to be the criterion of our faith, for the book itself? We should find the Holy Bible buried beneath the interpretations, glosses, and comments of councils, synods, and learned divines, which have produced swarms of intolerant and furious sects, partaking less of the mildness and meekness of their origin than of a vindictive spirit of hostility towards each other. They ought to afford us a solemn warning to make that constitution, which we have sworn to support, our invariable guide.

I conceive, then, sir, that we are not empowered by the constitution nor bound by any practice under it, to renew the charter of this bank and I might here rest the argument. But, as there are strong objections to the renewal upon the score of expediency, and as the distresses which will attend the dissolution of the bank have been greatly exaggerated, I will ask your indulgence for a few moments longer. That some temporary inconvenience will arise, I shall not deny; but most groundlessly have the recent failures in New York been attributed to the discontinuance of this bank. As well might you ascribe to that cause the failures of Amsterdam and Hamburg, of London and Liverpool. The embarrassments of commerce, the sequestration in France, the Danish captures—in fine, the belligerent edicts, are the obvious sources of these failures. Their immediate cause is the return of bills upon London, drawn upon the faith of unproductive or unprofitable shipments. Yes, sir, the protests of the notaries of London, not those of New York, have occasioned these bankruptcies.

The power of a nation is said to consist in the sword and the purse. Perhaps, at last, all power is resolvable into that of the purse, for with it you may command almost every thing else. The specie circulation of the United States is estimated by some calculators at ten millions of dollars; and if it be no more, one moiety is in the vaults of this bank. May not the time arrive when the concentration of such a vast portion of the circulating medium of the country in the hands of any corporation will be dangerous to our liberties? By whom is[Pg 285] this immense power wielded? By a body who, in derogation of the great principle of all our institutions, responsibility to the people, is amenable only to a few stockholders, and they chiefly foreigners. Suppose an attempt to subvert this Government, would not the traitor first aim, by force or corruption, to acquire the treasure of this company? Look at it in another aspect. Seven-tenths of its capital are in the hands of foreigners, and these foreigners chiefly English subjects. We are possibly upon the eve of a rupture with that nation. Should such an event occur, do you apprehend that the English Premier would experience any difficulty in obtaining the entire control of this institution? Republics, above all other nations, ought most studiously to guard against foreign influence. All history proves that the internal dissensions excited by foreign intrigue have produced the downfall of almost every free Government that has hitherto existed; and yet gentlemen contend that we are benefited by the possession of this foreign capital. If we could have its use, without its attending abuse, I should be gratified also. But it is in vain to expect the one without the other. Wealth is power, and under whatsoever form it exists, its proprietor, whether he lives on this or the other side of the Atlantic, will have a proportionate influence. It is argued, that our possession of this English capital gives us a certain influence over the British Government. If this reasoning be sound, we had better revoke the interdiction as to aliens holding land, and invite foreigners to engross the whole property, real and personal, of the country. We had better at once exchange the condition of independent proprietors for that of stewards. We should then be able to govern foreign nations, according to the arguments of gentlemen on the other side. But let us put aside this theory, and appeal to the decisions of experience. Go to the other side of the Atlantic, and see what has been achieved for us there by Englishmen holding seven-tenths of the capital of this bank. Has it released from galling and ignominious bondage one solitary American seaman, bleeding under British oppression? Did it prevent the unmanly attack upon the Chesapeake? Did it arrest the promulgation, or has it abrogated the Orders in Council—those orders which have given birth to a new era in commerce? In spite of all its boasted effects, are not the two nations brought to the very brink of war? Are we quite sure that, on this side of the water, it has had no effect favorable to British interests. It has often been stated, and, although I do not know that it is susceptible of strict proof, I believe it to be a fact, that this bank exercised its influence in support of Jay's treaty; and may it not have contributed to blunt the public sentiment, or paralyze the efforts of this nation against British aggression?

The Duke of Northumberland is said to be the most considerable stockholder in the Bank of the United States. A late Lord Chancellor of England, besides other noblemen, was a large stockholder. Suppose the Prince of Essling, the Duke of Cadore, and other French dignitaries owned seven-eighths of the capital of this bank, should we witness the same exertions (I allude not to any made in the Senate) to recharter it? So far from it, would not the danger of French influence be resounded throughout the nation?

I shall give my most hearty assent to the motion for striking out the first section of the bill.

Mr. Pope.—Mr. President, in rising on this occasion, I never more entirely obeyed both my feelings and my judgment. The principle involved in the decision about to be given, is in my view of more magnitude than any which has been presented for our consideration since I had the honor of a seat here. It is no less than whether we shall surrender to the State Governments the power of collecting our revenue and rely upon the old system of requisitions. We are called upon to return to that state of imbecility and chaos from which this political fabric was reared by the wisdom and patriotism of the first statesmen of which any age or nation can boast. For twenty years we have collected our revenue, borrowed money, paid our debts, and managed our fiscal concerns through the agency of a national bank. That it has answered the most sanguine expectations of its authors; that it has been well managed, is admitted by the most decided opponents to the renewal of the charter. Although in public debate, in newspapers, court-yards, muster-fields, &c., we have heard much of dangerous powers, violations of the constitution, British influence, and poisonous vipers, &c., &c., which were to sting to death the liberties of the people, yet we find ourselves as free almost as the air we breathe, and hardly subservient to the mildest code of laws by which any nation was ever governed. In the city of Philadelphia, and the State of Pennsylvania generally, where these animals called banks have grown to the most enormous size, we find as sound morals, and as much real practical republicanism, as in those parts of the Union where the rattling of this viper's tail has never been heard, and in point of solid wealth and internal improvements, mark the contrast. We are required to disregard the lessons of that best teacher, experience, and to try some new scheme. However captivating new theories and abstract propositions were a few years since, I believe the thinking men of all parties in the nation are perfectly convinced that one ounce of experience and common matter-of-fact sense is worth more for the purposes of legislation than a ship-load of theory and speculation. We are told that we must force into the vaults of the bank a large portion of the circulating medium, and thereby depress the price of every thing in the market; we must give a shock to credit of every kind, check and embarrass every branch of agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing industry;[Pg 286] give up the young mechanics, manufacturers, and merchants with small capitals a prey to the cupidity of moneyed men, who will be tempted to withdraw their funds from trade to speculate on the wrecks of the unfortunate. This is not mere matter of calculation. I only state facts proved to us by the most unquestionable evidence. We are not only, sir, to ruin many innocent and unoffending individuals, but to derange the national finances; and for what is all this to be done? To promote the public good or advance the national prosperity? No, sir, it is not pretended. We are gravely told, that we, the Representatives of the people, must sacrifice the people to save the constitution of the people, whose happiness and welfare it was intended to secure. If this be true, it is indeed a strange Government under which we live. I advance the opinion with confidence, that no principle which, in its practical effects, outrages the common sense and feelings of mankind, can be a sound one, and we ought to examine it well, and hesitate much before we give our assent. To bring distress on the country, not to prevent a violation of any positive provision of the constitution; but to correct what we suppose to have been an erroneous construction of it by our predecessors, of which neither the States nor the people have ever complained, appears to be more nice than wise.

Disguise this question as you will, sir, and still it will clearly appear to be a contest between a few importing States and the people of the United States. Resolutions have been already laid on our table by gentlemen from the two large States; from which instructions have been received in substance, requiring Congress to give up to the State banks the collection of the national revenue. I am, Mr. President, on the side of the people of the United States. This is indeed a question of party, but of a very different character from that which will be attempted to be palmed on the people. It is a contest between the friends and enemies of the Federal Constitution revived; for, if I am not mistaken, the power of laying and collecting imposts and duties was strongly objected to by some of the large States having advantageous seaports, before the constitution was adopted. I am for preserving both the States and the Union. I consider the safety and independence of the several States, and the liberties of the people, inseparably connected with and dependent on the efficiency of the National Government, and it is to me unaccountable that gentlemen in favor of strong measures against foreign nations should be so solicitous to strip the General Government of this very essential part of its power. We were told, a few days since, that our army was so insignificant and contemptible, that it would require a constable, with a search warrant, to find it. I have heard another gentleman of very high standing suggest the propriety of retroceding the ten miles square to the States of Virginia and Maryland. Our gunboats are almost rotten. We have not more frigates and other armed vessels than sufficient to carry our Ministers and diplomatic despatches to foreign courts, and if we yield to the States the collection of our revenue, what will remain of the Federal Government with which the people can identify their feelings or affections? In what will this Government consist? It will be a mere creature of the imagination—a political fiction. And, analogous to the fiction in the action of ejectment, we shall have to suppose its existence, and then bottom our proceedings upon that supposition. If I was hostile to our Federal Union, or wanted to prepare the public mind for a surrender of this happy system of Government, I would join in the hue and cry against this institution; I would support every measure calculated to destroy all confidence in and respect for this Government, both at home and abroad; I would endeavor to produce throughout the country, confusion and disorder, and a state of glorious uncertainty; then persuade the people to seek security and tranquillity under some other form of Government. The transition from a wild, factious democracy, to despotism, is often easy, and generally sudden. The extremes are very nearly allied. A Republican Government, guided by the virtue and intelligence of a nation, is the first of human blessings, but when directed by the angry, vindictive passions of party, the worst of which the imagination can conceive. A republic, to be durable, must inspire confidence and respect. Such instability, such variable, unsettled policy as now appears to be the order of the day, could not have been anticipated by any man blessed with a tolerable degree of faith in the success of this great republican experiment. Mr. President, I have ever been opposed to yielding to the commercial interest an undue influence in this Government, but I am unwilling to make an unnecessary and wanton attack upon them. Coming from an agricultural State, I am not disposed to increase the jealousies which unfortunately exist, and thereby weaken the ties by which these States are held together. I am sensible, too, how much the prosperity of the State I represent depends on a prosperous state of trade, and although the shock from the dissolution of this bank will be first felt in the commercial cities, it must immediately react to the extremes of the empire. I know many are under an impression that Federalists and British agents are to be the victims; but very different will be the result. I refer to the evidence detailed by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Lloyd.) But is it possible that an intolerant spirit of party has prepared us for this? Are gentlemen ready to injure their country, weaken our Federal Union, the sheet-anchor of our political safety, to reach their political opponents? I will not believe it. When I see around me some of the soldiers of the Revolution, actuated I am sure by nobler views; when I see the professors of a religion which teaches us to love our neighbors as ourselves, I cannot persuade[Pg 287] myself that Christian charity, and all the noble, generous feelings of the human heart, are extinguished by this demon, party spirit. If there be a man in the nation who can witness with unfeeling apathy the distresses of his fellow-citizens, he would have figured in Smithfield in the bloody reign of Queen Mary of England, in binding heretics to the stake; or in the sanguinary time of Robespierre, in adding victims to the guillotine; but he is unworthy the blessings of a free Government.

Sir, I address the Senate under circumstances discouraging indeed. I have been told, and on this floor, that debate is useless; that no man's opinion is to be changed; that I shall find verified in the decision of this question the sentiment contained in two lines of Hudibras—"He that is convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." I cannot admit this. I know there are gentlemen fully sensible of the evils about to befall their country, without any obstinate pride to conquer, who would rejoice at being convinced it is in their power to avert them. Let me entreat them to pause and reflect, before they inflict a wound on their country's interest, under the influence of constitutional doubt; and if they err, I would ask them, would it not be more safe and patriotic to err in favor of the people? Permit me now, sir, to redeem this subject from the constitutional difficulties with which it has been encumbered.

To form a correct opinion, we must retrospect the defects of the old Government, and ascertain the remedy which was anticipated in the present constitution. I believe it will be conceded that the great cause of the inefficiency of the former, was not because their principal field of legislation was too limited, but was owing to its dependence on the States for the means to carry their powers into effect. For the truth of this position, I appeal to the history of that day—to the candor of gentlemen who hear me. The present constitution was framed for national purposes, with ample authority to pass all laws necessary and proper for the attainment of its objects, independent of State authority, except so far as expressly made dependent by the constitution. The erroneous impressions with regard to this bank have arisen from ignorance of facts, relative to the practical fiscal operations of the Government, and from confounding an original, independent power, to establish banks and corporations, with a necessary auxiliary to the execution of the powers given. By the constitution it is expressly declared, that Congress shall have power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into effect the powers previously enumerated, and all other powers vested in the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof. Our power to create a bank is not derived by implication. No, sir. If this express delegation of power had not been inserted, we must have implied the authority to provide the means necessary and proper, &c.

But the Convention, with a full knowledge of the defects of the old Confederation, and deeply impressed with the necessity of an efficient national Government, determined to exclude all doubt by granting to the new Government, in express and unequivocal language, ample authority to use all means necessary and proper for the attainment of the ends for which it was instituted. If a man was requested to look at the constitution and decide whether power is given to Congress to create a bank, or corporations generally, he would answer in the negative. This would very naturally be the answer of most men upon the first blush of the constitution. It is not pretended that Congress have power to create corporations as an independent proposition. The authority to establish a bank or corporations is only contended for so far as it can be fairly considered as a necessary and proper auxiliary to the execution of the powers granted by the constitution. The question of constitutionality depends upon facts, dehors the instrument, of which we must be informed before we decide, and which could not be ascertained before the attempt was made to give motion and energy to this political machinery. If the fact be ascertained, by the best evidence the nature of the subject affords, that a bank is necessary and proper to effectuate the legitimate powers of Government, then our power is express, and we need not resort to implication. To prove to the satisfaction of the Senate and the world, this material fact, will be my business before I request their assent to the position assumed, that Congress have an express power to incorporate a bank. To do this it is indispensable that we should understand the practical financial concerns of the Government, or have the information of those who do. We appropriate money for fortifications on the report of our engineer, Colonel Williams, and for the Capitol, &c., upon the report of Mr. Latrobe. To know how much timber or other materials are necessary for a ship or a house, you must understand the subject yourself, or have the information of those who do. For myself, I am ready to admit that I rely much upon the information and experience of others. To ignorant men, and those who do not profess to be fully acquainted with the nature and management of the national finances, the following evidence is presented. The first, and with many, perhaps the best, not heretofore particularly noticed, which I shall offer, is the Congress of 1781, which established a national bank, called the Bank of North America, during our revolutionary struggle, the utility and necessity of which were ascertained by the experience of that day.

It is worthy of remark, that they created a bank under powers much more limited than ours. That act was not passed precipitately, but was the result of the most mature and deliberate consideration. I beg leave to read the preamble of the law which contains the opinions of that Congress with regard to the utility[Pg 288] and necessity of a National Bank. "Whereas Congress, on the 26th day of May last, did, from a conviction of the support which the finances of the United States would receive from the establishment of a National Bank, approve a plan for such an institution, submitted to their consideration by Robert Morris, Esq., and now lodged among the archives of Congress, and did engage to promote the same by the most effectual means; and whereas the subscription thereto is now filled, from an expectation of a charter of incorporation from Congress, the directors and president are appointed, and application has been made to Congress by the said president and directors, for an act of incorporation: and whereas the exigencies of the United States render it indispensably necessary that such an act be immediately passed—Be it therefore ordained," &c. This act passed on the 31st day of December, 1781. And here permit me to observe, that this National Bank, styled the Bank of North America, was not produced by British influence or party spirit. No, sir, the little, slandering, intriguing partyism of the present moment was unknown to the patriots of that awful period. They had no party but their country—liberty and independence were their objects. Their souls were fired with a noble, a generous enthusiasm, on which Heaven looked down with pleasure. It appears from the journals of the Congress of 1781, that the members from every State were unanimous in favor of a National Bank, except Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—the two members from Massachusetts voted against it, the two members from Pennsylvania were divided—of the four from Virginia, Mr. Madison alone voted against it. Here it is evident that, in the very infancy of our Republic, before indeed it could with propriety be said to be born, when every bosom glowed with enthusiasm for liberty and a pure disinterested patriotism, a National Bank was not thought that dangerous, dreadful monster, which the very wise and exclusive patriots of 1811 are endeavoring to represent it to the American people. And the construction given to the grant of powers in the Articles of Confederation by the Congress of 1781, is strong evidence of our right to establish a bank under a grant of powers much more ample, and with money concerns vastly more extensive and complicated.

The next evidence I shall adduce for the consideration of the Senate, is the opinion of the late General Hamilton, appointed by President Washington, the first Secretary of the Treasury; whose province and duty it was to superintend the national finances. His attention was therefore particularly directed to the subject, and, in a very able report to the first Congress, assembled under the new constitution, he recommended a National Bank. Although opinions have been imputed to this gentleman very foreign to my feelings and notions about Government, yet he has ever been acknowledged, by the candid and liberal of all parties, one of the first American statesmen. For reasons, which it is unnecessary for me to assign, I will not press his opinion upon the attention of the Senate, but will introduce other and perhaps less exceptionable testimony. The Congress of 1791, which incorporated the present bank, merits the highest regard. It was composed of the most enlightened and distinguished men in America, many of whom had been members of the convention, and were fully apprised of the defects of the old and the objects of the new Government. A large majority of both branches voted in favor of the bank. They were not divided on the question by party. Many who have continued with the Republican party under every Administration voted in favor of this bank. Although different speculative or abstract political opinions were then entertained, yet the spirit and passion of party had not diffused itself so generally through the nation as at a subsequent period. The next authority in favor of this bank, and one which must at all times and on all occasions command the highest respect, is no less than our immortal Washington. He was President of the United States in 1791, when this bank law passed. After it had received the sanction of both branches of the Legislature, with that circumspection and prudence which regulated his conduct through life, he consulted the able men who composed his Cabinet Council on the constitutional question; they differed in opinion; he heard their arguments for and against the measure; and, after full consideration, approved the law. I cannot yet, sir, take leave of this very important testimony in favor of the bank. The opinion of our Washington has the strongest claim to our confidence. Let us pause before we disregard his solemn advice. This is the hero who led our armies to victory; this is the Washington, who, at the close of our Revolutionary war, disbanded a disciplined army in the bosom of the Republic, and voluntarily exchanged the splendid robes and ensigns of military power for the plain, humble garb of a private citizen. This Washington, who continued an American, a Republican in heart and in sentiment, until summoned to the mansions of bliss; yes, sir, this illustrious departed hero, this practical statesman, has solemnly declared to the American people that a National Bank is a necessary and proper auxiliary to the execution of the national powers. The last authority I shall particularly notice in support of this institution, is the opinion of the present Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Gallatin. If this gentleman cannot boast of the military laurels which have adorned the brows of the patriots I have mentioned; as a statesman and faithful public servant, he stands inferior to none. Mr. Gallatin, from his first appearance on the theatre of public life, has been considered by all parties an able financier. At a very early period the finances of the United States became the subject of his particular attention and inquiry; the result of which was a treatise, published in 1796,[Pg 289] called "Gallatin, on the finances of the United States," in which he gives a decided opinion in favor of this bank. I rely much on his opinion at that period, because it must have been the result of conviction, and not of any party feeling or consideration, as he was then in the minority, and continued in it until the Administration changed. His report to the Senate during the last session of Mr. Jefferson's Administration, and his letter to the committee, show, that time and experience, so far from changing, have confirmed him in the opinion he first formed on the subject; to which I might add every Administration and almost every man practically acquainted with our money concerns. Is not this mass of evidence sufficient to substantiate the facts upon the existence or non-existence of which the constitutionality of this measure depends? I put the question to the candor and good sense of gentlemen, whether they are not satisfied, in the language of the constitution, that a National Bank is necessary and proper to effectuate the legitimate powers of the National Government? If they answer in the negative, I can only say, he who will neither regard the suggestions of experience, nor believe the report of the great political disciples who have gone before us, would not believe though one were to rise from the dead. And what is the answer to all this out of doors? Why, that we are not to be governed by the information or opinion of others, however well acquainted with the subject; we are so self-sufficient as to disregard the best lights which can be presented to us. The cry is up to the hub, down with the bank, huzza for the party! So long, Mr. President, as I shall be honored with a seat in the Senate of the Union, I am determined to respect my station and my own feelings and character too much to be driven along by any such idle, ridiculous clamor.

As I heard much said about absolute, indispensable necessity, I may be pardoned for giving what I consider the sound interpretation of the words "necessary and proper" in the constitution. This idea of absolute, indispensable, &c., must have originated in an excessive jealousy of power or a decided hostility to the Federal Union. This instrument was framed by and for the people of the United States, and, in the language used, was certainly intended to be understood in that sense in which it is used and understood by them generally. If you ask a plain man what are the necessaries of life, he will answer, something below luxury and extravagance, what is calculated to afford him reasonable comfort. Neither a house nor a bed is absolutely or indispensably necessary to a man's existence; he could live in a camp and sleep on boards, or on the ground, yet, the common sense of mankind would respond, they are necessary and proper. If a man had a journey to make, either to Richmond, in Virginia, or Lexington, in Kentucky, although every person would pronounce a coach and six superfluous and unnecessary, all reasonable men would say, he ought to have a horse or a hack, but it will not be pretended that either are indispensable, because he could perform it on foot. If a gentleman from Baltimore gives his agent instructions to provide every thing necessary for an East India voyage, what would he expect? Certainly that he should avoid unnecessary expense, but would consider him acting within the pale of his authority if he procured only what was reasonably necessary and proper, or, in other words, what was fairly suited to the master and crew, and well calculated to enable the vessel to reach her port of destination. That interpretation is correct which best accords with the common sense and understanding of mankind. It must, therefore, be evident that the only question as regards the constitutionality of the measure to be decided is a question of fact, and that is, whether a National Bank is reasonably necessary and proper, or fairly suited to, and calculated for, the collection of our revenue and the management of our money concerns. And this fact appears to be admitted by the gentlemen opposed to the bill, for their arguments are predicated upon the probability that the State banks will answer the national purposes. This is a complete surrender of the constitutional objection; for, if banks be necessary and proper, it follows that we have a constitutional power to create them, and it will be a mere question of expediency whether we will use State banks or a National Bank. My colleague (Mr. Clay) has asked for the congeniality between a bank and the collection of our revenue? The argument in favor of using State banks shows it, but let the use hitherto made of the bank answer the question. Is not a bank a proper place for the deposit and safe-keeping of money—more so than the custom-house? Is it not a convenient agent for paying and receiving money? Through the agency of this bank our revenue, or the greater part of it, has been collected, our financial transactions done, and public money transmitted to such places as the necessities of the Government required. The revenue collected at Boston, Baltimore, or any other port, is paid, if required, at New Orleans, Natchez, St. Louis, or any other place without risk or expense. The money in the bank and its branches is payable at such of them as the convenience of the Government may require, and, by this arrangement, we can command the whole of the public money in any quarter of the Union without risk or expense. The operations of this institution have been confined to the seaboard. The principal bank is at Philadelphia, with a branch at New York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans. At all which places, the Government has considerable revenue to collect. No branches have been extended into the interior. It has been connected with our fiscal arrangements at all the places to which it has been extended, and may be fairly deemed a convenient, necessary, and appropriate auxiliary to the management of the national concerns. It is[Pg 290] said that the revenue is collected at many ports where none of these branches are placed. This is true; the bank and branches are fixed only at the principal seaports, where a large amount of revenue is collected. Every one draws into its vaults, subject to the demands of Government, the revenue collected at the less important ports in the same quarter of the country. Boston being the commercial emporium of New England, the Government, by the agency of the branch bank there, is enabled to draw to that point most of the revenue received at the numerous ports in that quarter of the Union. The repeated sanctions this bank has received from the different Administrations, and especially from Mr. Jefferson and the Republican party, by authorizing the extension of a branch to New Orleans, and selling one million of the stock, the property of the United States, to British subjects, for four hundred thousand dollars more than the nominal amount, is indeed strangely accounted for; gentlemen say the Government were bound to fulfil their engagements, and that the charter, being in the nature of a contract, was sacred. I had thought the fashionable doctrine was, that an unconstitutional law was wholly null and void. It has been held by some of the States. However plausible the answer to the argument of acquiescence, it furnishes no apology for a positive confirmation. Permit me to assimilate a common case between individuals to the case before us: a man in Washington executes a joint power to five trustees in Kentucky to collect his debts, settle his land business, &c., and authorizes them to take all steps necessary and proper to effectuate the trust or power; in the progress of the business a measure is suggested as necessary, about which there is a diversity of opinion among the trustees. A majority, however, decide that it is within their authority; the principal is informed of it, does not complain or disavow, but positively and by the strongest implication assents to the construction given by his agents. In such a case there would be but one opinion. In 1791 a National Bank is proposed to Congress; they differ as to the constitutionality, a large majority decide in favor of it, the people and the States are informed of the measure, the States do not protest, nor do the people complain; many of the States pass laws to protect the institution, it receives the confirmation of three or four different Administrations, and particularly of the one composed of men originally opposed to it; it violates no positive provision of the constitution; no mischiefs have been produced, but great convenience and advantage have been experienced by the Government and community. I ask whether, under such circumstances, the question ought not to be considered settled? Is no respect due to the opinions of our predecessors? Is a question of construction never to be at rest? Why is a judge, sworn to support the laws and constitution of the country, bound by a train of decisions contrary to his own opinions? Because the good, the peace, the tranquillity of society require it. The conduct of a court, as well as every department of Government, must be regulated in its course in some measure by a regard for the public weal. It is worthy of remark that, notwithstanding all the fuss about implied and incidental powers—if you except the sedition law, which was supposed to violate a positive provision of the constitution—the same practical construction has been given to this instrument by every Administration of the Government. Indeed, the sphere of national legislation has been more enlarged under Mr. Jefferson's than any other Administration. All parties have found that the national vessel could not be navigated without sails, rigging, and every thing necessary and proper. Whence was derived a power to pass a law laying an embargo without limitation? There is nothing in the constitution about embargoes. Whence did we derive a power to purchase Louisiana, and incorporate it with the good old United States? There is no express delegation of power to purchase new territory. On these subjects the constitution is silent. I have approved both. No State can lay an embargo, or acquire new territory. Our power to perform these acts results from the nature of the national sovereignty created by this constitution. The Republican Administrations have no pretensions to the approbation of the people on the ground of having restrained any latitude or liberality of construction. Their claim to the public confidence is founded on very different considerations. They have repealed the internal taxes, paid a large part of the public debt, purchased Louisiana, and preserved to the nation the blessings of peace. For these acts, they have, I believe, the thanks of the nation. They have mine, most sincerely.

Great stress is placed on the twelfth article of the amendments to the constitution, which declares the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I must confess that I cannot discover what influence this can have on the bill under consideration, or any other measure which may be proposed. It appears to me to have been adopted rather to quiet State jealousies and popular fears than with a view to produce any positive effect, for the inquiry must ever be, Is the power given? And if granted, it is not retained. The supporters of this bill do not pretend to usurp any power retained by the States or the people, but contend that the power to pass the bill is expressly delegated, if the facts assumed are true.

It is not pretended that our fiscal concerns can be managed with gold and silver. If our territory was of no greater extent than Rhode Island, Delaware, or the city of Philadelphia, gold and silver would answer the purposes of the Government, but it would require a number of pack horses and wagons to transport the public money in gold and silver, over this immense[Pg 291] country, to the different places where it is wanting. Our extensive commerce, and the great extent of this empire, renders a paper medium necessary. Is the power to create this paper medium, or national currency, an attribute of State or national sovereignty? I put the question to the candor of gentlemen, and solicit a serious answer! The argument of my honorable friend from Georgia against the power of the States to authorize the emission of bank paper, founded on that part of the constitution which declares that "No State shall emit bills of credit," acquires great additional force, when these bills of credit are made to assume the character of money, for national purposes. In the same article the power to coin money is expressly prohibited to the States, and in the catalogue of cardinal powers granted to this Government, is that to coin money. It will, perhaps, be contended that this only applies to gold and silver, but if that be admitted to be the literal meaning of the words, still it is evident that what shall be the national currency, whether specie or paper, is a proper subject of national legislation. No gentleman will be so absurd as to insist that any State or States ought to coin the current money of the United States. That the power of the States to establish banks may be questioned with at least great plausibility, is perfectly clear, but as this banking power has been so long exercised, as the National and State banks have conducted their operations very harmoniously, as no serious evils call for national interference, I am not for disturbing the existing state of things; it is better, perhaps, that the banking power should be divided between the States and the United States. That bank paper, if good, is in fact money, although not made a legal tender, cannot be denied. The currency of this bank paper of the United States, although made by law receivable in payment of revenue, rests upon a much better foundation than an act of Congress. Its national character, the extended operations of this bank from Boston to New Orleans, have given it credit with the people of every part of the empire, more than the bank paper of any particular State can be expected to have; so that, by common consent, this money coined by the national bank has become the current money of the United States. I hope we shall never be driven to the necessity of compelling our citizens by law to receive our paper. We should so guard and regulate our banking operations as to make the national paper at least equal to gold and silver, in every quarter of the Union.

If this bank is removed, the Secretary of the Treasury must nationalize the bank paper of the great importing States; for, I presume, Congress will never decide what State paper shall be used by the officers of the General Government. Most of the public money is now collected and deposited in the Bank of the United States; if that is destroyed, the Secretary of the Treasury is to deposit in the State banks, and with him is the power of selection—a power and patronage greater than any ever exercised by any officer in this nation. The deposits of the public money are sought after with great avidity, by all the State institutions. He can deposit the whole in one, or divide it between two, or three, or all the banks in any one place. He can change them at pleasure. He may, with great apparent fairness and propriety, make it a condition with every bank where deposits are made that they shall appoint a certain portion of the directors of his nomination, and through them he can reach the credit of any man who may have accommodations in it. It is true we have now a man at the head of the Treasury who may not be disposed to abuse this power, but we may not always have such an officer. This immense power and influence may be exercised in an invisible manner, and, of course, without responsibility. Is this republican? It was not a few years ago. I have always understood that one of the strongest and most popular objections to the Federal Administration was their disposition to increase Executive patronage.

Although this subject has received much false coloring through the country, by charges of British influence, &c., I did not expect to hear it from an honorable senator of the United States—it has not indeed been positively asserted, but hinted in such a manner as to make an impression on the community. Some stale circumstances connected with the British treaty have been very unnecessarily lugged in to increase the prejudices against this bill. It has been insinuated, that British influence, operating through this institution, has prevented the Government from taking strong measures against Great Britain; but in what manner this has been effected, gentlemen have not been good enough to explain. Did it prevent Mr. Jefferson from taking a war course? For I believe it is generally understood that he was opposed to a war. Has it operated upon the present Executive? Such a suggestion will not be made. I have, during my service here, given a fair and faithful support to the Administration, and I have certainly voted for stronger measures than they were willing to accept. It is due to the 10th and 11th Congresses, who have been so much abused, to state that their course, as regards the question of peace or war, has been in perfect unison with the views of the late and present Presidents. Let it not be inferred that I am disposed to find fault; I believe when we consider the very extraordinary state of the foreign world, and retrospect the embarrassing circumstances which have surrounded us, the course pursued by them ought to be deemed substantially correct, certainly so as respects their leading object, which has been to avoid making this country a party in the present war. If I was disposed to censure, it would be for not making an effort to chastise some of the British armed vessels which lay in our waters after the affair of the Chesapeake, in open contempt of the President's proclamation; if a single vessel had been driven out or compelled to strike her[Pg 292] colors, it would have healed the wound inflicted on the national pride and feeling, committed by the Leopard.

That this Government should have an influence with foreign Governments proportioned to the interest their subjects have in our funds, is probable, but how this interest gives them an influence here I am at a loss to perceive: foreigners cannot even vote in the appointment of directors. If there is any reality in this idea of foreign influence through this institution, why did gentlemen permit the present stockholders to be incorporated into the bill introduced last year? And why was not a provision inserted to prevent foreigners from purchasing additional stock?

Gentlemen say the embarrassments in Philadelphia could not have been occasioned by the Bank of the United States, because they continue to discount as usual. If I recollect the evidence—and I hope to be corrected if I mistake it—it was this: that the calling in of ten per cent. on their debts occasioned such a pressure, that they were prevailed upon to extend their discounts until the ultimate decision of Congress should be known. I have heard it seriously urged that the evils and inconveniences to be experienced from its dissolution, prove it to be a dangerous institution; the same argument would prove that the Government ought to be destroyed. Nothing, indeed, seems too absurd for the human mind to seize upon, when under the influence of passion or misguided zeal.

My honorable friend from Georgia has been reminded of the Macedonian phalanx. I trust, sir, we shall ever be found associated with a phalanx American, Republican, in heart and sentiment. I will not sacrifice the interest of my constituents for fear of being called hard names. The epithets of quidism, quadroonism, or any other ism which malice or policy may suggest, shall not drive me from the course called for by the public good. I am proud that I represent a people just, generous, and independent, not to be carried away by unmeaning clamor. Before they discard a public servant, they will view him both on a political theatre, and in the walks of private life. They know, too well, that those are not always the best Christians who sing hallelujahs on the house top, nor have they forgotten the celebrated Sempronius, who, on the approach of Cæsar, thundered war in the Roman Senate, and at the same time was secretly co-operating with the traitor to overthrow the liberties of the Roman people.

Deeply impressed, Mr. President, with the opinion, that the rejection of this bill will give at least a temporary check to the prosperity of the rising State from which I come, I shall give my negative to the motion to strike out the first section. Yes, sir, not only the interest, but importance of that State in the Union is about to be sacrificed. When I look beyond the mountains, and remember that Kentucky has nurtured me almost from my cradle, that she has bestowed on me her choicest honors, my bosom is filled with emotions of gratitude, which impel me to say on this, as on all other occasions, Kentucky I am only thine!

Saturday, February 16.

Bank of the United States.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to amend and continue in force an act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States, passed on the 25th day of April, 1791;" the motion to strike out the first section being under consideration.

Mr. Smith of Maryland said, that in seconding the motion to strike out the first section of the bill, he had pursued a course which, in his opinion, was the most correct. When I first took a seat in Congress (said he) the course of proceeding was to fix the principle by resolution, and, that once fixed, to send it to a committee to report a bill. By a motion to strike out the first section the principle will be tried, and the Senate, if the motion fails, will go into a discussion of the provisions of the bill. This I conceive a better course, than, for the Senate to go into discussion of the details of a subject which would probably be ultimately rejected on the general ground of principle.

The gentleman who introduced this subject spoke with great animation and with great feeling against the press or presses which have undertaken to give their opinions upon this great and important question. He spoke with much warmth, and said that whoever knew him would not believe that he would permit himself to be driven out of his opinion by any man or set of men. There is no man, sir, the least acquainted with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Crawford) but will believe his declaration. But another result may be apprehended, that those who feel so great an offence at the freedom the press has taken, may be driven into the opposite course by the irritation of their feelings. Certainly those feelings must have been extremely strong with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Pope) to have induced him to terminate his speech with an oration hostile to the press. Are the gentlemen from Georgia and Kentucky the only Senators who have had their feelings wounded by the conduct of the press upon this subject? Sir, if the gentleman's opinions and sentiments have been censured by one description of presses, he may find consolation in having been greatly eulogized in others. For more than a year those on the same side of this question with myself have had their opinions tortured into every shape to destroy them in the estimation of the people, not only in this session but during the last. Sir, there are some presses in the Union which could not exist, whose papers would not be read, but for the discussion of individual character. Is any advantage to be derived from complaining of this? It results from the nature and temper of our Government, and the best way I have ever found to treat it is with silent contempt. He[Pg 293] who does otherwise engages in the contest at a great disadvantage, and will seldom come out the victor. In the same presses of which those gentlemen complain, I have seen them both eulogized, and properly, for their conduct on the subject of the embargo and West Florida questions.

If the press be an evil in this respect, we must submit to it; those gentlemen who take a high and prominent stand must expect to be noticed. Sometimes gentlemen will be put down by the press, but their conduct being correct will more frequently be written up by its abuse.

It has been objected that this question is discussed on the ground of party; and the gentleman from Georgia, as I understood him, said, that this had been made a party question elsewhere, and might be so here. [Mr. Crawford said he had mentioned no place, but had said that this might be made a party question.] I understood the gentleman to say, said Mr. S., that this may again be made a party question. But for this observation of the gentleman the subject of party would probably not have been introduced at all; and we must indeed shut our eyes or we cannot avoid seeing that this is made a party question, at least on one side. Do you see one gentleman, one solitary gentleman of one party, discriminated generally as a Federal, who does not vote for this measure throughout? Do you see one public body in Philadelphia or New York which has a majority of Federal directors or agents, which has not come before you with memorials drawn up with the ingenuity of lawyers, to impose on your judgments? Have not the same party prepared memorials and got the subscription of every one of their caste, bringing forward nearly the same number of petitioners as they have of Federal voters? Have they not done so in Baltimore? Of that city I would say as little as may be, for being a manufacturing as well as a commercial city, it has stirred up an animosity in some gentlemen against it not easily accounted for. In Baltimore, on a warmly-contested election, the Federal party mustered eight hundred and fourteen votes, all they could parade with their every exertion. To the petition for the renewal of the charter of the bank, there are eight hundred and forty odd signatures! They have gained some few since the latest contest. Is this coincidence of members, this exclusively Federal petitioning, no mark of party? They have also got one public body in Baltimore to memorialize in favor of the bank; the rest were not to be intimidated by the threats of the Bank of the United States. What, sir, have the other party done? Have they disturbed the quiet of either House? Have they brought forward the mass of their voters as signers to petitions? No, sir, they have trusted the subject to their Representatives, confiding in their disposition and ability to speak their sentiments. The representation of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, and Charleston, in the other House, have opposed the renewal of the charter. Every city high in estimation as a commercial city is opposed to the renewal of the charter, except Boston. This speaks with a strong voice what are the feelings of the people; stronger evidence cannot be presented to the human mind. Far be it from me, sir, to endeavor to work up the feelings of party spirit on this occasion; but the thing itself was one of the first causes which created the present parties, and separated man from man and brother from brother. This measure was originally brought forward and adopted when the representation in Congress was not bottomed on an actual supposed census of the United States. Sixty-five members composed Congress then, which was a representation taken by accident. If a proportionate representation had been given to the States according to their population, the law probably would not have passed. The States of North Carolina and South Carolina had each five Representatives, being thus placed on an exact equality. Now, North Carolina has twelve, South Carolina only eight. What was the vote then? Out of sixty-five members thirty-nine voted for the bill. It was not, as my friend from Kentucky said, a subject fully discussed, or carried by a tremendous majority.

The bank having been formed, it may not be improper for me to take some view of its beginning and its operation. At first its operations were confined to Philadelphia; it extended its branches some time afterwards to Boston, New York, Baltimore and Charleston. Wherever it extended its influence, dissension commenced; wherever it placed its foot it became absolutely necessary for the States to erect another bank to counterbalance its pecuniary and political influence. In Philadelphia it began to oppose certain people and turn down their paper. The State of Pennsylvania, in defence of its own citizens, created the Bank of Pennsylvania. Here was a check upon its pecuniary and political operations. I believe I am not mistaken when I say that soon after it commenced in Boston a new bank was established there, from what cause I know not. In Baltimore, sir, it soon taught us a lesson, and we met the lesson as other States had done. Charleston and New York acted in a similar way. Operating as the bank did on the politics of the country before its effects were neutralized by competition, man being man, place him where you will, those concerned in the direction of the bank felt power and exercised it. When the British treaty was pending before Congress, the president and directors (as I am informed) themselves carried about a memorial to Congress in its favor, with what view and with what effect may easily be conceived. In Baltimore (until we were able to check them by other banks) its political influence was great. Prior to the great struggle between the parties, in 1798, they did permit one democrat to be within the walls of the sanctuary (as a director), a gentleman of as much respectability and independence of character, as any one of the direction. He was,[Pg 294] however, (immediately after daring to give his vote in favor of a democratic candidate,) put out, and since that time no man of democratic principles has been permitted to enter its walls as a director. Men must shut their eyes to the fact of this being a party institution, when they see that no democrat has been admitted to the direction of the bank but in this city and New York, where the collector was admitted a director for the purpose of protecting the public money at the instance (it is said) of the Secretary of the Treasury. Can we shut our eyes so as not to see that men hostile to the democratic party, and of course to the success of the administration of the Government, are not the most proper persons to have charge of its pecuniary concerns? I would have been very unwilling to have gone into this part of the subject; but when the gentleman from Kentucky, scarcely able to restrain his rage, cried out, party! party! I was bound to show that it was not those with whom I act who had any agency in pressing the subject of party into the present discussion.

The gentleman from Kentucky reprobates the system of petty mischievous intrigue for the purpose of carrying measures through Congress. No man, sir, despises or contemns such conduct more than I do. But on whose side has this intrigue been? It is necessary to put the saddle on the proper horse. Have we gone to insurance companies or corporations of one kind or another? Have we intrigued with the people to induce them to take sides with us? No, sir, we have been tranquil; we wanted no aid of that kind. Have we sent persons here to intrigue with members, or a deputy to remain here the whole of the last and present session, to explain to Congress the effect of putting down the bank, and threaten them with destruction and ruin to the United States if they passed the measure? No, sir, we have had no one here. Have we stirred up the people into town meetings to aid us by memorials? No such thing, sir. Have we called meetings and induced honest mechanics to come here to influence Congress by idle fears, impressed upon them by those who are interested, to tell a tale that shall answer our purposes? No, sir, we have pursued no such course.

Respectable merchants, I observe, form a part of the bank deputies—for what? To represent the late fall of the price of flour as a consequence of the danger of the bank charter not being renewed, and thereby to alarm the minds of members. I am sorry that men of such respectable character did permit themselves to come here on such an errand. I think I have seen in the papers, that one of the manufacturers (now here) on being asked to sign a petition for the renewal of the charter for twenty years, said he would rather cut off his right hand than sign it; he wished only a renewal for a short time to give the bank an opportunity to wind up its affairs. If this statement be true, and of its truth I have no cause to doubt, it shows the depth of that intrigue which sent this gentleman here, through the instrumentality of his excellent character, to get a renewal of the charter for a period which he never contemplated. These are intrigues for which men ought to blush, and from which, I thank God, we are exempt. At the time these deputies arrived, there were three mechanics of Baltimore here, of character inferior to none, and of wealth inferior to few in Philadelphia, and who would have given a different view of the subject, if they had been asked to appear before the committee. I thought it unnecessary—I wanted no assistance of that kind—no species of intrigue. They did, however, declare, sir, that granting this charter would be a death-blow to the politics of the State of Maryland. They did believe the renewal would be injurious to them, for neither they nor many of the manufacturers of Baltimore had received much advantage from the branch bank; they had their own banks from which they generally received accommodation. Another species of intrigue is carried on, to wit, by pamphleteering. The press is groaning with pamphlets—for what? To teach the minds of members on this question, the necessity of renewal and probability of destruction to the nation, if their demands are not complied with. Our tables are covered with pamphlets of that tendency. Has there been any thing of the kind on our part?

There is scarcely an evil which has not been attributed to the embargo, and which is not now, with as little justice, attributed to the expected non-renewal of the bank charter. Great failures have lately taken place at New York; bills of exchange on London, to a large amount, have returned protested, and the drawers are not able to pay the holders, and to the present critical situation of the bank some gentlemen attribute the distress brought upon those who have suffered by these failures and protests. But, Mr. President, what is the real cause of those failures? They are confined principally to New York, and may be attributed to the following causes: It is natural for men born in Great Britain to entertain predilections favorable to a commerce with that country, their connections, as well commercial as of family, are there; their credit is there; and, from those causes, the house which has failed, and carried so many others with it in its fall, has probably directed the principal part of its commerce to England; they have, no doubt, shipped cotton and tobacco, the trade in which being in a great measure confined to Great Britain, the natural consequence has been, that the markets of England were completely glutted; tobacco, except the very fine Virginia, scarcely paid the charges of freight and commission, and the loss on cotton must have been nearly fifty per cent. The consignees, under those circumstances, refused to pay the bills drawn upon shipments of those articles. The bills returned protested, and ruin to the American shipper has been the consequence. At any other time the Eng[Pg 295]lish merchants would have accepted the bills, and held the cargoes for a better market; but, at that time, ruin stared every man in the face. No man in London knew who to trust, and very few would enter into engagements which they saw any difficulty in meeting. No censure ought to be attached to the American shipper, for, by the usage of trade between the United States and Europe, the American merchant is entitled to draw for two-thirds the amount of his cargo on transmitting invoices and bills of lading with orders for insurance. Other causes have existed to cause the present distress in New York and elsewhere, to wit, the seizure, detention and confiscation of property in Denmark, Prussia, and France, of ships and cargoes to the amount of many millions, on the proceeds of which cargoes merchants calculated to meet their engagements at home, and to meet their bills drawn on London. For, sir, the merchants who make large shipments to the continent, order the greatest proportion of their proceeds to be remitted from thence to London, and, on the expectation thereof, draw bills on their friends there. Disappointment has been the consequence of such seizures and losses; protests of such bills and ruin has followed. But, Mr. President, we might with as much propriety attribute the late great failures in England and on the continent to the expected non-renewal of the bank charter, as those which have happened in New York, or the present distress of the merchants of the United States. The returns of the bills protested, to so large an amount, of course destroyed the merchant's credit at bank; he failed, and, by his fall, has caused the ruin of others. When a great house fails, it is like a game of nine pins; knock one down and it will probably carry with it four or five others.

We have been told, Mr. President, in case the charter should not be renewed, that we shall find in future great difficulty in obtaining loans. What loans, I ask, have Government ever received from the Bank of the United States? I recollect, when I first entered Congress, that Government were indebted for loans made from the bank, but I also recollect that the bank complained of her loans as an inconvenience, and that Congress took the earliest measure in their power to pay them off, and have, since that period, made no new loan from the bank until that made payable the first of January last. I will not inquire whether even that loan was necessary, but I will venture to promise, sir, and will give any security that may be required, that the State banks will give a similar accommodation, to wit: If the Secretary of the Treasury will deposit with the State banks two millions five hundred thousand dollars of the public money, (the amount of the late loan,) they will lend Government to the same amount, and thus do as the Bank of the United States has done, lend you your own money, and very kindly receive from you an interest of six per cent. therefor. We are told that the bank has lately lessened the discounts of individuals ten per cent., and that the merchants are thereby greatly distressed. Is that a fact? If it is, and great distress has ensued therefrom, what will be the distress of the merchants if the bill now before you shall pass; and if, agreeably to its provisions, Congress should (at any time hereafter) call on the bank for the loan of four millions promised by the bill? If, sir, a lessening of their discounts one-tenth per cent. creates distress, what will be the consequence, when, by a loan of four millions, called for from the bank, the bank shall be compelled to lessen the discounts four-tenths?

But, sir, the promise to lend four millions from a bank of ten millions is idle; it is worse, it is deception on the face of it. The loan, if made, would not be from the bank but from the merchants, whose discounts would thereby be lessened, and whose ruin would follow.

We are told that, if the charter of this bank be not renewed, and the funds of the United States be deposited in the State banks, it will be extremely unsafe, because it is said we can have no control over them. And, I wish to know, sir, what control we have over the Bank of the United States? None, but the same as we may have over the State banks. We cannot check the operations of the Bank of the United States, and if they obtain this charter, they will know that they can have their charter renewed whenever they please; so that, the fear of a non-renewal of their charter will have no operation on them in future. You will have a much greater control over the State banks, because you are under no obligation to put money in them, and you can change them whenever you think proper; the danger of losing the public deposits will always be a sufficient control over their conduct. The security of the State banks is doubted, however; and we are told, very gravely, indeed, that there is much more security in the mother bank, and her nine children, than in ten independent banks. This I must deny. I should, as a merchant, place more confidence in ten independent houses than in one with nine branches.

Monday, February 18.

Bank of the United States.

Mr. Brent said he had not the vanity to believe, after the subject had been so fully discussed, that he should be able to shed any new light on it; but having been instructed, by the Legislature of the State which he had the honor to represent, to vote on constitutional principles against the bill under consideration, and as he was reduced to the painful necessity of going counter to those instructions, it seemed to him to be indispensably necessary that he should submit to the Senate the grounds on which he acted. It is (said he) a most painful situation in which I stand in relation to the Legislature of Virginia, in being compelled to vote in opposition to their will, more especially as it is a prevalent opinion with many whose opinions[Pg 296] are entitled to great respect, that instructions are obligatory on a Senator. This question is one which has never been settled, or even fully deliberated on. Instructions, when heretofore given to Senators, have generally been in accordance with the sentiments of the Senators, and only given to add the greater weight to their opinions. If called upon definitely to pronounce with regard to instructions on questions of expediency, I might be under some difficulty as to what course to pursue; because, although there is no clause in the constitution to that effect, I am under a strong impression that, according to the principles of our Government, there is much reason to believe that the respective State Legislatures should have such a right; but on a constitutional question (whatever may be the right of the State Legislatures in other instances) the right of instruction may be denied, in my judgment—that is, so far as to be imperative on the Senator. To give a vote in such a manner as in his estimation to inflict a vital wound on the constitution, is more than the Legislature of Virginia, or any other State Legislature in the Union, can compel me or any other Senator in the United States to do. The resolution of Virginia is bottomed, not on the ground of expediency, but on the principle that the constitution prohibited Congress from granting the bank charter in the first instance; that it now prohibited it, and therefore, because it was unconstitutional, the Legislature have instructed their Senators in Congress to oppose it. Now, sir, although I shall not immediately and directly violate the constitution by voting against the bank, yet, if I vote against it when I believe it constitutional and necessary, it must be known that I vote in conformity to the instructions of the Virginia Legislature; and so far as my vote goes, it will warrant and sanction that interpretation of the constitution which the Legislature of Virginia has given—which interpretation, in conscience, I believe to be erroneous. Therefore, though in ordinary cases the instructions of a Legislature may be imperative, (I will not determine that question,) I conclude that they cannot be so when they require of a Senator to commit either a positive or implied breach of the constitution, or to vote in such a manner as to warrant such interpretation of the constitution as will deprive it of an essential attribute. Virginia has the physical force, but has she a moral right to violate the Constitution of the United States? If she has it not, can she give it to her Legislature? If her Legislature possess it not, can they give it to a Senator? Can the Legislature give me a moral right to violate the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn to support? I believe not, sir; and that, in the situation in which I stand, their instructions ought to have no operation on the vote I am to give on the subject under consideration.

The first question, whether the General Government, when it first came into operation, did not possess the power of creating a National Bank, is the primary object of investigation. In objection to this it has been said, that to carry into effect an enumerated power is one thing, and the right to incorporate a bank is a distinct power. Those who take this ground say that the creation of a National Bank is an original, independent, and substantive power. It is not sufficient, say they, to show that it is a convenient instrument to carry into effect an enumerated power, because it is an independent authority of itself, and the genius of our Government prohibits the derivation of any powers by implication with scrupulous limitation. It is true, sir, that our Government, being an emanation from the existing State governments, the rational construction is, that all power not given away is retained to them or to the people. If that construction does not result, then a positive amendment, which has been made to the constitution, has infused this principle into it. I therefore admit in its fullest latitude the construction that all powers not given away are still retained; yet I still contend that even in a Government like ours, there are some resulting powers. Or by what right do we create a military school? We have a right to raise armies; but we can have an army without a military school. Yet it is constitutional to create such an institution, because every given power implies rights inferior appertaining to the powers granted. We lay an embargo—is there any clause in the constitution authorizing us to lay embargoes? No, sir; we have a right to regulate trade, and we have a right to lay embargoes to protect it. We have a right to provide for arming and disciplining the militia. Under this authority we build armories. Is there any provision in the constitution directing it? We have erected forges and even purchased ore banks. These are inferior powers, necessarily resulting from the greater powers granted. But here gentlemen find the great difficulty. The creation of a corporation, say they, is an act of sovereignty; it cannot be used as a mean, because it is a sovereign act. Why, Mr. President, every law passed is quoad hoc a sovereign act. A law incorporating a military school is as much an act of sovereignty, as to the particular subject to which it relates, as an act incorporating, a bank. We create a military school—for what purpose? Because the sovereign authority has power to establish an army, and the power to create a military school is inseparably connected with and necessarily appertains to it. We establish a navy—we also establish a marine corps. There is no clause in the constitution giving that power, but we take it as inseparable from the power to create a navy, because the exercise of the greater implies every subordinate power necessarily connected with it. The great stumbling block, however, is, that this is one of those independent, original, and substantive powers, which cannot be given by implication. Blackstone says, "municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be a rule of civil conduct, pre[Pg 297]scribed by the supreme power in a State, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." Agreeably to this definition, every law passed by a deliberative body is an act of sovereignty as to the subject to which it relates. The establishment of a marine corps is as much an act of sovereignty as an act incorporating the Bank of the United States. The only question is, whether it be necessarily incident to the enumerated powers given to the General Government. Those who criticise most accurately on the constitution and most unwillingly concede resulting powers, will admit them to a certain extent even in our Government. The only question is the immediate and necessary connection of the means used with the object intended to be attained.

In inquiring then, sir, whether or not, at the first promulgation of the constitution, when it came into existence, it was intended that Congress should possess the power of incorporating the Bank of the United States, let us inquire whether there was any possibility of carrying into effect with any tolerable convenience and advantage the several provisions of the constitution, unless this power exists. It is said that you do not possess the power, because it is attempted to be derived by different gentlemen from so many different parts of the constitution. Now, Mr. President, I have never before understood that a capacity to derive a title from several different sources gives you less title than if derived from one source alone. I derive the power from the whole context of the constitution, although gentlemen seem to think that the title is invalidated in proportion to the number of sections in the constitution from whence we derive it. In order to avoid confusion of argument in examining this question, I will derive it from only one source at present, though I believe others equally give it by a necessary construction. At the time the constitution came into existence, I believe there were but three banks in the United States; none south of Philadelphia, and all of very limited capital. The Constitution of the United States gives the power to levy and collect taxes. Is it possible to imagine any system so convenient for the collection of this revenue, and sending it to the seat of Government, as that of the agency of banks? I am not inquiring whether the State banks can do it; but I say that the framers of the constitution must have had under consideration the state of things at the time when the constitution came into existence. At that time there was not one bank south of Philadelphia, and the banks which existed were very limited in their capital, and their paper had limited circulation. Congress, in such a state of things, then, has the power of levying and collecting taxes conferred on it, and yet Congress has not the power to create banks to aid in the collection of its taxes, notwithstanding a clause to make all laws necessary and proper for that purpose is contained in the constitution. No gentleman will say that the agency of banks is not necessary in some way or other in collecting the revenue. I admit without them you could have carried on our fiscal arrangements in an awkward and cumbrous form, but was that the intention of the constitution? When the power to collect taxes was given, it was intended to give all the means necessary to carry this power into execution. It was not to execute this power in a cumbrous form, but with the greatest facility with which the power is susceptible of being wielded. Now, is it possible that the constitution contemplated that the revenue should be collected and transmitted here, subject to all the risks and accidents and inconveniences that attend the transportation of specie? It is impossible. But all this doubt has arisen from its being a separate and independent power, although it is no more of that character than any other law passed to execute the enumerated powers of Congress.

In a word, Mr. President, it is admitted by all who have spoken on this question, whether for or against the bill under consideration, that the agency of a bank or of banks affords the greatest facility and security of any plan that can be devised for the collection of a revenue, and for its transmission to your Treasury.

It is admitted that no bank or banks of a capital or of sufficient circulating paper throughout the United States adequate to this object, did exist when the constitution was first formed, promulgated, or adopted. It is admitted that to levy and collect taxes is one of the enumerated powers of Congress. It is admitted that Congress has all power necessary and convenient to carry its enumerated powers into execution.

It is admitted there is no express clause in the constitution prohibiting the establishment of a National Bank.

If these principles and facts are admitted, does it not demonstrate, beyond the possibility of doubt, this unquestionable result, to wit: that as Congress is to levy and collect revenue; that as the agency of banks affords the most certain, speedy, and convenient means by which a revenue can be collected; that as neither, at the period when the constitution was made, promulgated, or adopted, banks of sufficient capital, or with paper of sufficient circulation, existed for the collection of the revenue, and its transmission to your Treasury; that as there was no positive clause prohibiting a National Bank in the constitution; that as Congress was to have all power necessary to carry its enumerated powers into execution; that as the convention who framed, and the people who adopted the constitution, must have had in view our then existing institutions, and the then general state of society, it was the intention of the convention who formed the constitution, and the people who adopted it, to give to Congress the power of establishing a National Bank. If at the time of adopting the constitution it was necessary and proper that Congress should possess it, for the exercise of any of its enumerated pow[Pg 298]ers; if the foregoing result is undeniable, and I think it is, I would interrogate, if Congress, on the adoption of the constitution, possessed a power to establish a National Bank, what has since deprived that body of the power? I, Mr. President, can discover nothing which has. One argument, much confided in by gentlemen who have opposed the present bill, is, not that banks are not necessary to the collection of the revenue, but that State banks will answer. In return, I insist that no State banks did exist when the constitution was first formed, therefore the power to create a National Bank is necessarily given in the power to levy and collect taxes. To this it is replied that to create a National Bank is to legislate by implication; it is a separate, substantive, and independent power; to levy a tax is one thing, to make a bank another. I answer, to levy a tax is one thing, to create an officer for its collection another. By this kind of chop-logic we may prove any thing unconstitutional. I ask, when you levy a tax, if you do not provide officers for collecting it. I levy a tax and create a bank through whose instrumentality I mean to collect it; from the same authority by which I appoint a collector, I have a right to create a bank through whose instrumentality I mean to receive and transmit it. There is no clause in the constitution saying you may appoint officers for the collection of the revenue specifically; but the right to appoint officers to collect revenue is derived from the power of levying a tax, from which also may be derived the power of establishing a bank, if it be the best mode of collecting the revenue. It is said you may collect this tax by means of the State banks. Very well, sir, I say you may collect the revenue by means of State officers, and upon the principle that you cannot establish a bank to collect the revenue, because the State banks can collect it, I say that the State officers can collect our taxes, and if your argument is just, you cannot appoint any other officers. The constitution authorizes the President to appoint persons to fill all offices established by law, but says not a word about appointing officers to collect the tax you levy specifically. Upon the construction gentlemen contend for, they might say, because no power is expressly given to appoint officers of the customs, or for your taxes, and it is possible to collect the revenue by the agency of the State Governments, and nothing should be done by the United States authorities which can be done by the States, therefore these collectors of the customs or revenue should be such as are appointed by the States for State purposes. This kind of reasoning, sir, cannot be admissible, and is in hostility with a most manifest principle of the constitution, as it is evidently a prominent feature of that instrument that the General Government should have within itself all those powers necessary and convenient for the execution of its enumerated trusts, entirely free and independent of the interference and agency of the States, their officers, or ministers.

It is said that the corporation, which it is proposed to recharter, independent of the facility it affords to Government in the collection of the revenue, has also particular advantages given to it; that it is a monopoly; and what right, it is asked, has Congress to grant a monopoly? I will ask, in return, when an officer is appointed to collect the customs, has he not a salary and emoluments? Is not every office in law called a franchise or a particular privilege? If the officer who has these emoluments, privileges, or franchises, (call them what you will) receives these in consideration for his services, have you not the power to hold out inducements to associated bodies of men to form an institution from which the public may derive benefit, not with a view exclusively to their monopoly and benefit but on account of the advantages to be derived from it by the public?

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) with his usual ingenuity, spoke of the enormous evil and the danger to our liberties that is to be anticipated from giving the power to erect corporations, which he says is an original power, and has given being to institutions which have swelled to an enormous magnitude. The example of the East India Company and the South Sea Company were spoken of in an alarming, impressive, and ingenious manner. But, I ask, sir, if the State Governments do not possess this gigantic power? I see nothing to restrain them more than the General Government. I see that the only supervisors as to the State Governments are the people themselves, who are also the supervisors of Congress, who have also the invidious jealous eyes of the State Governments constantly upon them, as is illustrated in the conduct of some of the States on this very question, and who combined would guard this power from abuse by the General Government much more than the people alone will guard against abuses by the States. It is a visionary mode of reasoning to argue against the possession of power from the abuse of it. The gentleman may as well tell us that we may raise armies to so monstrous an extent as to crush our liberties; and, therefore, we ought not on any emergency to raise an army. He may as well say the creation of a military school, which is as much and no more a resulting power than the one in question, is giving to Congress a great substantive independent power to create a vast engine, under the name of a military school, which may swell to such an immense importance as to make it an instrument to swallow all the liberties of the country. So as respects sites for forts and armories, and ore banks, powers exercised by implication, the gentleman, from the unlimited indulgence he gives to a gloomy and foreboding imagination, may say, you may purchase the territorial rights of the States until you destroy their sovereignty. There is no end to the extent of such reasoning. We must rely in some degree on ourselves, on the vigilance of the State Governments, and on the discretion[Pg 299] of the people. When the whole body politic is so corrupt that there are no eyes on our rulers to see when they transcend the powers of the constitution, all is lost, and no paper reservations can save us.

Mr. President, I am ready to admit that where a measure obtains, that inflicts a violation on our constitution that is unquestionable, palpable, and notorious, however frequently and however solemnly this measure had been sanctioned, however long it had been submitted to and endured, would not be considerations with me of any importance or create one moment of doubt. Error, however repeated and submitted to, is error still, and every occasion should be sought to get rid of it; but on an occasion in the origin of which the constitutional question was doubtful, when men of the purest integrity and most illumined intelligence might pause and differ and doubt, I should imagine that such case once acted on should never again be touched, unless considerations of irresistible importance lead to such a measure; and I imagine that every man of candor and intelligence who weighs with due deliberation the question under consideration, will at least admit, if the measure is not certainly constitutional, it is at least of that description of character I have last mentioned. In such an instance as this, will it be said that after this measure has been sanctioned by Congress on full deliberation and debate; after the bill establishing this bank had received the approbation of the President, who reserved his signature to it till the last moment permitted by the constitution, and after he had viewed the question with all its bearings in every attitude it could be presented, after full consultation with his Cabinet Ministers and others of high intellectual character; after the law thus sanctioned by the Legislature and the President has been acquiesced in and practised on for the space of twenty years, when it has been considered inviolable, and corroborating laws passed during the administration and legislation of different dominant political parties; when those laws have been sanctioned by the solemn adjudication of all our judges, both of the General and State Governments; to suppose that all these considerations are to have no influence as to putting to rest a constitutional question which was doubtful in its origin, is to be skeptical and scrupulous beyond all reasonable bound. If Congress had no right to incorporate a bank, was it not an act of usurpation in the President and Congress to pass laws punishing individuals for the forgery of its paper? Nay, more, Mr. President, when we inflict death for the support of institutions Congress had no right to create, and for the violation of laws the constitution prohibits that body from enacting—(and under the denomination of each of the political sects into which this country is divided, agreeable to the principles now contended for by gentlemen, such laws have been passed)—are not the Executive which sanctions, the Congress which passed, and the whole body of our Judiciary, both of the General and State Governments, which enforces such unconstitutional measures, and under their surreptitious authority inflicts death upon our citizens, worse than usurpers? Are they not murderers? Yes, Mr. President, I reiterate, are they not murderers? And are we prepared to pronounce so heavy a denunciation on our predecessors, on ourselves, and the other great Departments of our Government? Are we ready to inform the American people that this body and all their constituted authorities have sported with the lives and illegally shed the blood of our citizens? My colleague was foreman of the jury that pronounced sentence, or that found a verdict, on the famous or rather infamous Logwood, for forgery of the paper of the Bank of the United States. This verdict was confirmed by the judge of the court, and the criminal punished agreeably to the judgment. Is a measure of such weighty and awful import, so solemnly and deliberately acted on and decided, and multifarious other decisions of the same description, to have no influence on the decision we are about to give respecting the constitutionality of establishing a National Bank? If they are not, then gentlemen view the subject through a very different medium than that through which it is presented to my vision. Then, in my judgment, Mr. President, our situation is alarming indeed.

To recapitulate: I derive the power to create a National Bank, when this constitution came into existence, from the situation of society, and our legal institutions at that time, and the difficulty, as things existed, that the revenue could be collected with advantage in any other way than by the agency of a bank. If this reasoning be deemed erroneous, I insist that the constitutional power of Congress to create a bank was in the first instance doubtful, and the principle having been recognized, and having received every sanction the Government could give, and practised on for more than twenty years, is not now to be called in question. Admitting that on both these points my views are erroneous; say that the establishment of the bank, at its commencement, was improper, still, if it be demonstrated that the existence or re-chartering of the bank is indispensable, or highly expedient at present, to the due exercise of enumerated rights of Congress, that which was improper or even perhaps unconstitutional at first, because it was not necessary, becomes constitutional and proper, because now expedient or essential. Congress is clothed by the constitution with a variety of delegated rights. Now, admitting that the establishment of a bank in the first instance was not necessary for the due exercise of the legislative rights bestowed in any one of these enumerated powers, if our predecessors in office, by the creation of a bank, which at best was an improper institution, because not necessary, have placed our fiscal concerns in such a situation that it cannot be put down without great injury to the revenue, which Congress is bound to levy; and[Pg 300] collect, without injuring our commerce, without impairing our public credit, without lessening the public welfare, all of which Congress is bound to provide for and protect; if this can be demonstrated to be the probable result of pulling down the bank at this period, I would ask whether that institution, which was improper at first, because not necessary, does not become proper, because almost indispensable at present?

In construing the Constitution of the United States, when legislating on the enumerated powers of Congress, I lay down this rule of construction: that the only limitation to the power of Congress is either some positive or implied prohibition in the constitution itself, or the exercise of an honest and sober discretion. If, therefore, there is any reason to believe, at the present period and existing state of things, that by putting down the bank your revenue will be greatly impaired, your commerce will be injured, the public credit lessened, all of which Congress is to protect; does not such a state of things make it proper that the bank, which ought not to have been created, because not necessary, now ought to be continued because indispensable? It may here be said, that I am varying the constitution if I say that a thing is proper to-day which was not proper five and twenty years ago; that this vibration will always keep the constitution in an uncertain state. I say, no. My doctrine is subject to no such accusation; the principles of the constitution are uniform and unalterable. It is an uniform and unalterable principle, that Congress have the power to lay and collect taxes; they have the same positive, unchangeable right to exercise all the enumerated powers, the only rule of construction relating to them being that the means you use have a necessary relation to the power on which you legislate. If the means be not enumerated, you exercise discretion as to the means, having a regard to the existing state of things when you legislate concerning them. The same means may be necessary and proper now, which would not have been twenty years ago. You change the means to attain the end, but the end itself, the enumerated power in the constitution, remains unchanged. As long as the constitution exists, you must select the means most proper for executing the enumerated rights at the precise moment at which you legislate respecting them. If this be the true construction of the constitution respecting the recharter of the bank, the question merely resolves itself into an inquiry how far such a measure is at present expedient. To determine at this moment whether or not it be constitutional, or in other words expedient, to incorporate the Bank of the United States, I am to say whether, under existing circumstances, in the present state of society, situation of trade and revenue, the preservation and continuance of this institution is essentially necessary. If it be essentially necessary, we have a right to recharter the bank. I have been precise in stating this view of the subject, because it has not before been taken by any other gentleman.

Tuesday, February 19.

The credentials of John Condit, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of New Jersey, for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth day of March next; and of William B. Giles, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Virginia, for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth day of March next, were severally read, and ordered to lie on file.

Bank of the United States.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to amend and continue in force an act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," passed on the 25th day of February, 1791.

Mr. Taylor.—Mr. President: Although much time has been consumed in the discussion of the subject before us, and the ground completely occupied by those who have gone before me, yet the importance of the subject, the immense magnitude of the unhappy consequences likely to result to the nation from the rejection of the bill on your table, compel me to offer to it all the support in my power. Indeed, sir, to this sense of duty to the nation is superadded a very sacred, and to me indispensable duty—my duty to the State which I have the honor in part to represent, as well as another duty, which from the course the debate has taken, is not to be disregarded; I mean, sir, the duty which I owe to myself.

I cannot, as other gentlemen have boasted they can, put my hand into my drawer and pull out the instructions by which I am to be directed on this important subject.

The State of South Carolina is a very large stockholder in some of her State banks, and if a selfish policy, contracted to the narrow sphere of the unique advantage in dollars and cents of the Government of that State—in contradiction and disregard of the great body of her own citizens, and the citizens of the rest of the States in the Union—could have weighed a moment with her Legislature, I too might have been instructed. Let me not be understood, Mr. President, as drawing any comparison between the conduct of the State of South Carolina and the conduct of the great and leading States who have acted otherwise; but I must and will tell of the things that I do know. I rejoice, sir, that the State which I come from has, in this instance, been actuated by that magnanimity and patriotism which on all former occasions has distinguished her conduct; that neither selfishness, nor party rage, nor a spirit of intolerance, has induced her to counteract or embarrass the National Legislature in its pursuit of the great object of its institution, the good of the whole.

I hope it will not be considered as savoring of egotism when I say that my appointment to[Pg 301] the very honorable station I now hold was unsolicited by me. That my sentiments on the subject now under consideration had been by me unequivocally expressed at the last session of Congress, and were well known to those who appointed me. Nay, further, after my venerable and respected predecessor had resigned his seat here, and had declined, also, his appointment for the ensuing six years, pending the election of a successor to him, and when my name was held in nomination, a resolution was offered, similar to those which we have heard so much talk about, proposing to instruct the Senators of that State to oppose the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States. This resolution, as I am informed, lay on the Speaker's table when the election was gone into. I was elected, and the proposers of the resolution had not power nor influence enough to raise it from the table on which it lay, and it died stillborn at the end of the session; and if I were to make an inference at all on these transactions, I should suppose I was tacitly instructed to vote for the renewal of the bank charter. But I seek not the avoidance of responsibility. It is here, sir, in my own bosom, I have instructions paramount to all others. My beloved country has rested the matter here, and my gratitude is superadded to all other moral obligations operating on me to perform this trust, and to execute this duty with faithfulness. I find the authority of Congress to grant this charter in the same sections of the constitution which the gentlemen who have gone before me have pointed out to you. In section seven, clause first, power is given to Congress "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Clause second gives power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." And, in the last clause of said section, power is also given to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof.

Let us understand the meaning of the words necessary and proper, to the last-quoted clause, for upon a correct knowledge of these depends, in my opinion, the correctness of our conclusions on this subject. The word necessary, in its technical and legal sense, in the meaning affixed to it in common parlance, established by usage, custom, reason, and the common law of the land, is different and distinct from the signification of the same adjective derived from the substantive necessity, as used by Hobbes, Hutchinson, Hume, and the other metaphysicians of the last century. It is well known that they used the substantive necessity as synonymous with the word fate, and which necessity, according to the opinions of one party, controlled omnipotence itself. This necessity was supposed by them co-existent with the Deity itself, not prospective nor discretionary, bending in one way, and in one way only, all substance, all matter, and all spirit. This meaning of the word is only to be found with these metaphysicians and philosophers; but in our law books, in the daily and hourly use of the word in common conversation, it has no such meaning. When the old Congress passed the conditional charter—which I admit they had not a delegated power to grant, but which is fully in point, both as to the signification of the word, and, also, of their opinion of the necessity, and even indispensableness of a bank for the administering the fiscal concerns of the nation—in the conclusion of the preamble they say that the exigencies of the United States render it indispensably necessary to pass the act, &c.; and in the laws passed during that period, when this Government was in the habit of following the English custom of beginning the laws by a preamble, you find the word necessary used as synonymous to expediency—practical expediency, (see Laws of the United States, vol. 1, page 247; idem, page 276,) in fact, among frail mortals with fallible judgments like ours. With any beings endued with less than omniscience, the word necessary must be only applicable to the honest judgment we can make up concerning the subject to which we apply it; in other words, it is resolvable into that sound discretion with which, as moral agents, we are in the first instance intrusted by our Maker, and in the instance now before us, we are intrusted with by the constitution and by the citizens who have sent us here to transact their business. But the rigid necessity which our opponents wish to enforce on us, this metaphysical necessity, must, from its very nature, be immutable; it must be unique, and could not exist in a greater or less degree; and, therefore, the word joined to it in the constitution (proper) could have no meaning at all. The laws, to be passed, must be necessary, is the only one way given under heaven by which you are to effect the end desired; in other words, the law must be imposed by Fate. It is perfect nonsense to say that there is a latitude left with us to judge whether such a law is proper or improper. I have, I think, brought the meaning of the word necessary to the level and within the comprehension of frail human intellect. The signification of the word proper I take to contain the description of the measure or law to which it is applied, in the following respects: whether the law is in conformity to the letter, the spirit, and the meaning of the constitution; whether it will produce the good end desired in the most ready, easy, and convenient mode, that we are acquainted with.

Great stress is laid on that amendment of the constitution which says, that all power not expressly granted shall be retained, &c. Either the general clause I have relied on gives power or it does not; if it did not give power, why was this amendment made? And if it did, and this power was offensive, why was it not stricken[Pg 302] out when the amendment was made? But if it expressly gave power, which I contend, its being suffered to remain is proof that it was not the design of the amendment to take away the power given. Could not the Territory of Columbia have been governed without erecting a single corporation in it? I don't mean well governed. But was there that fatal necessity; that command from Jove,

"Ye fates fulfil it, and ye powers approve,"

to erect corporations? This legislation to erect corporations being, according to our opponents, sui generis, not of the ordinary kind, and only to be exercised where the express authority is given by the constitution, I ask gentlemen to show the clause in the constitution which expressly gives us the power to perform this sublimated act of legislation in this Territory any more than in any other part of the United States; and yet at this very session we have sent an armful of these high acts. The shelves of the office of the Secretary groan under the pile of charters we have granted.

I said it was easy to prove that the broad grant given to Congress to legislate for this Territory in all cases whatsoever, was restricted and paled in by the constitution. Congress cannot make the duties here on imports less or greater than elsewhere in the United States—imports and taxes must be equal, &c.—nor deprive the citizens thereof of the right to a trial by jury, nor grant them titles of nobility; and yet the incidents here alluded to would come under the description in the clause "of all cases whatsoever." In truth, sir, there is not a scintilla of the spirit, nor a single word or letter of the constitution, that loses its power and sanction upon our conduct in legislating in this particular. There is no more a power given us to legislate ad libitum on this Territory, nor to derive therefor powers by implication, than is given us in the laws we pass for the whole nation; and if this power, sui generis, of creating corporations, is properly defined by our opponents, they ought to go back to the works of yesterday, as well as to those of twenty years' standing, in order to introduce their new order of things. I might here draw a comparison of the tried scheme of using the United States' Bank, and the untried scheme of using State banks in aid of the operations of the National Treasury; but I should only be saying with less force what has been so fully and so conclusively said by the gentlemen who have preceded me. Suffice it to say, that for safe-keeping, for transmission and payment of the funds to any part of the nation, and for enforcing the punctual payment by the debtors to the customs, by addressing to those debtors the arguments to the sense of honor and shame, and also to their interest, to wit: by denying them credit in the bank on failure in punctuality—all these have been afforded to the Government without its incurring therefor one cent's expense. Are we sure the State banks can or will do this? I beg pardon of the Senate for detaining them on topics not new. As this is made a case of conscience, I deemed it necessary to be thus particular. I have no hesitation in saying, we have the right to act on this subject, inasmuch as I think the bank is both necessary and proper for the purposes above referred to.

To me it appears that this power is expressly granted; we derive it not by implication; but our opponents, in fact, are pressed to the necessity of using implication to come at the denial they set up against the exercise by Congress of this power.

I say, further, that this institution is necessary and proper for carrying into effect another general power, viz: The power to borrow money on the credit of the United States.

It is acknowledged on all hands that there is not specie enough in the nation, if applied solely to that purpose, to pay our annual impost. The operations of the Bank of Columbia in transferring the revenue derived from a part of Virginia (and of the land funds from the westward,) and of the Manhattan Bank in performing the same office in respect to the collections in Connecticut, have been dwelt upon by the honorable Senator from Maryland, (Mr. Smith.) His arguments drawn from the facts would have been more conclusive if he could have instanced the same facilities afforded to the Government between banks disconnected by the effect of that neighborhood circulation and of that course of trade very apparent in the instances he has produced. But it is not conclusive at any rate. There is a neighborhood medium of circulation, (the State bank paper,) and there is a national medium, (the United States paper.) The latter, under the present state of things, corrects the operations of distant banks and renders their transfers easy; but, deprived of this, would any of them, situated at four and five hundred miles, or at one thousand miles' distance, agree to make these transfers for the Government free of expense? Could they, for instance, transfer the solid bullion belonging to the United States from Orleans to Boston or Philadelphia, without our affording compensation for freight, insurance, &c.? I have witnessed the advantages of this national medium in the State I live in; and in the months of autumn, when strangers are fearful of venturing to Charleston, our western friends, rather than carry the hard dollars, are in the habit of giving two or three per cent. for bills of the Bank of the United States. Destroy this national medium, you insulate the State banks, which are so far asunder as not to be within the influence of the neighborhood medium of circulation. The stroke of our dreadful wand disconnects the ligament by which they are bound together in their distant operations.

Mr. Pickering.—I will now, Mr. President, make some observations on the main question under consideration. Whether Congress have the power by the constitution to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States?

[Pg 303]

It has been said that the power to incorporate a bank for the United States is a substantive and original, and not a derivative or implied power. This has been repeated, but I have heard no arguments in support of the position; it is naked assertion.

It has also been called "act of sovereignty;" as if to alarm and deter us by its awful magnitude. But, sir, the sovereign power of Congress is sometimes exercised on subjects of comparatively little moment. A few days since we passed a bill to authorize the erection of a bridge; and another, to change the name of an individual, to enable him to inherit an estate. The power of Congress is sovereign to all the purposes of the constitution. They can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; borrow money, regulate commerce, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States. And they have the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry the foregoing and all other constitutional powers into execution. When proposing to exercise this general power, in any case not expressly mentioned, we have to consider whether it be "necessary and proper." It has been said that "necessary" here means indispensable; something without which a particular power expressly granted cannot be carried into execution. But, sir, I see no ground for this interpretation. In the affairs of a nation, or other community, whatever the public good requires to be done, is necessary and proper to be done. It is a moral, not an absolute necessity. It is necessary for me to be here in my place, because it is my duty to be here. Necessary and proper are opposed to unnecessary and improper. Congress should do no act unnecessary and improper; but, like State Legislatures, do whatever is necessary and proper to attain the objects for which they are respectively constituted.

In determining whether any proposed measure be necessary and proper to carry into execution any power expressly given to Congress, we have to consider whether that measure has a just or useful relation to the end. For instance, the constitution having prescribed no mode of collecting the revenues, it rested in the discretion of Congress to adopt such a mode or such modes as should appear to them best adapted to that object. Instead of appointing custom-house officers in the large commercial cities and towns, where a banking establishment could be supported, Congress might there have erected banks, as the most certain, punctual, and cheap mode of collection. Suitable officers of a bank might have performed all the duties of entering and clearing vessels, and all other duties pertaining to the custom-house, without any charge to the public; the deposits of the public moneys so collected in those banks, upon which the usual banking operations might be carried on, yielding an adequate compensation for all the services so performed.

The public revenues, when collected, must also be safely kept. An experience has demonstrated that, of all depositaries, banks are the safest. And the same experience has shown that, as the public moneys are required to be frequently transferred, for the public expenditures, from one State to another, the Bank of the United States, with its branches, has furnished the best mode of transfer; it being effected with despatch, with certainty, and without any risk or expense to the United States.

The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) asked, if banks are necessary for collecting the public revenues, why give them any other power? The answer is, that it is the essential nature of banks, which renders them so peculiarly fit to collect the revenues. The merchants, whose bonds are lodged in the banks for collection, are also borrowers of money from the banks; and if they fail of paying their bonds, as they become due, their credit will fail; they can obtain no more loans until their bonds are paid. This has just been presented to our view, in the most striking manner, by my colleague.

"To borrow money," is another of the great powers expressly vested in Congress. And in this, as in the power first considered, no mode of borrowing being prescribed in the constitution, Congress are to devise and provide the means in their judgment most sure, expeditious, and ample, to obtain loans. And this was one of the great objects for which the Bank of the United States was originally incorporated. The gentleman from Virginia, near me, (Mr. Brent,) and the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Taylor,) have, in very forcible language, displayed the impolicy of depending on State banks or individuals for loans, in public emergencies. At such times, these banks and individuals may be most hardly pressed by their usual customers. To suffer the Bank of the United States to dissolve, and to have recourse to State banks, will be so far going back to the condition of the United States under the articles of Confederation, when our Union was but a rope of sand. When the pressure of the Revolutionary war was over, indeed, while that pressure remained, Congress in vain made requisitions on the individual States; no money, or none in any measure adequate to the public exigencies, could be obtained. After the war, when the public treasury was empty, Congress importuned—implored the States, individually, to grant the power to raise a revenue from commerce, to defray the current expenses of the General Government, and to fulfil the public obligations, but the power could not be obtained. States, deriving large revenues from commerce, chose to retain them for their own treasuries.

It was this helpless, forlorn condition of our country, which forcibly convinced the nation of the necessity of forming a new system of Government; and our present Government was the fruit of that necessity.

"To regulate commerce" is a third great[Pg 304] power vested in Congress. And it is conceived that the exercise of any power well adapted to give safety, facility, and prosperity to commerce, must be comprised in the power to regulate it. Hence the erecting of light-houses has been mentioned as an instance in which an implied power, incidental to the regulating of commerce, has been exercised. But it has been said that this power is expressly given in another part of the constitution; that by which Congress is vested with exclusive legislation over the district which is the seat of Government, and over places ceded to the United States "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings." But if we had no commerce, no navigation, light-houses would not be "needful buildings," they would be of no use whatever. Hence it is clear that they have a direct relation to commerce and to nothing else; and, therefore, the erecting of them is properly adduced as an instance of the exercise of a power implied in the general express power to regulate commerce.

The safety and facility of commercial operations was also greatly to be promoted by means of a general currency which should have equal credit throughout the Union. This has been accomplished by the notes issued from the Bank of the United States, under the authority of Congress, exercising the power incidental to that of regulating commerce.

A fourth great power, which I mentioned to have been vested in Congress, is that of "making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States." This "other property" consists partly of money. And, as Congress have power to make any regulations concerning it which are needful, that is, which may, in their opinion, best promote the general welfare, this money may be (as some of it has been) vested in bank stock; and with the truest regard to its safety and good management, in the stock of a bank erected by Congress, of which they may have a suitable inspection; and where it may safely deposit the public revenues, there to await the public demand; and, in the mean time, usefully aid those banking operations which give facility to commerce and to public loans.

But as an evidence that the constitutionality of the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States was at least doubtful, we have been told by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Smith,) that President Washington doubted; that his mind was in suspense to the last moment, when the act was to be approved or disapproved. That while the then Secretary of the Treasury, (Mr. Hamilton,) a very great man, maintained the constitutional power of Congress to erect that bank, another man, (Mr. Jefferson,) equally great, then Secretary of State, and the Attorney-General, (Mr. Randolph,) a distinguished lawyer, maintained the contrary doctrine—that Congress had not that power. It is true, sir, that Washington, cautious and circumspect beyond any man I ever knew, did suspend his decision to the last day allowed him by the constitution. The confidence with which the Secretary of State and the Attorney-General supported their opinions on this question, was sufficient to excite in the President the greatest caution. Both were lawyers, and they raised many legal objections. The written opinions of these gentlemen were (as I have been well informed) put into the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury two days before it was necessary for the President to decide. And the reasoning of Mr. Hamilton, in his written argument, enabled the President to decide with satisfaction; with a full conviction of the constitutionality of the act.

The following are some of the objections offered by the Secretary of State: He said—"that the proposed incorporation (of the bank) undertakes to create certain capacities, properties, or attributes, which are against the laws of alienage, descents, escheat, and forfeiture, distribution, and monopoly. And that nothing but a necessity, invincible by other means, can justify such a prostration of laws which constitute the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence, and are the foundation laws of the State governments." Washington, sir, was not a lawyer, and who can wonder that his fair mind was alarmed by such a solemn declaration? That it was kept in suspense by the assertion, that the act for establishing the bank would overturn the pillars of our whole system of jurisprudence, and the foundation laws of the State governments? But, sir, it required only the knowledge of a lawyer at once to overturn these objections. The following are some of the remarks of the Secretary of the Treasury: "If these are truly the foundation laws of the several States, then have most of them subverted their own foundations. For there is scarcely one of them which has not, since the establishment of its particular constitution, made material alterations in some of those branches of its jurisprudence, especially the law of descents. But it is not conceived how any thing can be called the fundamental law of a State government which is not established in its constitution, unalterable by its ordinary legislature."

"To erect a corporation, is to substitute a legal or artificial for a natural person; and, where a number are concerned, to give them individuality. To that legal or artificial person, once created, the common law of every State, of itself, annexes all those incidents and attributes which are represented as a prostration of the main pillars of their jurisprudence. It is certainly not accurate to say, that the erection of a corporation is against those different heads of the State laws; because it is rather to create a kind of person, or entity, to which they are inapplicable, and to which the general rule of those laws assigns a different regimen. The laws of alienage cannot apply to an artificial person, because it can have no country. Those[Pg 305] of descent cannot apply to it, because it can have no heirs. Those of escheat are foreign from it, for the same reason. Those of forfeiture, because it cannot commit a crime. Those of distribution, because, though it may be dissolved, it cannot die." Sir, I beg leave to add a few explanations. By the laws of most, perhaps of all the States, aliens are not permitted to hold real estate; but in all they are free to hold personal property of every kind, and particularly bank stock. The law of escheat relates to the property of a citizen who dies without heirs, near or remote, and without a will. In such case his property falls to the State. But instances of escheat do not occur perhaps twice in a century in any State, and, consequently, is of trifling moment. Although a corporation cannot commit a crime, it may violate the rules prescribed in the law for its establishment, and thus incur an immediate forfeiture of its charter. Or, if for such a violation of its fundamental law, or any mismanagement of the institution to the public injury, its charter be not forthwith taken away, the State may refuse to renew it. As to the law of distribution, that operates when a person dies intestate. But though a corporation cannot die, yet the individuals to whom its property belongs will die; and their bank property, equally with their other property, becomes liable to the law of distribution.

One of the injurious consequences of destroying the Bank of the United States has been stated to be, the withdrawing of seven millions of dollars from the active capital of the United States, and transmitting it to Europe, where that portion of the bank stock is owned. To this it has been answered, by the opposers of the bank, that these millions will not be withdrawn, but transferred from the United States' Bank to banks of the several States. How then, sir, shall we get rid of that dangerous influence of foreign stockholders which the same gentlemen urge as a reason for not renewing the charter of the Bank of the United States? Sir, it is well known that money in Europe is less valuable than in the United States. That moneyed men there are glad to loan their money at an interest of five per cent, or less, while in these States the legal interest is six per cent. And a multitude of our citizens find their account in employing that foreign capital, paying an interest of six per cent., by which, in the course of trade, they gain ten, fifteen, or twenty per cent.; that foreign capital, in the hands of our merchants, has resembled the five and the ten talents, wherewith they have gained other five and other ten talents.

The distresses which will follow the dissolution of the Bank of the United States, especially in the great commercial cities, have been forcibly described in the plain testimonies of the committee of mechanics and manufacturers from Philadelphia—a committee selected wholly from the democratic party; distresses which were sufficient to move a heart of stone. And why should this bank be dissolved? It has been said that the State banks are competent to all the necessary operations of the general bank. If the contrary had not been shown, it might be answered, that the Bank of the United States was incorporated when there were only three banks in the United States; one in Philadelphia, one in New York, and one in Boston. These were inadequate to the necessities and accommodation of the General Government and of the citizens. To supply this deficiency, it was necessary to erect the National Bank; and the dignity, honor, good faith, and credit of the United States stand pledged for the renewal of its charter. The institution having been well conducted, and found in the highest degree useful and beneficial to Government, and to the citizens at large, it ought to be continued. Individual citizens and foreigners became stockholders on a well-grounded expectation of the stability of the Government. It was in this just expectation that foreigners, Englishmen, purchased of our Government, itself, its remaining shares of the public stock in the Bank of the United States, and at an advance of forty-five per cent.; so that, for every hundred dollars laid out by the Government in the purchase of bank shares, the United States received of these foreigners one hundred and forty-five dollars. And how was it possible for these foreigners to conceive the Government capable of destroying the work of its own hands, and of reducing their property to one hundred dollars a share, for which, but eight years before, they had paid the same Government one hundred and forty-five dollars?

Wednesday, February 20.

Bank of the United States.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to amend and continue in force an act, entitled "An act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States," passed on the 25th day of February, 1791.

Mr. Crawford said he regretted extremely, that at so late an hour, he was constrained to throw himself upon the indulgence of the Senate, especially as the subject was so much exhausted by the able and animated discussions which had for so many days attracted their attention. Before I enter upon the few remarks which I feel it my duty to make in reply to the numerous comments which have been made upon the observations which I had the honor to submit to the consideration of the Senate, at the commencement of this discussion, permit me, sir, to acknowledge the liberality and indulgence with which those observations have been generally treated. In the course of the few observations to which I intend to confine myself, it shall be my endeavor to exercise that indulgence towards others which has been extended to me. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) complains of the committee, because they have listened to the representations of two delegations from the city of Philadelphia who pre[Pg 306]sented memorials to the Senate, who referred them to the committee; and because the committee have, in his opinion, given an adventitious importance to their representations, by the minuteness and by the pomp and parade with which they have been detailed to the Senate. It will be recollected that the committee did not seek the post which has been assigned them by the Senate, nor did they desert it after it was assigned to them. The object of referring petitions to committees is to collect that information which the Senate ought to have before it acts, and which in its collective capacity it cannot obtain. It has always been the practice of committees to permit the petitioners to be present at their meetings, to make such explanations, and to give such information touching the subject of their petition, as they think connected with it. It is the duty of committees to detail to the Senate the information which they collect, to enable the members to take a full view of the subject upon which they are called upon to act. The committee in the present case has done all this, and it has done nothing more. Had it pursued a different course it would have justly subjected itself to the animadversions of the Senate. To the information collected by the committee from these delegations, and laid before the Senate, my friend from Maryland (Mr. Smith) has opposed a statement of facts, and his opinion founded upon those facts. As the situation and talents of that gentleman entitle his statements and opinions to great weight; as it is more than probable that the votes of several members will ultimately rest upon the weight of his authority, my honorable friend from Maryland (Mr. Smith) will pardon me if I should examine his observations rather according to the rules of evidence, than those of logic. In making this declaration I wish to be explicitly understood, as excluding every idea of charging that gentleman with having made statements which he did not believe, or with having given opinions he did not entertain. I have no doubt but that he sincerely believes in the correctness of his statements, and in the accuracy of his opinions; but if, in the course of my observations, I shall prove incontestably that he is mistaken in some of his statements and opinions, it will teach the Senate the necessity of weighing the remainder of them with great circumspection. If I shall be able to show that he is mistaken in a case, the evidence of which is matter of record, that circumstance alone will induce the Senate to reject all idea of receiving his statements and opinions with implicit confidence.

The gentleman from Maryland has stated several cases in which the State banks, and the banks of this Territory have accommodated the Government where the United States had refused. The cases stated prove nothing, and ought to have no influence with this Government in establishing a permanent system of revenue. If the State and Territorial banks have upon several occasions received the bills of other State banks to accommodate the Government, it was because it suited their convenience at the time. It was a mere temporary transaction, and forms an exception to the general rule. The charter of no bank in the United States compels them to take the paper of other banks, and whether they do receive them or not will depend upon contingent circumstances, or upon whim and caprice. No reliance, therefore, ought to be placed upon the duration of any regulation which is not enforced by their charters. The gentleman from Maryland thinks that the United States will have the same influence over the State banks that it has had, and will have over that of the United States. If he is correct as to the extent of that influence, his conclusion may be correctly drawn. But, sir, is it true that the National Government has no other influence over this bank than that which can be produced by withdrawing of its deposits? If it is so, then it must be admitted that the United States will have the same influence over the State banks that they will have over one of their own creation, because they can as easily withdraw their deposits from the one as the other. But, sir, the United States have an influence over the Bank of the United States, which is wholly independent of, and unconnected with, the right of withdrawing their deposits from its vaults. The bank is dependent on them for its existence. By renewing the charter for short periods of time you create a state of dependency upon the Government, which will at all times make the bank completely subservient to all the legitimate objects for which it was created. How, sir, is it with the State banks? Upon whom are they dependent for legal existence and for length of days? Upon the State Governments. Suppose the authority from which they derive their existence should place itself in opposition to the Government of the United States; and suppose that this state of hostility should happen a year, or two before the time at which their charters were to expire, and the State Legislature should direct them to hold the deposit of public moneys against the demand of the National Government, what course would they pursue under such circumstances? Sir, the case which I have stated is not a mere possible case. The history of several of the large influential States proves that this state of hostility, which I have supposed, is not an imaginary one. Make yourselves dependent upon the State banks for the collection and transmission of your revenue, and that opposition, which has but seldom happened, will become more frequent. Their disposition to control the operations of the National Government will increase with every increase of the means of annoyance, which the folly and improvidence of Congress may throw into their hands. For whose benefit, sir, is the Government to strip itself of this right, so essential for the due administration of its finances? Is it for the benefit of the great mass of the American people? No; not one in a hundred of them[Pg 307] have any interest in the State banks. They feel no interest in the question; their true interest is more effectually subserved by the operations of the Bank of the United States than it can possibly be by the State banks. This bank affords them a portable currency which is of equal value in every part of the United States, while the credit and currency of the State banks is local.

It is impossible to resist the conviction that the prompt and secure collection of our revenue is principally owing to the influence of the bank. But, sir, the bank has another direct influence upon the collection of your revenue. By the rules established in the bank at Philadelphia, every person whose bond to the Government is deposited there, has a right, upon getting an additional endorser, to claim a discount for half of the amount of his bond, and the part so discounted is immediately carried to the credit of the United States, and the bank takes upon itself the risk of the ultimate collection. In this way, sir, one-half of the bond is collected at the sole risk of the bank, without any possibility of loss on the part of Government. And yet, sir, it is contended that the bank has nothing to do with the collection of the public revenue. The gentleman from Maryland says that the scarcity of money, and the alarm and dismay which the delegation of mechanics had represented as existing in Philadelphia, could not be the effect of the contraction of discounts by the Bank of the United States, because that bank, as well as the State banks, are going on with their ordinary discounts. This is true, but the gentleman from Maryland has forgotten that this delegation stated that the bank, upon the rejection of their memorial by the House of Representatives, had contracted their discounts, and that a correspondent contraction had taken place in the discounts of the State banks which had produced the pressure; and that the pressure had spread alarm and dismay through the city. That before they left the city, the directors of the Bank of the United States had come to an understanding with the directors of the State banks, all of whom had determined to resume and continue their ordinary discounts until the last hour. Notwithstanding the banks had resumed their discounts, the panic which had been produced did not cease, and the scarcity of money, and the distrust which had taken place, still continue to exist in Philadelphia.

The gentleman from Maryland admits expressly that the transmission of your public money for the payment of the Army and Navy must be effected through the agency of banks, but contends that that object can be effected as well by the State banks as by a Bank of the United States. My friend from Kentucky (Mr. Pope) said, that the great characteristic difference between the present Government and that which existed under the old articles of confederation, is, that the present Government has within itself the means of executing its own measures, without relying upon the State governments; whereas the old Congress had to rely upon the States for the execution of the measures which it had previously devised and adopted.

The gentleman from Maryland, in speaking of the means which had been resorted to, to procure the renewal of the charter, says that we have not procured memorials to be presented to Congress praying that the charter might not be renewed—we have not procured pamphlets to be written, published, and laid upon the tables of members, proving the unconstitutionality and inutility of the bank—we have not imposed upon the credulity of honest mechanics and manufacturers, and by that means procured delegations to be sent to pray for the rejection of the bank memorial. Surely, sir, the gentleman did not by these declarations mean to insinuate that any one of those gentlemen who support the bill upon your table, have had any agency in procuring any application to be made in favor of the bank. I know that gentleman's respect for himself; his respect for the Senate; his respect for the individual members of this body, as well as his respect for the general rules of propriety, exclude the possibility of his making such an insinuation. [Mr. Smith explained, by saying, I exclude every idea of such an insinuation.] Sir, I will tell the honorable gentleman from Maryland, what has been done by those who are opposed to the renewal of the charter. I do not mean the members of the Senate who are opposed to it, but those who have attempted to inflame public opinion upon this question. Letters, sir, have been written from this place to induce the State Legislatures to instruct their members to oppose the renewal of the charter of the bank. I will ask the honorable gentleman from Maryland whether he does not know that letters have been written for that purpose?

The gentleman from Maryland has said, and I am extremely sorry that he has, that the Bank of the United States had their agents in this city for two sessions, intriguing with members of Congress to obtain a renewal of their charter. I can assure that gentleman that I have had as little to do with the agents of the bank as he has had. If, sir, I was disposed to retort upon those who are opposed to the renewal of the charter, I would ask, if they have not seen published in the democratic papers of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, extracts of letters said to be written in the City of Washington, charging the members of Congress who are in favor of it with being bribed and corrupted, and with being disposed to sell the sovereignty of the nation to British capitalists? Have they not seen, in the same papers, conversations detailed with great minuteness, which it is pretended have passed between members of Congress, calculated to excite public odium and indignation against the friends of the bill now under consideration? Sir, I will not for a moment indulge an idea that these letters have been written or these conversations detailed by any member of this body. The idea that such has[Pg 308] been the fact is too humiliating, too degrading, not only to this honorable body, but to human nature itself; to be entertained but for a moment. And yet, sir, the author of a charge, as base as it is false, against my honorable friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Pope,) has, day after day, occupied a seat in a gallery of the Senate, to which no person has a right of access, but by an introduction of one of the members of this body. Sir, the highway robber, when compared with the infamous fabricator of this base attempt to assassinate the reputation of this honorable member, becomes a virtuous and estimable character. Such, sir, has been the warfare which has been waged against the renewal of the charter. Denunciations and charges of political apostacy are the measures by which we have been assailed from without and from within. Sir, I have shown that the bank question was no party question in its origin—that it was a question upon which an honest difference of opinion always has existed, and does now exist. And, shall I be charged with deserting the standard of the people, while I am treading in the footsteps of the great Father of his Country?

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) has said that he understood that a proposition was made in the Federal Convention to vest Congress with power to create corporations generally and without limitation. Had I been a member of that convention, I should most certainly have voted against the proposition, because it would have been unreasonable. Why should such a power have been delegated? Not certainly as necessary to execute the delegated powers, because they are very limited—a general power to create corporations would have enabled Congress to have created them ad libitum where there was no possible relation between them and any one of the delegated powers. The vote upon the incorporating the bank proves that if such a proposition had been submitted, it must have been rejected under a conviction that the power to create corporations is incident to such of the general powers as might require an act of incorporation completely to execute them, and fairly vested by the constitution in Congress; because ten of the members of that convention were in Congress, and voted for that bill—because General Washington signed that bill, because the only member of that convention now in Congress voted for the bill and is now in favor of renewing the charter; and because there were but eight members of that convention in Congress who voted against it.

Mr. President, I will now proceed to examine the objections which have been offered to the construction which I have given to several clauses of the constitution. In the observations which I made upon this part of the question when I was up before, I endeavored to prove that every construction that had been given to this instrument, upon the idea of its being perfect, was likely to be erroneous. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Giles) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Whiteside) still view it as a model of perfection. They are certainly at liberty still to entertain that opinion. Every man has a right to erect his idol in this land of liberty, and to fall down and worship it according to the dictates of his own conscience. I endeavored also to prove, that if we applied the same rule of construction to that clause of the constitution from which we endeavor to derive the right to create a bank, which has been applied to that from which the power to erect a light-house has been derived, the constitutional difficulty at once disappears. Until my friend from Virginia (Mr. Giles) and my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Anderson) had otherwise declared, I had always understood the right to erect light-houses had been exercised as incidental to the power to regulate commerce. It seems, however, that I am mistaken, and that this right is incidental to that clause which gives Congress the right to exercise exclusive legislation in certain places. The clause reads in the following words:

Now, says my friend from Tennessee, this clause gives the right to erect dockyards; and as dockyards must be on the seacoast, therefore Congress has the right to erect light-houses, because they must also be on the seacoast. This argument is extremely logical, nay, syllogistical, in form, but it is extremely illogical in substance. The conclusion drawn from the premises, is as necessary, as though I were to say, that because two and two makes four, therefore five and five makes twelve. The conclusion in the latter case is as necessary as in the former. But my honorable friend from Virginia (Mr. Giles) derives it from the authority given in this clause, to erect other needful buildings. But the question recurs, needful for what? Why, certainly, for the purposes before specified. What are they? Forts, magazines, arsenals, and dockyards. If this clause gives any authority to erect forts, magazines, arsenals, and dockyards, the other needful buildings spoken of must be needful for the specified purposes. I should suppose that no man, who spends only a few days in this city, can be at a loss to determine what is comprehended under the term "other needful buildings." Let him go to the dockyard, nicknamed a navy-yard in this city, and he will there find a little town of "other needful buildings" in the words of the constitution. But, sir, I deny that this clause of the constitution expressly gives any right, but that of exercising exclusive legislation in the places[Pg 309] to be accepted or purchased for the purpose therein specified. The right to erect forts, magazines, and arsenals, is fairly incidental to the right of declaring war, and of raising armies; and the right to erect dockyards is fairly incidental to the right of providing and maintaining a navy. But if for the sake of argument I should admit that the right to erect forts, &c., is given in this clause, how can it be proved that the right to erect a light-house is also given? Forts, magazines, arsenals, and dockyards, are enumerated, and as the constitution says that all powers not expressly given are retained, if the right to erect forts, magazines, &c., is given in this clause, most clearly the right to erect light-houses is retained by the States, because it is not to be found in the enumeration contained in the clause. When I had the honor of addressing the Senate before I questioned the authority of the State governments to create banks; I then stated, and I again explicitly state, that it is with reluctance that I have felt it my duty to make any inquiry into the constitutional right of the State governments to incorporate banks. The State Legislatures ought to have recollected the Spanish proverb, which says that those who live in glass-houses ought not to throw stones. Before they undertook to question the constitutional authority of Congress, they ought to have thoroughly examined the foundation upon which their own right rested. The honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Giles) says that the construction which I have given to that part of the constitution which prohibits the States from emitting bills of credit, would apply equally to promissory notes given by one individual to another under the laws of a State, as to a bank bill. Permit me to inquire of that gentleman whether he ever saw a law authorizing one man to give another his promissory note? He may search the pandects of Justinian; he may turn over the leaves of the musty volumes written upon the common law, from the days of Bracton and Fleta down to the present day, and his search will be in vain. For the right to make contracts, the right to give promissory notes, is antecedent to, and independent of all municipal law. The gentleman will find laws and decisions in abundance, regulating the effect of endorsements and other collateral circumstances, and prescribing the manner of enforcing the payment of promissory notes, but he will never find a law giving the right to execute the promissory note. But it is said that the bills of credit, which the States are prohibited from emitting, must be bills of credit emitted on the credit of the State. If this distinction should be well founded, many of the State banks are still subject to the charge of unconstitutionality, because in many of them the States are directly interested, and wherever that is the case, their bank bills are bills of credit emitted on the credit of the State. But the correctness of this distinction may well be denied, because the restriction is as general as it could possibly be made. But it is said that this restriction applies only to bills of credit which are made a legal tender in the payment of debts; that bills of credit, designated in the constitution, are ex vi termini a legal tender. For the correctness of this exposition, an appeal is made to the restriction which immediately follows it, which restrains the right of the States to make anything but gold and silver a legal tender in the payment of debts. It appears to me that the latter restriction excludes most emphatically the construction contended for. If the States are prohibited from emitting bills of credit, it would have been, to say the least of it, wholly nugatory to say they should not make them a legal tender. If the bills are not emitted, it is impossible that they can be made a legal tender. To suppose that the restriction upon the right of the States to make any thing but gold and silver legal tender has any connection with or influence upon the restriction to emit bills of credit, is as absurd as to suppose that the Decalogue, after having declared that "thou shalt do no murder," should have added, but, if you will murder, you shall not rob and strike the dead. The construction of the restraint upon the right to make any thing but gold or silver a tender, is that they shall not make specific articles, as tobacco or cotton, a tender, as was the case in some of the States.

But it is said that the history of the States will show that the bills of credit specified in the constitution were those only which were a legal tender in the payment of debts. Let us examine this point, according to the rule of construction applied to another clause in the constitution by a large majority of both Houses of Congress during the present session. Another clause in the constitution gives Congress the power to admit new States into the Union under two limitations: 1st. That no new State shall be formed within the limits of any State without the consent of the State; and, 2d. That no new State should be formed by the junction of two or more States without the consent of such States, and also of Congress. These limitations prove that the formation of new States, within the limits of the United States, was in view of the convention at the time that this clause was adopted; and the subsequent clause, which gives Congress the power to make rules for the government of its Territories, proves that these Territories were at that moment under consideration. In addition to these reasons for believing that the framers of the constitution had no idea of forming new States, beyond the limits of the United States, those who were opposed to the admission of Orleans as a State contended that the history of the United States proves that the power to erect new States and admit them into the Union was intended to be confined to new States within the limits of the United States at the formation of the constitution, and that a different construction would disparage the rights of the original States, and, of course, be a vio[Pg 310]lation of the constitution. What reply did the majority of Congress give to this train of reasoning? They said that the right to admit new States cannot be subject to any other limitations or restrictions than those which are contained in the clause which gives the right, and as there is no restriction upon the right to erect new States without the then limits of the United States, Congress have an unlimited right to erect and admit them into the Union. Let us apply the same rule of construction to the restriction of the right of the States to emit bills of credit. The restriction is a general one; it has no exceptions; and every attempt to make exceptions ought to be repelled by the answer which was given to those who opposed the right of Congress to admit the Territory of Orleans into the Union as a State. The construction I have contended for gains additional weight when we consider the restriction which immediately precedes that under consideration. No State shall coin money, emit bills of credit, &c. Bills of credit are but the representatives of money. The constitution gives Congress the right to coin money, and to regulate its value. It takes from the States the right to coin money and to emit bills of credit. Why give to Congress the right to coin money and regulate its value? Because the interest of the nation requires that the current coin of the nation should be uniform both as to its species and value. If this is the true reason why the right of coining money and fixing its value was given to Congress, does not the right to issue that which is to be the representative of this coin; which, in fact, is to usurp its place; which is to be the real currency of the nation, necessarily belong to Congress? Does not the right to create a bank, which shall issue this representative of money, come within the same reason? I think it does.

To the fervid imagination of my friend from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) this power to create a bank appears to be more terrific than was the lever of Archimedes to the frightened imagination of the Romans, when they beheld their galleys suddenly lifted up and whirled about in the air, and in a moment plunged into the bosom of the ocean. Are these apprehensions founded in reason, or are they the chimeras of a fervid and perturbed imagination? What limitation does the constitution contain upon the power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, duties, and excises? None but that they shall be uniform; which is no limitation of the amount which they can lay and collect. What limitation does it contain upon the power to raise and support armies? None other than that appropriations shall not be made for a longer term than two years. What restriction is to be found in it upon the right to provide and maintain a navy? None. What upon the right to declare war and make peace? None, none. Thus the constitution gives to the Government of the United States unlimited power over your purses—unlimited power to raise armies and provide navies—unlimited power to make war and peace, and you are alarmed; you are terrified at the power to create a bank to aid it in the management of its fiscal operations. Sir, nothing short of my most profound respect for honorable gentlemen, who have frightened themselves with this bugbear, could induce me to treat the subject seriously. Gentlemen have said that they are alarmed at the exercise of this power, and I am bound to believe them. Sir, after giving Congress the right to make war and peace; the right to impose taxes, imposts, duties, and excises, ad libitum; the right to raise and support armies without restriction as to number or term of service; the right to provide and maintain a navy without a limitation, I cannot bring myself to tremble at the exercise of a power incidental to only one of these tremendous grants of power. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) contends that we have attempted to give a degree of weight and force to what we are pleased to call precedents, to which they would not be entitled in those tribunals from which we derive all our ideas of precedents. I am happy to find that my friend from Virginia (Mr. Giles) agrees with me in opinion upon this subject. Indeed the principal difference between that gentleman and myself is confined to the question of expedience. He thinks that the construction which has been given to the constitution ought to be considered as conclusive; and that great inconvenience will be produced by unsettling what ought to be considered as finally settled and adjudged.

Sir, I have closed the observations which I thought it my duty to make in reply to the comments which have been made upon the remarks which I had previously submitted to the consideration of this honorable body. If, sir, I preferred my political standing in the State which I have the honor to represent (and, sir, I do not profess to have any out of it) to the public welfare, I should rejoice at the success of the motion which has been made by the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Anderson.) But, sir, as I believe the public welfare infinitely more important than any fleeting popularity which an individual like myself can expect to enjoy, I shall most sincerely regret the success of that motion. Sir, I have said but little about the degree of distress which will flow from the dissolution of the bank, because I have not that kind of evidence which would enable me to judge of it with any degree of accuracy. The convulsed state of the European nations; the immense losses which our commerce has sustained by the operation of the decrees and orders of the tyrants of the land and the ocean, imperiously admonish us to beware of making untried and dangerous experiments. By supporting this institution, the tottering credit of the commercial class of your citizens may be upheld, until the storm shall have passed over. By overturning this great moneyed institution at the present crisis, you[Pg 311] may draw down to undistinguished ruin thousands of your unfortunate and unoffending fellow-citizens.

The question was then taken on striking out the first section of the bill, (equivalent to a rejection,) when it appeared that there were for the motion 17, against it 17, as follows:

The Senate being equally divided, it became the duty of the Vice President to decide the question by his vote; previously to which he made the following observations:

Saturday, March 2.

Bank of the United States.

Mr. Clay, from the committee to whom was referred, on the 25th February, the memorial of the stockholders of the Bank of the United States, praying that an act of Congress might be passed to continue the corporate powers of the bank for a further period, to enable it to settle such of its concerns as may be depending on the 3d of March, 1811, made the following report:

The report was ordered to lie on the table.

Claim of General Wilkinson.

Mr. Bradley, from the committee to whom was referred the memorial of General James Wilkinson, praying to be remunerated for moneys disbursed in the service of the United States, made the following report:

The report and accompanying documents were ordered to lie on the table.

The Senate adjourned to 6 o'clock this evening.

Sunday Evening, 6 o'clock, March 3.

Adjournment.

Resolved, That Messrs. Turner and Condit be a committee on the part of the Senate, with such committee as the House of Representatives may join, to wait on the President of the United States and notify him, that, unless he may have any further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress, they are ready to adjourn.

Ordered, That the Secretary acquaint the House of Representatives therewith, and request the appointment of a committee on their part.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate, that the House concur in the resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to wait upon the President of the United States, and notify him of the intended recess, and have appointed a committee on their part.

Mr. Turner, from the joint committee, reported that they had waited upon the President of the United States, who informed them that he had no further communications to make to the two Houses of Congress.

Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House of Representatives that the Senate, having finished the business before them, are about to adjourn. Whereupon, the President adjourned the Senate without day.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE,

Thursday, January 3, 1811.

The following confidential Message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. Edward Coles, his Secretary:

The Message was read.

On motion by Mr. Clay,

Resolved, That the Message from the President of the United States, of this day, which has been just read, be referred to a committee, with leave to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. Clay, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Smith of Maryland, and Mr. Anderson, were appointed the committee.

Monday, January 7.

Mr. Clay, from the committee, appointed the 3d instant, on the confidential Message of the President of the United States, reported a declaration and bill to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the country lying east of the Perdido, and south of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes; which were read, and passed to a second reading.

Tuesday, January 8.

The bill to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the country lying east of the Perdido, and south of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes, was read the second time; and, on motion by Mr. Clay, it was considered as in Committee of the Whole.

On motion, by Mr. Bayard, to amend the bill, by striking out of the first section thereof the words, "In the event of such arrangement for that purpose as shall have been made with the local authority which may then exist;" and, in lieu thereof, to insert the words, "In case an arrangement has been or shall be made with the local authority of the said territory for delivering up the possession of the same to the United States:"

On motion, by Mr. Gilman, a division of the question was called for: and the question being put on striking out, it was determined in the affirmative.

The question was then taken upon inserting the proposed amendment, and determined in the affirmative—yeas 20, nays 12, as follows:

On motion, by Mr. Bayard, it was agreed to amend the fourth section of the bill, by inserting, after the word "enacted," the words, "That in case possession of the territory aforesaid shall be obtained by the United States, as aforesaid."

Wednesday, January 9.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territory lying east of the Perdido, and south of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes.

On motion, by Mr. Clay, it was agreed further to amend the bill, by adding to the first section the remainder of the original second section; and by adopting the original third and fourth sections, as the second and third sections of the bill; and having gone through the amendments, the President reported the bill to the House accordingly.

On the question, "Shall this bill be engrossed and read a third time, as amended?" it was determined in the affirmative.

Mr. Anderson submitted the following motion:

Which was read; and on the question to agree thereto, it was determined in the affirmative—yeas 20, nays 6, as follows:

Mr. Cutts, from the committee, reported the bill last mentioned, correctly engrossed.

A confidential message was received from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Cutts, two members of that body, with the following resolution, in which they ask the concurrence of the Senate:

[Pg 314]

Congress of the United States,

In House of Representatives, Jan. 8, 1811.

The resolution was read, and passed to a second reading.

Thursday, January 10.

So it was Resolved, That this bill do pass, and that the title thereof be, "An act to enable the President of the United States, under certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying east of the river Perdido, and south of the State of Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes."

On motion, by Mr. Clay,

Resolved, That a committee of two be appointed to carry the said bill to the House of Representatives, and ask their concurrence therein.

Ordered, That Mr. Clay and Mr. Bayard be the committee.

Mr. Clay reported that the committee had performed the service assigned them.

Friday, January 11.

Mr. Anderson, from the committee appointed on the subject, reported the confidential resolution from the House of Representatives, with the following amendment:

Which report was read, and considered as in Committee of the Whole; and, on motion to adopt the report, a division of the question was called for by Mr. Dana, and the question to strike out was agreed to, and the amendment was adopted; and the President reported the resolution to the House accordingly.

Ordered, That the resolution pass to the third reading, as amended.

[Pg 315]

ELEVENTH CONGRESS.—THIRD SESSION.
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Monday, December 3, 1810.

This being the day appointed by the constitution for the meeting of Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives appeared and took their seats, to wit:

Several new members, to wit: from Connecticut, Ebenezer Huntington, returned to serve in the place of Samuel W. Dana, appointed a Senator of the United States; from New Jersey, John A. Scudder, in the place of James Cox, deceased; and from Maryland, Robert Wright, in the place of John Brown, resigned; appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole House, being present, the Clerk of the House was directed to acquaint the Senate therewith.

On motion of Mr. Dawson, a committee was appointed on the part of the House, jointly with the committee appointed on the part of the Senate, to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications he may be pleased to make to them.

The Clerk of the House was directed to procure newspapers from any number of offices that the members may elect, provided that the expense do not exceed the amount of three daily papers.

The House then adjourned until to-morrow morning eleven o'clock.

Tuesday, December 4.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Richard Cutts, Ebenezer Seaver, and Charles Turner, jr.; from Rhode Island, Elisha R. Potter; from New York, Thomas R. Gold; from Pennsylvania, Robert Jenkins; and from Virginia, Burwell Bassett and John W. Eppes, appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A new member, to wit, from New York, Samuel L. Mitchill, returned to serve in the place of William Denning, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

Jonathan Jennings, the Delegate from the Indiana Territory, and Julian Poydras, the Delegate from the Territory of Orleans, appeared, and took their seats.

A message from the Senate informed the House that a quorum of the Senate is assembled,[Pg 316] and ready to proceed to business. They have appointed a committee on their part, jointly with the committee appointed on the part of this House, to inform the President of the United States, that a quorum of the two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive any communications that he may be pleased to make to them.

Mr. Dawson, from the joint committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States, reported that the committee had performed the service assigned them, and that the President answered that he would make a communication to the two Houses of Congress to-morrow at twelve o'clock.

Wednesday, December 5.

Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, Daniel Blaisdell and John C. Chamberlain; from Massachusetts, J. Quincy, Samuel Taggart, and Laban Wheaton; from Vermont, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, and Jonathan H. Hubbard; from Connecticut, Lewis B. Sturges; from New York, Vincent Matthews, Peter B. Porter, and Ebenezer Sage; and from Rhode Island, Richard Jackson, jr., appeared, and took their seats in the House.

A Message was received from the President of the United States, which was read at the Clerk's table.

[For this Message see Senate Proceedings of this date, ante page.]

The documents accompanying the Message having been read, in part, the House adjourned.

Thursday, December 6.

The Speaker laid before the House certificates of the election of Ebenezer Huntington, of Connecticut; John A. Scudder, of New Jersey; Robert Wright, of Maryland; and William McKinley, returned to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of John G. Jackson, of Virginia; which were referred to the Committee of Elections.

Friday, December 7.

Another member, to wit, from New Jersey, William Helms, appeared, and took his seat in the House; also, a new member, to wit, from Maryland, Samuel Ringgold, returned to serve in the place of Roger Nelson, resigned, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.

Monday, December 10.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Gideon Gardner; from New York, Gurdon S. Mumford; from Pennsylvania, John Porter; from Virginia, John Love and Daniel Sheffey; and from North Carolina, Lemuel Sawyer, appeared, and took their seats.

The Speaker laid before the House a certificate of the election of William T. Barry, elected to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Benjamin Howard, of Kentucky; which was referred to the Committee of Elections.

Tuesday, December 11.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, Herman Knickerbacker; from Virginia, Edwin Gray and Jacob Swoope; and from South Carolina, Richard Wynn, appeared, and took their seats.

Wednesday, December 12.

Two other members, to wit: from North Carolina, Meshack Franklin and William Kennedy, appeared, and took their seats.

Thursday, December 13.

Another member, to wit, from Georgia, Dennis Smelt, appeared, and took his seat; also two other new members, to wit: Joseph Allen, from Massachusetts, in the place of Jabez Upham, resigned, and William T. Barry, from Kentucky, in the place of Benjamin Howard, resigned, appeared, were qualified, and took their seats.

Apportionment Bill.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill to apportion the Representatives according to the third enumeration of the people of the United States.

The question recurring on filling the blank with the number of souls which should entitle to a Representative—

Mr. Macon said he was decidedly of opinion that the ratio ought to be fixed, before the result of the census was known. He had no objection to a moderate increase of the number of members; if they amounted to so many that one side of the House could not hear the other side speak, debate was at end, and the purposes of deliberative legislation defeated. He should have liked the bill better, he said, if it had declared that the House of Representatives should hereafter consist of a certain number of members, and had left the apportionment then to be made according to the population. On the subject of electioneering, he said it became him at least to say, that that portion of the people who sent him here, had not been concerned in it. Whatever might have been the practice elsewhere, so far as concerned his constituents, there had been no going about or haranguing. And, on the subject of electioneering, said he, wherever the people are free, there will be electioneering. It belongs to free government. Possibly different parts of the country may differ as to the mode. In some, men go themselves about electioneering; in others, their friends do it for them. In some, newspaper publications help an election; in others, they destroy it. In some places, I have heard, the sacred pulpit is not free from it; in others, a divine would be destroyed that would attempt it. There was not[Pg 317] more electioneering South, Mr. M. believed, than elsewhere; certain he was that candidates could not there spend the sums of money which he had heard of being spent elsewhere in an election. He concluded by saying he was in favor of a moderate increase of representatives. He was not afraid that, from a multitude of counsellors, nothing would be done; it was quite as much to be feared from too few that they would act rashly.

Friday, December 14.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, Abijah Bigelow, elected to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of William Stedman, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

Apportionment Bill.

Mr. Gold considered this bill as a very important one, as fixing the construction to be put on a provision of the constitution. While, on the one hand, it might be admitted that business would be in general better done by a small number of Representatives, yet, on the other hand, there were important considerations in favor of a large number, as gentlemen would find by referring to the discussions at the period of the adoption of the constitution. It was then feared by some that the representation of so great a people would be too small. If gentlemen would refer to a number of papers, drawn up by an association of gentlemen, at that time, and published under the title of "The Federalist," they would find various arguments used to induce the Legislature to make the representation full; so that, at that period, no apprehensions had existed of the Representatives becoming too numerous. On the contrary, it was supposed that the public confidence would be impaired by having a small delegation. In adverting to the relaxed state of the Union, and how much it was exposed to be shook by attempts to weaken it, it was supposed that public confidence would be inspired, and general satisfaction given, by the selection of a large number. It was true, Mr. G. said, that representation might swell so much as to operate to the exclusion of legislation; but the House of Representatives would not, even if the present ratio were retained, be so numerous as many other legislative bodies in the Union. He had no objection to increasing the numbers of the House of Representatives to such an amount as would permit public business to be done with facility. Gentlemen might differ as to the precise ratio; but, while they argued in favor of a small number, from the inconvenience of a large delegation, he hoped they would conceive with him that well-grounded apprehensions might be entertained of the evils which would result from its being too small.

Mr. Mitchill said he was in favor of the largest number proposed; and, not having been able to obtain that, he should vote for the largest on which a majority could agree. In the district represented by his colleague (Mr. Mumford) and himself, there was probably one hundred and twenty thousand souls, and yet he had not heard any murmuring that they were not adequately represented.

Congress, Mr. M. said, did not convene here to legislate on all the subjects of the rights of citizens. Our Government is, he contended, a peculiar piece of machinery, an imperium in imperio. The Representatives to Congress left behind them Legislatures, whose province it was to take care of the personal rights and the rights of property of our citizens. With these concerns, said Mr. M., we have nothing to do. We meet here under a constitution expressly framed and devised for legislating on select subjects, which, on account of the generality of their nature, could not be confided to the several States. When, then, we consider the narrow grounds we have to legislate on, that our great privileges are left at home, we shall be convinced that there is no occasion that this body should be as numerous as if we were concerned in the great questions of property and right, which are secured by the constitution, under the guardianship of the State Legislatures, and of the courts for the furthering of justice. If I were to quote a precedent of a Legislature for commanding influence, and for wisdom and sagacity in carrying us through an arduous contest whilst struggling for our liberties, I should quote the Old Congress—limited in number, but remarkable for the honesty and fidelity with which they performed what a more numerous body could not have accomplished. And, if I wished to cite an instance of the evils to be dreaded from a numerous assembly, I should quote the National Convention of France, where representatives, assembling in great number, exhibited such a spectacle of disorder as I hope we shall never, by a multitude of counsellors, run the risk of imitating.

Mr. Pitkin said that he had not expected that a bill of so much importance would have progressed so far, and gone through the Committee of the Whole in so rapid a manner as this had. What, he asked of the House, was settled by the passage of this bill? Nothing was, or could be settled by the present Congress, unless the returns were made from the different States of the number of inhabitants in each State, before the bill became a law; for Congress alone could designate and specify the number of Representatives which each State should send. The laws heretofore passed, designating the number of Representatives, had, at the same time, declared the ratio, and specified the number of Representatives of each State. Congress alone were competent to decide on the legality of the returns, and on their act alone could the State Legislatures proceed. Mr. P. presumed no member would say that it should be left to the Executive, or any Department of the Government, to say how many Representatives each State should send to Congress. The present Congress might fix the ratio as they pleased, but it[Pg 318] would not be obligatory on the next Congress, who could, and undoubtedly would, modify or reverse it as they should think proper. This bill was, therefore, premature, and, in fact, would not settle the principle which it proposed to decide. He was, therefore, on this ground, opposed to the passage of this bill; and he believed the inconvenience of deciding it now would be greater than if the business were to rest until after the returns were made.

Mr. Quincy said that the agitation of this question at the present moment had taken him as much by surprise as it had the gentleman from Connecticut. He had no idea that a question so pregnant with interest would be hurried through the House in this way. His object in rising was to obtain a postponement of the question till some time in the next week, for the consideration of a point, which to his mind was important. He objected to the bill on the principle that it would be a violation of the constitution to pass it. It went to establish a ratio which, in its effect, must be abortive. The constitution says:

The constitution then had specifically made it the duty of the House to apportion the representation of each State according to its respective numbers. Was it not, he asked, infinitely absurd and a direct violation of the constitution, to apportion the representation before these numbers were known? When the constitution had made it a duty to do a thing according to a standard prescribed, would they do that thing before that standard could be in possession of the House? Suppose that in 1791, before the numbers of the States were known, Congress had undertaken to fix the ratio of representation—would not the Hall have rung with the exclamations that it was a violation of the constitution? And how would this bill, Mr. Q. asked, less violate the constitution than such an act would have done? For, as to the numbers to be ascertained by the present census, Congress were as little competent to decide as they were before any census was taken. This was the ground on which he objected to the bill as unconstitutional, and which he wished an opportunity thoroughly to examine. He therefore moved that the bill lie on the table.

Mr. Fisk said it had been deemed desirable to fix the ratio before the numbers of each State were ascertained, so as to avoid the difficulty which would arise from the fractions, and to afford an accommodation to the State Legislatures, which would be in session before the next meeting of Congress. It would indeed be necessary to pass a law declaring the number of Representatives to be sent by each State; but that would be a mere matter of form, if the ratio were previously ascertained by law.

Mr. F. treated the idea of this bill's being unconstitutional, as altogether unwarranted by fact; for it did not fix the apportionment, but merely the ratio, according to which the Representatives should be apportioned among the States when their respective numbers were known.

Mr. Wright was in favor of postponing, and decidedly opposed to the bill. He was against it, because it proposed to bestow on others a power residing in Congress. If this law were to pass, could the Secretary of State be authorized to declare the number of Representatives to which each State was entitled? Could Congress transfer to him legislative power, and authorize him to declare of how many members this body should consist? He presumed not. The power was vested in Congress, and not in the Secretary of State. But gentlemen were desirous now to fix the number of souls which should entitle to a Representative—and why? That the State Legislatures, understanding the number of Representatives to which they are entitled from knowing the census, may proceed to district their States, in anticipation of the law to be passed by Congress. But their acts would not be conclusive, because Congress might change the ratio, and they would have to undo all they had done. Mr. W. hoped that this business would be postponed, until, as heretofore, Congress would be possessed of all the information of which the nature of the case would admit. When the census was received from the President of the United States they would be much better able to act than now. In this case, Mr. W. said he held himself imperiously bound to follow the steps of his predecessors. He held it a correct maxim in general, that the practice of to-day should be the precedent for to-morrow. Why need they decide this business immediately? There was yet some months in the session, and time enough to reflect on the subject. Why legislate by halves? If this law were passed, Mr. W. asked, was it perfect? Did it declare to how many Representatives each State should be entitled? He said he could refer to cases in which errors had occurred in the census; and it was in the power of the House alone to correct any errors which might have escaped the Secretary of State. In Maryland a mistake had occurred in the last enumeration, of thirty or forty thousand souls. He believed that a great portion of the district comprising Cecil and Hartford counties had been omitted; and he recollected perfectly well that the error was corrected; and, by turning his eye to the proceedings of that day, he could see other errors. He wished, when the[Pg 319] House acted, that they should do it understandingly, and with all the evidence before them of which the case was susceptible. He hoped the bill would be postponed until the returns of the census were received in the usual mode.

Mr. W. Alston opposed the postponement. He was as loth to depart from old practices as the gentleman from Maryland, if those practices were found to be good. But when they proved inconvenient or useless, it was certainly right to depart from them. What, then, had experience taught them on this subject? Why, that if the ratio was not fixed before the census was known, great inconvenience would result to many States. Congress, at their last session, being apprised of the circumstance, had in their law directed that complete returns should be made to the Secretary of State by the first of March next. It was well known that, if they did not fix the ratio before the first of March, they would not be able to fix it after; when the ratio was fixed, however, the apportionment would not be the work of an hour. If it became necessary to deprive a State of a Representative, he asked whether it would not be more palatable that it should be done now than after the census was known? The State deprived of a Representative could not complain; the ratio would affect it in the same proportion, whether it gave or took a member. That argument, therefore, was entitled to no consideration. Mr. A. expressed his surprise that the small States appeared to be opposed to a large ratio; for, if it would be an advantage on any side, it would be decidedly in favor of the small States. He thought, indeed, that the Representatives of the large States, in voting for a large ratio, had shown great magnanimity and liberality.

Mr. Goldsborough was in favor of postponement, and was sorry to see the bill attempted to be hurried through. Gentlemen had not maturely considered the subject, and, on reflection, would be convinced that their votes were, if not a direct, at least an indirect, violation of the constitution. This was premature legislation on what properly belonged to the next Congress, and which, act on it as they might, would unquestionably come before Congress at their next session. If it should be found that the ratio agreed on operated unfavorably on the numbers of any State or States, they would be anxious for a reconsideration of the subject. It would be immaterial whether the subject should be brought up by a bill de novo, or by a bill to repeal this, if it should indeed become a law; the ardor of discussion would be the same in either case. If this be admitted, the only argument in favor of the bill is done away. The constitution having directed that apportionment should be made accordingly to the whole census, Mr. G. said that he could not see how Congress could fix it before they knew what that census was. He did not know that every gentleman on the floor was ignorant of any of the returns; some might be already apprised of the returns of their own State. Each one made estimates no doubt, in his own mind, as to the probable result; and, for himself, Mr. G. said he had been endeavoring to make some sort of a calculation; and if the bill passed, and the ratio should prove unfavorable to the numbers of the State which he had the honor to represent, he should feel himself bound to move a repeal of the law; and they would have the whole discussion over again.

The question on the bill's laying on the table was carried—65 to 43.

And on motion, the House adjourned until Monday.

Monday, December 17.

Another member, to wit, from New York, John Nicholson, appeared, and took his seat in the House.

Tuesday, December 18.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, Barzillai Gannett, appeared, and took his seat.

George Poindexter, the delegate from the Mississippi Territory, also appeared, and took his seat.

Friday, December 21.

Two other members, to wit: from Virginia, John Clopton, and Walter Jones, appeared and took their seats; a new member, to wit, William McKinley, also from Virginia, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

Monday, December 24.

Three other members, to wit: William Hale, from New Hampshire; Benjamin Pickman, jr., from Massachusetts; and Thomas Newbold, from New Jersey, appeared, and took their seats.

Claims for Military Services in the Old French War.

Mr. Morrow, from the Committee on the Public Lands, made a report on the several petitions of the officers and soldiers, and the heirs of officers and soldiers who served in the British army in America, in the war between Great Britain and France; which was read, and the resolution therein contained concurred in by the House.

The report is as follows:

Monday, December 31.

Another member, to wit, from Delaware, Nicholas Van Dyke, appeared, and took his seat.

Wednesday, January 2, 1811.

Two other new members, to wit: from New Hampshire, Nathaniel A. Haven; and from Maryland, John Campbell, appeared, and took their seats.

Orleans Territory.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill for admitting the Territory of Orleans as a State into the Union.

Mr. Bibb said it was very far from his intention to oppose the passage of the bill. On the contrary, he was favorably disposed to it; but a difficulty had occurred to him which he would state as a reason for delaying a decision on the bill for the present. The bill proposed including in the State all that part of the Territory which lay west of the Perdido, &c. The President, by his Proclamation, although he had required its occupation, he declared that the right should be subject to negotiation. Now, if it became a State, would not all right of negotiation on the subject be taken from the President?

Mr. Barry said that the necessity of State government, the want of proper control by the General Government, and its inability to attend to the municipal concerns of the Territory, imperiously called upon Congress to erect it into a State. It was unimportant, as respected the ratio, that the bill should be delayed till that was ascertained. Although the precise population could not be ascertained, yet, from what had fallen from the gentlemen from Orleans and Mississippi Territories, it was probable that the Territory had already a right to become a State. Mr. B. said it was important that Congress should act on this subject, for a[Pg 321] variety of reasons. It was a point of the Union particularly important to the country which he represented. New Orleans commanded the river through which the whole productions of the Western and of some part of the Southern country were carried to market. It became important in another respect, that the people in that country should have the power of self-government. He alluded to the necessity, in the present posture of affairs, that they should have the power of self-preservation to protect themselves in the enjoyment of their rights, and that the power resulting from State sovereignty ought therefore to be extended to them at this time. The objection which has been urged, respecting the question of title, was equally unimportant. Admitted in its full force, it would only require a modification of the bill, reserving to Congress the power of changing the boundary of the Territory; and this would be a desirable modification because of the undefined limits of the Territory. This objection did not meet the merits of the bill, but merely suggested a modification. It was important now to act on the subject, because Congress had the power to impose conditions on the Territory. If they waited until it had attained a population of 60,000, they could not say no to the demands of these people.

Mr. Sheffey said he was not prepared to act on the subject, because the materials on which to decide were not before the House. Whilst he was disposed to treat the inhabitants of the Orleans Territory as brothers, and not as vassals, he was not ready to transfer the inheritance purchased by the blood of our fathers to foreigners. While he looked upon these people as equals, and was disposed to do them justice, he thought all they could demand at his hands was to be placed on that equality to which they were entitled. It had been said that the population was this much or that much. How much?—Mr. S. asked. Sixty thousand? Forty thousand? Thirty thousand? Would any gentleman who regarded his honor tell the House that there were 30,000 inhabitants in the undisputed Territory? He believed not. And would gentlemen favor this French population at the expense of their own interests and rights? It was true indeed that Ohio became a State before she had 60,000; but the ratio of representation was then but 30,000. If he were to reason on this subject, Mr. S. said he would say, under the fostering hand of the General Government, let them become accustomed to our Government, before those were permitted to govern themselves who had so lately emerged from despotism. He was not, he said, directly hostile to the admission of this Territory into the Union; but he made these observations in answer to speculations ushered in to lead the House from its duty. They ought to have the necessary information.

Mr. Macon said he would treat these people as he would the people of every other Territory. They were a part of the nation, and so ought to be considered. There ought to be no question as to what stock they sprung from; the true question was, ought they to be a State? The true policy, Mr. M. thought, was, as they were to become a part of the United States, to make them one and indivisible as soon as possible. They had already served a sufficient apprenticeship to the United States, but not under a free Government, for the Territorial governments were not free. The advantage of exacting of them the condition of using the same language, was a great one. How could they be made one with the United States unless by the use of the same language? Mr. M. wished to treat this Territory as well as the others, and no better; he would not treat one as a daughter and the other as a step-daughter. He was as willing now to make Orleans a State as he had been to make Ohio a State. The great object is to make us one people; to make this nation one. As to the Mississippi Territory, it had not served a much longer apprenticeship than Orleans, having only been acquired by the treaty with Spain in 1795. The people of Orleans possessed certainly as strong an attachment to the nation as could be expected from the time they had belonged to it. When the Spaniards invaded the Territory, they stepped forward promptly to repel them; and when some citizens of the old States forgot the love every honest heart owes to his country, they showed their attachment to the Union by the readiness with which they lent their aid to repel them. To make them a State would make that attachment still greater, and it was therefore advisable to act on the subject.

The committee now rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again; but before leave was granted, the House adjourned.

Friday, January 4.

Territory of Orleans.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for admitting the Territory of Orleans into the Union as an independent State, &c.

Mr. Wheaton.—Whenever a bill is offered for our sanction, in order that it may become a law, it is proper, before we give it such sanction, that we should inquire whether the subject of it is such as we have constitutional authority to legislate upon; and if so, whether, from a consideration of time and circumstances, it be expedient so to do.

It appears to me that the bill now before us is objectionable on both these grounds, and, if so, there is a double reason why it should not pass. A few moments will be sufficient for the remarks I have to make upon either; and, if they shall be deemed of no consequence, there will be this consolation, that they will have occupied but very little time.

The subject of this bill is the Orleans Territory, and the object of it, to form that Territory into a State, the people of which are to be[Pg 322] subject to the same duties, and entitled to the same privileges, as the people of the United States in their federative capacity. It will be observed that our constitution, by its enacting clause, was ordained and established for the then United States of America. The United States being thus included, implies an exclusion of all others. It may, therefore, be fairly concluded that those that framed this constitution, and those that adopted it, never intended that its immediate operation should extend to any people that did not then, or that should not thereafter be included within the limits of the United States; that they did not intend to enter into a partnership of this sort without some knowledge of those that should compose it, lest the improper conduct of some might end in the ruin of all. The Territory of Orleans certainly was not within the limits of the United States when the constitution was established. It was known to be otherwise. The people there were foreigners to us, and subjects of another Government. That it could not have been intended that the constitution should embrace these people and this Territory, may be argued from the extreme danger of carrying the principle into operation. If we may extend our limits at all, without the consent of the people, further than what is expressed in the constitution, who can tell where will be our ultimate bounds, or what number of States we may have in the Union? Purchase and conquest are objects of ambition. The great Napoleon may have more land to sell, and Spain now possess what she cannot retain. May we not, in time, have the whole of South America, some of the West India islands, and, possibly, Great Britain? And if so, upon the same principle that we form the Territory of Orleans into a State, we may form these Territories into as many separate States as we please, and admit them into the Union with all the powers and privileges that any of our States now possess and enjoy. Then what will become of the Old United States, who first entered into the compact contained in the constitution, and for whose benefit alone that instrument was made and executed. Instead of these new States being annexed to us, we shall be annexed to them, lose our independence, and become altogether subject to their control. Besides, it may be recollected, that, when our independence and national existence was acknowledged by the other nations of the world, the Territory now proposed to be received into the Union made no part of the United States so acknowledged; if, therefore, this be done, a jealousy may be created in those other nations, and, possibly, they may have some reason to complain that, in addition to the immense increase of population within our ancient limits, we should extend our boundaries so far as to include other countries. This, however, by those who justify the Governments of other nations in the pursuit of their projects for universal domination, will be thought deserving of very little consideration. But, it may be well questioned how far the taking of positions that may lead to war comports with that pacific disposition which the people of the United States have been so anxious to maintain; and, whether the obligation they have placed themselves under, by adopting the constitution, to guaranty to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion, can be made to extend to the Orleans Territory; or, whether the President can have any authority to send our militia there to repel any invasion or suppress any insurrection that may happen there, are inquiries worth some attention before we pass this act. And there will be found another difficulty in the way of carrying the object of it into full effect. If the people of that Territory are admitted into the Union as a State, on an equal footing with any of the now United States, they will have a right to send to our Legislature not only Representatives in proportion to their numbers, but, also, two Senators, and the constitution makes it a necessary qualification for a Senator that he should have been a citizen of the United States at least nine years, a period further back than it can be pretended that any of the people of that Territory ever belonged to the United States, unless they be emigrants, and have not, thereby, lost their citizenship. And a President of the United States they never can have from among their own people, unless he be yet to be born, for no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, can be eligible to the office of President. But, it has been said that Congress have already passed a law, wherein they have stipulated with those people, that they shall be formed into a State when they shall have gained a certain number of inhabitants. In answer to this, it is sufficient to say that, if it be incorrect to promise to do a wrong thing, it is more incorrect still to do it. If this bill be unconstitutional, so was that law.

But, in opposition to all this, it will, undoubtedly, be said that several new States have been formed by Congress since the adoption of the constitution, and that they are well authorized by that instrument. This is admitted. "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." But, if we look into the article where this authority is to be found, we shall find it applicable to the territories then included within the limits of the United States, or to a division of some of the States then already formed; beyond which, it is believed, this authority has never been exercised. The Old Confederation did expressly authorize the admission of Canada into the Union, but the present constitution does not. If such an authority had been proposed to have been given to Congress by it, perhaps it had never been adopted.

If, however, it should be believed that this bill might pass into a law, in strict conformity with the spirit and letter of the constitution, it[Pg 323] is apprehended that the measure would be extremely impolitic and inexpedient at the present moment. We have not even the possession of a part of the country proposed to be embraced by this bill, and both title and possession have been disputed. It is true we have bought the whole country, and dearly paid for it, but still, if we have not a just title, we ought not to expect to hold it; and it is now admitted to be a subject of negotiation; and, even if our titles shall be found to be good, and we gain a peaceable possession, still, if we have a right to buy a thing, I know not why we may not sell it. But, as the expediency of this measure has been considered by other gentlemen, I forbear to add to the remarks I have already made.

Mr. Miller said it would be observed that there were two applications to this House for admission into the Union as States; one from the Mississippi Territory, and the other from the Orleans Territory. The latter only, said he, is contemplated by the bill before you. Neither of these Territories have the number of inhabitants required by law to enable them to demand their admission into the Union as a matter of right. It may, therefore, be said with propriety to be an application for a favor, going directly to an amicable discussion, and which we may grant or refuse without running the risk of breaking any legal or moral obligation.

It has been objected against this bill that the population of the State proposed will not be American. Without intimating how far this consideration may have influence on my mind, under the circumstances in which that country has been lately placed, I cannot, however, but remark that it is natural for man to carry his feelings and prejudices about him. I was born in Virginia, sir, and I have not yet lost some of my Virginia feelings, notwithstanding an absence of fifteen years, and I cannot see why we should expect the people of Orleans to act and feel differently from other people, more particularly, when the French nation is towering so far above the other nations of the earth; they will have a secret pride in their glory, they will have some attachments, to what extent I cannot say; but, inasmuch as we know that if we send Paddy to Paris, that Paddy he will come back, the idea is certainly not unworthy of our consideration.

The bill on your table has another objection, of some weight with me, in relation to its policy. You propose to do them a favor by granting them an admission to the rank of other States before they can legally demand it, and, at the same time, you propose terms beyond which they cannot go. This, sir, resembles very much a polite invitation to walk in, but under an injunction to see that your feet are well cleaned, and your toes turned out. It is a niggardly sort of policy that I am sorry to see engrafted in the bill. If you design to be liberal, be so; do not destroy your liberality by an ungenerous sentiment.

Again, sir, there are objections to the bill, as presented, that renders it impossible for me to give it my sanction. It will be seen, sir, that the bill proposes to annex that portion of West Florida in dispute between this and the Spanish Government to the State to be formed out of the Territory of Orleans. The President has declared to the world that this portion of the country, in our hands, shall be subject to mutual arrangements, hereafter to be entered into between the two Governments. But, once annex it to a State and the power to negotiate ceases. What power have we to negotiate about the territory of any of the States? We have none.

Again, sir, I never will consent that the bay of Mobile shall be annexed to any State which includes New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi, unless, indeed, they are both included in the same State with the whole country north, up to the Tennessee line.

If you annex West Florida to the State to be composed of the Orleans Territory, they will then possess a narrow slip of the country, including nearly the whole of the seacoast of Orleans, (including the bay of Mobile,) with a most extensive up-country, composed of a great part of the Mississippi Territory, and, I may say, Tennessee, wholly dependent on them, perhaps, for leave to go out into the bay, and, certainly, for the improvement of its navigation. And this, sir, is rendered more probable, as we know men act mostly for their own interest. And, as New Orleans, from its present population, will govern the councils of that State, let me ask, sir, if it will not be their interest, as much as possible, to divert the 'trade and capital from the Mobile to the Mississippi? And what security have we that she will not do so? None; and from the nature of our Government can have none.

Upon the plan I propose, from the extent of the country proposed to be annexed, the people who inhabit it, in time, will have the preponderance, and their interest will dictate the proper course to be pursued in relation to the free passage of the Mobile.

We may, also, with some certainty, pronounce that the population of the Mississippi, if it is not now, will, in a few years, be the greatest slave population, in proportion to the whites, of any country in the United States. Is it, then, of no consequence to have those settlements so connected with others, composed of whites, as that they may, at all times, be able, within the limits of their jurisdiction, to suppress insurrections of that sort? Is not this a consideration that ought to be taken into account? I, therefore, move you, sir, to strike out the whole of the bill, from the words "a bill," for the purpose of inserting a section by way of amendment, the effect of which will be to consolidate both the Territories into a single State, which will include the whole of the country belonging to the United States, east of the Mississippi, and south of the State of Tennessee. This plan[Pg 324] will avoid the objections made to the want of numbers, and will give, also, an American population to the State, if that should be desirable; and will, also, avoid the difficulty occasioned from the situation in which West Florida is at this time placed. To this plan I can see but one objection that ought to have any sort of influence, and that, sir, exists more in idea than reality. It is to the size of the proposed State. Divide and subdivide this country as you will, their interests, in a political point of view, will be the same. Their representation in this House will neither be increased nor diminished by a consolidation. In the Senate, the plan proposed is greatly to the advantage of the old States. In that House, they will have but two Senators instead of four or six, according to the number of States that may be made.

There is, also, no legal objection to this plan. The Treaty of 1803 with the French Republic, only provides for their admission into the Union, without regard to their territorial limits, and there is no law repugnant to the plan.

Mr. Gholson said that the observations of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Macon) had rendered it unnecessary for him to make many of the remarks to the committee which he had intended. In no point of view, said Mr. G., in which this subject has been considered, can I perceive any reason for adopting the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Miller.) If that gentleman will only advert to the treaty of cession between France and the United States, and to the act of Congress passed pursuant to that treaty, he will readily discover that the amendment he proposes cannot be sanctioned without a manifest violation of public faith. By the third article of the treaty, it is stipulated that "the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States." On the second of March, 1805, Congress proceeded by an act of legislation to fulfil this engagement with France; and accordingly, by the 7th section of that act, provided "that whenever it shall be ascertained by an actual census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the Territory of Orleans, taken by proper authority, that the number of free inhabitants included therein shall amount to sixty thousand, they shall thereupon be authorized to form for themselves a constitution and State government, and be admitted into the Union upon the footing of the original States, in all respects whatever, conformably to the provisions of the 3d article of the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April, one thousand eight hundred and three, between the United States and the French Republic." Now, if to the Orleans Territory you add the Mississippi Territory, and of the two erect one State, you evidently will not comply either with your stipulations with the French Republic, or with your covenant to the Orleans Territory. For, by these you have agreed that Orleans shall become a State and not part of a State only; and there is a wide and substantial distinction between incorporating that Territory, together with other Territories into a single State, as but a fractional part thereof, and authorizing the people of that Territory "to form for themselves a constitution and State government, and to be admitted into the Union upon the footing of the original States." In the former case they may possibly have no influence whatever in appointments to the other branch of the Legislature, and all their interior regulations may also, by possibility, be dictated to them by an ascendant population in the remainder of the State. In the latter case they will, of course, have the entire direction in regard to their system of police and their State institutions, and will moreover have a right, not participated in by any other persons, of sending two Senators to Congress. In fact they will be a distinct State sovereignty. Surely, then, there is a great and obvious difference between what we have so often promised these people, and what is now proposed for them.

Mr. Bibb conceived that the House could not adopt such an amendment as that proposed, without the consent of Georgia; for without her consent they could not make an addition to or division of the Mississippi Territory. It was true, he said, that he had on a former day proposed to make an addition of territory to the Mississippi Territory, but it was only during such time as it should remain a Territory. To this there could be no objection, as there was no prohibition to it in the compact. It had been his intention, if the House had thought proper to sanction his motion, to have made a proposition to the State of Georgia to admit that territory to be incorporated with the Mississippi. The amendment now offered evidently proposed a violation of the compact with Georgia.

Mr. Macon said this bill had taken rather a curious course. The principle and detail had both been attacked; and yet no proposal had been made to try whether the House would legislate on the subject. He had proposed an amendment to do away some of the objections to the detail; but instead of being allowed to amend the bill, the House were met by a constitutional objection, from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Wheaton) to the power of Congress to make a State. If this objection was good, Mr. M. said, he admitted the bill ought not to pass; for, Mr. M. said, on this point he could not agree with the gentleman from Tennessee, that because a treaty had been made in relation to it, it was too late to object to the constitutionality. Mr. M. said no; it was never too late to return to the constitution. If the article of the constitution, however, did not mean that Congress might take States out of new Territories, what did it mean? There was no occasion for it in relation to the old Ter[Pg 325]ritories; for the ordinance of the Old Congress had secured to them the right; and these ordinances were as binding as the treaties which Congress had entered into. The change of the form of Government did not affect national obligations. The right to become States was one which Congress could not take from the old Territories. The right of creating States out of acquired Territories, was one which he had always contended for; and it had been stated by at least one of those who formed the constitution, that this article had reference to Canada. "New States may be admitted by the Congress into the Union." At the time this provision was made, Florida and Louisiana were not thought of. Canada was the Territory kept in view. Much, sir, said Mr. M., as the United States wanted the southern country, and great as is the convenience of possessing it, I never would have consented to have taken it to have kept them in Territorial government forever. I do not want provinces. I am extremely sorry, sir, that whenever this subject is agitated, we are met by the objection that these people are of French descent. I have before expressed my opinion on this subject, and it is needless to repeat it; but if gentlemen wish them to become our brethren in reality, make them our equals; act just towards them. Do unto them as you would they should do unto you, and make them your friends. I know an opinion is entertained that only those who are of the favored race can be free. I know, sir, that the English nation has been freer than any other; but the time has been that Holland, Sweden, and others, have been free—power, however, overcame right, and the people lost their liberties.

I cannot consider it any question for our consideration, who shall be their Senators and who their Representatives. They have had some time a delegate, and will find delegates in the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. It seems to me, sir, that the gentleman from Tennessee need not to have referred to the dispute between the Potomac and the Delaware, because the constitution has put an end to these sources of strife. It is true, sir, that the Orleans Territory is a slave country, and I would be glad if they could get clear of them; but that does not at all affect this question.

The present situation of Mobile and Orleans is the reason why I want some alteration in the bill. I would rather not have them under the same Government. I have endeavored to ascertain the present population of the Orleans Territory, so called. There is a difference of opinion among those well informed on the subject, from 45,000 to 55,000. He wished gentlemen would permit them to try the question on the principle of the bill, and ascertain whether the House would do any thing with it or not.

Mr. Poindexter observed that the proposition of the gentleman from Tennessee for incorporating the present Mississippi Territory with West Florida and the Island of Orleans, to the sea, with a view to form of the whole one State, did not meet his approbation. From the Tennessee line, which would be the northern boundary of the State, to the confluence of the Mississippi with the bay of Mexico, is a distance of from eight hundred to a thousand miles, in the nearest direction, and following the meanders of the river, not less in my opinion than twelve hundred miles. Taking the distance generally from the Mississippi to the Georgia line, I should judge it to be about five hundred miles, and from the northernmost point of the State of Georgia to the junction of the Chatahoochee with the sea, cannot be far short of a thousand miles. This vast tract of country, in my humble conception, is too extensive for the purpose of local State government. Indeed, sir, it could hardly be expected, over such an immense territory, interspersed with numerous tribes of Indians, that even the Executive functionaries of Government could be able to perform their duty in the execution of their laws.

That geographical limits, other than those which now divide the Orleans and Mississippi Territories, might be designated, to comport more with the future convenience and prosperity of the country, cannot be denied. I would suggest for the reflection of gentlemen who have to act on this subject, the expediency of making the great river Mississippi the high road between the Eastern and Western States, to be formed on its waters; that no one State should possess both banks of that river. In that event, to commence on the eastern shore at the mouth of the Yazoo, in latitude 32 30; thence in a direct line to the head-waters of the Chatahoochee, thence to the sea, and along the coast, in a southwestern direction, to Lake Barrataria, thence up the Chafalaga to its junction with the Mississippi, and thence up that river to the mouth of the Yazoo. This tract of country would include about three degrees of latitude; it would combine all the settlements on the Eastern side of the Mississippi, except the county of Madison, which could be disposed of as the wisdom of Congress might hereafter direct. There are various political considerations which operate in favor of the formation of such a State. The people of the Territory of Orleans are petitioning to become an independent State, and I for one hope the prayer of their petition will in substance be granted. It is said that the French population of the city of New Orleans are unfriendly to the American Government. That they have strong prejudices in favor of France. Although, sir, I do not attach so much importance to that circumstance as some gentlemen do, I am willing to admit that French emigrants in Louisiana feel an attachment to their native country. I do not blush to say that were I in France, or any other foreign country, I could never forget that I was born an American citizen. I could never relinquish my attachments to the land of freedom, in which I inhaled my first breath. Judging therefore, of the feelings of others, by my own, I[Pg 326] cannot doubt that many influential French inhabitants of New Orleans entertain a predilection for the country which gave them birth. But, sir, within the limits which I have submitted to the consideration of the committee, there is an American population at least sufficient to neutralize every exotic prejudice which may exist in New Orleans. A people whose origin, whose feelings and principles are American, and who are prepared to rally around the standard of the constitution, in every scene of difficulty and of danger.

Mr. Miller's amendment was not agreed to.

Monday, January 14.

Orleans Territory.

The House resumed the consideration of the engrossed bill to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes.

The bill being on its final passage—

Mr. Pitkin said he had heretofore stated that he had some objections to the bill, which he had intended to have stated to the House when the bill was capable of amendment, but that he had not an opportunity so to do. I have stated, said Mr. P., that it was probable there would be some difficulty between Orleans, when it becomes a State, and the United States, respecting the extent of the State westward. I stated that the United States, in consequence of the purchase of Louisiana with the same extent that it had when Spain and France possessed it, had claimed the territory as far as the river called Rio Bravo; that the negotiations on this subject between the Governments of the United States and Spain were probably unknown to many members of the House, and that it required a pretty accurate knowledge of them, of the extent of the claim, and of the geography of the country, to understand precisely what I meant. I stated that there was an extent of country between a meridional line passing through Nacogdoches and Rio Bravo, of four or five hundred miles in width, which the United States had claimed as being their property. In the negotiations between the two countries, the United States offered to cede all the country between the Rio Bravo and the Colorado running east of it to Spain, on the condition that Spain would cede to the United States all the territory west of the Perdido. This proposition was rejected. Our Commissioners were instructed to assert our title as far as the Rio Bravo, or at least to the Bay of St. Bernard. It is so stated by the President of the United States in the introduction to the compilation of the land laws, in which he states that we unquestionably have a right to the country as far west as the sources of the rivers which fall into the Mississippi, to the sources of the Red River, Arkansas, and Missouri; that with respect to the territory immediately bounding on the Gulf of Mexico, we have claims to the "province of Texas," which it is well known is a very large province. By the bill before us, according to this construction, jurisdiction is extended over this very province; and it may be, and in fact will be, in the power of the State of Orleans to say that our limits extend so far, and therefore to extend their jurisdiction in like manner. In my apprehension, therefore, it is important, while we are making this Territory a State, where the boundaries are disputed, to retain in our own hands the power of settling them. It is known that, by the law which passed providing for the government of the Territory of Orleans, we had liberty to alter the boundary before we made them a State, but not after. Will it not be in the power of the new State to insist on their right to jurisdiction over the territory, at least as far west as the Colorado, and to prevent the United States from ceding any part of it? For instance, sir, the United States may wish, as we have taken Florida as far as the Perdido, subject to future negotiation, to make this arrangement: to cede to Spain a certain proportion west for East Florida. Now, sir, I ask when we have made this country a State if we can do this? I believe it will be said by every person that we cannot, after she becomes a State, alter the boundaries without her consent. I do apprehend, therefore, there will be difficulties on the subject hereafter, if the United States should attempt to settle the boundary in a manner disagreeable to the State; because, if they cannot extend their jurisdiction west of a meridional line passing through Nacogdoches, the territory will be in extent east and west but about one hundred miles, and north and south about one hundred and twenty, and this will make them comparatively a small State.

As the United States have settled a provisional line, to wit: a meridional line through Nacogdoches, it should not be in the power of the new State to extend its jurisdiction beyond that line. Provision might be made in this way: The western boundary might be made to conform to the provisional line; and a provision might then be made that there should be reserved to the United States the privilege of adding to it whatever land it should acquire westwardly. Such a provision would leave us at liberty to settle the limits without the interference of that State, and without, I apprehend, much difficulty. This was done in relation to the State of Ohio. Unless the right had been reserved, the consent of the State would have been necessary to a cession, or other alteration of its boundary. Such a course in this case will be perfectly safe for the United States, as well as for the new State. I wish we may so regulate the Territory as there may not in future be any collision between the State and the United States. The province of Texas is in the viceroyalty of New Spain. We know that the Viceroy sent his troops to oppose the passage of our troops, and a provisional line was established. New Spain is very powerful, and I[Pg 327] should be very sorry that the new State should have power to embroil the United States with it. I would ask the chairman of the committee who reported this bill, what were his views respecting the western boundary, and how far it was his idea that the new State should extend, and whether it would not comport with his ideas that the change which I have suggested should be made? I could have wished that the bill was in such a state of its progress that I could have moved an amendment; but, as it is, unless I am satisfied that we shall not be involved in difficulty by the consequences I have stated, I shall be unwilling to pass the bill, and must vote against it.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker, I address you, sir, with an anxiety and distress of mind with me wholly unprecedented. The friends of this bill seem to consider it as the exercise of a common power; as an ordinary affair; a mere municipal regulation which they expect to see pass without other questions than those concerning details. But, sir, the principle of this bill materially affects the liberties and rights of the whole people of the United States. To me, it appears that it would justify a revolution in this country; and that, in no great length of time, may produce it. When I see the zeal and perseverance with which this bill has been urged along its Parliamentary path, when I know the local interests and associated projects, which combine to promote its success, all opposition to it seems manifestly unavailing. I am almost tempted to leave, without a struggle, my country to its fate. But, sir, while there is life, there is hope. So long as the fatal shaft has not yet sped, if Heaven so will it, the bow may be broken, and the vigor of the mischief-meditating arm withered. If there be a man in this house, or nation, who cherishes the constitution under which we are assembled, as the chief stay of his hope, as the light which is destined to gladden his own day, and to soften even the gloom of the grave, by the prospect it sheds over his children, I fall not behind him in such sentiments. I will yield to no man in attachment to this constitution, in veneration for the sages who laid its foundations, in devotion to those principles which form its cement and constitute its proportions. What, then, must be my feelings; what ought to be the feelings of a man cherishing such sentiments, when he sees an act contemplated which lays ruin at the root of all these hopes? When he sees a principle of action about to be usurped, before the operation of which the bands of this constitution are no more than flax before the fire, or stubble before the whirlwind? When this bill passes, such an act is done, and such a principle usurped.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great rule of human conduct, which he who honestly observes cannot err widely from the path of his sought duty. It is, to be very scrupulous concerning the principles you select as the test of your rights and obligations; to be very faithful in noticing the result of their application; and to be very fearless in tracing and exposing their immediate effects and distant consequences. Under the sanction of this rule of conduct, I am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion, that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved; that the States which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare definitely for a separation—amicably if they can, violently if they must.

Mr. Quincy was here called to order by Mr. Poindexter.

Mr. Quincy repeated, and justified the remark he had made, which, to save all misapprehension, he committed to writing, in the following words: "If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of this Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation, and, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must."

After some little confusion,

Mr. Poindexter required the decision of the Speaker whether it was consistent with the propriety of debate, to use such an expression. He said it was radically wrong for any member to use arguments going to dissolve the Government, and tumble this body itself to dust and ashes. It would be found, from the gentleman's statement of his language, that he had declared the right of any portion of the people to separate——

Mr. Quincy wished the Speaker to decide, for if the gentleman was permitted to debate the question, he should lose one-half of his speech.

The Speaker decided that great latitude in debate was generally allowed; and that, by way of argument against a bill, the first part of the gentleman's observations was admissible; but the latter member of the sentence, viz.: "That it would be the duty of some States to prepare for a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must," was contrary to the order of debate.

Mr. Quincy appealed from his decision, and required the yeas and nays on the appeal.

The question was stated thus: "Is the decision of the Speaker correct?" And decided—53 yeas; 56 nays.

So the decision of the speaker was reversed; Mr. Quincy's observations were declared to be in order; and he proceeded.

I rejoice, Mr. Speaker, at the result of this appeal. Not from any personal consideration, but from the respect paid to the essential rights of the people, in one of their representatives. When I spoke of a separation of the States as resulting from the violation of the constitution, contemplated in this bill, I spoke of it as of a necessity, deeply to be deprecated; but as resulting from causes so certain and obvious, as to be absolutely inevitable when the effect of the principle is practically experienced. It is to[Pg 328] preserve, to guard the constitution of my country, that I denounce this attempt. I would rouse the attention of gentlemen from the apathy with which they seem beset. These observations are not made in a corner; there is no low intrigue; no secret machinations. I am on the people's own ground—to them I appeal, concerning their own rights, their own liberties, their own intent in adopting this constitution. The voice I have uttered, at which gentlemen startle with such agitation, is no unfriendly voice. I intended it as a voice of warning. By this people, and by the event, if this bill passes, I am willing to be judged, whether it be not a voice of wisdom.

The bill, which is now proposed to be passed, has this assumed principle for its basis—that the three branches of this National Government, without recurrence to conventions of the people, in the States, or to the Legislatures of the States, are authorized to admit new partners to a share of the political power, in countries out of the original limits of the United States. Now, this assumed principle I maintain to be altogether without any sanction in the constitution. I declare it to be a manifest and atrocious usurpation of power; of a nature, dissolving, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the obligations of our national compact; and leading to all the awful consequences which flow from such a state of things.

Concerning this assumed principle, which is the basis of this bill, this is the general position on which I rest my argument—that if the authority, now proposed to be exercised, be delegated to the three branches of the Government, by virtue of the constitution, it results either from its general nature, or from its particular provisions. I shall consider distinctly both these sources, in relation to this pretended power.

Touching the general nature of the instrument called the Constitution of the United States, there is no obscurity—it has no fabled descent, like the palladium of ancient Troy, from the heavens. Its origin is not confused by the mists of time, or hidden by the darkness of past, unexplored ages; it is the fabric of our day. Some now living, had a share in its construction—all of us stood by, and saw the rising of the edifice. There can be no doubt about its nature. It is a political compact. By whom? And about what? The preamble to the instrument will answer these questions:

It is, "we, the people of the United States, for ourselves and our posterity;" not for the people of Louisiana; nor for the people of New Orleans, or of Canada. None of these enter into the scope of the instrument; it embraces only "the United States of America." Who those are, it may seem strange, in this place, to inquire. But truly, sir, our imaginations have, of late, been so accustomed to wander after new settlements to the very end of the earth, that it will not be time ill-spent to inquire what this phrase means, and what it includes. These are not terms adopted at hazard; they have reference to a state of things existing anterior to the constitution. When the people of the present United States began to contemplate a severance from their parent State, it was a long time before they fixed definitely the name by which they would be designated. In 1774, they called themselves "the Colonies and Provinces of North America." In 1775, "the Representatives of the United Colonies of North America." In the Declaration of Independence, "the Representatives of the United States of America." And finally, in the Articles of Confederation, the style of the confederacy is declared to be "the United States of America." It was with reference to the old articles of confederation, and to preserve the identity and established individuality of their character, that the preamble to this constitution, not content, simply, with declaring that it is "we, the people of the United States," who enter into this compact, adds that it is for "the United States of America." Concerning the territory contemplated by the people of the United States, in these general terms, there can be no dispute; it is settled by the treaty of peace, and included within the Atlantic Ocean, and St. Croix, the lakes, and more precisely, so far as relates to the frontier, having relation to the present argument, within "a line to be drawn through the middle of the river Mississippi, until it intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude to the river Apalachicola, thence along the middle of this river to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of the St. Mary's River, and thence down the St. Mary's to the Atlantic Ocean."

I have been thus particular to draw the minds of gentlemen, distinctly, to the meaning of the terms used in the preamble; to the extent which "the United States" then included; and to the fact that neither New Orleans nor Louisiana were within the comprehension of the terms of this instrument. It is sufficient for the present branch of my argument to say, that there is nothing in the general nature of this compact from which the power contemplated to be exercised in this bill results. On the contrary, as the introduction of a new associate in political power implies, necessarily, a new division of power, and consequent diminution of the relative proportion of the former proprietors of it; there can, certainly, be nothing more obvious, than that from the general nature of the instrument no power can result to diminish and give away to strangers any proportion of the rights of the original partners. If such a power exists, it must be found, then, in the particular provisions in the constitution. The question now arising is, in which of these provisions is[Pg 329] given the power to admit new States, to be created in territories, beyond the limits of the old United States. If it exists anywhere, it is either in the third section of the fourth article of the constitution, or in the treaty-making power. If it result from neither of these, it is not pretended to be found anywhere else.

That part of the third section of the fourth article, on which the advocates of this bill rely, is the following: "New States may be admitted, by the Congress, into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress." I know, Mr. Speaker, that the first clause of this paragraph has been read, with all the superciliousness of a grammarian's triumph. "New States may be admitted, by the Congress, into this Union." Accompanied with this most consequential inquiry: "Is not this a new State to be admitted? And is not here an express authority?" I have no doubt this is a full and satisfactory argument to every one, who is content with the mere colors and superficies of things. And if we were now at the bar of some stall-fed justice, the inquiry would insure victory to the maker of it, to the manifest delight of the constables and suitors of his court. But, sir, we are now before the tribunal of the whole American people; reasoning concerning their liberties, their rights, their constitution. These are not to be made the victims of the inevitable obscurity of general terms; nor the sport of verbal criticism. The question is concerning the intent of the American people, the proprietors of the old United States, when they agreed to this article. Dictionaries and spelling-books are, here, of no authority. Neither Johnson, nor Walker, nor Webster nor Dilworth, has any voice in this matter. Sir, the question concerns the proportion of power, reserved by this constitution, to every State in the Union. Have the three branches of this Government a right, at will, to weaken and outweigh the influence, respectively secured to each State, in this compact, by introducing, at pleasure, new partners, situate beyond the old limits of the United States? The question has not relation merely to New Orleans. The great objection is to the principle of the bill. If this bill be admitted, the whole space of Louisiana, greater, it is said, than the entire extent of the old United States, will be a mighty theatre, in which this Government assumes the right of exercising this unparalleled power. And it will be; there is no concealment, it is intended to be exercised. Nor will it stop, until the very name and nature of the old partners be overwhelmed by new comers into the Confederacy. Sir, the question goes to the very root of the power and influence of the present members of this Union. The real intent of this article is, therefore, an inquiry of most serious import; and is to be settled only by a recurrence to the known history and known relations of this people and their constitution. These, I maintain, support this position: that the terms "new States," in this article, do intend new political sovereignties, to be formed within the original limits of the United States; and do not intend new political sovereignties with territorial annexations, to be erected without the original limits of the United States. I undertake to support both branches of this position to the satisfaction of the people of these United States. As to any expectation of conviction on this floor, I know the nature of the ground and how hopeless any arguments are, which thwart a concerted course of measures.

I recur, in the first place, to the evidence of history. This furnishes the following leading fact: that before, and at the time of the adoption of this constitution, the creation of new political sovereignties within the limits of the old United States was contemplated. Among the records of the old Congress will be found a resolution, passed as long ago as the 10th day of October, 1780, contemplating the cession of unappropriated lands to the United States, accompanied by a provision that "they shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct Republican States, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the other States." Afterward, on the 7th of July, 1786, the subject of "laying out and forming into States" the country lying northwest of the river Ohio, came under the consideration of the same body; and another resolution was passed recommending to the Legislature of Virginia to revise their act of cession, so as to permit a more eligible division of that portion of territory derived from her; "which States," it proceeds to declare, "shall hereafter become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the original States, in conformity with the resolution of Congress of the 10th of October, 1780." All the Territories to which these resolutions had reference, were undeniably within the ancient limits of the United States.

Here, then, is a leading fact, that the article in the constitution had a condition of things, notorious at the time when it was adopted, upon which it was to act, and to meet the exigency resulting from which, such an article was requisite. That is to say: new States, within the limits of the United States, were contemplated at the time when the foundations of the constitution were laid. But we have another authority upon this point, which is, in truth, a cotemporaneous exposition of this article of the constitution. I allude to the resolution, passed on the 3d of July, 1788, in the words following:

[Here the resolution was read.]

In this resolution of the old Congress, it is expressly declared, that the Constitution of the[Pg 330] United States having been adopted by nine States, an act of the old Congress could have no effect to make Kentucky a separate member of the Union, and that, although they thought it expedient that it should be so admitted, yet that this could only be done under the provisions made in the new constitution. It is impossible to have a more direct contemporaneous evidence that the case contemplated in this article was that of the Territories within the limits of the United States; yet the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Macon,) for whose integrity and independence I have very great respect, told us the other day, that "if this article had not territories within the limits of the old United States to act upon, it would be wholly without meaning. Because the ordinance of the old Congress had secured the right to the States within the old United States, and a provision for that object, in the new constitution, was wholly unnecessary." Now, I will appeal to the gentleman's own candor, if the very reverse of the conclusion he draws is not the true one, after he has considered the following fact: That, by this ordinance of the old Congress, it was declared, that the boundaries of the contemplated States, and the terms of their admission, should be, in certain particulars, specified in the ordinance, subject to the control of Congress. Now, as by the new constitution the old Congress was about to be annihilated, it was absolutely necessary for the very fulfilment of this ordinance, that the new constitution should have this power for the admission of new States within the ancient limits, so that the ordinance of the old Congress, far from showing the inutility of such a provision for the Territories within the ancient limits, expressly proves the reverse, and is an evidence of its necessity to effect the object of the ordinance itself.

I think there can be no more satisfactory evidence adduced or required of the first part of the position, that the terms "new States" did intend new political sovereignties within the limits of the old United States. For it is here shown, that the creation of such States, within the territorial limits fixed by the treaty of 1783, had been contemplated; that the old Congress itself expressly asserts that the new constitution gave the power for that object; that the nature of the old ordinance required such a power, for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect, and that it has been from the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, unto this hour, applied exclusively to the admission of States, within the limits of the old United States, and was never attempted to be extended to any other object.

Now, having shown a purpose, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, sufficient to occupy the whole scope of the terms of the article, ought not the evidence be very strong to satisfy the mind, that the terms really intended something else, besides this obvious purpose; that it may be fairly extended to the entire circle of the globe, wherever title can be obtained by purchase, or conquest, and the new partners in the political power may be admitted at the mere discretion of this Legislature, any where that it wills. A principle thus monstrous is asserted in this bill.

But I think it may be made satisfactorily to appear not only that the terms "new States" in this article did mean political sovereignties to be formed within the original limits of the United States, as has just been shown, but, also, negatively, that it did not intend new political sovereignties, with territorial annexations, to be created without those original limits. This appears first from the very tenor of the article. All its limitations have respect to the creation of States within the original limits. Two States shall not be joined; no new State shall be erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of Congress. Now, had foreign territories been contemplated, had the new habits, customs, manners, and language of other nations been in the idea of the framers of this constitution, would not some limitation have been devised, to guard against the abuse of a power, in its nature so enormous, and so obviously, when it occurred, calculated to excite just jealousy among the States, whose relative weight would be so essentially affected, by such an infusion at once of a mass of foreigners into their Councils, and into all the rights of the country? The want of all limitation of such power would be a strong evidence, were others wanting, that the powers, now about to be exercised, never entered into the imagination of those thoughtful and prescient men, who constructed the fabric. But there is another most powerful argument against the extension of this article to embrace the right to create States without the original limits of the United States, deducible from the utter silence of all debates at the period of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, touching the power here proposed to be usurped. If ever there was a time in which the ingenuity of the greatest men of an age was taxed to find arguments in favor of and against any political measure, it was at the time of the adoption of this constitution. All the faculties of the human mind were, on the one side and the other, put upon their utmost stretch, to find the real and imaginary blessings or evils, likely to result from the proposed measure. Now I call upon the advocates of this bill to point out, in all the debates of that period in any one publication, in any one newspaper of those times, a single intimation, by friend or foe to the constitution, approving or censuring it for containing the power here proposed to be usurped, or a single suggestion that it might be extended to such an object as is now proposed. I do not say that no such suggestion was ever made. But this I will say that I do not believe there is such a one any where to be found. Certain I am, I have never been able to meet the shadow of such a suggestion, and I have made no incon[Pg 331]siderable research upon the point. Such may exist—but until it be produced, we have a right to reason as though it had no existence. No, sir. The people of this country at that day had no idea of the territorial avidity of their successors. It was, on the contrary, an argument, urged against the success of the project, that the territory was too extensive for a republican form of government. But, now there is no limits to our ambitious hopes. We are about to cross the Mississippi. The Missouri and Red River are but roads, on which our imagination travels to new lands and new States to be raised and admitted (under the power, now first usurped) into this Union, among undiscovered lands in the west. But it has been suggested that the Convention had Canada in view, in this article, and the gentleman from North Carolina told this House, that a member of the Convention, as I understood him, either now, or lately a member of the Senate, informed him that the article had that reference. Sir, I have no doubt the gentleman from North Carolina has had a communication such as he intimates. But, for myself, I have no sort of faith in these convenient recollections, suited to serve a turn, to furnish an apology for a party, or give color to a project. I do not deny, on the contrary I believe it very probable, that among the coursings of some discursive and craving fancy, such thoughts might be started; but that is not the question. Was this an avowed object in the Convention when it formed this article? Did it enter into the conception of the people when its principles were discussed? Sir, it did not, it could not. The very intention would have been a disgrace both to this people and the Convention. What, sir! Shall it be intimated; shall it for a moment be admitted, that the noblest and purest band of patriots this or any other country ever could boast, were engaged in machinating means for the dismemberment of the territories of a power to which they had pledged friendship, and the observance of all the obligations which grow out of a strict and perfect amity? The honor of our country forbids and disdains such a suggestion.

But there is an argument stronger, even, than all those which have been produced, to be drawn from the nature of the power here proposed to be exercised. Is it possible that such a power, if it had been intended to be given by the people, should be left dependent upon the effect of general expressions; and such too, as were obviously applicable to another subject; to a particular exigency contemplated at the time? Sir, what is this power we propose now to usurp? Nothing less than a power, changing all the proportion of the weight and influence possessed by the potent sovereignties composing this Union. A stranger is to be introduced to an equal share, without their consent. Upon a principle, pretended to be deduced from the constitution—this Government, after this bill passes, may and will multiply foreign partners in power, at its own mere motion; at its irresponsible pleasure; in other words, as local interests, party passions, or ambitious views may suggest. It is a power that, from its nature, never could be delegated; never was delegated; and as it breaks down all the proportions of power guarantied by the constitution to the States, upon which their essential security depends, utterly annihilates the moral force of this political contract. Would this people, so wisely vigilant concerning their rights, have transferred to Congress a power to balance, at its will, the political weight of any one State, much more of all the States, by authorizing it to create new States at its pleasure, in foreign countries, not pretended to be within the scope of the constitution or the conception of the people, at the time of passing it?

This is not so much a question concerning the exercise of sovereignty, as it is who shall be sovereign. Whether the proprietors of the good old United States shall manage their own affairs in their own way; or whether they, and their constitution, and their political rights, shall be trampled under foot by foreigners introduced through a breach of the constitution. The proportion of the political weight of each sovereign State, constituting this Union, depends upon the number of the States which have a voice under the compact. This number the constitution permits us to multiply at pleasure, within the limits of the original United States; observing only the expressed limitations in the constitution. But when in order to increase your power of augmenting this number you pass the old limits, you are guilty of a violation of the constitution in a fundamental point; and in one, also, which is totally inconsistent with the intent of the contract, and the safety of the States which established the association. What is the practical difference to the old partners, whether they hold their liberties at the will of a master, or whether, by admitting exterior States on an equal footing with the original States, arbiters are constituted, who by availing themselves of the contrariety of interests and views which in such a confederacy necessarily will arise, hold the balance among the parties which exist and govern us, by throwing themselves into the scale most conformable to their purposes? In both cases there is an effective despotism. But the last is the more galling, as we carry the chain in the name and gait of freemen.

I have thus shown, and whether fairly, I am willing to be judged by the sound discretion of the American people, that the power, proposed to be usurped, in this bill, results neither from the general nature, nor the particular provisions, of the Federal Constitution; and that it is a palpable violation of it in a fundamental point; whence flow all the consequences I have intimated.

The present President of the United States, when a member of the Virginia Convention for adopting the constitution, expressly declares that the treaty-making power has limitations; and he states this as one, "that it cannot alien[Pg 332]ate any essential right." Now, is not here an essential right to be alienated? The right to that proportion of political power which the constitution has secured to every State, modified only by such internal increase of States as the existing limits of the Territories at the time of the adoption of the constitution permitted. The debates of that period chiefly turned upon the competency of this power to bargain away any of the old States. It was agreed, at that time, that by this power old States within the ancient limits could not be sold from us. And I maintain that, by it, new States without the ancient limits cannot be saddled upon us. It was agreed, at that time, that the treaty-making power "could not cut off a limb." And I maintain, that neither has it the competency to clap a hump upon our shoulders. The fair proportions devised by the constitution are in both cases marred, and the fate and felicity of the political being, in material particulars, related to the essence of his constitution, affected. It was never pretended, by the most enthusiastic advocates for the extent of the treaty-making power, that it exceeded that of the King of Great Britain. Yet, I ask, suppose that monarch should make a treaty, stipulating that Hanover or Hindostan should have a right of representation on the floor of Parliament, would such a treaty be binding? No, sir; not, as I believe, if a House of Commons and of Lords could be found venal enough to agree to it. But although in that country the three branches of its legislature are called omnipotent, and the people might not deem themselves justified in resistance, yet here there is no apology of this kind; the limits of our power are distinctly marked; and when the three branches of this Government usurp upon this constitution in particulars vital to the liberties of this people, the deed is at their peril.

I have done with the constitutional argument. Whether I have been able to convince any member of this House, I am ignorant—I had almost said indifferent. But this I will not say, because I am, indeed, deeply anxious to prevent the passage of this bill. Of this I am certain, however, that when the dissension of this day is passed away, when party spirit shall no longer prevent the people of the United States from looking at the principle assumed in it, independent of gross and deceptive attachments and antipathies, that the ground here defended will be acknowledged as a high constitutional bulwark, and that the principles here advanced will be appreciated.

I will add one word, touching the situation of New Orleans. The provision of the treaty of 1803, which stipulates that it shall be "admitted as soon as possible," does not therefore imply a violation of the constitution. There are ways in which this may constitutionally be effected—by an amendment of the constitution, or by reference to conventions of the people in the States. And I do suppose, that, in relation to the objects of the present bill, (with the people of New Orleans,) no great difficulty would arise. Considered as an important accommodation to the Western States, there would be no violent objection to the measure. But this would not answer all the projects to which the principle of this bill, when once admitted, leads, and is intended to be applied. The whole extent of Louisiana is to be cut up into independent States, to counterbalance and to paralyze whatever there is of influence in other quarters of the Union. Such a power, I am well aware that the people of the States would never grant you. And therefore, if you get it, the only way is by the mode adopted in this bill—by usurpation.

The objection here urged is not a new one. I refer with great delicacy to the course pursued by any member of the other branch of the Legislature; yet I have it from such authority that I have an entire belief of the fact, that our present Minister in Russia, then a member of that body, when the Louisiana treaty was under the consideration of the Senate, although he was in favor of the treaty, yet expressed great doubts on the ground of constitutionality, in relation to our control over the destinies of that people, and the manner and the principles on which they could be admitted into the Union. And it does appear that he made two several motions in that body, having for their object, as avowed, and as gathered from their nature, an alteration in the constitution, to enable us to comply with the stipulations of that convention.

I will add only a few words in relation to the moral and political consequences of usurping this power. I have said, that it would be a virtual dissolution of the Union; and gentlemen express great sensibility at the expression. But the true source of terror is not the declaration I have made, but the deed you propose. Is there a moral principle of public law better settled, or more conformable to the plainest suggestions of reason, than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties may be considered as exempting the other from its obligations? Suppose, in private life, thirteen form a partnership, and ten of them undertake to admit a new partner without the concurrence of the other three, would it not be at their option to abandon the partnership, after so palpable an infringement of their rights? How much more, in the political partnership, where the admission of new associates, without previous authority, is so pregnant with obvious dangers and evils! Again: it is settled as a principle of morality, among writers on public law, that no person can be obliged, beyond his intent at the time of the contract. Now, who believes, who dare assert, that it was the intention of the people, when they adopted this constitution, to assign, eventually, to New Orleans and Louisiana, a portion of their political power, and to invest all the people those extensive regions might hereafter contain with an authority over themselves and their descendants? When you throw[Pg 333] the weight of Louisiana into the scale, you destroy the political equipoise contemplated at the time of forming the contract. Can any man venture to affirm that the people did intend such a comprehension as you now, by construction, give it; or can it be concealed that, beyond its fair and acknowledged intent, such a compact has no moral force? If gentlemen are so alarmed at the bare mention of the consequences, let them abandon a measure which sooner or later will produce them. How long before the seeds of discontent will ripen, no man can foretell; but it is the part of wisdom not to multiply or scatter them. Do you suppose the people of the Northern and Atlantic States will, or ought to, look on with patience and see Representatives and Senators from the Red river and Missouri pouring themselves upon this and the other floor, managing the concerns of a seaboard fifteen hundred miles at least from their residence, and having a preponderancy in councils, into which, constitutionally, they could never have been admitted? I have no hesitation upon this point. They neither will see it, nor ought to see it, with content. It is the part of a wise man to foresee danger, and to hide himself. This great usurpation, which creeps into this House under the plausible appearance of giving content to that important point, New Orleans, starts up a gigantic power to control the nation. Upon the actual condition of things, there is, there can be, no need of concealment. It is apparent to the blindest vision. By the course of nature, and conformable to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, the sceptre of power in this country is passing towards the Northwest. Sir, there is to this no objection. The right belongs to that quarter of the country; enjoy it; it is yours. Use the powers granted as you please; but take care, in your haste after effectual dominion, not to overload the scales by heaping it with these new acquisitions. Grasp not too eagerly at your purpose. In your speed after uncontrolled sway, trample not down this constitution. Already the old States sink in the estimation of members, when brought into comparison with these new countries. We have been told that "New Orleans was the most important point in the Union." A place out of the Union the most important place within it! We have been asked, "What are some of the small States when compared with the Mississippi Territory?" The gentleman from that Territory (Mr. Poindexter) spoke the other day of the Mississippi as "of a high road between" ——. Good heavens, between what, Mr. Speaker? Why, "the Eastern and Western States." So that all the Northwestern Territories, all the countries once the extreme western boundary of our Union, are hereafter to be denominated Eastern States.

[Mr. Poindexter explained. He said that he had not said that the Mississippi was to be the boundary between the Eastern and Western States. He had merely thrown out a hint, that, in erecting new States, it might be a good high-road between the States on its waters. His idea had not extended beyond the new States, on the waters of the Mississippi.]

I make no great point of this matter. The gentleman will find, in the National Intelligencer, the terms to which I refer. There will be seen, I presume, what he has said, and what he has not said. The argument is not affected by the explanation. New States are intended to be formed beyond the Mississippi. There is no limit to men's imaginations, on this subject, short of California and Columbia river. When I said that the bill would justify a revolution, and would produce it, I spoke of its principle and its practical consequences. To this principle and those consequences, I would call the attention of this House and nation. If it be about to introduce a condition of things absolutely insupportable, it becomes wise and honest men to anticipate the evil, and to warn and prepare the people against the event. I have no hesitation on the subject. The extension of this principle to the States, contemplated beyond the Mississippi, cannot, will not, and ought not to be borne. And the sooner the people contemplate the unavoidable result, the better; the more likely that convulsions may be prevented; the more hope that the evils may be palliated or removed.

Mr. Speaker: What is this liberty of which so much is said? Is it to walk about this earth, to breathe this air, and to partake the common blessings of God's providence? The beasts of the field and the birds of the air unite with us in such privileges as these. But man boasts a purer and more ethereal temperature. His mind grasps in its view the past and the future, as well as the present. We live not for ourselves alone. That which we call liberty, is that principle on which the essential security of our political condition depends. It results from the limitations of our political system, prescribed in the constitution. These limitations, so long as they are faithfully observed, maintain order, peace, and safety. When they are violated in essential particulars, all the concurrent spheres of authority rush against each other, and disorder, derangement, and convulsion are, sooner or later, the necessary consequences.

With respect to this love of our Union, concerning which so much sensibility is expressed, I have no fear about analyzing its nature. There is in it nothing of mystery. It depends upon the qualities of that Union, and it results from its effects upon our and our country's happiness. It is valued for "that sober certainty of waking bliss" which it enables us to realize. It grows out of the affections, and has not, and cannot be made to have, any thing universal in its nature. Sir, I confess it, the first public love of my heart is the commonwealth of Massachusetts. There is my fireside; there are the tombs of my ancestors—

The love of this Union grows out of this attachment to my native soil, and is rooted in it. I cherish it, because it affords the best external hope of her peace, her prosperity, her independence. I oppose this bill from no animosity to the people of New Orleans, but from the deep conviction that it contains a principle incompatible with the liberties and safety of my country. I have no concealment of my opinion. The bill, if it passes, is a death-blow to the constitution. It may, afterwards, linger; but lingering, its fate will, at no very distant period, be consummated.

Tuesday, January 15.

Orleans Territory.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill authorizing the people of Orleans Territory to elect a convention to form a constitution preparatory to its admission into the Union as a free and independent State—Mr. Quincy's motion for indefinite postponement still under consideration.

Mr. Wright.—Sir, this bill is not, in my judgment, a violation of the constitution, nor have I a fear that it is fraught with those direful consequences with which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Quincy) threatens us. It will neither justify a dissolution of the Union, nor lead any citizen attached to it, even amicably, much less forcibly, to the contemplation of it, notwithstanding the predictions of that gentleman. That we are authorized to erect new States, I will prove both by theory and practice, and for that purpose I will first invite your attention to the articles of Confederation. By one section it is expressly declared that Canada may be permitted to enjoy all the benefits of the Confederation on the same terms with the other States of the Union. The thirteen States under this Confederation conducted themselves safely through the war; but finding, in 1787, that their requisitions had not been duly respected, and that New York had rejected some necessary commercial regulations, whereby their fiscal affairs were deranged, Congress, by a resolution, resolved that a convention of States should be held for the express purpose of amending the articles of Confederation. Under this resolution the Convention met, and proceeded to form the present constitution. Thus it will appear that they were to form the new constitution not ex pari materia, but out of the very materials of the Confederation.

As a conclusive evidence, you will find a number of the articles in each instrument literally or substantially the same, and thereby be justified in giving a construction of the letter of the constitution, so as to respect the spirit of the Confederation. By the third section of 4th article of the constitution, "New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union;" and by the next member of the same section, "the Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States"—hence I can have no doubt that Congress have the power to admit new States into the Union, that power being expressly given. It is however contended, that that power is limited to the admission only of those States that may be established within the limits of the United States, as demarcated by the Treaty of Peace. And the preamble to the constitution is relied on to establish that doctrine. "We, the people of the United States, &c., do establish this constitution for the United States of America." If this preamble is so imperious as to limit the positive provisions of the constitution, it will certainly limit itself to the States that formed the constitution—the negative of which has been determined. To prove which, here let me call your attention to the fact, that Vermont was not a member of the Confederation, nor was she a member of the convention that formed the constitution; she therefore was not one of the United States—was foreign as to them, and as distinctly governed as any other foreign power; she in 1791 was admitted into the Union, and the laws of the United States extended to her. She was not one of the old States, and was correctly admitted under the power to admit new States. Vermont was so repulsive to a confederacy with the United States, as not to be mentioned in the articles of Confederation. Can it be for a moment doubted that Canada, expressly mentioned, might be now received as a new State, by becoming independent, or by purchase, when Vermont has been admitted, who was not mentioned in the Confederation? Can there be an opinion that the framers of the constitution intended Canada should be excluded from the benefits of the constitution, when before invited into it? When, by the express letter of the instrument, "new States may be admitted," and when Vermont, not mentioned in the Confederation, has been admitted? Such a conclusion can never be the rational result of such premises. But it is objected, that, as this Territory was obtained by treaty, and after the formation of the constitution, it cannot be admitted into the Union as a State.

I have shown that new States may be admitted, that Vermont has been admitted, and that Canada was expressly entitled under the Confederation, and by the terms of the constitution may be admitted as a new State. "Congress may admit new States into the Union, and make all needful rules and regulations with respect to the territory or other property of the United States." This is certainly a territory, the property of the United States, and Congress as certainly may, if needful, that is, expedient, admit it into the Union. We are told, I presume to retard this measure, that the limits are in dispute, and that, if made a State, they cannot afterwards be settled by the United States. That this is not the case, I will prove by theory and by practice. By the treaty-making power[Pg 335] vested in the President and the Senate, they may treat on all subjects within the treaty-making power, with foreign nations; and where the limits of any foreign power adjoining the territory of the United States are not ascertained to their mutual satisfaction, they certainly may settle them by a treaty of limits. This is the practice and usage of all nations, and the United States by a treaty of limits with Great Britain, did settle the beginning of their northeastern limits, at the river St. Croix, whereby they gave up seven miles to Great Britain, which was taken from a State—hence I presume no difficulty can arise on the subject.

The question was then taken on the motion for indefinite postponement, and lost: yeas 28, nays 78.

The main question was then taken that the said bill do pass, and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 77, nays 36.

Wednesday, January 16.

Bank of the United States.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States.

Mr. Burwell moved to strike out the first section.

I have made this motion, sir, said Mr. B., because it allows the greatest latitude of discussion upon the important points which are preliminary to the examination of the details. It tries the principle of the bill, and may save much tedious and useless labor. Should a majority decide in favor of the Bank of the United States, as an honest man I will aid in forming a system best adapted to the state of the country, and most subservient to the purposes of such an institution. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Mosely) has done justice to my conduct, and the fairness with which the subject has been treated. I have been anxious to present the question fairly, not from any doubt or indecision as to the course I should pursue, but from its magnitude, and the sensibility it has excited. It will be recollected by the committee, when the gentleman from Pennsylvania presented the memorial upon which the Secretary of the Treasury founded his report, on that, as on all subsequent occasions, my opposition was manifested; and I will add that the particular attention which my duty has compelled me to bestow on the bank, has confirmed more strongly former impressions.

The remarks I shall make are intended to show that Congress possesses no power to incorporate a bank; to show its effect on the government, and to satisfy the committee that the exercise of the power, even if possessed, is inexpedient. While, sir, I feel the most ardent desire to consult the convenience of the government and promote the prosperity of the community in general, I have not lost sight of the limits within which I am restrained by the Constitution of the United States and considerations of sound policy. It is my most deliberate conviction that the constitution of the country gives no authority to Congress to incorporate a bank and endow the stockholders with chartered immunities; and even if its dissolution should produce ruin to the merchants, and, what is of equal importance, embarrassment to the government, they would not be paramount to the sacred obligation of supporting the constitution; though I am persuaded the dreadful evils which have been predicted from the annihilation of the bank will soon vanish, and that no material shock will be produced by that cause. The construction which the constitution has received by the various persons who have at different times administered it, has been rigid or liberal according to the confidence in the General or State Governments. The unqualified extent given to its general powers, and the inclusion of incidental powers, as flowing from and belonging to particular enumerated grants, have constituted the essential points of difference among those who have divided upon the principles of the constitution. This has been the case not only in the exercise of authority where the right was questionable, but in cases where the right was undeniable, tending by its operation to increase the weight of the General Government. In giving to the constitution that construction which sound policy requires, and a just regard to the harmony of the States and the perpetuation of their Union dictates, I cannot find any part of it authorizing the exercise of a power which, from its nature, is obnoxious, its tendency alarming, and its influence in the hands of those who manage its concerns irresistible. The power to establish a bank cannot be deduced from the general phrases "to provide for the common defence and general welfare," because they merely announce the object for which the General Government was instituted. The only means by which this object is to be attained are specifically enumerated in the constitution, and if they are not ample, it is a defect which Congress are not competent to supply. I think this inference the stronger, inasmuch as those means were granted to us by those who had acted under the confederation and experienced its defects, and knew precisely to what extent power was requisite to provide for the common defence and general welfare. In relation to this particular subject, the proceedings of the convention itself furnish the plainest evidence, by rejecting the proposition to vest in Congress the right to grant incorporations. I readily admit the motive of deliberative bodies cannot always be known. Various considerations might have operated. They might have supposed the power already vested. But, it is incumbent on those who can place faith in an interpretation so repugnant to the cautious and guarded phraseology of the instrument, to demonstrate it. If the right to incorporate exists, it is a general grant of power, equally applicable to all the objects of incorporation, and can[Pg 336]not be assumed as a means to carry into effect any particular grant of authority. To my mind, it is much more natural to suppose a power to create monopolies had been surrendered, to quiet the fears of those who saw in the constitution the germ which would sooner or later palsy the vitals of the State authority. If the general phrases are not explained in the manner just mentioned, and powers so extensive and important are derived from them, it would be ridiculous to consider the jurisdiction of Congress restricted; they would confer equal authority to establish monopolies in all the various branches of individual industry and commercial enterprise. Sir, I will conclude this part of the subject by reminding you how essential it is, when we are giving an interpretation to the constitution, to which the States are parties, to assume only what clearly belongs to us. Moderation will inspire confidence, selfishness will excite disgust and suspicion.

The parts of the constitution which bear any analogy to this subject, are

1st. Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, &c.

2d. To borrow money on the credit of the United States.

3d. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes. And

4th. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the constitution in the General Government, into effect.

It will not be denied that, if the establishment of a bank comes within the meaning of the power to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts of the United States, and to regulate commerce, or is necessary and proper to carry the foregoing powers into effect, it would be a fair subject for legislation by Congress. But can any one pretend that a bank would be a mode contemplated by the constitution to lay and collect taxes on the people for the purpose of raising revenue? Would it comport with that wise principle of uniformity, and those guarded restrictions against unequal burdens on the people, which constitute the most valuable safeguard to the citizen? To understand these terms we must give them a meaning which has been affixed by their usual import. When we speak of the power to lay taxes, we understand by it a demand of money from the community, regulated by fixed and equitable principles, indiscriminate as to persons, and the species of property taxed. To suppose that every law which imposed burdens or brought money into the Treasury was constitutional, would destroy our equal system of government, and substitute a capricious despotism. It would revive the exploded doctrine of free gifts, benevolences, and that shameful train of extortions practised by the old governments of Europe. Does it fall within the power to pay the debts of the United States? This clause relates entirely to the application of the funds after they have been accumulated; it is in conformity with that article which pledges the public faith for debts which had been contracted, as well as those which might be created in pursuance of the authority to borrow money upon the faith of the United States. If the power to incorporate a bank grew out of the obligation to pay the debts of the United States, its charter should be so worded as to cease whenever they were extinguished; and it would be no longer for Congress to fix a definite period for its expiration. If the right of incorporation was ever meant to be given, it would most naturally follow from the regulation of commerce; yet, no one has contended Congress could create insurance companies within the States. Those who contend the bank is constitutional, consider it as necessary and proper in collecting the revenue. That it may be an useful instrument, I do not deny. It forms depositories convenient to the government; but, you should recollect, depositories equally safe and convenient can be procured without being purchased at the expense of exorbitant and invidious privileges to a particular class in the community. I apprehend the constitution means something extremely different when it empowers the General Government to collect taxes; it relates exclusively to the authority thus given to Congress of employing compulsory process in coercing the payment of taxes; it enables Congress to create, within the jurisdiction of the States, officers of the revenue, and, through them, to exercise over the property of the citizens a concurrent jurisdiction, from which they otherwise would be precluded, and from which they had been precluded before the adoption of the constitution; it enables them to impose penalties and forfeitures, and to inflict punishment for resistance to their authority. But, sir, admit for a moment the bank may be formed to collect the revenue, ought it not to be exclusively used for that object? Whence the power to make it an instrument of commerce? Why invest it with a capital immense in amount, and sovereign in its control over the external and internal commerce of the country? Sir, I must again call your attention to the limited nature of our Government; we must administer it as we find it, and not as we think it ought to be. Under this view of the subject, so long as I understand the right to "lay taxes" to consist in drawing supplies from the people for public purposes, and not to tax one portion of the community for the benefit of another, and "to collect them," the right to enforce payment, I cannot construe them to authorize the establishment of a bank. Sir, a bank has been improperly considered a means of executing some power exclusively given to Congress. The nature of incorporations is so clearly a distinct class of political power, that, before they can be converted into means incidental to an object without the jurisdiction of the General Govern[Pg 337]ment, they must be shown to be absolutely necessary. Permit me to ask, how has it been ascertained that a bank is necessary to the operations of the Government? Has the experiment been tried? Upon a question involving a breach of the constitution, it would be safer to be guided by experience than conjecture.

Sir, I am well aware that I can add nothing new upon the constitutional points. The subject was more thoroughly examined in 1791, and more ably elucidated than any other since the adoption of the Government. The celebrated speech of Mr. Madison, to which I ascribe my conviction, has been recently presented to us in the newspapers, and gentlemen must be familiar with it. I cannot give additional weight to the arguments, but I thought it proper to call the attention of the committee to that part of the subject by the remarks I have made.

I said, sir, it must be shown that the bank is necessary to the operations of the Government—without its aid our fiscal concerns cannot be managed. So far from subscribing to the necessity of the bank, I believe the revenue would be equally safe in the State banks, and could be distributed with inconsiderable difficulty. The revenue received in most of the States is nearly equal to the expenditure within them, and when a deficiency occurred in any one, it could be supplied by arrangements with the different banks, by transportation, or inland bills of exchange, in the manner that the public engagements are fulfilled abroad. I will venture to assert the Secretary of the Treasury will find no difficulty in contracting with individuals and corporate institutions, upon the most ample security, to transfer the public revenue upon terms equally advantageous to the United States. Among the several States commercial intercourse is great, and daily increasing; the constant traffic which the different portions of the country maintain with one another, will give facility to the operations of the Government, and obviate the obstacles which are anticipated; the very commerce which enables the Treasury to remit with ease immense sums to every part of Europe is the result of this interchange among the States, and insures equal facility at home. Where, then, is the necessity for this bank? The accommodation of the bank to the Government in times of emergency, and the use of its resources to support public credit, have been urged as motives for its establishment; how far such considerations weaken constitutional objections, it is needless to state. If, sir, the bank becomes a source of supply to the Government to an adequate extent, it ceases to be one to the merchants. It therefore cannot answer in both capacities. The same necessity which throws the Government upon the charity of the banks renders it incapable of discharging the obligation, and while the funds of the institution are locked up in the Government, its commercial functions must cease. The relief which sudden and temporary embarrassments require, can, at all times, be administered by the State banks, and, therefore, supersedes the necessity of aid from this bank. Whenever, by disasters, the ordinary sources of supply are exhausted, or the unavoidable objects of expenditure exceed the revenue, a more copious and permanent aliment will be found in the wealth and capital of the citizens than by loans from banks. Instead of diverting the active and productive capital from useful channels, the sluggish and inert mass will be drawn forth in its aid, to support public credit and cherish private enterprise. But, sir, is it prudent to rely upon an institution that may refuse you assistance? What will be the influence of such an institution on the Government, and the country at large? It cannot escape your recollection that the establishment of the Bank of the United States was the origin of a system which assumed as its basis the enlargement of the national jurisdiction. Whether the principles of expediency to which it owes its birth be regarded, or the overweening influence it established over the moneyed institutions and merchants of the States, the charge, to say the least, is plausible. The close and intimate connection between the Government and bank—the dependence of the former for loans, and the latter for public deposits, have given the Executive branch its full share of influence and odium—shows incontestably it was created to augment the power of the General Government, and the Executive in particular. Yes, sir, it was the commencement of those political animosities which have poisoned the sources of social intercourse; it was the origin of that doctrine of constructive power which abrogates the constitution and nullifies the restrictions imposed upon Congress. So long as it exists, the body politic will experience the agitations and convulsive throes of well-grounded jealousy in the States.

Sir, in the administration of this Government two things alone are necessary to insure its durability. You must first avoid every measure which will produce uneasiness among the States, or, second, that will extend the jurisdiction of the United States Government to subjects purely local. I do not mean that the rightful authority of Congress is to be abandoned for fear of giving offence, but, whenever called on to take a step which will produce uneasiness, you should be perfectly satisfied the letter and spirit of the constitution bear you out. Do not gentlemen perceive the tendency of this measure to involve us with the States upon delicate points? Has not the United States' Bank produced serious alarm? Will not the alarm be increased by its continuance at this time? Yes, sir, some of the States have already taxed this institution, others have waited under the expectation we shall render a collision unnecessary. Suppose the charter renewed, and the stockholders should be taxed in such a manner as to destroy, virtually, the privileges you have guarantied to them. Are you to leave them unprotected, or will you draw the sword in their[Pg 338] behalf? While you have time, avoid a situation not less perilous than the most serious foreign war. Since the establishment of the bank, the States have created banks—their people have accumulated capital, and they will not tamely witness the perpetuation of an institution whose strength can at any moment overthrow whatever State bank they may mark for destruction. However paradoxical it may appear, I consider the General Government strengthened by narrowing its jurisdiction; it will produce disunion whenever they interfere with local concerns. The habits, local interest, and passions of this country vary, and no one is a competent judge of what will suit the feelings of the State out of which he lives. But, sir, there are general principles in which our feelings and interests are identified; there are subjects upon which we may safely act, and trust to the co-operation of every man and State in the Union. Does the bank affect the people locally? The answer is obvious: it not only undertakes to fix the amount of capital, but interferes with the rights of property most essentially—it may change the fundamental principles of State law as to the liability of property for debts, and the mode of recovering them. Let me caution you against the renewal of the charter; it is pregnant with the most baneful consequences to the tranquillity of the country. Is it not better to sacrifice this golden calf upon the altar of concord, restore confidence and harmony among individuals as well as States, and to reunite the lovers of the constitution?

In the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, the convenience of obtaining loans from the bank is mentioned as an inducement to establish a National Bank. To me the abuse of this convenience is more dreaded than any other evil which will follow from the measure. Where have you seen a National Bank, connected with the Government, which has not ultimately ruined the circulating medium of the nation? It is a notorious fact that money has depreciated seriously, from the unlimited circulation of paper, and if the Government should be compelled, by necessity, to use the funds of the bank, they must permit the increased circulation of its paper, although its money capital remains stationary. In this situation the Government must tolerate an operation which will increase the evil of which we complain. The example of England is a salutary monition to us, and we ought to profit from it. In that country there was a time when the stability of the bank was a national phrase, "As good as the Bank of England." How is it now? The funds of the bank have been borrowed by the Government—its paper circulation increased, and Parliament has been compelled to make it a tender for the payment of all contracts. Who, sir, can estimate the complicated mischiefs of a depreciated paper currency, without specie for its redemption? Should we be involved in war, or our property seized abroad, nothing can present universal bankruptcy—one wide-spread ruin will pervade the continent. At this time the country is inundated with paper bottomed upon the whole floating and real property of the community: should an alarm exist, can these funds be converted into money to redeem its credit? Certainly not. Will it not be prudent to diminish the extent of this evil by putting down this bank which is the fountain from which the whole system flows? It is of little importance, as it regards the internal trade of a country, what constitutes the representation of property. Paper, iron, or any thing else, which passes current, will answer every purpose of barter and trade; but, in its commerce abroad, it is indispensable that the circulating medium should be equally valuable and readily acknowledged among all commercial nations; otherwise, all the operations of commerce, carried on with money, will be abandoned or prosecuted under disadvantages equal to the difference in the value of the currency at home and abroad. In countries actively engaged in business, this branch of trade is not only great in amount, but by far the most profitable. How unwise, therefore, not only to substitute for the precious metals paper currency, whose value is confined to the United States, but to augment the quantity until it depreciates even among ourselves.

Thursday, January 17.

Bank of the United States.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for renewing the charter of the Bank of the United States—the motion for striking out the first section still under consideration.

Mr. Fisk.—Mr. Chairman: I regret that we are called upon to vote for or against striking out the first section of this bill, at this time. I could have wished that, upon a bill of so much interest and importance, we could have proceeded to have filled the blanks, and made such amendments as would have obviated many objections which may be urged against it in its present form. I am not prepared to give my vote in favor of a renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, either upon the terms upon which it was originally granted, or in the manner contemplated by this bill; yet, upon conditions less objectionable, I should feel myself bound to vote in favor of a renewal. But the question presented upon this motion, is not upon what terms this charter shall be renewed, but whether it shall be renewed upon any terms, subject to any conditions Congress may impose.

In this view, I consider it the most important subject upon which this Congress will be required to act. It is determining a question which is connected with our finances, with the circulating medium of the country, and with our agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing interests; and, as such, it cannot but be interesting to every class of our citizens.

The interests and prosperity of the United States are not only intimately, but inseparably, connected with trade. The market of the far[Pg 339]mer depends greatly upon the merchant and the shipper. And the price and demand of every article of produce are in a great degree regulated by the difficulties or facilities of payment. Let the difficulty of paying be increased, and the price of produce immediately falls; for the demand for exportation becomes very limited, the markets are overstocked, and prices reduced. Any sudden check to our commerce, whether produced by our own municipal regulations, or the outrages of foreign powers, checks the market and the price of produce; so that not only the merchants, but the farmers feel its effects. I scarcely need recur to the history of the times when trade was principally suspended in this country, to show how severely the suspension operated upon every class of our citizens, and in every part of the country. This period in our political annals will be long remembered. So great was the distress in some States, and agricultural States, too, that their Legislatures deemed it necessary, for the protection of the debtor from the power of his creditor, to stay the administration of justice, and prohibit by statute the issuing of an execution for the collection of any debt.

This proves the connection which subsists between the two great agricultural and commercial interests of this country. Agriculture, commerce, and manufactures constitute the source of our wealth, revenue, and prosperity. To foster and cherish the principles upon which rest our existing hopes and future prospects, can never be a question of doubtful policy with a wise and patriotic legislature.

We have seen that commerce is essential to our interests; but commerce will not flourish without credit. It never has prospered independent of credit. As credit is essential to trade, so is punctuality to support credit. Look at the business of any commercial people, and see how much of it is done upon credit; and see the integrity and fidelity with which punctuality is maintained in order to support their credit.

For several centuries past, banks have been the successful medium through which credit has not only been preserved, but great wealth acquired. This assertion is warranted by the history of these institutions, and of the countries where they have been patronized. The first bank established in Europe, was at Genoa, in 1407—four hundred and four years ago; this was soon followed by one at Venice.

The Bank of Amsterdam was established in 1609, and shortly after those of Hamburg and Rotterdam; and the Bank of England in 1694; the Royal Bank at Paris in 1718; the Bank of North America in 1784—a memorable period in our history—and the Bank of the United States in 1791.

All these different institutions show, that enlightened legislators have entertained but one opinion upon this subject both in Europe and America for the last four hundred years. They have seen and acknowledged their utility. Banks have long since been considered not only essentially useful in the transaction of commercial concerns, but as highly necessary to aid the fiscal operations of Government. And a more unanswerable argument cannot be urged in favor of their general utility than their uniform success; to this may be added the prosperity of the people and the countries where banks have been supported. Their immediate advantages are, a convenient circulating medium; the safe depository they afford for cash and funds. And they serve to keep the standard of money steady and correct; to insure punctuality; to preserve credit; to inspire confidence, and to promote a spirit of industry and enterprise. They are not, as many have supposed, in their nature hostile to Government and dangerous to liberty. They rather form a barrier to tyranny and oppression. Their principal business is to lend money at the common rate of interest, and thus prevent usury. The owners of banks are generally rich men, who have not only their personal liberty, but a large property to risk, by sedition, treason, and rebellion. It is their interest to resist oppression. We need scarcely point to the Continent of Europe for proof of the fact, when we assert, that trade and banks cannot flourish where despotism prevails. Despotic power generally ruins trade and banks, but no instance occurs in history where banks, not under the control of Government, have ruined a State. A bank owned by Government, and under its command, would be an engine dangerous to the people. But when owned by individuals, neither the people nor the Government have any thing to fear from it. It is then dependent on both for its business, prosperity, and usefulness.

With the evidence which both history and experience offer to our reflection, we cannot doubt the utility of banks, nor deny but that they have been beneficial to us. And we are justified in the conclusion, that, under proper regulations, they may subserve the best interests of the people of the United States. They are now in successful operation in almost every State in the Union, and that they have been useful, the present prosperous state of the country abundantly proves. We enjoy as perfect security for life, liberty, and property, as any people under any Government ever did. These are the great objects of a good Government. And we may triumphantly ask, where is the nation or people that enjoy these with more freedom and safety than the American people? A parallel for our liberty and prosperity, for the last twenty years, is not to be found in the history of man. Our wealth, population, and resources, have increased beyond what any one would have calculated or imagined, and beyond what strangers and foreigners now believe. Industry, wealth, and contentment, pervade every quarter of our country, and poverty and oppression are unknown to our citizens.

In 1791, the year this bank was incorporated, our exports amounted to about eighteen millions of dollars; and in 1804, they had increased[Pg 340] to about seventy-six millions, gaining in thirteen years fifty-eight millions; and our tonnage in about the same proportion.

Much of this prosperity is to be attributed to the active capital which has excited industry, and a spirit of enterprise among us, and the activity of this capital has been in a great degree created and promoted by the Bank of the United States. Its operations have been extensive in all our trading towns. It has aided in loans and discounts, and assisted in the collection, safe-keeping, and transmission of our revenues. It has been the depository of our Treasury, and is now become incorporated with the administration of the fiscal department of our Government. The connection which it has formed with almost every branch of business in the country, is not slight and trifling, and so easily to be severed as some seem to believe. Its operations are deeply interwoven with the dealings and concerns of all the men of business in the United States.

With a capital of ten millions, it has furnished accommodations of fifteen millions a year. This has been employed principally in trade; in making prompt and cash payments to our farmers for their produce. This, again, has furnished to our citizens a ready and profitable market for every article of produce. These high profits of a good market have gone into the hands of the farmer, to cultivate, improve, and enrich the country. And travel through any State in the Union, and their effects may be readily seen, affording a prospect, consoling and elevating to the philanthropist and the patriot. The land is highly cultivated, good buildings, turnpike roads, bridges, and other expensive improvement, indicate the wealth of our citizens, and the prosperity of the country. Money has been freely circulated, trade has been active, produce high, and our country has been improved by these unexampled advantages to a degree far beyond what the most sanguine calculations, twenty years ago, could have anticipated. And yet, sir, we are gravely told that this bank has nearly ruined the country; that it is threatening our best interests with destruction. As well might gentlemen tell us that total darkness prevails at noon-day, or that the sun, in his meridian splendor, affords neither light nor heat to any part of this globe.

The principal portion of the trade and business of the United States has been conducted by a paper medium; metallic has scarcely been seen. The amount of this circulating medium is, say fifty millions. Now what is proposed by denying a renewal of the United States' Bank charter? That this bank shall close its concerns, and of course stop all its accommodations. This must necessarily check and change at least one-third of the circulating medium of the country. It will undeniably require $24,000,000 to be directed to one operation, and for a time to one point—for the capital is $10,000,000; this is to be collected to divide among the stockholders. There are $19,000,000 due to the bank; this must be collected. This will occasion a demand for this amount from other sources; it must be paid. And the $5,000,000 in the bank makes the sum of $24,000,000, which must be suddenly called in. The effect this will have upon the various interests in the country can neither be described nor conceived. It must inevitably give a general and heavy shock to all paper credit; this credit, so much and profitably in operation, must receive a severe, if not a mortal wound. And what substitute have we for this when it shall be destroyed? Silver and gold coin cannot be relied on. There is not from the best estimate an amount to exceed $10,000,000 specie in all our cities and trading towns, and this will be collected by this bank. The price of all stocks, and every kind of produce and species of property must suffer a great depression, for a scarcity of money enhances its value, and consequently depresses the value of every other species of property. That this sudden, if not total change in our system, must occasion great embarrassment, produce failures, disappointments, and distress, among our citizens, is certain.

Put down this bank, and how then are your revenues to be collected? Through the medium of the State banks? You do what no prudent man, in his individual concerns, would think of doing. You discard a faithful, honest, responsible agent, whose integrity and fidelity you have known for twenty years, and you place your estate in the hands and at the disposal of twenty or thirty entire strangers, of whose character and responsibility you know nothing, nor have the means of acquiring any knowledge, and over whose conduct you have no control. Should an individual act thus with his property, he would be deemed to have lost all regard for it, if not considered a madman. In resorting to the State banks, we are offering the amount of our revenue as a bounty for intrigues, cabals, and factions, through the country. In almost every State there are a number of banks, and each will endeavor to get the revenue collected in that State, to keep and trade with. It must be given to one, or divided among them all. If one is selected as the favorite, all the rest become jealous, dissatisfied, and exert their capital and influence against the favorite bank and its patron, the Government. This will awaken a spirit of faction in every State, yet unknown in this country. If all are to be gratified in their request for the deposits, the Government must open separate accounts with all the different banks in the country, to the amount of fifty or sixty; and new companies will be formed, and new applicants request to divide the business, and share the profits. Indeed, there will be no end to the scenes of speculation and intrigue, which will soon appear, if this course is adopted by the Government.

Mr. Seybert.—It may be said that this subject has been exhausted by the discussions of the ablest politicians of the country. I will premise, the remarks which I shall offer are[Pg 341] intended solely to justify the vote which it is my intention to give on this momentous occasion.

The question pending the United States' Bank has excited a peculiar interest throughout this nation, more especially in our seaports. The dissolution of this institution, which from its limitation, will expire on the fourth of March next, has been portrayed in colors of the darkest shades, and the distresses which many maintain will be consequent to that event, call seriously for a fair and deliberate investigation. I hope, sir, I shall be pardoned for imposing on the patience of the House, when it is recollected that the community which I represent have employed four-tenths of the capital stock of the United States' Bank. If evil consequences are to attend the dissolution of this establishment, or if beneficial results proceed from its continuance, in either case I must feel myself essentially interested; it is therefore my wish to be distinctly understood upon the important principles which have connection with the great question now before us.

At the last session of Congress, I presented the memorial of the President, Directors, and Stockholders of the Bank of the United States; at that time I entertained no positive opinion on the subject; the discussions which took place in the committee to whom the memorial was referred, necessarily, as a duty on my part, excited that attention which the importance of the question imperiously demanded. Under circumstances of doubt, I voted in favor of reporting a resolution in support of the bank, for the purpose of giving to the establishment every chance which reason could urge; at the same time reserving to myself the right to pronounce a final decision, according as policy and expediency, but more especially as principle should dictate. I will admit, sir, that this is not the time or place to institute the general inquiry, whether banks are or are not beneficial to a nation? Because, whether the charter of the United States' Bank be renewed or not, the several States, who have the unquestioned authority to incorporate bank establishments, have already created many, which it is not in our power to control. I do not hesitate to declare, though many persons in the United States are decidedly opposed to a banking system, under every possible circumstance, I am not of this class. Experience has proved, in a manner very satisfactory to my mind, the advantages which are derived from the banks when they are impartially directed, and when the accommodation afforded by them is prudently employed; the great difficulty seems to be to confine the system within its proper limits. I understand the proposition as applicable to the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests of the United States.

For my proofs of this proposition, I will not rely upon the famous Bank of St. George, at Genoa, whose authority, by a gentleman from New York, (Mr. Fisk,) has been considered of much weight. I will recall to the mind of my friend the remark of an intelligent traveller, who, when he visited this bank of antiquity, exclaimed: Here lies concealed the enigma, whether the bank possesses millions of millions, or whether it is indebted millions of millions! He concludes, Upon this important secret rests the safety of the State. Unhappy State, say I, whose safety depends upon a secret concealed within the vaults of a bank. Perhaps to a development of this secret may we attribute the present servile condition of the people of the once far-famed and powerful Republic of Genoa.

Sir, I am decidedly opposed to a prominent, and what to me appears to be a very dangerous feature in the bill now under consideration. I allude to the eighth section, which admits of an increase of the present capital stock of the bank. Adopt this provision, you will thereby create an Herculean power, which will have at its mercy all the minor institutions of the States; thus constituted, it can oppress and destroy them, as whim or interest may dictate. The steps which have been taken preparatory to a dissolution of the present bank, it is said, occasion much embarrassment, and threaten with ruin many of our citizens; if the present capital of ten millions can thus affect society, who will pretend to accumulate present evils, or risk entailing misery on posterity, solely for the purpose of a temporary gain to the Government? In this question Pennsylvania is deeply concerned; she has several millions of dollars invested in her banks; this to her is a valuable source of revenue; upon this may she predicate much of her future prosperity; hence will she derive the funds requisite for future internal improvements; but if you fill up the blanks in this section with a considerable sum, all these prospects will be blasted forever; you will thereby destroy the tree from whose ramifications were to emanate the blessings of peace and the sinews of war. Those of her representatives who may deem it politic and constitutional to vote for a continuance of the charter of the United States' Bank, ought surely to oppose any increase of the present capital; we have been told that that which now exists has been found sufficient for all purposes, at a time when our commerce was much more extensive than we have reason to suppose will soon again be the case.

The history of the banks in our country informs us, that the one usually termed the Bank of North America was the first establishment of the kind which received the sanction of the Government. This institution was incorporated by an act of Congress, in the month of May, 1781, under the authority of the "Articles of Confederation." The present Bank of the United States was incorporated by an act of Congress, on the 25th of February, 1791, during the operation of the present Constitution of the United States.

Without an attempt to examine every hypo[Pg 342]thesis, which has been or which might be proposed, respecting the constitutionality of the principle, I will content myself with the statement of the case, such as it appears to my mind. The first public act which I performed as a member of the Congress of the United States, was, to swear solemnly that I would support the Constitution of the United States. It therefore is my duty to examine and consider its precepts, according to the best of my ability.

The "Articles of Confederation" and the present Constitution of the United States do not differ as regards any power delegated by the States to Congress, touching charters of incorporation. I can never persuade myself that the constitution was intended other than to have a definite meaning; or that it was ever contemplated to speak an equivocal language; ambiguity arises solely from the misconceptions of its interpreters; it is very plain and of easy comprehension, especially as it relates to the present question, since it is totally silent on the right to create corporations—its wisdom is further illustrated by the special provision for the only exclusive privilege which is consistent with a free and equal government, and that is in favor of genius.

The powers delegated by the States are special and defined, and, it is expressly declared by the constitution, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This language needs no interpretation. I cannot for a moment permit myself to suppose, that the patriots who were tested during the long-continued uncertainty of the most important events of our Revolutionary period, and to whom was ultimately assigned the right and power to construct the instrument which is to guide us in the political labyrinth—that they intended this their great work should alone be explicable by that refined reasoning to which common sense is a stranger, I never can admit. Surely that which they framed for the good and security of every individual in the nation, must be expressed in a manner to be understood by ordinary men, and those whom it was intended to direct. Sir, if simplicity was not originally contemplated by the framers of the constitution, why the imposition on the people in publishing it to the world? Was it not a prodigal waste of labor and materials, to furnish every citizen of our country with a copy of that which can only be understood by professional men, or such as are eminently skilled in scholastic research? It had better remain a secret, concealed amongst the musty rolls in the archives of State, than be a puzzle for mankind. As long as this instrument is preserved pure and untarnished, it will receive a becoming respect from your fellow-citizens—it will be regarded as "the stupendous fabric of human invention." Remember, the present argument, in several important points of view, affects posterity in common with ourselves. You had better commit the unintelligible jargon to the flames, than by the agency of construction, neutralize wisdom by folly. Sir, if we have a constitution which the people cannot understand, I then say, cut the original into slips, and provide the means for a better; or, if that is not to be done, and we are to be ruled by the iron hand of power, in that case, as one of the American people, I will pray you to be graciously pleased to grant a plain bill of rights for our better government.

If we look back, and attentively view the occurrences which took place, when the law incorporating the present bank of the United States was enacted, we shall find our reasoning supported and confirmed by many important circumstances; we shall then perceive, that the act of incorporation was opposed on constitutional ground, by men who were and continue to be esteemed for their talents, political skill, judicial knowledge, probity and patriotism; and it has been admitted, that the arguments formerly urged are unanswerable. That the power to create corporations was never intended to be ceded on the part of the United States, is proved beyond all manner of contradiction; for we are told by the highest authority, by one who was a member of the General Convention, that it had been proposed to cede to Congress the power to create corporations, and that the proposition was rejected, after a deliberate discussion. In my opinion this decision is in proof of the sagacity and wisdom of those who made it; it was highly justifiable to retain this power to be exercised by the States; because, corporations are generally founded on circumstances, which are entirely local—as such, they can be better understood by the Legislatures of the respective States, than by that of the General Government.

The experience of every session proves that the decisions of Congress vary with the men who at different times compose that body; therefore, the act of February, 1791, can have no force in settling the principle contended for.

I have heard it urged, that the States have recognized the constitutionality of the United States' Bank, by their laws. I know of no law in any of the States, which declares this charter constitutional. Were it even proved, that several of the States had published this declaration, with me it would signify nothing, unless the sanction of two thirds of the States was thus had. On a former occasion, several of the States were induced, from peculiar circumstances, to relinquish for a time their right in favor of a particular case—I allude to the first establishment of the Bank of North America. If this had been intended to decide this very important question, without any reservation of their power in other cases, they would have expressed it in the most positive and unequivocal manner.

Sir, it may be asked, how did the Congress, whilst acting under the "Articles of Confederation," incorporate the Bank of North America, though their powers were no more extensive[Pg 343] than those of the present Congress? We shall not lose by this investigation—they declared that "the exigencies of the United States rendered it indispensably necessary that such an act be immediately passed," and, at that period, the Board of War confessed they had not money sufficient to pay the expense of forwarding an express to the Commander-in-chief of the Army! Notwithstanding such urgent necessities on the part of the General Government, they were too conscious of the rights of the States to attempt a usurpation of authority, or to pretend to force this act without their sanction; accordingly, we find the resolution by which this bank was established followed by another, which recommended to the Legislature of each of the States the necessity to pass such laws as they judged requisite for giving the ordinance, by which the subscribers to the Bank of North America were incorporated, its full operation; every provision in the charter of this bank, to have full effect, was recommended to the Legislatures of the several States for their approbation. (See Journals of Congress for 1781, vol. 7th, pp. 257 and 258.)

It is a well-known and an important fact, that the subscribers to the Bank of North America did not rest satisfied of the authority of Congress to incorporate them; subsequently to the original act of incorporation, they accepted from the Legislature of Pennsylvania a charter by which their privileges were very much abridged.

Some maintain, the States having made it penal to pass counterfeits of the notes of the United States' Bank, is in proof of their recognizing the constitutionality of the institution. No one will pretend that these laws were intended other than to guard the people against fraud. These statutes were enacted without any connection with or reference to the principle upon which the original act was founded. It is but too well known, notwithstanding these salutary provisions, that counterfeit bank notes of every denomination are in daily circulation. I will ask, what would be the case if such laws had not been passed by the States? Sir, if it requires all our care to prevent an inundation from such bank paper as is acknowledged to be genuine, for Heaven's sake do not risk the security of the people, by an indirect sanction of such as is known to be spurious!

Friday, January 18.

A motion was made by Mr. Fisk, that the House do now adjourn; and the question being taken thereon, it was determined in the negative—yeas 6, nays 59.

Bank of the United States.

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States.

Mr. Burwell's motion for striking out the first section being still under consideration.

Mr. P. B. Porter.—Mr. Chairman: As this bank has excited so extraordinary an interest in every part of the United States, and particularly in the State which I have the honor to represent; as I am apprehensive, from what took place yesterday, that I shall be found, on this question, in opposition to a majority of my colleagues; and, (what will always be an imperative motive with me,) as I think this bill aims a deadly blow at some of the best principles of the constitution, I feel it my duty to state to the House the grounds on which I shall be constrained to vote for striking out the section now under consideration.

I acknowledge that I had not, until lately, paid any particular attention to the question of the constitutionality of this institution. I stand, therefore, in this respect, on safer ground than the respectable member from North Carolina (Mr. Macon,) for I have no reason to suspect myself of any long-rooted prejudices on the question. The Bank of the United States was established at a time when I was not in the habit of troubling myself with such questions. I had been accustomed to think of it as an institution, the constitutionality of which was conceded by common consent. But, sir, when the question was again stirred, I felt it my duty to give it a thorough investigation before I should sanction it by my vote. I have given it, if not a thorough, at least a candid and impartial examination; and the result has been, a full conviction that we have no right to incorporate a bank upon the principles of the bill on the table, or rather, upon the principles of the original charter, which this bill proposes to renew. The ground of my objection is, that it assumes the exercise of legislative powers which belong exclusively to the State Governments.

I shall not touch the question of the expediency of this bank, much less the expediency of banking generally. If I were competent, which I confess I am not, to the task, I should think it a very unprofitable one, to follow the gentleman through all the mazes of the banking system—a system, sir, about the various and important operations and effects of which on civil society, aside from a few obvious truths which it furnishes, I have found that those gentlemen who have professed to understand them best, have differed most. As I propose to confine myself to the constitutional question solely, I hope I shall be allowed to take a little broader range on this point, than has been taken by the gentlemen who have preceded me.

I am aware how ungracious constitutional objections to the powers of this House are with those, and there are many such, who believe that the powers of the Federal Government are, at best, too contracted; and who would be glad to see all the State rights merged and sunk into a consolidated government. Whatever may be my speculative opinions on this subject, I can never be influenced, by motives of expediency, to swerve from my allegiance to the constitution. This sentiment is indelibly[Pg 344] fixed on my mind, and I trust it is a common one to the members of this committee. That, in adhering strictly to the obligation we have taken to support the Constitution of the United States, we not only perform a sacred duty to ourselves, but we render a better service to the real and permanent interests of our country than we could possibly render by a departure from that obligation; even though that departure were to avert so serious a calamity as a general bankruptcy—a calamity which, in order to alarm the timid, has been held out as the inevitable consequence of a refusal to renew this charter.

I should be surprised at the general acquiescence which seems to have been yielded to the constitutionality of this institution, did I not believe that others had been as superficial in their examination of the subject as I had myself. When objections are made to the constitutionality of the law, the people, in the cursory views which they are accustomed to take of such objects, are apt to adopt, as the tests of its constitutionality, the powers of the State and Federal Governments collectively; and if they find nothing in the law offensive to the principles of civil liberty, nothing uncongenial with the spirit of a Republican Government, they rest satisfied, and do not trouble themselves with nice distinctions between the powers peculiar to the one or the other of these Governments. Such reasoning would, however, ill become the sagacity of this House.

One of the most serious dangers with which our Government is threatened, and it is a danger growing out of the very nature and structure of the Government itself, consists in its tendency to produce collisions between State and Federal authorities. The Federal Government, as was observed by my learned colleague, (Mr. Mitchill,) is imperium in imperio, a government within a government; and the misfortune is, that there exists no friendly third power to decide the controversies which may arise between these two great, independent, and, in many respects, rival authorities. The public peace must be kept, if kept at all, by the conciliatory dispositions of the parties themselves. As then we have a common interest in the preservation of both these Governments—as we are as well the subjects of the imperio as of the imperium, we ought to act with great circumspection and delicacy in the assumption of powers which do not clearly belong to us. It is better to forego the exercise of powers to which we are entitled, if the exercise of them is not very important, rather than hazard the assumption of doubtful ones, the fatal consequences of which my honorable friend from Virginia (Mr. Burwell) has so justly deprecated.

The great line of demarcation between the powers of the State and Federal Governments is well understood. The powers of the State Governments extend to the regulation of all their internal concerns: those of the Federal Government to the management of all our external relations—external as regards the individual States, as well as the States in their collective capacity. The general ideas upon which our Republic is founded, are these: That small territories are better adapted to the successful administration of justice than large ones. In a Republic, where the people are the sovereigns and source of power, it is important that, in order to enable them to execute this power discreetly, they should possess correct information in relation to the character and conduct of their rulers, and in relation also to the character of the measures which they pursue, or ought to pursue; and this information is better attained in a small than in a large territory. The individual States have therefore reserved to themselves the exclusive right of regulating all their internal, and, as I may say, municipal concerns, in relation both to person and property. But a single State may be inadequate to its own protection against foreign violence; it may also be unable to enforce the observance of proper rules and regulations for carrying on its foreign trade and intercourse. The Confederacy of the States is therefore formed for the purpose of attaining these two objects, namely, the regulation and protection of the trade and intercourse of the States with each other and foreign nations, and their security against foreign invasion. It has some other objects in view of minor consequence, and immediately connected with these principal ones. The Constitution of the United States is the basis of this confederacy; and it is only necessary to read the constitution to perceive that it is nothing more than a delegation of specific powers for these specific purposes, and that the general sovereignty of the States over their respective territories is expressly retained by the States.

But, sir, independent of these specific powers and duties of the Federal Government, it has another and distinct set of powers and duties to perform and execute. The national domain, as it has been called, embracing the lands acquired by the Revolutionary conflict; the lands since purchased of foreign nations; and the lands ceded by the several States to the General Government, belong to the United States in their federate capacity; and no individual State, as such, has any claim to or jurisdiction over them. As to these lands the powers of the United States are sovereign, independent, and complete: and the Congress of the United States is the only legitimate authority for the exercise of this sovereignty. The powers of Congress, then, in relation to these territories, include the powers of both the Federal and State governments, in relation to the States. I have adverted to this branch of the powers of the Federal Government as a means of dispelling the obscurity which has been thrown over the constitutional question, to which I shall soon come, by confounding the powers of Congress over the States, with their powers over the territories. Arguments, to which I shall have occasion to advert in the course of my observa[Pg 345]tions, have been used to justify the exercise of particular powers within the limits of the States, from our acknowledged right to and practical exercise of similar powers within the Territories.

In discussing constitutional questions, then, we lay down these axioms:—That in relation to the territories, the powers of Congress are supreme and exclusive; that in relation to the States, they are specifically defined and limited by the constitution—and that we have no right to exercise, within the limits of a State, any power as resulting from the general rights of sovereignty; because that sovereignty belongs to the States and to the people, and not to the Federal Government. To show that these two last positions are correct, I will read the tenth article in the amendment of the constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people."

As, then, the incorporation of this bank involves the exercise of legislative powers within the jurisdiction of the States, in relation to the rights of property between the citizens of those States; and as no power to incorporate a bank, eo nomine, is to be found in the constitution, it would seem sufficient for us to rest the argument here, by a mere denial of the power, and to call on the advocates of the bank to show its constitutionality. An attempt to prove this constitutionality has been made—not, however, sir, by arguments advanced by gentlemen on the other side of the House in their places, (for they have, so far, observed, and I understand that they will continue to observe, a profound silence on this question,) but by arguments which have been gratuitously introduced, by the agent of the bank. I allude to the pamphlet which has within a few days past been printed and distributed among the members, containing the celebrated argument of General Hamilton, "on the constitutionality of a National Bank." As that pamphlet is de facto, if not de jure, before the committee, I will, if the committee will indulge me, attempt to examine some of the principal arguments contained in it, and I will also notice some additional ones, advanced yesterday by my honorable friend and colleague on my left, (Mr. Fisk.) In the course of the observations which I have to submit, I shall, without doubt, repeat arguments and remarks made by the gentlemen who have preceded me, and others which are familiar to the members of the committee. My excuse must rest in the difficulty of taking a connected view of the subject, without such repetitions. If I shall be so fortunate as to throw a single new ray of light on this important question, I shall feel amply remunerated for my trouble, and I shall think the time of the committee not altogether misspent.

The first argument in this pamphlet is founded on the sovereignty of the powers of Congress. The Federal Government is said to be sovereign as to all the objects for which that Government was instituted. A sovereign power includes, by force of the term, a right to all the means applicable to the attainment of the end for which that power is given; and therefore Congress may, in virtue of their sovereign power, create incorporations for attaining the ends or objects of those powers.

This argument is founded on what the logicians call petitio principii, or begging the question. The proposition, that the Government is sovereign, is assumed, to prove that it possesses the attributes of sovereignty: or, in other words, the fact of sovereignty is assumed, to prove that sovereignty. If the position that the powers of this Government are sovereign as to all the objects of them, be proved, I will concede the consequence, to wit: that we have a right to establish corporations to attain these objects—but I deny the fact of sovereignty. The acts of Congress, it is said, are declared by the constitution to be the supreme law of the land: and the power which can make the supreme law of the land, is necessarily a sovereign power. But I deny that this is a correct definition, or exposition of sovereignty. It is not the high nature of an act, nor the authority of the act, that stamps the character of sovereignty on him who performs it. The sheriff of a county who puts a man to death, under the sentence of the law, executes an act of as high import and authority as human power can execute; and yet the sheriff of a county is not therefore a sovereign. His authority is a mere delegated authority—his act is a mere ministerial, mechanical act. The idea of sovereignty imports the exercise of discretion—of judgment—of will. It is of the very essence of sovereign power, that you may execute that power, or not execute it—that you may execute it when you will, and how you will. A sovereign power, as to any object, includes a right to any means, and all the means applicable to the attainment of the object. But, sir, do Congress possess sovereign powers, or, what is the same thing, discretionary means, as to the attainment of the objects of this Government? No, sir. The constitution is not a general authority to Congress to attain the objects for which the Government was established; but it is an enumeration of the particular powers, or means, by which, and by which only, certain objects are to be accomplished. If the powers of Congress were sovereign, they would of necessity comprehend all the means applicable to the attainment of their objects; but inasmuch as they are specific and circumscribed, that very circumstance proves that they are not sovereign. The people of the United States are the true sovereigns of this country. From them all power emanates, and on their will all the authority of this Government depends. The powers of the Federal Government are mere delegated chartered authorities; and in the exercise of them we are tied down to the letter of the constitution. We have, to be sure, a certain latitude of discretion allowed us, within the letter and pale of the constitution; and so far we may be said to possess a sort of limited qualified[Pg 346] sovereignty. But the constitution is the standard by which to measure the quantum and extent of our sovereignty. And our sovereignty, which is the result of the powers given in the constitution, is not the standard by which to measure the constitution. The constitution is the true bed of Procrustes—and our sovereignty, however unwillingly we may yield it, must be the victim.

Another argument, which is rather an argument to the favor than to the right of this bank, is, that it is an innocent institution; that, although its erection involves the exercise of legislative powers within the States, it does not abridge or affect the rights of the citizens, as secured to them by the laws of those States. A corporation, it is said, is a fiction of the law, a mere political transformation of a number of individuals from their natural into an artificial character, for the purpose of enabling them to do business to better advantage, and on a more extended scale; but, that when this political association, this legal entity, is once formed, it becomes subject to the laws of the State in which it happens to be placed.

I know, sir, that there is nothing formidable in the abstract idea of a corporation. It is a mere phantom of the imagination, invisible, intangible, and, of course, innocent. But, sir, when the legal effects of this incorporation are to invest the individuals whom it associates with privileges and immunities to which they were not before entitled; when this legal fiction is interposed to shield certain individuals from the liabilities to which they would be subject as ordinary citizens, it then becomes a matter of important and serious consequence. What are some of the legal effects of this incorporation?

One of its most obvious and distinguished characteristics is, that it exempts the private property and persons of the stockholders from all liability for the payment of the debts of the company. By the laws of every State in the Union, every man is, I believe, liable for the payment of his debts, to the full amount of his private fortune; and, in case that fortune prove insufficient, his personal liberty is at the disposal of his creditor; at least to a certain extent. Is not, then, the exemption from these liabilities an important immunity? Is it not an exclusive privilege secured to the stockholders of this bank? Assuredly it is. I know it has been said that a number of individuals may, by a private association, secure to themselves all the advantages of an incorporated company; that, by forming a common fund or stock upon which to do business, and issuing notes chargeable upon that fund, they may exonerate their persons and private property from all liability for the payment of the debts contracted in that business. I am no lawyer, sir; but if the law be what it is said to be, and what I believe it to be, summa ratio, then I pronounce this doctrine not to be law; for nothing can be more preposterous in principle than to say, that a man may, by his own act, avoid the force of an obligation which the law has made universal and unqualified. If a man owes a debt, acknowledges he owes it, and has received a consideration for it, the law has prescribed the nature and extent of his liability to pay it; and it is not for him to say that it shall only be paid out of a certain fund, or particular part of his property, and no other. When men contract a debt jointly, the legal obligation to pay it extends as well to the persons and separate property of the individual partners, as to their joint property.

Another feature of this incorporation is, that it authorizes the stockholders to take usurious interest for their money. By the provisions of the law, the bank may issue notes and make discounts to double the amount of their capital stock; and, in addition to that, to the amount of any moneys which may happen to be deposited in their vaults for safe-keeping; and this, too, independent of the debts created by these deposits. The bank, then, may, and in fact, in many instances, does draw an interest on three or four times its capital. Every State in the Union has laws regulating the rate of interest, and in most of the States this rate is fixed at six per cent. a year. By these laws it is made penal for a man to receive more than six per cent. interest for the use of any sum of money which, by a loan, he puts at hazard, and the use of which he deprives himself of. Now, sir, this bank is permitted, contrary to those laws, to draw an interest on twenty or thirty millions of dollars, when, in truth, the whole extent of its responsibility, the whole sum which it puts at hazard, and the use of which it foregoes, is only its original stock of ten millions. In answer to this, it will be said that an individual may, by issuing notes to an amount greater than his property, legally receive an interest on a capital which he does not possess. But it must be recollected, in case of the individual, that, although he may not at the particular time possess a property adequate to the payment of his debts, yet that all the property which he may subsequently acquire, will be liable for the payment of those debts; and what is more, sir, his personal liberty is always put in jeopardy. In this point of view, the liability and the hazard of the individual may fairly be said to be co-extensive with the whole amount of the capital on which he draws an interest; and which is often the case with the bank.

This bank incorporation possesses other qualities at war with the laws of the several States; one of which is, that it authorizes stockholders, who may be foreigners, to hold real estate. But, sir, I will not detain the committee any longer on this part of the argument, for this institution cannot be said to be innocent, as regards the rights of the States, when its effects on the rights of property are to exonerate the stockholders from some of the most important responsibilities which the laws of the several States have provided for the payment of debts; and when it authorizes the taking of usurious[Pg 347] interest. I lay it down, then, as a position which cannot be controverted, that the granting of this charter is not only an interference with the municipal regulations of the several States in relation to the rights of property; but that it is an infraction of the rights of individuals as secured by those regulations.

But it is contended, that a right to incorporate a Bank of the United States is delegated to Congress by the constitution: and five or six different provisions of the constitution are referred to as giving this right. It is said that it is implied in the power to lay and collect taxes, in the power to borrow money, in the power to regulate trade and intercourse between the several States, in the power to provide for the general welfare, and in the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territorial and other property of the United States. The very circumstance of referring this right to many different heads of authority is, in itself, conclusive evidence that it has no very direct relation to any of them. For it can scarcely be imagined, that the single act of incorporating a bank can be at the same time any thing like a direct execution of so many and such distinct and independent powers. But I will examine these provisions separately.

Before I proceed, however, I will premise that all the arguments in support of the right to incorporate a bank, as deducible from the provisions of the constitution itself, are built up by the aid of the clause of the constitution, which has been sometimes called "the sweeping clause." I allude to the clause which declares that Congress shall have the right to pass all laws necessary and proper for the carrying into execution the delegated powers. All the powers in the constitution are given for certain ends or objects. But each power is not a general authority to attain a particular object, and comprehending, of course, all the means or powers applicable to its accomplishment; but, in most cases, it is a specific means for effecting some particular end, and all other means or powers (for means and powers are the same thing) conducive to the same end, are expressly excluded by the restrictive clauses of the constitution.

The mode of reasoning adopted by General Hamilton, and the other advocates of implied powers, is this: They first search for the end or object for which a particular power is given; and this object will be an immediate or ultimate one, as may best suit the purpose of the argument. Having ascertained the end or object, they abandon the power; or, rather, they confound the power and the object of it together, and make the attainment of the object, and the execution of the power given to accomplish it, convertible terms. Whatever, they say, attains the object for which any power is given, is an execution of that power. But the constitution gives to Congress a right to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the delegated powers; and, therefore, as the execution of a power and the attainment of its object are synonymous terms, the constitution gives to Congress a right to make all laws necessary and proper for attaining the ends or objects for which the various powers in the constitution are given.

I beg leave to read a passage from this pamphlet: "The relation between the measure and the end, between the nature of the means employed towards the execution of a power and the object, must be the criterion of constitutionality." Here then is the axiom—now for the application of it. The constitution gives to Congress the power to levy taxes, and also the power to borrow money. But the establishment of a bank is neither levying taxes nor borrowing money; nor is the law incorporating the bank a law to levy taxes, or a law to borrow money. But the immediate end or object for which these two powers were given, was, to enable the Government to raise a revenue; and a bank may promote this object. Then, sir, by a dexterous application of the argument which I have stated, the fallacy of which consists in the sudden and unobserved transitions which are made from the power to the object, and from the object back again to the power, they prove that the establishment of a bank is in execution of the powers to lay taxes and to borrow money. I will now, sir, proceed to examine the particular provisions of the constitution which have been relied on, and to place the subject in some different aspects.

In the first place, then, it is contended that the right to incorporate a Bank of the United States is included in the power to lay and collect taxes. And what is the argument by which this position is maintained? Why, sir, it is said that the law, by creating bank paper and making that paper receivable in payment for taxes, increases the circulating medium in which taxes are paid, and of course must facilitate the payment of them. That whatever facilitates the payment of taxes facilitates also the collection of them; and whatever aids or facilitates the collection of taxes, is a means for their collection. And, therefore, the incorporation of a bank is in execution of the power to lay and collect taxes.

No man, sir, ought to complain of the weakness of a Government, whose powers may be reasoned up by logic like this. Amidst the infinite variety of relations and connections, and dependencies and analogies by which all human transactions are allied to each other, he must be a weak politician who cannot, by hooking together a chain of implication like this, justify any and every measure of political policy or economy, as a means of executing some of the powers with which this Government is intrusted. Take this latitude of implication or construction, and you want no other power but the power to lay and collect taxes. It may be tortured into a justification of every measure which ambition itself could desire. No tyrant ever made a law without assigning the public good[Pg 348] as the motive of it. No man on this floor, however wicked his designs, would venture to propose a measure (indeed few could be proposed) in favor of which he could not adduce some plausible argument, to show that it would tend to promote the general prosperity of the country. And in showing this he would show its constitutionality; for it is demonstrable that whatever would promote the general prosperity of the country, would, and for that very reason, facilitate, in some greater or less degree, the payment of taxes; and might therefore be justified as a means for the collection of taxes.

But, sir, the constitution, as I have said before, and I must repeat it again, for this is the radical source of all the error on this subject—the Constitution of the United States is not, as such reasoning supposes it to be, a mere general designation of the ends or objects for which the Federal Government was established, and leaving to Congress a discretion as to the means or powers by which those ends shall be brought about. But the constitution is a specification of the powers or means themselves by which certain objects are to be accomplished. The powers of the constitution, carried into execution according to the strict terms and import of them, are the appropriate means, and the only means within the reach of this Government, for the attainment of its ends. It is true, as the constitution declares, and it would be equally true if the constitution did not declare it, that Congress have a right to pass all laws necessary and proper for executing the delegated powers; but this gives no latitude or discretion in the selection of means or powers. A power given to Congress in its legislative capacity, without the right to pass laws to execute it, would be nugatory; would be no power at all. It would be a solecism in language to call it a power. A power to lay and collect taxes, carries with it a right to make laws for that purpose; but they must be laws to lay and collect taxes, and not laws to incorporate banks. If you undertake to justify a law under a particular power, you must show the incidentality and applicability of the law to the power itself, and not merely its relation to any supposed end which is to be accomplished by its exercise. You must show that the plain, direct, ostensible, primary object and tendency of your law is to execute the power, and not that it will tend to facilitate the execution of it. It is not less absurd than it is dangerous, first to assume some great, distinct and independent power, unknown to the constitution, and violating the rights of the States; and, then, to attempt to justify it by a reference to some remote, indirect, collateral tendency, which the exercise of it may have towards facilitating the execution of some known and acknowledged power. This word facilitate has become a very fashionable word in the construction of powers; but, sir, it is a dangerous one; it means more than we are aware of. To do a thing and to facilitate the doing of it, are distinct operations; they are distinct means; they are distinct powers. The constitution has expressly given to Congress the power to do certain things; and it has as explicitly withheld from them the power to do every other thing. The power to lay and collect taxes is one thing; and the power to establish banks, involving in its exercise the regulation of the internal domestic economy of the States, is another and totally distinct thing; and the one is, therefore, not included in the other.

Again, sir, it is contended that the right to incorporate a bank is implied in the power to regulate trade and intercourse between the several States. It is said to be so, inasmuch as it creates a paper currency, which furnishes a convenient and common circulating medium of trade between the several States. Money, sir, has nothing more to do with trade, than that it furnishes a medium or representative of the value of the articles employed in trade. The only office of bank bills is to represent money. Now, if it be a regulation of trade, to create the representative articles or subjects of trade a fortiori, will it be a regulation of trade to create the articles or subjects themselves. By this reasoning then you may justify the right of Congress to establish manufacturing and agricultural companies within the several States; because the direct object and effect of these would be, to increase manufactures and agricultural products, which are the known and common subjects of trade. You might, with more propriety say, that under the power to regulate trade between the States, we have a right to incorporate canal companies; because canals would tend directly to open, facilitate and encourage trade and intercourse between the several States; and, in my humble opinion, sir, canals would furnish a much more salutary, direct and efficacious means, for enabling the great body of the people to pay their taxes, than is furnished by banks. But, sir, these various powers have never been claimed by the Federal Government; and, much as I am known to favor that particular species of internal improvement, I would never vote to incorporate a company for the purpose of opening a canal through any State, without first obtaining the consent of that State whose territorial rights would be affected by it. There can be no question but canal companies, and agricultural companies, and manufacturing companies, and banking companies, may all tend, more or less, to facilitate the operations of trade; but they have nothing to do with the political regulations of trade; and such only come within the scope of the powers of Congress.

But, it is again said, that the right to grant this charter is included in the power to borrow money. The right is attempted to be deduced by a train of reasoning similar to that employed in relation to the provisions which I have already noticed—by forming a string of implications, by which you prove that a power to act in certain cases, and in relation to certain subjects, implies the power to create those[Pg 349] cases and subjects to act upon. The Government, it is said, may want and must have money, in any great national crisis. A National Bank with an extensive capital will furnish ample means for loans, will facilitate the exercise of the power to borrow; and, therefore, the right to establish such a bank is implied in the power to borrow. No one, but a logician, sir, would imagine that a power to lend and a power to borrow had any relation to each other, much less could he conjecture that a power to borrow, and a power to create the ability to lend, mean the same thing. A plain unsophisticated man, on reading the constitution, would say, that the power to borrow necessarily, and by force of the term, pre-supposed the existence of the ability and disposition to lend; and that it could not be exercised unless such ability and disposition should actually exist. But the favorite doctrine is, that all powers are given for particular ends, and include all the means applicable to their attainment. Here the end is to borrow money; to borrow honestly if we can, but—to borrow. The ability to lend is a necessary means or ingredient toward perfecting the execution of the power to borrow. But, sir, let me ask, whether the disposition to lend be not as necessary a means towards accomplishing a loan as the ability? It unquestionably is. And, of course, by the doctrine that the end justifies the means, you may coerce the will to lend—and this too equally, in cases where the ability is created by Congress, and where it is derived from any other quarter. A loan obtained by bringing into fair operation all the implications of this power would be borrowing in an off-handed style. Such a loan, if effected by Bonaparte, we should call robbery; but in this mild Republic, it would be nothing more than the fair exercise of an implied constitutional power.

I have pursued this argument thus far, merely for the purpose of showing the absurdities into which this doctrine of implication will lead us. But suppose, sir, that the argument of the gentleman on the other side of the question be correct, to wit: that the power to borrow implies a right to furnish the ability to lend. What, I would ask, is the probable fact, as to the facilities which this bank will afford the Government in borrowing?

It will be conceded that we shall have no occasion for borrowing, except in case of war; and if we have a war, the probability is, that that war will be with Great Britain—I say this, not as a party man, sir, but because the interests of that nation, from her situation, and her rival pursuits, will be much more likely to come in collision with ours, than those of any other power. Now it is a fact, in evidence before the committee, that more than one-half of the stock of this bank belongs to British subjects: and although, as foreigners, they can have no direct agency in the affairs of the bank, yet we well know that through the instrumentality of their friends and agents, of whom there are unfortunately too many in this country, they may completely control its operations. Now I would ask, whether it is probable, that the British subjects would be willing to lend us money to carry on war against their sovereign? Would they not, on the contrary, exert the influence which they are said to possess over the moneyed interest of this country, for the purpose of depressing the credit of the country; for the purpose of crippling the operations of the State banks; and for the purpose of drying up the sources from which the Government might otherwise calculate to derive supplies? But, sir, this has little to do with the question of constitutionality, to which I will again return.

Another ground upon which the constitutionality of this institution has been attempted to be supported, is, that it is necessary to the regular and successful administration of the finances. There is no question, but the bank and its branches afford convenient places for the deposit and safe keeping of the public revenue. It is not to be controverted that they also furnish a safe, convenient, expeditious and cheap means for the transmission of moneys from one part of the United States to another, as they may be wanted by the Government; and if these facilities were not to be attained in any other way, I should say it would afford an argument in favor of a bank. Not a bank infringing and violating the rights of the States; but, a bank upon principles consistent with those rights.

But, sir, is there not, in every State in which there is a branch of the United States' Bank, also one or more State banks, of equal respectability, and of equal security—at least to the extent of any sum for which they are willing to undertake? These State banks may be used as depositaries for the public moneys, and they will be equally safe and convenient. And if you will give to these State banks the advantages of these deposits, as you have hitherto given them to the United States' Bank, they will furnish means for the transmission of moneys from place to place, equally safe, convenient, cheap and expeditious. This object will be attained by connections which will be formed between the banks of the different States. Such connections have already in many instances been formed. But they have not been carried to the extent they otherwise would have been, on account of the United States' Bank and its branches; between which there is so intimate and so necessary a connection.

But, in answer to this, it is said that if the Bank of the United States would be constitutional without the existence of the State banks, it is equally so with. That a power which is once constitutional is equally so at all times, and under all circumstances. That a right which must depend for its existence on the will of the State Legislatures, over whom we have no control, is incomplete, and indeed, as to us, is no right all. This argument is founded on the supposition that the Federal Government is a[Pg 350] complete Government, containing in itself all the principles and powers necessary for its own operations, which supposition is wholly false. The Federal Government does not profess to be complete in itself. It is expressly predicated on the existence of the State Governments; and most of the facilities for its exercise are derived from the State governments. It cannot perform even its own peculiar powers and functions, without the aid and co-operation of the State authorities. How, let me ask you, sir, is your Government constituted? Your Senate is appointed directly by the State Legislatures. Your President and House of Representatives, indirectly, by the same authority. Suppose they should neglect or refuse to make these appointments, can you compel them to do it? No, sir. Can you punish them for not doing it? Not in the least. They may appoint or not, as they think proper; and if they should neglect or refuse to do it, your boasted complete Government would die a natural death, by its own imbecility. It is not fair, then, to say that a power is constitutional, because the Government would be incomplete without it. It is not fair to say, that what would be constitutional without the existence of the State Governments and their appendages, is equally so with. This would prove that you have a right to appoint your own President, Senate and House of Representatives. It would go to usurp all the powers of the State Governments; for the Government could not be said to be complete without possessing the powers of both Governments combined. Indeed, this Federal Government cannot be said to be complete as to a single power, without all the auxiliary powers of the State Governments; for there is not a single act which it can perform without their assistance, directly or indirectly. The very bank law now under consideration is an illustration of this—for how are the provisions of this law to be enforced; how are the debts which it authorizes to be contracted to be collected, but through the medium of the State courts? The doctrine of perfect rights, then, if it prove any thing, proves too much. If it proves that, in order to manage your revenues, you may establish banks within the States; it equally proves, that, in order to carry the provisions of your bank laws into execution, you may establish courts and offices within the States for that purpose. I think then, sir, I may fairly conclude, that so long as the State Governments furnish you with all the facilities which you can reasonably require for conducting your revenues by means of their State banks; so long it will be unnecessary—so long it will be improper—and, therefore, so long it will be unconstitutional to invade the jurisdiction of the States, to establish national banks.

But, sir, I will conclude by again cautioning my Republican friends, and my worthy colleague in particular, to beware how they familiarize themselves with this doctrine of constructive power. It is a creed at war with the vital principles of political liberty. The pride and the boast of the American Governments is, that they are the governments of the laws and not of men—that they are the regular and necessary operations and results of principles and powers, established in the moments of cool and deliberate reflection, by the combined wisdom of the nation; and that they are not the effects of the momentary passion, pride, interest, whim, or caprice of a few individuals collected on this floor.

Little did the framers of this constitution, when they were so nicely adjusting and balancing its various provisions—when they were so carefully erecting guards and barriers against the encroachments of power and ambition—little, I say, sir, did they imagine, that there lay concealed under the provisions of this constitution, a secret and sleeping power, which could, in a moment, prostrate all their labors with the dust. Still less, sir, did the people when they adopted this constitution, with even more caution and scruple than that with which it was formed, conjecture that they were signing the death-warrant of all their State rights. But, once adopt the doctrine that you may travel out of the letter of this constitution, and assume powers, merely on the ground that they will tend to facilitate the execution of powers which are here given; and you compass, at a single sweep, all the rights of the States; and form the basis of a consolidated Government.

Let the principle of constructive or implied powers be once established, in the extent to which it must be carried in order to pass this bill, and you will have planted in the bosom of this constitution a viper which, one day or another, will sting the liberties of this country to the heart.

When Mr. Porter had concluded his speech, the question was taken on striking out the first section, and carried—59 to 46.

The committee rose, and reported to the House, who adjourned without taking a question on the report.

Saturday, January 19.

Another member, to wit, from New York, Barent Gardenier, appeared, and took his seat.

Bank of the United States.

Mr. Sawyer called for the order of the day on the unfinished business of yesterday—the bill continuing the charter of the Bank of the United States.

And then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning eleven o'clock.

Saturday, January 26.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, Edward St. Loe Livermore, appeared, and took his seat.

Tuesday, January 29.

Removal of Federal Judges on address of Congress.

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Wright.—Believing, as I do, that the Constitution of the United States is not perfect, and as provision is made in the body of the instrument for amending its imperfections in the manner therein prescribed, I feel it an imperious duty to propose an amendment to it. Here let me remark, that its adoption was opposed by the patriots of America, at the time of its ratification, because of omissions important to liberty. It had not guarded against an establishment of religion; it had not secured the right of the people to keep and bear arms; it had not guarded against soldiers being quartered in our houses in time of peace, without our consent, it had not guarded against warrants being issued without oath; it had not guarded against a man's being put to answer without previous indictment; it had not secured the criminal in the trial by jury; it had not secured the trial by jury in cases of common law, and these omissions as due guards to the liberty of the citizens stand recorded in these amendments almost coeval with the instrument. The terms Federal and anti-Federal had their origin in the zeal of the respective parties at that time; the one insisting on its adoption with all these imperfections on its head, while the other insisted on these amendments; and it has always appeared to me, that on the adoption of the amendments that those who were called anti-Federals were really the Federals, the constitution being perfected by the adoption of these amendments. The foregoing amendments test its original imperfection, and I trust will lead this House to a temperate examination of the amendment I now propose to submit.

The amendment, sir, is to place the judiciary of the United States on the same foundation that the British judiciary are placed by their laws; by enabling the President, on the joint address of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, to remove a judge.

In England the judges held their commissions during the pleasure of the Crown, till the time of Charles the First, when the Parliament imposed upon the King the necessity of granting them during good behavior; till then the Crown, as the fountain of justice, held the uncontrolled direction of the commissions of the judges. At the same time, sir, the High Commission Court and Star Chamber were abolished. In the thirteenth year of William the Third, the judges, by statute, were to hold their commissions during good behavior, and by the same statute they may be removed by the joint address of both Houses of Parliament; and here let me remark, that under that tenure and responsibility, the British judiciary have attained a celebrity in history for their judicial integrity and correctness highly honorable to them, and which this amendment, I fondly hope, in time, may correctly attach to the judiciary of the[Pg 352] United States. There are a variety of cases where the exercise of this power may be necessary for the safety of the people, which ought to be the supreme law. This power, I trust, will never be abused by the American Congress. I do not recollect a case under the British Government, where for fifty years it has been exercised, and I trust we shall not ascribe to ourselves an indisposition to the correct discharge of those functions which have been correctly exercised or rather not exercised at all for fifty years by the British Government. If in England, where the Crown is hereditary, the Lords hereditary and for life, and the Commons for seven years, this tenure and responsibility has been found necessary, I trust in this Government, where the President is for four years, the Senate for six, and the House of Representatives for two years, this judicial tenure and responsibility will be thought expedient, and that this amendment will be adopted by Congress, particularly as it is but a preliminary decision—as it must be submitted to the States, and cannot go into operation but by the consent of three-fourths of the United States. I have therefore thought fit to submit this resolution, and hope the reasons assigned will induce you to believe that I think it of such importance to the nation as to entitle it to your attention.

Mr. W. then submitted the following resolutions:

The House refused to consider the motion—45 to 38.

Wednesday, January 30.

Jared Shattuck's Claim.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Jared Shattuck—59 to 29.

The report is favorable to the claimant—a bill for the relief of this person having in two former sessions passed this House, but not been acceded to in the Senate.

Mr. Montgomery, in a speech of some length, opposed the claim, and moved that the committee rise, with a view to printing the papers relating to the claim, which he conceived was not fully understood.

This motion was debated, and lost—56 to 43.

The report was also debated, and agreed to—57 to 39.

The committee then rose and reported their agreement to the report.

Thursday, January 31.

Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, Orchard Cook, appeared, and took his seat.

Mississippi Territory.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of the select committee in favor of admitting the Mississippi Territory into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.

A desultory debate of two or three hours took place on the resolution.

Messrs. Poindexter, Johnson, Gholson, McKim, Sheffey, Holland, and Wright, spoke in favor of the resolution, and Messrs. Bacon, Pitkin, Quincy, Bigelow, and Blaisdell, against it. The arguments in favor of its passage were, among others, that the territory could, when possessing a population of 60,000, claim admission as a right; that it now contained probably 45,000, and would, more than probably, before a Representative could be elected under the new constitution, contain full 60,000 souls; that, after admitting Orleans to the rank of a State, with a minor population, at the present session, it would be the height of injustice to refuse the same privilege to Mississippi, which had been so much longer a part of the united territory, and against the admission of which into the Union none of the constitutional objections had weight which had been urged against the admission of Orleans. The opponents of the resolution argued that some respect was due to the feelings, however grounded, of the eastern States, in relation to the creation of new States on the western waters; that the admission of one State during a session was sufficient; if two were admitted into the Union, in the course of three months, the people of the eastern States would be justly alarmed at the diminution of their relative weight in the scale of the Union; that, since it was acknowledged the new State could not be represented before the thirteenth Congress, there could be no occasion for pressing this subject so urgently at this time. Why not, it was asked, wait for the actual census of the territory? The very solicitude which was manifested to get this subject through Congress, it was said, showed there was something wrong, and was a strong argument against the adoption of the resolution.

The resolution was agreed to in Committee of the Whole—ayes 62.

The committee rose, and reported their agreement to the resolution.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the said resolution, and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 68, nays 47.

Friday, February 1.

Commercial Intercourse.

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following bill reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations:

[Pg 353]

Mr. Emott moved to amend the same by striking out the words in italic, and to insert in their place, "or merchandise." The bill, as amended, would read as follows:

Mr. Emott.—Mr. Chairman: As the bill which is now on your table is calculated to relieve our merchants in part from the restrictive system which has again been attempted to be put in operation, I so far approve of it; but as it does not appear to me to go far enough, I rise for the purpose of moving an amendment, which, if adopted, will once more give us a clear deck; and while I am up, the committee will permit me, as concisely as the nature of the subject will admit, to assign the reasons which induce me to propose the amendment.

By the law of the first of May last, the President was authorized, in case either of the great belligerents, before the third of March, revoked her anti-neutral edicts, to proclaim the same, and if the other did not in three months also revoke, a non-intercourse with her was to follow. On the second day of November, the President had proclaimed, as a fact, that France had made the necessary revocation; and it follows, if he was correct as to the fact, that on the second day of this month, the non-intercourse went into operation against Great Britain.

As many formerly, and more latterly, have doubted as to the fact thus proclaimed, it becomes, sir, a duty which we owe to ourselves and to the people, to inquire into its existence; for if it be true that no such repeal, as was contemplated by the law, has taken place; if, indeed, the President has been deceived, or was mistaken, we cannot too soon make it known, and relieve the country from the vexation and embarrassment which must result from the present state of things.

If, sir, additional motives were necessary, we may find them in the bills which have this morning been introduced into the House by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, at the instance of the Secretary of the Treasury, one of which goes to lay large additional duties, and the other to authorize a loan. The reasons assigned by the Secretary for this new and heavy tax on our citizens are, that as the greater part of our duties on imports are collected on goods coming from Great Britain and her colonies, and as those duties will cease with the revival of the non-importation, it becomes necessary, in order to prevent a defalcation in the revenue, to tax the production of other countries much beyond the present rate. On this presumed defalcation, too, in some degree depends the proposition for a loan, or, if a loan be necessary, the amount of it. In this point of view, it becomes highly important to ascertain whether the non-intercourse has gone into operation; for if it has not, I trust we shall not proceed to give form and shape to the recommendation of the Secretary, that we shall not burden the country with new taxes, or subject it to large loans.

In the commencement of this inquiry, Mr. Chairman, we naturally ask ourselves, what edicts are to be revoked, and how are they to be revoked? It is not material to extend this inquiry to Great Britain, as we know of no revocation on her part, and, under all circumstances, we have not, I fear, much reason to believe that there will be such revocation. But it may be well to notice here something which has the appearance of inconsistency, on the part of our Executive, towards that Government.

The non-intercourse law of March, 1809, contains a provision, that, "in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the President shall declare the same by proclamation, and the non-intercourse was then to cease as to the nation revoking. It was under this law, and in consequence of the power so given to the President, that the celebrated, though ill-fated arrangement, was made between the Executive and the British Minister, Mr. Erskine. Now, sir, by referring to this arrangement, you will find, that on April 18, Mr. Erskine proposed to Secretary Smith the revocation of the orders in council of January and November, 1807, as a compliance on the part of Great Britain with the terms of the act of March; and our Secretary, on the same day, declaring that the withdrawing of such orders would be deemed satisfactory by the President, the arrangement was completed on the 19th, and a proclamation accordingly issued on the ground, and assuming the fact, that the British edicts had ceased to violate our neutral commerce, and again opening the intercourse between the two countries after the 10th of June.

This arrangement, and the short and hasty correspondence connected with it, you will recollect, sir, were presented to Congress with the Message, at the opening of the summer session of 1809, and we then passed a law, the object of which was to ratify and to carry into effect the arrangement. Here, then, we have an explicit opinion from both the Executive and the Legislature, that the only British orders which came within the spirit and intent of the law of March, were those of January and November[Pg 354] 1807, and that, when those orders were revoked, the edicts of Great Britain ceased to violate the commerce of the United States.

I pray you now, Mr. Chairman, to turn with me to the law of May last; you will there find the precise phraseology of the act of March: "In case either Great Britain or France shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the President is to make known the fact by proclamation. The authority given to the President is in both cases the same, and it was to have been presumed that it would have been exercised on the same terms. But, sir, it will be found, on referring to the papers, that, under the act of May, the Executive made a further requisition. The revocation of the orders in council of January and November was not to satisfy us, but the blockade of the year preceding was to be also annulled.

In the letter from Secretary Smith to our Minister at London, of the 5th of July, 1810, and which enclosed a copy of the law of May, it is said, "that in explaining the extent of the repeal which is required on the British side, Mr. Pinkney will let it be distinctly understood, that it must necessarily include an annulment of the blockade of 1806;" and our minister accordingly, in his letter to Lord Wellesley, of the 21st of September, tells him it is his duty to state "that an annulment of the blockade of May, 1806, is considered by the President to be as indispensable, in the view of the act, as the revocation of the British orders in council." Nay, so far has the President gone in this particular as to give the French Government a pledge that this will be required on the part of Great Britain. In the letter from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, 1810, the latter is authorized, if it should be found necessary, to "let it be understood that a repeal of the illegal blockades of a date prior to the Berlin decree, namely, that of May, 1806, will be included in the condition required of Great Britain."

It is not my intention at this time, to enter into a discussion on the subject of blockades, nor am I to be understood as giving countenance to the system of paper blockades, whether that system proceeds from or is attempted to be enforced by England or by France; but, sir, I have gone into this examination to show that the President has acted differently under two laws which ought to have the same practical construction, because the terms used in them were alike; that under the law of May, 1810, he added a condition to a settlement with Great Britain, which he did not require under the law of March, 1809; and why this difference?

Will it be said, that when the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine the President had no knowledge of the blockading orders of May, 1806? Not so, sir. By recurring to a report made by Mr. Madison, as Secretary of State, in December, 1808, of belligerent decrees and orders affecting neutral commerce, you will find this very blockade; and certainly what he knew as Secretary in December, he must have known as President in the April following. Shall I be told the President had discovered that the blockade had been "avowed to be comprehended in, and identified with, the orders in council?" I fear this will not be a satisfactory answer. For, in this case, if the orders in council are rescinded, the connection between them and the blockade will then stand as it was supposed by the Executive to stand when the arrangement was entered into.

Persons, Mr. Chairman, more prone to jealousy than myself, and who are disposed to find fault with the late Executive projects, may perhaps point to that passage in the letter from Secretary Smith to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d of May, 1810, in which it is said, that the President has read, with surprise and regret, the reply of Lord Wellesley to the note requiring explanations with respect to the blockade of France, which "evinces an inflexible determination to persevere in the system of blockade," as affording a reason for this added condition: they may say that it was thrust in when our Administration were satisfied that it would not be acceded to by the British, and for the purpose of preventing an accommodation with, and keeping up the irritation against, that nation. But while, for myself, I disclaim this inference, I must confess that I am at a loss to assign a sufficient motive for the difference in the two cases.

As to France, sir, what were the edicts to be revoked, and how revoked? I shall have occasion, before I sit down, to notice the Berlin and Milan decrees. But were there not other decrees?

We have before us the Rambouillet decree, with a date of the 23d of March, 1810, which declares that "all vessels navigating under the flag of the United States, or possessed in whole or in part by a citizen or subject of that power, which, counting from the 20th of May, 1809, have entered, or shall enter into the ports of our Empire, of our colonies, or of the countries occupied by our arms, shall be seized, and the product of the sales shall be deposited in the surplus fund." Thus embracing almost the whole of continental Europe; for, with the exception of the Russian ports on the Baltic, and two or three places in the European peninsula, every port frequented by the Americans belonged either to the Empire of France, to the colonies of that Empire, or to countries occupied by the forces of the Empire. The seizures under this decree were consequently great and distressing to our merchants.

This decree purports to be an act of reprisal on this country, and for what cause? Not for any act of hostility by us; not for any seizures or confiscations of French vessels or French property under the authority, or within the limits of this Government. No, sir, a pretence of this kind appeared too absurd to be inserted even in a French decree. It is true that[Pg 355] General Armstrong, in his letter to Secretary Smith, of the 10th of September, 1810, communicates a verbal explanation which accompanied the last letter of the French Minister: "If you confiscate French property under the law of non-intercourse, they will confiscate your property under their decree of Rambouillet." Ay, sir, and they have given a practical explanation that they would confiscate our property under the decree, although we did not confiscate their property under the non-intercourse law. Look at the decree itself, and you will find the motive, or rather the pretext for this act of reprisal. It is grounded on the passing of the act of the 1st of March, 1809, and it is grounded on that alone.

Thus, because we deemed it advisable to pass a law which we supposed was a mere municipal regulation, inasmuch as it related to our own citizens, or our own territories; a law, which, according to its letter, applied equally to both belligerents, and which was not to commence its operation until the 20th of May, contained in itself a notice sufficient to prevent any injury to French subjects; for this cause, and for this alone, the Emperor adopts, as an act of reprisal, a decree which subjects to seizure and confiscation, not only American property which should reach the continent after notice of the decree, or even after its date, but property which arrived there at any time for the preceding twelve months. I will not stop to inquire what would and what ought to have been the feelings of the Administration and of the country, if such an outrage had been committed by England for such a cause. But, sir, if the French Government is allowed to have in the act of March an excuse for reprisal, we had better discontinue making laws altogether; for it is difficult to find in our statute book a law less hostile to France, or more within the right of an independent Government to enact.

To see the true character of this decree, we must approach it a little nearer; and with the letters of the Duke of Cadore in my hand—those letters, sir, which have occasioned our present embarrassments—I am strangely deceived if this proceeding of the French Government does not appear to partake of the nature of an offence which, as respects individuals, is called swindling. It is a taking of property under false pretences.

Allow me now, Mr. Chairman, to present you with another view of this decree. The Duke of Cadore, in his letter of the 5th of August, 1810, says: "Now Congress retrace their steps; they revoke the act of the 1st of March; the ports of America are opened to French commerce, and France is no longer interdicted to the Americans." And in his letter of the 7th of September, he uses these expressions: "His Majesty has always wished to favor the commerce of the United States. It was not without reluctance that he used reprisals towards the Americans, while he saw that Congress had ordered the confiscation of all French vessels which might arrive in the United States."

"As soon as His Majesty was informed of this hostile act, he felt that the honor of France, involved in this point, could not be cleansed but by a declaration of war." Now "the American vessels which shall arrive in France, will not be subject to confiscation, because the act of Congress, which had served as a motive to our reprisals, is repealed." From this exposition of the views of the French Government, handed to us by the Minister of Exterior Relations, we perceive that he places the Rambouillet decree entirely to the account of the non-intercourse law of March; and from the course of reasoning used by him, it seems to be admitted that the decree, and the seizures under it, could not be justified, but while the obnoxious law was in force.

But we here again meet with another of the mistakes of this most just Government, which is so jealous of its honor and so friendly to our commerce. The fact happens to be that the law never was repealed. By its own limitation it expired with the then session of Congress, and, of course, went out of existence on the 28th of June, 1809. Thus this poor law, which is now brought up in judgment against us, had quietly descended to the tomb of the Capulets almost a year before the Emperor and King thought it consistent with his interest, or for the honor of his empire, to commence his measures of retaliation. The limitation clause could not have escaped the attention of His Majesty when he read the law; and, I trust, we yet have pride enough to believe that he knows there is an American Congress, and notices the periods of our meeting and departure, if he is careless about our proceedings. When, therefore, Napoleon issued the plundering decree of Rambouillet, he knew that the law on which he placed his justification had long since expired. But he knew a further fact, that the law never did affect French vessels. The British navy kept them at home, and we excluded English vessels only. Such was the practical and the only practical operation of our law.

I am aware that the apologists of the Emperor will point to the act of the 1st of June, 1809, as reviving or continuing certain sections of the law of March. Let me not be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I do not mean to insinuate that the Emperor has apologists in this House, in this ark of independence and liberty of a great people; but, in whatever place this suggestion shall be offered, it may be answered that the French Government have not noticed the last law in their decree, or in any of their official papers. And it may be further remarked that the law of June, like that of March, was limited to the end of the next session of Congress, and, of course, ceased its operation on the 1st of May, 1810. As the decree issued on the 14th of May, and the seizures under it were after that time, it would seem, to a man of common understanding, who believes the transactions between nations are, or ought to be,[Pg 356] regulated by the rules of honest, plain dealing, that the Emperor, when he had knowledge of the fact, would have loosened his hold on our property. And yet we find that, when we approach him on this subject, he laughs us to scorn.

The object which I had in view, in this examination of the Rambouillet decree, was, to mark its true character, to show that this decree emphatically outraged our neutral rights, and that, if it was submitted to by this country, our code of national rights will be found hereafter in the same books with those of the kingdoms which belong to the Confederation of the Rhine. Our merchants are induced to adventure to France by a prospect of large profits, and by promises of great security if their vessels have not been "denationalized." They take there many a valuable cargo, until the amount of property becomes an object of imperial attention, and then it is seized upon by an irresistible and unrelenting hand, without notice, and upon pretexts void of any foundation. Can a decree, or order, or edict, be pointed out in the long history of our wrongs and our sufferings, which is more strongly marked with injustice, or which more strongly "violates our neutral commerce?"

I will not detain the committee by entering into a particular examination of the French decrees, which, in the commencement of the last year, authorized the seizure of such a number of American vessels at St. Sebastians, at Naples, and in the North of Europe. It would lead me too far into the views and conduct of the French Government towards this country, for the purposes of this discussion. But, sir, in this volume of documents, I see, with emotions which I am sure are in unison with those of the American people, the famous note, signed "Champagny, Duke de Cadore," of the 4th of February last, written to justify those seizures, and, as he says, "that the President may the better know the friendly intentions of France towards the United States, and her favorable dispositions to American commerce;" in which we are told that we are "without just political views, without honor, and without energy." And are we so sunk in the estimation of the mighty conqueror, that he thinks it necessary and proper to use this as his official language towards us? Surely, sir, he mistakes the character and the spirit of this people if he believes they are to be broken down, or brought into his views, by insults or threats. As our Government had, a few months before, discharged and disgraced a British Minister for a supposed insult by an insinuation, it was to have been expected that, on this occasion, equal spirit would be shown. But to such as formed corresponding expectations, what will be their feelings when they find that the only Executive notice of the note is found in the letter of Mr. Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of June last, in which the Secretary says, that, "as the John Adams is daily expected, and as your farther communications by her will better enable me to adapt to the actual state of our affairs with the French Government, the observations proper to be made in relation to the seizure of our property, and to the letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 14th of February; it is, by the President, deemed expedient not to make, at this time, any such animadversions."

Let us now see, Mr. Chairman, whether these decrees have been "so revoked or modified as that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States."

These decrees have two distinct operations, the seizure of our property, and the subsequent sale of that property; and, without attempting to prove a proposition which appears self-evident, I shall take it for granted that, if it was an infringement of our rights to seize the property, it is equally an infringement of our rights to proceed to the confiscation and sale of such property. Nay, sir, if we allow to the French Government the plea of retaliation, the infringement of our rights will commence with the confiscation and sale of our vessels after the cause of retaliation has been removed by us, and known so to be by the Emperor. A revocation or modification of these decrees, so that they should cease to violate our fair commerce, therefore, would look as well to an indemnity for the past as a security for the future; it necessarily includes a restoration of the property already taken, as well as an engagement against future captures. This appears to have been, at one time, the opinion of our Administration; for you will find, by recurring to the letter from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of June, 1810, which enclosed a copy of the law of May, the determination of our Executive is thus made known: "If, however, the arrangement contemplated by the law should be acceptable to the French Government, you will understand it to be the purpose of the President not to proceed in giving it effect, in case the late seizure of the property of the citizens of the United States has been followed by an absolute confiscation, and restoration be finally refused." And in the letter from Mr. Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, this determination is expressed with added strength: "As has been heretofore stated to you, a satisfactory provision for restoring the property lately surprised and seized by the order, or at the instance of the French Government, must be combined with a repeal of the French edicts, with a view to a non-intercourse with Great Britain; such a provision being an indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the United States."

Without asking for the evidence which the President had as to the repeal or modification of these decrees, I now put it to the committee whether every member of it is not perfectly convinced that if any modification, or suspension, or repeal, has taken place, it goes no farther than to restrain future seizures, leaving the property already seized to take the course of confiscation and sale? Do we not know, that, in[Pg 357] the months of October and November, our vessels and merchandise have been brought under the hammer in pursuance of those decrees; and have we not lately seen, in our public journals, a list of some eighteen or twenty ships advertised by the French Government for sale at Bayonne, on the 5th of December? Nay, sir, the Executive was informed, before he issued his proclamation, by the letter from the Duke of Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 12th of September, 1810, that, "as to the merchandise confiscated, it having been confiscated as a measure of reprisal, the principles of reprisal must be the law in that affair." Words cannot be found which would more satisfactorily "evince an inflexible determination" to retain the property. As the principles of reprisal are to be the law, it follows that a restoration of the property depends on the discretion of the Emperor, and is not to be claimed by us as a matter of right, but of favor. And what have we to propose, according to the principles of reprisal, to obtain the restoration? Is it, that we have suffered the non-intercourse law to expire? Why, sir, this had taken place long before the letter of the Duke of Cadore. Is it a restoration of French property seized under the law of non-intercourse? This cannot take place; because, in truth, there was no such seizure.

We will now examine whether there has been such a revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees as warranted the proclamation. And here let me remark that, when the President acted under this law, he was not exercising the treaty-making power. He was the mere agent of the Legislature, and as such agent, he was confined and limited by his letter of attorney, the law. He had not, therefore, as has been asserted, a discretion, nor had he any thing to do with considerations of comity or courtesy. He was to ascertain when there was an actual and practical revocation, and then make known the fact; the consequences were left with the legislature. Indeed, sir, this power to give publicity to a fact might have been committed to one of the Secretaries, or to a clerk in the offices, and if it had, we should have smiled at the suggestion that its exercise depended on considerations of courtesy.

Mr. Chairman, when the proclamation first appeared, my impression was, and such, too, I understood to be the general impression, that the President had some document unknown to the American people. The letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, was already before the public, but it was not credited that on this letter the proclamation had been issued. Since we have received the Message the subject is at rest. It is now known and acknowledged that the President had not, and to this moment has not, any other evidence of a revocation. Now, sir, in this letter, I see neither the form nor the substance of a revocation.

What is the understanding of the French courts and officers, on this subject. I have already presented you with that part of the letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, in which he says, that since Congress have retraced their steps, by revoking the act of the first of March, "France is no longer interdicted to the Americans." Now, if this letter is in the form of a decree, it revokes or modifies the Rambouillet decree equally with those of Berlin and Milan, inasmuch, as long as the former continued in force, France was interdicted to the Americans. And yet we find, in a letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 7th day of September, our Minister inquiring, "Has the decree of His Majesty of the 22d day of March last been recalled?" And General Armstrong, in his letter to Mr. Smith of the 10th of September, remarks, that this inquiry "may appear to have been useless, after the declaration, that American ships which will hereafter arrive in the ports of France shall not be subject to confiscation; but understanding from the Council of Prizes, that until some act be taken which had the effect of recalling, by name, the decree of the 23d of March, they must consider it both as existing and operative, and of course binding upon them," and he had presented the subject again.

Here, then, we have the opinion of the French court, most known and most important to us, the Court of Prizes, that the letter of the Duke of Cadore is not in the form of a decree, and has not the force and effect of a decree. In addition to this, we have the act of seizure of the brig New Orleans Packet, by the director of the customs at Bordeaux, in December last, under the Berlin and Milan decrees. As the letter of the Duke of Cadore had been published in France prior to this period, no one will believe that if it was in form of an edict of the Empire, the seizure would have been made.

But if the contents of this letter had been embodied in a formal act, would it have amounted to such a revocation or modification of the Berlin and Milan decrees, as that they ceased to violate our neutral commerce?

I remark first, that the revocation, if it be one, was a future and not a present revocation. "The decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and, after the first of November, they will cease to have effect." Now, sir, although there is an affected obscurity in this sentence, the intent is most obvious. As long as a law continues in operation, so long it must be unrepealed, and as these decrees were to have effect until the 1st of November, it follows, that on no construction can they be considered as revoked until that period. Indeed, on this point the Duke of Cadore is quite explicit in his letter to General Armstrong of the 7th of September, in which he tells him, that American vessels arriving in France before the first of November, although not liable to confiscation, "will be subjected to all the effects of the Berlin and Milan decrees."

But, again: the revocation, if any, was not only future, but it was also conditional; "it being understood, that in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council and renounce the new principles[Pg 358] of blockade which they have wished to establish, or that the United States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." A condition—a qualification—a restriction. Is it not obvious, from the very terms of the letter, that it contains a condition that the repeal is a qualified one? The words "it being understood," are not only expressive of this, but they are singularly appropriate. If, however, we were inclined to doubt, we must be satisfied by the letter of the Duke of Cadore to General Armstrong, of September 7th, in which it is said, that the Emperor "repeals his decrees of Berlin and Milan, under the conditions pointed out in my letter to you of the 5th of August."

Our Ministers, General Armstrong and Mr. Pinkney, appear to have puzzled themselves much about this condition, to discover whether it was a condition precedent, or a condition subsequent. To me, sir, the idea of a condition subsequent to a repeal, is rather novel; but it may nevertheless be just. In common understanding, it is believed, that when a law is repealed it is extinct, and if it be so, then its appendage, the condition, would seem to be at an end of course. But in the view which I am about to take of this subject, it is not necessary to settle this point, as it must be conceded, that whether we call the condition a condition precedent, or a condition subsequent, the same consequence will follow: if the condition is not complied with, the decrees must be in force still. Now, sir, it appears to me that the conditions, attached to this pretended or proposed repeal, are of a nature which have not, and will not be complied with.

First, sir, as to the conditions on the part of England: "The English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they have wished to establish." With respect to the Orders in Council, I have nothing to say either as to their justice or their policy. Heaven knows they have been to us, from the moment of their inception, sore evils; the causes of great vexation, embarrassment, and losses; and I hope the period is not far distant when we shall be no longer disturbed by them. But, sir, I wish to call your particular attention to the other branch of the condition, that relating to blockades. We have been so long in the practice, and justly in the practice, of complaining of paper blockades, that at the first blush we are induced to believe the condition relates to them, and to them alone. Are these the blockades which are intended? Let the Emperor and King answer for himself. In the official note from Count Champagny to General Armstrong, of the 22d of August, 1809, we have this declaration: "A place is not truly blockaded until it is invested by land and by sea; it is blockaded to prevent it from receiving the succors which might retard its surrender. It is only then that the right of preventing neutral vessels from entering it exists." But we have it under the hand and seal of the Emperor himself, what he means by the "new principles of blockade." In the Berlin decree there is an enumeration of real or pretended interpolations, on the part of Great Britain, in the law of nations; among which we discover these: "that England does not admit the right of nations as universally acknowledged by all civilized people; that she extends to ports not fortified, to harbors and mouths of rivers, the right of blockade, which, according to reason and the usage of civilized nations, is applicable only to strong or fortified ports." And it is declared that "the decree shall be considered as the fundamental law of the Empire, until England has acknowledged that the rights of war are the same on land as at sea—and until the right of blockade be restrained to fortified places actually invested by competent forces."

There can be no misunderstanding on this subject. The Emperor offers to give up his Berlin and Milan decrees, if the British will renounce their new system of blockade; and in these very decrees he explains what he means by this new system; that, besides paper blockades, it is the attempt to blockade the mouths of rivers and harbors, and ports not fortified. Now, sir, I will admit, if we could prevail on Great Britain and France thus to limit the right of blockade, it would add much to our security at home; for as we have no fortified places, although we may have places with fortifications, it would follow that we should never be subject to a blockade. But is it true that according to the usages of nations this is a novel system, or one now, for the first time, put in use by the British? Or is it believed, that a nation like England, whose effective force for offence and defence is a maritime force, can or ought to subscribe to a system of blockade which confines its exercise and right to "fortified places actually invested?" What would be the effect of such a system in the present war? France has surely not to apprehend an invasion from England; and if any of the commercial places on her extensive coasts are fortified, the fortifications may be dismantled or destroyed with great safety. As soon as this is done they become "harbors and ports not fortified," and have no longer to apprehend any inconvenience from the pressure of a naval force. Is it not obvious that England will not comply with her part of the condition, and that the Emperor never expected that she would?

As to the conditions on the part of this country—"The United States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected." What rights, Mr. Chairman? The right of not being vexed or endangered by paper blockades? Yes, sir, and more; the right of not being interrupted in a commercial intercourse with cities situated on rivers, as Antwerp for instance; or to carry on a free trade with all the continental ports and harbors not fortified, although the whole Brit[Pg 359]ish navy may be cruising at the mouth of the river, or in sight of the port. But we have a further declaration of neutral rights which the French Emperor says he will allow when France has a marine proportioned to the extent of her coasts and her population, and which, so long as the British shall continue to be masters of the sea, he insists we shall claim and exercise. Thus, in the note from Count Champagny to General Armstrong, of the 22d of August, 1809, "France admits the principle that the flag covers the merchandise. A merchant vessel, sailing with all the necessary papers from its Government, is a floating colony. To do violence to such a vessel by visits, by searches, and by other acts of an arbitrary authority, is to violate the territory of a colony. This is to infringe on the independence of its Government." In other words, the flag is to protect the property, and search is not to be permitted. I pray you, sir, to bear in mind, that since the formation of this Government, and under every Administration, the right of blockading, by an actual present and efficient force, ports and places not fortified; the right of search, and the principle, that enemy property is not protected by the character of the vessel, has been recognized or conceded.

But how are we to cause these rights to be respected? By putting in force the non-importation law? Suppose the British should not believe themselves excessively injured by this measure; that, in fact, it operated to their advantage, and we are suffered to bring on premature decay and old age, by this political quackery. Would this satisfy the Emperor? No, sir. He would soon tell us that we had not caused our rights to be respected. It is idle to believe that he will deem the non-importation a compliance with his condition; nor, to me, does his language convey this idea. We are to oppose, or declare ourselves against the British, and in the spirit of our law and of his declaration, we are to cause our rights to be respected, not by self-destroying measures, but by actual force and open hostility, if the English nation will not, without it, subscribe to the terms which have been presented to it. Recollect the history of our embargo and former non-intercourse, the propositions made under them by our Government to the French Government, and how these propositions were received, and you will be satisfied of the nature and extent of the present condition.

And now, let me ask, whether we are prepared for these conditions? Whether we believe in all the rights which the French Emperor condescends to claim for us from the British, although he will not admit them himself? And whether we are prepared to go to war for them? To me the conditions, both on the part of this country and Great Britain, appear inadmissible. At all events, I think that the President, before he acted on a proposition so loose and general, which admits of so much doubt, and can, by fair construction, be carried to such extravagant lengths, ought to have asked and received explanations and particulars.

But it may be said that the letter of the Duke of Cadore, if not itself a decree, is evidence that there is a rescinding decree. To my mind, Mr. Chairman, it has internal marks to the contrary; but, without troubling the committee with any further comments on the letter, I observe, that viewing it as a mere matter of evidence, it may be fortified or explained by other evidence. I have already read to you parts of the letters from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of June and the 5th of July, which declare the determination of the President not to carry the non-intercourse law into effect against England, unless France not only revoked her decrees, but restored our sequestered property. We are to presume that our Minister made known this determination to the French Court, as it was his duty so to do. Now, with this declaration before him, is it to be credited that the Emperor would revoke his decrees, when he was given to understand that the revocation would lead to no result on our part, inasmuch as he did not release our property? Is it not obvious, from this circumstance alone, that the letter is a mere proposition in answer to the one made by our Government, expressive of the views, and stating the terms on which the Emperor would revoke?

Again, sir, we have the letter of Mr. Russell to Secretary Smith, of the 11th of December, 1810, informing our Government that the brig New Orleans Packet had been seized at Bordeaux a few days before, under the Berlin and Milan decrees, by the director of the customs. And we have had communicated to us, by the President, the note from Mr. Russell to the Duke of Cadore, of the 10th of December, stating this seizure to have been made under the decrees, and giving an additional fact, that the case of this vessel was the first which had occurred after the first of November, to which the decrees could be applied. As this seizure was made under the decrees, it shows the impression in France to be, that they still are existing and in force; and the evidence is the stronger, as coming from the custom-house of one of the principal trading towns, where surely the revocation must have been officially known, if it had taken place. I am aware it is said that Mr. Russell must have been misinformed as to the cause of the seizure, or that the custom-house officer mistook his duty. But as to both of these suggestions, I will only remind you of the silence of the French Government. The remonstrance of Mr. Russell was handed to the French Minister on the 10th of December, and the vessel which bore the despatches, brought Paris accounts to the 27th of December, and did not leave France until the 1st of January. If Mr. Russell had any explanation or answer from the French Government it would have been communicated to us; but he had none. The silence of the French Minister is equal to an express affirmance of the act of[Pg 360] the custom-house officer, and is an admission that the decrees have not been revoked.

Saturday, Feb. 9.

Commercial Intercourse.

On motion of Mr. Eppes all the orders of the day were laid on the table, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill supplementary to the act concerning commercial intercourse, &c.

Mr. Emott's motion being under consideration, to amend the bill so as to repeal the law of May last, &c., Mr. Rhea made a motion superseding that, viz: to strike out the whole of the bill.

Mr. Eppes said, that when, on a former day, this bill, designed only for the relief of our own citizens, was under discussion, subjects not at all connected with its merits were brought into view. A gentleman from New York (Mr. Emott) presented to the House on that occasion his view of our foreign relations, and exercised all his ingenuity to show, as it is but too often the practice here, that the Government of the United States is exclusively wrong, and the Government of Great Britain exclusively right. It seems that in this enlightened age new duties are assigned to a Representative. Under the pressure of every injury which foreign influence can inflict, a Representative is considered as discharging his duty, if, with a fine-spun web, he can present, under a suspicious aspect, either the motives or the acts of the Executive branch of his Government. No nation, ancient or modern, unless in the last stage of corruption, can be produced where, as in the United States, periods of difficulty have been seized by the Representatives, and the weight of their talents exclusively employed for increasing the public embarrassments. The speech of the gentleman from New York, however well he may have covered it under mildness of manner and a fine-spun argument, is designed to convey to the people an idea, that the Executive has manifested partiality towards France in the late arrangement. The gentleman tells us, that while the Minister of one foreign nation was denounced here for an implied insult, the letter of the Duc de Cadore to Mr. Armstrong is passed over almost in silence; that the Secretary of State, in a letter to General Armstrong, tells him that the President thinks it unnecessary to make any remarks on it. The gentleman ought to have gone further, and stated the whole fact: that the letter of General Armstrong in answer to the Duc de Cadore was approved by the President; that, by the approval, he adopts as his own the language and sentiments of that letter. The letter of General Armstrong, by the approval of the President, has become the act of his Government. For the sentiments contained in that letter the American Government is responsible, and not General Armstrong. The firm, manly, and eloquent reply of General Armstrong to the Duc de Cadore stands precisely on the same footing as if it had been originally written under the directions of the Government. General Armstrong did not wait for instructions. He repelled, in a style comporting with the dignity of his station, the charges of the Duc de Cadore. The President, through the Secretary of State, approves his letter, adopts it as his own, and says he has nothing to add. Well, indeed, sir, might he say so, because the Minister had already said, in a style as pleasing to his country as to his Government, all that the occasion demanded. But, sir, the gentleman from New York cannot agree with his colleague in considering the President of the United States correct in issuing his proclamation. Why, sir, does the gentleman disapprove of the President's proclamation? Because, says the gentleman, the letter of the Duc de Cadore, of August, was not a repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. It is a mere promise that on a certain day they shall be withdrawn. When, sir, the President received the declaration of Mr. Erskine, the British Minister, that, on a particular day, the Orders in Council would be withdrawn, and issued a proclamation founded solely on that declaration, his conduct was warmly approved by men of all parties. The gentleman from New York joined in the burst of applause heaped on that Executive act. Was the letter of Mr. Erskine a repeal of the British orders? Unfortunately, we know practically it was not. Was it such a repeal as the gentleman contends ought to have taken place of the Berlin and Milan decrees, viz: under the sign manual of the Emperor? No, sir, it was just such a letter as that of the Duc de Cadore. In both cases the word of the Minister was taken as a pledge, and, on examining the two letters, so far as they may be considered a pledge, the words are nearly the same. I approved of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine; so did the gentleman from New York. I cannot see any difference in the ground taken by the Executive, except that one arrangement was with Great Britain, and the other with France. The one affected the interests of Great Britain; the other affects the interests of France. The gentleman from New York, more nice in distinctions than myself, may, perhaps, satisfy himself and the people that these two cases are marked by lines so strong as to render the conduct of the Executive in the one case an object of applause and approbation for himself and his friends, and in the other of suspicion and censure. It is not, however, my intention to pursue the gentleman through his argument. There is one part of it which I consider it a duty to pass in review, inasmuch as it is calculated to give to the public an erroneous view of the grounds taken by the Executive in the recent negotiation with Great Britain. The gentleman says, the President has not only required of Great Britain to withdraw her orders, but her blockades also. This, he says, she cannot and never will yield. This declaration is made, too, in the presence of the agent of Great[Pg 361] Britain, who must have heard with delight the American Executive held up to suspicion, and an American Representative declare, on the floor of Congress, that demands were made on Great Britain, not sanctioned by the law of the last session. In order, sir, to support this declaration, the gentleman gives a view of the demands of the Executive on Great Britain totally incorrect and contradicted by every part of the correspondence before us. The gentleman tells you, that we have demanded of Great Britain not a withdrawal of the Orders in Council only, as contemplated by the law of last session, but of her "novel blockades." To establish the demands of the Executive, he turns, not to the correspondence, but to the Berlin or Milan decrees, and takes for our demand on Great Britain the definition of blockade given by the French Emperor. The gentleman is entirely mistaken as to the demand made of Great Britain by the Executive. The revocation of but one blockade, viz: that of May, 1806, is included in the demand of the Executive. The features of this blockade render it different from all other blockades. It is, in fact, from its character, more like the Order in Council, a permanent regulation in commerce, than a blockade. I will, however, first show from the correspondence, that the President did not, under the act of the last session, require the revocation by Great Britain of any blockade except that of May, 1806; and then, that from the peculiar features of that blockade, it must have been included in the demand made under the act of the last session. In the Message of the President, at the commencement of the session, pages 4th and 5th, we find the demand stated in the following terms:

This is the language of the President. In pages 38 and 39 of the correspondence, we find the declaration of Mr. Smith, our Secretary of State, to General Armstrong, in the following words:

In pages 45 and 46, we have the declaration of General Armstrong and the Duke de Cadore. Mr. E. then read the following:

In page 47, we have the statement of Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney:

In page 71 of the correspondence, Lord Wellesley declares, in a letter to Mr. Pinkney:

[Pg 362]

From this, sir, it appears that if we are to credit the President, the Secretary of State, General Armstrong, the Duc de Cadore, and the British Minister, Lord Wellesley, the demand was confined to the blockade of 1806. Was this blockade such a violation of the neutral rights of the United States as to come decidedly within the act of the last session? Let us examine its features. This blockade is a compound one, presenting three distinct characters:

1. It obstructs a trade from one port to another of the same enemy—France for example. This trade has been denied latterly though not formerly, by Great Britain, to be free to neutrals. The United States assert the neutral right to it.

2. It obstructs a trade from the port of one enemy to the port of another—from a French to a Dutch port, for example. This is a principle not before asserted by Great Britain. The present Cabinet of Great Britain contended against its conformity to the law of nations, in opposition to their predecessors, who attempted to justify the orders of January, 1807, on that principle.

3. It obstructs the direct trade of neutrals from their own country to any part of the coast from the Elbe to Brest—a coast not less than a thousand miles. For this part of the blockade there can be no defence which is not applicable to the Orders in Council. This blockade has been continued for four or five years. No force, either adequate or inadequate, has been stationed for carrying it into effect. No new notification has been given. It is, in fact, like the Orders in Council, a permanent regulation of commerce, and has nothing of the character of a blockade, except the mere name. This blockade consists in great part of the same prohibition with the orders of January, 1807, in which it is said to be comprehended; that is, against a trade along the belligerent coast. If the orders be unlawful, therefore, the blockade must be so; and if the orders be repealed as a violation of neutral trade, in compliance with the act of Congress, the obligation to repeal the blockade, as a like violation, cannot be contested. This blockade of May, 1806, is in violation of the principles laid down by all authors on the subject of blockade. It is in violation of the principles laid down in all the treaties which attempted to define a blockade. It is in violation of the principles contended for by every Administration under the American Government, from the period of Washington to the present time. The correspondence under General Washington's Administration, between the Secretary of State and Mr. Hammond, may be referred to for the principles asserted under that Administration. In the correspondence before us we have the principles as laid down by General Marshall and Mr. King. To these I will refer.

Mr. E. then read the following extracts of letters from Mr. King and Mr. Marshall:

Extract of a letter from Mr. King to Lord Grenville, dated

Extract of a letter from Mr. Marshall, Secretary of State, to Mr. King, dated

I have shown, from the correspondence, that the blockade of May, 1806, was the only one included in the demand of the Executive. I[Pg 363] have shown that it is not only a violation of our neutral rights, but of the principles contended for by men of all political parties under every administration of this country; and I cannot but express my regret that the gentleman from New York should consider that, under the law of the last session, this blockade ought not to have been included in the demand of the Executive on Great Britain; that he should declare in the hearing of the British agent that demands had been made by the Executive of the United States which it would be extremely convenient for us if Great Britain would allow, but which she never could yield. The gentleman from New York has entered into an argument to show that the Berlin and Milan decrees are not repealed. We have just heard of the arrival of a French Minister; he has left France at a time to bring us certain information on this question. I have no wish to enter on this interesting question, with a bandage round my eyes. Whether France has complied with her engagements; whether France has failed in her engagements, cannot be a subject of ingenious speculation many days longer. Whatever may be the information received, I shall endeavor to adhere to what I deem the real interests of my country, and, so far as I am able, to maintain its rights against the unprincipled aggressions of every foreign nation.

I will now make a few observations on the bill before the House. It contains but a single section, and exempts from forfeiture goods owned wholly by citizens of the United States, which shall have departed from a British port prior to the second day of February, 1811. When the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of modifications of the non-intercourse system was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, it appeared to be the unanimous sentiment of the committee, that goods which had left a British port, before the President's proclamation reached the port, ought to be exempt from the penalty of the non-intercourse law, although they might not arrive until after the 2d day of February. It was considered not inconsistent with an honest compliance with our engagements with France, and seemed to be required by that general principle of policy which is adhered to in all free countries, of allowing sufficient notice to its citizens of the commencement of penalties and forfeitures. The bill for enforcing the non-intercourse system was reported with that limited provision. After the bill was printed various statements were received by the committee, all tending to show that the orders of our merchants were sent out in September and October; that, from the change in the actual state of commercial capital in this country, goods were at present purchased with cash, and not only became the property of our citizens under the orders of merchants sent before the President's proclamation issued, but were at the risk of the purchasers; that these goods were actually paid for before the President's proclamation issued; that they could not be brought in before the second day of February. The committee having previously decided that time ought to be allowed for the President's proclamation to reach a British port, and taking into view the great injury our own citizens would sustain from a rigorous construction of the law, determined to extend the time to the ultimate period at which a citizen could put his property on board without infringing the laws of his country. It is not supposed that the construction put upon the law is strictly within its letter—it is, however, perfectly within its object. It was designed to operate on the nation refusing to modify or withdraw its edicts. To give it a construction which would either confiscate property bona fide American, or lock it up in British ports, would be to destroy our own resources, and produce no effect on Great Britain. Under the sixth section of the law, it is not made unlawful to put on board British manufactures with the intent to import them, until the expiration of the three months after the proclamation; its being unlawful after that period depended on Great Britain's following the example of France and revoking her edicts; according, therefore, as the citizen was more or less sanguine, his interest might be more or less involved by supposing that Great Britain would withdraw. Orders sent previous to the issuing of the President's proclamation violated no existing law. Those sent afterwards cannot be considered as given in violation of law, inasmuch as the commencement of the law depended on a contingency, viz: the modification or withdrawal of the British orders. There is another circumstance which operated on the committee: The law of the last session was not considered by the committee as a plain rule of action which every citizen could clearly comprehend, and so arrange his affairs as to avoid its penalties. The fourth section of the act of last session revives certain sections of another act, on the happening of a certain event, three months after that event shall have been proclaimed by the President. This reviving section does not declare that on and after three months from the date of the President's proclamation there shall be non-intercourse, but that particular sections of a former non-intercourse law shall be revived. Each of the revived sections contain the words "20th of May next," and it has been made a question whether these words are revived as part of the sections. It is not supposed by me that such is a proper construction of the law. It is only stated for the purpose of showing that the law was not in that clear, decided form in which penal statutes ought to be enacted. In the construction given to the law, more regard was paid to its objects and principles than to its strict letter. And if, for the purpose of affording relief in cases peculiarly hard and operating on our own citizens exclusively, we have placed on the law a construction not warranted by its letter, I hope we shall be justified by the purity of the motives under which we have acted.

[Pg 364]

Mr. Emott explained.

Mr. Sturges said be was happy that he felt himself so situated that he could avoid that course of discussion upon the present occasion, so much reprobated by the honorable gentleman (Mr. Eppes) from Virginia. He said he should not undertake to enter into a discussion of our foreign relations, nor say much upon our restrictive system; that his friend from New York (Mr. Emott) had already done that fully and ably.

He said he was at present inclined to support the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman, (Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee,) and if the words should be stricken out as proposed by that gentleman, (as one good turn deserved another,) he hoped he would be disposed to support a proposition, which he (Mr. S.) would then submit to the committee. If the committee should agree to strike out, Mr. S. would then propose to insert in lieu thereof, after the words "be it enacted" the following words, (which he read to the committee,) viz: "That an act entitled an act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes, passed May 1, 1810, be and the same is hereby repealed."

Mr. S. said he was inclined to favor the amendment of the gentleman from Tennessee on another ground. He was not willing to imply by any vote of his a recognition of the efficacy of the non-intercourse law, so called, which could not, in his opinion, upon any principle, have any operative force, until the 20th of May next. He flattered himself, if gentlemen would be so good as to attend to him, that he should be able to demonstrate to their satisfaction the truth of this position; and that the chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, exercising his usual candor, would himself be satisfied. The law, passed March 1, 1809, contained a number of sections which went to prevent importations from Great Britain and France, and their dependencies. This law (containing a clause limiting its duration) was to expire at the end of the next session of Congress. The then next session of Congress ended the last of June, 1809. The law of March, 1809, therefore, then expired. The law of May 1st, 1810, enacted that certain sections of that of March, 1809, should be revived upon certain contingencies. Those sections, thus revived, are the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 18th. Mr. S. then recurred to those sections, and read the third, which is as follows:

[The section was here read.]

Mr. S. said it was unnecessary to read the other sections to which he had referred, as the phraseology, as to the time when they were to take effect, was the same as in the section which he had read. He said it would not answer the purpose of gentlemen who held a different opinion from him, to argue in such a case as the present, from the intention of the Legislature. He said it was a principle, in construing penal statutes, to construe them strictly. But he said it was not necessary for him, in support of his position, to resort to this rule of construction. The words of these sections are explicit, and the meaning plain. They are revived in the law of May, 1810. They must be considered as revived in todidem verbis—as the whole of the sections are revived generally, it is not competent to say that one part of the section is revived, and not the other part. If they had been transcribed verbatim, and incorporated in the law of May, 1810, there could have been no question; and there can be no difference as to this point between that case, and reviving them without excepting any part. Mr. S. therefore concluded, that as the expressions in the sections referred to were, that they were to take effect the 20th of May next; and the law reviving them passed the 1st of May, 1810; that they cannot have any efficacy until the 20th of May, 1811. And he said the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Eppes,) in attending to this point, had implied his doubts upon it by saying, that as there might be doubts among lawyers, though among unlearned men there could be none, the Committee of Foreign Relations, in reporting the bill now under consideration, were disposed to give a liberal construction to the meaning of the Legislature. But, said Mr. S., this cannot help the matter. No new law, in the nature of an explanatory law, can give efficacy to the former one, if that law would otherwise have no force. If, then, he was correct in his ideas upon the subject, and he thought every lawyer in the House must be of his opinion, Mr. S. asked, what is the consequence? He said that, from the 2d of February, any seizures which have been or shall be made by your custom-house officers, cannot be considered as legal. Your Federal courts cannot condemn property so seized; and in case they are made, your State courts will sustain actions of trover and trespass in favor of the owners thereof against such officers.

Mr. Wright.—Mr. Chairman: The gentleman from New York (Mr. Emott) labored yesterday for three hours on his proposed amendment to the bill under consideration, and exercised all his ingenuity to seduce us into a violation of the faith of the nation, pledged in the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and for other purposes." By this act the nation pledged itself to Great Britain and to France, "that if either of them should so revoke or modify their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, that the President should, by proclamation, declare the same; and that, three months after the date of said proclamation, no goods, wares, or merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the other nation, her colonies or dependencies, should be imported into the United States." The Government, strictly preserving her neutral[Pg 365] character, at the same moment presented to both nations the same proposition, and by the solemnity of that act, in the face of the world, pledged the faith of the nation to the faithful performance of the condition above stated, on their part to be performed, in the event of either Great Britain or France so revoking or modifying their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States.

France, on the 5th of August, 1810, did so revoke her edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, after the second day of November; and, although the fact has been established by the letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, to General Armstrong, our Minister at Paris, and by him communicated to the President of the United States; and, although the President did, by his proclamation, bearing date the second of November, in obedience to the said act of Congress, declare "that the edicts of France violating the neutral commerce of the United States had been so revoked or modified, that, from and after the second day of November, they would cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States;" whereby, after the expiration of three months from the date of said proclamation, by virtue of the act aforesaid, "no goods, wares, or merchandise, the growth, produce, or manufacture of Great Britain, her colonies or dependencies, should be imported into the United States, unless she, before the expiration of that time, revoked her edicts." Yet, sir, this gentleman, to the bill on the table contemplating a faithful execution of the non-intercourse law against Great Britain, has proposed an amendment that "no vessel or merchandise shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture, on account of any infraction, or presumed infraction, of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement;" thereby substantially to repeal the non-intercourse act, although France has revoked her decrees, and Britain has refused to revoke her Orders in Council, and by the last information from our Minister in London, every spark of hope of their being revoked had been extinguished.

That gentleman, a representative of the American people, has proposed this direct breach of public faith, and as a pretext to the unprincipled act, has had the temerity to declare "that the President had no authority to issue his proclamation; that the assurances of France to our Government were deceptive; that the Berlin and Milan decrees were not revoked; and that the non-intercourse act is not in force;" and thus has arraigned the President for issuing his proclamation.

By the constitution, the Departments of the Government are distinctly marked, and the President authorized, as the legitimate organ, to discharge every function of the Executive. Besides, the non-intercourse act has expressly authorized and directed him, by proclamation, to declare the fact of the revocation or modification of the edicts which the belligerents were by that act invited to revoke.

As well might that gentleman question the legitimacy of a treaty after it had been ratified and declared by proclamation, or an act of Congress after it had passed the usual forms and been duly published. Sir, this act of the President, as to every fact stated, implies absolute verity, and, like any other record, can be tried only by itself.

Had the gentleman contented himself with the discharge of his legislative duties, and indulged the President in the exercise of his Executive functions, we should have been relieved from a long speech, calculated only to inculpate the President and expose the gentleman's devotion to Great Britain. How, I ask, could the President act a different part, from the evidence in the case? The Duke of Cadore, the French Minister of Foreign Relations at Paris, in writing, informed General Armstrong, the American Minister at that Court, on the fifth of August, "that he was authorized to declare to him, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November, they will cease to have effect; it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they have wished to establish, or, that the United States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." General Armstrong immediately communicated it to the President, who, being thus in possession of the information, was not only authorized, but bound to issue this proclamation.

I would ask, if this diplomatic evidence, the established mode of communication between nations, is not to be received and respected, if national confidence is not destroyed, and an end put to all diplomatic intercourse? Was not the President, in good faith, bound to believe the fact, and, believing it, bound to act as he did?

Sir, if Great Britain had made the like communication through Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney, and he to the President, who had, thereupon, issued his proclamation, what would have been the conduct and language of this gentleman and those who think with him in political opinion? They would, I have no doubt, been prepared to eulogize the President, and publicly approve the act. In this assertion I am not left to conjecture, but will prove it by the most unequivocal evidence, if the gentlemen are consistent with themselves. You will recollect that, by the act of the first of March, eighteen hundred and nine, interdicting the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their colonies and dependencies, after a certain period, unless they should so revoke or modify their edicts that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, the President in the case of either power, so re[Pg 366]voking or modifying their edicts, was authorized by proclamation to declare the same, whereby the interdictions were, as to the power so revoking, to be suspended, and in force only against the other; and I hope you never will forget the deep game that was played by Great Britain on that occasion, and the diplomatic trick that was practised on our Administration by Mr. Erskine's memorable treaty. The President then placed full faith in the act of the British Plenipotentiary, and, on the signing of that treaty which revoked the Orders in Council, immediately issued his proclamation, and thereby dissolved the commercial injunction, whereby Great Britain was supplied with the necessaries of her existence. Then the President acted promptly, as in the case of France; then he acted on the information of the British Minister as he did in the case of France on the information of the French Minister. Then the treaty revoking the Orders in Council was rejected by the British Government; but now, in the case of France, the revocation of her decrees is confirmed and carried into full effect. But the proclamation in the case of France is denounced by the gentleman from New York as neither formal, substantial, nor by authority, although by comparing it with the proclamation in the case of Great Britain, which I hold in my hand, it will be found formally and substantially a copy of it, varied only as to the Government to whose proceedings it relates. When I assure you that the President's proclamation in the case of Great Britain met with the approbation of the gentleman from New York and his political friends, you will feel surprised at their partiality; but, when you examine the resolution of the House of Representatives approbating the conduct of the President in that case, you will feel no doubt of the fact.

Sir, this gentleman has told us that the non-intercourse act is not in force, and that the American people will not submit to its execution, notwithstanding the revocation of the French decrees, the continuation of the British Orders in Council, and the President's proclamation. Whence does this gentleman derive the power of declaring an act of Congress not in force, declared by the President's proclamation to be in force? Or in what section of the Union does the gentleman presume to say the American people will not submit to the law? That that gentleman's speech was intended to sow sedition among the people, and to encourage insubordination to this law, is too obvious.

Sir, the decrees of France, now they are revoked, seem to be more obnoxious to that gentleman than the British Orders in Council, now in full force. He denounces the Emperor for the Rambouillet decree, issued the twenty-third of March, eighteen hundred and ten; which subjected the ships of America to condemnation entering the ports of France, which the Emperor declares was an act of retaliation; because Congress had by their act of March, eighteen hundred and nine, subjected the vessels of France to condemnation entering the ports of the United States, yet that gentleman, when speaking of the British blockading order of eighteen hundred and six, issued without even a pretext, which by proclamation without investment subjected our ships to condemnation entering the ports of France, says, "with respect to their Orders in Council I have nothing to say as to their justice or their policy." He is prepared to condemn France for her act of retaliation, but he is not prepared even to speak of Great Britain's new paper blockading system, much less to declare it unjust or impolitic; although Sir William Scott, in 1 Robinson's Rep. page 96, expressly declares, "that no vessel was liable to condemnation for entering a port alleged to be blockaded, unless it was invested by such a naval force as to make the entry therein hazardous."

Sir, I am no apologist for France—nor do I know how any American, particularly a member of Congress, can be the apologist for either, after France and England have both expressly admitted, that their Orders in Council and decrees were direct violations of the law of nations, and adopted from necessity, as a measure of retaliation against each other, and have each charged the other with the first aggressions on our neutral rights. On examining that subject, I find that England, by her Orders in Council of May, eighteen hundred and six, by proclamation had placed France in a state of blockade; that France in eighteen hundred and seven had placed the British isles in a like manner in a state of blockade; that England, by her Orders in Council of the eleventh of November, eighteen hundred and seven, laid a toll on neutral vessels, and made them pass through her ports; France, by her decree of the seventeenth of December, eighteen hundred and seven, declared the vessels submitting to that order denationalized, and lawful prize; so that by their new principle of blockade, and their unprincipled retaliations, the commerce of the United States was cut up by the roots. The American Government, anxious to preserve the remnant of the property of the American merchants, that had escaped the rapacity of the tyrant of the ocean, on the twenty-second of December, eighteen hundred and seven, passes the embargo law, which the seditious clamors of certain arch traitors in the Eastern States, the violation of the law by treason and cupidity, induced Congress on the first of March, eighteen hundred and nine, to repeal, and to pass the present non-intercourse law, continued, under which France has revoked her decrees of Berlin and Milan, and now expects us to fulfil the conditions which we voluntarily imposed on ourselves, in the event of either revoking their decrees.

Sir, while Great Britain finds such able advocates on this floor, she will find no necessity to redress our wrongs, but will wait the issue of our proceedings in Congress, to see if our remedial laws are not repealed, or our citizens excited to oppose their execution. But we ought[Pg 367] not to be surprised at this, when we take a retrospective view of their conduct, their united and uniform opposition to the Administration for many years. They have reprobated every measure—Mr. Erskine's British treaty only excepted—and, as soon as that was rejected by the British Government, as being made contrary to instructions, our Administration was charged with making it, knowing that Mr. Erskine had no authority, and with seducing him to make it contrary to instructions. Afterwards, when Mr. F. J. Jackson, of Copenhagen memory, was sent over as a Minister, while his hands were yet stained with the innocent blood of the inhabitants of Copenhagen, and insulted the administration with the charge of making the treaty with Mr. Erskine, knowing that he had no authority to make it, and after the peremptory asseveration "that Government had no such knowledge, that with such knowledge no such arrangement would have been made," and "that no such insinuation could be admitted," he replied, "that he made no insinuation, without being able to substantiate a fact, and in that I must continue;" thereby persevering in the charge of falsehood in the Administration for which he was dismissed. Again our Government was expressly charged with knowing that Mr. Erskine had no authority, and with dismissing Mr. Jackson without any just cause; that his charge was true, and that in this the Government acted under the influence of France. In order to make such an impression on the public mind, Mr. Jackson is treated with uncommon attention. When he arrives at Baltimore he is surrounded by tories, royalists, Burrites, and British agents, and treated with great politeness—when he arrives in Philadelphia, he is overwhelmed by the civilities of refugees, tories, Burrites, and United States' Bank directors—when he arrives at New York, he is received with open arms by a set of beings of the same description, who invite him to a public dinner, and to test their attachment to the British Government treat him to "God save the King"—when he reaches Boston, there is great parade indeed; he is welcomed to the city by tories, traitors, disorganizers, and embargo-breakers, and Fanueil Hall, once the Council Chamber of the patriots of the Revolution, is prostituted to the disgraceful purpose of a public dinner to this disgraced Minister, and there we see a distinguished Senator of the United States testing his loyalty by the toast of "Britain's fast anchored isle, the world's last hope." After this hasty review of the past, we ought not to be surprised at any measures that may be taken against the Administration, when Great Britain is in the question.

Saturday, February 23.

Commercial Intercourse.

Mr. Milnor said: Mr. Chairman, when I take a view of the course which has been pursued in relation to this subject, during the present session, I confess I feel greatly surprised that we should be called upon to adopt the present measure. It will be recollected, sir, that, at a very early period, the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported a bill supplemental to the act of the 1st of May last. Although the gentleman did make one or two feeble attempts to call it up for consideration, yet it was manifest that there was a general indisposition to act upon it at that time. This, in the opinion of myself and many others, arose from a doubt in the good faith of the Emperor of the French. It was true that he had, through the Duke of Cadore, declared that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked on the 5th of August and that they should cease to have effect after the first of November; and it was also true that the President of the United States had, by his proclamation of the 2d of November, declared, not simply that this promise had been given, but that the decrees were revoked, and had ceased to operate. Notwithstanding this declaration of the President, the previous conduct of the French Emperor inspired an almost universal doubt of his good faith, and the curious character of the declaration made by Cadore, was calculated to increase it. The decrees of Berlin and Milan were revoked; that is, dead on the 5th of August, and ceased to have effect; that is, to live on the first of November; thus this creature had the wonderful faculty of being dead and alive at the same time; of ceasing to have effect, and acting with full vigor at the same instant. While all was doubt and hesitation, despatches were received from Mr. Russell, our Chargé d'Affaires at Paris, which made it apparent that the decrees which were to cease to have effect on the first of November, were, in the month of December, still in existence, and in full and practical operation. It is now evident that the President was duped by the French Emperor, and led to issue a proclamation on the faith of his promise, declaring a fact which did not exist. So convinced were the House that this was the true state of the case, that the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations himself moved to recommit the bill he had previously introduced, and it was done. What, then, I would ask, sir, has since occurred to alter the face of affairs, to induce this new attempt to fasten on the restrictive system against our intercourse with Great Britain? Is there any thing in the last communication from the President, calculated to produce such an effect? On the contrary, it furnishes the most conclusive evidence of the treachery of Bonaparte, and ought to serve as a beacon to warn us against trusting him further. It is true that there is a letter from Mr. Pinkney to Lord Wellesley, dated December 10th, in which the former labors to prove, that Cadore's note to Armstrong is an absolute repeal of the French decrees, without any conditions precedent, and that therefore the British Government ought to be satisfied of its validity, and take immediate measures for revoking their or[Pg 368]ders and blockades, agreeably to their promise. But, it unfortunately happened that, on the same day on which our Minister at London was performing his duty, in transmitting his able but theoretical argument to the British Ministry, our Minister at Paris was also performing his duty in remonstrating against the practical operation of those very decrees, which were to have ceased to have effect on the first of November. [Here Mr. M. read the letter of Mr. Russell to the Duke of Cadore, dated December 10th, remonstrating against the seizure of the brig New Orleans Packet, it being the only case, as declared by Mr. Russell, to which the decrees could be applied subsequent to the first of November.]

I recollect, sir, when Mr. Russell's correspondence was communicated to this House, an apology was set up for the French Emperor. It was alleged that the President's proclamation had not arrived in France at the time of the seizure of the New Orleans Packet, and that Bonaparte, having received no evidence of the intention of the American Government to fulfil their engagement, had used the precautionary measure of seizing the vessel, until he should receive some evidence of our good faith; and we were exultingly told that the President's proclamation would put all to rights, by satisfying his doubting Majesty of our sincerity, and would induce him to release all property seized subsequent to the first of November, and once more to put an end to those nine-lived decrees. How has this prediction been verified? The President's proclamation was communicated to the French Government on the 12th of December, two days after Mr. Russell's remonstrance; and yet, for any thing we know, that remonstrance remains unanswered, and the New Orleans Packet remains under seizure to this very day. It is true that, after waiting thirteen days, His Majesty condescended to direct the partial suspension of the decrees, thereby giving the most positive proof not only of their existence, but of their active operation. On the 25th of December, the Dukes of Massa and of Gaete, by the direction of their master, severally wrote a letter to the officers connected with their respective departments, directing them to suspend the operation of those very decrees, so far as respected the condemnation of vessels and cargoes seized after the first of November; not only those then in custody, but such as should thereafter be seized. I will read a part of those letters for the purpose of refreshing the memories of gentlemen on the subject. The Duke of Massa writes to the President of the Council of Prizes as follows: "In consequence of this engagement entered into by the Government of the United States, to cause their rights to be respected, His Majesty orders that all the causes that may be pending in the Council of Prizes, of captures of American vessels, made after the first of November, and those that may in future be brought before it, shall not be judged according to the principles of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, but that they shall remain suspended; the vessels captured or seized to remain only in a state of sequestration, and the rights of the proprietors being reserved for them until the 2d February next, the period at which, the United States having fulfilled the engagement to cause their rights to be respected, the said captures shall be declared null by the Council—and the American vessels restored, together with their cargoes, to the proprietors." The letter of the Duke of Gaete is of a similar import. I will read a single paragraph, which is as follows: "His Majesty having seen in these two pieces" (the President's proclamation and Gallatin's circular to the collectors) "the enunciation of the measures which the Americans purpose taking on the second of February next, to cause their rights to be respected, has ordered me to inform you that the Berlin and Milan decrees must not be applied to any American vessels that have entered our ports since the first of November, or may enter in future; and that those which have been sequestered, as being in contravention of these decrees, must be the object of a special report."

Here, sir, we find these two officers, by direction of their master, explicitly recognizing the existence of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and suspending their operation not as to sequestration, but only as to condemnation. Not only those which had arrived after the first of November, but those which should thereafter arrive, were to be held in a state of sequestration, and to be subject to a special report. With this plain statement before their eyes, will gentlemen assert, can they possibly believe, that the decrees were revoked and ceased to have effect on the first of November? They surely cannot. If, then, the declaration of the fifth of August is proved to be false, and the assurance that the decrees should cease to have effect after the first of November was mere delusion, what becomes of the act of the first of May, and of the President's proclamation? Sir, they are mere dead letters, having no binding force or operation. The practical operation of the act of the first of May was to depend upon the performance of certain conditions on the part of one or the other of the belligerents, and the President's proclamation was intended as a mere notification of such performance. Admitting, then, that a faithful performance of the pledge of the fifth of August, on the part of France, would have had a binding force on us to carry our part of the agreement into effect, can any man under the existing circumstances believe we are so bound? Can a violation of a solemn pledge confer an obligation which was only intended to be created on the complete fulfilment of that pledge? Surely not. Sir, the law of the first of May, professed, on the face of it, to be impartial towards the two nations who have violated our rights. It promised that, if either would so revoke or modify her edicts as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, in that case[Pg 369] certain restrictive measures should be revived against the other. Have either complied? France did, indeed, make a declaration that her edicts were revoked, and should cease to have effect on a certain day. That day has long since passed, and, for any thing we know, those edicts are in full operation. Nay, we have positive proof of their active existence, nearly two months after they were to have ceased; for, on the 25th of December, their operation as to the condemnation of American property was suspended, while their power to sequester was absolutely recognized and continued. With such glaring, such positive proof before our eyes, of the perfidy of France, we are about to act as though we believed she had performed her promise with the utmost good faith. Nay, more, sir; if she had, indeed, complied with her engagement, she could require nothing more of us than the act of the 1st of May last; that was the full amount of our engagement, the utmost limit of our bond. Upon, and in consequence of that, was the Emperor's promise founded. Yet we are not satisfied with that; persisting, in the face of the most positive and conclusive testimony to the contrary, to affect to believe that he has performed his promise, we are going beyond our contract; and, lest some doubts should arise of the Emperor's want of faith, lest our courts should decide, as they must decide, that the decrees being still in force, the act of the first of May is a mere dead letter, we are about to volunteer our services, and, by the section of the bill now under consideration, to revive those sections of the old non-intercourse law which were intended in a certain event to have been revived by the act of the first of May; to revive them against Great Britain, and that without exacting any conditions on the part of France. And must this sacrifice be made in order to bolster up the President's proclamation so prematurely issued? Must the best interests of the nation be put to hazard to save him the mortification of acknowledging his error and retracing his steps? Here, I fear, lies the true motive for our present procedure.

This restrictive system is now to be revived against England, the French decrees being in full force and operation against us at the same time. Is this an honest neutrality? Is it equal and exact justice to those two nations? Is it not rewarding the perfidy of the one at the expense of the other, and at the expense of ourselves? Let us be cautious how we proceed in this course. If France choose, in consequence of our non-intercourse law of 1809, which was equal in its operation as to both nations, to take it so much in dudgeon as to confiscate the whole of the American property within her power, even that which had sought the rights of hospitality in her ports, how much more may Great Britain feel herself justified in retaliating on this most partial and unjust measure which we are about to adopt against her, by confiscating the millions of our property now within her power. And if we have been silent under the former, and have apparently acquiesced in it, what shall we, what can we, say, in case the latter event should take place? But, sir, the apologists of France tell us that His Majesty, the Emperor, has pledged his royal word that the decrees shall cease to operate as it respects us; and that, though he has thought proper to postpone the measure from the first of November to the second of February, he has only done so in order to ascertain whether we mean to go on to fulfil our engagements with good faith; that he is only holding our property seized since the first of November as security for our performance; and that, when he finds we are determined to resist the illegal orders and blockades of Great Britain, he will give up the property of our citizens. How insulting, this, to American feelings, to be told that a total violation of faith on the part of this man is excusable, because he chooses to suspect our faith. But, sir, do these people really believe the property of our citizens will be given up after the second of February, and in consequence of the measure we are now about to adopt? When did that voracious monster ever disgorge the plunder he had once received into his insatiable maw? Of the millions upon millions of which he has, at different times, and under various pretexts, plundered our unsuspecting citizens, where is the instance of a single dollar returning to its rightful owner? No, sir, let it once get within his iron grasp, and it is lost forever. The present measure is evidently intended as a propitiatory sacrifice to conciliate Napoleon—to induce him to become our friend, and to cease to rob and plunder our defenceless citizens. Is it calculated to produce this effect? Short-sighted as we confessedly are, sir, I should suppose we can scarcely be such silly politicians as to expect such an effect from such a measure. A brief view of the course which has been pursued, and is pursuing, by the Emperor of France, must produce a conviction in every unprejudiced mind, that he is not to be diverted from his purpose by a toy like this. Sir, it must be evident to every mind that his ambition soars to universal conquest. To this point all his measures tend—every other consideration is made to yield. For the accomplishment of this object, almost every nation on the Continent of Europe has been insulted, plundered, and subdued. To this end the external commerce of the continent has been annihilated, the agricultural and manufacturing interests have been depressed, and millions of his own subjects, and those of nations under his influence, impoverished and ruined. But there is one impediment to his gigantic project. Britain, proud, haughty Britain, stands in the way, and puts a stop to his career. Isolated, as she happily is, and the proud mistress of the ocean, she presents an impenetrable barrier to his ambitious views. But Britain must be humbled, she must be subdued. Her power on the ocean must be destroyed; and, to effect this, she must be attacked through her commerce and manufactures.[Pg 370] For this purpose, what he is pleased to call his great continental system has been devised and rigorously enforced. Finding that all his restrictions and confiscations, aided by all his civil and military power, could not prevent the introduction of British merchandise upon the continent, he has resorted to a plan which promises to be more effectual. Regardless of the rights and interests of his subjects, he does not inquire whose the property may be; if it is of British origin it is committed to the flames. Such is his plan; such are the efforts and sacrifices he is making to insure its accomplishment. And yet, Mr. Chairman, it would seem as if we had the consummate folly to believe that we can appease this merciless tyrant by so weak, so silly, so futile a measure as this one now under consideration. We seem to have the madness to believe that this man, after the immense sacrifices he has made for the attainment of his object, would yield that object in our favor, and in order to be upon friendly terms with us would forego all other considerations. And from what premises is such a conclusion drawn? Is it from his past treatment of us? Let us, Mr. Chairman, take a brief review of his past conduct towards us, in order to see what we may expect in future. It is some years since he ordered our ships and cargoes to be burned upon the ocean, and many were burnt. He has, at various terms, and under different pretexts, seized and confiscated the property of our citizens on the ocean, and in his ports, and in the ports of his vassals. No longer ago than last spring, he told us that we were without just political views, without honor, without energy; and that, after refusing to fight for honor, we might find it necessary to fight for interest. This insulting declaration, which was dated on the 14th of February, was followed on the 23d of March by the Rambouillet decree, which confiscated all American vessels and cargoes which had arrived from the 20th of May, 1809, or should thereafter arrive in any port of France, her allies, or those occupied by her arms. Thus was from twenty to thirty millions of the property of our unsuspecting and confiding citizens, who had sought the rights of hospitality in his ports, sacrificed without a pretext, or with a pretext which added to the injury. Finding, after this gross violation of every principle which ought to govern honest and honorable nations, that our merchants, taught by sad experience that there was no safety within the range of his power, would venture there no more, he found it necessary to throw out another lure to entice the unwary within his reach. His tone is now suddenly changed. Instead of the haughty and insulting tyrant, he assumes the shape of a fond and doating lover. "His Majesty loves the Americans. Their prosperity and their commerce are within the scope of his policy. He is pleased in aggrandizing the United States." Yes, truly, His Majesty loves the Americans! If not for our persons, yet for our property, he has given the most ample and convincing proofs of his love. These sugared words, displaying so much of the milk of human kindness, seem to have perfectly reconciled us to his loving Majesty, and to have quite obliterated the remembrance of his harsh and unkind language so lately used towards us. And not only so, but it seems to have fully compensated us for all his robberies; and we forbear to touch that string, lest he might be somewhat ruffled, and once more induced to vent his anger on us. But lest his bare professions of love should not have the desired effect of inducing the Americans once more to place their property within his power, he directed his Minister to declare that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and should cease to have effect after the first of November. Our Administration, confiding in his assurances, in the face of all his previous conduct, published the proclamation of the second of November, and thereby assisted in deceiving our too credulous citizens. But few, however, ventured to place trust in him; and those who did, have met with a fate which every man of reflection ought to have anticipated. If, sir, such has been the course of that man's conduct towards us, (and that it has, I appeal to all the documents which have been laid before us,) I would ask why are we called upon to pass the section now under consideration? To me, it is matter of mystery and astonishment.

Monday, February 25.

Commercial Intercourse.

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of Saturday last, to wit, the bill supplementary to the act entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," and the amendments reported thereto by the Committee of the whole House. The said amendments were read at the clerk's table.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker: The amendments contained in the sections under consideration, contemplate the continuance and enforcement of the non-intercourse law. This proposition presents a great, an elevated and essential topic of discussion, due to the occasion, and claimed by this people, which comprehends within the sphere and analogies of just argument, the chief of those questions, the decision of which, at this day, involves the peace, the happiness, and honor of this nation. Whatever has a tendency to show, that if the system of non-intercourse exist, it ought not to be continued; or, that if it do not exist, it ought not to be revived; whatever has a tendency to prove, that we are under no obligation to persist in it, nor under any obligation to abandon it, is now within the fair range of debate.

After long delay, and much coy demeanor, the Administration of this country have condescended to develop their policy. Though they have not spoken to our mortal ears, with their[Pg 371] fleshly tongues, yet they have whispered their purposes through the constituted organs of this House. And these are the features of the policy which they recommend: it is proposed to grant particular and individual relief from anticipated oppressions of the commercial restrictive system. It is proposed to perpetuate that system, indefinitely, and leave our citizens, still longer, subject to its embarrassments, its uncertainty and its terrors. The chairman of our Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. Eppes,) at the time he introduced these amendments to the House, exhibited the true character of this policy, when he told us that it was "modelled upon the principle not to turn over to the Judiciary the decision of the existence of the non-intercourse law, but to make it the subject of legislative declaration." In other words, it is found that the majority of this House have too much policy to deny, and too much principle to assert, that the fact, on which, and on which alone, the President of the United States was authorized to issue his proclamation of the second of November last, has occurred. A scheme has, therefore, been devised, by which, without any embarrassment on this intricate point, the continuance and enforcement of non-intercourse may be insured, and toils, acceptable to France, woven by the hands of our own Administration, spread over almost the only remaining avenue of our commercial hope.

The proposition, contained in these amendments, has relation to the most momentous and most elevated of our legislative obligations. We are not, now, about to discuss the policy by which a princely pirate may be persuaded to relinquish his plunder; nor yet the expectation entertained of relaxation, in her belligerent system, of a haughty, and perhaps jealous rival; nor yet the faith which we owe to a treacherous tyrant; nor yet the fond, but frail hopes of favors from a British regency, melting into our arms, in the honeymoon of power. The obligations which claim our observance are of a nature much more tender and imperious; the obligations which, as Representatives, we owe to our constituents; the allegiance by which we are bound to the American people; the obedience which is due to that solemn faith, by which we are pledged to protect their peace, their prosperity, and their honor. All these high considerations are materially connected with this policy.

It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to dilate on the general nature and effects of this commercial restrictive system. It is no longer a matter of speculation. We have no need to resort for illustration of its nature to the twilight lustre of history, nor yet to the vibrating brightness of human intellect. We have experience of its effects. They are above, around, and beneath us. They paralyze the enterprise of your cities. They sicken the industry of your fields. They deprive the laborer and the mechanic of his employment. They subtract from the husbandman and planter the just reward for that product which he has moistened with the sweat of his brow. They crush individuals, in the ruins of their most flattering hopes, and shake the deep-rooted fabric of general prosperity.

It will, however, be necessary to say a word on the general nature of this system. Not so much for the purpose of elucidating, as to clear the way, and give distinctness to the course of my argument. It will also be useful to deprive the advocates of this system of those colors and popular lures, to which they resort, on a subject in no way connected with the objects with which they associate it.

My argument proceeds upon the assumption of the irrelevancy of four topics, usually adduced in support of the system contained in the law of May, 1810, and of March, 1809; commonly called the non-intercourse system. I take for granted that it is not advantageous; in other words, that it is injurious; that it is not fiscal in its nature; nor protective of manufactures; nor competent to coerce either belligerent. That it is injurious is certain, not only because it is deprecated by that part of the community which it directly affects, but because no man advocates it as a permanent system, and every one declares his desire to be rid of it. Fiscal it cannot be, because it prohibits commerce, and consequently revenue; and by the high price and great demand for foreign articles, which it produces, encourages smuggling. Protective of manufactures it cannot be, because it is indiscriminate in its provisions and uncertain in its duration; and this uncertainty depends, not on our legislative discretion, but on the caprice of foreign powers; our enemies, or rivals. No commercial system, which is indiscriminate in its restrictions, can be generally protective to manufactures. It may give a forced vivacity to a few particular manufactures. But in all countries, some, and in this almost all manufactures, depend, either for instruments or subjects, on foreign supply. But, if this were not the case, a system, whose continuance depended upon the will or the ever variant policy of foreign nations, can never offer such an inducement to the capitalist, as will encourage him to make extensive investments, in establishments resting on such precarious foundations. As to the incompetency of this system to coerce either belligerent, I take that for granted, because no man, as far as I recollect, ever pretended it; at least no man ever did show, by any analysis, or detailed examination of its relative effects on us, and either belligerent, that it would necessarily coerce either out of that policy which it was proposed to counteract. Embargo had its friends. There were those who had a confidence in its success. But who was ever the friend of non-intercourse? Who ever pretended to believe in its efficacy? The embargo had a known origin, and the features of its character were distinct. But "where, and what was this execrable shape—if shape it may be called, which shape has none?" We all know that the non-intercourse[Pg 372] was not the product of any prospective intelligence. It was the result of the casual concurrence of chaotic opinions. It was agreed upon, because the majority could agree upon nothing else. They who introduced it, abjured it. They who advocated it, did not wish, and scarcely knew its use. And now that it is said to be extended over us, no man, in this nation, who values his reputation, will take his Bible oath that it is in effectual and legal operation. There is an old riddle on a coffin, which I presume we all learned when we were boys, that is as perfect a representation of the origin, progress, and present state of this thing, called non-intercourse, as is possible to be conceived.

True it is, that if this non-intercourse shall ever be, in reality, extended over us, the similitude will fail, in a material point. The poor tenant of the coffin is ignorant of his state. But the poor people of the United States will be, literally, buried alive in non-intercourse; and realize the grave closing on themselves and their hopes with a full and cruel consciousness of all the horrors of their condition.

For these reasons, I put all such common-place topics out of the field of debate. This, then, is the state of my argument; that as this non-intercourse system is not fiscal, nor protective of manufactures, nor competent to coerce, and is injurious, it ought to be abandoned, unless we are bound to persist in it, by imperious obligations. My object will be to show that no such obligations exist; that the present is a favorable opportunity, not to be suffered to escape, totally to relinquish it; that it is time to manage our own commercial concerns, according to our own interest; and no longer put them into the keeping of those who hate or those who envy their prosperity; that we are the constituted shepherds, and ought no more to transfer our custody to the wolves.

It is agreed, on all sides, that it is desirable to abandon this commercial restrictive system. But the advocates of the measure now proposed, say that we cannot abandon it, because our faith is plighted. Yes, sir, our faith is plighted; and that, too, to that scrupulous gentleman, Napoleon; a gentleman so distinguished for his own regard of faith; for his kindness and mercies towards us; for angelic whiteness of moral character; for overweening affection for the American people and their prosperity. Truly, sir, it is not to be questioned, but that our faith should be a perfect work towards this paragon of purity. On account of our faith, plighted to him, it is proposed to continue this non-intercourse.

But, Mr. Speaker, we may be allowed, I presume, to inquire whether any such faith be plighted. I trust we are yet freemen. We are not yet so far sunk in servility, that we are forbidden to examine into the grounds of our national obligations. Under a belief that this is permitted, I shall enter upon the task, and inquire whence they arise and what is their nature.

Whence they arise is agreed. Our obligations result, if any exist, under the act of May the first, 1810, called "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes." It remains, therefore, to inquire into the character of this act, and the obligations arising under its provisions.

Before, however, I proceed, I would premise, that whether I shall obtain, I am doubtful, but I am sure that the nature of my argument deserves, the favor and prepossession for its success, of every member in the House. My object is to show, that the obligation which we owe to the people of the United States, is a free and unrestricted commerce. The object of those who advocate these measures is to show that the obligation we owe to Napoleon Bonaparte, is a commerce restricted and enslaved. Now, as much as our allegiance is due more to the people of the United States than it is to Napoleon Bonaparte, just so much ought my argument to be received by the American Congress, with more favor and prepossession than the argument of those who advocate these measures. It is my intention to make my course of reasoning as precise and distinct as possible. Because I invite scrutiny, I contend for my country according to my conscientious conceptions of its best interests. If there be fallacy, detect it. My invitation is given to generous disputants. As to your stump orators, who utter low invective and mistake it for wit, and gross personality, and pass it off for argument, I descend not to their level; nor recognize their power to injure; nor even to offend.

Whatever obligations are incumbent upon this nation, in consequence of the act of the first of May, 1810, they result from the following section: "And be it further enacted, That in case either Great Britain or France shall, before the third day of March next, so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President of the United States shall declare by proclamation, and if the other nation shall not, within three months thereafter, so revoke or modify her edicts, in like manner, then the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eighteenth sections of the act, entitled 'An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' shall, from and after the expiration of three months from the date of the proclamation aforesaid, be revived and have full force and effect, so far as relates to the dominions, colonies, and dependencies of the nation thus refusing or neglect[Pg 373]ing to revoke or modify her edicts in manner aforesaid. And the restrictions imposed by this act shall, from the date of such proclamation, cease and be discontinued in relation to the nation revoking or modifying her decrees, in the manner aforesaid."

Divested of technical expression, this is the abstract form of this section. It provides that a new commercial condition shall result, on the occurrence of a specified fact; which fact the President shall declare. On this state of the subject I observe that nothing in the act indicates whether the object of the United States, in providing for this eventual commercial condition, was its own benefit, convenience, or pleasure; or whether it was in the nature of a proffer to foreign nations. It will, however, be agreed on all sides, that the object was either the one or the other. If the object were our own benefit, convenience, or pleasure, it will not be pretended that we are under any obligation to continue the system. For that which was adopted, solely for either of these ends, may, whenever our views concerning them vary, be abandoned; it being the concern of no other. But it is said that the act was, in truth, a proffer to the two belligerents, of commerce to the obsequious nation, prohibition of commerce to the contumacious nation. If this were the case, I shall agree, for the sake of argument, that it ought to be fulfilled to the full extent of the terms. But inasmuch as there is, in the terms of the act, no indication of such a proffer, it follows that its nature must arise from the circumstances of the case; and that the whole of the obligation, whatever it is, grows out of an honorable understanding, and nothing else. As such, I admit, it should be honorably fulfilled. The nature of this proffer is that of a proposition upon terms. Now what I say is, and it is the foundation of my argument, that whoever claims an honorable compliance with such a proposition, must be able to show, on his part, an honorable acceptance and fulfilment of the terms. The terms our act proposed were—an act to be done; an effect to be produced. The act to be done was, the revocation or modification of the edicts. The effect to be produced was that this revocation or modification should be such as that these edicts should "cease to violate our neutral commerce." Now the questions which result are, has the act been done? If done, has it been so done as to amount to an honorable fulfilment or acceptance of our terms? The examination of these two points will explain the real situation of these United States, and the actual state of their obligations.

In considering the question whether the fact of revocation, or modification, has occurred, it is unfortunate that it does involve, at least in popular estimation, the propriety of the proclamation, issued on the second of November last, by the President of the United States. I regret, as much as any one, that such is the state of things, that the question, whether a foreign despot has done a particular act, seems necessarily to be connected with the question concerning the prudence and perspicacity with which our own Chief Magistrate has done another act. I say in popular estimation these subjects seem so connected. I do not think that, in the estimation of wise and reflecting men, they are necessarily thus connected. For the fact might not have occurred precisely in the form contemplated by the act of May, 1810, and yet the President of the United States, in issuing his proclamation, might be either justifiable or excusable. It might be justifiable. A power intrusted to a politician to be used on the occurrence of a particular event, for the purpose of obtaining a particular end, he may sometimes be justifiable in using, in a case which may not be precisely that originally contemplated. It may be effectually, though not formally, the same. It may be equally efficient in attaining the end. In such a case a politician never will, and perhaps ought not to hesitate at taking the responsibility, which arises from doing the act in a case not coming within the verbal scope of his authority. Thus, in the present instance. The President of the United States might have deemed the terms, in the letter of the Duke of Cadore, such as gave a reasonable expectation of acceptance on the part of Great Britain. He has taken the responsibility. He has been deceived. Neither Great Britain accepts the terms, nor France performs her engagements. The proclamation might thus have been wise, though unfortunate in its result. And as to excuse, will it be said that there is nothing of the sort in this case? Why, sir, our Administration saw the Great Napoleon, according to his own confession, over head and ears in love with the American people. At such a sight as this, was it to be expected of flesh and blood that they should hesitate to plunge into a sea of bliss, and indulge in joy with such an amorous Cyprian?

But, whether the fact has occurred, on which alone this proclamation could have legally issued, is a material inquiry and cannot be evaded, let it reach where or whom it will. For with this is connected the essential condition of this country; on this depends the multiplied rights of our fellow-citizens, whose property has been or may be seized or confiscated under this law: and hence result our obligations, if any, as is pretended, exist. It is important here to observe, that, according to the terms of the act of May 1, 1810, the law of March 1, 1809, revives on the occurrence of the fact required, and not on the proclamation issued. If the fact had not occurred, the proclamation is a dead letter, and no subsequent performance of the required fact, by either belligerent, can retroact so as to give validity to the previous proclamation. The course required by the act of the 1st of May, 1810, unquestionably is, that the fact required to be done should be precedent, in point of time, to the right accruing to issue the proclamation; and of consequence[Pg 374] that, by no construction, can any subsequent performance of the fact required operate backward to support a proclamation issued previous to the occurrence of that fact? Whenever this fact is really done, a new proclamation is required to comply with the provisions of the act, and to give efficacy to them.

I am the more particular in referring to this necessary construction, resulting from the terms of the act of the first of May last, because it is very obvious that a different opinion did until very lately, and probably does now, prevail on this floor. We all recollect what a state of depression the conduct of Bonaparte in seizing our vessels, subsequent to the first of November, produced, as soon as it was known in this House, and what a sudden joy was lighted up in it, when the news of the arrival of a French Minister was communicated. Great hopes were entertained and expressed, that he would bring some formal revocation of his edicts, or disavowal of the seizures which might retroact and support the proclamation. It was confidently expected that some explanation, at least of these outrages, would be contained in his portmanteau; that under his powder-puff, or in his snuff box, some dust would be found to throw into the eyes of the American people, which might so far blind the sense, as to induce them to acquiesce in the enforcement of the non-intercourse, without any very scrupulous scrutiny into the performance of the conditions by Bonaparte. But, alas! sir, the Minister is as parsimonious as his master is voracious. He has not condescended to extend one particle, not one pinch of comfort to the Administration. From anything in the Messages of our President, it would not be so much as known that such a blessed vision, as was this new Envoy, had saluted his eyes. His communications preserve an ominous silence on the topic. Administration, after all their hopes, have been compelled to resort to the old specific, and have caused to be tipped upon our tables a cart-load of sand, grit, and sawdust, from our metaphysical mechanic, who seesaws at St. James', as they pull the wire here in Washington. Yes, sir, a letter written on the tenth day of December last, by our Minister in London, is seriously introduced to prove, by abstract reasoning, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had ceased to exist on the first of the preceding November, of whose existence, as late as the 25th of last December, we have, as far as the nature of things permit, ocular, auricular, and tangible demonstration. And the people of this country are invited to believe the logic of Mr. Pinkney in the face of the fact of a continued seizure of all the vessels which came within the grasp of the French custom-house, from the first of November, down to the date of our last accounts; and, in defiance of the declaration of our Chargé d'Affaires, made on the 10th of December, that "it will not be pretended that the decrees have in fact been revoked," and in utter discredit of the allegation of the Duke of Massa, made on the 25th of the same month, which, in effect, declares the Berlin and Milan decrees exist, by declaring "that they shall remain suspended." After such evidence as this, the question whether a revocation or modification of the edicts of France has so occurred "as that they cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," does no longer depend upon the subtleties of syllogistic skill, nor is to be disproved by any power of logical illation. It is an affair of sense and feeling. And our citizens, whose property has been, since the first of November, uniformly seized, and of which they are avowedly to be deprived three months, and which is then only to be returned to them on the condition of good behavior, may as soon be made to believe, by the teaching of philosophy, that their rights are not violated, as a wretch, writhing under the lash of the executioner, might be made by a course of reasoning to believe, that the natural state of his flesh was not violated, and that his shoulders, out of which blood was flowing at every stroke, were in the quiet enjoyment of cuticular ease.

Whether the revocation expressed in the letter of the Duke of Cadore, was absolute or conditional, or whether the conditions were precedent or subsequent, in the present state of our evidence, it seems scarcely important to inquire. Yet the construction of that celebrated passage, in his letter of the 5th of August, has been, as I have ever seen, given so much in the manner of lawyers, and so little in that of statesmen, that it deserves a short elucidation; how much the words "it being understood that," in their particular position are worth; and whether they have the effect of a condition precedent, or of a condition subsequent. A statesman will look at the terms contained in that letter in a different aspect, not for the purpose of ascertaining how much a court of law might be able to make of them, as to discern in what position of language the writer intended to intrench himself, and to penetrate his real policy, notwithstanding the veil in which he chose to envelope it. He will consider the letter in connection with the general course of French policy, and the particular circumstances which produced it. By these lights, it is scarcely possible to mistake the character and true construction of these expressions. Upon recurring to the Berlin and Milan decrees, it will be found that they contain a solemn pledge, that "they shall continue to be rigorously in force, as long as that (the English) Government does not return to the principle of the law of nations." Their determination to support this pledge, the French Government has uniformly and undeviatingly declared. They have told us constantly that they require a previous revocation on the part of Great Britain, as the condition of their rescinding those edicts. The question who should first revoke their edicts had come to be, notoriously, a sort of point of honor between the two belligerents. Perfectly acquainted with this state of things, we have been perpetually ne[Pg 375]gotiating between the one and the other, and contending with each that it was his duty previously to revoke. At length the French Government, either tired with our solicitations, or more probably, seeing their own advantage in our anxiety to get rid of these decrees, which yet, as an essential part of its continental system of total commercial exclusion it never intended to abandon, devised this scheme of policy, which has been the source of so much contest, and has puzzled all the metaphysicians in England and the United States. Cadore is directed to say to Mr. Armstrong: "In this new state of things I am authorized to declare to you, sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November they will cease to have effect; it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade which they have wished to establish; or that the United States, conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." In this curious gallimaufry of time present and time future, of doing and refraining to do, of declaration and understanding, of English duties and American duties, it is easy to trace the design, and see its adaptation to the past and present policy of the French Emperor. The time present was used, because the act of the United States required that previously to the proclamation the edicts "shall be" revoked. And this is the mighty mystery of time present being used, in expressing an act intended to be done in time future. For if, as the order of time, and the state of intention indicated, time future had been used, and the letter of Cadore had said the decrees shall be revoked on the first of November next, then the proclamation could not be issued, because the President would be obliged to wait to have evidence that the act had been effectually done. Now as the French Emperor never intended that it should be effectuated, and yet meant to have all the advantage of an effectual deed without performing it, this notable scheme was invented. And, by French finesse, and American acquiescence, a thing is considered as effectually done, if the declaration that it is done be made in language of time present, notwithstanding the time of performance is in the same breath declared to be in time future. Having thus secured the concurrence of the American administration, the next part of the scheme was so to arrange the expression that either the British Government should not accede, or if it did accede, that it should secure to France the point of honor—a previous revocation by the British; and if they did not accede, that there should be a color for seizures and sequestrations, and thus still further to bind the Americans over to their good behavior. All this is attained by this well-devised expression "it being understood that, in consequence of this declaration, the English shall revoke."

Now, Great Britain either would accede to the terms, or she would not. If she did, and did it as the terms required, in consequence of this declaration, then it must be done previous to the first of November, and then the point of honor was saved to France; so that thus France, by a revocation verbally present, effectually future, would attain an effectual previous revocation from the English. But if, as France expected Great Britain would not trust in such paper security, and therefore not revoke, previously to the first of November, then an apology might be found for France, to justify her in refusing to effectuate that present, future, and absolute, conditional revocation. And if ever the Duke of Cadore shall condescend, which it is probable he never will, to reason with our Government on the subject, he may tell them that they knew that the French Emperor had issued those decrees, upon the pledge that they were to continue until the British abandoned their maritime principles; that he told us, over, and over, and over again, that previous revocation by the British was absolutely required; that for the purpose of putting to trial the sincerity of the British, he had indeed declared that the French decrees "are revoked," on the first day of November ensuing; but then it was on the expressed condition that in consequence of that declaration, not of the revocation, but of that declaration, the British were to revoke, and, if they did not, the "understanding" was not realized; and his rights of enforcing his system remained to him. And I confess I do not well see what answer can be made to such an argument. Let us examine the case in common life. You, Mr. Speaker, have two separate tracts of land, each lying behind the farms of A and B, so that you cannot get to one of the tracts, without going over the farm of A, nor to the other tract without going over the farm of B. For some cause or other, both A and B have a mutual interest that you should enjoy the right of passage to your tract, over the farm of each respectively. A and B get into quarrels and wish to involve you in the dispute. You keep aloof, but are perpetually negotiating with each for your old right of passage-way, and telling each that it is owing to him that the other prohibits your enjoyment of it. At last A says "Come. We will put this B to trial. I on this fifth day of August, declare my prohibitions of passage-way are revoked, and, after the first day of November, my prohibitions shall cease to have effect; but, it is understood that B, in consequence of this declaration, shall also revoke his prohibition of passage-way." If B refuses, does A, under the circumstances of such a declaration, violate any obligation, should he refuse to permit the passage? Might not A urge with great color and force of argument, that this arrangement was the effect of your solicitation and assurance that B would be tempted by such a proffer, and that the revocation of B was required, by the terms, to be the consequence of[Pg 376] A's declaration, for the very purpose of indicating that it must be anterior to the fact of A's effectual revocation? But let this be as it will; suppose that you, on the first of November, in consequence of A's assurance, had sent your servants and teams to bring home your products, and A should seize your oxen, and teams and products, and drive your servants, after having stripped them, from his farm, and should tell you, that he should keep this, and all other property of yours, on which he can lay his hands, for three months, and then he should restore it to you, or not, as he saw fit, according to his opinion of your good behavior. I ask, if, in any sense, you could truly say that on the first day of November the prohibitions or edicts of A were so revoked, that they ceased to violate your liberty of passage? Sir, when viewed in relation to common life, the idea is so absurd, that it would be absolutely abusive to ask the question. I refer the decision of so simple a case to the sound sense of the American people, and not to that of "scurvy politicians, who seem to see the things they do not." In a condensed form my argument is this. From a revocation merely verbal, no obligations result. By the terms of our act the revocation must be effectual, "so as the edict shall cease to violate our rights." Now the simple question is, whether a uniform seizure, since the first of November, under those edicts (for none other are pretended) of all their property, and holding it for three months, to see how they will behave, be or be not a violation of the rights of the American people? In relation to the revival by a formal declaration of the non-intercourse system, as is proposed in one of these sections, I offer this argument: Either the fact, on which the President's proclamation could alone have been issued, has occurred or it has not. If it has occurred, then the law of March, 1809, is revived, and this provision, by a declarative law, is unnecessary. If it have not occurred, then there is no obligation to revive it, for alone on the occurrence of the specified fact does our obligation depend. In such case the revival by declaration is a mere gratuity to Napoleon. This is in fact the true character of the law. As to the provisions for relief of our merchants against anticipated seizure, I hold them scarcely deserving consideration. Heaven be praised we have independent tribunals and intelligent juries. Our judges are not corrupt and our yeomanry will not be swayed in their decisions, by the hope of presidential favors, nor be guided by party influence. The harpies of your custom-house dare as soon eat off their own claws, as thrust them, in the present state of the law of March, 1809, into the fatness of their fellow-citizens. The timorous and light-shunning herd of spies and informers have too much instinct to pounce on such a prey.

But, in order to cause any obligation to result under the law of May 1, 1810, it is necessary, not only that the fact required be done, and the effect required produced; but also the terms of that act must be accepted. The proffer we made, if such be the character of that act, was only to revive the non-intercourse law against the contumacious belligerent, after three months had expired from the date of the proclamation. Now it is remarkable, that, so far from accepting the terms of the proposition contained in our act, as the extent of our obligations, Bonaparte expressly tells us that they mean something else; and something, too, that no man in this House will dare to aver they really intend. It is also remarkable that the terms of this celebrated letter from the Duke of Cadore, of the fifth of August, which have been represented as a relaxation in the rigor of the French Emperor's policy, are, in fact, something worse than the original terms of the Milan decree, and that, instead of having obtained a boon from a friend in this boasted letter, our Administration have only caught a gripe from a Tartar. By the terms of the Milan decree, it was to "cease with respect to all nations who compelled the English to respect their flag." By the terms of the letter of Cadore, it was to cease on condition that the United States "cause their rights to be respected." Now, as much as an obligation, of an indefinite extent, is worse than a definite obligation, just so much worse are the terms of the letter of Cadore, than the original terms of the Milan decree. Mr. Speaker, let us not be deceived concerning the policy of the French Emperor. It is stern, unrelenting, and unrelaxing. So far from any deviation from his original system being indicated in this letter of the Duke of Cadore, a strict adherence to it is formally and carefully expressed. Ever since the commencement of "his continental system," as it is called, the policy of Napoleon has uniformly been to oblige the United States to effectual co-operation in that system. As early as the 7th of October, 1807, his minister, Champagny, wrote to General Armstrong, that the interests of all maritime powers were common, to unite in support of their rights against England. After this followed the embargo, which co-operated effectually at the very critical moment, in his great plan of continental commercial restriction. On the 24th of the ensuing November, he resorts to the same language—"in violating the rights of all nations England has united them all by a common interest, and it is for them to have recourse to force against her." He then proceeds to invite the United States to take "with the whole continent the part of guaranteeing itself from her injustice, and in forcing her to a peace."

On the 15th of January, 1808, he is somewhat more pointed and positive, as to our efficient concurrence in his plan of policy. For his Minister, Champagny, then tells us, that "His Majesty has no doubt of a declaration of war against England by the United States," and he then proceeds to take the trouble of declaring war out of our hands, and volunteers his services, gratuitously, to declare it, in our name[Pg 377] and behalf. "War exists then, in fact, between England and the United States; and His Majesty considers it as declared from the day on which England published her decrees." And in order to make assurance doubly sure, he sequesters our vessels in his ports, "until a decision may be had on the dispositions to be expressed by the United States," on his proposition of considering themselves "associated in the cause of all the powers," against England. Now in all this there is no deception, and can be no mistake, as to the purpose of his policy. He tells us, as plain as language can speak, that "by causing our rights to be respected," he means war, on his side, against Great Britain. That "our interests are common"—that he considers us already "associates in the war," and that he sequesters our property by way of security for our dispositions. This is his old policy. I pray some gentlemen on the other side of the House to point out in what it differs from the new. The letter of Cadore on the fifth of August tells us, it is expected that we "cause our rights to be respected, in conformity to our act," and the same letter also tells us what he understands to be the meaning of our act. "In short, Congress engages to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent powers which shall refuse to acknowledge the rights of neutrals." In other words, "by causing our rights to be respected," he means war on his side against Great Britain. In perfect conformity with this uniform, undeviating policy, his Minister, Turreau, tells our Government, in his letter of the 28th of November last, that "the modifications to be given to the present absolute exclusion of our products will not depend upon the chance of events, but will be the result of measures, firm and pursued with perseverance, which the two Governments will continue to adopt to withdraw from the monopoly and from the vexations of the common enemy a commerce loyal and necessary to France as well as the United States." And to the end, that no one feature of his policy should be changed, or even appear to be relaxed, his Excellency the Duke of Massa, and his Excellency the Duke of Gaete, in their respective letters of the 25th of December, declare, that the property taken, shall be "only sequestered until the United States have fulfilled their engagements to cause their rights to be respected." Now, Mr. Speaker, is there a man in this House bold enough to maintain, or with capacity enough to point out, any material variation between the policy of France to this country, subsequent to the Cadore letter, of the 5th of August, and its policy anterior to that period? The character of the policy is one and indivisible. Bonaparte had not yielded one inch to our Administration. Now, as he neither performed the act required by the law of May, 1810; nor produced the effect; nor accepted the terms it proposed; whence arise our obligations? How is our faith plighted? In what way are we bound again to launch our country into this dark sea of restriction; surrounded on all sides with perils and penalties?

The true nature of this Cadore policy is alone to be discovered in the character of his master. Napoleon is a universal genius. "He can exchange shapes with Proteus to advantage." He hesitates at no means and commands every skill. He toys with the weak—he tampers with the mean—he browbeats the haughty—with the cunning he is a serpent. For the courageous he has teeth and talons. For the cowering he has hoofs. He found our Administration a pen and ink gentry—parchment politicians; and he has laid, for these ephemeral essences, a paper fly-trap, dipped in French honey. Hercules, finding that he could not reach our Administration with his club, and that they were out of their wits at the sight of his lion's skin, has condescended to meet them in petticoats, and conquer them, spinning at their own distaff.

As to those who, after the evidence now in our hands, deny that the decrees exist, I can no more reason with them than with those who should deny the sun to be in the firmament, at noon-day. The decrees revoked! The formal statute act of a despot revoked by the breath of his servile Minister; uttered on conditions not performed by Great Britain, and claiming terms not intended to be performed by us! The fatness of our commerce secure, when every wind of heaven is burdened with the sighs of our suffering seamen, and the coast of the whole continent heaped with the plunder of our merchants! The den of the tiger safe! Yet the tracks of those who enter it are innumerable, and not a trace is to be seen of a returning footstep! The den of the tiger safe! While the cry of the mangled victims are heard through the adamantine walls of his cave; cries, which despair and anguish utter, and which despotism itself cannot stifle!

No, Mr. Speaker. Let us speak the truth. The act now proposed is required by no obligation. It is wholly gratuitous. Call it then by its proper name. The first fruit of French alliance. A token, a transatlantic submission. Any thing except an act of an American Congress, the Representatives of freemen.

The present is the most favorable moment for the abandonment of these restrictions, unless a settled co-operation with the French continental system be determined. We have tendered the provisions of this act to both belligerents. Both have accepted—both, as principals, or by their agents, have deceived us.

We talk of the edicts of George the Third and Napoleon. Yet those of the President of the United States, under your law, are far more detestable to your merchants. Their edicts plundered the rich. His make those who are poor still poorer. Their decrees attack the extremities. His proclamation fixes upon the vitals, and checks the action of the seat of commercial life.

I know that great hopes are entertained of relief from the proposed law, by the prospect of[Pg 378] a British regency. Between a mad monarch and a simpering successor, it is expected the whole system of that nation will be abandoned. Let gentlemen beware, and not calculate too certainly on the fulfilment, by men in power, of professions made out of it. The majority need not go out of our own country, nor beyond their own practice, to be convinced how easily, in such cases, proud promises may eventuate in meagre performance.

The whole bearing of my argument is to this point. It is time to take our own rights into our own keeping. It is time, if we will not protect, to refrain from hampering, by our own acts, the commerce of our country. Put your merchants no longer under the guardianship and caprice of foreign powers. Punish not, at the instigation of foreigners, your own citizens for following their righteous calling. We owe nothing to France. We owe nothing to Great Britain. We owe every thing to the American people. Let us show ourselves really independent; and look to a grateful, a powerful, and then united people, for support against every aggressor.

Mr. Mumford.—The gentleman (Mr. Quincy) from Massachusetts has given us a long talk, that amused the House very much with tropes and figures, and I hope has convinced himself that he is right. I am no advocate of either belligerent, I have not much confidence in the declarations of foreign Governments. I did, however, put some confidence in the Erskine arrangement, but I was deceived; it met my approbation, because I was among those who were determined to settle our disputes with Great Britain in our own way, as an independent nation. And I will now ask the gentleman from Massachusetts whether, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other higher authority in Great Britain, should write a letter to Sir William Scott, and a circular letter to the Collector of Liverpool, informing them that the Orders in Council did not apply to American vessels from and after the 1st November, he would not deem those letters to be evidence of the fact? If so, why not give the same credence to the letters of the Duke of Massa and the Duc de Gaete? I wish to preserve the faith of the nation. We have been plundered by both belligerents, and have as little confidence in the one as in the other; but without some reliance on the word of constituted authorities there is an end to all negotiations. The gentleman says that we are about to shut up "the only avenue to our commercial hope." These are his own words. Let us now examine this avenue to our commercial hope. I will in the first place ask the indulgence of the House while I read and state some facts from a letter I have just received from Liverpool, dated January 8, of the present year, from one of the most respectable houses there, which states that the importation of cotton from the United States was 320,000 bales in 1810; that there were then 145,000 bales on hand; tobacco imported in the same period, 14,700 hogsheads; and notwithstanding the consumption, the quantity imported kept the market supplied constantly with about the same number of hogsheads throughout the year 1810. Potashes imported 28,946 barrels, on hand 13,000 barrels: rice 39,000 imported, and there remain on hand very large supplies. Those are the principal articles of the produce of our soil unsold on 8th January, 1811, in the port of Liverpool alone, besides the quantities in the other ports of Great Britain; and the same letter observes: "This supply checks any attempt at speculation, and without an export vent is procured, the stock on hand must remain unsalable; if the belligerents return to a sense of justice, the continental markets being in that case reopened, will require large supplies, and cause our market to rise." The prices of upland cotton are stated at 12d. sterling per lb.; tobacco, very prime, 4d. to 7d., middling quality, great quantity on hand, fit only for continental market, at 1½ a 4d.; pot-ashes £43 to £44 per ton—rice 19 to 23 per cwt. Sir, there is no American merchant who can pursue that commerce, attended with the enormous charges and duties imposed on those articles without inevitable ruin; and I call to the recollection of gentlemen the numerous failures in consequence of bills of exchange returned under protest, which had been predicated on shipments to British ports; and yet the gentleman from Massachusetts tells us this is "the only avenue to our commercial hope." Send your vessels to the Brazils, you meet them there intriguing against your commerce; to Buenos Ayres, you find them there; to Cayenne, there also; to Terra Firma, you there find them in conjunction with Miranda intriguing and counteracting your commerce; to Barbadoes, Surinam, Demerara, Trinidad, Martinique, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, &c., and you are met with enormous port charges, and duties amounting to prohibition on the staple articles of the New England States; codfish, beef, pork, butter, lard, cheese, hams, &c. It is true we are admitted every now and then, at the mere will and caprice of a governor, to import into those colonies flour at a duty of one dollar per barrel; rice and lumber in proportion; on condition that you shall not take away any article but rum and molasses, and this is the only avenue to our commercial hope. They are like the locusts of Egypt in relation to our commerce. What has become of your 1,350,000 tons of shipping, valued at fifty dollars per ton, amounting to $67,500,000, one-third of which belongs to Massachusetts? Is the gentleman willing to surrender the carrying trade to Great Britain? Let him turn his attention to the ports of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Norfolk, Charleston, and New Orleans, and he will find that British ships are now taking the bread out of the mouths of his own constituents. They are enabled to take freight on so much lower terms than American vessels can afford to do it in consequence of the very great difference of duties in Great Brit[Pg 379]ain, between importations in America or in a British ship, that we cannot compete with them unless you will countervail them, and take a decisive stand in defence of your commerce to continental Europe, and carry your produce direct to the consumers, and be no longer subjected to be fleeced by the monopolizers and retailers of the old world. They are not content to have the whole products of your soil deposited on their Island, on which they receive an enormous import, and raise an extra war tax, besides; but they will claim very soon the exclusive right to carry it when and where they please in their own ships. We are thus reduced to a worse situation than in a state of colonization; we have now all the disadvantages of being plundered by their navy, and none of the advantages of receiving its protection, although they have the impudence to charge us four per cent. convoy duty on their gewgaws and manufactures, which convoy they do not give us. Can this be a desirable state of things? And if persevered in, I am convinced the commerce of the United States will descend into the same tomb with the gentleman's story of the coffin.

There are three classes of your citizens to be provided for, as contemplated in the provisions of this bill—first, sequestrations in France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Prussia, and Russia. Second, those who have sailed to France under the faith of the Duke of Cadore's letter of the 5th of August. Third, importers of British manufactures. But it would seem by the arguments I have heard advanced in this House that there were only the latter class to be provided for, and, as I presume British precedent and authority will be admitted by the gentleman from Massachusetts to be good evidence, I will inform him and the House, what was the concurrent testimony of the English merchants before the bar of the House of Commons on the subject of exports and imports of the United States. They stated on oath that the exports to the United States were about twelve millions sterling, and that the imports were about four millions on an average for the years 1802, 1803, 1804, when there were no decrees against American commerce, and consequently it took its own natural channel and supplied each market according to its natural consumption. The difference between export and import being about eight millions sterling against us. Those English merchants state that it was made up and received from our trade with continental Europe; this has not been disproved by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor by his friend Stevens, of War in Disguise—it is a fact; they cannot deny it. And shall we be told about the profitable commerce with Great Britain? After a statement of these facts, shall we go on to gorge their warehouses with twelve millions sterling of produce, when their own internal consumption does not exceed four millions sterling? I hope not; and I do trust that the time is not far distant when we shall assert and defend our just rights.

Mr. Blaisdell.—Mr. Speaker: nothing would induce me to address you at this late hour, while there is so great a commotion in, and so many tokens of impatience manifested by, the House, but a sense of duty, and a desire to lend my feeble aid in arresting the progress of a measure which, in my opinion, involves a question of no less importance than whether we are prepared, after having been insulted, robbed, and deceived, by the French Emperor, to follow the fatal example of the petty, servile States of Europe, and throw this people into the embraces of that monster, at whose perfidy and corruption Lucifer blushes and Hell itself stands astonished. If I understand the amendment of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, its principal object is to renew the non-intercourse of 1809, so far as it respects Great Britain, which was previously attempted to be revived by the proclamation of the President of the second of November last. I should have supposed that, rather than have made so glaring a confession that that State paper misstated fact, the gentleman would have been dissuaded from his darling object, the non-intercourse. But it seems that when it comes in competition with the views of Napoleon, the veracity of the President must be sacrificed. But, sir, convinced as I am, that our paper war, which has been applied to all purposes, even to calling out the army, raising the militia, pressing the horses, &c., and sending them on an expedition the distance of five hundred miles, with express orders not to fight, has damned the character of this Government, broken down the spirit of the nation, embarrassed our citizens, and emptied the late overflowing Treasury, so as to render the resort to borrowing necessary; I cannot but hope that the amendment on your table will be rejected to give place to an amendment offered some days ago by an honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. Emott,) when this bill was under discussion in Committee of the Whole.

Sir, if I understand that amendment, it went to suspend the whole restrictive system, except the third section of the law of May last, which saves fines and forfeitures incurred under our various restrictions. This amendment, to be sure, changes the position recommended by the Executive, but not much more than the bill, with the addition of the amendment now under consideration. Although it becomes this House to pay due deference to Executive recommendations; yet, if there are good reasons for a departure from such recommendations, it equally becomes the members of this House, out of a regard to the correctness of their own proceedings, to make such a departure correspond with the reasons which produced it. The position recommended by the Executive made its first appearance in a short paragraph in the President's Message, recommending such a modification of the law of May last, as would remove all doubts as to its exposition and execution; for the details of such modification we are referred to the report of the Secretary of the[Pg 380] Treasury. In this report we find a project recommended to enforce the non-importation against English merchandise of every kind and from every country. In the first place, by making the proclamation of the President, declaring that the French edicts had ceased to violate our neutral commerce on the first day of November last, the only evidence of that fact; and in the second place, by authorizing the officers of the army and navy to enter ships, dwelling-houses, stores, or any other place, to search for and seize merchandise suspected of being imported contrary to law, and making a donation of the boon so seized to the wretch who should be hardy enough, in defiance of all moral obligation, thus to rob his neighbor; and in the third place, by declaring all merchandise so seized in the Northern section of the Union, adjoining the British provinces, to be forfeited, unless by a palpable inversion of the rule of evidence in all other cases, and even in this case, adopted in all other sections of the Union, he is able to prove that the merchandise was legally imported and the duties paid—with many other provisions, all of which have been laid before this House, in the first bill on the subject reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations, the details of which are too well recollected to need pointing out, or to be suffered to meet a public investigation at this time.

But, sir, with all due deference to the high ministerial officer who recommended the project, and likewise to the honorable committee who reported the bill, I may be allowed to pay it the compliment of saying that, in my opinion, previous to the reign of that tyrant, who, by a military force, aided by projects of this kind, has destroyed the sanctuary of justice, and has spread pillage, debauchery, robbery, and death, throughout the greater part of Europe; such a bill as that would have been scouted from this Hall as the production of a madman. But on receiving the Message of the President, covering the letters of Mr. Russell, the American Chargé des Affaires at Paris, stating that American vessels, loaded with bona fide property of American citizens, had been seized and sequestered in the ports of France, under the Berlin and Milan decrees, as late as the 9th of December, doubts seemed to arise in this House, whether the decrees had ceased to operate on the first of November, as the President had declared. And the bill was sent back to the committee, for the purpose, as I understood, of bringing in a bill to suspend the operation of the law of May last, until we should hear from France, whether the Emperor had disavowed those seizures, and whether the decrees had actually ceased to operate on the first of November. And I did understand the honorable chairman of the committee, and several other gentlemen on the other side of the House, to say on that occasion, that if, after we had new arrivals from France, that did not prove to be the case, they should be as ready as any gentleman to repeal the whole code of restrictive laws until the Emperor should learn to respect our rights. What evidence have we had since to give us a more favorable prospect, as it respects the revocation of the decrees? Not a syllable. But, on the other hand, we have conclusive evidence that they were not so revoked that their operation ceased on that day.

If it be asked where this evidence appears, the answer is ready. In the first place, by the letter of the Grand Judge, the Duke of Massa, to the President of the Council of Prizes, as also by the letter of the Minister of Finance to the Director General of the Customs, both dated the 25th of December, fifteen days after the manly remonstrance of Mr. Russell, in the case of the Orleans Packet; in which remonstrance he states the outrageous conduct of the custom-house officers, and requests a prompt and speedy disavowal of the seizures, and that the property be again placed in the hands of the owners. But, sir, is there any thing in these two letters which looks like a disavowal of the seizure in express violation of the promise of the Duke of Cadore? No, sir, although these letters were written fifteen days after the remonstrance of Mr. Russell. Instead of this they both agree that the decrees did not cease to operate on the first of November, but that the property taken with the Orleans Packet, and all the property which should be seized between the first of November and the second of February, must remain in depot to wait the pleasure of the Emperor, on our causing our rights to be respected by England.

But how, Mr. Speaker, are we to cause our rights to be respected? Is it by merely reviving the law of May last, as is the object of this amendment? Certainly this is not their meaning; for both these letters have reference to that law, as well as the proclamation of the President giving it effect, and to the circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, addressed to the collectors of the several ports, enjoining a strict execution of that law. No, sir, this is not what is to be done, which will satisfy the Emperor. He who flatters himself that this will be sufficient, shuts his eyes against official evidence to the contrary; as well in the above-recited letters, written with a perfect knowledge of the performance on our part, and the promise of a performance on the part of France on the first day of November, as in the letter of the French Minister in the United States on the 12th of December, in which we are told that the French restrictions on our commerce are not to cease, but only on the result of firm and energetic measures to be adopted and persevered in by the two Governments against the common enemy.

But shall I be told that the letters of the Grand Judge and Minister of Finance promised that the property taken from our citizens since 1st of November should be restored, if we cause the law to be carried into effect after the 2d day of February, and therefore we were to believe it and ought to wait until we hear[Pg 381] whether that has been the case? For the honor of my Government, I hope not. Is it really come to this, that we are brought to acknowledge that the Duke of Cadore was correct when he told General Armstrong that His Majesty could place no reliance on the American Government? No, sir, if this be true, for heaven's sake let us not express it. But what is this amendment which re-enacts the law of May last, and such pitiful reasoning as I have heard on this occasion, but placing our seal to that infamous insinuation? The President, on the mere promise of the Minister of the Emperor, that the Berlin and Milan decrees should cease to operate on the first day of November, placed full faith and reliance on that promise, and issued his proclamation on the 2d, presuming the promise had been fulfilled—and, shall we say that the Emperor is justifiable in disbelieving the law of May last, solemnly enacted by the three branches of the Government and the President's proclamation, together with the Circular of the Secretary of the Treasury, enjoining the law to be carried into effect?

I hope not; for if we are become so pitifully servile as this, well might Cadore, in his letter of February 14th, 1810, tell General Armstrong that the Americans were without just political views, without honor, and even independence. And if we, by adopting this amendment, condescend to justify the Emperor, in his insult upon the plighted faith of our Government, in my opinion we shall furnish the American people and the world with just ground to say Amen to the declaration of Cadore in that respect. Will any gentleman still say, that the decrees ceased to operate on the first of November, since we have had official information from the French Government itself, that our vessels are to be seized under these decrees, until the second of February? I trust not. Those gentlemen who support this amendment, ought to recollect that the sections which go to re-enact the law of May last, contain a confession that that law is not now in operation; for if the decrees did actually cease to operate on the first of November, no one doubts but the law is now in full force, without the provisions of this bill. When the honorable chairman of the committee first offered his amendment, a misunderstanding seemed to take place between him and two gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, viz. the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Wright,) and the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Rhea,) which undoubtedly happened in this way. While the honorable chairman well knew that the decrees did not cease on the first of November; therefore to keep alive the spirit of the law of May, which gave England three months after they did cease, it became necessary to lengthen the time for her to revoke; and the other two gentlemen, as it would seem, really supposed, that because Mr. Pinkney had said that Cadore's letter was precision itself, these decrees really did cease to operate agreeable to that promise; although we have the official information from Mr. Russell on our tables, that the Orleans Packet was the first case that had happened after the first of November, to which the Berlin and Milan decrees could have been applied, and that they were applied in that case, and that several late arrivals, which left France from twenty to twenty-five days afterwards, bring no information from him that a change had taken place, and had that been the case, he would certainly have communicated information to the Government before the rising of Congress. On the contrary, these arrivals confirm what he had stated, and say, that every vessel arriving in France shares the same fate. Mr. Speaker, until I heard those two gentlemen, I did suppose that no man of common sense could have believed a position, in such direct opposition to evidence. And from the opinion which I have of the discernment of the gentleman from Tennessee, I think I must have misunderstood him, while perhaps it may be improper to include the other gentleman in the supposition.

Sir, I seldom trouble the House with any observations of mine, nor is it my intention, at this time, to examine and expose all the winding and management which has been practised, to bring about such a state of things as to render plausible this measure at this time. I shall, however, examine the non-intercourse system from the date of the law of March, 1809, and inquire what was its professed object? What use has been made of it? And how has it been regarded by the belligerents? And also notice some of its effects upon our own citizens as well as upon the Treasury. What must be the inevitable consequence if this measure is suffered to go into effect? I take it to amount to an entire non-importation of any of the articles, products, or manufactures of more than three-fourths of the civilized world, to which our merchants would, at this time, run the risk of attempting voyages; for, from the Continent of Europe no one returns unless at the expense of this Government. The dominions of Great Britain, including the East and West Indies, as well as her European dominions, and those on the American Continent, are immense. The products of these various countries formed a principal part of those importations of the last year, which, while the non-intercourse slept, gave new life and vigor to every branch of business. Our seaports, which the year before presented the gloomy appearance of cities besieged by a hostile foe, again resumed the appearance of enterprise, industry and wealth. Thousands, who in 1809 were either a burden to their friends, in the poor-house, or begging their bread in the streets, were in 1810 enjoying the fruits of their industry in a comfortable supply of the necessaries of life, while the farmer and planter sowed his seed and cultivated his field, with the comfortable prospect that his crop would not decay on his hand for want of a market. Now, sir, although exportation is not interdicted by this bill, yet I apprehend[Pg 382] the result will be much the same. It can hardly be expected that Great Britain, who gentlemen on the other side of the House are fond of considering as the cause of all our commercial distress, will condescend to pay us specie for our produce, while our ports are closed, not only against her shipping of all kinds, but against every article of her products and manufactures, as well as those of her colonies and dependencies, while they are open to those of her enemy. Again, what was the effect of the non-intercourse in 1809 upon our Treasury? In addition to the bankruptcy and wretchedness spread over the face of the whole country, we are informed by the annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury, laid on our tables, that the net revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage, accruing during that year, amounted to only $6,527,000, while we are informed in the same report, that this source of revenue in the three first quarters of the year 1810, while commerce was free, amounted to a sum exceeding $7,250,000, and the Secretary adds, that he believed the whole revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage for that year would amount to more than $12,000; making an increase in this year, when commerce was unshackled, of $5,473,000, notwithstanding all the robberies of Napoleon, which probably amounted to more than forty millions, a free importation of the avails of which would have greatly increased the revenue of that year. From this view of the subject, we find a deficit in the revenue of 1809, caused by this measure, of $5,473,000, and, in anticipation of the effects of the law now about to be enacted, the Secretary of the Treasury has, in the same report, recommended an immediate additional duty to be laid upon importations, which, together with the high duties already established by law, he thinks will not amount to more than $8,000,000; making an anticipated deficiency in the next year's revenue, occasioned by this measure, of $4,000,000, compared with that of 1810. But if we compare the revenue arising from duties on merchandise and tonnage during the year 1809, while commerce was restricted by the non-intercourse, with what it was in 1807, while it was unshackled, we shall find a deficiency of about $11,000,000.

From this view of the subject, which is taken from authentic documents, which I invite gentlemen to controvert if they have it in their power, it is demonstrated that if we suffered this system to go into operation, we are not only to again reduce our citizens to a state of bankruptcy in their private fortunes, while loaded with additional taxes, but, notwithstanding the aid of these additional taxes, our Treasury is, if possible, to be reduced to a more complete state of bankruptcy than at present. I put it to gentlemen, who are in the confidence of the Cabinet, to say, why we are called upon again to plunge this nation into such a state of poverty and wretchedness? Is it necessary as a measure of self-defence, as the only mode of resistance which will bring England to terms? For myself I should suppose that our late experiment in this species of warfare, at which France took so much offence, as to take occasion to seize and confiscate the property of American citizens, to the amount of $40,000,000, which rendered necessary an appropriation of $80,000 during the present session, in order to enable those of our citizens, who had been thus robbed and plundered, to revisit their native shores, afforded a spectacle too humiliating to suffer us to make another attempt so soon, and before we have so far recovered from the effects of our late experiment as to be able to defray the ordinary expenses of government without having recourse to annual loans for the purpose. Are we bound to adopt this measure on account of the faith of Government being pledged to France by the law of May last?

Here give me leave to inquire what has been the further effect of this law. It seems England, although she saw that if it had any operation at all, it operated only against her, was willing to consider it as a municipal regulation of our own, and treated it as such, while Bonaparte at first, and for ten months, passed it over as inoffensive to him, until our vessels, which had been shut up in our ports by its elder sister, the embargo, having got released from that strong measure, flocked into the ports of France, Spain, Holland, and Naples, all under the immediate and entire control of France, when, on the 23d March, an order was issued by his gracious and loving Majesty to seize and confiscate the property of our citizens in all those countries; which property is, by the best calculation, estimated at more than forty millions. And you will perceive, Mr. Speaker, that the Duke of Cadore saw, that, by suffering the law to pass unnoticed, till our property released from the embargo had filled nearly every port in Europe under French control, and then issuing an order which was to have a retrospective operation of ten months, was such a gross outrage upon every principle of honor and justice, as well as the usages of public law, that he, in a letter to General Armstrong, of the 5th August, 1810, attempts to excuse the piratical transaction, by saying that the Emperor knew nothing of the law of March, until very lately. But, I pray gentlemen to take notice that General Armstrong, in his letter to Cadore of the 10th of March, (five months before the one just recited from Cadore,) asserts that this law was communicated to him in the month of June or July preceding—one whole year before the declaration made by Cadore.

But to pursue this subject: on the first day of May, 1810, while this robbery, I ought to presume, was unknown to the Executive—certainly to the people—this non-intercourse law was repealed; but the majority, for wise purposes, I presume, did, in the same law that repealed the non-intercourse, give the President power, in case England or France should, before the 1st day of March, so revoke or modify her edicts[Pg 383] as that they should cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, to declare the same by proclamation; in which case, the non-intercourse should be revived against the nation neglecting to revoke or modify her edicts, in like manner, for the space of three months after the date of such proclamation. And you will recollect, sir, that this law was also opposed by the minority, not so much, perhaps, because they suspected either the integrity or impartiality of the President, as because they thought it unconstitutional to commit a power to the Executive which was, in its nature and effect, an act of legislation, viz: to revive a law at his discretion which was to affect the great interest of the nation, and might result in war. I say, at his discretion; and I ask gentlemen to take notice that the law reads, "so revoke or modify." This law was also sent by the President to our Ministers at London and Paris, as he states in his Message. But, what was it sent there for? Only to be used as an inducement to those nations to revoke their unjust edicts, which was the avowed object of the provision when it passed. And, if sent there for that purpose, it would seem, that to have acted a neutral part, it ought to have been used alike at the palaces of St. Cloud and St. James. But, Mr. Speaker, what was the fact? Here we may learn the management of which I spoke when I first addressed you. This law, which you will perceive was in the nature of a generous overture made to the belligerent who first revoked his edicts, changed its character when offered to the other belligerent, who should neglect to revoke the obnoxious edicts until after his enemy had done so; and, instead of being a generous offer, contained a threat, that if she did not revoke, we should shut our ports against her products, while they should be open to those of her enemy. And this is the light in which it was viewed by our Government, as will be seen in Mr. Smith's letter to General Armstrong, of the 5th day of June, 1810, (printed documents, p. 35,) in these words: "It might be added, that the form in which the law now presents the overture, is as well calculated as the overture itself to gain a favorable attention, inasmuch as it may be regarded by the belligerent first accepting of it as a promise to itself and a threat only to its adversary." For this view of the subject, gentlemen will perceive that it is much more agreeable to close any matter in dispute upon a generous offer for so doing, than it would be to do so while threatened by their opponent that if it is not done they must suffer the consequence of their own folly and his vengeance. Now, in looking through the documents, I mistake if gentlemen have not discovered some management in this business, so that while the law was presented to France as an offer made to herself, it should be presented to England in no other character than that of a threat. It seems that the first correspondence with our Minister which we are suffered to see, is a letter from Mr. Smith to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d May; although it appears from that letter that the Secretary of State had sent a copy of the law in a previous letter of the 4th of that month to Mr. Pinkney, as also another copy in the letter of the 22d; but we hear nothing of instructions in either to use this new overture, which the law presents, to the best advantage at the Court of St. James, while it retained its character of an offer made to that Government. Indeed, it would seem most natural to suppose that the instructions given in this business were contained in the letter of the 4th, which was the first enclosing a copy of the law. But, at this we are not suffered to look, nor at the one sent to General Armstrong, of the same date, which was also the first to him enclosing a copy of the law.

But, Mr. Speaker, as we are not suffered to see the first correspondence on this important business, which we are called upon by the Executive to carry into effect by a new act of legislation, it becomes doubly our duty to examine well this letter of the twenty-second, and see what that treats of, and whether it compares with the first we are suffered to see, sent to General Armstrong on this subject. In this letter to Mr. Pinkney of the twenty-second, the Secretary commences, as he says, with much surprise, that Great Britain had not revoked her blockades, and that she had not sent a man of rank to replace Mr. Jackson; and, after having dwelt at great length on the latter of these subjects, he mentions that he had sent a copy of the law, as also another, in his letter of the fourth of that month, and tells Mr. Pinkney to let the British Government know that the provisions of the law would be carried into effect, but not a syllable of proffering it as an offer made to that Government and a threat to France. But, instead of this, the Secretary selects two subjects, which he must have known would be difficult to close, and tells Mr. Pinkney that if another Minister was not sent to replace Mr. Jackson, to let the British Government know that he would return to the United States. And as though this was not sufficient to prevent the British Government from closing with the conditions of the new overture, the attack on the Chesapeake must be settled in a manner agreeable to the propositions made to Mr. Rose and Mr. Erskine, which he might well know would not be done, as the British Government had told him it could not be closed in that way. On the first of July, Mr. Pinkney acknowledges Mr. Smith's letter of the twenty-second of May, and very properly goes on to execute the instructions it contained as to the British Government sending a man of rank to replace Mr. Jackson, &c. And, in my opinion, very properly notices the scrap of instructions it contained, respecting the law of May last, by merely mentioning, that while he is engaged with Lord Wellesley on these other subjects, he thinks he shall draw his attention to the non-intercourse law, but I find no account of his ever presenting the law to that Government.

[Pg 384]

Now, Mr. Speaker, while we see in this letter of the twenty-second the substance of all we are permitted to see of the use to be made by Mr. Pinkney of this law, as an inducement to the British Government to revoke the Orders in Council, let us examine what was the course pursued towards the French Government to induce it to take advantage of the law, while it retained the character of a favorable overture, so that the British Government should have to meet it as a threat, or as a rod held over them to procure the revocation of their edicts. In order to do this, I shall examine the first letter which is suffered to come to public view, from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, after the date of the law of May first. This bears the date of June fifth, documents, page 34. In this, we find that he had sent two before, each one enclosing a copy of the law, and no doubt both containing instructions what use to make of it. For we find, even in this third letter, that Mr. Smith tells General Armstrong, (to use his own words,) "If there be sincerity in the language held at different times by the French Government, and especially in the late overture to proceed to amicable and just arrangements in the case of our refusal to submit to the British Orders in Council, (not blockades,) no pretext can be found for longer declining to put an end to the decrees of which the United States have so justly complained." And here, I entreat gentlemen to notice that this is the first ground stated by our Government to that of France, as being that which would be insisted upon from England—a compliance on her part required to entitle her to the provisions of this law, viz., her relinquishing the Orders in Council. We may here notice, that Mr. Smith adds, as a further inducement to France to take advantage of the law, while it retained the character of a favorable overture, "that by putting in force the non-intercourse against England, agreeable to the terms of this statute, that the very species of resistance would be made which France has been constantly representing as the most efficacious." But, Mr. Smith goes still farther in his instructions, and tells General Armstrong, "that it may be added, that in the form in which the law now presents the overture, it is as well calculated as the overture itself to gain a favorable attention, inasmuch as it may be regarded by the belligerent first accepting it as a promise to itself, and a threat only to its adversary." In this letter, we find that the Secretary states a first ground, which was necessary in the first instance to entitle the French Government to the provisions of this law. What was this ground? Why, he tells General Armstrong to let the French Government understand that the President would not proceed to give the law effect, if the restoration of the property of our citizens be finally refused; and closes his letter by directing him to let that Government know that the only ground, short of a preliminary restoration of the property, on which the contemplated arrangement could take place, would be an understanding that the confiscation was reversible, and that it would become immediately the subject of discussion, with a reasonable prospect of justice to our injured citizens. Was this the ground on which the subject was placed? It seems so, from this official letter of the Secretary. Yes, sir, it was; and with due deference, I may be allowed to say, the only honorable and just ground; and if the American Government had possessed independence enough to have still occupied this ground, we would not have had the mortification to discuss the bill on the table at this time. But, instead of this, although Mr. Smith had just received Cadore's insulting letter, in which he more than insinuates that, as a Government and nation, we are destitute of just political views, without honor, energy, or even independence, and closes by letting our Government know of the seizure and sale of the property of our citizens in all the ports of Europe under French control; what was the conduct of the American Government on this occasion? I entreat gentlemen to take notice, that, with this horrid picture of insult and robbery fresh in their recollection, the same conciliatory disposition, guided by the principles of neutrality, which dismissed a British Minister for an implied insult, induced Mr. Smith to inform General Armstrong that the President thought it best not to make any animadversions on that subject at that time. (Printed documents, page 34.) The next letter on this subject worthy of notice, is one of the 5th of July, in which Mr. Smith acknowledges the receipt of information, that the property which he had said in his last must be restored, in order to entitle France to the American commerce while it was denied to England, was sold, and the proceeds deposited in the caisse prive—privy purse of the Emperor. Here, indeed, Mr. Smith seems to have almost forgot himself, and to conceive he was giving instructions how to proceed with a British Minister, and tells General Armstrong to demand every reparation of which the subject was susceptible. But, Mr. Speaker, is it not worthy of notice that he closes even this spirited letter, with such a history of piracy and insult then on his desk before him, by quitting the ground he had taken in his letter of the fifth of June, and, instead of a proposed renewal of the non-intercourse against England, if she should neglect to withdraw her Orders in Council, which was the only ground taken by the President with Mr. Erskine, and also the only thing contemplated when the law of May last was passed, as also the only ground taken by himself only one month before, (having, it is presumed, heard from France in the interval,) he condescends to tell the General, that if France should demand it, he might give her to understand that it was the President's intention to renew the non-intercourse against England, if she did not also rescind her blockades. It is here again to be noticed, that he again repeats, what he had before told General Armstrong, that a[Pg 385] restoration of the property was indispensable, in order to a renewal of the non-intercourse against England.

But again: will, I had like to have said, the servile manner, in which a rescinding the blockade is coupled as a condition with the withdrawing the Orders in Council, escape notice? Immediately on instructing General Armstrong to state to the French Government that a repeal of the blockade of eighteen hundred and six would be insisted on, the Secretary adds: "You will press the reasonableness of permitting the United States to proceed in such way as they may think proper, in relation to any subsequent blockades, or any other blockades not against France," which to me reads in this way, i. e., as we have, at the request of the French Government, receded from our first ground, and included blockades also, you are instructed humbly to request Bonaparte to permit us to do our own business in our own way in future. My God! After all this, to see the Government of my country soliciting, at the feet of the Emperor of France, for permission to manage their own affairs in their own way! What American can read this correspondence without laying his hand upon his heart and exclaiming, O my Government, my Government, now is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold changed! The next thing we meet with, is Mr. Smith's letter of the 2d of November, to General Armstrong, enclosing the President's proclamation, declaring the edicts of France so revoked, as that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, and of course the non-intercourse to be revived against England after the 2d of February, if she did not in the mean time revoke her orders, which, after the ground taken, and so often repeated, with respect to the restoration of the property, must astonish every American. But we have still this as a consolation, that Mr. Smith, notwithstanding he had been told by the Duke of Cadore that it was impossible any compromise could take place on that subject, says in the letter enclosing the proclamation that the President presumes that the requisitions contained in his letter of the 5th of July, as to the restoration of the property, will have been satisfied. In the name of God, Mr. Speaker, what grounds had he for this presumption? In addition to this, in his letter of the 5th of November, Mr. Smith instructs General Armstrong to let the Emperor know that the third section of the law of March, 1809, at which he took so much offence, was not intended to operate against his subjects, but against our own citizens. And although this may be, and probably is, true, yet a confession of this kind, after so recent and aggravated insult and violence, must I think be sickening to the American people, and Napoleon himself will be at a loss to know why it was made unless to testify our loyalty. But our loyalty to the contrary notwithstanding, the Duke of Cadore in his letter to General Armstrong of the 12th of September, in answer to one from him of the 7th of that month, tells the General, that the Emperor sees with pleasure that the Americans are far from acknowledging the tyrannical principles of English legislation, yet informs him that as to the merchandise confiscated, it having been confiscated as a measure of reprisal, the principles of reprisal must be the law in that affair.

Now, Mr. Speaker, after seeing how the law of May, 1810, has been used with the French Government, and for aught we know, not used at all with that of England, until it had assumed the character of a threat, together with the various changes of position taken by our Government in this business, I think it demonstrates a management, which, if duly examined, will not leave much doubt whether it be indispensably necessary to suffer this law to go into operation, either as a measure of resistance against England, or of good faith towards France. For instance, at one time England must repeal her Orders in Council to entitle her to the benefit of the law; at another, viz: after hearing from France, the condition must include a repeal of the blockades also, and on the part of France, she must rescind her decrees and restore the property, then a promise is to be accepted as it respects the property, and, to top the climax, the proclamation issues on the presumption of an agreement having taken place, on the part of France, that the property shall be restored. But after all this we are told by Cadore, on the 12th of September, to be contented, for as to the property in question it will not be restored.

But, Mr. Speaker, it seems that the President, in compliance with a resolution of the House of the 21st of December, has furnished documents which put the question beyond a doubt, that the proclamation was issued, declaring that the French decrees were repealed, so that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, when, to say the least, he had no official information of the fact, or, if he had, he has taken care to keep it to himself. Mr. Smith, in his letter to Turreau, of the 18th of December, is compelled to say in effect, that the French restrictions on our commerce are not rescinded, or, to use his own words: "If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal laws producing the same commercial effect have been substituted, the mode only, and not the measure, has undergone an alteration." In this situation, I should like to be informed why we are called upon by the Executive so to modify our laws as to carry the non-importation against England and her dependencies forcibly into effect, and thus destroy the small remains of our commerce, the effects of which we have so recently felt at the Treasury, since the repeal of the non-intercourse law of May last, as I have already shown from the Secretary's report. This information I have not as yet been able to obtain, although I have sought for it, unless I resort to the last paragraph in General Turreau's letter of December 12, to Mr. Secre[Pg 386]tary Smith, in answer to one from the Secretary, remonstrating against the exclusion of cotton and tobacco from the ports of France. In reply to which he says, among other things, that he thinks some modification will take place in this respect, but tells him that this will depend upon the firm and persevering measures to be pursued by the two Governments against the common enemy. In this intimation of his Imperial Majesty through his Minister, which, by-the-by, is not the first of the kind, will I fancy be found the only necessity of suffering this measure to go into operation. And are gentlemen prepared to obey? I trust not. No, sir, I will not for a moment entertain so degrading an idea. But firmly believing the contrary, I still hope the amendment will be rejected, and with it the whole restrictive system, until France shall learn to respect our rights.

Mr. Speaker, if I am to be called an enemy to my country for opposing this measure, under present circumstances, to my country I will appeal; being entirely willing that the honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wright) and his friends should share the whole of the honor of advocating the right of the Emperor to take and withhold the property of our citizens. Sir, it creates no astonishment to hear that gentleman contend that we are bound by the law of May to carry the non-intercourse into effect against Great Britain, but, to hear a gentleman possessed of the discernment of the honorable chairman of the committee who reported this bill, make this declaration, is truly astonishing, when the reverse is the fact. I trust I have already shown that in every communication from our Executive to the French Government on the subject, that Government has been told that if, in connection with the revocation of the decrees, the sequestered property was not given up, the non-intercourse would not be renewed against England. These several letters were communicated to this House, and published nearly three months since, and are, at this moment, in the hands of the British Government, and, by this tenure, that Government has a right to rest assured that the non-intercourse will not be renewed against them. Indeed, to believe the contrary, would be an insult to the plighted faith of the Executive.

Mr. Bigelow.—Mr. Speaker, I regret extremely that, at this late period of the session, and at this late hour of the night, the high sense of the duty which I feel that I owe to my constituents and to my country, should compel me to submit to the consideration of the House a few remarks upon this all-important subject. They will be of a general nature, candid, and as much as possible confined to the subject of debate.

Sir, on this occasion, I feel no disposition to censure the conduct of the President. Permit me, however, before I proceed to the subject, to notice a very singular remark of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross.) That gentleman observed, "that when this bill was laid on your table, he was determined to vote against it; that he considered it wrong in principle, and injurious in its consequences; and that he should now vote against it, had not several gentlemen, particularly the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) been so severe in their censures upon the conduct of the Administration. He felt it his duty to support the Administration, and should, therefore, vote for the bill, although he disliked it."

Sir, I apprehend the President will not feel under very great obligations to that gentleman for this kind of support. For myself, I am free to declare, that stronger reasons than those must operate upon my mind, before I can give my sanction to a measure professedly impolitic and unjust.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is advocated on the ground that, by the law of May, 1810, we are under obligations to France to prohibit commercial intercourse with Great Britain. If, sir, I rightly recollect, for I have not the law before me, the substance of the provision, as it respected France, was, that if she so revoked or modified her edicts and decrees, as that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce, and Great Britain refused, for three months, to pursue a similar course, then was this system of non-intercourse to commence, as it respects Great Britain.

Mr. Speaker, I deny that the faith of the nation is pledged by the law of May, 1810. It is neither a contract nor a treaty. To constitute a contract, two parties are necessary, at least. All writers upon the subject have so considered it; and, sir, if one party can make a contract with another, without the knowledge, consent, or approbation of the other, it is a new discovery, with which, as yet, I am unacquainted. Such, sir, is the nature of the contract referred to. The Congress was the only party concerned in making it. France knew nothing of it; it was made wholly without her consent or approbation. How, then, is the national faith plighted to France by that law? Sir, I know of but one way in which the faith of this nation can be pledged to another, and that is, by a treaty approved and ratified by the constituted authorities; and surely, sir, no gentleman will contend that this law amounted to a treaty. If, then, it was neither a contract nor a treaty, the faith of the nation is not pledged. The most you can make of it is, as was observed on a former occasion by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) "that it is a rule of conduct for ourselves." But, sir, I am willing to admit, in case France had fairly and honestly complied with the conditions of the law, so often referred to, that good faith on our part might have required that we should pass the present bill. What was the condition to be performed on the part of France? Sir, she was to revoke and modify her decrees, so that they should cease to violate our neutral commerce. This has not been done. The Berlin and Milan decrees are not even nominally revoked. Look[Pg 387] at the letters of Mr. Russell, our Chargé des Affaires at Paris, of the tenth of December last. Look at the letters of the Dukes of Massa and Gaete, of the twenty-fifth of the same month. Look at her conduct subsequent to the first of November, the time when you were informed that those decrees would cease to operate. Has she not seized every vessel which has arrived at her ports since that period? Upon this point I will not waste the time of the House by attempting to show that those decrees are still in force, a fact which has been already so fully and amply proved by the candid and able arguments of the honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. Emott.)

But, sir, I will go further, and, for the sake of argument, admit, not only that the law of May, 1810, has all the binding force upon this nation of a treaty made by the regular constitutional authorities, but that the Berlin and Milan decrees were, on the fifth day of August last, actually revoked; and, after the first day November, ceased to violate our neutral commerce. There is still another important point to be considered, and I hope gentlemen will attend to it with candor.

Sir, it is a principle well established by the law of nations, as well as by the laws of nature and reason, that when one nation, in consequence of revoking certain acts injurious to another nation, claims from the other nation the performance of a promise made on condition that those acts should be revoked, it is necessary that the nation thus claiming the fulfilment of the promise, should first, not only revoke those injurious acts, but it should also be done fairly and honestly, without subterfuge or reserve, and without, at the same time, adopting other measures equally injurious, and producing the same effects. Now, sir, admit that the declaration of the Duc de Cadore, in his letter of the 5th of August, 1810, that the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and, after the first of November, would cease to violate our neutral commerce, was an actual revocation of those decrees; still, sir, if this was merely to amuse and deceive us, if another act equally injurious was at the same time substituted, will it be contended that France has, nevertheless, fairly complied with the conditions of your law? Sir, it is a very singular fact that, on this very fifth day of August, another decree was issued by the French Emperor, which was equally injurious, and amounted, in fact, to a prohibition of our commerce, as much as the Berlin and Milan decrees. I allude to the duties established by the Emperor on articles of American produce, which were so enormously high, that the owner would prefer an abandonment of his cargo to a payment of the duties. Even this was insufficient; for, by a subsequent decree, various articles were prohibited, and those which were allowed, must only be exported in vessels which should sail from Charleston or New York.

Is this, sir, that fair, that honest repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees; is this that bona fide performance of the condition; that ceasing to violate our neutral commerce, which lays us under such solemn obligations to France? Am I not, then, Mr. Speaker, authorized to say, that the condition of the law of May, 1810, has not been complied with? I trust, sir, as to this point, that the letter of the Secretary of State to Mr. Turreau, of the 18th of December last, will be considered as conclusive. In this letter, the Secretary, speaking of the enormous duties which have been mentioned, observes: "If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal laws, producing the same commercial effect, have been substituted; the mode only, and not the measure, have undergone an alteration."

To my mind, sir, this insidious, this perfidious conduct, on the part of Napoleon, is infinitely more base, and merits the indignation of the American people infinitely more than would an open refusal to revoke the obnoxious decrees. It is an attempt, if I may be allowed the expression, to gull and deceive us, by an artful, intriguing policy, which ought to excite our jealousy, and rouse our highest resentments. I trust, sir, I have fairly shown that our faith is not plighted, that we are under no obligations to Napoleon. If in this I am correct, then the passage of the present bill is a mere question of policy and interest.

It would be a mere waste of time to attempt, by a reference to the past evils which have resulted from this restrictive system, to show the impolicy of its continuance. The bad effects already produced are but too well known. This, sir, is the favorable moment to erase it from your statute books; the policy and interest of the nation require it.

Let us examine, for a moment, the consequences of its continuance.

Do you believe, sir, that your merchants, a great portion of whose property has been seized by foreign nations, when the remnant of their vessels, which have escaped, shall, upon entering your own ports, be seized by your own custom-house officers, that they will be satisfied to lose the remainder of their property, in pursuance of your own laws? They will think it hard enough, that millions of their property have been seized by France, by Denmark, and by Sweden, without having the remainder seized on their return, and confiscated by their own Government. Surely, sir, they will require strong evidence of the fact that your faith is plighted to France, before they will be satisfied with the measure you are about to adopt.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the Representative of merchants; I feel no peculiar interest in their favor, but I consider them a useful class of citizens; their interests are closely connected with the interests of your farmers; and, in this point of view, they are at least entitled to notice. Hitherto, your merchants have been noted for their fairness, and for the respect they have paid to your revenue laws. But, sir, after having their property plundered by France, by[Pg 388] Denmark, and Sweden, will they not, when they learn that from a scrupulous regard to your faith plighted to France, a faith, however, which has no existence, you seize, with a few exceptions, all which return; will they not, I repeat it, endeavor to land their cargoes so as to escape the vigilance of your officers? Have you no apprehension that, when they have once learnt the art of smuggling to save their property from seizure and confiscation, they will afterwards practise it, to avoid the payment of duties? I fear that this system will have a tendency to corrupt the morals of your merchants, and from them it will extend throughout the country.

Wednesday, February 27.

The House formed a quorum at half-past ten o'clock.

Mr. Gold.—Mr. Speaker, at a period when the civilized world is convulsed by continued war, to its centre; when the European continent is exhibiting the marks of ruthless conquest, and is threatened with all that barbarism, with which Attila, with his invading hordes, overwhelmed the Roman world, it becomes the Councils of this nation to move with cautious steps on the theatre of our foreign relations; to move, sir, with a fixed eye on the great law of neutrality, and yield an implicit obedience to its high injunctions.

It eminently becomes, sir, the Government of this country, in all our concerns with the belligerents of Europe, to carry an even hand, to manifest to both a fair, impartial, and equal conduct. Without such a course, the consequences to our peace and prosperity, from the jealousy and violence of warring nations, are inevitable, and, with it, we can hardly promise ourselves exemption from aggressions and spoliation; such and so destructive is the spirit of the times. Need I, sir, to excite caution in legislation, refer the House to the consequences of the non-intercourse act of the 1st of March, 1809; for, however free from all exception from the belligerents was that act, yet France, in the wantonness of power, made it the pretext for the exercise of the rigorous right of reprisal by an additional decree, which, with the preceding, have, like the besom of destruction, swept our property from the ocean.

It was on that act, that the Rambouillet decree of the 23d of March last, was founded for its sole justification; and so do the very terms of the decree, shameful and disgraceful as it is, import.

In reviewing the proceedings of our Government under the act of the 1st of May last, (the act upon which the President's proclamation for a non-importation with Great Britain is founded,) permit me, sir, to ask if the spirit of a fair and impartial neutrality, so eminently necessary in the critical situation of the United States, has guided our proceedings with the respective belligerents? By this act, if either of the belligerents rescinded its edicts, violating our neutral rights, the non-intercourse act was to be put in force against the other refusing to rescind, and the President, by proclamation, was to declare such fact of rescinding. Under this provision, sir, the President substituted a prospective engagement for a fact done; a promise for a performance; the future for the past, and hence, sir, have resulted our present difficulties; that crisis which bears so hard upon the American people. It is not, sir, my object to impeach the motives of the President in this ill-fated proceeding; I am to presume a love of country guided him; but it is impossible not to see in the measure a course indulgent to France, a construction upon the letter of the Duke de Cadore, of the 5th of August last, (touching the revocation of the decrees of Berlin and Milan,) the most favorable and advantageous to that country, and offensive to Great Britain. For, sir, notwithstanding the above proclamation, the noon-day sun is not plainer than that those decrees are not revoked; nor indeed, sir, will they, in my opinion, ever be revoked under the above act. The utmost extent of our hopes, from the last despatches transmitting the official communication of the twenty-fifth of December last, from the Grand Judge Massa, and the Minister of Finance, Gaete, is, that our vessels (with their cargoes) seized in the ports of France since the first of November, in violation of the stipulation of the above letter of the 5th of August, and of all that is holden sacred among nations, may be at some future day, under some new and embarrassing conditions, flowing from the policy of Napoleon, restored to our suffering citizens. By the last paragraph of the above letter of the Minister of the Finances, it would seem that the Emperor and King has shut his eyes upon past engagements, and referred all that concerns us to the second day of February, when new toils are to be spread, as is to be presumed, for the unsuspecting, credulous, and confiding American merchant and navigator. Against the mass of evidence, that the French decrees are not revoked—evidence which is increased by the melancholy advices of every east wind—the honorable member (Mr. Rhea) from Tennessee, refers us to the President's proclamation, as a foundation for our faith in the repeal of the decrees to rest on; this is evidence indeed of things not seen. As well might the trembling mariner look to his almanac for the state of the weather at the moment the pitiless tempest is beating upon him, and his vessel is sinking under the shock of the elements. Whatever ground of hope or belief in the good faith of France existed at the time of issuing the proclamation, subsequent events have removed those grounds from under our feet, and blasted all our hopes; the wily policy of the French Court stands confessed; the Emperor loves but to chasten; he seduces but to destroy.

While the indulgent course, the favorable interpretation of the letter of Cadore of the 5th[Pg 389] of August above mentioned, was adopted by the Cabinet towards France; was a similar temper and disposition manifested in relation to Great Britain?

I fear, sir, this part of the case will not well bear scrutiny. That the Orders in Council, and not the doctrine of blockade, were the objects of the act of the 1st of May, in relation to Great Britain, not only the debates of the period, but the recollection of every member of this House, will bear me out in asserting. That mere cruising blockades, and every other blockade not supported by an actual investing force, is unwarranted by the laws of nations, is my clear conviction; it is the result of examination and reflection on the subject; but unfounded in public law as is the doctrine set up by Great Britain, its abandonment or modification can only be expected from treaty, and not by an isolated declaration at the threshold, under the threat of a specific alternative. The Orders in Council being removed, the blockade of May, 1806, would have been little more than nominal; why then was it insisted on as indispensable, under the above act? Through a strange fatality, something, inconsiderable in itself, is always found in our demands upon Great Britain, to bar a settlement.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is calculated much more to put in jeopardy the neutral character of our Government is the bill on the table. While all is uncertainty and embarrassment with France; while her decrees remain merely suspended and not revoked; while your merchants, trusting to the plighted faith of the Emperor, have been drawn into the French ports and there betrayed and sacrificed; while commerce is bleeding at every pore under the merciless gripe of Napoleon, we are called on to go farther to conciliate France, than she was entitled to, had she faithfully revoked her decrees. Upon revoking his decrees, the Emperor was entitled to have the act of the 1st of May carried into effect against Great Britain, and he was entitled to no more. Such, sir, is the precise condition imposed on the United States by the letter of the Duke de Cadore, of the 5th of August, and this is the whole extent of the requirement. Upon what ground, then, sir, is it that we are called on to pass this additional non-importation act against Great Britain? If France has revoked her decrees, is not a non-importation with Great Britain inevitable, and does it not exist? But I will put the key to the door; let us not dissemble; France has not revoked, and for that cause and that alone, has the question arisen, whether there be at this time a legal non-importation with Great Britain. If, sir, there be any other difficulty, in the way of a non-importation with Great Britain; if there does exist any other possible obstacle, let the advocates of the bill name that obstacle. I make the appeal to gentlemen, I demand of the chairman of the committee who reported this bill, why and wherefore it is presented? France has failed to revoke her decrees, and as such revocation was, under the act of the first of May, a prerequisite to non-importation with Great Britain, such non-importation must fall, unless this additional act in favor of France is passed. This, sir, is the whole length and breadth of the case; and on no other ground can this disastrous measure be placed. If France revoked her decrees, she was entitled to a non-importation against Great Britain, and if she failed to revoke, what? The bill gives the answer—she is equally entitled; so that, do what France may do, the end must be a non-importation with England. Such, sir, is the logic of your bill; such the impartiality towards the belligerents; such and so barefaced the subversion of the great principle of the act of May last.

The principle of the act of May was just and equal; our offers to Great Britain and France were the same, and the result, in case of refusal, alike to both. France met the offer by the famous letter of Cadore, of the 5th of August; in which, with more than conjurer's skill, this disciple of the Jesuits brought together and united both present and future; he revoked and did not revoke; he gave up the decrees and yet retained their operation or effects; he made the revocation both absolute and conditional; absolute for obtaining the President's proclamation, conditional for the purpose of eluding performance; absolute for drawing our property within his clutches, conditional for retaining it, to fill his coffers and fatten his minions; in fine, sir, the letter was one thing, or another thing, or nothing at all, as artifice might suggest or future events render necessary.

But, sir, the most copious source of error that I have witnessed during the various debates upon the proceedings under the act of the 1st of May, is found in the extent of the Berlin and Milan decrees. The gentlemen who have commenced their career of conciliation with France, treated those decrees as operating only on the narrow ground of direct commerce between the United States and Great Britain and on our vessels to other ports which have submitted to British search; hence the effort to justify the late seizures of our vessels in France, upon grounds consistent with the repeal of those decrees, as being laden with British colonial produce, &c. But, sir, this cannot avail or give the least color to the pretence of a repeal.

The Berlin decree (that decree which emanated from the French Emperor at the capital of prostrate Prussia, where he sat like Marius over the ruins of Carthage) contains ten distinct articles; the 6th and 7th prohibit all trade in British merchandise, and, the more effectually to close all the avenues to the continent, exclude from the continental ports all vessels coming from Great Britain or her colonies, or that shall have visited the colonies after the date of the decree. The Duke de Cadore, by the above letter of the 5th of August, pledged the Emperor, his master, for the entire repeal of this decree without any reservation. Had this[Pg 390] pledge been faithfully redeemed; had such repeal been had with good faith, it would have subverted the whole continental system and removed all difficulty both between the United States and France, and between us and Great Britain, as it must have produced the actual result required by Great Britain, in restoring the commerce of the world to that state it was in at the promulgation of the decrees. Although the above decrees partake of municipal as well as external regulation, yet the French Emperor, foreseeing that Great Britain would not relinquish the ground taken while the continental system, so hostile to her commercial interests, was continued, and yielding for a moment, as is supposed, to the groans of subjugated States, stipulated by the above letter for a relinquishment of his system by an entire repeal of those decrees. Let me repeat, sir, had France proved faithful to her engagements, the United States would at this moment have had a prosperous commerce with Europe, and the present state of things is fairly imputable to the Emperor, with whom that bill on your table invites us to proclaim "all is well." I look about me, sir, with emotions of concern and anxiety to find a ground on which to justify the course adopted by this bill towards the belligerents. The peace, the reputation, and honor of my country are concerned. While the great principles of justice and fair neutrality shall be our landmarks and guide, come what may, fall when we may, we shall stand justified to the world, and what is of more consequence, we shall have the support of our own consciences; the sweet and consoling reflection, that we stand clear of fault and deserve a better fate. This bill will not give the United States this high and enviable condition.

Mr. Pearson.—It is but seldom, Mr. Speaker, I address you, especially on subjects of the nature and importance of that which is now under discussion. Perhaps on this account, I may not be the less entitled to your indulgence and the attention of this assembly.

Being opposed to the principles of this bill, and having no confidence in the reasons or pretences by which it is attempted to be justified, I shall not trouble you with an exposition of its particular details, however novel, arbitrary, and impolitic they may appear. The bill proposes substantially a revival of that system of commercial restrictions, under which the people of our country have so long and severely suffered. It substantially denies all intercourse with Great Britain and her colonies, by excluding from our ports British vessels of every description, and the products and manufactures of that nation of every kind, and to whomsoever they belong; while at the same time, every possible indulgence is granted to France—her vessels, armed and unarmed, her products and those of the nations which she has subjugated, find no restraint from us. Here let me remark, that to those two contending powers, whenever their interest, or the interests of either of them come in contact with the interests of my own country, I feel no preference, I make no discrimination; my first best wishes ever are at home. I now solemnly appeal to gentlemen, why shall we, at this moment, make this marked distinction? Why shall we take this hostile attitude against Great Britain, and open our arms to the embrace of France—when, by doing so, we must inevitably afflict our own people, and depart from that character of neutrality, which has been the alleged boast of the present and late Administration; and which alone has afforded those in power an apology with the people for those wild schemes of policy, with which their course has been but too plainly marked, and that accumulated distress which every man has seen, and every honest man has felt? Can it be because Bonaparte has said he loves the Americans? I, sir, know no other cause. I know it has been said on this floor, and said too by the honorable gentleman who reported this bill, and his honorable colleague, (Mr. Gholson,) that the Berlin and Milan decrees are revoked; and, in compliance with the law of the late session of Congress, the faith of this nation is pledged to Bonaparte, for the due execution of that law against Great Britain. To those opinions my understanding cannot assent—the obligation to Bonaparte I neither feel nor believe. That none such exist will not, in my opinion, be difficult to prove. For a fair understanding of this question, it becomes necessary to apply to the law of May, 1810. On that law and the proceedings which have been subsequently adopted by this Government and France, must the propriety of the present measures be justified or condemned. The act alluded to, in substance, declares: "That in case either Great Britain or France shall, before the 3d day of March next, so revoke or modify her edicts, that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, which fact the President of the United States shall declare by proclamation, and if the other nation shall not, within three months thereafter, so revoke or modify her edicts in like manner, the restrictive provisions of the law of 1809 are to be revived and have full force and effect against the nation so refusing or neglecting to revoke or modify," &c., and the restrictions imposed by the act, are from the date of such proclamation, to cease and be discontinued in relation to the nation revoking or modifying her decrees in the manner aforesaid.

The emphatic words of this law are, so revoke or modify, as that they cease to violate, &c. Here is a positive, unconditional, indispensable prerequisite, to be complied with before the President was authorized to exercise the power given to him; a specific fact was to exist, and he was empowered simply to make its existence known to the nation; no discretion was allowed; nothing left to doubtful construction—no conditional promissory note of a perfidious agent, of a more perfidious master, was contemplated by the law. The great question now[Pg 391] is, does the fact on which the proclamation was alone to issue, and on which its legitimacy solely depends, exist, or does it not? The very doubt ought to decide the question—the burden of proof unquestionably ought to rest on those who call on us to pass this law; and in their own language, execute the contract, and violate not the faith so solemnly plighted to "Napoleon the Great"—unfortunately the evidence on which they rely disproves the fact, and we are enabled to do what can seldom be done, and ought never to be required—prove a negative.

The letter of the Duke de Cadore, of the 5th August, 1810, the proclamation of the 2d of November, and Mr. Pinkney's diplomatic special pleading in his letter to the Secretary of State, of the 10th of December, constitute the whole burden of proof upon which the advocates of this bill rest their defence, and the evidence of the fact on which alone it can be justified. I have stated the law, and what I conceive to be its obligations on the President and ourselves. It will now be proper to take a correct view of this famous letter of the Duc de Cadore of the 5th August, this honeyed charm, which has seduced us into a labyrinth, from whose gloomy cells and devious windings we are, I fear, not soon to be extricated. This letter, which contains but one sentence of plain truth, viz: "That the Emperor applauded the general embargo laid by the United States"—after asserting the most palpable falsehood, by denying that the Emperor had knowledge of our law of March, 1809, until very lately, and justifying the seizure and condemnation of all American property which had entered, not only the ports of France, but those of Spain, Naples and Holland, dating from the 20th of May, 1809; and declaring that reprisal was a right commanded by the dignity of France, a circumstance on which it was impossible to make a compromise—the letter proceeds: "Now Congress retrace their steps, they revoke the act of the first of March, the ports of America are open to French commerce, and France is no longer interdicted to the Americans. In short, Congress engages to oppose itself to that one of the belligerent powers which should refuse to acknowledge the rights of neutrals. In this new state of things, I am authorized to declare to you, sir, that the decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked, and that after the first of November they will cease to have effect; it being understood, that in consequence of this declaration, (remark, Mr. Speaker, this declaration, not this fact,) the English shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles of blockade, which they have wished to establish, or that the United States, conformable to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by the English"—then follows in sweet accents His Majesty's declaration of love for the Americans, his solicitude for our prosperity, and the glory of France.

This is the gilded pill, in which lurks a most deadly venom, and which if we swallow, I fear all the political quackery of the nation cannot save us. On this letter, gentlemen rely for the revocation of the French edicts, and the freedom of our commerce with France. Allowing the most favorable construction to this letter, and abstracting it from circumstances and facts both before and after its date, it will not bear gentlemen out in their conclusion; it does not satisfy your law, and did not warrant the state of things which has been and is about to be produced. Instead of an existing and determined fact, we have a promise, and that too clogged with conditions, which it was well known to the Emperor would not or could not be complied with to the extent required by him. The conditions which depended on Great Britain, he knew, never would be yielded, and that which depended on ourselves was nothing short of war with England or our own citizens, by oppressing them with a perpetual embargo. Instead of an authenticated act of revocation, bearing the authority of the most ordinary law or edict of the French Empire, we have nothing but a letter from the agent of the Government, and which the Emperor may disavow at pleasure—as was done in the case of the Minister of Marine, in his explanations to General Armstrong of the intended operation of the Berlin decree—instead of the restoration of the immense amount of American property, of which your citizens have been most cruelly and unjustly robbed by this fell monster of the age—and which the President declared, through the Secretary of State, in letters to General Armstrong of the 5th of June and July, must precede an arrangement with France, and was an indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the United States; instead of having forty or fifty millions' worth of our property restored, we are vauntingly told, that the property was confiscated as a measure of reprisal, that the principles of reprisal must be the law in that affair, and that a compromise would be inconsistent with the dignity of France—the plain English of which is, we have the property and we will keep it. Mr. Speaker, are we to be thus amused? Common honor and common sense revolt at the idea.

An honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Cheves,) whom I am very much inclined to respect, in an ingenious argument which he made the other day, to prove that the French decrees were revoked, told you that the revocation of those decrees depended on the mere volition of the mind of the Emperor, not requiring authentication or form; and although they might be revived the next moment, or substituted by other regulations equally affecting our neutral rights, still they were revoked. Thus attributing an authority to Bonaparte, descriptive of the power of the God of nature—when he said, let there be light and there was light. And in reply to the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Quincy,) who contended that form was essential to the repeal of a decree, he[Pg 392] remarked that the gentleman wanted form and not substance. From this course of reasoning, I conceive the gentleman has admitted, that this pretended revocation has neither form nor substance. An edict may be defined to be a law promulgated in such form as the institutions of the country require, or some act of sovereign authority, which has gone through the established forms of office, so as to become obligatory. The edicts of France have an appropriate form, their authority is attested by the Emperor and publicity is given, for the direction of those whose duty it is to carry them into effect. Sir, the decree of the most absolute monarch on earth is no decree till it is published. I contend that a revocation or modification of an edict requires the same or equal solemnities with its enactment; the fact must exist and be officially made known before it becomes obligatory—no declaration of an intention to revoke, can constitute an actual revocation. The act ought not only to be determined and public, but susceptible of authentication, and capable of being communicated to the nation and the world.

This opinion, if it needs authority, is supported by the instructions of the Secretary of State to our Ministers at Paris and London, of the 5th July. Mr. Pinkney is directed in these words—"If the British Government should accede to the overture contained in the act of Congress, by repealing or so modifying its edicts, as that they will cease to violate our neutral rights, you will transmit the repeal, properly authenticated, to General Armstrong, and if necessary, by a special messenger, and you will hasten to transmit it also to this Department—similar directions are given to General Armstrong."

Will it for a moment be contended, that the formal authentication required by the Administration, could mean a Jesuitical, insolent, equivocal, conditional letter, full of sound, and meaning nothing for our good? But, say gentlemen, the President received the evidence and issued his proclamation. This is true; but why has he done so, and how justified by the law under which alone he was authorized to act, is, to my mind, perfectly inexplicable; why, in the course of this arrangement with France, he has varied the ground which he first took—why dispensed with requisites at one time declared indispensable—why he advanced in exactions from Great Britain in proportion as he receded from demands on France, is left for himself and those who have more wisdom than myself, to determine. I trust, sir, I have a proper share of confidence in the Executive, and have no disposition to detract from his merit; but he is only man, and therefore subject to the frailties man is heir to. We have as yet no such maxim among us, as that the Executive is infallible—he can do no wrong. Whatever may be the disposition of other gentlemen, I am as yet too free, too much of a genuine Republican to subscribe to such a doctrine. I said, sir, that in the course of this arrangement with France, the Administration advanced in their demands on Great Britain and receded as to France.

I argue from the documents, which accompanied the President's Message at the opening of the present session of Congress. The first letter in the documents from the Secretary of State to Mr. Pinkney, of the 20th January, 1810, does not contain a word on the subject of blockades—on the contrary, the Orders in Council are alone required to be repealed, as preparatory to a treaty with Great Britain; and the British Government are assured of the cordial disposition "of the President to exercise any power with which he may be invested, to put an end to acts of Congress which would not be resorted to but for the Orders in Council, and at the same time of his determination to put them in force against France, in case her decrees should not also be repealed."

His letter of the 4th of May, which was the first after passing the act of the 1st of May last, that enclosed a copy of that act, is not published. On the 22d of May, another letter is sent enclosing a second copy of the act of Congress, in which there is not to be found any requisition of a repeal of the blockade which is now made a sine qua non to an arrangement with Great Britain. But on the 2d of July, after the arrival of the John Adams, which brought the correspondence between our Ministers at Paris and London, and the Agents of the British and French Governments, on the subject of the repeal of their several orders and decrees; and when it was known that the British Government would not abandon her system of blockade and adopt the principles contended for by France—in this letter, I say, is contained not only a demand of the repeal of the Orders in Council, but also of the blockading order of May, 1806. I have already shown, from the letters before me, of the 5th June and July, that the restoration of the property of our citizens, confiscated by the order of Bonaparte, was declared by the Executive as an indispensable prerequisite to an arrangement with the French Government. But the proclamation of the President has been issued without a cent of property being restored; nor is there the most distant prospect of our regaining a shilling from his iron grasp. Thus have the Administration changed the ground first taken, increased the demands on Great Britain, and abandoned what was deemed indispensable on the part of France.

So conscious was the President of the just expectation of the people of this country, that provision would be made for the restoration of their property, he informs Mr. Armstrong on the 2d of November, the day the proclamation was issued, that "in issuing the proclamation it has been presumed, that the requisition on the subject of the sequestered property will have been complied with." From what this presumption arose, I am at a loss to say—the letter of the Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 12th September, had been received here; we had been told there would be no compromise;[Pg 393] the law of reprisal must govern. Sir, the law of reprisal, as recognized by the laws of nations, could never have authorized the seizure. Reprisals can only be resorted to in case of an act of hostility committed by one nation on the property or citizens of another, and after compensation for the injury has been demanded and refused; and even in that case, the property taken is to be held only in pledge, till satisfaction is made by the offending nation. The moment that confiscation takes place the principle of reprisal ceases and it becomes an act of war. We had done no injury to France; we had violated neither the rights of the persons or property of her subjects—no demand of indemnity was ever made; not a complaint whispered, till nearly twelve months after the passing of the law, (and after its expiration too,) which is made the pretext for this monstrous outrage. The law of reprisal had nothing to do with the affair, and the confiscation of our property excludes the idea of restoration. I confess I was astonished, and felt humbled as an American, when I heard the language of the President of the United States, in his Message to Congress at the opening of the present session on this subject. Instead of that high indignant tone, demanded by the honor and feelings of the nation, he, in the mildness of calm philosophy, says, "It was particularly anticipated that as a further evidence of just dispositions towards them, restoration would have been immediately made of the property" of our citizens, seized under a misapplication of the principles of reprisals, and a misconstruction of a law of the United States. This expectation has not been fulfilled. Thus the question as to the restoration seems to be abandoned; one kind, loving word from Napoleon the Great, (as he has been triumphantly called in this House,) this modern Alexander (without his virtues, with all his faults) disarms us of our rage, and we give millions for his embrace.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee (Mr. Eppes) who reported the bill, in reply to the very able speech of a gentleman from New York (Mr. Emott) who addressed you in the early stage of this discussion, appeared to me rather to question the purity of the source from which they came, than to have answered the arguments of that gentleman. This mode of reasoning may answer the purposes of gentlemen, but is surely unfavorable to fair investigation; it tends to abridge the freedom of debate, and prevent that firm, decisive, and candid exposition of those measures, which we conceive may vitally affect the happiness of the people. This is a privilege and a duty which I shall ever regard and ever perform. The same gentleman (Mr. Eppes) and several others, have reminded us of the arrangement made with Mr. Erskine; and offer it as a precedent for the justification of the President's proclamation and this bill, (which are substantially one and the same thing.) I had supposed that that unfortunate arrangement would have been kept out of sight by gentlemen on the other side of the House. It was to have been expected they would carefully avoid an attempt to make one bad precedent justify another; they must have forgotten how that arrangement militates against the proclamation, and the demand which is now so positively made of a revocation by Great Britain of her order of blockade of May, 1806. That arrangement, almost dictated by the Administration, and which was perfectly satisfactory to us all, did not contain one syllable, not the most distant information, relative to the repeal of that order, which now appears to excite so highly the indignation of gentlemen, and has been magnified into a cause of war. The order of blockade was at that time more recent, and if so injurious as now alleged, could not have escaped the attention of the Executive, and his vigilant Cabinet, when they were providing for the annulment of the Orders in Council of January and November, 1807. That arrangement was made without requiring a repeal of the blockade—now nothing can be done without a repeal, and thus we are to be blockaded both at home and abroad.

It may be further remarked, that by the law of February, 1808, the President was authorized to suspend the embargo as to France or Great Britain, on the same conditions pointed out by the act of May, 1810. In the exercise of that power, the President instructed Mr. Pinkney to propose to the British Government a repeal of the embargo as to that nation, and its continuation against France, if the Orders in Council of January and November, 1807, should be rescinded. At that time nothing was said, no demand was made, not even a proposition offered on the subject of the blockade in question. My attention, sir, has been somewhat drawn to this part of the subject by the importance which has been given to it in the document before me, and the arguments of gentlemen of this House, particularly the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Eppes,) who said much on this subject the other day, in answer to arguments which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Emott) did not make. He reiterated last night that his arguments were unanswered and unanswerable. I do not profess, sir, to be perfectly acquainted with the practical extent of the order of blockade of May, 1806, nor do I know the precise quantum of injury we have sustained by it, nor am I to be understood as attempting its justification—I should be the last to concede any principle or any right to which my country has a claim. But, sir, I am compelled to believe, that an artificial importance is at this moment given to the subject, which it has not received at any other period since the adoption of that regulation by the British Government. I have already shown that, in the negotiation of 1808, and in the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, the question was not even made a matter of contestation; and, sir, from an examination of the Executive papers, from the date of the order of the blockade, down to the present session of[Pg 394] Congress, I have not been able to discover a single paper remonstrating against the order, or insisting on its revocation, nor do I know of a single case of the condemnation of an American vessel under its operation. On the contrary, at the time of its adoption, (during the administration of Mr. Fox, who was believed to be as friendly disposed towards us, as any man who ever administered the affairs of the British Cabinet,) this measure was spoken of by our Minister at London (Mr. Monroe) as a relaxation favorable to neutral commerce. It may not be improper to refer to the order itself, as communicated by Mr. Fox to Mr. Monroe, on the 16th of May, 1806; after the preamble this note states "that the King, taking into consideration the new and extraordinary means resorted to by the enemy for the purpose of distressing the commerce of his subjects, has thought fit to direct that necessary measures should be taken for the blockade of the coast, rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to the port of Brest, both inclusive; and the said coast, rivers, and ports, are, and must be considered, as blockaded. But His Majesty is pleased to declare, that such blockade shall not extend to prevent neutral ships and vessels, laden with goods not being the property of His Majesty's enemies, and not being contraband of war, from approaching the said coasts and entering into and sailing from the rivers and ports, (save and except the coast, rivers, and ports, from Ostend to the river Seine, already in a state of strict and rigorous blockade, and which are to be considered as continued,) provided the said ships and vessels so approaching and entering (except as aforesaid,) shall not have been laden at any port belonging to, or in possession of, His Majesty's enemies, and that the said ships and vessels so sailing from the said rivers and ports, (except as aforesaid) shall not be destined to any port belonging to, or in possession of His Majesty's enemies, nor have previously broken the blockade." This order, then, only excludes from those ports vessels having enemies' property on board or articles contraband of war, in both of which cases they are liable to seizure by the law of nations, at least it has been long contended for on the part of Britain; it also prevents the direct carrying trade from one port to another of an enemy. If this latter extension is not recognized by the law of nations, it is generally the subject of treaty, and was provided for by our treaty with the British Government, and the late convention formed by Mr. Monroe with the British Government, but which was rejected principally because Great Britain required us not to submit to the Berlin decree—a requisition, sir, infinitely short of what we are now to comply with, at the dictation of France—by which colonial produce was required to be relanded in the United States before it would be admitted into the ports of the continent. By this order, bona fide neutral vessels, with neutral produce, sailing from our own country, never were affected.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Eppes) has said this order of blockade has not a single feature of a regular blockade; in this, the gentleman is tolerably correct, and when he denounces, what in the fashionable cant of the day are called paper blockades, I join most heartily in the execration. It is true this order of May, 1806, has scarcely a feature of a regular blockade. It was not avowed at the time to be even a constructive blockade, nor was the right contended for of blockading without an actual investing force. It does not, like ordinary blockades, attempt a complete prohibition to all trade with those ports, but only to the particular objects and specified cases which I have mentioned. The previous measures of France are declared by Mr. Fox to be the cause of this order. What were those measures? They were no less, as regards ourselves, than a violation of the treaty which had been solemnly entered into between this country and France; by harassing our trade, seizing and confiscating our vessels in pursuing the commerce guaranteed to us by that treaty; she had usurped authority in almost every port and city from Elbe to Brest, and excluded the introduction of British products and merchandise, whether belonging to American citizens or British subjects.

Now, sir, let me state to you the language of our Minister (Mr. Monroe) at the time this order was issued. In his letter of the 17th of May, to the Secretary of State, speaking of the order, he says, "the note is couched in terms of restraint, and professes to extend the blockade further than it has heretofore done, nevertheless it takes it from many ports already blockaded, indeed all east of Ostend and west of the Seine, except in articles contraband of war and enemy's property, which are seizable without blockade; and in like form of exception, considering every enemy as one power, it admits the trade of neutrals within the same limits to be free, in the productions of enemy's colonies, in every but the direct route between the colony and parent country.

"It cannot be doubted but the note was drawn by the Government in reference to the question, and if intended by the Cabinet as a foundation on which Mr. Fox is authorized to form a treaty, and obtained by him for the purpose, it must be viewed in a very favorable light; it seems clearly to put an end to further seizures, on the principle which has heretofore been in contestation." This view of the subject, which surely is a fair one connected with the silence of the Administration for four years, must put an end to the clamor so often raised against this order, which has been the alleged cause of the Berlin decree, and charge against Great Britain, of having been the first aggressor on our neutral rights. Sir, we have indeed been insulted, injured, and abused by both nations, to an extent which would justify any[Pg 395] measures in our power, but let us not palliate the crimes of one, and magnify those of the other; and, above all, let us not whip ourselves because they will not respect us; let us not become so Quixotic, as to act the part of a famous knight in the tales of chivalry, who tortured himself because his mistress would not be kind.

Mr. Speaker, as the arrangement with Mr. Erskine has been often mentioned, and much relied on by the advocates of this bill, it deserves some further notice. That arrangement was the first act of the present Executive, after he came into office; it was presumed to have been fairly and properly made—it was hailed as a political jubilee by all denominations of politicians—particularly those who had not contributed to the elevation of the present Chief Magistrate; we thought we perceived in that event the evidence of a disposition in the present Executive (which we could not discover in his predecessor) to relieve this country from that system of commercial restriction, that self-destroying policy, which had made us poor indeed; we also thought a determination was manifested not to decline any advantageous accommodation with Great Britain, whether France said yea or nay. It will be but too well remembered that we had been groaning for two years under the pressure of non-importation, embargo, and non-intercourse—your treasury was drained, your citizens unable to pay their debts, and your courts of justice actually shut up, at least so far in many States (and among the rest the State which I have the honor in part to represent) as to suspend the effect of executions; your cities and seaports were inactive or deserted; gloom and dismay marked the features of the nation, and hope had almost bid us farewell; we fancied in this arrangement the glimmerings of returning sunshine, peace, and prosperity: with honest and upright hearts, we were willing to applaud the hand that gave it, without questioning or suspecting the manner or motives with which it was given. The delusion soon vanished; and I have no hesitation to declare, had I then known what I now know, I should have not offered such unqualified applause.

Mr. Speaker, let us make a very strange and very false supposition, that the Berlin and Milan decrees were actually repealed, and did cease to have effect on the first of November. What have we gained? What advantage have we derived from it? And have we not been officially informed by the French Minister in this city (General Turreau) in his letter to the Secretary of State, of the 12th December, 1810, that our most valuable productions, particularly of the Southern States, are at this moment excluded from the ports of France? As to the important articles, cotton and tobacco, he says: "their importation into France is at this moment especially prohibited, but I have reasons to believe (and I pray you meanwhile to observe, sir, they do not rest on any facts) that some modifications will be given to this absolute exclusion. These modifications will not depend on the chance of events, but will be the result of other measures, firm and pursued with perseverance, which the two Governments will continue to adopt to withdraw from the monopoly and from the vexations of the common enemy a commerce loyal and necessary to France as well as the United States." In this letter we find the touchstone, the true clue to French favor—war with England. Connected with this letter from Turreau, is a decree of the 16th July, 1810, which, in point of principle and arrogance, is not surpassed by any act in the history of Bonaparte. By this decree thirty or forty American vessels may import into France, under license, cotton, fish, oil, dye-wood, salt-fish, codfish, and peltry; they must export wine, brandy, silks, linens, cloths, jewellery, household furniture, and other manufactured articles; they can only depart from Charleston and New York, under the obligation of bringing with them a gazette of the day of their departure, also a certificate of the origin of the merchandise, given by the French Consul, containing a sentence in cypher. The French merchants who shall cause their vessels to come, must prove that they are concerned in the fabrics of Paris, Rouen, and other towns. Here is an attempt to extend French influence by bribing a select class of our merchants; granting favors to favorites. It is an attempt to make commercial regulations in our own ports, and to violate our constitution, by giving a preference to the ports of Charleston and New York, over all the rest in the United States, which is specially denied by the constitution. In addition to all this, we have a list of duties established at the French custom-house on the 5th August (the very day on which twenty or thirty American vessels and cargoes were sold and the proceeds given over to Bonaparte—the very memorable 5th August, the birthday of the celebrated letter of the Duc de Cadore) subjecting long staple cotton to a tariff of eighty cents per pound, short staple sixty cents, and tobacco forty cents per pound. By another decree of the 12th September, 1810, potash is taxed at one dollar twenty-five cents, codfish two dollars, rice four dollars per hundred—thus are we loved, favored, and taxed.

There can be no importation of American productions into France but on terms utterly inadmissible. The act of May last, in the language of the Secretary of State, had for its object not merely the recognition of a "speculative," legitimate principle, but the enjoyment of a substantial benefit. The overture then presented obviously embraced the idea of commercial advantage, it included the reasonable belief, that an abrogation of the Berlin and Milan decrees would leave the ports of France as free for the introduction of the produce of the United States, as they were previously to the promulgation of the decrees. If, then, for the revoked decrees, municipal laws, producing[Pg 396] the same effect have been substituted, the mode only and not the measure has undergone an alteration. If France, by her own acts, has blocked up her ports against the introduction of the products of the United States, what motive has the Government in a discussion with a third power, to insist on the privilege of going to France? Whence the inducement to urge the annulment of a blockade of France, when, if annulled, no American cargoes would obtain a market in any of her ports? In such a state of things, a blockade of the coast of France would be to the United States as unimportant as would the blockade of the Caspian Sea. This is the language of truth and common sense, language which I did not very much expect to hear from the Secretary at this time; because it exposes the proclamation of the President, and condemns the present bill. But truth, like murder, will out, and it ought to strike dumb the advocates of this bill, and open their eyes to a different policy. But, sir, going on to the supposition that the French decrees are actually repealed, and cease to have effect, pursuing the principle about to be established of taking words for deeds, and form for substance, what is to become of the promise of Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney, of the 31st of August, 1810, when he states that he is commanded by his Majesty to repeat the declaration made to this Government in February, 1808, of his Majesty's desire to see the commerce of the world restored to that freedom which is necessary for its prosperity, and his readiness to abandon the system which had been forced upon him, whenever the enemy should retract the principles which had rendered it necessary; and to assure us that whenever the repeal of the French decrees shall have actually taken effect, and the commerce of the neutral nations shall have been restored to the condition in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those decrees, he will feel the highest satisfaction in relinquishing a system which the conduct of the enemy compelled him to adopt. Here is a promise equally solemn, (and as there is at least as much virtue in the British Government as there is in that of France,) as much to be relied on as that of the Duc de Cadore; and as certainly as the Berlin and Milan decrees were revoked, and would cease to have effect on the first of November, so certainly have we the same assurance that the orders of Great Britain would be rescinded. Shall we then believe the one and not the other? Shall we frown and look big at England, while, with timid and abject submission, we crouch at the feet of France, and quietly rivet the chains prepared for us? Mr. Speaker, the goddess of justice has been described as being blind, with sword in one hand, and the scale and balance in the other, but if she is invoked in this measure, she comes blind indeed, with a sword in one hand, but no balance in the other; in one hand is the emblem of war, in the other the badge of slavery.

If war with England must happen, let it be done openly and for ourselves; let us not commence the attack by practising on our own citizens; and let it not be said we have been caught in the snares of Bonaparte. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this bill because it professes to give some relief to those merchants whose vessels sailed before the date of the proclamation, and which may have departed from a British port, prior to the 2d of February, 1811, but, sir, because I wish to rid the country of this whole consumptive system; and, if that cannot be done, I will not aid in propping up the President's proclamation, by taking from the judiciary of the country the power of deciding on its validity, which is one of the avowed objects of this bill. I had rather trust to the opinion of the judges for entire relief to our citizens, from the operation of the law of May, 1810, than grant the partial exemption contemplated by this bill. The honorable gentleman (Mr. Eppes) who reported this bill, declares that its great object is to prevent questions arising in the courts, on the construction of the law of May, 1810, and the effect of the President's proclamation. This, to my understanding, is legislating retrospectively; it is ex post facto; and, like the Rambouillet decree, is not only prospective, but retroactive. It takes from our citizens the right of appealing to the courts of justice, and makes the fiat of the Executive the supreme law—a doctrine subversive of the first principles of republicanism, and strange to be advocated by gentlemen who came into power under the name of republicans.