



Produced by Richard Tonsing, Curtis Weyant and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from scans of public domain works at the
University of Michigan's Making of America collection.)









                              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.


                                  BY

                 THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRTY YEARS' VIEW.

                               VOL. IV.

                               NEW YORK:
              D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 346 & 348 BROADWAY.
                                 1860.

      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.




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:

  _To the Senate and House of
          Representatives of the United States_:

    It would have been a source, fellow-citizens, of much
    gratification, if our last communications from Europe had
    enabled me to inform you that the belligerent nations, whose
    disregard of neutral rights has been so destructive to our
    commerce, had become awakened to the duty and true policy of
    revoking their unrighteous edicts. That no means might be
    omitted to produce this salutary effect, I lost no time in
    availing myself of the act authorizing a suspension, in whole,
    or in part, of the several embargo laws. Our Ministers at
    London and Paris were instructed to explain to the respective
    Governments there, our disposition to exercise the authority in
    such manner as would withdraw the pretext on which aggressions
    were originally founded, and open the way for a renewal of that
    commercial intercourse which it was alleged, on all sides,
    had been reluctantly obstructed. As each of those Governments
    had pledged its readiness to concur in renouncing a measure
    which reached its adversary through the incontestable rights
    of neutrals only, and as the measure had been assumed by
    each as a retaliation for an asserted acquiescence in the
    aggressions of the other, it was reasonably expected that
    the occasion would have been seized by both for evincing the
    sincerity of their professions, and for restoring to the
    commerce of the United States its legitimate freedom. The
    instructions of our Ministers, with respect to the different
    belligerents, were necessarily modified with a reference to
    their different circumstances, and to the condition annexed by
    law to the Executive power of suspension requiring a degree of
    security to our commerce which would not result from a repeal
    of the decrees of France. Instead of a pledge therefore of a
    suspension of the embargo as to her, in case of such a repeal,
    it was presumed that a sufficient inducement might be found in
    other considerations, and particularly in the change produced
    by a compliance with our just demands by one belligerent, and
    a refusal by the other, in the relations between the other
    and the United States. To Great Britain, whose power on the
    ocean is so ascendant, it was deemed not inconsistent with
    that condition to state, explicitly, on her rescinding her
    orders in relation to the United States, their trade would be
    opened with her, and remain shut to her enemy, in case of his
    failure to rescind his decrees also. From France no answer has
    been received, nor any indication that the requisite change
    in her decrees is contemplated. The favorable reception of
    the proposition to Great Britain was the less to be doubted,
    as her Orders of Council had not only been referred for their
    vindication to an acquiescence on the part of the United
    States no longer to be pretended, but as the arrangement
    proposed, whilst it resisted the illegal decrees of France,
    involved, moreover, substantially, the precise advantages
    professedly aimed at by the British Orders. The arrangement
    has, nevertheless, been rejected.

    This candid and liberal experiment having thus failed, and
    no other event having occurred on which a suspension of the
    embargo by the Executive was authorized, it necessarily remains
    in the extent originally given to it. We have the satisfaction,
    however, to reflect, that in return for the privations imposed
    by the measure, and which our fellow-citizens in general
    have borne with patriotism, it has had the important effects
    of saving our mariners, and our vast mercantile property,
    as well as of affording time for prosecuting the defensive
    and provisional measures called for by the occasion. It has
    demonstrated to foreign nations the moderation and firmness
    which govern our councils, and to our citizens the necessity of
    uniting in support of the laws and the rights of their country,
    and has thus long frustrated those usurpations and spoliations
    which, if resisted, involved war, if submitted to, sacrificed a
    vital principle of our national independence.

    Under a continuance of the belligerent measures, which, in
    defiance of laws which consecrate the rights of neutrals,
    overspread the ocean with danger, it will rest with the wisdom
    of Congress to decide on the course best adapted to such a
    state of things; and bringing with them, as they do, from
    every part of the Union, the sentiments of our constituents,
    my confidence is strengthened that, in forming this decision,
    they will, 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. Nor should
    I do justice to the virtues which, on other occasions, have
    marked the character of our fellow-citizens, if I did not
    cherish an equal confidence that the alternative chosen,
    whatever it may be, will be maintained with all the fortitude
    and patriotism which the crisis ought to inspire.

    The documents containing the correspondences on the subject
    of foreign edicts against our commerce, with the instructions
    given to our Ministers at London and Paris, are now laid before
    you.

    The communications made to Congress at their last session
    explained the posture in which the close of the discussions
    relating to the attack by a British ship of war on the frigate
    Chesapeake, left a subject on which the nation had manifested
    so honorable a sensibility. Every view of what had passed
    authorized a belief that immediate steps would be taken by the
    British Government for redressing a wrong, which, the more it
    was investigated, appeared the more clearly to require what
    had not been provided for in the special mission. It is found
    that no steps have been taken for the purpose. On the contrary,
    it will be seen, in the documents laid before you, that the
    inadmissible preliminary, which obstructed the adjustment,
    is still adhered to; and, moreover, that it is now brought
    into connection with the distinct and irrelative case of the
    Orders in Council. The instructions which had been given to our
    Minister at London, with a view to facilitate, if necessary,
    the reparation claimed by the United States, are included in
    the documents communicated.

    Our relations with the other powers of Europe have undergone
    no material changes since our last session. The important
    negotiations with Spain, which had been alternately suspended
    and resumed, necessarily experience a pause under the
    extraordinary and interesting crisis which distinguishes her
    internal situation.

    With the Barbary Powers we continue in harmony, with the
    exception of an unjustifiable proceeding of the Dey of
    Algiers towards our Consul to that Regency. Its character and
    circumstances are now laid before you, and will enable you to
    decide how far it may, either now or hereafter, call for any
    measures not within the limits of the Executive authority.

    Of the gun boats authorized by the act of December last, it
    has been thought necessary to build only one hundred and three
    in the present year. These, with those before possessed, are
    sufficient for the harbors and waters most exposed, and the
    residue will require little time for their construction when it
    shall be deemed necessary.

    Under the act of the last session for raising an additional
    military force, so many officers were immediately appointed as
    were necessary for carrying on the business of recruiting; and
    in proportion as it advanced, others have been added. We have
    reason to believe their success has been satisfactory, although
    such returns have not yet been received as enable me to present
    you a statement of the number engaged.

    The suspension of our foreign commerce, produced by the
    injustice of the belligerent powers, and the consequent losses
    and sacrifices of our citizens, are subjects of just concern.
    The situation into which we have thus been forced has impelled
    us to apply a portion of our industry and capital to internal
    manufactures and improvements. The extent of this conversion
    is daily increasing, and little doubt remains that the
    establishments formed and forming will, under the auspices of
    cheaper materials and subsistence, the freedom of labor from
    taxation with us, and of protecting duties and prohibitions,
    become permanent. The commerce with the Indians, too, within
    our own boundaries, is likely to receive abundant aliment from
    the same internal source, and will secure to them peace and the
    progress of civilization, undisturbed by practices hostile to
    both.

    The accounts of the receipts and expenditures during the year
    ending on the thirtieth day of September last, being not yet
    made up, a correct statement will hereafter be transmitted from
    the Treasury. In the mean time, it is ascertained that the
    receipts have amounted to near eighteen millions of dollars,
    which, with the eight millions and a half in the Treasury at
    the beginning of the year, have enabled us, after meeting the
    current demands, and interest incurred, to pay two millions
    three hundred thousand dollars of the principal of our funded
    debt, and left us in the Treasury, on that day, near fourteen
    millions of dollars. Of these, five millions three hundred and
    fifty thousand dollars will be necessary to pay what will be
    due on the first day of January next, which will complete the
    reimbursement of the eight per cent. stock. These payments,
    with those made in the six years and a half preceding, will
    have extinguished thirty-three millions five hundred and eighty
    thousand dollars of the principal of the funded debt, being
    the whole which could be paid or purchased within the limits
    of the law and our contracts; and the amount of principal
    thus discharged will have liberated the revenue from about
    two millions of dollars of interest, and added that sum
    annually to the disposable surplus. The probable accumulation
    of the surpluses of revenue beyond what can be applied to the
    payment of the public debt, whenever the freedom and safety
    of our commerce shall be restored, merits the consideration
    of Congress. Shall it lie unproductive in the public vaults?
    Shall the revenue be reduced? Or, shall it not rather be
    appropriated to the improvements of roads, canals, rivers,
    education, and other great foundations of prosperity and union,
    under the powers which Congress may already possess, or such
    amendment of the constitution as may be approved by the States?
    While uncertain of the course of things, the time may be
    advantageously employed in obtaining the powers necessary for a
    system of improvement, should that be thought best.

    Availing myself of this, the last occasion which will occur, of
    addressing the two Houses of the Legislature at their meeting,
    I cannot omit the expression of my sincere gratitude for the
    repeated proofs of confidence manifested to me by themselves
    and their predecessors since my call to the administration,
    and the many indulgences experienced at their hands. The
    same grateful acknowledgments are due to my fellow-citizens
    generally, whose support has been my great encouragement under
    all embarrassments. In the transaction of their business I
    cannot have escaped error. It is incident to our imperfect
    nature. But I may say with truth my errors have been of the
    understanding, not of intention, and that the advancement
    of their rights and interests has been the constant motive
    for every measure. On these considerations I solicit their
    indulgence. Looking forward with anxiety to their future
    destinies, I trust that, in their steady character, unshaken by
    difficulties, in their love of liberty, obedience to law, and
    support of the public authorities, I see a sure guarantee of
    the permanence of our Republic; and retiring from the charge
    of their affairs, I carry with me the consolation of a firm
    persuasion that Heaven has in store for our beloved country
    long ages to come of prosperity and happiness.

                                                          TH. JEFFERSON.

  NOVEMBER 8, 1808.


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:

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient that the act, entitled "An
    act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports
    and harbors of the United States," and the several acts
    supplementary thereto, be repealed; and that a committee be
    appointed to prepare and report a bill for that purpose:

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 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 descended, 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
surmounted 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 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 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. 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
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 considerable 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
acquainted 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 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. 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 <DW64>s 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 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.


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 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 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.


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:

    "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That the
    President be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to
    cause to be fitted out, officered, manned, and employed, as
    soon as may be, all the frigates and other armed vessels of the
    United States, including gunboats; and to cause the frigates
    and armed vessels, so soon as they can be prepared for active
    service, respectively to be stationed at such ports and places
    on the seacoast as he may deem most expedient, or to cruise
    on any part of the coast of the United States, or territories
    thereof.

    "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, for the purpose of
    carrying the foregoing provision into immediate effect, the
    President of the United States be, and is hereby, authorized
    and required, in addition to the number of petty officers,
    able seamen, ordinary seamen, and boys, at present authorized
    by law, to appoint, and cause to be engaged and employed as
    soon as may be, ---- midshipmen, ---- corporals of marines,
    ---- able seamen, ---- ordinary seamen and boys, which shall
    be engaged to serve for a period not exceeding ---- years,
    but the President may discharge the same sooner, if in
    his judgment their services may be dispensed with; and to
    satisfy the necessary expenditures to be incurred therein, a
    sum not exceeding ---- dollars be, and the same is hereby,
    appropriated, and shall be paid out of any moneys in the
    Treasury not otherwise appropriated."


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 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 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 discretion. 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 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 introduces 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:

    "An Act to prevent settlements being made on lands ceded to the
    United States, until authorized by law.

    "And it shall moreover be lawful for the President of the
    United States to direct the Marshal, or officer acting as
    Marshal, in the manner hereinafter directed, and also to
    take such other measures, and to employ such military force
    as he may judge necessary and proper, to remove from lands
    ceded, or secured to the United States by treaty, or cession
    as aforesaid, any person or persons who shall hereafter take
    possession of the same, or make or attempt to make a settlement
    thereon, until authorized by law."

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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard,
    Giles, Gregg, Kitchel, Milledge, Mitchill, Moore, Pope,
    Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of
    Tennessee, Sumter, Thruston, Tiffin, and Turner.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, Mathewson,
    Pickering, and White.


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:

  _To the Senate of the United States_:

    According to the resolution of the Senate, of the 17th instant,
    I now transmit them the information therein requested,
    respecting the execution of the act of Congress of February 21,
    1806, appropriating two millions of dollars for defraying any
    extraordinary expenses attending the intercourse between the
    United States and foreign nations.

  JANUARY 24, 1809.

                                                          TH. JEFFERSON.

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

    In compliance with the resolution of the Senate, so far as
    the same is not complied with by the report of the Secretary
    of the Treasury of the 20th instant, the Secretary of State
    respectfully reports, that neither the whole nor any portion of
    the two millions of dollars appropriated by the act of Congress
    of the 21st of February, 1806, "for defraying any extraordinary
    expenses attending the intercourse between the United States
    and foreign nations," was ever authorized or intended to be
    applied to the use of either France, Holland, or any country
    other than Spain; nor otherwise to be applied to Spain than
    by treaty with the Government thereof, and exclusively in
    consideration of a cession and delivery to the United States of
    the territory held by Spain, eastward of the river Mississippi.

    All which is respectfully submitted.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Jan. 21.



MONDAY, January 30.

The VICE PRESIDENT having retired, the Senate proceeded to the election
of a President _pro 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:

    _Resolved_, That the two Houses shall assemble in the Chamber
    of the House of Representatives, on Wednesday next, at 12
    o'clock; that one person be appointed a teller on the part
    of the Senate, to make a list of the votes as they shall be
    declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President
    of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and
    the persons elected, to the two Houses assembled as aforesaid;
    which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected
    President and Vice President, and, together with a list of the
    votes, to be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

_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 <DW18> 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:

  Key:
  James Madison.  = JMn
  George Clinton. = GC
  C. C. Pinckney. = CCP
  James Monroe.   = JMe
  John Langdon.   = JL
  Rufus King.     = RK

  +---------------+--------------+-------------------------+
  |    STATES.    |For President.|   For Vice-President.   |
  |               +----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
  |               | JMn|  GC| CCP|   GC| JMn| JMe|  JL|  RK|
  +---------------+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
  |New Hampshire  |  --|  --|   7|   --|  --|  --|  --|   7|
  |Massachusetts  |  --|  --|  19|   --|  --|  --|  --|  19|
  |Rhode Island   |  --|  --|   4|   --|  --|  --|  --|   4|
  |Connecticut    |  --|  --|   9|   --|  --|  --|  --|   9|
  |Vermont        |   6|  --|  --|   --|  --|  --|   6|    |
  |New York       |  13|   6|  --|   13|   3|   3|    |    |
  |New Jersey     |   8|  --|  --|    8|    |    |    |    |
  |Pennsylvania   |  20|  --|  --|   20|    |    |    |    |
  |Delaware       |  --|  --|   3|   --|  --|  --|  --|   3|
  |Maryland       |   9|  --|   2|    9|  --|  --|  --|   2|
  |Virginia       |  24|  --|  --|   24|    |    |    |    |
  |North Carolina |  11|  --|   3|   11|  --|  --|  --|   3|
  |South Carolina |  10|  --|  --|   10|    |    |    |    |
  |Georgia        |   6|  --|  --|    6|    |    |    |    |
  |Kentucky       |   7|  --|  --|    7|    |    |    |    |
  |Tennessee      |   5|  --|  --|    5|    |    |    |    |
  |Ohio           |   3|  --|  --|   --|  --|  --|   3|    |
  +---------------+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+
  |Totals         | 122|   6|  47|  113|   3|   3|   9|  47|
  +---------------+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+----+

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:

    _Be it known_, That the Senate and House of Representatives
    of the United States of America, being convened at the city
    of Washington, on the second Wednesday in February, in the
    year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine, the
    underwritten, President of the Senate _pro tempore_, did, in
    presence of the said Senate and House of Representatives, open
    all the certificates and count all the votes of the Electors
    for a President and Vice President of the United States.
    Whereupon, it appeared that JAMES MADISON, of Virginia, had
    a majority of the votes of the Electors as President, and
    GEORGE CLINTON, of New York, had a majority of the votes of
    the Electors as Vice President. By all which it appears that
    JAMES MADISON, of Virginia, has been duly elected President,
    and GEORGE CLINTON, of New York, has been duly elected Vice
    President of the United States, agreeably to the constitution.

    In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the
    seal of the Senate to be affixed, this ---- day of February,
    1809.

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 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 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.

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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles,
    Gregg, Howland, Kitchel, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Milledge,
    Mitchill, Moore, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of
    New York, Smith of Tennessee, Thruston, and Tiffin.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Crawford, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse,
    Lloyd, Parker, Pickering, Reed, Sumter, Turner, and White.

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
principally 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.

    [Here Mr. Lloyd quoted from Mr. Gallatin's Treasury reports, to
    show that he deemed loans preferable to taxes if war ensued,
    and that there was revenue enough until the next winter.]

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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Gilman, Hillhouse, Lloyd,
    Mitchill, Parker, Pickering, Reed, and White.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard,
    Gregg, Howland, Kitchel, Leib, Meigs, Milledge, Moore, Pope,
    Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee,
    Sumter, Thruston, and Turner.

On motion, by Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, the 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:

                   CITY OF WASHINGTON, March 2, 1809.

    SIR: I beg leave, through you, to inform the honorable the
    Senate of the United States, that I propose to take the oath
    which the constitution prescribes to the President of the
    United States, before he enters on the execution of his office,
    on Saturday the 4th instant, at twelve o'clock, in the Chamber
    of the House of Representatives.

    I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, sir, your
    most obedient and most humble servant,

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  The Hon. JOHN MILLEDGE,

                 _President pro tempore of the Senate_.

                    _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.

  _The President of the United States_

               _to ----, Senator for the State of ----_:

    Certain matters touching the public good requiring that the
    Senate should be convened on Saturday, the fourth day of March
    next, you are desired to attend at the Senate Chamber, in the
    city of Washington, on that day; then and there to deliberate
    on such communications as shall be made to you.

                                                          TH. JEFFERSON.

  WASHINGTON, Dec. 30, 1808.



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:

    Unwilling to depart from examples of the most revered
    authority, I avail myself of the occasion now presented, to
    express the profound impression made on me by the call of my
    country to the station, to the duties of which I am about to
    pledge myself by the most solemn of sanctions. So distinguished
    a mark of confidence, proceeding from the deliberate and
    tranquil suffrage of a free and virtuous nation, would, under
    any circumstances, have commanded my gratitude and devotion,
    as well as filled me with an awful sense of the trust to be
    assumed. Under the various circumstances which give peculiar
    solemnity to the existing period, I feel that both the honor
    and the responsibility allotted to me are inexpressibly
    enhanced.

    The present situation of the world is, indeed, without a
    parallel, and that of our own country full of difficulties. The
    pressure of these, too, is the more severely felt, because they
    have fallen upon us at a moment when the national prosperity
    being at a height not before attained, the contrast, resulting
    from the change, has been rendered the more striking. Under
    the benign influence of our Republican institutions, and the
    maintenance of peace with all nations, whilst so many of them
    were engaged in bloody and wasteful wars, the fruits of a just
    policy were enjoyed in an unrivalled growth of our faculties
    and resources. Proofs of this were seen in the improvements
    of agriculture; in the successful enterprises of commerce; in
    the progress of manufactures and useful arts; in the increase
    of the public revenue, and the use made of it in reducing the
    public debt; and in the valuable works and establishments every
    where multiplying over the face of our land.

    It is a precious reflection that the transition from this
    prosperous condition of our country, to the scene which has
    for some time been distressing us, is not chargeable on any
    unwarrantable views, nor, as I trust, on any involuntary errors
    in the public councils. Indulging no passions which trespass
    on the rights or the repose of other nations, it has been the
    true glory of the United States to cultivate peace by observing
    justice; and to entitle themselves to the respect of the
    nations at war, by fulfilling their neutral obligations with
    the most scrupulous impartiality. If there be candor in the
    world, the truth of these assertions will not be questioned;
    posterity, at least, will do justice to them.

    This unexceptionable course could not avail against the
    injustice and violence of the belligerent powers. In their
    rage against each other, or impelled by more direct motives,
    principles of retaliation have been introduced, equally
    contrary to universal reason and acknowledged law. How long
    their arbitrary edicts will be continued, in spite of the
    demonstrations that not even a pretext for them has been given
    by the United States, and of the fair and liberal attempt to
    induce a revocation of them, cannot be anticipated. Assuring
    myself, that, under every vicissitude, the determined spirit
    and united councils of the nation will be safeguards to its
    honor and its essential interests, I repair to the post
    assigned me with no other discouragement than what springs from
    my own inadequacy to its high duties. If I do not sink under
    the weight of this deep conviction, it is because I find some
    support in a consciousness of the purposes, and a confidence in
    the principles which I bring with me into this arduous service.

    To cherish peace and friendly intercourse with all nations
    having correspondent dispositions; to maintain sincere
    neutrality towards belligerent nations; to prefer, in all
    cases, amicable discussion and reasonable accommodation of
    differences, to a decision of them by an appeal to arms;
    to exclude foreign intrigues and foreign partialities, so
    degrading to all countries, and so baneful to free ones; to
    foster a spirit of independence, too just to invade the rights
    of others, too proud to surrender our own, too liberal to
    indulge unworthy prejudices ourselves, and too elevated not
    to look down upon them in others; to hold the union of the
    States as the basis of their peace and happiness; to support
    the constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in
    its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights
    and authorities reserved to the States and to the people, as
    equally incorporated with, and essential to the success of, the
    general system; to avoid the slightest interference with the
    rights of conscience or the functions of religion, so wisely
    exempted from civil jurisdiction; to preserve, in their full
    energy, the other salutary provisions in behalf of private
    and personal rights, and of the freedom of the press; to
    observe economy in public expenditures; to liberate the public
    resources by an honorable discharge of the public debts; to
    keep within the requisite limits a standing military force,
    always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the
    firmest bulwark of Republics; that without standing armies
    their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones
    safe; to promote, by authorized means, improvements friendly
    to agriculture, to manufactures, and to external as well as
    internal commerce; to favor, in like manner, the advancement
    of science and the diffusion of information, as the best
    aliment to true liberty; to carry on the benevolent plans which
    have been so meritoriously applied to the conversion of our
    aboriginal neighbors from the degradation and wretchedness of
    savage life, to a participation of the improvements of which
    the human mind and manners are susceptible in a civilized
    state;--as far as sentiments and intentions such as these can
    aid the fulfilment of my duty, they will be a resource which
    cannot fail me.

    It is my good fortune, moreover, to have the path in which
    I am to tread lighted by examples of illustrious services,
    successfully rendered in the most trying difficulties, by
    those who have marched before me. Of those of my immediate
    predecessor it might least become me here to speak. I may,
    however, be pardoned for not suppressing the sympathy with
    which my heart is full, in the rich reward he enjoys in the
    benedictions of a beloved country, gratefully bestowed for
    exalted talents, zealously devoted, through a long career, to
    the advancement of its highest interest and happiness.

    But the source to which I look for the aids which alone can
    supply my deficiencies, is in the well-tried intelligence and
    virtue of my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those
    representing them in the other departments associated in the
    care of the national interests. In these my confidence will,
    under every difficulty, be best placed, next to that which
    we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and
    guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the
    destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously
    dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound
    to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our
    fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.

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.

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.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Missing line.




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:

    _From New Hampshire_--Daniel M. Durell, Francis Gardner,
    Jedediah K. Smith, and Clement Storer.

    _From Massachusetts_--Ezekiel Bacon, Joseph Barker, Orchard
    Cook, Richard Cutts, Josiah Deane, William Ely, Isaiah L.
    Green, Daniel Ilsley, Edward St. Loe Livermore, Josiah Quincy,
    Ebenezer Seaver, William Stedman, Jabez Upham, and Joseph B.
    Varnum, (the Speaker.)

    _From Rhode Island_--Isaac Wilbour.

    _From Connecticut_--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John
    Davenport, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Lewis
    B. Sturges, and Benjamin Tallmadge.

    _From Vermont_--Martin Chittenden, James Elliot, and James Fisk.

    _From New York_--John Blake, jr., John Harris, Reuben
    Humphreys, William Kirkpatrick, Gurdon S. Mumford, Samuel
    Riker, John Russell, Peter Swart, John Thompson, James I. Van
    Allen, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, and Daniel C. Verplanck.

    _From New Jersey_--Adam Boyd, William Helms, John Lambert,
    Thomas Newbold, James Sloan, and Henry Southard.

    _From Pennsylvania_--David Bard, Robert Brown, William Findlay,
    John Heister, William Hoge, William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery,
    jr., John Porter, John Pugh, John Rea, Matthias Richards, John
    Smilie, Samuel Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

    _From Maryland_--Charles Goldsborough, William McCreery, John
    Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, and Archibald Van Horne.

    _From Virginia_--Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, John
    Clopton, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, James M. Garnett, Peterson
    Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Joseph
    Lewis, jr., John Love, John Morrow, Thomas Newton, John Smith,
    Abram Trigg, and Alexander Wilson.

    _From Kentucky_--Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, and Richard M.
    Johnson.

    _From North Carolina_--Willis Alston, jr., William Blackledge,
    Thomas Blount, John Culpeper, Nathaniel Macon, Lemuel Sawyer,
    and Richard Stanford.

    _From Tennessee_--George W. Campbell, John Rhea, and Jesse
    Wharton.

    _From South Carolina_--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler,
    Joseph Calhoun, John Taylor, and David R. Williams.

    _From Georgia_--William W. Bibb, and George M. Troup.

    _From Ohio_--Jeremiah Morrow.

    _From the Mississippi Territory_--George Poindexter, Delegate.

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 appointed 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:

    VAULTS OF ST. CLARA, CARTHAGENA, September 16, 1808.

    _To the honorable the Congress of the United States of America,
    in Congress assembled_:

    The petition of thirty-six American citizens confined at
    Carthagena, South America, under sentence of slavery, humbly
    showeth:

    That we, your petitioners, were brought from New York in
    the armed ship Leander, Thomas Lewis, commander, on the 2d
    of February, 1806, together with a number of others, mostly
    inhabitants of that State and city, under the most specious
    engagements of their country; to establish which, they beg
    leave to state that Colonel William Smith, then Surveyor of
    the port of New York, William Armstrong, Daniel D. Durning,
    and John Fink, butcher, of the city of New York, declared they
    were authorized to enlist a number of men to go to New Orleans,
    to serve as guards to the United States mails, and a number
    of others as mechanics. Some backwardness on the part of your
    petitioners to engage being discovered by William Smith, he
    read passages from letters to prove his authority, and several
    paragraphs from newspapers to convince them of the validity
    of their engagements. William Armstrong and Daniel D. Durning
    were appointed to command them, and were to accompany them to
    the city of Washington, where they were to receive clothing and
    accoutrements, and thence to New Orleans. The ship Leander,
    owned by Samuel G. Ogden, and formerly in the St. Domingo
    trade, was procured for the conveyance of your petitioners
    to the city of Washington, for which purpose she was hauled
    down to the watering place, where your petitioners went on
    board her the 1st day of February, 1806, and the next day (the
    2d) the ship put to sea. Shortly after, Miranda, under the
    name of Martin, and a number of persons hitherto unknown to
    your petitioners, appeared on board, in the character of his
    officers; which, for the first time, awakened strong suspicions
    in the breasts of your petitioners that they had been entrapped
    into the power of wicked and designing men, and that, too,
    when retreat was impracticable. From New York your petitioners
    were carried to Jacmel, in the island of St. Domingo, where
    they were exercised in military duty, under the most arbitrary
    stretch of power, by Miranda and his officers. At Jacmel
    several attempts to escape proved abortive, from the vigilance
    of our oppressors, they having procured guards to be stationed
    in all the passes leading from Jacmel to other parts of the
    island, where your petitioners might expect to receive aid and
    protection from their countrymen. At Jacmel two schooners were
    hired, on board of which your petitioners were sent, under the
    care of a number of officers, whose wariness still remained
    unabated; and on the 27th March, 1806, the ship, accompanied by
    the two schooners, proceeded towards the coast of Terra Firma,
    where, after touching at the island of Aruba for refreshments,
    she arrived on the 28th of April, when two armed vessels hove
    in sight, which after some manoeuvring the ship engaged but
    soon ran away, leaving the two schooners to be captured. They
    were carried into Porto Cabello, where your petitioners were
    proceeded against as pirates, a number of warlike implements
    being found on board, which were placed there without the
    knowledge of your petitioners. And on the 12th July following,
    the process against us closed at Caraccas, sentencing ten, whom
    they considered to be criminally engaged, to be hanged and
    beheaded, and the remainder (your petitioners) to eight and ten
    years' slavery on the public works at Omoa, Bocca Chica, and
    the island of Porto Rico. Your petitioners were all sent to
    this place, where those sent to Bocca Chica were put to work,
    chained two-and-two, and the residue, in double irons and close
    confinement, strongly guarded, waiting for an opportunity to
    be sent to their respective places. Upon several occasions
    your petitioners were told by William Armstrong, Thomas Lewis,
    and others, that they were sent out by the Government of the
    United States. To prove to the satisfaction of your honorable
    body the truth of the above statement, your petitioners beg
    you will examine Robert Laverty, John Stagg, John Ritter,
    Matthew Morgan, Richard Platt, Adam Ten Brook, and John Miller,
    of New York, who were under the same engagements with your
    petitioners. Francis White and Thomas McAllister, butchers in
    the Bear market, New York; Mr. Brinkerhoff, tavern keeper,
    near the Bear market; David Williams, John Garret, and a Mr.
    Kemper, weighmaster, whose son was executed at Porto Cabello,
    were present when all or most of your petitioners were engaged,
    and can prove beyond all doubt that your petitioners could
    have had no other idea than that of entering into the service
    of the United States. Captain Bomberry, of the ship Mary, of
    Baltimore; Captain Israel, of the brig Robert and Mary; Captain
    Waldron, of the schooner Victory; and Captain Abbot, of the
    brig Charleston Packet, all of Philadelphia, were eye-witnesses
    to the tyranny and oppression under which your petitioners
    labored while at Jacmel. When the crew of the Bee, one of the
    schooners which was chartered by the Leander, refused to go in
    her, a number of officers from the ship, with Lewis at their
    head, came on board the Bee, and, after beating and cutting
    the men with sticks and sabres in the most brutal manner,
    dragged them on board the Leander, put them in irons under a
    strong guard, and kept them there until the moment of sailing,
    when they were sent on board the Bee, with orders to keep near
    and to leeward of the ship. Another man, who had effected his
    escape from a French privateer, and found his way to Jacmel,
    with the hope of getting a passage home in some of his country
    vessels, was seized at the instance of Thomas Lewis, commander
    of the Leander, and captain under Miranda, thrown into prison,
    and compelled to go in the expedition, or to starve in jail.

    Your petitioners are confident, that, when your honorable
    body becomes thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of
    art and deception which betrayed them into the expedition,
    the destination of which they had no knowledge until it was
    too late to retreat, you will not only punish such of their
    betrayers as are within reach of your power, but will adopt
    proper measures to restore your unfortunate petitioners to
    liberty and their families. We beg leave to mention that
    Jeremiah Powell, who was an officer of high confidence in the
    expedition, was pardoned without hesitation by the Spanish
    monarch, on the application of his father. Your petitioners
    have embraced many opportunities to convey to your honorable
    body the prayer of a petition, but, from the length of time
    elapsed since they sent off their last, and not hearing of any
    measures being adopted in their favor, they fear none ever
    arrived; and by the present opportunity several copies of
    this petition have been transmitted to gentlemen residing in
    different parts of the United States, with the hope that some
    of them may arrive safe.

    Your petitioners cannot for a moment believe that the United
    States will suffer officers under her constitution to kidnap
    her citizens into expeditions and services fitted out and
    maintained by a foreign outlaw against powers with which she
    is at amity and peace, under the specious pretence of engaging
    them into the service of their country, without punishing the
    aggressors, and using every effort to regain her citizens.
    Such is the case of your unfortunate petitioners, who entreat
    you as children would a parent, to relieve them from total
    destruction, on the brink of which they have been thrown by the
    practise of frauds and villanies hitherto unheard of.

    A short time since, a British ship of war arrived at this
    place, the commander of which, (Edward Kittoe, Esq.,) upon
    being applied to by nine of our companions, who declared
    themselves to be British-born subjects, and being made
    acquainted with the circumstances which led to our capture,
    immediately sent on a petition to the Viceroy of this Kingdom
    in behalf of us all, but particularly for such as are British
    subjects, whom we expect will eventually be liberated. Nothing
    but humanity and a strong desire to relieve distress could have
    induced Captain Kittoe to this step, who, we are confident, as
    much as ourselves, regrets its failure of success, and to whom
    we feel every way indebted, and shall ever recollect it with
    gratitude and thanks.

    When your petitioners remonstrate against any harsh treatment
    of these people, they invariably ask, "Why don't your country
    liberate you?--it rests solely with them."

    Your petitioners feel confident, from the justness of their
    claim to the interference and protection of the constituted
    authorities of their country, measures will be adopted to
    restore them to liberty; and having no doubt but your honorable
    body will afford them that protection which citizens have a
    right to claim from their country, your petitioners beg that
    your honorable body will convey them an answer, and your
    petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

    Robert Saunders, Benjamin Davis, Henry Sperry, Joseph Hickle,
    Ellery King, William Long, Daniel Newbury, Wm. Cartwright,
    Samuel Tozier, James Hyatt, Abram Head, Robert Stevenson,
    Samuel Price, Robert Reins, Hugh Smith, Benjamin Nicholson,
    Geo. Ferguson, Wm. Pride, Pompey Grant, David Heckle, Bennett
    B. Negus, John Moore, John M. Elliot, Henry Ingersoll, John
    Parcels, John Hayes, David Winton, Matthew Buchanan, Alexander
    Buchanan, Jas. W. Grant, John Edsall, Thomas Gill, Joseph
    Bennett, Phineas Raymond, Peter Nautly, Stephen Burtis.


CARTHAGENA, August 12, 1808.

    On my arrival at this place, I was applied to in behalf of the
    unfortunate men captured under the orders of General Miranda,
    who are under sentence of transportation to the different
    public works at Omoa, Porto Rico, &c., among whom are several
    British subjects, (whose names are inserted below.) I am well
    aware of the enormity of their crime, as I understand they were
    taken without colors or papers; but, as a British officer, I
    consider it a duty to plead for those in distress, wherever
    they may be found; and I trust, from the known lenity of your
    Excellency's character, I shall not plead in vain. The men in
    question are originally of British descent, and are allied to
    my nation by many ties. They have no Consul--no Minister--to
    prefer the prayer of their petition to your Excellency, having
    been prevented by the war between our nations from making known
    their situation to the President of the United States. Suffer
    me, therefore to address your Excellency, and beg for their
    release, on a solemn promise that they will never be found
    again in arms on a similar occasion. As I am the hearer of
    welcome tidings to the inhabitants of the province under your
    Excellency's command, make me also the hearer of them to the
    unhappy sufferers now confined in Carthagena. It is true, I am
    unauthorized to make this request in the name of the British
    Government for the men in general, but I am convinced the step
    will be approved; and if your Excellency will lend a favorable
    ear to my petition the circumstance will not pass unnoticed
    on their part; at all events, your Excellency will have the
    prayer of many individuals for your eternal happiness, and
    among them will be found (not the least fervent) those of your
    Excellency's most humble servant,

                                                          EDWARD KITTOE,
                                       _Com. H. B. M. ship Sabina_.

    P. S.--If my request for the liberation of all General
    Miranda's men is by your Excellency deemed unreasonable or
    improper, I beg to confine it particularly to such as are
    British subjects: that is an indispensable duty I owe to them
    and my country.

    _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 concerns, 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
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:

    "_Resolved_, That the committee appointed on that part of the
    President's Message which relates to our foreign relations, be
    instructed to inquire into the expediency of excluding by law
    from the ports, harbors, and waters of the United States, all
    armed ships and vessels belonging to any of the belligerent
    powers having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful
    commerce of the United States as a nation.

    "_Resolved_, That the same committee be instructed to inquire
    into the expediency of prohibiting by law the admission into
    the ports, harbors, and waters of the United States, any
    ship or vessel belonging to or coming from any place in the
    possession of any of the above-mentioned powers, and also the
    importation of any goods, wares, and merchandise, the growth,
    produce and manufacture of the dominions of any of the said
    powers.

    "_Resolved_, That the same committee be instructed to inquire
    into the expediency of amending the act laying an embargo, and
    the several acts supplementary and additional thereto."

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 gentlemen 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 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:

    "The following articles shall be considered as articles of
    compact between the original States and the people of the
    States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable,
    unless by common consent, to wit."

[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.

    "The title 'prerogative,' it is presumed, was annihilated in
    America with the Kingly Government." "This definition (of
    prerogative) is enough to make a citizen of the United States
    shudder at the recollection that he was born under a government
    in which such doctrines were received as catholic," &c.

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 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:

    "Congress, under the former confederation, passed an ordinance
    July 13, 1787, for the government of the territory of the
    United States northwest of the Ohio, which contained, among
    other things, six articles, which were to be considered as
    articles of compact between the original States and the people
    and States of said territory, and to remain unalterable, except
    by common consent. These articles appear to have been confirmed
    by the sixth article of the constitution, which declares,
    that all debts contracted and engagements entered into,
    before the adoption of the constitution, shall be as valid
    against the United States under the constitution as under the
    Confederation."

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 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.

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:

    YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., Ezekiel Bacon,
    David Bard, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Blake,
    junior, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, Joseph Calhoun, John
    Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,
    jun., William Ely, William Findlay, Francis Gardner, Charles
    Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, John Heister, William Hoge, Richard
    S. Jackson, Robert Jenkins, Walter Jones, James Kelly, William
    Kirkpatrick, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jun., Robert Marion,
    William McCreery, William Milnor, Nicholas R. Moore, Jonathan
    O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford, Wilson C. Nicholas, Timothy
    Pitkin, junior, John Porter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph,
    Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, John Russell, Dennis Smelt,
    Henry Southard, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Peter Swart,
    Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Taylor, George M.
    Troup, Jabez Upham, James I. Van Allen, Daniel C. Verplanck,
    Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, and Nathan Wilson.

    NAYS.--Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell,
    William Butler, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Culpeper,
    John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, Daniel M. Durell,
    James Elliot, John W. Eppes, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin,
    Thomas Gholson, jun., Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, John
    Harris, William Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin
    Howard, Daniel Isley, Richard M. Johnson, Nathaniel Macon,
    Daniel Montgomery, junior, John Montgomery, Jeremiah Morrow,
    John Morrow, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton,
    John Pugh, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee,
    Jacob Richards, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw,
    James Sloan, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith,
    Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, John Thompson,
    Archibald Van Home, Jesse Wharton, Isaac Wilbour, and Alexander
    Wilson.

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
confined 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:

    That it appears, from the statement of the petitioners, that,
    in February, 1806, they sailed from New York on board the
    Leander, a ship owned by Samuel G. Ogden, the command of which
    was, after getting to sea, assumed by General Miranda.

    That, from New York, the said ship sailed to Jacmel, where
    the said Miranda procured two schooners, on board which the
    petitioners were placed, which, together with the Leander,
    sailed, under the command of Miranda, about the last of March,
    in the same year, for the northern parts of South America, and
    arrived on the coast of Terra Firma in the latter part of April
    following.

    That, upon their arrival on the said coast, the two schooners,
    on board which the petitioners were embarked, were captured by
    two Spanish armed vessels; the ship Leander, with Miranda on
    board, having made her escape.

    That the petitioners, together with ten others, were convicted
    by a Spanish tribunal, at Porto Cabello, of the crime of
    piracy, from the circumstances of suspicion which attached to
    their situation, and not from any act of that kind committed
    on the high seas; that the ten others above mentioned were
    sentenced to death, and the petitioners some to eight, others
    to ten years' slavery, which they now are suffering; some
    chained together, others closely confined under heavy irons and
    a guard, destined to other places and to similar punishment.

    The petitioners state that they were entrapped into the service
    of the said Miranda, on the said expedition, by assurances made
    at the time of their engagements, that they were to be employed
    in the service of the United States, and under the authority
    of the Government. For the truth of their statement, and a
    confirmation of the charges they make against certain persons
    of having thus deceived and betrayed them into an involuntary
    co-operation in the design of fitting out an armament against
    a nation in amity with the United States, they refer to the
    testimony of several persons, said to be inhabitants of the
    city of New York, and to have had proposals made to them
    similar to those by which the petitioners were induced to
    engage on board the Leander.

    The petitioners also state that no opportunity was offered
    them of escaping from the service of the said Miranda and his
    associates; that they were restrained under the most rigorous
    discipline, and at Jacmel, the only place where an opportunity
    of escape might have been probable, they were strictly guarded
    to prevent it. For the truth of this they refer to certain
    captains of vessels then at Jacmel belonging to the ports of
    Philadelphia and Baltimore.

    The committee further report that the foregoing statements of
    the petitioners are unaccompanied by any competent testimony
    in support of them, and, at the same time, are uncontradicted
    by any opposing circumstances; they are of opinion that a very
    strong probability of the petitioners not having been guilty
    of the crime of wilfully engaging in the unlawful expedition
    of Miranda attends their application: first, because the
    petitioners have made a detailed statement of facts relative
    to the deception practised on them, referring to such species
    of evidence as to render their contradiction easy, if not
    founded in truth, and thus lessen their claim on their country,
    and diminish their hopes of liberation: second, because it is
    presumed they were proven to the Spanish tribunal before which
    they were convicted to have been offenders in a secondary
    degree, those who were proven to have been more heinously
    guilty having been sentenced to suffer death.

    The committee, however, are of opinion that, should the
    petitioners have been guilty of a crime against the United
    States by a voluntary or otherwise culpable infraction of its
    laws, the dictates of humanity no less than the principles
    of justice, ought to influence the Legislature of the United
    States to adopt the proper means of restoring them to their
    country, in order that they may expiate the offence by a
    punishment suited to but not transcending the magnitude of
    their crime.

    The committee, therefore, beg leave to submit the following
    resolution for the consideration of the House.

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means
    in his power to obtain from the Viceroy of Grenada, in
    South America, or other proper authority, the liberation
    of thirty-six American citizens, condemned on a charge of
    piracy, and now held in slavery in the vaults of St. Clara, in
    Carthagena, and that the sum of ---- dollars be appropriated
    for that purpose.


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, 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:

    _Resolved_, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice
    of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late
    edicts of Great Britain and France:

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 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 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 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 associated, 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
merchant 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 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 November, 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,
12_s._ 6_d._ sterling per cwt.; on indigo, 2_s._ per lb.; pork, 17_s._
6_d._ per cwt.; cotton, 9_d._ 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 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:

    _Resolved_, That it be the duty of the Clerk of this House to
    furnish the Representatives in Congress from each State in the
    Union, for the time being, and the Delegates from each of the
    Territories thereof, with one copy of every public document,
    including the laws and journals printed by order of the House,
    to be by them transmitted to the principal seminary of learning
    in each State and Territory, respectively.

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:

    "_Resolved_, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice
    of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late
    edicts of Great Britain."

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 principles 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:

    "Your committee can perceive no other alternative but abject
    and degrading submission, war with both nations, or a
    continuance and enforcement of the present suspension of our
    commerce."

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 degrading" 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 uncommon. 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.

    ------------"mille adde catenas
    Effugiet tamen, hæc sceleratus vincula Proteus."

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 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 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 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 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:

    "_Resolved_, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice
    of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late
    edicts of Great Britain."

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 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, 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 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 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 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 <DW44> 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 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 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 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 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 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 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:

    YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun.,
    Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett,
    William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas
    Blount, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, William Butler,
    Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
    Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, Daniel
    M. Durell, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin,
    Francis Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jun., Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin
    Gray, Isaiah L. Green, John Harris, John Heister, William
    Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Howard, Reuben
    Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, Richard M. Johnson, James Kelly,
    Thomas Kenan, Philip B. Key, William Kirkpatrick, John Lambert,
    Edward Lloyd, John Love, Robert Marion, William McCreery,
    William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery, jun., John Montgomery,
    Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow,
    Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton,
    Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John
    Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias Richards, Samuel
    Riker, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, Dennis
    Smelt, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Samuel
    Smith, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, Peter Swart, John
    Taylor, John Thompson, George M. Troup, James I. Van Allen,
    Archibald Van Horne, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert
    Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour, Alexander Wilson, and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, John Culpeper, John
    Davenport, jun., James Elliot, William Ely, Barent Gardenier,
    William Hoge, Richard Jackson, Robert Jenkins, Joseph Lewis,
    jun., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, Josiah
    Masters, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John
    Russell, James Sloan, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges,
    Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Philip Van
    Cortlandt, David R. Williams, and Nathan Wilson.

_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 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 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 intercourse 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
advantage 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.

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 sentiments, 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 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:

    "If the American embargo were removed, and the Orders in
    Council still continued in force, in that case would the
    witness resume his shipments?

    "To a very small amount.

    "For what reason?

    "Because I do conceive, that there would be such great
    impediments, indeed a total annihilation of trade from the
    United States of America to the Continent of Europe, that
    I could not expect to receive any returns for the goods I
    sent out; and another reason would be my apprehension that a
    war between the United States and this country would be the
    consequence of those Orders in Council.

    "What is the reason that the Orders in Council prevent the
    witness sending our cotton goods in ships in ballast?

    "I believe I stated my apprehension that they might produce
    a war between the two countries; another reason was, I could
    not expect to get remittances, and a total annihilation of the
    trade between the United States of America and the Continent
    of Europe, from whence a great part of my remittances must be
    derived.

    "If the American embargo in general were taken off, and the
    Orders in Council to be continued, would his trade in that case
    revive?

    "I certainly should feel no inducement to export goods to
    America while the orders continued.

    "Why not?

    "I should apprehend that hostilities between this country and
    America would be the consequence of continuing the Orders in
    Council.

    "Would the Orders in Council have any other effect as to
    discouraging the trade?

    "They would have considerable effect in regard to our
    remittances.

    "In what manner?

    "By bringing all the produce of America to this country, they
    must occasion such a vast glut in the market, that the produce
    would be worth little or nothing.

    "In what degree would it affect the dealers in those
    commodities brought to this country, as to their remittances to
    this country?

    "The consequence I apprehend would be, that great parts of the
    bills must go back protested; because the produce, for which
    the bills are drawn, would sell for scarcely the value of the
    freight and charges.

    "Does the witness conceive, from his knowledge of the
    American trade, that if the whole of the American produce,
    which according to an average of years had been carried to
    the Continent of Europe, and to Great Britain, was now to be
    imported into Great Britain alone, and the Orders in Council
    to continue; whether it would be possible to export from Great
    Britain to the continent, so much of the American produce as
    should prevent a glut of the American produce remaining in the
    market?

    "I think it would be impossible.

    "Have you lately written to your correspondents in America
    respecting shipments of American produce to this country?

    "I have.

    "To what effect have you so written?

    "I have written that in case of submission to these Orders of
    Council, in case such a thing should take place, to suspend all
    operations.

    "Did you give this advice to your American correspondents, upon
    the supposition that America would acquiesce in the Orders in
    Council?

    "Certainly not, I stated it as a thing by no means likely; but,
    as there is nothing impossible in this world, that if it were
    so, not to move; that in case they were acquiesced in, not to
    attempt any business."

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 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 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 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 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 resolution 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
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.]

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 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. 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 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 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:

    "Resolved, _That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice
    of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late
    edicts of Great Britain_--and France."

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:

    "_Resolved_, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice
    of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the edicts
    of Great Britain and France:"

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:

    "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to prohibit, by law, the
    admission into the ports 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 belligerent powers
    having in force orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce
    and neutral rights of the United States."

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:

    "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to prohibit, by law, the
    admission into the ports of the United States of all public or
    private armed or unarmed ships or vessels belonging to Great
    Britain."

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:

    "Or to any other of the belligerent powers having in force
    orders or decrees violating the lawful commerce and neutral
    rights of the United States:"

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:

    "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:"

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:

    YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., Ezekiel Bacon,
    David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,
    William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount, Adam
    Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William
    Butler, Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell, Matthew Clay,
    Joseph Clopton, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha,
    Daniel M. Durell, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, Jas. Fisk,
    Meshack Franklin, Francis Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jun.,
    Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, John Heister,
    William Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Howard,
    Reuben Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, John G. Jackson, Richard M.
    Johnson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, William Kirkpatrick, John
    Lambert, John Love, Nathaniel Macon, Robert Marion, William
    McCreery, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thos. Moore,
    Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Roger Nelson, Thos. Newbold,
    Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Rea of
    Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias
    Richards, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, Dennis
    Smelt, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Henry
    Southard, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, John Taylor, George
    M. Troup, James I. Van Allen, Archibald Van Horne, Daniel C.
    Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour,
    David R. Williams, Alexander Wilson, and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--Evan Alexander, John Campbell, Epaphroditus Champion,
    Martin Chittenden, John Culpeper, Samuel W. Dana, John
    Davenport, jun., Jas. Elliot, William Ely, Barent Gardenier,
    John Harris, Richard Jackson, Robert Jenkins, James Kelly,
    Philip B. Key, Joseph Lewis, jun., Matthew Lyon, Josiah
    Masters, William Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin,
    jun., Josiah Quincy, John Russell, James Sloan, L. B. Sturges,
    Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Philip Van
    Cortlandt, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

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:

    _Resolved_, That measures ought to be immediately taken for
    placing the country in a more complete state of defence:

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:

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    _requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means
    in his power to obtain_ from the Viceroy of Grenada, in
    South America, or other proper authority, the liberation
    of thirty-six American citizens, condemned on a charge of
    piracy, and now held in slavery in the vaults of St. Clara, in
    Carthagena, and that the sum of ---- dollars be appropriated to
    that purpose.

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.

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:

    That, by the fifth article of the ordinance of Congress for
    the government of the Territory of the United States Northwest
    of the river Ohio, it is stipulated that there shall be formed
    in the said Territory no less than three, nor more than five
    States; and the boundaries of the States, as soon as Virginia
    shall alter her act of cession, and consent to the same, shall
    become fixed and established, as follows:

    The Western State shall be bounded by the Mississippi, the
    Ohio, and Wabash rivers; a direct line drawn from the Wabash
    and Post Vincennes, due north, to the Territorial line between
    the United States and Canada, and by the said Territorial line
    to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi.

    The middle State shall be bounded by the said direct line, the
    Wabash, from Post Vincennes to the Ohio; by the Ohio, by a
    direct line drawn due north from the mouth of the Great Miami,
    to the said Territorial line, and by the said Territorial line.


    The Eastern State shall be bounded by the last-mentioned direct
    line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said Territorial line:
    _Provided, however_, and it is further understood and declared,
    that the boundaries of these three States shall be subject so
    far to be altered, that if Congress shall hereafter find it
    expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States
    in that part of the said Territory which lies north of an east
    and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of
    Lake Michigan. And whenever any of the said States shall have
    sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be
    admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United
    States on an equal footing with the original States, in all
    respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
    constitution and State Government: _Provided_, the constitution
    and government so to be formed shall be republican, and in
    conformity to the principles contained in these articles;
    and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest
    of the Confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an
    earlier period, and when there shall be a less number of free
    inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.

    By the aforesaid article, it appears to your committee that the
    line fixed as the boundary of the States to be formed in the
    Indiana Territory is unalterable, unless by common consent;
    that the line of demarcation, which the Wabash affords between
    the eastern and western portion of said Territory, added to
    the wide extent of wilderness country which separates the
    population in each, constitute reasons in favor of a division,
    founded on the soundest policy, and conformable with the
    natural situation of the country. The vast distance from the
    settlements of the Wabash to the present seat of Territorial
    government, renders the administration of justice burdensome
    and expensive to them in the highest degree. The superior
    courts of the Territory are, by law, established at Vincennes;
    at which place suitors, residing in every part of the
    Territory, are compelled to attend with their witnesses, which,
    to those who reside west of the Wabash, amounts almost to a
    total denial of justice. The great difficulty of travelling
    through an extensive and loathsome wilderness, the want of food
    and other necessary accommodations on the road, often presents
    an insurmountable barrier to the attendance of witnesses;
    and, even when their attendance is obtained, the accumulated
    expense of prosecuting suits where the evidence is at so remote
    a distance, is a cause of much embarrassment to a due and
    impartial distribution of justice, and a proper execution of
    the laws for the redress of private wrongs.

    In addition to the above considerations, your committee
    conceive that the scattered situation of the settlements over
    this extensive Territory cannot fail to enervate the powers of
    the Executive, and render it almost impossible to keep that
    part of the Government in order.

    It further appears to your committee, that a division of
    the said Territory will become a matter of right under the
    aforesaid article of the ordinance, whenever the General
    Government shall establish therein a State Government; and
    the numerous inconveniences which would be removed by an
    immediate separation, would have a direct tendency to encourage
    and accelerate migration to each district, and thereby give
    additional strength and security to those outposts of the
    United States, exposed to the inroads of a savage neighbor,
    on whose friendly dispositions no permanent reliance can be
    placed.

    Your committee have no certain data on which to ascertain the
    number of inhabitants in each section of the Territory; but,
    from the most accurate information they are enabled to collect,
    it appears that west of the Wabash there are about the number
    of eleven thousand, and east of said river about the number of
    seventeen thousand, and that the population of each section is
    in a state of rapid increase.

    Your committee, after maturely considering this subject,
    are of opinion that there exists but one objection to the
    establishment of a separate Territorial Government west of the
    river Wabash, and that objection is based on the additional
    expense which would, in consequence thereof, be incurred by
    the Government of the United States. But, it is also worthy of
    observation, that the increased value of the public lands in
    each district, arising from the public institutions which would
    be permanently fixed in each, to comport with the convenience
    of the inhabitants, and the augmentation of emigrants, all of
    whom must become immediate purchasers of these lands, would far
    exceed the amount of expenditure produced by the contemplated
    temporary government.

    And your committee, being convinced that it is the wish of
    a large majority of the citizens of the said Territory that
    a separation thereof should take place, deem it always just
    and wise policy to grant to every portion of the people of
    the Union that form of government which is the object of
    their wishes, when not incompatible with the constitution of
    the United States, nor subversive of their allegiance to the
    national sovereignty.

    Your committee, therefore, respectfully submit the following
    resolution:

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient to divide the Indiana
    Territory, and to establish a separate Territorial Government
    west of the river Wabash, agreeably to the ordinance for the
    government of the Territory of the United States northwest of
    the river Ohio, passed on the 13th day of July, 1787.

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 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
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 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
observations 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 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 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 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.


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:

    _Resolved_, That the Clerk of this House do carry 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_.

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:

    _Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them
    that this House is now ready to attend them in opening the
    certificates and counting the votes of the Electors of the
    several States, in the choice of a President and Vice President
    of the United States, in pursuance of the resolution of the two
    Houses of Congress of the 7th instant; and that the Clerk of
    the House do go with the said message.

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, 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 <DW18>, 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 <DW18>, 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:

    (For the statement of the votes see Senate proceedings of the
    same day, _ante_, p. 27.)


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 refer 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 encouraged 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 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.
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 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.

                    _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:

    _Resolved_, That the Speaker be requested to acknowledge the
    receipt and acceptance of "Clarkson's History of Slavery,"
    presented by the American Convention for promoting the
    abolition of slavery, and improving the condition of the
    Africans; and that the said work be deposited in the Library.

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, 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 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:

    _Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be presented to
    JOSEPH B. VARNUM, in testimony of their approbation of his
    conduct in the discharge of the arduous and important duties
    assigned to him whilst in the Chair.

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:

    _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:_

    The kind expression of your approbation of my conduct, in the
    discharge of the duties which you have been pleased to assign
    me as Speaker of the House, affords me that consolation which
    an approving conscience alone can surpass. You will please,
    gentlemen, to accept my thanks for the liberality and candor
    which you have uniformly manifested towards me: and be assured,
    that the friendly aid which I have experienced from you in
    the discharge of my official duty, has made a deep impression
    on the affections of my heart, which length of time cannot
    eradicate.

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]

FOOTNOTES:

[2] This ordinance of the Congress of the confederation, which became
the basis of all the Territorial governments, was sanctioned by the
Congress of the Union at its first session, with certain provisions
added to it in order to give it full effect under the constitution. The
following are the terms of this enactment:--

    "WHEREAS that the ordinance of the United States in Congress
    assembled, for the government of the Territory northwest of the
    river Ohio may continue to have full effect, it is requisite
    that certain provisions should be made, so as to adapt the same
    to the present Constitution of the United States. THEREFORE,
    _Be it enacted_, &c., That in all cases in which, by the said
    ordinance, any information is to be given, or communication
    made by the Governor of the said territory to the United States
    in Congress assembled, or to any of their officers, it shall
    be the duty of the said Governor to give such information,
    and to make such communication to the President of the United
    States; and the President shall nominate, and by and with the
    consent of the Senate, shall appoint all officers which by the
    said ordinance were to have been appointed by the United States
    in Congress assembled, and all officers so appointed shall be
    commissioned by him; and in all cases where the United States
    in Congress assembled, might, by the said ordinance, revoke any
    commission or remove from any office, the President is hereby
    declared to have the same power of revocation and removal. SEC.
    2.--_And be it further enacted_, That in case of the death,
    removal, resignation, or necessary absence of the Governor of
    the said Territory, the secretary thereof shall be, and he is
    hereby, authorized and required to execute all the powers, and
    perform all the duties of the Governor, during the vacancy
    occasioned by the removal, resignation, or necessary absence of
    said Governor."

This act of Congress, passed to give full effect to this ordinance by
adapting its working to the new Federal Constitution, was among the
earliest acts of the Federal Congress, being number eight in the list
of acts passed at the first session of the first Congress; and classes
with the acts necessary to the working of the new government. As such
it was modified; and as such preserved and applied to successive
Territories, as governments for them were given. That ordinance is, in
fact, the basis of all the Territorial governments, and is extended to
each of them by name, with such modifications as each one required; and
its benefits secured in their deeds of territorial cession by Georgia
and North Carolina. Thus, the fifth clause in the first article of the
Georgia deed of cession, dated April 24th, 1802, stipulates: "That
the Territory thus ceded shall form a State, and be admitted as such
into the Union, as soon as it shall contain 60,000 free inhabitants,
or at an earlier period, if Congress shall think it expedient, on the
same conditions and restrictions, with the same privileges, and in
the same manner, as is provided in the ordinance of Congress of the
13th day of July, 1787, for the government of the Western Territory
of the United States; which ordinance shall, in all its parts,
extend to the Mississippi Territory contained in the present act of
cession, that article only excepted which forbids slavery." The deed
of cession from North Carolina, for the Territory since forming the
State of Tennessee, and dated December ----, 1789, is equally express
in claiming the benefits of this ordinance; so that, made before the
constitution, it has been equally sanctioned by Congress and by States
since. Virginia sanctioned it immediately after its enactment, and
before the commencement of the present Federal Government, to wit, on
the 30th day of December, 1788. The ordinance being thus anterior to
the constitution, was not formed under it, but under the authority
of owners--sovereign owners--exercising the right of taking care of
their own property, subject only to the conditions and limitations
which accompanied its acquisition. And thus the Territories have been
constantly governed independently of the constitution, and incompatibly
with it, and by a statute made before it, and merely extended as a
pre-existing law to each Territory as it came into existence.

[3] The 6th, being the Anti-slavery article.

[4] This was the end of Mr. Jefferson's administration; and,
notwithstanding the purchase of Louisiana, (the annual interest on
the cost of which had to be paid,) and the greatly extended frontier
which required to be guarded, the system of order and economy which he
cherished enabled him to carry on the government (until the privations
of the embargo and non-intercourse) without increase of duties,
and with a moderation of cost which should form the study and the
imitation of succeeding administrations. The duties remained at the
same moderate rates as before--the _ad valorems_, 12-1/2, 15, and 20
per centum; the specifics (increased in number) were not increased in
rate; the free list not only remained undiminished, but was happily
augmented by the addition of salt. The average of the _ad valorems_
was still about 13 per cent., and almost all fell upon the 12-1/2
per centum class--the importations under the other two classes being
inconsiderable, _to wit_, only about half a million, ($520,000,)
subject to the 20 per centum; and only a little over nine millions
under the 15 per centum; while the imports under the 12-1/2 per centum
class amounted to above thirty-six millions of dollars. The articles
used by the body of the people fell into this class, (the other two
classes embracing articles which might be called luxuries,) so that
12-1/2 per centum upon the value may be considered as the duty which
fell upon the country. The expenses of collection still remained at
about 4 per centum, and the revenue cutter service (there being but
little temptation to smuggle under such low duties) cost but a trifle;
and the specific list being considerable, the number of custom house
officers and agents was inconsiderable. The revenue collected from the
_ad valorem_ duties was about seven millions of dollars; that from
specifics about nine millions--leaving sixteen millions for the net
revenue. Of that sum the one-half (just eight millions) went to meet
the interest, and part of the principal, of the public debt. Of the
remainder there went to the military and Indian departments about two
and three-quarter millions; to the navy about one million; to tribute
to Algiers, (masked under the name of foreign intercourse,) two hundred
thousand dollars; and to the civil list, embracing the whole machinery
of the civil government, with all its miscellaneous expenses, about
nine hundred thousand dollars--leaving some two millions surplus
after accomplishing all these objects. It was a model administration
of the government. Mr. Jefferson's administration terminated the
3d of March, 1809, but its fair financial working ceased two years
before--with the breaking up of our commerce under the British orders
in council, and the decrees of the French emperor, and the measures
of privation and of expense which the conduct of Great Britain and of
France brought upon us. The two last years of his administration were
a strong contrast to the six first, and a painful struggle against
diminished revenue and increased expenses, injuries and insults from
abroad, and preparation for war with one of the greatest powers in
the world, while doing no wrong ourselves, and only asking for what
the laws of nations and of nature allowed us--a friendly neutrality,
and exemption from the evils of a war with which we had no concern.
Preparation for war was then a tedious and expensive process; embargo,
non-intercourse, fortifications, ships, militia, regular troops. All
this is now superseded by railroads and volunteers, ready at any moment
to annihilate any invading force; and by privateers, ready to drive the
commerce of any nation from the ocean.




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 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:

  _Fellow-citizens of the Senate
        and House of Representatives_:

    On this first occasion of meeting you, it affords me much
    satisfaction to be able to communicate the commencement of a
    favorable change in our foreign relations, the critical state
    of which induced a session of Congress at this early period.

    In consequence of the provisions of the act interdicting
    commercial intercourse with Great Britain and France, our
    Ministers at London and Paris were, without delay, instructed
    to let it be understood by the French and British Governments
    that the authority vested in the Executive to renew commercial
    intercourse with their respective nations would be exercised in
    the case specified by that act.

    Soon after these instructions were dispatched, it was
    found that the British Government, anticipating from early
    proceedings of Congress, at their last session, the state
    of our laws, which has had the effect of placing the two
    belligerent powers on a footing of equal restrictions,
    and, relying on the conciliatory disposition of the United
    States, had transmitted to their legation here provisional
    instructions, not only to offer satisfaction for the attack on
    the frigate Chesapeake, and to make known the determination
    of His Britannic Majesty to send an Envoy Extraordinary, with
    powers to conclude a treaty on all the points between the two
    countries; but, moreover, to signify his willingness, in the
    mean time, to withdraw his Orders in Council, in the persuasion
    that the intercourse with Great Britain would be renewed on the
    part of the United States.

    These steps of the British Government led to the
    correspondence and the proclamation now laid before you, by
    virtue of which the commerce between the two countries will be
    renewable after the 10th day of June next.

    Whilst I take pleasure in doing justice to the councils of
    His Britannic Majesty, which, no longer adhering to the
    policy which made an abandonment by France of her decrees
    a prerequisite to a revocation of the British orders, have
    substituted the amicable course which has issued thus happily,
    I cannot do less than refer to the proposal heretofore made on
    the part of the United States, embracing a like restoration
    of the suspended commerce, as a proof of the spirit of
    accommodation which has at no time been intermitted, and
    to the result which now calls for our congratulations, as
    corroborating the principles by which the public councils have
    been guided during a period of the most trying embarrassments.

    The discontinuance of the British orders, as they respect the
    United States, having been thus arranged, a communication of
    the event has been forwarded in one of our public vessels
    to our Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris, with instructions
    to avail himself of the important addition thereby made to
    the considerations which press on the justice of the French
    Government a revocation of its decrees, or such a modification
    of them as that they shall cease to violate the neutral
    commerce of the United States.

    The revision of our commercial laws, proper to adapt them to
    the arrangement which has taken place with Great Britain,
    will doubtless engage the early attention of Congress. It
    will be worthy, at the same time, of their just and provident
    care, to make such further alterations in the laws as will
    more especially protect and foster the several branches of
    manufacture, which have been recently instituted or extended by
    the laudable exertions of our citizens.

    Under the existing aspect of our affairs, I have thought
    it not inconsistent with a just precaution, to have the
    gunboats, with the exception of those at New Orleans, placed
    in a situation incurring no expense beyond that requisite for
    their preservation and conveniency for future service, and to
    have the crews of those at New Orleans reduced to the number
    required for their navigation and safety.

    I have thought, also, that our citizens, detached in quotas
    of militia, amounting to one hundred thousand, under the act
    of March, one thousand eight hundred and eight, might not
    improperly be relieved from the state in which they were held
    for immediate service. A discharge of them has been accordingly
    directed.

    The progress made in raising and organizing the additional
    military force, for which provision was made by the act of
    April, one thousand eight hundred and eight, together with the
    disposition of the troops, will appear by a report which the
    Secretary of War is preparing, and which will be laid before
    you.

    Of the additional frigates required by an act of the last
    session to be fitted for actual service, two are in readiness,
    one nearly so, and the fourth is expected to be ready in the
    month of July. A report which the Secretary of the Navy is
    preparing on the subject, to be laid before Congress, will
    show, at the same time, the progress made in officering and
    manning these ships. It will show, also, the degree in which
    the provisions of the act relating to the other public armed
    ships have been carried into execution.

    It will rest with the judgment of Congress to decide how
    far the change in our external prospects may authorize any
    modifications of the laws relating to the Army and Navy
    Establishments.

    The works of defence for our seaport towns and harbors have
    proceeded with as much activity as the season of the year and
    other circumstances would admit. It is necessary, however,
    to state that the appropriations hitherto made being found
    to be deficient, a further provision will claim the early
    consideration of Congress.

    The whole of the eight per cent. stock remaining due by the
    United States, amounting to five millions three hundred
    thousand dollars, had been reimbursed on the last day of the
    year 1808. And, on the first day of April last, the sum in the
    Treasury exceeded nine and a half millions of dollars. This,
    together with the receipts of the current year on account
    of former revenue bonds, will probably be nearly, if not
    altogether, sufficient to defray the expenses of the year.
    But the suspension of exports, and the consequent decrease of
    importations, during the last twelve months, will necessarily
    cause a great diminution in the receipts of the year one
    thousand eight hundred and ten. After that year, should our
    foreign relations be undisturbed, the revenue will again be
    more than commensurate to all the expenditures.

    Aware of the inconveniences of a protracted session, at the
    present season of the year, I forbear to call the attention
    of the Legislature to any matters not particularly urgent. It
    remains, therefore, only to assure you of the fidelity and
    alacrity with which I shall co-operate for the welfare and
    happiness of our country; and to pray that it may experience
    a continuance of the Divine blessings by which it has been so
    signally favored.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.


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:

    _Resolved_, That so much of the President's Message as
    relates to a revision of our commercial laws, for the purpose
    of adapting them to the arrangement which has taken place
    with Great Britain, be referred to a select committee, with
    instructions to examine the same and report thereon to the
    Senate; and that the committee have leave to report by bill or
    otherwise.


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:"

    "That the provisions of the two first 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 extend to all
    public armed ships and vessels of all foreign nations, and the
    same shall be, and are hereby, continued and made permanent,
    subject, nevertheless, to any modifications and regulations
    which may hereafter be made by treaty."

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 <DW44> 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. then read the following extract
of Mr. Canning's speech, taken from a British Ministerial paper:

    _Extract from Mr. Canning's speech in Parliament._

    "At the time the application for a compromise had been made by
    the American Government, there was an order in force excluding
    British ships of war from the American ports, while French
    ships of war were admitted into them; and, consequently, if
    the terms offered by America had been accepted, our commerce
    would have been permitted to America without a ship of war to
    protect it, while the French commerce would be excluded, at
    the same time that French ships of war would be admitted if
    they could succeed in getting there. The ports of America would
    become nests for French privateers against British commerce.
    As to the tendency of the measures in agitation in America, he
    could afford the right honorable gentleman some consolation, by
    assuring him that they would not have all the ill consequences
    he seemed to apprehend. A circumstance appeared by the report
    of the committee of Congress, though clothed in hostile
    language, which, if made known to His Majesty's Government in
    amicable terms, might have led to the acceptance of the terms
    proposed. The circumstance he alluded to was the resolution
    for excluding from American ports the ships of war not of
    Great Britain, but of the belligerents. The Americans, in
    their character of neutrals, had unquestionably a right to
    exclude the ships of war of both belligerents from their
    ports, but could not confine them exclusively to those of one
    of the belligerents without a violation of that impartiality
    which is the essence of the neutral character. Yet, when that
    proposition should be disposed of, the whole of the difficulty
    would not be surmounted, as much would still remain to be
    accommodated. Another point, in which fault had been charged
    upon his conduct with respect to America, was his having stated
    that the system would not be given up while the smallest link
    of the confederation against Great Britain existed."

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 resolution, 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:

    "The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made on
    the 8th instant, that provision ought to be made by law for
    interdicting all foreign armed ships from the waters of the
    United States; and having agreed thereto, ordered that it be
    referred to Mr. Giles, Mr. Smith of Maryland, Mr. Crawford," &c.

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,

    _Resolved_, That the Senate will attend the funeral of
    FRANCIS MALBONE, this afternoon, at five o'clock, from his
    late residence; that notice thereof be given to the House
    of Representatives, and that a committee be appointed for
    superintending the funeral.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. LLOYD, GILMAN, and WHITE, be the committee.

On motion, by Mr. LLOYD,

    _Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of the Senate, from
    a sincere desire of showing their respect to the memory of
    FRANCIS MALBONE, deceased, late a member thereof, will go
    into mourning for him one month, by the usual mode of wearing
    a crape round the left arm; and that a sum not exceeding one
    hundred and fifty dollars be applied out of the contingent
    fund for placing a neat slab or monument, with a suitable
    inscription, over his tomb.

On motion of Mr. LLOYD,

    _Resolved_, That, as an additional mark of respect to the
    memory of FRANCIS MALBONE, the Senate now adjourn.

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:

    _Resolved_, That the Honorable SAMUEL SMITH, a Senator
    appointed by the Executive of the State of Maryland to fill
    the vacancy which happened in the office of Senator for that
    State, is entitled to hold his seat in the Senate of the United
    States during the session of the Legislature of Maryland,
    which, by the proclamation of the Governor of said State, was
    to commence on the 5th day of the present month of June; unless
    said Legislature shall fill such vacancy by the appointment of
    a Senator, and this Senate be officially informed thereof.

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

    "That any Senator of this body, who holds a seat under an
    Executive appointment, cannot, according to the provisions of
    the Constitution of the United States, be entitled to continue
    to hold his seat as a member of this body, after the meeting of
    the Legislature of the State from which such Senator may be a
    member."

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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Franklin, Gaillard, German,
    Giles, Gilman, Goodrich, Griswold, Hillhouse, Lambert,
    Mathewson, Meigs, Pope, Robinson, Smith of New York, Thruston,
    White, and Whiteside.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Leib, Lloyd, Parker, Pickering, and
    Turner.


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,

    _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether it
    be expedient and proper, at this time, to make any provision
    by law for remitting the penalties and forfeitures incurred by
    the violations of some of the provisions of the act, entitled
    "An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or
    place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and
    after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
    thousand eight hundred and eight," so far only as relates to
    the introduction of slaves into certain ports of the United
    States, who were lately forcibly expelled from the island
    of Cuba with the French inhabitants thereof; and that the
    committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. GILES, BRADLEY, ANDERSON, CRAWFORD, and
FRANKLIN, be the committee.


MONDAY, June 19.

                            _Exiled Cubans._

On motion, by Mr. GILES,

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to cause to be laid before the Senate such
    information as he may deem proper to communicate respecting the
    unfortunate exiles lately expelled from the Island of Cuba,
    and who may have arrived, or are expected to arrive within the
    jurisdiction of the United States; and, also, respecting any
    propositions which may have been made to him by the Minister
    Plenipotentiary of France, for the purpose of facilitating
    the removal of any of the said exiles, with their slaves, and
    other effects, from the United States, to any place within the
    dominions of France.


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:

    "That, in the opinion of this committee, such an interdiction
    is within the just and neutral rights of the United States,
    and, under other circumstances, would be highly expedient and
    proper. So long as a neutral nation shall confine itself to
    strict measures of impartiality, allowing no benefit to one
    belligerent, not stipulated by treaty, which it shall refuse
    to another, no cause whatever is afforded for exception or
    complaint. The right to admit an armed force into a neutral
    territory belongs exclusively to the neutral; and when not
    guarantied by treaty, as is oftentimes the case, such admission
    compromises the neutrality of the nation, which permits to one
    belligerent alone such an indulgence.

    "As a measure of safety as well as peace, it is incumbent
    upon the United States to carry into effect such a provision.
    So long as we are without a competent force to protect our
    jurisdiction from violation, and our citizens from outrage, and
    our flag from insult, so long ought no asylum to be given, but
    in distress, to the armed vessels of any nation. The committee
    will not bring into view the many injuries and insults which
    the United States have sustained from the hospitable grant
    of their ports and harbors to belligerents; nor the facility
    which has thereby been afforded to them to lay our commerce
    under contribution. It is sufficient to remark, that great
    injuries have been sustained, and that imperious duty requires
    arrangements at our hands to guard our country in future from
    similar aggressions.

    "The United States are, at this moment, under no obligation to
    withhold restraints, within their power, upon the admission
    of foreign armed vessels into their ports; but the committee
    are too strongly impressed with the propriety of avoiding
    any legislative interference at this time, which, by any
    possibility, might be construed into a desire to throw
    difficulties in the way of promised and pending negotiations.
    They are desirous that a fair experiment may be made to adjust
    our differences with the two belligerent nations, and that
    no provisions be interwoven in our laws which shall furnish
    a pretext for delay, or a refusal to yield to our just and
    honorable demands.

    "Calculating that the overtures which have been made by Great
    Britain will be executed in good faith, the committee are
    willing to believe that the stipulated arrangements will be
    of such a character as to guard our flag from insult, our
    jurisdiction from aggression, our citizens from violation,
    and our mercantile property from spoliation. Under these
    impressions, which the committee have stated as briefly as
    possible, they beg leave to submit to the consideration of the
    Senate the following resolution, viz:

    "_Resolved_, That the further consideration of the subject be
    postponed until the next session of Congress."


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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard,
    Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope,
    Robinson, Smith of New York, Turner, and Whiteside.

    NAYS.--Messrs Bayard, Crawford, German, Gilman, Hillhouse,
    Lloyd, Pickering, Reed, and White.

                     _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.

FOOTNOTES:

[5] LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

  _New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, Nahum Parker.
  _Massachusetts._--Timothy Pickering.
  _Connecticut._--James Hillhouse, Chauncey Goodrich.
  _Rhode Island._--Elisha Mathewson, Francis Malbone.
  _Vermont._--Jonathan Robinson, Stephen R. Bradley.
  _New York._--John Smith.
  _New Jersey._--John Lambert, John Condit.
  _Pennsylvania._--Andrew Gregg, Michael Leib.
  _Delaware._--Samuel White, James A. Bayard.
  _Maryland._--Samuel Smith, Philip Reed.
  _Virginia._--William B. Giles, Richard Brent.
  _North Carolina._--Jesse Franklin, James Turner.
  _South Carolina._--John Gaillard.
  _Georgia._--William H. Crawford.
  _Kentucky._--Buckner Thruston, John Pope.
  _Tennessee._--Joseph Anderson, Jenkin Whiteside.
  _Ohio._--Return Jonathan Meigs, jr., Stanley Griswold.






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:

    _From New Hampshire_--Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain,
    William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, and James Wilson.

    _From Massachusetts_--Ezekiel Bacon, William Baylies, Richard
    Cutts, William Ely, Gideon Gardner, Barzillai Gannett, Edward
    St. Loe Livermore, Benjamin Pickman, junior, Josiah Quincy,
    Ebenezer Seaver, William Stedman, Jabez Upham, Joseph B.
    Varnum, and Laban Wheaton.

    _From Rhode Island_--Richard Jackson, junior, and Elisha R.
    Potter.

    _From Connecticut_--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John
    Davenport, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Lewis
    B. Sturges and Benjamin Tallmadge.

    From Vermont--William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Jonathan
    H. Hubbard, and Samuel Shaw.

    _From New York_--James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barent Gardenier,
    Thomas R. Gold, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston,
    John Nicholson, Peter B. Porter, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons,
    John Thompson, Uri Tracy, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

    _From New Jersey_--Adam Boyd, James Cox, William Helms, Jacob
    Hufty, Thomas Newbold, and Henry Southard.

    _From Pennsylvania_--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert
    Brown, William Crawford, William Findlay, Robert Jenkins, Aaron
    Lyle, William Milnor, John Porter, John Rea, Matthias Richards,
    John Ross, George Smith, Samuel Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

    _From Maryland_--John Brown, John Campbell, Charles
    Goldsborough, Philip B. Key, Alexander McKim, John Montgomery,
    Nicholas R. Moore, Roger Nelson, and Archibald Van Horne.

    _From Virginia_--Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, Matthew
    Clay, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, James Breckenridge, Thomas
    Gholson, junior, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, John G. Jackson,
    Walter Jones, Joseph Lewis, junior, John Love, Thomas Newton,
    John Randolph, John Roane, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, James
    Stephenson, and Jacob Swoope.

    _From North Carolina_--Willis Alston, junior, James Cochran,
    Meshack Franklin, James Holland, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy,
    Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBride, Lemuel Sawyer, Richard
    Stanford, and John Stanley.

    _From South Carolina_--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph
    Calhoun, Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, John Taylor, and Robert
    Witherspoon.

    _From Georgia_--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Dennis Smelt, and
    George M. Troup.

    _From Kentucky_--Henry Crist, Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard,
    Richard M. Johnson, Matthew Lyon, and Samuel McKee.

    _From Tennessee_--Pleasant M. Miller, and John Rhea.

    _From Ohio_--Jeremiah Morrow.

                       _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 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:

    "_Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

    "The continued manifestation of the national confidence
    in me, expressed by the Representatives of the people on
    this occasion, fills my heart with grateful sensibility. In
    obedience to the call of my country, I accept the office
    assigned me, and will endeavor to discharge the duties of it
    according to the best of my abilities, and agreeably to the
    wishes of the House."

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.

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:

    _Resolved_, That unless otherwise directed, the hour of meeting
    during the present session shall be at ten o'clock in the
    forenoon.

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.]


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:

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient that the operation of so
    much of the act, entitled "An act to interdict the commercial
    intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and
    France, and their dependencies," as inhibits the importation of
    goods from Great Britain and its dependencies, be suspended
    until the tenth day of June next.


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:

"DECEMBER 8, 1801.

    "SIR: The circumstances under which we find ourselves at this
    place rendering inconvenient the mode heretofore practised, of
    making by personal address the first communications between
    the Legislative and Executive branches, I have adopted that
    by Message, as used on all subsequent occasions through the
    session. In doing this 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. Trusting that a procedure
    founded in these motives will meet their approbation, I beg
    leave through you, sir, to communicate the enclosed Message."
    &c.

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 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--

    "That the promptitude and frankness with which the President
    of the United States has met the overtures of the Government
    of Great Britain, towards the restoration of harmony and free
    commercial intercourse between the two nations, meets the
    approbation of this House."

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 Committee 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 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
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.

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 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.

    _Resolved_, That the committee, appointed to inquire into what
    prosecutions for libels at common law have been instituted
    before the courts of the United States, be instructed to
    inquire what prosecutions for libels have been instituted
    before the courts of the United States under the second section
    of the act entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled 'An
    act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United
    States,'" passed the 14th day of July, 1798, and the expediency
    of remunerating the sufferers under such prosecutions.

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 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 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 <DW64>s, 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.

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,
insult 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 encouragement 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 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 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.


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 <DW18>, 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 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:

    "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means
    in his power to obtain the liberation of the prisoners, if it
    shall appear to his satisfaction that they were involuntarily
    drawn into the unlawful enterprise in which they were engaged;
    and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose."

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
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 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 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 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 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:

    "_Resolved_, That so much of the message of the President of
    the United States of the seventh of March, one thousand eight
    hundred and eight, as relates to the batture in the suburbs
    of St. Mary's, adjoining New Orleans, and the documents
    accompanying it, together with the petitions of Edward
    Livingston, and the petitions of the citizens of New Orleans
    on the same subject, and the documents which accompanied the
    same, be referred to the Attorney-General of the United States,
    and that he be instructed to receive and collect such other
    testimony as may be necessary to ascertain the title of the
    United States to the before-mentioned batture, and that he
    be directed to report to this House, at the next session of
    Congress, his opinion as to the validity of the claim of the
    United States to the said batture."

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. 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 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 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, 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 measure 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
immediate 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 advocate 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 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 impediment 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
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 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 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.

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 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 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:

    YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson,
    Ezekiel Bacon, William W. Bibb, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert
    Brown, William A. Burwell, Joseph Calhoun, John Campbell,
    Howell Cobb, James Cochran, Orchard Cook, James Cox, Richard
    Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, James Emott, J. W. Eppes,
    William Findlay, Jonathan Fisk, Gideon Gardner, Thomas Gholson,
    jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Thomas R. Gold, Daniel Heister, William
    Helms, Jacob Hufty, Robert Jenkins, Richard M. Johnson, William
    Kennedy, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston,
    John Love, Matthew Lyon, Aaron Lyle, Robert Marion, Vincent
    Matthews, Samuel McKee, William Milnor, John Montgomery,
    Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Newton, Joseph Pearson, John Porter,
    Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, John Rea, of Pennsylvania,
    John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, John Roane, Ebenezer
    Sage, Thomas Sammons, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, George
    Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, John Stanley, James
    Stephenson, Jacob Swoope, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Nicholas
    Van <DW18>, Archibald Van Horne, Robert Weakley, Laban Wheaton,
    Robert Whitehill, Ezekiel Whitman, Robert Witherspoon, and
    Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain, S. W. Dana, John
    Davenport, jr., William Ely, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven,
    James Holland, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Edward St. Loe Livermore,
    Nathaniel Macon, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Ross, Richard
    Stanford, and John Taylor.

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 <DW64>, 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 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 <DW64>s must remain here. He did not want
them, they brought principles which it was known would not promote our
interest or happiness.

    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.

FOOTNOTES:

[6] LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain, William Hale,
Nathaniel A. Haven, James Wilson.

_Massachusetts._--Ezekiel Bacon, William Baylies, Richard Cutts,
Orchard Cook, William Ely, Gideon Gardner, Barzillai Gannett, Edward
St. Loe Livermore, Benjamin Pickman, jr., Josiah Quincy, Ebenezer
Seaver, Samuel Taggart, William Stedman, Jabez Upham, Joseph B. Varnum,
Laban Wheaton, Ezekiel Whitman.

_Rhode Island._--Richard Jackson, jr., Elisha E. Potter.

_Connecticut._--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Lewis B. Sturges, Benjamin
Tallmadge.

_Vermont._--William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Jonathan H. Hubbard,
Samuel Shaw.

_New York._--James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barent Gardenier, Thomas E.
Gold, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Vincent Matthews,
John Nicholson, Gurdon S. Mumford, Peter B. Porter, Ebenezer Sage,
Thomas Sammons, Erastus Root, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Killian K. Van
Rensselaer.

_Pennsylvania._--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert Brown, William
Crawford, William Findlay, Daniel Heister, Robert Jenkins, Aaron Lyle,
William Milnor, John Porter, John Rea, Benjamin Say, Matthias Richards,
John Ross, George Smith, Samuel Smith, John Smilie, Robert Whitehill.

_New Jersey._--Adam Boyd, James Cox, William Helms, Jacob Hufty, Thomas
Newbold, Henry Southard.

_Delaware._--Nicholas Van <DW18>.

_Maryland._--John Brown, John Campbell, Charles Goldsborough, Philip
Barton Key, Alexander McKim, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Roger
Nelson, Archibald Van Horne.

_Virginia._--Burwell Bassett, James Breckenridge, William A. Burwell,
Matthew Clay, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson
Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, Joseph Lewis, jr.,
John Love, Thomas Newton, Wilson Carey Nicholas, John Randolph, John
Roane, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, James Stephenson, Jacob Swoope.

_North Carolina._--Willis Alston, jr., James Cochran, Meshack Franklin,
James Holland, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, Archibald McBride,
Nathaniel Macon, Joseph Pearson, Lemuel Sawyer, Richard Stanford, John
Stanley.

_South Carolina._--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun,
Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, John Taylor, Robert Witherspoon, Richard
Wynn.

_Georgia._--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Dennis Smelt, George W. Troup.

_Kentucky._--Henry Crist, Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, Richard M.
Johnson, Matthew Lyon, Samuel McKee.

_Tennessee._--Pleasant M. Miller, John Rhea, Robert Weakley.

_Ohio._--Jeremiah Morrow.

_Mississippi Territory._--George Poindexter.

_Orleans Territory._--Julian Poydras.




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.

                         _President's Message._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

    _Fellow-citizens of the Senate, and of the House of
    Representatives_:

    At the period of our last meeting, I had the satisfaction
    of communicating an adjustment with one of the principal
    belligerent nations, highly important in itself, and still more
    so, as presaging a more extended accommodation. It is with deep
    concern I am now to inform you, that the favorable prospect
    has been overclouded by a refusal of the British Government to
    abide by the act of its Minister Plenipotentiary, and by its
    ensuing policy towards the United States, as seen through the
    communications of the Minister sent to replace him.

    Whatever pleas may be urged for a disavowal of engagements
    formed by diplomatic functionaries, in cases where, by the
    terms of the engagements, a mutual ratification is reserved;
    or where notice at the time may have been given of a departure
    from instructions; or, in extraordinary cases, essentially
    violating the principles of equity; a disavowal could not have
    been apprehended in a case where no such notice or violation
    existed; where no such ratification was reserved; and, more
    especially, where, as is now in proof, an engagement, to be
    executed, without any such ratification, was contemplated by
    the instructions given, and where it had, with good faith, been
    carried into immediate execution on the part of the United
    States.

    These considerations not having restrained the British
    Government from disavowing the arrangement, by virtue of
    which its orders in council were to be revoked, and the event
    authorizing the renewal of commercial intercourse having thus
    not taken place, it necessarily became a question of equal
    urgency and importance, whether the act prohibiting that
    intercourse was not to be considered as remaining in legal
    force. This question being, after due deliberation, determined
    in the affirmative, a proclamation to that effect was issued.
    It could not but happen, however, that a return to this state
    of things, from that which had followed an execution of the
    arrangement by the United States, would involve difficulties.
    With a view to diminish these as much as possible, the
    instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, now laid
    before you, were transmitted to the collectors of the several
    ports. If, in permitting British vessels to depart without
    giving bonds not to proceed to their own ports, it should
    appear that the tenor of legal authority has not been strictly
    pursued, it is to be ascribed to the anxious desire which was
    felt, that no individuals should be injured by so unforeseen
    an occurrence: and I rely on the regard of Congress for the
    equitable interests of our own citizens, to adopt whatever
    further provisions may be found requisite for a general
    remission of penalties involuntarily incurred.

    The recall of the disavowed Minister having been followed by
    the appointment of a successor, hopes were indulged that the
    new mission would contribute to alleviate the disappointment
    which had been produced, and to remove the causes which had so
    long embarrassed the good understanding of the two nations.
    It could not be doubted that it would at least be charged
    with conciliatory explanations of the step which had been
    taken, and with proposals to be substituted for the rejected
    arrangement. Reasonable and universal as this expectation
    was, it also has not been fulfilled. From the first official
    disclosures of the new Minister, it was found that he had
    received no authority to enter into explanations relative to
    either branch of the arrangement disavowed, nor any authority
    to substitute proposals, as to that branch which concerned the
    British orders in council. And, finally, that his proposals
    with respect to the other branch, the attack on the frigate
    Chesapeake, were founded on a presumption, repeatedly declared
    to be inadmissible by the United States, that the first step
    towards adjustment was due from them; the proposals, at the
    same time, omitting even a reference to the officer answerable
    for the murderous aggression, and asserting a claim not less
    contrary to the British laws and British practice, than to the
    principles and obligations of the United States.

    The correspondence between the Department of State and this
    Minister will show how unessentially the features presented
    in its commencement have been varied in its progress. It
    will show, also, that, forgetting the respect due to all
    governments, he did not refrain from imputations on this, which
    required that no further communications should be received
    from him. The necessity of this step will be made known to His
    Britannic Majesty, through the Minister Plenipotentiary of the
    United States in London. And it would indicate a want of the
    confidence due to a Government which so well understands and
    exacts what becomes foreign Ministers near it, not to infer
    that the misconduct of its own Representative will be viewed in
    the same light in which it has been regarded here. The British
    Government will learn, at the same time, that a ready attention
    will be given to communications, through any channel which may
    be substituted. It will be happy, if the change in this respect
    should be accompanied by a favorable revision of the unfriendly
    policy which has been so long pursued towards the United States.

    With France, the other belligerent, whose trespasses on
    our commercial rights have long been the subject of our
    just remonstrances, the posture of our relations does not
    correspond with the measures taken on the part of the United
    States to effect a favorable change. The result of the several
    communications made to her Government, in pursuance of the
    authorities vested by Congress in the Executive, is contained
    in the correspondence of our Minister at Paris, now laid before
    you.

    By some of the other belligerents, although professing just
    and amicable dispositions, injuries materially affecting our
    commerce have not been duly controlled or repressed. In these
    cases, the interpositions deemed proper, on our part, have
    not been omitted. But, it well deserves the consideration of
    the Legislature, how far both the safety and the honor of the
    American flag may be consulted, by adequate provisions against
    that collusive prostitution of it by individuals, unworthy
    of the American name, which has so much favored the real or
    pretended suspicions, under which the honest commerce of their
    fellow-citizens has suffered.

    In relation to the powers on the coast of Barbary, nothing has
    occurred which is not of a nature rather to inspire confidence
    than distrust, as to the continuance of the existing amity.
    With our Indian neighbors, the just and benevolent system
    continued towards them, has also preserved peace, and is more
    and more advancing habits favorable to their civilization and
    happiness.

    From a statement which will be made by the Secretary of
    War, it will be seen that the fortifications on our maritime
    frontier are, in many of the ports, completed, affording the
    defence which was contemplated; and that a further time will
    be required to render complete the works in the harbor of New
    York, and in some other places. By the enlargement of the
    works, and the employment of a greater number of hands at the
    public armories, the supply of small arms, of an improving
    quality, appears to be annually increasing, at a rate, that,
    without those made on private contract, may be expected to go
    far towards providing for the public exigency.

    The act of Congress providing for the equipment of our vessels
    of war having been fully carried into execution, I refer to
    the statement of the Secretary of the Navy for the information
    which may be proper on that subject. To that statement is added
    a view of the transfers of appropriations, authorized by the
    act of the session preceding the last, and of the grounds on
    which the transfers were made.

    Whatever may be the course of your deliberations on the subject
    of our military establishments, I should fail in my duty in not
    recommending to your serious attention the importance of giving
    to our militia, the great bulwark of our security and resource
    of our power, an organization the best adapted to eventual
    situations, for which the United States ought to be prepared.

    The sums which had been previously accumulated in the Treasury,
    together with the receipts during the year ending on the 30th
    of September last, and amounting to more than nine millions
    of dollars, have enabled us to fulfil all our engagements,
    and to defray the current expenses of our Government, without
    recurring to any loan. But the insecurity of our commerce, and
    the consequent diminution of the public revenue, will probably
    produce a deficiency in the receipts of the ensuing year, for
    which, and for other details, I refer to the statements which
    will be transmitted from the Treasury.

    In the state which has been presented of our affairs with the
    great parties to a disastrous and protracted war, carried on in
    a mode equally injurious and unjust to the United States as a
    neutral nation, the wisdom of the National Legislature will be
    again summoned to the important decision on the alternatives
    before them. That these will be met in a spirit worthy of the
    councils of a nation conscious both of its rectitude and of its
    rights, and careful as well of its honor as of its peace, I
    have an entire confidence. And that the result will be stamped
    by a unanimity becoming the occasion, and be supported by every
    portion of our citizens, with a patriotism enlightened and
    invigorated by experience, ought as little to be doubted.

    In the midst of the wrongs and vexations experienced from
    external causes, there is much room for congratulation on
    the prosperity and happiness flowing from our situation at
    home. The blessing of health has never been more universal.
    The fruits of the seasons, though in particular articles
    and districts short of their usual redundancy, are more
    than sufficient for our wants and our comforts. The face of
    our country every where presents the evidence of laudable
    enterprise, of extensive capital, and of durable improvement.
    In a cultivation of the materials, and the extension of useful
    manufactures, more especially in the general application
    to household fabrics, we behold a rapid diminution of our
    dependence on foreign supplies. Nor is it unworthy of
    reflection, that this revolution in our pursuits and habits
    is in no slight degree a consequence of those impolitic
    and arbitrary edicts, by which the contending nations, in
    endeavoring, each of them, to obstruct our trade with the
    other, have so far abridged our means of procuring the
    productions and manufactures of which our own are now taking
    the place.

    Recollecting, always, that, for every advantage which may
    contribute to distinguish our lot from that to which others are
    doomed by the unhappy spirit of the times, we are indebted to
    that Divine Providence whose goodness has been so remarkably
    extended to this rising nation, it becomes us to cherish a
    devout gratitude, and to implore, from the same Omnipotent
    source, a blessing on the consultations and measures about to
    be undertaken for the welfare of our beloved country.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  NOVEMBER 29, 1809.


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,

    _Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of the Senate, from
    a sincere desire of showing their respect to the memory of the
    Honorable SAMUEL WHITE, deceased, late a member thereof, will
    go into mourning for one month, by the usual mode of wearing a
    crape round the left arm.


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 resolution; which was read the first time, and
passed to the second reading:

    _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the
    expressions contained in the official letter of Francis James
    Jackson, Minister Plenipotentiary of his Britannic Majesty
    near the United States, dated the 23d day of October, 1809,
    and addressed to Mr. Smith, Secretary of State, conveying the
    idea, that the Executive Government of the United States had
    knowledge that the arrangement lately made by Mr. Erskine,
    his predecessor, on 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,
    were highly indecorous and insolent; that the repetition of
    the same intimation in his official letter dated the 4th of
    November, 1809, after he was apprised, by the asseveration of
    the Secretary of State, that the Executive Government had no
    such knowledge, and that if it had possessed such knowledge
    such arrangement would not have been entered into on the part
    of the United States, and after also being officially apprised
    that such intimation was inadmissible, was still more insolent
    and affronting; and that, in refusing to receive any further
    communications from him in consequence of these outrageous and
    premeditated insults, the Executive Government has manifested
    a just regard to its own dignity and honor, as well as to the
    character and interest of the American people.

    That the letter signed Francis James Jackson, headed
    "Circular," dated the 13th of November, 1809, and published
    and circulated through the country, is a still more direct
    and aggravated insult and affront to the American people and
    their Government, as it is evidently an insidious attempt
    to excite their resentments and distrusts against their own
    Government, by appealing to them, through false or fallacious
    disguises, against some of its acts; and to excite resentments
    and divisions amongst the people themselves, which can only
    be dishonorable to their own characters and ruinous to their
    own interests; and the Congress of the United States do hereby
    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 insults and to assert and maintain the rights, the
    honor, and the interests of the United States.

                   _Privileges of Foreign Ministers._

Mr. GILES, from the same committee, also reported the following bill,
which was read and passed to a second reading:

    A bill to prevent the abuse of the privileges and immunities
      enjoyed by Foreign Ministers within the United States.

    _Be it enacted, &c._, That if any foreign Ambassador, Minister,
    or other person, entitled to enjoy within the United States
    the privileges and immunities of a foreign Minister, shall
    have committed, or may hereafter commit, any such act as by
    the laws and usages of nations would justify the President
    of the United States in ordering such offending Ambassador,
    Minister, or other person as aforesaid, out of the District
    of Columbia, or out of the Territories of the United States;
    or in sending him home to his Sovereign, or to some place
    or territory within his Sovereign's jurisdiction; in every
    such case where the President of the United States shall
    deem it proper and expedient to exercise his constitutional
    authority, in either of these respects he shall be, and is
    hereby authorized and empowered to cause a warrant to be issued
    and signed by the Secretary of State, directed to any civil
    officer of the United States, authorized to serve process, or
    any military officer under the authority of the United States,
    commanding him to provide for and enforce the departure of such
    Ambassador, Minister, or other person offending as aforesaid,
    taking due precautions to avoid improper or unnecessary
    violence in executing such warrant. And all officers, civil
    and military, under the authority of the United States, are
    hereby required and enjoined to be obedient to such warrant.
    And in case any officer, civil or military, to whom such
    warrant shall be directed, shall fail, or unreasonably delay to
    execute the same, every officer so offending shall be deemed
    guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be punished by fine
    and imprisonment before any court of the United States having
    cognizance of the offence. _Provided_, That the fine shall not
    exceed ---- dollars, nor the imprisonment be for a longer time
    than ---- years.

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 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 manoeuvres 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, 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 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.

    [Here the exceptionable passages were read.]

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 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:

    [Here Mr. GILES read the paragraphs from Mr. Jackson's letter,
    which charged that Mr. Erskine had shown to Mr. Smith,
    Secretary of State, the inadmissible conditions laid down in
    Mr. Canning's despatch; and then read Mr. Erskine's statement
    that he had not shown that part of Mr. Canning's despatch, and
    giving the reason why he had not done it.]

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--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 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 misrepresentation 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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Condit, Crawford, Gaillard,
    German, Giles, Gilman, Gregg, Griswold, Lambert, Leib,
    Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope, Reed, Smith of Maryland,
    Sumter, and Turner.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Goodrich, Hillhouse, Lloyd, and Pickering.


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.


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 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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Campbell, Clay, Condit,
    German, Mathewson, Meigs, Parker, Pope, Robinson, Sumter, and
    Whiteside.

    NAYS.-Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Champlin, Crawford, Franklin,
    Gaillard, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert,
    Leib, Lloyd, Pickering, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New
    York, Tait, and Turner.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in
the affirmative--yeas 26, nays 7, as follows;

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Brent, Campbell, Champlin,
    Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg,
    Hillhouse, Horsey, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Mathewson, Meigs,
    Pickering, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Sumter,
    Tait, Turner, and Whiteside.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Clay, Condit, German, Parker, Pope, and
    Robinson.

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:

    "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    required to instruct our Minister at the Court of Great Britain
    to demand of the British Government an immediate compliance
    with the arrangement made by their Minister, Mr. Erskine, with
    this Government, comprising atonement for the attack upon the
    frigate Chesapeake, and a relinquishment of the Orders in
    Council; and that, on failure to execute that arrangement, our
    Minister be directed forthwith to return to the United States.

    "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    required to instruct our Minister at the Court of Great Britain
    to demand of the British Government an immediate release of all
    American citizens impressed into the British service, and that,
    on failure or refusal to make such release, our Minister be
    directed forthwith to return to the United States.

    "_Resolved_, That, on the failure or refusal of the Government
    of Great Britain, after demand made by our Minister to carry
    into effect the arrangements made by Mr. Erskine, the British
    Minister, or, on the refusal or failure to release all American
    citizens impressed into the British service, the President of
    the United States be authorized to issue letters of marque
    and reprisal against the ships and vessels belonging to the
    Government and subjects of Great Britain."


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 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 embargo. 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
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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Champlin, Gaillard, German,
    Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg, Hillhouse, Horsey, Leib, Lloyd,
    Parker, Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, and Whiteside.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Brent, Campbell, Clay, Condit,
    Crawford, Franklin, Giles, Lambert, Mathewson, Meigs, Pope,
    Smith of New York, Tait, and Turner.


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.

    [The bill was for a new bank of 30 millions capital, the
    subscription for shares open to every citizen of the United
    States or of its Territories, to copartnerships composed of
    such citizens or body politic incorporated within the United
    States, to the amount of 1000 shares.]


WEDNESDAY, April 4.

                      _Bank of the United States._

The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate the following report of the
Secretary of the Treasury, made in pursuance of the resolution of the
Senate of the 2d instant:

                 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, _April 3, 1810_.

    SIR: I have the honor to transmit a report, prepared in
    obedience to the resolution of the Senate of yesterday.

                      I have the honor to be, &c.,

                                                        ALBERT GALLATIN.

    _To the honorable the President of the Senate_:

    The Secretary of the Treasury, in obedience to the resolution
    of the Senate, of the 2d instant, respectfully reports--

    That the statement annexed to the report made to the Senate on
    the 2d day of March, 1809, contained all the dividends made by
    the Bank of the United States, from its establishment to the
    date of the report, as stated to the Treasury by the bank.

    That the annexed table, (A,) being a transcript of the
    above-mentioned statement, with the addition of the dividends
    made on the 1st day of July, 1809, and on the first day of
    January last, embraces not only the semi-annual dividends of 4
    per cent., but also all the extra dividends which are within
    the knowledge of this Department, and which, it is believed,
    have ever been made by the bank; making, in the whole, an
    average of 8 13-36 per cent. a year.

    That there remained to the credit of the bank, after payment of
    the dividend made on the first day of January last, a surplus
    of $409,410, consisting of two items, viz: $125,000, designated
    by the name of "General Bank Estate," intended as an offset
    against decay and presumed loss, in case of sale of the real
    estate of the bank--that estate having been paid for from
    the capital stock, and not from the profits of the bank; and
    $284,410, designated by the name of "Contingent Fund," intended
    in the first place to cover losses arising from bad debts, not
    yet actually lost; and the residue of which, if any, will be
    applicable to another extra dividend.

    That the nominal profit resulting to the bank, from each of
    its offices of discount and deposit, could not be ascertained
    without an investigation of all the weekly returns made to this
    Department; and that there are no returns from which the actual
    loss sustained by each office can be known.

    But, that the statement (B) shows the permanent capital given
    to each office of discount and deposit; the balance due in
    account current by the offices of the bank, (exclusive and in
    addition to the said permanent capital,) on the 27th day of
    March last; the amount of the notes actually discounted and
    due to the bank by the last returns, specifying the amount
    discounted at Philadelphia, and at each office respectively;
    and an estimate of the gross amount of the annual expenses and
    losses of the bank, including its several offices, by which it
    appears that the annual expenses, being about $125,000 a year,
    the ascertained losses must in the whole have amounted to about
    $35,000 a year.

    All which is respectfully submitted.

                                                        ALBERT GALLATIN.



_Dividends on United States Bank Stock._

  ==========================================
    No.  |      Date.      |  Rate p. ct.
  -------+-----------------+----------------
      1  |  July,    1792  |    4
      2  |  January, 1793  |    4
      3  |  July,      "   |    3-5/8[7]
      4  |  January, 1794  |    3-7/8[7]
      5  |  July,      "   |    4
      6  |  January, 1795  |    4
      7  |  July,      "   |    4
      8  |  January, 1796  |    4
      9  |  July,      "   |    4
     10  |  January, 1797  |    4
     11  |  July,      "   |    4
     12  |  January, 1798  |    5[8]
     13  |  July,      "   |    4
     14  |  January, 1799  |    4
     15  |  July,      "   |    4
     16  |  January, 1800  |    4
     17  |  July,      "   |    4
     18  |  January, 1801  |    6[8]
     19  |  July,      "   |    4
     20  |  January, 1802  |    4-1/2[8]
     21  |  July,      "   |    4-1/2[8]
     22  |  January, 1803  |    4-1/2[8]
     23  |  July,      "   |    4
     24  |  January, 1804  |    4-1/2[8]
     25  |  July,      "   |    4
     26  |  January, 1805  |    4
     27  |  July,      "   |    4
     28  |  January, 1806  |    4
     29  |  July,      "   |    4
     30  |  January, 1807  |    6[8]
     31  |  July,      "   |    4
     32  |  January, 1808  |    4
     33  |  July,      "   |    4
     34  |  January, 1809  |    4
     35  |  July,      "   |    4
     36  |  January, 1810  |    4
  ==========================================


_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._

  ===================================================
       Cities, &c.     |   Capital.  | Amt. of notes
                       |             |   discounted
  ===================================================
  Boston               |    $700,000 |    $998,859
  New York             |   1,800,000 |   4,175,874
  Baltimore            |     600,000 |   1,349,550
  Washington           |     200,000 |     485,285
  Norfolk              |     600,000 |     880,170
  Charleston           |     600,000 |   1,409,916
  Savannah             |     500,000 |   1,054,113
  New Orleans          |     300,000 |     611,517
  Philadelphia--       |             |
    Balance due the    |             |
      bank, in account |             |
      current, by the  |             |
      offices $750,000 |             |
  Cap. res'd 3,950,000 |             |
             --------- |   4,700,000 |
                       |-------------|
                       | $10,000,000 |
  Funded debt          |     --      |   1,411,620
                       |             |-------------
                       |             | $16,949,497
  ===================================================

           _Estimate of the expenses and losses of the Bank._

    Six per cent, on $17,000,000, estimated as per above, as
      the amount usually loaned on interest, is, per annum,
      $1,020,000--to wit:

  Dividend of 8 13-36 per cent. a year, on ten millions of      $836,111
  dollars actually paid to the stockholders, is, per annum

  Undivided surplus on the 1st January, 1810, $409,410,           22,745
  divided by 18 years, would be equal to an annual dividend
  of

  Leaving for the estimated annual amount of expenses and        161,144
  losses
                                                             -----------
  Total                                                       $1,020,000
                                                             ===========


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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Brent, Champlin, German, Gilman, Goodrich,
    Hillhouse, Horsey, Lloyd, Meigs, Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith
    of New York, Tait, and Whiteside.

    NAYS.--Messrs, Anderson, Bayard, Bradley, Clay, Condit,
    Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Leib,
    Smith of Maryland, Sumter, and Turner.

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:

    "_Provided further_, That the said convention shall, by an
    article in the constitution so to be formed, irrevocable
    without the consent of the United States, provide, that,
    after the admission into the Union of the said Territory of
    Orleans as a State, the laws which such State may pass shall
    be promulgated, and its records of every description shall
    be preserved, and its written, judicial, and legislative
    proceedings conducted, in the language in which the laws and
    the written, judicial, and legislative proceedings of the
    United States are now published and conducted:"

It was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 12, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Campbell, Champlin, Clay, Giles, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Horsey, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Meigs, Pickering, Pope,
    Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, and Turner.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bradley, Condit, Crawford, Franklin,
    Gaillard, German, Gregg, Hillhouse, Reed, Sumter, and Whiteside.


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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Brent, Champlin, Crawford,
    German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey, Lloyd, Pickering,
    Pope, Reed, Smith of New York, Sumter, and Turner.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Clay, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard,
    Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Meigs, Robinson, Smith
    of Maryland, and Whiteside.


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:

_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:

    "_Provided_, That the several States shall assent thereto, or
    an amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall
    authorize Congress to admit said Territory of Orleans into the
    Union, on the footing of the original States:"

It was determined in the negative--yeas 8, nays 20, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Champlin, German, Goodrich, Hillhouse, Horsey,
    Lloyd, Pickering, and Reed.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Clay, Condit, Crawford,
    Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gilman, Gregg, Lambert, Leib,
    Mathewson, Meigs, Pope, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, Tait,
    Turner, and Whiteside.

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;

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Brent, Clay, Condit, Crawford,
    Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Lloyd, Mathewson,
    Meigs, Smith of Maryland, Sumter, Tait, Turner, and Whiteside.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Champlin, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hillhouse,
    Horsey, Leib, Pickering, and Reed.


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:

                 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, _April 28, 1810_.

    SIR: I have the honor to transmit a report prepared in
    obedience to the resolution of the Senate, of the twenty-six
    instant. I have the honor to be, &c.,

                                                        ALBERT GALLATIN.

    _To the Honorable the President of the Senate_:

    The Secretary of the Treasury, in obedience to the resolution
    of the Senate, of the 26th instant, respectfully reports--

    That it appears, by the letter from the Register of the
    Treasury, herewith transmitted, that the statement of all the
    claims adjusted and allowed, by virtue of the act, entitled "An
    act providing for the settlement of the claims of persons under
    particular circumstances, barred by the limitations heretofore
    established," cannot be completed before the day contemplated
    for the adjournment of Congress, but will be prepared so as to
    be laid before the Senate at the commencement of their next
    session.

    That the statement (A) herewith transmitted, exhibits the
    amount of the balances standing on the books of the Treasury
    against the United States, which are barred by the statutes of
    limitation, and arranged under the following heads, viz:

  Loan Office certificates                     $90,811 36
  Indents for interest on the public debt       64,590 98
  Final settlement certificates                 23,873 24
  Commissioners' certificates                    4,304 83
  Army commissioners' do.                       46,468 97
  Credits given in lieu of army commissioners'
    certificates cancelled                      28,674 30
  Credits for pay of the army, for which no
    certificates were ever issued               17,132 11
  Invalid pensions                              16,635 46
                                               ----------
    Amounting together to                      292,491 25
                                               ==========

    That so far as relates to the said balances, which result
    altogether from accounts actually settled at the Treasury, the
    statute of limitation can be repealed without subjecting the
    Government to imposition; but that considering the length of
    time which has elapsed since the claims have been barred, and
    the little value on that account affixed to them, the repeal of
    the statute, unless properly guarded in that respect, may not
    generally benefit the rightful claimants.

    And that with the exception of those balances, it is not
    believed that it would be safe to repeal the statute of
    limitation in relation to any other general description
    of claims; although there may be special cases in which,
    notwithstanding the lapse of time, the proper proofs and checks
    may still exist, so as to prevent any imposition on the public.

    All which is respectfully submitted.

                                                        ALBERT GALLATIN.



TUESDAY, May 1.

                            _Barred Claims._

Mr. HILLHOUSE, from the same committee, further reported as follows:

    _Resolved_, That the Secretary for the Department of the
    Treasury report to the Senate, at their next meeting, the
    necessary provisions for guarding the Treasury of the United
    States from fraud and imposition on the removal of the statute
    of limitations, in relation to the following claims mentioned
    in his report of the 28th of April, 1810, viz:

    1. Loan office certificates.

    2. Indents for interest on the public debt.

    3. Final settlement certificates.

    4. Commissioners' certificates.

    5. Army certificates.

    6. Credits given in lieu of Army certificates cancelled.

    7. Credits for the pay of the Army, for which no certificates
    were issued.

    8. Invalid pension.

    Also, how far the statute of limitations may with safety be
    removed, as to claims for personal services rendered in the
    Army of the United States, during the Revolutionary war, and
    the guard and checks necessary and proper to be adopted.

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.

FOOTNOTES:

[7] Dividends falling short of the rate of 8 per cent. per annum.

[8] Including extra dividends.




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:

    _From New Hampshire_--Daniel Blaisdell, and Nathaniel A. Haven.

    _From Massachusetts_--Ezekiel Bacon, Richard Cutts, William
    Ely, Barzillai Gannett, Josiah Quincy, Sam'l Taggart, Charles
    Turner, jr., Jabez Upham, Joseph B. Varnum, (the Speaker,) and
    Laban Wheaton.

    _From Vermont_--William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, Jonathan
    H. Hubbard, and Samuel Shaw.

    _From Rhode Island_--Richard Jackson.

    _From Connecticut_--Epaphroditus Champion, Samuel W. Dana, John
    Davenport, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, junior, Lewis B.
    Sturges, and Benjamin Tallmadge.

    _From New York_--James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Thomas R. Gold,
    Robert Le Roy Livingston, Peter B. Porter, Erastus Root,
    Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, John Thompson, and Killian K.
    Van Rensselaer.

    _From New Jersey_--Adam Boyd, James Cox, William Helms, Jacob
    Hufty, Thomas Newbold, and Henry Southard.

    _From Pennsylvania_--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert
    Brown, William Crawford, Aaron Lyle, William Milnor, John
    Porter, John Rea, Matthias Richards, John Smilie, George Smith,
    Samuel Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

    _From Maryland_--Charles Goldsborough, John Montgomery,
    Nicholas R. Moore, Roger Nelson, and Archibald Van Horne.

    _From Virginia_--Burwell Bassett, James Breckenridge, John
    Clopton, John Dawson, John W. Eppes, Thomas Gholson, junior,
    Peterson Goodwyn, John G. Jackson, Joseph Lewis, junior, John
    Love, Thomas Newton, John T. Roane, John Smith, and James
    Stephenson.

    _From North Carolina_--Willis Alston, junior, James Cochran,
    William Kennedy, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBride, Joseph
    Pearson, Lemuel Sawyer, and Richard Stanford.

    _From South Carolina_--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph
    Calhoun, Robert Marion, Thomas Moore, and John Taylor.

    _From Georgia_--Howell Cobb, and George M. Troup.

    _From Ohio_--Jeremiah Morrow.

    _From Kentucky_--Joseph Desha, Benjamin Howard, Richard M.
    Johnson, and Samuel McKee.

    _From Tennessee_--Pleasant M. Miller, John Rhea, and Robert
    Weakley.

    _From Mississippi Territory_--George Poindexter.

    _From Indiana Territory_--Jonathan Jennings.

    _From Orleans Territory_--Julien Poydras.

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 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:

    _Respect for the House._

    _To the Speaker of the House of Representatives_:

    Sir: An occurrence having recently taken place between a
    member of the House of Representatives and myself, produced
    by circumstances not at all connected with his official
    duties or opinions, which from the time and place may be
    considered disrespectful to the House of Representatives, I
    take the liberty of tendering through you my most respectful
    declarations, that I am the last who would wilfully
    manifest a deficiency of that reverence which is due to the
    Representatives of my country, or that sacred regard which is
    also due to their privileges.

    To yourself, sir, personally, I tender the assurances of my
    very great respect.

                                                         I. A. COLES.[9]

  NOVEMBER 29, 1809.


[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:

    _Resolved_, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be
    instructed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the
    entry of any vessel into the United States from any port or
    place to which a vessel of the United States is not admitted
    by permanent regulation of the Government owning such port or
    place by treaty.

    _Resolved_, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures
    be instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing
    the registering anew of vessels built in the United States,
    which are owned in whole by citizens of the United States,
    any disability incurred by such vessel to the contrary
    notwithstanding; and also into the expediency of forbidding by
    law sea-letters or any custom-house documents being granted to
    vessels not registered or licensed according to law, or not
    owned by citizens of the United States, within a limited time
    after the passing of such a law.

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, 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:

    _Resolved_, That a standing committee be appointed, to be
    called the Committee of Manufactures, whose duty it shall be
    to take into consideration all such petitions, matters, and
    things, touching manufactures, as shall be presented, or shall
    or may come in question and be referred to them by the House,
    and to report, from time to time, their opinion thereon.

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 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:

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient to authorize the President
    by law to instruct the commanders of the armed vessels of the
    United States to stop and bring into the ports of the same
    all ships or vessels with their cargoes, the property of the
    subjects of the King of Great Britain and of the Emperor of
    France, bound to ports other than those within the dominions or
    colonies of either.

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient further to authorize by law
    the detention of all ships or vessels, with their cargoes,
    the property of the subjects of the King of Great Britain,
    until the duties to be regulated and ascertained by law shall
    be first levied and collected upon the goods and merchandise
    whereof the said ships or vessels shall be laden, and until the
    said ships or vessels shall have received due license to depart.

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient further to authorize by law
    the detention of all ships or vessels, with their cargoes, the
    property of the subjects of the Emperor of France, brought
    within the ports of the United States, there to abide the final
    decision or order of the Government in relation to the same.

    _Resolved_, That an ad valorem duty of ---- be levied and
    collected on all the goods, wares, or merchandise, of British
    product or manufacture.

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient further to authorize the
    President, on payment of the duties authorized to be levied
    and collected on the goods laden on board vessels the property
    of the subjects of the King of Great Britain, forthwith to
    grant a license to such vessels to depart and to proceed to
    the port of original destination without further hindrance or
    molestation.

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.

    _Resolved_, That the committee appointed to report on the rules
    and orders for the government of the House, do report a rule
    declaring, "That if any member, in the course of debate, shall
    make use of opprobrious or vilifying language with respect to
    any member, or call into question the integrity of his motives,
    or those of either branch of the Government in relation to
    the discharge of his official duties, except on a motion for
    impeachment, or for other interposition of the constitutional
    powers of this House--or apply to either indecorous or
    reproachful expressions--it shall be deemed a breach of the
    orders of the House."

    That said committee be instructed further to report a rule
    declaring, "That if any member, during the session of Congress,
    whether of the House or not, shall give or send to any other
    member during his actual attendance at the seat of Government,
    a challenge to fight a duel, or if the member so challenged
    shall accept the same, it shall be deemed a breach of the
    privileges of the House, as well on the part of such members
    as on that of any other person whether a member or not, who
    shall be aiding, abetting, or assisting in giving or sending
    such challenge, or in carrying the same into effect, and every
    such member shall be held liable to be expelled from the House
    therefor."

    That said committee be further instructed to report a rule
    declaring, "That if any person, during the session of
    Congress, whether a member of the House or not, shall commit
    personal violence or assault upon any member during his actual
    attendance at the seat of Government, it shall be deemed a
    breach of the privileges of the House, as well on the part
    of the person so assaulting, as on that of any other person
    who shall be aiding, abetting, or assisting therein, and such
    person, if a member, shall be held liable to be punished
    therefor, at the discretion of the House."

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:

    _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law to authorize
    the President of the United States to cause the several persons
    who were removed from the batture, in front of the suburb St.
    Mary, in the city of New Orleans, on the 25th January, 1808, to
    be restored to the possession thereof; to be held with the same
    right with which they respectively held the same, prior to such
    removal; any thing to the contrary notwithstanding.

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient to authorize the President of
    the United States, if he shall be of opinion that the United
    States have such a claim to the batture, in front of the suburb
    of St. Mary, in the city of New Orleans, as will justify the
    expense of prosecuting the same, with the assent of the
    persons removed therefrom, on the 25th January, 1808, to name
    three persons, who shall have full power to hear, and finally
    determine, all right, title, claim, and demand, whatsoever,
    as well of the United States as the persons so removed, both
    in law and equity; and their decision, or a majority of them,
    shall be binding, as well on the United States as the said
    parties.

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient to authorize the President
    of the United States, if he shall deem it most proper, to
    compromise the conflicting claims of the United States and the
    persons removed from the batture of the suburb of St. Mary,
    in the city of New Orleans, or cause the same to be tried in
    a court of the United States, in such a manner, and at such
    place, as will secure an impartial trial.

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:

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to lay before the House a copy of a paper purporting
    to be a circular letter from Mr. Jackson to the British
    Consuls in the United States, referred to in the letter of the
    Secretary of State to Mr. Pinkney, accompanying the Message of
    the 29th November.

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.

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:

    _To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

    According to the request of the House of Representatives,
    expressed in their resolution of the 11th instant, I now lay
    before them a printed "copy of a paper purporting to be a
    circular letter from Mr. Jackson to the British Consuls in the
    United States," as received in a gazette at the Department of
    State; and also a printed paper, received in a letter from our
    Minister in London, purporting to be a copy of a despatch from
    Mr. Canning to Mr. Erskine, of the 23d of January last.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  DECEMBER 12, 1809.


[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:

                          WASHINGTON, _November 13, 1809_.

                             (_Circular_.)

    SIR: I have to inform you, with much regret, that the
    facts which it has been my duty to state in my official
    correspondence with Mr. Smith, have been deemed by the
    President of the United States to afford a sufficient motive
    for breaking off an important negotiation, and for putting
    an end to all communication whatever with me as the Minister
    charged with that negotiation, so interesting to both nations,
    and on one most material point of which an answer has not
    even been returned to an official and written overture. One
    of the facts alluded to has been admitted by the Secretary
    of State himself, in his letter to me of the 19th October,
    viz: that the three conditions forming the substance of Mr.
    Erskine's original instructions were submitted to him by that
    gentleman; the other, viz: that that instruction is the only
    one in which the conditions were prescribed to Mr. Erskine for
    the conclusion of an arrangement on the matter to which it
    related, is known to me by the instructions which I have myself
    received. In stating these facts, and in adhering to them, as
    my duty imperiously enjoined me to do, in order to repel the
    frequent charges of ill faith which have been made against His
    Majesty's Government, I could not imagine that offence would
    be taken at it by the American Government, as most certainly
    none could be intended on my part; and this view of the subject
    has been made known to Mr. Smith. But, as I am informed by
    him, that no farther communication will be received from me, I
    conceive that I have no alternative left, which is consistent
    with the King's dignity, but to withdraw altogether from this
    city, and to wait elsewhere the arrival of His Majesty's
    commands upon the unlooked-for turn which has thus been given
    to his affairs in this country. I mean in the interval to make
    New York the place of my residence, where you will henceforward
    please to direct your communications to me, as I shall be
    accompanied by every member of His Majesty's mission.

  I am, &c.

                                                          F. J. JACKSON.


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 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 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 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:

    "Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer;
    And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer."

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 the letter of I. A. Coles to the Speaker
of the House, made the following report:

    That, according to that order, they have taken into
    consideration the subject referred to them; that in making
    the proposed inquiry they have taken the depositions of the
    honorable James Turner, a Senator of the United States, and of
    Mr. Samuel Sprigg, which depositions they beg leave to report
    to the House.

    From these depositions it was established, to the satisfactory
    belief of your committee, that Mr. I. A. Coles, without any
    immediate previous altercation or provocation, did assault and
    strike a member of this House, within the walls of the north
    wing of the Capitol; that this act was done on Monday, the
    27th ult., about one o'clock P. M., and after this House had
    adjourned over to the following day.

    That, from the assertions of Mr. Coles, and from the actual
    admission of the member assaulted, your committee were
    satisfied that the provocation or supposed provocation which
    occasioned the attack did not arise from any thing said or any
    act done by the member of this House, in the fulfilment of his
    duties as a Representative in the Congress of the United States.

    Your committee are of opinion that this latter circumstance
    may be received in extenuation, but cannot be admitted in
    justification of the act done by Mr. Coles; and, from all
    the circumstances of the case, they are of opinion that said
    assault and violence offered to the member was a breach of the
    privileges of this House.

    Your committee further report, that they have considered the
    letter of Mr. Coles to the Speaker of this House, together with
    another letter from Mr. Coles addressed to the Chairman of your
    Committee, (which they also beg leave to report to the House,)
    that these two letters, in the opinion of your committee,
    do contain acknowledgments and apologies on the occasion,
    which ought to be admitted as satisfactory to the House. They
    therefore recommend the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That any further proceeding in the above case is
    unnecessary.

    _To the Hon. John Taylor, Chairman, &c._

    SIR: Understanding that the declaration which I had the honor
    this morning to make before the committee, will be more
    acceptable if put in the written form, I hasten to comply with
    what I believe to be their wish, in tendering through them, to
    the House of Representatives, the renewed assurance "that if
    I could have supposed that the circumstance alluded to in my
    letter to the Speaker, would have been construed into a breach
    of the privilege of the House, it would not have occurred at
    the time and in the place where it unfortunately happened."

    With sentiments of great respect, I am your obedient humble
    servant,

                                                            I. A. COLES.

  _December 28, 1808._


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 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.

    [Here Mr. RHEA entered into a close examination of the
    correspondence between the British Minister and the American
    Secretary of State, to show, _first_, the insult to the
    American Government by charging it with falsehood; _secondly_,
    the falsity of that charge by showing that it was founded on
    false assumptions and continued:]

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 course proper to be pursued; and
therefore moved the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to lay before this House any information he may
    possess relative to the blockade of the ports of the Baltic by
    France, and the exclusion of neutral vessels by Russia, Sweden,
    and Denmark.

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:

    "The favorable change in the relations of His Majesty with
    the United States, which has been produced by the act usually
    termed the non-intercourse act, passed at the last session
    of Congress, was also anticipated by His Majesty, and has
    encouraged a further hope that a reconsideration of existing
    differences might lead to their satisfactory adjustment. On
    these grounds and expectations, I am instructed to communicate
    to the American Government His Majesty's determination of
    sending to the United States an Envoy Extraordinary, invested
    with full powers to conclude a treaty on all points of the
    relations between the two countries. In the mean time, with a
    view to the attainment of so desirable an object, His Majesty
    would be willing to withdraw his Orders in Council of January
    and November, 1807, so far as respects the United States, in
    the persuasion that the President would issue a proclamation
    for the renewal of the intercourse with Great Britain, and
    that whatever difference of opinion should arise in the
    interpretation of the terms of such an agreement, will be
    removed in the proposed negotiation."

In another letter, of April 19, he says:

    "In consequence of the acceptance by the President, as stated
    in your letter of the 18th instant, of the proposals made by
    me on the part of His Majesty, in my letter of the same day,
    for the renewal of the intercourse between the respective
    countries, I am authorized to declare that His Majesty's Orders
    in Council of January and November, 1807, will have been
    withdrawn, as respects the United States, on the 10th day of
    June next." (1809.)

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:

    "In consequence of official communications sent to me from His
    Majesty's Government, since the adoption of that measure, I am
    enabled to assure you that it has no connection whatever with
    the overtures (of the 19th of April, 1809) which I have been
    authorized to make to the Government of the United States, and
    that I am persuaded that the terms of the agreement so happily
    concluded by the recent negotiation, will be strictly fulfilled
    on the part of His Majesty. The internal evidence of the order
    itself would fully justify the foregoing construction, and,
    moreover, it will not have escaped your notice, that the repeal
    has not thereby been made of the orders of the 7th of January,
    1807, which, according to the engagement I have entered into
    on the part of His Majesty, is to be abrogated with the other
    orders, in consequence of the adjustment of differences between
    the two countries, and the confidence entertained of a further
    conciliatory understanding."

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:

    "Under these circumstances, therefore, finding that I could
    not obtain the recognitions specified in Mr. Canning's
    despatch of the 23d of January, (which formed but one part
    of his instructions to me,) in the formal manner required,
    I considered that it would be in vain to lay before the
    Government of the United States the despatch in question,
    which I was at liberty to do _in extenso_, had I thought
    proper. But as I had such strong grounds for believing that
    the object of His Majesty's Government could be attained,
    though in a different manner, and the spirit, at least, of
    my several letters of instructions be fully complied with, I
    feel a thorough conviction on my mind that I should be acting
    in conformity with His Majesty's wishes, and, accordingly,
    conclude the late provisional agreement on His Majesty's behalf
    with the Government of the United States."

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 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 contain 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."

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 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:

    YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson,
    Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,
    Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell,
    William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, Howell Cobb,
    James Cochran, James Cox, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, John
    Dawson, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, Jonathan
    Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannett, Gideon Gardner,
    Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, William Helms, James
    Holland, Benjamin Howard, Jacob Hufty, Robert Jenkins, Richard
    M. Johnson, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, John Love, Aaron
    Lyle, Robert Marion, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, William
    Milnor, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Jeremiah Morrow,
    Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, John Nicholson, Peter B. Porter,
    John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias
    Richards, John Roane, Erastus Root, John Ross, Ebenezer Sage,
    Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Dennis Smelt,
    John Smilie, George Smith, Henry Southard, John Taylor, John
    Thompson, Uri Tracy, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Weakley,
    Robert Whitehill, and Robert Witherspoon.

    NAYS.--Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge, John C.
    Chamberlain, William Chamberlin, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin
    Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., William Ely,
    James Emott, Barent Gardenier, Thomas R. Gold, William Hale,
    Nathaniel A. Haven, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Richard Jackson,
    jr., Herman Knickerbacker, Joseph Lewis, jr., Edward St.
    Loe Livermore, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Nathaniel Macon,
    Archibald McBryde, Jonathan O. Mosely, Jos. Pearson, Benjamin
    Pickman, jr., Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah
    Quincy, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, William Stedman, James
    Stephenson, Lewis B. Sturges, Jacob Swoope, Samuel Taggart,
    Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Killian K. Van Rensselaer,
    Laban Wheaton, Ezekiel Whitman, and James Wilson.

[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
<DW18>,* _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 before 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 <DW18>, 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:

    That it is stated by the petitioner, that her late husband,
    Alexander Hamilton, served as Lieutenant Colonel in the Army
    of the United States during the Revolutionary war; that, in
    common with other officers he was entitled to five years' full
    pay as commutation for half-pay during life; that her husband,
    being in Congress at the time the resolution passed making
    this provision in favor of the officers of the Revolution, in
    a letter to the Secretary of War he relinquished his claim
    to commutation; and the petitioner prays for the amount of
    said commutation. It does not appear, from any evidence
    from the Secretary of War or of the Treasury, that the late
    Colonel Hamilton ever did relinquish his right to half-pay or
    commutation, nor can the committee believe that it would be
    proper or generous that such relinquishment should be relied on
    as a bar to a just claim upon the United States for meritorious
    services against the representatives of such claimant. It
    appears, from a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, that
    the late Colonel Hamilton received pay as an officer up to the
    end of February, 1782, and no later. And there is no evidence
    upon the Treasury books, or books of the War Office, whether at
    this or what period Colonel Hamilton resigned. The committee,
    however, have been furnished with a document, which induces
    the belief that Colonel Hamilton did not resign his commission
    until after the 28th day of October, 1783, which document is in
    these words: "In pursuance of an act of Congress of the 30th
    day of September, 1783, Lieutenant Colonel Hamilton is to take
    rank as Colonel by Brevet, in the Armies of the United States
    of America. Signed at Princeton, October 28, 1783, by Elias
    Boudinot, President," &c.

    The committee are of opinion, that the resolution of Congress,
    upon a liberal construction, did not require actual service,
    and that the officer should be in the receipt of his pay
    to entitle him to commutation; but that he should have a
    commission, and be at all times liable to be called on to
    perform the duties of his station. The committee are confirmed
    in this opinion, when they recollect the situation of the
    United States and the Army in the year 1783, and in fact, from
    the capture of Cornwallis and his Army at Little York, in the
    State of Virginia, in the year 1781. But this claim is, like
    all other claims of this description, barred by the statute of
    limitation. The following resolution is offered:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petition ought not to be
    granted.


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:

    That, by a resolution of Congress of the 15th of May, 1778, all
    military officers who then were, or should thereafter be, in
    the service of the United States, and who should continue in
    service during the war, and not hold any office of profit under
    the United States, or any of them, should, after the conclusion
    of the war, be entitled to receive, annually, for the term of
    seven years, if they should live so long, one-half of the then
    pay of such officers: provided that no general officer of the
    cavalry, artillery or infantry, should be entitled to receive
    more than the one-half part of the pay of a colonel of such
    corps, respectively; and, provided that the said resolution
    should not extend to any officer in the service of the United
    States, unless he should have taken an oath of Allegiance, and
    should actually reside within some one of the United States.

    That, by a resolution of Congress of the 11th of August, 1779,
    it was resolved that the half-pay provided by the aforesaid
    resolution of the 15th of May, 1778, should be extended to
    continue for life.

    That, by a resolution of Congress of the 21st of October, 1780,
    it was provided that the officers who should continue in the
    service to the end of the war should be entitled to half-pay
    during life, to commence from the time of their reduction.

    That, by a resolution of Congress of the 17th day of January,
    1781, all officers in the hospital department, and medical
    staff, thereinafter mentioned, who should continue in service
    until the end of the war, or be reduced before that time as
    supernumeraries, should be entitled to receive during life, in
    lieu of half-pay, the following allowances, viz: The director
    of the hospital, equal to the half-pay of a lieutenant-colonel;
    chief physician and surgeons of the army and hospital, and
    hospital physicians and surgeons, purveyor, apothecary, and
    regimental surgeons, each equal to the half-pay of a captain.

    That, by a resolution of Congress of the 22d day of March,
    1783, it was provided that such officers as were then in
    service, and should continue therein until the end of the war,
    should be entitled to receive the amount of five years' full
    pay in _money_, or securities on interest at six per centum per
    annum, as Congress should find most convenient, instead of the
    half-pay promised for life by the resolution of the 21st day
    of October, 1780; the said securities being such as should be
    given to the other creditors of the United States: provided it
    should be at the option of the lines of the respective States
    and not of officers individually in those lines, to accept or
    refuse the same; and provided, also, that their election should
    be signified to Congress, through the Commander-in-Chief, from
    the lines under his immediate command, within two months, and
    through the commanding officer of the Southern Army, from those
    under his command, within six months from the date of the
    resolution.

    That the same commutation should extend to the corps not
    belonging to the lines of any particular State, and who were
    entitled to half-pay as aforesaid: the acceptance or refusal
    to be determined by the corps, and to be signified in the
    same manner, and within the same time, as above mentioned;
    that all officers belonging to the hospital department, who
    are entitled to half-pay by the resolution of the 17th of
    January, 1781, might collectively agree to accept or refuse
    the aforesaid commutation, signifying the same through the
    Commander-in-Chief, within six months; that such officers as
    had retired at different periods entitled to half-pay for
    life, might, collectively, in each State of which they are
    inhabitants, accept or refuse the same; their acceptance
    or refusal to be signified by agents authorized for that
    purpose, within six months; that with respect to such retiring
    officers, the commutation, if accepted by them, should be in
    lieu of whatever might be then due to them since the time of
    their retiring from service, as well as what might thereafter
    become due; and that as soon as their acceptance should be
    signified, the Superintendent of Finance should be, and he was
    thereby, authorized to take measures for the settlement of
    their accounts accordingly, and to issue to them certificates
    bearing interest at six per cent.; that all officers entitled
    to half-pay for life, not included in the preceding resolution,
    might, also, collectively, agree to accept or refuse the
    aforesaid commutation, signifying the same within six months
    from the passage of said resolution. The petitioners state,
    and the fact is of too general notoriety to be disputed, that
    although they confidently expected, at the time they were
    compelled from imperious necessity to accept the sum in gross
    in lieu of half-pay for life, that it would be paid to them
    in reality, and not by a fresh promise without any sufficient
    guarantee for its due performance, yet they were compelled
    to receive certificates, which, for want of any specific
    provision for the payment of them, or the interest accruing on
    them, were immediately depreciated to five for one, and, by
    degrees, to ten for one, in exchange for money. They therefore
    pray that half-pay for life, to commence from the time of the
    reduction of the Army, may be granted to them, according to the
    solemn stipulations entered into with them by Congress, by the
    resolutions before referred to; deducting therefrom the five
    years' full pay received by them in depreciated paper, by way
    of commutation.

    It is well known to your committee, and to the whole nation,
    that the far greater part of the officers were compelled by
    hard necessity to dispose of their commutation certificates
    at prices infinitely below their nominal amount; that this
    did not proceed from want of patriotism, of which they had
    beforehand given proofs most unequivocal, or of want of
    confidence in their Government; but that, after having spent
    the vigor of their manhood in the service of their country,
    they returned to the walks of civil life, (many of them maimed,
    and scarcely able to halt along,) ignorant of what was passing
    or likely to pass in the councils of their country; the griping
    hand of poverty bore hard upon them; and, unacquainted as they
    necessarily were with civil affairs, they fell an easy prey to
    the wiles of the artful and insidious speculator, who was lying
    in wait to fatten upon their hard earnings. Under circumstances
    like these, it would have been strange indeed, if they had
    kept their certificates in their pockets. No, the thing was
    impracticable; go they must, for whatever they would bring, and
    be the consequences whatever they might.

    Upon the whole, the committee are of opinion that the contract
    entered into by Congress with the officers of the late
    Revolutionary Army, for giving them half-pay for life, has
    not been substantially complied with by the Government. They,
    therefore, recommend the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioners is reasonable,
    and ought to be granted.


FRIDAY, February 9.

                     _Robert Fulton and Torpedoes._

The following letter was laid before the House:

"KALORAMA, _February 9, 1810_.

    "SIR: Having published a pamphlet explaining my experience on
    the practice and effects of torpedoes, I beg leave to present
    you, and each member of the House of Representatives, one copy.
    Should the House consider this subject of sufficient interest
    to merit further explanation, I shall be happy to give a
    lecture at such time and place as may be most convenient, in
    which I will exhibit the various modes of attack with torpedoes
    and harpoon guns, as prepared for action, with such models and
    demonstrations as will lead to a clear understanding of the
    subject.

  "I have the honor to be, &c.,

"ROBERT FULTON.

  "Hon. SPEAKER _House of Reps._"


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:

        _To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

    I transmit to the House a report of the Secretary of State,
    complying with their resolution of the 22d of January.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  FEBRUARY 9, 1810.

                         DEPARTMENT STATE, _Feb. 8, 1810_.

    The Secretary of State, to whom the President has been pleased
    to refer the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
    22d of last month, has the honor to state that it appears from
    the records in this department, that in the years 1801 and
    1802, the Executive had endeavored to obtain, for the citizens
    of the United States residing on the waters of Tombigbee and
    Alabama rivers, the free navigation of the Mobile river to its
    confluence with the ocean--first, by claiming this navigation
    as a natural right, sanctioned by the general principles of the
    law of nations applicable to rivers similarly situated; and,
    secondly, by endeavoring to purchase the country held by Spain
    on the Mobile.

    These efforts were made before it was known that Spain had
    ceded Louisiana to France, and consequently before the purchase
    of that province by the United States. Since that purchase, the
    country held by Spain on the Mobile has been claimed as being
    included therein.

    The Spanish Government, having objected to this claim in a
    manner which justified a belief that the question would not
    be soon decided, our Minister at Madrid was instructed again
    to claim the free navigation of the Mobile under the general
    principles of the law of nations, and to represent to His
    Catholic Majesty the propriety and necessity of giving orders
    to his officers not to interrupt the free communication with
    our Territories through the waters of the Mobile.

    In addition to what has been done through this department, it
    appears that the Governor of the Orleans Territory, and other
    officers of the United States, have endeavored to induce the
    Spanish authorities on the Mobile to abstain from exacting
    duties on the passage of our merchandise or produce up or
    down that river. Notwithstanding, however, every thing which
    has been done, it is understood that these authorities have
    continued to exact (with some occasional relaxations) a duty of
    twelve per cent. "on all articles of the growth or manufacture
    of the United States, which are conveyed through said river to
    and from the city of New Orleans."

    All which is respectfully submitted.

                                                               R. SMITH.



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:

    The committee to whom was referred a letter from Robert Fulton
    to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated on the
    9th instant, beg leave to report, in part, that at their
    request Mr. Fulton attended the committee on this morning,
    and explained to them his views of the uses and effects of
    torpedoes, on which the committee forbear to give an opinion,
    and offer the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That, when the House shall adjourn on Friday next,
    it will adjourn to meet on Monday; and that Mr. Fulton have the
    use of this Hall on Saturday, for the purpose of exhibiting
    the torpedoes and delivering a lecture on their practice and
    utility.

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.

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:

    "_Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be
    granted."

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 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:

    That in proceeding to the consideration of the said petition,
    your committee instructed their chairman to address a letter
    to the Secretary of the Treasury, requesting him to furnish
    such information or observations as he might think proper, in
    relation to the subject-matter thereof, as connected with the
    financial and commercial interests of the United States. In
    reply to which, the Secretary, by his letter to the chairman,
    referred your committee to his former report on the said
    subject, made to the Senate of the United States, in obedience
    to the order of that House.

    Your committee have been attended by agents of the petitioners,
    who, in addition to the matters contained in the petition,
    have suggested to your committee that the object of the
    petitioners was to obtain the renewal of the charter in its
    present form; that, for this renewal, the bank is willing to
    make compensation, either by loans at a rate of interest,
    or by a sum of money to be agreed upon, or by an increase
    of the capital stock, by a number of shares to be taken and
    subscribed for by the United States, to an amount adequate to
    the compensation to be agreed upon for such renewal.

    These agents also suggested that they were fully authorized
    and empowered to offer and conclude the terms specifically
    connected with these propositions.

    Your committee, not feeling themselves authorized to enter into
    such terms, and judging that the extent of those propositions
    would better apply to the details of a bill, than to the
    adoption of a principle to be first settled by the House,
    have, therefore forborne to inquire into the extent of the
    propositions, and, without expressing an approbation or
    rejection of these offers, or giving an opinion as to the plan
    and reasoning of the Secretary of the Treasury, your committee
    in order that the opinion of the House on this great national
    question may be declared previous to entering into the details
    connected with the subject, recommend the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That it is proper to make provision for continuing
    the establishment of the Bank of the United States, with
    offices of discount and deposit, under the regulations
    necessary for the beneficial administration of the national
    finances, during such time, and on such conditions, as may be
    defined by law.


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:

    That the petitioner claims compensation for a stud-horse,
    known by the name of Romulus, taken from her husband, David
    Dardin, in the year 1781, for the use of the army of the
    United States. It appears that the said horse was impressed
    from David Dardin for the public service by Lieutenant Rudder,
    a Continental officer, on the 26th of February, in the year
    aforesaid, and was then valued at the sum of £750 specie. The
    horse was taken to the army in North Carolina, then commanded
    by General Greene, who, upon hearing of the valuation, ordered
    the said horse to be valued again, which valuation was still
    higher than the first; whereupon General Greene ordered the
    horse to be returned to his former owner, who called upon
    three persons to ascertain the damages sustained by the use of
    his horse, and they estimated the damages at £100. The said
    Dardin then received the horse as his property, and continued
    to use him as such until the 18th July, 1781, when another
    Continental officer again took the horse and gave a receipt
    for him, wherein the sum of £750 is mentioned as having been
    before stated as the appraised value. This procedure attracted
    the attention of the Executive of Virginia, and in December,
    1782, Benjamin Harrison, then Governor, made a representation
    to General Greene respecting this subject; but the horse being
    by this time in the State of Georgia, and applied to the public
    service, was continued therein, finally disposed of, and never
    thereafter returned to the said owner. It also appears that
    this claim of Dardin was referred to the Virginia Assembly
    in 1782 by the court of Mecklenburg county; and, in a former
    report it is stated, and believed to be true, that Dardin
    accordingly petitioned the Legislature of that State; but his
    claim being considered as coming more properly against the
    Union than against any particular State, he did not succeed.
    He, or the present petitioner, was then advised that redress
    might be obtained against the officers who took the horse,
    and a suit was instituted in the High Court of Chancery of
    Virginia for that purpose, which suit was depending therein
    until the month of June 1793, when it appears to have been
    abandoned and was dismissed. With the exception of the fact
    which the committee have extracted from a former report in
    this case, that this claim was once presented to and rejected
    by the Virginia Legislature, (which is deemed a circumstance
    of no particular importance,) all the foregoing statement is
    supported by written documents, which appear to be genuine and
    authentic.

    On the merits of this claim, your committee consider it almost
    superfluous to comment. The facts are conclusive in its favor,
    and no obstacle to its discharge can be conceived, except the
    lapse of time on this subject. The committee beg leave to
    state, that on the 23d July, 1787, Congress passed a resolution
    providing that all persons having unliquidated claims against
    the United States shall exhibit a particular abstract thereof
    to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States
    within one year. This was the first limitation that was
    adopted in respect to any class of claims, except those for
    personal services, which had been barred by the resolution
    of 2d November, 1785. The committee are of opinion that this
    claim was not included in the resolution of 23d July, 1787,
    because that resolution mentions only unliquidated claims;
    and the present claim was always liquidated and certain. The
    certificate granted by the Continental officer states the
    appraisement of the horse, made pursuant to the usage of the
    army, at the specific sum of £750 specie.

    The next limitation to claims against the United States, and
    which it is believed by the committee embraces the claim of
    the petitioner, is contained in the act of the 12th February,
    1793, which took effect on the 1st of May, 1794. On the 28th of
    February, 1794, the petitioner, instead of presenting her claim
    to the Treasury, according to the requisition of the statute
    of the 12th of February, 1793, presented it to Congress, who
    took cognizance of it, and ordered it to lie on their table.
    Her petition, and the only documents on which she could have
    succeeded at the Treasury, were retained in the possession of
    the House of Representatives until, and for some time after,
    the statute of limitations began to operate. Your committee
    have no hesitation in hazarding the opinion that in a case
    like this, between A and B, before an intelligent and upright,
    and equitable judge, the claim would be most undoubtedly
    sanctioned, as not coming within the spirit, although it may
    fall within the strict letter of the act of limitation.

    Placing, however, this question out of view, the committee
    are still of opinion that the claim of the petitioner ought
    to be allowed. They believe that when a claim, founded in a
    fair consideration, and supported by indisputable evidence, is
    presented for payment, a proper self-respect on the part of the
    Government, as well as justice to the claimant, requires its
    discharge. They therefore submit the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought to be
    granted.


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:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be
    granted.

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:

    That in the month of February, 1794, William Scott, James
    Pettigrew, and John Pettigrew, of South Carolina, left that
    State, with a view of establishing themselves in the present
    Mississippi Territory, and took with them twenty-one <DW64>
    slaves, with goods and chattels to the value of more than
    one thousand dollars; that they proceeded in safety on their
    journey as far as the Muscle Shoals, on the river Tennessee,
    where they were attacked, about the 9th of June, 1794, by a
    party of Cherokee Indians, who put to death all the white
    people of the family, and took possession of and carried away
    the <DW64>s and other property. It appears, also, to your
    committee, that repeated endeavors have been made, at very
    great expense, to recover the aforesaid property, without
    any other success than the recovery of a <DW64> child; and
    that the persons legally entitled to the said property are
    forever foreclosed from any remedy by which to recover the
    same, in consequence of the stipulations of the ninth article
    of a treaty made with the Cherokee Indians on the 2d day of
    October, 1798, which article is in the following words: "It is
    mutually agreed between the parties that the horses stolen,
    and not returned within ninety days, shall be paid for at
    the rate of sixty dollars each. If stolen by a white man,
    citizen of the United States, the Indian proprietor shall be
    paid in cash; and if stolen by an Indian from a citizen, to
    be deducted, as expressed in the fourth article of the Treaty
    of Philadelphia. This article shall have retrospect to the
    commencement of the first conferences at this place in the
    present year, and no further. And all animosities, aggressions,
    thefts, and plunderings, prior to that day, shall cease, and
    be no longer remembered or demanded on either side." By the
    above-recited article, the petitioners are wholly deprived
    of redress in the premises. If there existed any tribunal of
    justice before whom the case could be brought, the right of the
    petitioners to the said <DW64> slaves and their increase would
    doubtless be established. But there is no court within the
    United States having cognizance of an action for the recovery
    of property held within the Indian boundary. Neither is it
    in the power of the petitioners to avail themselves of force
    or stratagem, whereby to regain possession of the aforesaid
    slaves and their increase, because they would be liable to
    punishment for a violation of the statute of the United States
    regulating intercourse with the Indian tribes. From these
    premises, it appeared to your committee that the petitioners
    have an undoubted right to the above-mentioned slaves and their
    increase, and that they have been deprived of all remedy for
    their recovery by the acts of the Government of the United
    States; that the voluntary renunciation of their rights by
    the Government gives to the petitioners a fair claim on the
    Government for indemnification. Your committee, therefore,
    under an impression that the aforesaid slaves would be
    delivered to the agent of the United States for Indian Affairs
    among the Cherokee Indians upon conditions more favorable to
    the United States than a full remuneration of their value to
    the petitioners, respectfully submit the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioner is reasonable,
    and that the President of the United States be authorized and
    requested to treat, by such commissioner as he shall appoint,
    for the delivery to the rightful owners of the slaves and their
    increase taken from William Scott, James Pettigrew, and John
    Pettigrew, on or about the 9th of June, 1794, by a party of the
    Cherokee nation of Indians, at or near the Muscle Shoals, on
    the river Tennessee, upon such equitable conditions as to him
    shall appear just and reasonable.


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:

    "_Provided_, That it shall be made to appear, to the
    satisfaction of the accounting officers of the Treasury
    Department, that the said Alexander Hamilton ever was entitled
    to half pay or commutation."

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.

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. 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:

    "'T was early day, as poets say,
      Just when the sun was rising,
    A soldier stood on log of wood,
      And saw a sight surprising.

    "As in amaze he stood to gaze,
      The truth can't be denied, sir,
    He spied a score of kegs, or more,
      Come floating down the tide, sir.

    "A sailor, too, in jerkin blue,
      The strange appearance viewing,
    First damn'd his eyes, in great surprise,
      Then said--'some mischief's brewing.'

    "These kegs now hold the rebels bold,
      Pack'd up like pickled herring,
    And they 're come down, t' attack the town
      In this new way of ferry'ng.

    "The soldier flew--the sailor too,
      And, scar'd almost to death, sir,
    Wore out their shoes to spread the news,
      And ran till out of breath, sir.

    "Now up and down, throughout the town,
      Most frantic scenes were acted;
    And some ran here, and some ran there,
      Like men almost distracted.

    "Some fire cried, which some denied,
      But said the earth had quaked;
    And girls and boys, with hideous noise.
      Ran through the town half naked." &c. &c.

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 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
anything 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:

    That the memorialist states that, for the purpose of laying a
    foundation for the establishment of a first meridian for the
    United States of America, at the seat of Government, he has
    made calculations to determine the longitude of the Capitol,
    in the City of Washington, from Greenwich Observatory, in
    England; and that he submits the same, together with the
    data and elements on which his calculations are made, to the
    consideration and patronage of the National Legislature.

    The committee have deemed the subject worthy the attention of
    Congress, and would, therefore, beg leave to observe, that the
    necessity of the establishment of a first meridian, or meridian
    which should pass through some particular place on the globe,
    from which geographers and navigators could compute or reckon
    longitude, is too obvious to need elucidation.

    The ancient Greek geographers placed their first meridian to
    pass through one of the islands, which were by them called the
    Fortunate Islands, since called the Canaries. Those islands
    were situated as far west as any lands that had then been
    discovered, or were known by ancient navigators in that part of
    the world.

    They reckoned their longitude east, from Heria or Junonia, one
    of these islands supposed to be the present Island of Teneriffe.

    The Arabians, it is said, fixed their first meridian at
    the most westerly part of the continent of Africa. In the
    fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when Europe was emerging
    from the dark ages, and a spirit of enterprise and discovery
    had arisen in the South of Europe, and various plans were
    formed, and attempts made to find a new route to the East
    Indies, geographers and navigators continued to calculate
    longitude from Ferro, one of the same islands, though some of
    them extended their first meridian as far west as the Azores or
    Western islands.

    In more modern times, however, most of the European nations,
    and particularly England and France, have established a first
    meridian to pass through the capital, or some place in their
    respective countries, and to which they have lately adapted
    their charts and astronomical tables.

    It would perhaps have been fortunate for the science of
    geography and navigation, that all nations had agreed upon
    a first meridian, from which all geographers and navigators
    might have calculated longitude; but as this has not been done,
    and in all probability never will take place, the committee
    are of opinion that, situated as we are in this Western
    hemisphere, more than three thousand miles from any fixed or
    known meridian, it would be proper, in a national point of
    view, to establish a first meridian for ourselves; and that
    measures should be taken for the eventual establishment of such
    a meridian in the United States.

    In examining the maps and charts of the United States, and
    the particular States, or their seacoasts, which have been
    published in this country, the committee find that the
    publishers have assumed different places in the United States,
    as first meridians.

    This creates confusion, and renders it difficult, without
    considerable calculation, to ascertain the relative situation
    of places in this country. This difficulty is also increased,
    by the circumstance that, in Louisiana, our newly-acquired
    territory, longitude has heretofore been reckoned from Paris
    the capital of the French Empire.

    The exact longitude of any place in the United States being
    ascertained from the meridian of the observatory at Greenwich,
    in England, a meridian with which we have been conversant,
    it would not be difficult to adapt all our maps, charts, and
    astronomical tables, to the meridian of such a place. And no
    place, perhaps, is more proper than the seat of Government.

    It appears by the papers submitted to the consideration of the
    committee, that Mr. Lambert has calculated the longitude of the
    Capitol in the City of Washington, from the Royal observatory
    at Greenwich, by one of the most approved methods now in use
    for that purpose, viz: an occultation of a known fixed star by
    the moon.

    His calculations are founded on an occultation of n pleiadum,
    (_Alcyone_,) one of the seven stars, on the night of the 20th
    of October, 1804. By these calculations it appears, that
    the longitude of the Capitol, in the city of Washington, as
    reduced according to the true figure of the earth, (being that
    of an oblate spheroid,) is 76° 53´ 6".920 degrees west. The
    committee would observe, that Mr. Lambert appears to be well
    acquainted with astronomical calculations; and that, so far
    as the committee have had time to examine them, they appear
    to be correct. In a question, however, of so much nicety, the
    correct decision of which depends so much on the accuracy of
    the observations made, and the goodness of the instruments
    used, and when the smallest error in the data will necessarily
    produce an erroneous result, full reliance ought not to be
    placed on calculations made from a single observation.

    Indeed, in order to be certain of a correct result, it may
    be proper that more than one of the various methods of
    ascertaining longitude should be used; that calculations
    should be made from observations of the eclipses of Jupiter's
    satellites, of solar eclipses, of the angular distances between
    the sun and moon, or the moon and a fixed star, or other
    methods, as well as from observations on occultations of fixed
    stars.

    The committee are, therefore, of opinion that, in order to
    lay a foundation for the establishment of a first meridian in
    this Western hemisphere, the President of the United States
    should be authorized to cause the longitude of the city of
    Washington, from the observatory at Greenwich, in England, to
    be ascertained with the greatest possible degree of accuracy;
    and that he also be authorized, for that purpose, to procure
    the necessary astronomical instruments.

    They, therefore, beg leave to submit to the consideration of
    the House, the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient to make provision, by law,
    authorizing the President of the United States to cause the
    longitude of the city of Washington from the observatory at
    Greenwich, in England, to be ascertained with the greatest
    degree of accuracy; and also authorizing him, for that purpose,
    to procure the necessary astronomical instruments.

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:

    "SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That the President of
    the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, at any
    time within one year, to make and execute such compromise with
    the parties, or any of them, who were removed from the said
    batture on the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand eight
    hundred and eight, by order of the President of the United
    States, and to procure a cession of their claims thereto, or
    to any part thereof, for the use of the public, or to any body
    politic or corporate, on such terms as may be agreed on with
    the said parties, and deemed advisable by the President, and to
    stipulate for a compensation, either in money or public lands,
    in the city of New Orleans, or its territories, as he may think
    proper."

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 members 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:

    _Resolved_, That the apportionment of Representatives amongst
    the several States, according to the third enumeration of the
    people, ought to be in the ratio of one Representative for
    every forty-five thousand persons in each State, and that a
    committee be appointed to bring in a bill accordingly.

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 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:

    _Resolved_, That the members of this House do wear crape on the
    left arm during the remainder of the session, as a testimony of
    respect for the memory of William Washington, late a Lieutenant
    Colonel in the Revolutionary army.

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 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:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon,
    David Bard, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A.
    Burwell, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, Matthew Clay, John
    Clopton, Howell Cobb, James Cox, William Crawford, John Dawson,
    Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes, William Findlay, Meshack Franklin,
    David S. Garland, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, James
    Holland, Benjamin Howard, Jacob Hufty, Richard M. Johnson,
    Walter Jones, Aaron Lyle, Samuel McKee, Nicholas R. Moore,
    Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, John Porter,
    John Roane, Erastus Root, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons,
    Ebenezer Seaver, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Dennis Smelt,
    George Smith, John Smith, Henry Southard, Robert Weakley,
    Robert Whitehall, Robert Witherspoon, and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--William W. Bibb, Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge,
    William Chamberlin, Epaphroditus Champion, James Cochran,
    Richard Cutts, John Davenport, junior, William Ely, James
    Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Barzillai Gannett, Thos. R. Gold, William
    Hale, Daniel Heister, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Richard Jackson,
    jr., Robert Jenkins, William Kennedy, Herman Knickerbacker,
    Joseph Lewis, jun., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Matthew Lyon,
    Nathaniel Macon, Robt. Marion, Vincent Matthews, Archibald
    McBryde, Pleasant M. Miller, William Milnor, Thomas Moore,
    Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Benjamin Pickman, jun.,
    Timothy Pitkin, jun., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John
    Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee,
    Matthias Richards, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, Samuel Smith,
    Richard Stanford, John Stanley, James Stephenson, Jacob Swoope,
    Samuel Taggart, John Taylor, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, George
    M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Jabez Upham, Nicholas Van <DW18>,
    Archibald Van Horne, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton,
    Ezekiel Whitman, and James Wilson.


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:

    _Resolved_, That the House of Representatives are deeply
    sensible of the loss this nation has sustained in the death of
    General William Washington, late Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army
    of the Revolution, and that the rejection of the resolution
    offered on the 11th instant, in relation to that distinguished
    officer, having been produced wholly by considerations of a
    general nature, cannot be deemed to derogate from the high
    sense which this House, in common with their fellow-citizens,
    entertain of his civil and military virtues and services.

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:

                             WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1810_.

    SIR: After a tedious passage from New Orleans I arrived at
    Baltimore on the 16th instant, and reached this city the
    next day. My absence has been necessarily protracted by the
    selection of papers, from a mass of twenty years' accumulation,
    for the establishment of facts, to refute the multifarious and
    diversified calumnies by which I have been assailed.

    I now present myself to the Representative body of the nation,
    the guardians of the public weal and the protectors of
    individual rights, to express my earnest desire that they may
    constitute some impartial tribunal, which may be governed with
    strictness by the principles of the constitution and the laws
    of evidence, to investigate the conduct of my whole life, civil
    and military, whereby justice may be done, and my unexampled
    persecution be terminated.

    I aver my innocence of the foul offences which are imputed
    to me, and declare my ability to support it before any
    unprejudiced court. Through you, sir, I appeal to my
    country, and I claim that right which is not refused to the
    most profligate--the right of confronting my accusers. The
    Representatives of the people will not, I am persuaded, suffer
    a fellow-citizen who has been devoted to the public service
    more than twenty-five years, and has nothing left him but
    conscious fidelity and attachment to his native country, to sue
    in vain for justice.

    The enclosed letter to the Secretary of War was written
    anterior to the receipt of my notification of recall from the
    command on the Mississippi, and will evince my readiness and my
    desire for a full investigation of my conduct.

    With perfect respect, I have the honor to be, sir, your
    obedient servant,

                                                        JAMES WILKINSON.

  Hon. J. B. VARNUM, _Speaker_, _&c._

                         _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:

    "_Provided_, That nothing in this act contained shall be
    construed to authorize any sum to be borrowed greater than four
    millions of dollars."

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 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:

    "And further, that the President of the United States be, and
    he is hereby, authorized to keep in actual service as many of
    the frigates and other armed vessels as in his judgment the
    nature of the service may require, and to cause the residue to
    be laid up in ordinary in convenient ports: _Provided_, the
    whole number of officers and seamen shall not exceed that fixed
    by the act 'in addition to the act, supplementary to the act,
    providing for the Naval Peace Establishment, and for other
    purposes;' passed the 21st day of April, 1806."

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.

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 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 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 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 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 <DW44> 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, 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 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 comparative 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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:

    "And further, that the President of the United States be, and
    he is hereby, authorized to keep in actual service as many of
    the frigates and other public armed vessels as in his judgment
    the nature of the service may require, and to cause the residue
    to be laid up in ordinary in convenient ports; _Provided_, the
    whole number of officers and seamen shall not exceed that fixed
    by the act 'in addition to the act, supplementary to the act,
    providing for the Naval Peace Establishment, and for other
    purposes,' passed the 21st day of April, 1806."

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 hundred 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 Federal 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
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:

    "And that the President shall retain in the Navy service of
    the United States nine captains, thirty-six lieutenants, and
    one hundred and fifty midshipmen, including those employed on
    board of the frigates and other armed vessels to be kept in
    service; and that he be authorized to discharge all the other
    officers in the Navy service of the United States; but such of
    the aforesaid officers as shall be retained shall be entitled
    to receive no more than half their monthly pay during the time
    when they shall not be under orders for actual service. _And
    provided further_, That all the commissioners and warrant
    officers who shall be discharged as aforesaid shall be entitled
    to receive ---- months' pay over and above what may be due to
    them respectively at the time they were discharged."

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 Boeuf._

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 committee, from a knowledge which they have acquired of
    the climate of New Orleans and of the country surrounding it,
    and from the facts stated in the depositions, are of opinion
    that the mortality in the detachment ordered to New Orleans is
    to be ascribed to the following causes:

    "1st. The detachment consisting of new levies.

    "2dly. The insalubrity of the climate, the summer and autumn of
    the year 1809 being unusually sickly.

    "3dly. To the nature of the ground on which the detachment was
    encamped at Terre aux Boeuf, and the detention of it at that
    place during the whole of the summer, contrary as the committee
    conceive to the instructions contained in the letter of the
    Secretary of War bearing date the 30th of April, 1809.

    "4thly. To the want of sound and wholesome provisions and of
    vegetables--the want of an hospital and of hospital stores and
    medicines.

    "5thly. The excessive fatigues to which the troops were
    subjected in clearing, ditching, and draining the ground on
    which they were encamped.

    "6thly. To the want of repose during the night, owing to the
    troops not being provided with bars and nets to protect them
    from the annoyance of mosquitoes.

    "7thly. The want of cleanliness in the camp, the nature of the
    position rendering it almost impracticable to preserve it.

    "8thly. The sick and well being confined to the same tents,
    which neither protected them sufficiently from the heat of the
    sun, nor kept them dry from dews and rains."

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.

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:

    The committee to whom was referred the resolution of the 4th
    instant, directing an inquiry into the conduct of Brigadier
    General James Wilkinson, in relation to his having at any
    time, while in the service of the United States, corruptly
    received money from the Government of Spain, or its agents, or
    in relation to his having, during this time aforesaid, been
    an accomplice, or in any way concerned with the agents of any
    foreign power, or with Aaron Burr, in a project against the
    dominions of the King of Spain, or to dismember these United
    States, and to inquire generally into the conduct of the said
    James Wilkinson, as Brigadier General of the Army of the United
    States, report, that they have had under consideration the
    several subjects of inquiry, and have investigated them to the
    utmost of their power since the time of their appointment, but
    from the limited period in which they have acted, and from the
    extensive and complicated nature of the subjects, they are
    under the necessity of stating that they have not been able to
    make any thorough and conclusive investigation of the objects
    of their inquiry.

    Such testimony, however, as they have been able to procure,
    they beg leave to submit as part of this report, and which may
    be referred to under the following heads and order:

    In relation to the first objects of inquiry, to wit: the
    receipt of money by General Wilkinson from the Spanish
    Government or its agents, refer to the

             [Here follows a list of papers, 19 in number.]

    In relation to the second object of inquiry, to wit: the
    connection of General Wilkinson with the agents of Spain in a
    project to dismember the United States, refer to the

                  [Here follows a list of 11 papers.]

    In relation to the third object of inquiry, to wit: General
    Wilkinson's connection with Aaron Burr, refer to

                  [Here follows a list of 14 papers.]

    In relation to the fourth point of inquiry, to wit: the conduct
    of General Wilkinson, as Brigadier General of the army of the
    United States, refer to the

                   [Here follows a list of 6 papers.]

    The committee think proper, also, to submit the following
    papers relating to tobacco and other commercial transactions in
    which General Wilkinson was concerned, from the month of ----
    in the year 1788, to the month of ---- in the year 1790, to wit:

                  [Here follows a list of 10 papers.]

    In making the last preceding statement the committee beg leave
    to remark, that from an examination of the sentence of the
    military court of inquiry, ordered at the request of General
    Wilkinson, and of which Colonel Burbeck was President, it
    appears that the tobacco transactions of General Wilkinson at
    New Orleans in 1789 and 1790 constituted a material part of
    that inquiry, and that a copy of an account current was laid
    before the said court by General Wilkinson and designated
    by No. ----, and several letters accompanying said account,
    supposed by the court to be in the handwriting of Philip
    Noland, the agent of General Wilkinson.

    The committee conceiving that the papers collected by the said
    court would aid them in their investigation, made application
    for those papers to the Secretary of War, but were unable to
    obtain them, they having been taken from the office by General
    Wilkinson, as appears from the deposition of John Smith, chief
    clerk in the War Office. The committee then directed a subpoena
    to General Wilkinson, requiring him to send or produce all the
    papers which had been used or collected by the said court, in
    obedience to which General Wilkinson sent to the committee
    a packet of papers which did not contain either the account
    and letters referred to in the sentence of the court, or the
    defence of General Wilkinson, nor have the committee been able
    to procure them, and, consequently, have not had it in their
    power to compare the accounts herewith exhibited with those
    which were laid before the military court of inquiry. For the
    further elucidation, refer to Walter Jones's deposition, marked
    W. J.

    The committee also submit the deposition of Daniel W. Coxe,
    authenticating the papers to which he specially refers, marked
    D. W. C.

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 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[9] Col. Isaac A. Coles, private secretary to Mr. Jefferson.

[10] By concurrence in the report of a committee, of which Mr. Madison
was chairman, on the subject of a letter from Mr. Gunn to Mr. Baldwin,
both members of Congress; as well as on the case of Mr. Frelinghuysen.




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:

  _Fellow-citizens of the Senate
        and House of Representatives_:

    The embarrassments which have prevailed in our foreign
    relations, and so much employed the deliberations of Congress,
    make it a primary duty in meeting you to communicate whatever
    may have occurred in that branch of our national affairs.

    The act of the last session of Congress concerning the
    commercial intercourse between the United States and Great
    Britain and France, and their dependencies, having invited, in
    a new form, a termination of their edicts against our neutral
    commerce; copies of the act were immediately forwarded to our
    Ministers at London and Paris, with a view that its object
    might be within the early attention of the French and British
    Governments.

    By the communication received through our Minister at Paris, it
    appeared that a knowledge of the act by the French Government
    was followed by a declaration that the Berlin and Milan decrees
    were revoked, and would cease to have effect on the first day
    of November ensuing. These being the only known edicts of
    France within the description of the act, and the revocation of
    them being such that they ceased at that date to violate our
    neutral commerce, the fact, as prescribed by law, was announced
    by a proclamation, bearing date the second day of November.

    It would have well accorded with the conciliatory views
    indicated by this proceeding on the part of France, to have
    extended them to all the grounds of just complaint which now
    remain unadjusted with the United States. 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 principle of reprisals, combined with a misconstruction of
    the law of the United States. This expectation has not been
    fulfilled.

    From the British Government, no communication on the subject
    of the act has been received. To a communication, from our
    minister at London, of a revocation, by the French Government,
    of its Berlin and Milan decrees, it was answered, that the
    British system would be relinquished as soon as the repeal of
    the French decrees should have actually taken effect, and the
    commerce of neutral nations have been restored to the condition
    in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those
    decrees. This pledge, although it does not necessarily import,
    does not exclude, the intention of relinquishing, along with
    the Orders in Council, the practice of those novel blockades,
    which have a like effect of interrupting our neutral commerce:
    and this further justice to the United States is the rather to
    be looked for, inasmuch as the blockades in question, being
    not more contrary to the established law of nations than
    inconsistent with the rules of blockade formerly recognized by
    Great Britain herself, could have no alleged basis other than
    the plea of retaliation, alleged as the basis of the Orders
    in Council. Under the modification of the original orders of
    November, 1807, into the orders of April, 1809, there is,
    indeed, scarcely a nominal distinction between the orders and
    the blockades. One of those illegitimate blockades, bearing
    date in May, 1806, having been expressly avowed to be still
    unrescinded, and to be, in effect, comprehended in the Orders
    in Council, was too distinctly brought within the purview of
    the act of Congress not to be comprehended in the explanation
    of the requisites to a compliance with it. The British
    Government was accordingly apprised by our Minister near it,
    that such was the light in which the subject was to be regarded.

    On the other important subjects depending between the United
    States and that Government, no progress has been made from
    which an early and satisfactory result can be relied on.

    In this new posture of our relations with those powers,
    the consideration of Congress will be properly turned to a
    removal of doubts which may occur in the exposition, and of
    difficulties in the execution, of the act above cited.

    The commerce of the United States with the north of Europe,
    heretofore much vexed by licentious cruisers, particularly
    under the Danish flag, has latterly been visited with fresh
    and extensive depredations. The measures pursued in behalf
    of our injured citizens, not having obtained justice for
    them, a further and more formal interposition with the Danish
    Government is contemplated. The principles which have been
    maintained by that Government in relation to neutral commerce,
    and the friendly professions of His Danish Majesty towards the
    United States, are valuable pledges in favor of a successful
    issue.

    Among the events growing out of the state of the Spanish
    monarchy, our attention was imperiously attracted to the change
    developing itself in that portion of West Florida which, though
    of right appertaining to the United States, had remained in
    the possession of Spain, awaiting the result of negotiations
    for its actual delivery to them. The Spanish authority was
    subverted, and a situation produced exposing the country to
    ulterior events which might essentially affect the rights and
    welfare of the Union. In such a conjuncture I did not delay the
    interposition required for the occupancy of the territory west
    of the river Perdido, to which the title of the United States
    extends, and to which the laws provided for the Territory of
    Orleans are applicable. With this view, the proclamation, of
    which a copy is laid before you, was confided to the Governor
    of that Territory, to be carried into effect. The legality and
    necessity of the course pursued, assure me of the favorable
    light in which it will present itself to the Legislature,
    and of the promptitude with which they will supply whatever
    provisions may be due to the essential rights and equitable
    interests of the people thus brought into the bosom of the
    American family.

    Our amity with the Powers of Barbary, with the exception of a
    recent occurrence at Tunis, of which an explanation is just
    received, appears to have been uninterrupted, and to have
    become more firmly established.

    Whilst it is universally admitted that a well-instructed people
    alone can be permanently a free people, and while it is evident
    that the means of diffusing and improving useful knowledge
    form so small a proportion of the expenditures for national
    purposes, I cannot presume it to be unseasonable to invite
    your attention to the advantages of superadding to the means
    of education, provided by the several States, a seminary of
    learning, instituted by the National Legislature, within the
    limits of their exclusive jurisdiction, the expense of which
    might be defrayed or reimbursed out of the vacant grounds which
    have accrued to the nation within those limits.

    Such an institution, though local in its legal character, would
    be universal in its beneficial effects. By enlightening the
    opinions, by expanding the patriotism, and by assimilating
    the principles, the sentiments, and the manners, of those who
    might resort to this temple of science, to be redistributed,
    in due time, through every part of the community, sources of
    jealousy and prejudice would be diminished, the features of
    national character would be multiplied, and greater extent
    given to social harmony. But, above all, a well-constituted
    seminary, in the centre of the nation, is recommended by the
    consideration that the additional instruction emanating from it
    would contribute not less to strengthen the foundations than to
    adorn the structure of our free and happy system of Government.

    Among the commercial abuses still committed under the American
    flag, and leaving in force my former reference to that subject,
    it appears that American citizens are instrumental in carrying
    on a traffic in enslaved Africans, equally in violation of
    the laws of humanity, and in defiance of those of their own
    country. The same just and benevolent motives which produced
    the interdiction in force against this criminal conduct, will
    doubtless be felt by Congress in devising further means of
    suppressing the evil.

    In the midst of uncertainties necessarily connected with the
    great interests of the United States, prudence requires a
    continuance of our defensive and precautionary arrangement.
    The Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy will submit
    the statements and estimates which may aid Congress in
    their ensuing provisions for the land and naval forces. The
    statements of the latter will include a view of the transfers
    of appropriations in the naval expenditures, and the grounds on
    which they were made.

    The corps of engineers, with the Military Academy, are entitled
    to the early attention of Congress. The buildings at the seat
    fixed by law for the present academy are so far in decay, as
    not to afford the necessary accommodation. But a revision
    of the law is recommended principally with a view to a more
    enlarged cultivation and diffusion of the advantages of such
    institutions, by providing professorships for all the necessary
    branches of military instruction, and by the establishment of
    an additional academy at the Seat of Government or elsewhere.
    The means by which war, as well for defence as for offence, is
    now carried on, render these schools of the more scientific
    operations an indispensable part of every adequate system.
    Even among nations whose large standing armies and frequent
    wars afford every other opportunity of instruction, these
    establishments are found to be indispensable for the due
    attainment of the branches of military science which require
    a regular course of study and experiment. In a Government
    happily without the other opportunities, seminaries, where the
    elementary principles of the art of war can be taught without
    actual war, and without the expense of extensive and standing
    armies, have the precious advantage of uniting an essential
    preparation against external danger, with a scrupulous regard
    to internal safety. In no other way, probably, can a provision
    of equal efficacy for the public defence be made at so little
    expense, or more consistently with the public liberty.

    Reserving for future occasions, in the course of the session,
    whatever other communications may claim your attention, I close
    the present, by expressing my reliance, under the blessing of
    Divine Providence, on the judgment and patriotism which will
    guide your measures, at a period particularly calling for
    united councils, and inflexible exertions, for the welfare of
    our country, and by assuring you of the fidelity and alacrity
    with which my co-operation will be afforded.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _December 5, 1810_.



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.


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 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 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 questions: 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 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 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, 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:

    "By a special act, done at Fontainebleau, November 3, 1762, of
    my own will and mere motion, having ceded to my very dear and
    best beloved cousin the King of Spain, and to his successors,
    in full property, purely and simply, and without any
    exceptions, the whole country known by the name of Louisiana,
    together with New Orleans, and the island in which the said
    city is situated; and by another act done at the Escurial,
    November 13, in the same year, His Catholic Majesty having
    accepted the cession of the said country of Louisiana, and the
    city and island of New Orleans, agreeably to the copies of the
    said acts, which you will find hereunto annexed; I write you
    this letter to inform you, that my intention is, that on the
    receipt of these presents, whether they come to your hands by
    the officers of His Catholic Majesty or directly by such French
    vessels as may be charged with the same, you are to deliver up
    to the governor, or officer appointed for that purpose by the
    King of Spain, the said country and colony of Louisiana, and
    the posts thereon depending, likewise the city and island of
    New Orleans, in such state and condition as they shall be found
    to be in on the day of the said cession, willing that in all
    time to come they shall belong to His Catholic Majesty, to be
    governed and administered by his governors and officers, and as
    possessed by him in full property, without any exceptions."

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 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 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.

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 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 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. ANDERSON, BAYARD, and DANA, were appointed
the committee.

The memorial is as follows:

    _To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives
    of the United States in Congress assembled_: The memorial
    unanimously adopted, of the Legislative Council and House of
    Representatives of Mississippi Territory, in General Assembly
    convened, respectfully states, That by the articles of
    agreement and cession between the United States and the State
    of Georgia, an act for the amicable settlement of limits with
    the State of Georgia, &c., and an act supplemental thereto,
    the Government of the Mississippi Territory was organized and
    established, and "all and singular the rights, privileges,
    and advantages, granted to the people of the United States,
    northwest of the river Ohio, by an ordinance of the 13th day
    of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, were
    extended to the people of the Mississippi Territory:" And by
    the said articles of agreement and cession, it is provided
    "That the Territory thus ceded shall form a State, and be
    admitted as such into the Union as soon as it shall contain
    sixty thousand free inhabitants, or at an earlier period, if
    Congress shall think it expedient."

    Your memorialists state, that although they do not pretend to
    have the number required by the said articles of agreement
    and cession, and the ordinance to entitle our Territory as a
    matter of right into the Union, upon the footing of one of the
    original States; yet, we hope that our numbers (as will appear
    by the census now taken under a law of the United States) are
    sufficiently respectable to induce your honorable body to
    admit the Mississippi Territory into the Union, as a matter of
    expediency.

    Your memorialists conceive it unnecessary to detail the many
    reasons which might be adduced in support of their petition,
    but think it sufficient to say, that, as the people of this
    Territory are able to bear the expenses of a State Government
    with convenience to themselves, and at the same time will
    relieve the Government of the United States from the cares
    and expenses incident to the Territorial form of government;
    and that whatever views the form of government (under which
    they have, perhaps, not very patiently lived) for about
    twelve years, was formed, it is found from experience, to
    be unfriendly to republicanism; and is such a one as every
    American in heart is solicitous to be relieved from. We,
    therefore, pray your honorable body to pass a law authorizing
    a convention to be called, for the purpose of forming a
    constitution and State Government in the Mississippi Territory,
    to be admitted into the Union upon the footing of the original
    States.

    Your memorialists, from a knowledge of your indulgence to the
    people of the Territories northwest of the river Ohio, when
    in a situation similar to their own, are sanguine in their
    expectations, that your honorable body will grant to them the
    prayer of their petition.

    And they will ever pray, &c.

                                                        F. L. CLAIBORNE,
                                           _Speaker of the House._

                                                      ALEX. MONTGOMERY,
                                _President of Legislative Council._

  Attest: WM. C. WINSTON,

                      _Clerk House of Reps. M. T._



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:

    _Provided_, That this act shall not be understood to admit such
    State into the Union, as aforesaid, unless each of the States
    shall consent to the same:

It was determined in the negative--yeas 10, nays 18, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Champlin, Dana, German, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Horsey, Lloyd, Pickering, and Reed.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Campbell, Clay, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard,
    Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Pope, Robinson, Smith of
    Maryland, Smith of New York, Tait, Taylor, Turner, Whiteside,
    and Worthington.

On the question to agree to the second division of the amendment, to
wit:

    _Provided_, That this act shall not be understood to admit such
    State into the Union as aforesaid, unless there shall be a
    constitutional amendment empowering the Congress to admit into
    the Union new States formed beyond the boundaries of the United
    States, as known and understood at the time of establishing the
    Constitution for the United States:

It was determined in the negative--yeas 8, nays 17, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Champlin, Dana, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Lloyd,
    Pickering, and Reed.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Campbell, Clay, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard,
    Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Robinson, Smith of Maryland,
    Smith of New York, Tait, Taylor, Turner, Whiteside, and
    Worthington.

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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Brent, Clay, Condit, Franklin, Gaillard, Gregg,
    Lambert, Mathewson, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of
    New York, Tait, Taylor, Turner, Whiteside, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Champlin, Dana, German, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Horsey, Lloyd, Pickering, and Reed.


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 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 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 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 compacts 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 improper. 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.
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 <DW64>s. 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
tendency 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 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 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?


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 mischief 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.

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 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 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 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 attention 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 functions, 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 English 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
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, prescribed 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 powers; 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 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
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 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 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?

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 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 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 presented 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 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 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:

    "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 the 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," &c.

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 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 violation 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 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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Campbell, Clay, Cutts, Franklin,
    Gaillard, German, Giles, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Mathewson, Reed,
    Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Whiteside, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Brent, Champlin, Condit,
    Crawford, Dana, Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey, Lloyd, Pickering,
    Pope, Smith of New York, Tait, Taylor, and Turner.

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:

    GENTLEMEN: As the subject on which I am called upon to decide
    has excited great sensibility, I must solicit the indulgence of
    the Senate while I briefly state the reasons which influence my
    judgment.

    Permit me to observe, that the question to be decided does not
    depend simply upon the right of Congress to establish under
    any modification a bank, but upon their power to establish a
    National Bank, as contemplated by this bill. In other words,
    can they create a body politic and corporate, not constituting
    a part of the Government, nor otherwise responsible to it but
    by forfeiture of charter, and bestow on its members privileges,
    immunities, and exemptions not recognized by the laws of the
    States, nor enjoyed by the citizens generally? It cannot be
    doubted but that Congress may pass all necessary and proper
    laws for carrying into execution the powers specifically
    granted to the Government, or to any department or officer
    thereof; but, in doing so, the means must be suited and
    subordinate to the end. The power to create corporations is not
    expressly granted; it is a high attribute of sovereignty, and
    in its nature not accessorial or derivative by implication, but
    primary and independent.

    I cannot believe that this interpretation of the constitution
    will, in any degree, defeat the purposes for which it
    was formed. On the contrary, it does appear to me, that
    the opposite exposition has an inevitable tendency to
    consolidation, and affords just and serious cause of alarm.

    In the course of a long life I have found that Government is
    not to be strengthened by an assumption of doubtful powers,
    but by a wise and energetic execution of those which are
    incontestible; the former never fails to produce suspicion and
    distrust, while the latter inspires respect and confidence.

    If, however, after a fair experiment, the powers vested in the
    Government shall be found incompetent to the attainment of the
    objects for which it was instituted, the constitution happily
    furnishes the means for remedying the evil by amendment, and I
    have no doubt that in such event on an appeal to the patriotism
    and good sense of the community it will be wisely applied.

    I will not trespass upon the patience of the Senate any longer
    than to say, from the best examination I have been able to give
    the subject, I am constrained by a sense of duty to decide in
    the affirmative--that is, that the first section of the bill be
    stricken out.


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:

    That your committee have duly weighed the contents of the
    memorial, and deliberately attended to such explanations of
    the views of the memorialists as they have thought proper to
    present through their agents. That, holding the opinion (as a
    majority of the committee do) that the constitution did not
    authorize Congress originally to grant the charter, it follows,
    as a necessary consequence of that opinion, that an extension
    of it, even under the restrictions contemplated by the
    stockholders, is equally repugnant to the constitution. But,
    if it were possible to surmount this fundamental objection,
    and if that rule which forbids, during the same session of the
    Senate, the re-agitation of a proposition once decided, were
    disregarded, your committee would still be at a loss to find
    any sufficient reasons for prolonging the political existence
    of the corporation for the purpose of winding up its affairs.
    For, as it respects the body itself, it is believed that the
    existing laws, through the instrumentality of a trust properly
    constituted, afford as ample means as a qualified continuance
    of the charter would, for the liquidation of its accounts,
    and the collection and final distribution of its funds. But
    should any inconvenience be experienced on this subject, the
    committee are persuaded it will be very partial, and such as
    the State authorities, upon proper application, would not fail
    to provide a competent remedy for. And, in relation to the
    community, if the corporation, stripped of its banking powers,
    were to fulfil _bona fide_ the duty of closing its affairs,
    your committee cannot see that any material advantage would be
    derived. Whilst, on the contrary, if it should not so act, but
    should avail itself of the temporary prolongation, in order to
    effect a more durable extension of its charter, it might in its
    operations become a serious scourge.

    Your committee are happy to say that they learn, from a
    satisfactory source, that the apprehensions which were
    indulged, as to the distress resulting from a non-renewal of
    the charter, are far from being realized in Philadelphia, to
    which their information has been confined. It was long since
    obvious that the vacuum, in the circulation of the country,
    which was to be produced by the withdrawal of the paper of the
    Bank of the United States, would be filled by paper issuing
    from other banks. This operation is now actually going on. The
    paper of the Bank of the United States is rapidly returning,
    and that of other banks is taking its place. The ability to
    enlarge their accommodations is proportionately enhanced;
    and when it shall be further increased by a removal into
    their vaults of those deposits which are in the possession
    of the Bank of the United States, the injurious effects of a
    dissolution of the corporation will be found to consist in
    an accelerated disclosure of the actual condition of those
    who have been supported by the credit of others, but whose
    insolvent or tottering situation, known to the bank, has been
    concealed from the public at large.

    Your committee beg leave to present the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the memorialists ought not to be
    granted.

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:

    That the said Wilkinson has exhibited to them claims against
    the United States, to the amount of eleven thousand eight
    hundred dollars and ninety-six cents. It appears to your
    committee, from the documents and proofs produced by the
    petitioner to explain and support his claim against the
    public, that, of the above sum, $6,719.73 are claimed for his
    disbursements and expenses incurred pending Burr's conspiracy;
    $2,560 paid for a tract of land for the public service, now
    occupied by the troops on the Missouri river, near its mouth;
    $450, the amount of his passage from Baltimore to Charleston,
    when ordered on extra duty by the President; and $2,131.23,
    for losses of property sustained by his sudden transfer from
    St. Louis, where he was exercising the functions of a civil
    magistrate, to the Sabine, for the purpose of directing the
    arms of the nation against an invading force of the Spaniards.

    Your committee have no hesitancy in saying that many of the
    charges appear to be legal and founded in justice, and may
    furnish a proper set off against the balance opposed to him
    by the War Department, and that the residue are entitled
    to equitable consideration; but, from the shortness of the
    time, and the pressure of business before the expiration of
    the session, your committee cannot find leisure to form that
    deliberate and clear judgment on the merits of the several
    items which justice to the petitioner and to the public
    require; they, therefore, beg leave to offer the following
    resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the further consideration of the petition
    of General James Wilkinson, together with the accompanying
    documents, be postponed to the next meeting of Congress.

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,

IN SECRET SESSION, AT THE THIRD SESSION OF THE ELEVENTH CONGRESS.


THURSDAY, January 3, 1811.

The following confidential Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, by Mr. EDWARD COLES, his Secretary:

  _To the Senate and House of
          Representatives of the United States_:

    I communicate to Congress, in confidence, a letter of the 2d
    of December, from Governor Folch, of West Florida, to the
    Secretary of State; and another, of the same date, from the
    same, to John McKee.

    I communicate, in like manner, a letter from the British
    Chargé d'Affaires to the Secretary of State, with the answer
    of the latter. Although the letter cannot have been written in
    consequence of any instruction from the British Government,
    founded on the late order for taking possession of the portion
    of West Florida well known to be claimed by the United
    States; although no communication has ever been made by that
    Government to this of any stipulation with Spain, contemplating
    an interposition which might so materially affect the United
    States; and although no call can have been made by Spain, in
    the present instance, for the fulfilment of any such subsisting
    engagement; yet the spirit and scope of the document, with the
    accredited source from which it proceeds, required that it
    should not be withheld from the consideration of Congress.

    Taking into view the tenor of these several communications, the
    posture of things with which they are connected, the intimate
    relation of the country adjoining the United States, eastward
    of the river Perdido, to their security and tranquillity, and
    the peculiar interest they otherwise have in its destiny, I
    recommend to the consideration of Congress, the seasonableness
    of a declaration that the United States could not see, without
    serious inquietude, any part of a neighboring territory, in
    which they have, in different respects, so deep and so just a
    concern, pass from the hands of Spain into those of any other
    foreign power.

    I recommend to their consideration, also, the expediency of
    authorizing the Executive to take temporary possession of
    any part or parts of the said territory, in pursuance of
    arrangements which may be desired by the Spanish authorities;
    and for making provision for the government of the same, during
    such possession.

    The wisdom of Congress will, at the same time, determine
    how far it may be expedient to provide for the event of a
    subversion of the Spanish authorities within the territory in
    question, and an apprehended occupancy thereof by any other
    foreign power.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _January 3, 1811_.


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:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Brent, Campbell, Condit,
    Crawford, Franklin, German, Gregg, Lambert, Lloyd, Mathewson,
    Pickering, Pope, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York,
    Tait, Taylor, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Champlin, Clay, Cutts, Dana, Gaillard,
    Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey, Leib, Robinson, and Whiteside.

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:

    _Resolved_, That the subject-matter of the bill, entitled
    "An act 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," be kept inviolably secret by the members of
    the Senate, until the Senate shall, by their resolution, take
    off the injunction of secrecy.

Which was read; and on the question to agree thereto, it was determined
in the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 6, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bradley, Brent, Clay, Crawford, Cutts,
    Franklin, Gaillard, Gilman, Gregg, Lambert, Leib, Pope, Reed,
    Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Tait, Taylor, Whiteside, and
    Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Champlin, Dana, Goodrich, Lloyd, and
    Pickering.

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:


CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

              _In House of Representatives, Jan. 8, 1811._

    Taking into view the present state of the world, the peculiar
    situation of Spain and of the American provinces, and the
    intimate relation of the territory eastward of the river
    Perdido, adjoining the United States, to their security and
    tranquillity: Therefore,

    _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the
    United States cannot see, with indifference, any part of the
    Spanish provinces, adjoining the said States, eastward of the
    river Perdido, pass from the hands of Spain into those of any
    other foreign power.

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:

    Strike out all the words after the word "the," first mentioned
    in the first line of the resolution, to the end thereof, and in
    lieu thereof, insert "peculiar situation of Spain and of her
    American provinces; and considering the influence which the
    destiny of the territory adjoining the southern border of the
    United States may have upon their security, tranquillity, and
    commerce:" Therefore,

    _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the
    United States, under the peculiar circumstances of the existing
    crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see any part of the
    said territory pass into the hands of any foreign power; and
    that a due regard to their own safety compels them to provide,
    under certain contingencies, for the temporary occupation of
    the said territory; they, at the same time, declare that the
    said territory shall, in their hands, remain subject to a
    future negotiation.

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.




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:

    _From New Hampshire_--James Wilson.

    _From Massachusetts_--Ezekiel Bacon, William Ely, and Joseph B.
    Varnum, _Speaker_.

    _From Vermont_--Samuel Shaw.

    _From Connecticut_--Epaphroditus Champion, John Davenport, jr.,
    Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., and Benjamin Tallmadge.

    _From New York_--James Emott, Jonathan Fisk, Robert Le Roy
    Livingston, Erastus Root, Thomas Sammons, John Thompson, Uri
    Tracy, and Killian K. Van Rensselaer.

    _From New Jersey_--Adam Boyd, Jacob Hufty, and Henry Southard.

    _From, Pennsylvania_--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert
    Brown, William Crawford, William Findlay, Daniel Heister,
    Aaron Lyle, William Milnor, John Rea, Matthias Richards, Adam
    Seybert, John Smilie, George Smith, Samuel Smith, and Robert
    Whitehill.

    _From Maryland_--Charles Goldsborough, Alexander McKim, Philip
    B. Key, Archibald Van Horne, John Montgomery, and Nicholas R.
    Moore.

    _From Virginia_--James Breckinridge, William A. Burwell,
    Matthew Clay, John Dawson, David S. Garland, Thomas Gholson,
    Peterson, Goodwyn, Joseph Lewis, jr., Thomas Newton, John
    Roane, and James Stephenson.

    _From North Carolina_--Willis Alston, jr., James Cochran, James
    Holland, Thomas Kenan, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBryde,
    Joseph Pearson, Richard Stanford, and John Stanley.

    _From South Carolina_--Lemuel J. Alston, William Butler, Joseph
    Calhoun, Thomas Moore, John Taylor, and Robert Witherspoon,.

    _From Georgia_--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, and George M.
    Troup.

    _From Kentucky_--Joseph Desha, Richard M. Johnson, and Samuel
    McKee.

    _From Tennessee_--Pleasant M. Miller, John Rhea, and Robert
    Weakley.

    _From Ohio_--Jeremiah Morrow.

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, 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 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 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:

    "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned
    among the several States which may be included within this
    Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be
    determined by adding to the whole number of free persons,
    including those bound to service for a term of years, and,
    excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.
    The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after
    the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
    within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as
    they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall
    not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall
    have at least one Representative."

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 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:

    The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred several
    petitions, claiming lands for military services, performed in
    the war of 1755, between Great Britain and France, report:

    That, considering the subject-matter of the said petitions
    highly important, on account of the interest it has recently
    excited, and the speculation it has given rise to in various
    parts of the United States, the committee have carefully
    examined the State papers and public documents, of the period
    of the above war, to ascertain the original foundation of the
    supposed claim. In pursuing this investigation, the committee
    have not been able to discover that any engagement or contract
    whatever was made or entered into by the Government, or under
    the authority of Great Britain, with the officers and soldiers
    of the provincial troops, serving in the war aforesaid, for a
    grant of lands, either as an encouragement to their entering
    into the service, or as a compensation for services. All that
    the committee have been able to find on the subject is in
    a proclamation of the King of Great Britain, of the 7th of
    October, 1763, (after the closing of the war and disbanding of
    the troops,) and in the following words:

    "_And whereas_ we are desirous, upon all occasions, to testify
    our royal sense and approbation of the conduct and bravery of
    the officers and soldiers of our army, and to reward the same,
    we do hereby command and empower our Governors of the several
    provinces on the Continent of North America to grant, without
    fee or reward, to such reduced officers as have served in
    North America during the late war, and are actually residing
    there, and shall personally apply for the same, the following
    quantities of land, subject, at the expiration of ten years,
    to the same quit-rents as other lands are subject to, in the
    province within which they are granted, as also subject to the
    same conditions of cultivation and improvement, viz:

    "To every person having the rank of a field officer, 5,000
    acres.

    "To every captain, 3,000 acres.

    "To every subaltern or staff officer, 2,600 acres.

    "To every non-commissioned officer, 200 acres.

    "To every private man, 50 acres.

    "We do likewise authorize and require the Governors and
    commanders-in-chief of all our said colonies, upon the
    Continent of North America, to grant the like quantities of
    land, and upon the same conditions, to such reduced officers of
    our navy of like rank, as served on board of our ships of war
    in North America, at the times of the reduction of Louisburg
    and Quebec, in the late war, and who shall personally apply to
    our respective Governors for such grants."

    In this State paper, the committee can perceive no foundation
    whatever for the present claim upon the United States. Instead
    of a contract with the officers and soldiers for land, the
    proclamation contains a mere instruction to the provincial
    Governors--an instruction emanating from the munificence of the
    Sovereign, and for conferring a gratuity, not issued for the
    satisfaction of any previous claim or demand upon Government.
    That the grant intended by the above proclamation was rather a
    testimony of respect and approbation, than a donation of value,
    appears from the prescribed terms on which it was to be made,
    they being the same on which lands were granted to others in
    the provinces, with the exception, that the military grants
    were to be made free of office fees, and exempt from payment
    of quit-rents for ten years. Had application been made to the
    land offices of the provincial governments, as was the duty
    of all the claimants, there can be no doubt but that grants
    would have been readily made to the full extent of the bounty
    intended by the proclamation, subject, however, to the usual
    condition for settlement and improvement. Forty-seven years
    have now elapsed since the foregoing proclamation, during which
    period the above claims have laid dormant, and the committee
    do conceive, that, upon fair and just principles, those claims
    would have been considered derelict and abandoned had the
    Government, under which they arose, continued; but to admit
    them against the United States, placed as they now are, under
    a government founded on a revolution, which has intervened, is
    required by no principle of justice, and would, in the opinion
    of the committee, be an unauthorized disposition and sacrifice
    of the public property of the United States. On no principle
    of national law, or by any treaty or convention between the
    United States and Great Britain, are the United States bound
    to perform the engagements of the former government of Great
    Britain, especially for mere bounties; nor would the purposes
    for which the several States have ceded land, within their
    respective jurisdictions, to the United States, warrant the
    appropriation of those lands for the satisfaction of the claims
    in question, were the same better founded than by the committee
    they are conceived to be. The committee, therefore, beg leave
    to submit the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be
    granted.


MONDAY, December 31.

Another member, to wit, from Delaware, NICHOLAS VAN <DW18>, 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 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 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 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
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 Territories; 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 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
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 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:

    "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."

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 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 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 inconsiderable 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 alienate 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 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--

    "Low lies that land, yet blest with fruitful stores,
    Strong are her sons, though rocky are her shores;
    And none, ah! none, so lovely to my sight,
    Of all the lands which heaven o'erspreads with light."

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 <DW44> 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 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 cannot
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 Government, 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 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
farmer 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
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 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 hypothesis, 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 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 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 observations,
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 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 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 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 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 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.

    [The first section had been struck out in Committee of the
    Whole, and the bill reported to the House, and the question
    now was upon concurrence with that vote in committee. On
    that question the debate was renewed in the House, and, of
    necessity, the same ground gone over which had been trod in
    committee, and still more extensively. Finally the vote was
    taken, and the concurrence carried by one vote! so close was
    the contest in both Houses--in the Senate the question decided
    by the casting vote of the Vice-President--in the House, by one
    vote. The following were the yeas and nays:]

    YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon,
    David Bard, William T. Barry, Burwell Bassett, William W.
    Bibb, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun,
    Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, William Crawford,
    Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes,
    Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannet, Gideon Gardner, Thomas
    Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, James Holland, Richard
    M. Johnson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, William Kennedy, John
    Love, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, Alexander McKim, William
    McKinley, Samuel L. Mitchill, John Montgomery, Nicholas R.
    Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas
    Newton, John Porter, Peter B. Porter, John Rea of Penn.,
    John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, Samuel Ringgold,
    John Roane, Ebenezer Sage, Lemuel Sawyer, Ebenezer Seaver,
    Adam Seybert, John Smilie, George Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry
    Southard, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Archibald Van
    Horne, Robert Weakley, Robert Whitehill, Robert Witherspoon,
    Richard Wynn, and Robert Wright.

    NAYS.--Joseph Allen, Willis Alston, jun., Abijah Bigelow,
    Daniel Blaisdell, James Breckenridge, John Campbell, John C.
    Chamberlain, Wm. Chamberlin, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin
    Chittenden, John Davenport, junior, William Ely, James Emott,
    William Findlay, Jonathan Fisk, Barent Gardenier, David S.
    Garland, Charles Goldsborough, Thomas R. Gold, William Hale,
    Nathaniel A. Haven, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Jonathan H.
    Hubbard, Jacob Hufty, Ebenezer Huntington, Richard Jackson,
    jun., Robert Jenkins, Philip B. Key, Herman Knickerbacker,
    Joseph Lewis, jun., Robert Le Roy Livingston, Vincent Matthews
    Archibald McBryde, Samuel McKee, Pleasant M. Miller, William
    Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Thomas Newbold, John Nicholson,
    Joseph Pearson, Benjamin Pickman, junior, Timothy Pitkin, jr.,
    Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas Sammons,
    John A. Scudder, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, Dennis Smelt,
    John Smith, Richard Stanford, John Stanley, James Stephenson,
    Lewis B. Sturges, Jacob Swoope, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin
    Tallmadge, John Thompson, Nicholas Van <DW18>, Killian K. Van
    Rensselaer, Laban Wheaton, and James Wilson.[11]

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 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:

    _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds
    of both Houses concurring_, That the following section
    be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States,
    which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths
    of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the
    Constitution of the United States:

    _Resolved_, That the judges, both of the Supreme and Inferior
    Courts, may be removed from office on the joint address of the
    Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

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:

    A 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."

    _Be it enacted, &c._, That no vessel _owned wholly by a citizen
    or citizens of the United States, which shall have departed
    from a British port prior to the second day of February, one
    thousand eight hundred and eleven, and no merchandise owned
    wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United States, imported
    in such vessel_, 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.

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:

    "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."

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 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 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, 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 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 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 <DW44> 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 British 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 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 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:

    "Under the modification of the original orders of November,
    1807, into the orders of April, 1809, there is, indeed,
    scarcely a nominal distinction between the orders and the
    blockades. One of these illegitimate blockades, bearing
    date in May, 1806, having been expressly avowed to be still
    unrescinded, and to be, in effect, comprehended in the Orders
    in Council, was too distinctly brought within the purview of
    the act of Congress, not to be comprehended in the explanation
    of the requisites to a compliance with it. The British
    Government was accordingly apprised by our Minister near
    it, that such was the light in which the subject was to be
    regarded."

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:

    "If the non-intercourse law, in any of its modifications, was
    objectionable to the Emperor of the French, that law no longer
    exists.

    "If he be ready, as has been declared in the letter of the Duke
    of Cadore, of February 14, to do justice to the United States,
    in the case of a pledge on their part not to submit to the
    British edicts, the opportunity for making good the declaration
    is now afforded. Instead of submission, the President is
    ready, by renewing the non-intercourse against Great Britain,
    to oppose to her Orders in Council a measure which is of a
    character that ought to satisfy any reasonable expectation. If
    it should be necessary for you to meet the question, whether
    the non-intercourse will be renewed against Great Britain, in
    case she should not comprehend, in the repeal of her edicts,
    her blockades which are not consistent with the law of nations,
    you may, should it be found necessary, 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; that particular
    blockade having been avowed to be comprehended in, and, of
    course, identified with the Orders in Council. With respect to
    blockades, of a subsequent date or not, against France, you
    will press the reasonableness of leaving them, together with
    future blockades not warranted by public law, to be proceeded
    against by the United States in the manner they may choose to
    adopt."

In pages 45 and 46, we have the declaration of General Armstrong and
the Duke de Cadore. Mr. E. then read the following:

                _From General Armstrong to Mr. Pinkney._

                                PARIS, _January_ 25, 1810.

    "SIR: A letter from Mr. Secretary Smith, of the first of
    December last, made it my duty to inquire of His Excellency the
    Duke of Cadore, what were the conditions on which his Majesty
    the Emperor would annul his decree, commonly called the Berlin
    decree; and whether, if Great Britain revoked her blockades,
    of a date anterior to that decree, his Majesty would consent
    to revoke the said decree? To these questions I have this day
    received the following answer, which I hasten to convey to you
    by a special messenger:

    ANSWER.--"The only conditions required for the revocation,
    by his Majesty the Emperor, of the decree of Berlin, will
    be a previous revocation, by the British Government, of her
    blockades of France, or a part of France, (such as that from
    the Elbe to Brest, &c.,) of a date anterior to that of the
    aforesaid decree."

In page 47, we have the statement of Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney:

    "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note
    of the fifteenth ultimo, wherein you request to be informed
    whether any, and if any, what blockades of France, instituted
    by Great Britain during the present war, before the first day
    of January, 1807, are understood by his Majesty's government
    to be in force? I have now the honor to acquaint you, that
    the coast, rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to Brest,
    both inclusive, were notified to be under the restrictions of
    blockade, with certain modifications, on the 16th of May, 1806;
    and that these restrictions were afterwards comprehended in the
    Order of Council of the 7th of January, 1807, which order is
    still in force."

In page 71 of the correspondence, Lord Wellesley declares, in a letter
to Mr. Pinkney:

    "The blockade, notified by Great Britain in May, 1806, has
    never been formally withdrawn. It cannot, therefore, be
    accurately stated, that the restrictions which it established
    rest altogether on the Order of Council of the 7th of
    January, 1807; they are comprehended under the more extensive
    restrictions of that order. No other blockade of the ports of
    France was instituted by Great Britain, between the 16th of
    May, 1806, and the 7th of January, 1807, excepting the blockade
    of Venice, instituted on the 27th of July, 1806, which is still
    in force."

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:

    _From Mr. King._

    "Seven or eight of our vessels, laden with valuable cargoes,
    have been lately captured, and are still detained for
    adjudication; these vessels were met in their voyages to and
    from the Dutch ports, declared to be blockaded. Several notes
    have passed between Lord Grenville and me upon this subject,
    with the view, on my part, of establishing a more limited and
    reasonable interpretation of the law of blockade, than is
    attempted to be enforced by the English Government. Nearly one
    hundred Danish, Russian, and other neutral ships have, within
    a few months, been, in like manner, intercepted, going to and
    returning from the United Provinces. Many of them, as well as
    some of ours, arrived in the Texel in the course of the last
    winter; the severity of which obliged the English fleet to
    return to their ports, leaving a few frigates only to make
    short cruises off the Texel, as the season would allow.

    "My object has been to prove that, in this situation of the
    investing fleet, there can be no effective blockade, which, in
    my opinion, cannot be said to exist without a competent force,
    stationed and present at or near the entrance of the blockaded
    port."

         _Extract of a letter from Mr. King to Lord Grenville,
                                 dated_

                                   LONDON, _May_ 23, 1799.

    "It seems scarcely necessary to observe, that the presence
    of a competent force is essential to constitute a blockade;
    and although it is usual for the belligerent to give notice
    to neutral nations when he institutes a blockade, it is not
    customary to give any notice of its discontinuance; and that
    consequently the presence of the blockading force is the
    natural criterion by which the neutral is enabled to ascertain
    the existence of the blockade, in like manner as the actual
    investment of a besieged place is the only evidence by which
    we decide whether the siege is continued or raised. A siege
    may be commenced, raised, recommenced and raised again, but
    its existence at any precise time must always depend upon the
    fact of the presence of an investing army. This interpretation
    of the law of blockade is of peculiar importance to nations
    situated at a great distance from each other, and between whom
    a considerable length of time is necessary to send and receive
    information."

    _Extract of a letter from Mr. Marshall, Secretary of State, to
                           Mr. King, dated_

                                            SEPTEMBER 20, 1800.

    "The right to confiscate vessels bound to a blockaded port, has
    been unreasonably extended to cases not coming within the rule,
    as heretofore adopted.

    "On this principle, it might well be questioned, whether
    this rule can be applied to a place not completely invested
    by land as well as by sea. If we examine the reasoning on
    which it is founded, the right to intercept and confiscate
    supplies, designed for a blockaded town, it will be difficult
    to resist the conviction that its extension to towns, invested
    by sea only, is an unjustifiable encroachment on the right of
    neutrals. But it is not of this departure from principle--a
    departure which has received some sanction from practice--that
    we mean to complain. It is, that ports, not effectually
    blockaded by a force capable of completely investing them,
    have yet been declared in a state of blockade, and vessels
    attempting to enter therein have been seized, and, on that
    account, confiscated."

I have shown, from the correspondence, that the blockade of May, 1806,
was the only one included in the demand of the Executive. I 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.

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 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 revoking 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 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 orders 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 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.
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 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 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.

    "There was a man bespoke a thing,
    Which when the maker home did bring,
    That same maker did refuse it;
    The man that spoke for it did not use it,
    And he who had it did not know
    Whether he had it;--yea, or no."

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 neglecting 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 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 negotiating 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 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
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 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
Britain, 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 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 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 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
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.

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 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. Secretary 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 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 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 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.

It is in vain, Mr. Speaker, to seek for the justification of this
measure from any thing France has done, or from the indications which
she has given of her fixed course of policy. Her great object is the
destruction of the commerce of the world; and she wishes to make us
tributary to that end, and, if possible, to embroil us in a war with
England.

The disposition of Bonaparte towards us rests not alone on his acts
of aggression, rapine, and plunder; the imprisonment of our citizens,
the burning and sequestration of our property. He has heaped upon this
devoted country all the epithets which malice could suggest or tyranny
dictate; he has exhausted the cup of bitterness, and made us drink the
dregs of humiliation; he has declared his decrees should suffer no
change, and that the Americans should take the positive character of
allies or enemies. As long ago as the 15th of January, 1808, he issued
a declaration of war for us against Great Britain; an unconditional
surrender of your rights is demanded, or an obedience to his dictates.
And are we not in the act of yielding obedience? Sir, the nation which
pretends to dictate laws to another offers chains. With more than
Christian charity do we seem to forget and forgive the indignities
offered to our national character; and the unkind, the severest cut
of all to the present Administration, contained in the letter of the
Duc de Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 17th of February, 1810,
in which we are told that His Majesty could place no reliance on the
proceedings of the United States. We are advised to tear to pieces the
act of our independence; declared to be more abject than the slaves
of Jamaica; that we are men without honor, energy, or just political
views; that we will be obliged to fight for interest, after having
refused to fight for honor. Our present rulers are there contrasted
with the brave and generous heroes of our Revolution, and they are
declared to be fit for the yoke which had been thrown off by their
ancestors. This letter had scarcely reached our shores, the ink was
scarcely dry, it was fresh in our memories, when the letter of the 5th
of August was received; which, like a Lethean draught, threw the shade
of oblivion over our insults and our wrongs; we sipped the poison as it
fell, and I fear it is fast spreading through the body politic.

Mr. Speaker, I turn with disgust from those polluted pages before
me--this history of our wrongs, this tyrant's love--would to God they
could be blotted from our memories; or, if remembered, let it be with
abhorrence and detestation.

I deprecate the course of policy, if policy it may be termed, which
is now about to be forced upon us. I protest against it as a measure
injurious to ourselves; weak, temporizing, and partial in its operation
on foreign nations; unauthorized by the actual state of things; and
calculated to hasten the period of our union with the destinies of
France.

Sir, unless we turn from this wayward course, this highway to ruin, the
time cannot be very distant when your deserted ports, your uninhabited
cities, your oppressed people, and even your firesides and your altars,
will only exhibit the sad signs of what they were. And I fear, sir, the
period is fast approaching when it will not again be said, "that we are
a people with whom the fierce spirit of liberty is stronger than among
any other people on earth; whose institutions inspire them with lofty
sentiments; who do not judge of an ill principle only by an actual
grievance; but who anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of
the grievance by the badness of the principle; who snuff the approach
of tyranny in every tainted breeze."

When Mr. P. had concluded, the House adjourned to six o'clock this
evening.

                          _Six o'clock, P. M._

The House was called to order, and resumed the unfinished business.

A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH to postpone the subject to Friday
next, and lost--ayes 36, noes 36.

A motion was then made by Mr. R. to postpone it until to-morrow.

On this motion a debate, which from its nature caused irritation, took
place, in which Messrs. RANDOLPH and EPPES were the principal speakers.

Much warmth was excited, and frequent calls to order made.

The question on postponement till to-morrow was decided by yeas and
nays. For postponement, 44; against it, 74.

Mr. Pitkin spoke more than an hour against the bill generally, and in
support of the particular proposition which he was about to make. He
contended that the Emperor of France had not fulfilled his engagement
to the United States, inasmuch as the decrees, if revoked, which he
denied, had not been revoked on the day on which he had engaged to
revoke them. He quoted the history of the connection of Spain with
France as evidence of the perfidy of Bonaparte, from whom, he said,
no compliance with his promises could be expected, &c. In supporting
his amendment, Mr. P. contended for its beneficial effects to our
merchants: and it would not, he said, be more a breach of our contract
with France than the first section of the bill now before the House.
The one was, in fact, as much a departure from the engagement with
France as the other. The following was the amendment offered by Mr.
PITKIN:

    _Provided_, _also_, That nothing in this act, or the act to
    which this is a supplement, shall be construed to affect any
    vessels owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United
    States, or the cargoes of any such vessels which shall have
    cleared out from any port in the West Indies within ---- days
    after the 2d of February, 1811.

The yeas and nays on the motion were, 46 yeas; 58 nays.

Mr. MACON addressed the Chair on the merits of the bill at some
length. He believed the President to have been justified in issuing
his proclamation by the Duc de Cadore's letter; but as subsequent
information had been received from France, the question appeared
to him to resolve itself into this: Was the sequestration of our
vessels from the 1st November to the 2d of February a violation of our
neutral rights or not? Had the decrees been so modified, under present
circumstances, as that they had ceased to violate our neutral commerce?
He conceived not, and should therefore vote against the bill. He
deprecated the course of debate, and the irritation which prevailed in
the House, as tending to bring this body into disrepute, &c.

Mr. P. B. PORTER then said that, for the purpose of coming to a
decision on the bill, and putting an end to a scene which was, to say
the least of it, disreputable to the House, he moved for the previous
question on engrossing the bill.

The previous question was taken and decided in the affirmative, and the
bill ordered to a third reading--65 to 9.

The bill was then read a third time.

The previous question was required on its passage, and carried in the
affirmative.

Mr. RANDOLPH twice successively moved an adjournment. Motions
negatived; the first 65 to 10, the second 66 to 8.

The question on the passage of the bill was then decided in the
affirmative--yeas 64, nays 12, as follows:

    YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson,
    David Bard, William T. Barry, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,
    Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler,
    Joseph Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, Matthew Clay, James Cochran,
    William Crawford, Richard Cutts, Joseph Desha, John W. Eppes,
    William Findlay, Meshack Franklin, Barzillai Gannett, Gideon
    Gardner, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, James Holland, Jacob
    Hufty, Richard M. Johnson, Thomas Kenan, John Love, Aaron Lyle,
    Samuel McKee, William McKinley, Pleasant M. Miller, Samuel L.
    Mitchill, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore,
    Jeremiah Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thos. Newbold, Thos.
    Newton, John Porter, Peter B. Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania,
    John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, Samuel Ringgold,
    Erastus Root, Ebenezer Sage, John A. Scudder, Ebenezer Seaver,
    Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, Geo.
    Smith, John Smith, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner,
    jr., Robert Weakley, Robert Whitehill, and Robert Witherspoon.

    NAYS.--Abijah Bigelow, Barent Gardenier, Richard Jackson,
    jr., William Kennedy, Nathaniel Macon, Elisha R. Potter, John
    Randolph, Richard Stanford, Jacob Swoope, Archibald Van Home,
    Laban Wheaton, and Ezekiel Whitman.

The House then adjourned to meet again at one o'clock.

The following is the bill as it passed this House:

    A 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."

    _Be it enacted, &c._, That no vessel, owned wholly by a citizen
    or citizens of the United States, which shall have departed
    from a British port, prior to the 2d day of February, 1811,
    and no merchandise owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of
    the United States, imported in such vessel, 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.

    SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, in case 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 of the United States shall declare the
    fact by proclamation; and such proclamation shall be admitted
    as evidence, and no other evidence shall be admitted of such
    revocation or modification in any suit or prosecution which may
    be instituted under the fourth section of the act to which this
    act is a supplement. And the restrictions imposed, or which may
    be imposed, by virtue of the said act, shall, from the date of
    such proclamation, cease and be discontinued.

    SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That, until the
    proclamation aforesaid shall have been issued, the several
    provisions of 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 have full force and be
    immediately carried into effect against Britain, her colonies,
    and dependencies: _Provided, however_, That any vessel or
    merchandise which may, in pursuance thereof, be seized, prior
    to the fact being ascertained, whether Great Britain shall,
    on or before the second day of February, one thousand eight
    hundred and eleven, have revoked or modified her edicts in the
    manner above mentioned, shall, nevertheless, be restored, on
    application of the parties, on their giving bond with approved
    sureties to the United States, in a sum equal to the value
    thereof, to abide the decision of the proper court of the
    United States thereon; and any such bond shall be considered
    as satisfied if Great Britain shall, on or before the second
    day of February, one thousand eight hundred and eleven, have
    revoked or modified her edicts in the manner above mentioned:
    _Provided, also_, That nothing herein contained shall be
    construed to affect any ships or vessels, or the cargoes of
    ships or vessels, wholly owned by a citizen or citizens of
    the United States, which had cleared out for the Cape of Good
    Hope, or for any port beyond the same, prior to the tenth of
    November, one thousand eight hundred and ten.


SATURDAY, March 2.

                      _Bank of the United States._

Mr. P. B. PORTER, from the committee to whom was referred, on the
twenty-fifth ultimo, the memorial of the Stockholders of the Bank of
the United States, made the following report, which was read:

    "The committee to whom was referred the memorial of the
    Stockholders of the Bank of the United States, report:

    "That they have carefully examined the various matters set
    forth in the said memorial, and attentively listened to the
    representations of the gentlemen who have appeared in behalf
    of the said petitioners. The object of the memorialists is to
    obtain extension of their corporate powers beyond the period
    limited for the expiration of their charter, so as to enable
    them to prosecute for their debts, and to arrange, liquidate,
    and close the various concerns of the company.

    "The committee are of opinion that a law of Congress, granting
    the powers prayed for, would facilitate the final adjustment of
    the affairs of the bank, although they do not think such a law
    indispensable to that object. But believing, as your committee
    do, that, in granting the original charter to the stockholders,
    Congress transcended the legitimate powers of the constitution;
    the same objection now presents itself to the extension of any
    of their corporate capacities.

    "If the committee had time to go into the investigation, and to
    present to the House the various reasons which have conduced
    to this opinion, it would be more than useless to divert its
    attention from the important concerns of the nation, at this
    late period of the session, to a subject which, but a few days
    since, was so fully and elaborately discussed.

    "They therefore beg leave to introduce the following resolution:

    "_Resolved_, That the prayer of the memorialists ought not to
    be granted."

The House agreed to meet to-morrow, (being Sunday.)

The House then adjourned to six o'clock this evening.


March 2--_6 o'clock, p.m._

                             _Adjournment._

On motion of Mr. SMILIE,

_Resolved_, That the thanks of this House be presented to JOSEPH
B. VARNUM, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in the
discharge of the arduous and important duties assigned to him while in
the Chair.

The SPEAKER then made his acknowledgments to the House in the following
words:

  _Gentlemen of the House of Representatives_:

    I acknowledge, with grateful sensibility, the aid you have
    afforded me in the discharge of the duties of Speaker. Your
    approbation of my conduct in the important office you have
    been pleased to assign me, affords me very great consolation;
    and permit me to assure you, gentlemen, that you have my most
    ardent wishes for your individual prosperity and happiness.

At this moment, Mr. GARLAND, from the committee appointed for the
purpose, reported that they had waited on the President and informed
him that they proposed to adjourn, and had received for answer that he
had no further communication to make.

A message was received from the Senate, and reciprocated, that they
were about to adjourn; a motion was then made to adjourn, and carried.

FOOTNOTES:

[11] Thus terminated the existence of the first Bank of the United
States; but there was a fatal defect in terminating it in not providing
a general currency in place of its notes, by reviving the gold currency
and in not creating an independent treasury for keeping the public
moneys. Those who terminated the existence of the second bank avoided
these errors, and thereby avoided all the evils and embarrassments
which followed the termination of the first one.




TWELFTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 4, 1811.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.[12]


MONDAY, November 4, 1811.

The first session of the Twelfth Congress commenced this day at the
city of Washington, conformably to the proclamation of the President of
the United States, of the 24th of July last, and the Senate assembled
in their Chamber.

                               PRESENT:

  GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States and
  President of the Senate.

  NICHOLAS GILMAN and CHARLES CUTTS, from New Hampshire.

  CHAUNCEY GOODRICH and SAMUEL W. DANA, from Connecticut.

  STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from Vermont.

  JOHN SMITH and OBADIAH GERMAN, from New York.

  JOHN CONDIT and JOHN LAMBERT, from New Jersey.

  ANDREW GREGG and MICHAEL LEIB, from Pennsylvania.

  OUTERBRIDGE HORSEY, from Delaware.

  SAMUEL SMITH and PHILIP REED, from Maryland.

  WILLIAM B. GILES, from Virginia.

  JESSE FRANKLIN, from North Carolina.

  JOHN GAILLARD and JOHN TAYLOR, from South Carolina.

  WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD and CHARLES TAIT, from Georgia.

  JOHN POPE, from Kentucky.

  JOSEPH ANDERSON, from Tennessee.

  THOMAS WORTHINGTON, from Ohio.

GEORGE M. BIBB, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
Kentucky, for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th day of March
last; _George W. Campbell_, appointed a Senator by the Legislature
of the State of Tennessee, in place of Jenkin Whiteside, resigned;
JEREMIAH B. HOWELL, appointed a Senator, for the term of six years,
commencing on the fourth day of March last, by the Legislature of the
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; JOSEPH B. VARNUM,
appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts,
for the term of six years, commencing on the fourth day of March last;
respectively produced their credentials, which were read, and the oath
prescribed by law was administered to them, and they took their seats
in the Senate.

The oath was also administered to Messrs. CONDIT, CRAWFORD, GILES,
GILMAN, and TAYLOR, their credentials having been read and filed during
the last session.

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

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
a quorum of the House of Representatives is assembled, and have
elected HENRY CLAY, Esq., one of the Representatives from the State of
Kentucky, their Speaker, and are ready to proceed to business. They
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.

The Senate concurred in the appointment of a joint committee on their
part, agreeably to the resolution last mentioned; and Messrs. ANDERSON
and GAILLARD were appointed the committee.

The Senate then adjourned.


TUESDAY, November 5.

RICHARD BRENT, from the State of Virginia, attended.

                           _Annual Message._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _Fellow-citizens of the Senate
      and House of Representatives_:

    In calling you together sooner than a separation from your
    homes would otherwise have been required, I yielded to
    considerations drawn from the posture of our foreign affairs;
    and in fixing the present, for the time of your meeting, regard
    was had to the probability of further developments of the
    policy of the belligerent powers towards this country, which
    might the more unite the National Councils in the measures to
    be pursued.

    At the close of the last session of Congress, it was hoped
    that the successive confirmations of the extinction of the
    French decrees, so far as they violated our neutral commerce,
    would have induced the Government of Great Britain to repeal
    its Orders in Council, and thereby authorize a removal of the
    existing obstructions to her commerce with the United States.

    Instead of this reasonable step towards satisfaction and
    friendship between the two nations, the Orders were, at a
    moment when least to have been expected, put into more rigorous
    execution; and it was communicated through the British Envoy
    just arrived, that, whilst the revocation of the edicts of
    France, as officially made known to the British Government, was
    denied to have taken place, it was an indispensable condition
    of the repeal of the British Orders that commerce should be
    restored to a footing that would admit the productions and
    manufactures of Great Britain, when owned by neutrals, into
    markets shut against them by her enemy; the United States being
    given to understand that, in the mean time, a continuance of
    their non-importation act would lead to measures of retaliation.

    At a later date, it has indeed appeared that a communication
    to the British Government, of fresh evidence of the repeal of
    the French decrees against our neutral trade, was followed
    by an intimation that it had been transmitted to the British
    Plenipotentiary here, in order that it might receive full
    consideration in the depending discussions. This communication
    appears not to have been received; but the transmission of
    it hitherto, instead of founding on it an actual repeal of
    the orders, or assurances that the repeal would ensue, will
    not permit us to rely on any effective change in the British
    Cabinet. To be ready to meet with cordiality satisfactory
    proofs of such a change, and to proceed, in the mean time, in
    adapting our measures to the views which have been disclosed
    through that Minister, will best consult our whole duty.

    In the friendly spirit of those disclosures, indemnity and
    redress for other wrongs have continued to be withheld; and our
    coasts, and the mouths of our harbors, have again witnessed
    scenes not less derogatory to the dearest of our national
    rights, than vexatious to the regular course of our trade.

    Among the occurrences produced by the conduct of British ships
    of war hovering on our coasts, was an encounter between one of
    them and the American frigate commanded by Captain Rodgers,
    rendered unavoidable on the part of the latter, by a fire,
    commenced without cause, by the former; whose commander is
    therefore alone chargeable with the blood unfortunately shed
    in maintaining the honor of the American flag. The proceedings
    of a court of inquiry, requested by Captain Rodgers, are
    communicated, together with the correspondence relating to the
    occurrence between the Secretary of State and His Britannic
    Majesty's Envoy. To these are added the several correspondences
    which have passed on the subject of the British Orders in
    Council; and to both, the correspondence relating to the
    Floridas, in which Congress will be made acquainted with the
    interposition which the Government of Great Britain has thought
    proper to make against the proceeding of the United States.

    The justice and fairness which have been evinced on the part
    of the United States towards France, both before and since
    the revocation of her decrees, authorized an expectation that
    her Government would have followed up that measure by all
    such others as were due to our reasonable claims, as well as
    dictated by its amicable professions. No proof, however, is yet
    given of an intention to repair the other wrongs done to the
    United States, and particularly to restore the great amount
    of American property seized and condemned under edicts which,
    though not affecting our neutral relations, and therefore not
    entering into questions between the United States and other
    belligerents, were, nevertheless, founded in such unjust
    principles that the reparation ought to have been prompt and
    ample.

    In addition to this and other demands of strict right on that
    nation, the United States have much reason to be dissatisfied
    with the rigorous and unexpected restrictions to which their
    trade with the French dominions has been subjected; and which,
    if not discontinued, will require at least corresponding
    restrictions on importations from France into the United States.

    On all those subjects, our Minister Plenipotentiary, lately
    sent to Paris, has carried with him the necessary instructions;
    the result of which will be communicated to you, and by
    ascertaining the ulterior policy of the French Government
    towards the United States, will enable you to adapt to it that
    of the United States towards France.

    Our other foreign relations remain without unfavorable changes.
    With Russia they are on the best footing of friendship. The
    ports of Sweden have afforded proofs of friendly dispositions
    towards our commerce in the Councils of that nation also. And
    the information from our special Minister to Denmark, shows
    that the mission had been attended with valuable effects to our
    citizens, whose property had been so extensively violated and
    endangered by cruisers under the Danish flag.

    Under the ominous indications which commanded attention, it
    became a duty to exert the means committed to the Executive
    department in providing for the general security. The works
    of defence on our maritime frontier have accordingly been
    prosecuted with an activity leaving little to be added for the
    completion of the most important ones; and, as particularly
    suited for co-operation in emergencies, a portion of the
    gunboats have, in particular harbors, been ordered into use.
    The ships of war before in commission, with the addition of
    a frigate, have been chiefly employed as a cruising guard
    to the rights of our coast. And such a disposition has been
    made of our land forces, as was thought to promise the
    services most appropriate and important. In this disposition
    is included a force, consisting of regulars and militia,
    embodied in the Indiana Territory, and marched towards our
    Northwestern frontier. This measure was made requisite by
    the several murders and depredations committed by Indians,
    but more especially by the menacing preparations and aspect
    of a combination of them on the Wabash, under the influence
    and direction of a fanatic of the Shawanese tribe. With
    these exceptions, the Indian tribes retain their peaceable
    dispositions towards us, and their usual pursuits.

    I must now add that the period is arrived which claims from
    the Legislative guardians of the national rights a system of
    more ample provisions for maintaining them. Notwithstanding
    the scrupulous justice, the protracted moderation, and the
    multiplied efforts, on the part of the United States, to
    substitute for the accumulating dangers to the peace of the
    two countries, all the mutual advantages of re-established
    friendship and confidence, we have seen that the British
    Cabinet perseveres, not only in withholding a remedy for other
    wrongs, so long and so loudly calling for it, but in the
    execution, brought home to the threshold of our territory,
    of measures which, under existing circumstances, have the
    character, as well as the effect, of war on our lawful commerce.

    With this evidence of hostile inflexibility, in trampling on
    rights which no independent nation can relinquish, Congress
    will feel the duty of putting the United States into an armor
    and an attitude demanded by the crisis, and corresponding with
    the national spirit and expectations.

    I recommend, accordingly, that adequate provision be made
    for filling the ranks and prolonging the enlistments of the
    regular troops; for an auxiliary force, to be engaged for a
    more limited term; for the acceptance of volunteer corps, whose
    patriotic ardor may court a participation in urgent services;
    for detachments, as they may be wanted, of other portions of
    the militia; and for such a preparation of the great body as
    will proportion its usefulness to its intrinsic capacities. Nor
    can the occasion fail to remind you of the importance of those
    military seminaries which, in every event, will form a valuable
    and frugal part of our Military Establishment.

    The manufacture of cannon and small arms has proceeded with
    due success; and the stock and resources of all the necessary
    munitions are adequate to emergencies. It will not be
    inexpedient, however, for Congress to authorize an enlargement
    of them.

    Your attention will, of course, be drawn to such provisions
    on the subject of our naval force as may be required for the
    services to which it may be best adapted. I submit to Congress
    the seasonableness also of an authority to augment the stock of
    such materials as are imperishable in their nature, or may not
    at once be attainable.

    In contemplating the scenes which distinguish this momentous
    epoch, and estimating their claims to our attention, it is
    impossible to overlook those developing themselves among the
    great communities which occupy the Southern portion of our
    hemisphere, and extend into our neighborhood. An enlarged
    philanthropy, and an enlightened forecast, concur in imposing
    on the national Councils an obligation to take a deep interest
    in their destinies, to cherish reciprocal sentiments of
    good will, to regard the progress of events, and not to be
    unprepared for whatever order of things may be ultimately
    established.

    Under another aspect of our situation, the early attention
    of Congress will be due to the expediency of further guards
    against evasions and infractions of our commercial laws.
    The practice of smuggling, which is odious every where, and
    particularly criminal in free Governments, where the laws
    being made by all for the good of all, a fraud is committed on
    every individual as well as on the State, attains its utmost
    guilt when it blends, with a pursuit of ignominious gain, a
    treacherous subserviency in the transgressors to a foreign
    policy, adverse to that of their own country. It is then that
    the virtuous indignation of the public should be enabled to
    manifest itself through the regular animadversions of the most
    competent laws.

    To secure greater respect to our mercantile flag, and to the
    honest interests which it covers, it is expedient also that
    it be made punishable in our citizens to accept licenses from
    foreign Governments for a trade unlawfully interdicted by them
    to other American citizens; or to trade under false colors or
    papers of any sort.

    A prohibition is equally called for against the acceptance, by
    our citizens, of special licenses to be used in a trade with
    the United States; and against the admission into particular
    ports of the United States of vessels from foreign countries
    authorized to trade with particular ports only.

    Although other subjects will press more immediately on your
    deliberations, a portion of them cannot but be well bestowed on
    the just and sound policy of securing to our manufactures the
    success they have attained, and are still attaining, in some
    degree, under the impulse of causes not permanent; and to our
    navigation the fair extent of which it is at present abridged
    by the unequal regulations of foreign Governments.

    Besides the reasonableness of saving our manufacturers from
    sacrifices which a change of circumstances might bring on them,
    the national interest requires that, with respect to such
    articles at least as belong to our defence and our primary
    wants, we should not be left in unnecessary dependence on
    external supplies. And whilst foreign Governments adhere to the
    existing discriminations in their ports against our navigation,
    and an equality or lesser discrimination is enjoyed by their
    navigation in our ports, the effect cannot be mistaken,
    because it has been seriously felt by our shipping interests;
    and in proportion as this takes place, the advantages of an
    independent conveyance of our products to foreign markets, and
    of a growing body of mariners, trained by their occupation
    for the service of their country in times of danger, must be
    diminished.

    The receipts into the Treasury during the year ending on the
    thirtieth of September last, have exceeded thirteen millions
    and a half of dollars, and have enabled us to defray the
    current expenses, including the interest on the public debt,
    and to reimburse more than five millions of dollars of the
    principal, without recurring to the loan authorized by the act
    of the last session. The temporary loan obtained in the latter
    end of the year one thousand eight hundred and ten, has also
    been reimbursed, and is not included in that amount.

    The decrease of revenue arising from the situation of our
    commerce and the extraordinary expenses which have and
    may become necessary, must be taken into view, in making
    commensurate provisions for the ensuing year. And I recommend
    to your consideration the propriety of insuring a sufficiency
    of annual revenue, at least to defray the ordinary expenses
    of Government, and to pay the interest on the public debt,
    including that on new loans which may be authorized.

    I cannot close this communication without expressing my deep
    sense of the crisis in which you are assembled, my confidence
    in a wise and honorable result to your deliberations, and
    assurances of the faithful zeal with which my co-operating
    duties will be discharged; invoking, at the same time, the
    blessing of Heaven on our beloved country, and on all the means
    that may be employed in vindicating its rights and advancing
    its welfare.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _November 5, 1811_.



WEDNESDAY, November 6.

JAMES LLOYD, from the State of Massachusetts, took his seat in the
Senate.


FRIDAY, November 8.

On motion, by Mr. SMITH, of Maryland,

_Resolved_, That Mountjoy Bayly, Doorkeeper and Sergeant-at-Arms 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.


MONDAY, November 11.

JAMES TURNER, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
North Carolina, for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th day
of March last, produced his credentials; which were read, and the oath
prescribed by law was administered to him, and he took his seat in the
Senate.


TUESDAY, November 12.

ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, from the State of Ohio, took his seat in the Senate.


THURSDAY, November 14.

        _Reparation for the attack on the frigate Chesapeake._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
          Representatives of the United States_:

    I communicate to Congress copies of a correspondence between
    the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Great
    Britain and the Secretary of State, relative to the aggressions
    committed by a British ship of war on the United States frigate
    Chesapeake, by which it will be seen that that subject of
    difference between the two countries is terminated by an offer
    of reparation, which has been acceded to.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _Nov. 13, 1811_.


The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and ordered to
lie on the table.


FRIDAY, November 22.

JONATHAN ROBINSON, from the State of Vermont, took his seat in the
Senate.


MONDAY, November 25.

WILLIAM HUNTER, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in place of Christopher Grant
Champlin, resigned, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took
his seat in the Senate.


FRIDAY, November 29.

The oath prescribed by law was administered to Mr. BAYARD, his
credentials having been read and filed during the last session.


THURSDAY, December 19.

                        _Battle of Tippecanoe._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress two letters received from Governor
    Harrison, of the Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars
    and the issue of the expedition under his command, of which
    notice was taken in my communication of November 5th.

    While it is deeply lamented that so many valuable lives have
    been lost in the action which took place on the 7th ultimo,
    Congress will see, with satisfaction, the dauntless spirit
    and fortitude victoriously displayed by every description of
    the troops engaged, as well as the collected firmness which
    distinguished their commander, on an occasion requiring the
    utmost exertions of valor and discipline.

    It may reasonably be expected that the good effects of this
    critical defeat and dispersion of a combination of savages,
    which appears to have been spreading to a greater extent, will
    be experienced not only in a cessation of the murders and
    depredations committed on our frontier, but in the prevention
    of any hostile incursions otherwise to have been apprehended.

    The families of those brave and patriotic citizens who have
    fallen in this severe conflict, will doubtless engage the
    favorable attention of Congress.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _Dec. 18, 1811_.


The Message and letters referred to were read, and ordered to lie on
the table.


FRIDAY, December 20.

Mr. GILMAN, from the committee, reported the bill to raise, for a
limited time, an additional military force, correctly engrossed;
and the bill was read the third time, and the blanks filled. On
the question, Shall this bill pass? it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 26, nays 4, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Bradley, Campbell of Ohio,
    Campbell of Tennessee, Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin,
    Gaillard, German, Gilman, Gregg, Horsey, Howell, Leib, Lloyd,
    Pope, Reed, Robinson, Smith of New York, Tait, Taylor, Turner,
    Varnum, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Dana, Goodrich, Hunter, and Lambert.

                      _Rangers for the Frontier._

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill authorizing
the President of the United States to raise certain companies of spies
or rangers for the protection of the frontier of the United States;
and the bill was amended; and 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.


TUESDAY, December 24.

                 _Hudson River and Lake Ontario Canal._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I communicate to Congress copies of an act of the Legislature
    of New York, relating to a canal from the great Lakes to
    Hudson's River. In making the communication, I consult the
    respect due to that State in whose behalf the commissioners
    appointed by the act have placed it in my hands for the purpose.

    The utility of canal navigation is universally admitted. It
    is not less certain, that scarcely any country offers more
    extensive opportunities for that branch of improvements than
    the United States; and none, perhaps, inducements equally
    persuasive to make the most of them. The particular undertaking
    contemplated by the State of New York, which marks an honorable
    spirit of enterprise, and comprises objects of national as
    well as more limited importance, will recall the attention of
    Congress to the signal advantages to be derived to the United
    States from a general system of internal communication and
    conveyance; and suggest to their consideration whatever steps
    may be proper, on their part, towards its introduction and
    accomplishment. As some of those advantages have an intimate
    connection with arrangements and exertions for the general
    security, it is at a period calling for these that the merits
    of such a system will be seen in the strongest lights.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _December 23, 1811_.


The Message and documents therein referred to were read; and referred
to the committee last mentioned, to consider and report thereon.


FRIDAY, December 27.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress copies of resolutions entered into by the
    Legislature of Pennsylvania, which have been transmitted to me,
    with that view, by the Governor of that State, in pursuance of
    one of the said resolutions.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _December 27, 1811_.

   _Oliver Evans' claim for different applications of Steam Power._

Mr. LEIB presented the memorial of Oliver Evans, stating that the
memorialist verily believes himself to be the original proposer of
steam-boats and steam-wagons in the United States, (Doctor Franklin
only excepted;) and that he conceives his patent, dated February 14,
1804, secured to him the right to use his engine for boats, mills, and
land carriages, and praying to be left in full possession of those
rights, for reasons stated at large in the memorial; which was read,
and ordered to lie on the table.


MONDAY, December 30.

                _Burning of the Richmond, Va., Theatre._

Mr. BRADLEY submitted the following motion for consideration:

    _Resolved_, That the members of this House will wear crape
    on the left arm for one month, in testimony of the national
    respect and sorrow for the unfortunate persons who perished in
    the city of Richmond, in Virginia, on the night of the 26th of
    the present month.


TUESDAY, December 31.

Mr. BRADLEY called up the motion made yesterday on the subject; and, on
his motion, it was amended and agreed to as follows:

_Resolved_, That the members of this House will wear crape on the left
arm for one month, in testimony of the condolence and sorrow of the
Senate for the calamitous event by which the Chief Magistrate of the
State of Virginia, and so many of her citizens, perished by fire, in
the city of Richmond, on the night of the 26th of the present month.


THURSDAY, January 16, 1812.

                   _Hostile policy of Great Britain._

The following message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I communicate to Congress a letter from the Envoy Extraordinary
    and Minister Plenipotentiary of Great Britain to the Secretary
    of State, with the answer of the latter.

    The continued evidence afforded in this correspondence, of the
    hostile policy of the British Government against our national
    rights, strengthens the considerations recommending and urging
    the preparation of adequate means for maintaining them.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _January 16, 1812_.


The Message and documents enclosed were read, and referred to the
committee to whom was referred, on the 8th of November last, so much
of the Message of the President of the United States as concerns the
relations between the United States and France and Great Britain, to
consider and report thereon; and five hundred copies thereof ordered to
be printed for the use of the Senate.


FRIDAY, January 17.

              _Incorporation of a Mining Company in Upper
                              Louisiana._

Mr. BRADLEY, from the committee appointed on the petition of Moses
Austin and John R. Jones, reported a bill to incorporate Moses Austin,
John Rice Jones, Henry Austin, and others, into a company, by the name
of the Louisiana Lead Company; and the bill was read, and passed to the
second reading.


WEDNESDAY, January 29.

The bill establishing a land office was read the second time.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration
of the bill, entitled "An act authorizing the President of the United
States to accept and organize certain volunteer military corps,"
together with the amendments reported thereto by the select committee.

Mr. GILES rose and opposed at length the bill as it came from the
House, reserving to himself the privilege of acting on the proposed
amendment according to the result of further reflections. He believed
the bill would be productive of no practical efficacy. It proposed
a force which could not be raised; and if raised, from the short
period of its service, in the event of serious hostilities, would be
utterly incompetent to effect the objects of those hostilities. The
bill would be inoperative, because, in the States of Massachusetts
and Vermont, (and he presumed in other States,) no power or provision
existed by which these volunteers could be commissioned, so as to
perform the contemplated service; and if the Government were deprived
of the volunteers in Massachusetts and Vermont, he did not know where
they could obtain volunteers for the object which he believed all
branches of the Government had in view. He presumed that the system
of volunteers was the favorite system of the Government; and this he
inferred from their having recommended to the other House the raising
of ten thousand regulars only, and from the Message of the President,
sent in after both Houses had passed the bill for raising twenty-five
thousand regulars, and communicating the correspondence between Mr.
Foster and Mr. Monroe, as a ground for urging Congress to persevere
in the preparations they were engaged in making. The President must,
therefore, have deemed a volunteer force essential for the contemplated
service. And here he observed he thought, if his correspondence with
the British Envoy, which afforded evidence of "continued hostility"
towards us, furnished matter of sufficient importance to press upon
Congress the utility of hastening their measures of preparation, that
the other business of the Department of State might have been allowed
to repose long enough for a reply to have been made to Mr. Foster,
before nearly a month had elapsed after the date of his letter. He
did not advert to this circumstance from any want of respect to this
Government: he should always treat them with the highest respect.
He should prefer the reduction of the number of the volunteers to
twenty-five thousand, rather than the retention of the fifty thousand,
because it would increase the momentum of actual force, and decrease
the expenses, about which so much has been said. Surely, he said, he
did not mean that it would not increase the momentum of force proposed
by the other House, but that proposed by the Executive. The Executive
had asked for ten thousand regulars, and fifty thousand volunteers--in
all, sixty thousand men. The other House had agreed to give him
eighty-five thousand. The proposed amendment would, therefore, bring
the quantum of force down nearly to the Executive requisition. But
the bill proposed a force which would be utterly inefficient, as all
other volunteer bills had been. The returns under the thirty thousand
volunteer law, passed two or three years ago, were so few, that the
Secretary of War did not register them. He asked, how efficient could
that species of force be, of which the Chief Magistrate did not think
it worth while to have a record kept? It was only a formidable display
of armies on paper--a tender of services--which only produced very
handsome replies from the President. He did not censure the Secretary
of War or the President; very far from it; the defect had been in the
law. He begged gentlemen to look seriously at the subject. If a war
should ensue, it must be a serious one. The responsibility attached to
Congress of placing an adequate force in the hands of the President for
the war. But if they passed a law which would give the President only
a nominal force, totally incompetent to effect any desirable object,
he, for one, should be unwilling to take any share of responsibility on
himself.


THURSDAY, February 27.

                        _Increase of the Navy._

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of
the bill entitled "An act concerning the Naval Establishment," together
with the amendments reported thereto by the select committee.

Mr. LLOYD.--Mr. President, the amendments proposed by the committee to
whom this bill has been referred, having been gone through with, I now
beg leave to offer a new one, by an additional section to the following
effect:

    "_Be it further enacted_, That the President of the United
    States be, and he hereby is, authorized to cause to be built as
    speedily as may be, on the most approved model, ---- frigates,
    not exceeding thirty-six guns each; and that a sum not
    exceeding ---- dollars be, and the same is hereby appropriated
    for building the said frigates, out of any moneys in the
    Treasury not otherwise appropriated."

It is my intention, sir, to move for twenty new frigates; but the
number I have left blank in order, should the Senate be favorably
disposed to an increase of the Navy, and disagree with me as to the
degree of that increase, they might regulate the number at their
pleasure.

Sir, I have been induced to offer this amendment from an impulse of
duty towards my more immediate constituents, and also from a sense of
the obligation imposed upon me, however feebly I may be able to respond
to it, in the honorable station in which I am placed, to endeavor to
the extent of my ability to support the dignity, protect the rights,
and advance the best interests of the United States. Sir, I trust the
amendment under consideration, if adopted, would have a relation, and a
favorable relation, to all these objects.

If it be not the determination of the Government to engage in an
open, actual, efficient war; to place the nation in such a complete
state of preparation as to avert war, from our state of readiness to
meet it; then the measures of the present session, those of filling
up the existing Military Establishments, and thereby adding to it
between six and seven thousand men, that of enlisting a standing
army of twenty-five thousand men to serve for five years, unless
sooner discharged--of providing for the employment of fifty thousand
volunteers, and of holding in readiness one hundred thousand of the
militia, would be not only inexcusable, but nearly treasonable; as
they would in such case, without any adequate object, impose severe
and heavy burdens upon the people of the United States, from which
years of the highest degree of prosperity would not relieve them. But,
sir, I am bound to believe, that unless redress be obtained, it is the
determination of the Government of the United States to enter into an
actual, vigorous, real war, or at any rate to put the nation into a
perfect State of readiness to commence it, should it be necessary; and
in either of these cases, an efficient naval force is as indispensable,
nay much more indispensable, than a land force.

In the year 1793, when Great Britain depredated upon your commerce,
you had a man at the head of your Government who fought no battles
with paper resolutions, nor attempted to wage war with commercial
restrictions, although they were then pressed upon him. He caused it to
be distinctly and with firmness made known to Great Britain, that if
she did not both cease to violate our rights, and make us reparation
for the wrongs we had sustained--that young and feeble as we then were,
just in the gristle, and stepping from the cradle of infancy, we would
try the tug of war with her. What was the consequence? Her depredations
were stopped--we made a treaty with her, under which we enjoyed a
high degree of prosperity. Our claims were fairly heard, equitably
adjudged, and the awards were honorably and punctually paid to the
sufferers. In this instance you did something for commerce.

Next came the war with Tripoli--the Barbary States preyed upon our
commerce--you determined to resist, and despatched a small squadron to
the Mediterranean: this ought to have been considered as the germ of
your future maritime greatness: the good conduct and bravery of that
squadron, and the self-immolation of some of its officers, spread the
renown of your naval prowess to all quarters of the civilized globe.
What did you in this instance? At the moment when victory had perched
upon your standard--when you might have exhibited the interesting
spectacle of the infant Government of the United States holding in
subjugation one of the Powers of Barbary, to whom all Europe had been
subservient--at this moment when conquest was completely within your
grasp--civil agency stepped in--the laurel was torn from the brow of
as gallant a chieftain as ever graced the plains of Palestine, and we
ignominiously consented to pay a tribute, where we might have imposed
one.

After this you had the Berlin decree, the Orders in Council, the
Milan decree, the Rambouillet decree, the depredations of Spain, the
robberies even of the renegado black chief of St. Domingo, and the
unprovoked and still continued plunder of Denmark, a nation of pirates
from their origin. What cause of complaint has Denmark, or ever had
Denmark, against us? Her most fond and speculative maritime pretensions
we have willingly espoused, and yet she continues daily to capture
and condemn our vessels and cargoes, and contemptuously tells us that
the Government of the United States is too wise to go to war for a
few merchant ships. And this we bear from a people as inferior to the
United States in all the attributes of national power or greatness,
as I am inferior to Hercules. Yes, sir, commerce has been abandoned,
else why prohibit your merchants from bringing the property, to a
large amount, which they have fairly purchased and paid for, into the
ports of our country, else why, by this exclusion, perform the double
operation of adding to the resources of the enemy you are going to war
with and impoverishing your own citizens.

Yes, sir, commerce has been abandoned, "deserted in her utmost need by
those her former bounty fed." Yes, sir, she has been abandoned. She has
been left as a wreck upon a strand, or as a derelict upon the waters
of the ocean, to be burnt, sunk, or plundered, by any great or puny
assailant who could man an oar or load a swivel for her annoyance.

What was the leading object of the adoption of the Federal Constitution
in the northern parts of the Union? Most emphatically, it was for the
protection of commerce. What was the situation of some branches of our
commerce then? And what is it now? Look at the statement which was laid
upon our tables about a fortnight past, and taken from the returns of
the Treasury. What effect has it had upon our fisheries, which were so
nobly and successfully contended for by the American Commissioners who
settled the Treaty of 1783; which for a time suspended that Treaty;
and which, both the duplicity and intrigue of France and the interest
of England strove to deprive us of--of our fisheries, which were then
considered, and still ought to be considered, as a main sinew of our
strength, and a nursery for our seamen?


MONDAY, March 2.

                        _Increase of the Navy._

Mr. CRAWFORD.--The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. LLOYD)
thinks that nothing has been done by the Government for commerce,
whilst commerce has done every thing for the nation; that commerce
has paid into the public Treasury $200,000,000. If it is contended
that this sum has been paid exclusively by commerce, nothing can be
more incorrect. The money collected from imposts and duties is paid
by the consumer of merchandise upon which the duties are imposed. It
is collected immediately from the merchant, and ultimately from the
nation. The only money paid into the Treasury which can justly be
placed to the exclusive credit of commerce, is the sum retained by the
Government upon debentures, which is only 7-10ths of one per cent.
upon goods paying a duty of twenty per cent. ad valorem, and has never
amounted to $400,000 in any one year. The export of foreign productions
from the United States in the year 1807, exceeded $59,000,000, and the
sum paid into the Treasury that year on account of drawbacks was about
$390,000, which is the greatest amount received from that source of
revenue since the organization of the Government.

The duty upon tonnage, like the duty imposed on merchandise, is paid by
the consumer or grower of the cargoes transported by the ship-holders,
of whom this duty is immediately collected. The ultimate payment of
this duty by the grower or consumer will depend upon the relative
demand for, and supply of the articles in the market to which they are
exported. If the demand for the article is greater than the quantity
in the market, it is paid by the consumer; if the supply exceeds the
demand, it is paid by the grower, in the form of a reduction of the
price of the article equal to the duty imposed.

Who are the most interested in commerce, the growers of the articles,
the exchange and transportation of which constitute commerce, or the
factors and freighters employed in the exchange and transportation of
those articles? Can any man doubt for one moment that the growers,
the rightful owners of the articles to be exchanged, are more deeply
interested in commerce than the merchant and ship-holder, who only make
a profit from the sale and transportation of the articles exchanged?
If the profit they derive from commerce should be so enormous as
to exceed the original value of those articles in the hands of the
growers, still it can be demonstrated that the interest of the latter
is more vitally affected by a prosperous or adverse state of commerce,
than that of the merchant or ship-holder. The merchant will be
regulated in the price which he gives to the grower, by the state of
the market and the price of transportation to the market. Let the price
be what it may in foreign markets, the merchant is regulated by it, and
can only be affected by sudden changes in those markets which may be
prejudicial or advantageous to him. It is a matter of small moment to
him whether the articles in which he deals bring a high or low price
in the market to which they are sent, if that price is not variable,
because he will regulate the price he gives for them by the price which
he can obtain. But the price which those articles will bring in the
market to which they are sent, is all-important to the grower, because
it will regulate the price which he is to receive for them beyond
the power of his control. Every circumstance which tends to destroy
competition and reduce the number of markets to which our produce is
sent, vitally affects the interest of the grower. The planter, the
farmer, is, therefore, more deeply interested in the prosperity of that
commerce which finds a market for the annual surplus productions of his
industry, than the merchant or ship-holder. This direct commerce is
indispensable to the internal growth and improvement of the country,
and to the comfort and happiness of the people, and more so to the
people of the Southern and Western States than any other part of the
United States. Sir, we are not so grossly ignorant as to mistake our
interest in this matter. We know that, without commerce, without a
market for the surplus productions of our labor, we should be deprived
of many of those articles which long habit has made necessary to our
ease and comfort. If, then, we are not grossly ignorant of our true
interest, nothing can be more unfounded than the accusation of the
gentleman from New York, (Mr. GERMAN.) The charge must be the result of
ignorance or prejudice. Mr. C. said he would not follow the example of
that gentleman by saying, "perhaps this prejudice might be an honest
prejudice." No, he would not insult the feelings of that gentleman; he
would not question his veracity or integrity by stating hypothetically,
"that perhaps his opinions were honest." Whilst he repelled this
unfounded charge in the manner which its nature imperiously demanded,
he had no hesitation in admitting that the opinions of that gentleman,
whether the result of prejudice or of ignorance, were strictly honest.
Mr. C. said there was no man in the nation more friendly to that
commerce which he had described than he was, and that no part of the
nation cherished it with more ardor than that which he in part had
the honor to represent on this floor. But, sir, there is a commerce
which has been prosecuted to a very great extent by the commercial
capitalists of the United States, for the prosperity of which the
agricultural part of the nation do not feel the same solicitude.

In the year 1807, the United States exported upwards of $59,000,000 of
foreign productions. This commerce has no connection with or dependence
upon the annual surplus productions of the country, which is the only
commerce that essentially promotes domestic industry and multiplies
the domestic comforts of the great mass of the people. This commerce,
which is the legitimate offspring of war, and expires with the first
dawning of peace, is prosecuted principally by our commercial cities
to the east and north of the Potomac. The landholders, the country
people, the great mass of agriculturists in the United States, never
had, and never can have any direct interest in it. The farmer of the
Eastern and Middle States, and the planter of the Southern and Western
States, stand in the same relation to this commerce. Whether it be
prosperous or adverse, is a matter of small concern to them, and
nothing but an effort of pure, disinterested patriotism could induce
them to jeopardize the peace and happiness of the nation, and stake the
prosperity of the direct commerce of the country, for the protection of
this mushroom commerce.

The use proposed to be made of these frigates, if built, certainly
meets my approbation. The idea of protecting our commerce by a naval
force, which has been pressed with so much vehemence by some of our
navy gentlemen, is worse than visionary. A navy can injure commerce,
but cannot afford it protection, unless it annihilates the naval
force of the adverse nation. Unless, therefore, we have the means of
creating and supporting a naval force able to contend successfully
with the British navy for the empire of the seas, we must abandon all
idea of protecting our commerce against that nation. Great Britain,
with her thousand ships of war, is unable to protect her commerce
even in sight of her own coasts. According to my understanding of the
views of the honorable gentlemen, these thirty frigates are to be
employed in destroying the commerce of the enemy, and not in fighting
her public armed vessels. They are in fact to be national privateers.
In this point of view, the proposition to cashier the officer who
should strike the American flag seems to be at war with the nature of
their employment. They are to direct their efforts to the destruction
of merchant vessels, and to avoid collision with the ships of war.
It is to be apprehended that men, whose duty it is to avoid serious
conflicts with the enemy, will grow timid from habit, and will resist
but feebly when inevitably forced into them. The character of the naval
officers of the United States makes a regulation of this kind wholly
unnecessary. Their enterprise, their courage, and intrepidity, are too
well established to require a regulation of such severity. As then the
gentleman does not intend to dispute the sovereignty even of our own
seas with our expected enemy with this naval force, but intends to
employ it in the destruction of merchant vessels, an increase of that
force appears to me to be wholly unnecessary and impolitic. Individual
enterprise, directed by individual interest, will more effectually
destroy the commerce of the enemy, than any number of frigates in the
power of this Government to build and employ. The Baltimore _Federal
Republican_ states that a French privateer in the Atlantic Ocean has
captured about thirty merchant vessels, and that the impression made by
this single privateer was so serious that thirteen vessels, several of
which were frigates, were employed in cruising for her. The truth of
this statement may be relied on, because that paper is not in the habit
of exaggerating French successes, or of aggravating British sufferings.
But it is said that, although our privateers were successful at the
commencement of the Revolutionary War, before the conclusion of that
contest they were entirely destroyed. Admitting the fact to be true, it
does not necessarily follow that such will be the result of the war now
in contemplation. After the first years of that contest, the British
forces were in possession of the principal ports and harbors of the
United States, which made it extremely hazardous for our privateers to
approach our own coasts, or enter our own harbors. It is expected that
our situation will be very different in the event of war at this time.
Instead of possessing the principal ports of the United States, we
expect to expel them from the whole of their continental possessions in
our neighborhood. If this should be the result of the war, their means
of annoying our commerce, and of destroying our privateers, will be
greatly diminished, and their power of protecting their commerce from
the depredations of our privateers will suffer an equal diminution.


MONDAY, March 9.

              _British Intrigues to dismember the Union._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress copies of certain documents which remain
    in the Department of State. They prove that, at a recent
    period, whilst the United States, notwithstanding the wrongs
    sustained by them, ceased not to observe the laws of peace and
    neutrality towards Great Britain, and in the midst of amicable
    professions and negotiations on the part of the British
    Government, through its public Minister here, a secret agent of
    that Government was employed in certain States, more especially
    at the seat of Government in Massachusetts, in fomenting
    disaffection to the constituted authorities of the nation, and
    in intrigues with the disaffected, for the purpose of bringing
    about resistance to the laws, and eventually, in concert with
    a British force, of destroying the Union, and forming the
    eastern part thereof into a political connection with Great
    Britain.

    In addition to the effect which the discovery of such a
    procedure ought to have on the public councils, it will not
    fail to render more dear to the hearts of all good citizens
    that happy Union of these States, which, under Divine
    Providence, is the guaranty of their liberties, their safety,
    their tranquillity, and their prosperity.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  MARCH 9, 1812.


The Message and documents therein referred to were read, and one
thousand copies of the Message and documents ordered to be printed for
the use of the Senate; and on motion of Mr. CAMPBELL of Tennessee, a
committee was appointed to examine the documents above referred to, and
designate such as may be necessary to be printed.

Messrs. CAMPBELL of Tennessee, BRENT, and BAYARD, were appointed the
committee.

Mr. LLOYD submitted the following motion for consideration:

    _Resolved_, That the Secretary of State be directed to lay
    before the Senate the names of any and all persons in the
    United States, and especially in the State of Massachusetts,
    who have in any way or manner whatever entered into, or most
    remotely countenanced, the project or the views, for the
    execution or attainment of which John Henry was, in the year
    1809, employed by Sir James Craig, then Governor General of the
    British provinces in North America, and which have this day
    been communicated to the Senate of the United States.


FRIDAY, March 13.

                    _Answer to Mr. Lloyd's inquiry._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate of the United States_:

    I transmit to the Senate a report of the Secretary of State,
    complying with their resolution of the 10th instant.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

                 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _March_ 12, 1812.

    The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of
    the Senate of the 10th instant, has the honor to report, that
    this department is not in possession of any names of persons
    in the United States, who have, in any way or manner whatever,
    entered into or countenanced the project or the views, for
    the execution or attainment of which, John Henry was, in the
    year 1809, employed by Sir James Craig; the said John Henry
    having named no persons or person as being concerned in the
    said project or views referred to in the documents laid before
    Congress on the 9th instant. Which is respectfully submitted.

                                                           JAMES MONROE.


The Message and report were read, and one thousand copies thereof
ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, March 18.

              _Incorporation of a Mining Company in Upper
                              Louisiana._

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of
the bill to incorporate Moses Austin, John Rice Jones, Henry Austin,
and others, into a company, by the name of the Louisiana Lead Company;
and the bill having been 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.


TUESDAY, March 24.

In the absence of the VICE PRESIDENT, on motion of Mr. LLOYD, the
Senate proceeded to the choice of a President _pro tempore_, as the
constitution provides, and WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD was elected.


THURSDAY, March 26.

                 _Incorporation of Lead Mine Company._

The engrossed bill to incorporate Moses Austin, John Rice Jones, Henry
Austin, and others, into a company, by the name of the Louisiana Lead
Company, was read the third time.

On the question, Shall this bill pass? it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 14, nays 12, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bradley, Condit, Crawford, Dana,
    German, Goodrich, Gregg, Howell, Hunter, Smith of New York,
    Tait, Taylor, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Franklin, Giles, Horsey, Lambert, Leib,
    Lloyd, Reed, Smith of Maryland, Turner, and Varnum.

So it was _Resolved_, That this bill pass, and that the title thereof
be, "An act to incorporate Moses Austin, John Rice Jones, Henry Austin,
and others, into a company, by the name of the Louisiana Lead Company."


WEDNESDAY, April 1.

              _Erection of the Territory of Orleans into a
                                State._

The amendments to the bill, entitled "An act for the admission of
the State of Louisiana into the Union, and to extend the laws of the
United States to the said State," having been reported by the committee
correctly engrossed, the bill was read a third time as amended, and, by
unanimous consent, was further amended, by striking out, in the ninth
section and second line, the word "next," and inserting the words "one
thousand eight hundred and twelve."

_Resolved_, That this bill pass with amendments.

The bill giving further time for registering claims to land in the
eastern district of the Territory of Orleans having been reported by
the committee correctly engrossed, was read a third time, and passed.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration
of the bill to enlarge the limits of the State of Louisiana; and,
no amendment having been offered, on the question, Shall this bill
be engrossed and read a third time? it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 21, nays 8, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Bibb, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg, Horsey,
    Howell, Leib, Pope, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Tait,
    Taylor, Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Franklin, German, Gilman, Goodrich,
    Lambert, Lloyd, and Reed.

                          _Temporary Embargo._

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

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    Considering it as expedient, under existing circumstances and
    prospects, that a general embargo be laid on all vessels now in
    port, or hereafter arriving, for the period of sixty days, I
    recommend the immediate passage of a law to that effect.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  APRIL 1, 1812.


The Message was read; and on motion, by Mr. BAYARD, that the injunction
of secrecy be taken off respecting the Message last read, it was
determined in the negative--yeas 11, nays 21, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Dana, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Gregg,
    Horsey, Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, and Reed.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Bradley, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Howell,
    Leib, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York,
    Tait, Taylor, Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

_Resolved_, That the Message be referred to a select committee, to
consist of five members, to consider and report thereon by bill or
otherwise.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. CAMPBELL of Tennessee, TAYLOR, GERMAN, POPE,
and BAYARD, be the committee.


FRIDAY, April 3.

                          _Temporary Embargo._

The amendments to the bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on
all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States
for a limited time," having been reported by the committee correctly
engrossed, the bill was read the third time.

On motion, by Mr. LEIB, it was agreed to fill the blank with the word
"ninety."

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in
the affirmative--yeas 20, nays 13, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Gregg, Howell,
    Leib, Pope, Robinson, Smith of New York, Tait, Taylor, Turner,
    Varnum, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Dana, German, Giles, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Horsey, Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, Reed, and Smith of
    Maryland.


SATURDAY, April 4.

On motion, by Mr. CAMPBELL, of Tennessee, the galleries were cleared,
and the doors of the Senate Chamber closed.

A message from the House of Representatives, by their committee,
Messrs. CALHOUN and WILLIAMS--Mr. CALHOUN, chairman:

_Mr. President_: The House of Representatives concur in the amendment
of the Senate to the bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all
ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, for a
limited time."


FRIDAY, April 10.

                   _Executive Veto.--Returned Bill._

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
the bill which passed the two Houses of Congress at the present
session, entitled "An act providing for the trial of all causes pending
in the respective district courts of the United States, in case of the
absence or disability of the judges thereof," and presented to the
President of the United States for his approbation, has been returned
by the President of the United States, with the following objections:

    "Because the additional services imposed by the bill on the
    justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, are to
    be performed by them rather in the quality of other judges
    of other courts, namely, judges of the district courts, than
    in the quality of justices of the Supreme Court. They are to
    hold the said district courts, and to do and perform all acts
    relating to the said courts which are by law required of the
    district judges. The bill, therefore, virtually appoints, for
    the time, the justices of the Supreme Court to other distinct
    offices, to which, if compatible with their original offices,
    they ought to be appointed by another than the legislative
    authority, in pursuance of legislative provisions authorizing
    the appointments.

    "Because the appeal allowed by law from the decision of the
    district courts to the circuit courts, while it corroborates
    the construction which regards a judge of the one court, as
    clothed with a new office, by being constituted a judge of
    the other, submits for correction erroneous judgments, not to
    superior or other judges, but to the erring individual himself,
    acting as sole judge in the appellate court.

    "Because the additional services to be required may, by
    distances of place, and by the casualties contemplated by the
    bill, become disproportionate to the strength and health of
    the justices who are to perform them, the additional services
    being, moreover, entitled to no additional compensation, nor
    the additional expenses incurred, to reimbursement. In this
    view, the bill appears to be contrary to equity, as well as
    a precedent for modifications and extensions of judicial
    services, encroaching on the constitutional tenure of judicial
    offices.

    "Because, by referring to the President of the United States
    questions of disability in the district judges, and of the
    unreasonableness of delaying the suits or causes pending in
    the district courts, and leaving it with him in such cases
    to require the justices of the Supreme Court to perform
    additional services, the bill introduces an unsuitable relation
    of members of the judiciary department to a discretionary
    authority of the Executive department.

"JAMES MADISON."


And the House of Representatives, where the bill originated, have taken
the question in the constitutional way, and have resolved that this
bill do not pass.


FRIDAY, April 17.

                      _Temporary Non-Exportation._

On motion, by Mr. DANA, the injunction of secrecy was removed
respecting the proceedings on the "Act to prohibit the exportation of
specie, goods, wares, and merchandise, for a limited time."

                   [_The proceedings are as follow_:]

                        THURSDAY, April 9, 1812.

The following confidential message was received from the House of
Representatives, by their committee, Mr. SMILIE and Mr. PLEASANTS--Mr.
SMILIE, chairman:

_Mr. President_: The House of Representatives have passed a bill,
entitled "An act to prohibit the exportation of specie, goods, wares,
and merchandise, for a limited time;" in which bill they ask the
concurrence of the Senate.

The bill was read, and, on motion, by Mr. CAMPBELL of Tennessee, that
the bill be now read the second time by unanimous consent, it was
objected to as against the rule.

_Ordered_, That the bill pass to a second reading.


FRIDAY, April 10.

The bill from the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to
prohibit the exportation of specie, goods, wares, and merchandise, for
a limited time," was read the second time, and referred to a select
committee, to consider and report thereon; and Messrs. CAMPBELL of
Tennessee, BRADLEY, and TAYLOR, were appointed the committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Tennessee, from the committee, reported the bill last
mentioned with an amendment. Whereupon, the bill was resumed, and
considered as in Committee of the Whole, together with the amendment
reported thereto by the select committee; and having agreed to the
amendment, the President reported the bill to the House accordingly.

On motion, by Mr. GOODRICH, that the further consideration of the
bill be postponed until to-morrow, and that it be printed under an
injunction of secrecy, for the use of the Senate, it was determined in
the negative.

On the question, Shall the bill pass to the third reading as amended?
it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 16, nays 12, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Gaillard, Gregg, Howell, Leib, Pope, Smith of
    New York, Tait, Taylor, Turner, and Varnum.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bradley, Dana, German, Giles, Gilman, Goodrich,
    Horsey, Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, Reed, and Smith of Maryland.


FRIDAY, April 17.

                        _Mississippi Territory._

Mr. TAYLOR, from the committee to whom was referred on the 17th
of March, the bill, entitled "An act to enable the people of the
Mississippi Territory 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 on the 6th instant, the bill to carry
into effect the provisions of the eighth section of the act regulating
the grants of land, and providing for the disposal of the lands of the
United States south of the State of Tennessee, reported that the said
bills be severally postponed to the first Monday in December next.

The report is as follows:

    That in considering the subject referred to them, they could
    not avoid being struck with the immense size of the Territory
    proposed to be erected into a State, a size disproportionate
    to the size of any of the largest States which now compose our
    confederation.

    It embraces, in its present form, and without any extension,
    to the Gulf of Mexico, (as is proposed in the bill referred to
    us,) nearly six and a half degrees of geographical longitude,
    and four entire degrees of latitude, and affords an area of
    twice the surface of the State of Pennsylvania.

    Your committee are strongly impressed with the propriety and
    expediency of dividing the said Territory, so as to form of the
    same two States, whenever the population, within the limits
    of each section, shall render it just and proper; and they
    respectfully submit to the Senate the following divisional
    line, between the western and eastern sections of the said
    Territory, viz: up the Mobile river, to the point nearest its
    source, which falls on the eleventh degree of west longitude
    from the city of Washington; thence a course due north until
    the line intersects the waters of Bear Creek; thence down the
    said creek to its confluence with the Tennessee River; thence
    down the said river to the northern boundary line of the said
    Territory. By a view of the map of this country it will appear
    that the above divisional line will divide the Territory into
    nearly two equal parts, and it has, for the most part, a
    delineation by nature.

    By the 5th section of the 1st article of the treaty of cession
    from the State of Georgia the United States are bound to erect
    the said Territory into one State. It has, however, been
    suggested that the State of Georgia would not, upon a proper
    representation, withhold her consent to the proposed division.

    To the end, therefore, that an opportunity may be afforded to
    the State of Georgia to express this consent, by a legislative
    act of the said State, as they shall think proper, your
    committee recommend that the said bill shall be postponed to
    the first Monday in December next.


MONDAY, April 20.

                     _Death of the Vice President._

The PRESIDENT addressed the Senate as follows:

    "GENTLEMEN: Upon me devolves the painful duty of announcing to
    the Senate the death of our venerable fellow-citizen, GEORGE
    CLINTON, Vice President of the United States.

    "By this afflictive dispensation of Divine Providence the
    Senate is deprived of a President rendered dear to each of its
    members by the dignity and impartiality with which he has so
    long presided over their deliberations; and the nation bereaved
    of one of the brightest luminaries of its glorious Revolution."

The Senate being informed of the decease of their distinguished
fellow-citizen, GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States, do

_Resolve_, That a committee be appointed, jointly with such as may be
appointed on the part of the House of Representatives, to consider and
report measures proper to manifest the public respect for the memory of
the deceased, and expressive of the deep regret of the Congress of the
United States on the loss of a citizen so highly respected and revered.

_Ordered_, That Messrs. SMITH of New York, SMITH of Maryland, GERMAN,
GILMAN, and BRADLEY, be the committee.

_Ordered_, That the Secretary carry this resolution to the House of
Representatives.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
the House concur in the resolution of the Senate for the appointment of
a joint committee "to consider and report measures proper to manifest
the public respect for the memory of the Vice President of the United
States," deceased, and have appointed a committee on their part.


TUESDAY, April 21.

On motion of Mr. SMITH of New York,

_Resolved unanimously_, That, from an unfeigned respect to the late
GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States, and President
of the Senate, the Chair of the President of the Senate be shrouded
with black during the present session; and, as a further testimony of
respect for the memory of the deceased, the members of the Senate will
go into mourning and wear a black crape round the left arm for thirty
days.


FRIDAY, April 24.

                         _Recess of Congress._

Mr. BRADLEY, from the joint committee of the two Houses appointed
on the subject of a recess, reported the business that demands the
immediate attention of Congress, and the following resolution:

    _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, That, during
    the present session of Congress, the President of the Senate
    and Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, on the
    29th day of April instant, adjourn their respective Houses to
    Monday, the 18th day of May next, then to meet at the same
    place in which the two Houses are now sitting.

On motion, by Mr. BRADLEY, the resolution was twice read by unanimous
consent; and, on motion by Mr. POPE, amended, by striking out the words
"eighteenth day of May next."

On the question, Shall this resolution be engrossed, and read a third
time as amended, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 18, nays 13.


SATURDAY, April 25.

                         _Recess of Congress._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution for a recess of
Congress from the 29th inst. to the ---- day of ---- next.

Mr. POPE moved to fill the blank with the 4th Monday in June. The most
distant day would probably accommodate the greatest number of members;
and this day would be sufficiently early to take measures necessary on
the expiration of the embargo.

Mr. ANDERSON said he had supposed the day fixed upon by the committee,
viz: the 18th of May, would have been the day. He did not himself
feel the necessity of any adjournment; but, if it must take place, it
ought either to be for a short time, or for so long a time as equally
to accommodate all. If it were to be for a short time, it would be
merely for relaxation; if for a longer time, as was now proposed, he
feared it would be considered as indicative of an intention to pause in
the course of measures they had commenced, and produce an impression
abroad, among the people, which was much to be deprecated.

Mr. POPE said he was in favor of such a time being fixed on as should
accommodate the greatest number of the members. As to the effect of an
adjournment on the public mind, he imagined that the difference between
a recess of twenty or thirty days would be very unimportant.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said it seemed to him something like bribing the
members to obtain votes, to talk about lengthening the time so as to
accommodate the greatest number of members. He could not conceive it
consistent with the honor of the country that they should decide the
question of adjournment on the mere ground of personal convenience;
he considered the only question to be, whether a recess would have a
good or bad effect on the public service. He had on a former occasion
stated his objection to this step, that it would produce an ill effect
on the public mind. Many misrepresentations have been already made to
induce the public to believe you are not in earnest. An adjournment
for any length of time would seem like deserting our posts, and will
put the seal on this belief. Under this view, he must vote against the
adjournment; but the longer was the recess, the worse would be the
effect on the public mind. He should, therefore, vote for the shortest
day.

Mr. BRADLEY said he could not see that the proposed recess would be
deserting their posts at all. The nation knew that the Government could
not go to war without soldiers; and sitting here would certainly not
restore peace. Congress had adopted many war measures, the execution
of which they had put into the hands of the Executive; they had also
authorized a loan of eleven millions. And while these measures were
going on, could Congress, by staying here constantly, add to the number
of men, or expedite the loan? If an enemy were to invade us, without
any government at all, they would be promptly resisted. But, if we are
going to war to redress grievances, to revenge injuries received, we
should choose our own time. If we begin war before we have an army,
it is bringing the nation to the last stage of degradation, not to
consider at all the sufferings and losses which would be in such cases
sustained. It would be a great error to attempt to put this country,
by a forced vote of Congress, into war. You cannot lead this country
to war as the butcher leads his flock to the slaughter-house. This
is a government of opinion; the public sentiment will not be driven,
but must be followed. Congress have certainly done as much for the
present as they can. I wish to see the effect of the measures they have
taken. The Executive is clothed with all the necessary powers to make
preparation for war; and if the nation will not abide by us and support
the measures of Congress, it is vain to say we can force the people
into a war. I believe the people will be better satisfied with a recess
than with our sitting here from day to day without doing any thing
material, and there is nothing material at this moment to do. They
are not irrational; they know that Congress have been in session six
months; they must also foresee that when we come to war, the Council of
the Nation must be perpetually in session; they will, therefore, not
be dissatisfied at a short recess. If war be actually to take place at
the expiration of the embargo, this, of all others, is the time for
relaxation.

The question on the insertion of the eighth day of June as the day of
reassembling of the two Houses, was decided as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bradley, Condit, Crawford, Dana, German, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Gregg, Horsey, Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, Pope, Reed,
    Robinson, Smith of New York, Turner, and Worthington--18.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Cutts, Gaillard, Giles, Howell, Leib, Smith of Maryland, Tait,
    Taylor, and Varnum--13.

So the motion was carried.


WEDNESDAY, April 29.

                          _Maritime Defence._

Mr. POPE asked and obtained leave to bring in a bill more effectually
to protect the commerce and coasts of the United States; and the bill
was read, and passed to the second reading.


TUESDAY, June 9.

                      _Rhode Island Resolutions._

Mr. HUNTER presented the resolutions of the Legislature of the State of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, instructing their Senators and
Representatives in Congress, to use their endeavors to avert the evils
of war, to put our maritime frontier in a state of defence, and for the
repeal of the embargo and restrictive system; and the resolutions were
read.

                          _New York Memorial._

Mr. SMITH of New York, presented the following petition of sundry
inhabitants, merchants, and others, of the city of New York, praying
that the embargo and non-importation laws be continued as a substitute
for war against Great Britain:

    To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the
      United States of America in Congress assembled, the memorial
      of the subscribers, merchants, and others, inhabitants of the
      city of New York, respectfully showeth:

    That your memorialists feel, in common with the rest of their
    fellow-citizens, an anxious solicitude for the honor and
    interest of their country, and an equal determination to assert
    and maintain them.

    That your memorialists believe that a continuation of the
    restrictive measures now in operation will produce all the
    benefits while it prevents the calamities of war. That when the
    British Ministry become convinced that a trade with the United
    States cannot be renewed, but by the repeal of the Orders in
    Council, the distress of their merchants and manufacturers,
    &c., their inability to support their armies in Spain and
    Portugal, will probably compel them to that measure.

    Your memorialists beg leave to remark, that such effects
    are even now visible; and it may be reasonably hoped that a
    continuance of the embargo and non-importation laws a few
    months beyond the fourth day of July next, will effect a
    complete and bloodless triumph of our rights.

    Your memorialists therefore respectfully solicit of your
    honorable body the passage of a law continuing the embargo,
    and giving to the President of the United States power to
    discontinue the whole of the restrictive system on the
    rescinding of the British Orders in Council.

    The conduct of France in burning our ships, in sequestrating
    our property entering her ports, expecting protection in
    consequence of the promised repeal of the Berlin and Milan
    decrees, and the delay in completing a treaty with the American
    Minister, has excited great sensation, and we hope and trust
    will call forth from your honorable body such retaliatory
    measures as may be best calculated to procure justice.

  John Jacob Astor
  Samuel Adams
  Howland & Grinnell
  E. Slosson
  Israel Gibbs
  Isaac Clason
  John Slidell
  John K. Townsend
  Andrew Ogden & Co.
  Thomas Storm
  Amos Butler
  Ebenezer Burrill
  Isaac Heyer
  Ralph Bulkley
  Samuel Bell
  John F. Delaplaine
  Peter Stagg
  David Taylor
  Abraham Smith
  Thomas H. Smith, jr.
  Andrew Foster
  Jacob Barker
  William Lovett
  William Edgar, jr.
  Samuel Stillwell
  Jacob P. Giraud
  John Hone
  John Kane
  Amasa Jackson
  William J. Robinson
  Joseph Strong
  Abraham S. Hallet
  Joshua Jones
  Frederick Giraud, jr.
  Robert Roberts
  John Crookes


  William Adee
  John T. Lawrence
  Joseph W. Totten
  Isaac Schermerhorn
  Alexander Ruden
  Joseph Otis
  Lewis Hartman
  Garret Storm
  George Bement
  S. A. Rich
  Hugh McCormick
  John Depeyster
  Gilbert Haight
  James Lovett
  Leffert Lefferts
  Augustus Wyncoop
  John W. Gale
  Thomas Rich
  Samuel Marshall
  Elbert Herring.

After the memorial had been read,

Mr. TAYLOR said, that the respectability of the subscribers to a
petition presented to this body, and the importance of the matter
therein contained, had, on various occasions, been used as inducements
to us to give such petition a respectful _disposition_ in the course
of our proceedings. He recollected a case in point. It was the case
of the petition of an eminent merchant of Massachusetts, presented by
an honorable Senator from that State, and which at the suggestion of
that honorable gentleman was, by the Senate, ordered to be printed.
He was of opinion that the petition just read ought not to be treated
with less attention. That he had seen the petition, and had inquired
into the character of its subscribers--and had been informed that the
fifty-eight signers to it were among the most respectable, wealthy, and
intelligent merchants of the city of New York. There are to be found
in that list the names of two presidents of banks; three presidents of
insurance companies; thirteen directors of banks: besides other names
of pre-eminent standing in the mercantile world. They had all united
in the sentiments contained in the petition, notwithstanding that
there existed among them a difference in political opinions--for he
understood that of the petitioners forty-two were federal and sixteen
republican. Mr. T. added, that he considered some of the sentiments
contained in the petition as of the highest importance. He hailed
it as an auspicious occurrence, that these honorable merchants, in
praying that the evils of war might be averted from them and from the
nation, had nevertheless held fast to the principle of resistance to
the aggressions and unhallowed conduct of Great Britain towards our
nation--and had exercised the candor and firmness to bear testimony
to the efficiency of the restrictive system for obtaining a redress
of our wrongs, and of course to the integrity and honor of those who
had imposed this system for that purpose. He hoped that the example
of these petitioners would tend to counteract those strenuous and
unremitting exertions of passion, prejudice, and party feeling,
which had attempted to stamp upon the majority in Congress the foul
and unjust censure of being enemies to commerce. That, however
unfashionable and obstinate it might appear, he still believed that
the embargo and non-importation laws, if faithfully executed, were
capable of reaching farther than our cannon. We were at this very time
tendering an urgent argument, to be felt by each city, village and
hamlet in England. This touching to the quick the vital interests of
that empire, would demonstrate to the people at least the folly and
absurdity of the Orders in Council. The ordeal of the twenty weeks of
scarcity, which the people of that unhappy country are undergoing, to
relieve which, but for the madness and folly of their rulers, every
yard of American canvas would be spread to the gales: the thousands of
starving manufacturers thrown out of employ for want of our custom,
which custom, but for the injustice of their masters, we were willing
to give, now feel the efficiency of the restrictive system. These
matter-of-fact arguments want no sophistry nor long speeches to give
them weight. But Great Britain is proud, and will never yield to this
sort of pressure. Hunger has no law. Where was her pride during the
last year when she exported to her enemy on the continent more than
eleven millions of pounds sterling for provisions; and meanly truckling
to her enemy, consented to buy the privilege of laying out her guineas
for bread; and actually submitted on the compulsion of Napoleon to
buy the wines, brandies, and silks of France, which she did not want!
This restrictive system, when commenced under the former embargo law,
encountered every opposition among ourselves, which selfish avarice,
which passion and party rage could suggest; and so successful were
its assailants that while it was operating with its fullest effects,
(which the prices current of that day will show,) some of its greatest
champions in the National Legislature abandoned it--yes, sir, in
the tide of victory they threw down their arms. How were the mighty
fallen, and the shield of the mighty vilely cast away! The disavowal
of Erskine's arrangement was the consequence of this retreat. But it
may be said that the sentiments in their petition were extorted by the
apprehension of a greater evil--war. In all our trials, those who had
not predetermined to submit to Great Britain must have anticipated this
alternative. Let those who by their acrimony, sneers, and scoffs, have
thrown away this chief defence of our nation, be held responsible for
the compulsion they have imposed on us to take this dire alternative.
He said that although he was unwilling to abate a single pang which
we might legally inflict upon our enemy, and might at the proper time
oppose any thing like the swap proposed of one system for another, when
we had the power and the right to impose upon our enemy both the one
and the other, he nevertheless thought the petition was deserving of
the attention which he now moved it should receive. He moved that the
petition should be printed.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate then adjourned.


THURSDAY, June 11.

                    _General Wilkinson's Accounts._

The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported by the
committee on the memorial of General James Wilkinson, which is as
follows:

    _Resolved_, That the proper accounting officer of the
    Department of War be directed, in the settlement of General
    Wilkinson's account, to place to his credit the sum of four
    thousand and thirty-six dollars seventy-seven cents.

And the resolution was agreed to, and recommitted to the original
committee, with instruction to bring in a bill accordingly.


FRIDAY, June 12.

                       _Massachusetts Memorial._

Mr. LLOYD presented a resolution of the House of Representatives of
Massachusetts, passed June 2d, instant, expressing their opinion "that
an offensive war against Great Britain, under the present circumstances
of this country, would be in the highest degree impolitic, unnecessary,
and ruinous;" also, a memorial of the said House of Representatives,
passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-six, on the same subject;
and the resolution and memorial were read, and ordered to be printed
for the use of the Senate.

They are as follows:

  COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS:

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

  _June 2, 1812_.

    _Resolved_, As the opinion of this House, that an offensive
    war against Great Britain, under the present circumstances
    of this country, would be in the highest degree impolitic,
    unnecessary, and ruinous; that the great body of the people of
    this Commonwealth are decidedly opposed to this measure, which
    they do not believe to be demanded by the honor or interests
    of the nation; and that a committee be appointed to prepare
    a respectful petition to be presented to Congress, praying
    them to arrest a calamity so greatly to be deprecated, and, by
    the removal of commercial restrictions, to restore, so far as
    depends on them, the benefits of trade and navigation, which
    are indispensable to the prosperity and comfort of the people
    of this Commonwealth.

                                        TIMOTHY BIGELOW, _Speaker_.



THURSDAY, JUNE 18.

            _Injunction of Secrecy on War Measures removed._

The injunction of secrecy thereon having been removed, on motion, by
Mr. ANDERSON, twelve hundred copies of the confidential Message of
the President of the United States of the first of June instant, were
ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.


_Certain confidential proceedings of the Senate, since first June, are
as follow, the injunction of secrecy having been removed_:


MONDAY, June 1, 1812.

A confidential Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, as follows:

[For this Message, see the _Supplemental Journal_ of the Proceedings
of the House of Representatives, under the date of June 1, 1812,
_post_.]


FRIDAY, June 5.

              _Declaration of War against Great Britain._

A confidential Message was received from the House of Representatives,
by Messrs. MACON and FINDLAY, two of their members--Mr. MACON, chairman:

_Mr. President_: The House of Representatives have passed a bill,
entitled "An act declaring War between Great Britain and her
Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories;" in which
they ask the concurrence of the Senate; and request that the bill be
considered confidentially.

    An act declaring War between Great Britain and her
      Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories.

    _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America_, _in Congress assembled_, That
    war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between Great
    Britain and her Dependencies, and the United States and their
    Territories; and that the President of the United States is
    hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of
    the United States to carry the same into effect; and to issue
    to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or
    letters of marque and general reprisal, in such form as he
    shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States,
    against the vessels, goods, and effects of the Government of
    Great Britain, of its subjects, and of all persons inhabiting
    within any of its territories or possessions.

On motion, the bill was twice read by unanimous consent; and, on
motion by Mr. Leib, it was referred to the committee appointed the 1st
instant, on the confidential Message of the President of the United
States of the same date, to consider and report thereon.


TUESDAY, June 9.

On motion by Mr. ANDERSON, the bill entitled "An act declaring War
between Great Britain and her Dependencies, and the United States and
their Territories," was considered as in Committee of the Whole. Mr.
GAILLARD was requested to take the Chair; and, after debate, a motion
was made by Mr. GREGG, that the bill be recommitted, for further
amendment, to the committee who have under consideration the Message of
the President of the United States of the 1st June. And, after debate,
the President resumed the Chair, and the Senate adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, June 10.

Mr. GAILLARD was requested to take the Chair.

The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill, entitled
"An act declaring War between Great Britain and her Dependencies, and
the United States and their Territories."

Mr. GREGG, by permission, amended his motion for recommitting the bill
to the committee appointed on the confidential Message of the President
of the United States, of the 1st of June, as follows:

    _Resolved_, That the bill entitled "An act declaring War
    between Great Britain and her Dependencies, and the United
    States and their Territories," be recommitted to the committee
    to whom was committed the Message of the President, of the 1st
    instant, with instructions to modify and amend the same, in
    such manner that the President of the United States shall have
    power to authorize the public armed ships and vessels of the
    United States to make reprisals upon the public and private
    ships and vessels, goods, and merchandise, belonging to the
    Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or
    to the subjects thereof; and also to grant letters of marque
    and reprisal, under suitable regulations, to be provided in the
    bill, to private armed ships and vessels to make like reprisals.


THURSDAY, June 11.

Mr. GAILLARD was requested to take the Chair.

On motion by Mr. ANDERSON, the bill from the House of Representatives,
entitled "An act declaring war between Great Britain and her
Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories," was
resumed, and considered as in Committee of the Whole, together with the
motion yesterday submitted by Mr. GREGG; and on the question to agree
to the motion, it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 17, nays 13,
as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Condit, Dana, German, Giles, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Gregg, Horsey, Howell, Hunter, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd,
    Reid, Smith of New York, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Campbell of Tennessee, Crawford,
    Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Pope, Smith of Maryland, Tait,
    Taylor, Turner, and Varnum.

Whereupon, Mr. CRAWFORD resumed the Chair; and, on motion by Mr.
Anderson, it was ordered that the committee to whom this bill is
recommitted have leave to sit immediately.


FRIDAY, June 12.

                    _Reprisals on British Commerce._

Mr. ANDERSON, from the committee to whom was recommitted the bill,
entitled "An act declaring War between Great Britain and her
Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories," with
instructions to modify and amend the same, in such manner that the
President shall have the power to authorize the public armed ships and
vessels of the United States to make reprisals upon the public and
private ships and vessels, goods, and merchandise, belonging to the
Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and to the
subjects thereof; and also to grant letters of marque and reprisal,
under suitable regulations, to be provided in the bill, to private
ships and vessels to make reprisals, agreeably to said instructions.


SATURDAY, June 13.

                         _Declaration of War._

Mr. GAILLARD was requested to take the Chair; and on motion, by Mr.
ANDERSON, the consideration of the bill, entitled "An act declaring
war between Great Britain and her Dependencies, and the United States
and their Territories," was resumed, as in Committee of the Whole;
and having agreed to sundry amendments, the President resumed the
Chair; and Mr. GAILLARD reported the bill with amendments, which were
considered in Senate and agreed to.

A motion was made by Mr. GERMAN, to postpone the further consideration
of the bill to the first Monday in November next.

Mr. GERMAN addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. President: I made the motion to postpone the consideration of
the bill now before us, from a conviction that it will be extremely
injurious to the country to pass it at this time. I feel, sir, that
the State I have the honor to represent has a peculiar interest in the
event of this question; and I also feel the weight of the interest
which the nation at large has at stake, in the event of the passage of
this bill. I therefore consider it a duty I owe my constituents, to use
every reasonable exertion in my power to prevent the object of that
bill, until the country is better prepared to carry it into effect.

As I presume the war, if declared, is intended to be an offensive one,
I will, to establish the propriety of my motion, take a general view
of the situation of this country; of its means to carry on offensive
operations, as well as to defend itself, and of the situation and
relative strength also of the country we are required to make war upon.

I am ready to allow, Mr. President, that both Great Britain and France
have given us abundant cause for war; on this occasion, therefore, I
shall dispense with using any argument which might serve to show, that
if we were even in a state of preparation, and possessed the means of
insuring a favorable issue, it would be bad policy for this country,
at the present time, to enter into war with Great Britain, although
perhaps many weighty reasons might be adduced in support of such
argument.

I will first call the attention of the Senate to the ability and
strength of the nation we are about, by this bill, to declare war
against. Gentlemen ought to recollect, that Great Britain has been
almost constantly engaged in war for twenty years past against one of
the most powerful nations that ever existed; and for a considerable
part of that time, the energies of her enemy have been directed by
war's favorite genius--NAPOLEON, who has succeeded in uniting nearly
the whole force of the Continent of Europe against her: against that
very nation which we are about to assail; and what has been the
effect? Is Great Britain less powerful now, than she was twenty years
ago? No, sir, this constant warfare has increased her powers instead
of diminishing them. At the commencement of the war, France was nearly
her equal on the ocean, and several other nations of Europe maintained
a powerful naval force. But what is their situation at present? Has not
Great Britain driven them all from the ocean? And does she not remain
sole mistress? I ask gentlemen, if her ability to carry on a distant
war by land or sea, has diminished? The answer must be that it has
increased with her navy, and extended with her dominion. Great Britain
now commands the strength and resources of most of the West India
Islands, and many of the islands in the Indian Ocean. She controls the
destinies of more than thirty millions of people on the Continent of
Asia. And she has, at this time, or will have, if we engage in a war
with her, the exclusive benefit of the trade of the world; and under
these circumstances possesses the ability to carry on a war in distant
countries across the ocean, beyond any nation ever heard of.

These considerations, Mr. President, lead me to the view of our
situation and means of defence, and of our ability to carry immediate
war into the colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. I will first consider
the situation of our maritime frontier, beginning at New Orleans, and
examine the situation of that place. We learn from the War Office that
there is _little_ rising of one hundred regular troops stationed near
the city for its defence. Now I will ask any gentleman if that paltry
force is sufficient for that object; and if it will not be in the power
of the British to take possession of that city within sixty days after
your declaration of war against them? If gentlemen calculate on the
goodness and forbearance of the enemy, I think they will be deceived.
Great Britain is a wily, active nation. She has been trained to war.
She will not measure her steps and movements by ours; if we are not
prepared to defend our seaports, she will not wait until we are; and
should she get possession of New Orleans, it will cost much blood and
treasure to dislodge her. Passing northerly along our coast, let us
see what is the situation of our most valuable cities. Charleston and
Norfolk, as well as many other places of less consequence, are found
exposed to maritime attacks. And when we reach the city of New York
(the nation's great emporium of trade) do we, on viewing its situation,
and strength of the public works for its defence, find it in a perfect
state of security? No, sir, unless the greatest part of your frigates
are stationed there, to aid your fortifications, and gunboats, it will
fall a prey to the enemy. It can be assailed by a small fleet, with
every prospect of success. The only resistance they would meet with
would be in passing the fortifications on Staten Island, and perhaps
a few shots from Bedlow's and Ellis's Islands. They might soon place
themselves abreast the works at the upper end of the city, the weakest
of them all. And I have no doubt two seventy-fours might silence this
work in twenty or thirty minutes. They would then meet with no other
resistance than from travelling guns on the shore and from the docks.
The result would probably be, that the city would be set on fire, or
a contribution extorted from its inhabitants. I will now pass on to
Rhode Island. Does the prospect of security there flatter us? No,
sir. I am told by competent judges that nothing short of a force of
from three to five thousand men can defend that island. Boston, it
is said, can be defended, and is, perhaps, the only secure place of
considerable consequence on the seaboard. In viewing the situation
along the province of Maine, and our northern frontier up the river
St. Lawrence, and the Lakes to Fort Malden, and from thence to the
Mississippi, do we not find almost every point and place where there
are inhabitants, subject to the incursions of the enemy? Have they not
more troops on and near the line than we have? Yes, sir, they have ten
to our one, and a militia which the Government of Canada have been
fully vigilant in training. I understand that ever since the prospect
of war began to thicken in the political horizon, they have trained
their militia three or four times a month, and have paid them daily
wages for their services. Not so, sir, with our militia--they have,
it is true, been called into the public service to do the duty of
regular troops; and what is now their situation? Sixteen hundred of the
militia of the State of New York have been ordered into public service,
on the frontiers of that State, and have, as I am informed, marched
to their place of destination. There we find exhibiting a spectacle
that would wound the feelings of the most callous man--_without hats,
without blankets to cover them, without camp-kettles to cook the
miserable provisions furnished them by the Government contractors or
any one necessary for camp equipage_. _Their officers with the utmost
difficulty preventing their marching home for self-preservation._
Here, Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to
the propriety and constitutionality of calling out this detachment of
militia at a time when no enemy menaced an invasion. The constitution
only authorizes the General Government to call out the militia to
suppress insurrection, enforce the laws, and repel invasion. And
I would ask whether either of these events had happened when this
corps of militia were ordered out? No. It is well known that no such
emergency existed. But they have this miserable consolation, that they
are to receive six dollars and two-thirds a month for their services,
finding their own clothes, arms and accoutrements. I do not mention
these things with a wish to discourage the militia from serving their
country when necessary, nor do I believe defending them in their
constitutional rights will have that effect, for I am fully aware that
there is no class of citizens more patriotic or willing to defend their
country than they are, and will be so found when the safety of it shall
really demand their services.

I will now resume the consideration of our situation upon the Lakes to
Detroit and Fort Malden. Here it must be remembered that the British
command the Lakes. We are told that Governor Hull is marching to the
defence of Detroit with twelve hundred militia from the State of Ohio,
together with four hundred regular troops, formed and disciplined for
action by the brave Colonel Boyd. These troops, I hope, will be better
supplied and provided for than those on the frontier of New York. It
is whispered by some of the favorites who are suffered to know the
projects of our Government, that the British have sent a part of their
regular troops, together with a number of Indians, from Fort Malden
to Fort Erie, near the Falls of Niagara; and this is taken as certain
evidence of the weakness of the garrison at Fort Malden, and that that
fort may consequently be surprised and taken by Governor Hull with
little difficulty. Now, I draw the exact contrary conclusion from this
circumstance; for the British must have known that Governor Hull was
on his march to Detroit; and if they had been weak at Fort Malden they
never would have detached part of their force and sent it to the aid of
Fort Erie. But presuming they had not heard of Governor Hull's march,
and that they had left that fort comparatively defenceless, they will
assuredly learn it soon enough to have the detachment return by water
before Governor Hull can reach Malden. And if in the attempt to take
Fort Malden, Governor Hull should meet with a defeat, the consequences
will be alarming; for no reinforcement can be sent him, nor any
assistance afforded soon enough to prevent a disastrous termination
of the expedition. In that case the British, with a partial aid from
the Indians, might cross the river and take possession of Detroit; and
if they should then obtain the assistance of the Indians generally,
it will be in their power to drive in all the frontier settlements of
Ohio; and there can be little doubt when this war is once commenced
that nearly all the Indians will flock to the British standard.


MONDAY, June 15.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill, entitled "An act
declaring War between Great Britain and her Dependencies, and the
United States and their Territories," together with the motion made
by Mr. GERMAN to postpone the further consideration thereof until the
first Monday in November next:

And on the question to agree to the motion, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 10, nays 22, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Dana, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey,
    Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, and Reed.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg,
    Howell, Leib, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New
    York, Tait, Taylor Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

On motion, by Mr. LEIB, to amend the bill, as follows:

    [The amendment was to authorize privateering both against Great
    Britain and France.]

On the question. Shall this bill pass to a third reading as amended? it
was determined in the affirmative--yeas 19, nays 13, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Gregg,
    Leib, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Tait,
    Taylor, Turner, and Varnum.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Dana, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey,
    Howell, Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, Pope, Reed, and Worthington.


TUESDAY, June 16.

                         _Declaration of War._

The amendments to the bill from the House of Representatives, entitled
"An act declaring War between Great Britain and her Dependencies,
and the United States and their Territories," were reported by the
committee correctly engrossed.

Mr. BAYARD moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill to
the thirty-first day of October next.

The motion did not oppose or deny the sufficiency of the causes, or the
policy of the war. It went only to affirm what he trusted the course of
his observations would render very evident, that this was not a time at
which war ought to be declared.

He indulged a confidence, that upon so great an occasion the Senate
would not be impelled to act by any little passions, nor by any
considerations which did not arise out of an extended and distinct view
of the interests of the country. It is not enough that we have cause
of war; we must see that we are prepared, and in a condition to make
war. You do not go to war for the benefit of your enemy, but your own
advantage; not to give proofs of a vain and heedless courage, but to
assert your rights and redress your wrongs. If you commence hostilities
before you are prepared to strike a blow, and while your cities, your
territory, and your property on the ocean, are exposed to the mercy
of a Government possessing vast resources of war, what can you expect
but to add new distresses, defeat, and disgrace to the wrongs of which
you complain? It is a strange motive for war--a wish to gratify the
rapacity, to swell the triumphs, and to increase the insolence of the
enemy.

Mr. B. said, that neither the Government nor the people had expected,
or were prepared for war. Even at this moment, the general opinion
abroad was, that there would be no war, the mercantile and trading
world had continued to act upon that opinion. Nor could people be
persuaded that an unarmed nation was about to attack a nation armed
cap-a-pie. No man had laid out his account for this war, and every one
would be taken by surprise and unprepared for its shock.

You have at this moment an immense property abroad, a great portion
of it in England, and part floating on the ocean and hastening to
your ports. The postponement proposed might save a great portion of
this property, and bring home the seamen now absent from the country.
Gentlemen would remember the number of ships which left our ports on
the eve of an embargo. These vessels had not had time to perform their
voyages, and the greater part of them were still abroad. He knew that
some members had no commiseration for the merchant who had dared to
escape the embargo, and who had disregarded the salutary precautions,
designed, as it was said, for his security. But he did not think it
surprising, nor culpable, that those whose property consisted in ships,
should be averse to seeing them rotting at the wharves, and even
disposed to incur risks to find employment for them abroad.

Even, however, if it should be thought that the merchants had acted
with indiscretion and folly, it is the part of a parental Government,
such as this ought always to be, not to punish the citizens for their
misfortunes, but to guard them against the effect of their errors.
Besides, a loss of individual property was a loss to the State, as the
public strength was derived from individual resources.

He stated that the question of war had been doubtful till the present
moment. He did not believe that the President himself expected war
at the opening of the session, nor for a long time after. A menacing
language was held out; but the hopes of an accommodation were far
from being abandoned. Much was expected from the Prince Regent's
accession to his full powers. A change of Ministry was not doubted,
and it was thought that in the change of men, there would have been
found such a change of principles and measures, that the differences
between the two Governments might be compromised and settled. This
expectation was protracted till it became plainly evident that the
Prince did not intend to change his father's Ministers, nor to depart
from their principles or measures. When this discovery was made, the
Administration had proceeded too far to recede.

Desperate as the course was which now alone remained to be pursued,
they supposed they were obliged to advance or become the object of
reproach and scorn both to friends and foes. This necessity they had
brought upon themselves, but it was too late to consider whether the
condition might have been avoided; they were pledged in this state of
events to attempt to extort from Great Britain by force the concession
of those points which their arguments had failed in persuading her to
yield. He had no doubt but that, some months past, the Cabinet had
seriously determined upon resorting to hostilities. But the concurrence
of Congress was to be obtained, and whether a majority of both Houses
could be brought to take the daring and hazardous step, no man in
or out of the Government, without the gift of prophecy, could have
predicted.

The public mind had been so repeatedly distracted and deceived by
boisterous speeches, and bold but ephemeral resolutions, that it had
sunk into a state of apathy, and was no longer excited even by the
sound of war echoed in the ministerial paper from the proceedings of
Government. When the bill before us was first brought up from the other
House, it was the opinion of very few that it would obtain the support
of a majority of this body; and, even now, it was likely to pass,
not because it was approved by a majority, but of the differences of
opinion which existed among gentlemen as to other courses which had
been proposed.

If, with the light and information possessed in this body as to the
views and designs of the Cabinet and of Congress, it has been doubtful
among ourselves whether the Government would resort to war, how
was it to be known by our merchants, or any other class of society
unacquainted with the intentions and secret proceedings of those
exercising the powers of the Government, that the nation would be
wantonly plunged into a sudden war?

He had heard it said, that the embargo was a sufficient notice of the
design of the Government to resort to hostilities upon its expiration,
and that the people must be infatuated, who, after such warning, were
not apprised of the approaching crisis. But it is too recently and
deeply in our recollection to be forgotten, that this is not the first
embargo we have experienced, and which, though of longer duration, we
saw pass away without being followed by war.

The language held there, as to people out of doors who have doubted of
the war, is retorted by the public voice with equal confidence and on
better grounds. They rely upon your integrity and wisdom, and say that
Congress cannot be so infatuated, destitute as they are of the means of
aggression or defence, to draw upon themselves a war with one of the
most powerful and formidable nations on the globe. If a war with Great
Britain be thought unavoidable, yet, as she leaves to us the time of
commencing it, surely we ought to select that time when the first shock
shall be least disastrous, and can best be resisted. Why should we
hurry into a war from which nothing but calamity can be expected? There
is no danger that the redress of our wrongs, or the assertion of our
rights, will be barred by the limitation of time. No time has existed
for years past when we had less cause to complain of the conduct of
Great Britain. Her vessels of war had all been withdrawn from our
coast, as he presumed, in order to avoid collisions and hostility.
If the war be suspended till November, the Government and the people
will both be better prepared to sustain it. He was not a friend to the
restrictive system, but with a choice out of evils, he should prefer
the embargo to war. Postpone the war, and we will submit to the embargo
till November. This will furnish time for the return of your ships and
seamen; and if, at the same time, you will abandon the non-importation
act, you will replenish your Treasury with at least twelve millions
of dollars, and restore to your citizens sixty millions now abroad,
and in danger of being lost. It appeared to him that the course which
had been pursued was the most preposterous imaginable. For eighteen
months past, we had been sending our property out of the country, and
not suffering it to return; and, while contemplating a war with Great
Britain, we saw our effects to an immense amount accumulating in that
kingdom, liable at any moment, to fall a prey to the Government, and to
be employed in support of the war against us. He asked, why rush with
this precipitancy into the war? Are you provided with means to annoy
the enemy, or to defend yourselves? Have you an army or navy which can
make any impression? Are your exposed towns fortified and garrisoned?
Was any nation ever less prepared for war? It would require the whole
military force that you now possess to constitute an adequate defence
for New Orleans, New York, and Newport. It is very well known that the
General who will command at New Orleans has declared to the Government,
that he will not be answerable for the security of the place with
less force than ten thousand men, which is equal to all the effective
troops yet raised. It would be natural to suppose that no Government
would declare war till it was prepared to attack its enemy. In peace
we require no defence, and shall we declare war in order to defend
ourselves? But what blow are you prepared to strike? Were you able in
the summer to recruit your army of twenty-five thousand men, could it
be employed in any service in the course of this year? A soldier is not
made in a day. The authority of a foreign officer, now in this country,
of the highest military reputation, he had heard frequently cited, that
it required at least fourteen months to form a soldier of a recruit.
This remark applied to France, where the officers have generally
received a military education, and where there are so many models to
imitate, and so many instructors to teach. But here the officer is to
form as well as the soldier. The officer has to learn his lesson first,
before he can prescribe the task of the soldier. You may possibly have
a herd of men, but you can have no army to lead into service this
season; and if this herd be led against disciplined troops, you can
expect nothing but defeat and disgrace.

But you have not got, nor can you get the men during the present year.
These are not the days of Cadmus. It will require great patience and
industry, and a considerable length of time, to collect twenty-five
thousand men. Have you the least prospect, if you declare war, of
attacking Canada this season? It is impossible that you can do it with
effect. You will be sufficiently occupied in defending your frontiers
against the savages.

It is not on land then that you expect immediately to assail your
enemy. Is it on the ocean that the impression is to be made? You have
twenty vessels of war--Britain upwards of a thousand. What will avail
the activity or gallantry of your officers and seamen against such
disparity of force? Your little Navy must fall immediately, or be
driven from the ocean. Some gentlemen indulge great expectations from
privateers; but has Great Britain any unarmed or unprotected trade
which they can attack? Privateers have no other object than plunder
and booty. They avoid armed vessels--and, defended as is the British
commerce in every part of the world by her great naval force, it is
little to be expected that privateering will be attended with much
success or encouragement. But while we are searching for the means of
annoying the commerce of Britain, does it become us to overlook at this
moment the condition of our own? A valuable part of the trade from
beyond the Cape of Good Hope has not yet arrived. Of the numberless
vessels which sailed upon the eve of the embargo, few have returned.
Your merchant vessels are without convoy and utterly defenceless.
Your condition, therefore, is, that with more commerce exposed, your
adversary will possess greater means of annoyance, and the consequence
must be, that we shall lose infinitely more than we can expect to gain.

Under such circumstances, what should hurry us into the war? Are
gentlemen afraid if they wait till November the world will not last
long enough to afford them time to gratify in war their mighty
resentment against Britain? He believed, as he hoped, that there was no
honorable gentleman on the floor who would not live long enough to have
a complete surfeit of the war, though it should be postponed for a few
months.

The question on postponement was determined in the negative--yeas 11,
nays 21.

On motion, by Mr. BAYARD, to postpone the further consideration of
the bill to the third day of July next, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 9, nays 23.

On motion by Mr. BAYARD, to postpone the further consideration of the
bill to Monday next, it was determined in the negative--yeas 15, nays
17.

On motion, that the Senate adjourn, it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 18, nays 14.

So the Senate adjourned to 11 o'clock to-morrow.


THURSDAY, June 18.

On motion, by Mr. Varnum,

_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy, in relation to the
confidential Message of the President of the United States of the
first instant, and also in relation to the private and confidential
proceedings of the Senate since that date, be removed.

                [_End of the confidential proceedings._]


FRIDAY, June 26.

                           _Treasury Notes._

The amendment to the bill, entitled "An act authorizing the issuing of
Treasury Notes," was reported by the committee correctly engrossed, and
the bill was read a third time as amended.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in
the affirmative--yeas 23, nays 8, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Bradley, Brent, Campbell of
    Tennessee, Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles,
    Gregg, Howell, Lambert, Leib, Reed, Robinson, Smith of New
    York, Tait, Taylor, Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Dana, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Hunter,
    Lloyd, and Pope.


SUNDAY, July 5.

                           _Volunteers Bill._

The amendment to the bill, entitled "An act supplementary to the act,
entitled 'An act authorizing the President of the United States to
accept and organize certain volunteer military corps,'" having been
reported by the committee correctly engrossed, the bill was read a
third time as amended.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in
the affirmative--yeas 14, nays 6, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Condit, Crawford,
    Franklin, Gaillard, Giles, Howell, Robinson, Smith of New York,
    Tait, Taylor, and Varnum.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Gilman, Goodrich, Leib, Lloyd, and Smith
    of Maryland.

So it was resolved, that this bill pass with an amendment.


MONDAY, July 6, _6 o'clock, p.m._

                 _Recess of Congress, and adjournment._

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution from the House of
Representatives for the appointment of a joint committee to wait on the
President of the United States, and notify him of the intended recess,
and concurred therein, and Messrs. ROBINSON and ANDERSON were appointed
a committee on the part of the Senate.

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

_To the Senate of the United States_:

    I transmit to the Senate copies and extracts of documents in
    the archives of the Department of State, falling within the
    purview of their resolution of the fourth instant, on the
    subject of British impressments from American vessels. The
    information, though voluminous, might have been enlarged with
    more time for research and preparation. In some instances
    it might, at the same time, have been abridged, but for the
    difficulty of separating the matter extraneous to the immediate
    object of the resolution.

  JULY 6, 1812.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.


The Message and documents were read, and ordered to be printed for the
use of the Senate.

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

Mr. ROBINSON, 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 inform the House of Representatives that
the Senate, having finished the legislative business before them, are
about to adjourn.

Agreeably to the joint resolution, the PRESIDENT then adjourned the
Senate, to meet on the first Monday in November next.


_Executive Proceedings._

                            [Confidential.]

                        SATURDAY, June 20, 1812.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. HARPER and Mr.
FISK, two of their members--Mr. HARPER, chairman.

_Mr. President_: The House of Representatives have passed a "resolution
authorizing the President of the United States to issue a proclamation
to the inhabitants of the British American Continental Provinces," in
which they request the concurrence of the Senate.

The resolution was read, as follows:

    _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America, in Congress assembled_, That in
    case it shall be deemed necessary, in order to vindicate the
    just rights, or to secure the safety of the United States, to
    invade the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia,
    and New Brunswick, or either of them, the President of the
    United States be, and he hereby is authorized and empowered
    to issue a proclamation, addressed to the inhabitants of said
    provinces, assuring them, in the name of the people of these
    States, that in case the said provinces, or any of them, shall
    come into the possession of this Government, the inhabitants
    of such province or provinces shall be secured and protected
    in the full enjoyment of their lives, liberty, property, and
    religion, in as full and ample manner as the same are secured
    to the people of the United States by their constitutions; and
    that the said proclamation be promulgated and circulated, in
    the manner which, in the opinion of the President, shall be
    best calculated to give it general publicity.

_Ordered_, That the resolution pass to a second reading.


FRIDAY, June 26.

                     _Occupation of the Floridas._

A message from the House of Representatives by Messrs. MITCHILL and
HALL, two of their members.

_Mr. President_: The House of Representatives have passed a bill,
entitled "An act authorizing the President to take possession of a
tract of country lying south of the Mississippi Territory and of the
State of Georgia, and for other purposes," in which they request
the concurrence of the Senate, and that the bill be considered
confidentially.

The bill last brought up for concurrence was read, as follows:

    "An Act authorizing the President to take possession of a tract
    of country lying south of the Mississippi Territory and of the
    State of Georgia, and for other purposes.

    "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America in Congress assembled_: That the
    President be, and he is hereby authorized to occupy and hold,
    the whole or any part of East Florida, including Amelia Island,
    and also those parts of West Florida which are not now in
    possession and under the jurisdiction of the United States.

    "SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_: That, for the purpose of
    occupying and holding the country aforesaid, and of affording
    protection to the inhabitants, under the authority of the
    United States, the President may employ such parts of the
    military and naval force of the United States as he may deem
    necessary.

    "SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_: That, for defraying the
    necessary expenses, one hundred thousand dollars are hereby
    appropriated, to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury
    not otherwise appropriated, and to be applied to the purposes
    aforesaid, under the direction of the President.

    "SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_: That, until further
    provision shall be made by Congress, the President shall be,
    and he hereby is empowered to establish within the country he
    may acquire by this act, a temporary government, the civil
    and military authorities of which shall be vested in such
    person and persons as he may appoint, and be exercised in such
    manner as he may direct: _Provided_: That he shall take due
    care for the preservation of social order, and for securing to
    the inhabitants the enjoyment of their personal rights, their
    religion, and their property: _And provided, also_: That the
    section of country herein designated, that is situated to the
    Eastward of the river Perdido, may be the subject of further
    negotiation."

_Ordered_: That it pass to a second reading.


THURSDAY, July 2.

Agreeably to the order of the day, the bill, entitled "An act
authorizing the President to take possession of a tract of country
lying south of the Mississippi Territory and of the State of Georgia,
and for other purposes," was resumed, and considered as in Committee of
the Whole; and Mr. GAILLARD was requested to take the Chair.

On motion by Mr. CRAWFORD, he was permitted to amend his motion, made
yesterday, as follows:

    "_And be it further enacted_: That if the United States, in
    the prosecution of the present war against the United Kingdom
    of Great Britain and Ireland, should obtain possession of
    the British provinces in North America, or either of them,
    that the President of the United States be, and he is hereby
    authorized and empowered to establish within the same a
    temporary government; and the military, civil, and judicial
    powers thereof, shall be vested in such person and persons,
    and be exercised in such manner as he may direct, for the
    protection and maintenance of the inhabitants of such province
    or provinces, in the full enjoyment of their property, liberty,
    and religion: _Provided_: That the principles upon which such
    temporary government shall be established, shall form no
    obstacle to the restoration of peace between the two nations."

And, on motion to agree to the amendment, it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 20, nays 10, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Bradley, Brent, Campbell of
    Tennessee, Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard, Giles,
    Howell, Leib, Pope, Robinson, Tait, Taylor, Turner, Varnum, and
    Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, German, Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey,
    Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, Smith of Maryland, and Smith of New
    York.

On motion, by Mr. TAIT, to amend the bill as follows:

"_And be it further enacted_: That this act be not printed or
published, unless directed by the President of the United States; any
law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding."

On the question to agree to this amendment, it was determined in the
affirmative--yeas 23, nays 7, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bayard, Bibb, Bradley, Brent, Campbell
    of Tennessee, Condit, Crawford, Cutts, Franklin, Gaillard,
    Giles, Howell, Leib, Pope, Robinson, Smith of Maryland, Smith
    of New York, Tait, Taylor, Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. German, Gilman, Goodrich, Horsey, Hunter,
    Lambert, and Lloyd.

The President resumed the Chair, and Mr. GAILLARD reported the bill,
amended.

On the question: Shall this bill pass to a third reading, as amended?
it was determined in the affirmative--yeas 15, nays 13, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Gaillard, Howell, Leib, Robinson, Tait,
    Taylor, Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Dana, Franklin, German, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Horsey, Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, Pope, Smith of
    Maryland, and Smith of New York.


FRIDAY, July 3.

The amendments to the bill, entitled "An act authorizing the President
to take possession of a tract of country lying south of the Mississippi
Territory and of the State of Georgia, and for other purposes," were
reported by the committee correctly engrossed; and the bill was read
the third time, as amended.

On motion, by Mr. BAYARD, to postpone the further consideration
thereof to the first Monday in November next; it was determined in the
negative--yeas 14, nays 16, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Dana, German, Giles, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Horsey, Hunter, Lambert, Lloyd, Pope, Smith of
    Maryland, and Smith of New York.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Howell, Leib, Robinson,
    Tait, Taylor, Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

On the question, Shall this bill pass as amended? it was determined in
the negative--yeas 14, nays 16, as follows:

    YEAS.--Messrs. Anderson, Bibb, Brent, Campbell of Tennessee,
    Condit, Crawford, Franklin, Gaillard, Robinson, Tait, Taylor,
    Turner, Varnum, and Worthington.

    NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bradley, Dana, German, Giles, Gilman,
    Goodrich, Horsey, Howell, Hunter, Lambert, Leib, Lloyd, Pope,
    Smith of Maryland, and Smith of New York.

So it was _Resolved_, That the Senate do not concur in the said bill.

FOOTNOTES:

[12] LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.

  _New Hampshire._--Nicholas Gilman, Charles Cutts.
  _Massachusetts._--Joseph B. Varnum, James Lloyd.
  _Rhode Island._--Jeremiah B. Howell, William Hunter.
  _Connecticut._--Chauncey Goodrich, Samuel W. Dana.
  _Vermont._--Stephen R. Bradley, Jonathan Robinson.
  _New York._--John Smith, Obadiah German.
  _New Jersey._--John Condit, John Lambert.
  _Pennsylvania._--Andrew Gregg, Michael Leib.
  _Delaware._--Outerbridge Horsey, James A. Bayard.
  _Maryland._--Samuel Smith, Philip Reed.
  _Virginia._--William B. Giles, Richard Brent.
  _North Carolina._--Jesse Franklin, James Turner.
  _South Carolina._--John Gaillard, John Taylor.
  _Georgia._--William H. Crawford, Charles Tait.
  _Kentucky._--John Pope, George M. Bibb.
  _Tennessee._--Joseph Anderson, George W. Campbell.
  _Ohio._--Thomas Worthington, Alexander Campbell.






TWELFTH CONGRESS.--FIRST SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.[13]


MONDAY, November 4, 1811.

This being the day appointed by a proclamation of the President of the
United States, of the twenty-fourth day of July last, for the meeting
of Congress, the following members of the House of Representatives
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats, to wit:

    _From New Hampshire_--Josiah Bartlett, Samuel Dinsmoor, Obed
    Hall, John A. Harper, and George Sullivan.

    _From Massachusetts_--Ezekiel Bacon, Abijah Bigelow, Elijah
    Brigham, William Ely, Isaiah L. Green, Josiah Quincy, William
    Reed, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Taggart, Peleg Tallman, Charles
    Turner, junior, Laban Wheaton, and Leonard White.

    _From Rhode Island_--Richard Jackson, junior.

    _From Connecticut_--Epaphroditus Champion, John Davenport,
    junior, Lyman Law, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, junior,
    Lewis B. Sturges, and Benjamin Tallmadge.

    _From Vermont_--Martin Chittenden, James Fisk, Samuel Shaw, and
    William Strong.

    _From New York_--Daniel Avery, Harmanus Bleecker, Thomas B.
    Cooke, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Robert Le Roy
    Livingston, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Benjamin Pond,
    Peter B. Porter, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Silas Stow, Uri
    Tracy, and Pierre Van Cortlandt, junior.

    _From New Jersey_--Adam Boyd, Lewis Condit, Jacob Hufty, James
    Morgan, and Thomas Newbold.

    _From Pennsylvania_--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert
    Brown, William Crawford, Roger Davis, William Findlay, John
    M. Hyneman, Joseph Lefevre, Aaron Lyle, James Milnor, William
    Piper, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Adam Seybert, John
    Smilie, George Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

    _From Delaware_--Henry M. Ridgely.

    _From Maryland_--Stevenson Archer, Joseph Kent, Peter Little,
    Alexander McKim, Samuel Ringgold, and Robert Wright.

    _From Virginia_--Burwell Bassett, James Breckenridge, William
    A. Burwell, Matthew Clay, John Dawson, Peterson Goodwyn, Aylett
    Hawes, John P. Hungerford, Joseph Lewis, junior, William McCoy,
    Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, James Pleasants, junior, John
    Randolph, John Roane, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, and Thomas
    Wilson.

    _From North Carolina_--Willis Alston, William Blackledge,
    Thomas Blount, William R. King, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph
    Pearson, Israel Pickens, and Richard Stanford.

    _From South Carolina_--William Butler, Langdon Cheves, Elias
    Earle, William Lowndes, Thomas Moore, and David R. Williams.

    _From Georgia_--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Bolling Hall, and
    George M. Troup.

    _From Kentucky_--Henry Clay, Joseph Desha, Richard M. Johnson,
    Samuel McKee, Anthony New, and Stephen Ormsby.

    _From Tennessee_--Felix Grundy, and John Rhea.

    _From Ohio_--Jeremiah Morrow.

    _From Mississippi Territory_--George Poindexter, _Delegate_.

    _From Indiana Territory_--Jonathan Jennings, _Delegate_.

And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number of Members,
being present, the House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a
Speaker; and, upon examining the ballots, it appeared that HENRY CLAY,
one of the Representatives for the State of Kentucky, was duly elected;
Whereupon,

Mr. CLAY was conducted to the Speaker's chair, and the oath to support
the Constitution of the United States, as prescribed by the act,
entitled "An act to regulate the time and manner of administering
certain oaths," was administered to him by Mr. FINDLAY, one of the
members for the State of Pennsylvania; after which, he made his
acknowledgments to the House, in the following words:

    "GENTLEMEN: In coming to the station which you have done me
    the honor to assign me--an honor for which you will be pleased
    to accept my thanks--I obey rather your commands than my own
    inclination. I am sensible of the imperfections which I bring
    along with me, and a consciousness of these would deter me from
    attempting a discharge of the duties of the Chair, did I not
    rely, confidently, upon your generous support.

    Should the rare and delicate occasion present itself, when your
    Speaker shall be called upon to check or control the wanderings
    or intemperance in debate, your justice will, I hope, ascribe
    to its interposition the motives only of public good and a
    regard to the dignity of the House. And in all instances, be
    assured, gentlemen, that I shall, with infinite pleasure,
    afford every facility in my power to the despatch of public
    business, in the most agreeable manner."

The oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United
States was then administered, by the SPEAKER, to all the other members
present.

GEORGE POINDEXTER, and JONATHAN JENNINGS, having also appeared, and
produced their credentials as the delegates from the Mississippi and
Indiana Territories of the United States, the oath was administered to
them by the Speaker.

The House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a Clerk, and, upon
examining the ballots, it appeared that PATRICK MAGRUDER was duly
elected, and the oath, together with the oath of office, administered
by the Speaker to the Clerk.

THOMAS DUNN was then re-elected Sergeant-at-Arms, and THOMAS CLAXTON,
Doorkeeper, without opposition. BENJAMIN BURCH was also chosen
Assistant Doorkeeper.

The usual messages were interchanged with the Senate on the subject of
their being formed and ready to proceed to business.

Mr. MITCHILL and Mr. PITKIN were appointed a committee 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.

Mr. MITCHILL, 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
answered, that he would make a communication to Congress to-morrow at
twelve o'clock.


TUESDAY, November 5.

Several other members, to wit, ABNER LACOCK, from Pennsylvania; JOHN
BAKER, from Virginia; and RICHARD WYNN from South Carolina, appeared,
produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.

On motion of Mr. NEWTON, 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.

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, by Mr.
EDWARD COLES; his Secretary, who delivered the same and withdrew. [For
which see Senate proceedings of this date, _ante_ page 401.]

The Message having been read, and the documents accompanying it in
part, an adjournment was called for, and carried.


WEDNESDAY, November 6.

Two other members, to wit: MESHACK FRANKLIN, from North Carolina, and
JOHN C. CALHOUN, from South Carolina, produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats.


THURSDAY, November 7.

Another member, to wit, LEMUEL SAWYER, from North Carolina, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.


FRIDAY, November 8.

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


MONDAY, November 11.

Several other members, to wit: WILLIAM WIDGERY, from Massachusetts;
GEORGE C. MAXWELL, from New Jersey; and PHILIP B. KEY, and PHILIP
STUART, from Maryland, appeared, produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats.


TUESDAY, November 12.

                          _Select Committees._

All the select committees which were thought necessary, being
appointed, it was determined that the first, on Foreign Relations,
should consist of nine members; the committee on the Spanish colonies
and Navy concerns, to consist of seven members; and those on
manufacturing cannon and Indian affairs, to consist of five members.

The resolutions, as amended, are in the following words:

1. _Resolved_, That so much of the President's Message as relates to
the subject of our foreign relations, be referred to a select committee.

2. _Resolved_, That so much of the President's Message as relates to
filling the ranks and prolonging the enlistments of the regular troops,
and to an auxiliary force; to the acceptance of volunteer corps; to
detachments of militia, and to such a preparation of the great body as
will proportion its usefulness to its intrinsic capacity, be referred
to a select committee.

3. _Resolved_, That those parts of the Message of the President which
relates to the Naval force of the United States, and to the defence of
our maritime frontier, be referred to a select committee.

4. _Resolved_, That so much of the President's Message as relates to
the revenue and the provisions necessary for the service of the ensuing
year, be referred lo the Committee of Ways and Means.

5. _Resolved_, That so much of the President's Message as relates to
the evasion and infraction of our commercial laws, be referred to the
Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

6. _Resolved_, That so much of the President's Message as relates to
foreign trading licenses, and to the protection of manufactures and
navigation, be referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures.

7. _Resolved_, That so much of the President's Message as relates to
the Spanish American colonies, be referred to a select committee.

8. _Resolved_, That so much of the said Message as relates to the
manufacture of cannon and small arms, and the providing munitions of
war, be referred to a select committee.

9. _Resolved_, That so much of the said Message as relates to Indian
affairs, be referred to a select committee.

Mr. Porter, Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Smilie, Mr. Randolph, Mr.
Harper, Mr. Key, Mr. Desha, and Mr. Seaver, were appointed the
committee on the first resolution.

Mr. Williams, Mr. Wright, Mr. Macon, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Stow, Mr.
Maxwell, and Mr. Tallmadge, were appointed the committee on the second
resolution.

Mr. Cheves, Mr. Newton, Mr. Milnor, Mr. Quincy, Mr. Cooke, Mr. McKim,
and Mr. Fisk, were appointed the committee on the third resolution.

Mr. Mitchill, Mr. Bibb, Mr. Blackledge, Mr. Taggart, Mr. Champion,
Mr. Butler, and Mr. Shaw, were appointed the committee on the seventh
resolution.

Mr. Seybert, Mr. Little, Mr. Goodwyn, Mr. Tracy, and Mr. Sturges, were
appointed the committee on the eighth resolution.

Mr. McKee, Mr. Sevier, Mr. Morrow, Mr. Sheffey, and Mr. Brown, were
appointed the committee on the ninth resolution.

And then, on motion the House adjourned until to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, November 13.

Another member, to wit, THOMAS GHOLSON, from Virginia, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

 _Matthew Lyon's Claim for refunding his Fine under the Sedition Act._

The SPEAKER presented a memorial of Matthew Lyon, of Kentucky, stating
that, whilst a member of the House of Representatives of the United
States, from the State of Vermont, he was illegally tried and found
guilty, under a charge of sedition, and fined the sum of one thousand
dollars, and imprisoned twelve months, and praying that the said fine
may be repaid, with interest, together with his pay as a member of
Congress, which was withheld during his confinement.

The petition being read,

Mr. NEW moved that it be referred, with the accompanying documents, to
the Committee of Claims.

Mr. BASSETT was opposed to this reference. If the petitioner had any
claim upon the United States, it must be on the ground that the law
under which he was convicted was unconstitutional. A claim of this
kind could not be recognized by that committee. He thought, therefore,
it would be more proper to refer this petition to a select committee.
This was desirable, also, from the consideration that the Committee of
Claims is generally overburdened with business.

Mr. NEW said, it having been represented to him that it would be most
proper to refer the petition to a select committee, he would so change
his motion.

Mr. RANDOLPH had no doubt it would be recollected, that at the first
session of Congress under the administration of the present President,
the session which met in May, 1809, a committee was raised "to inquire
whether any and what prosecutions had been instituted before the
courts of the United States for libels at common law, and to report
such provisions as in their opinion may be necessary for securing the
freedom of speech and of the press." Congress adjourned after a short
session in June. The chairman of that committee was directed to address
letters to the clerks of the several courts in which such prosecutions
had been commenced. To some of these letters answers were received
after the adjournment. These answers received in the recess (all except
one, which the chairman had found amongst his private papers since the
meeting of the present session) were transmitted to the clerk of this
House, in whose possession it is presumed they now are. The chairman of
that committee, at the two succeeding sessions, was, by the visitation
of God, and from circumstances without his control, for the first
time since he had the honor of a seat on this floor, prevented from
attending to his duty till the sessions had considerably advanced,
otherwise he would have felt it obligatory on him to have called the
attention of Congress to this subject. It was his intention, at the
present session, without knowing any thing of this petition, to have
called the attention of the House to it, amongst others, at an early
day. He thought it behooved this House, as the guardian of the public
purse and public weal, to take care that the stream of public justice
be preserved pure and free from pollution; and whether persons have
suffered by prosecutions under the sedition law, or under the common
law of England--not the common law of the United States, as modified
by the laws of the United States in their corporate capacity--he was
for affording them relief. He wished to see if any of our citizens
had received injury from prosecutions of this kind; and, if they had
to redress the wrong by such a prospective measure as may prevent a
recurrence of similar mischief.

It seems idle, said Mr. R., for any man to undertake, by statute, to
do that which the great charter of our confederation has endeavored
to do in vain. It is, it appears, impossible to prevent men, heated
by party, and seeking only the gratification of their own passions,
from trampling in the dust the charter which we have sworn to support;
for though our constitution has said, in the broadest terms which our
language knows, that the freedom of speech and of the press shall
not be abridged, men have been found so lost to all sense of their
country's good, as to pass the act, commonly called the sedition act,
and to send out our judges to dispense, not law, but politics from
the bench. It would seem idle to attempt to prevent, by statutory
provisions, similar abuses. But though, formed as we are, we cannot
attain perfection, we ought, in imitation of a divine example, to
aspire to it, and endeavor to preserve in purity the great Magna Charta
of our country.

This subject, Mr. R. said, might appear frivolous to others. He knew
that men, intent on worldly things, with their snouts grovelling in the
mud, who hold every thing but sordid pelf, and still more disgraceful
office, as dross and dust, would not think it worth while to attend to
things of this kind. Nor did he wish to set himself up for a political
Pharisee, and thank God that he was not as other men are.

Mr. R. moved to amend the reference, by adding to it the following:

    "With instructions to inquire whether any, and what,
    prosecutions have been instituted before the courts of the
    United States for libels, under the sedition law or the common
    law, and by what authority; and to make such provisions as they
    may deem necessary for securing the freedom of speech and of
    the press."

Mr. R. hoped this amendment would be agreed to; for, said he, it
is evident that when we came into power, when we succeeded to our
predecessors, proper measures were not taken for purifying the violent
temper of the day--for preventing the recurrence of prosecutions
of this kind. He recollected having heard, at the close of the
administration of the second President of the United States, one of
the most beautiful pieces of declamation, from a gentleman from South
Carolina, which he had ever heard, in which he conjured the House to
re-enact the sedition act, because, said he, we are about to surrender
the Government into the hands of men in whom we have no confidence,
and I wish to retain this law as our shelter, because, by this, if we
are prosecuted for a libel, we can give the truth in evidence. Mr.
R. said he listened to the gentleman, but he thought he was talking
for talking's sake. He did not believe that himself believed a word
of what he said. Mr. R. did not suppose that a prosecution at common
law, for a libel, could take place under a republican administration.
He thought the gentleman was making the best apology he could for the
sedition law, and that he was glad to find himself in a minority on
his motion for continuing it. But, said he, experience teacheth. I
find it possible even for the Pharisees themselves sometimes to slide,
sometimes to fall. He thought it due to our country, and to ourselves,
that whatever abuses exist, without stopping to inquire whether the
sufferer be a Catholic or a Protestant, a Federalist, a Democrat,
or a monarchy man, to redress the wrong. What would be said in a
court of justice in a case of murder? It would not be thought worth
while to inquire what was the offender's politics, or whether honest
or the contrary. He considered honest men as of right politics. It
unfortunately happens, said he, that some men make up in zeal what they
know themselves to be deficient in honor and honesty.

The amendment was agreed to and the petition referred to a committee of
seven, consisting of Mr. NEW, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. TROUP, Mr.
WHITEHILL, Mr. MOSELY, and Mr. COOKE.


THURSDAY, November 14.

Another member, to wit, JOHN CLOPTON, from Virginia, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.


FRIDAY, November 15.

                           _Indian Affairs._

Mr. RHEA proposed the following resolution for adoption:

    "_Resolved_, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be instructed
    to inquire into the expediency of extending the laws of the
    United States over those parts of the States and Territories
    of the United States, to which the Indian title is not
    extinguished, in such manner as that all white persons residing
    within any of the said parts of the United States may and shall
    be liable to the operation of those laws."

Mr. R. added, that if the petitions which had this morning been
presented by the gentleman from North Carolina had been read, the
necessity of taking some measure similar to the one which he proposed,
would have been evident to every member of the House, as the Indian
countries are become an asylum for persons guilty of every enormity.

Mr. PICKENS stated, that if any doubt existed as to the propriety of
passing this resolution, he would call for the reading of the petitions
which he had presented.

Mr. WRIGHT had some doubts whether the laws of the United States did
not at present extend to cases of this kind, and wished the resolution
to lie on the table until the subject could be looked into.

Mr. BIBB said, a case had lately occurred in the State of Georgia,
which showed the necessity of some farther provision on this subject.
A murder of a most atrocious kind had been committed within the Indian
country; the parties were taken near the spot, and brought before the
federal authority in Georgia; and upon a question of jurisdiction,
the judges decided that the court had no authority in the case. In
a similar instance, the offenders were brought before the State
authorities, which determined in the same way, and the offenders, of
course, were in both cases discharged.

Mr. GRUNDY was of opinion that the United States courts had, at
present, complete jurisdiction of all criminal cases which might arise
within the Indian boundary, the case cited by the gentleman from
Georgia notwithstanding; but he supposed the object of this resolution
was to supply the defects of the law at present in civil cases.

Mr. POINDEXTER had no doubt but the courts of the United States
had jurisdiction of criminal offences, committed within the Indian
boundary. Congress, at their first session, made provision for the
punishment of offenders charged with murder, piracy, &c., committed on
the high seas or without the territory of the United States. But the
difficulty suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee existed. Persons
who have committed petty offences and debtors go over to the Indian
territory, where the law cannot reach them. He doubted whether the
resolution was calculated to reach this object, and therefore wished it
to lie on the table that it might be amended.

Mr. RHEA hoped he might be permitted to judge for himself whether the
resolution which he had offered was calculated to accomplish the object
which he had in view. His colleague had intimated that the laws, at
present, extend to criminal offences, though the gentleman from Georgia
had stated a case in which the judges had determined otherwise. This
shows, at least, that the law wants revision, not only with respect to
criminal, but civil matters. He had drawn the resolution in the most
general terms.

Mr. BIBB could not conceive how the judges of the Federal Court, in the
case he had cited, could have decided as they did with the law which
had been referred to before them. Perhaps it might have arisen from a
clause of the constitution, which directs that jurors shall be drawn
from the district where the offence is committed.

The resolution was laid on the table.

                        _Domestic Manufactures._

Mr. RHEA called up for consideration the resolution which he laid upon
the table yesterday, proposing an additional duty on coarse hemp and
flax.

The resolution was considered, and, on motion, the words "and cotton,"
were added to it, by consent of the mover.

Mr. GRUNDY observed, that several detached resolutions for the
encouragement of domestic manufactures had been offered to the House.
He wished the adoption of a proposition which should include all the
manufactures of the country. He hoped the present motion might lie on
the table for a few days, until such a proposition could be prepared.
It is, said he, an object of great magnitude, when we consider the vast
sums of money which have lately been vested in establishments of this
kind; and the present is a favorable moment for adopting some measures
to give our manufactures countenance and support.

Mr. RHEA could not agree to the proposed postponement. He should never
obtain his object, if he were to agree to one postponement after
another. His colleague could, at any time, submit his proposition,
without hindering the progress of the one he had introduced.

After some conversation as to the propriety of discussing this
proposition in the House,

The SPEAKER decided, that though there is a rule of the House which
says that all propositions for laying a tax shall be discussed in
Committee of the Whole; this resolution, in his opinion, did not come
within that rule, as it was merely an instruction to a committee to
inquire into the expediency of laying an additional tax.

The motion, for laying the proposition on the table, was carried, 51 to
47.

                           _American Seamen._

Mr. MILNOR rose, and observed there was no topic more important than
the protection of American seamen, and yet he believed it would be
acknowledged by all who have given consideration to the subject, that
our laws on this subject are materially defective. The object of these
laws ought to be twofold; in the first place, for the protection of
_bona fide_ American citizens, and secondly, for the prevention of the
abuse of those protections by citizens of other countries not entitled
to them. It will be recollected, that the act for relief of American
seamen makes it the duty of the collectors to furnish certificates of
citizenship in the manner therein directed; but, owing to an error of
Congress, no manner is prescribed; and, of course, the collectors have
been left to accept of such proof as they deemed sufficient, or to act
under the directions of the Secretary of the Treasury, which, in most
instances, is an unsafe way of proceeding. The penal laws of the United
States provide no punishment for the crime of perjury in these cases.
A recent instance, Mr. M. said, had occurred in the district which
he represented. An Italian, not twenty days in the country, appeared
before a notary public, claiming the rights of an American seaman. He
made the necessary oaths, and produced a sponsor who swore that he
was born in Baltimore. The tongue of the man detected the falsehood.
The collector, with that attention to his duty for which he is so
remarkable, had both seaman and sponsor apprehended. The attorney for
the district looked into the case, and found the crime of perjury to
be, the falsely taking an oath according to the laws of the United
States; but, as the law was defective, as above stated, the offence
was not perjury. The Attorney-General confirmed this opinion. The
offenders, therefore, escaped punishment. He believed other amendments
might be usefully made to the law on this subject. He concluded by
offering the following resolution for adoption, which was agreed to:

    "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire and
    report whether any, and what amendments are necessary to
    the laws of the United States relating to the protection of
    American seamen; and that the committee have leave to report by
    bill or otherwise."

Mr. MILNOR, Mr. LITTLE, Mr. REED, Mr. BASSETT, and Mr. PITKIN, were
appointed the committee.


MONDAY, November 18

                     _Expenditure of Public Money._

Mr. RANDOLPH asked for the consideration of the resolution which
he laid on the table some days ago, directing the appointment of a
committee to inquire into the expenditure of public money; which, being
agreed to, Mr. R. trusted there would be no difference of opinion
as to the propriety of agreeing to this resolution. But, before the
vote was taken, he would state to the House, by way of explanation,
the result of a former inquiry. At the first session of the 11th
Congress, a report of a committee was made, in part, on this subject.
[This report Mr. R. read. It states that, owing to the shortness
of the session, complete information on the subject could not be
obtained.] As the session lasted but six weeks, the committee had no
reason to complain that the information required was not obtained. An
expectation was entertained that it would be given at the next session.
But the committee have reason to complain that the information which
was given was altogether different from that which was asked. This
was represented to the departments, and a more satisfactory report
was promised at the ensuing session. Mr. R. said, the course pursued
at the first session, under the present President, had been the same
which was adopted at the close of Mr. Adams's Administration. At the
following session of Congress, the person who was appointed chairman of
the committee of the first session, was unable to attend; but it was
a gratification to him to find, that the subject was taken up by an
honorable colleague of his, to whom the State of Virginia had been more
than once indebted for the luminous reports on her fiscal concerns; but
nothing was effected. To show how different the information received
was, from that asked for, Mr. R. proposed to read a short letter. The
object of the committee was, to know in what way the Pursers of the
Navy received their money, and what was the amount of their emoluments.
The answer they received, stated "that the advances made to Pursers are
by warrants drawn on the Treasury, sometimes by Navy agents," &c. We
inquired, said he, what were their emoluments, other than those allowed
by law? Answer: "they arise from a certain percentage upon _slops_
detailed to the seamen." It may not be amiss, said Mr. R., to inform
country gentlemen that, by _slops_, are meant ready-made clothing, &c.
It was scarcely possible to have given a more evasive answer. We asked,
What were the emoluments? They answer, "a certain percentage fixed by
the department;" but what that per cent. was, the committee was left to
find out by instinct. It had been understood that large sums of money
were advanced to these Pursers, who laid it out in slops, which they
retailed to the seamen at an advance, in some instances, of twenty per
cent.! This was a fact, Mr. R. said, which ought to be looked into.
It was essential to the reputation of the Government, essential to
its honor, indispensable to the fair fame of those who administer the
finances of the United States, that abuses, such as these, should be
probed to the quick, to show to the world that, if we cannot govern
the great beasts, the mammoths of the forest, we can, at least, poison
the _rats_. And whose money, asked Mr. R., is this? It is the people's
money; it comes from the pockets of the people of the United States.
When he spoke of this abuse of public money, he wished no gentleman
to understand him as speaking of the abuse under this, that, or the
other President of the United States. He considered them all as of one
description of people; and it was not less necessary to guard against
abuses in a country where the President is elected by the people, than
in a country where he is put over them. He would dare to question the
infallibility of all, and look upon all with jealousy and distrust.
He wished not, however, to be charged with that mistaken opposition
to the Government, which determines to exhibit abuses for the sake of
doing so; or with shutting his eyes to the abuses of _Thomas_, while
they are open to the abuses of _John_. Mr. R. said he had no interest
distinct from the interest of his country. With respect to princes and
potentates, the only favor he had to ask of them was, that they would
keep their hands out of his pocket and off his person, and, to use a
homely phrase, "if they would let him alone, he would let them alone."

Under these circumstances, Mr. R. asked the House if it were not
necessary for a committee to be appointed to probe into this business?
He wished to state, before he sat down, that he had learnt, soon after
the present Secretary of the Navy came into office, the percentage of
the Pursers was reduced from twenty to four or five per cent.

The resolution was unanimously agreed to, and a committee of seven
appointed, as follows: Messrs. RANDOLPH, GOLD, MCKIM, ROBERTS, JOHNSON,
LAW, and WIDGERY.


TUESDAY, November 19.

                       _Territory of Louisiana._

On motion of Mr. RHEA, the House went into a Committee of the Whole,
on the bill for the government of the Territory of Louisiana. The bill
being read by paragraphs, Mr. FISK moved to strike out the words in
the fifth section of the bill, which makes it necessary for persons to
be in possession of a freehold to have a right to vote. This motion
was opposed by Mr. RANDOLPH, on principle, in a speech of considerable
length, in which he advocated the freehold qualification for voters.
The motion was opposed also by Mr. RHEA, as unnecessary for the
attainment of the mover's object; as he stated the qualification for
voters was twofold--one was the possession of a freehold, the other a
residence of a year previous to the time of election.

Mr. POINDEXTER made a motion, which superseded that of the gentleman
from Vermont, to strike out all that part of the section which defined
the qualification of voters, and insert, "every free white male citizen
residing in the said Territory, who shall have attained the age of
twenty-one years, and paid a tax."

This amendment was debated till the usual hour of adjournment, when the
committee rose without taking the question, and obtained leave to sit
again.

This debate, though protracted to considerable length, embraced a very
narrow question, viz: whether it is better to require voters to hold
freehold property, or to suffer every man to possess the privilege
of voting who has arrived to the age of twenty-one years. As already
stated, Mr. RANDOLPH took the first ground, and introduced the practice
of Virginia to show that it was attended with the best effects. Mr.
FISK, Mr. WRIGHT, Mr. SMILIE, and Mr. POINDEXTER, took the opposite
side of the question. They argued that life and liberty are superior to
property--that these are dearer to the poor man than all the property
of the rich. Mr. WRIGHT said, that the State of Maryland had tried
the property qualification for voting, had found it attended with bad
effects, and had now abandoned it. It was formerly required that a
voter should be possessed of property to the value of thirty pounds;
so that if a man possessed a horse of that value, he was entitled to
a vote; but if the horse happened to die before the election, he lost
his privilege, which was placing the right in the _horse_ instead of
the _man_. As to freehold qualifications, they were evaded too by deeds
made for the occasion, which were afterwards cancelled.

Mr. RANDOLPH, in combating the principle of universal suffrage,
said that it was impossible for the gentleman himself, (alluding to
Mr. SMILIE,) or any piping-hot member from a Jacobin club--for any
disciple of _Tom Paine_ or of the _Devil_--to carry this principle
of equality to its full extent; for even they must exclude from its
operation minors and females. He also took occasion to pronounce a
strong philippic against foreigners having any part in the Government.
Mr. SMILIE, in his reply, paid a tribute of respect to the memory
of Paine, on account of his valuable political writings, which had
been considered as highly serviceable in the Revolution, and which
would always be esteemed wherever the _rights of man_ are understood,
and reminded him of the foreigners who had assisted in fighting our
Revolutionary battles. Mr. RANDOLPH justified his allusion to Paine;
said he was sorry the gentleman had not recollected his "Age of
Reason," as well as his "Rights of Man;" and as to any services which
he rendered by his writings, he thought little of them. The heroes
engaged in that great cause did not need the assistance of an English
_staymaker_. In reply, Mr. SMILIE said, he never interfered with a
man's religious opinion; that was a private concern, which lay between
God and a man's own conscience; and as to the profession of Paine,
that, he apprehended, would never lessen the value of his writings.


WEDNESDAY, November 20.

Another member, to wit, ARCHIBALD MCBRYDE, from North Carolina,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.


THURSDAY, November 21.

Another member, to wit, ELISHA R. POTTER, from Rhode Island, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

                          _Additional Duties._

On motion of Mr. RHEA, the House took up for consideration the
resolution which he had submitted some days ago, proposing to instruct
the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures to inquire into the
expediency of laying an additional duty on coarse manufactures of hemp,
flax, and cotton.

This resolution produced a long desultory debate, which occupied the
House the whole of the day, without coming to any decision upon it.

Mr. STANFORD, on the ground that the Committee of Commerce and
Manufactures had already this subject under consideration, moved an
indefinite postponement of the resolution.

This motion was negatived, 58 to 48.

Mr. KING proposed an amendment. He expressed himself friendly to the
resolution of the gentleman from Tennessee, and to the encouragement
of domestic manufactures generally. His amendment was in the following
words:

    "And also into the expediency of laying a duty on the
    importation of salt, with authority to report by bill or
    otherwise."

Mr. K. observed, that this was an article of general consumption,
and its manufacture ought to be encouraged; as it was known what
difficulties this country had experienced, and might again experience,
when placed in a situation in which a sufficiency of salt could not be
obtained. He hoped, therefore, his amendment would be agreed to.

Mr. SMILIE was afraid the House was getting into a practice that would
produce great trouble and confusion, by departing from the usual and
settled mode of proceeding. It had always been deemed irregular, when
a subject was committed, to bring it forward in the House before the
committee made its report. Look at our situation, said he. A gentleman
proposes a tax on manufactures of cotton, another on salt. Every
gentleman has his favorite manufacture which he wishes encouraged,
so that an armful of resolutions will be thrown into the hands of
this committee. Mr. S. said he was friendly to the manufactures of
our country, and was willing to give them every aid; but he did not
wish, in doing this, to break through established rules. If gentlemen
would suspend their remarks on the subject until the Committee of
Commerce and Manufactures make their report, they will then have a fair
opportunity of delivering their sentiments fully, and of supporting
such particular manufactures as they may deem of most importance to the
country. He hoped that neither the amendment nor the resolution would
be agreed to.

Mr. ALSTON considered the gentleman from Pennsylvania mistaken as to
the rule and practice of the House. If the doctrine which he maintains
were correct, gentlemen might be defeated in effecting the objects
which they have in view. It was only to refer a subject to a committee;
and if a majority of that committee were unfriendly, and either failed
to report, or reported inimically, the friends of the measure might
be defeated, though there were a majority in the House in its favor.
It was a common practice, Mr. A. said, to refer a subject generally
to a committee, and afterwards instruct them, by resolution, as to
particular branches of the subject.

Mr. NEWTON (the Chairman of the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures)
said, the subject of manufactures was considered as being generally
before them, and he knew it to be the intention of the committee to
take up the matter comprehensively; and if any gentleman shall think
proper to give them information respecting any particular manufacture,
either orally or in writing, they will be glad to receive it. Mr. N.
thought the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. ALSTON) was mistaken,
when he said that a committee had the power of defeating the purposes
of members; because, whenever a report was made, it was in the power of
a majority of the House to amend it, and make it just what they please.

Mr. QUINCY was in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
North Carolina, (Mr. KING,) and thanked him for bringing it forward.
Some of his constituents, men who lived on the sandbanks of the
country, were deeply interested in the manufacture of salt, and had
been nearly ruined by the repeal of the duty on that article. He was
friendly to a duty on salt, as it was more equal and less felt in the
payment than any other, and he had always thought it strange that the
duty had been repealed.

Mr. MACON thought the proposition to tax this necessary of life, at a
time when it is probable we may find a difficulty in procuring it in
sufficient quantity, was very ill-timed. The repeal of this duty had
been called strange. He thought it would have been more strange had
Congress continued the duty when the Treasury was not in need of the
money arising from it. If there was any thing strange in the business,
it was that there should have been any opposition to the repeal. Mr. M.
agreed with the remark made by a gentleman from Massachusetts some days
ago, that taxes, to be just, ought to be equal. Would a tax on salt,
he asked, be equal? It certainly would not. People on the seacoast
would not feel it. Their cattle would refuse it, if given to them. The
interior of the country, the people from East to West, would have to
bear the weight of this tax. But the gentleman from Massachusetts says
the repealing of this duty ruined his constituents, who live on the
sandbanks of the country. He would not consent, however, to tax the
people of his part of the country, living on sandhills, to support that
gentleman's sandbank constituents.

But this duty, it is said, is to be laid to encourage manufactures.
Why this great cry about domestic manufactures? He thought they had
already sufficient encouragement from the present situation of things.
The President had recommended the subject to the consideration of the
House, and he had no doubt the committee, to whom it had been referred,
would do what is proper on the subject. Mr. M. wished to know for what
purpose this additional duty is wanted. If, said he, it be wanted for
going to war, let us know it. For his part, he had heard so much about
war formerly, that he hardly thought we should get at it now.

Mr. M. said on a former occasion, when the country was in a situation
something like the present, a gentleman from Virginia was so alarmed
lest salt sufficient could not be had, that he proposed a bounty on its
importation. What, said Mr. M., will be the effect of a proposition
for taxing salt in the country? He had no doubt that, in the Southern
States, it would immediately raise the price of the article at
Petersburg and Fayetteville. On this account, he hoped, if the House
did not mean to lay a tax on salt, that the proposition would be
immediately discarded. For himself, he would sooner consent to a land
or poll tax than a tax on salt.

Mr. SMILIE moved a postponement of the resolution until the first
Monday in February next.

This motion was debated at some length. Some who wished to vote for it,
wished the proposition for a tax on salt to be disconnected with the
original proposition.


FRIDAY, November 22.

Another member, to wit, EDWIN GRAY, from Virginia, appeared, produced
his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

                  _Apportionment of Representatives._

On motion of Mr. DAWSON, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole, on the bill for apportioning the Representatives among the
several States, according to the third enumeration.

The bill having been read, the question on filling the blanks occurred.
The first was in relation to the number of inhabitants for each
Representative; when

Mr. DAWSON observed, that he was instructed by the committee who
directed him to report this bill, to propose filling the blank with the
words _forty thousand_; but he should himself vote against filling the
blank with this number, because it would deprive the State of Rhode
Island of one-half of her present Representatives; it would deprive
Connecticut and Maryland each of one member, and Virginia of two. He
should, therefore, be in favor of filling the blank with 37,000, as
this number would not deprive any State of a Representative, and it
would only increase the present number of Representatives from 142 to
180.

Mr. DAWSON then moved, that the said blank be filled with the words
"thirty-seven thousand;" and the question thereon being taken, was
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 102, nays 18.

Mr. DAWSON moved to fill the other blanks in the bill, as follows: New
Hampshire, five members; Massachusetts, eighteen; Vermont, five; Rhode
Island, two; Connecticut, seven; New York, twenty-five; New Jersey,
six; Pennsylvania, twenty-one; Delaware, one; Maryland, nine; Virginia,
twenty-two; North Carolina, thirteen; South Carolina, nine; Georgia,
five; Kentucky, ten; Ohio, six; and Tennessee, six.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and the House
adjourned.


MONDAY, December 2.

JOHN TALIAFERRO, who has been declared entitled to a seat in this
House, as one of the members for Virginia, in the place of John P.
Hungerford, who has been declared not entitled to a seat in this House,
appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.


FRIDAY, December 6.

Mr. EMOTT presented a petition of Harrison and Lewis, of the city of
New York, merchants, praying permission to import from the British West
India Islands, goods to the amount of debts owing to them by certain
inhabitants in said islands.--Referred to the Committee of Commerce and
Manufactures.

Mr. SMILIE presented a memorial of the President and Managers of the
Union Canal Company of Pennsylvania, praying the aid and patronage of
the General Government in accomplishing the extensive and useful works
in which they are engaged; which was read, and referred to a select
committee.

Messrs. SMILIE, RIDGELY, RINGGOLD, BAKER, and BLEECKER, were appointed
the committee.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate _insist_
on their amendments, disagreed to by this House, to the bill "for the
apportionment of Representatives among the several States according
to the third enumeration;" agree to the proposed conference, and have
appointed managers on their part at the same.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union, to which Committee of the Whole was committed the report of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, made some days ago.

The report having been read--

Mr. PORTER said that the House were probably expecting from the
Committee of Foreign Relations some explanations of their views in
reporting the resolutions now under consideration, in addition to
the general exposition of them contained in the report itself. The
committee themselves felt that such explanations were due, inasmuch
as they had only reported in part, and had intimated their intention
to follow up these resolutions, should they be adopted, by the
recommendation of ulterior measures.

The committee, Mr. P. said, after examining the various documents
accompanying the President's Message, were satisfied, as he presumed
every member of the House was, that all hopes of accommodating our
differences with Great Britain by negotiation must be abandoned.
When they looked at the correspondence between the two Governments;
when they observed the miserable shifts and evasions (for they were
entitled to no better appellation) to which Great Britain resorted to
excuse the violations of our maritime rights, it was impossible not
to perceive that her conduct towards us was not regulated even by her
own sense of justice, but solely by a regard to the probable extent
of our forbearance. The last six years had been marked by a series of
progressive encroachments on our rights; and the principles by which
she publicly upheld her aggressions, were as mutable as her conduct. We
had seen her one year advancing doctrines, which the year before she
had reprobated. He had seen her one day capturing our vessels under
pretexts, which on the preceding day she would have been ashamed or
afraid to avow. Indeed, said Mr. P., she seems to have been constantly
and carefully feeling our pulse, to ascertain what potions we would
bear; and if we go on submitting to one indignity after another, it
will not be long before we shall see British subjects, not only taking
our property in our harbors, but trampling on our persons in the
streets of our cities.

Having become convinced that all hopes from further negotiation were
idle, the committee, Mr. P. said, were led to the consideration of
another question, which was--whether the maritime rights which Great
Britain is violating were such as we ought to support at the hazard and
expense of a war? And he believed he was correct in stating that the
committee was unanimously of the opinion that they were. The committee
thought that the Orders in Council, so far as they go to interrupt our
direct trade, that is, the carrying of the productions of this country
to a market in the ports of friendly nations, and returning with the
proceeds of them--ought to be resisted by war. How far we ought to go
in support of what is commonly called the carrying trade, although
the question was agitated in the committee, no definitive opinion was
expressed. It was not deemed necessary, at this time, to express such
an opinion, inasmuch as the injury we sustain by the inhibition of this
trade is merged in the greater one to our direct trade.

The Orders in Council, Mr. P. said, of which there seemed now to be
no prospect of a speedy repeal--certainly none during the continuance
of the present war--authorized the capture of our vessels bound to
and from ports where British commerce is not favorably received; and
as that nation is at war with most of the civilized world, the effect
was (as he understood from those who had much better information
on the subject than he could pretend to) to cut up, at once, about
three-fourths of our best and most profitable commerce. It was
impossible that the mercantile or agricultural interests of the United
States, which on the question of a right to the direct trade could
never be separated, could submit to such impositions. It was his
opinion, that going upon the ground of a mere pecuniary calculation, a
calculation of profits and loss, it would be for our interest to go to
war to remove the Orders in Council, rather than submit to them, even
during the term of their probable continuance.

But there was another point of view in which the subject presented
itself to the committee, and that was as regarded the character of the
country. We were a young nation, and he hoped we cherished a little
pride and spirit, as well as a great deal of justice and moderation.
Our situation was not unlike that of a young man just entering into
life, and who, if he tamely submitted to one cool, deliberate,
intentional indignity, might safely calculate to be kicked and cuffed
for the whole of the remainder of his life; or, if he should afterwards
undertake to retrieve his character, must do it at ten times the
expense which it would have cost him at first to support it. We should
clearly understand and define those rights which as a nation we ought
to support, and we should support them at every hazard. If there be any
such thing as rights between nations, surely the people of the United
States, occupying the half of a continent, have a right to navigate the
seas, without being molested by the inhabitants of the little island of
Great Britain.

It was under these views of the subject that the committee did not
hesitate to give it as their opinion, that we ought to go to war in
opposition to the Orders in Council. But as to the extent of the war
and the time when it should be commenced, there would of course be some
diversity of sentiment in the House, as there was, at first, in the
committee.

That we can contend with Great Britain openly and even handed on the
element where she injures us, it would be folly to pretend. Were it
even in our power to build a navy which should be able to cope with
her, no man who has any regard for the happiness of the people of
this country would venture to advise such a measure. All the fame and
glory which the British navy has acquired at sea, have been dearly
paid for in the sufferings and misery of that ill-fated people at
home--sufferings occasioned in a great measure by the expense of that
stupendous establishment. But without such a navy the United States
could make a serious impression upon Great Britain, even at sea. We
could have, within six months after a declaration of war, hundreds of
privateers in every part of the ocean. We could harass, if not destroy,
the vast and profitable commerce which she is constantly carrying on
to every part of this continent. We could destroy her fisheries to the
north; we could depredate upon her commerce to the West India Islands,
which is passing by our doors; we could annoy her trade along the
coast of South America; we could even carry the war to her own shores
in Europe.

Mr. P. said he had risen merely for the purpose of explaining to
the House the opinion and views of the committee in relation to the
resolutions now to be discussed, and he should be satisfied if he had
been so fortunate as to succeed.

The question was then taken on the first resolution for filling the
ranks of the present army, &c., and carried.


SATURDAY, December 7.

              _Territorial Government in Upper Louisiana._

Mr. PLEASANTS presented a remonstrance and petition of sundry
inhabitants of St. Louis, in the Territory of Louisiana, stating the
many injuries and inconveniences which would result from a change in
their form of government, and praying that no alteration may be made in
their said form of government.--Referred to the Committee of the Whole
on the bill providing for the government of the said Territory.


MONDAY, December 9.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of
Foreign Relations.

The question being on the agreement to the second resolution,
authorizing the raising an additional regular force--

Mr. GRUNDY, as a member of the committee stated his impression that
this was the vital part of the report; and although he had no desire
to prolong debate, invited those who were opposed to the report now to
come forward and state their objections to it.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he was an old-fashioned politician. In the days
of terror, we shrunk at standing armies; and what is the object
now--defence? Who? Freemen who would not defend themselves. He would
ask, if seven millions of Americans were to be protected in their
lives and liberties by ten thousand vagabonds who were fit food for
gunpowder? It would be necessary to know the ulterior views of the
committee on this point. It would be proper, before a vote was taken
on this resolution, to know for what purpose these additional troops
were wanted. The House ought not to commit itself on a question of
such magnitude without detailed information. He was as much opposed to
raising standing armies now, as he had been in the reign of terror. He
had seen too much of the corruptions attendant on those establishments,
in the course of the investigation in which he was engaged, not to
disclaim all share in the creation of them. The people of the United
States could defend themselves, if necessary, and had no idea of
resting their defence on mercenaries, picked up from brothels and
tippling houses--pickpockets who have escaped from Newgate, &c., and
sought refuge in this asylum of oppressed humanity. He contended that
this resolution contained an unconstitutional proposition, and that the
standing army now in the service of the United States was maintained
in the very teeth of that part of the constitution which declares that
no money for the support of a standing army should be appropriated
for more than two years. He again called for information as to the
object of the army now proposed to be raised; declaring, that, if the
President should say they were necessary for the protection of New
Orleans, to be employed against the Indians, or to repel incursions
from Canada, (although this seemed not to be much thought of,) he
should not refuse to grant them. He declared the report to be a
negative position, which could not be combated except to disadvantage.
He wished to know the constitutional resources of the committee, and
expressed a hope that the remarks he had made would draw out the
talents of that body.

Mr. GRUNDY.--I did not expect that the gentleman from Virginia would
have made any inquiries into the motives or objects of that committee
of which he himself was a member. He, sir, attended faithfully to
his duty, and witnessed every step the committee took. He also saw
the report before it was made to this House, and must have heard the
exposition of our ulterior measures, as explained by our Chairman. Why,
then, sir, shall he now affect not to understand us? Our object, by
those who will listen, shall not be misunderstood. And, Mr. Speaker, as
I have no political secrets, I feel no hesitation in declaring to you,
to this House, and to the nation, the view I have taken of the subject.
But before I do this, it is due to the committee that an explanation of
their conduct should take place.

So soon as the Committee on our Foreign Relations was appointed, we
were forcibly impressed with the serious and highly responsible station
you had assigned us; to that committee, consisting of nine members
only, were not only the eyes of this House but of the nation turned;
and from us, in this, the most troubled season our world has ever
known, was it expected that a course of measures would be recommended,
calculated to protect the interests of seven millions of people. Under
this impression, Mr. Speaker, we deemed it a duty to take time for
deliberation; we thought it better to encounter the charge of having
acted in a tardy and dilatory way, than to take a rash step, by which
this nation might be plunged into difficulties, from which it could not
be easily extricated. We therefore took the necessary time to weigh
the arguments both for and against the measures we have recommended;
and, as far as we were able, we surveyed the consequences which were to
follow from the course we proposed. We foresaw, Mr. Speaker, that our
countrymen were to fall in the meditated conflict, and that American
blood was to stream afresh. Nor were we unmindful of the expenditure
of public treasure. And, sir, what cost me more reflection than every
thing else, was the new test to which we are to put this Government.
We are about to ascertain by actual experiment how far our Republican
institutions are calculated to stand the shock of war, and whether,
after foreign danger disappeared, we can again assume our peaceful
attitude, without endangering the liberties of the people.

Against these considerations, weighty in themselves, your committee
felt themselves constrained to decide, influenced by existing
circumstances of a character too imperious to be resisted: these I
will enumerate before I sit down. My business at present is to address
a particular portion of the members of this House--I mean, sir, the
Republican members--and although what I am about to say might be deemed
impolitic on ordinary subjects of legislation, yet, at this time and on
this occasion, it would be criminal to conceal a single thought which
might influence their determination. We should now, Mr. Speaker, forget
little party animosities, we should mingle minds freely, and, as far as
we are able, commune with the understandings of each other; and, the
decision once made, let us become one people, and present an undivided
front to the enemies of our country.

Republicans should never forget that some years ago a set of men of
different politics held the reins of this Government, and drove the
car of State; they were charged with being friendly to standing armies
in times of peace, and favorable to expensive establishments; not for
the purpose of opposing foreign enemies, but to encourage Executive
patronage, and to bring these forces to operate upon the people
themselves. These measures alarmed the Republicans; they remonstrated,
they clamored, they appealed to the people, and by a national sentence,
the men then in power were taken down from their high places, and
Republican men were put in their seats.

If your minds are resolved on war, you are consistent, you are
right, you are still Republicans; but if you are not resolved, pause
and reflect, for should this resolution pass, and you then become
faint-hearted, remember that you have abandoned your old principles,
and trod in the paths of your predecessors.

According to my view of this subject, Mr. Speaker, we now stand on the
bank; one movement more, the Rubicon is passed, we are in Italy, and we
must march to Rome.

As a member of the committee, I feel no hesitation in saying, that if
there be a member here, not determined to go with us to the extent of
our measures, I prefer now to take my leave of him, rather than be
deserted when the clouds darken, and the storm thickens upon us.

This admonition I owed to candor--I have paid it, not because I
doubted; my purpose is settled, my mind reposes upon it. I may be in an
error. If I am, I hope my country will forgive me. From my God I shall
never need it, because he knows the purity of my motives.

What, Mr. Speaker, are we now called on to decide? It is whether we
will resist by force the attempt made by that Government, to subject
our maritime rights to the arbitrary and capricious rule of her will;
for my part I am not prepared to say that this country shall submit to
have her commerce interdicted or regulated by any foreign nation. Sir,
I prefer war to submission.

Over and above these unjust pretensions of the British Government, for
many years past they have been in the practice of impressing our seamen
from merchant vessels; this unjust and lawless invasion of personal
liberty, calls loudly for the interposition of this Government. To
those better acquainted with the facts in relation to it, I leave it to
fill up the picture. My mind is irresistibly drawn to the West.

Although others may not strongly feel the bearing which the late
transactions in that quarter have on this subject, upon my mind they
have great influence. It cannot be believed by any man who will reflect
that the savage tribes, uninfluenced by other powers, would think of
making war on the United States. They understand too well their own
weakness, and our strength. They have already felt the weight of our
arms; they know they hold the very soil on which they live as tenants
at sufferance. How, then, sir, are we to account for their late
conduct? In one way only; some powerful nation must have intrigued with
them and turned their peaceful disposition towards us into hostilities.
Great Britain alone has intercourse with those northern tribes; I
therefore infer, that if British gold has not been employed, their
baubles and trinkets, and the promise of support, and a place of refuge
if necessary, have had their effect.

If I am right in this conjecture, war is not to commence by sea or
land, it is already begun; and some of the richest blood of our country
has already been shed. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in one individual has fallen,
the honest man, the orator and the soldier.[14] That he loved his
country none can doubt--he died to preserve its honor and its fame--I
mean the late commander of the cavalry; you, sir, who have often I
measured your strength with his in forensic debate, can attest that he
in a good degree was the pride of the western country, and Kentucky
claimed him as a favorite son. For his loss, with those who fell by his
side, the whole western country is ready to march; they only wait for
our permission; and, sir, war once declared, I pledge myself for my
people--they will avenge the death of their brethren.


TUESDAY, December 10.

Another member, to wit, JAMES COCHRAN, from North Carolina, appeared
and took his seat.

                      _Spanish American Colonies._

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee appointed on that part of the
President's Message which relates to the Spanish American Colonies,
made a report, in part, thereon; which was read and referred to a
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. The report is as
follows:

    The committee to whom was referred so much of the President's
    Message as relates to the Spanish American colonies, have, in
    obedience to the order of the House, deliberately considered
    the subject before them, and directed a report, in part, to be
    submitted to the consideration of the House, in the form of a
    public declaration, as follows:

    Whereas several of the American Spanish provinces have
    represented to the United States that it has been found
    expedient for them to associate and form Federal Governments
    upon the elective and representative plan, and to declare
    themselves free and independent--Therefore be it

    _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, That they
    behold with friendly interest, the establishment of independent
    sovereignties by the Spanish provinces in America, consequent
    upon the actual state of the monarchy to which they belonged;
    that as neighbors and inhabitants of the same hemisphere the
    United States feel great solicitude for their welfare; and
    that when those provinces shall have attained the condition
    of nations, by the just exercise of their rights, the Senate
    and House of Representatives will unite with the Executive, in
    establishing with them as sovereign and independent States,
    such amicable relations and commercial intercourse as may
    require their Legislative authority.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The order of the day being called for, the SPEAKER observed, that the
gentleman from Virginia on the right of the Chair was entitled to the
floor.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose. He expressed his sense of the motive which had
induced the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) to move the
adjournment, yesterday, and of the politeness of the House in granting
it; at the same time declaring that in point of fact he had little
cause to be thankful for the favor, well intended as he knew it to have
been--since he felt himself even less capable of proceeding with his
argument, than he had been on the preceding day.

It was a question, as it had been presented to the House, of peace
or war. In that light it had been argued; in no other light could he
consider it, after the declaration made by members of the Committee of
Foreign Relations. Without intending any disrespect to the Chair, he
must be permitted to say that if the decision yesterday was correct,
"That it was not in order to advance any arguments against the
resolution, drawn from topics before other committees of the House,"
the whole debate, nay, the report itself on which they were acting, was
disorderly; since the increase of the military force was a subject at
that time in agitation by the select committee raised on that branch of
the President's Message. But it was impossible that the discussion of
a question broad as the wide ocean of our foreign concerns--involving
every consideration of interest, of right, of happiness and of safety
at home--touching in every point, all that was dear to freemen,
"their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor!"--could be
tied down by the narrow rules of technical routine. The Committee
of Foreign Relations had indeed decided that the subject of arming
the militia (which he had pressed upon them as indispensable to the
public security) did not come within the scope of their authority. On
what ground, he had been and still was unable to see, they had felt
themselves authorized (when that subject was before another committee)
to recommend the raising of standing armies, with a view (as had been
declared) of immediate war--a war not of defence, but of conquest, of
aggrandizement, of ambition; a war foreign to the interests of this
country, to the interests of humanity itself.

He knew not how gentlemen, calling themselves republicans, could
advocate such a war. What was their doctrine in 1798-'9, when the
command of the army--that highest of all possible trusts in any
Government, be the form what it may--was reposed in the bosom of
the Father of his Country, the sanctuary of a nation's love, the
only hope that never came in vain! When other worthies of the
Revolution--Hamilton, Pinckney, and the younger Washington--men of
tried patriotism, of approved conduct and valor, of untarnished honor,
held subordinate command under him! Republicans were then unwilling to
trust a standing army, even to his hands who had given proof that he
was above all human temptation. Where now is the Revolutionary hero
to whom you are about to confide this sacred trust? To whom will you
confide the charge of leading the flower of our youth to the Heights of
Abraham? Will you find him in the person of an acquitted felon? What!
then you were unwilling to vote an army where such men as had been
named held high command! when WASHINGTON himself was at the head--did
you then show such reluctance, feel such scruples; and are you now
nothing loth, fearless of every consequence? Will you say that your
provocations were less then than now? When your direct commerce was
interdicted--your Ambassadors hooted with derision from the French
Court--tribute demanded--actual war waged upon you!

Those who opposed the army then were indeed denounced as the
partisans of France; as the same men--some of them at least--are
now held up as the advocates of England; those firm and undeviating
Republicans who then dared, and now dare, to cling to the ark of the
constitution, to defend it even at the expense of their fame, rather
than surrender themselves to the wild projects of mad ambition! There
was a fatality attending plenitude of power. Soon or late some mania
seizes upon its possessors--they fall from the dizzy height through
the giddiness of their own heads. Like a vast estate, heaped up by
the labor and industry of one man, which seldom survives the third
generation--power, gained by patient assiduity, by a faithful and
regular discharge of its attendant duties, soon gets above its own
origin. Intoxicated with their own greatness the Federal party fell.
Will not the same causes produce the same effects now as then? Sir, you
may raise this army, you may build up this vast structure of patronage,
this mighty apparatus of favoritism; but--"lay not the flattering
unction to your souls"--you will never live to enjoy the succession.
You sign your political death warrant.

Mr. R. here adverted to the provocation to hostilities from shutting up
the Mississippi by Spain in 1803--but more fully to the conduct of the
House in 1805-'6, under the strongest of all imaginable provocatives to
war; the actual invasion of our country. He read various passages from
the President's public Message of December 3, 1805.

Mr. R. said that the peculiar situation of the frontier, at that time
insulted, had alone induced the committee to recommend the raising of
regular troops. It was too remote from the population of the country
for the militia to act, in repelling and chastising Spanish incursion.
New Orleans and its dependencies were separated by a vast extent of
wilderness from the settlements of the old United States; filled with a
disloyal and turbulent people, alien to our institutions, language and
manners, and disaffected towards our Government. Little reliance could
be placed upon them, and it was plain, that if "it was the intention
of Spain to advance on our possessions until she should be repulsed by
an opposing force," that force must be a regular army, unless we were
disposed to abandon all the country south of Tennessee. That if "the
protection of our citizens and the spirit and the honor of our country
required that force should be interposed," nothing remained but for the
Legislature to grant the only practicable means, or to shrink from the
most sacred of all its duties--to abandon the soil and its inhabitants
to the tender mercies of hostile invaders.

Yet this report, moderate as it was, had been deemed of too strong
a character by the House. It was rejected: and, at the motion of a
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. BIDWELL,)--who had since taken a
great fancy also to Canada,[15] and marched off thither, in advance
of the committee of Foreign Relations--"$2,000,000, were appropriated
towards" (not in full of) "any extraordinary expense which might be
incurred in the intercourse between the United States and foreign
nations:" in other words, to buy off, at Paris, Spanish aggressions at
home.

Was this fact given in evidence of our impartiality towards the
belligerents?--that to the insults and injuries and actual invasion
of one of them we opposed not bullets, but dollars; that to Spanish
invasion we opposed money, whilst for British aggression on the high
seas we had arms; offensive war? But Spain was then shielded, as well
as instigated, by a greater power. Hence our respect for her. Had we at
that time acted as we ought to have done in defence of rights, of the
_natale solum_ itself, we should (he felt confident) have avoided that
series of insult, disgrace, and injury, which had been poured out upon
us in long unbroken succession. We would not then raise a small regular
force for a country where the militia could not act, to defend our
own Territory; now, we are willing to levy a great army, for great it
must be, to accomplish the proposed object, for a war of conquest and
ambition--and this, too, at the very entrance of the "Northern Hive,"
of the strongest part of the Union.

An insinuation had fallen from the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr.
GRUNDY,) that the late massacre of our brethren on the Wabash had
been instigated by the British Government. Has the President given
any such information? has the gentleman received any such, even
informally, from any officer of this Government? Is it so believed by
the Administration? He had cause to think the contrary to be the fact;
that such was not their opinion. This insinuation was of the grossest
kind--a presumption the most rash, the most unjustifiable. Show but
good ground for it, he would give up the question at the threshold--he
was ready to march to Canada. It was indeed well calculated to excite
the feelings of the Western people particularly, who were not quite so
tenderly attached to our red brethren as some modern philosophers; but
it was destitute of any foundation, beyond mere surmise and suspicion.
What would be thought, if, without any proof whatsoever, a member
should rise in his place and tell us, that the massacre in Savannah,
a massacre perpetrated by civilized savages, with French commissions
in their pockets, was excited by the French Government? There was an
easy and natural solution of the late transaction on the Wabash, in the
well-known character of the aboriginal savage of North America, without
resorting to any such mere conjectural estimate. He was sorry to say,
that for this signal calamity and disgrace the House was, in part, at
least, answerable. Session after session, their table had been piled up
with Indian treaties, for which the appropriations had been voted as a
matter of course, without examination. Advantage had been taken of the
spirit of the Indians, broken by the war which ended in the Treaty of
Greenville. Under the ascendency then acquired over them, they had been
pent up by subsequent treaties into nooks straitened in their quarters
by a blind cupidity, seeking to extinguish their title to immense
wildernesses, for which (possessing, as we do already, more land than
we can sell or use) we shall not have occasion, for half a century to
come. It was our own thirst for territory, our own want of moderation,
that had driven these sons of nature to desperation, of which we felt
the effects.

Mr. R., although not personally acquainted with the late Colonel
Daviess, felt, he was persuaded, as deep and serious regret for his
loss as the gentleman from Tennessee himself. He knew him only through
the representation of a friend of the deceased, (Mr. ROWAN,) some time
a member of that House; a man, who, for native force of intellect,
manliness of character, and high sense of honor, was not inferior to
any that had ever sat there. With him he sympathized in the severest
calamity that could befall a man of his cast of character. Would to God
they were both then on the floor! From his personal knowledge of the
one, he felt confident that he would have his support--and he believed
(judging of him from the representation of their common friend) of the
other also.

He could but smile at the liberality of the gentleman, in giving Canada
to New York, in order to strengthen the Northern balance of power,
while at the same time he forewarned her that the Western scale must
preponderate. Mr. R. said that he could almost fancy that he saw the
Capitol in motion towards the falls of Ohio--after a short sojourn
taking its flight to the Mississippi, and finally alighting on Darien;
which, when the gentleman's dreams are realized, will be a most
eligible seat of government for the new Republic (or Empire) of the two
Americas! But it seemed that "in 1808 we talked and acted foolishly,"
and to give some color of consistency to that folly, we must now commit
a greater. Really he could not conceive of a weaker reason offered in
support of a present measure, than the justification of a former folly.
He hoped we should act a wiser part--take warning by our follies, since
we had become sensible of them, and resolve to talk and act foolishly
no more. It was indeed high time to give over such preposterous
language and proceedings.

This war of conquest, a war for the acquisition of territory and
subjects, is to be a new commentary on the doctrine that Republics are
destitute of ambition--that they are addicted to peace, wedded to the
happiness and safety of the great body of their people. But it seems
this is to be a holiday campaign--there is to be no expense of blood,
or treasure, on our part--Canada is to conquer herself--she is to be
subdued by the principles of fraternity. The people of that country are
first to be seduced from their allegiance, and converted into traitors,
as preparatory to the making them good citizens. Although he must
acknowledge that some of our flaming patriots were thus manufactured,
he did not think the process would hold good with a whole community.
It was a dangerous experiment. We were to succeed in the French mode
by the system of fraternization--all is French! but how dreadfully it
might be retorted on the Southern and Western slaveholding States. He
detested this subornation of treason. No--if he must have them, let
them fall by the valor of our arms, by fair, legitimate conquest; not
become the victims of treacherous seduction.

He was not surprised at the war spirit which was manifesting itself
in gentlemen from the South. In the year 1805-'6, in a struggle for
the carrying trade of belligerent colonial produce, this country
has been most unwisely brought into collision with the great powers
of Europe. By a series of most impolitic and ruinous measures,[16]
utterly incomprehensible to every rational, sober-minded man, the
Southern planters, by their own votes, had succeeded in knocking down
the price of cotton to seven cents, and of tobacco (a few choice crops
excepted) to nothing--and in raising the price of blankets, (of which
a few would not be amiss in a Canadian campaign,) coarse woollens,
and every article of first necessity, three or four hundred per cent.
And now that, by our own acts, we have brought ourselves into this
unprecedented condition, we must get out of it in any way, but by an
acknowledgment of our own want of wisdom and forecast. But is war the
true remedy? Who will profit by it? Speculators--a few lucky merchants,
who draw prizes in the lottery--commissaries and contractors. Who must
suffer by it? The people. It is their blood, their taxes, that must
flow to support it.

But gentlemen avowed that they would not go to war for the carrying
trade--that is, for any other but the direct export and import
trade--that which carries our native products abroad, and brings back
the return cargo; and yet they stickle for our commercial rights, and
will go to war for them! He wished to know, in point of principle,
what difference gentlemen could point out between the abandonment of
this or of that maritime right? Do gentlemen assume the lofty port and
tone of chivalrous redressers of maritime wrongs, and declare their
readiness to surrender every other maritime right provided they may
remain unmolested in the exercise of the humble privilege of carrying
their own produce abroad, and bringing back a return cargo? Do you make
this declaration to the enemy at the outset? Do you state the minimum
with which you will be contented, and put it in her power to close with
your proposal at her option; give her the basis of a treaty ruinous
and disgraceful beyond example and expression? and this, too, after
having turned up your nose in disdain at the treaties of Mr. Jay and
Mr. Monroe! Will you say to England, "end the war when you please, give
us the direct trade in our own produce, we are content?" But what will
the merchants of Salem, and Boston, and New York, and Philadelphia,
and Baltimore, the men of Marblehead and Cape Cod, say to this? Will
they join in a war professing to have for its object what they would
consider (and justly too) as the sacrifice of their maritime rights,
yet affecting to be a war for the protection of commerce?

He was gratified to find gentlemen acknowledging the demoralizing
and destructive consequences of the non-importation law--confessing
the truth of all that its opponents foretold when it was enacted.
And will you plunge yourselves in war, because you have passed a
foolish and ruinous law, and are ashamed to repeal it? "But our good
friend the French Emperor stands in the way of its repeal," and as
we cannot go too far in making sacrifices to him, who has given such
demonstration of his love for the Americans, we must, in point of fact,
become parties to his war. "Who can be so cruel as to refuse him this
favor?" His imagination shrunk from the miseries of such a connection.
He called upon the House to reflect whether they were not about to
abandon all reclamation for the unparalleled outrages, "insults and
injuries" of the French Government, to give up our claim for plundered
millions; and asked what reparation or atonement they could expect
to obtain in hours of future dalliance, after they should have made
a tender of their person to this great deflowerer of the virginity
of republics. We had by our own wise (he would not say _wise-acre_)
measures, so increased the trade and wealth of Montreal and Quebec,
that at last we began to cast a wishful eye at Canada. Having done
so much towards its improvement by the exercise of "our restrictive
energies," we began to think the laborer worthy of his hire, and to
put in claim for our portion. Suppose it ours, are we any nearer to
our point? As his Minister said to the King of Epirus, "may we not as
well take our bottle of wine before as after this exploit?" Go! march
to Canada! leave the broad bosom of the Chesapeake and her hundred
tributary rivers--the whole line of seacoast from Machias to St. Mary's
unprotected! You have taken Quebec--have you conquered England? Will
you seek for the deep foundations of her power in the frozen deserts of
Labrador?

    "Her march is on the mountain wave,
    Her home is on the deep!"

Will you call upon her to leave your ports and harbors untouched, only
just till you can return from Canada to defend them? The coast is to be
left defenceless, whilst men of the interior are revelling in conquest
and spoil. But grant for a moment, for mere argument's sake, that in
Canada you touched the sinews of her strength, instead of removing a
clog upon her resources--an encumbrance, but one, which, from a spirit
of honor, she will vigorously defend. In what situation would you then
place some of the best men of the nation? As Chatham and Burke, and
the whole band of her patriots, prayed for her defeat in 1776, so must
some of the truest friends to their country deprecate the success of
our arms against the only power that holds in check the arch-enemy of
mankind.

Mr. R. declared that the committee had out-stripped the Executive. In
designating the power against whom this force was to be employed--as
had most unadvisably been done in the preamble or manifesto with which
the resolutions were prefaced--they had not consulted the views of the
Executive; that designation was equivalent to an abandonment of all our
claims on the French Government. No sooner was the report laid on the
table, than the vultures were flocking round their prey, the carcass of
a great Military Establishment--men of tainted reputation, of broken
fortunes (if they ever had any) and of battered constitutions, "choice
spirits, tired of the dull pursuits of civil life," were seeking after
agencies and commissions; willing to doze in gross stupidity over the
public fire; to light the public candle at both ends. Honorable men
undoubtedly there were ready to serve their country, but what man of
spirit, or of self-respect, would accept a commission in the present
army?

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) had addressed himself,
yesterday, exclusively to the "Republicans of this House." Mr. R.
knew not whether he might consider himself as entitled to any part of
the benefit of the honorable gentleman's discourse. It belonged not,
however, to that gentleman to decide. If we must have an exposition of
the doctrines of Republicanism, he should receive it from the fathers
of the Church, and not from the junior apprentices of the law. He
should appeal to his worthy friends from Carolina, (Messrs. MACON and
STANFORD,) "men with whom he had measured his strength," by whose side
he had fought during the reign of terror, for it was indeed an hour
of corruption, of oppression, of pollution. It was not at all to his
taste, that sort of Republicanism which was supported on this side of
the Atlantic by the father of the sedition law, John Adams, and by
Peter Porcupine on the other. Republicanism! of John Adams! and William
Cobbett! _Par nobile fratrum_, now united as in 1798, whom the cruel
walls of Newgate alone keep from flying to each other's embrace--but
whom, in sentiment it is impossible to divide! Gallant crusaders in the
holy cause of Republicanism! Such "Republicanism does indeed mean any
thing or nothing."

Our people will not submit to be taxed for this war of conquest and
dominion. The Government of the United States was not calculated to
wage offensive foreign war--it was instituted for the common defence
and general welfare; and whosoever should embark in a war of offence,
would put it to a test which it was by no means calculated to endure.
Make it out that Great Britain had instigated the Indians on the late
occasion, and he was ready for battle; but not for dominion. He was
unwilling, however, under present circumstances, to take Canada, at
the risk of the constitution--to embark in common cause with France
and be dragged at the wheels of the car of some Burr or Bonaparte. For
a gentleman from Tennessee or Genesee, or Lake Champlain, there may
be some prospect of advantage. Their hemp would bear a great price by
the exclusion of foreign supply. In that too the great importers were
deeply interested. The upper country on the Hudson and the Lakes would
be enriched by the supplies for the troops, which they alone could
furnish. They would have the exclusive market: to say nothing of the
increased preponderance from the acquisition of Canada and that section
of the Union, which the Southern and Western States had already felt so
severely in the apportionment bill.

Mr. R. adverted to the defenceless state of our seaports, and
particularly of the Chesapeake. A single spot only, on both shores,
might be considered in tolerable security--from the nature of the port
and the strength of the population--and that spot unhappily governed
the whole State of Maryland. His friend, the late Governor of Maryland,
(Mr. LLOYD,) at the very time he was bringing his warlike resolutions
before the Legislature of the State, was liable, on any night, to be
taken out of his bed, and carried off with his family, by the most
contemptible picaroon. Such was the situation of many a family in
Maryland and lower Virginia.

Mr. R. dwelt on the danger arising from the black population. He said
he would touch this subject as tenderly as possible--it was with
reluctance that he touched it at all--but in cases of great emergency,
the State physician must not be deterred by a sickly, hysterical
humanity, from probing the wound of his patient--he must not be
withheld by a fastidious and mistaken humanity from representing his
true situation to his friends, or even to the sick man himself, where
the occasion called for it. What was the situation of the slaveholding
States? During the war of the Revolution, so fixed were their habits
of subordination, that when the whole southern country was overrun by
the enemy, who invited them to desert, no fear was ever entertained
of an insurrection of the slaves. During the war of seven years,
with our country in possession of the enemy, no such danger was ever
apprehended. But should we therefore be unobservant spectators of the
process of society, within the last twenty years--of the silent and
powerful change wrought by time and chance, upon its composition and
temper? When the fountains of the great deep of abomination were broken
up, even the poor slaves had not escaped the general deluge. The French
Revolution had polluted even them. Nay, there had not been wanting men
in that House, witness their Legislative _Legendre_, the butcher who
once held a seat there, to preach upon that floor these imprescriptible
rights to a crowded audience of blacks in the galleries--teaching
them that they are equal to there masters; in other words, advising
them to cut their throats. Similar doctrines were disseminated by
peddlers from New England and elsewhere, throughout the southern
country--and masters have been found so infatuated, as by their lives
and conversation, by a general contempt of order, morality, and
religion, unthinkingly to cherish these seeds of self-destruction to
them and their families. What was the consequence? Within the last ten
years, repeated alarms of insurrection among the slaves--some of them
awful indeed. From the spreading of this infernal doctrine, the whole
southern country had been thrown into a state of insecurity. Men dead
to the operation of moral causes, had taken away from the poor slave
his habits of loyalty and obedience to his master, which lightened his
servitude by a double operation; beguiling his own cares and disarming
his master's suspicions and severity; and now, like true empirics in
politics, you are called upon to trust to the mere physical strength
of the fetter which holds him in bondage. You have deprived him of
all moral restraint, you have tempted him to eat of the fruit of the
tree of knowledge, just enough to perfect him in wickedness; you have
opened his eyes to his nakedness; you have armed his nature against
the hand that has fed, that has clothed him, that has cherished him in
sickness; that hand, which before he became a pupil of your school, he
had been accustomed to press with respectful affection. You have done
all this--and then show him the gibbet and the wheel, as incentives
to a sullen, repugnant obedience. God forbid, sir, that the Southern
States should ever see an enemy on their shores, with these infernal
principles of French fraternity in the van! While talking of taking
Canada, some of us were shuddering for our own safety at home. He spoke
from facts, when he said that the night-bell never tolled for fire in
Richmond that the mother did not hug her infant more closely to her
bosom. He had been a witness of some of the alarms in the capital of
Virginia.

Mr. R. then proceeded to notice the unjust and illiberal imputation
of British attachments, against certain characters in this country,
sometimes insinuated in that House, but openly avowed out of it.
Against whom were these charges brought? Against men, who in the war
of the Revolution were in the councils of the nation, or fighting the
battles of your country. And by whom were they made? By runaways,
chiefly from the British dominions, since the breaking out of the
French troubles. He indignantly said--it is insufferable. It cannot be
borne. It must, and ought, with severity, be put down in this House,
and, out of it, to meet the lie direct. We have no fellow feeling
for the suffering and oppressed Spaniards! Yet even them we do not
reprobate. Strange! that we should have no objection to any people or
Government, civilized or savage, in the whole world. The great Autocrat
of all the Russias receives the homage of our high consideration. The
Dey of Algiers and his Divan of Pirates are very civil, good sort of
people, with whom we find no difficulty in maintaining the relations
of peace and amity--"Turks, Jews, and Infidels;" Mellimelli, or the
Little Turtle; barbarians and savages of every clime and color, are
welcome to our arms. With chiefs of banditti, <DW64> or mulatto, we
can treat and can trade. Name, however, but England, and all our
antipathies are up in arms against her. Against whom? Against those
whose blood runs in our veins; in common with whom we claim Shakspeare,
and Newton, and Chatham, for our countrymen; whose form of government
is the freest on earth, our own only excepted; from whom every valuable
principle of our own institutions has been borrowed--representation,
jury trial, voting the supplies, writ of habeas corpus--our whole civil
and criminal jurisprudence--against our fellow Protestants identified
in blood, in language, in religion with ourselves. In what school did
the worthies of our land, the Washingtons, Henrys, Hancocks, Franklins,
Rutledges of America learn those principles of civil liberty which were
so nobly asserted by their wisdom and valor? And American resistance
to British usurpation had not been more warmly cherished by these
great men and their compatriots; not more by Washington, Hancock, and
Henry, than by Chatham and his illustrious associates in the British
Parliament. It ought to be remembered, too, that the heart of the
English people was with us. It was a selfish and corrupt Ministry, and
their servile tools, to whom we were not more opposed than they were.
He trusted that none such might ever exist among us--for tools will
never be wanting to subserve the purposes, however ruinous or wicked,
of Kings and Ministers of State.

He acknowledged the influence of a Shakspeare and Milton upon his
imagination, of a Locke upon his understanding, of a Sidney upon his
political principles, of a Chatham upon qualities which, would to God!
he possessed in common with that illustrious man--of a Tillotson,
a Sherlock, and a Porteus, upon his religion. This was a British
influence which he could never shake off. He allowed much to the just
and honest prejudices growing out of the Revolution. But by whom had
they been suppressed when they ran counter to the interests of his
country? By Washington. By whom, would you listen to them, are they
most keenly felt? By felons escaped from the jails of Paris, Newgate,
and Kilmainham, since the breaking out of the French Revolution--who,
in this abused and insulted country, have set up for political
teachers, and whose disciples give no other proof of their progress in
Republicanism, except a blind devotion to the most ruthless military
despotism that the world ever saw. These are the patriots, who scruple
not to brand with the epithet of tory the men (looking towards the seat
of Col. STUART) by whose blood your liberties have been cemented. These
are they, who hold in so keen remembrance the outrages of the British
armies, from which many of them were deserters. Ask these self-styled
patriots where they were during the American war, (for they are for
the most part old enough to have borne arms,) and you strike them
dumb--their lips are closed in eternal silence. If it were allowable
to entertain partialities, every consideration of blood, language,
religion, and interest, would incline us towards England; and yet,
shall they be alone extended to France and her ruler, whom we are bound
to believe a chastening God suffers as the scourge of a guilty world!
On all other nations he tramples--he holds them in contempt--England
alone he hates; he would, but he cannot despise her--fear cannot
despise. And shall we disparage our ancestors?--shall we bastardize
ourselves by placing them even below the brigands of St. Domingo? with
whom Mr. Adams had negotiated a sort of treaty, for which he ought
to have been and would have been impeached, if the people had not
previously passed sentence of disqualification for their service upon
him. This antipathy to all that is English must be French.

But the outrages and injuries of England, bred up in the principles
of the Revolution, he could never palliate, much less defend them.
He well remembered flying with his mother, and her new-born child,
from Arnold and Phillips--and how they had been driven by Tarleton
and other British pandoors from pillar to post, while her husband was
fighting the battles of his country. The impression was indelible on
his memory--and yet (like his worthy old neighbor, who added seven
buck-shot to every cartridge at the battle of Guilford, and drew a fine
sight at his man) he must be content to be called a tory by a patriot
of the last importation. Let us not get rid of one evil (supposing
it to be possible) at the expense of a greater--_mutatis mutandis_.
Suppose France in possession of the British naval power--and to her
the trident must pass should England be unable to wield it--what would
be your condition? What would be the situation of your seaports and
their seafaring inhabitants? Ask Hamburg, Lubec. Ask Savannah. What,
sir! when their privateers are pent up in our harbors by the British
bull-dogs, when they receive at our hands every rite of hospitality,
from which their enemy is excluded, when they capture within our own
waters, interdicted to British armed ships, American vessels; when such
is their deportment towards you, under such circumstances, what could
you expect if they were the uncontrolled lords of the ocean? Had those
privateers at Savannah borne British commissions, or had your shipments
of cotton, tobacco, ashes, and what not, to London and Liverpool, been
confiscated, and the proceeds poured into the English Exchequer--my
life upon it! you would never have listened to any miserable wire-drawn
distinctions between "orders and decrees affecting our neutral rights,"
and "municipal decrees," confiscating in mass your whole property. You
would have had instant war! The whole land would have blazed out in
war.

And shall republicans become the instruments of him who had effaced
the title of Attila to the "Scourge of God!" Yet even Attila, in
the falling fortunes of civilization, had, no doubt, his advocates,
his tools, his minions, his parasites in the very countries that he
overran--sons of that soil whereon his horse had trod; where grass
could never after grow. If perfectly fresh, Mr. RANDOLPH said (instead
of being as he was--his memory clouded, his intellect stupefied, his
strength and spirits exhausted) he could not give utterance to that
strong detestation which he felt towards (above all other works of
the creation) such characters as Zingis, Tamerlane, Kouli-Khan, or
Bonaparte. His instincts involuntarily revolted at their bare idea.
Malefactors of the human race, who ground down man to a mere machine
of their impious and bloody ambition. Yet, under all the accumulated
wrongs, and insults, and robberies of the last of these chieftains, are
we not in point of fact about to become a party to his views, a partner
in his wars?

But before this miserable force of ten thousand men was raised to take
Canada, he begged them to look at the state of defence at home--to
count the cost of the enterprise before it was set on foot, not when it
might be too late--when the best blood of the country should be spilt,
and naught but empty coffers left to pay the cost. Are the bounty lands
to be given in Canada? It might lessen his repugnance to that part of
the system, to granting these lands, not to those miserable wretches
who sell themselves to slavery for a few dollars and a glass of gin,
but in fact to the clerks in our offices, some of whom, with an income
of fifteen hundred or two thousand dollars, lived at the rate of four
or five thousand, and yet grew rich--who perhaps at that moment were
making out blank assignments for these land rights.

He would beseech the House, before they ran their heads against this
post, Quebec, to count the cost. His word for it, Virginia planters
would not be taxed to support such a war--a war which must aggravate
their present distresses; in which they had not the remotest interest.
Where is the Montgomery, or even the Arnold, or the Burr, who is to
march to Point Levi?

He called upon those professing to be republicans to make good the
promises held out by their republican predecessors when they came
into power--promises which, for years afterwards, they had honestly,
faithfully fulfilled. We had vaunted of paying off the national debt,
of retrenching useless establishments; and yet had now become as
infatuated with standing armies, loans, taxes, navies, and war, as ever
were the Essex Junto. What republicanism is this?


WEDNESDAY, December 11.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on
Foreign Relations.

Mr. RICHARD M. JOHNSON said he rose to thank the committee for the
report which was offered to the House, and the resolutions which
were recommended; though the measures fell short of his wishes, and,
he believed, of public expectation. The ulterior measures, however,
promised by the committee satisfied his mind, and he should give the
report his warm support. The chairman had given the views of the
committee. The expulsion of the British from their North American
possessions, and granting letters of marque and reprisal against Great
Britain are contemplated. Look at the Message of the President. At a
moment least to be expected, when France had ceased to violate our
neutral rights, and the olive branch was tendered to Great Britain,
her orders in council were put into a more rigorous execution. Not
satisfied with refusing a redress for wrongs committed on our coasts
and in the mouths of our harbors, our trade is annoyed, and our
national rights invaded; and, to close the scene of insolence and
injury, regardless of our moderation and our justice, she has brought
home to the "threshold of our territory," measures of actual war. As
the love of peace has so long produced forbearance on our part, while
commercial cupidity has increased the disposition to plunder on the
part of Great Britain, I feel rejoiced that the hour of resistance
is at hand, and that the President, in whom the people has so much
confidence, has warned us of the perils that await them, and has
exhorted us to put on the armor of defence, to gird on the sword, and
assume the manly and bold attitude of war. He recommends filling up
the ranks of the present military establishment, and to lengthen the
term of service; to raise an auxiliary force for a more limited time;
to authorize the acceptance of volunteers, and provide for calling out
detachments of militia as circumstances may require. For the first time
since my entrance into this body, there now seems to be but one opinion
with a great majority--that with Great Britain war is inevitable; that
the hopes of the sanguine as to a returning sense of British justice
have expired; that the prophecies of the discerning have failed;
and, that her infernal system has driven us to the brink of a second
revolution, as important as the first. Upon the Wabash, through the
influence of British agents, and within our territorial sea by the
British navy, the war has already commenced. Thus, the folly, the
power, and the tyranny of Great Britain, have taken from us the last
alternative of longer forbearance.

Mr. J. said we must now oppose the farther encroachments of Great
Britain by war, or formally annul the Declaration of our Independence,
and acknowledge ourselves her devoted colonies. The people whom I
represent will not hesitate which of the two courses to choose; and, if
we are involved in war, to maintain our dearest rights, and to preserve
our independence, I pledge myself to this House, and my constituents
to this nation, that they will not be wanting in valor, nor in their
proportion of men and money to prosecute the war with effect. Before
we relinquish the conflict, I wish to see Great Britain renounce the
piratical system of paper blockade; to liberate our captured seamen
on board her ships of war; relinquish the practice of impressment on
board our merchant vessels; to repeal her Orders in Council; and cease,
in every other respect, to violate our neutral rights; to treat us as
an independent people. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has
objected to the destination of this auxiliary force--the occupation of
the Canadas, and the other British possessions upon our borders where
our laws are violated, the Indians stimulated to murder our citizens,
and where there is a British monopoly of the peltry and fur trade. I
should not wish to extend the boundary of the United States by war if
Great Britain would leave us to the quiet enjoyment of independence;
but, considering her deadly and implacable enmity, and her continued
hostility, I shall never die contented until I see her expulsion from
North America, and her territories incorporated with the United States.
It is strange that the gentleman would pause before refusing this
force, if destined to keep the <DW64>s in subordination--who are not in
a state of insurrection as I understand--and he will absolutely refuse
to vote this force to defend us against the lawless aggressions of
Great Britain--a nation in whose favor he had said so much.

But, he has a dislike to the Canadian French, French blood is hateful
to him. I have no doubt but the Canadian French are as good citizens
as the Canadian English, or the refugee tories of the Revolution; nor
have I any doubt but a great majority of that vast community are sound
in their morals and in their politics, and would make worthy members of
the United States.

But, open the sacred pages of the Journals of the Congress of
1774-'75--that Congress which commenced, and conducted to victory, the
American Revolution. Upon the pages of the first volume (from page 54
to 100) we will find letters addressed to the inhabitants of Canada
and the province of Quebec, containing the language of affectionate
respect, and, in the warmth of patriotism, inviting them to unite
against British tyranny, to make the cause of quarrel common, and to
enter into the union of the States on the principles of equality. The
encroachments of Great Britain are depicted in the most vivid colors,
and then they say "we shall consider the violation of your rights a
violation of our own, and you are invited to accede to the confederacy
of the States." Thus, the patriots of the Revolution styled the
inhabitants of the British provinces friends and fellow-sufferers in
1774: although then but a handful of men compared to their present
numbers, and only ten years had elapsed from their first incorporation
with the British dominions; and nothing but the want of physical power
and means prevented their independence in 1776. The misfortunes of our
arms at Quebec, and in that quarter, are well known. These overtures of
the Old Congress did not stop here. After the Articles of Confederation
had been adopted, the door was left open for the reception of the
Canadas, and the hope was not lost until British arms riveted the
chains of slavery upon them, which at that time could not be broken.
Now, sir, these people are more enlightened, they have a great American
population among them, and they have correct ideas of liberty and
independence, and only want an opportunity to throw off the yoke of
their taskmakers.

Let us not think so meanly of the human character and the human mind.
We are in pursuit of happiness, and we place a great value upon liberty
as the means of happiness. What, then, let me ask, has changed the
character of those people, that they are to be despised? What new order
of things has disqualified them for the enjoyment of liberty? Has any
malediction of Heaven doomed them to perpetual vassalage? Or, will the
gentleman from Virginia pretend to more wisdom and more patriotism than
the constellation of patriots who conducted the infant Republic through
the Revolution? In point of territorial limit, the map will prove
its importance. The waters of the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi
interlock in a number of places, and the great Disposer of Human Events
intended those two rivers should belong to the same people.

But it has been denied that British influence had any agency in the
late dreadful conflict and massacre upon the Wabash; and this is said
to vindicate the British nation from so foul a charge. Sir, look to
the book of the Revolution. See the Indian savages in Burgoyne's army
urged on every occasion to use the scalping-knife and tomahawk--not
in battle, but against old men and women, and children; in the night,
when they were taught to believe an Omniscient eye could not see their
guilty deeds; and thus hardened in iniquity, they perpetrated the
same deeds by the light of the sun, when no arm was found to oppose
or protect. And when this crying sin was opposed by Lord Chatham, in
the House of Lords, the employment of these Indians was justified by
a speech from one of the Ministry. Thus we see how the principles of
honor, of humanity, of Christianity, were violated and justified in
the face of the world. Therefore, I can have no doubt of the influence
of British agents in keeping up Indian hostility to the people of the
United States, independent of the strong proofs on this occasion; and,
I hope it will not be pretended that these agents are too moral or too
religious to do the infamous deed. So much for the expulsion of Great
Britain from her dominions in North America, and their incorporation
into the United States of America.

The gentleman from Virginia says we are identified with the British
in religion, in blood, in language, and deeply laments our hatred to
that country, who can boast of so many illustrious characters. This
deep-rooted enmity to Great Britain arises from her insidious policy,
the offspring of her perfidious conduct towards the United States. Her
disposition is unfriendly; her enmity is implacable; she sickens at
our prosperity and happiness. If obligations of friendship do exist,
why does Great Britain rend those ties asunder, and open the bleeding
wounds of former conflicts? Or does the obligation of friendship exist
on the part of the United States alone? I have never thought that the
ties of religion, of blood, of language, and of commerce, would justify
or sanctify insult and injury--on the contrary, that a premeditated
wrong from the hand of a friend created more sensibility, and deserved
the greater chastisement and the higher execration. What would you
think of a man, to whom you were bound by the most sacred ties, who
would plunder you of your substance, aim a deadly blow at your honor,
and in the hour of confidence endeavor to bury a dagger in your bosom?
Would you, sir, proclaim to the world your affection for this miscreant
of society, after this conduct, and endeavor to interest your audience
with the ties of kindred that bound you to each other? So let it be
with nations, and there will be neither surprise nor lamentation that
we execrate a Government so hostile to our independence--for it is from
the Government that we meet with such multiplied injury, and to that
object is our hatred directed. As to individuals of merit, whether
British or French, I presume no person would accuse the people of the
United States of such hatred to them, or of despising individuals, who
might not be instrumental in the maritime despotism which we feel;
and this accounts for the veneration we have for Sidney and Russell,
statesmen of whom the gentleman has spoken; they are fatal examples why
we should love the British Government. The records of that Government
are now stained with the blood of these martyrs in freedom's cause,
as vilely as with the blood of American citizens; and certainly we
shall not be called upon to love equally the murderer and the victim.
For God's sake let us not again be told of the ties of religion, of
laws, of blood, and of customs, which bind the two nations together,
with a view to extort our love for the English Government, and more
especially when the same gentleman has acknowledged that we have ample
cause of war against that nation--let us not be told of the freedom of
that corrupt Government whose hands are washed alike in the blood of
her own illustrious statesmen, for a manly opposition to tyranny, and
the citizens of every other clime. But I would inquire into this love
for the British Government and British institutions, in the gross,
without any discrimination. Why love her rulers? Why kiss the rod of
iron which inflicts the stripes without a cause? When all admit we
have just cause of war, such attachments are dangerous, and encourage
encroachment. I will venture to say, that our hatred of the British
Government is not commensurate with her depredations and her outrages
on our rights, or we should have waged a deadly war against her many
years past. The subject of foreign attachments and British hatred
has been examined at considerable length. I did not intend to begin
that discussion, but I will pursue it, and though I make no charge of
British attachments, I will, at all times, at every hazard, defend the
Administration and the Republican party against the charge of foreign
partialities--French or Spanish, or any other kind, when applied to
the measures of our Government. This foreign influence is a dangerous
enemy; we should destroy the means of its circulation among us--like
the fatal tunic, it destroys where it touches. It is insidious,
invisible, and takes advantage of the most unsuspecting hours of social
intercourse. I would not deny the good will of France nor of Great
Britain to have an undue influence among us. But Great Britain alone
has the means of this influence to an extent dangerous to the United
States. It has been said that Great Britain was fighting the battles
of the world--that she stands against universal dominion threatened
by the arch-fiend of mankind. I should be sorry if our independence
depended upon the power of Great Britain. If, however, she would act
the part of a friendly power towards the United States, I should never
wish to deprive her of power, of wealth, of honor, of prosperity.
But if her energies are to be directed against the liberties of this
free and happy people, against my native country, I should not drop
a tear if the fast-anchored isle would sink into the waves, provided
the innocent inhabitants could escape the deluge and find an asylum
in a more favorable soil. And as to the power of France, I fear it as
little as any other power; I would oppose her aggressions, under any
circumstances, as soon as I would British outrages.

The ties of religion, of language, of blood, as it regards Great
Britain, are dangerous ties to this country, with her present hostile
disposition--instead of pledges of friendship they are used to paralyze
the strength of the United States in relation to her aggressions.
There are other ties equally efficacious. The number of her commercial
traders within our limits, her agents, &c., the vast British capital
employed in our commerce and our moneyed institutions, connected with
her language, ancestry, customs, habits, and laws. These are formidable
means for estranging the affections of many from our republican
institutions, and producing partialities for Great Britain. Now I shall
attend to the charge of partiality in our measures towards France.
It is an insinuation not founded in fact, and can only exist in the
imagination of those who may insinuate it. We are not driven to mere
declarations--the truth of the assertion is bottomed upon the statute
records of the United States; and we appeal to the character of every
measure relative to foreign relations, since the adoption of the
embargo, in consequence of the violation of neutral rights upon the
high seas. The direct object of the Berlin and Milan decrees was the
ruin of all trade to British ports--and the object of the Orders in
Council was the destruction of all commerce to French ports and ports
from which the British flag was excluded.

The gentleman from Virginia has called the military regular forces
mercenaries. If by this appellation any reproach or degradation is
intended, its justice and propriety is denied. In times like the
present, when dangers thicken upon us, at the moment when we are
compelled by most wanton tyranny upon the high seas, and upon land may
be added, to abandon our peaceful habits for the din of arms, officers
and soldiers in this country are governed by the noble feelings of
patriotism and of valor. The history of the world may be ransacked;
other nations may be brought in review before us, and examples of
greater heroism cannot be quoted, than shall be performed in battle by
our officers and soldiers, military and naval and marine. The deeds of
their ancestors would be before them; glory would animate their bosoms,
and love of country would nerve the heart to deeds of mighty fame. If,
therefore, there should not be a diminution of respect for those who
entertain an opinion so degrading to our army, it should at least be
understood that such opinions do not lessen the confidence due to those
who faithfully serve their country, and who would lay down their life
for it. This reflection brings to memory the late memorable conflict
upon the Wabash. Governor Harrison pitched his tents near the Prophet's
town; and although this fanatic and his followers collected, and the
American forces were anxious to finish the work by an open and daylight
engagement, if there was a necessity to resort to arms, their impetuous
valor was easily stayed, when they were informed that the white flag
of peace was to be hoisted next morning, and the effusion of blood was
to be spared. But in the silent watches of the night, relieved from
the fatigues of valor, and slumbering under the perfidious promises of
the savages, who were infuriated and made drunk by British traders,
dreaming of the tender smile of a mother, and the fond embraces of
affectionate wives, and of prattling children upon their knees, on
their return from the fatigues of a campaign!--the destroyers came with
the silent instruments of death, the war club, the scalping knife, the
tomahawk, and the bow and arrow; with these they penetrate into the
heart of our forces--they enter the tents of our officers--many close
their eyes in death--it was a trying moment for the rest of our heroes,
but they were equal to the dreadful occasion. The American forces flew
to arms; they rallied at the voice of their officers, and soon checked
the work of death. The savages were successively and successfully
charged and driven until daylight, when they disappeared like the mist
of morning. In this dreadful conflict many were killed and wounded on
both sides; and the volunteers and the regiment under Colonel Boyd
acted and fought with equal bravery and to their immortal honor. The
volunteers from Kentucky were men of valor and worth--young men of
hopeful prospects, and married men of reputation and intelligence,
governed by no mercenary views--honor prompted them to serve their
country. Some of these fallen heroes were my acquaintances, my friends:
one not the least conspicuous lived in my district--Colonel Owens;
Colonel Daviess, a neighbor. You, Mr. Speaker, know the worth of some
of these men; and I regret that you are not in my place to speak their
praise. So long as the records of this transaction remain, the 9th of
November will not be forgotten, and time shall only brighten the fame
of the deeds of our army, and a tear shall be shed for those who have
fallen. But the loss will not be felt by the public alone: the friends
of their social hours will regret their loss; the widow will mourn her
disconsolate situation; the orphan shall cry for the return of his
father in vain; and the mother carry her sorrow to the grave. Let this
ornamented hall be clothed with the symbols of mourning, although our
army proved victorious in war; and to their memory let a monument be
erected in the hearts of a grateful country.

Mr. WRIGHT.--Mr. Speaker, I must beg the indulgence of the House while
I deliver my opinion on the subject now under consideration, the
most important that has been submitted to the Congress of the United
States. I, sir, shall take the liberty of varying the question from
the honorable member from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) who yesterday
considered it a question of peace or war. I shall consider it as a
question of war or submission, dire alternatives, of which, however, I
trust no honest American can hesitate in choosing, when the question is
correctly stated and distinctly understood. The gentleman from Virginia
contends that it is a dispute about the carrying trade, brought on us
by the cupidity of the American merchants, in which the farmer and
planter have little interest; that he will not consent to tax his
constituents to carry on a war for it; that the enemy is invulnerable
on the "mountain wave," the element of our wrongs, but should they
violate the "_natale solum_," he would point all the energies of the
nation and avenge the wrong. Was that gentleman stricken on the nose
by a man so tall that he could not reach his nose, I strongly incline
to think his manly pride would not permit him to decline the conflict.
Sir, the honorable member is incorrect in his premises, and, of course,
in his conclusions. I will endeavor to convince him of this, and shall
be gratified if I can enlist his talents on the side of a bleeding
country. Sir, the violations of the commercial rights of which we
complain do not only embrace the carrying trade, properly so called,
but also the carrying of the products of our own soil, the fruits of
our own industry; these, although injurious only to our property, are
just causes of war. But, sir, the impressment of our native seamen is
a stroke at the vitals of liberty itself, and although it does not
touch the "_natale solum_," yet it enslaves the "_nativos filios_"--the
native sons of America; and, in the ratio that liberty is preferable
to property, ought to enlist the patriotic feelings of that honorable
member, and make his bosom burn with that holy fire that inspired the
patriots of the Revolution.

Sir, the carrying trade--by which I mean the carrying articles, the
growth, produce, or manufacture of a foreign clime--except articles
contraband of war--is as much the right of the American people as the
carrying the products of their own soil, and is not only secured by the
law of nations, but by the positive provisions of the British Treaty.
To us, sir, it is an all-important right. We import from the West
Indies, annually, property to the amount of forty millions of dollars,
for which we pay in the products of our own soil; of this, ten millions
only are consumed in the United States, and the surplus thirty millions
are exported to foreign countries, on which the American merchant pays
three per cent. on the duties to the United States, obtains the profits
on the freight of thirty millions of dollars, and furnishes a market
for American productions to the same amount. The honorable gentleman
from Virginia said, that that little spot in Maryland, Baltimore, which
was well fortified and secure from an attack, had unbounded influence;
"that the lords of Baltimore" governed the Representatives of Maryland
in their votes on this subject. No, sir, every district of Maryland
solemnly protests against submission to any foreign power, and I have
no doubt will approve the votes of their members on this floor, "to
prepare for war," or for war itself, rather than submission. Baltimore,
by the industry and commercial enterprise of her citizens, has grown
out of the sea into a great commercial city, has diffused the benefits
of commerce into every section of the State, by making a great demand
for the products of our soil and industry, and a consequent increase of
price, whereby every foot of land in Maryland is made more valuable,
and whereby the interest of every part of the State is identified with
theirs; for this she is justly entitled to our respect. But, sir, she
has no occasion to infuse her patriotic fire--so pre-eminent in the
case of the Chesapeake--into the Representatives of Maryland. They know
the wishes of their constituents, and will most certainly obey them.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia has declared that, if he could
believe that the late massacre of the troops, in the attack on Governor
Harrison by the Indians, under the Prophet, was the effect of British
agency, he would unite with us, heart and hand, and personally assist
to avenge the bloody deed. I feel a confidence, that if the gentleman
will attend to the circumstances of this case, and take a retrospective
view of the conduct of the British Government, he will feel no doubt of
the fact. I will take the liberty of pointing the gentleman's attention
to some of the prominent features of that government, which will go far
in establishing that fact. When Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, in 1775,
found it necessary to quit the seat of government, and go on board the
fleet for safety from the Revolutionary vengeance of the patriots of
Virginia--at a period, too, when the Americans were suing for justice
by their humble petitions to the King and Parliament; and when that
Chatham, the gentleman from Virginia has so highly extolled, was the
advocate of our violated rights--Dunmore issued a proclamation inviting
the <DW64>s to his standard; to cut the throats of their masters; and
promised them a pardon. This fact I know, from having presented that
proclamation to a court at Northampton in Virginia, to induce them to
commute the punishment of death, passed on some of the victims of his
perfidy, to working in the mines; which they did. I will next remind
the gentleman of the speech of Lord Dorchester to the Indians after the
peace, in which he advises them to use the tomahawk and scalping-knife,
whereby numbers of the inhabitants of the frontiers, of all ages,
sexes, and conditions, were sacrificed. This was the cause of the
Indian war that shortly after took place. This fact was attested by the
newspapers of the day, which had universal credit.

These cases go to prove that the principles that ought to govern
civilized nations, have, at all times, been totally disregarded by the
officers and agents of that Government. After these cases, we shall
feel little hesitation in believing there was a British agency in the
case of the massacre by the Prophet's troops on Governor Harrison's
detachment, when the circumstances relied on are duly considered. At
the late great council with Governor Harrison, the chiefs of many
tribes were convened, all of whom, except Tecumseh, the Prophet's
brother, in their speeches avowed their friendly dispositions, and
their devotion to peace with the United States. Tecumseh, who, with a
number of his tribe, came from Fort Malden, in Canada, declared his
hostile intentions against the United States, left the council with
that avowed intention, and returned again to Fort Malden. Shortly after
this, the Shawanees assembled a large body in arms in the Indiana
Territory, under the Prophet, and committed the assault on the troops
of Governor Harrison, though they have paid for their temerity. This,
I trust, connected as it is with the immorality and extraordinary
pretensions of that Government at this crisis, will satisfy, not only
the gentleman from Virginia, but this House, of a British agency in the
case.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the gentleman from Virginia should ascribe
to gentlemen of the West, a disposition for war, with a view to raise
the price of their hemp; or to the gentlemen of the North, with a view
to raise the price of their beef and flour. These, sir, are selfish
motives, and such I cannot for a moment believe will be taken into
consideration; they will, with every other section of the Union, unite
in deciding it on its merits.; they will count the wrongs we have
sustained; they will reflect that the honor, the interest, and the very
independence of the United States, is directly attacked; they will,
as guardians of the nation's rights, agreeably to the advice of the
Administration, "put the United States into an armor and an attitude
demanded by the crisis, and correspondent with the national spirit and
expectations;" they will prepare to chastise the wrongs of the British
Cabinet, which the President tells us, "have the character as well
as the effect of war, on our commercial rights, which no independent
nation can relinquish." They will decide with the President, the
Executive organ of the nation's will, "that these wrongs are no
longer to be endured." They will decide with the Committee of Foreign
Relations, "that forbearance longer to repel these wrongs has ceased
to be a virtue," and, I hope they will decide with me, that submission
is a crime; and, sir, if they will examine a document on that table,
I mean the returns of the twelfth Congress, and compare them with the
eleventh, they will find nearly one-half of the eleventh Congress
removed. This, sir, may correctly be considered as the sentence of
the nation against the doctrine of submission; it is certainly an
expression of the nation's will, in a language not to be misunderstood,
and too serious in its application not to be respected. We have also,
sir, the expression of Maryland, through her Senate, who unanimously
approved the spirited resolutions introduced by the late Governor,
who did not suffer his exposed situation, so alarming in the opinion
of the gentleman from Virginia, to deter him from doing his duty. We
have also, sir, the resolutions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, an
honest test of their non-submission principles. Mr. Speaker, I cannot
forbear the remark that, while the gentleman from Virginia ascribes to
the West and to the North interested motives, he confesses that the
situation of the blacks in the State he represents, impressed as they
are with the new French principles of liberty, and their desire for the
fraternal hug, are seriously to be feared; that these new principles
have been taught them by the peddlers from the East, who, while they
sell their trinkets, inculcate these doctrines. He suffers his fears
for the State he represents, in the event of a war, on account of the
blacks, to _interest_ him; and had he not told us that, if the "_natale
solum_" was touched, or that, if there was a British agency in the
late attack on Governor Harrison, he would go to war, I should have
been ready to conclude that, as the state of the blacks would be a
permanent objection, no cause could occur that would induce him to go
to war.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia says he expects to be charged
with being under British influence; however, he disregarded it. I
assure him I shall not be one of his accusers; I believe him governed
by _himself_, and influenced by pure American motives, and that, if he
saw the subject as I do, his bosom would burn with the same sacred fire
to avenge our wrongs; and were I to hear him charged in his absence
with British influence, I should repel it, notwithstanding he has told
us, in a prideful manner, that he had descended from British ancestors;
that, from a Shakspeare he had formed his taste, from a Locke, his
mind, from a Chatham, his politics, from a Sydney his patriotism,
from a Tillotson his religion. Mr. Speaker, had I been that honorable
member, I should have boasted a nobler line of ancestry; I should
have claimed my descent from the beardless Powhatan, and the immortal
Pocahontas; and I should have taken as models, from my own State, a
Henry for my eloquence, a Jefferson for my politics, a Washington for
my patriotism, and a Madison, or rather the Oracles of Revolution, for
my religion. But, sir, I am myself so much a Roman, that I can truly
say, in their language,

    "_Aut genus aut proavos, aut qua non fecimus ipse, vix
          ea nostra voco_."

      "Honor and shame from no condition rise,
      Act well your part, there all the honor lies."

Sir, the charge of foreign influence, and the recrimination of one
political party by the other, are unpleasant things. I should rejoice
to see the curtain of oblivion drawn over them, and all uniting under
the nobler distinction of American.


THURSDAY, December 12.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on
Foreign Relations.

Mr. CALHOUN.--Mr. Speaker: I understood the opinion of the Committee
of Foreign Relations differently from what the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH) has stated to be his impression. I certainly understood
that committee as recommending the measures now before the House as
a preparation for war; and such in fact was its express resolve,
agreed to, I believe, by every member except that gentleman. I do not
attribute any wilful misstatement to him, but consider it the effect
of inadvertency or mistake. Indeed, the report could mean nothing but
war or empty menace. I hope no member of this House is in favor of
the latter. A bullying, menacing system has every thing to condemn
and nothing to recommend it; in expense, it is almost as considerable
as war; it excites contempt abroad, and destroys confidence at home.
Menaces are serious things; and, if we expect any good from them,
they ought to be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness as
war itself, and should, if not successful, be invariably followed by
it. It was not the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) that made
this a war question. The resolve contemplates an additional regular
force; a measure confessedly improper but as a preparation for war,
but undoubtedly necessary in that event. Sir, I am not insensible of
the weighty importance of this question, for the first time submitted
to this House, as a redress of our long list of complaints against
one of the belligerents; but, according to my mode of thinking on
this subject, however serious the question, whenever I am on its
affirmative side, my conviction must be strong and unalterable. War,
in this country, ought never to be resorted to but when it is clearly
justifiable and necessary; so much so, as not to require the aid of
logic to convince our reason, nor the ardor of eloquence to inflame our
passions. There are many reasons why this country should never resort
to it but for causes the most urgent and necessary. It is sufficient
that, under a Government like ours, none but such will justify it
in the eye of the nation; and were I not satisfied that such is the
present case, I certainly would be no advocate of the proposition now
before the House.

Sir, I might prove the war, should it ensue, justifiable, by the
express admission of the gentleman from Virginia; and necessary, by
facts undoubted and universally admitted, such as that gentleman
did not pretend to controvert. The extent, duration, and character
of the injuries received; the failure of those peaceful means
heretofore resorted to for the redress of our wrongs, is my proof
that it is necessary. Why should I mention the impressment of our
seamen; depredation on every branch of our commerce, including the
direct export trade, continued for years, and made under laws which
professedly undertake to regulate our trade with other nations;
negotiation resorted to time after time, till it is become hopeless;
the restrictive system persisted in to avoid war, and in the vain
expectation of returning justice? The evil still grows, and in each
succeeding year swells in extent and pretension beyond the preceding.
The question, even in the opinion and admission of our opponents, is
reduced to this single point--which shall we do, abandon or defend our
own commercial and maritime rights, and the personal liberties of our
citizens employed in exercising them? These rights are essentially
attacked, and war is the only means of redress. The gentleman from
Virginia has suggested none--unless we consider the whole of his speech
as recommending patient and resigned submission as the best remedy.
Sir, which alternative this House ought to embrace, it is not for me to
say. I hope the decision is made already, by a higher authority than
the voice of any man. It is not for the human tongue to instill the
sense of independence and honor. This is the work of nature--a generous
nature, that disdains tame submission to wrongs.

This part of the subject is so imposing, as to enforce silence even on
the gentleman from Virginia. He dared not to deny his country's wrongs,
or vindicate the conduct of her enemy.

Only one point of that gentleman's argument had any, the most remote,
relation to this point. He would not say we had not a good cause of
war, but insisted that it was our duty to define that cause. If he
means that this House ought, at this stage of the proceeding, or any
other, to enumerate such violations of our rights as we are willing to
contend for, he prescribes a course which neither good sense nor the
usage of nations warrants. When we contend, let us contend for all our
rights; the doubtful and the certain, the unimportant and essential. It
is as easy to struggle, or even more so, for the whole as a part. At
the termination of the contest, secure all that our wisdom and valor
and the fortune of the war will permit. This is the dictate of common
sense; such also is the usage of nations. The single instance alluded
to, the endeavor of Mr. Fox to compel Mr. Pitt to define the object of
the war against France, will not support the gentleman from Virginia
in his position. That was an extraordinary war for an extraordinary
purpose, and could not be governed by the usual rules. It was not for
conquest, or for redress of inquiry, but to impose a Government on
France, which she refused to receive; an object so detestable, that
an avowal dare not be made. Sir, here I might rest the question. The
affirmative of the proposition is established. I cannot but advert,
however, to the complaint of the gentleman from Virginia the first time
he was up on this question. He said he found himself reduced to the
necessity of supporting the negative side of the question, before the
affirmative was established. Let me tell that gentleman, that there
is no hardship in his case. It is not every affirmative that ought
to be proved. Were I to affirm the House is now in session, would it
be reasonable to ask for proof? He who would deny its truth, on him
would be the proof of so extraordinary a negative. How, then, could
the gentleman, after his admissions, with the facts before him and the
nation, complain? The causes are such as to warrant, or rather make
it indispensable in any nation not absolutely dependent to defend its
rights by force. Let him, then, show the reasons why we ought not so
to defend ourselves. On him, then, is the burden of proof. This he
has attempted; he has endeavored to support his negative. Before I
proceed to answer the gentleman particularly, let me call the attention
of the House to one circumstance: that is, that almost the whole of
his arguments consisted of an enumeration of evils always incident to
war, however just and necessary; and that, if they have any force,
it is calculated to produce unqualified submission to every species
of insult and injury. I do not feel myself bound to answer arguments
of the above description; and if I should touch on them, it will be
only incidentally, and not for the purpose of serious refutation.
The first argument of the gentleman which I shall notice, is the
unprepared state of the country. Whatever weight this argument might
have, in a question of immediate war, it surely has little in that of
preparation for it. If our country is unprepared, let us remedy the
evil as soon as possible. Let the gentleman submit his plan; and, if
a reasonable one, I doubt not it will be supported by the House. But,
sir, let us admit the fact and the whole force of the argument, I ask
whose is the fault? Who has been a member for many years past, and
has seen the defenceless state of his country even near home, under
his own eyes, without a single endeavor to remedy so serious an evil?
Let him not say "I have acted in a minority." It is no less the duty
of the minority than a majority to endeavor to serve our country.
For that purpose we are sent here, and not for that of opposition.
We are next told of the expenses of the war, and that people will
not pay taxes. Why not? Is it a want of capacity? What, with one
million tons of shipping, a trade of near $100,000,000, manufactures
of $150,000,000, and agriculture of thrice that amount, shall we be
told the country wants capacity to raise and support ten thousand or
fifteen thousand additional regulars? No; it has the ability, that is
admitted; but will it not have the disposition? Is not the course a
just and necessary one? Shall we, then, utter this libel on the nation?
Where will proof be found of a fact so disgraceful? It is said, in the
history of the country twelve or fifteen years ago. The case is not
parallel. The ability of the country is greatly increased since. The
object of that tax was unpopular. But on this, as well as my memory
and almost infant observation at that time serve me, the objection was
not to the tax, or its amount, but the mode of collection. The eye
of the nation was frightened by the number of officers; its love of
liberty shocked with the multiplicity of regulations. We, in the vile
spirit of imitation, copied from the most oppressive part of European
laws on that subject, and imposed on a young and virtuous nation all
the severe provisions made necessary by corruption and long growing
chicane. If taxes should become necessary, I do not hesitate to say
the people will pay cheerfully. It is for their Government and their
cause, and would be their interest and duty to pay. But it may be, and
I believe was said, that the nation will not pay taxes, because the
rights violated are not worth defending, or that the defence will cost
more than the profit. Sir, I here enter my solemn protest against this
low and "calculating avarice" entering this hall of legislation. It is
only fit for shops and counting-houses, and ought not to disgrace the
seat of sovereignty by its squalid and vile appearance. Whenever it
touches sovereign power, the nation is ruined. It is too short-sighted
to defend itself. It is an unpromising spirit, always ready to yield a
part to save the balance. It is too timid to have in itself the laws
of self-preservation. It is never safe but under the shield of honor.
Sir, I only know of one principle to make a nation great, to produce
in this country not the form but real spirit of union, and that is,
to protect every citizen in the lawful pursuit of his business. He
will then feel that he is backed by the Government; that its arm is
his arms; and will rejoice in its increased strength and prosperity.
Protection and patriotism are reciprocal. This is the road that all
great nations have trod. Sir, I am not versed in this calculating
policy; and will not, therefore pretend to estimate in dollars and
cents the value of national independence, or national affection.
I cannot dare to measure, in shillings and pence, the misery, the
stripes, and the slavery of our impressed seamen; nor even to value
our shipping, commercial, and agricultural losses, under the Orders in
Council and the British system of blockade. I hope I have not condemned
any prudent estimate of the means of a country, before it enters on a
war. This is wisdom, the other folly. Sir, the gentleman from Virginia
has not failed to touch on the calamity of war; that fruitful source
of declamation, by which pity becomes the advocate of cowardice; but I
know not what we have to do with that subject. If the gentleman desires
to repress the gallant ardor of our countrymen by such topics, let me
inform him, that true courage regards only the cause--that it is just
and necessary--and that it despises the pain and danger of war. If
he really wishes to promote the cause of humanity, let his eloquence
be addressed to Lord Wellesley or Mr. Percival, and not the American
Congress. Tell them, if they persist in such daring insult and injury
to a neutral nation, that, however inclined to peace, it will be bound
in honor and interest to resist; that their patience and benevolence,
however great, will be exhausted; that the calamity of war will ensue;
and that they, in the opinion of wounded humanity, will be answerable
for all its devastation and misery. Let melting pity, and regard to the
interest of humanity, stay the hand of injustice, and, my life on it,
the gentleman will not find it difficult to call off his country from
the bloody scenes of war.

We are next told of the danger of war! I believe we are all ready to
acknowledge its hazard and accidents; but I cannot think we have any
extraordinary danger to contend with, at least so much as to warrant
an acquiescence in the injuries we have received. On the contrary, I
believe no war can be less dangerous to internal peace, or national
existence. But, we are told of the black population of the South.
As far as the gentleman from Virginia speaks of his own personal
knowledge, I will not pretend to contradict him; I only regret that
such is the dreadful state of his particular part of the country. Of
the Southern section, I too have some personal knowledge, and can
say that, in South Carolina, no such fears in any part are felt.
But, sir, admit the gentleman's statement; will a war with Great
Britain increase the danger? Will the country be less able to repress
insurrection? Had we any thing to fear from that quarter, which I
sincerely disbelieve, in my opinion, the precise time of the greatest
safety is during a war in which we have no fear of invasion--then
the country is most on its guard; our militia the best prepared; and
standing force the greatest. Even in our Revolution no attempts were
made by that portion of our population; and, however the gentleman may
frighten himself with the disorganizing effects of French principles,
I cannot think our ignorant blacks have felt much of their baneful
influence. I dare say more than one-half of them never heard of the
French Revolution. But, as great, as is the danger from our slaves,
the gentleman's fears end not there--the standing army is not less
terrible to him. Sir, I think a regular force, raised for a period
of actual hostilities, cannot be called a standing army. There is
a just distinction between such a force, and one raised as a peace
establishment. Whatever may be the composition of the latter, I hope
the former will consist of some of the best materials of the country.
The ardent patriotism of our young men, and the reasonable bounty in
land which is proposed to be given, will impel them to join their
country's standard and to fight her battles; they will not forget
the citizen in the soldier, and, in obeying their officer, learn to
contemn their constitution. In our officers and soldiers we will find
patriotism no less pure and ardent than in the private citizen; but,
if they should be depraved, as represented, what have we to fear from
twenty-five or thirty thousand regulars? Where will be the boasted
militia of the gentleman? Can one million of militia be overpowered
by thirty thousand regulars? If so, how can we rely on them against a
foe invading our country? Sir, I have no such contemptuous idea of our
militia--their untaught bravery is sufficient to crush all foreign and
internal attempts on their country's liberties. But we have not yet
come to the end of the chapter of dangers. The gentleman's imagination,
so fruitful on this subject, conceives that our constitution is not
calculated for war, and that it cannot stand its rude shock. This is
rather extraordinary--we must depend upon the pity or contempt of other
nations, for our existence. The constitution, it seems, has failed
in its essential part, "to provide for the common defence." No, says
the gentleman from Virginia, it is competent for a defensive, but
not an offensive war. It is not necessary for me to expose the error
of this opinion. Why make the distinction in this instance? Will he
pretend to say, that this is an offensive war; a war of conquest? Yes,
the gentleman has dared to make this assertion; and for reasons no
less extraordinary than the assertion itself. He says, our rights are
violated on the ocean, and that these violations affect our shipping,
and commercial rights, to which the Canadas have no relation. The
doctrine of retaliation has been much abused of late by an unnatural
extension; we have now to witness a new abuse. The gentleman from
Virginia has limited it down to a point. By his system, if you receive
a blow on the breast, you dare not return it on the head, you are
obliged to measure and return it on the precise point on which it
was received. If you do not proceed with mathematical accuracy, it
ceases to be just self-defence; it becomes an unprovoked attack. In
speaking of Canada, the gentleman from Virginia introduced the name
of Montgomery with much feeling and interest. Sir, there is danger in
that name to the gentleman's argument. It is sacred to heroism! It
is indignant of submission! This calls my memory back to the time of
our Revolution; to the Congress of '74 and '75. Supposing a speaker
of that day had risen and urged all the arguments which we have heard
on this subject; had told that Congress, "your contest is about the
right of laying a tax; and that the attempt on Canada had nothing to do
with it: that the war would be expensive; that danger and devastation
would overspread our country, and that the power of Great Britain was
irresistible." With what sentiment, think you, would such doctrines
have been received? Happy for us, they had no force at that period of
our country's glory. Had they been then acted on, this Hall would never
have witnessed a great nation convened to deliberate for the general
good; a mighty empire, with prouder prospects than any nation the sun
ever shone on, would not have risen in the West. No; we would have been
vile, subjected colonies; governed by that imperious rod which Great
Britain holds over her distant provinces.

Mr. DESHA said--Mr. Speaker, the report of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, of which the resolution now under consideration forms a
part, is not what I thought would have been the most advisable to
adopt, in order to meet the emergency; not that I was for immediate
war, as we are unprepared for that event; but, sir, in addition to the
force recommended, and authorizing the arming the merchant vessels, I
was for adopting the convoy system. But, sir, as the report is of a
character different from the temporizing policy heretofore pursued, and
one, if not decisive in itself, which will lead to something decisive;
and as I am now perfectly satisfied that it is the intention of the
Government to follow it up by ulterior measures, calculated to prove
the necessity of these preparatory steps, and as union, under existing
circumstances, is all-important, as one of the committee, I am bound to
give it my support.

Sir, discovering no disposition on the part of Britain to relax in her
Orders in Council, to cease her oppression, or to make restitution
for the damages we have sustained; but, on the contrary, a manifest
disposition to persist in her lawless aggressions, it therefore becomes
necessary not to depend any longer on countervailing restrictive
systems, but to adopt something of a character more energetic, and more
congenial to the wishes of the American people. Sir, while I thought
there was the most distant probability of obtaining justice by peace
measures, I was an advocate for peace; but, sir, when I see not the
least prospect of a revocation of her destructive Orders in Council,
of the releasement of our impressed countrymen, a relinquishment of
the principle of impressment, nor restitution for damages, I am for
assuming a war attitude--consequently shall vote for the report of the
committee, because I believe the force there contemplated will be an
efficient force, and adequate to the purposes intended, to wit, the
subjugation of the British North American Provinces.

Sir, to enumerate the aggressions committed on our rights by Britain,
the depredations on our commerce, the murder and impressment of our
countrymen, and the indignities offered our flag, would be taking up
your time unnecessarily--particularly, sir, as those enormities must be
recent in the mind of every member present; and as it is time to lay
aside the war of words and proceed to actions, I shall not detain you
long with any remarks of mine.

Sir, remonstrances against atrocities have been made in vain;
experience has taught us nothing can be expected from negotiations.
We have been negotiating for fifteen or twenty years, at an enormous
expense, say nearly half a million of dollars, and the causes of which
we complained have regularly increased; insult has been heaped upon
injury, we have suffered ourselves to be buffeted, kicked, and treated
with all kind of indignities with impunity. Yes, sir, insult has been
the result of all late attempts at negotiation; for instance, sir,
Mr. Roset was sent for no other purpose than to gull the Government,
and because Erskine was disposed to do us justice in part, he was
recalled and disgraced. The conduct of the Copenhagen gentleman, Mr.
Jackson, demonstrated that he was sent for the purpose of bullying
the Government. And pray, Mr. Speaker, what has Mr. Foster been sent
for? why, sir, in my opinion, for no other purpose than to operate
as an opiate on the Government; to lull us to sleep. As a proof of
which, about the commencement of the session, a session convened by
proclamation, which was naturally calculated to agitate the public
mind, he comes forward with offers of reparation as he calls them, but
which in my estimation is no more than a patch, calculated to cover one
corner of the wound the nation received, in that wanton and dastardly
outrage, the attack on the Chesapeake; but, sir, in his soporifics I
trust he will be disappointed. I have no hesitation in saying, that
when the letters from this Minister to our Government are examined by
the people, that independent of the arrogance bordering on insolence,
in which they are couched, so characteristic of that nation, they will
have a different effect from that of conciliation; the illiberal and
disingenuous demands made preliminary to the revocation of the Orders
in Council, will have a tendency to rouse the public mind; they will
be looked on with an indignant frown by all real Americans.

Sir, we have been constantly annoyed, assaulted openly and insidiously;
we have been plundered, oppressed, and insulted; we thought it
preferable to forbear while forbearance was possible, than to plunge
into the evils of war, to redress the evil of plunder and partial and
dastard-like courage; we judged it better to abandon the wealth which
the afflictions of the world held out to the avidity of commercial
speculation, and consequently withdrew from the ocean, by the adoption
of the embargo--a measure of all others the best calculated to meet
the then emergency, and which would, I have no hesitation in saying,
have produced the desired effect if we had have had firmness enough to
have adhered to it, and virtue and patriotism enough to have enforced
it. But, sir, partyism was our ruin; it proved that we had as much to
fear from our domestic enemies as our foreign foes, and apparently
the greatest evil we had to apprehend was in falling a victim to our
own political dissensions, occasioned by the deeply-laid plans of our
deadly foe, Britain. Sir, during embargo times our domestic enemies,
encouraged by a proclamation issued under the authority of the King
of England--I say, sir, those minions of royalty concentrating in the
East, talked of the violation of laws as a virtue, they demoralized
the community by raising the floodgates of civil disorder; they gave
absolution to felons, and invited the commission of crimes by the
omission of duty. But, sir, the day of retribution is (I trust) not far
distant, when those among us who to gain the favor of our enemy have
betrayed their country, will sink into insignificance and contempt; the
wages of iniquity will not shield them from due infamy.

Mr. TROUP rose to make an effort to put an end to the debate; a debate
in which the great mass of the House were enlisted on one side, against
the solitary gentleman from Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) on the other;
and declared that he would call for the previous question if it was
persevered in.

Mr. MACON considered the present, from the turn the debate had taken,
the most important question which had come before the National
Government for many years past, because it was evidently discussed as
a war question, though the real question before the House, if adopted,
did not declare war. It was not now a question by what means or by
whose measures the nation was brought into its present situation; it
must, however, be satisfactory to all, that the Administration has done
every thing that could have been expected, to avoid the present crisis,
and to keep the nation at peace. If the British Government would
cease to violate our neutral and national rights, our difficulties
would be at an end. It was no longer a question about the colonial
carrying trade--that was at an end; because Great Britain might now be
considered as possessing all the West India Islands, and as we have now
neither sugar nor coffee to carry, she has determined to execute with
rigor her unjust orders against our carrying the productions of our
own soil to any market except her own, or that of her allies. This is
attacking the best interests of the country; indeed, it is taking the
profits of both planter and merchant. Hence, none of our exports bring
a price by which we can live, except flour; and that would be no better
than any other article of export, was it not that Great Britain and her
allies, Spain and Portugal, want it for the support of their armies;
it is their wants, and the great difficulty of getting their wants
supplied anywhere else, that keeps up the price of wheat.

Notwithstanding these were his sentiments, he thought it would be
going too far to consent, by the vote he was about to give, that he
pledged himself to vote for any measure which the Committee of Foreign
Relations might hereafter bring forward, when he did not intend to
vote for all the resolutions contained in the report which was now
under consideration. Our affairs must now command the serious attention
of every man in the nation. We must either prepare to maintain the
right to carry our produce to what market we please, or to be content
without a market; to attempt another negotiation would be useless;
every effort has been made in that way that could be made. Indeed, no
one has yet said that he wished another. He was as desirous of peace
as he ever was; and if any plan shall be proposed by which the peace
of the country can be preserved, and the right to export our native
produce maintained, he should still prefer it to war; but if no such
plan can be devised, he was willing to go to war for that right. He
was also willing to declare the points to the nation for which we went
to war, and rather than not succeed, he would carry it on for fifty
years, and longer if necessary. He felt no hesitation in declaring,
that he would not go to war to encourage the nation, or any part of
it, to become manufacturers, (and it may not be amiss to observe that,
from the day that this report was laid on the table, we have heard
nothing about manufactures;) nor would he go to war for the purpose of
building a navy. He mentioned this, because he had heard a good deal
said of late about increasing the fleet and building seventy-fours.
If, therefore, it was to be a war either to encourage manufactures or
to build a fleet, he should be opposed to it; he would rather remain
as we are awhile longer, bad as our situation is, than to stick these
two set-fasts to the back of the nation, neither of which it could
ever get clear of. A peace in Europe might free us from our present
embarrassments, but from the other, once established, we can never
expect to get free.

He could not agree with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) that
the House ought now, by the previous question, to put an end to the
debate; on the contrary, he wished every member might have full time to
deliver his sentiments on this great question; for his part, he wished
to hear the opinions of those who lived on the Eastern frontier; he
was gratified that several of the members of the Western had favored
the committee with theirs. He expressed this wish, because the part
of the country which he represented was in the middle country, about
the same distance from the mountains and the Atlantic Ocean, in no
danger of being surprised or injured by any plundering party; but if
the House was to do that which the gentleman from Georgia seemed to
desire, it would do no good; because if our object be to invade Canada,
it can scarcely be expected that this could be done with our utmost
exertions by regular troops, hereafter to be raised, sooner than June
or July. Hitherto, our proceedings have been carried on not only with
good humor, but with great urbanity also; to stop the debate, might
have a tendency to change this, which no one would regret more than
the gentleman himself. Before we raise an army, and provide it with
every thing necessary for marching, we have much to do. We have now
no Washington to command, and since the days of Joshua, I have read
of no such man; such men do not appear every century, and a thousand
years will hardly produce one. It is quite probable, except the
Commander-in-chief, as good or better appointments may be now made,
than were made at the beginning of the Revolution; because there are
now more men of experience in the country than there were at that time;
and, also, because the men of talents and experience are much better
known to the National Government now than they then were; besides
the selection of officers, the wagons, carts, and provisions, are to
purchase, and almost every other article necessary for a marching army.
It may not be improper here to remark, that this is not a Government
of confidence; and that, before we go too far, we ought, by some means
or other, to know who is to command the army. There cannot be much
difficulty in this, especially as every department of the Government
seems willing to raise a force adequate to the purpose for which it is
wanted. And here, sir, permit me to say, that I hope this is to be no
party war, but a national war, in which every person in the nation may
have a fair chance to participate in the honor and glory to be acquired
in the field of battle, and in defence of the rights of his country.
Such a war, if war we shall have, can alone, in my judgment, obtain the
end for which we mean to contend, without any disgrace.


FRIDAY, December 13.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of
Foreign Relations.

Mr. DAWSON.--When we are about to take a step, to assume an attitude
which must change all our foreign relations, and may produce a change
in our political character, it becomes us to summon all our wisdom--to
collect all our moderation and firmness, and to unite all our energies
and exertions. It becomes us to be "neither rash nor diffident," or,
to use the language of one of the greatest men who ever lived in
the tide of times, "Immoderate valor swells into a fault, and fear
admitted into public councils betrays like treason." Such, sir, is the
situation of the United States at this moment. We are about to take
such a step--every sentiment therefore which can be offered demands
its proportion of public attention, and renders that apology from me
unnecessary, which, on any other occasion, common propriety would
justify.

After the select Committee on our Foreign Relations had made their
report, it seemed to me to be their particular duty to give to this
House a full exposition of their present and ulterior views and
objects, and of those of the Administration, as far as they had
ascertained them, founded on the information which, it is presumed,
they possessed. For this I waited with patience, and have listened with
attention and with pleasure--it has been given with promptness, with
ability, and with candor; and with that perspicuity which frees the
mind from all doubt as to the course which, in their judgment, we ought
to pursue. And it now rests with us, sir, to determine whether we shall
sanction their recommendation--whether we shall adopt those measures
necessary and preparatory to a war in which it is probable our country
will be engaged. Sir, in the course of my political life, it has been
my duty to meet and to decide on some of the most important questions
which have been agitated in our public councils, and deeply involving
the best interests of our country; these duties I have performed with
fidelity and without fear, and I pledge myself never to depart from
that line of conduct; and, sir, at no period of my life, nor upon any
occasion, have I met any question with more serious deliberation and
more undaunted firmness than I do the present.

For several years past I have been an advocate for the adoption of
every measure, the object of which was to place our country in a
complete state of defence, and prepare us to meet any state of things.
I have thought, and do think that preparatory and vigorous measures
are best calculated to maintain the dignity and secure the peace and
happiness of our country--that to be prepared to meet danger is the
best way to avert it. These preparations have not been carried to the
extent which I have wished--and yet, sir, I am far from thinking that
my country is in that feeble state which some gentlemen seem willing
to represent it. I feel myself authorized to state, that we have all
the necessaries; all the implements; all the munitions necessary for a
three years' close war against any force which any power can send to
this continent.

All that we want, are men. No, sir, pardon the expression--all which
we want is an expression of the will of the nation. Let this House,
let the constituted authorities declare that will--let them declare
"the Republic to be in danger," and thousands and tens of thousands of
our fellow-citizens will rally round the standard of their country,
resolved to support her rights, avenge her wrongs, or perish in her
ruin. Yes, sir, should that awful moment ever arrive, which may Heaven
avert!--should we be forced into a war in the defence of our just
rights, I trust and believe that there is not a man in the nation,
whose situation will permit, who will not be ready to march at his
country's call. No man more devoutly prays for peace than I do; no man
deprecates large standing armies in the time of peace more than I do.
I consider them the bane of society and the danger of republics; but,
sir, as peace, honorable peace, is not always at our command, they must
be resorted to in time of war.

Mr. NELSON protested against the doctrine that in the vote he was about
to give he should pledge himself to the support of whatever ulterior
measures the Committee of Foreign Relations might choose to adopt. He
was sensible that he should hazard the censure of his associates in
the Republican cause by the observations he proposed to submit. Nay,
his Republican friends might have the audacity to denounce him as an
apostate, but the people had intrusted him with their dearest rights
and interests, and he was resolved to pursue these according to his
best judgment, regardless of the strictures of friends, and of the
contumacious abuse of the press. Proscription should have no influence
on his conduct. And hence he must express his astonishment at those
gentlemen who had threatened the House with the previous question,
when they themselves admitted the vast importance of the subject
under discussion. Tacitus informs us that even the semi-barbarian
Germans, when war was to be decided on, took two several occasions to
debate upon it--one, when they were in the full possession of their
natural faculties; and, second, when they were excited by extravagant
circumstances. But in these enlightened days it seems that we are to
decide this all-important question without debate! He begged gentlemen
to divest themselves of passion. It was not a time to bow to the
influence of improper feelings. They ought calmly and coolly to meet
the subject. They were to decide upon a question which was of no
momentary nature. If they did go to war, it would be a lasting war;
and he agreed with the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. TROUP,) that if
war-speeches were necessary to bring the House to the sticking point,
it was much too soon to begin war.

He proposed to consider these resolutions as a measure of hostility,
according to the views of its advocates, and then as a measure
of defensive preparations, agreeable to the spirit of Executive
recommendation, which was favorable to peace. What were the objects
of the war? To establish our neutral rights, to exempt our seamen
from imprisonment, the repeal of the Orders in Council, and of the
blockades, and the security of the American flag. What would be the
effects of war, the tocsin of which was for the first time sounded
through the land? Our country had been blessed by Providence with more
than thirty years of peace and plenty. The habits of the people were
pacific. The trifling hostilities with England were of no consequence.
But now the yeomanry of the country were to be called to arms as if our
own territory were to be invaded. He sympathized with the sufferings of
his impressed and incarcerated fellow-citizens; but would a territorial
war exempt them from impressment? Would it establish our neutral
rights? Certainly not. The way to enforce these rights was by a great
maritime force, which the nation were incompetent to raise and support.

But the advocates of immediate war said that if they could not obtain
their objects by direct hostility on the ocean, they could do it by a
_succedaneum_--by the exercise of the _lex talionis_ in an indirect
way. After issuing letters of marque, they would resort to the invasion
of the enemies' territorial provinces. He contended that this would
be inefficacious, and maintained that to convert our merchants into
privateers would be to turn them loose upon the seas as highway
robbers. They would not be competent to carry on a war in this way.
They would have abandoned their peaceful pursuits; they would accept a
fraternal embrace of French subjects; fight side by side with them, and
submit themselves to the will of the French Emperor. However scrupulous
gentlemen might now be, when the hour of danger came they would accept
the alliance of France. The national interests would be identified
with those of the European continent. We should adopt the continental
system, in which our liberties and independence would be jeopardized.

He deprecated the invasion of Canada as an act of foreign conquest. We
could not suppose that Great Britain would slumber over our occupation
of it, and where should we find a stationary force able to keep
possession of it as a conquered province? Admit it as a sister into the
Union, we dare not abandon it at the peace, and therefore we could not
give it back for the restoration of our maritime rights. But suppose
that Great Britain should be brought to her knees, (and this was all
the most valiant of us would ask,) what have we to expect, if the power
and the commerce of England should be thrown into the arms of France,
from the high, the mighty, the imperial Napoleon? Would he respect
us more than England would? They both follow their own interest, as
we ought to follow ours. What would be the effect of this war upon
ourselves?

He feared a war, not from a puerile fear of its expenses or of death,
but from a manly dread of the consequences of this war, which must
last as long as England had a ship at sea, or a man to man it. It must
link us to the destinies of continental Europe; it would place us
under complete foreign influence and foreign dominion; it would change
our political institutions. The sages who framed the constitution,
and illumined it by their commentaries, had predicted that it would
not suit to stand the shock of war. The Republic would be ruined by
war. We do not want courage. The Revolution had shown proofs of the
greatest valor ever exhibited by human nature. But few circumstances
besides invasion would justify war. It would strengthen the Executive
arm at the expense of the Legislature. The Chief Magistrate would have
to carry on the war. He would, upon the plea of necessity, change our
appropriations from one object to another. The constitution would be
sapped. The legislative power would be destroyed. He cared not for the
prices of cotton and tobacco as compared with the constitution. War
would introduce a slavish subordination among the people. They would
lose their republican simplicity and their republican independence.
They would neglect their homespun for the military plume and the gilded
epaulette. Their morals would become depraved. Love of idleness,
extravagance, and neglect of the dull pursuits of common life, would
take place. The desire would again prevail of acquiring large fortunes
by aid of invasion, at the expense of the war-worn soldier whose fruits
would be taken away for a mere song, as they had been at the close of
the Revolution. Cupidity would be introduced, and pervade the public
mind.

I have made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, to repel the declarations of
gentlemen, that to vote for this resolution would pledge me to embark
in war. If war is necessary, I would not shrink from it, big as it is
with calamity and ruin. It will be the duty of Government to obviate
some of its evils.

I am in hopes, too, sir, that I have been so fortunate as to check the
intemperance of the youth of my country. They will excuse me. I trust
we may not be led away by the ardor of youth or of old age. I shall
vote for the increase of the regular force, to go hand in hand with my
friends, even in a war, if necessary and just. I have not made this
speech to prove that I am against war.

Mr. FINDLAY said he had frequently observed members, after a question
had undergone a very tedious discussion, say that if the yeas and nays
had not been called they would not have spoken on the question, but
these having been called, they must assign the reasons for their votes.
He did not approve of that principle, because if it was to be reduced
to practice every member would speak to every such question, and there
would be no end of the debate. However, on this question, though he
thought it had been sufficiently discussed, yet he deemed it proper to
express a few thoughts, not so much to give the reasons for the vote he
designed to give, as to explain the principles on which he designed to
give his vote. He designed to vote for the resolution before the House,
but not surely for the same reasons or with the same determined views
that some honorable members have expressed. He would not dwell on the
tyrannies and robberies of either the more ancient or modern despots
or Governments, of the old world, but confine himself to such as had a
direct relation to the question depending before the House.

That the aggressions and bad faith of the British Government, and
the recommendations of the Executive, were the foundation of the
resolutions before the House, was admitted by all that have spoken
on the question. In order to be understood he would take a concise
retrospect of our relations with Britain since nearly the commencement
of the present Government of the United States.

During the First Congress an Indian war was commenced on our western
frontier, and conducted as usual with savage ferocity; but, believing
that it only resulted from the combination of a few tribes, our
defensive measures at first were weak, and our first attempts
unfortunate. But it soon became such a tedious and expensive war as to
require for several years the exertion of all our resources. It had at
last a fortunate conclusion; but during its progress our Government and
the citizens were fully convinced that the Indians were encouraged and
supported by the British Government.

We all knew that for several years past Indian councils have been
convened by British agents, who influenced them by presents, and
employed them as emissaries to excite the peaceable Indians in our own
territories to go to war against our new and dispersed settlements. It
would be infidelity to doubt the truth of the Indians having received
their arms, &c., from British agents, and though these British allies
have got a check in the late engagement, yet it also has cost us dear.
We have no ground to conclude that the danger is over; revenge is the
predominant passion of savages, and though we have not such unequivocal
proofs of the British in the present instance exciting the Indians
to war, and supplying them for that purpose, as we had in 1793, when
President WASHINGTON received a copy of Lord Dorchester's speech to
the Indian tribes, encouraging them to war against our settlements,
and promising them a co-operation of the British force--the copy of
which gracious speech several members yet in Congress saw at that
time, and every member has heard of it--through a kind Providence that
co-operation was prevented by the defeat of the British armies in
Europe. Though we have not at present such explicit proofs that the
Indians at present are acting as British allies, yet we have as much
proof as the nature of the case can afford, and it would be very unwise
if we did not act accordingly.

From the above view of the subject, if we had no other cause, I deduce
the expediency of increasing our regular force agreeable to the
recommendation of the President and of our committee. I think more
has been said about taking Canada than was necessary. It is true,
that during the same Indian war, it was the opinion of our most sage
politicians that we never could be secure against Indian war till we
had possession of Canada, and by that means have it in our power to cut
off the communication between foreign nations and the Indians on our
frontiers and in our own territory. They said that neither our revenue,
our credit or population would at that time justify the attempt; but
that we were rapidly increasing in population and all other resources,
while the nations of Europe are wasting their own strength, but the
time was fast approaching when we must repel national insults or
surrender our independence. This was said particularly with respect to
the impressment of our seamen. At the commencement of this outrage,
never committed by any other nation but Britain, the public mind was
very sensibly affected by it, but time and the frequent repetition of
the injury seems to have rendered the public feelings callous. This put
him in mind of what he had sometimes observed, that when the savages
scalped a few families on the frontier, the whole country was terribly
alarmed, but that after the savage butchery had continued and extended
itself for some time, the sensibility seemed to abate. This had been
evidently the effect of the continued impressment of our seamen.

Mr. ROBERTS observed he should offer no apology for rising so late
in this discussion, as the short time for which he was about to ask
attention would not justify it. The eloquence and talents which had
been so abundantly exhibited on this occasion, would not admit of
more than a concise expression of his opinion, without subjecting
him, justly, to the charge of presumption. When the report now under
consideration came first before the House, I was, said he, of the
number of those who were disposed to decide upon it without debate. I
have frequently been in the minority on the question of adjournment,
from a wish to reach the question on the resolutions. Under these
impressions I confess I viewed the challenge, or rather the invitation,
given by the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. GRUNDY,) "to debate this
subject now, if it was to be debated at all," more as the impulse of an
ingenuous mind, preferring, on all occasions, an open course, than the
dictates of prudence or necessity. Nor was it till after the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. MACON) had invited and urged discussion, that
I became disposed to join in opinion with them, the correctness of
which the debate of this day has very much strengthened.

By the adoption of this report, we are entering on a system of
operations of the utmost national moment; the effects of which the
wisest amongst us cannot fully foresee, and on which we have no choice
but to act. The discussion has already elicited opinions, which it
is well to know exist; and the more so, since some of them admit the
holders to vote for the report, while they allow them to be adverse to
the measures which are necessarily to follow it. A little time may be
well spent in comparing sentiments in this stage of the business, as it
may be conducive to celerity of movement in the sequel, and give more
certain effect to the measures which must ultimately be followed.

Every political community must, of necessity, possess rights, which it
may enjoy independently of, and in common with, every other. One of
those rights is an uncontrolled jurisdiction over its own territory. It
has long ago been found necessary for nations to settle by convention
on the great scale where the limits of territory shall cease, and where
the high seas shall commence. This convention, or law, has determined
that the ships of neutrals shall be a part of the national territory;
so long as they are careful to preserve a pacific character. Through
the intervention of vessels navigating the high seas, nations in amity
are enabled to overcome the want of proximity, and all the purposes of
trade and commercial intercourse may thereby be extended, as well to
the inhabitants of the remotest corners of the earth, as to those only
divided by a geometrical line. An attempt to interrupt this intercourse
by a third nation, is so serious an act of hostility and wrong, as not
only always to justify, but to demand, resistance. The gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) has said the Government would not, on a former
occasion, go to war, when their trade, which consisted in carrying the
produce of one foreign country to another, was annoyed and cut up; and
why not, he says, be pacific now, as well as then? While I agree that
our national rights extend to both alike, admitting, however, every
Government to make her own municipal regulations, I must be allowed
to consider our direct export and import trade much better worth
contending for, than what has been denominated our carrying trade. The
cultivators and owners of the soil have never shown any disposition
to fight for the latter trade; and for a very plain and consistent
reason. War is sure to bring on its train of evils and expense; and
where it is obvious that these will amount to more than the loss of
the exercise of a right in its nature of but transitory use and minor
interest, a free people may with propriety refuse to hazard them for
its support. It is not for such a people to war for a speculative
right or an empty name. The carrying trade, it must be owned, was
profitable in exercise, but it was a profit that could be given up
without vital prejudice to the national interests. Not so with our fair
export trade. To yield this would be absolute recolonization. It must
not only affect us in the great resources of national strength, but it
must break the spirit of our citizens, and make them infidels in the
principle of self-government. It would, at the same time, add means
and facilities to the aggressing nation to multiply her outrages. Give
up the export trade to Great Britain, and you will next be required
to give up the coasting trade, and to admit her navigation act to as
complete operation in our bays and harbors, as it now has round the
limited shores of the British isles. The spirit of commercial monopoly
she has so pertinaciously manifested, proves that her ambition craves
more than her means can aspire to. The wrongs she has long been and
still is committing towards these States, have assumed a character that
imperiously calls for a resistance, made by all for the benefit of all.

I cannot with some gentlemen doubt the sufficiency of this Government
to conduct a war. However congenial a state of peace may be to a
Republic, the Constitution of the United States must have been
framed with a view to war as well as peace. The members of the grand
convention had almost all been active characters in the Revolutionary
war. On the subject of war they were certainly more than mere
theorists. Honest apprehensions have, too, been entertained in times
back of the Government being too strong; I think, however, that we may
look with well-grounded confidence for complete sufficiency in it;
without being alarmed at the reverse of the picture. While the power
of declaring war is vested in Congress; while levies and supplies
are within its control; while a check on the appointing powers is
vested in the Senate, and a periodical termination of the President's
office exists; the Executive arm, though sufficiently untrammelled
for necessary and useful command, is effectually paralyzed as to
the exercise of power to affect or change the free features of the
Government; unless indeed the representation should become utterly
corrupt, an event no one can believe possible. I feel much satisfaction
at this moment in seeing a man at the head of the Government who had
a conspicuous concern in framing the constitution, and whose official
duties have since closely connected him with the administration of
Government under it. In the Message out of which the report before you
has sprung, not the slightest doubt is discoverable of the efficiency
of our institutions to sustain us under every exigency that may
overtake us. My own reflections on this subject (and they have neither
been light nor transitory) have neither served to alarm nor intimidate.
I repose in safety on the saving maxim, "never to despair of the
Republic."

Mr. MCKEE.--Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House, at this late hour
of the debate, with reluctance; but the importance of the question must
be my apology.

Some gentlemen, in felicitating themselves on account of the temper of
the House, evidenced by the determination to adopt vigorous measures
against England, have expressed a regret that measures of a similar
character had not been resorted to long since.

In this sentiment I cannot agree. In reviewing past times, we cannot
but perceive that it has been the desire of the Government to avoid
being involved in the war with which Europe has been so long desolated,
and by dealing out justice to the belligerents, respectively, with an
impartial hand, to preserve our neutrality, permitting our citizens
peacefully to pursue their private avocations, reaping the rich harvest
arising from our neutral commerce.

This was certainly a wise policy, and the distinguished success with
which it was attended is a clear evidence of its wisdom and propriety.
Why, then, should it be condemned? Have any people ever acquired
individual wealth with so much rapidity; or have any been more happy in
the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity than the people of the United
States? None. The wish of the late and the present Administrations
was to continue this state of happy prosperity as long as it was
practicable, by making acts of wrong and vexation of a minor sort,
growing out of the violence of the times, the subject of negotiation,
rather than a cause of war. And, is this course of policy now to be
condemned, and regrets entered up that we have not been at war years
ago?

At the opening of the session of Congress, in December, 1809, after
the disavowal of Erskine's arrangement, when our relations with
England assumed a more unfavorable aspect than at the close of the
summer session, the Committee on Foreign Relations, with a desire to
preserve our neutrality, presented to the House a measure usually
termed Macon's bill, No. 1; a measure which it is now known was
approved by the Administration, and had the sanction even of a higher
authority, (if such there be.) This measure was calculated in its
operation to present serious difficulties to those nations by whom
the rights of our neutral flag were disregarded; and, at the same
time, it left open to the enterprise of our citizens those channels of
trade, not included within the scope of the orders and decrees of the
belligerents, as they then stood; a commerce as extensive and valuable
as we can expect to enjoy in times of general peace. It was, however,
opposed, and successfully, too, by war speeches. It fell, and by its
fall the Administration were driven from their ground, and the hopes of
maintaining much longer the neutrality of the United States also fell
with it. This unfortunate event was succeeded by the act of May, 1810.
By this act, the belligerents were invited, in a new form, to withdraw
their orders and decrees; promising, on our part, in case either of
them should accept the invitation thus given to both, to put in force
the non-importation sections of the non-intercourse law against the
party persevering in their orders or decrees for three months after
their adversary had accepted the invitation thus given. The law of May,
1810, was enacted with a hope that the terms thereby offered to the
belligerents, respectively, would induce the one or the other to accept
them, and withdraw their orders or decrees. And an expectation was also
entertained, that if one of the parties could be induced to relinquish
their orders or decrees, the other party would follow the example; and,
if this just expectation should be met by a perseverance of either
of the parties in their orders or decrees, after their adversary had
accepted the invitation thus given, it would test the sincerity of the
various and repeated declarations made by them, respectively, that
their orders and decrees, affecting our commerce, were reluctantly
issued in their own just defence.

Those also who preferred war to the preservation of our neutrality,
and by whom Macon's bill was rejected, would be relieved from the
embarrassment of going to war with two of the most powerful nations in
the world, or of selecting which of the two should be made our enemy,
at a time when we had just cause of war against both. The fixed and
determined hostility of one of the parties towards the United States
would be (as it certainly now is) most clearly proved; and thereby our
measures of hostility rendered the more necessary, and more likely to
receive the unanimous approbation of the American people.

My opinion, therefore, is, that it was wise to preserve our neutrality
as long as possible, making an appeal to force the last reluctant
resort; and, inasmuch as the majority of Congress, in 1809, resolved to
change the peaceful character of this country, the intervening period
has been employed in a last effort to avert the calamities of war; the
result of which has relieved this Government from any liability to the
charge of partiality to either of the belligerents, by compelling one
of them, by their own act, to present themselves as the object of our
just hostility.

Mr. STANFORD said, as the resolution before the House contemplated
an additional army, and from the avowal of its friends, involved in
it the question of peace or war, he felt the desire to assign the
reasons of his vote upon so important a subject. He was the more
disposed to do so as he should probably find himself in a very small
minority upon the question. He was not flattered, he said, with using
arguments which would convince others; but for himself he felt their
force strong enough to fix his mind against the measure. If he were to
vote, he said, for the proposed army, he should vote inconsistently
with all his former opinions and principles upon the subject, and he
never could think of acting a part inconsistent with himself, and
that more especially when all his experience had gone to confirm his
first impressions, his honest prejudices against standing armies. Such
establishments had always proved the bane of free Governments, and he
could not see how we were to get along with them, and remain, as he
believed we were, the freest and happiest people upon earth.

But, sir, we are told war is to be declared in certain events, and
that the army proposed is to invade and take the Canadas. We are then
to pass out of the limits of the United States and wage a war of the
foreign offensive kind! If such was the contemplated use of this army
when raised, he was still the more opposed to the measure. He was
against the war itself, and the policy of it, and could by no means
yield his vote to bring it about. That there were sufficient cause of
war, he was ready to acknowledge, and he was not disposed in any the
least degree to palliate the offences of Great Britain, or that of any
of the other belligerents, committed on the persons and property of
our citizens. All of them had deserved war at our hands, but we had
at no time since the commencement of our present Government seen it
our interest or policy to give into it, in the open and declared form,
nor that of any other form, except that of a _quasi_ character which
happened under Mr. Adams's administration. The question never had been
whether we had or had not cause of war, but whether the true interest
of the United States did not, under all circumstances, call aloud upon
us to cherish peace, and to avoid war and its evils as the last of the
alternatives before us; and this, said Mr. S., he would be able to show
was the Republican doctrine, as well in the old minority times as since
that minority grew into a majority.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. GRUNDY) had made a direct appeal
to the Republican party, and endeavored to rally and unite them in
this, to them at least, new doctrine of war. If the appeal of the
gentleman had any reference to him, he would beg leave to deny some
of his positions. He had himself had some small share to act in the
political scenes of '98-9, and he was glad to find from the gentleman's
declaration that he had joined in the "clamor" of the day, to pull down
the then Federal Administration for the unjustifiable war which they
had gone into with France. Mr. S. said he knew he had joined in it most
heartily. He believed he then acted right in all he did to supersede
that Administration, and he still believed he was right. The best
interests of the country forbade the war, and so the people determined,
when ultimately they came to decide the question. That party thus
ousted by the public voice, the present Republican majority was brought
in upon their own professions of better principles, the love of peace
and economy. But now, forgetting our old professions under a French
crisis, we had raised the cry of war under a British one, and nothing
short of it was to save our honor. Mr. S. declared if there was any
difference in the causes of war then and now, he thought it turned most
decidedly in favor of the former period, since the more intolerable
outrage in the case of the Chesapeake had been at length atoned for.
What were the facts? French decrees existed at that time against your
rightful commerce--he spoke of the arrêttes or decrees of the French
directory--these had the same practical effect on our maritime neutral
rights that the British orders have now. French cruisers waylaid the
mouths of your harbors, and captured your vessels; and the first
successful act of the United States after the quasi-war commenced, was,
the taking of one of these cruisers in the mouth of one of our harbors.

But, said Mr. S., the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,)
tells us it is a principle of honor in a nation, as in an individual,
to resist a first insult. If such doctrine is to be admitted, when
should we have had a moment's peace? From one or the other belligerents
of Europe, since their late wars commenced, we have never been without
just complaints against them for some violation of our neutral rights,
and of course must have taken an early share in their wars. The truth
is, we cannot liken, nor will the similitude hold good between an
individual's honor, or his sensibility to it, and that of a nation's.
A single impressment or capture may be well admitted to form a ground
of reprisal and war; but we should have been a ruined country long ere
now, if, under the existing circumstances of the world, and belligerent
Europe, we had yielded to this quickness of sensibility, and had gone
to war for a first and single instance of aggression from either of
the belligerents. The same gentleman argues that every thing now calls
upon us to make a stand; that there was no danger to our liberties in a
standing army of twenty or thirty thousand men, and that all admitted
there was justifiable cause of war, and he believed it had now become
necessary. This was declaiming, Mr. S. said, very handsomely upon
the subject of war, he would agree; and he very well recollected we
had heard the same doctrines precisely, and he thought he might be
permitted to say, a strain of declamation, at least equally handsome,
upon the same subject, and from the same State, in 1798-'9.[17] Mr. S.
contended as the then doctrines of war, (and it must be admitted the
causes of it were also alike in their character,) it was fair to expect
that in due time public opinion would come to be the same in both cases.

But, Mr. S. said, he could not perceive how the present, of all others,
had become the necessary and accepted time for war with Great Britain.
The attack on the Chesapeake frigate had been lately atoned for, to
the satisfaction of our Government; and, he trusted, had not been so
done as to aggravate the crisis of affairs between the two countries.
If calculated to do so, our Government could not have received it. The
impressment of our seamen was a just complaint against the British
Government; but it commenced under the Administration of General
WASHINGTON, and no one would say he was less sensible to national honor
and independence than ourselves. Under all the circumstances of that
cause of complaint, he did not think it a cause sufficient for him to
depart from the neutral ground he had assumed; nor was the annoyance of
our commerce less vexatious in his time than since. In like manner,
under Mr. Adams's Administration, the same complaints existed, though
in that of the latter, not, perhaps, to the same degree; and, under
the eight years of Mr. Jefferson's Administration, the same state of
things continued, certainly with an increased degree of violence, to
which was also added the more aggravating insult upon the Chesapeake.
Mr Jefferson had never been suspected of partiality for Great Britain,
and then, indeed, the accepted time had come for a war with that
Government; all parties were united, and pledged themselves to support
him in the war. The pulse of the nation beat high for it. But he felt,
because he knew, that peace was the best interest of his country, and
forbore to call Congress together. He had always admired the man; but,
upon that occasion, he felt more than a sentiment of admiration toward
him. When, at length, wrongs had thus accumulated, and called for
some system of counteraction and resistance till negotiation could be
farther tried, the embargo was resorted to in preference to war; and,
when that was done away, a system of non-intercourse was substituted,
and to that again succeeded the present alternative law of the same
kind; the non-importation system which has grown out of this with Great
Britain has not been tried one whole year yet. If gentlemen will have
it that this is the accepted time for war, how has it happened that we
have not had it before? Our Councils may be presumed to have been as
sensible to aggression, and as patriotic to redress it, as we now are.

But, Mr. Speaker, said Mr. S., opposed as he was to the idea of the
United States becoming one of the belligerent nations--to the linking
our destinies with those of the European Powers; to the taking any
share in their present conflicts, if his country once determined upon
it, he would not then hesitate to vote any force, or other means to
bring it to as speedy and as happy an issue as possible: until then he
should preserve his own consistency; and contribute in no way to bring
about that state of things which, he believed, would prove most ruinous
to his country.

Mr. KING.--Mr. Speaker, I should not have troubled this House with any
remarks of mine, had it not been for the observations which have just
fallen from my colleague from North Carolina. I shall not attempt,
sir, to follow that gentleman in the history which he has given of
the progress of party in this country, but shall content myself with
stating, that, in our sentiments, we entirely differ; his is the
doctrine of submission; yes, sir, the most abject submission; mine, I
trust, is not. I am in favor of the resolution now on your table. I am
aware, sir, of the many important considerations which will naturally
suggest themselves to the mind of every real friend of his country,
when he views the consequences which may result from the adoption
of the measure now contemplated. When, sir, the habits of a nation,
ingrafted, as it were, in its very nature, are about to be departed
from; when the destinies of the country are about to be launched on
an untried ocean, and when the doubt is about to be solved, whether
our Republican Government is alike calculated to support us through
the trials and difficulties of war, and guide us in safety down the
gentle current of peace, I am aware, sir, that we should pause and
ponder well the subject; that we should divest ourselves of those
warm feelings which most generally take possession of our minds on
viewing the unjust prostration of the rights of our country. Sir, that
interest which I feel, in common with others, on the decision of a
question of such magnitude and importance, will, I trust, induce this
House to bear with me a moment, while, in a few words, I explain the
motives by which I am actuated in giving my decided approbation to the
resolution now under consideration. If, sir, I were merely to turn my
attention to the local situation of that portion of the country which
I have the honor particularly to represent; its extensive and exposed
seacoasts, combined with its present commercial advantages; I should,
without hesitation, give my vote to the proposed measure. But, sir,
as in my individual capacity, I feel at all times willing to make not
only pecuniary sacrifices, but to expose my person in vindicating the
rights and interests of my country, in my Representative capacity, I
will undertake to say, that my constituents will do no less. Sir, the
demon Avarice, which benumbs every warm emotion of the soul, has not
yet gained the ascendency in the South: the love of country animates
every breast, and burns with inextinguishable ardor. Sir, they feel
in common, I trust, with a great majority of every portion of this
Union, the degradation of our country, in submitting for a moment
longer to the dishonorable terms proposed directly or indirectly by
the British Government. Mr. Speaker, I hold it to be correct, that, in
discussing a subject of such importance, a view of the various matters
necessarily connected with it, will not be considered irrelevant:
but, sir, I will not weary the patience of this House with a detail
of injuries, unparalleled in the history of former times, wantonly
inflicted on a nation which manifested to the whole world her sincere
desire to support the neutral stand which had been taken at the
earliest period of her Government, and most tenaciously adhered to. We
have carefully avoided, Mr. Speaker, any participation in that system
of politics which has convulsed and distracted the European world. We
have restricted ourselves in the full enjoyment of our rights, lest
by strictly enforcing them, we might produce a collision with any
nation, however little her conduct might be guided by the principles of
equity. Sir, we have borne with injury, until, in the language of your
committee, forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. We have remonstrated,
we have appealed to the justice, to the interest, of the two great
contending powers of Europe; every effort proved abortive; our calls
for justice were drowned in the declaration that their measures were
merely retaliatory, and not intended to interfere with neutral rights;
thus, sir, the matter rested, when specific propositions were submitted
to each. Yes, sir, by an act which has placed the impartiality of
our country beyond the reach of suspicion, we demanded of each the
revocation of her obnoxious edicts as the only means of preserving our
friendship. We all know what has been the consequence: France has met
our advances, has embraced our propositions. Great Britain not only
refuses a repeal on her part, but, while she affects to lament the
effects produced on neutral rights, takes the most effectual methods
to render them perpetual. Sir, blindness and ignorance itself can no
longer be deceived by British policy.

We have been told, sir, that this will be a war for the support of
the carrying trade; let me here remark, and I wish to be distinctly
understood, as avowing my determination never to give a vote, so long
as I have the honor of a seat on this floor, which will involve this
country in a war, for the recovery or support of this extraneous
species of commerce. I believe I shall not be incorrect when I assert,
that nine-tenths of this country never did and never will derive the
smallest benefit from it. But, sir, the right to carry in our own ships
the produce of our own country to any quarter, not thereby violating
the laws of nations, or contravening legitimate municipal regulations,
is one which I never will yield; for, sir, in doing so, we paralyze the
industry of our citizens; we give a fatal blow to the best interests
of our country. Yes, sir, we yield the principle, we invite to further
encroachments. Our country, sir, is agricultural, but so intimately
blended with commerce, that the one cannot long exist unaided by the
other. Sir, I will not yield an inch of ground, when, by so doing,
I destroy an essential right of my country--or sap the foundation
of that independence cemented by the blood of our fathers. We were
told by a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) a few days since,
that we have sufficient cause for war. I ask you, then, sir, why do
we hesitate? Shall we always yield? Shall we always shrink from the
contest? The adoption of this resolution is the touchstone--by it we
rise or fall. We have been asked, Mr. Speaker, why not lay upon your
table a proposition to go to war? It is there, sir; it is contained
in this resolution; the moment we give it our sanction we declare
our fixed resolve to render effective the force contemplated to be
raised. Yes, sir, unless Great Britain manifests a disposition speedily
to do us justice--by her acts, sir, not by her words. The gentleman
from Virginia calls upon the Representatives of the seacoasts, of the
slaveholding States, and asks if they are willing to say to England
"we intend to go to war with you." Does the gentleman mean to excite
our fears for the loss of our property? As one of the many on this
floor who stand in the situation mentioned by that gentleman, I step
forth to declare for myself and my constituents, that, when loss of
national honor is placed in the scale, and attempted to be balanced
by pecuniary interest, we will, without hesitation, kick the beam.
But, sir, we are now contending for the restoration of our rights, the
deprivation of which strikes at the very foundations of our prosperity.
Sir, to us, it matters little whether our cities tumble into ruin by
desertion for want of employment, by poverty produced by British wrongs
and aggression, or, in vindicating the cause of our country, fall by a
quicker process. Sir, I have no fear of invasion, and, therefore, have
no fears arising from the black population, which strikes with so much
horror on the sensitive mind of the gentleman from Virginia. For my
country, Mr. Speaker, I lament its existence; I view it as the bane,
the curse of the land, and most sincerely, sir, do I wish that a second
Moses could take them by the hand, and lead them in safety to a distant
land, where their cries would never more strike on the ear of sympathy.

We have been told, sir, that this will be a war of aggrandizement, a
war of conquest. I am as little disposed to extend the territory as
any other individual of this House. I know that dissimilar interests
must and will prevail from a too great extension of our dominion. But,
sir, we will not here enter into a discussion, whether an accession of
country would or would not conduce to the interests of the Government.
Sir, this will be a war forced upon us; we cannot, under existing
circumstances, avoid it. To wound our enemy in the most vulnerable
part should only be considered. Sir, I trust, if our differences with
Great Britain are not speedily adjusted, (of which, indeed, I have no
expectation,) we shall take Canada. Yes, sir, by force; by valor; not
by seduction, as the gentleman from Virginia expresses it. I have no
reliance on their friendship--I hope it will not be calculated on. Sir,
I am not deterred from the firm purposes of my mind, by the predictions
of the gentleman from Virginia. I have no fears, sir, that the people
of our country will desert their Government while asserting the rights
of the country; and I must believe, that gentleman's assertion to the
contrary notwithstanding, that Virginia will not be the last to afford
supplies.

Mr. BOYD.--Mr. Speaker, I should not have risen, on the present
occasion, had not the honorable Committee of Foreign Relations
requested all those that did not intend to vote for such ulterior
measures as they might hereafter find necessary to bring forward,
would not vote for the present resolutions, as they were a part of a
system that might eventuate in war, &c. From those observations, I feel
myself, and those that I in part have the honor to represent, called
on to say how far I will go, and how far I will not go. Sir, when we
talk about war, we ought to know for what we are going to wage it,
and to see that the means are commensurate to the end. Let it not be
thought by this that I have any apology to make for Great Britain, or
her manifold wrongs. I have none. I say, perish the heart, the head and
the tongue, that will attempt her justification or apology? No, sir,
they are a nation of pirates, and have committed many wrongs on us; and
it becomes us to look for our remedy, and how it is to be obtained. We
are told that these resolutions are a part of a war measure. I do not
receive them as such, but as preparatory to what may happen or become
necessary. But, for argument sake, suppose it so, and that we are to
have war--your army raised, and ready to march to the Canadas; with how
many are you going to take them? In my opinion, not less than fifty
thousand men will be required. Suppose the English should be driven
out of Spain and Portugal, (which may by this time be the case, or
it may soon be so,) what number of troops can she send to reinforce
her possessions and meet you? But, say some gentlemen, American blood
has been spilt, and we must avenge it. How is that to be done? For
gallons will you spill torrents; or am I to understand that we shall
have war without bloodshed? Sir, let those that think so turn their
attention to the Revolutionary war--the Sugarhouse in New York, the
Prevost, the Prison-ship, the Wallabout, Fort Washington, White Plains,
Princeton, Trenton, Monmouth, Brandywine, Guildford, and many other
places. New Jersey has had her full share of the fighting--other States
the benefit; and if we have war again, we shall have our share of
fighting--others the loaves and fishes. But, sir, I will not complain:
we obtained our liberty, and I am willing to support it in the best
possible manner. But here another question arises. You go to war for
the right to export our surplus produce--tobacco, cotton, flour, with
many other articles. Let me ask, what will be your export while that
war continues? Will you have any? I think not. But I will suppose
that you could export without interruption; would the whole of the
exportable produce pay for the war during the continuance of it? No,
it would not. Sir, it would take less money from the Government to
pay for it, and make a fire of it. Nearly thirty years have elapsed
since the Revolutionary war, and that war not half paid for. Is not
the war-worn soldier calling on us every day with his demands? You
are about to drain your Treasury, borrow money, enlarge your pension
list, build additional hospitals, increase our national debt, not to
be extinguished or paid off, but to be a lasting burden on the people.
But, say the honorable committee, our honor requires it. It is well; I
honor the spirit and magnanimity of the committee, and have no doubt
of their courage and zeal for our country's rights. But, sir, you must
take young men for action--old men for counsel. It is an easy matter
to go to law or war, but it is a hard matter to get out of it. The
gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. WRIGHT,) in defending the character of
the soldier, has given us a quotation, viz:

    "Honor and shame from no condition rise,
    Act well your part, there all the honor lies."

I will give him another, from the same authority, viz:

    "A wit's a feather, a chiefs a rod;[18]
    An honest man's the noblest work of God."

But, apart from this, let us suppose war, and admit that it will be
successful, so far as proposed--the British driven from the Canadas
and Halifax, and their trade intercepted for years to an extensive
amount--what then has she to hope or fear from us? Nothing. Will she
then respect our rights? No. But I will suppose that we force her
to a treaty of amity and commerce, acknowledging our rights to the
utmost of our wishes; how long will she keep it? Not an hour longer
than suits her convenience or interest. There is no trust to be put
in her compacts. Witness Erskine's arrangement. I say, keep on your
restrictions; keep the country in peace, if possible, under all your
privations, and they are many. Has not our country increased in wealth
and population, in a superior degree to any country on earth? Are we
not at this moment in the enjoyment of peace and plenty at home--every
man under his own vine and fig-tree, and none to make him afraid--with
complete protection for person and property? Yes. But our merchants
must be protected--they have a right to our protection, say some--it
is the merchant that gives life and spring to agriculture. I deny it.
It is the planter--the cultivator--that is the foundation on which
every other branch of our associated population depends; and it is the
surplus of his productions that makes the merchant, and his profits
that make the banks. You have made many laws for their protection;
they have disobeyed them all, and will disobey them. Have they not
told you, continually, to let them alone; that they knew their own
business best? Sir, before I would engage in a war, to which I could
not see a prospect of a favorable issue, I would let them alone. Sir,
the President is made, by the constitution, the treaty-making power;
he is also to give us the state of the Union. He is the Executive.
He has given us the state of the Union, and made his requisitions;
and if I give him what he asks, I give him enough; and _that_ I am
willing to give, and more, when he shall require it. But I am not to
be forced further yet. It appears to me that the honorable committee
has a mind to _Gideonize_ us--rejecting the fearful and faint-hearted.
Will they prove us by the _waters_, and reject all such as will not lap
as the dog lappeth? For, sir, they have told us that all that did not
intend to vote for such ulterior measures as they might have occasion
hereafter to bring forward, ought not to vote for the resolutions. Now,
sir, it remains for me to tell them and the House, that I will not
leave the ranks of my country. I will vote for the resolutions, and
consider myself at liberty to vote hereafter as the nature of the case
may require, and my conscience shall direct. I have no more to say at
this time.


MONDAY, December 16.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The House then resumed the consideration of the unfinished business,
being the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that he could not express his deep sense of the
politeness of the House, except by the regret he felt at the very
poor return which they were about to receive for their indulgence. He
lamented that it was not in his power to thank, in the name of all
the old Republicans of 1798 and 1799, his worthy friend from North
Carolina, (Mr. STANFORD,) for the sound, sensible, pertinent, and
constitutional speech, which he had delivered the other day against
this resolution. But he feared, if a writ were to issue against that
old party--as had been facetiously said, in another body, of our
valiant Army--it would be impossible for a constable with a search
warrant to find it. There must be a return of _non est inventus_.
Death, resignation, and desertion had thinned their ranks. They
had disappeared. New men and new doctrines had succeeded. He was
astonished at the frailty of some memories; or rather, at their aptness
to remember to forget every thing but what subserved their present
purposes.

The nation had been brought into its present alarming and unprecedented
situation by means in nowise unaccountable--by steps as direct and
successive as Hogarth's celebrated series of prints, "The Rake's
Progress," beginning at the gaming table and ending in a jail, or in
bedlam. Our difficulties began to show themselves in 1805 and 1806,
when _a wise man from the East_ (Bidwell) was sent to govern the
American House of Commons, in quality of manager. With what degree of
fidelity he had discharged this duty, we might judge from that which
he had since displayed in far inferior trusts. We had commenced our
system somewhat on the plan of Catharine of Russia, when she lent her
nominal aid to the coalition; we had dealt even more profusely than
she in manifestoes; we began, under the instigation of mercantile
cupidity, to contend by proclamations and resolutions for the empire of
the ocean. But, instead of confining ourselves as she had done to this
bloodless warfare, we must copy the wise example of her successors,
and after our battle of Friedland, he supposed, we also should have
our peace of Tilsit. He gave the little minority praise for having
kept the Administration in check, under the salutary restraint of a
rigorous examination of their acts--although the Administration had
run away with the credit of wishing to take a strong attitude, and had
thrown the blame of thwarting their measures on the opposition. That
opposition had been composed of all sects and persuasions; but he now
perceived that the greater part of them (the Federalists) had gone over
to the Court party, for a very obvious reason--because they foresee at
the end of the journey, Mr. Speaker, that your defeat will secure their
triumph. I wish the gentlemen on my left (the majority) joy of their
new travelling companions.

The gentleman from Maryland had expressed surprise at Mr. RANDOLPH'S
manner of speaking of our origin from an English stock. Could that
gentleman repose his head upon his pillow without returning thanks to
God that he was descended from English parentage? Whence but from that
origin came all the blessings of life, so far as political privileges
are concerned? To what is it owing that we are at this moment
deliberating under the forms of a free representative government?
Suppose we had been colonies of any other European nation--compare our
condition with that of the Spanish, Portuguese, or French settlements
in America? To what was our superiority owing? To our Anglo-Saxon race.
Suppose we had descended from those nations--from the last, especially,
which stood self-condemned, on her own confession, as incapable of free
government, hugging her chains, glorying in her shame, priding herself
in the slave's last poor distinction, the splendor of her tyrant
master? Had we sprung from the loins of Frenchmen, (he shuddered at
the thought!) where would have been that proud spirit of resistance to
Ministerial encroachment on our rights and liberties, which achieved
our independence? We should have submitted to the tea tax, the stamp
act, and the whole train of Grenville and North ministerial oppression.
That which we lifted our hands against in determined scorn, would
have been deemed an indulgence. Look at the province of New Spain, or
Mexico, as it is, not with strict propriety, called. With a physical
force greatly superior to ours in 1776, she had not dared to burst the
chains of Spanish despotism, divided, weakened, almost extinct as was
the Spanish monarchy. Mr. R. adverted to historical documents to show
that America ought to be proud of her Anglo-Saxon descent. We were
vastly particular about the breed of our horses, cattle, and sheep,
but careless of the breed of human nature. And yet to our Anglo-Saxon
origin we owed our resistance to British tyranny. Who were the members
of our first Congress? From Massachusetts, Samuel Adams, (and t'other
Adams too,) Robert Treat Paine, not _Tom_. From Connecticut, Roger
Sherman, a man of the most profound political wisdom. From New York,
James Duane, John Jay. From New Jersey, William Livingston. From
Pennsylvania, Thomas Mifflin. From Delaware, Cæsar Rodney, Thomas
McKean. From Maryland, William Paca. From Virginia, Peyton Randolph,
George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Edmund Pendleton. From
South Carolina, Henry Middleton, John Rutledge, Christopher Gadsden,
Edward Rutledge. In what school had these illustrious men formed
those noble principles of civil liberty asserted by their eloquence
and maintained by their arms? Among the grievances stated in their
remonstrance to the King, a "standing army" met us at the threshold. It
was curious to see in that list of wrongs, so many that had since been
self-inflicted by us.

It had been asked, why was the country unprepared for defence? Was
he expected to answer this question? The Administration and their
overwhelming majorities must answer it. They had wantoned in the
plenitude of their power. Who could say them nay? Was it Mr. RANDOLPH'S
fault that the gentleman from South Carolina had never, in the course
of his extensive experience, heard of a proposition to arm the whole
body of the militia? which had been damned with a faint appropriation
of two hundred thousand dollars, when millions were lavished upon
miserable _oyster_ boats. The Clerk of the Senate could not forbear a
sneer when he read the title of the bill, at the recollection of the
means to enforce it. Mr. R. had proposed himself an annual million
until the work should be accomplished. He would forever stand up for
the militia. It was not in the scoffs of the epaulette gentry, who, for
any service they have seen, are the _rawest militia_, to degrade them
in his eyes. Who were they? Ourselves--the country. Arm them and you
are safe, beyond the possibility of danger. Yearly did the standing
army sweep off the money, while the militia received empty praise.
He would rather see the thing reversed. But there will forever be a
Court and Country party. The standing army is the devoted creature
of the Court. It must forever be so. Can we wonder that it should be
cherished by its master? He spoke of a mercenary soldier in terms of
the strongest abhorrence. He would ever uphold the militia; and he
detested standing armies, as the profligate instruments of despotism,
as the bloodhounds of hell. They would support any and every existing
Government. In all history he remembered only one instance of their
deserting their Government and taking part with the people; and that
was when the Duke of Orleans had bribed the army of the last of the
Bourbon Kings. A mercenary soldier was disgusting to our senses;
was odious and detestable to the eye of reason, republicanism and
religion. Yet, that "mere machine of murder," rude as it is, was the
manufacturer of all the Cæsars, and Cromwells, and Bonapartes, of
the earth; consecrated by a people's curse, not loud but deep, to
the infernal gods. As from the filth of the kennel and common sewer,
spread the pestilence that carried havoc through a great city, so from
this squalid, outcast, homeless wretch sprung the scourge of military
despotism. And yet we are told that there was no danger from an army
of 30,000 or 40,000 men. With 5,000 Cæsar had passed the Rubicon. With
22,000 he fought the battle of Pharsalia, which rendered him master
of the world. To come to later times--what number had Bonaparte, when,
deserting his companions in arms, he returned a solitary fugitive from
Egypt, to overturn that Government, which if it had possessed one
particle of energy, if it had been possible for the civil authority
to cope with military power, would have cashiered him for having
ruined one of the best-appointed fleets and armies that ever sailed
from a European port? Well might the father of political wisdom (Lord
Chatham) say to the Parliament of England, "entrench yourselves in
parchment to the teeth, the sword will find a passage to the vitals
of the constitution." As good a Republican as ever sat on that floor,
(Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun,) had dissolved his political friendship
with the Earl of Sunderland, when he found him supporting an army; and
the event justified his sagacity. Cromwell, the affected patron of
liberty, always encouraged the army. We know the consequence. It was
a fundamental principle of free Government that a Legislature which
would preserve its liberty must avoid that canker, a standing army.
Are we to forget, as chimerical, our notions of this institution,
which we imbibed from our very cradles, which are imprinted on our
Bills of Rights and Constitutions, which we avowed under the reign
of John Adams? Are they to be scourged out of us by the birch of the
unfledged political pedagogues of the day? If he were the enemy of this
Government, could he reconcile it to his principles, he would follow
the example set him in another quarter, and say to the majority, _go_
to your inevitable destruction! He likened the people under this joint
operation of the two parties, Ministerial and Federal, to the poor
client between two lawyers, or the cloth between the tailor's shears.

He was glad to hear from his venerable friend that this was not to be
a party war. When the last additional force bill was raised, to which
this was about to be superadded, it was an indispensable preliminary
to an appointment, to sign, or to promise to sign, the thirty-nine
articles of the creed of the reigning political church. But now the
political millennium was at hand--already had John Adams and Citizen
Genet laid down, like the lion and the lamb, in the same fold. And if
they were not joined by their fellow-laborer in Newgate, it was his
keeper's fault, not that of his inclination. Citizen _Genet_, now an
American patriot of the first order, who extols "_our_ WASHINGTON;"
the champion of the laws of nations; the vindicator of American rights
against foreign (and, of course, French) aggression! He was glad to
hear that it was not to be a war for the protection of manufactures.
To domestic manufactures, in the true sense of the term, he had always
been, and ever should be, a friend; he had taken a pride in clothing
himself in them until it was attempted to be made a political test. He
abhorred tests of all sorts, political and religious, and never would
submit to them. He was sick of this cant of patriotism, which extended
to a man's victuals, drink, and clothes. He had, from a sort of
obstinacy that belonged to him, laid aside the _external_ use of these
manufactures; but he was their firm friend, and of the manufacturers
also. They were no new things to him; no Merino hobby of the day; he
had known them from his infancy. He had been almost tempted to believe,
from the similarity of character and avocations, that Hector had a
Virginian wife; that Lucretia herself--for she had displayed the spirit
of a Virginian matron--was a Virginian lady. Where were they found?
Spinning among their handmaids! What was the occupation of a Virginian
wife--her highest ambition? To attend to her domestic and household
cares; to dispense medicine and food to the sick; to minister to the
comfort of her family, her servants, and her poor neighbors, where she
had any. At the sight of such a woman his heart bowed down, and did her
reverence. Compare with such a being your gad-about card-players. Mr.
RANDOLPH said that if the Empress Queen had presented herself decked in
the spoils of a ravaged world, at the late exhibition, in contrast with
our American matrons, bearing the triumphs of their own ingenuity and
industry, we should have looked upon her, and all her splendor, with
scorn and contempt in our hearts, although, from politeness to the sex,
as gentlemen, we should have suppressed the sentiment.

He could not conclude without noticing the parallel attempted to be
drawn by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr, CALHOUN--not quite
indeed after the manner of Plutarch--between himself and an illustrious
statesman, (Lord Chatham.) The gentleman had been pleased to say,
that at the mention of his name, Mr. RANDOLPH'S heart had seemed
to smite him. It had indeed smitten him: from a sensation which he
trusted that gentleman might never feel: against which he seemed well
secured. It was a consciousness of his own unworthiness to sustain the
high duties imposed upon him by his country, which the recollection
of that great man's name had, at the moment, called up. He felt
humbled in the contemplation of his worth. Would to God! he possessed
some portion of his powers; that he could borrow his eagle-eye, his
withering look, the unrivalled majesty of his manner, the magic of his
voice, at once the music and the thunder of the spheres, to rouse the
House to a sense of their country's danger. In one respect, however,
he might boast that he possessed some qualities in common with that
immortal statesman. He might assert as lofty a spirit, as unyielding an
adherence to the deliberate convictions of his own understanding, as
Lord Chatham himself; who, because he set his face against corruption,
and had the art of making every coward scoundrel in the nation his
foe--concentrating upon himself the "rays of royal indignation, which
might illumine but could not consume him;" who, because with intuitive
glance he penetrated, resolved and combined every interest of his
country, and each design of her enemies, and reached his object "by
the flashes of his mind, which, like those of his eye, might be felt
but could not be followed," was by the plodding, purblind, groping
politicians of the day, attempted to be held up as an empty declaimer,
a theatrical gesticulator. Gentlemen must not expect him to quit the
anchorage of his own judgment in order to pursue the _ignes fatui_
that wander about Goose Creek.[19] Mr. Speaker, my heart is full--the
recollection of that matchless orator and statesman has filled me with
unspeakable feelings. To excite them there was no need of the cruel
and insulting comparison which the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
CALHOUN) had attempted to draw between that gigantic statesman and the
pigmy who now addresses you.

The question was now taken on concurring with the Committee of the
Whole in their agreement to the second resolution, which is in the
following words:

    "That an additional force of ---- thousand regular troops ought
    to be immediately raised, to serve for three years; and that a
    bounty in lands ought to be given to encourage enlistment."

And carried as follows:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson
    Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, David Bard,
    Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William
    Blackledge, Harmanus Bleecker, Thomas Blount, Adam Boyd,
    James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William
    Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John
    Clopton, Thomas B. Cooke, Lewis Condit, William Crawford,
    Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias
    Earle, James Emott, William Findlay, James Fisk, Asa Fitch,
    Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas R. Gold, Charles
    Goldsborough, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy,
    Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob
    Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, Philip
    B. Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefever, Peter
    Little, Robert Le Roy Livingston, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle,
    Nathaniel Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, Archibald
    McBryde, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah
    Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan,
    Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold,
    Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, William Paulding, jr., Israel
    Pickens, William Piper, Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Josiah
    Quincy, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, John
    Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Ebenezer
    Sage, Thomas Sammons, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam
    Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith,
    Silas Stow, William Strong, George Sullivan, Peter Tallman,
    Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Pierre Van
    Cortlandt, jr., Robert Whitehall, David R. Williams, William
    Widgery, Thomas Wilson, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn--110.

    NAYS.--Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion,
    Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, Edwin
    Gray, Richard Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr.,
    Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha
    R. Potter, John Randolph, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford,
    Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban
    Wheaton, and Leonard White--22.

The question was then taken on the third resolution, in the following
words:

    "That it is expedient to authorize the President, under proper
    regulations, to accept the service of any number of volunteers,
    not exceeding fifty thousand; to be organized, trained, and
    held in readiness to act on such service as the exigencies of
    the Government may require."

And carried: yeas 113--nays 16.

The question was next taken on the fourth resolution, in the following
words:

    "That the President be authorized to order out from time to
    time such detachments of the militia, as in his opinion the
    public service may require."

And carried: yeas 120--nays 8.

The question was then taken on the fifth resolution, in the words
following:

    "That all the vessels not now in service belonging to the Navy,
    and worthy of repair, be immediately fitted up and put in
    commission."

And carried: yeas 111--nays 15.

The question was put from the Chair on the sixth resolution, in these
words:

    "6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels, owned
    exclusively by resident citizens, and commanded and navigated
    solely by citizens, to arm under proper regulations, to be
    prescribed by law, in self-defence, against all unlawful
    proceedings towards them on the high seas."

When the resolution was, on motion, ordered to lie on the table.

The three first resolutions, for filling up the present establishment,
for raising an additional number of regulars, and authorizing the
acceptance of volunteers' services, were referred to the committee who
reported them, with instructions to bring in bills in pursuance thereof.


TUESDAY, December 17.

              _Mississippi Territory--Ordinance of 1787._

Mr. POINDEXTER, from the committee to whom the said report was
committed, reported the same with an amendment; which was read, and
referred to the Committee of the Whole on Monday next. The report is as
follows:

    The committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the
    Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the
    Mississippi Territory, and the petition of sundry citizens
    thereof, praying to be admitted into the Union of the United
    States on an equal footing with the original States; and also
    the petition of the inhabitants of West Florida, setting
    forth their desire to be annexed to said Territory, for
    reasons therein contained, have had these subjects under
    consideration, and beg leave to submit the following report:

    That there has existed in the Mississippi Territory a temporary
    government, founded on the ordinance for the government of the
    Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, since the eleventh day
    of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight. That,
    although this ordinance has undergone some modifications,
    extending, in a limited degree, the rights and privileges of
    the citizens, it still contains provisions incompatible with
    political liberty, and unfavorable to a due and impartial
    administration of justice, in the redress of private wrongs
    and injuries. The Chief Executive Magistrate is charged with
    the execution of the laws; is commander-in-chief of the
    militia; has the sole power of appointment to offices, civil
    and military, within the Territory, and the removal of these
    officers at pleasure; is vested with an unqualified veto on
    all bills passed by the other co-ordinate branches of the
    Legislature; and is, moreover, clothed with the odious and
    arbitrary authority to prorogue and dissolve the General
    Assembly whenever, in his opinion, it shall be expedient. These
    high and regal prerogatives, constituting some of the most
    obvious characteristics which distinguish an absolute monarchy
    from the constitution of a free State, are confided to the
    discretionary exercise of a Governor, who is neither chosen by,
    nor responsible to, the people. He is often a total stranger
    to the local interests and circumstances of the country over
    which he possesses such unlimited control, and is accountable
    only for malconduct or corruption in office to the President
    of the United States. The only security which exists against
    the frequent and wanton abuse of these powers is to be found in
    the mild and conciliatory disposition uniformly manifested by
    the General Government towards its territories. But experience
    has shown that, in all colonial governments, officers situated
    at a remote distance from the tribunal to which they are
    responsible, too frequently "feel power and forget right;" and,
    by eluding the vigilance of rigid investigation, are enabled to
    practise acts of oppression with impunity.

    The above summary of Executive powers, so opposite in their
    nature to those principles which form the basis of the Federal
    Constitution, and which are transfused through the constitution
    of the several States, is sufficient to show that the people
    are deprived of all participation in the choice of those who
    administer the laws, and that public functionaries are rendered
    independent of the community whose interests are confided
    to their management and discretion. These restrictions on
    the rights of the people can be justified only by the most
    evident necessity, resulting from peculiar and unavoidable
    circumstances. Your committee, therefore, consider it an
    act both of strict justice and sound policy to advance the
    respective territories of the United States to the grade of a
    separate commonwealth, whenever they shall contain the number
    of inhabitants necessary to entitle them, under the ratio
    established by law, to a Representative in the Congress of the
    United States. On the subject of population, there exists no
    difficulty, whether the territory be taken in connection with
    West Florida or with its present limits. From the official
    returns of the census, taken during the summer of the past
    year, it appears that there were, in the Mississippi Territory,
    the number of forty thousand three hundred and fifty-two souls.
    This enumeration, it is alleged, fell considerably short of
    the actual population of the Territory at that time; and,
    without casting the most remote censure on the officers who
    were employed in that service, such a suggestion is strongly
    supported by the vast extent of country over which the
    settlements are dispersed. It also appears to your committee
    that the progressive emigration from the old States to this
    section of the Union, added to the length of time which it will
    require to form a constitution, and put the same in operation,
    afford satisfactory pledges that, anterior to the final
    admission of the Territory to the rights of State sovereignty,
    the number of its inhabitants will amount to at least sixty
    thousand, whereby they will possess the unqualified right, in
    conformity with articles of cession and agreement between the
    United States and Georgia, to be admitted into the Union on an
    equal footing with the original States.

    Your committee cannot forbear to express their decided opinion,
    that, where no constitutional difficulty occurs, the formation
    of new States on the southern extremity of the United States
    ought not to be delayed.

    Under these impressions, your committee submit the following
    resolution:

    _Resolved_, That it is expedient to admit all that tract of
    country, bounded north by a line drawn due east from the river
    Yazoo, where it unites with the Mississippi, to the river
    Chatahouchy, and down said river to the thirty-first degree of
    latitude; thence, along said degree of latitude, to a point
    opposite the river Perdido; thence to the confluence of said
    last mentioned river, with the Gulf of Mexico; and thence, in
    a direct line through the middle of the Lakes Maurepas and
    Pontchartrain, to the junction of the Iberville with the river
    Mississippi, and up said river to the above-mentioned river
    Yazoo, into the Union of the United States, on an equal footing
    with the original States.


WEDNESDAY, December 18.

Mr. RHEA presented petitions from Louisiana Territory, in favor of the
second grade of Government.--Referred.

                        _Battle on the Wabash._

Mr. ORMSBY moved the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether
    any, and if any, what provision ought to be made by law for
    paying the officers and soldiers of the militia who served
    under Governor Harrison, in the late expedition against the
    Indians on the Wabash, to compensate them for the loss of
    horses, and for the relief of the widows and orphans of those
    who fell in the action of the seventh November last; and that
    they have leave to report by bill or otherwise.

The said resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. MCKEE moved the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to cause to be laid before this House such
    information as may be in the possession of the Government, and
    proper to be communicated, on the following points:

    1. Any evidence tending to show whether any and what agency the
    subjects, either public or private, of any foreign power, may
    have had in exciting the Indians on the Western frontier to
    hostility against the United States;

    2. The evidence of hostility towards the United States, on the
    part of the Shawanee Prophet and his adherents, anterior to
    the commencement of the late campaign against them, under the
    command of Governor Harrison;

    3. The orders and authority vested in Governor Harrison by the
    United States, under which the late expedition against the
    Indians was carried on; and such other information relating to
    the subject, as, in the opinion of the President, may be proper
    to be communicated to this House.

The resolution was read, and ordered to lie on the table.


THURSDAY, December 19.

                        _Battle of Tippecanoe._

A Message was received from the President of the United States,
transmitting two letters received from Governor Harrison, of the
Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars of the issue of the
expedition under his command on the Wabash. The Message and letters
were read, and referred to Mr. MCKEE, Mr. SEVIER, Mr. BRECKENRIDGE,
Mr. MORROW, Mr. ALSTON, Mr. LEFEVRE, and Mr. MAXWELL, to consider and
report thereon to the House.

                          _Foreign Relations._

The House resumed the consideration of the sixth resolution, reported
by the Committee of Foreign Relations, in the following words:

    "6. That it is expedient to permit our merchant vessels,
    owned exclusively by resident citizens, to arm, under proper
    regulations, to be prescribed by law, in self-defence, against
    all unlawful proceedings towards them on the high seas."

Mr. ARCHER.--The sixth resolution of the Committee of Foreign Relations
being now on its passage, I must express my sorrow that I am compelled
to obtrude my humble observations upon the fatigued patience of the
House, and the more exhausted patience of the nation. As I shall vote
against the resolution, I feel it to be my indispensable duty to detail
to the House the reasons by which my vote shall be actuated. Many
honorable members may, perhaps, conceive that it would be more proper
for me to reserve my remarks for the bill, when it shall be reported;
but, sir, I have ever held it to be my sacred duty to oppose, even in
its incipient state, every measure which may be hostile to the rights,
or dangerous to the interests of my country, lest, by not seeming to
oppose, my conduct should be construed into an encouragement of such a
measure.

For what purpose, sir, let me ask, have we adopted the resolution
preceding this? Was it for the purpose of destroying the Government?
Was it that the members of that Army should sheath their swords in
the bowels of the liberties of their country? Who will impute to this
body so disgraceful a motive? Are you about to raise a standing army,
not for the purpose of making preparations for war, but with a view
of intimidating Great Britain to recede from her unjust infractions
of our neutral rights? Do not think that she will be intimidated by
any preparations which you can make, however formidable they may be.
She knows, too well, your conduct heretofore, to believe you are in
earnest. She knows that, many years ago, you resolved to resist, but
that this honorable determination terminated in an empty resolution.
She knows, too well, that you have been, heretofore, prodigal in words,
and parsimonious in spirited action. I do not set myself up for a
prophet; but, mark me, if it be not true, that Great Britain will not
do you justice till you carry the war out of this hall into the heart
of her colonial territories.

Under the firmest conviction, then, as I am, that war between the
United States and Great Britain--if we have any respect for our honor
as a nation--will be an event of inevitable consequence, I have in
vain searched for the reasons which would induce us to authorize our
merchant vessels to arm against all unlawful molestations on the high
seas. As the resolution is, in its nature, general, every man must see,
on the contrary, the dangers necessarily attendant upon the adoption
of such a measure. You are now on the very verge of war, and you
should, therefore, be careful not to multiply your enemies. You may,
by passing this resolution, make France your enemy. You may enlist
Denmark and other powers of Europe against you. This is an event which
would be deeply deprecated; and, that it should happen, is nothing
improbable; for your merchants, armed as they will be, in defence of
their commerce, may select the nation who is to be your enemy. If they
are molested in their commerce, whether lawful or unlawful, they will
be disposed to resist. At any rate, they will be the judges of the
juncture when their interests may call for the interposition of force,
and will exercise that force according to their own whims and caprices.
They sail on the ocean clothed with national authority, and for their
actions, whether lawful or unlawful, you will be compelled to answer.
Sir, I respect the highly honorable occupation of a merchant, but am
not disposed to carry that respect so far as to give my sanction to
the adoption of a measure which may jeopardize the peace, and endanger
the interests of my country. If this resolution were to authorize an
arming against Great Britain alone, this argument would have no effect;
but as it has a view to a general arming against all nations, this
reasoning is conclusive on my mind, and must operate in the same way
upon all men who will give the subject a dispassionate consideration.
The consequences of such a measure are plain and obvious. Now, let
us examine whether there exists any reason sufficiently powerful to
outweigh these considerations.

What is the object, and the only one too, as stated by the honorable
chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. PORTER,) for the
adoption of this measure? Your vessels will be armed and prepared for
privateering the moment war shall be declared. Why, sir, do you think
the merchants will believe that you really intend to go to war? And, if
they doubt upon this subject, do you suppose they will be so regardless
of their own interests as to expend their capital in fitting out
privateers, when no absolute certainty exists that war is your object,
or your serious intention? It would, certainly, be an object of no
inconsiderable moment to have privateers prepared to harass and disturb
the commerce of Great Britain in the event of war. If this be your
object, you are taking a very improper course to obtain it. If such be
your object, take some decided and energetic step which will convince
even the incredulous that you will resort to the sword to obtain
justice, and your end will soon be effected. But, do not depress the
hopes of the nation by sanctioning this tame, imbecile, and temporizing
system.

What is the spirit that breathes in the five resolutions which have
been adopted--resolutions which were in entire accordance with my
feelings? Is it not a spirit of war? Do they not bear a hostile
aspect? Are they not calculated to induce Great Britain to believe
that forbearance on our part has terminated, and that we are resolved,
unless she speedily extend to us full and ample justice, to decide the
contest by the sword? Have you any thing to hope, by operating upon the
minds of the rulers of that nation, a conviction that you are boasting
no longer? If you do entertain such a hope, I pray you, do not adopt
this measure--a measure which will show her the fluctuation of our
opinions, and the repugnancy of our plans; a measure which will lull to
sleep her fears of war, and convince her not only of your indecision,
but of your timidity to unsheath your sword in defence of rights clear
and undisputed, and in avenging injuries too glaring for the dignity
and honor of a nation to submit to. Are the wishes of this nation to
be unattended to? Ought we not to relieve its anxieties? Or, are we to
tantalize their hopes with energy in one law and imbecility in another?
Are the merchants to be told we will protect their commerce? By what?
By granting them a right which nature has already given to them? Is
commerce to be protected by abridging the natural rights of the people?
Is this measure no abridgment of their rights? Does it not confine the
legality of arming to resident citizens alone? Look at the measure as
you please, it is a dead letter. Is this the period of all others to
be selected to incorporate unmeaning laws in the body of your statute
book? Do not satirize, by such an act, the manly sensibility of the
people. Do not paralyze the national arm. No; let us do justice to the
nation by the adoption of such measures as will renovate the depressed
spirits of our constituents; which will prevent them from falling into
that destructive and deadly languor which this resolution is calculated
to produce.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the whole
House on the state of the Union in their agreement to the said sixth
resolution, as reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations; and
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 97, nays 22.


SATURDAY, December 21.

                       _Statutes of Limitation._

Mr. GHOLSON, from the Committee of Claims, who were instructed by
a resolution of the House of the 11th ultimo, to inquire into the
expediency of repealing or suspending the various acts of limitation,
so far as they operate to bar the payment of certain descriptions of
claims, made a report thereon.--Referred to the Committee of the Whole
on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Rees Nanna
and others. The report is as follows:

    That they have bestowed on the resolution that full
    consideration to which it was entitled. They felt, on the one
    hand, sincere solicitude to devise some just and adequate
    method of satisfying the claims in question; while, on the
    other, they were forcibly struck with the unavoidable scenes
    of speculation and fraud which would ensue the repeal or
    suspension of any of the acts of limitation, whereby those
    claims are barred. If the old soldier, his widow, or his
    orphan, were alone to be benefited by such suspension, your
    committee would not hesitate to recommend it. Past experience,
    however, hath evidently shown that similar legislative
    indulgences have enured almost exclusively to the advantage of
    the unprincipled speculator, and those who avail themselves
    of the ignorance and subsist upon the misfortunes of others.
    We have innumerable examples of the truth of this position,
    in the consequences that resulted not only from the various
    suspensions of these acts which have hitherto taken place, but
    more especially from the adoption of the Funding System. It is
    deemed unnecessary to enlarge upon the consequences; they are
    too well known.

    Although a communication received from the Treasury at a
    former session holds out an opinion that there are in the
    possession of that Department sufficient checks and guards to
    protect the United States from imposition and fraud in the
    payment of a certain part of those claims, the committee are
    differently impressed. They have seen a transcript from the
    books of the Treasury, published to the world, exhibiting the
    names of a certain class of claimants; and to suppose that a
    facility of this kind, thus offered to speculative artifice and
    management, would not be seized upon and used by the speculator
    to impose upon Government, is to suppose a thing contrary to
    all experience. The committee feel themselves by no means able
    to draw a line of distinction between a just claim liquidated
    and a just one unliquidated; and to attempt the invidious
    task of distinction in point of merit, where there can be no
    difference, and to open the statutes of limitation in order to
    relieve a part or a few favorite classes of claims, does not
    comport, in the view of your committee, with any principle of
    fairness, or with that equal system of distributive justice
    which ought to be dispensed toward all. When they take a
    retrospective view of the subject, and find that most of those
    statutes were first passed in the times and under the patriot
    counsels of the old Congress, and that the more general one
    which took effect in 1794 was passed under the Administration
    of General Washington, who was himself the chief of soldiers
    as he was the chief of their patrons and friends in every
    station; but he was equally the friend of his country, and
    gave that act the sanction of his name, as founded, at least,
    in a policy of general justice and right, which the Government
    had been at length obliged to resort to and maintain in
    self-defence; that every Congress since has invariably adhered
    to the general policy of those laws; and, after the lapse of so
    many years, when the difficulty of doing justice has increased
    with the increase of time, and when a partial repeal would but
    tend to increase the discontent and dissatisfaction of every
    class of claimants which should remain unprovided for, the
    committee cannot, from any view they have been able to take
    of the subject, recommend the repeal or suspension of any of
    those statutes. They would, therefore, beg leave to submit the
    following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That it is not expedient to repeal or suspend any
    of the acts of limitation, whereby the aforesaid descriptions
    of claims are barred.[20]

The report was ordered to lie on the table.


MONDAY, December 23.

                 _Rules and Orders--Previous Question._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business of
Saturday. The amendment proposed by Mr. NELSON being again read, as
follows:

    "That when the previous question is ordered to be taken, upon
    the main question being put, every member, who has not already
    spoken, shall have liberty to speak once:"

Mr. GOLD said the amendment now offered to the rules of the House,
secures to every member the right of speaking at least once on every
question before the House. The liberty of speech, and freedom of
debate, are sacred by the constitution; and to refuse _all_ debate,
to deny us the privilege of speaking _at all_, on the most important
questions of peace and war, is a subversion of the first principles
of the constitution. And what is to justify this measure of imposing
silence? It is said, the right of debate has been abused. Let
gentlemen beware how, for an occasional _abuse of a right_, they _take
away--destroy the right itself_. What right, in the whole charter of
our rights, has not at some time been abused? Man is frail, and why
should not, at times of public agitation and concussion of parties,
abuses arise? debate become angry and be prolonged? And for this,
is the principle to be adopted, that the right shall be forever
suppressed and destroyed?--the principle that absolute silence shall
be imposed on a minority? Sir, Philip, the tyrant of Macedon, disliked
the freedom of speech and debate in Athens: it annoyed him; for this
cause, Demosthenes was pursued to the altar, where he expired. The
principle contended for by the majority (supposed abuse) will be found
to justify the most odious usurpations recorded in history; liberty is
abused, and chains are forged to restrain it.

Gentlemen of the majority insist, that the rule will not be abused;
that the majority will not execute the rule arbitrarily. The amendment,
now offered to the rules, stipulates only for liberty to each member to
speak once. Now, sir, if this be denied, and the rule is ever executed,
the abuse is inevitable, it is necessarily involved in the very
execution of the rule.

Neither the journals of our State Legislatures nor the laws of the
Parliament of Great Britain afford examples for thus arbitrarily
proceeding. Debate is admitted in the British Parliament on the
previous question; our rules exclude it on both the previous and main
question. Beside, sir, I need only refer gentlemen to the manual of
parliamentary law, from the hand of the third President of the United
States, to show that the previous question was confined to subjects
of delicacy, which a due regard to the interests of the State or its
Government forbade to be agitated. How much, sir, has this question
been perverted from its proper province, to silence all debate and
force the question, the passage of the law! Such measures are dangerous
to freedom, and afford, in evil times, the most fatal examples.

Mr. SMILIE said he was a friend to freedom of debate, but that there
was a difference between this, and that abuse of it when you cannot
get a decision without an exertion of physical strength. This has been
our case several times. The rule now proposed to be altered is the old
rule, and is only restored. We very well know, that a debate has been
often prolonged merely to prevent a decision. We have been kept till
ten and twelve o'clock at night, and sometimes till daylight. It is an
inconvenience which he at his time of life had seriously felt. There
can be no evil from the rule as now established. The responsibility of
the majority is such to the people, that, if they should abuse it, as
the minority have their privilege, the people will correct it, when the
minority shall fairly state it to them. He said the majority were also
responsible to the people to transact the public business.

Mr. STANFORD, in reply to Mr. SMILIE, said he did not think it
proper to give this dispensing power to the majority, if they by the
constitution did not possess it, as he contended they did not. He said
we have heard of a _sedition law_, and _the reign of terror_. The
bill, when first introduced for that law, went to prevent freedom of
speech. This rule, in his opinion, much more deserved the character of
a "_Gag-law_," than the Sedition law did.

Mr. WRIGHT mentioned the great abuses of this privilege of the
minority the last winter. He said, if we don't establish a written,
decent rule, we must have a common law rule, such as they have in the
British House of Commons, to shuffle and put down, when the abuse of
this privilege becomes enormous.

Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Speaker, I do not regard this question in the light
in which some of its advocates, as well as its opponents, have
considered it; as a mere contest for power between the majority and
the minority. It is of a higher character. It affects the essential
principles of civil liberty, and saps its hopes at its very foundation.
I rejoice that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NELSON) has limited his
proposition, so as to preclude any mistake concerning the object of
it. We are not now advocating an unrestrained privilege of debate. The
inquiry is, shall a main question ever be taken in this deliberative
body, until every member, who has not already spoken, shall have had
an opportunity, if he wishes to avail himself of it, to speak at least
_once upon the question_? The ground taken by those who oppose the
proposition, is that of necessity and convenience. These are the very
points, which, in a free country, ought most vigilantly to be guarded.
For it is here that the spirit of despotism always lies in ambush.
Under the cover of necessity, or convenience, it steals upon the
liberties of a people, and never fails, sooner or later, to make them
its prey.

It is not to be denied, that the subject is in some respects difficult
to manage, with any hope of convincing. There is a state of feeling,
both within this House and out of it, very unpropitious to an impartial
debate. In this House it is argued as a question concerning who shall
have the power, a majority, or a minority. And as it is agreed, on
all hands, that, in the exercise of the power, abuse may happen,
the present majority, like all other majorities, have a prevailing
inclination to reserve, in their own hands, the exclusive privilege of
abuse. And without doors, the subject is of less difficulty. For, of
late years, the popular ear has been so vexed with speech upon speech,
wind upon wind, the public patience has been so exhausted, in hunting
up the solitary grain of sense, hidden in the bushels of chaff, that it
is ready to submit to any limitation of a privilege, which subjects it
to so irksome a labor. The people are almost ready to exclaim, "do what
you will with the liberty of speech, provided you will save us from
that _fresh_ of words, with which we are periodically inundated."

Now, this is the very state of the public mind in which the corruption
of essential principles commences. Through apparent necessity, or
temporary convenience, or disgust at abuse, the popular sentiment is
made to acquiesce in the introduction of doctrines vitally inconsistent
with the perpetuity of liberty.

I ask the House to consider what is that principle of civil liberty,
which is amalgamated and identified with the very existence of a
legislative body. In what does it consist? And what is its character?
It consists in the right of deliberation. And its character is, that it
belongs not to the body, but the individual members constituting the
body. The body has the power to control and to regulate its exercise.
But it has not the power to take away that right altogether, by the
operation of any general principle. An individual member may render
himself unworthy of the privilege. He may be set down; he may be denied
the right, because he has abused it. But whenever a legislative body
assumes to itself the power of stopping, at its will, all debate, at
any stage of deliberation, it assumes a power wholly inconsistent with
the essential right of deliberation, and totally destructive of that
principle of civil liberty which exists, and is identified with the
exercise of that right.

The right of every individual member is, in fact, the right of his
constituents. He is but their Representative. It is in their majesty,
that he appears. It is their right that he reflects. The right of being
heard by their Representative is the _inherent_ and _absolute_ right
of the people. Now, it is in the essential character of such a right,
that it exists, independent, and in despite of any man, or body of men,
whatsoever. It is absurd to say, that any right is independent, which
depends upon the will of another. It is absurd to say, that any right
is absolute, which is wholly relative to the inclination of another;
which lasts only as long as he chooses, and terminates at his nod.
Now, whether this power be exercised by one, or many, it matters not.
The principle of civil liberty is gone, when the inherent and absolute
nature of the right is gone.

Apply this reasoning to the case before us. It is impossible to
conceal the fact, that as our rules and orders stand, independent
of the proposition now offered as an amendment, it is in the power
of a majority to preclude all debate, upon any question, and force
every member of the House to vote, upon any proposition, without
giving him the opportunity of explaining his own reasons, or stating
the interests of his constituents. This is undeniable. Is it not,
then, plain and conclusive, that, as our rules and orders now stand,
according to recent construction, every member of this House holds his
right of speaking, not on the principle of his constituents, whose
Representative he is, but upon the will of the majority of this House?
For that which another may at any time take away from me, I hold not
by my own right, but at his will. Can any thing be more obviously at
variance with the spirit of the constitution and the first principles
of civil liberty?

Let not any man say this power will not be abused. In the nature of
things it must be abused. This is the favorite argument of every
despotism, and, of course, will not fail to be urged when it is about
to plant itself in the very temple of liberty.

I have chosen to consider this subject in relation to the right of
the whole body, and of one of its individual members, rather than to
that of a majority and minority. The right to speak is an individual
right. Limit it as you please, consistent with a single exercise of
that right. But when this is taken away, or, which is precisely the
same thing so far as it respects the principle of civil liberty, when
it is in the power of one or many, at its sovereign will and pleasure,
to take it away, there is no longer any right. We have our tenure of
speech as the slave has his--at the will of a master.

But it is said that the Legislature must sometimes "act," and that
individuals, by an abuse of this liberty of speech, prevent the whole
body from "acting." All I say is, limit the exercise of the right as
you please, only do not assume to yourselves the power of taking away
the whole right, at your pleasure.

It is in this doctrine, of "the necessity of acting," that lies the
whole mystery of that error which we are now combating. Strictly
speaking, a Legislative body never "acts." Its province is to
deliberate and decide. "Action" is, alone, correctly attributable
to the Executive. And it will be found, that all the cases in which
this necessity of "action" has been urged, have been cases in which
the Legislative body has departed from its appropriate duties of
deliberation and decision, and descended to be an instrument, or
engine, of the Executive. I hesitate not to say, that this position may
be proved by almost every instance in which this necessity of action
has been urged. It was an Executive haste to its own purposes, which
prevailed upon the Legislative body to deny, to its own members, their
privileges.

It has been asserted, that "if this amendment passes, this will be the
only deliberative body in the world which cannot stop debate." On the
other hand I assert, that if this amendment does not pass, this will
be the only deliberative body in the world, pretending to be free, in
which it is in the power of a majority to force a decision, without
any deliberation. It is not true that, in the British Parliament, the
previous question stops debate and forces decision on the main question
without deliberation. The previous question there, if decided in the
negative, suppresses debate, by postponing the main question. And until
1807, the practice and rules of this House permitted debate of the main
question, after an affirmative decision of a previous question. Whoever
undertakes to examine the subject will find it as I have stated.

It is not true, that this power ever was, or ever can be _necessary_,
in a Legislative body. In every case in which the previous question,
according to recent construction, has been pressed upon the House,
it will be found that there was no _National or State necessity_ for
an immediate decision. That is to say, in every instance it will be
found, that it was of no sort of public importance whether the main
question were taken on this day, on the next, or on a third day. Always
the question might have been taken in a reasonable time; and every
individual member, who chose to speak, might have had the privilege, if
he pleased, of speaking, at least once. As far as I observed, all these
pretences of necessity have been easily resolvable into party cunning.
The subject was one difficult to maintain. It had popular bearings,
which it suited not the pleasure of the majority to have investigated.
They pressed the minority to instant decision, by refusing adjournment.
And as it happens in all such cases, reaction is equal to action. The
minority were put upon their mettle, and they put to trial the mettle
of the majority.

It is undoubtedly true, that this power may be sometimes convenient.
And this is the whole strength of the argument of those who oppose
this proposition. The weak and aged members of the majority have been
kept all night from their slumbers, by a hale and sturdy minority;
which slumbers they might, by the way, at any moment have enjoyed,
if that very majority had yielded the point of adjournment. And is
this reason of convenience sufficient, in the estimation of this
House, to justify it, in depriving this people, in the person of their
Representatives, of the essential right of speaking upon this floor?
Is this a justification for such an atrocious and exorbitant grasp at
power? Our patriotism, nowadays, can submit to no sacrifices. We are
not content with sleeping, if we please, every day in our seats, unless
we can sleep also every night of the session in our feather beds. And
these feather-bed patriots, as I understand, are all agog for a march
into Canada; and, if we believe them, are desirous of nothing so much
as showing how those can meet privation and watchfulness in the field,
who think of nothing but comfort and sleep upon this floor.

I know there is another argument urged in favor of the assumption of
this power by the majority, and that is, the haste and clatter which
always attend the end of a session. Let our session be long or short,
the event is, in this respect, always nearly the same. What with
speeches and postponements, and laying down one piece of business half
finished, and taking up another, the latter end of a session is a
political chaos. The work of this and the other House, and that of the
Palace into the bargain, is in fact sometimes to be washed up, in a
night--and the members of all branches are knee-deep and shoulder-deep
in the suds. Now, this shows the necessity, not of this unlimited
power of the previous question, but of conducting public business
with more prospective intelligence. The House is just like all other
spendthrifts. It first wastes what is its own, and then seeks how it
may make up its deficiency out of the property of other people. We
pillage the public liberty, in order to compensate for legislative
negligence.

I have often been puzzled to imagine a necessity, which could even
apologize for such an assumption of power as the majority, by this
new construction of the previous question, are attempting; and, until
lately, I did not believe that it could possibly exist. The only case,
in which there seemed to me to be an apology for resorting to it, was,
the other day, when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) threatened
to call the previous question upon the majority themselves. I admired
both his manner and the occasion on which he introduced that idea.
And really there was something like a necessity. If I understood the
view of that honorable gentleman, it was, that he thought there was
not fighting matter to spare in the stomachs of the majority; and he
threatened them with the previous question, lest, peradventure, the
whole war spirit should ooze away through the mouth. In this there was
both discretion and patriotism.

Mr. BRIGHAM said, that although he was forward in life, he was but
of yesterday of this House, and that the rules and orders were not
familiar with him. But he exceedingly regretted that this House, in
their wisdom, ever found it expedient or proper to adopt a rule to
deprive a minority, or an individual member of this House, of the
freedom of debate, the freedom of speech, a privilege so much boasted
of in this land of liberty. He observed that he had his rights in
common with the other members of the House, and that he had his
duties to perform. He was not ambitious to become a public speaker,
nor would he say that he supposed he could speak to the edification
or satisfaction of the House. But should he, on great questions,
be denied the privilege of speaking? Suppose the question of peace
or war should assume the aspect of solemnity, and it should become
necessary and important that this House be made acquainted with the
circumstances and disposition of the citizens of the several sections
of the country--and suppose a member who is not much accustomed to
speaking, silently sits until those gentlemen who are in the habit, and
are fond of speaking, shall have exhausted themselves in debate--shall
he, in that case, be denied the right of speaking--shall he be deprived
of his constitutional privileges and his constituents of the right of
representation on the floor of this House?

He said that he was bound by the oath of God to support the
constitution, and to promote the welfare of his country; but, if his
mouth is stopped, how can he execute his trust or perform his vows?
For this House by a rule to interdict the freedom of speech, is an
assumption of power, and a violation of right. He hoped, that the rule
under consideration would be modified, and that the proposed amendment
would be adopted. He wished that each individual member might be
permitted to exercise his right of speaking to any question before the
House, at least once, if he chooses.

Mr. NELSON spoke in favor of the amendment. He said he had no
hesitation in declaring, that whenever right and expediency shall
come in competition, that he should prefer right. He remarked,
that the constitution secured the freedom of speech to the citizen.
And are we, he asked, to be deprived of it when we come to this
House--when we enter this temple of liberty? The attempt is not
to suspend merely, but to destroy this right, and because we have
experienced some inconvenience from this exercise. He agreed with the
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. QUINCY,) that if the House would
do their duty, and get the business along in the early part of the
session, we should never be in the dilemma the House were in, the
last session of Congress; and that an inconvenience was a very poor
reason for destroying this right of offering our sentiments. He would
rather recommend the turning out of doors a member who should become
troublesome in speaking too long, than to suffer him to stay in the
House and prevent his uttering his sentiments. Even expulsion would not
be a greater infringement of his right. The right of the people is the
right of their Representatives to speak, deliberate, and decide. As to
the plea of necessity, he protested against it as the plea of tyrants.

Mr. ALSTON, of North Carolina, expressed his astonishment, that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NELSON) had assumed the ground he had. He
said, there were two parties in this House; and asked, is it ever known
how a question will be decided, until it is taken?

Mr. BASSETT said, if a stranger was present, and should hear this
debate, he would suppose that the question was now for the first time
brought forward for the establishment of the rule, against which so
much had been said, when it is well known that it has always been the
practice.

Mr. PITKIN said, the amendment now under consideration was proposed
in consequence of a decision of the House, at the close of the
last session, that when the previous question was decided in the
affirmative, there could be no debate on the main question; the
amendment, if adopted, allows a member, who has not previously spoken,
to speak at least once on the main question, before he is called upon
to give his vote upon it.

The principle adopted by the majority, during the last days of the last
session, and now supported in the House, is this, that a majority, who
may happen to be present, at any time, have it in their power, by means
of a previous question, as it is called, to prevent all debate on every
question before the House, however important it may be; to seal up the
lips of every member, and compel him to vote upon the question without
an opportunity of expressing his sentiments upon it, or explaining the
reasons of his vote. This, Mr. Speaker, is a principle to which I never
_have_, and to which I never _will_ give my assent. What, sir, let me
ask, and where is the rule under which the majority claim to exercise
this enormous power--the power of imposing silence upon any member, on
this floor?

The rule, under which this power is claimed, is in the following
words: "The _previous question_ shall be in this form: Shall the main
question be now put?" It shall only be admitted when demanded by five
members; and, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment and
further debate of the main question, and that "on a previous question
there shall be no debate." By a new construction, which a majority of
the House thought proper to give to this rule, at the close of the
last session, all debate may be prohibited on any question; for five
members alone can demand the previous question, and then, of course,
all debate must cease, until a decision be had on that question, and
if the previous question be decided in the affirmative, by this new
construction of the rule, there can be no debate or amendment of the
main question. Thus, sir, unless the amendment now proposed be adopted,
if a proposition for a declaration of war against Great Britain, or any
other nation, should be laid upon your table to-morrow, it will be in
the power of a majority of the House, and that majority may consist of
less than forty members, to impose silence upon every member of this
House; and we must be compelled to vote on a proposition so interesting
to the prosperity, happiness, and perhaps the final destiny of this
country, without the poor privilege (if we might choose so to do) of
raising our voices against it. But, sir, the opponents of the amendment
say, that the construction given to the rule the last session, was
in conformity with the universal practice of the House, from the
establishment of the Government, except in two or three instances.

I deny, sir, that this has been the practice, and I believe I may
venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that no such power
has ever been exercised over the members of this House, since its
organization, until the last session. I have, sir, examined the
journals, with some attention, and have not been able to find a
solitary instance of the kind. On the contrary, many cases are to be
found when the previous question has been decided in the affirmative,
and that, immediately after the main question has not only been
_amended_ but has been _debated_. And here, sir, permit me to observe,
that the rule itself, with respect to the previous question, was
adopted the first session of the First Congress, and has ever since
remained precisely in the same form; and no construction was ever given
to it, so as to prevent debate on the main question, until the last
session.

Permit me to refer the House to the Journal of the first session of
the Third Congress, for the proof of what I have stated. During this
session, the difficulties then subsisting between this country and
Great Britain, became the subject of discussion, and a proposition for
prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, in case justice was not
done us, was then submitted to the House, and the previous question
was called upon it, and decided in the affirmative, after which the
subject was not only postponed, but, as appears by the Journal, was
both _amended_ and _debated_. It appears also from the Journal in
1795, that a proposition was amended after an affirmative decision of
the previous question. In the year 1798, when a resolution was before
the House for publishing the instructions to, and the despatches from
our Ministers to the French Republic, the previous question was moved
and determined in the affirmative; and it appears by the Journal that
immediately after such decision, on the same day, debate was had on the
main question.

But, sir, to come to our own times: on the 15th of December, 1807, a
construction was given to the rule, after mature deliberation, by a
large majority of the House, that the main question might be debated,
after an affirmative decision of the previous question. This was done
on an appeal from the decision of the Speaker, "that after the previous
question is called for and determined in the affirmative, it precludes
all debate on the main question." The House reversed the decision of
the Chair by 103 to 14. A similar decision took place on the 2d of
December, 1803, in the House--101 to 18. And, sir, I have been unable
to find a single decision of the House to the contrary, from the first
organization of the Government until the close of the last session.
Indeed, sir, the words of the rule itself, show that the construction,
which had so long prevailed, was the only true construction which
could be given to it. The words are, and until it (viz: the previous
question) is decided, "shall preclude all amendment and further debate
on the main question." By which it is evident, that amendment and
debate of the main question is only _precluded_, until the previous
question is decided, but that after such decision, it was not precluded.

The gentleman from New York, (Mr. GOLD,) and the gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. NELSON,) have truly stated that the previous question
was taken from the rules of the British Parliament, and they have
likewise stated the reason of its introduction into that body. It was,
sir, to prevent debate in the House of Commons upon questions of a
_delicate nature_ with respect to high personages, &c. Yes, sir, it
was introduced there to enable the Ministry to prevent the _Commons_
from opening their lips on subjects relating to the Royal Family and
the great men of the realm. But, sir, we have gone further than the
Ministry and their majorities, despotic and tyrannical as they have
been, have ever dared to go in Parliament. For even there members
are now, and always have been, permitted to debate on the previous
question; but which members on this floor are not now permitted
to do. Mr. Speaker, the nature of our Government forbids that the
majority should have the power to prohibit all debate on questions
which may come before this House. We have not, as yet, I trust, any
high personages in this country about whom it would be indelicate or
improper for the members on this floor to speak; and let me ask what
subject of national importance can be proposed for adoption, on which
a member should be deprived of the privilege of speaking at least
once before he gives his vote? Nay, sir, let me ask gentlemen whether
this House has a right to compel me, or any other member, to vote on
any question, without giving me an opportunity of explaining my reason
for that vote. I deny, sir, that they have this right; as a member of
this body, I claim the privilege of delivering my sentiments, or what I
may consider the sentiments of my constituents, on any subject, before
I give my vote upon it. I claim it not, sir, for myself personally,
but I claim it in the capacity of a Representative of a free people,
sent here, not like a member of the French Council of Five Hundred,
for the purpose of voting merely, but for the purpose of deliberating
on subjects of high concern to their peace, their prosperity, their
happiness. For what, sir, are we assembled here under a constitution
the purest in the world? Is it not for the purpose of promoting "the
general welfare" of the nation which we represent? And how is this
to be done, except by a free communication of our sentiments to each
other, on the various plans which may be proposed for that object? The
peace, the honor, and interest of this country is confided to our care,
and while we are here deliberating on the best means of preserving
the one or securing and promoting the other, the constitution has
very wisely thrown around us a shield of complete indemnity--"for any
speech or debate in this House," we are "not to be questioned in any
other place." Will then the majority claim the right of depriving a
member of this privilege of speech, a privilege not only thus secured
to him by the constitution itself, but for the due exercise of which
he is not to be questioned elsewhere? But, sir, those who oppose the
amendment say that the construction is founded in necessity; that
individual members have abused the privilege of speech; that they have
heretofore, and probably will again, make long speeches merely for the
purpose of delay, and of embarrassing the proceedings of the House;
and that therefore the majority must have it in their power to stop
debate, whenever they think proper, and that this power will always be
exercised with a sound discretion.

I deny, sir, that any such necessity exists; it is a plea easily made,
but generally difficult and in this case impossible to be supported.
Why has it so happened that this necessity has never existed until
the last session of Congress? Was it then for the first time, that a
division of sentiment appeared on this floor? were parties never before
heard of in this country? Were not parties arrayed against each other
in 1796 on the subject of the British Treaty, and in 1798-'9, on the
question of a war with France? Were not the disputes in this House,
in those times, as long and as bitter as they have ever been since?
Those were times, which have been so often quoted in this House as
hard, and unconstitutional; times when the reign of terror prevailed,
when corrupt majorities, as has been often said on this floor, passed
alien and sedition laws. And, yet, sir, with all the political sins
which have been heaped upon those majorities, the sin of having taken
away the privilege of speech on this floor never has been, and as I
have proved from the journals, never can be laid to their charge. This
House, by the constitution, has the power to "determine the rules
of its proceedings;" and in making those rules, it has the right of
regulating, but not of entirely preventing debate.

It would indeed be a strange anomaly in politics, as well as in law,
that under a general power of making rules of proceeding, we should
make a rule to prevent all proceedings whatever. Gentlemen may as well
assume the power of preventing a member from voting, as they now do
that of preventing him from speaking. I am willing to agree, sir, that
the privilege of debate, on this floor, may have been and will again
be abused; that on particular subjects individual members have spoken
much longer than was necessary, and I may add, also, with much less
sense than a majority might have wished; and in some instances they may
have prolonged their speeches, merely for the purposes of delay. But,
sir, will you deprive a member of the right of speaking at all, because
he is unable to convey his ideas in few words, or because he may have
very few or no ideas to convey? Or because some may have spoken merely
to delay the proceedings of the House, will you make a general rule,
by which a member may be wholly deprived of the right of speaking? If
indeed, sir, evils do arise in consequence of the liberty of speech in
this house, if the business of the nation does not progress with as
much rapidity as in countries under the control of an individual; they
are evils which flow from the very nature of our Government, from that
freedom which we so highly prize, and from that very constitution which
we have sworn to support. So long as we are men we shall be imperfect,
we shall bring with us on this floor different views, different ideas
on political as well as on other subjects; and it would be strange
indeed if, on the various topics of national importance brought before
us for discussion, we should not at times come into strong collision
with each other.

The question on the amendment was determined in the negative--yeas 36,
nays 76.

Mr. STANFORD moved to amend the rules by adding to the end of the
paragraph relating to priority of business, the words "but no question
of consideration shall be required upon an original motion;" which was
also determined in the negative--yeas 30, nays 68.

On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS the said rules were amended by striking out
the word "five," in the paragraph prescribing the manner in which the
previous question shall be taken, and inserting the words "one-fifth of
the."

The question was then taken to concur in the said rules as amended, and
determined in the affirmative.[21]


FRIDAY, December 27.

Mr. NELSON presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the Territory
of Louisiana, praying that the second grade of Territorial government
may be extended to the inhabitants of said Territory.


MONDAY, December 30.

                   _Burning of the Richmond Theatre._

Soon after the Journal was read,

Mr. DAWSON rose and addressed the chair. The lowness of his voice,
owing to recent indisposition prevented his being heard distinctly; but
his observations were nearly as follows:

Mr. Speaker--Virginia, my parent State, has long to mourn the loss of
some of her most valuable sons and estimable daughters, who on the
night of the 26th of the present month, met their untimely end.[22]

Among those who perished in the flames, in the metropolis of that
State, on that sad night, were the Chief Magistrate of the State, and
a gentleman[23] well known to many of us, and who, for years, held
an honorable station in this House. Some of the most valuable and
prominent characters in their professions, and others who promised ere
long to be ornaments to their country. With these, sir, was the rising
offspring[24] of one of our present most valuable members, and many
other amiable and virtuous women who adorned and improved society.

These, sir, with many others, have fallen victims to that unrelenting
element, notwithstanding the bold and generous efforts which were made
to save them.

Their ashes are now mingled with the dust, and their spirits have
ascended to Heaven.

It is to us a great national calamity.

I well know, that on such occasions grief, although keen, is
unavailing--that the decrees of fate are irrevocable and ought to be
submitted to with humility. In order, however, to testify the respect
and sorrow which this nation feels for the deceased, and to prove that
we sympathize with the afflicted, without further comment on this
painful subject, I beg leave to offer the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the members of this House will wear crape
    on the left arm for one month, in testimony of the respect
    and sorrow which they feel for those unfortunate persons who
    perished in the fire in the city of Richmond, in Virginia, on
    the night of the 26th of the present month.

This resolution was unanimously adopted.


TUESDAY, January 7, 1812.

                       _Statute of Limitations._

On motion of Mr. GHOLSON, the House resolved itself into a committee,
on a report of the Committee of Claims on the subject of excepting
certain claims from the act of limitations. The report of the committee
being read, which concluded with a resolve that it is inexpedient to
open the act of limitations for the claims in question:

Mr. GHOLSON hoped the committee would not agree to this report.
Information had been received from the Treasury Department, stating
in a distinct and unequivocal manner, that all this description of
claims (which were all liquidated claims, such as indents of interest,
certificates, &c.,) might be allowed by the Government, without danger
of fraud or imposition; and, said Mr. G., if justice can be extended
to this description of claimants, without danger, why should it be
deferred? Only one solitary reason had been offered--that the persons
really entitled to these claims upon Government might not get the
money. He hoped this would not be sufficient to prevent Congress from
doing what was just on the occasion.

Mr. CLAY (the Speaker) hoped the committee would disagree to this
resolution. It appears that the officers of the Treasury are of
opinion that provision may be made for this description of claims
without that danger of fraud, which might possibly arise from a total
repeal of the statute of limitations; that their whole amount does not
exceed $300,000, and the probability is, that one-fifth will never
be applied for, should they be authorized to be paid. What, said Mr.
C, is this statute of limitations, which, whenever mentioned in this
House, seems to make everybody tremble? It is a general rule prescribed
by the Government for the direction of its accounting officers in
order to exclude unjust claims. What are statutes of limitation as
applicable to individual cases? A rule under which individuals claim
protection whenever they choose to do so, and when, from the lapse of
time, or loss of evidence, they would be injured, were they not to
take this advantage. But in these statutes of limitation there are
always exceptions in favor of cases of disability, infancy, coverture,
insanity, absence beyond sea, &c. But what is the course which an
individual would take who found himself protected by a statute of
limitation? He would examine the justice of the claim brought against
him; if the claim were just, if he had been deprived of no evidence
by the delay, if as able to pay it as if it had been presented at an
earlier day, he will not hesitate to discharge the claim, and scorn to
take advantage of the statute. And, said Mr. O., shall the Government
be less willing to discharge its just debts than an honest individual?
Shall we turn a deaf ear to the claims of individuals upon Government
because of this statute? He trusted not. The Committee of Claims ought
to examine the merit of every claim which comes before it, and if
it be just, decide in its favor. But what, said Mr. C, has been the
history of claims for four or five years past? When a solitary claim
was presented the House would say, we cannot legislate upon individual
cases. They occupy too much of our time. The claim is put aside. The
same individual some time after, appears in company with others. We
then say there are too many of these claims--their amount is too
large, and the Treasury too poor--that there are a great many other
claims equally well founded--that justice cannot be done to them all.
Sometimes there is a division between the two Houses. This House passes
a bill in favor of some particular claim--the other tells you they
will not legislate for particular cases; that if they act, they wish
to take up the subject generally. Mr. C. said it was his wish, both in
his public and private character, as far as possible, to do justice; he
therefore hoped the course proposed by the Chairman of the Committee of
Claims would be agreed to.

The resolution recommended by the report was negatived, 54 to 31: and
a resolution offered by Mr. GOLD, recommending a provision by law for
these claims, after some objections from Mr. ALSTON, was agreed to, 39
to 36.


WEDNESDAY, January 8.

                        _Battle of Tippecanoe._

Mr. MCKEE, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred
the Message of the President, transmitting two letters from Governor
Harrison, reporting the particulars and issue of the expedition under
his command against the hostile Indians on the Wabash River, and
the memorials of the Legislature of the Indiana Territory, and the
officers and soldiers who served in the said expedition, presented
the twenty-fourth ultimo, made a report thereon; which was read and
committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. The report is as
follows:

    The committee to whom was referred the Message of the President
    of the United States, transmitting two letters from Governor
    Harrison, of the Indiana Territory, reporting the particulars
    and the issue of the expedition under his command against the
    hostile Indians on the Wabash, and to whom was also referred
    the memorial of the General Assembly of the Indiana Territory,
    and the memorial of the officers and soldiers of the militia of
    Knox county, in the Indiana Territory, who served in the late
    campaign under the command of Governor Harrison, report:

    That they have had the several matters to them referred under
    their consideration, and have given to them that attention
    which their importance seems to merit.

    It appears to the committee, that the troops under the command
    of Governor Harrison may very properly be termed _raw troops_:
    very few of the officers, and almost none of the men, had
    ever been in actual service; and a considerable portion of
    them had been only a few weeks withdrawn from the pursuits of
    civil life. The attack made on this quickly-assembled army by
    the hostile Indians on the Wabash, when viewed, either as it
    relates to the nature of the enemy, the time, or the violence
    with which the attack was made, cannot but be considered of
    such a character as would have severely tested the collected
    firmness of the most able and experienced troops. This attack,
    violent and unexpected as it seems to have been, was repelled
    by the troops under the command of Governor Harrison, with a
    gallantry and good conduct worthy of future imitation. The
    whole transaction, in the opinion of the committee, presents to
    the American people a new proof that the dauntless spirit of
    our ancestors, by whom the war of the Revolution was so ably
    and successfully maintained, has not been diminished by more
    than thirty years of almost uninterrupted peace, but that it
    has been handed down, unimpaired, to their posterity.

    In estimating the claims of the army on the Government of the
    United States, it is worthy of remark, that the nature of the
    country, as well as of the enemy to be encountered, subjected
    the army to many extreme hardships, and equal dangers, where
    every thing was hazarded, and but little could be gained,
    except the regard of their country.

    The volunteers and militia (to whose claims the memorials
    referred to the committee particularly relate) were in actual
    service but a short time, for which alone they are entitled
    to pay by law; the compensation, therefore, to which they are
    entitled, is not at all commensurate to the services rendered,
    and the dangers incurred. Besides, many of the officers and men
    who fell, or were wounded, in the battle of the 7th November,
    1811, were purchasers of the public lands, for which they were
    indebted to the United States; which debt falls due in a short
    time, and the penalty of forfeiture will be incurred if the
    debt is not paid. It would be unjust to inflict a penalty so
    severe on the disconsolate widows and orphans of those officers
    and soldiers of the volunteers and militia, who, in common with
    their brother officers and soldiers of the regular troops, fell
    in their country's cause, in a manner so distinguished, that
    nothing was wanting but a great occasion, interesting to the
    feelings of the American people, to have crowned their names
    with unfading laurels.

    As an evidence, therefore, of the regard due to the bravery and
    ability displayed by the troops under the command of Governor
    Harrison, in the battle of the 7th November, 1811, as well as
    to relieve the representatives of those who were killed in
    the action, from the pecuniary losses incurred in consequence
    thereof, the committee respectfully submit the following
    resolutions:

    1. _Resolved_, That one month's pay ought to be allowed, in
    addition to the common allowance, to the officers, (according
    to the rank which they held,) the non-commissioned officers and
    privates of the regulars, volunteers, and militia, and to the
    legal representatives of those who were killed or have since
    died of their wounds, composing the army under the command of
    Gov. Harrison, in the late campaign on the Wabash.

    2. _Resolved_, That five years' half-pay ought to be allowed
    to the legal representatives of the officers, (according to
    the rank which they held,) the non-commissioned officers, and
    privates, of the volunteers and militia who were killed in the
    battle of the 7th November, 1811, or who have since died of
    their wounds.

    3. _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law to place
    on the pension list the officers, (according to the rank which
    they held,) the non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, of the
    volunteers and militia who served in the late campaign on the
    Wabash, under the command of Governor Harrison, and who have
    been wounded or disabled in the said campaign.

    4. _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law to pay
    for the horses and other property of individuals lost in, or in
    consequence of, the said battle.

    5. _Resolved_, That the further time of ---- years ought to be
    allowed to the officers and soldiers who were wounded, and to
    the legal representatives of those who were killed, in the said
    battle, to complete the payments due or which may fall due to
    the United States on any purchases of the public lands made by
    them before the said battle.


THURSDAY, January 9.

                    _Ursuline Nuns at New Orleans._

The petition which the Speaker laid before the House yesterday, from
the Ursuline nuns at New Orleans, was enclosed to him and recommended
by Governor Claiborne. It prayed for an exchange of the military
hospital for some lots which they hold in that city better calculated
for a hospital. After the petition was read,

Mr. DAWSON observed that he had received a letter from Governor
Claiborne relative to that petition, and in confirmation of the facts
therein stated. This community of nuns is a most respectable and useful
member of society, the whole of their temporal cares being directed
to the education of female youth. They are that community which some
years ago presented a most elegant address to the then President of the
United States, and received from him an equally elegant answer.

I am well assured that the lots which they wish to exchange are more
valuable, and better suited for the erection of a hospital than those
on which the hospital now stands. I therefore move that the petition
and accompanying papers be referred to a select committee, who will no
doubt converse with the Secretary of War on the subject.

This was agreed to, and Mr. DAWSON, Mr. LOWNDES, and Mr. MACON, were
appointed the committee.


FRIDAY, January 17.

                     _Quartermaster's Department._

The bill from the Senate "for the establishment of a Quartermaster's
Department" came up on its third reading.

Mr. ALSTON said, if the House would pay attention to the duty of the
Purveyor of Public Supplies, and examine the powers given to the
Quartermaster General in this bill, it would appear evident that there
was no necessity for both offices, and it certainly was not the wish of
the House to erect two great departments to perform the same duties.
He could perceive no way in which one officer was to be a check upon
the other. He liked the bill as it came from the Senate better than as
amended, as he saw no necessity for retaining the office of Purveyor.

Mr. TALLMADGE observed, that the great object of this bill, and the
only one which made it necessary, was to provide for a Quartermaster
General's Department, instead of military agents, as employed at
present. There never was such an officer in the staff department in
the Revolutionary war. The late Secretary of War, as well as the
present, were in favor of this change. The military agents, without
much responsibility, had nearly controlled the whole War Department.
An attempt was made two years ago to effect this change, but it then
failed. The office of Purveyor of Public Supplies was instituted
long before that of Military Agent. The duties of the Quartermaster
General and Purveyor are very different. The former is a highly
respectable and confidential officer; he is next in consequence to
the Commander-in-chief, with whom he has frequent communication.
Every movement of the Army is first communicated to him. He ought to
be a military character. It is his duty to receive and deliver out
the necessary supplies for the Army, and to attend to its movements.
The duties of the Purveyor is to purchase, under the direction of the
Secretary of the Treasury, arms, clothing, hospital stores, and every
other article necessary for the Army. So that there is not the least
similarity between the two officers; one being the purchasing, the
other the distributing officer. If the office of Purveyor were to be
done away, the Quartermaster General would have to employ a deputy or
agent to make these purchases, which would be putting too much in the
power of a subordinate officer, and would do away that check which will
exist if the Purveyor be continued, as the purchaser and distributor
of the supplies would be in the same person. The Purveyor is also the
purchaser of goods for the Indian department.

Mr. WILLIAMS rose to prevent any person from falling into the mistake
which the gentleman from North Carolina appeared to have done, by
making remarks applicable to the printed bill (a part of which had been
struck out and other parts amended) instead of the bill read from the
Chair. He deemed it unnecessary to add any thing in reply to what had
been so well said by the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. ALSTON said he had attended to the bill as read, and not to the
printed bill; and insisted that, from the provisions of the bill,
the Secretary of War might direct the Purveyor and Quartermaster to
purchase the same articles. If the bill was what the gentleman from
Connecticut had stated it to be, he should not have objected to it; but
it was not.

Mr. QUINCY had doubts whether both these officers were necessary.
There was no such officer as Purveyor of Public Supplies during the
Revolutionary war. If it were found hereafter that another besides
the Quartermaster General was necessary, he could be appointed. There
ought certainly to be a responsibility attached to the purchase of
supplies, and this might be placed in the Head of the War Department or
Quartermaster General. He had not sufficient light on the subject, to
say that both these officers are necessary. He was in favor of the bill
as it came from the Senate.

Mr. BLOUNT said, that though there was not a Purveyor of Public
Supplies during the Revolutionary war, there was a Clothier, who did
much the same business. If we are going to war, said Mr. B., he did not
see how we could do without a Quartermaster General; and it would be
improper for him to become the purchaser of supplies, which it is the
duty of the Purveyor to purchase, because, as had already been stated,
there would be no check in the business. There must be propriety in
keeping the offices distinct.

Mr. MACON observed, it was impossible to go to war without a
Quartermaster General; for there is no man has so much to do about an
army as this officer. There was always more difficulty in settling the
Quartermaster General's accounts than any other. The only instance
in which a Quartermaster General has to purchase supplies, is when,
by some miscarriage or accident, the supplies from the Commissary or
Purveyor do not arrive in season. It is necessary that such a power
should be vested in this officer, to be used on such extraordinary
occasions. As had been stated by his colleague, though there was no
Purveyor during the Revolution, there were clothiers or agents employed
in different situations, which answered the purpose. The qualifications
necessary for the Quartermaster General and Purveyor are very
different; the one ought to be a soldier, the other a merchant.

The bill passed by a large majority.

                         _Naval Establishment._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
concerning the Naval Establishment.

Mr. CHEVES, the Chairman of the Navy Committee, moved to fill the
blank in the first section of the bill with "four hundred and eighty
thousand dollars," and said he believed it to be his duty at this time,
to disclose to the Committee of the Whole the views and motives of the
select committee in reporting the bill. Mr. C. said, I consider this
subject as one of the most important that can be brought before this
House; as a great question, involving, to a considerable extent, the
fate of a species of national defence the most essential and necessary
to the interests of this country. I know, said Mr. C., how many and how
strong are the prejudices, how numerous and how deeply laid are the
errors which I have to encounter in the discussion of this question;
errors and prejudices the more formidable, as they come recommended
by the virtues, and shielded by the estimable motives of those who
indulged them. I have been told that this subject is unpopular, and it
has been not indistinctly hinted, that those who become the zealous
advocates of the bill will not advance by their exertions the personal
estimation in which they may be held by their political associates. I
will not do my political friends the injustice to believe that these
exertions will diminish their confidence; but, could I think otherwise,
I hope I shall never be diverted from a faithful discharge of my
duty by considerations of this kind. I wish to lead no man, and I am
determined not to be blindly led by any man. In acting with a party,
I do so, because I adopt their leading principles and politics as
the best, and because I believe, from the nature of free Government,
it is necessary so to act to give efficiency to the exertions of any
individual; but I do not feel myself, therefore, bound to renounce
my deliberate opinions on all the great interests of the nation, or
to take no independent part in the exertions of the party to which I
belong. I sincerely believe that, if this infant Naval Establishment
be either abandoned or put down, the party who now form the majority
in this House, and in the country, may run great risk of becoming the
minority, not only within these walls, but in the nation.

It has been said, by a strong and lively figure of rhetoric, that
this country is a great land animal, which should not venture into
the water. But if you look at its broad high back, the Alleghanies,
and its great sides swelling to the east and to the west, where do
you find its immense limbs terminate? Not on some great plain which
has been formed for their reception, but in two great oceans, the
Pacific on the one side, and the Atlantic on the other. The figure
explains the true interests of the country, in the inseparable union
and necessary dependence of agriculture and commerce. The God of Nature
did not give to the United States a coast of two thousand miles in
extent, not to be used. No; it was intended by this bounty to make
us a great commercial people; and shall we ungratefully reject the
enjoyment of his unexampled beneficence? No, it has not and will
not be neglected. A great portion of our people exist but upon the
ocean and its fruits. It has been eloquently, and not less truly
than eloquently, said, that "the ocean is their farm," and it must
and will be protected. But how is this protection to be afforded? I
will endeavor to prove that it can be done, and done most cheaply and
effectually by a naval force; and if I succeed in this, I shall hope
for the concurrence of the committee. No proposition appears to me more
true or more obvious, than that it is only by a naval force that our
commerce and our neutral rights on the ocean can be protected. We are
now going to war for the protection of these rights; but in what way,
and under what circumstances? The mode is altogether accidental, and
not founded on the permanent relations or means of the country. It is
not my intention to condemn the course which has been taken. It has
had my hearty concurrence, and my zealous, though feeble, support. I
hope it may be altogether effectual; and I believe it will inflict a
wound which will be felt with poignancy. But it is, notwithstanding,
partial and accidental; for, if Great Britain had not the Canadas on
our borders, how could we attack or resist her, armed as we are? If we
possess ourselves of the Canadas, and this we shall certainly do in the
event of war, how and where shall we then continue the war without a
naval force? We shall suffer the evils of war, without inflicting any
of them on the enemy. We cannot send our regulars or our volunteers
on the ocean. Does it not then result, inevitably, as the dictate of
common prudence, that we should, as soon as possible, commence our
naval preparations? The Naval Establishment of the United States has
been heretofore so much neglected, that it is at present in a state
of lamentable depression; and the question now is, whether we will
suffer it to go down entirely, or attempt to raise it up to some degree
of respectability. Some gentlemen say, "if you had asked for no more
than the reparation of the frigates in ordinary, we might have granted
your request." But, for myself, I would not thank any gentleman for
this concession. The select committee conceived it to be their duty to
bring the question fully before the House in the shape in which they
have exposed it. Not to ask merely what it would do to assist by naval
co-operation, in the first efforts of the contemplated struggle, but
principally what it would do towards establishing and perpetuating a
respectable naval force for the protection of those important rights of
the people, which are, and must continue, exposed upon the ocean. Their
determination was plainly, candidly, and boldly to speak to the House,
and through it to the nation, on this great question, and leave its
fate to the wisdom of the one and the good sense of the other.

That a respectable Naval Establishment affords the only effectual means
of causing our commercial rights to be respected, will, as a general
proposition, be denied by few persons, if any. But its adoption by
us is deemed improper by those who oppose it, on the grounds of the
enormous expense which, it is said, the establishment will necessitate,
and the inability of the nation, by any force which it can provide,
to resist, with effect, the immense naval power of Great Britain. Is
it not surprising that so much prejudice should exist against this
establishment on account of its expensiveness, when it is ascertained
that, during the whole eighteen years of its existence, from 1794 to
1811, inclusive, it has cost the Government only $27,175,695? I am
afraid I shall be tedious, because the only way in which I hope to
bring conviction home to the minds of the House, is by entering, with
minuteness and precision, into a dry detail of figures and statements;
but the necessity of the case must be my apology for the course which I
shall take. If the House shall have full confidence in my statements,
much will be gained to the argument; for it will be difficult, if not
impossible, for the hearer to follow me through an examination of these
details, as the argument proceeds. For this confidence, therefore, I
will venture to hope. I believe the statements on which I rely to be
accurate, as far as accuracy is material to the discussion. I will
state them with candor, and, when I have concluded, I will put them
into the hands of gentlemen who may wish to examine them for their
own satisfaction, or to refute them. The average annual expense of
this establishment, so much censured for its wasteful and improvident
management, has but little exceeded $1,500,000, which is not much
more than twice the amount of the usual annual appropriation for our
economical Civil List. It has been generally supposed that it has
been much more expensive than the Military Establishment, but I will
show that this is not really the case. The expense of the Military
Establishment, from 1791 to 1811, inclusive, has been $37,541,669,
giving an annual average of $1,700,000, or $200,000 per annum more
than that of the Navy. It thus appears that, in the gross amount, as
well as in the annual expenditure, the Army has been more expensive
than the Navy. Compare, too, the services of the Army with those of
the Navy, and it will be found that those of the latter have been
most useful and most honorable to the nation. I know of no service
of this character which the Army has performed, except the defeat
of the Indians by General Wayne, and the late gallant affair on the
Wabash. The Navy, in the contest with France in 1798, were victorious
wherever it encountered an enemy, and probably laid the foundation of
the subsequent accommodation with that nation. In the Mediterranean,
its exploits gave a name to the country throughout Europe; humbled,
in an unexampled manner, the piratical and barbarous foe, and crowned
itself with a reputation for intrepidity and heroism, which had not
been exceeded by the exploits of any nation, and which must go down
to a distant posterity. I mean not, by this comparison, to say any
thing injurious to the Army, but only to declare that preference
to which I think the naval services of the country are entitled.
Admitting, if it be desired, that the Navy has heretofore occasioned
an expense not warranted by its force or its services; and I cannot
deny but that, from a variety of causes, the expense may have been
unnecessarily great; an argument cannot thence be fairly drawn against
its future use--the contrary is the fair conclusion. Past errors
lay the foundation of future improvement. It was thus the greatest
orator, and one of the greatest statesmen of antiquity, reasoned. The
great Athenian orator, when rousing his countrymen, by his impetuous
eloquence, to resist the ambition of Philip, declared that it was on
their past misconduct that he built his highest hopes; for, said he,
"were we thus distressed, in spite of every vigorous effort which the
honor of our State demanded, there were then no hope of recovery." So
may we reason in this case; for had these extraordinary expenses been
the result of good economy, then, indeed, would their diminution be
hopeless; but, as they have proceeded from a wasteful or unskilful
expenditure, the remedy will be found in a reform of the abuse; to
effect this reform, is the duty of Congress. But it has not only been
less expensive than the Army, but it may be proved, as the committee
have declared in their report, that "a naval force within due limits
and under proper regulations, will constitute the cheapest defence
of the nation." This will be partly proved by a comparison between
the expense of the permanent fortifications of our maritime frontier
and that of an adequate naval defence. The experience of modern naval
warfare has proved that no fortifications can prevent the passage of
ships of war. The present fortifications of our maritime frontier,
though they are more numerous and better than they have been at
any other period in our history, cannot prevent an inconsiderable
naval force from laying many of our towns in ashes. Indeed, it is
believed that no fortifications which can be erected will afford a
complete protection against such attacks, while their expense would be
oppressive to the nation. The city of New York alone, if completely
fortified, would require a further expenditure of three millions of
dollars, and a garrison of ten thousand men, and then might be laid
in ashes by four or five seventy-fours. But we have a coast of two
thousand miles to protect, the expense of which could not be borne by
the nation. A better defence would be furnished by such a naval force
as would give you a mastery in the American seas, and at home much less
expense.

The superior cheapness of naval defence seems to me to be
satisfactorily established, and I am next to prove that the force
proposed--I mean twelve seventy-fours and twenty frigates--are
sufficient to protect us in our own seas, and defend our ports and
harbors against the naval power of Great Britain. The first evidence
that is offered in support of this proposition, is the opinion of
naval men; and if the representations of any man may be relied upon
with confidence, so far, at least, as that they are not founded in
deception, I believe those of a sailor may be. By naval men, I have
been assured that this force is adequate to the object proposed. It
is impossible for me to state with accuracy, or in a manner calculated
to give a due impression of them, all the reasons which they offer in
support of their opinion, but among them are those detailed in the
report of the select committee. Indeed, they advance the opinion, and
support it with reasons, the error of which, if they be erroneous, I am
unable to discover, that it will require the enemy to employ a triple
force to put himself on a footing of equality with that of the United
States. Their reasons are, as nearly as I can state them, these: there
must be stationed on our coast, at any given time, an equal force;
this force cannot be fitted out, unless with great disadvantage to the
service in point of expense, and in respect to the health of the crew,
for much more than three months' service. An equal force must be put
in requisition and kept in readiness to relieve that on the station.
But, as all the equipments of the enemy must be made in Europe, the
force destined to relieve the first must be despatched by the time the
first may be supposed to have arrived on our coast, because it will
be necessary, at a period as early as the arrival of the second, for
the first to return; but the first could not proceed to Europe, be
equipped, and return to relieve the second in time; and therefore a
third equivalent force is necessary, and thus three times the force
of the United States must be employed by the enemy to place himself
on a footing of equality with it. History may be resorted to, with
confidence, to prove that neither Great Britain, nor any other nation,
has ever been able to station, for any length of time, in distant seas,
a force equal to that which, in the opinion of naval men, is sufficient
to accomplish the objects proposed by the committee--the dominion of
the American seas, and the defence of our ports and harbors. There
is one fact which, above all others, shows the inability of Great
Britain to keep a large fleet on our coast. From the frozen regions
of the North to the Isthmus of Darien, she has not a port fit for
naval equipment or repair, except Halifax; and if, as the opponents
of the Navy seem to think certain, and I hope their opinions may be
realized, we shall, in the event of war, deprive her of that, she will
be without the means of repairing a disabled vessel in our seas. Under
such circumstances, any thing but temporary service would be utterly
impracticable.

But, said Mr. C., on the subject of the British naval force, there
is great misconception. The high-sounding number of a thousand ships
appals the mind, and an examination of its actual force, and the
numerous requisitions which are made upon it, is usually rejected as
an idle labor. Let this examination be made, and at least some part
of the terror which it excites will vanish. Of the eight hundred and
thirty-three ships which Great Britain had in commission in 1801,
and she never had more, it is believed there were only three hundred
and eighty-three that exceeded the size and capacity of the large
privateers that will probably be fitted out by the citizens of the
United States, in the event of war. Of this last number, there were
one hundred and forty-two of sixty-four guns, and above; twenty-two
between fifty and sixty guns; one hundred and fifty-six between
thirty-two and forty-four; and sixty-three between twenty and thirty
guns. The remainder of the vessels in commission consisted of one
hundred and seventy-four sloops, one hundred and forty-one gun-vessels,
and one hundred and thirty hired vessels. These hired vessels are
small vessels, of from four to ten guns, which, it is believed, are
only employed for revenue purposes. This review and enumeration, I
have no doubt, proves the actual force of the navy of Great Britain,
however great it really is, to be much inferior to the impression
almost universally received, from the high-sounding boast of her
thousand ships. Nor has the actual force of the British navy been more
misconceived than the application of it. The common impression is,
that the Government can direct to any given point almost an unlimited
number of ships. But if this delusive impression be removed, it will be
found that, notwithstanding the greatness of the force, the points to
which it must be destined are so numerous and dispersed as to put it
all in requisition. This I will prove by reference to the distribution
of her fleets in 1801. [Here Mr. C. read a statement of the force
and distribution of the British fleet at that time.] From which of
these stations, said Mr. C., could she have spared, with safety and
prudence, a portion of the force employed? Could she, from all, have
stationed and continued in our seas a force which would have been
equal, under the disadvantages which have been pointed out, to twelve
seventy-fours and twenty frigates? How much less would she have been
able to have furnished a force which would be superior to a naval
armament whose expense should equal that of the military preparations
of the present year? But it may be said, that the ships which Great
Britain has in ordinary would be more than equal to any increase which
any circumstances would require. This might be true, were her seamen
unlimited in numbers, and her pecuniary resources inexhaustible; but
both are limited, and so must be her naval armament. To fit out vessels
which she has in ordinary, would require, within a few thousand, all
the seamen in her merchant service, and such an addition to her annual
expenditure, as the nation neither would nor could bear. The true
object of inquiry to ascertain her efficient power is, what number
of vessels is she practically able to keep in commission, and the
answer may be received in a shape the most unfavorable to my argument,
yet confirmatory of it, in the example of 1801, the year which I
have selected for illustration, when it is confidently believed her
equipment was greater, combining force and numbers, than at any other
period of her history.

But, while it is contended by some that it will not be in the power
of the nation to establish an effective naval force, there are others
who are opposed to it, lest we become too great a naval power. They
fear that our fleets will cover the ocean, and seeking victory on all
the opposite shores of the Atlantic, involve the nation in oppressive
expenses, and in wanton and habitual wars. Such objects are certainly
not contemplated by the report of the committee; nor can such events
possibly happen, as long as we remain a free people. The committee have
recommended such a navy as will give to the United States an ascendency
in the American seas, and protect their ports and harbors. The people
will never bear the establishment of a greater force than these objects
require. The reasons which forbid Great Britain, or any other European
power, to station large fleets on our seas, will equally forbid us
to cross the Atlantic, or go into distant seas, for the purpose of
frequent or habitual wars.

But a navy is said to be anti-republican, because it was opposed by the
Republicans in 1798. I apprehend, however, that it was then objected
to, not because it was anti-republican in itself, but because the
Republicans of that time believed it was to be employed for improper
objects; because, while it was unnecessary at the time, it was of
such a nature as only fitted it for the time, because it was part of
a system which embraced unnecessary armies and unnecessary taxes and
loans, to continue a war beyond the just objects of war--a war which,
to use the language of the day, was to be waged by every man, woman,
and child, in the nation, to which we are opposed.

We are told, also, that navies have ruined every nation that has
employed them; and England, and Holland, and Venice, and other nations,
have been mentioned as examples. The vast debt of Great Britain is
declared to be among the pernicious fruits of her Naval Establishment.
This I deny. Her debt has grown out of her profuse subsidies, and her
absurd wars on the land. Though the ruin, which is supposed to threaten
England, is attributed to her navy, it is obvious that her navy alone
has saved and still saves her from ruin. Without it she must, long
since, have yielded to the power of France her independence and her
liberties. We are told that the same wealth which she has expended in
supporting her navies would have been employed more profitably for the
nation in the improvement of its agriculture and manufactures, and in
the establishment of canals and roads, and other internal improvements.
But experience is better than theory. Let us compare England with
nations which have no navies, or comparatively inconsiderable navies.
The nations of the Continent of Europe are without such overgrown
and ruinous Naval Establishments, but do you there find the highest
improvements in agriculture, the most flourishing manufactures, or the
best roads and canals? No, it is in this nation, that has been ruined
by her navy, that you find all these improvements most perfect and
most extended. I mean not either to be the panegyrist of England; but
these truths may be declared for our instruction, without suppressing
the feelings excited by the wrongs she has done us. England has not,
then, I conclude, been destroyed or impoverished, but preserved and
enriched, by her navy. Was Holland ruined by her navy? No; surrounded
by the great powers of the continent, with a population not exceeding
2,000,000 of souls, she protected and secured her independence for
more than a century, against her powerful neighbors, by means of her
commercial riches, which were cherished and defended by her naval
power. Did Venice owe her decline, or fall, to her navy? While the
neighboring Italian States were subdued, year after year changing their
masters and their tyrants, she long continued to ride triumphantly
amidst the storm, independent, and, in a great degree, free. It was her
naval and commercial power which made her rich and great, and secured
her existence as a State so long. Look even at the little Republic of
Genoa, whose inhabitants, but for its commerce and its navy, would
scarcely ever have possessed "a local habitation," or "a name!" But
I must have exhausted the patience of the House, I will therefore
conclude the observations which I proposed to make on the general
merits of the question.


SATURDAY, January 18.

                         _Naval Establishment._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
Navy bill; when Mr. CHEVES finished his speech in favor of the bill, as
given in full in preceding pages.

Mr. SEYBERT.--I rise under a pressure of more than ordinary
embarrassment--prudence on one hand bids me shrink from the task which
I am about to undertake; whilst on the other hand, a conscious duty
impels me to engage in the consideration of the question now before
the honorable committee. My friend from South Carolina (Mr. CHEVES)
says this question is all important to this nation; in this I perfectly
coincide with him, and therefore cannot rest satisfied with a mere vote
on this occasion. Sir, it is not my intention to follow the gentleman
from South Carolina through all the windings of the labyrinth into
which he has ventured to penetrate. I will not pretend to chase reason
on the wing.

I will not particularly follow the gentleman in his comparison of the
Army and Naval Establishments of the United States. He has stated to
us that the Army has cost this nation much more than the Navy; he
concludes we ought to be equally liberal in our appropriations for
both these purposes. Sir, I perceive no reason in this assertion. Some
gentlemen on the other side of the House may say, that we have been
lavish in our appropriations for an army; even admitting that in this
respect we have been liberal to extravagance, it surely cannot be
inferred that we should make ourselves doubly guilty of this charge.
I will agree to make appropriations for the establishing a navy for
the United States. The gentleman from South Carolina has told us, that
when the war which we are about to wage, shall be over, our Army will
leave us. Sir, I am happy to hear that on such an event the military
will be readily disbanded--a dread of the contrary gave much uneasiness
to many a few days since--this is just what we wish should take place.
On the other hand, said he, "your proud Navy," will remain. It is for
this, with many other reasons, why I am opposed to a navy. I wish he
could have proved to us, that with the end of the war the Navy would
also leave us; perhaps I should then agree with him in favor of its
establishment: though the "proud Navy" will remain with us, he has
neglected to tell us at what rate of expense.

Sir, the gentleman from South Carolina says many oppose a navy, because
they deem it an anti-republican institution. On this head, I shall
remark but little: I will only ask if it is to remain with us in times
of peace with its numerous train of officers, may it not become a
powerful engine in the hands of an ambitious Executive?

Sir, it was thought proper to make the foregoing remarks as preliminary
to the subject. The question of a Naval Establishment for the United
States more especially concerns those who inhabit commercial districts.
As one of these I am much interested. Many persons maintain, that a
naval system of defence is indispensably necessary to a nation, whose
seaboard extends more than 1,500 miles, with a shipping interest
amounting to 1,300,000 tons--in this respect, ranking the second of
modern nations. The argument is as specious as it is plausible; it
is liable to many, and in my opinion, to insuperable objections. The
proposition before us will be considered as leading to a _permanent_
Naval Establishment. This course is warranted by the report of the
Secretary of the Navy as well as by the mode which was pursued by my
friend from South Carolina. I shall not hesitate to declare my decided
opposition to such an establishment, and will proceed to state the
objections whereon my opinion is grounded. Sir, I deem it inexpedient
to commence a permanent Naval Establishment at this time. We are quite
unprepared for it--we are in want of all the necessary materials;
though we have been told that our forests abound in all the necessary
timber, it was said little of this material was to be found in our
dockyards. The gentleman from South Carolina has told us, that a
sufficiency of seasoned timber, to build four seventy-fours, was now
on hand, and that the proper authority deemed it advisable to be used
for frigates. Sir, this timber is a portion of that which was purchased
some years since, for the purpose of building six seventy-fours.
It now appears, that of this timber as much as was sufficient for
two of these vessels, has been employed to build smaller vessels or
gunboats, I presume. This is all a piece with our pretended economy.
This mode of proceeding will not answer, sir. We are in the wrong from
the commencement of our Navy. I do not wish it to be understood that
I have decided a navy will never be a proper mode of defence for this
nation--but whenever it shall be determined on, we should begin right;
this can only be done by following those nations who have had most
experience on the subject. Our first step should be to store away the
proper timber. This should be done in times when we can best afford
it--in times when our market is glutted--in times when labor can be
commanded at fair prices--at a period when we enjoy peace, and surely
not when we are about to engage in a war. We have heretofore paid the
highest price for every article; we have given double wages for labor;
and instances might be mentioned, when the workmen were transported in
stage coaches, at an enormous expense, from our large seaport towns to
the navy yard of this city. Contracts for timber were made in haste
and at a very advanced price. As soon as it was obtained, it was put
together, and in a few months we saw it floating in the form of a ship
of war--_rotten_ ships, I may say, sir, for I believe without exception
in the frigates which were built by the United States, the more
important parts decayed and were rotten in two, three, or four years.
In many instances the expense for repairs was equal to the original
cost. A single frigate, the Constitution, has cost for repairs, from
October, 1802, to March, 1809, the enormous sum of $302,582 21, or
upwards of $43,000 per annum for seven years in succession.

Let us view this subject in a more extended sense--I mean as regards
our commerce generally--we shall still have cause to entertain the
opinion which we first adopted. We cannot protect our commerce on
the ocean. Our ships have vexed every sea--we trade to all parts of
the world; of course, to protect our commerce, our ships of war must
abandon our coasts and encounter all the force of the enemy or those
of Europe. The ports we have in view are European. If your frigates,
for convenience and safety, are to cruise only on your coasts, what
will be the fate of the millions which are embarked beyond the Cape of
Good Hope? By this management surely you cannot afford it protection.
France, Spain, and Holland, when combined and backed by an armed
neutrality in the north of Europe, could not secure their commerce.
The fleets of Great Britain now sail triumphant over every wave of
the deep. The Russians have a navy far superior to that which it is
proposed we shall establish, and they cannot protect their trade
in the confined limits of the Baltic. They count fifty or sixty
sail-of-the-line, besides many frigates and smaller vessels.

Sir, the expenses which are incurred by a Naval Establishment, far
exceed the profits which arise from the commerce which it is intended
to protect. This proposition is warranted by the experience of Great
Britain, the most commercial nation of modern times. In the year 1798,
the total imports and exports of Great Britain amounted to £94,952,000.
For the same year the expenditure for her navy amounted to £13,654,013,
or about one-seventh of the total imports and exports, or fourteen per
cent. on the total capital employed in commerce. What regular trade can
yield such profits on the outward and inward cargoes? To me this is a
secret. In the year 1799 Mr. Pitt computed the profits on the commerce
of Great Britain at £12,000,000, or one and a half millions less than
the expenses for her navy the preceding year!

Sir, the expenses which are necessarily connected with a Naval
Establishment, constitute a very serious objection to it. At this
time, the annual expenditures for the British navy amount to nearly
£17,000,000, or $80,000,000. Every succeeding year brings with it an
increase of expenditures. This has been the result year after year
since the commencement of the institution. Our prospects will be the
more evident when we take a view of the expenses which have been
already incurred for the infantile establishment of our country; we
shall be led to the same conclusions. The American navy was commenced
in the year 1794, and by the end of the year 1811, the expenditures
amounted to $27,456,979--a sum much greater than the one-half of
the public debt on the 1st of January, 1812. This would have been
much better applied, had it been placed with the Commissioners of
the Sinking Fund. I will ask the gentleman from South Carolina, what
has the nation benefited for this enormous expenditure? What would
have been the amount expended, had this engine been Herculean, with
Admirals of the Red, White and Blue squadrons, with numerous dock
and navy-yards, placemen, &c.? For we shall gradually advance to all
this, if we do not stop short at this time. For the benefits of such
appendages, I will refer you to a statement made to this House, the
last session, concerning the navy-yards belonging to the United States;
especially to the details of the expenditures of that connected with
this city. The document I refer to, was laid before this House on
the 25th February, 1811. It will inform you, sir, that the value of
the work done from the 1st of January to the 31st of December, 1810,
was $73,947 52. The commandant confesses, in his returns made to the
Secretary, that this work, in many instances, is rated twenty per cent.
above the prices paid in other places. The salaries in this same yard,
for the same year, (1810,) amounted to $95,637 64-1/4. So that the pay
for the salaries and the wages at this navy-yard, exceeded the value of
the articles manufactured, even when rated far above the fair prices,
in amount $21,790 12-1/4! This establishment is under the immediate
eye of the Government; we might suppose every attention was paid to
economy; if so, who will desire further proofs of the advantages of a
navy!

Sir, I further object to a navy, because it will be the means of
exciting many wars, which, without the establishment, may be honorably
avoided. It is said, nations are involved in war, in proportion to the
extent of their navies; and some assert (Brougham) that a perpetual
war is one of the two modes which are necessary to support a powerful
naval establishment. Sir, a naval establishment will create a new and
a dangerous interest in our country. Nothing is more common than to be
told, that such are the wishes of the naval interest of Great Britain,
and that this or that war must be entered into to gratify them. For my
part, sir, I shall be very sorry indeed, if ever the period arrives
in the United States, when any particular interest or community
shall direct the Government, whether it be naval, agricultural,
manufacturing, or commercial--the general welfare should be the sole
great ruling principle in the National Councils.

Sir, I am deterred, when I consider the fate of all those nations who
at different periods have been famous for their navies. The naval
strength of the Hanseatic League was such, two centuries past, as
to excite terror on the part of England. These, sir, distant free
cities, are now the appendages of mighty France, and have no political
existence. Who has not heard of the once formidable fleets of Venice
and Genoa? At one time England was indebted to the latter for officers
to command her ships of war--alas! these republics are now consigned
to oblivion. Denmark was at one time the mistress of the ocean; by
means of her fleets she often invaded England, and held her in a state
of subjection. The Danes heretofore burned London, Paris, and other
great cities--they are now controlled by France, and they have had
their Copenhagen defeat. Holland, with her Van Tromps, and De Ruyters,
occupied the British Channel at pleasure; this power defeated the
navies of England and France. Where is Holland now? Incorporated as
a part of the French empire. Spain boasted her invincible armadas;
Elizabeth of England, by nature haughty, proud, and ambitious, trembled
at the very mention of them, until they were dispersed and destroyed by
storms at sea; Spain is now the vassal of France. Not very long since
the navy of France sailed triumphant along the British coast, looked
into Portsmouth harbor, and taunted British spirit. I ask you, sir,
where is the strength of which these nations formerly boasted? All are
inoperative, and dread the gigantic power of the British navy--they are
in part sick in dry docks, or are blockaded in their ports.

Mr. Chairman, Great Britain, though at this time triumphant in every
sea, if she persists in her expensive naval establishment, with her
present debt of £800,000,000, which was chiefly created for her
navy--Great Britain, sir, I say, with all this, must sink under the
heavy pressure. She will hereafter derive very little satisfaction
from her brilliant victories on the 1st of June off Cape St. Vincent,
Camperdown, Aboukir, and Trafalgar.

Shall I be pardoned, sir, when I fear our vessels will only tend to
swell the present catalogue of the British navy? Of the 1,042 vessels
which she possessed in July, 1811, one hundred and nine were captured
from the French, forty-six from the Danes, twenty-five from the
Spaniards, twenty-four from the Dutch, and three from the Italians;
making a total of two hundred and seven captured ships, or one-fifth of
her whole navy.

Small ships are proper for the service of the United States--by
their agency we shall be able to annoy the convoys of an enemy. The
privateers which were fitted out in every port during our Revolutionary
war, destroyed much of the British commerce, even in the British and
Irish Channels, whilst the frigates which were built by the Government
did little or nothing--but two of them remained at the conclusion of
the contest. The enemy will not watch your small vessels; they may
enter all your small inlets, where heavy vessels cannot venture to
approach them; and, at the conclusion of the war, they may be sold for
the merchant service. I shall not follow the gentleman in his remarks
on the bill before the committee; I shall vote against it, though it
is my present intention to appropriate the sums requisite for the
repairing and equipping our present ships of war. I will go no further.
I tell you, sir, naval victories in the end would prove fatal to the
United States; the consequences which have uniformly followed in other
countries must take place here. If the United States shall determine
to augment their navy, so as to rival those of Europe, the public debt
will become permanent; direct taxes will be perpetual; the paupers of
the country will be increased; the nation will be bankrupt; and, I
fear, the tragedy will end in a revolution.

Mr. MCKEE rose, with deference, to perform a duty which he owed to
his constituents, by delivering his sentiments on the very important
subject before the committee, though he confessed himself very
inadequate to do justice to it. He deemed the question of great
magnitude; as he feared, if we were to proceed to build up a large
naval establishment, it would affect the destinies of this nation to
the latest posterity.

The gentleman from South Carolina has said, that he has great
prejudices to encounter. Mr. MCKEE would have thought that the
deliberate opinion of a majority of Congress, expressed upon more than
one occasion, was entitled to a more respectful term than _prejudices_.
Those decisions proceeded from the honest convictions of some of the
best friends of the country.

Mr. McK. denied this doctrine, that "it is demonstrably clear that
this nation is inevitably destined to be a naval power;" and he
believed that, if the attempt were made to make it such, it would
prove the destruction of our happy constitution. He would proceed to
show on what ground he supported the opinion that the maintenance of
a permanent naval establishment would prove ruinous to this country.
For this purpose, he should be under the necessity of submitting some
calculations to the House; for, though he had heard a course of this
kind condemned, as fit only for the counting-house of the merchant,
he considered it as the most conducive to correct legislation. It is
certainly a matter of just calculation, when we are called upon to
establish a permanent navy, to show that such an institution would cost
more than any advantages to be derived from it would compensate.

    [Here the Speaker went into detailed statements, taken from the
    authentic reports of the Navy Department, showing the enormous
    expense of building our ships, and the enormous expense of
    repairs; the great expense of manning and equipping them, and
    the pay of officers idle at home while the ship was rotting
    which cost so much, and which, at the time it was built, it was
    morally certain would have nothing to do until it rotted.]

Mr. McK. had said, this nation was not destined, under the present
constitution, to be a great naval power; and he maintained that the
statements which he had exhibited--and which he believed, for the
purposes of argument, would be found substantially correct, when
tested by experience--went conclusively to show that the expenses
of the naval establishment of ten frigates and twelve seventy-four
gun ships, now proposed to be built, could not be supported without
permanent internal taxes, and a constant increase of the public debt
and annual expenditure. And if the system was gone into, to the extent
contemplated by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES,) of
building forty frigates and twenty-five seventy-four gunships, which
he admitted would be necessary to relieve the naval establishment from
comparative inefficiency, the annual expenses of the Government with
such a system (as already shown) would be more than $25,000,000, which
would rapidly increase the public burdens, and entail on this country
that fatal system which has almost ruined the British Empire.

The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. CHEVES) takes it for granted
that our commerce can be effectually protected by a navy; and assuming
this fact, he proceeds to show that every portion of the American
people are equally interested in the building a navy, because all are
more or less interested in protecting commerce.

But, the fact is, that navies have never been considered as adequate to
the complete protection of commerce. Look, said he, at the situation
of the Old World, in times, to them, more prosperous than the present!
What is the fact? Holland, with almost no navy, possessed an extensive
and profitable commerce; and Spain, about the same period, with a large
and powerful fleet, had no commerce.

But the situation of Europe is, in all respects, different from ours.
The Governments of Europe are surrounded by rival powers, who are
mostly engaged in war with each other, while we are happily far removed
from them all, and have no neighbors to annoy us. Therefore, arguments
drawn from the Old World are wholly inapplicable to this country,
because their situation and form of Government are altogether unlike
ours. And when we turn our eyes from foreign Governments to our own,
we find that no people since _Adam_ were ever more prosperous or more
happy than the American people have been for the eight or ten years
previous to the year 1808. Private fortunes have been accumulated with
unequalled ease and rapidity; commerce has prospered beyond example;
agriculture has flourished; and the revenue abundant, beyond the
wants of the Government. And did this state of prosperity exist at a
time when your commerce was protected by vessels of war? No; but at a
time when your navy was out of use; and in proportion to the increase
of your naval expenditure, in the same proportion has your commerce
decreased. The protection of commerce is the only ostensible object
for which navies are created, while power and conquest are the main
objects. Show me, said Mr. McK., a nation possessed of a large navy,
and I will show you a nation always at war. When has England been at
peace with all the world, since she became a great naval power? Such
instances in British history were so rare, and of such short duration,
(if they existed at all,) that he could not answer the question; and he
believed it would be difficult for the ingenuity of the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. CHEVES) to answer it. It is true, that England, the
greatest naval power in the world, is also the most commercial; and it
was not to be doubted that her commerce received aid from her navy,
though it owed its extent principally to the industry and consequent
wealth of the nation. But England has other and far more important
objects to effect by her navy than that of protecting commerce. Her
insular situation renders it necessary for her protection, and she
keeps it up for the purposes of war and dominion. England would destroy
her navy to-morrow, if the protection of commerce was her only object;
because it cannot be denied that the expense of keeping up her navy
exceeds the profits of that commerce which it is said to protect.
Navies, therefore, must be considered as instruments of power, rather
than as the means of protecting commerce. They are the vile offspring
of those nations where the power and grandeur of the Government is
every thing, and the people are nothing but slaves!

Mr. McK. having stated that a navy was an instrument of power,
rather than a means of protecting commerce, in order to show that
this opinion was not a mere vagary of his own imagination, but the
deliberate opinion of some of the wisest men of this country, most
solemnly pronounced, he would beg leave to read a document, which he
hoped would have weight with some gentlemen of the committee. It is
taken from the celebrated instructions of the Virginia Legislature,
of 1801, to their Senators in Congress, and is said to have come from
the pen of the present Chief Magistrate of the United States; and he
believed he could venture to say, that no Legislature ever possessed
more talents than were drawn together into the Virginia Assembly on
that occasion. After having noticed other subjects, in speaking of the
navy, they say:

    "With respect to the Navy, it may be proper to remind you,
    that, whatever may be the proposed object of its establishment,
    or whatever may be the prospect of temporary advantages
    resulting therefrom, it is demonstrated by the experience of
    all nations who have ventured far into naval policy, that such
    prospect is ultimately delusive; and that a navy has ever, in
    practice, been known more as an instrument of power, a source
    of expense, and an occasion of collisions and wars with other
    nations, than as an instrument of defence, of economy, or
    of protection to commerce. Nor is there any nation, in the
    judgment of the General Assembly, to whose circumstances this
    remark is more applicable than to the United States."

    #/ These opinions may, now, however, be considered as
    old-fashioned; but being himself an old-fashioned man, he
    confessed he was more pleased with them than with the new
    political doctrines preached by the gentleman from South
    Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES) to the House and the nation. It might,
    however, possibly be the fact, that he (Mr. McK.) was wrong,
    and only indulged ancient _prejudices_, and the gentleman from
    South Carolina right; and if such were the case, he could
    only say, in his own defence, that, under the influence of
    those old doctrines, the American people had enjoyed a state
    of prosperity and happiness unparalleled in the history of
    man--a state of prosperity which he feared he would never see
    equalled. He looked back on those days of happy prosperity with
    the same feelings of mournful regret with which he looked back
    to the days of his youth, fearing that they, like the days of
    his youth, would never again return--especially if the Navy
    mania should prevail.

Establish a navy, said Mr. McK. and this country may bid farewell
to peace; because you thereby organize a class of society who are
interested in creating and keeping up wars and contention. Officers in
the Navy and Army are mere cyphers in society in times of peace, and
are only respectable in time of war, when wealth and fame may await
their exertions. They are, therefore, interested in keeping up a state
of war; and being invested with the management of an instrument of war,
it is to be expected that it will be used in some degree to answer
their own purposes? No man who will reflect for a moment, but must
be satisfied that the disgraceful and lawless conduct of the British
naval officers on our coast originated in a desire on their part to
bring on a war with this country, in which they looked forward to
large dividends of prize money; and these acts were contrary to the
wish and expectation of Great Britain; in one instance the act was
disavowed; and it may be asked why were the officers not punished who
acted contrary to the wishes of the Government? The answer is obvious;
because the influence of the Navy in England is so predominant that
the Government are afraid to touch the subject, and the consequence
is, that the Government are compelled to bear the odium of acts which
they disapprove; and the same cause which has produced this effect in
England, if permitted to operate, will produce a similar effect in this
country.

Our little Navy has already contributed much towards the irritation
which exists between this country and England; and under any other
President than Mr. Jefferson, it would have brought on a war in 1807.
And what real benefit has resulted from it to the Government? Has a
picaroon or a buccaneer ever been chastised by them? If they have,
he had no recollection of the case; he had seen indeed paragraphs in
the newspapers mentioning that the frigate President, or some one of
the vessels, had sailed from the navy-yard to Norfolk, from thence to
New York, and finally arrived safe at Boston; but for what purpose he
was totally ignorant, unless, indeed, it was to sail back again, and
furnish the materials for a new article for the newspapers; and for
these eminent services, the American people have already paid about
$30,000,000.


TUESDAY, January 21.

                         _Naval Establishment._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill concerning the Naval Establishment.

Mr. JOHNSON said: I do not know, sir, why I should regret the
discussion of any subject in this place, when I recollect that each
member is under the same obligations of duty and responsibility. It
has been said that no member would be thanked for his vote in favor
of this bill--and, fearless of censure, I shall oppose this attempt
to lay the foundation, and to pledge the property of the people for
naval systems, as ruinous to the finances of the country, as it will
be destructive to the peace of the nation. After every effort in my
power, I could not suppress the sensation of sorrow, that Congress
should be distracted with a subject that would justly excite alarm
throughout the nation, even in the hours of profound tranquillity.
I have looked to the Treasury reports, and I see a national debt of
about fifty millions of dollars. I look to the aggressions of England,
and I find we have been driven to the necessity of creating a great
and expensive military force to avenge our wrongs and to expel the
enemy from her North American colonies. I look to the arguments of the
advocates of this pernicious system, and they acknowledge that we are
driven to the brink of a war that will require loans and taxes, and end
in a new debt of at least fifty millions of dollars--and under these
circumstances, when we are upon the heels of a second revolution, when
the people are likely to be most pressed for the ways and means to
carry on the war with vigor and certain success, the ruinous system of
a great navy is pressed upon us. Upon the return of a second peace,
when the British possessions shall be incorporated into the Union, and
our army disbanded--when commerce shall be restored, and a surplus of
revenue in the Treasury--after meeting the demands of the Government,
with more propriety might the question be presented for consideration.
I believe, sir, since the political reformation in 1801, the question
of building a navy had never been before presented directly to the
consideration of Congress. When Mr. Jefferson, that illustrious
character, presided over the destinies of the United States, why was
not this navy-building proposed? Then we had a revenue of fifteen
millions of dollars annually, and a surplus in the Treasury. No, sir,
such a system had been put down too recently--the struggles against a
navy in '98-9 were not forgotten. I deny the capacity of the United
States to maintain a navy without oppression to the great mass of the
community in the persons of tax-gatherers; and if a great navy could
be maintained, it would be more than useless--it would be dangerous to
the peace and tranquillity of this nation. I was in favor of repairing
and putting into service the whole of our naval force, consisting of
one hundred and sixty-two gunboats and upwards of fifteen frigates
and smaller war vessels; because this naval force, united with our
fortifications, would give security to our coasts and harbors, protect
our coasting trade, and would be important in the present crisis to
co-operate with privateers and individual enterprise against the
commerce and plunder of Great Britain. But this is not the object of
the bill. It contemplates and embraces a navy to protect our commerce
in distant seas as well as at home, and which cannot cost less than
twenty or thirty millions to accomplish; and, when built, would entail
upon the Government of the United States the annual expense of fifteen
millions of dollars,[25] equal to the amount of our whole revenue in
the most prosperous years of commerce under the administration of Mr.
Jefferson, and double the amount of our present financial income. It
is the system, as well as the expense, that I object to; and while I
am ready as any man to keep a small naval force, to be confined to the
protection of our maritime frontiers, as well as I am to keep up a
small land force, to protect our territorial frontiers, I will not vote
one cent for a system of naval force which is destined to keep foreign
nations in check in distant seas, and destined to entail upon this
happy Government perpetual taxes and a perpetually-increasing national
debt. The people will not support such a Naval Establishment--they
have the corrective in their hands; and build this fleet of twenty
seventy-fours and forty frigates, and the people will in their turn
put them down. But, sir, we are told that we are a commercial people,
and that you cannot restrain a spirit of enterprise in our citizens
which is limited only by the polar snows to the North and the icy
mountains to the South. No person has attempted to damp that gallant
spirit, that mercantile enterprise--such adventurous voyages have been
fostered and cherished by every means in the power of the Government.
But, sir, has this unparalleled enterprise, this gallant spirit,
been carried on by a navy? Such a thing has never been thought of,
which proves that this question of a navy has no connection with this
commercial enterprise; and the existence of one without the other, is
positive proof of the fact. But it is also said, that agriculture and
commerce are twin sisters, and the learned gentleman from New York
(Mr. MITCHILL) will not allow a more distant connection. I have no
objection to such a union, and I did expect that it would have been
demonstrated what was the real relationship between these twin sisters
and a permanent navy; whether it is that of cousin-german, brother
or husband. As these subjects have not been identified, I must be
permitted to say that there is no connection--unless under the disguise
of protection, the navy would be the destroyer both of commerce and
agriculture--by taxes upon the one and constant war upon the theatre
of the other. The advocates of a navy need not expect to cover the
deformity and danger of the system by telling the people they are
friends to the protection of commerce--and that those who oppose it are
ready to relinquish our rights upon the ocean. No, sir, this will not
do. They will ask if our commerce, as great as it has been, was ever
protected by a navy. They will look at the expenditure of the public
money--they will see twenty-nine millions of dollars expended upon
our present Naval Establishment; and though they may not complain of
that prodigal waste of public money upon so small a naval force, they
will look to the effects produced by this power, and they will refuse
to augment it, until, indeed, the Peace Establishment shall require
augmentation. The people will look to the votes of this House, and they
will see the opposers of a navy willing at this moment to avenge the
depredation upon our commerce and neutral rights by actual hostility. I
am not prepared to give up our rights, whether upon the ocean or upon
land, whether commercial or personal; but I may differ in the means of
avenging these wrongs, and vindicating those rights, and I shall ever
differ from those who wish a navy to ride triumphant in distant seas,
and, under a pretext of protection to commerce, doom the nation to
galling burdens too intolerable to be borne. But we are told, sir, that
this question partakes of the character of a self-evident proposition.
Indeed, sir, and in what respect is it entitled to this definition of
self-evident? Unless, indeed, from every consideration of history,
experience and reason, it is evident that a navy is an engine of power
and ambition, calculated to embroil a nation in quarrels and wars, and
to fix permanent wretchedness upon the industrious class of the people.
When we look to the delegation from each State, we find a difference in
sentiment upon this subject, whether lying on the seaboard or distant
from it.

The chairman of the Naval Committee has attempted to make us believe
that a navy is the anchor of our hopes, and I dare venture to say,
his eloquent colleague (Mr. WILLIAMS) will in due time denounce it as
the most abominable system--always employed in the fell purposes of
outrage, plunder, war, and death. The same division of sentiment exists
in Massachusetts as to this destructive and expensive establishment.
And, sir, let me not omit to mention, the sentiments of the Republicans
of '98-9 were not only entitled to the love and confidence of the
people, but worthy of our imitation. Nor will I omit the resolutions
of the Virginia Legislature in opposition to a navy, when they
remonstrated against measures which they considered ruinous to the
freedom of the United States--nor is my respect for those opinions
lessened, although many Republicans in Congress at this time, and men
of talents, have become great advocates for a navy, and I will put it
to the people whose opinions are entitled to their approbation, whether
a navy beyond the peace establishment is ruinous, or the rock of our
safety.

Leaving the division of sentiment in our country, let us advert to
ancient and modern history, and search for examples upon this important
subject. And here, sir, I will take this position, and defy history
for an example, that no great naval power ever confined their naval
strength to the legitimate object of protecting commerce in distant
seas. I will refer to Tyre and Sidon, Crete and Rhodes, to Athens and
to Carthage. No sooner had these nations ceased to confine their naval
strength to their maritime defence at home, to the protection of their
seacoast, than they were engaged in plunder, piracy, depredations upon
other nations, or involved in wars, which certainly accelerated, if it
did not produce, the downfall and destruction of those governments.
Peace and tranquillity is not the natural state of a great naval power.
A disregard of public law, sacred treaties, and bloodshed, would suit
it better; and it has been and ever will be, the consequences of such
force. These nations furnish another example and instructive lesson to
the present generation--that while their commerce and navy furnished
a small part of the people with the luxuries of every country at
that time known, the great mass of citizens at home were miserable
and oppressed. Their rights neglected, their burdens increased, and
their happiness destroyed, while their fleets and external grandeur
carried astonishment and terror to distant nations. When a nation puts
forth her strength upon the ocean, the interior of the country will be
neglected and oppressed with contributions. Ancient history does not
furnish a solitary instance of any permanent good, or long continuance
of peace arising from a great naval supremacy; such overgrown power,
such unnatural strength, must feed upon plunder, at home and abroad.
When we come to modern nations we have proof before us of the positions
I have taken. We have been told of Holland, as a people existing in a
most flourishing state of prosperous commerce without a navy to protect
it, and we have been told of Spain as a naval power without commerce to
protect. But leaving these examples, let us look at France and Great
Britain; we here have examples before our eyes; we need no history; the
facts are before us.

Admit that Great Britain, with her thousand vessels, could protect her
lawful commerce, let me ask, if her navy has ever been confined to that
object; whether it is confined to that object at this time; whether
her navy has not fattened upon the spoils of Europe, Asia, Africa, and
America, and the commerce of neutral nations, making war equally upon
friends and enemies. Her navy, triumphant in every sea, is employed
in a system of plunder against the world, and, notwithstanding this
supremacy, we see her citizens groaning under a national debt of eight
hundred millions of pounds sterling, more than all the nations of the
universe could pay. We see her upon the precipice of bankruptcy--we
see her people, her numerous subjects, loaded with taxes, that would
astonish any man who did not know the fact--notwithstanding this, the
public debt is daily increasing, and it is now acknowledged by all the
world that she is fighting for her existence--victorious at sea and
safe at home from invasion, and still her very existence is at stake.
Sir, I never wish to see the liberties of my country afloat upon the
ocean and staked upon the strength of a navy. Look at France, separated
from her enemy by a narrow channel, without vessels to meet the fleets
of England on the water, and still she is unable to burn the seaport
towns of France or invade the French territories, or in any way to
make an impression upon her. Populous and powerful upon land, nothing
but the imperial despotism that exists throughout that vast empire,
prevents the country from being the most enviable residence upon
the globe, except our own favored land. Let not the Congress of the
United States therefore stake their existence upon navies, let us not
withdraw the protecting hand of Government from the soil; let us not
increase the burdens of the people, and weigh them down with a public
debt to support external grandeur. Do not by this system destroy
the affections and attachments of the solid and honest part of the
community, who support the government of the country.

Sir, the report of the Naval Committee has assumed principles as
erroneous as they are novel--that the protection of maritime commerce
was, above all other objects, the first and the greatest consideration
which laid the foundation for the present constitution. There is
nothing to warrant such a position; and no reason does exist why
our commercial rights should have been better secured than the
other various rights and interests embraced by that charter of our
independence. In the specific grants of powers, Congress has the
authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, with the several
States, and with the Indian tribes; not giving preference in language
to foreign over State and domestic commerce. I will admit, sir, that
our commercial rights formed one of the primary considerations--not
more primary than the rights of agriculture and manufactures, nor the
rights of property, the rights of persons, protection from foreign
invasion and aggression, or from internal foes. These rights were
equally important, and not less the considerations which strengthened
the bonds of the Union. And if any consideration had a preference, it
arose from considerations of peace and war.

When I look into the preamble of the constitution, which to be sure is
no specific grant of power, but is an interpretation of the objects of
that great charter of our Union, I find it was to establish justice,
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence and
general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty, that the
constitution was adopted; and although maritime commerce has only a
co-equal right with all others, still, the greatest means and resources
of the Government have been directed to its protection. And still
it would seem, if we do not ruin the nation by the establishment of
a navy, we wish to make encroachments upon commerce, to damp the
commercial spirit. And this we are told in the face of facts which
appear upon record, and in the face of every expensive war measure now
taken and adopted. Sir, in a colonial state, it was a duty upon tea
that was the immediate cause of a war, which was bloody indeed, and
continued upwards of seven years; a conflict which has no parallel
in history as to its beginning and termination. And at this moment,
violations of our neutral rights upon the ocean is a primary cause why
we are about to wage a second war with Great Britain; and still we are
gravely told that we are unwilling to protect commerce, and that we
are ready to abandon it, because we will not vote away the substance
of the people upon a system of policy which must ruin the nation if
not crushed in its infancy. The constitution says, Congress shall have
the power to provide and maintain a navy. And this has been read. So
has it authorized Congress to raise and support armies, to lay and
collect taxes, and declare war; but the constitution does not fix the
limit of these powers, and all are liable to abuse. And the convention
did not suppose that any Congress would so far abuse these powers as
to keep either a standing army in time of peace, which must endanger
the liberties of the people, or a permanent navy, that would involve
us in continual wars with other nations, and permanent taxes upon the
people. A reasonable peace establishment to protect our maritime and
territorial frontier, consistent with strict economy, must have been
contemplated; and this force, naval and military, we have maintained;
and we are as secure as a nation can expect to be from savages or a
maritime foe. There would be as much reason why we should keep in pay
five hundred thousand regular troops in time of peace, as your twenty
vessels of seventy-four guns and your forty frigates, in addition to
our present naval force. In every point of view, therefore, a permanent
navy is as injurious to the country as a standing army. One will
endanger your liberties by conquest, and the other by wars with foreign
nations.

But I am asked, how will you contend with a maritime nation, without
a navy? Sir, that question is as easily answered as the first. I will
ask, how we succeeded in the Revolutionary war? We were without any
security upon our seacoast, and still we succeeded. But to be more
specific--I would grant letters of marque and reprisal, and authorize
privateering. Give scope to individual enterprise, to destroy the
commerce of the enemy--which can be done effectually. I would fortify
our seaport towns; station our gunboats and frigates along our coast,
to protect us at home. And in this way I would in war avenge the
infractions of our neutral rights.

Mr. LOWNDES.--Mr. Speaker, in one opinion expressed by the honorable
gentleman last up, (Mr. JOHNSON,) I can concur. The constitution
was not formed for the exclusive protection of commerce, but for
the defence of all the interests of the United States. These are to
be protected by the whole force of the nation. If he had adhered
throughout his speech to this opinion, the question would have been
narrowed to the inquiry, by what means shall commerce be protected? He
has asserted the adequacy to this purpose of the naval force which we
now possess. This is, indeed, a different view of the subject from that
which was taken by his honorable colleague. We were told but yesterday,
that the undivided exertions of the United States could not give them a
navy large enough to be useful. To-day the five frigates which we have
in commission are thought sufficient if properly employed, to redress
all our injuries. The death of Pierce might have been revenged, and the
disgrace of the Chesapeake obliterated, if these five frigates had been
sent a cruising. We did not want force, but spirit to employ it. Can it
be necessary gravely to answer these assertions? May I not trust their
confutation to that general knowledge of the subject which every member
of the House possesses? Must we inquire what number of British vessels
have been lately stationed near our coast, or what greater number it is
in the power of England to station there?

But, although the honorable gentleman from Kentucky is determined
to defend commerce by some method which he will not fully disclose,
his arguments like those of my honorable friend from Pennsylvania,
appeared designed to show that commerce was not worth defending. After
the full discussion of this subject, produced by the report of the
Committee of Foreign Relations, and the debates at every stage of the
bill for raising an additional army, the House might have supposed
that this question was at last dismissed. I hope, however, to be
excused for remarking that both these gentlemen have considered the
profits of commerce as confined to the merchant. They have forgotten
that commerce implies a change of commodities, in which the merchant
is only an intermediate agent. He derives, indeed, a profit from the
transaction--but so must the seller and the buyer, the grower and the
consumer, or they would not engage in it. So must all those who are
supported by their own industry in commercial cities--the clerk, the
artisan, the common laborer. But my honorable friend from Pennsylvania
says that Mr. Pitt estimated the profits of commerce in England at only
twelve millions for a year, in which the naval expense was fourteen
or sixteen millions. I suppose this estimate to have been made in
relation to the income tax, and it obviously must have referred only
to the profits of merchants. The profits of merchants may be computed,
but no sober financier would attempt to compute the entire profits of
commerce. If it be desirable to form, not, indeed, an estimate, but
some conception of its importance, let my honorable friend compute the
value of New York, where a few square feet of land are an estate, and
then compare it with the value of the same extent of ground for the
purposes of the plough. But, is it in this nation, and at this time,
that it can be supposed that the profits of commerce are confined
to the merchant? Your trade was, a few years ago, unrestrained and
flourishing--did it not enrich the most distant parts of your country?
It has since been plundered and confined. Does not the industry of the
country languish? Is not the income of every man impaired? If commerce
were destroyed, the mercantile class, indeed, could exist no longer;
but the merchant, the rich capitalist, at least, would individually
suffer less than any other part of the community, because, while their
property would become unproductive, the value of money would rise
rather than fall.

The value of commerce, then, has been strangely misunderstood by these
gentlemen, who suppose that they have calculated it so very accurately.
But whatever may be its value, you have already determined to defend
it. Considerations of expense are not, indeed, to be neglected. We
must employ, in the prosecution of the war, the cheapest and most
efficacious instruments of hostility which we can obtain. But the
arguments of the honorable gentlemen on the other side, are almost
all of them directed against the war rather than the navy. It would
be absurd, say they, to protect commerce by a navy, which should
cost more than that commerce is worth. It must yet be more absurd,
then, to protect it by an army which costs much more than the navy.
In the comparison of the expenses and of the efficiency of an army
and navy, instituted by my colleague, there is nothing invidious.
The army is acknowledged to be necessary. It has had our votes. But,
from the acknowledged propriety of raising the army, was fairly
inferred the propriety of employing a navy, if it should be proved to
be less expensive in proportion to its probable efficacy. War, and
all its operations and all its instruments, must be expensive. It is
difficult to determine upon the expediency of employing any of these
instruments, except by comparing it with some other. To compute the
result of this comparison, the honorable gentlemen on the other side
must show, not that it is more expensive to maintain a navy than to
be without one--not that it is more expensive to go to war than to
remain at peace, (these propositions they, perhaps, have proved,) but
that the objects proposed to be attained by the navy may be better
or more cheaply attained in some other way. My honorable friend from
Pennsylvania, then, in determining not to follow my colleague in the
investigation of the comparative expense of different kinds of force,
must have determined to avoid the best, and, indeed, the only method of
examination from which a just conclusion could be deduced.

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, however, who spoke yesterday,
offered objections to a navy, which, if they were well founded, would
supersede all further reasoning and calculation. He opposes a navy
now--he will oppose it for ever. It would produce no possible good and
all possible evil. It would infallibly destroy the constitution. Will
the honorable gentleman tell us why? how? He sees the danger clearly?
Will he explain it? An ambitious General might corrupt his army, and
seize the Capitol--but will an Admiral reduce us to subjection by
bringing his ships up the Potomac? The strongest recommendation of a
navy in free Governments has hitherto been supposed to be that it was
capable of defending but not of enslaving its country. The honorable
gentleman has discovered that this is a vulgar error. A navy is really
much more dangerous than an army to public liberty. He voted for the
army and expressed no fears for the constitution. But a navy would
infallibly terminate in aristocracy and monarchy. All this may be very
true. But are we unreasonable in expecting, before we give up the old
opinion, to hear some argument in favor of the new one? The honorable
gentleman has asserted his propositions very distinctly. We complain
only that he has not proved them.

Yet there is a view in which this question of a navy is, indeed,
closely connected with the constitution. That constitution was formed
by the union of independent States, that the strength of the whole
might be employed for the protection of every part. The States were
not ignorant of the value of those rights which they surrendered to
the General Government, but they expected a compensation for their
relinquishment in the increased power which would be employed for
their defence. Suppose this expectation disappointed--suppose the
harbor of New York blockaded by two seventy-fours? The commerce of
that city, which exists only by commerce, destroyed? The protection
of the General Government claimed? Your whole navy could not drive
these English seventy-fours from their station. Would the brave and
enterprising people of New York consent to see their capital emptied of
its inhabitants, and their whole country beggared by so contemptible a
force? Their own exertions would raise a fleet which would drive off
the enemy and restore their city to its owners. But, when a single
State shall find herself able to raise a greater fleet than the General
Government can or will employ for her defence, can it be expected that
she shall consider that Government as essential to her safety--as
entitled to her obedience? I repeat that the Federal Constitution was
instituted by the States, that the strength of the whole might be
combined for the protection of any part which should be attacked. But
what is the nature of the defence which one of our large States may
be supposed interested to obtain from the General Government? Is it a
land force? We can scarcely expect an attack on land, to repel which
the militia of New York or Massachusetts would be unequal. Were either
of these States attacked, the General Government would protect her by
ordering out her own militia. To render the Union permanent, you must
render it the interest of all the States, the large as well as the
small, to maintain it; you must show them that it will provide, not an
army which they can have without it, but what without it they cannot
have--an adequate navy.

The honorable gentleman who anticipates the destruction of the
constitution, unless we shall neglect one of the great interests which
it was intended to protect, considers the English Orders in Council as
leaving our institutions firm and untouched. Regulations, the effect
of which is to give to a foreign power the complete disposition of
the property of a large class of our people, are it seems in their
political result innocent. Although every citizen who has property
on the ocean become dependent on the English Ministry, become their
subject, our liberty and independence are (we are told) unimpaired.
But let a navy be raised--let the Government which expects obedience
provide protection, and the constitution perishes!

But we have been referred particularly by my honorable friend from
Pennsylvania to the experience of the world, as having already decided
the question which we are now discussing. It seems that Venice and
Genoa, and every other naval power which can be named, have all
furnished abundant proof of the ruinous effects which such a force is
calculated to produce. Sir, the assertion is new. I do not pretend
to an intimate acquaintance with the histories of those nations, but
I have hitherto believed that the first great shock which the power
of Venice received, was given by the League of Cambray--a league
formed to repress her ambition, not of maritime, but of territorial
aggrandizement. But, whilst Venice has lost her independence, after
maintaining it for five or six centuries, may I ask my honorable friend
whether the States of Italy, which were never oppressed by fleets,
had enjoyed a longer term of prosperity and freedom? As to Genoa--her
naval power, her independence and glory, rose and sunk with the same
man--Doria. But Holland, says the gentleman from Kentucky, affords an
example of a nation, whose commerce flourished greatly before it had a
navy, and decayed while her navy continued powerful. If there ever were
a people, whose naval power has been employed to protect and almost
to create their commerce, it is the Dutch. They fought their way at
the same time to trade in the East Indies and America, and to national
independence in Europe. The decay of their trade is to be attributed to
the development of the resources of other nations; to the navigation
act of England; and the similar measures adopted by other powers. As
to France--the period of her greatest financial prosperity probably
coincided with that of her greatest naval power; both were due to the
administration of Colbert. But the evils of a navy (gentlemen tell us)
have been concentrated in the case of England. With all her fleets she
is destined soon to lose her independence. The expense of those fleets
has crushed the industry of her subjects, and must soon reduce her to
national bankruptcy. Let us suppose that these gentlemen, who have been
so much mistaken in regard to the past, may be more accurate in their
narrative of the future. Still England will have owed to her fleets her
redemption from invasion for ages past. While every other considerable
nation of Europe has been bankrupt over and over again, she is not
yet bankrupt. While nearly every other Government of Europe has been
overset, hers yet rides out the storm. Should England fall to-morrow,
it should seem impossible to deny that her navy will have prolonged her
independence for at least two centuries.

My honorable colleague has calculated the expense of building and
maintaining a navy of 12 ships-of-the-line and 20 frigates, and
has explained the principles on which his calculations have been
founded. The estimate of the gentleman from Pennsylvania can hardly
be considered, after the error which has been remarked, as impugning
those calculations. I have not myself attempted to estimate the
probable expense of maintaining 12 ships-of-the-line and 20 frigates
with any precision, but I cannot doubt the fairness of the rule which
deduces it from the expense of such a force to England. This is the
rule which I understood my colleague to have employed. It has not
been disputed in debate; it has been in conversation. Many gentlemen
have objected to an estimate of the expenses of a navy during war,
in which (as they suppose) no allowance is made for the peculiar
expenses which war involves. To have all our ships safe at the end
of the contest is observed to be rather a sanguine expectation. But
if the rate of expense in the estimate of my colleague were deduced
from the rate of English expense during war, these objections must
be altogether groundless. Now, it _was_ deduced from the expense
which is found sufficient to maintain the English Navy in a state of
unimpaired strength during war. The English expense, from which it was
inferred, included the charge of docks and navy-yards, of the repair
of old ships and of the building of new ones. It included pensions to
their officers, and even the support of the prisoners taken from their
enemies. I have on my table a detailed account of the English naval
expenditure for a year of the last war. The whole amount was about
twelve millions and a half, and of this sum fully four millions and a
half were applied to what may be considered the contingent expenses
of the navy. Now, is there any reason to suppose that the contingent
expenses of our navy would be greater in proportion to its force than
this? And if not greater, has not an allowance been made for the
capture of some of our ships, or, in other words, for the building of
new ones? It is true, that from the superiority of English sailors to
their present enemies, England loses little by capture, and, it may be
supposed, that from the greater frequency and severity of our conflicts
when we shall be engaged in war against her, our contingent expenses
may be greater in proportion to the number of our ships then hers. But
there are many expenses to which she is necessarily subject, from which
we shall be exempt. I will instance that resulting from blockading
squadrons, and that from repairs in colonial and foreign ports. These
can appear inconsiderable to no man who has given his attention in any
degree to the subject. Naval men I believe would not contradict me, if
I were to state the expense of a ship employed in a strict blockade,
and particularly during the winter months, as fully double that of a
ship engaged in ordinary service. In fact, England finds the expense
too great for her finances, and has been obliged, in some measure, to
give up the practice. The other article of expenditure to which I have
referred, I shall not attempt to estimate with any precision. It must,
however, be obvious to every man, that the ships of war of England must
frequently be repaired and refitted in distant countries. In these
the most scrupulous fidelity and economy on the part of her officers
cannot prevent the expense from being frequently extravagant. The most
salutary regulations and most provident instructions on the part of the
Administration at home cannot prevent her officers from being sometimes
careless and fraudulent. I recollect an instance of the enormous
expense involved in the distant services required from the British
Navy, which I cannot pretend to state with accuracy, but in which I
hope not to be substantially wrong. Sir Home Popham (a distinguished
officer in the English Navy) had under his command in the last war two
or three frigates in the East Indies. They had left England in good
condition, and their repairs for two or three years, and the supply of
the different articles of equipment which they occasionally required,
exceeded, I believe, the prime cost of the vessels themselves. These
two items of expenditure, blockading squadrons, and repairs in distant
countries, (to neither of which an American Navy would be liable,)
will be acknowledged, I think, to justify the conclusion, that the
contingent expenses of the English Navy must be as great in proportion
to its force as ours would be in war--and therefore that the rule
employed in the calculations of my colleague was correct.

But our resources for the equipment of a navy appear to the honorable
gentlemen on the other side, as deficient in respect to men and money.
Sailors in this country cannot be obtained in sufficient numbers
without impressment. It is not necessary, sir, to inquire whether
for the defence of their peculiar rights the services of a marine
militia may not be required. There is no reason to doubt our being
able to procure the voluntary services of our seamen. If we shall at
any time be engaged in a war (like that with France in 1798) which
shall leave the greater part of our trade unaffected, the wages of
sailors will, indeed, be high, but the number required will be small
and the Government can afford high wages. In a war of a different
character--against a nation powerful at sea--your sailors will be
thrown out of employment and their wages will be necessarily low. But
gentlemen object to this reasoning on the supposition that in such a
case our sailors would all engage in privateers. The notion that in
any war there will be a demand in this country for more than thirty
thousand sailors for privateers is surely an extravagant one. But it
has been shown by my colleague that in a war which should diminish our
trade by one-half, (and a war requiring any great naval exertion would
necessarily do this,) thirty or forty thousand seamen may be employed
in privateers, and a sufficient number would remain for your public
ships. But are not your privateers as much a part of the naval force
of the nation as your ships of war? It has been said, indeed, that they
are the more useful part. Now, if the Government should believe (what
neither sober reflection nor the experience of other nations can permit
it to doubt) that this part of your force cannot be in any great degree
serviceable unless supported by a fleet--then surely a limitation
to its extent, which would be necessary even to the interest of its
owners, cannot fairly be objected to. The law just passed for raising
twenty-five thousand men, provides, I think, for only one regiment of
cavalry. Now, it is very possible that a much larger proportion of the
twenty-five thousand men that can be accommodated in this regiment, may
choose to go to Canada on horseback. They must be disappointed, and
either not go into the army at all, or go into the service which they
least desire. No man has hitherto denounced the act as on this account
tyrannical and oppressive. Yet this case seems to me a true parallel
to the other. In the naval, as in the military service, the interest
of the country requires the employment of different sorts of force;
and the object may be attained with equal fairness in both services by
limiting the amount of the favorite force.

Mr. LAW said: Being in favor of the bill now under consideration, I beg
leave to express my sentiments, and state the reasons in support of
my opinion; and the only pledge I shall offer to the House, for their
attention, is, that I shall not occupy much of their time.

This bill, sir, embraces two objects--one relates to the repairs and
equipment of the ships of the United States now out of service--the
other contemplates the building of ten additional frigates, and
laying the foundation of a new Naval Establishment. The view which I
entertain of this subject, does not arise from its connection with
that system which grows out of what is called the present crisis, or
putting the nation in armor for war, as reported by the Committee
of Foreign Relations; but from a conviction, that, as an abstract
question or matter of general policy, I deem it for the interest and
security of the United States, to begin the establishment of a Navy,
to be perpetuated and extended hereafter--and, because I believe it
may be accomplished, to the extent at present proposed, from the
ordinary means we ought to possess, without adding any new burdens on
the citizens. In order to decide whether it is for the interest of the
United States we must examine and see how it is connected with the
great and essential interest of the country. The basis of our national
wealth is agriculture; the real substance of the nation is drawn from
the earth. This arises from the great and extensive territory which we
possess, thinly settled, low in price, of an excellent soil, capable,
from its fertility and variety of climes, of affording produce of
every kind, in the greatest abundance. The surplus of all is wanted in
other countries, where nature has been less bountiful; and it must
be a great while before the labor of our citizens can be diverted
extensively into other channels--I mean manufactures. This is a
condition in which we ought to rejoice for the causes, which bind us
in this necessity, are those which tend to preserve the morals, the
happiness, and the independence of the nation. And until our lands
are taken up, and population becomes redundant, the basis of our
national wealth must be the farming interest. But, sir, in a country
so blessed by nature; where the inhabitants have the greatest stimulus
to industry, the fruits of their labor secured by just and equal
laws; where the property cannot be taken from the owner without his
consent, there will be a vast surplus, beyond what the consumption of
the country requires. Hence, commerce springs up as the daughter and
handmaid of agriculture. Without commerce, agriculture would languish.
With it, wealth is consolidated, and industry promoted. It diffuses
its benign influence, discoverable in the splendid and delightful
improvements, which rejoice the eye of the traveller, throughout the
country. And it is as unnatural for the farming interest to oppress
the commercial, as it is for the parent to abandon its offspring. They
mutually cherish and support each other; and, by natural sympathy, must
be affected by the checks and disorders which each may receive. But
commerce must be protected. It cannot protect itself against force.
Being carried on abroad on the ocean, (for I am speaking of foreign
commerce,) it is subject to annoyance, interruption, and hazard. We
must pass the common highway of nations to get to a market; and in this
route, the weak and defenceless must, and always will be the sport and
prey of the strong and violent, whom they meet in the way. From the
wretched state of those nations with whom we have intercourse, we,
from weakness, must fall victims to their violence. This is an evil
which we shall always experience as a neutral, coming in collision
with belligerents. Shall we then abandon commerce, or shall we strive
to support it? It will be for the interest of the country to support
it, if possible; for if we abandon it, the evil will recoil on the
agricultural part, who, no longer than foreign commerce is supported,
can find a vent for their surplus; and without a vent for the surplus,
a bare competency might be endangered. Internal commerce would always
fail, for that, being but a stream from foreign commerce, must dry
when the fountain from whence it issues fails. Enterprise ceases, and
languor and poverty ensue. It is then for the interest of the nation
to cherish commerce. But how can this be done? Will a navy have this
effect? I think it will. Indeed, if the little navy which was commenced
some years ago, had been supported and increased as it might have been
without any difficulty, we might, and in all probability should, have
avoided our present calamities. We are now the defenceless prey of
both France and England; deprived of the common rights of nations and
citizens of the world. Will it then be asked, shall we not go to war
and fight our way? I have already recorded my negative on the several
questions preparatory to that step, and I am decidedly against going
to war. We have not the means necessary, and unsuccessful resistance
will only make our condition worse. I verily believe, if this nation
had fostered our infant navy, from the time it was commenced, and had
not, by a strange infatuation, abandoned and neglected it, it would now
have been too important to be despised, by either France or England.
Our prosperity would have continued. Our strength would have been
dreaded, and our friendship courted by both nations. While they have
been contending for the mastery, we, with such naval force as we ought
to have had, and a strict course of neutrality, might have pursued a
lawful and gainful trade. We might have had a perpetual revenue of
sixteen millions, instead of the pittance now received at the Treasury.
I believe, that with the navy we might have had, and a correct strict
neutral course, there would have been neither Berlin and Milan Decrees,
nor Orders in Council, to annoy our lawful commerce.

Mr. ROBERTS observed, that there appeared to be a disposition in the
committee to take the question on the filling the blank in the first
section without further debate. As he could not vote for appropriating
$480,000 for the repair of the vessels of war unfit for service,
it would perhaps be the most proper time to submit his opinions. I
have not, Mr. Chairman, said he been a listless hearer of the very
ingenious arguments advanced by gentlemen in favor of the report.
He had, however, been so unfortunate as to be more confirmed in his
inclination to vote against the bill, from attentively weighing these
arguments. The select committee in their report (for they had reported
specially as well as by bill) have said, with oracular confidence, that
this country is inevitably destined to become a naval power. He had
not, with them, become a fatalist. Though he was disposed to claim a
high destiny for his country, he did not believe that destiny was yet
immutably fixed. He, however, believed the question now to be decided
must have an influence on that destiny, that might at an early day,
if decided affirmatively, obliterate our happy civil institutions;
if negatively, preserve them long the best blessings of posterity.
Gentlemen who have advocated a naval establishment, have chosen to
consider this bill and report as the furtherance of a system already in
existence, and that, however short of their wishes the committee may be
disposed to go, they stand prepared to view whatever might be done to
augment the naval force as an evidence of assent to their system. Mr.
R. said at one time he had inclined to vote for the appropriation of a
sum to equip such of the vessels now out of service as might be found
worthy of refittal. But on discovering it would be considered as an
acknowledgment that a navy was proper in the sense it had been brought
into view by the committee, and doubting, on better consideration,
whether there was not great likelihood the money would be worse
applied in repairing old, than in building new vessels, and feeling a
conviction that if these vessels should be deemed worthy of repair,
they could not be brought into action in that exigence of war when they
could be useful, as in that case land defence must be resorted to, and
the consequent expense incurred, he should feel it his duty to vote
against this appropriation.

It has been observed that the constitution has invested Congress
with power to regulate commerce, to provide and maintain a navy, &c.
There is nothing, said Mr. R., imperative in this. It was necessary
in a general grant of powers to insert many items to be left to the
sound discretion of Congress, to use or not to use. Soon after the
Government came into operation, it became a favorite object with one
set of politicians to form a navy. On the occasion of our commerce
being depredated upon by the Barbary corsairs, the question first
came up. It became a matter of deliberation whether a peace should
be purchased of them with money and presents; whether some European
power should be subsidized to keep a few frigates on that station, or
whether a naval force should be equipped for the purpose (as alleged)
of enabling the President to negotiate to better effect. The party with
whom I have always found it my duty to act, said Mr. R., opposed, on
that occasion, the commencement of a navy system, when it was invited
under circumstances so specious. They were, however, in the minority.
The ships of war were voted--with what effect on the Algerines, he
did not stop to inquire. If this opposition to the commencement of a
Naval Establishment was wrong in the minority, their successors ought
not to follow them; but if it should be found that they were right,
the ground ought never to be quitted. The question of increasing
the navy was again discussed in the celebrated times of '98-9. The
collisions with France had raised the war fever very high. A navy was
vociferously contended for as the most efficient means of defence. It
was when things were in this state, that the President, in his reply
to the Marine Society of Boston, who had with much fervor tendered him
their approbation of his measures, hoped to see the wooden walls of
America considered as her best defence. Because Athens, when she was
invaded by the hosts of Xerxes, had chosen to interpret the oracle that
promised her safety in wooden walls, rationally, America must take
the same course, however dissimilarly situated. The people of Attica,
inhabiting a circumscribed territory, found safety in their fleet, and
they could have found it nowhere else. But such cannot be the case with
America. Even the hosts of Xerxes could not make it necessary for the
American people to quit their territory--the figure would not hold. On
this occasion, too, the Republican party consistently opposed a navy;
strange blindness and obstinacy, if they were not sustained by reason
as well as principle. On this occasion, the supporters of a navy system
were a majority in council. For a moment they succeeded with their
measures. But the public councils were soon filled by the people with
men of other minds, and the question was put to rest.

Gentlemen have considered this subject on its general principles and
remote consequences. In this point of view, said Mr. R., it presents
a wide field for reflection. The Chairman (Mr. CHEVES) has complained
he has had to meet this subject encumbered with much error and many
prejudices; among which is the idea that a naval system is prejudicial
to civil liberty. The opposers of a navy, with an air of no small
triumph, are called upon to show how a system of maritime power would
endanger the freedom of our country. It has been said, a military
chieftain, by an easy transition, may become a civil ruler, and that
the commander of an army has often become a despot, while no such event
could happen from a naval commander, as such an office gave no power
on _terra firma_. If we look a little deeper into the subject, we
shall find we have as much to fear, and even more, from a naval than
a military power. The latter can only be kept in time of war, and for
comparatively but short periods; at a time too, when the public spirit
is awakened and ready to oppose encroachment. The chair of rule may
possibly be gained by a military chief; but an attempt on the public
liberty has a much greater chance to fail. Evils of this sort can
only take place on very rare contingency; but the ruin of the public
liberty can hardly fail to be a consequence of the establishment of
a naval power. History proves to us that maritime power has always
excited national ambition to a spirit of conquest and plunder. A naval
power will seek colonies and ports in distant places. The chance, nay,
the certainty, of collisions with other nations, is multiplied, and a
corruption of morals is produced, that cannot fail to make the first
Government on earth a tyranny, by a course of events that the patriot
can neither prevent nor divert to other consequences. A short time
after Athens had found safety in her wooden walls, one of her statesmen
proposed she should burn the fleets of her neighbors, that she might
thereby be rendered mistress of Greece. This project the virtue of the
people resisted; but that virtue soon gave way in the expedition to the
Cyclades, where her navy committed acts of violence that must indelibly
fix the stain of the blackest perfidy and cruelty on the Athenian
character. What could be a more unprovoked act of aggression than her
crusade against Syracuse, a crime that visited her with a declension
of power from which she never recovered? For a nation to believe her
destinies fixed, is in a great measure to fix them. Nothing, perhaps,
contributed more to make Rome the mistress of the world, than the
oracles that promised it. Her heroes and statesmen were stimulated
thereby to fulfil her destiny. The maritime supremacy of Britain is,
perhaps, owing as much to the belief that she is the destined Queen of
the waters, as to any other cause. Though such operations be calculated
to bring about astonishing effects, how unfortunate is it when a
nation's eyes are thus directed to improper attainments--it becomes a
source of incalculable evil. Athens and Rome were the victims of such
a policy, as Britain is at this time. I fervently hope, said Mr. R.,
for a better destiny for our beloved country. Rome and Carthage were
both great maritime powers; it was not in Lybia and Italy they began
to contend for superiority, but in Sicily and Iberia. The conflicts
thence arising brought terror to the gates of Rome, and laid Carthage
in ashes. The abuse of maritime power in both those States changed
the free features of the government, and left a dreary despotism in
their stead. A naval victory secured to the second Cæsar the rule of
the mistress of the world. In later times, we have been told, said Mr.
R., the declension of maritime States has been due to other causes
than their Naval Establishments. In some instances it may have been
so. When the strength and power of a State has arisen entirely from
the profits of commerce, when that commerce has taken another course,
the transitory splendor it has built up has vanished. Venice was an
example of this. The commerce of the East caused her to rise out of
the circumscribed and marshy Islands at the bottom of the Adriatic,
the proud Mistress of the Waves. When the Cape of Good Hope had been
doubled by the Portuguese, her commercial advantages failed. She sunk
from the conqueror of the Eastern Empire, to a mere city of Italy and
Portugal; a narrow territory, by the same commerce, assumed the first
rank among the nations of the world. A naval power may serve sometimes
to extend commerce to wider limits; but it can by no means control it
with certainty to channels through which nature, and often the policy
of other nations, bid it to flow. What is the state of British commerce
at this time? The rupture of the peace of Amiens did not arise from
Britain having received injuries from France after the cessation of
hostilities. The new war was a commercial one. The British Cabinet saw,
in a state of peace, France would not be unmindful of her commercial
interests. The intelligence, the enterprise, and population, and the
resources of France, all indicated that she would at least divide
successfully the profits of commerce with her rival. The naval power of
Britain giving her the command of the sea, she could oppose only with
effect the growing commerce of her neighbor in a state of war. This
step of British policy imposed on the ruler of France the necessity
of changing the channels of commerce. In this way he has aimed a
blow at the vitals of her strength, which her tremendous naval power
neither enables her to avert nor lessen its force. Her marine puts the
trident into her hands, but she can no longer shake the earth. Her
monopolizing spirit has sealed the Continent of Europe against her,
and interdicted her commerce with America. She has reduced the ocean
almost to a desert; and she seems hastening to that destiny which has
generally attended her predecessors in naval power through her ambition
to rule the waves.

Gentlemen propose to protect commerce on this side the Gulf Stream, yet
admit if our vessels are despoiled on the Indian Ocean, we must apply
retaliation in the West Indies. The Gulf Stream limitation is at once
given up; a new expedition to the Cyclades is in that case to take
place. Begin your conquest in the West Indies, and you must increase
your navy to acquire and defend them. It is at once an admission that
naval power must be used more for ambition than the protection of
commerce and our territorial waters. But, what is worse, as you acquire
colonies and ships you must create armies. The hands of the Executive,
restricted and elective as it is, in the United States, became thence
armed with a sceptre formidable indeed, and the more so as it acquires
this strength without producing the shock to public feeling which
the seizure of power by a military leader will always excite. It has
been said, (said Mr. R.,) that the existence of Great Britain hung
upon her navy in the contest in which she is now engaged. If her fate
hangs suspended by her naval power, she owes her peril to that source.
Without her maritime strength, would she have aspired to balance the
scales of power on the Continent? Would she have become a party to the
infamous conspiracy of Pilnitz? Would she have wantonly plotted the
dismemberment of France? Would she have broken the peace of Amiens
whence her present dangers arise? Certainly not.

On the article of cost, said Mr. R., it is of little importance whether
the army or navy of Great Britain is most burdensome on her finances,
though it has been dwelt upon with particular emphasis, nor whether
an army be more expensive in every case, than a navy. Armies are a
necessary consequence of navies. Has not the British army increased
with equal pace with her navy?

The humane mind, said Mr. R., cannot contemplate without pain, that
from naval power have flown the most copious streams of human misery.
The plunder of half the world, with immense advantages in addition, has
not sustained the British navy. A debt has been accumulated that almost
baffles the power of figures to estimate. But debt, and a prospect
of Government insolvency at home, are of much less account than the
wrongs this navy has wrought on the society of nations. And yet it is
this Government that is held up to Republican America as a model for
imitation.

Need I remind you, said Mr. R., of the millions of victims sacrificed
to commercial cupidity on the plains of Hindostan, by means of this
navy? A population, thrice as great as that of the British Isles, has
been exterminated in this devoted region, within comparatively but a
few years, by mercantile rapacity. Colonel Dowe informs us, that the
wealth of one of the cities of this wretched country had whetted the
avarice of Clive and his associates, and that an offer was made to the
Government to pay the public debt for permission to sack it. It was
too gross an act of infamy to assent to, and the adventurers obtained
their end by other means. A famine and pestilence was substituted for
the bayonet, and the spoils of the devoted city glutted the hands
of rapine. In this exploit, a shoe-black divided his £200,000. Need
I remind you, said Mr. R., that the population of Africa has been
drained, to groan out a wretched existence in the West India colonies,
to prop up this naval and commercial power, or that the remotest
corners of every sea have been visited with the scourge of blood and
desolation for the same purpose? On general principles, does not past
experience afford sufficient warning to these States to avoid those
shoals on which so many nations have been wrecked?

Mr. Chairman, under no view which I have been able to take of this
subject, considering it either as the furtherance of a system of
naval power, to be expanded with the growing strength of the Union to
gigantic size, or that it is a proper time for providing a temporary
increase of naval force, can I agree, said Mr. R., to the bill on your
table.

When Mr. ROBERTS had concluded, the committee rose, and had leave to
sit again.


WEDNESDAY, January 22.

Another member, to wit, WILLIAM M. RICHARDSON, from Massachusetts,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

                         _Naval Establishment._

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
concerning the Navy. The question on filling up the blank in the
section which provides for repairing the vessels on hand, with four
hundred and eighty thousand dollars, was carried by a large majority.

The next section provides for the building of ---- additional frigates.

Mr. CLAY (the Speaker) rose to present his views on the bill before the
committee. He said that as he did not precisely agree in opinion with
any gentleman who had spoken, he should take the liberty of detaining
the committee a few moments while he offered to their attention some
observations. He was highly gratified with the temper and ability with
which the discussion had been hitherto conducted. It was honorable to
the House, and, he trusted, would continue to be manifested on many
future occasions.

On this interesting topic a diversity of opinion has existed almost
ever since the adoption of the present Government. On the one hand
there appeared to him to have been attempts made to precipitate the
nation into all the evils of naval extravagance, which had been
productive of so much mischief in other countries; and, on the other,
strongly feeling this mischief, there has existed an unreasonable
prejudice against providing such a competent naval protection for our
commercial and maritime rights as is demanded by their importance, and
as the increased resources of the country amply justify.

The attention of Congress has been invited to this subject by the
President in his Message delivered at the opening of the session.
Indeed, had it been wholly neglected by the Chief Magistrate, from the
critical situation of the country, and nature of the rights proposed
to be vindicated, it must have pressed itself upon our attention. But,
said Mr. C., the President, in his Message, observes: "Your attention
will, of course, be drawn to such provisions on the subject of our
naval force as may be required for the service to which it is best
adapted. I submit to Congress the seasonableness also of an authority
to augment the stock of such materials as are imperishable in their
nature, or may not at once be attainable." The President, by this
recommendation, clearly intimates an opinion that the naval force of
this country is capable of producing some effect; and the propriety of
laying up imperishable materials was no doubt suggested for the purpose
of making additions to the navy, as convenience and exigencies might
direct.

It appeared to Mr. C. a little extraordinary that so much, as it
seemed to him, unreasonable jealousy should exist against the Naval
Establishment. If, said he, we look back to the period of the formation
of the constitution, it will be found that no such jealousy was then
excited. In placing the physical force of the nation at the disposal of
Congress, the Convention manifested much greater apprehension of abuse
in the power given to raise armies than in that to provide a navy. In
reference to the Navy, Congress is put under no restrictions; but with
respect to the Army--that description of force which has been so often
employed to subvert the liberties of mankind--they are subjected to
limitations, designed to prevent the abuse of this dangerous power.
But it was not his intention to detain the committee by a discussion
on the comparative utility and safety of these two kinds of force. He
would, however, be indulged in saying, that he thought gentlemen had
wholly failed in maintaining the position they had assumed, that the
fall of maritime powers was attributable to their navies. They have
told you, indeed, that Carthage, Genoa, Venice, and other nations,
had navies, and, notwithstanding, were finally destroyed. But have
they shown, by a train of argument, that their overthrow was, in any
degree, ascribable to their maritime greatness? Have they attempted
even to show that there exists in the nature of this power a necessary
tendency to destroy the nation using it? Assertion is substituted for
argument; inferences not authorized by historical facts are arbitrarily
drawn; things wholly unconnected with each other are associated
together--a very logical mode of reasoning! In the same way he could
demonstrate how idle and absurd our attachments are to freedom itself.
He might say, for example, that Greece and Rome had forms of free
government, and that they no longer exist; and deducing their fall
from their devotion to liberty, the conclusion in favor of despotism
would very satisfactorily follow! He demanded what there is in the
nature and construction of maritime power to excite the fears that have
been indulged? Do gentlemen really apprehend that a body of seamen
will abandon their proper element, and, placing themselves under an
aspiring chief, will erect a throne to his ambition? Will they deign
to listen to the voice of history, and learn how chimerical are their
apprehensions?

But the source of alarm is in ourselves. Gentlemen fear that
if we provide a marine it will produce collisions with foreign
nations--plunge us into war, and ultimately overturn the constitution
of the country. Sir, if you wish to avoid foreign collision you had
better abandon the ocean; surrender all your commerce; give up all
your prosperity. It is the thing protected, not the instrument of
protection, that involves you in war. Commerce engenders collision,
collision war, and war, the argument supposes, leads to despotism.
Would the counsels be deemed wise, of that statesman who should
recommend that the nation should be unarmed--that the art of war, the
martial spirit, and martial exercises, should be prohibited--and that
the great body of the people should be taught that national happiness
was to be found in perpetual peace alone? No, sir. And yet every
argument in favor of a power of protection on land applies, in some
degree, to a power of protection on the sea. Undoubtedly a commerce
void of naval protection is more exposed to rapacity than a guarded
commerce; and if we wish to invite the continuance of the old, or
enaction of new unjust edicts, let us refrain from all exertion upon
that element where they operate, and where, in the end, they must be
resisted.

For his part, Mr. C. said, he did not allow himself to be alarmed
by those apprehensions of maritime power which appeared to agitate
other gentlemen. In the nature of our Government he beheld abundant
security against abuse. He would be unwilling to tax the land to
support the rights of the sea, and was for drawing from the sea itself
the resources with which its violated freedom should at all times
be vindicated. Whilst this principle is adhered to, there will be
no danger of running into the folly and extravagance which so much
alarms gentlemen; and whenever it is abandoned--whenever Congress
shall lay burdensome taxes to augment the Navy beyond what may be
authorized by the increased wealth, and demanded by the exigencies of
the country, the people will interpose, and, removing their unworthy
representatives, apply the appropriate corrective. Mr. C. could not,
then, see any just ground of dread in the nature of naval power. It
was, on the contrary, free from the evils attendant upon standing
armies. And, the genius of our institutions--the great representative
principle, in the practical enjoyment of which we are so eminently
distinguished--afforded the best guarantee against the ambition and
wasteful extravagance of Government.

What maritime strength is it expedient to provide for the United
States? In considering this subject, three different degrees of naval
power present themselves. In the first place, such a force as would be
capable of contending with that which any other nation is able to bring
on the ocean--a force that, boldly scouring every sea, would challenge
to combat the fleets of other powers, however great. He admitted it was
impossible at this time, perhaps it never would be desirable for this
country to establish so extensive a Navy. Indeed, he should consider
it as madness in the extreme in this Government to attempt to provide
a Navy capable to cope with the fleets of Great Britain, wherever they
might be met.

The next species of naval power to which he would advert, is that
which, without adventuring into distant seas, and keeping generally
in our own harbors, and on our coasts, would be competent to beat off
any squadron which might be attempted to be permanently stationed
in our waters. His friends from South Carolina (Messrs. CHEVES and
LOWNDES) had satisfactorily shown that, to effect this object, a
force equivalent only to one-third of that which the maintenance of
such squadron must require would be sufficient. That if, for example,
England should determine to station permanently upon our coast a
squadron of twelve ships-of-the-line, it would require for this service
thirty-six ships-of-the line, one-third in port repairing, one-third on
the passage, and one-third on the station. But that is a force which
it has been shown that even England, with her boasted Navy, could not
spare for the American service whilst she is engaged in the present
contest. Mr. C. said he was desirous of seeing such a force as he had
described, that is, about twelve ships-of-the-line and fifteen or
twenty frigates, provided for the United States; but, he admitted that
it was unattainable in the present situation of the finances of the
country. He contended, however, that it was such as Congress ought to
set about providing, and he hoped, in less than ten years, to see it
actually established. He was far from surveying the vast maritime power
of Great Britain with the desponding eye with which other gentlemen
beheld it. He could not allow himself to be discouraged at the prospect
even of her thousand ships. This country only required resolution, and
a proper exertion of its immense resources, to command respect, and
to vindicate every essential right. When we consider our remoteness
from Europe, the expense, difficulty, and perils, to which any squadron
would be exposed, stationed off our coasts, he entertained no doubt
that the force to which he referred would insure the command of our own
seas. Such a force would avail itself of our extensive seaboard and
numerous harbors, everywhere affording asylums to which it could retire
for safety from a superior fleet, or from which it could issue for the
purpose of annoyance. To the opinion of his colleague, (Mr. MCKEE,)
who appeared to think that it was in vain for us to make any struggle
on the ocean, he would oppose the sentiments of his distinguished
connexion, the heroic Daviess, who fell in the battle of Tippecanoe.

[Here Mr. C. read certain parts of a work written by Colonel Daviess,
in which the author attempts to show that, as the aggressions upon our
commerce were not committed by fleets, but by single vessels, they
could in the same manner be best retaliated; that a force of about
twenty or thirty frigates would be capable of inflicting great injury
on English commerce by picking up stragglers, cutting off convoys, and
seizing upon every moment of supineness; and that such a force, with
our seaports and harbors well fortified, and aided by privateers, would
be really formidable, and would annoy the British navy and commerce, as
the French army was assailed in Egypt, the Persian army in Scythia, and
the Roman army in Parthia.][26]

The third description of force worthy of consideration is, that which
would be able to prevent any single vessel, of whatever metal, from
endangering our whole coasting trade, blocking up our harbors, or
laying under contribution our cities; a force competent to punish the
insolence of the commander of any single ship, and to preserve in our
own jurisdiction the inviolability of our peace and our laws. A force
of this kind is entirely within the compass of our means at this time.
Is there a reflecting man in the nation who would not charge Congress
with a culpable neglect of its duty, if, for the want of such a force,
a single ship were to bombard one of our cities? Would not every
honorable member of this committee inflict on himself the bitterest
reproaches, if, by failing to make an inconsiderable addition to our
gallant little Navy, a single British vessel should place New York
under contribution? Yes, sir, when the city is in flames, its wretched
inhabitants begin to repent of their neglect in not providing engines
and water buckets. If, said Mr. C, we are not able to meet the wolves
of the forest, shall we put up with the barking of every petty fox that
trips across our way? Because we cannot guard against every possible
danger, shall we provide against none? He hoped not. He had hardly
expected that the instructing but humiliating lesson was so soon to be
forgotten which was taught us in the murder of Pierce; the attack on
the Chesapeake; and the insult offered in the harbor of Charleston,
which the brave old fellow that commanded the fort in vain endeavored
to chastise.

It was a rule with Mr. C., when acting either in a public or private
character, to attempt nothing more than what there existed a prospect
of accomplishing. He was, therefore, not in favor of entering into
any mad projects on this subject; but for deliberately and resolutely
pursuing what he believed to be within the power of Government.
Gentlemen refer to the period of 1798, and we are reminded of the
principles maintained by the opposition at that time. He had no doubt
of the correctness of that opposition. The naval schemes of that day
were premature, not warranted by the resources of the country, and were
contemplated for an unnecessary war into which the nation was about to
be plunged. He always admired and approved the zeal and ability with
which that opposition was conducted by the distinguished gentleman
now at the head of the Treasury. But the state of things is totally
altered. What was folly in 1798 may be wisdom now. At that time, we
had a revenue only of about six millions. Our revenue now, upon a
supposition that commerce is restored, is about sixteen millions.
The population of the country, too, is greatly increased--nearly
doubled--and the wealth of the nation is, perhaps, tripled. While
our ability to construct a navy is thus enhanced, the necessity for
maritime protection is proportionately augmented. Independent of
the extension of our commerce, since the year 1798, we have had an
addition of more than five hundred miles to our coast, from the bay of
Perdido to the mouth of the Sabine--a weak and defenceless accession,
requiring, more than any other part of our maritime frontier, the
protecting arm of Government.


FRIDAY, January 24.

                         _Naval Establishment._

The blank in the section for providing a dock yard, was filled with one
hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. RHEA moved so to amend the bill as to fix the dock yard in the
navy-yard at Washington City; but this motion was negatived by a large
majority.

On motion of Mr. CHEVES, the words "central and," were struck out, so
as to leave the site of the dock yard to be determined by the Executive.

The committee having gone through the bill, rose and reported it to
the House with the amendments. The House took up the bill, and on the
question of filling up the blank for repairing the vessels on hand with
"four hundred and eighty thousand dollars," it was carried--yeas 90,
nays 23.

The question was next put upon agreeing to the report of the committee
to strike out the second section of the bill, which contemplated the
building of new frigates; when

Mr. WILLIAMS rose and spoke at considerable length. He said the time
was very inauspicious for commencing an undertaking of such magnitude
as the building a navy, which could be of no use in the approaching
contest. He doubted the policy of engaging in the business at all;
for navies, he said, had deceived the hopes of every country which
had relied upon them; that we could never expect to be able to meet
Great Britain on the ocean; that we had fought through the Revolution
without a navy; for in that contest, a single privateer had done more
than the few ships of war which were in possession of the old Congress;
that except we are able to build and equip a navy equal to meet the
British at sea, we were better without one, as our ships would probably
fall a prey to their superior force; that his greatest objection
against a navy was, that it must be kept up in time of peace as well
as in war; that when the gentlemen spoke of a navy as cheaper than an
army, they could not mean to say that if we had a navy the army could
be dispensed with--they could not, for instance, take possession of
Canada by a navy; that the building of a navy would burden the people
with oppressive taxes; that such an establishment would serve only to
increase Executive patronage; that with respect to commerce, the people
were willing to give it all the protection in their power, but they
could not provide a navy for that purpose.


SATURDAY January 25.

                         _Naval Establishment._

Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Speaker, I rise to address you, on this occasion,
with no affected diffidence, and with many doubts concerning the
expediency of taking any part in this debate. On the one hand, the
subject has been discussed with a zeal, industry, and talent, which
leave but little scope for novelty, either in topic or illustration.
On the other hand, arguments from this side of the House, in favor of
this question, are received with so natural a jealousy, that I know not
whether more may not be lost than gained by so unpropitious a support.
Indeed, sir, if this subject had been discussed on narrow or temporary
or party principles, I should have been silent. On such ground, I could
not condescend to debate--I could not hope to influence. But, the
scale of discussion has been enlarged and liberal--relative rather to
the general system, than to the particular exigency. In almost every
respect, it has been honorable to the House, and auspicious to the
prospects of the nation. In such a state of feeling and sentiment, I
could not refrain from indulging the hope that suggestions, even from
so favorite a quarter, would be received with candor--perhaps with
attention. And, when I consider the deep interest which the State from
which I have the honor to be a Representative has, according to my
apprehension, in the event, I cannot permit the opportunity entirely to
pass, without bringing my small tribute of reflection to the general
stock of the House.

The object I shall chiefly attempt to enforce, is, the necessity and
duty of a systematic protection of our maritime rights, by maritime
means. I would call the thoughtful and intelligent men of this House
and nation to the contemplation of the essential connection between a
naval force, proportionate to the circumstances of our seacoast, the
extent of our commerce, and the inherent enterprise of our people;
I say, sir, I would call them to the contemplation of the essential
connection between such a naval force and the safety, prosperity, and
existence, of our Union. In the course of my observations, and as
a subsidiary argument, I shall also attempt to show the connection
between the adoption of the principle of a systematic maintenance of
our maritime rights, by maritime means, and relief from our present
national embarrassments.

I confess to you, Mr. Speaker, I never can look--indeed, in my opinion,
no American statesman ought ever to look--on any question touching
the vital interests of this nation, or of any of its component
parts, without keeping at all times in distinct view the nature of
our political association, and the character of the independent
sovereignties which compose it. Among States, the only sure and
permanent bond of union is _interest_. And the vital interests of
States, although they may be sometimes obscured, can never, for a
very long time, be misapprehended. The natural protection which the
essential interests of the great component parts of our political
association require will be sooner or later understood by the States
concerned in those interests. If a protection, upon system, be not
provided, it is impossible that discontent should not result. And
need I tell statesmen, that, when great local discontent is combined
in those sections with great physical power, and with acknowledged
portions of sovereignty, the inbred ties of nature will be too strong
for the artificial ties of parchment compact. Hence it results
that the essential interests of the great component parts of our
association ought to be the polar lights of all our statesmen--by
them they should guide their course. According to the bearings and
variations of those lights, should the statesmen of such a country
adjust their policy--always bearing in mind two assurances, as
fundamental principles of action, which the nature of things teaches,
that, although temporary circumstances--party spirit, local rivalries,
personal jealousies, suggestions of subordinate interests--may weaken,
or even destroy, for a time, the influence of the leading and permanent
interests of any great section of the country, yet those interests
must ultimately and necessarily predominate, and swallow up all these
local, and temporary, and personal, and subordinate considerations;
in other words, the minor interests will soon begin to realize the
essential connection which exists between their prosperity and the
prosperity of those great interests which, in such sections of the
country, nature has made predominant; and that no political connection
among free States can be lasting, or ought to be, which systematically
oppresses, or systematically refuses to protect, the vital interests of
any of the sovereignties which compose it.

I have recurred to these general considerations, to introduce and
elucidate this principle, which is the basis of my argument, that,
as it is the incumbent duty of every nation to protect its essential
interests, so it is the most impressive and critical duty of a
nation, composed of a voluntary association of vast, powerful, and
independent States, to protect the essential interests of all its great
component parts. And I add, that this protection must not be formal or
fictitious, but that it must be proportionate to the greatness of those
interests, and of a nature to give content to the States concerned in
their protection.

In reference to this principle, the course of my reflections will
be guided by two general inquiries--the nature of the interest to
be protected, and the nature of the protection to be extended. In
pursuing these inquiries, I shall touch very slightly, if at all, on
the abstract duty of protection, which is the very end of all political
associations, and, without the attainment of which, they are burdens
and no blessings. But I shall keep it mainly in my purpose to establish
the connection between a naval force and commercial prosperity; and to
show the nature of the necessity, and the degree of our capacity, to
give to our maritime rights a maritime protection.

In contemplating the nature of the interest to be protected, three
prominent features strike the eye, and direct the course of reflection,
viz: its locality, its greatness, and its permanency.

The locality of any great interest, in an association of States such
as compose this Union, will be a circumstance of primary importance,
in the estimation of every wise statesman. When a great interest
is equally diffused over the whole mass, it may be neglected or
oppressed or even abandoned, with less hazard of internal dissension.
The equality of the pressure lightens the burden. The common nature
of the interest removes the causes of jealousy. A concern equally
affecting the happiness of every part of the nation, it is natural to
suppose, is equally dear to all, and equally understood by all. Hence
results acquiescence in any artificial or political embarrassment of
it. Sectional fears and suspicions, in such case, have no food for
support, and no stimulant for activity. But it is far otherwise when
a great interest is, from its nature, either wholly, or in a very
great proportion, local. In relation to such a local interest, it is
impossible that jealousies and suspicions should not arise, whenever
it is obstructed by any artificial or political embarrassment; and
it is also impossible that they should not be, in a greater or less
degree, just. It is true, of the wisest and the best and the most
thoughtful of our species, that they are so constituted as not deeply
to realize the importance of interests which affect them not at all, or
very remotely. Every local circle of States, as well as of individuals,
has a set of interests, in the prosperity of which, the happiness of
the section to which they belong is identified; in relation to which
interests, the hopes and the fears, the reasonings and the schemes,
of the inhabitants of such sections are necessarily fashioned and
conducted. It is morally impossible that those concerned in such
sectional interests, should not look with some degree of jealousy on
schemes adopted in relation to those interests, and prosecuted by men,
a majority of whom have a very remote or very small stake in them.
And this jealousy must rise to an extreme height, when the course of
measures adopted, whether they have relation to the management or the
protection of such interests, wholly contravene the opinions and the
practical experience of the persons immediately concerned in them. This
course of reflection has a tendency to illustrate this idea--that,
as in every political association it is of primary importance that
the great interests of each local section should be skilfully and
honestly managed and protected, so, in selecting the mode and means
of management and protection, an especial regard should be had to the
content and rational satisfaction of those most deeply concerned in
such sectional interests. Theories and speculations of the closet,
however abundant in a show of wisdom, are never to be admitted to take
the place of those principles of conduct in which experience has shown
the prosperity and safety of such interests to consist. Practical
knowledge, and that sagacity which results from long attention to great
interests, never fail to inspire a just self-confidence in relation
to those interests--a confidence not to be browbeaten by authority,
nor circumvented by any general reasoning. And, in a national point of
view, it is scarcely of more importance that the course adopted should
be wise, than that content and rational satisfaction should be given.

On this topic of locality, I shall confine myself to one or two very
plain statements. It seems sufficient to observe, that commerce is,
from the nature of things, the leading interest of more than one-half,
and that it is the predominant interest of more than one-third, of
the people of the United States. The States north of the Potomac
contain nearly four millions of souls; and surely it needs no proof
to convince the most casual observer, that the proportion which the
commercial interest bears to the other interests of that great section
of the Union, is such as entitles it to the denomination of _leading
interest_. The States north of the Hudson contain nearly two and a
half millions of souls; and surely there is as little need of proof
to show that the proportion the commercial interest bears to the other
interests of that Northern section of the Union, is such as entitles
it there to the denomination of _predominating interest_. In all the
country between the Potomac and the Hudson the interest of commerce is
so great, in proportion to the other interests, that its embarrassment
clogs and weakens the energy of every other description of industry.
Yet, the agricultural and manufacturing interests of this section are
of a nature and a magnitude, both in respect of the staples of the one
and the objects of the other, as to render them, in a very considerable
degree, independent of the commercial. And, although they feel the
effect of the obstruction of commerce, the feeling may be borne
for a long time, without much individual suffering, or any general
distress. But, in the country north of the Hudson, the proportion and
connection of these great interests are different. Both agriculture
and manufactures have there grown up in more intimate relation to
commerce. The industry of that section has its shape and energy from
commercial prosperity. To the construction, the supply, and the support
of navigation, its manufactures have a direct or indirect reference;
and it is not very different with its agriculture. A country divided
into small farms, among a population great compared with its extent,
requires quick circulation and easy processes in the exchange of its
commodities. This can only be obtained by an active and prosperous
commerce.

But, perhaps, the greatness of this interest, and our pecuniary ability
to protect it, may be made more strikingly apparent by a comparison
of our commerce with that of Britain, in the single particular of
export. I state, then, as a fact, of which any man may satisfy himself
by a reference to McPherson's Annals of Commerce, where the tables
of British export may be found, that, taking the nine years prior to
the war of our Revolution--from 1766 to 1774 inclusive--the total
average export of Great Britain was £16,000,000 sterling; equal to
$71,000,000--an amount less, by $10,000,000, than the present total
average export of the United States. And again, taking the nine years
beginning with 1789, and ending with 1797, inclusive, the total annual
average export of Great Britain was £24,000,000 sterling--equal to
$106,000,000--which is less, by $2,000,000, than the total export of
the United States in 1807. It is true, that this is the _official
value_ of the British export, and that the _real value_ is somewhat
higher--perhaps thirty per cent. This circumstance, although it in a
degree diminishes the approximation of the American to the British
commerce, in point of amount does not materially affect the argument.
Upon the basis of her commerce, Great Britain maintains a maritime
force of 800 or 1,000 vessels of war. And will it be seriously
contended, that, upon the basis of a commerce like ours, thus treading
upon the heels of British greatness, we are absolutely without the
ability of maintaining the security of our seaboard, the safety of our
cities, and the unobstructed course of our coasting trade?

By recurring to the permanency of this interest, the folly and madness
of this negligence and misplaced meanness--for it does not deserve
the name of economy--will be still more distinctly exhibited. If this
commerce were the mushroom growth of a night--if it had its vigor
from the temporary excitement and the accumulated nutriment which
warring elements in Europe had swept from the places of their natural
deposit--then, indeed, there might be some excuse for a temporizing
policy touching so transitory an interest. But commerce in the Eastern
States is of no foreign growth, and of no adventitious seed; its root
is of a fibre which almost two centuries have nourished; and the
perpetuity of its destiny is written in legible characters, as well in
the nature of the country, as in the disposition of its inhabitants.
Indeed, sir, look along your whole coast, from Passamaquoddy to Capes
Henry and Charles, and behold the deep and far-winding creeks and
inlets, the noble basins, the projecting headlands, the majestic
rivers; and those sounds and bays, which are more like inland seas,
than any thing called by those names in other quarters of the globe!
Can any man do this, and not realize that the destiny of the people
inhabiting such a country is essentially maritime? Can any man do this,
without being impressed by the conviction, that, although the poor
projects of politicians may embarrass, for a time, the dispositions
growing out of the condition of such a country, yet that nature will be
too strong for cobweb regulations, and will vindicate her rights with
certain effect--perhaps with awful perils? No nation ever did or ever
ought to resist such allurements and invitations to a particular mode
of industry. The purposes of Providence relative to the destination of
men are to be gathered from the circumstances in which his beneficence
has placed them; and to refuse to make use of the means of prosperity
which his goodness has put into our hands, what is it but spurning
at his bounty, and rejecting the blessings which his infinite wisdom
has designated for us, by the very nature of his allotments? The
employments of industry, connected with navigation and commercial
enterprise, are precious to the people of that quarter of the country,
by ancient prejudice, not less than recent profit. The occupation is
rendered dear and venerable, by all the cherished associations of our
infancy, and all the sage and prudential maxims of our ancestors. And,
as to the lessons of encouragement derived from recent experience, what
nation, within a similar period, ever received so many that were sweet
and salutary? What nation, in so short a time, ever before ascended to
such a height of commercial greatness?

Having concluded what I intended to suggest, in relation to the nature
of the interest to be protected, I proceed to consider the nature of
the protection which it is our duty to extend. And here, Mr. Speaker,
I am necessitated to make an observation which is so simple and so
obvious, that were it not for the arguments urged against the principle
of maritime protection, I should have deemed the mere mention of it to
require an apology. The remark is this: that rights, in their nature
local, can only be maintained where they exist, and not where they do
not exist. If you had a field to defend in Georgia, it would be very
strange to put up a fence in Massachusetts. And yet, how does this
differ from invading Canada, for the purpose of defending our maritime
rights? I beg not to be understood, Mr. Speaker, by this remark, as
intending to chill the ardor for the Canada expedition. It is very
true, that, to possess ourselves of the Canadas, and Nova Scotia, and
their dependencies, it would cost these United States, at the least
estimate, $50,000,000; and that Great Britain's national pride, and
her pledge of protection to the people of that country, being put
out of the question, she would sell you the whole territory for half
the money. I make no objection, however, on this account. On the
contrary, for the purposes of the present argument, I may admit that
pecuniary calculation ought to be put out of the field, when spirit
is to be shown, or honor vindicated. I only design to inquire how our
maritime rights are protected by such invasion. Suppose that in every
land-project you are successful--suppose both the Canadas, Quebec,
Halifax, every thing to the North pole, yours by fair conquest--are
your rights on the ocean, therefore, secure? Does your flag float
afterwards in honor? Are your seamen safe from impressment? Is your
course along the highway of nations unobstructed? No one pretends
it. No one has or can show, by any logical deduction, or any detail
of facts, that the loss of those countries would so compress Great
Britain as to induce her to abandon for one hour any of her maritime
pretensions. What then results? Why, sir--what is palpable as the
day--that maritime rights are only to be maintained by maritime means.
This species of protection must be given, or all clamor about maritime
rights will be understood, by the people interested in them, to be
hollow or false; or (what is worse) an intention to co-operate with the
enemies of our commerce in a still further embarrassment of it.

In considering this subject of maritime protection, I shall recur to
the nature and degree of it, and to our capacity to extend it. And
there we are always met, at the very threshold, with this objection:
"A naval force requires much time to get it into readiness, and the
exigency will be past before the preparation can be completed." This
want of foresight in times past, is made an apology for want of
foresight in the time present. We were unwise in the beginning, and
unwise we resolve to continue until the end of the chapter. We refuse
to do any thing until the moment of exigency, and then it is too late.
Thus our improvidence is made sponsor for our disinclination. But what
is the law of nature and the dictate of wisdom, on this subject? The
casualties of life, the accidents to which man is exposed, are the
modes established by Providence for his instruction. This is the law
of our nature. Hence it is that adversity is said to keep a school for
certain people who will learn in no other. Hence, too, the poet likens
it to "a toad, ugly and venomous, which bears a precious jewel in his
head." And, in another place, but with the same general relation, "out
of this thorn danger, we pluck the flower safety." This law is just as
relative to nations, as it is to individuals. For, notwithstanding all
the vaunting of statesmen, their whole business is to apply an enlarged
common sense to the affairs intrusted to their management.

Touching the nature and degree of that maritime protection, which
it may be wise in this nation to extend to its maritime interests,
it seems to me that our exertions should rather be excited than
graduated, by the present exigency; that our duty is to inquire, upon
a general scale, what our commercial citizens have, in this respect,
a right to claim; and what is the unquestionable obligation of a
commercial nation, to so great a class of its interests. For this
purpose, my observations will have reference rather to the principles
of the system, than to the provisions of the bill now under debate.
Undoubtedly, an appropriation for the building of ten, or any other
additional number of frigates, would be so distinct a manifestation of
the intention of the National Legislature to extend to commerce its
natural protection, as in itself to outweigh any theoretic preference
for a maritime force of higher character. I cannot, therefore, but
cordially support an appropriation for a species of protection so
important and desirable. Yet in an argument, having relation to
the system, rather than to the occasion, I trust I shall have the
indulgence of the House, if my course of reflections should take a
wider range than the propositions on the table, and embrace, within the
scope of remark, the general principles by which the nature and degree
of systematical naval protection should in my judgment be regulated.

Touching that branch of interest which is most precious to commercial
men, it is impossible that there can be any mistake. For however dear
the interests of property or of life, exposed upon the ocean, may be
to their owners or their friends; yet the safety of our altars and of
our firesides, of our cities and of our seaboard, must, from the nature
of things, be entwined into the affections by ties incomparably more
strong and tender. And it happens that both national pride and honor
are peculiarly identified with the support of these primary objects of
commercial interest.

With respect to the nature and extent of this naval force, some
difference of opinion may arise, according to the view taken of the
primary objects of protection. For myself, I consider that those
objects are first to be protected, in the safety of which the national
character and happiness are most deeply interested. And these are
chiefly concerned, beyond all question, in the preservation of our
maritime settlements from pillage and our coast from violence. For
this purpose it is requisite that there should be a ship of war for
the harbor of every great city of the United States, equal, in point
of force, to the usual grade of ships-of-the-line of the maritime
belligerents. These ships might be so instructed as to act singly or
together, as circumstances might require. My reason for the selection
of this species of force is, that it puts every city and great harbor
of the United States in a state of security from the insults, and the
inhabitants of your seacoast from the depredation, of any single ship
of war of any nation. To these should be added a number of frigates
and smaller vessels of war. By such means our coasting trade might
be protected, the mouths of our harbors secured (in particular that
of the Mississippi) from the buccaneers of the West Indies, and,
hereafter perhaps, from those of South America. A system of protection,
graduated upon a scale so conformable to the nature of the country,
and to the greatness of the commercial interest, would tend to quiet
that spirit of jealousy which so naturally and so justly begins to
spring up among the States. Those interested in commerce would care
little what local influences predominated, or how the ball of power
vibrated among our factions, provided an efficient protection of their
essential interests, upon systematic principles, was not only secured
by the letter of the constitution, but assured by a spirit pervading
every description of their rulers. But it is said that "we have not
capacity to maintain such a naval force." Is it want of pecuniary or
want of physical capacity? In relation to our pecuniary capacity, I
will not condescend to add any proof to that plain statement already
exhibited, showing that we have an annual commercial exposure, equal to
six hundred millions of dollars, and that two-thirds of one per cent.
upon this amount of value, or four millions of dollars, is more than is
necessary, if annually and systematically appropriated, for this great
object; so anxiously and rightfully desired by your seaboard, and so
essential to the honor and obligations of the nation. I will only make
a single other statement, by way of illustrating the smallness of the
annual appropriations necessary for the attainment of this important
purpose. The annual appropriation of one-sixth of one per cent. on
the amount of the value of the whole annual commercial exposure,
(one million of dollars,) is sufficient to build, in two years, six
seventy-four gun ships; and taking the average expense in peace and
war, the annual appropriation of the same sum is sufficient to maintain
them afterwards, in a condition for efficient service. This objection
of pecuniary inability may be believed in the interior country, where
the greatness of the commercial property and all the tender obligations
connected with its preservation, are not realized. But, in the cities
and in the commercial States, the extent of the national resources is
more truly estimated. They know the magnitude of the interests at stake
and their essential claim to protection. Why, sir, were we seriously
to urge this objection of pecuniary incapacity to the commercial men
of Massachusetts, they would laugh us to scorn. Let me state a single
fact. In the year 1745, the State, then the colony of Massachusetts
Bay, included a population of 220,000 souls, and yet, in that infant
state of the country, it owned a fleet consisting of three ships,
one of which carried twenty guns, three snows, one brig, and three
sloops; being an aggregate of ten vessels of war. These partook of the
dangers, and shared in the glory, of that expedition which terminated
with the surrender of Louisburg. Comparing the population, the extent
of territory, the capital, and all the other resources of this great
nation, with the narrow means of the colony of Massachusetts at that
period of its history, it is not extravagant to assert that the fleet
it then possessed, in proportion to its pecuniary resources, was
greater than would be, in proportion to the resources of the United
States, a fleet of fifty sail-of-the-line and one hundred frigates.

The general effect of the policy I advocate, is to produce confidence
at home and respect abroad. These are twin shoots from the same stock,
and never fail to flourish or fade together. Confidence is a plant of
no mushroom growth and of no artificial texture. It springs only from
sage counsels and generous endeavors. The protection you extend must
be efficient and suited to the nature of the object you profess to
maintain. If it be neither adequate nor appropriate, your wisdom may
be doubted, your motives may be distrusted, but in vain you expect
confidence. The inhabitants of the seaboard will inquire of their
own senses and not of your logic, concerning the reality of their
protection.

As to respect abroad, what course can be more certain to insure it?
What object more honorable, what more dignified than to behold a
great nation pursuing wise ends by appropriate means; rising to adopt
a series of systematic exertions, suited to her power, and adequate
to her purposes? What object more consolatory to the friends--what
more paralyzing to the enemies of our Union--than to behold the
natural jealousies and rivalries, which are the acknowledged dangers
of our political condition, subsiding or sacrificing? What sight
more exhilarating than to see this great nation once more walking
forth among the nations of the earth, under the protection of no
foreign shield? Peaceful because powerful--powerful because united in
interests, and amalgamated by concentration of those interests in the
national affections.

But, let the opposite policy prevail; let the essential interests of
the great component parts of this Union find no protection under the
national arm--instead of safety let them realize oppression, and the
seeds of discord and dissolution are inevitably sown in a soil the
best fitted for their root, and affording the richest nourishment for
their expansion. It may be a long time before they ripen. But, sooner
or later, they will assuredly burst forth in all their destructive
energies. In the intermediate period, what aspect does a Union, thus
destitute of cement, present? Is it that of a nation keen to discern,
and strong to resist, violations of its sovereignty? It has rather
the appearance of a casual collection of semi-barbarous clans, with
the forms of civilization, and with the rude and rending passions of
the savage state. In truth, powerful--yet, as to any foreign effect,
imbecile--rich, in the goods of fortune, yet wanting that inherent
spirit without which a nation is poor indeed; their strength exhausted
by struggles for local power; their moral sense debased by low
intrigues for personal popularity, or temporary pre-eminence; all their
thoughts turned not to the safety of the State, but to the elevation
of a chieftain. A people presenting such an aspect, what have they to
expect abroad? What but pillage, insult, and scorn?

The choice is before us. Persist in refusing efficient maritime
protection; persist in the system of commercial restrictions; what now
is, perhaps, anticipation, will hereafter be history.

Mr. FISK said that, when this subject was first presented to the
House, he felt inclined to vote for a small increase of the Naval
Establishment; but it now appears that, what is asked for is considered
only as laying a foundation for a great system--a system which, he
feared, if carried into execution, might change the Government.

Mr. F. contended that the Navy never had, and never could protect our
commerce. Like standing armies, he considered navies as dangerous to
liberty. As to the constitutional provision, with respect to a navy,
it is nothing more than a mere grant of power, which Congress is at
liberty to use or not, as they may deem it necessary or expedient.

Though he had listened with candor to all the arguments which had been
used in favor of an increase of this Establishment at the present time,
he was far from being convinced that such an increase, at present,
is either necessary or expedient. It appeared to him that every
nation which has embarked, to any extent, in Navy Establishments,
has been eventually crushed by them. Whether you go back to ancient,
or look upon modern Europe, you will find navies have not afforded
that protection which gentlemen are desirous of persuading the House
they are capable of affording. Has the navy of Russia protected her
commerce? There are in the Russian dominions from twenty-five to thirty
millions of people; but, by every account we have of them, their
situation is not very enviable; nor have they any great degree of
commerce to protect. Where are the navies of Sweden and Denmark? The
latter, it is well known, were swept away and destroyed by the British
fleet; and the fleet of Sweden serves only to keep the country in
poverty to maintain it. A navy looks pretty well in theory; but look
into the experience of nations, and it will be found to have been the
bane of every country which has had any thing to do with it. We should
want wisdom, therefore, to pursue a system which has proved so ruinous
to others.

With respect to Great Britain herself, it had been said that her navy
had been the basis of her wealth and prosperity. Mr. F. said he did
not envy the situation of that country. The glory and honor which such
nations are in the habit of acquiring, prove a curse to them in the end
by enslaving them with expense.

As to the protection and encouragement of commerce, he believed
commerce would always flourish best when left to itself unshackled by
regulations. It will then be carried to every part of the globe. In
the course of the debate, it had been said that the exports of Great
Britain, in 1797, were not greater than ours before our commerce was
restricted, though that nation had possessed a navy which had triumphed
on the ocean for half a century. How did this happen? It was owing,
said Mr. F., to the freedom of our commerce.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. QUINCY) had spoken of the naval
force formerly possessed by Massachusetts. But, what security did those
ships afford? They were of no use, as he believed; they were nothing
but a heavy expense to the State; and he believed the merchants had
found their commerce in a much better state since, than it was when
they were in being.

Gentlemen speak of the embarrassments of our commerce, as if they were
owing to our not having a navy; but, if they will look around, they
will find that those countries which have navies have not escaped; our
embarrassments have arisen from the wrongs committed against us by
other nations, which we had no power of preventing.

It had been shown that the Navy Establishment proposed could not be
supported but by an expense which would prove ruinous to this country.
Rather than incur this expense, he was willing to dispense with the
honor supposed to be attached to such an Establishment. Mr. F. was
opposed to this system, too, because it could not be supported without
having recourse to a force similar to impressment to obtain a number of
seamen sufficient to man such a fleet. He was anxious to protect every
part of the Union; but he could not consent to support any scheme so
pregnant with mischief to the country, as he considered this large Navy
Establishment to be.

The question on agreeing to strike out the section for building the
frigates was carried--yeas 62, nays 59.

The next question was, on agreeing with the Committee of the Whole
to fill the blank for providing ship timber and other imperishable
materials, with the words two hundred thousand dollars, which was
carried--yeas 82, nays 37.

Another question was on agreeing with the Committee of the Whole to
make the above appropriation for three years, viz: for the years 1812,
1813, and 1814. This motion was carried--yeas 67, nays 52.

The next question was on agreeing with the Committee of the Whole to
appropriate one hundred thousand dollars for providing a dock yard.

Mr. RHEA moved to strike out the section; but this motion being decided
to be out of order, Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS spoke against the propriety of
appropriating money, without estimate, for an object not wanted until
we went about building seventy-fours. The House adjourned, on motion of
Mr. SMILIE, without taking the question.


TUESDAY, January 28.

                         _Naval Establishment._

The order of the day, viz: the bill concerning the Naval Establishment,
was then taken up, and the question on agreeing to the report of
the Committee of the Whole, to fill up the blank in the section
providing a dock yard, with one hundred thousand dollars, being under
consideration, Mr. CHEVES stated the grounds upon which the committee
had recommended this provision of the bill, and replied to some remarks
of his colleague (Mr. WILLIAMS) made yesterday.

Mr. RHEA then moved to strike out the whole section in relation to the
dock yard; which, after some little debate, was carried--yeas 56, nays
52.

Mr. BLACKLEDGE moved a new section to the bill, providing for the
building of four seventy-four gunships. As an inducement to the House
to adopt this new section, he stated there were sufficient timber and
guns on hand; that the whole expense would not exceed $1,300,000,
and the guns and timber being already provided, an appropriation of
$824,000 only, would be necessary to complete them.

The question was negatived--yeas 33, nays 76.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading to-morrow.


MONDAY, March 2.

                      _Divorces in the District._

Mr. LEWIS, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, made the
following report:

    The Committee for the District of Columbia, to whom were
    referred the petitions of Jane Deakins, praying for a divorce
    from William Deakins, and of David Beck, praying for a divorce
    from Ellen, his wife, submit the following report:

    The only object which the petitioners can have in view is
    to be enabled, respectively, to enter into new contracts of
    marriage. Were marriages only a _civil institution_, the courts
    of law would be open to all parties seeking the redress now
    prayed for, for alleged breach of the marriage contract: but
    it is something more; it is a _divine ordinance_, and has been
    pronounced such by the highest legal as well as spiritual
    authority. The competency of any human tribunal to dissolve
    its sacred obligations may well be doubted. The justice or
    policy, under any circumstances, of weakening the matrimonial
    institution, upon the purity of which depends the very fabric
    of society itself, may be boldly denied. Divorces are not
    merely the effect of corruption of manners; they are the cause
    also. They hold out temptations to crime which human infirmity
    cannot at all times resist. They hold out incentives to that
    adultery which they are called in to remedy. Extreme cases may
    indeed be put, but they are rare; both parties are generally
    in fault. Shall a very few individuals, who present themselves
    in a questionable shape, be debarred from contracting a second
    marriage, or shall the foundations of society be loosened
    for their special accommodation? Shall the heaviest public
    injury be encountered for the convenience of those, who, for
    the most part, have shown how little reliance is to be placed
    upon their virtue or discretion? Shall incentives to nuptial
    infidelity be presented to the great body of society for the
    personal gratification of a few unfortunate members, diffusing
    dissatisfaction and discontent, where, but for the deceitful
    hope of divorce, they had never been known?

    The frequency of divorces may be taken as an unerring criterion
    of the depravity of morals. A respectable authority has
    declared, that "from the Reformation to the commencement of
    the eighteenth century, there had occurred only four instances
    of Parliamentary divorce; but, in the present reign, they
    had increased to the enormous number of one hundred and
    ninety-three." It is notorious that the crime which is made
    the groundwork of the divorce, is frequently committed with
    the most "deliberate and unblushing indifference," for the
    purpose of enabling the adulterer and adultress thereafter
    to intermarry. Your committee will not attempt to pursue the
    subject further. It is calculated to inspire the most solemn
    reflections. They are opposed to divorce upon principle, as
    tending to excite family discord; as bearing hard upon the
    weaker sex, whom it is especially incumbent upon us to protect
    and to cherish; above all, as weakening the matrimonial tie,
    upon the sanctity of which depend "all the charities of father,
    son, and brother." The committee will not enter into the
    question how far it may be wise or politic to hold forth to the
    world this District as an asylum for those who wish to obtain
    absolution from the marriage vow. They will content themselves
    with submitting the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be
    granted.

Referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.


WEDNESDAY, March 4.

                       _Constitution of Orleans._

The following message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    At the request of the convention assembled in the Territory of
    Orleans on the 22d day of November last, I transmit to Congress
    the proceedings of that body in pursuance of the act, entitled
    "An act to enable the people of the Territory of Orleans to
    form a constitution and State government, and for the admission
    of the said State into the Union on an equal footing with the
    original States, and for other purposes."

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  MARCH 3, 1812.


The Message and accompanying documents having been read, a proposition
was made to refer them to a select committee; but, before it was
decided, the House adjourned.


MONDAY, March 9.

                          _British Intrigues._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress copies of certain documents which remain
    in the Department of State. They prove that at a recent period,
    whilst the United States, notwithstanding the wrongs sustained
    by them, ceased not to observe the laws of peace and neutrality
    towards Great Britain, and in the midst of amicable professions
    and negotiations on the part of the British Government, through
    its public Ministers here, a secret agent of that Government
    was employed in certain States, more especially at the seat of
    Government in Massachusetts, in fomenting disaffection to the
    constituted authorities of the nation; and in intrigues with
    the disaffected for the purpose of bringing about resistance to
    the laws; and eventually, in concert with a British force, of
    destroying the Union and forming the Eastern part thereof into
    a political connection with Great Britain.

    In addition to the effect which the discovery of such a
    procedure ought to have on the Public Councils, it will not
    fail to render more dear to the hearts of all good citizens
    that happy Union of these States, which, under Divine
    Providence, is the guarantee of their liberties, their safety,
    their tranquillity, and their prosperity.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

    MARCH 9, 1812.


_Mr. Henry to Mr. Monroe._

                        PHILADELPHIA, _February 20, 1812_.

    SIR: Much observation and experience have convinced me, that
    the injuries and insults with which the United States have
    been so long and so frequently visited, and which cause
    their present embarrassment, have been owing to an opinion
    entertained by foreign States, "that in any measure tending to
    wound their pride, or provoke their hostility, the Government
    of this country could never induce a great majority of its
    citizens to concur."--And as many of the evils which flow
    from the influence of this opinion on the policy of foreign
    nations, may be removed by any act that can produce unanimity
    among all parties in America, I voluntarily tender to you,
    sir, such means, as I possess, towards promoting so desirable
    and important an object; which, if accomplished, cannot fail
    to extinguish, perhaps forever, those expectations abroad,
    which may protract indefinitely an accommodation of existing
    differences, and check the progress of industry and prosperity
    in this rising Empire.

    I have the honor to transmit herewith the documents and
    correspondence relating to an important mission in which I was
    employed by Sir James Craig, the late Governor General of the
    British Provinces in North America, in the winter of the year
    1809.

    The publication of these papers will demonstrate a fact
    not less valuable than the good already proposed; it will
    prove that no reliance ought to be placed on the professions
    of good faith of an Administration, which, by a series of
    disastrous events, has fallen into such hands as a Castlereagh,
    a Wellesley, or a Liverpool--I should rather say into the
    hands of the stupid subalterns, to whom the pleasures and the
    indolence of those Ministers have consigned it.

    In contributing to the good of the United States by an
    exposition which cannot (I think) fail to solve and melt all
    division and disunion among its citizens, I flatter myself
    with the fond expectation that when it is made public in
    England it will add one great motive to the many that already
    exist, to induce that nation to withdraw its confidence from
    men whose political career is a fruitful source of injury and
    embarrassment in America; of injustice and misery in Ireland;
    of distress and apprehension in England; and contempt every
    where. In making this communication to you, sir, I deem
    it incumbent on me distinctly and unequivocally to state
    that I adopt no party views; that I have not changed any of
    my political opinions; that I neither seek nor desire the
    patronage nor countenance of any Government nor of any party;
    and that, in addition to the motives already expressed, I am
    influenced by a just resentment of the perfidy and dishonor of
    those who first violated the conditions upon which I received
    their confidence; who have injured me and disappointed the
    expectations of my friends, and left me no choice but between a
    degrading acquiescence in injustice, and a retaliation which is
    necessary to secure to me my own respect.

    This wound will be felt where it is merited; and if Sir James
    Craig still live, his share of the pain will excite no sympathy
    among those who are at all in the secret of our connection.

    I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant, &c.

                                                               J. HENRY.

  To Hon. JAMES MONROE.
          _Secretary of State, &c._



No. 1.

    Mr. Ryland, Secretary to Sir James Craig, late Governor General
      of the British Provinces in North America, to Mr. Henry.

          _Application to undertake the Mission to the United
                               States._

                    [Most secret and confidential.]

                               QUEBEC, _January_ 26, 1809.

    MY DEAR SIR: The extraordinary state of things at this time in
    the neighboring States has suggested to the Governor-in-Chief
    the idea of employing you on a secret and confidential mission
    to Boston, provided an arrangement can be made to meet the
    important end in view, without throwing an absolute obstacle
    in the way of your professional pursuits. The information and
    political observations heretofore received from you were
    transmitted by his Excellency to the Secretary of State, who
    has expressed his particular approbation of them; and there is
    no doubt that your able execution of such a mission as I have
    suggested, would give you a claim, not only on the Governor
    General, but on His Majesty's Ministers, which might eventually
    contribute to your advantage. You will have the goodness,
    therefore, to acquaint me, for his Excellency's information,
    whether you could make it convenient to engage in a mission of
    this nature, and what pecuniary assistance would be requisite
    to enable you to undertake it, without injury to yourself.

    At present, it is only necessary for me to add, that the
    Governor will furnish you with a cipher for carrying on your
    correspondence; and that, in case the leading party in any of
    the States wished to open a communication with this Government,
    their views might be communicated through you.

    I am, with great truth and regard, my dear sir, your most
    faithful, humble servant,

                                                       HERMAN W. RYLAND.

  JOHN HENRY, Esq.



No. 2.

           General Instructions from Sir J. H. Craig to Mr.
                 Henry, respecting his Secret Mission.

        _His Excellency the Governor-in-Chief's Instructions to
                    Mr. Henry, of February, 1809._

                    [Most secret and confidential.]

                               QUEBEC, _February 6, 1809_.

    SIR: As you have so readily undertaken the service which I have
    suggested to you, as being likely to be attended with much
    benefit to the public interests, I am to request, that, with
    your earliest convenience, you will proceed to Boston.

    The principal object that I recommend to your attention, is,
    the endeavor to obtain the most accurate information of the
    true state of affairs in that part of the Union, which, from
    its wealth, the number of its inhabitants, and the known
    intelligence and ability of several of its leading men, must
    naturally possess a very considerable influence over, and will
    indeed probably lead the other Eastern States of America in the
    part that they may take at this important crisis.

    I shall not pretend to point out to you the mode by which you
    will be most likely to obtain this important information; your
    own judgment, and the connections which you may have in the
    town, must be your guide. I think it, however, necessary to
    put you on your guard against the sanguineness of an aspiring
    party. The Federalists, as I understand, have at all times
    discovered a leaning to this disposition; and their being under
    its particular influence, at this moment, is the more to be
    expected, from their having no ill-founded ground for their
    hopes of being nearer the attainment of their object than they
    have been for some years past.

    In the general terms which I have made use of in describing
    the object which I recommend to your attention, it is scarcely
    necessary that I should observe, I include the state of the
    public opinion, both with regard to their internal politics,
    and to the probability of a war with England; the comparative
    strength of the two great parties into which the country is
    divided, and the views and designs of that which may ultimately
    prevail.

    It has been supposed, that, if the Federalists of the Eastern
    States should be successful in obtaining that decided influence
    which may enable them to direct the public opinion, it is not
    improbable that, rather than submit to a continuance of the
    difficulties and distress to which they are now subject, they
    will exert that influence to bring about a separation from the
    general Union. The earliest information on this subject may be
    of great consequence to our Government, as it may also be, that
    it should be informed how far, in such an event, they would
    look up to England for assistance, or be disposed to enter into
    a connection with us.

    Although it would be highly inexpedient that you should in
    any manner appear as an avowed agent, yet, if you could
    contrive to obtain an intimacy with any of the leading party,
    it may not be improper that you should insinuate, (though
    with great caution,) that, if they should wish to enter into
    any communication with our Government, through me, you are
    authorized to receive any such, and will safely transmit
    it to me. And as it may not be impossible that they should
    require some document, by which they may be assured that you
    are really in the situation in which you represent yourself,
    I enclose a credential to be produced in that view. But, I
    most particularly enjoin and direct that you do not make any
    use of this paper, unless a desire to that purpose should be
    expressed, and unless you see good ground for expecting that
    the doing so may lead to a more confidential communication than
    you can otherwise look for.

    In passing through the State of Vermont, you will of course
    exert your endeavors to procure all the information that the
    short stay you will probably make there will admit of. You
    will use your own discretion as to delaying your journey with
    this view, more or less, in proportion to your prospects of
    obtaining any information of consequence.

    I request to hear from you as frequently as possible; and as
    letters directed to me might excite suspicion, it may be as
    well that you put them under cover to Mr. ----; and as even
    the addressing letters always to the same person might attract
    notice, I recommend your sometimes addressing your packet to
    the Chief Justice here, or occasionally, though seldom, to Mr.
    Ryland, but never with the addition of his official description.

    I am, sir, your most obedient humble servant,

                                                            J. H. CRAIG.

  JOHN HENRY, Esq.



_Copy of the "Credential" given by Sir James Craig to Mr. Henry._

    The bearer, Mr. John Henry, is employed by me, and full
    confidence may be placed in him for any communication which any
    person may wish to make to me in the business committed to him.
    In faith of which I have given him this under my hand and seal
    at Quebec, the 6th day of February, 1809.


[Copies of the letters from Mr. Henry to Sir James Craig, relative to
his mission to the United States, in the year 1809.]


No. 1.

        _Answer to the letter of Mr. Secretary Ryland, proposing
                           the mission, &c._

                                MONTREAL, _Jan. 31, 1809_.

    SIR: I have to acknowledge the favor of your letter of the
    26th instant, written by the desire of his Excellency, the
    Governor-in-Chief, and hasten to express, through you, to his
    Excellency, my readiness to comply with his wishes.

    I need not add how very flattering it is to receive from His
    Excellency the assurance of the approbation of His Majesty's
    Secretary of State, for the very humble services that I may
    have rendered.

    If the nature of the service in which I am to be engaged will
    require no other disbursements than for my individual expenses,
    I do not apprehend that these can exceed my private resources.

    I shall be ready to take my departure before my instructions
    can be made out.

    I have the honor to be your most obedient servant,

                                                                   J. H.

  H. W. RYLAND, Esq., _Secretary, &c._



No. 2.

        _To His Excellency the Governor General, &c., in answer
                  to his letter of instructions, &c._

                                MONTREAL, _Feb._ 10, 1809.

    SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your
    Excellency's letter of instructions, the letter of credence,
    and the cipher for carrying on my correspondence. I have
    bestowed much pains upon the cipher, and am, notwithstanding
    this, deficient in some points which might enable me to
    understand it clearly. I have compared the example with my
    own exemplification of the cipher, and find a difference in
    the results; and as the present moment seems favorable to
    the interference of His Majesty's Government in the measures
    pursued by the Federal party in the Northern States, and more
    especially as the Assembly of Massachusetts is now in session,
    I think it better to set forward immediately, than wait for
    any further explanation of the means of carrying on a secret
    correspondence, which the frequency of safe private conveyances
    to Canada will render almost wholly unnecessary. Should it,
    however, be necessary at any time, I take leave to suggest
    that the index alone furnishes a very safe and simple mode.
    In it there is a number for every letter in the alphabet, and
    particular numbers for particular phrases; so that when I do
    not find in the index the particular word I want, I can spell
    it with the figures which stand opposite to the letters. For
    example, if I want to say that "troops are at Albany," I find
    under the letter T, that No. 16 stands for "troops," and number
    125 for "Albany;" the intervening words "are at" I supply by
    figures corresponding with the letters in these words.

    It will be necessary to provide against accident by addressing
    the letters to Mr. ----, of Montreal, with a small mark on
    the corner of the envelope, which he will understand. When
    he receives it he will then address the enclosure to your
    Excellency, and send it from Montreal by mail. I will be
    careful not to address your Excellency in the body of the
    letter, nor sign my name to any of them. They will be merely
    designated by the initials A. B.

    If this mode should, in any respect, appear exceptionable, your
    Excellency will have the goodness to order a more particular
    explanation of the card. It would reach me in safety enclosed
    to ----, Boston.

    I have the honor to be, with profound respect, your
    Excellency's most obedient servant, &c.

                                                                   J. H.



No. 3.

                       BURLINGTON, (Vt.,) _Feb._ 14, 1809.

    SIR: I have remained here two days in order fully to ascertain
    the progress of the arrangements heretofore made for organizing
    an efficient opposition to the General Government, as well as
    to become acquainted with the opinions of the leading people
    relative to the measures of that party which has the ascendant
    in the National Councils.

    On the subject of the embargo laws there seems to be but
    one opinion; namely, that they are unnecessary, oppressive,
    and unconstitutional. It must also be observed, that the
    execution of them is so invidious as to attract toward the
    officers of Government the enmity of the people, which is of
    course transferable to the Government itself; so that, in case
    the State of Massachusetts should take any bold step toward
    resisting the execution of these laws, it is highly probable
    that it may calculate upon the hearty co-operation of the
    people of Vermont.

    I learn that the Governor of this State is now visiting the
    towns in the northern section of it, and makes no secret of his
    determination, as Commander-in-Chief of the militia, to refuse
    obedience to any command from the General Government which can
    tend to interrupt the good understanding that prevails between
    the citizens of Vermont and His Majesty's subjects in Canada.
    It is further intimated that, in case of a war, he will use
    his influence to preserve this State neutral, and resist, with
    all the force he can command, any attempt to make it a party.
    I need not add that, if these resolutions are carried into
    effect, the State of Vermont may be considered as an ally of
    Great Britain.

    To what extent the sentiments which prevail in this quarter
    exist in the neighboring States, or even in the eastern section
    of this State, I am not able to conjecture. I only say with
    certainty, that the leading men of the Federal party act in
    concert; and therefore infer that a common sentiment pervades
    the whole body throughout New England.

    I have seen a letter from a gentleman now in Washington to his
    correspondent in this place; and, as its contents may serve to
    throw some light on passing events there, I shall send either
    the original, or a copy, with this despatch. The writer of
    the letter is a man of character and veracity; and, whether
    competent or not to form correct opinions himself, is probably
    within the reach of all the knowledge that can be obtained by
    the party to which he belongs.

    It appears by his statement that there is a very formidable
    majority in Congress on the side of the Administration;
    notwithstanding which, there is every reason to hope, that
    the Northern States, in their distinct capacity, will unite,
    and resist, by force, a war with Great Britain. In what mode
    this resistance will first show itself is probably not yet
    determined upon; and may, in some measure, depend upon the
    reliance that the leading men may place upon assurances of
    support from His Majesty's representatives in Canada; and as I
    shall be on the spot to tender this whenever the moment arrives
    that it can be done with effect, there is no doubt that all
    their measures may be made subordinate to the intentions of
    His Majesty's Government. Great pains are taken by the men of
    talents and intelligence to confirm the fears of the common
    people, as to the concurrence of the Southern Democrats in
    the projects of France; and every thing tends to encourage
    the belief, that the dissolution of the Confederacy will be
    accelerated by the spirit which now actuates both political
    parties. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 4.

                          WINDSOR, (Vt.,) _Feb._ 19, 1809.

    SIR: My last (No. 3) was written at Burlington, the principal
    town in the northern part of the State of Vermont. I am now at
    the principal town in the eastern section.

    The fallacy of men's opinions, when they act under the
    influence of sensibility, and are strongly excited by those
    hopes which always animate a rising party, led me to doubt the
    correctness of the opinions which I received in the northern
    section of this State; which from its contiguity to Canada and
    necessary intercourse with Montreal, has a stronger interest in
    promoting a good understanding with His Majesty's Government.
    Therefore, since my departure from Burlington, I have sought
    every favorable occasion of conversing with the Democrats
    on the probable result of the policy adopted by the General
    Government. The difference of opinion is thus expressed.
    The Federal party declare that, in the event of a war, the
    State of Vermont will treat separately for itself with Great
    Britain; and support to the utmost the stipulations into which
    it may enter, without any regard to the policy of the General
    Government. The Democrats, on the other hand, assert, that in
    such a case as that contemplated, the people would be nearly
    divided into equal numbers; one of which would support the
    Government, if it could be done without involving the people
    in a civil war, but, at all events, would risk every thing in
    preference to a coalition with Great Britain. This difference
    of opinion is not to be wholly ascribed to the prejudices
    of party. The people in the eastern section of Vermont are
    not operated upon by the same hopes and fears as those on
    the borders of the British colony. They are not dependent
    on Montreal for the sale of their produce nor the supply of
    foreign commodities. They are not apprehensive of any serious
    dangers or inconvenience from a state of war; and although they
    admit that the Governor, Council, and three-fourths of the
    representation in Congress are of the Federal party, yet they
    do not believe that the State would stand alone and resist the
    National Government. They do not, however, deny that, should
    the State of Vermont continue to be represented as it is at
    present, it would in all probability unite with the neighboring
    States in any serious plan of resistance to a war which it
    might seem expedient to adopt. This, I think, is the safer
    opinion for you to rely on; if, indeed, reliance ought to be
    placed on any measure depending upon the will of the rabble,
    which is ever changing, and must ever be marked with ignorance,
    caprice, and inconsistency. As the crisis approaches, the
    difficulty of deciding upon a hazardous alternative will
    increase; and, unfortunately, there is not in Vermont any man
    of commanding talents capable of attracting general confidence,
    of infusing into the people his own spirit; and, amidst the
    confusion of conflicting opinions, dangers, and commotion,
    competent to lead in the path of duty or safety. The Governor
    is an industrious, prudent man, and has more personal influence
    than any other; but his abilities are not suited to the
    situation in which a civil war would place him. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 5.

                        AMHERST, (N. H.,) _Feb._ 23, 1809.

    SIR: A gentleman going direct to Canada affords a safe and
    favorable opportunity of giving you some further account of my
    progress.

    I will not make use of the post offices when I can avoid it,
    because private occasions supersede the necessity of writing
    in cipher; and the contempt of decency and principles, which
    forms part of the morals of the subaltern officers of a
    democracy, would incline them to break a seal with the same
    indifference that they break their words, when either curiosity
    or interest is to be indulged.

    I have not had sufficient time nor evidence to enable me to
    form any opinion for myself, of the lengths to which the
    Federal party will carry their opposition to the National
    Government in the event of a war; which may be inferred from
    the result of the election of Governors which, within two
    months, will be made in the States of Massachusetts, New
    Hampshire, and Rhode Island. From all I know, and all I can
    learn of the General Government, I am not apprehensive of
    an immediate war. The embargo is the favorite measure; and
    it is probable that other means will be employed to excite
    England to commit some act of hostility, for the sole purpose
    of placing the responsibility of war on that country. This I
    most particularly recommend to the consideration of ministers.
    The dread of opposition, and of the loss of popularity, will
    certainly keep the ruling party at Washington inactive. They
    will risk any thing but the loss of power; and they are well
    aware, that their power would pass away with the first calamity
    which their measures might bring upon the common people,
    from whom that power emanates, unless, indeed, they could
    find a sufficient excuse in the conduct of Great Britain.
    This impression cannot be too deeply felt by His Majesty's
    Ministers; nor too widely spread throughout the British nation.
    It will furnish a sure guide in every policy that may be
    adopted toward the United States.

    I have the honor to be, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 6.

                                  BOSTON, _March 5, 1809_.

    SIR: I am favored with another opportunity of writing to you by
    a private conveyance; and think it probable, at this season,
    that the frequency of these will render it unnecessary to write
    to you in cipher.

    It does not yet appear necessary that I should discover to
    any person the purpose of my visit to Boston; nor is it
    probable that I shall be compelled, for the sake of gaining
    more knowledge of the arrangements of the Federal party in
    these States, to avow myself as a regular authorized agent of
    the British Government, even to those individuals who would
    feel equally bound with myself to preserve, with the utmost
    inscrutability, so important a secret from the public eye. I
    have sufficient means of information to enable me to judge
    of the proper period for offering the co-operation of Great
    Britain, and opening a correspondence between the Governor
    General of British America, and those individuals who, from the
    part they take in the opposition to the National Government, or
    the influence they may possess in any new order of things that
    may grow out of the present differences, should be qualified
    to act on behalf of the Northern States. An apprehension of
    any such state of things as is pre-supposed by these remarks,
    begins to subside, since it has appeared, by the conduct of
    the General Government, that it is seriously alarmed at the
    menacing attitude of the Northern States. But, although it is
    believed that there is no probability of an immediate war,
    yet no doubts are entertained that Mr. Madison will fall upon
    some new expedients to bring about hostilities. What these may
    be, can only be deduced from what appears to be practicable.
    A _non-intercourse_ with England and France will probably
    supersede the embargo; which, by opening with the rest of
    Europe a partial, legitimate commerce, and offering strong
    temptations to that which is illegal, will expose the vessels
    to capture, detention, and embarrassment; will justify the
    present policy, and produce such a degree of irritation and
    resentment as will enable the Government of this country to
    throw the whole blame and responsibility of war from its own
    shoulders upon those of the British Ministry. If, in this, the
    party attached to France should calculate with correctness,
    and the commerce of New England should greatly suffer, the
    merchants, being injured and discouraged, would not only
    acquiesce in the restrictive system, but even submit to war.
    On the other hand, should the small traffic, permitted by a
    non-intercourse law, be lucrative and uninterrupted, the people
    would be clamorous for more, and soon compel the Government to
    restore the friendly relations between the two countries.

    While I offer my opinion upon this subject, I cannot but
    express a strong hope that, if any terms should be proposed
    by either Government, to which the other might think proper
    to accede, that a principal motive to the adjustment of
    differences should be understood to arise from the amicable
    disposition of the Eastern States, particularly of the State
    of Massachusetts. This, as it would increase the popularity of
    the friends of Great Britain, could not fail to promote her
    interests. If it could not be done formally and officially,
    nor in a correspondence between Ministers, still, perhaps, the
    administration in the Parliament of Great Britain might take
    that ground, and the suggestion would find its way into the
    papers both in England and America.

    It cannot be too frequently repeated, that this country can
    only be governed and directed by the influence of opinion, as
    there is nothing permanent in its political institutions; nor
    are the populace, under any circumstances, to be relied on,
    when measures become inconvenient and burdensome. I will soon
    write again, and am yours, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



(In cipher.) No. 7.

                                  BOSTON, _March 7, 1809_.

    SIR: I have now ascertained, with as much accuracy as
    possible, the course intended to be pursued by the party in
    Massachusetts that is opposed to the measures and politics of
    the Administration of the General Government.

    I have already given a decided opinion that a declaration of
    war is not to be expected; but, contrary to all reasonable
    calculation, should the Congress possess spirit and
    independence enough to place their popularity in jeopardy by
    so strong a measure, the Legislature of Massachusetts will
    give the tone to the neighboring States, will declare itself
    permanent until a new election of members, invite a Congress,
    to be composed of delegates from the Federal States, and erect
    a separate government for their common defence and common
    interest. This Congress would probably begin by abrogating
    the offensive laws, and adopting a plan for the maintenance
    of the power and authority thus assumed. They would, by such
    an act, be in a condition to make or receive proposals from
    Great Britain; and I should seize the first moment to open
    a correspondence with your Excellency. Scarcely any other
    aid would be necessary, and perhaps none required, than a
    few vessels of war from the Halifax station, to protect the
    maritime towns from the little navy which is at the disposal
    of the National Government. What permanent connection between
    Great Britain and this section of the Republic would grow out
    of a civil commotion, such as might be expected, no person is
    prepared to describe; but it seems that a strict alliance must
    result of necessity. At present the opposition party confine
    their calculations merely to resistance; and I can assure you
    that, at this moment, they do not freely entertain the project
    of withdrawing the Eastern States from the Union, finding it a
    very unpopular topic; although a course of events, such as I
    have already mentioned, would inevitably produce an incurable
    alienation of the New England from the Southern States.

    The truth is, the common people have so long regarded the
    Constitution of the United States with complacency, that they
    are now only disposed in this quarter to treat it like a truant
    mistress, whom they would, for a time, put away on a separate
    maintenance, but, without further and greater provocation,
    would not absolutely repudiate.

    It will soon be known in what situation public affairs are to
    remain until the meeting of the New Congress in May, at which
    time, also, this Legislature will again assemble. The two
    months that intervene will be a period of much anxiety.

    In all I have written I have been careful not to make any
    impression analogous to the enthusiastic confidence entertained
    by the opposition, nor to the hopes and expectations that
    animate the friends of an alliance between the Northern States
    and Great Britain.

    I have abstracted myself from all the sympathies these are
    calculated to inspire; because, notwithstanding that I feel the
    utmost confidence in the integrity of intention of the leading
    characters in this political drama, I cannot forget that
    they derive their power from a giddy, inconstant multitude;
    who, unless in the instance under consideration they form
    an exception to all general rules and experience, will act
    inconsistently and absurdly. I am yours, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 8.

                                  BOSTON, _March_ 9, 1809.

    SIR: In my letter No. 6, I took the liberty to express my
    opinion of the probable effect of the non-intercourse law,
    intended to be enacted; and of the mode by which Great Britain
    may defeat the real intention of the American Government in
    passing it. But as this sort of impunity recommended might,
    in its application to every species of commerce that would be
    carried on, be deemed by Great Britain a greater evil than war
    itself, a middle course might easily be adopted, which would
    deprive France of the benefits resulting from an intercourse
    with America, without, in any great degree, irritating the
    maritime States.

    The high price of all American produce in France furnishes a
    temptation which mercantile avarice will be unable to resist.
    The consequence is obvious. But if, instead of condemning the
    vessels and cargoes which may be arrested in pursuing this
    prohibited commerce, they should be compelled to go into a
    British port, and there permitted to sell them, I think the
    friends of England in these States would not utter a complaint.
    Indeed, I have no doubt that if, in the prosecution of a lawful
    voyage, the British cruisers should treat the American ships
    in this manner, their owners would, in the present state of
    the European markets, think themselves very fortunate, as it
    would save them the trouble and expense of landing them in a
    neutral port, and from thence reshipping them to England, now
    the best market in Europe for the produce of this country. The
    Government of the United States would probably complain, and
    Bonaparte become peremptory; but even that would only tend to
    render the opposition in the Northern States more resolute, and
    accelerate the dissolution of the confederacy. The generosity
    and justice of Great Britain would be extolled; and the
    commercial States exult in the success of individuals over a
    Government inimical to commerce, and to whose measures they can
    no longer submit with patient acquiescence. The elections are
    begun; and I presume no vigilance or industry will be remitted
    to insure the success of the Federal party. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.

    P. S. Intelligence has reached Boston that a non-intercourse
    law has actually passed, and that Martinique has surrendered to
    British forces.


No. 9.

                                 BOSTON, _March_ 13, 1809.

    SIR: You will perceive, from the accounts that will reach you
    in the public papers, both from Washington and Massachusetts,
    that the Federalists of the Northern States have succeeded
    in making the Congress believe that, with such an opposition
    as they would make to the General Government, a war must be
    confined to their own territory, and might be even too much for
    that Government to sustain. The consequence is, that, after
    all the parade and menaces with which the session commenced,
    it has been suffered to end without carrying into effect any
    of the plans of the Administration, except the interdiction of
    commercial intercourse with England and France, an event that
    was anticipated in my former letters.

    Under what new circumstances the Congress will meet in May,
    will depend on the State elections and the changes that may
    in the mean time take place in Europe. With regard to Great
    Britain, she can scarcely mistake her true policy in relation
    to America. If peace be the first object, every act which can
    irritate the maritime States ought to be avoided, because the
    prevailing disposition of these will generally be sufficient
    to keep the Government from hazarding any hostile measures.
    If a war between America and France be the grand desideratum,
    something more must be done; an indulgent and conciliatory
    policy must be adopted, which will leave the Democrats without
    a pretext for hostilities; and Bonaparte, whose passions are
    too hot for delay, will probably compel this Government to
    decide which of the two great belligerents is to be its enemy.
    To bring about a separation of the States, under distinct and
    independent governments, is an affair of more uncertainty,
    and, however desirable, cannot be effected but by a series
    of acts and a long-continued policy tending to irritate the
    Southern and conciliate the Northern people. The former are
    agricultural, the latter a commercial people. The mode of
    cherishing and depressing either is too obvious to require
    illustration. This, I am aware, is an object of much interest
    in Great Britain, as it would forever secure the integrity of
    His Majesty's possessions on this continent, and make the two
    Governments, or whatever number the present confederacy might
    form into, as useful and as much subject to the influence of
    Great Britain as her Colonies can be rendered. But it is an
    object only to be attained by slow and circumspect progression,
    and requires, for its consummation, more attention to the
    affairs which agitate and excite parties in this country than
    Great Britain has yet bestowed upon it.

    An unpopular war, that is, a war produced by the hatred and
    prejudice of one party, but against the consent of the other
    party, can alone produce a sudden separation of any section of
    this country from the common head.

    At all events, it cannot be necessary to the preservation of
    peace that Great Britain should make any great concession at
    the present moment, more especially, as the more important
    changes that occur in Europe might render it inconvenient for
    her to adhere to any stipulations in favor of neutral maritime
    nations.

    Although the non-intercourse law affords but a very partial
    relief to the people of this country from the evils of that
    entire suspension of commerce to which they have reluctantly
    submitted for some time past, I lament the repeal of the
    embargo, because it was calculated to accelerate the progress
    of these States towards a revolution that would have put an end
    to the only Republic that remains to prove that a Government
    founded on political equality can exist in a season of trial
    and difficulty, or is calculated to insure either security or
    happiness to a people. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 10.

                                 BOSTON, _March_ 29, 1809.

    SIR: Since my letter of the 13th, nothing has occurred which I
    thought worthy of a communication.

    The last weeks of this month, and the first of April, will
    be occupied in the election of Governors and other executive
    officers in the New England States.

    The Federal candidate in New Hampshire is already elected by
    a majority of about one thousand votes. His competitor was a
    man of large fortune, extensive connections, and inoffensive
    manners. These account for the smallness of the majority.

    In Connecticut no change is necessary, and none is to be
    apprehended.

    In Rhode Island it is of no consequence of what party the
    Governor is a member, as he has neither civil nor military
    power, being merely President of the Council.

    In Massachusetts it is certain that the Federal candidate will
    succeed.

    A few weeks will be sufficient in order to determine the
    relative strength of parties, and convince Mr. Madison that
    a war with Great Britain is not a measure upon which he dare
    venture. Since the plan of an organized opposition to the
    projects of Mr. Jefferson was put into operation, the whole of
    the New England States have transferred their political power
    to his political enemies; and the reason that he has still so
    many adherents is, that those who consider the only true policy
    of America to consist in the cultivation of peace, have still
    great confidence that nothing can force him (or his successor,
    who acts up to his system, or rather is governed by it) to
    consent to war. They consider all the menaces and "dreadful
    note of preparation" to be a mere finesse, intended only to
    obtain concessions from England on cheap terms. From every
    sort of evidence, I confess I am myself of the same opinion,
    and am fully persuaded that this farce, which has been acting
    at Washington, will terminate in a full proof of imbecility
    and spiritless temper of the actors. A war attempted without
    the concurrence of both parties, and the general consent of
    the Northern States, which constitute the bone and muscle of
    the country, must commence without hope, and end in disgrace.
    It should, therefore, be the peculiar care of Great Britain
    to foster divisions between the North and South, and, by
    succeeding in this, she may carry into effect her own projects
    in Europe, with a total disregard of the resentments of the
    Democrats of this country. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 11.

                                 BOSTON, _April_ 13, 1809.

    SIR: I send to Mr. R---- a pamphlet entitled "Suppressed
    Documents." The notes and comments were written by the
    gentleman who has written the analysis which I sent by a former
    conveyance. These works have greatly contributed to excite
    the fears of the men of talents and property, who now prefer
    the chance of maintaining their party by open resistance and
    a final separation, to an alliance with France and a war with
    England; so that, should the Government unexpectedly, and
    contrary to all reasonable calculation, attempt to involve
    the country in a measure of that nature, I am convinced (now
    that the elections have all terminated favorably) that none of
    the New England States would be a party in it. But, as I have
    repeatedly written, the General Government does not seriously
    entertain any such desire or intention. Had the majority in the
    New England States continued to approve of the public measures,
    it is extremely probable that Great Britain would now have to
    choose between war and concession. But the aspect of things in
    this respect is changed, and a war would produce an incurable
    alienation of the Eastern States, and bring the whole country
    in subordination to the interests of England, whose navy would
    prescribe and enforce the terms upon which the commercial
    States should carry, and the agricultural States export, their
    surplus produce. All this is as well known to the Democrats
    as to the other party; therefore, they will avoid a war, at
    least until the whole nation is unanimous for it. Still, when
    we consider of what materials the Government is formed, it is
    impossible to speak with any certainty of their measures. The
    past Administration, in every transaction, presents to the mind
    only a muddy commixture of folly, weakness, and duplicity. The
    spell by which the nations of Europe have been rendered inert
    and inefficient, when they attempted to shake it off, has
    stretched its shadows across the Atlantic, and made a majority
    of the people of these States alike blind to duty and to their
    true interests. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 12.

                                 BOSTON, _April_ 26, 1809.

    SIR: Since my letter No. 11, I have had but little to
    communicate.

    I have not yet been able to ascertain, with sufficient
    accuracy, the relative strength of the two parties in the
    legislative bodies in New England.

    In all these States, however, Governors have been elected out
    of the Federal party, and even the Southern papers indicate an
    unexpected augmentation of Federal members in the next Congress.

    The correspondence between Mr. Erskine and the Secretary of
    State at Washington you will have seen before this can reach
    you. It has given much satisfaction to the Federal party here,
    because it promises an exemption from the evil most feared, (a
    war with England,) and justifies their partiality towards Great
    Britain, which they maintain was founded upon a full conviction
    of her justice, and sincere disposition to preserve peace. Even
    the Democrats affect to be satisfied with it; because, as they
    insist, it proves the efficacy of the restrictive system of Mr.
    Jefferson.

    But the great benefit that will probably result from it will
    be, that Bonaparte may be induced to force this country from
    her neutral position. Baffled in his attempts to exclude from
    the continent the manufactures of Great Britain, he will most
    likely confiscate all American property in his dominions and
    dependencies, and declare war. Nothing could more than this
    contribute to give influence and stability to the British
    party. The invidious occurrences of the rebellion would be
    forgotten in the resentment of the people against France, and
    they would soon be weaned from that attachment to her which
    is founded on the aid that was rendered to separate from the
    mother country. While Great Britain waits for this natural, I
    might say necessary, result of the negotiation, would it not be
    extremely inexpedient to conclude a treaty with the American
    Government? Every sort of evidence and experience prove that
    the Democrats consider their political ascendency in a great
    measure dependent on the hostile spirit that they can keep
    alive towards Great Britain, and recent events demonstrate
    that their conduct will be predicated upon that conviction; it
    is, therefore, not to be expected that they will meet, with
    corresponding feelings, a sincere disposition on the part of
    England to adjust all matters in dispute. They are at heart
    mortified and disappointed to find that Great Britain has been
    in advance of the French Government, in taking advantage of
    the provisional clauses of the non-intercourse law; and if
    they show any spirit at the next session of Congress towards
    France, it will be only because they will find Bonaparte deaf
    to entreaty and insensible of past favors; or that they may
    think it safer to float with the tide of public feeling, which
    will set strongly against him unless he keep _pari passu_ with
    England in a conciliatory policy. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 13.

                                    BOSTON, _May_ 5, 1809.

    SIR: Although the recent changes that have occurred quiet all
    apprehension of war, and, consequently, lessen all hope of a
    separation of the States, I think it necessary to transmit by
    the mail of each week a sketch of passing events.

    On local politics I have nothing to add; and as the parade
    that is made in the National Intelligencer of the sincere
    disposition of Mr. Madison to preserve amicable relations with
    Great Britain is, in my opinion, calculated to awaken vigilance
    and distrust, rather than inspire confidence, I shall (having
    nothing more important to write about) take leave to examine
    his motives.

    I am not surprised at his conditional removal of the
    non-intercourse law, with respect to Great Britain, because
    it was made incumbent on him by the act of Congress; but the
    observations made on his friendly disposition towards Great
    Britain is a matter of no little astonishment. The whole tenor
    of his political life directly and unequivocally contradicts
    them. His speech on the British Treaty in 1796; his attempt to
    pass a law for the confiscation of "British debts" and British
    property; his commercial resolutions, grounded apparently
    on an idea of making America useful as a colony to France;
    his conduct while Secretary of State; all form an assemblage
    of probabilities tending to convince me, at least, that he
    does not seriously desire a treaty in which the rights and
    pretensions of Great Britain would be fairly recognized. It
    seems impossible that he should at once divest himself of
    his habitual animosity, and that pride of opinion which his
    present situation enables him to indulge; but, above all, that
    he should deprive his friends and supporters of the benefit
    of those prejudices which have been carefully fostered in the
    minds of the common people towards England, and which have so
    materially contributed to invigorate and augment the Democratic
    party. Whatever his real motives may be, it is, in this stage
    of the affair, harmless enough to inquire into the cause of
    the apparent change. He probably acts under a conviction that,
    in the present temper of the Eastern States, a war could not
    fail to produce a dissolution of the Union; or he may have
    profited by the mistakes of his predecessor, and is inclined
    to seize the present opportunity to prove to the world that he
    is determined to be the President of a nation, rather than the
    head of a faction; or he has probably gone thus far to remove
    the impression on the minds of many that he was under the
    influence of France, in order that he may, with a better grace,
    and on more tenable grounds, quarrel with Great Britain in the
    progress of negotiating a treaty. Whatever his motives may be,
    I am very certain his party will not support him in any manly
    and generous policy. Weak men are sure to temporize when great
    events call upon them for decision, and are sluggish and inert
    at the moment when the worst of evils is in action. This is the
    character of the Democrats in the Northern States. Of those of
    the South I know but little. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 14.

                                   BOSTON, _May_ 25, 1809.

    SIR: My last was under date of the 5th instant. The unexpected
    change that has taken place in the feelings of political men in
    this country, in consequence of Mr. Madison's prompt acceptance
    of the friendly proposals of Great Britain, has caused a
    temporary suspension of the conflict of parties; and they both
    regard him with equal wonder and distrust. They all ascribe
    his conduct to various motives, but none believe him to be in
    earnest.

    The State of New York has returned to the Assembly a majority
    of Federal members. All this proves that an anti-commercial
    faction cannot rule the Northern States. Two months ago the
    State of New York was not ranked among the States that would
    adopt the policy of that of Massachusetts; and any favorable
    change was extremely problematical.

    I beg leave to suggest that, in the present state of things in
    this country, my presence can contribute very little to the
    interests of Great Britain. If Mr. Erskine be sanctioned in all
    he has conceded, by His Majesty's ministers, it is unnecessary
    for me, as indeed it would be unavailing, to make any attempt
    to carry into effect the original purposes of my mission. While
    I think it to be my duty to give this intimation to you, I beg
    it may be understood that I consider myself entirely at the
    disposal of His Majesty's Government. I am, &c.

                                                                   A. B.



No. 15.

                                MONTREAL, _June_ 12, 1809.

    SIR: I have the honor to inform your Excellency that I
    received, through Mr. Secretary Ryland, your Excellency's
    commands to return to Canada; and after the delay incident to
    this season of the year, in a journey from Boston, arrived here
    yesterday.

    Your Excellency will have seen, by the papers of the latest
    dates from the United States, that a formidable opposition
    is already organized in Congress to the late measures of Mr.
    Madison; and it is very evident that if he be sincere in his
    professions of attachment to Great Britain, his party will
    abandon him. Sixty-one members have already voted against a
    resolution to approve of what he has done; and I have no doubt
    the rest of the Democratic party will follow the example as
    soon as they recover from the astonishment into which his
    apparent defection has thrown them.

    The present hopes of the Federalists are founded on the
    probability of a war with France; but, at all events, this
    party is strong and well organized enough to prevent a war with
    England.

    It would be now superfluous to trouble your Excellency with
    an account of the nature and extent of the arrangements made
    by the Federal party to resist any attempt of the Government
    unfavorable to Great Britain. They were such as do great credit
    to their ability and principles; and, while a judicious policy
    is observed by Great Britain, secure her interests in America
    from decay. My fear of inducing a false security on the part
    of His Majesty's Government in their efficiency and eventual
    success, may have inclined me to refrain from doing them that
    justice in my former letters which I willingly take the present
    occasion to express.

    I trust your Excellency will ascribe the style and manner of
    my communications, and the frequent ambiguities introduced in
    them, as arising from the secrecy necessary to be observed, and
    my consciousness that you understand my meaning, on the most
    delicate points, without risking a particular explanation.

    I lament that no occasion commensurate to my wishes has
    permitted me to prove how much I value the confidence of your
    Excellency, and the approbation already expressed by His
    Majesty's Minister. I have the honor to be, &c.

                                                                   J. H.


I certify that the foregoing letters are the same referred to in the
letter of H. W. Ryland, Esq., dated May 1, 1809, relating to the
mission in which I was employed by Sir James Craig, by his letter of
instructions, bearing date February 6, 1809.

                                                             JOHN HENRY.


_Mr. Ryland to Mr. Henry._

                                    QUEBEC, _May_ 1, 1809.

    MY DEAR SIR: The news we have received this day from the States
    will, I imagine, soon bring you back to us; and if you arrive
    at Montreal by the middle of June, I shall probably have the
    pleasure of meeting you there, as I am going up with Sir James
    and a large suite. The last letters received from you are
    to the 13th April. The whole are now transcribing, for the
    purpose of being sent home, where they cannot fail of doing you
    great credit, and I most certainly hope they may eventually
    contribute to your permanent advantage. It is not necessary to
    repeat the assurance that no effort within the compass of my
    power shall be wanting to this end.

    I am cruelly out of spirits at the idea of old England
    truckling to such a debased and accursed Government as that of
    the United States.

    I am greatly obliged to you for the trouble you have taken in
    procuring the books, though, if Spain fails, I shall scarcely
    have heart to look into them. I can add no more, but that I am,
    most heartily and affectionately, yours,

                                                                H. W. R.

  J. HENRY, Esq., Boston.



_Mr. Ryland to Mr. Henry._

                                                   MAY 4, 1809.

    MY DEAR SIR: You must consider the short letter I wrote to
    you by the last post as altogether unofficial; but I am now
    to intimate to you, in a more formal manner, our hope of your
    speedy return, as the object of your journey seems, for the
    present at least, to be at an end.

    We have London news, by the way of the river, up to the 6th of
    March, which tallies to a day with what we have received by the
    way of the States.

    Heartily wishing you a safe and speedy journey back to us, I
    am, my dear sir, most sincerely, yours,

                                                                H. W. R.

    Have the goodness to bring my books with you, though I shall
    have little spirit to look into them, unless you bring good
    news from Spain.

  JOHN HENRY, Esq.



_Mr. Henry to Mr. Peel._

                                                 JUNE 13, 1811.

    SIR: I take the liberty to enclose to you a memorial addressed
    to the Earl of Liverpool, and beg you will have the goodness
    either to examine the documents in your office, or those in my
    own possession, touching the extent and legitimacy of my claim.

    Mr. Ryland, the Secretary of Sir J. Craig, is now in London,
    and, from his official knowledge of the transactions and facts
    alluded to in the memorial, can give any information required
    on that subject. I have the honor to be, &c.

                                                                   J. H.



               _Memorial of Mr. Henry to Lord Liverpool._

    The undersigned most respectfully submits the following
    statement and memorial to the Earl of Liverpool:

    Long before and during the administration of your Lordship's
    predecessor, the undersigned bestowed much personal attention
    to the state of parties, and to the political measures in the
    United States of America.

       *       *       *       *       *

    Soon after the affair of the Chesapeake frigate, when His
    Majesty's Governor General of British America had reason to
    believe that the two countries would be involved in a war,
    and had submitted to His Majesty's Ministers the arrangements
    of the English party in the United States for an efficient
    resistance to the General Government, which would probably
    terminate in a separation of the Northern States from the
    General Confederacy, he applied to the undersigned to
    undertake a mission to Boston, where the whole concerns of
    the opposition were managed. The object of the mission was
    to promote and encourage the Federal party to resist the
    measures of the General Government, to offer assurances of aid
    and support from His Majesty's Government of Canada, and to
    open a communication between the leading men engaged in that
    opposition and the Governor General, upon such a footing as
    circumstances might suggest; and, finally, to render the plans
    then in contemplation subservient to the views of His Majesty's
    Government.

    The undersigned undertook the mission, which lasted from the
    month of January to the month of June, inclusive, during which
    period those public acts and legislative resolutions of the
    Assemblies of Massachusetts and Connecticut were passed which
    kept the General Government of the United States in check,
    and deterred it from carrying into execution the measures of
    hostility with which Great Britain was menaced.

    For his services on the occasions herein recited, and the loss
    of time and expenses incurred, the undersigned neither sought
    nor received any compensation, but trusted to the known justice
    and liberality of His Majesty's Government for the reward of
    services which could not, he humbly conceives, be estimated
    in pounds, shillings, and pence. On the patronage and support
    which was promised in the letter of Sir J. Craig, under date of
    the 26th January, 1809, (wherein he gives an assurance "that
    the former correspondence and political information transmitted
    by the undersigned had met with the particular approbation of
    His Majesty's Secretary of State; and that his execution of
    the mission, proposed to be undertaken in that letter, would
    give him a claim not only on the Governor General, but on His
    Majesty's Ministers,") the undersigned has relied, and now most
    respectfully claims, in whatever mode the Earl of Liverpool may
    be pleased to adopt.

    The undersigned most respectfully takes this occasion to state
    that Sir J. Craig promised him an employment in Canada, worth
    upwards of one thousand pounds a year, by his letter, herewith
    transmitted, under date of September 13, 1809, which he has
    just learned has, in consequence of his absence, been given
    to another person. The undersigned abstains from commenting
    on this transaction, and most respectfully suggests that the
    appointment of Judge Advocate General of the province of
    Lower Canada, with a salary of five hundred pounds a year,
    or a Consulate in the United States, _sine curia_, would be
    considered by him as a liberal discharge of any obligation
    that His Majesty's Government may entertain in relation to his
    services.


_Mr. Peel, Secretary to Lord Liverpool, to Mr. Henry_

                          DOWNING STREET, _June_ 28, 1811.

    SIR: I have not failed to lay before the Earl of Liverpool the
    memorial, together with several enclosures, which was delivered
    to me a few days since by General Loft, at your desire.

    His Lordship has directed me to acquaint you that he has
    referred to the correspondence in this office of the year 1809,
    and finds two letters from Sir James Craig, dated 10th April
    and 5th May, transmitting the correspondence that has passed
    during your residence in the Northern States of America, and
    expressing his confidence in your ability and judgment, but
    Lord Liverpool has not discovered any wish on the part of
    Sir James Craig that your claims for compensation should be
    referred to this country, nor indeed is allusion made to any
    kind of arrangement or agreement that had been made by that
    officer with you.

    Under these circumstances, and had not Sir James Craig
    determined on his immediate return to England, it would have
    been Lord Liverpool's wish to have referred your memorial to
    him, as being better enabled to appreciate the ability and
    success with which you executed a mission undertaken at his
    desire. Lord Liverpool will, however, transmit it to Sir James
    Craig's successor in the Government, with an assurance that,
    from the recommendations he has received in your favor, and the
    opinion he has formed on your correspondence, he is convinced
    the public service will be benefited by your active employment
    in a public situation.

    Lord Liverpool will also feel himself bound to give the same
    assurance to the Marquis Wellesley, if there is any probability
    that it will advance the success of the application which you
    have made to his Lordship.

    I am, sir, your most obedient humble servant,

                                                            ROBERT PEEL.

  J. HENRY, Esq., _No. 27 Leicester Square_.



_Mr. Ryland to Mr. Henry._

                          TUESDAY EVENING, _July_ 2, 1811.

    MY DEAR HENRY: It gives me real pleasure to find that the
    apprehension I had formed with respect to the fulfilment of
    your expectations is likely to prove erroneous. As every thing
    which passed, relative to your mission, was in writing, I think
    you will do well by submitting to Mr. Peel all the original
    papers. I myself could give no other information relative
    to the subject, than what they contain, as you and I had no
    opportunity of any verbal communication respecting it till
    after your mission terminated, and I never wrote you a letter
    in the Governor's name which had not previously been submitted
    to his correction.

    The impression I had received of your character and abilities
    made me anxious to serve you even before I had the pleasure
    of a personal acquaintance with you, and the same desire has
    operated on me ever since; I am, therefore, entitled to hope
    that any opinion which I may have given you, as to your best
    mode of obtaining an employment under Government, will be
    received with the same candor that gave rise to it. I think you
    will do well to persevere, as you propose. I have no doubt that
    every letter from you, which Sir James sent home, will be found
    in Mr. Peel's office, as the established practice there is to
    bind the despatches and enclosures yearly up together.

                                                           H. W. RYLAND.

  JOHN HENRY, Esq., &c.



_Mr. Henry to Mr. Peel._

                                  27, LEICESTER SQUARE, LONDON,
                                               _September 4, 1811._

    SIR: I have just learned the ultimate decision of my Lord
    Wellesley, relative to the appointment which I was desirous
    to obtain; and find that the subsisting relations between the
    two countries forbid the creating a new office in the United
    States, such as I was solicitous to obtain. In this state of
    things I have not a moment to lose in returning to Canada; and
    have taken my passage in the last and only ship that sails for
    Quebec this season. As I have not time to enter (_de novo_)
    into explanations with the gentleman who is in your office,
    and as I have received the assurances from you, in addition to
    the letter from my Lord Liverpool, of the 27th June, that "his
    Lordship would recommend me to the Governor of Canada for the
    first vacant situation that I would accept," I beg the favor of
    you to advise me how I am to get that recommendation without
    loss of time. I have the honor to be, &c.

                                                               J. HENRY.

  ROBERT PEEL, Esq., &c.



_Despatch of Lord Liverpool to Sir George Prevost._

                         DOWNING STREET, _Sept. 16, 1811_.

    SIR: Mr. Henry, who will have the honor of delivering this
    letter, is the gentleman who addressed to me the memorial, a
    copy of which I herewith transmit, and to whom the accompanying
    letter from Mr. Peel was written by my direction.

    In compliance with his request, I now fulfil the assurance
    which I have given of stating to you my opinion of the ability
    and judgment which Mr. Henry has manifested on the occasions
    mentioned in his memorial, and of the benefit the public
    service might derive from his active employment in any public
    situation in which you should think proper to place him.

    I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

                                                              LIVERPOOL.

    To SIR GEORGE PREVOST, _Baronet, &c._


    [The following is the report of the Secretary of State,
      communicated to the Senate by the Message of the 12th March,
      1812.]

                    DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _March_ 12, 1812.

    The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of
    the Senate of the 10th instant, has the honor to report: That
    this department is not in possession of any names of persons
    in the United States who have, in any way or manner whatever,
    entered into, or countenanced the project or the views for
    the execution or attainment of which John Henry was, in the
    year 1809, employed by Sir James Craig; the said John Henry
    having named no person or persons as being concerned in the
    said project or views referred to in the documents laid before
    Congress on the 9th instant. Which is respectfully submitted,

                                                           JAMES MONROE.


The Message and documents having been read, Mr. RHEA made a motion to
print them.

Mr. PITKIN said that he had no objection to the papers being printed,
but that he rose to protest against the sentiments attributed in these
papers to the Federal party, being considered as those of the citizens
of the State which he had the honor to represent. He trusted it would
not be believed that they had any knowledge of any mission of this kind
from Canada, or from any other quarter.

It was the first time that he had heard that the opposition to the
embargo in the States of Vermont or Massachusetts had any connection
with the British Government, or with any project of a separation of
the Union in any manner, much less under the agency of a British spy.
So far as he could understand the papers from the first reading, Mr.
P. said they did not intimate that any disclosure had been made to
any individual of the United States by Mr. Henry of the object of his
mission, or that his scheme had been advocated or supported by any one.
And I trust no gentleman will take the character of the parties in any
section of this country, from a man who it seems has proved a traitor
to his own Government. So far as the statements made in these papers
may be considered as involving the party in concert with the Federal
party, in any scheme of co-operation with the British Government in
dividing the Union, it is one of the grossest libels that ever was
uttered. Nor do I feel willing to take the character of the people of
this country from the mouth of this man. He does not stop at debasing
the character of the people of this country, but he utters a libel
against all parties and against the Government itself. He states that
in the extra session of Congress in May, 1809, there were sixty-one
votes against Mr. Madison, in consequence of his arrangement with Mr.
Erskine; when we all know that the vote on the resolution approving of
the President's conduct in that affair was no criterion by which to
judge. While, therefore, gentlemen will not, as I presume they will
not, place any confidence in the statements made by this man against
themselves, and against those whom he styles Democrats, I trust they
will be equally incredulous as to any statements he has made against
those he has called Federalists, with respect to their co-operation
with the British Government in dividing the Union. More especially as
they come from one who, disappointed at not receiving the promised
reward from his Government, has turned traitor to his employers.

Mr. BIBB said he agreed with the gentleman who just sat down on one
point, that a full investigation ought to be had. It was due to the
Congress, to our connections with Great Britain, that an inquiry should
be made into the transaction now exposed to view; and, in addition to
the motion for printing, he should move a reference of the Message to
the Committee of Foreign Relations.

Mr. GHOLSON said it was a source of gratification to him, that, so
far as the papers communicated by the President could be considered
evidence at all, they were certainly highly honorable testimony in
favor of the Eastern section of the Union. An emissary of great talents
had been employed by the British in a nefarious scheme to dismember
the United States, and to engender treason in the very bosom of our
country: and yet, Mr. G. said, it does not seem that this spy has
been able to connect with himself any citizen of the United States.
If he had held correspondence with any persons of distinction, the
presumption is their names would have been disclosed in the papers that
have been read. Mr. G. was happy in cherishing the belief that the
liberties of this country would always find a sufficient guarantee
against machinations of this sort, in the patriotism of every portion
of the Union. This communication, for which the House was indebted to
the President, was highly interesting and important in one point of
view. It demonstrated, as matter of fact, what had heretofore remained
only speculation and conjecture, that the British Government has long
meditated the separation of these States; and what is more, that they
have actually attempted the execution of this wicked design, and have
endeavored to convert our own citizens into traitors! He would say no
more.

Mr. QUINCY said he was much obliged to the gentleman last up for the
view which he had taken of the subject. It had struck him previously
with much force, and he meant to have taken the floor to have expressed
it. If ever there had existed in the British Government, or any other
Government, an idea that there was a party in this country who would
associate with it to dissolve this Union, he thanked God that the
project was exposed. If it was true, as these papers stated, that this
man had been so employed, he thanked God that the mission had been
detected. The Administration, in bringing the subject before the House,
had done worthily, and the subject ought to be inquired into. What is
the fact, admitting all that this person has said to be true? Why, that
an agent from the British Government, under circumstances peculiarly
auspicious and suitable to his purpose, goes to the spot which he
represents as the hot-bed of opposition, to stir up disunion, and his
papers do not contain an intimation that he dared to mention such an
idea as that of a dissolution of the Union to any individual. No,
sir; and I dare to say that he never did mention such a thing to any
distinguished individual. As far as I know the sentiments of gentlemen
in that quarter, they hold this Union dear, and look upon such a
connection as is supposed in these papers with as much abhorrence
as any man, however attached he may be to the administration of the
Government. Whenever a dismemberment of the Union has been talked of,
it has been with awe, and with a fear that the present course of public
measures would lead to such an event, and not with a view to bring it
about. Sir, I know that other ideas have been spread over the country
for the purpose of serving party views. But here, in this temple of our
liberties, let us reason with one another according to the evidence
before us. I rejoice that the subject has been brought forward, and
that an agent so peculiarly adapted to the business in which he was
employed has not. been able to furnish any evidence of even the
connivance of any individual at his mission.

Mr. WRIGHT said that such an extraordinary communication as that just
received from the President, reflecting so much on various sections
and parties of the Union, required serious consideration before they
consented to publish such gross abuse of every portion of our people.
Gentlemen should reflect that this very disclosure might be one of
the means used by this miscreant to divide this country. If he wished
to promote division, how could he better attain his object than by
denouncing the people of a particular section? Who is this man, and
where is he? is an inquiry that ought to be made. I am not one of those
who would, without inquiry, take the words of a spy, traitor, and
villain, as truth. It might be well to print a sufficient number for
the House, but no more until they knew more about it. However gentlemen
in the Eastern States might have been dissatisfied at particular
measures, the embargo law for instance, their opposition to them had
arisen from their operation on their particular interests, and not
that they had any disposition to sever themselves from the Union.
This business had been very correctly communicated by the Executive
to Congress; but they ought to act on it with temper, prudence, and
coolness. Mr. W. protested against considering any such disposition as
it attributed to a certain party to exist, particularly in the spot
which has been frequently and emphatically styled the cradle of the
Revolution. He could not feel the same disposition which some appeared
to do, to give consequence to this affair.

Mr. TROUP did not consider these papers as involving the character of
any portion of our people. They appeared to him to be calculated merely
to put the people on their guard against foreign emissaries or agents
employed for the purpose of effecting a dismemberment of this Union. As
to the opinions this person expresses of parties, &c., they are merely
the individual speculations of this man, and cannot have much weight.
But the documents have a most important bearing. They establish the
fact that a foreign Government, on the eve of hostility with us, has
for some time past employed an agent to foment divisions among us; and
another fact, which, considered in connection with other circumstances,
is of great importance. They show the deep-rooted hostility of this
foreign power to our Republican Government and liberties--a hostility
which could stop at nothing short of a dismemberment of the country.
After the affair of the Wabash, when it was said that the Indians
had been instigated by the same enemy to hostilities against us, the
British Minister's choler rose; he denied the whole. He avails himself
of suggestions in public prints to deny their statements; to state
that so far from a disposition to stir up the Indians against us, the
contrary was the fact; that, indeed, Sir James Craig has been intent
on diverting Indian hostilities. Sir, may we not reasonably believe
him to have fomented Indian hostilities in one part of the country,
while in another he was promoting disunion in the body of the people?
These, sir, are the only facts disclosed of importance; the only facts
which would justify the publication of more than the ordinary number of
copies.

Mr. FISK said that the remarks which had been made by gentlemen,
induced him to ask the indulgence of the House, to give some
information and make a few observations relative to the subject now
under consideration. This Mr. Henry was an Englishman, but had long
resided in this country; so long that he had obtained a captaincy
in the army raised in the year 1798; he was a man of gentlemanly
deportment, and reputed good moral character; that he (Mr. FISK) and
his colleague (Mr. STRONG) well remembered when he passed through
Burlington, in the Spring of the year 1808, and that his object was
at that time much suspected to have been what he now states; but as
a politician, he was thought by the Republicans to have been a firm
believer in the British maxim, "that the end sanctifies the means;"
and the Federal party enjoyed the full benefits of his principles and
labors while he lived in Vermont. Sir, gentlemen say that he is a
traitor, a spy, and, therefore, what he here relates is not entitled
to credit. However dishonorable a transaction like this may be deemed
by our Government, whose motives and conduct are directed and squared
by the principles of morality and justice, yet, I believe, it is not
thought so very disgraceful in the British Government, as to be beneath
her first characters to undertake. Sir, was the mission to Copenhagen
to destroy that city, murder the innocent inhabitants, and to rob the
Danes of their fleet, a more honorable one than this? Certainly not.
And yet, sir, the famous Mr. Jackson, who went on that mission was
considered worthy of being a Minister to this country, where he was
caressed and highly esteemed by some; and performed both missions much
to the satisfaction of his master. Why, sir, can gentlemen seriously
doubt the truth of the facts stated by this Mr. Henry, when they have
it from the highest authority, that the former British Minister, Mr.
Erskine, while here, at this very time, was in the same business this
Henry was sent to perform? In a letter written by that Minister to this
Government, and published by its order, he tells them:

    "I have endeavored, by the most strict and diligent inquiries
    into the views and strength of the Federal party, to ascertain
    to what extent they would be willing and able to resist the
    measures of the party in power, and how far they could carry
    the opinions of this country along with them in their attempts
    to remove the embargo, without recurring to hostilities against
    both Great Britain and France."

And again, he tells them in his letter of the 15th February, 1809, when
speaking of the divisions which then agitated this country, and the
opposition made to the laws by the people of the Eastern States:

    "The ultimate consequences of such differences and jealousies,
    arising between the Eastern and Southern States, would
    inevitably tend to a dissolution of the Union, which has been
    for some time talked of, and has of late, as I have heard, been
    seriously contemplated by many of the leading people in the
    eastern division."

Now, sir, when the British Minister was on this business, by order
of his Government, is it extraordinary or incredible that this Henry
should be sent on the same errand by Governor Craig? The occurrences
of those times place the fact out of doubt. I perfectly recollect
that on my return home from this place in March, 1809, I was informed
of this Henry having passed through the country; and it was then
conjectured that he was on the very business which he now states. But,
say gentlemen, he libels and calumniates the Government! Why, sir, he
does not more so than has often been done on this floor by a gentleman
not now present, or than has been done for years by one description of
presses and newspapers in this country.

The division of the Union is not a new subject. As early as the
time the Jay Treaty agitated this country, I saw two numbers in the
"Centinel," printed at Boston, holding out the idea of a separation of
the States. I am very far from believing it was ever the wish of the
great body of the Federal party, or that they will knowingly join the
enemies of this country to effect such a purpose, but that there are
some who call themselves Federalists, and who in principle and feeling
are Englishmen, that would do it, I have no doubt.

Mr. SMILIE said the character of this man was nothing to us, though
it might be to him, and he therefore should not follow the example of
gentlemen who had made so free with it. There was one point in which
he considered the publication of these documents, which was of real
importance; that they exhibited to the American people what sort of
a nation we had to deal with. It appeared to him that Great Britain
considered no means dishonorable provided they would accomplish the
attainment of her object. With respect to Mr. Wright's idea, that the
publication of the papers would throw an odium on the leading parties
in this country, said Mr. S., none of those papers said any thing
more disrespectful to the parties in this country than those parties
had frequently said of each other in the public prints. He never had
believed that the mass of the Federal party wished a separation of the
Union; but that there were men in it attached to the British interests,
he knew to be true. There was at least enough in these papers to put
every man on his guard with respect to the insidious, dishonorable
conduct of that Government, and he would therefore vote for printing
5,000 copies.

Mr. MACON said this was one of those debates which sometimes arose
in the House, in which all were on one side of the question. Nothing
can be more true than that these papers do prove that Great Britain
has not yet ceased her attempts to disturb the peace of this nation.
That they were genuine he believed, although they came from a man whom
that Government had employed. There was nothing new in the manner of
communicating them. How was it in the conspiracy of Blount and Liston?
Mr. Adams communicated the disclosure to Congress. I imagine that
Burr's conspiracy was communicated by some one who was or had been
engaged in it. In this case, a man who had been in the service of this
Government, preferring the British, was, while in Canada, engaged by
Governor Craig to go into a part of this country to endeavor to procure
a division of the Union. Mr. M. said he had, four years ago, stated
that both Great Britain and France had agents in this country. Had they
not had them in other countries? They had; and he cited Holland as a
particular instance.

The only question that presents itself is, Is the information useful
to us? Does it not confirm every man in the belief that while she is
making professions of friendship through her Minister here, Great
Britain is, in another direction plotting our destruction by her secret
agents? It would be happy for us if we had not also French agents
here. I never did believe the Federal party had any notion of joining
Great Britain; but this nation, favored as it is, has yet not been
clear of discord; and to say that there is not a man in the Federal or
Republican parties who would wish a union with Great Britain or France,
would be to say what I do not believe.

As to this man, he is just such a one as the British usually employ for
these purposes; he is one of their own agents. Can England complain
of our giving credit to a man with whom her first Secretary of State
and the Governor General of Canada correspond? I care nothing about
the cause which brings him here, it is an affair between him and them.
The question is, Has he told the truth? I verily believe he has. I
understood enough of the papers, as read, to know that he was the agent
of the British Government sent here to sow disunion, and that was
enough for me. So long as we are governed by interest, mutual wants, or
common sense, so long shall we continue united. We are placed in such a
situation that we ought to love each other, and we always should, did
not our mad passions sometimes run away with us. One part of the nation
delights in using the sea; another in agriculture; we supply each
other's wants; we ought never to dream of separation. And, sir, when
these messengers of hell are sent here shall we not look at them? Let
us have the papers printed, sir.

Mr. KEY made some remarks which were not all distinctly heard by the
reporter. He wished that the publication could have been accompanied
with some refutation of its contents, as it would go to alarm the
people with an idea of the existence of a spirit in one section of
this country which he was sure did not exist. He was not only for
committing the subject, but for following it up with a full and prompt
examination. Sure I am, said Mr. K., that the people of Europe have
mistaken the American character. Whatever difference of opinion
may exist among ourselves, there can be none as to the propriety of
supporting the integrity of the Union. There can be no doubt that the
people of this country, of all descriptions, will rally around the
constitution. France had heretofore supposed she possessed a party
in this country, but there was not a man of sense in the country who
believed it. Foreign nations would err in this way, having no correct
knowledge of the sentiments of the people. If we were soon to be
involved in war, it was proper that no distrust should exist in one
part of the community against another; and he therefore regretted
that a complete investigation could not be had before the papers were
published.

Mr. MILNOR said his purpose in rising now was to express the anxious
desire he felt that on this question there might not be the least
division of sentiment manifested in the House. He should be extremely
sorry at any time; above all, at a period of our national progress when
it was thought that a change of circumstances of the most important
kind was about to take place; that at this time an opinion should be
imbibed that any portion of the people of this country were favorable
to England. The candor of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. WRIGHT)
redounded to his honor. He was extremely glad to find gentlemen
acknowledge, with respect to the party in which he stood enrolled,
whatever might be our internal differences, &c., that they could
not be suspected of hostility to the Union; there could be no idea
entertained by sensible men of either party that there was among us any
considerable portion of men who are inimically disposed to the union of
the States.

That these papers proved a dishonorable attempt on the part of the
British Government Mr. M. said he had no doubt. Although a strong
sensation would probably be produced by the discovery of this
circumstance, and it might be perverted much to the injury of the
feelings of particular individuals, he hoped the good sense of the
community would induce them, while they properly appreciated this
attempt of a foreign Government, not to be led into rash or injudicious
measures. He really wished the affair might be probed to the bottom;
and that the British Minister having in one case come forward with a
disavowal for his Government, would say in some shape or other what was
the real state of the case now before the House.

The motion for printing was unanimously agreed to.

Mr. BIBB moved to amend his motion for reference to the Committee
of Foreign Relations, so as to give the committee power to send for
persons and papers.

Mr. TROUP said that on occasions of this kind great care should be
taken lest the House be hurried by a momentary excitement into an act
of precipitancy. He had confidence in the discretion of the Committee
of Foreign Relations, but the vesting such a power in the committee
might be considered as an instruction by the House to proceed under any
circumstances to bring Mr. Henry before them. He had no doubt in his
own mind that the communication had been voluntary on the part of Mr.
Henry, but he entertained as little that there may have been certain
stipulations and conditions which the Executive would feel itself under
the strongest obligations of good faith to comply with, and which would
exempt the individual making the disclosure from any responsibility of
any kind. Whatever may be thought of the motives of Mr. Henry in making
the disclosure, or whatever the epithets applied to him in debate,
certain it was, Mr. Henry had done service to the country, and ought
to be protected by it. If the committee should, on examination, think
proper to proceed to summon persons, or call for papers, the House
would not hesitate to vest them with the necessary powers.

Mr. GRUNDY stated what was his impression as to the course he should
incline to pursue as a member of the Committee of Foreign Relations,
if these papers should be referred as proposed, to that committee.
If any engagements, express or implied, had taken place between the
Administration and Mr. Henry, that he should be free from detention,
&c., he should not, as one of the committee, consent to violate that
engagement.

The question on reference was carried unanimously.

The question to clothe the committee with compulsory power was
carried--104 to 10.


THURSDAY, March 12.

                        _Mississippi Territory._

The unfinished business of yesterday, the bill for enabling the
people of the Mississippi Territory to form a constitution and State
Government, being taken up--

Mr. POINDEXTER said, that on the general principles of the bill under
consideration, he presumed there will be but little difference of
opinion. The population of the Territory proposed to be erected into
an independent State is unquestionably sufficient to authorize the
measure agreeably to the present ratio of representation; and from
the vast influx of emigration to that section of the Union since
the last census, I am fully satisfied that it might be demanded as
a matter of right under the compact with the State of Georgia. But,
sir, the wise and magnanimous policy of the General Government has
uniformly conferred on the respective Territories the rights of State
sovereignty so soon as their numbers would fairly entitle them to one
member in the House of Representatives of the United States. Ohio was
admitted with a population of thirty-seven thousand souls. In the next
Congress, that State will be entitled to six Representatives, besides a
very large fraction which was thrown on her by the apportionment made
during the present session. All the other new States received into
the Confederacy since the adoption of the constitution, have grown
into importance, and now constitute some of the firmest pillars in the
Temple of Liberty. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to express a hope, that
while gentlemen delight to bask in the sunshine of freedom at home,
they will on every occasion manifest their liberality and philanthropy,
by extending its cheering rays to the remotest regions of our beloved
country. Emancipate us from the trammels of colonial vassalage;
place us on the high eminence of a free, sovereign, and independent
commonwealth; and we shall at all times be ready, with our lives and
fortunes, to assert the rights and vindicate the honor of our common
country.

With respect to the limits recommended by the committee, including all
that tract of country of which possession was taken by virtue of the
Proclamation of the President of the United States, bearing date the
27th of October, 1810, there appears to exist a diversity of opinion.
Some gentlemen think it improper to legislate definitely over that
country, until the pledge given in the proclamation that it will in
our hands be held subject to future negotiation, is redeemed in a
manner satisfactory to the Executive who made it; and others wish to
divide the country between the State of Louisiana and the State to
be formed of the Mississippi Territory. To rescue this subject from
the first objection, at a very early period of the session, I moved
a resolution calling on the President for information on two points:
1. Whether there was any pending negotiation respecting our title.
2. Whether it was the wish of the Executive that the Legislative
authority of Congress over the country should be suspended with a view
to future negotiation and adjustment in relation to the claim of the
United States. To this request the President has returned no answer.
But without the aid of those lights which it is in the power of the
Executive to shed upon the question, we all know that the downfall of
the late Spanish Monarch, and the distracted state of revolution in
which Spain is involved, renders it impracticable to recognize any
legitimate authority with whom a negotiation could be conducted. It is
true, several letters have passed between Mr. Secretary Monroe and Mr.
Foster, the British Minister, during the recess of Congress, relative
to our possession of West Florida, and the manner of taking it. On this
correspondence it is not my intention at present to comment. It is a
new proof of the disposition which Great Britain has always shown to
intermeddle in the affairs of other nations, and the language of Mr.
Foster is in the highest degree arrogant and insulting. Mr. Monroe, in
his letter of the 8th of July, after repelling the insinuations made
by the British Government as to the motives by which the President was
actuated in taking possession of the country, declares "that by this
event the United States have acquired no new title to West Florida.
They wanted none." From this declaration it is evident that no doubt
is entertained by the Executive as to the validity of our title,
and therefore it is unnecessary to suspend for a longer period the
admission of that country into the Union.

Mr. POINDEXTER then offered the following amendment:

    "_And be it further enacted_, That the said State shall consist
    of all that tract of country contained within the following
    boundaries, to wit: beginning on the river Mississippi, at
    the point where the southern boundary line of the State of
    Tennessee unites with the same; thence along said line to its
    junction with the western boundary of the State of Georgia;
    thence along the said boundary to the thirty-first degree
    of latitude, and along said degree of latitude to a point
    opposite the river Perdido; thence to the junction of said
    river with the Gulf of Mexico, including all islands within six
    leagues of the shore to the junction of Pearl River with the
    Lake Pontchartrain; and up said river to the 31st degree of
    latitude; thence to the river Mississippi, and up the same to
    the beginning."

The question on this amendment was taken without debate, and carried.

Mr. CLAY moved to add the following proviso, to follow after the
section just adopted; which would have the effect to keep that portion
of country taken possession of under the President's proclamation,
subject to future negotiation:

    "_Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be so
    construed as to prevent that portion of the Territory
    comprehended within the said boundary, formerly composing a
    part of the country known by the name of West Florida, being
    subject to future negotiation on the part of the United States."

Mr. CLAY (Speaker) said that in offering this amendment to the
committee, he confessed he was actuated rather by a disposition to
accommodate the views of other gentlemen, than from any difficulty
which he felt on the subject himself; for, with respect to our title
to West Florida, he thought it utterly impossible that any gentleman
could examine that question without suffering other considerations
to mingle in the investigation, and not be thoroughly convinced that
the title was in the United States: and he confessed that were he to
consult his own views only, he should not hesitate a moment in making
an unqualified annexation of that territory to the States to be formed
of the Orleans and Mississippi Territories. But as some gentlemen,
adverting to the President's Proclamation for taking possession of
that country, had supposed that some difficulty might arise under
it from such a procedure, in order to quiet these apprehensions, he
had submitted this proviso. The right of the General Government to
destroy the integrity of a State having been questioned, it would be
well to guard against any difficulty on that score by a reservation
to the General Government of the power to negotiate on the subject
of this territory. At the same time he made this proposition, Mr.
C. utterly disclaimed the idea that in any possible state of things
ought this country to be ceded away. He considered the possession
of West Florida as indispensable to the interests and prosperity of
the Western States, and so far to the integrity of the Union; and he
should as soon see a part of the State which he represented ceded away
as this territory. What, he asked, was the extent of the country in
question? In breadth, about twenty miles; in length, about two hundred,
binding to that extent our southern frontier. The danger of having
provinces of a foreign power on our frontier is too well disclosed by
the late communication of the President (concerning Henry's mission)--a
disclosure which must combine in the execration of the project it
developed, every man in the country, and every honest man in every
country. Suppose the former dynasty of Spain to be reinstated on the
throne, it could not desire, for honest purposes, the possession of
West Florida. In proposing the amendment, Mr. C. said it was merely
his object to make the acts of the Legislative body tally with the
proclamations of the President. If, therefore, contrary to his firm
conviction, it should be determined that we have not the title, he had
no idea that even in that state of things the territory would be given
up, but that an equivalent should be given for it.

Mr. C. said he fully approved the boundary established for the new
State of Mississippi by the section just agreed to, so far as it
operated on the Florida Territory. It gave to the State of Louisiana
about three-fourths, perhaps four-fifths, of the population of the
whole territory--a population homogeneous to the character of the
country--American in principle and feeling; and with pleasure he had
seen the convention of the Orleans Territory, in requesting this
annexation, display a liberality of sentiment in desiring a further
American population, which he trusted would be reciprocated by
Congress. Although the State of Louisiana could not be gratified by the
annexation of the whole territory, their desires would be gratified
to a considerable extent by giving them all that portion of it lying
west of Pearl River. The acquisition of the valuable settlements on
the high lands, and their hardy population, would satisfy all the
material wishes of the State. By this addition they would give to the
new State of Louisiana the entire control of the Lakes Maurepas and
Pontchartrain, by which the city of New Orleans may be most easily
approached; you thus enable the State to take all necessary means to
repel invasion. You effect another object, said Mr. C. There is not
any very great natural connection between the people immediately on
the bay of Mobile and Tombigbee River, and those on the Mississippi.
If there be any connection, it is an artificial one, resulting from
the preponderancy of capital at New Orleans, and will be lessened
whenever there shall be a commercial capital at Mobile. I am therefore
anxious to unite the territory east of Pearl River, including the bay
of Mobile, to the Mississippi Territory, to which it is naturally
connected; and, Mr. C. said, he had no hesitation in declaring that
either Pearl River or the Pascagoula ought to be the boundary which is
to separate the two parts of the country respectively to be attached
to the States of Louisiana and Mississippi--the Pearl River, upon the
whole, would be the best, as dividing the territory in about equal
portions. Mr. C. concluded by expressing his satisfaction that this
subject had been taken up, and that the amendment proposed by the
delegate from Mississippi had obtained, which he hoped would finally
pass, &c.

Mr. RHEA said that the amendment proposed by the honorable Speaker to
him appeared strange. I, said Mr. R., do firmly believe that the title
of the United States to the country west of the Perdido River, named
West Florida, is good and valid to all intents and purposes; and,
therefore, I will not vote for a proposition which will evince a doubt
relative to the sufficiency of that title. But it is said that the
proclamation of the President has declared the same principle that the
amendment proposes. That may be, but that is no law; that proclamation
is not law, nor is the Legislature of the United States bound by it,
unless they intend to adopt a principle similar to that used in Great
Britain, where the King and Council can issue an edict having the
force of law. This principle ought not to be established under the
constitution of this nation. But the domineering interference of the
British Government relative to West Florida, if there was no other
reason, ought to be cause sufficient to reject this offered amendment;
that interference of a Government which has no possible right or title
to the country in question, will be, in a manner, sanctioned by the
offered amendment. On these three points, then, the amendment ought
to be rejected: first, that it goes to shake the solidity of the
title; second, that it goes to sanction an opinion, that a preceding
proclamation of the President of the United States is obligatory on
the Congress of the United States; and, third, that the amendment,
if agreed to, will go to authorize an opinion that the domineering
interference of Great Britain, in respect to the country in question,
was right and proper. Against these points I will, said Mr. R., hold up
my hand--and therefore will vote against the offered amendment.

Mr. MITCHILL observed, that our minister who negotiated the purchase
of Louisiana had been repeatedly told by Talleyrand, in the course of
the negotiation, that the French intended to cede the country of West
Florida; so that it had been not only purchased, but understood to have
been purchased. His certainty of the completeness of our title was
such, that he was unwilling to do any act which should recognize the
existence of a doubt on the subject, and he was therefore opposed to
the proviso. At the same time he had no objection to the amendment just
agreed to; he was willing that the people on the Tombigbee and Alabama
Rivers should have free access to the ocean, and thus do away all
artificial distinctions which had been made by a foreign power whilst
the territory had been in its possession.

Mr. MACON was well satisfied with the amendment proposed; for he
could not have consented to vote for this bill without the proviso,
or something like it. Hitherto this Government had done every thing
it could to preserve peace. The embargo and all the restrictive
measures had in view to preserve peace; and peace would always be
best maintained by a due regard to public faith. If a territory be
incorporated into a State, it was the opinion of Mr. M. that neither
the President nor Senate have a right to give it up. It had never
been understood by any party, under our constitution, that under the
treaty-making power the President would cede one inch of a State.
Convenient although the territory is to us, and though we have
possession, and it is said no pledge has been given in relation to
it, yet it appeared to him that the proclamation held out the idea
that we held it until an opportunity was afforded for negotiating on
equitable terms. Mr. M. said he was willing to acknowledge that he
had not examined the title in the same manner as the Speaker and the
gentleman from New York had done, so as to enable him to pronounce on
it with certainty; but the title did not come into the question on the
present point. Had we, when all the rest of Louisiana was surrendered
to us, obtained possession of Florida? No, we had not. It appeared to
have been at least a doubtful question whether we obtained a title to
it or not. What had been stated by the gentleman from New York, of
Talleyrand's declaration to our Plenipotentiaries, had not much weight,
because a claim was now set up to it not by France but by the Spanish
Government. The proviso under consideration, whilst it could not in
any degree invalidate our claim, did away the objections in his mind
to the proposed annexation of territory. If the territory was once
annexed to the State, without reservation or condition, they might as
well hereafter attempt to cede away Boston or Old Plymouth, as that
Territory.

Mr. WRIGHT spoke against the amendment at considerable length.

Mr. CLAY replied; and Mr. RHEA rejoined:

When the question was taken on the proviso, which was adopted without a
division.

The bill having been reported to the House, and the House having agreed
to take up the same, an adjournment took place.


FRIDAY, March 13.

                        _Mississippi Territory._

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business, viz:
the report of the Committee of the Whole on the bill for enabling
the people of Mississippi Territory to form a constitution and State
government.

The amendment changing the boundary of the Territory, &c., moved by Mr.
POINDEXTER, together with Mr. CLAY'S proviso, were agreed to without a
division.

The question on the bill being engrossed for a third reading was
decided without debate--yeas 67, nays 39, as follows:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,
    David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, Robert Brown,
    William A. Burwell, William Butler, J. C. Calhoun, Langdon
    Cheves, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, Lewis Condict, William
    Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Elias Earle,
    William Findlay, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson
    Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling
    Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty,
    John M. Hyneman, Joseph Kent, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefevre,
    Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Thomas Moore,
    William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf,
    Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New,
    Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants,
    jr., Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold, Jonathan Roberts,
    William Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw,
    Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, William Strong, George M.
    Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, William Widgery,
    Thomas Wilson, and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus
    Bleecker, Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham,
    Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr.,
    William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Richard Jackson, jun.,
    Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jun., Robert Le Roy Livingston, James
    Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin,
    jun., Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, William
    Reed, William M. Richardson, Thomas Sammons, John Smilie,
    George Smith, Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges,
    Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Pierre Van
    Cortlandt, jun., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and Robert
    Wright.

The bill was then ordered to be read a third time on Monday next.


MONDAY, March 16.

            _British Minister's Disclaimer of all Knowledge
                   of John Henry's Asserted Mission._

The following message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress a letter, from the Envoy Extraordinary
    and Minister Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, to the Secretary
    of State.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.


    MARCH 13, 1812.

                             WASHINGTON, _March_ 11, 1812.

    The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary
    and Minister Plenipotentiary to the United States, has read in
    the public papers of this city, with the deepest concern, the
    Message sent by the President of the United States to Congress
    on the 9th instant, and the documents which accompanied it.

    In the utter ignorance of the undersigned as to all the
    circumstances alluded to in those documents, he can only
    disclaim most solemnly, on his own part, the having had any
    knowledge whatever of the existence of such a mission, or of
    such transactions as the communication of Mr. Henry refers to,
    and express his conviction, that, from what he knows of those
    branches of His Majesty's Government with which he is in the
    habit of having intercourse, no countenance whatever was given
    by them to any schemes hostile to the internal tranquillity of
    the United States.

    The undersigned, however, cannot but trust that the American
    Government, and the Congress of the United States, will take
    into consideration the character of the individual who has made
    the communication in question, and will suspend any further
    judgment on its merits until the circumstances shall have been
    made known to His Majesty's Government.

    The undersigned requests the Secretary of State to accept the
    assurance of his highest consideration.

                                                     AUGUSTUS J. FOSTER.


The Message having been read, was, on motion of Mr. NEWTON, referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations, and ordered to be printed.


WEDNESDAY, March 18.

                         _State of Louisiana._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill
for the admission of the State of Louisiana (now Orleans Territory)
into the Union, and for extending the laws of the United States to the
same.

The several blanks in the bill having been filled--

Mr. POINDEXTER observed, that it appeared to have been the sense of
this House, when the bill for erecting the Mississippi Territory into a
State was under consideration, that the portion of the territory taken
possession of under the President's proclamation (known by the name
of West Florida) which lies West of Pearl River, should be added to
the State of Orleans. The constitution had provided that new territory
might be added to the States with their consent. As it was not provided
by the constitution which party should first assent, he presumed it was
not material; and, as this appeared to be the proper moment for fixing
the boundary, he was induced to offer the following amendment to the
bill.

    "_And be it further enacted_, That so soon as the consent of
    the Legislature of said State shall be given to the same, all
    that tract of country lying within the following boundaries,
    to wit: beginning at the junction of the Iberville, with the
    river Mississippi; thence through the middle of the Lakes
    Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the western junction of Pearl
    River, to Lake Pontchartrain; thence up said river to the
    thirty-first degree of latitude; thence along said degree of
    latitude to the river Mississippi; thence down the same to
    the beginning; be, and the same is hereby incorporated in,
    and made a part of said State, and shall be governed by the
    constitution and laws thereof, in the same manner as if it had
    been included within the original boundaries of said State.
    _Provided, nevertheless_, That the title of the United States
    to said tract of country shall be and remain subject to future
    negotiation."

Mr. DAWSON said this question had been agitated in the select
committee, but it had appeared proper to them that this addition of
territory should be made the subject of a separate law. If they went so
far, they must go farther still into details. He thought it better that
the law accepting the constitution should be as simple as possible.

Mr. CLAY (Speaker) could not view the subject in the same light, he
said, as the gentleman from Virginia; and although there had been a
division of sentiment in the select committee, there certainly were
some members of that committee in favor of the motion. But, could
gentlemen imagine any difficulty growing out of making this section a
part of the present bill, which would not equally arise if it were put
in a separate bill? There could be no difficulty in either way; and
in propriety, it appeared to him the course now proposed ought to be
pursued. They were about to admit a new State into the Union. Should
not the bill, which recognized it, present the whole limits of the
State in one view, or would it be better to subject inquirers to the
necessity of wading through two or three acts to find out the boundary
of a single State? He hoped the motion would prevail.

The motion was agreed to, 47 to 25.

Mr. CLAY said he observed there had been no ordinance passed by the
convention recognizing the freedom of navigation of the Mississippi. He
had no idea that under any circumstances, the Legislature of the new
State would impede the navigation; but the object was one so dear to
the people of the Western country generally, that he wished to place it
beyond the possibility of doubt.

The amendment was adopted without a division.

Mr. JOHNSON said, that as the matter now stood, the population of the
Florida Territory attached to this bill would, although they are to
compose a part of the new State, be deprived of a voice in the passage
of the first laws, which are always the most important under a new
government, and in the choice of Senators in Congress, which would
be attended with the greatest hardship, as the population had been
unrepresented for some time past, and complained of various grievances.
He, therefore, moved an amendment to the bill, to divide the territory
to be annexed to Louisiana into two counties, to be called Feliciana
and Baton Rouge, each to send one Senator and one Representative.

Mr. POINDEXTER wished the people of that country to be represented as
much as the gentleman possibly could; but how could Congress in one
breath say they should form a part of the new State as soon as its
consent could be had, and in the next section declare, though by the
very terms of the law they are not a part of the State, that they shall
be represented in the Legislature of the State?

Mr. CLAY said he had understood that a memorial was in the city, and
would be presented to the House at the first opportunity, from the
Convention of Orleans, praying the annexation of the territory in
question to the new State. When that was before them, the committee
would be better able to understand how far they could now proceed in
sanctioning the representation of that territory in the Louisiana
Legislature. He therefore moved that the committee now rise, report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to, and the committee rose.


THURSDAY, March 19.

                      _Disclosures of Mr. Henry._

Mr. PORTER, from the Committee of Foreign Relations, to whom
was referred the Message of the President of the United States,
transmitting the disclosures of Mr. Henry, a British Secret Agent, made
the following report:

    The Committee of Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the
    President's Message, of the 9th instant, covering copies of
    certain documents communicated to him by a Mr. John Henry,
    beg leave to report, in part, that although they did not deem
    it necessary or proper to go into an investigation of the
    authenticity of documents communicated to Congress, on the
    responsibility of a co-ordinate branch of the Government, it
    may, nevertheless, be satisfactory to the House to be informed
    that the original papers, with the evidences relating to
    them in possession of the Executive, were submitted to their
    examination, and were such as fully to satisfy the committee of
    their genuineness.

    The circumstances under which the disclosures of Henry were
    made to the Government, involving considerations of political
    expediency, have prevented the committee from making those
    disclosures the basis of any proceeding against him. And, from
    the careful concealment, on his part, of every circumstance
    which could lead to the discovery and punishment of any
    individuals within the United States (should there be any such)
    who were criminally connected with him, no distinct object
    was presented to the committee by his communication for the
    exercise of the power with which they were invested, of sending
    for persons and papers. On being informed, however, that there
    was a foreigner in the city of Washington, who lately came to
    this country from Europe with Henry, and was supposed to be in
    his confidence, the committee thought proper to send for him.
    His examination, taken under oath and reduced to writing, they
    herewith submit to the House.

    The transaction disclosed by the President's Message presents
    to the mind of the committee conclusive evidence that the
    British Government, at a period of peace, and during the most
    friendly professions, have been deliberately and perfidiously
    pursuing measures to divide these States, and to involve our
    citizens in all the guilt of treason, and the horrors of a
    civil war. It is not, however, the intention of the committee
    to dwell upon a proceeding, which, at all times, and among all
    nations, has been considered as one of the most aggravated
    character; and which, from the nature of our Government,
    depending on a virtuous union of sentiment, ought to be
    regarded by us with the deepest abhorrence.

               [Document accompanying the above report.]

    FRIDAY, March 13.--_Count Edward de Crillon sworn._--This
    deponent knows Mr. Henry; he dined with him at Mr. Wellesley
    Pole's, in September, and afterwards at Lord Yarmouth's; met
    with him also at different fashionable clubs; deponent fell
    in with Mr. H. subsequently by accident; deponent had ordered
    his servants to procure him a passage for America; they met
    with Captain Tracy, of the ship New Galen, of Boston, at the
    New London Coffee House. After agreeing with him on the terms
    of the passage, Captain T. applied to deponent to know if
    he was ready to embark the next day, as the ship would sail
    on the following morning; deponent said no; that he should
    send his servants on board, but should take a post-chaise
    for Portsmouth, and pass over to the Isle of Wight, where
    he should wait for the vessel. On the day following he went
    accordingly to Portsmouth, but before his departure he received
    a letter from Captain Tracy, couched in the following terms:
    "Sir, you must go to Ryde, where you shall find a gentleman
    called Captain Henry, waiting for the New Galen; I shall send
    a boat on shore for both of you." Deponent went to Ryde, but
    did not find Captain H. there; thence he proceeded to Cowes,
    and inquired of the American Consul "if the New Galen had
    passed?" fearing that she had sailed without him. The Consul
    informed him that the ship was detained in the Downs by head
    winds; deponent returned to Ryde, and remained there three
    weeks alone before Captain H. arrived. Captain H. came to him
    and told him that the ship was badly found, and advised him
    to go to Liverpool and take the packet; deponent refused,
    having paid his passage and his trunks being on board. Captain
    H. three days after his arrival, fell sick; he kept his bed
    twenty-two days, during which time he was often delirious,
    frequently uttering the name of Lord Liverpool. The deponent
    having two servants, one of them attended on Mr. H. during
    his illness. He was visited by Mr. Powell, of Philadelphia,
    a Mr. Wilkinson, or Dickson, of the British army, and a Mr.
    Perkins, of Boston; he received above two hundred letters from
    a Boston house, [Higginsons,] in Finsbury Square, that had
    lately stopped payment. He refused to take the letters, giving
    them to the Captain. Mr. H. was also visited by a Mr. Bagholt,
    who brought him letters from Sir James Craig. Henry refused
    to receive those letters. He recovered from his sickness.
    Deponent occupying the most agreeable house in the place,
    Henry's physicians asked the favor of an apartment for him
    until he was ready to embark. After eight weeks' detention,
    the wind became fair, and the vessel sailed. The day before
    her departure, Mr. Bagholt arrived at Ryde, with letters from
    Lord Liverpool to Sir George Prevost, and to Mr. Henry, who,
    when he saw the seal of the letter addressed to him, said,
    throwing it on the table, "that is a letter from Liverpool;
    what more does he want of me?" He appeared to be much agitated,
    and retired to his room. Mr. Bagholt returned that night to
    London without taking leave; but the wind coming fair the next
    morning the ship sailed. Mr. Edward Wyer, and Mr. West, both
    of Boston, and a Mrs. Thompson, of London, were passengers in
    the ship. Henry at first appeared very low spirited, took a
    cabin to himself, and mostly dined alone. In good weather he
    employed himself in shooting pistols, at which he was very
    expert. One dark night, about ten o'clock, the witness was
    walking on deck much dejected, when Henry accosted him--"Count
    Crillon," said he, "you have not confidence in me; you are
    unhappy; confide your sorrows to me." He spoke so kindly that
    deponent made him in part acquainted with his situation. He
    replied, "one confidence deserves another; I will now tell you
    _my_ situation. I have been very ill-treated by the British
    Government. I was born in Ireland, of one of the first families
    in that country, poor, because a younger brother. I went to
    America with expectations from an uncle, (Daniel McCormick,
    Esq., of New York,) who possesses a large fortune, is old and
    unmarried. French persecution having exiled from that country
    many of the respectable families of France, I married a lady
    of that description, who died, and left two daughters without
    fortune. I applied to the American Government, and through the
    influence of the British Minister I was appointed captain of
    artillery during Mr. Adams's Administration. I had command at
    Portland, and at the fort near Boston, and while in commission,
    I was employed in quelling a meeting or insurrection among the
    soldiery, and during my continuance in office I gave general
    satisfaction. But perceiving there was no field for my ambition
    I purchased an estate in Vermont, near the Canada line, and
    there studied law for five years without stirring from home. I
    detest republican government, and I filled the newspapers with
    essays against it."

    SATURDAY, March 14.--_Count C. in continuation._

    Deponent says that Henry told him in the course of his
    interview, which he mentioned yesterday, that the severity
    of his strictures in the public prints against republican
    government attracted the attention of the British Government.
    "Sir James Craig," continued he, "became desirous of my
    acquaintance. He invited me to Quebec, where I staid some
    time. Hence I went to Montreal, where every thing I had to
    fear, and all I had to hope, was disclosed to me. I went
    afterwards to Boston, where I established my usual residence.
    I was surrounded by all the people pointed out to me by the
    agents who were under my orders. I lived at the Exchange
    Coffee House, gave large parties, made excursions into the
    country, and received an order extraordinary from Sir James
    Craig to dispose of the fleet at Halifax, and of the troops,
    to further the object of my mission, if required. My devotion
    to the cause was extreme. I exhausted all my funds. I spent
    many precious years in the service; and was advised to proceed
    to London. The Government treated me with great kindness. I
    was received in the highest circles; was complimented with a
    ticket as member of the _Pitt Club_, without being balloted
    for. And when I had spent all my money, and presented my
    claims for retribution, the Government attempted to cheapen
    my services, [_marchander_,] to beat me down. My claims were
    to the amount of £32,000 sterling. I was told, however, that
    I should be provided for, by a recommendation to Sir George
    Prevost, in case I would return to Canada, and continue my
    mission and services as before; and to exercise the same
    vigilance over the interests of the British Government. At
    the same time, the Government appointed a friend of mine,
    an Irish gentleman, Attorney General for Canada, through
    my influence." [Deponent saw this gentleman at Mr. Gilbert
    Robertson's in New York.] Henry continued: "Disappointed in my
    expectations, I was impatient to proceed to Canada to sell my
    estates and my library, and take my revenge against the British
    Government. I knew that if I went to Canada I must deliver up
    my despatches, and that I should afterwards be put off by the
    Government. I, therefore, determined to retain the documents
    in my possession, as the instrument of my revenge. Determined
    to extricate myself from my embarrassing connection with the
    British Government, I refused the offer of a passage to Halifax
    in one of their ships of war, and determined to live privately
    and retired at Ryde, and take passage in the first vessel that
    should sail for the United States. This is the cause of your
    meeting me at Ryde."

    Deponent represents to Henry, "That England was his legitimate
    Government; that he would render himself the most odious of
    all characters by betraying it; that his (the deponent's)
    Government had treated him harshly, and that he then labored
    under its displeasure, but no consideration should induce him
    to act against it; that we must not resent a parent's injuries;
    tells him to have patience, and wait for his reward." Henry
    then pleaded in his justification the wrongs of his native
    country--Ireland--inflicted by the British Government.

    Henry came down to Washington, and stopped at Tomlinson's,
    where deponent saw him. He afterwards removed to Georgetown,
    to the house of one Davis, an auctioneer, where the deponent
    visited him every day, and found him always occupied. Deponent
    waited for his disclosures, not having any disposition to
    pry into his secrets; but Henry was entirely silent, and
    incessantly sighing very deeply. On the day of General
    Blount's funeral, deponent took Henry down to Alexandria, in
    expectation that he might communicate his projects; but he was
    still reserved. After dinner they returned, and while in the
    carriage, Henry tells deponent "that he has great confidence
    in him; that he (deponent) has been here some time, and asks
    his opinion of Mr. Monroe." Deponent answered that he was very
    little acquainted with any body, but thought Mr. Monroe a most
    virtuous and respectable man.

    Deponent remained several days without hearing any thing more,
    until one morning at 7 o'clock, Henry came into his apartment
    and said--"Crillon! you must sell me St. Martial," [an estate
    of the deponent's in Lebeur, near the Spanish frontier;] "you
    have the title papers with you. My name will be rescued from
    oblivion by living near _Crillon_, the habitation of your
    ancestors, and of a man who has been my friend." Deponent
    answered that he had no objection; and, if Henry on seeing the
    property was not satisfied, he would give orders to his agent
    in France to cancel the bargain. The conveyance was accordingly
    made.[27] Henry left deponent, when Mr. Brent, to whom Henry
    was not introduced, came into the deponent's apartment. About
    this time, deponent received four anonymous threatening
    letters, and was advised by his friends that he was surrounded
    by spies; but he told them that he had nothing to fear--that
    he was "_sans peur et sans reproche_." By one of these letters
    I was advised to leave the city before 12 o'clock, as a person
    had just arrived from London with orders to arrest me.

    Meanwhile rumors circulated very generally to the deponent's
    prejudice, and he was under the necessity of vindicating his
    character, and of correcting the author of those reports.

    The Message of the President gave the deponent the first
    intelligence of the true state of the transaction.

    Henry told the deponent that a Mr. Gilvary, or Gillivray, from
    Quebec, had come to him at New York, to persuade him to go to
    Canada; but Henry said "he would not--that the Rubicon was
    passed."

    Henry kept the first company at Boston.

    Being questioned if Henry had mentioned the names of any person
    with whom he had conferred? deponent answered "None."

    Deponent landed at Boston, December 24, 1811; staid there about
    ten or twelve days. Visited Governor Gerry twice.

    Question--Do you know where Henry is now?

    Answer--No. By report, I hear he is in New York.

    Deponent left Boston in the public stage. Henry was also a
    passenger. But at New Haven deponent took a private carriage to
    himself.

                                                    COUNT E. DE CRILLON.


The report having been read, was, on motion of Mr. PORTER ordered to
lie on the table.


FRIDAY, March 20.

                       _Admission of Louisiana._

The bill for the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union,
and to extend the laws of the United States thereto, was read a third
time, and passed, without debate--yeas 79, nays 23, as follows:

    YEAS.--William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Ezekiel Bacon, David
    Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge,
    Adam Boyd, James Breckenridge, Robert Brown, William A.
    Burwell, William Butler, Matthew Clay, Lewis Condict, William
    Crawford, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Samuel Dinsmoor, William
    Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Thomas
    R. Gold, Peterson Goodwin, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, Felix
    Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes,
    Jacob Hufty, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Philip B.
    Key, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, William
    Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander
    McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow,
    Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton,
    Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin
    Pond, William M. Richardson, Henry M. Ridgely, Samuel Ringgold,
    John Rhea, John Roane, William Rodman, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer
    Seaver, Samuel Shaw, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, George Smith,
    John Smith, Richard Stanford, Samuel Taggart, John Taliaferro,
    Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, junior, Pierre Van
    Cortlandt, junior, Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Thomas
    Wilson, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--Harmanus Bleecker, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin
    Chittenden, William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Richard
    Jackson, junior, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, junior, Robert Le Roy
    Livingston, James Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson,
    Timothy Pitkin, junior, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, Thomas
    Sammons, Adam Seybert, Philip Stuart, Lewis B. Sturges,
    Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, and Leonard White.


TUESDAY, March 24.

               _Limitation of Claims on the Government._

The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of the
Whole on the following resolution:

    "_Resolved_, That it is expedient to make provision by law
    for the payment of the following descriptions of claims,
    to wit:--1. Loan office certificates; 2. Indents of
    interest on public debt; 3. Final settlement certificates;
    4. Commissioners' certificates; 5. Army certificates; 6.
    Credits given in lieu of army certificates cancelled; 7.
    Credits for the pay of the army for which no certificates
    were issued; 8. Invalid pensions; 9. Lost or destroyed
    certificates--notwithstanding any statute of limitation to
    the contrary, under such restrictions as shall insure payment
    only to the original claimant, his heirs, executors, or
    administrators."

The resolution was agreed to, and referred to the Committee of Claims
to bring in a bill pursuant thereto.

                         _French Spoliations._

Mr. PITKIN said that he held in his hand a statement and
representation, on oath, of Captain Samuel Chew, of New Haven, in
the State of Connecticut, which he would beg leave to present to the
House. Captain Chew states, that he was supercargo on board the brig
Thames, and on the 19th of January, 1812, sailed from St. Ubes, bound
to New Haven, with a cargo of salt and fruit; that on the 2d of July
following, the brig was taken possession of by a French squadron,
consisting of two frigates of forty-four guns each, and a sloop of war
of sixteen guns, under the command of Commodore Forretin, and that he
was told by the officer boarding him, that the brig would be burnt the
next morning. That the officers of the squadron informed him that they
sailed from Nantes on the 8th of January. That on board the French
vessels were the crews of the ship Asia, from Philadelphia, bound to
Lisbon, and of the brig Gershom, of Duxbury, last from Boston, bound
to Oporto, both laden with corn and flour. That the officers of the
squadron informed him, that, on the 17th and 23d of January, they had
captured and burnt the ship Asia and brig Gershom. He also states that
he inquired of the Commodore the reasons of burning them, and was
informed by him that he had orders from the Government to burn all
American vessels sailing to or from an enemy's port. That, on the 3d of
February, the Commodore put on board the Thames the captains and crews
of the vessels burnt, being thirty-seven in number, to be landed in the
first port, and that, on the 16th day of July, he landed them at St.
Bartholomews. Captain Chew states likewise, that when the Commodore
released the Thames, he gave him a document or writing, subscribed with
his own hand, and written in the French language, and which is annexed
to his statement. This document contains a list of names of the men
composing the crews of the vessels captured; it also states that they
were captured on voyages from Philadelphia and Boston to Lisbon, laden
with grain and flour, by the division under the command of Monsieur
Forretin, Member of the Legion of Honor, and that they were captured
in pursuance of the instructions of the Minister of Marine and the
Colonies.

Mr. P. said that this statement, with the original document annexed,
in the French language, and under the hand of the commodore of
the squadron, had been forwarded here, for the information of the
Government; that the character of Captain Chew was such as to entitle
him to full credit wherever he was known. Believing, therefore, as he
did, in the truth of these statements, and that the document annexed is
genuine, he thought it his duty to present it to the House for their
information. The House, after hearing them read, can dispose of them
by referring them to the Secretary of State, or otherwise, as they may
think proper.

The papers presented by Mr. PITKIN having been read,

Mr. MCKIM moved that they lie on the table until time should be
afforded for the arrival of those persons in the United States whose
testimony might confirm the facts stated.

Mr. PITKIN also wished them to lie on the table, that they might
be examined by gentlemen, and receive that attention to which the
importance of their contents might entitle them.

The papers were accordingly ordered to lie on the table.


THURSDAY, April 2.

                    _Virginia Military Bounty Land._

Mr. NELSON, from the committee to whom the subject had been referred,
made a report, concluding with the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That provision should be made for securing to both
    officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary army of Virginia
    on that establishment, in the land or sea service of the said
    State, the county lands which were promised to them, either by
    law or resolution of the said Commonwealth, out of the lands
    not otherwise appropriated, and lying on the northwest of the
    river Ohio, within the Virginia cession, to be of good quality,
    according to the true intent and meaning of the promises made
    on the part of Virginia; and that if a sufficiency of good
    land, within the meaning aforesaid, cannot there be found, that
    these bounties shall be satisfied out of any other public lands
    of the United States not otherwise appropriated.

The report was referred to a Committee of the Whole.


MONDAY, April 6.

                  _Publication of Secret Proceedings._

Mr. GRUNDY, from a committee which had been appointed while the House
was sitting with closed doors, made the following report:

    The committee, to whom was referred the resolution directing
    an inquiry to be made, whether there has been any, and if any,
    what violation of the secrecy imposed by this House, during
    the present session, as to certain of its proceedings, have,
    according to order, proceeded in said inquiry, and beg leave to
    state, that, under the authority with which they were invested
    by the House, they have caused to come before them four
    witnesses, whose testimony on oath is as follows, to wit:

    Charles Prentiss states that he furnished to the editors of
    the "Spirit of Seventy-six," a paper printed in Georgetown,
    the paragraph giving an account of the proceedings of the
    House of Representatives, while sitting with closed doors,
    on the subject of the embargo; and he further says, that he
    did not receive the information, or any part thereof, which
    enabled him to write said paragraph, from any member of
    Congress or officer of the House. Upon being interrogated,
    he states that he received the whole of his information from
    Nathaniel Rounsavell, one of the editors of the Alexandria
    Herald; that he received it on Wednesday late at night, and he
    asked of Mr. Rounsavell whether the injunction of secrecy had
    been removed. Rounsavell replied that he had not inquired. On
    Thursday morning the witness spoke to some of the members on
    the subject, and from their conduct he was satisfied that the
    injunction of secrecy had not been removed; notwithstanding
    which, the witness sent the paragraph above alluded to, to the
    editors of the Spirit of Seventy-Six on Thursday.

    John M. Carter and James B. Carter, editors of the "Spirit of
    Seventy-Six," state that they received from Mr. Prentiss, in
    writing, the statement which appeared in their paper; that
    they received no information on the subject from any member or
    officer of the House.

    Nathaniel Rounsavell, upon being interrogated, says he composed
    the paragraph which appeared in the Alexandria Herald of Friday
    last, containing a statement of the secret proceedings of the
    House of Representatives upon the subject of the embargo; that
    he on Wednesday night, after the adjournment of the House,
    derived a part of the information, on which he was enabled to
    give the detailed account, from the conversation of members of
    the House with whom he accidentally fell in company; that he
    was acquainted with the members, and they with him; they knew
    he was present; he partook in some degree in the conversation.

    Question by the committee--From the conversation of what
    members did you collect the information of which you have
    spoken?

    The witness refused to answer the interrogatory.

    Question 2--At what place was the conversation held?

    Witness refused to answer.

    Question 3--Have you seen the members alluded to, or any
    of them, since you first appeared before this committee on
    Saturday last?

    Witness likewise refused to answer this interrogatory.

    Whereupon it is ordered by the committee that the
    Sergeant-at-Arms detain said Rounsavell in his custody until
    the pleasure of the House of Representatives relative to the
    conduct of said witness can be ascertained.

After the report was read, Mr. GRUNDY offered the following resolution
for consideration:

    "_Resolved_, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to bring
    the said Nathaniel Rounsavell to the bar of the House, there
    to answer such questions as may be propounded to him by the
    Speaker, under the direction of the House."

Much desultory discussion took place as to the mode of proceeding in
this case, the form of the proposed order, its conformity to precedent,
&c., in which Messrs. PITKIN, LACOCK, SHEFFEY, TROUP, TALLMADGE,
GRUNDY, FISK, and WIDGERY, took part. This discussion resulted in the
proposition of a preamble to the motion, by Mr. GRUNDY, reciting the
grounds of the order.

The motion was then agreed to.

On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the select committee were then discharged from
the further consideration of the subject.

On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, it was resolved that several interrogatories
contained in a paper which he offered to the House, should be proposed
to the witness.

Mr. BURWELL suggested the propriety of allowing this person counsel;
but withdrew the suggestion, on its being remarked, that this person
appeared before the House in the character of a witness, not a
criminal, and that it was not usual for a witness to appear by counsel.

Mr. Rounsavell was then brought to the bar of the House by the
Sergeant-at-Arms.

After some hesitation on the part of the witness to take the oath
required, he was sworn, in the usual form of oath administered to
witnesses.

The first interrogatory agreed to by the House was put to him by the
Speaker, in the following words: "From the conversation of what members
did you collect the information of which you have spoken in your
deposition before the committee?"

To this question the witness answered in these words: "I refused
to answer that question when before the committee, and I continue
steadfast in that refusal."

The witness was ordered to withdraw, and the Speaker reported his
answer to the House; having deemed it unnecessary, on his refusal to
answer the first, to propound any other of the questions.

Mr. SEYBERT, after stating his indisposition to encroach on the rights
of the citizen, which, however, must yield to the superior rights
of the nation, which required them to act in this case, suggested
the propriety of recommitting this person to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-Arms until further order should be taken by the House, and
preventing him in the mean time from communicating with those from
whose conversation he might have derived his information. With this
view he offered the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That Nathaniel Rounsavell be committed to the
    custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until further order, and
    that in the mean time he be precluded from all intercourse
    or conversation with any person or persons other than the
    Sergeant-at-Arms.

The question on striking out so much of the motion as precludes the
witness from conversation with any one unless in the presence and
hearing of the Sergeant-at-Arms, was decided as follows--yeas 62; nays
22.

The question was then stated on the motion as just amended, viz:

    "That Nathaniel Rounsavell be committed to the custody of the
    Sergeant-at-Arms until the further orders of the House."

The question was taken on the resolution, and it passed by a very large
majority.


TUESDAY, April 7.

                  _Publication of Secret Proceedings._

A letter was laid before the House from Nathaniel Rounsavell, the
witness now in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The letter
disclaims any intention to have violated the respect due to the House
by the publication which he had made; it declares that the conversation
which the writer had was inadvertent, as he believes, on the part of
the members who partook in it, and entirely without any intention on
their part, as he believes, to violate the order of the House; that
he had been refused by the committee an opportunity to explain his
testimony; and that his only motive for refusing to answer was, that if
he were to answer the question as propounded to him, it might have the
effect of criminating those who had committed no crime, and from whose
conversation, but for previous and subsequent knowledge, he could not
have ascertained that an embargo had been the subject of discussion, &c.

Mr. SMILIE said it was in his power, he believed, to make a statement
to the House which would procure a discharge of this man. Had the
original motion succeeded yesterday, he should then have risen and
stated what he was now about to say, because he had been determined
that the man should not suffer. I do believe, said Mr. S., that
the substance of the information which Mr. Rounsavell published in
his paper, he did derive from conversation of myself with others;
whether he got other particulars from other members, I know not. The
circumstance was this: The night the embargo law passed this House,
I met with a member who was absent, and ignorant of what had passed.
Upon meeting with this gentleman he inquired of me what had been done?
I briefly told him, and I have reason to believe Mr. Rounsavell was in
such a situation as to hear what I said. Having made this statement,
I will make a few other remarks. I had a seat in Congress when each
of the former embargoes under this constitution were laid. The mode
in which they came before the House was in those cases such as to
enable us to keep them secret. In every instance except the present,
the first intimation relative to the embargo came from the President
to the House in a confidential shape, and the doors were immediately
closed. What was the fact in this case? The measure originated in the
Committee of Foreign Relations. It was proposed there that it should
be kept secret; when a member of the committee rose and declared he
would not be bound--he would not keep it a secret. This destroyed
at once the efficacy of any such determination on the part of the
committee; we might as well have discussed the subject with open doors
as with closed doors, had it not been from respect to the Message of
the President recommending a different course. What was published in
the _Herald_, therefore, was of no importance; when the subject of
discussion was known to all, it was of very little consequence to know
who was chairman, and who spoke, and how many voted. If the House
must have a victim, and it appears to me some gentlemen would be very
willing to have one, I offer myself in the room of this man; he has
suffered too much already. The _quo animo_ constitutes the essence
of every crime; it cannot then be supposed, after the warm support I
have given to this measure, that I could have any unfriendly intention
towards it. I well know the powers of this House; and I know the limits
of those powers. The House will take such steps as they think proper.
I have taken my ground; I am prepared for the event. He would further
observe that in relation to the suspicion of members having influenced
Rounsavell to refuse to answer, that he had not seen him from the time
of the conversation he had stated until after his appearing before the
committee and refusing to answer.

Mr. Smilie was asked to name the member of the Committee of Foreign
Relations, to whom he had just alluded, and replied that his name was
no secret--it was Mr. Randolph.

Mr. CALHOUN said that the member of the Committee of Foreign Relations,
(Mr. RANDOLPH,) to whom allusion had been made, not being in his seat,
he would state how the fact just stated had occurred in the committee.
That gentleman stated (said Mr. C.) that he had doubts of the power of
the committee to compel him to secrecy; but the gentleman also stated
that he had just returned from Baltimore, where he found the British
Consul possessed the knowledge of an intended embargo, and that a great
commercial house was acting on it, and therefore he did not feel it
his duty to keep it secret. I, sir, was the one who made the motion
that our proceeding should be confidential. After the statement made
by the gentleman from Virginia, that he should feel it his duty to
proclaim the fact, combined with other circumstances, I did not feel so
strongly the obligation, and the motion for secrecy was waived. Under
the impression that it was no longer a duty to confine the knowledge
of this transaction to the bosom of the committee, I mentioned it to
the gentleman from Boston and other commercial cities, that they might
be aware of the transaction; I did it from a sense of duty, that they
might be as well informed on this head as other members of the House.

Mr. QUINCY rose to state the circumstances as they had occurred on
the day alluded to, and he had it in his power to do so, because,
anticipating that some difficulty might arise, and wishing to relieve
himself from blame, he had on the morning after the occurrence,
committed it to paper, as follows:

"MARCH 31, 1812.

    "MEMORANDUM.--Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, a member of the
    committee of Foreign Relations, this day informed me that 'the
    Committee of Foreign Relations had come to a determination that
    an embargo should be proposed to Congress for its adoption
    to-morrow.' I asked him if I was at liberty to mention this as
    a fact from him. He replied that 'I was at liberty.' He said
    'that the gentlemen of the committee were generally of opinion
    that the subject should be kept secret. But Mr. Randolph,[28]
    one of the committee, had declared that he would not consider
    himself bound to any such obligation. The committee, therefore,
    had thought that it was but fair to give an equal chance to
    all the gentlemen in Congress. And that he informed me of the
    fact, as a member from a commercial town, in order that I might
    communicate it to my mercantile friends.'

    "I soon after went to him and asked him, 'whether the embargo
    would come as an Executive recommendation.' He replied, 'I do
    not deem myself authorized to answer that question.'

    "I find the same information has been communicated by other
    members of the committee to various members of Congress.

"JOSIAH QUINCY."


Mr. SEYBERT said, after what had been stated by his colleague, it was
very evident that the information which had found its way to the public
had been inadvertently communicated by a member; and he hoped the
House was satisfied with the result. When he made the original motion,
yesterday, for detaining this person, Mr. S. said he was desirous of a
modification of it; he had not contemplated so rigorous a confinement
as it would perhaps have comprehended. He was now perfectly satisfied,
and considered it his duty to move that the witness be discharged from
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. ROBERTS was opposed to discharging the witness until he had
explained a sentence of his letter to the Speaker, in which he had
asserted that he was not permitted to explain his testimony. The fact
was, that the committee had acted with the greatest patience and
liberality towards the witness, and extended to him every indulgence in
their power, and his assertion was therefore unwarranted.

Mr. MACON, in the absence of Mr. RANDOLPH, thought proper to remark
that he had heard of the embargo in Baltimore, and the report had
brought him here. It appeared, then, it was no secret at all. This was
the first instance, indeed, Mr. M. said, in this Government in which a
committee had undertaken to make a secret for itself. No such power of
a committee was recognized by the House. Being confidentially referred
by the House to a committee, they must in that case act on it in the
same manner; otherwise there was, perhaps, no obligation. He did not
believe there was a man in the nation who would be farther from doing a
dishonorable act than the gentleman from Virginia, whose name had been
called in question.

Mr. SEYBERT said, after what had passed, he presumed every one was
satisfied there was no occasion to pursue the inquiry, and as the
witness had submitted to the authority of the House, he moved the
following resolution:

    "_Resolved_, That Nathaniel Rounsavell, now in the custody of
    the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House, for a contempt of its
    authority in not answering the questions propounded to him by
    order of the House, having submitted to answer, and purged
    himself from the contempt, be discharged from said confinement."

The question was then taken on Mr. SEYBERT'S motion, and carried
without opposition; and the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to discharge
the witnesses from confinement; and then, on motion, the House
adjourned until to-morrow.


THURSDAY, April 9.

                    _Importation of British Goods._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
to authorize the importation of goods, wares, and merchandise, under
certain circumstances, from Great Britain, her colonies or dependencies.

               _Removal of Federal Judges on Address of
                              Congress._

                    AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. MCKIM offered to the House the following resolution, premising
that he had been particularly induced to offer it, by considerations
resulting from the present state of things in the State of New York,
arising from the disability of the District Judge, by which upwards
of seven hundred suits were kept in suspense, to the great injury of
individuals and prejudice of the Government. In order to remedy that
difficulty, a bill had passed both Houses, which had been returned by
the President as objectionable on constitutional grounds. It had been
pronounced on this floor, by a respectable law authority, that if that
bill was rejected there was no other remedy. He, therefore, had been
induced to offer the following resolution:

    _Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_: (two-thirds
    of both Houses concurring,) That the following section
    be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States,
    which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths
    of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the
    Constitution of the United States:

    "_Resolved_, That the Judges of the Supreme and Inferior Courts
    may be removed from office, on the joint address of the Senate
    and House of Representatives of the United States."

The resolution was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed--44
to 33.

                       _Louisiana Lead Company._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill
to incorporate Moses Austin, Henry Austin, John R. Jones and others,
in the Territory of Louisiana, by the name of the Lead Company of
Louisiana. After considerable debate, the first section of the bill was
stricken out, on motion of Mr. TROUP. The question on concurrence with
the committee was decided by yeas and nays. For concurrence 46, against
concurrence 43.

And so the said bill was rejected.


TUESDAY, April 14.

                           _Cumberland Road._

Mr. MORROW, from the committee to whom was referred the Message of
the President of the United States, of the 1st ultimo, transmitting a
report and letter concerning the proceedings under the act, entitled
"An act to regulate the laying out and making a road from Cumberland,
in the State of Maryland, to the State of Ohio," and also a petition
from a number of the inhabitants of the western counties of the State
of Pennsylvania, praying that an appropriation may be made for the
purpose of erecting a bridge over the Youghiogany at the place where
the new road crosses the said river, made the following report:

    That two subjects are suggested by the said Message, which
    require Legislative provision, viz: the appropriation of
    $30,000 for completing the said road to Tomlinson's, where the
    old and new roads meet, and the granting authority to levy toll
    sufficient to keep the said road in repair.

    The reasons assigned in favor of such provisions, by the report
    and letter communicated by the Message, are, in the opinion
    of the committee, sufficient to show the expediency of the
    measure; they therefore refer the House to these documents.

    It is proper, however, to state that the appropriations already
    made for the objects have exceeded the moneys produced by the
    fund pledged to defray the expense of the said road, which will
    appear by a letter from the Treasury Department, accompanying
    this report. That circumstance, as also the present state of
    the public finances, the necessity arising out of the existing
    crisis in the national concerns, for applying the public
    resources to objects of security and defence, have been duly
    considered; and whatever ground of objection to the proposed
    measure these considerations may afford, the committee are of
    opinion, nevertheless, that the advantages the public would
    derive from an immediate extension of the new road to where
    it will intersect with the old, are sufficient to justify the
    appropriation.

    They are of opinion, that an appropriation for erecting a
    bridge over the Youghiogany River would be improper at this
    time, because, by law, the superintendent, in making the road,
    has power to deviate from the original survey, only that the
    road shall pass through the principal points established. If,
    then, a bridge should be erected over the said river, that
    place must necessarily become fixed as a point to which the
    road must lead, and being many miles in advance of the parts
    of the road contracted for, might prove inconvenient in the
    further prosecution of the work.

    The committee respectfully submit the following resolutions:

    _Resolved_, That $30,000, in addition to the sums heretofore
    appropriated, and reimbursable by the same fund, shall be
    appropriated for making the road leading from Cumberland to
    Brownsville.

    _Resolved_, That provision be made for the levying of toll
    sufficient to keep the same in repair.

    _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to appropriate money for
    erecting a bridge over Youghiogany River on the said road.

The report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next.


MONDAY, April 20.

                     _Death of the Vice President._

A message was received from the Senate, announcing the death of the
Vice President of the United States, and the resolution they had
adopted.

The House agreed to consider the joint resolution as above stated.

Mr. TALLMADGE said, it was assuredly not from any want of respect to
the memory of the patriot deceased, that some member from the State of
New York did not on this occasion address the Chair. At their request,
and being himself a native citizen of the State of New York, and having
served particularly and on honorable occasions in the Revolutionary war
with the gentleman whose death was now announced; having long known his
services and merits as a soldier and statesman, he took the liberty, in
behalf of the delegation from New York, to move a concurrence in the
resolution of the Senate.

The House unanimously concurred; and Messrs. TALLMADGE, MITCHILL, GOLD,
STOW, and MACON, were appointed a committee on their part to act with
the committee of the Senate.

And the House adjourned, to meet at nine o'clock to-morrow, to receive
the report of the joint committee on the subject.


TUESDAY, April 21.

On motion of Mr. TALLMADGE,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That from an unfeigned respect to the late
GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States, and President
of the Senate, the Speaker's chair be shrouded with black during the
present session: And, as a further testimony of respect for the memory
of the deceased, the members will go into mourning, and wear black
crape on the left arm for thirty days.

On motion of Mr. TALLMADGE,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House will attend the
funeral of GEORGE CLINTON, deceased, the Vice President of the United
States, to-day at four o'clock.

And the House adjourned.[29]


FRIDAY, April 24.

                         _Corps of Engineers._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill making further
provision for the corps of Engineers, which had been amended in
Committee of the Whole, so as to authorize the appropriation therein
made to be disbursed "at such place as may be designated by the
President of the United States for that purpose."

Mr. GOLD spoke against a concurrence in this amendment at some length,
and was followed on the same side by Mr. SMILIE and Mr. WIDGERY; to
whom Mr. KEY, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Mr. WRIGHT replied.

The discussion principally involved the respective merits of West Point
and Washington City (to which place it was supposed, probably, that
the Executive might deem it expedient to remove the Academy) as proper
sites for a Military Academy. The question on the amendment was decided
by yeas and nays. For the amendment 63, against the amendment 56.

Mr. W. ALSTON moved an amendment contemplating the establishment of the
Academy at Carlisle, in Pennsylvania, a place which he stated to be
more eligible, in point of economy, convenience, and comfort, than West
Point.

Mr. GOLD opposed the motion.

A motion was made by Mr. LITTLE to recommit the bill, and negatived.

Mr. FINDLAY spoke in favor of the motion.

Mr. BAKER suggested the propriety of locating the Academy at Harper's
Ferry; and because, if the Academy must be removed, he thought Harper's
Ferry preferable to Carlisle, he should vote against the motion.

Mr. RHEA made a motion which he said would put an end to all these
propositions to amend the bill, viz: to postpone the bill indefinitely.
The motion was negatived--yeas 32.

The question was then taken--"Shall the amendments be engrossed, and,
together with the bill, be read a third time?" and decided in the
affirmative.


WEDNESDAY, April 29.

                       _Relief of Caraccas, &c._

Mr. MACON submitted for consideration the following resolution:

    "_Resolved_, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures be
    instructed to report a bill authorizing the President of the
    United States to cause to be purchased ---- barrels of flour,
    and to have the same exported to some port in Caraccas, for
    the use of the inhabitants who have suffered by the earthquake;
    and also authorizing him to cause to be purchased ---- barrels
    of flour, and to have the same exported to some port in
    Teneriffe for the use of the inhabitants who are likely to
    starve by the ravages of locusts."

To the adoption of the first clause of this resolution, there was
no objection made by any one; but a desultory debate took place on
incidental points and on the merits of the last clause.

Mr. RANDOLPH made a speech of some length in favor of the object of
the proposed resolution, but going to show that the aid the Government
could afford would be ineffectual to relieve famine, if it existed; and
that unquestionably the most effectual relief that could be afforded on
our part to the wretched and unfortunate people of Caraccas would be a
suspension, as to them, of our restrictive system. He, therefore, moved
to amend the resolution by adding to the end of it the words "and to
authorize vessels laden with provisions to clear out for any port of
the aforesaid country."

Mr. CALHOUN expressed his regret that this proposition to aid the cause
of humanity could not be permitted to pass without the intermixture
of party feelings, which the motion and speech of the gentleman from
Virginia, he thought, were calculated to excite. He was opposed to the
amendment, which he conceived would virtually repeal the embargo, and
he hoped, as there could be no probability of adopting it, he would
withdraw it. Mr. C. said he had doubts about the latter clause of the
resolution; because, as to the distress at Teneriffe, the House had no
other information than a newspaper report, whilst of the scarcity of
provisions at Caraccas they had accurate information.

Mr. RANDOLPH defended himself against the imputation of a desire to
excite party feelings, &c., and declined withdrawing his amendment,
because he believed its adoption to be essential to the accomplishment
of the object of the original motion. He also made a number of
observations on the impatience which gentlemen of the minority were
listened to in the House, and the frequent interruptions they were in
the habit of meeting with, &c.

Mr. MACON spoke against the amendment, which, if adopted, would compel
him to vote against his own motion. The restrictive system, he said,
would not be of long duration, and, when it expired, provisions in
plenty might be exported to South America and elsewhere; so that there
was very little necessity for suspending the embargo law, which was
only adopted preparatory to a different state of things. The clause in
the resolution relating to Teneriffe, he said, had been added at the
suggestion of another member.

Mr. CALHOUN again spoke against the amendment, and in reply to Mr.
RANDOLPH'S imputation of intolerance to the minority. This course of
discussion he deprecated, as not comporting with the sacred cause of
distant and oppressed humanity, &c.

Mr. SMILES made some remarks in reply to an observation of Mr.
RANDOLPH, that the donation by the British Parliament of a hundred
thousand pounds to the sufferers by an earthquake in Portugal, some
years ago, was an act almost sufficient to purchase absolution for all
the sins of that Government. Mr. S. cited instances of similar conduct
in this country, in much smaller communities; and expressed his regret
that gentlemen chose to appreciate every act of other Governments,
without allowing merit to their own for acts much more praiseworthy.

The question on Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion to amend, was negatived--yeas 30,
nays 74.

Mr. BLACKLEDGE proposed to add "corn and rice" to the flour to be
exported.

Mr. MACON thereon modified his resolution so as to authorize the
exportation of "provisions," instead of "flour," which would include
all descriptions of breadstuff.

The question was taken on the first clause of the resolution, viz: so
much as relates to Caraccas, and carried unanimously.

The question was taken on the remainder of the resolution, viz: so much
as relates to Teneriffe, and negatived--for its adoption 47, against it
57.

So it was _Resolved_, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures
be instructed to report a bill authorizing the President of the United
States to cause to be purchased ---- barrels of provisions, and
have the same exported to some port in Caraccas, for the use of the
inhabitants who have suffered by the earthquake.

Mr. RANDOLPH adverted to the uncertainty as to the fact, which he
supposed had caused the rejection of the clause of the resolution
relating to Teneriffe, and offered the following resolution, in a form
calculated to produce the proper inquiry:

    "_Resolved_, That the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures
    be instructed to inquire whether any, and what relief ought to
    be extended to the inhabitants of the Canary Islands, who are
    suffering by famine occasioned by locusts."

Mr. NEWTON said, as this motion only proposed inquiry, and was not,
like the other, peremptory, he hoped it would pass.

And the resolution was agreed to.


MONDAY, May 4.

                        _Relief for Venezuela._

On motion of Mr. NEWTON, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole on the bill for the relief of the inhabitants of Venezuela.

[The bill authorizes the President to cause to be exported such
quantity of provision as he may think proper, for the relief of the
inhabitants of Venezuela, suffering by the effects of an earthquake.]

Mr. NEWTON proposed to fill the blank for the appropriation with the
sum of $30,000.

Mr. PITKIN inquired for the official information, which might have been
laid before the committee, on the subject of the distress existing at
Caraccas.

Mr. NEWTON, in reply, said, that there were many private letters in
confirmation of the facts, and also a letter from our Consul, &c. Some
of which were read.

Mr. CALHOUN moved to fill the blank with fifty thousand dollars, which
he thought would be little enough to effect the object in view.

The question on the latter motion was decided in the affirmative, 45 to
29.

The committee rose, and reported the bill; which was ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading this day, which was subsequently done,
and the bill passed.


WEDNESDAY, May 13.

                         _Recall of Absentees._

Mr. WILLIAMS said he rose to make a motion, the object of which was
in itself so clear, that he believed there was no necessity for
illustrating it. There was but one objection that he was aware of, and
that was, that there was no precedent for it; but if that should be
urged, he would reply that there never was before a crisis requiring
it. The motion was--

    _Resolved_, That the Speaker be directed to address a letter to
    each member of the House now absent, requesting his attendance
    prior to the first day of June.

Mr. GRUNDY, said the object of the motion, no doubt, was a correct one.
He should, therefore, vote for the motion as it now stood, but would
prefer a modification of it. On what particular day it would be proper
to have every member in his place, could not be foreseen with certainty
by any one. To fix on a day, however, would be as much as to tell the
members we do not want them earlier, and would put it out of our power
to act prior to that day. But, on the other hand, should we not be
ready to act on that day, is it not pledging ourselves that we will
then act, whether we are ready or not? It would be as well to request
the attendance of members immediately, and then we shall not stand
committed either to act on or before that day. He hoped there would not
be an absent man on the occasion of voting the final measure; though he
should consider such a vote as a completion of what was already begun,
and not a determination of the course to be pursued, which question he
considered as decided in the anterior measures already adopted.

Mr. ROBERTS said the call of the House met his perfect approbation;
but, in its present form, he should be constrained to vote against it.
He was not afraid that it would be considered a pledge to act on a
certain day; but the members near home, after it was passed, would take
the opportunity of the interval to visit their homes, and leave the
House without a quorum. He, therefore, moved to amend the resolution,
so as to request the attendance of the members forthwith.

This motion was agreed to--ayes 47.

After some objections by Mr. STANFORD to the phraseology of the
resolution, it was passed without a division, there not being more
perhaps than five dissenting voices.


FRIDAY, May 22.

                            _Judge Toulmin._

Mr. POINDEXTER, from the select committee, made the following report:

    The committee to whom was referred the letter of COWLES MEAD,
    Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Mississippi
    Territory, enclosing a presentment of the Grand Jury of Baldwin
    county, in said Territory, complaining of the conduct of
    Harry Toulmin, Judge of the District of Washington, in said
    Territory, beg leave to submit the following report:

    That the charges contained in the presentment aforesaid, have
    not been supported by evidence; and from the best information
    your committee have been enabled to obtain on the subject,
    it appears that the official conduct of Judge Toulmin has
    been characterized by a vigilant attention to the duties of
    his station, and an inflexible zeal for the preservation of
    the public peace and tranquillity of the country over which
    his judicial authority extends. They therefore recommend the
    following resolution:

    "Resolved, That it is unnecessary to take any further
    proceeding on the presentment of the Grand Jury of Baldwin
    county, in the Mississippi Territory, against Judge Toulmin."

The report was read and concurred in.


WEDNESDAY, May 27.

            _Renewal of Whitney's Patent Right to the Cotton
                            Gin Invention._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
"for the relief of Eli Whitney."

Mr. BIBB avowed his opposition to the principle and details of the
bill, and moved to strike out as much as provided for renewing
Whitney's patent right to the machine for ginning cotton. Mr. B. said,
that, although the bill assumed the character of a private act, it
involved considerations of great national concernment. If, sir, said
he, the committee will take the trouble to consider it attentively, in
all its relations, I am persuaded the motion submitted will not have
been made in vain. The object of granting patents is clearly defined
by the constitution to be the promotion of science and useful arts.
The effect of such promotion is obviously the advancement of public
improvement and prosperity. All the authority which Congress possesses
over this subject, is derived from the following provision: "Congress
shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive
right to their respective writings and discoveries." Here are two
distinct propositions: 1. The delegation of power to promote science
and useful arts; 2. And a description of the _mean_ authorized to be
employed. The benefit proposed to inventors is evidently not the object
in view, but the _mean_ whereby the _end_ may be accomplished; it is
the incitement offered to genius and talent, for the purpose of general
advantage; it is the price paid by the people of the United States
for the _disclosure_ of useful inventions. To legislate, therefore,
correctly, on the subject, it is indispensable that this distinction
between the _mean_ and the _object_ should be kept constantly in view.
So long as patents are granted for the promotion of science and useful
arts, the intent and meaning of the constitution are fairly pursued;
but whenever they are allowed with any other view, there is a manifest
departure from the limit of authority to which Congress is confined.
Sir, the framers of the constitution were sensible that monopolies
were odious every where, and that they would be particularly so to the
people of this country. Hence the limitation imposed, which permits
monopolies only in an expressly-defined case, and for a limited time.
The constitution declares, that "all powers not delegated to the United
States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to
the people." It is also the rule of construction, universally admitted,
that the enumeration of powers excludes all powers not enumerated. I
maintain, then, that the constitution having clearly designated the
object for which, and the parties to whom, exclusive rights may be
granted, for limited times, Congress is restrained within those precise
bounds. If there can be a legitimate departure from them in one case,
the restraint becomes wholly nugatory. The doctrine which deprives
Congress of the power to establish banking monopolies, equally forbids
them in every case, and for every purpose, other than those specified
in the clause to which I have adverted.

If, therefore, I establish the position that the proposed renewal of
Whitney's patent is neither intended nor calculated to promote science
or useful arts, I shall have succeeded in showing that this bill ought
to be rejected.

Permit me to inquire, in the first place, how the object of the
constitution may be attained? By pursuing the principle which has
heretofore governed the Legislature. The statute securing patent
rights must be general in its application, holding out inducements to
the inventive faculties of all, and prospective in its operation. It
must grant monopolies for a limited time to _future_ and not _past_
discoveries. The term during which the exclusive rights shall continue,
should be sufficiently long to afford the necessary incitement to
the exertions of genius, to promise an adequate reward for the labor
of invention. Whether fourteen years, as now fixed by law, be the
proper term, is a question on which gentlemen may rationally differ
in opinion. It is worthy of remark, however, that under the existing
statute, the progress of invention in the useful arts has been more
rapid in the United States than in any other country on the globe.
Still, if necessary, Congress is competent to extend by a general
provision exclusive rights to _future_ inventors for a longer time;
but the renewal of a patent for a discovery already made and in use,
stands on distinct grounds. In the one case, the progress of science
and useful arts (the object for which alone patents are constitutional)
would probably be promoted; but in the other, the invention being
already made and disclosed, public improvement cannot possibly be
advanced by taking away its benefit from the community. Is the object
of this bill to promote science or the useful arts? The candor of its
advocates will answer the question in the negative. It is to promote
the interests of Mr. Whitney at the public expense--to convert the
_mean_ prescribed by the constitution into the _end_. If the renewal
of a patent in a special case would furnish an adequate stimulus to
the exertions of other ingenious men, it might be urged with some
appearance of plausibility; but no man will assert that one or two
accidental cases of this sort, out of the many thousand patents which
are issued, would have any influence on the expectations of others.
It follows, therefore, that the passage of the present bill will be a
departure from the intent and meaning of that instrument, which is the
fountain of our authority.

Sir, there is another view of this subject in relation to policy,
to which I beg leave to ask the attention of the committee. In this
widely-extended country, the pursuits of the people are various and
diversified. In one section cotton is cultivated, in another hemp,
and in a third wheat. Suppose patents are obtained for valuable
improvements relative to these articles, either in the instruments of
cultivation or of preparation for market. The patentees are entitled
by law to exclusive rights for fourteen years. For the improvement
concerning the article of cotton only, the patent is extended to
twenty-one or twenty-eight years, as now proposed, while exclusive
rights to the other inventions are permitted to expire. What is the
consequence? The people of one section of the Union are subjected in
their pursuits to the privations incident to monopolies, for that
term; while those of another section similarly situated are exempted
from all restraint at the expiration of the first patent. I appeal
to the candor and magnanimity of this assembly to determine whether
such a course of proceeding be not manifestly unjust, and utterly
incompatible with that equality of rights guarantied to the respective
States. The constitution imposes uniformity of taxation for the purpose
of avoiding the injustice and oppression towards particular States,
which the extension of patent rights, in special cases, is calculated
to produce. The fact cannot be disguised, that the operation of this
bill will be to levy a tax on the people of Georgia, the Mississippi
and Louisiana Territories alone; and if it passes, it will be owing
to that circumstance. I know enough of human nature, and have seen
much in the course of my acquaintance with legislative proceedings,
to satisfy my mind, that if cotton were cultivated in a few large
States, this bill would certainly be rejected. Does any man believe
that if the large States of Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and
Massachusetts, were concerned in this thing, as are those portions of
the Southern country I have mentioned, the application of Mr. Whitney
for a renewal of his monopoly would be successful? No, sir; and I urge
this consideration for the purpose of showing the impolicy of extending
patents in special cases, inasmuch as it puts it in the power of
Congress by such a regulation to give a preference to one section of
the Union over another, and because the power will never be exercised
in cases affecting a particular and comparatively small portion of the
community. Enact a general law on the subject of patents--make what
provision you please in relation to future discoveries, and none can
complain. Whether improvements shall be made interesting to this, that,
or the other section of the nation, will be left to chance; when made,
the monopolies will be equal in their duration, and all will be equally
exempt from partiality or oppression.

There is another aspect, Mr. Chairman, in which the provisions of the
bill now before the committee are manifestly unjust. The Legislatures
of Tennessee and the two Carolinas purchased, during the term of
Whitney's late patent, the right of using in those States his invention
for ginning cotton. The fact will not be denied, that the price paid
was proportionate to the extent of time for which the patentee held the
exclusive right. Now it is proposed to re-grant to Whitney the monopoly
for an additional term of years, so far as relates to my constituents,
while the three States I have mentioned are expressly exempted from
its operations. It is true, the Legislature of Georgia did not enter
into any arrangements with the patentee on the subject, but it will be
perceived that all persons who erected machines without permission,
during the fourteen years, are left by the bill subject to prosecution.
The effect, therefore, will be to impose a restraint relative to the
same object on one State for twenty-one or twenty-eight years, while
other States are exempted at the expiration of half that term. I know,
sir, that unfavorable impressions exist on the minds of many gentlemen
concerning the conduct of Georgia in this affair; and I fear they
may have much influence on the decision of the question. Whether the
Legislature ought or ought not to have followed the example of the
legislatures of other States, is a question which belongs exclusively
to that body to determine. Your patent law imposed no obligation on
the subject, and they had the right to do so or not, as they pleased.
Having done nothing which they had not a right to do, and omitted
nothing which they had not the right to omit, I cannot consent to any
unauthorized control of this House over their proceedings. That Mr.
Whitney's invention has been highly important to the Southern country
I freely admit, and that he deserves much for his useful labors, none
can deny; but, if the conduct of Georgia has not been so liberal
towards him as some gentlemen think it ought to have been, an apology
may be found in the resentment which his conduct was calculated to
excite. When his machine was first erected in Georgia, as I have
understood, he refused to sell his patent right upon any terms or for
any price. It was determined to monopolize every pound of cotton at an
enormous premium, and arrangements were made for that purpose. To that
circumstance, and the opinion which prevailed, that the invention was
not new, is to be attributed the course of proceeding, now made the
subject of complaint. The imprudence of Mr. Whitney, or, perhaps, of
his partner, could not fail to have produced feelings of resentment
rather than of liberality towards them. I repeat, however, that the
conduct of Georgia has no connection with the present question. The
United States never guarantied to any patentee the receipt of any
given sum for his invention, nor gave any pledge that his exclusive
right should in no instance be violated. They have enacted laws for
the security of patentees, provided a remedy for violations of their
rights in all cases, and a tribunal before which that remedy may be
sought. To that tribunal--the courts of the United States--Mr. Whitney
should be referred for redress. This is not a time for exciting State
jealousies and individual resentments among ourselves. Policy, and that
conciliatory spirit which ought to guide our deliberations, unite in
prescribing a different course, and I do trust that prescription will
not be disregarded on the present occasion.

But, sir, there is still another and more important view of this
subject, on which alone I probably might have relied. The patent of
Mr. Whitney expired about four years ago, and an unqualified right
to the invention was thereby vested (as I shall show) in the people
of the United States. Under such circumstances, it is my purpose to
prove the proposed renewal manifestly unconstitutional. I presume it
will be admitted, that, without the provision of the constitution on
the subject, and the law pursuant thereto, no exclusive rights would
belong to inventors. It is true the inventor would be entitled to his
particular machinery, but other persons would not be prohibited from
imitating it, and consequently his right to his discovery would not
be exclusive. In a state of nature, occupancy gives a right to soil,
upon the ground of supposed labor on the part of the occupant in taking
possession. The right and the occupancy, however, are inseparable. If
the latter be abandoned, the former ceases to exist--the soil becomes
common to all, and may be appropriated to another's use. The natural
law in regard to inventions is the same. So long as the inventor is
alone in the possession of a knowledge of his discovery, he is the
occupant, and has an exclusive right. But the moment he _discloses_
that knowledge to the public he abandons his occupancy, and the
invention becomes subject to the use of others. This principle is
recognized by the constitution itself, and fully established also in
other countries. The express delegation of power to secure to inventors
the exclusive right to their discoveries, admits that without it no
such right would exist after disclosure. In Great Britain the doctrine
is perfectly settled. If gentlemen will turn to the famous case of
literary property, Millar vs. Taylor, which was argued with great
ability, and decided with unusual deliberation, they will be satisfied
of the fact.

The court were divided on the particular question pending before
them, and gave their opinions separately and very much at large. On
that occasion it was determined that the publication of a literary
work did not of itself divest the author of the exclusive right, nor
authorize others to republish it for their advantage without his
consent. But it was admitted, as a point fully and entirely settled,
that the principle did not apply to mechanical inventions; that the
disclosure of a mechanical invention did divest the inventor of his
exclusive right to such inventions, and that the public became entitled
to all the benefits which could be derived from it. A later decision
of the highest courts of the Kingdom on another case, has placed the
question of literary property on the same footing with the mechanical
inventions. The principle of these decisions is, that the disclosure
of an invention amounts to a relinquishment of exclusive use, it is
an implied right to the public. And if such be the doctrine in Great
Britain, under a Government the foundation of which is monopoly and
exclusive privileges, it cannot be otherwise among this people, the
fundamental principle of whose Government is, equality of right and
exclusion of monopolies. I contend, then, sir, that if the disclosure
of an invention vests in the public a right to use it without
restraint, much more strongly is that right vested after the expiration
of a patent. In the one case the public are invested with a common or
equal right by an implied gift, and in the other by contract. The very
condition on which patents are granted is, that, at the expiration of
the term authorized by law, the people shall be entitled to the free
use of the invention; and, to secure this right to the people, such
a specification of the machinery employed is required at the time of
issuing the patent, as will enable others to understand and imitate it
with success. Need I undertake to prove that, from the moment Whitney's
patent expired, his exclusive right ceased to exist? None will deny
the fact. Is it necessary to show that the right which was exclusive
during the patent, is now the common right of all? It will be admitted
that every man in the United States has at this moment as perfect a
right to erect gins on Whitney's plan, as to build a house or make
any implement of agriculture. The question then presents itself,
has Congress the power to divest the people of that right? I say no,
sir; to renew a patent after it has expired, is to establish a new
principle unauthorized by the constitution. To secure a pre-existent
right is one thing, but to divest the people of the United States of
their right, and vest it in an individual, is quite a different affair.
"Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and
useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors,
the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
What is the import of this provision? An inventor while in the sole
possession of the knowledge of his invention has the exclusive right
to it, without the intervention of law; but when that knowledge is
disclosed to the public, the exclusive right would cease to exist.
Therefore, for the purpose of affording a stimulus to ingenuity, and
of obtaining disclosures of useful discoveries, Congress is authorized
to provide by law for securing that exclusive right for a limited
time after disclosure, which previously existed in the inventor, and
which enabled him forever to withhold his invention from the public.
The disclosure is the great object to be attained; the security of
the exclusive right before existing, but which would be lost without
such security, by the act of disclosure, is the mean authorized to be
employed. Is there no difference between protecting an existing right,
and taking away a right from one party for the purpose of vesting it
in another party? The States composing the Union are now entitled to
the benefit of Whitney's invention, and may make whatever regulations
concerning it, within their territorial limits, they please. Will it be
said that because the power is delegated to Congress to promote useful
inventions and to obtain their disclosure to the public, by holding
out the inducement resulting from the security of a monopoly for a
limited time, therefore the States may be constitutionally deprived of
their unquestionable rights? Surely not. Hence, I conclude that the
power of Congress over this subject has terminated by their own act,
and that to resume it would be an unconstitutional encroachment on
the rights of the respective States. Sir, the power given to Congress
on the question of patents is similar in extent and in every other
view to that which in England is vested in the King. He is empowered
to grant patents for new and useful inventions for a limited time,
but it is held that when that time expires, such inventions belong to
the public. "If a patent be granted in case of a new invention, the
King cannot grant a second patent, for the charter is granted as an
encouragement to invention and industry, and to secure the patentee in
the profits for a reasonable time; but when that is expired, the public
is to have the benefit of the discovery."--_10 Mad. Rep. 110_. It is
also laid down in _Bull N. P. 76_, that among the general questions
of patents, the first is--"Whether the invention were known and in
use before the patent." Such is the English law, and the statutes of
the United States heretofore passed are founded on the same principle.
The existing statutes make it an indispensable condition to securing
an exclusive right, that the invention shall not have been "known
or used before the application;" for a patent itself reads thus:
"Whereas A. B., a citizen, &c., hath alleged that he has invented a
new and useful improvement, being [here insert a description of the
invention] which improvement has not been known or used before his
application," &c. It is then perfectly clear, that our predecessors
who have legislated on this subject considered a public disclosure of
an invention an abandonment of all claim to the exclusive use; that
they understood the object of the constitution to be the advancement
of national improvement; and that when the public are in possession
of any important discovery they could not be divested of it. Suppose
the inventor of that useful instrument the screw-auger, who was an
inhabitant of New England, and who never solicited a patent for
it, should now make application. Your law excludes him because his
invention is known and in use. And I call on gentlemen to show how the
progress of science or useful arts, or individual justice, would be
less promoted by granting a patent in that case, than in the present
application. Certainly a man is not less entitled to the bounty of
Congress who has given to the public the results of his labors, than he
who has enjoyed the benefit of a monopoly for fourteen years; nor will
it be asserted that the right of the community to an invention is less
complete from the expiration of a patent, than from the bare act of
disclosing it.

Mr. SEYBERT said he did not know that the bill for the relief of Mr.
Whitney could be acted upon this day; indeed, it was not his intention
to make any observations on the subject, until the motion for striking
out a portion of the bill was made by his friend from Georgia, (Mr.
BIBB;) he therefore hoped the House would pardon him for the desultory
and confused remarks which he should impose upon the patience of the
House. He came from a State whose interests were nowise concerned in
this question, and therefore he stood as an impartial advocate in favor
of the patentee; his feelings could not permit him to remain quiet
on the question; by him the machine of Mr. Whitney was viewed as a
stupendous monument of human invention--great mental exertion alone
could produce results like this, and he appealed to the House as to
the propriety of granting the prayer of the petition as reported in
the bill. It was, he conceived, not a favor, but justice, which the
passage of this bill would render to Mr. Whitney. If he was correctly
informed, Mr. W. received but a trifling compensation for his labors;
that, in the case of the State of Georgia, he expended $20,000 more
in prosecuting law-suits, than he had ever been paid in that State.
Mr. S. continued--he was informed that in South Carolina Mr. Whitney
had met with some persecution; the assembly of that State originally
purchased the right to use the machine for the sum of $50,000, which
was to be paid by regular annual instalments. In the following year
Mr. W. visited South Carolina for the purpose of receiving the second
instalment, when, instead thereof, he discovered that a Legislature
lately assembled had repealed the law formerly enacted on the subject;
and, instead of receiving a second instalment, the Legislature ordered
that he should be prosecuted for the recovery of that which he had
before received. Mr. W. was saved from prison by the interference
of some private gentlemen. [Here Messrs. WILLIAMS and CHEVES rose,
and in conversation explained to the satisfaction of Mr. S. that the
statement made was not accurate; that the delay and difficulties
caused by the proceedings of the Legislature of South Carolina, were
owing to well-grounded suspicions, at that time, that Mr. W. was not
the inventor of the cotton gin, and that he had in some respects
failed to comply with the conditions prescribed by the law.] This
explanation was satisfactory to Mr. S., and he observed, had he known
in time that he would have taken a part in this debate, he should have
considered it his duty to consult his friends from South Carolina on
this subject. He further stated that Mr. W. had informed him that, in
the final adjustment of this affair, the State of South Carolina had
rendered him ample justice. He regretted the necessity of mentioning
States in debate--he would quit this part of the subject, and proceed
to communicate those facts which had made an impression on his mind
in favor of the bill. He would first quote the authority of Judge
Johnson in his decision of the case of Whitney vs. Carter. Here Mr. S.
read as follows, from page 128: "With regard to the utility of this
discovery, the court would deem it a waste of time to dwell long upon
this topic. Is there a man who hears us who has not experienced its
utility? The whole interior of the Southern States was languishing,
and its inhabitants emigrating for want of some object to engage
their attention and employ their industry, when the invention of this
machine at once opened views to them, which set the whole country in
active motion. From childhood to age, it has presented us a lucrative
employment. Individuals who were depressed with poverty, and sunk in
idleness, have suddenly risen to wealth and respectability. Our debts
have been paid off; our capitals increased, and our lands are trebled
in value. We cannot express the weight of obligation which the country
owes to this invention; its extent cannot now be seen." These were the
sentiments of a gentleman residing in the State of South Carolina;
from this their justness may be estimated. Mr. S. continued--he could
not stop here. Foreign writers prove the absolute necessity of this
machine, to bring the particular species of cotton to market, which
constitutes nine-tenths of that which the United States could furnish.
He would, in proof of this declaration, read from Edwards' History of
the West Indies, vol. 2, page 265, as follows: "Green seed cotton is
of two species; of one of which the wool was so firmly attached to
the seed, that no method has hitherto been found of separating them,
except by the hand; an operation so tedious and troublesome, that the
value of the commodity is not equal to the pains that are requisite in
preparing it for market. This sort, therefore is at present cultivated
principally for supplying wick for the lamps that are used in sugar
boiling, and for domestic purposes; but the staple being exceedingly
good, and its color perfectly white, it would doubtless be a valuable
acquisition to the muslin manufactory, could means be found of
detaching it easily from the seed." Whilst the mind of Mr. Edwards
was thus occupied in London, that of Mr. Whitney in the United States
effected this valuable desideratum. Mr. W.'s machine was brought to
perfection in 1792. Mr. S. dreaded the further fatigue of the House,
but he could not refrain from stating some additional facts. Consult,
said he, your Treasury reports, and there you will find that, in the
year 1810, there was exported from the United States 93,000,000 pounds
of cotton, of which 84,000,000 pounds was of the species mentioned
by Edwards. Without the gin of Whitney, or some machine equivalent
thereto, not a single pound of the 84,000,000 pounds could have been
sent abroad--thus would the United States have found themselves
deprived of the annual income of $15,000,000, without taking into view
16,000,000 pounds of cotton consumed in our country. Can we do too
much for this man? Let us render him but ordinary justice and pass the
bill. Let us, said Mr. S., consider the benefits resulting from the
application of useful machines in Great Britain. Take a view of that
of Arkwright. If, said Mr. S., his memory did not deceive him, in the
year 1755 the cotton manufacture of Great Britain was ranked among the
lowest of her domestic branches, and did not value more than £200,000
sterling annually; in 1809, that nation derived thirty millions
pounds sterling from her industry in this way. England well knows her
interest, and she fosters her arts. Let us in this respect follow her
example, by doing justice to the genius of our countrymen. But for the
spinning machinery invented by Arkwright, and the gin of Whitney, the
cotton manufacture might at this time remain in a state of comparative
obscurity. Very little will be observed on the constitutionality of the
question. He would apprize his friend from Georgia of an error which
he had fallen into, in confounding monopolies with patent rights. In
the United States they were distinct things; and whilst on the one
hand the Constitution of the United States has guarantied to inventors
their inventions, in its spirit and letter it is opposed to monopolies.
The renewal of a patent, said Mr. S., was not unprecedented, it was
a common thing in England and France; and, in the United States,
the cases of Evans and Whittemore furnished us with examples of the
transaction by the Congress of the United States. Mr. S. said he would
finish his remarks with the expectation that the House would pass the
bill as reported.

The committee rose, and had leave to sit again.


THURSDAY, June 11.

                             _Amy Dardin._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Amy Dardin, that
it is reasonable, and ought to be granted. After some debate, the
committee rose, and reported their agreement to the report; which was,
after debate, concurred in by the House. For the report 64; against it
42.


MONDAY, June 22.

                          _Additional Duties._

An engrossed bill for imposing additional duties upon all goods, wares,
and merchandise, imported from any foreign port or place, was read the
third time, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole to-day.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill; and, after some time spent therein, the Committee rose and
reported the bill to the House without amendment.

Mr. BIGELOW.--Mr. Speaker, it is well known that I have been uniformly
opposed to the measures which have drained the Treasury of its
money--more particularly to those measures of the present session,
which have rendered necessary such large appropriations, and laid the
foundation for an expense which no man can calculate. But, sir, as
those appropriations have been made; as expenses have been and must be
incurred; the means of payment must be provided. Sir, I hold it to be
a sound political principle--a principle from which this Government
never ought to depart--that the creation of public debt ought to be
accompanied with the means of its extinguishment. This principle was
strongly recommended in the administration of WASHINGTON, by the then
Secretary of the Treasury, in a report to Congress on the subject of
finance. He stated it to be the true secret for rendering public credit
immortal, and expressed a fervent hope that the Government of the
United States would always adhere to it. The arguments in favor of this
principle are plain and obvious. The public credit must be supported,
or the Government will lose the confidence of the people. The public
credit must be supported, or you put at hazard the best interests of
the country; you hazard, indeed, the very existence of the Government.
In popular Governments there is always a reluctance to laying burdens
upon the people. If, then, while creating a public debt, we neglect to
provide the means of payment, what will be the consequence? Will it be
less difficult or unpopular to do this after the debt has accumulated
to an enormous amount? No, sir. Depend upon it, the longer you delay
to provide the means for discharging the public debt, the greater will
be the risk and difficulty of doing it. What will be the consequence
of such neglect? Sir, the country will be deluged with Treasury notes;
these notes will depreciate, like the old continental money--the
whole history of which every one, acquainted with the history of the
Revolution, knows to be a history of public and private frauds. Sir,
the floodgates of corruption will be opened upon us. Already, sir,
tigers and sharks are feasting, in anticipation, on their prey.

Impressed, as I am, with the importance of the principle, that the
creation of public debt ought to be accompanied with the means of its
extinguishment, I confess it was with no little astonishment I learnt,
that doubling the duties on imported articles was the only means
to be provided; that, after the House had solemnly resolved upon a
system of taxation, embracing various subjects, and intended, as was
stated, to equalize upon the people of the different States, as far
as possible, the burden of taxation, that only one of those has been
selected, and that one the most unjust, the most unequal, and the most
mischievous of the whole. These remarks are not made, Mr. Speaker, from
an apprehension that doubling the duties on imported articles will
not effectually open the eyes of the people. Sir, it will be the most
unpopular tax you can impose. The people of this country--particularly
the eastern sections of it, upon whom this tax will bear peculiarly
hard--are too enlightened not to know, to see, and to feel, the
operation which an additional duty of 100 per cent. upon imported
articles will have upon them. They are too enlightened not to know that
this will be but the beginning of sorrow. Neither, sir, are they so
ignorant as not to know that the five millions of dollars which it is
calculated to raise by doubling the duties, will not discharge a loan
of eleven millions, and Treasury notes to the amount of five millions
more; much less that it will defray the expenses of the war. Yes, sir,
they will at once see, that, sooner or later, other taxes must and will
be resorted to. The true policy, then, of the United States is, in the
outset, to lay the foundation of a sure and certain revenue, and not to
depend, in a state of war, upon a revenue to be derived from a source
so uncertain as that of commerce. My objection is not that revenue
ought not to be raised, but to the present mode.

I have stated, sir, that this is an unjust measure. Let us for a moment
look at its operation. There is, probably, at a moderate calculation,
seventy millions' worth of imported goods now in the United States,
which have paid only the present rate of duties. Taking the calculation
of the Secretary of the Treasury as correct, that thirty-five millions
of imported goods yield a revenue, at the present rate of duties, of
five millions, the seventy millions now in the United States have paid
duties to the amount of ten millions.

What then will be the consequence of passing this bill? The owners of
the imported goods now in the United States are men who understand
their own interest. The moment, therefore, you pass this bill, and
impose double duties upon goods to be imported, the owners of goods now
on hand will increase the price as much at least as the amount of the
present rate of duties. The purchasers of these goods, therefore, will
have to pay to the owners ten millions of dollars more than the present
value. You will of course lay a tax of ten millions of dollars upon
the purchasers and consumers of these goods, without benefiting the
Treasury a single cent.

Does this, sir, comport with the principles of justice? Is it right
to take from one part of the community ten millions of dollars and
put it into the hands of another part? In opposing this measure, I
am not advocating the interest of the merchant, but of the farmer,
the tradesman, and mechanic. I am not willing that the people whom I
represent, in addition to the taxes they must pay to carry on the war,
should also pay such an enormous tax to the merchant.

Mr. MITCHILL expressed his sentiments as being favorable to an
augmentation of the duties on imports; though he was quite unprepared
to give his assent to such increase in the terms proposed by the bill.

It is therein proposed, sir, to double the existing customs. I think
this is not the best way of accomplishing the object intended. The bill
is brought before us for the avowed purpose of raising money. The mode
proposed is, by an addition of one hundred per cent. on the sums levied
upon imported merchandise. Now, although I am friendly to a revision of
our tariff, and to such an amendment of it as will materially increase
the receipts at the Treasury, I am very far from believing the method
now proposed for that purpose is the one we ought to adopt.

I object to the plan, because it takes for granted that the rate
of duties now extant in our statutes is precisely what it ought
to be. This I humbly conceive is not the fact. A brief recital of
our commercial system inwards, will show it. The impost, until the
adoption of the constitution of 1787, belonged to the respective
States. When the Government went into operation in 1789, it took the
direction and the profits of the custom-houses. One of the earliest
acts of the legislators, which, on that occasion, assembled at New
York, was to fix the sums which each denomination or parcel of foreign
merchandise should pay on being admitted into our country. This was
done, in the first instance, with all the skill which the patriotism
and intelligence of the members of the first Congress permitted.
From session to session, and from time to time, it was altered and
improved. The last memorable amendment, was, if I recollect right,
in the year 1804. Then, a variety of articles which had paid an _ad
valorem_ duty were _specifically_ enumerated and charged with duties
conformably. At that time our tariff was admirably calculated to answer
its several purposes. Much thought and profound knowledge had been
bestowed, to mature it, and render it as complete as possible. It was
at that time peculiarly and happily calculated for the good of the
nation.

But eight years have elapsed since that table of duties was arranged.
During that term, prodigious changes have taken place in the commercial
world. The principal part of the European Continent, from the Baltic to
the Mediterranean, and from the Atlantic to the Adriatic, have bowed
to the sovereignty of the Emperor of the French. He has published his
modern and enormous tariff, and caused it to be enforced throughout
his extensive dominions. Tobacco, cotton, and other great articles
of American produce, have been subjected to excessive and almost
prohibitory imposts.

Memorable alterations have been made, during the aforesaid period,
in the insular tariff--I mean of the British dominions. Their
regulations, as relate to lumber and the heavy materials of our growth,
as well as to the exportation of their own manufactures, have been
materially tightened and straightened. Their charges for convoy, port
accommodations, light-houses, and quarantine, are exceedingly heavy. It
is high time they should be examined, and thoroughly understood.

A great change has also taken place in the colonial system. France
has lost Martinique, Guadaloupe, and the Isle of Bourbon. Neither the
East nor the West Indies contain any provinces owing allegiance to the
Corsican Emperor. All the rum, sugar, coffee, and molasses of those
productive regions, were now English--and with the English nation
we were now at war. In like manner, the Batavian colonies had been
forced to submit to the Mistress of the Seas; and Guiana, the Cape
of Good Hope, Batavia, the Spice Islands, and all the other foreign
possessions of the Dutch, had yielded to her conquering power. All
their productions were now Anglican; and we could only obtain them from
or through an enemy.

Our own country had been transformed, during the last eight years,
into a situation exceedingly different from what it had ever been
before. It has taken many strides towards independence. The soil has
been more profoundly explored, and found to contain innumerable and
invaluable productions, which the mineralogist examines with pride,
and the economist turns to profit. The forest and the fields have been
proved to rear more indigenous plants, and to be capable of maturing
more exotic ones, than any observer had supposed. And the arts, trades,
and manufactures, which have arisen among us, have progressed with a
thriftiness of which I can cite you no example.

Mr. M. then took a survey of the three great purposes intended to be
furthered by the duties on imported merchandise. The first of these
was the collection of money for the Treasury; the second, was the
countervailing of other nations, by accommodating our duty to theirs;
and the third was to protect our infant and growing manufactures. He
contended that the mode proposed by the bill now before the House was
very imperfect in all these relations. It was unskilfully devised.
It did not contain those evidences of care and sagacity that ought
to beam in every feature. He was not willing to legislate in this
way--by a hop, step, and a jump. He wished the tariff to be varied in
such a manner as to suit the actual state of things, and the existing
condition of society and business. With such vast changes in the
commercial and manufacturing departments, both at home and abroad, who
could reconcile himself to a regulation, now antiquated, and differing
almost _toto cælo_, from the real _desideratum_.

Double duties on articles where great value was united to small bulk,
as in watches of gold and silver, and in precious stones, pearls and
jewelry of all kinds, might be an inducement to smuggling. Already we
know the temptation was too great to be resisted under the present
duties, and if they were augmented to the amount proposed, what
evasions might not be feared?

Mr. BLEECKER.--Mr. Speaker: I was happy to observe on Saturday that
the vote of the majority was not so uniform on this bill as usual.
This circumstance very much fortifies the arguments urged against it
on this side of the House, and proves that the opposition cannot be
referred merely to the spirit of party. Indeed, sir, the objections
to the increase of duty contemplated by this bill are so palpable and
obvious to my mind, that I still hope it will not finally pass. It will
be unequal and unfair in its operation in many respects. It will give a
vast advantage to the merchants who now have goods on hand over those
whose goods are not yet in the country, and which will be imported
after the passage of this bill. The additional duty will by the former
be added to the price of the goods, and thus an enormous profit will
be given them. But this is comparatively a minor consideration. It is
to be regretted, sir, that we have not a fair, just, and equal system
of internal taxation, judiciously devised, with a wise reference to
the feelings and temper of the people. But, in all our late plans and
schemes, we appear to go on without any reference at all to the temper
and feelings of the people. A revenue derived altogether from duties
on imports must always be unequal in its operation on different parts
of the country, and different classes of the community. There will
be districts of the country--there will be whole States--in which
manufactures will be carried on to a great extent; while other parts
of the country, and other States, have few or no manufactures. In this
respect there will be a serious inequality between manufacturing
and nonmanufacturing States. Again, sir, it is said that the duty
will be paid by the consumer. But it is not invariably true that the
consumer pays the duty. The whole of it is sometimes paid by the
consumer; it is sometimes divided between the importer and consumer,
and not unfrequently falls altogether on the importer. This depends
on a variety of circumstances--principally the state of the market.
When the market is overstocked, a great portion of it must fall on the
merchant. There must often be in this country a state of things which
renders it difficult or impossible to add the amount of the duty to the
price of the commodity. What the state of things, and what the market
will be during the war, for which this revenue is to be provided, it
is difficult to foresee; for what sort of a war we are to have, no one
can tell. It will perhaps be another anomaly furnished by American
politics. I believe, however, by the way, that gentlemen, who expect
much of "the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war," will be
much disappointed.

But, sir, admitting with the gentlemen on the other side, that the
additional duty provided by this bill will be paid by the consumers
of imported articles, if the consumption is much more in one part of
the country than in another, the burdens of the war will be imposed
very unequally and unjustly. Now it was proved to demonstration by the
intelligent and accurate gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. PITKIN,)
that the consumption of imported articles is much greater in one
section of the country than in the other. His statement and arguments
on this subject have not been denied. Indeed, the candid and honorable
gentleman who advocated this bill on Saturday, (Mr. BIBB,) admitted
that it would not operate equally. It will impose the burdens of the
war on the Atlantic, the commercial, States. It is true, sir, that
many imported articles are consumed in every part of the Union. Tea
and coffee, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SMILIE) told us,
are used in the Western country. But the great consumption of foreign
goods is in the Atlantic States; and, more than anywhere else, in the
Northeastern section, the most commercial States.

I know, sir, that this topic is regarded by many gentlemen as
ungracious and invidious. But legislating as we are for a confederated
Republic, it is worse than idle not to regard the character, situation,
and interest of the people, in the several sections of the Union; and
I ask gentlemen who are so ardent in the war, whose bosoms seem to
glow with patriotic fire, is it just and fair to abandon the internal
taxes and impose so much of the burden of the war upon the people of
the Northern and Eastern States, the majority of whom are known to be
opposed to it; whose hearts and souls are not in the business; who
are driven, and dragged, and forced into a war, in which they will
go with you no further, nor any longer, than a patriotic obedience
to the constitution and laws of the country requires; a war which
they consider unwise, impolitic, inexpedient, and ruinous; a war
which must annihilate their commerce; that commerce to which they owe
their rapid progress in population, in the arts of civilized life, in
knowledge, in literature, in all that adorns and makes society valuable
and interesting? From this people, in such a war, you have little to
expect. While we are talking of the protection of commerce and the
violation of neutral rights, they see us adopt the most effectual means
to destroy all their commerce.

Another objection of no little importance, that has been urged against
this bill, is its tendency to promote smuggling. Before the restrictive
system, which, however well meant by many, has proved so inefficacious
and ruinous, we had in this country a system of commercial morals, of
which we had much reason to boast. Such was the purity and fairness
of the mercantile character that in no other country in the world was
the revenue arising from duties on imports so punctually paid, so
easily and cheaply collected, and with the aid of so few officers. But
the unfortunate policy adopted in 1806 has destroyed the purity and
elevation of commercial morals. Evasions and violations of the laws
are no longer disreputable. And what, sir, must be the situation of a
country in which a constant evasion and open violation of the laws are
not reprobated by public sentiment. The moral and patriotic observer
will see with pain and mortification that we are about to add to the
temptations to increase the stimulus to evasions and violations of the
laws, still more to debase and degrade the commercial character of the
country.

There is, sir, another important view of the subject before us at this
moment. The increase of the duty, a reliance upon the impost as the
means of supporting the war, in connection with the abandonment of the
internal taxes, affords an instructive practical lesson on the nature
of our Government. It teaches you that it is unfit for the purposes
of foreign and offensive war. If gentlemen are now afraid to impose
the taxes, they must believe that the people will not bear them. And,
indeed, sir, few cases will occur in which the people will submit to
support the burdens of an offensive war. Seldom will the Government be
able to carry on such a war. But, sir, the conduct of those gentlemen
of the majority who are for imposing additional duties and abandoning
the taxes, proves another thing. If, when they have just entered upon
the war, they hesitate, and are afraid to exact of the people the means
necessary to carry it on, they must be conscious that the war is not so
popular as they have imagined, for if the people are so hearty in the
business as gentlemen have professed to believe, if they think the war
a wise, politic, and necessary measure, they cannot be unwilling to be
taxed a little for its support.

Mr. BRIGHAM.--Mr. Speaker, the protection and the regulation of
commerce has become a prime object of legislation. This bill provides
for the doubling of the duties on all imported merchandise.

Sir, the restrictive system has operated very severely on the
commercial part of the community--it has been the source of much
complaint. The commercial class of our fellow-citizens have been
oppressed; they have been impoverished by the policy of their own
Government, and they have been soliciting their rulers for relief.
They complained of the first embargo; what did they get? why,
non-intercourse. They complained of the non-intercourse, and you soon
gave them non-importation; when they complained of the non-importation,
they had, in addition to the evil complained of, a second embargo. They
then complained and prayed for the repeal of both these laws, and you
have given them a declaration of war--an open war against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the dependencies thereof.
They complain of this war, and you give them double duties on all
imported merchandise.

Sir, commerce, and the regulation of commerce, have become the Alpha
and the Omega; it is the cause of war--it is the professed object
and end of war; and by this bill, you are making provision for this
very class of citizens, who have been thus complaining, oppressed and
impoverished, to support the war by paying double duties.

Mr. Speaker, this increase of impost is a tax which, in my opinion,
will operate unjustly and unequally. It is imposing a heavier burden on
the Eastern and Northern, than on the Southern and Western States.

The former are under the necessity of importing and of consuming more
of the foreign manufactures, than the Southern States; and though
they are a hardy race, they are not able to encounter the severities
and rigors of the Northern winters without a much greater quantity of
clothing than is necessary for the people in the Southern climates.

Sir, the people in the Eastern States have been reduced in their
supplies; they have not been able to carry on their ordinary domestic
manufactures for want of the necessary means to prepare the crude
article for manufacture; and during this long session they have been
memorializing Congress, and praying that they might be allowed to
import the article of wire, and of such size as is not manufactured
within the limits of the United States, for the making of cards,
necessary to prepare cotton and wool for the making of cloth; but they
have not been permitted. Many have solicited Congress for leave to
import such goods and merchandise as were ordered and paid for before
the issuing of the President's proclamation in November, 1810; but
without success.

Mr. POTTER was in favor of a recommitment, but for other reasons
than those assigned by the mover. He wished it referred, to give an
opportunity to ascertain the sentiments of the House on the subject of
the repeal, or the partial suspension, of the present non-importation
act.

Mr. P. said he had found more pleasure in the pursuit of many of the
things of this world, than in the possession of them; and he found it,
in some measure, so with those who had been very zealous in the pursuit
of war. They appeared to him to have taken more pleasure in the pursuit
of their favorite object, than in the enjoyment of it; and he was not
sorry to see that the war spirit had already began to evaporate, and
the cold calculating spirit, so much reprobated at the commencement of
this session, becoming more fashionable.

Mr. P. had been induced to believe from the zealous patriotism
displayed this session, that this was to be a fighting, and not a
trading war; that those who had so generously pledged their lives in
support of the present war, would have had an opportunity of fighting,
and that those who had in the same manner pledged their fortunes in
support of any measure adopted by the Administration, would have an
opportunity of paying.

Mr. P. thought we had commenced this war for the protection of our
commerce and the encouragement of our manufactories, and not for the
purpose of extending the commerce and encouraging the manufactories
of Great Britain; as by this war, with the partial importation act,
(contemplated for the purpose of revenue,) we at once destroy our own
commerce, by placing in the hands of the English the greatest part we
have at sea, leaving the remainder useless, to rot at our wharves.
We destroy our manufactories of cotton by the strange selection, in
our partial importation act. We give to Great Britain advantages in
this war, that she has not enjoyed in time of peace. We surrender
to her what many say she has been contending for--the commerce of
the world--by giving her an opportunity of supplying us with her
merchandise under the flag of her friends; and, in the first onset of
this war, implicitly acknowledge our dependence upon them; that we
cannot do without their manufactures to clothe the nation, nor without
their commerce, to raise a revenue to carry on the war. Mr. P. said,
if he had been in favor of this war, it would have been painful to him
to be compelled to acknowledge that the people in this country, who
pretended to sigh so much for war, would not bear the least privations,
or consent in any event to pay taxes, but must depend upon their enemy
to clothe them, and to furnish them with an indirect commerce to raise
a revenue to fight them with. Mr. P. said a war thus carried on must be
without an object--very ruinous to this country and of long duration;
for, if Great Britain can send her manufactures into the United States
at high prices, and purchase our produce almost at her own price, and
be the exclusive carrier, both ways, in her own ships, under the flag
of neutrals entirely under her control; she can have no object in
making peace.

Mr. P. said if the non-importation act should be repealed or suspended
in part, agreeable to the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury,
and we are to have a trading war, we shall have a revenue sufficient
to answer all our purposes, without increasing our duties at all, as
we can disband our army and reduce our expenses, as the difference of
expense between a trading and a fighting war will be so great that
the present rate of duties will answer all our purposes; but, if the
non-importation act should not be repealed or suspended, we shall have
no importations of importance for the double duties to operate upon;
for, if you double your duties under such circumstances, by which you
raise one million of dollars, what is the operation upon the consumer?
Allowing, which is certainly the fact, that the whole amount of goods
in the country at this time is equal to one year's importation, which
would have given the Government a revenue of at least fifteen millions
of dollars, the present holder of the goods in this country will
immediately add the double duties to his present price, which will be
increased in consequence of the war; so that the consumers will have
to pay the present holders of the goods now in this country at least
fifteen millions of dollars, of which the Government's obtaining one
million of dollars on future importations, you compel the consumer to
pay at least sixteen.

Mr. P. said he would for a moment examine the letter from the Secretary
of the Treasury on the subject of revenue, recommending a partial
suspension of the present non-importation act. He calculates that,
by doubling the duties on such partial importation, allowing that we
should import only half as much from Great Britain in time of war as
in peace, that the duties would amount to the same. Here again, you
have no mercy on the consumers; as the operation in the first place
will be to give Great Britain double her prices for her goods, on which
the Government gets double duties, all which is to be paid by the
consumer, when the price of his produce is to decrease in much the same
proportion.

Mr. P. had heard much, on former occasions, about the encouragement of
our manufactories, and, although he never was himself for encouraging
them at the expense of the farmer, or the depression of our commerce,
yet he could but lament that, after the commercial spirit of the
country was almost broken down, and many of our commercial and
seafaring citizens had been compelled to quit their former employment
and resort to manufacturing for the support of their families, that the
labor of that valuable class of citizens were next to be assailed; for,
in examining the bill on our tables, in consequence of the letter of
the Secretary of the Treasury, recommending the partial importation,
what will be the effect upon the cotton factories? All cotton cloth
under fifteen pence and over three shillings per square yard, prime
cost, is to be prohibited, and all between these two prices are to be
imported, so that the quality almost exclusively manufactured, and in
general use in this country, is to be permitted.

Mr. P. thought this a very left-handed way of encouraging the
manufactures of this country; but it seems as though every
consideration in time of war as well as peace, is to be sacrificed
for the purpose of collecting money from the people in a manner the
most likely for them to remain in ignorance of the burdens that the
Government imposes upon them.

A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH to amend the bill by striking
out the words "one hundred" before the words "per centum" in the first
section; and the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 50, nays 75.


SATURDAY, June 27.

                         _Naturalization Law._

Mr. LACOCK said that he should not offer any subject for the
consideration of the House at this late stage of the session, had he
not been convinced the subject was such as required the immediate
interposition of Congress. It would be found, by an examination of the
naturalization laws, that, after the declaration of war with Great
Britain, the courts were prohibited from naturalizing any foreigners,
although they might have registered their names and resided in the
country during the probationary period required by law. To these
persons, it appeared, the Government was pledged, and the change of the
relation between the two countries, did not lessen the obligation the
Government was under to redeem that pledge, and admit those persons
to the rights of citizens. It would, moreover, be recollected that,
by the State laws, those persons were made subject to perform militia
duty, and that, as volunteers, or otherwise, they would compose a part
of our Army; and, perhaps, while in this situation, might be taken and
punished as traitors by their Government. No apprehension of danger
could be entertained by their admission to the rights of citizens.
They were, most of them, attached strongly to our Government, and
sought this country as an asylum from oppression, &c. He was, by these
considerations, induced to offer the following resolution:

    "_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the
    expediency of so amending the naturalization laws of the United
    States as to admit to the rights of citizenship such aliens
    as have emigrated from the United Kingdom of Great Britain
    and Ireland and her dependencies to the United States or her
    Territories previous to the eighteenth day of June, 1812, and
    that the committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise."

The resolution was agreed to, and Messrs. LACOCK, EMOTT, and TROUP,
were appointed a committee accordingly.


MONDAY, July 6.

                             _Adjournment._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
concurred in the resolution for the appointment of a joint committee
to wait on the President of the United States, and inform him of the
proposed recess of Congress; that the President of the United States
did, this day, approve and sign "An act respecting the pay of the
Army of the United States;" and that the Senate, having completed the
legislative business before them, are ready to adjourn.

Mr. NEWTON, from the committee appointed to 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 answered, that he had no further communication to make.

_Ordered_, That a message be sent to the Senate to inform them that
this House, having completed the business before them, are now ready to
adjourn; and that the clerk do go with the said message.

The clerk accordingly went with the said message; and, having returned,
the Speaker adjourned the House until the first Monday in November
next.

FOOTNOTES:

[13] LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES.

_New Hampshire._--Josiah Bartlett, Samuel Dinsmoor, Obed Hall, John A.
Harper, George Sullivan.

_Massachusetts._--Ezekiel Bacon, Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham,
William Ely, Isaiah L. Green, Josiah Quincy, William M. Richardson,
Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Taggart, Peleg Tallman, Charles Turner, jr.,
Laban Wheaton, William Widgery, Leonard White.

_Rhode Island._--Richard Jackson, jr., Elisha R. Potter.

_Connecticut._--Epaphroditus Champion, John Davenport, jr., Lyman Law,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Lewis B. Sturges, Benjamin
Tallmadge.

_Vermont._--Martin Chittenden, James Fisk, Samuel Shaw, William Strong.

_New York._--Daniel Avery, Harmanus Bleecker, Thomas B. Cooke, James
Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Robert Le Roy Livingston, Arunah
Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Benjamin Pond, Peter B. Porter, Ebenezer
Sage, Thomas Sammons, Silas Stow, Uri Tracy, Robert Whitehill.

_New Jersey._--Adam Boyd, Lewis Condit, Jacob Hufty, James Morgan,
George C. Maxwell, Thomas Newbold.

_Pennsylvania._--William Anderson, David Bard, Robert Brown, William
Crawford, Roger Davis, William Findlay, John M. Hyneman, Joseph
Lefevre, Aaron Lyle, Abner Lacock, James Milnor, William Piper,
Jonathan Roberts, William Rodman, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, George
Smith, Robert Whitehill.

_Delaware._--Henry M. Ridgely.

_Maryland._--Stevenson Archer, Joseph Kent, Philip Barton Key, Peter
Little, Alexander McKim, Philip Stuart, Samuel Ringgold, Robert Wright.

_Virginia._--Burwell Bassett, John Baker, James Breckenridge, William
A. Burwell, Matthew Clay, John Clapton, John Dawson, Peterson Goodwyn,
Thomas Gholson, Edwin Gray, Aylett Hawes, John P. Hungerford, Joseph
Lewis, jr., William McCoy, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, James Pleasants,
jr., John Randolph, John Roane, Daniel Sheffey, John Smith, John
Talliaferro, Thomas Wilson.

_North Carolina._--Willis Alston, William Blackledge, Thomas Blount,
James Cochran, William Rufus King, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBride,
Joseph Pearson, Israel Pickens, Richard Stanford, Lemuel Sawyer.

_South Carolina._--William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Langdon Cheves,
Elias Earle, William Lowndes, Thomas Moore, David R. Williams, Richard
Wynn.

_Georgia._--William W. Bibb, Howell Cobb, Bolling Hall, George M. Troup.

_Kentucky._--Henry Clay, Joseph Desha, Richard M. Johnson, Samuel
McKee, Anthony New, Stephen Ormsby.

_Tennessee._--Felix Grundy, John Rhea, John Sevier.

_Ohio._--Jeremiah Morrow.

_Mississippi Territory._--George Poindexter, _Delegate_.

_Indiana Territory._--- Jonathan Jennings, _Delegate_.

[14] Joseph Hamilton Davies, commanding the cavalry in the expedition
to Tippecanoe, where he was killed in a night charge upon the Indians.

[15] Where he became a member of the Canadian Parliament, and as
zealous for King George as he had been in Congress for Mr. Jefferson
after his sudden conversion to the Republican party and its offices.
When Mr. Randolph would be taunted with his abandonment of Mr.
Jefferson, he was accustomed to say that he left him when Barnabas
Bidwell (for Barnabas was his name) joined him.

[16] Non-importation, non-intercourse, embargo.

[17] This allusion is supposed to be to Mr. HARPER, then from South
Carolina.

[18] Witness Bonaparte.

[19] The primitive name of the little stream that runs at the foot of
the Capitol grounds, called the Tyber since the Capitol came to its
banks, and up and down which members were accustomed to walk in that
early day.

[20] These salutary statutes, indispensable for the protection of the
Treasury, as time was wearing out the evidence which would detect
fraud, have since been disregarded by modern Congresses, carried away
by a mistaken idea of justice, and the door opened to an endless
succession of false claims, supported by fabricated evidence which
there is no means to rebut, and plundering the Treasury for the
benefit of agents who have grown up into a regular profession for the
discovery, invention, and prosecution of claims.

[21] The wildest supposition of the abuse of this question, indulged
in by its opponents in this debate, falls short of the reality which
has since occurred, and is continually occurring in the House of
Representatives; for the Senate has, thus far, succeeded in keeping
this gag out of that body. In the other branch, the previous question
has become the regular engine of legislation, and is constantly used by
party majorities, not only to prevent discussion on the most important
measures, but to prevent things from being said which the House and
the country ought to know; and which, being said, might be fatal to
the measure, or its authors. The only safe way of terminating useless
debate is that followed in the British House of Commons. It permits
all that is useful, and suppresses all that is annoying. The plainest
speaker is heard while he gives information: the best is silenced
when he ceases to inform, and begins to annoy. The irregular power of
the House, exerted in coughing and scraping, will put an end to the
harangue of the most wilful speaker.

[22] At the burning of the Theatre at Richmond.

[23] Mr. Venable.

[24] Mr. M. Clay's daughter.

[25] The annual expense of our navy already (1856) costs fifteen
millions of dollars per annum; and yet all that we have got is only the
beginning--the mere commencement, if naval power is intended.

[26] The events of the war of 1812, and the events of all the wars of
the French Revolution, justify these opinions expressed by Colonel
Daviess. These events prove that cruisers and privateers, to cut up
commerce, and not fleets to fight battles, are the true American means
of naval warfare.

[27] This was quite an extemporaneous method of selling an estate.
To render the transaction more intelligible, it may be known that
Henry was paid $50,000 at that time by the American Government for
his disclosures, and it may be supposed that this impromptu purchase
of "_St. Martial, the Crillon estate in Lebeur, near the frontier of
Spain_," was a method which the two romantic friends took to divide the
money which they had earned.

[28] "Mr. Calhoun has since stated to me, that the reasons given by Mr.
Randolph for refusing to agree to the injunction of secrecy were, 1st.
That he doubted the right of the committee to enjoin secrecy; 2d. That
having just returned from Baltimore, he had heard, while in that city,
that the intention to lay an embargo was already known in that city,
and that the British Consul and a great mercantile house there were
then acting on the information. J. Q."

[29] The practice of pronouncing funeral eulogiums on deceased members
had not, at this time, been introduced into Congress.




CONFIDENTIAL SUPPLEMENTAL JOURNAL

OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TWELFTH CONGRESS, AS
DURING THE TIME THEY WERE DEPENDING, WERE ORDERED TO BE KEPT SECRET,
AND RESPECTING WHICH THE INJUNCTION OF SECRECY WAS AFTERWARDS REMOVED
BY ORDER OF THE HOUSE.


WEDNESDAY, April 1, 1812.

A _confidential_ Message was received from the President of the United
States, by Mr. COLES, his Secretary; which he delivered in at the
Speaker's table: Whereupon, the House was cleared of all persons except
the Members, Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeeper, and the doors
were closed.

The Message was then read at the Clerk's table, and is as follows:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    Considering it as expedient, under existing circumstances and
    prospects, that a general embargo be laid on all vessels now in
    port, or hereafter arriving, for the period of sixty days, I
    recommend the immediate passage of a law to that effect.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  APRIL 1, 1812.

On motion of Mr. PORTER, the Message was referred to the committee
appointed on that part of the President's Message at the commencement
of the session, which relates to Foreign Relations.

And, after a short lapse of time, Mr. Porter, from the Committee on
Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the above-cited Message of the
President of the United States, presented a bill laying an embargo on
all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States;
which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the whole House
to-day.

The House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the said bill; and,

Mr. BOYD then moved to amend it by striking out of the first section
sixty days, and insert one hundred and twenty days. He said a gentleman
declared the measure to be a precursor to war--the time will be much
too short for the great amount of American property now abroad to
return; the motion was negatived.

Mr. SEYBERT viewed the subject as of vast importance; he considered
that the proposition came to the House in a very questionable shape;
he wanted information, and he called upon the Committee of Foreign
Relations to say whether it is to be considered as a peace measure or a
precursor to war.

Mr. GRUNDY (one of the committee) said he was willing to answer the
very proper inquiry of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SEYBERT,)
that he understands it as a war measure, and it is meant that it shall
lead directly to it; that with any other view there can be no propriety
in it; as a peace measure, he had no idea that the President would have
recommended it, nor would the committee have agreed to it. He hoped the
gentleman from Pennsylvania would now be satisfied, and prepare his
mind to vote for it.

Mr. MCKEE objected to the last section, on account of the penalties
which it proposed, which he considered altogether unimportant, as it is
to be a precursor to war, it being merely precautionary and for a short
time. He made some other inquiries respecting the section, and why such
provisions were in it.

Mr. PORTER said the bill was draughted according to the wishes and
directions of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Mr. STOW said the subject before the committee ought to be considered
of very great importance. If, as some gentlemen say, it is a precursor
to war, there were some very serious questions to be asked--What is
the situation of our fortresses? What is the situation of our country
generally? He would answer, they are defenceless, particularly the
fortifications in New York, which are unmanned and unarmed. He said
this fact appeared by a letter now in possession of a member of the
House, which has very lately been received from Judge Livingston, of
New York. Mr. S. said, that to try the question whether we will now lay
an embargo, he moved that the first section of the bill be stricken out.

Mr. CLAY (the SPEAKER) then warmly expressed his satisfaction and
full approbation of the Message, and the proposition now before the
Committee. He approved of it because it is to be viewed as a direct
precursor to war. He did not wish upon this occasion to hear of the
opinion of Brockholst Livingston or any other man. No gentleman can
question the propriety of the proposition. Gentlemen who said so much
about the want of preparation are not for war. He considered this a
war measure, and as such he should discuss it. Sir, said Mr. C., after
the pledges we have made, and the stand we have taken, are we now to
cover ourselves with shame and indelible disgrace by retreating from
the measures and grounds we have taken? He then stated our measures,
our pledges, and the great injuries and abuses we have received. He
said, what would disgrace an individual under certain circumstances
would disgrace a nation. And what would you think of one individual
who had thus conducted to another, and should then retreat? He did
not think we were upon this occasion in the least embarrassed by the
conduct of France in burning our vessels; that may be a subject of
future consideration. We have complete evidence as to the enemy whom we
have selected. As weak and imbecile as we are, we would combine France
if necessary. He said there was no intrinsic difficulty or terror in
the war: there was no terror except what arises from the novelty. Where
are we to come in contact with our enemy? On our own continent. If
gentlemen please to call these sentiments Quixotic, he would say he
pitied them for their sense of honor. We know no pains have been spared
to vilify the Government. If we now proceed we shall be supported
by the people. Many of our people have not believed that war is to
take place. They have been wilfully blinded. He was willing to give
them further notice. It remains for us to say whether we will shrink
or follow up the patriotic conduct of the President. As an American
and a member of this House, he felt a pride that the Executive had
recommended this measure.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he was so impressed with the importance of the
subject and the solemnity of the occasion, that he could not be silent.
Sir, said Mr. R., we are now in conclave; the eyes of the surrounding
world are not upon us. We are shut up here from the light of Heaven;
but the eyes of God are upon us. He knows the spirit of our minds.
Shall we deliberate upon this subject with the spirit of sobriety and
candor, or with that spirit which has too often characterized our
discussions upon occasions like the present? We ought to realize that
we are in the presence of that God who knows our thoughts and motives,
and to whom we must hereafter render an account for the deeds done in
the body. He hoped the spirit of party and every improper passion would
be exorcised, that our hearts might be as pure and clean as fall to the
lot of human nature.

He was confident in declaring that this was not a measure of the
Executive--that it was engendered by an extensive excitement upon the
Executive. He agreed with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SEYBERT)
that it comes to us in a very _questionable shape_, or rather in an
_unquestionable shape_--whose ever measure it is, the people of the
United States will consider it as a subterfuge for war; as a retreat
from the battle. We some years ago resolved that we must have _war_,
_embargo_, or _submission_--we have not had war or submitted--we must
therefore have embargo. It appears to be limited to sixty days; at the
expiration of that time will any one say we shall be prepared for war?
Sir, we are in the situation of a debtor who promises to pay his note
at the bank in sixty days--we shall prolong the time sixty days, and
sixty days after that, until deferred hope makes the heart sick. He
would tell the honorable Speaker that, at the end of sixty days, we
shall not have war, and the reason is, the Executive dare not plunge
the nation into a war in our unprepared state.

Mr. BOYD, of New Jersey, said, while he admitted the fire and spirit of
the honorable Speaker, he thought he would do well to be considerate.
He asked whether we were prepared to assail our enemy, or repel her
attacks? He asked, whether it is wise in an unarmed nation, as we are,
to commence hostilities against one so completely prepared?

The motion to strike out the first section was lost--ayes 35, noes 70.

Mr. SEYBERT said, that in voting for the several important measures
which Congress have agreed to this session, he felt himself pledged
to go to war; that he was in favor of an embargo as a precautionary
measure and precursor to war. When we voted for the twenty-five
thousand men he supposed the Executive intended war--but he has now
such information from a friend in whom he confides, as leads him to
believe that offensive operations are not meant. We ought to be better
prepared before we engage in war. He had observed in the Baltimore
papers that the British have ordered a squadron and twenty thousand men
for our coast.

Mr. SMILIE expressed his surprise at the observations of his friend
and colleague: he did not know from what quarter he had obtained his
information, that the President does not mean war. Does he believe
he has all this time been deceiving the Legislature? He had heard but
one sentiment from the President, which is, _that we must make war_
unless Great Britain relents. The President had always supposed that
the embargo must precede war--the only difference has been as to the
time, which has been finally compromised. The embargo is intended as
a war measure. He would assure his colleague it was intended by both
the Executive and the Committee of Foreign Relations. That being now
up, he would observe that, at the beginning of the session, he was not
so warm for war as many were, but he was for commercial restrictions.
He was not for the twenty-five thousand men; but as the House have
determined otherwise he would now go to war--if we now recede we shall
be a reproach among all nations.

Mr. SEYBERT then said, that his intention was to resist seriously Great
Britain; he would be plain; but he was not for going to war unprepared.
When the bill for raising the twenty-five thousand men was before
the House, it was then declared to be according to the wishes of the
Secretary at War--since that time the Secretary has said it was not his
wish, from which he concluded it was not the wish of the President.

Mr. RANDOLPH proposed to read, from memoranda in his possession, of
what occurred in the Committee of Foreign Relations, and a conference
between them and the Secretary of State; which was objected to.

Mr. BASSETT (Chairman) considered it in order.

Mr. CALHOUN appealed.

The Chairman's decision was confirmed--yeas 60.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, it will appear that the embargo is not preparatory
to war, that is to say, it was not necessarily so, and of course
not of the character which the Speaker has considered it. From his
minutes (among other facts) it appeared that Mr. Monroe said to the
committee that the President thought we ought to declare war before we
adjourn, unless Great Britain recedes, of which there was no prospect.
That there was conversation about an embargo. Mr. Monroe was asked
by some of the committee whether the President would recommend it by
message; he answered that he would, if he could be assured it would be
acceptable to the House. He also said Mr. Barlow had been instructed to
represent to the French Government our sense of the injuries received,
and to press upon them our demands for reparation--that if she refused
us justice, the embargo would leave the policy as respects France, and
indeed of both countries, in our hands. He was asked if any essential
alterations would be made within sixty days, in the defence of our
maritime frontier or seaports? Mr. M. answered that pretty considerable
preparations would be made. He said New York was in a respectable state
of defence, but not such as to resist a formidable fleet; but that it
was not to be expected that such a kind of war would be carried on. It
was replied that we must expect what commonly happens in wars. Mr. M.
said that, although a great distress and injury might take place in
one part of the Union, it would not essentially affect the population
or resources of the Union at large. As to the prepared state of the
country, he said, in case of a declaration of war, the President would
not feel himself bound to take upon himself more than his share of the
responsibility. Mr. M. said that the unprepared state of the country
was the only reason why ulterior measures should be deferred.

Mr. R. then said that the step we are about taking is too high a price
to pay for the consistency of gentlemen who think they have gone too
far to recede; it is too expensive to bolster them up in this way. He
asked what will be the situation of this people in sixty days? Put your
note into the bank, and see how soon it will be out. What will be the
situation of this unhappy, misguided country? What would it have been
for sixty, one hundred, or three hundred and sixty-five days past? He
had hoped not to have seen the old story of the dog worrying the cat,
&c., realized. Are the majority, in consequence of having been goaded
by the presses, to plunge the people into a war by bringing them first
to the whipping-post and then by exciting their spirit? He would assure
the House the spirit of the people is not up to it at this time; if so,
there would be no necessity of those provocations to excite this false
spirit--this kind of Dutch courage. If you mean war, if the spirit of
the country is up to it, why have you been spending five months in idle
debate?

Messrs. GRUNDY and CALHOUN said they were not impressed with a
recollection of the facts which occurred before the Committee of
Foreign Relations in the same manner as had been stated by Mr.
RANDOLPH. They did not recollect that Mr. Monroe said the embargo would
leave the policy, as respects both belligerents, in our hands.

Mr. PORTER said he was in favor of an embargo, as a measure which ought
to precede war; but it was very important that we should be prepared
before we commence war. He did not believe it was possible to commence
it with safety within four months from this time. Such a measure as an
embargo would be of immense injury to the State of New York, on account
of their flour which has gone to market.

The committee rose and reported the bill without amendment, and the
question was, Shall it be engrossed for a third reading?

Mr. QUINCY then moved that the injunction of secrecy be taken off from
the proceedings.

Mr. PITKIN said there was but one precedent of an embargo being passed
with closed doors.

The ayes and noes were agreed to be taken on Mr. QUINCY'S motion.

Mr. WRIGHT then made a question of order on Mr. QUINCY'S motion.

The SPEAKER decided it was not in order, another question being before
the House.

Mr. LITTLE then moved the previous question, which he soon withdrew.

Mr. STOW then expressed his alarm and astonishment at the course we
are taking. He said the country was wholly unprepared to enter into
a war within the time which had been mentioned. He warned gentlemen
of their danger, and the ruin which threatened our defenceless towns.
The authority which he had cited ought to have more weight than the
hear-says of some young members in this House. The elections of the
maritime parts of the country will put your places into the possession
of your political adversaries. You may be assured you tread on
deceitful ground. The intelligent party of the community at the North
are against the war. There is no calculating the injury it will be to
the State of New York.

Mr. BASSETT spoke in favor of the measure, and respecting the injuries
we have received from Great Britain.

Mr. ROBERTS then moved for the previous question.

Mr. SHEFFEY called for the ayes and noes.

The motion for the previous question was carried--ayes 66, noes 40.

The question was, Shall the bill be engrossed for a third
reading?--Carried--ayes 71, noes 30.

The question was then, on what day shall it be read?

Mr. GRUNDY moved it be read immediately.

Mr. MACON proposed to-morrow.

Mr. QUINCY said (it then being half-past seven o'clock in the evening)
he had not been able to take any part in the debate; that the measure
which had been thus hurried, was extremely interesting to his immediate
constituents, and he was very anxious to express his sentiments upon
it--but he was so fatigued with the tedious sitting, that he was unable
to do it this evening, and hoped the House would indulge him until
to-morrow. He would not condescend to debate such a question in the
present state of the House, and he asked for the ayes and noes on Mr.
MACON'S motion, which were agreed to be taken.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he was desirous to grant the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts. It was in his opinion a very reasonable
one. The deportment of the other side of the House had, during the
whole of the session, been very gentlemanly towards the majority;
and, sir, said he, will you now refuse to give them an opportunity
to express their sentiments upon a measure which, in their view, is
important? He said that policy on the part of the majority ought to
dictate the indulgence asked for. The majority now stand on high
ground--what will be said, and what will be the consequence of a
refusal? We shall lose the ground on which we now stand.

Mr. MACON was of the same opinion; he thought the minority had acted
with more propriety than he ever knew in a minority.

Mr. WRIGHT objected, although he was willing to acknowledge the
minority had conducted with propriety.

Mr. NELSON said it appeared to him that according to the importance of
subjects, so is our precipitancy. Is the minority thus to be dragooned
into this measure? For one, he wished to reflect upon it. The first
intimation he had of this measure, was the Message. If it is intended
as a precautionary measure, as the precursor to war, as some gentlemen
have treated it, it is a question of doubt in his mind. He thought it
better to arm our merchantmen; to grant letters of marque and reprisal;
and repeal our non-importation law. We have already suffered enough
under our restrictive system. If we pass the bill to-night, it cannot
be a law until the other branch act upon it. When we are going to war,
it will be well known that we have the spontaneous support of more than
one-half the community.

Mr. ALSTON said he would have voted on the motion, if the gentleman had
not asked for the ayes and noes; but as he appears desirous to marshal
one side of the House against the other, he was not disposed to gratify
him in his request.

Mr. WIDGERY declared war to be inevitable, and it ought not to be
delayed; on this account he was against postponing the bill until
to-morrow. If we do it at all, it ought to be speedily. It is not to be
believed that argument will change a single vote. The responsibility is
on the majority.

The question on reading to-morrow was negatived--57 to 54.

It was then read a third time; and on the question, Shall the bill
pass? it was carried--ayes 70, noes 41.

_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act laying an embargo on all ships
and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States for a limited
time."

Mr. GRUNDY and Mr. WRIGHT were appointed a committee to carry the
said bill to the Senate, and to inform them that the House of
Representatives have passed the same, in confidence, and to desire
their concurrence therein.

And the doors were then opened.


THURSDAY, April 2.

On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the House was cleared of all persons except
the members, Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeeper, and the doors
were closed.

Mr. GRUNDY, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, presented a bill
"in addition to the act, entitled 'An act to raise an additional
military force, passed the eleventh of January,'" 1812, which was read
twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-day.

A question was made and taken, whether the provisions contained in the
bill were of such a nature as to require secrecy in the discussion,
and passed in the affirmative--yeas 71, nays 34.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
said bill; and, after some time spent therein, the bill was reported
without amendment, and ordered to be engrossed, and read the third time
to-day.

The said bill was accordingly engrossed, and read the third time;
and, on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 73, nays 20.

_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act in addition to the act, entitled
'An act to raise an additional military force, passed on the eleventh
of January, 1812.'"

Messrs. CALHOUN and WILLIAMS were appointed a committee to carry
the said bill to the Senate, and to inform them that the House of
Representatives have passed the same, in confidence, and to desire
their concurrence therein.

The doors were then opened.


FRIDAY, April 3.

On motion of Mr. GRUNDY, the House was cleared, and the doors were
closed.

A motion was then made by Mr. GRUNDY, that the House do come to the
following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether
    there has been any, and if any, what violation of the secrecy
    imposed by this House during the present session, as to certain
    of its proceedings, and that the said committee have power to
    send for persons, papers, and records.

And the question thereon being taken, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 106, nays 3.

Messrs. GRUNDY, TROUP, ROBERTS, BRECKENRIDGE, and TALLMADGE, were
appointed the committee.

Mr. PORTER, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, presented a bill
authorizing the President of the United States to appoint additional
Brigadier Generals, in certain cases; which was read the first time:
When a message was received from the Senate, by a committee of that
body, appointed for the purpose, consisting of Messrs. BIBB and
CAMPBELL, of Tennessee, notifying the House that the Senate have passed
the bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels
in the ports and harbors of the United States, for a limited time,"
with amendments; in which they desire the concurrence of the House.

On motion of Mr. PORTER, the bill reported by the Committee on Foreign
Relations, this day, was ordered to lie on the table.

The House proceeded to consider the amendments of the Senate to the
bill, entitled "An act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in
the ports and harbors of the United States;" and the said amendments
being read at the Clerk's table, a motion was made by Mr. LEWIS, that
the said bills and amendments be postponed indefinitely.

Mr. QUINCY expressed in strong terms his abhorrence of the measure. He
said that if he believed it to be a preparation for war, he should have
a less indignant sense of the injury than he felt now, as he deemed it
pure, unsophisticated, reinstated embargo. The limitation of sixty or
ninety days gave little consolation or hope to him, because he knew how
easily the same power which originated could continue this oppressive
measure.

He said that his objection was, that it was not what it pretended
to be; and was what it pretended not to be. That it was not embargo
preparatory to war; but, that it was embargo as a substitute for the
question of declaring war. It was true that it was advocated as a
step incipient to a state of war, and by way of preparation for it,
by gentlemen whose sincerity he was bound to respect. He could not,
however, yield the conviction of his senses and reflections to their
asseverations; nor declare, in complaisance to any, let them be as
respectable as they might, that he saw in this measure more or less
than its features indicated.

Is this embargo what it pretends to be--preparation for war? In the
first place, no sudden attack is expected from Great Britain. It is not
suggested that we have a tittle of evidence relative to any hostility
of her temper which is not possessed by the whole community. The
President has not communicated to us one document or reason for the
measure. His Message merely notifies to us his will and pleasure.

An embargo, as preparatory to war, presupposes some new and hidden
danger, not known to the mercantile community. In such case, when
the Government sees a danger of which the merchant is unapprised, it
may be wise to stay the departure of property until the nature and
extent of it can be explained, but not a moment longer. For, let the
state of things be that of war or peace, the principle is precisely
the same. The interest which the community has in the property of
individuals is best preserved by leaving its management to the interest
of the immediate proprietor, after he is made acquainted with all
the circumstances of the times which have a tendency to increase its
exposure.

The reason of an embargo, considered as an incipient step to war, is
either to save our property from depredation abroad, or keep property
which we want at home. Now it happens that the nature of the great mass
of our exports is such that there is little danger of depredation from
the enemy we pretend to fear abroad, and little want of the articles
most likely to be exposed at home. The total export of last year
amounted, as appears by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
to $45,000,000. It also appears by that report, our exports to Great
Britain and her dependencies, and also to those of Spain and Portugal,
were $38,500,000. Nearly seven-eighths in value of our whole exports
have been, and continue to be, to the dominions of that very power from
which so much is pretended to be apprehended. Now, it is well known
that these articles are of very great necessity and importance to her,
and whether, even in the case of actual war between our countries,
Great Britain would capture them, might be questionable. But that she
would capture them on the mere preparation, before one really hostile
act was committed on our part, is not only unreasonable, but absolutely
absurd to expect. This very commerce which, by the passing of this
bill, you indicate it is her intention to prohibit or destroy, it is
her obvious and undeniable policy to unite and cherish; besides, the
articles are in a very great proportion perishable, which, by this
embargo, are to be prohibited from going to market. Which is best--to
keep them at home, to a certain loss and probable ruin, or adventure
them abroad to a possible loss and highly probable gain? Ask your
merchant. Ask common sense.

But it is said "we must protect our merchants." Heaven help our
merchants from _embargo-protection_! It is also said that "the present
condition of things has been brought upon the country by the merchants;
that it was their clamor, in 1805 and 1806, which first put Congress
upon this system of coercive restriction, of which they now so much
complain." It is true that, in those years, the merchants did petition;
not for embargo, not for commercial embarrassment and annihilation, but
for protection. They, at that time, really thought that this national
Government was formed for protection, and that it had at heart the
prosperity of all the great interests of the country. If "it was a
grievous fault, grievously have _the merchants_ answered it." They
asked you for relief, and you sent them embarrassment. They asked you
for defence, and you imposed embargo. They "asked bread, _and you_ gave
them a stone." They "asked a fish, _and you_ gave them a serpent."
Grant that the fault was great, suppose that they did mistake the
nature and character of the Government, is the penalty they incurred
by this error never to be remitted? Permit them once to escape, and my
word for it, they will never give you an apology for this destructive
protection. If they do, they will richly deserve all the misery which,
under the name of protection, you can find means to visit upon them.
Your tender mercies are cruelties. The merchants hate and spurn this
ruinous defence.

Mr. Q. then took notice of an intimation which had been thrown out in
relation to an express, sent off on the day preceding the Message of
the President, giving notice that the embargo would be proposed the
ensuing day. He said that there was no necessity of speaking of that
matter by distant allusions, as if there was any thing that sought
concealment. That is not an affair, said Mr. Q., that shuns the light.
I had the honor and the happiness, in conjunction with another member
of this House, from the State of New York, (Mr. EMOTT,) and a Senator
from Massachusetts, (Mr. LLOYD,) to transmit that intelligence to
Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, by an express which started on
Tuesday afternoon. In doing this, we violated no obligation, even of
the most remote and delicate kind. The fact that the Committee of
Foreign Relations had decided that an embargo should be proposed on
Wednesday, was openly avowed here on Tuesday, by various members of
that committee, to various members of this House. Among others, I was
informed of it. I shall always be grateful to the gentleman who gave
me that information. Indeed, the whole commercial community are under
great obligations to the Committee of Foreign Relations for their
feeling and patriotism in resolving on that disclosure. It enabled
us, by anticipating the mail, to give an opportunity for great masses
of property to escape from the ruin our Cabinet was meditating for
them. Yes, sir; to escape into the jaws of the British lion, and of
the French tiger, which are places of refuge, of joy and delight, when
compared with the grasp and fangs of this hyena embargo. What was the
effect of this information? When it reached Philadelphia, the whole
mercantile class was in motion, and all that had it in their power
were flying in all directions from the coming mischief, as if it were
a plague and a pestilence. Look, at this moment, on the river below
Alexandria, and the poor seamen, towing down their vessels against wind
and tide, anxious only to escape from a country which destroys under
the mask of preserving.

Mr. GOLD.--The first object with a wise Legislature is, Is the
law expedient? The second object, which should never for a moment
escape attention, Can the law be executed? Under the first head, the
advocates of embargo disclaim the measure as appertaining to the odious
restriction system: they present it as the old-fashioned, legitimate
precursor of war, as the provident measure of Government to protect
your merchants against reprisals resulting from meditated hostilities.

In this view can you be prepared for war at the expiration of the
embargo? Will you open your campaign at mid-summer? Whatever appearance
this measure may now assume, the country have grounds to fear a relapse
into the old system--you will go again back into Egypt.

But, on the second head, can your law be executed? Does the history of
the past in our own, or any other country, warrant such an expectation?
Can you watch the extended line, of forty-five degrees north, for
hundreds of miles, so as to prevent a transit for commercial exchange,
indispensable to the necessities of the country? No, sir, it is a vain
expectation; your army of 25,000 could not prevent the intercourse:
their sympathies would rather lead them to connive at what they could
not fail to see. Great Britain, with a canvas that whitens every sea,
her revenue boats always in motion, and tide waters at every inlet or
avenue, has not been able to prevent the smuggling in of about one-half
the tea consumed in that Kingdom. Such is the conviction of English
writers! It may be found in the appendix to McCartney's Embassy, and in
the Life of the second Pitt. Where men have expended their substance in
purchasing and collecting an article for export, under the subsisting
faith of your laws permitting such export, it is not mere injustice,
but cruelty in the Government towards its citizens to arrest such a
commerce by an _ex post facto_ law, and consign those concerned to the
prison walls, and their families to beggary. Nothing short of the most
imperious necessity, the safety of the community, can justify so severe
a proceeding. But, sir, with a single exception of timber, the commerce
between the northern frontiers and Canada, will, for the ninety days
of this embargo, be little else than the mere exchange of articles
indispensably necessary to the poor frontier settlers. How are they to
be supplied with the article of salt? Believe me, sir, the morality of
no part of the United States, or of any nation on earth, will restrain
persons under such circumstances from eluding the laws. Does any man
believe that this frontier traffic is not as beneficial to us as to our
enemies? Can your law fail of producing more injury and loss to the
United States, than benefit? Have you not witnessed, sir, that while
you was exercising paternal care in enacting an embargo by water, for
the seaboard, that our merchants and navigators, roused as by a shock
of thunder, escaped from your shores, with their vessels, as from a
destroying angel--from pestilence and death?

Mr. BLEECKER, in a speech of about twenty minutes, made an able,
solemn, and impressive address to the House, urging them to ponder, and
desist from the dangerous course they were pursuing, and forewarned
them of the calamitous consequences that would inevitably result.

Mr. MITCHILL said, in viewing political subjects and dangers, some
are inclined to look through political microscopes, which diminish
them; others, misled by their imaginations, look through political
telescopes, and are apt to magnify and enhance them. He, for one,
was for viewing our situation with his naked optics--for looking at
it as it really is. He could not be considered as less alive to the
interests and happiness of the inhabitants of that city, respecting
whom so much sensibility has been expressed, than any other gentleman.
There were his intimate friends, connections, and what little property
he possessed. No one could feel more for their sufferings under
commercial restrictions, or in case of an assault upon it by the
enemy. And if he was to consult only his personal sensibilities, they
were all in favor of the people of that country with whom we are to
enter into a conflict. He has no prejudice against them. He there
received his education. He has lived in North and South Britain. From
actual residence, he knows them from the Grampian Hills to Dover. He
knows them, however, to be a proud, overbearing nation. From former
residence, and also from recent intelligence, (and that within a few
days, by late arrivals,) he knows that they consider us a sort of a
generation whom they have a right to despise. We are viewed in this
unworthy, degraded situation, not on account of our want of resources,
or population; but because they believe we cannot stand together--that
we have no confidence in ourselves--that we cannot lead armies into
their countries. Their object has been, since the year 1806, to divide
and distract us, and to prevent our taking efficient measures. Sir,
what has been the cause of our present condition? It is well known
that, in 1806, he was made the organ of his constituents, as other
gentlemen were for Salem and other commercial places, to present to
Congress their plaints and wailings, on account of the grievances
they suffered upon the subject of carrying colonial produce, and the
continuity of voyage. The archives of this House will prove this.
They declared they should be ruined if the British doctrine should be
countenanced. The Government were goaded by these applications for
relief. The Government began, and continued pacific measures, until we
have got into our present situation.

Mr. WIDGERY spoke with much warmth in favor of the embargo and war.

Mr. STUART said, if it was in order, he would ask the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. WIDGERY) a few questions. He would ask that
gentleman if he was, during the last embargo, a ship owner? If so, did
he not go to England during the embargo? If so, how did he go?

Mr. WIDGERY answered that he went by water.

The SPEAKER observed these questions were not in order.

Mr. STUART said if they were not in order he would sit down.

The question was now taken on indefinite postponement, and determined
in the negative--yeas 42, nays 72.

On motion of Mr. ROBERTS, the previous question was demanded by
a majority of the members present: Whereupon the question was
taken, in the form prescribed by the rules and orders of the House,
to wit: "Shall the main question be now put?" and passed in the
affirmative--yeas 67, nays 44.

The SPEAKER then decided that the main question to now put, was: "Will
the House concur with the Senate in the amendments made to the bill?"
and not upon the proposition for postponement.

From which decision Mr. RANDOLPH moved an appeal; which being seconded,
the question was put, "Is the decision of the Chair correct?" and
decided in the affirmative.


SATURDAY, April 4.

The House was cleared of all persons, and the doors were closed.

                    _Additional Brigadier Generals._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill authorizing the
President of the United States to appoint additional Brigadier
Generals, &c.

Mr. SAMMONS.--Mr. Speaker: If those officers are intended to command
the militia, I trust in God this bill will not pass. What! shall our
militia be commanded by officers commissioned by the President? Can the
President be as well acquainted with the qualifications and abilities
of officers in the militia as the Governors of the States? It cannot be
expected. What spirit can be in the people to support the war if the
Federal Government takes away the right of the States to appoint the
officers for commanding their militia? If our Government takes away
our liberty, is it necessary to contend with a foreign Government for
our rights? In former times the officers were appointed in such parts
as the men were raised: that is not the case now. Some time in the
session, I was told by some of the Southern members, "we will give you
officers if you will find the men." It is a fact, that, before our New
York troops were raised, a Major from North Carolina was appointed;
and was ordered to take the command of troops enlisted in New York.
Governor Hull's son, from Detroit, is appointed to the command of one
of our companies, and is on command with his father as his aid. Where
is the justice? Shall we have companies without captains, or shall the
United States pay for two captains? (for Hull is returned in Colonel
Schuyler's regiment as captain.) He cannot belong there. In such
proceedings I almost tremble for the consequence to my country.

There is no necessity or propriety in appointing more Generals, in my
opinion, at present, for our regulars--for the President is directed
to appoint eight Brigadiers and two Major Generals. I believe they
are not all appointed, and of those that are appointed, I hear one is
sent home because they have no command for him. If this bill passes,
our Government will be as bad as that of Great Britain before the
Revolution. In the Declaration of Independence we complain of the King,
that "he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms
of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." But if
those ten Generals are not sufficient, this House has passed a bill at
the request of the President of the United States to commission and
appoint the officers for fifty thousand militia volunteers. There are
limits empowering how many he shall appoint--he may appoint twelve
Brigadiers and four Major Generals--will not that be as many as he
wanted?


MONDAY, April 13.

A confidential message was received from the Senate by a committee of
that body appointed for the purpose, consisting of Mr. VARNUM and Mr.
ANDERSON, notifying the House that the Senate have passed the bill,
entitled "An act to prohibit the exportation of specie, goods, wares,
and merchandise, for a limited time," with amendments; in which they
desire the concurrence of the House.

The said amendments were read at the Clerk's table: When a motion was
made by Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH that the said bill be _postponed indefinitely_.

And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 35, nays 62.

The question was then taken to concur in the said amendments, and
passed in the affirmative.

Mr. SMILIE and Mr. PLEASANTS were appointed a committee to deliver
a message to the Senate, and inform them that the House of
Representatives have concurred in their amendment to the bill aforesaid.

The doors were then opened.


TUESDAY, April 14.

Mr. CRAWFORD, from the Joint Committee for Enrolled Bills, reported
that the committee had examined an enrolled bill "to prohibit the
exportation of specie, goods, wares, and merchandise, for a limited
time," and had found the same to be truly enrolled: When, the SPEAKER
signed the said bill.

Mr. CRAWFORD and Mr. TURNER were appointed a committee to carry the
said bill to the Senate for the signature of their President.

The doors were then opened; and having remained so for some time, they
were again closed;.

When, Mr. TURNER, from the above-mentioned committee, reported that the
committee had presented to the President of the United States the said
bill, and that they were instructed by the President to inform the two
Houses that he had approved and signed the same.

On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the injunction of secrecy imposed upon the
said bill and the proceedings thereon, were then removed.

The doors were then opened.


MONDAY, June 1.

A confidential Message, in writing, was received from the President
of the United States, by Mr. Edward Coles, his Secretary; which he
delivered in at the Speaker's table.

The House was then cleared of all persons, except the Members, Clerk,
Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeepers, and the doors were closed; and the
said Message was read, and is as follows:

                            [Confidential.]

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I communicate to Congress certain documents, being a
    continuation of those heretofore laid before them on the
    subject of our affairs with Great Britain.

    Without going back beyond the renewal, in one thousand eight
    hundred and three, of the war in which Great Britain is
    engaged, and omitting unrepaired wrongs of inferior magnitude,
    the conduct of her Government presents a series of acts,
    hostile to the United States as an independent and neutral
    nation.

    British cruisers have been in the continued practice of
    violating the American flag on the great highway of nations,
    and of seizing and carrying off persons sailing under it;
    not in the exercise of a belligerent right, founded on the
    law of nations against an enemy, but a municipal prerogative
    over British subjects. British jurisdiction is thus extended
    to neutral vessels, in a situation where no laws can operate
    but the law of nations, and the laws of the country to which
    the vessels belong; and a self-redress is assumed, which, if
    British subjects were wrongfully detained and alone concerned,
    is that substitution of force, for a resort to the responsible
    Sovereign, which falls within the definition of war. Could the
    seizure of British subjects, in such cases, be regarded as
    within the exercise of a belligerent right, the acknowledged
    laws of war, which forbid an article of captured property to be
    adjudged, without a regular investigation before a competent
    tribunal, would imperiously demand the fairest trial, where
    the sacred rights of persons were at issue. In place of such a
    trial, these rights are subjected to the will of every petty
    commander.

    The practice, hence, is so far from affecting British subjects
    alone, that, under the pretext of searching for these,
    thousands of American citizens, under the safeguard of public
    law, and of their national flag, have been torn from their
    country, and from every thing dear to them; have been dragged
    on board ships of war of a foreign nation, and exposed, under
    the severities of their discipline, to be exiled to the most
    distant and deadly climes, to risk their lives in the battles
    of their oppressors, and to be melancholy instruments of taking
    away those of their own brethren.

    Against this crying enormity which Great Britain would be so
    prompt to avenge if committed against herself, the United
    States have in vain exhausted remonstrances and expostulations;
    and that no proof might be wanting of their conciliatory
    dispositions, and no pretext left for a continuance of the
    practice, the British Government was formally assured of the
    readiness of the United States to enter into arrangements, such
    as could not be rejected, if the recovery of British subjects
    were the real and the sole object. The communication passed
    without effect.

    British cruisers have been in the practice also of violating
    the right and the peace of our coasts. They hover over and
    harass our entering and departing commerce. To the most
    insulting pretensions they have added the most lawless
    proceedings in our very harbors; and have wantonly spilt
    American blood within the sanctuary of our territorial
    jurisdiction. The principles and rules enforced by that nation,
    when a neutral nation, against armed vessels of belligerents
    hovering near her coasts and disturbing her commerce, are well
    known. When called on, nevertheless, by the United States, to
    punish the greater offences committed by her own vessels, her
    Government has bestowed on their commanders additional marks of
    honor and confidence.

    Under pretended blockades, without the presence of an adequate
    force, and sometimes without the practicability of applying
    one, our commerce has been plundered in every sea; the great
    staples of our country have been cut off from their legitimate
    markets; and a destructive blow aimed at our agricultural and
    maritime interests. In aggravation of these predatory measures,
    they have been considered as in force from the dates of their
    notification; a retrospective effect being thus added, as has
    been done in other important cases, to the unlawfulness of the
    course pursued. And to render the outrage the more signal,
    those mock blockades have been reiterated and enforced in the
    face of official communications from the British Government,
    declaring, as the true definition of a legal blockade, "the
    particular ports must be actually invested, and previous
    warning given to vessels bound to them, not to enter."

    Not content with these occasional expedients for laying waste
    our neutral trade, the Cabinet of Britain resorted, at length,
    to the sweeping system of blockades, under the name of Orders
    in Council; which has been moulded and managed as might best
    suit its political views, its commercial jealousies, or the
    avidity of British cruisers.

    To our remonstrances against the complicated and transcendent
    injustice of this innovation, the first reply was, that
    the orders were reluctantly adopted by Great Britain, as a
    necessary retaliation on decrees of her enemy, proclaiming a
    general blockade of the British Isles, at a time when the naval
    force of that enemy dared not issue from his own ports. She
    was reminded, without effect, that her own prior blockades,
    unsupported by an adequate naval force actually applied and
    continued, were a bar to this plea: that executed edicts
    against millions of our property could not be retaliation
    on edicts confessedly impossible to be executed: that
    retaliation, to be just, should fall on the party setting the
    guilty example, not on an innocent party, which was not even
    chargeable with an acquiescence in it.

    When deprived of this flimsy veil for a prohibition of our
    trade with her enemy, by the repeal of his prohibition of
    our trade with Great Britain, her Cabinet, instead of their
    corresponding repeal, or a practical discontinuance of its
    orders, formally avowed a determination to persist in them
    against the United States, until the markets of her enemy
    should be laid open to British products; thus asserting an
    obligation on a neutral power to require one belligerent
    to encourage, by its internal regulations, the trade of
    another belligerent; contradicting her own practice towards
    all nations, in peace as well as in war; and betraying the
    insincerity of those professions which inculcated a belief,
    that, having resorted to her orders with regret, she was
    anxious to find an occasion for putting an end to them.

    Abandoning still more all respect for the neutral rights of
    the United States, and for its own consistency, the British
    Government now demands, as prerequisite to a repeal of its
    orders as they relate to the United States, that a formality
    should be observed in the repeal of the French decrees, no wise
    necessary to their termination, nor exemplified by British
    usage; and that the French repeal, besides including that
    portion of the decrees which operate within a territorial
    jurisdiction, as well as that which operates on the high seas,
    against the commerce of the United States, should not be a
    single and special repeal in relation to the United States,
    but should be extended to whatever other neutral nations,
    unconnected with them, may be affected by those decrees. And,
    as an additional insult, they are called on for a formal
    disavowal of conditions and pretensions advanced by the French
    Government, for which the United States are so far from having
    made themselves responsible, that, in official explanations
    which have been published to the world, and in a correspondence
    of the American Minister at London with the British Minister
    for Foreign Affairs, such a responsibility was explicitly and
    emphatically disclaimed.

    It has become, indeed, sufficiently certain, that the commerce
    of the United States is to be sacrificed, not as interfering
    with the belligerent rights of Great Britain; not as supplying
    the wants of her enemies, which she herself supplies; but
    as interfering with the money which she covets for her own
    commerce and navigation. She carries on a war against the
    lawful commerce of a friend, that she may the better carry on
    a commerce with an enemy; a commerce polluted by the forgeries
    and perjuries which are, for the most part, the only passports
    by which it can succeed.

    Anxious to make every experiment short of the last resort of
    injured nations, the United States have withheld from Great
    Britain, under successive modifications, the benefits of a free
    intercourse with their market, the loss of which could not but
    outweigh the profits accruing from her restrictions of our
    commerce with other nations. And to entitle these experiments
    to the more favorable consideration, they were so framed as
    to enable her to place her adversary under the exclusive
    operation of them. To these appeals her Government has been
    equally inflexible, as if willing to make sacrifices of every
    sort, rather than yield to the claims of justice, or renounce
    the errors of a false pride. Nay, so far were the attempts
    carried to overcome the attachments of the British Cabinet to
    its unjust edicts, that it received every encouragement within
    the competence of the Executive branch of our Government, to
    expect that a repeal of them would be followed by a war between
    the United States and France, unless the French edicts should
    also be recalled. Even this communication, although silencing
    forever the plea of a disposition in the United States to
    acquiesce in those edicts, originally the sole plea for them,
    received no attention.

    If no other proof existed of a predetermination of the British
    Government against a repeal of its orders, it might be found
    in the correspondence of the Minister Plenipotentiary of the
    United States at London, and the British Secretary for Foreign
    Affairs, in one thousand eight hundred and ten, on the question
    whether the blockade of May, one thousand eight hundred and
    six, was considered as in force, or as not in force. It had
    been ascertained that the French Government, which urged this
    blockade as the ground of its Berlin decree, was willing,
    in the event of its removal, to repeal that decree; which,
    being followed by alternate repeals of the other offensive
    edicts, might abolish the whole system on both sides. This
    inviting opportunity for accomplishing an object so important
    to the United States, and professed, so often, to be the
    desire of both the belligerents, was made known to the British
    Government. As that Government admits that an application of
    an adequate force is necessary to the existence of a legal
    blockade, and it was notorious that, if such a force had
    ever been applied, its long discontinuance had annulled the
    blockade in question, there could be no sufficient objection
    on the part of Great Britain to a formal revocation of it;
    and no imaginable objection to a declaration of the fact that
    the blockade did not exist. The declaration would have been
    consistent with her avowed principles of blockade; and would
    have enabled the United States to demand from France the
    pledged repeal of her decrees; either with success, in which
    case the way would have been opened for a general repeal of
    the belligerent edicts; or without success, in which case
    the United States would have been justified in turning their
    measures exclusively against France. The British Government
    would, however, neither rescind the blockade, nor declare its
    non-existence; nor permit its non-existence to be inferred and
    affirmed by the American Plenipotentiary. On the contrary, by
    representing the blockade to be comprehended in the Orders in
    Council, the United States were compelled so to regard it, in
    their subsequent proceedings.

    There was a period when a favorable change in the policy of
    the British Cabinet was justly considered as established.
    The Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty here,
    proposed an adjustment of the differences more immediately
    endangering the harmony of the two countries. The proposition
    was accepted with the promptitude and cordiality corresponding
    with the invariable professions of this Government. A
    foundation appeared to be laid for a sincere and lasting
    reconciliation. The prospect, however, quickly vanished. The
    whole proceeding was disavowed by the British Government,
    without any explanations, which could, at that time, repress
    the belief, that the disavowal proceeded from a spirit of
    hostility to the commercial rights and prosperity of the United
    States. And it has since come into proof, that at the very
    moment when the public Minister was holding the language of
    friendship, and inspiring confidence in the sincerity of the
    negotiation with which he was charged, a secret agent of his
    Government was employed in intrigues, having for their object a
    subversion of our Government, and a dismemberment of our happy
    Union.

    In reviewing the conduct of Great Britain towards the United
    States, our attention is necessarily drawn to the warfare, just
    renewed by the savages, on one of our extensive frontiers; a
    warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex, and to be
    distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity. It
    is difficult to account for the activity and combinations which
    have for some time been developing themselves among tribes
    in constant intercourse with British traders and garrisons,
    without connecting hostility with that influence, and without
    recollecting the authenticated examples of such interpositions,
    heretofore furnished by the officers and agents of that
    Government.

    Such is the spectacle of injuries and indignities which have
    been heaped on our country; and such the crisis which its
    unexampled forbearance and conciliatory efforts have not been
    able to avert. It might at least have been expected, that
    an enlightened nation, if less urged by moral obligations,
    or invited by friendly dispositions on the part of the
    United States, would have found, in its true interest alone,
    a sufficient motive to respect their rights and their
    tranquillity on the high seas; that an enlarged policy would
    have favored that free and general circulation of commerce
    in which the British nation is at all times interested,
    and which, in times of war, is the best alleviation of its
    calamities to herself, as well as to other belligerents; and,
    more especially, that the British Cabinet would not, for
    the sake of a precarious and surreptitious intercourse with
    hostile markets, have persevered in a course of measures which
    necessarily put at hazard the invaluable market of a great and
    growing country, disposed to cultivate the mutual advantages of
    an active commerce.

    Other councils have prevailed. Our moderation and conciliation
    have had no other effect than to encourage perseverance and to
    enlarge pretensions. We behold our seafaring citizens still
    the daily victims of lawless violence, committed on the great
    common and highway of nations, even within sight of the country
    which owes them protection. We behold our vessels, freighted
    with the products of our soil and industry, or returning
    with the honest proceeds of them, wrested from their lawful
    destinations, confiscated by prize courts, no longer the
    organs of public law, but the instruments of arbitrary edicts,
    and their unfortunate crews dispersed and lost, or forced,
    or inveigled in British ports into British fleets, whilst
    arguments are employed in support of these aggressions, which
    have no foundation but in a principle equally supporting a
    claim to regulate our external commerce in all cases whatsoever.

    We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of
    war against the United States; and on the side of the United
    States, a state of peace towards Great Britain.

    Whether the United States shall continue passive under these
    progressive usurpations, and their accumulating wrongs, or,
    opposing force to force in defence of their national rights,
    shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty
    Disposer of events, avoiding all connections which might
    entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and
    preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable
    re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question,
    which the constitution wisely confides to the Legislative
    Department of the Government. In recommending it to their early
    deliberation, I am happy in the assurance, that the decision
    will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a
    virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

    Having presented this view of the relations of the United
    States with Great Britain, and of the solemn alternative
    growing out of them, I proceed to remark, that the
    communications last made to Congress on the subject of our
    relations with France, will have shown, that since the
    revocation of her decrees, as they violated the neutral
    rights of the United States, her Government has authorized
    illegal captures by its privateers and public ships; and that
    other outrages have been practised on our vessels and our
    citizens. It will have been seen, also, that no indemnity had
    been provided, or satisfactorily pledged, for the extensive
    spoliations committed under the violent and retrospective
    orders of the French Government against the property of our
    citizens, seized within the jurisdiction of France. I abstain,
    at this time, from recommending to the consideration of
    Congress definitive measures with respect to that nation, in
    the expectation that the result of unclosed discussions between
    our Minister Plenipotentiary at Paris and the French Government
    will speedily enable Congress to decide, with greater
    advantage, on the course due to the rights, the interests, and
    the honor, of our country.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _June 1, 1812_.


A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the said message be
referred to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union:

And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 37, nays 85.

On motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, the Message was referred to a
committee appointed on that part of the President's Message which
relates to our foreign relations.


TUESDAY, June 2.

The House met, and adjourned till to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, June 3.

                     _Report on Foreign Relations._

Mr. CALHOUN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was
referred the Message of the President of the United States of the first
instant, made a report, stating at large the causes and reasons of a
war with Great Britain, which was read as follows:

    "That, after the experience which the United States have had
    of the great injustice of the British Government towards them,
    exemplified by so many acts of violence and oppression, it
    will be more difficult to justify to the impartial world their
    impatient forbearance, than the measures to which it has become
    necessary to resort, to avenge the wrongs, and vindicate the
    rights and honor of the nation. Your committee are happy to
    observe, on a dispassionate view of the conduct of the United
    States, that they see in it no cause for censure.

    "If a long forbearance under injuries ought ever to be
    considered a virtue in any nation, it is one which peculiarly
    becomes the United States. No people ever had stronger motives
    to cherish peace; none have ever cherished it with greater
    sincerity and zeal.

    "But the period has now arrived, when the United States must
    support their character and station among the nations of the
    earth, or submit to the most shameful degradation. Forbearance
    has ceased to be a virtue. War on the one side, and peace on
    the other, is a situation as ruinous as it is disgraceful.
    The mad ambition, the lust of power, and commercial avarice
    of Great Britain, arrogating to herself the complete dominion
    of the ocean, and exercising over it an unbounded and lawless
    tyranny, have left to neutral nations an alternative only
    between the base surrender of their rights, and a manly
    vindication of them. Happily for the United States, their
    destiny, under the aid of Heaven, is in their own hands. The
    crisis is formidable only by their love of peace. As soon as it
    becomes a duty to relinquish that situation, danger disappears.
    They have suffered no wrongs, they have received no insults,
    however great, for which they cannot obtain redress.

    "More than seven years have elapsed since the commencement of
    this system of hostile aggression by the British Government,
    on the rights and interests of the United States. The manner
    of its commencement was not less hostile than the spirit with
    which it has been prosecuted. The United States have invariably
    done every thing in their power to preserve the relations of
    friendship with Great Britain. Of this disposition they gave
    a distinguished proof at the moment when they were made the
    victims of an opposite policy. The wrongs of the last war had
    not been forgotten at the commencement of the present one. They
    warned us of dangers, against which it was sought to provide.
    As early as the year 1804, the Minister of the United States
    at London was instructed to invite the British Government to
    enter into a negotiation on all the points on which a collision
    might arise between the two countries, in the course of the
    war, and to propose to it an arrangement of their claims on
    fair and reasonable conditions. The invitation was accepted.
    A negotiation had commenced, and was depending, and nothing
    had occurred to excite a doubt that it would not terminate to
    the satisfaction of both the parties. It was at this time, and
    under these circumstances, that an attack was made by surprise,
    on an important branch of the American commerce, which affected
    every part of the United States, and involved many of their
    citizens in ruin.

    "The commerce on which this attack was so unexpectedly made,
    was that between the United States and the colonies of France,
    Spain, and other enemies of Great Britain. A commerce just in
    itself; sanctioned by the example of Great Britain, in regard
    to the trade with her own colonies; sanctioned by a solemn act
    between the two Governments in the last war; and sanctioned by
    the practice of the British Government in the present war: more
    than two years having then elapsed, without any interference
    with it.

    "The injustice of this attack could only be equalled by the
    absurdity of the pretext alleged for it. It was pretended by
    the British Government that, in case of war, her enemy had no
    right to modify its colonial regulations, so as to mitigate
    the calamities of war to the inhabitants of its colonies. This
    pretension, peculiar to Great Britain, is utterly incompatible
    with the rights of sovereignty in every independent State. If
    we recur to the well-established, and universally admitted law
    of nations, we shall find no sanction to it in that venerable
    code. The sovereignty of every State is co-extensive with its
    dominions, and cannot be abrogated, or curtailed in its rights,
    as to any part, except by conquest. Neutral nations have a
    right to trade to every port of either belligerents, which
    is not legally blockaded, and in all articles which are not
    contraband of war. Such is the absurdity of this pretension,
    that your committee are aware, especially after the able
    manner in which it has been heretofore refuted and exposed,
    that they would offer an insult to the understanding of the
    House, if they enlarged on it; and if any thing could add
    to the high sense of injustice of the British Government in
    this transaction, it would be the contrast which her conduct
    exhibits in regard to this trade, and in regard to a similar
    trade by neutrals, with her own colonies. It is known to the
    world, that Great Britain regulates her own trade, in war
    and in peace, at home and in her colonies, as she finds for
    her interest; that in war she relaxes the restraints of her
    colonial system in favor of the colonies, and that it never was
    suggested that she had not a right to do it, or that a neutral,
    in taking advantage of the relaxation, violated a belligerent
    right of her enemy. But with Great Britain every thing is
    lawful. It is only in trade with her enemies, that the United
    States can do wrong: with them, all trade is unlawful.

    "In the year 1793, an attack was made by the British Government
    on the same branch of our neutral trade, which had nearly
    involved the two countries in war. That difference, however,
    was amicably accommodated. The pretension was withdrawn, and
    reparation made to the United States for the losses which they
    had suffered by it. It was fair to infer from that arrangement,
    that the commerce was deemed by the British Government lawful,
    and that it would not be again disturbed.

    "Had the British Government been resolved to contest this trade
    with neutrals, it was due to the character of the British
    nation, that the decision should be known to the Government of
    the United States. The existence of a negotiation which had
    been invited by our Government, for the purpose of preventing
    differences, by an amicable arrangement of their respective
    pretensions, gave a strong claim for the notification, while
    it afforded the fairest opportunity for it. But, a very
    different policy animated the then Cabinet of England. Generous
    sentiments were unknown to it. The liberal confidence and
    friendly overtures of the United States were taken advantage
    of to ensnare them. Steady to its purpose, and inflexibly
    hostile to this country, the British Government calmly looked
    forward to that moment when it might give the most deadly wound
    to our interest. A trade, just in itself, which was secured
    by so many strong and sacred pledges, was considered safe.
    Our citizens, with their usual industry and enterprise, had
    embarked in it a vast proportion of their shipping and of their
    capital, which were at sea under no other protection than the
    law of nations, and the confidence which they reposed in the
    justice and friendship of the British nation. At this period,
    the unexpected blow was given. Many of our vessels were seized,
    carried into port, and condemned by a tribunal, which, while it
    professes to respect the law of nations, obeys the mandate of
    its own Government in opposition to all law. Hundreds of other
    vessels were driven from the ocean, and the trade itself in a
    great measure suppressed.

    "The effect produced by this attack on the lawful commerce
    of the United States, was as might have been expected from
    a virtuous, independent, and highly-injured people. But
    one sentiment pervaded the whole American nation. No local
    interests were regarded, no sordid motives felt. Without
    looking to the parts which suffered most, the invasion of our
    rights was considered a common cause, and from one extremity
    of our Union to the other, was heard the voice of a united
    people, calling on their Government to avenge their wrongs, and
    vindicate the rights and honor of the country.

    "From this period, the British Government has gone on in a
    continued encroachment on the rights and interests of the
    United States, disregarding in its course, in many instances,
    obligations which have heretofore been held sacred by civilized
    nations.

    "In May, 1806, the whole coast of the continent, from the Elbe
    to Brest, inclusive, was declared to be in a state of blockade.
    By this act, the well-established principles of the law of
    nations, principles which have served for ages as guides, and
    fixed the boundary between the rights of belligerents and
    neutrals, were violated. By the law of nations, as recognized
    by Great Britain herself, no blockade is lawful, unless it be
    sustained by the application of an adequate force; and that
    an adequate force was applied to this blockade, in its full
    extent, ought not to be pretended. Whether Great Britain was
    able to maintain legally so extensive a blockade, considering
    the war in which she is engaged, requiring such extensive naval
    operations, is a question which is not necessary at this time
    to examine. It is sufficient to be known, that such force
    was not applied, and this is evident, from the terms of the
    blockade itself, by which, comparatively, an inconsiderable
    portion of the coast only was declared to be in a state of
    strict and rigorous blockade. The objection to the measure
    is not diminished by that circumstance. If the force was not
    applied, the blockade was unlawful, from whatever cause the
    failure might proceed. The belligerent who institutes the
    blockade, cannot absolve itself from the obligation to apply
    the force, under any pretext whatever. For a belligerent to
    relax a blockade which it could not maintain, with a view
    to absolve itself from the obligation to maintain it, would
    be a refinement in injustice, not less insulting to the
    understanding, than repugnant to the law of nations. To claim
    merit for the mitigation of evil which the party either had not
    the power, or found it inconvenient to inflict, would be a new
    mode of encroaching on neutral rights. Your committee think it
    just to remark, that this act of the British Government does
    not appear to have been adopted in the sense in which it has
    been since construed. On consideration of all the circumstances
    attending the measure, and particularly the character of the
    distinguished statesman who announced it, we are persuaded that
    it was conceived in a spirit of conciliation, and intended to
    lead to an accomodation of all differences between the United
    States and Great Britain. His death disappointed that hope, and
    the act has since become subservient to other purposes. It has
    been made, by his successors, a pretext for that vast system
    of usurpation, which has so long oppressed and harassed our
    commerce.

    "The next act of the British Government which claims our
    attention, is the Order of Council of January 7, 1807, by
    which neutral powers are prohibited trading from one port to
    another of France, or her allies, or any other country with
    which Great Britain might not freely trade. By this order,
    the pretensions of England, heretofore disclaimed by every
    other power, to prohibit neutrals disposing of parts of their
    cargoes at different ports of the same enemy, is revived, and
    with vast accumulation of injury. Every enemy, however great
    the number, or distant from each other, is considered one, and
    the like trade, even with powers at peace with England, who,
    from motives of policy, had excluded or restrained her commerce
    was also prohibited. In this act, the British Government
    evidently disclaimed all regard for neutral rights. Aware that
    the measures authorized by it could find no pretext in any
    belligerent right, none was urged. To prohibit the sale of our
    produce, consisting of innocent articles, in any port of a
    belligerent, not blockaded; to consider every belligerent as
    one, and subject neutrals to the same restraints with all as if
    there was but one, were bold encroachments. But to restrain,
    or in any manner interfere with our commerce with neutral
    nations, with whom Great Britain was at peace, and against whom
    she had no justifiable cause of war, for the sole reason that
    they restrained or excluded from their ports her commerce, was
    utterly incompatible with the pacific relations subsisting
    between the two countries.

    "We proceed to bring into view the British Order in Council
    of November 11, 1807, which superseded every other order, and
    consummated that system of hostility on the commerce of the
    United States, which has been since so steadily pursued. By
    this order all France and her allies, and every other country
    at war with Great Britain, or with which she was not at war,
    from which the British flag was excluded, and all the colonies
    of her enemies, were subject to the same restrictions as if
    they were actually blockaded in the most strict and rigorous
    manner; and all trade in articles, the produce and manufacture
    of the said countries and colonies, and the vessels engaged in
    it, were subjected to capture and condemnation as lawful prize.
    To this order certain exceptions were made, which we forbear to
    notice, because they were not adopted from a regard to neutral
    rights, but were dictated by policy, to promote the commerce
    of England, and so far as they related to neutral powers, were
    said to emanate from the clemency of the British Government.

    "It would be superfluous in your committee to state, that, by
    this order, the British Government declared direct and positive
    war against the United States. The dominion of the ocean was
    completely usurped by it, all commerce forbidden, and every
    flag driven from it, or subjected to capture and condemnation,
    which did not subserve the policy of the British Government,
    by paying it a tribute, and sailing under its sanction. From
    this period, the United States have incurred the heaviest
    losses, and most mortifying humiliations. They have borne the
    calamities of war without retorting them on its authors.

    "So far your committee has presented to the view of the House
    the aggressions which have been committed, under the authority
    of the British Government, on the commerce of the United
    States. We will now proceed to other wrongs, which have been
    still more severely felt. Among these is the impressment of
    our seamen, a practice which has been unceasingly maintained
    by Great Britain in the wars to which she has been a party
    since our Revolution. Your committee cannot convey in adequate
    terms the deep sense which they entertain of the injustice
    and oppression of this proceeding. Under the pretext of
    impressing British seaman, our fellow-citizens are seized in
    British ports, on the high seas, and in every other quarter to
    which the British power extends; are taken on board British
    men-of-war, and compelled to serve there as British subjects.
    In this mode our citizens are wantonly snatched from their
    country and their families; deprived of their liberty, and
    doomed to an ignominious and slavish bondage; compelled to
    fight the battles of a foreign country, and often to perish
    in them. Our flag has given them no protection; it has been
    unceasingly violated, and our vessels exposed to dangers by
    the loss of the men taken from them. Your committee need not
    remark that, while this practice is continued, it is impossible
    for the United States to consider themselves an independent
    nation. Every new case is a new proof of their degradation.
    Its continuance is the more unjustifiable, because the United
    States have repeatedly proposed to the British Government an
    arrangement which would secure to it the control of its own
    people. An exemption of the citizens of the United States from
    this degrading oppression, and their flag from violation, is
    all that they have sought.

    "This lawless waste of our trade, and equally unlawful
    imprisonment of our seamen, have been much aggravated by the
    insults and indignities attending them. Under the pretext
    of blockading the harbors of France and her allies, British
    squadrons have been stationed on our own coast, to watch
    and annoy our own trade. To give effect to the blockade of
    European ports, the ports and harbors of the United States
    have been blockaded. In executing these orders of the British
    Government, or in obeying the spirit which was known to animate
    it, the commanders of these squadrons have encroached on our
    jurisdiction, seized our vessels, and carried into effect
    impressments within our limits, and done other acts of great
    injustice, violence, and oppression. The United States have
    seen, with mingled indignation and surprise, that these acts,
    instead of procuring to the perpetrators the punishment due to
    unauthorized crimes, have not failed to recommend them to the
    favor of their Government.

    "Whether the British Government has contributed by active
    measures to excite against us the hostility of the savage
    tribes on our frontiers, your committee are not disposed to
    occupy much time in investigating. Certain indications of
    general notoriety may supply the place of authentic documents,
    though these have not been wanting to establish the fact
    in some instances. It is known that symptoms of British
    hostility towards the United States have never failed to
    produce corresponding symptoms among those tribes. It is also
    well known that, on all such occasions, abundant supplies
    of the ordinary munitions of war have been afforded by the
    agents of British commercial companies, and even from British
    garrisons, wherewith they were enabled to commence that system
    of savage warfare on our frontiers, which has been at all
    times indiscriminate in its effect, on all ages, sexes, and
    conditions, and so revolting to humanity.

    "Your committee would be much gratified if they could close
    here the detail of British wrongs; but it is their duty to
    recite another act of still greater malignity than any of those
    which have been already brought to your view. The attempt to
    dismember our Union, and overthrow our excellent constitution,
    by a secret mission, the object of which was to foment
    discontents and excite insurrection against the constituted
    authorities and laws of the nation, as lately disclosed by
    the agent employed in it, affords full proof that there is no
    bound to the hostility of the British Government towards the
    United States; no act, however unjustifiable, which it would
    not commit to accomplish their ruin. This attempt excites
    the greater horror, from the consideration that it was made
    while the United States and Great Britain were at peace, and
    an amicable negotiation was depending between them for the
    accommodation of their differences, through public Ministers,
    regularly authorized for the purpose.

    "The United States have beheld, with unexampled forbearance,
    this continued series of hostile encroachments on their rights
    and interests, in the hope that, yielding to the force of
    friendly remonstrances, often repeated, the British Government
    might adopt a more just policy towards them; but that hope no
    longer exists. They have, also, weighed impartially the reasons
    which have been urged by the British Government in vindication
    of those encroachments, and found in them neither justification
    nor apology.

    "The British Government has alleged, in vindication of the
    Orders in Council, that they were resorted to as a retaliation
    on France for similar aggressions committed by her on our
    neutral trade with the British dominions. But how has this plea
    been supported? The dates of British and French aggressions are
    well known to the world. Their origin and progress have been
    marked with too wide and destructive a waste of the property
    of our fellow-citizens to have been forgotten. The decree of
    Berlin, of November 21st, 1806, was the first aggression of
    France in the present war. Eighteen months had then elapsed
    after the attack made by Great Britain on our neutral trade
    with the colonies of France and her allies, and six months
    from the date of the proclamation of May, 1806. Even on the
    7th of January, 1807, the date of the first British Order
    in Council, so short a term had elapsed after the Berlin
    decree, that it was hardly possible that the intelligence of
    it should have reached the United States. A retaliation which
    is to produce its effect, by operating on a neutral power,
    ought not to be resorted to till the neutral had justified it
    by a culpable acquiescence in the unlawful act of the other
    belligerent. It ought to be delayed until after sufficient
    time had been allowed to the neutral to remonstrate against
    the measures complained of, to receive an answer, and to
    act on it, which had not been done in the present instance.
    And, when the order of November 11th was issued, it is well
    known that a Minister of France had declared to the Minister
    Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, that it was
    not intended that the decree of Berlin should apply to the
    United States. It is equally well known, that no American
    vessel had then been condemned under it, or seizure been
    made, with which the British Government was acquainted. The
    facts prove incontestably, that the measures of France,
    however unjustifiable in themselves, were nothing more than a
    pretext for those of England. And of the insufficiency of that
    pretext, ample proof has already been afforded by the British
    Government itself, and in the most impressive form. Although
    it was declared that the Orders in Council were retaliatory on
    France for her decrees, it was also declared, and in the orders
    themselves, that, owing to the superiority of the British navy,
    by which the fleets of France and her allies were confined
    within their own ports, the French decrees were considered only
    as empty threats.

    "It is no justification of the wrongs of one power, that the
    like were committed by another; nor ought the fact, if true, to
    have been urged by either, as it could afford no proof of its
    love of justice, of its magnanimity, or even of its courage.
    It is more worthy the Government of a great nation to relieve
    than to assail the injured. Nor can a repetition of the wrongs
    by another power repair the violated rights or wounded honor
    of the injured party. An utter inability alone to resist
    could justify a quiet surrender of our rights, and degrading
    submission to the will of others. To that condition the United
    States are not reduced, nor do they fear it. That they ever
    consented to discuss with either power the misconduct of the
    other, is a proof of their love of peace, of their moderation,
    and of the hope which they still indulged, that friendly
    appeals to just and generous sentiments would not be made to
    them in vain. But the motive was mistaken, if their forbearance
    was imputed either to the want of a just sensibility to their
    wrongs, or a determination, if suitable redress was not
    obtained, to resent them. The time has now arrived when this
    system of reasoning must cease. It would be insulting to repeat
    it. It would be degrading to hear it. The United States must
    act as an independent nation, and assert their rights, and
    avenge their wrongs, according to their own estimate of them,
    with the party who commits them, holding it responsible for its
    misdeeds, unmitigated by those of another.

    "For the difference made between Great Britain and France, by
    the application of the non-importation act against England
    only, the motive has been already too often explained, and
    is too well known to require further illustration. In the
    commercial restrictions to which the United States resorted as
    an evidence of their sensibility, and a mild retaliation of
    their wrongs, they invariably placed both powers on the same
    footing, holding out to each, in respect to itself, the same
    accommodation, in case it accepted the condition offered, and,
    in respect to the other, the same restraint if it refused.
    Had the British Government confirmed the arrangements which
    was entered into with the British Minister in 1809, and
    France maintained her decrees, with France would the United
    States have had to resist, with the firmness belonging to
    their character, the continued violation of their rights. The
    committee do not hesitate to declare, that France has greatly
    injured the United States, and that satisfactory reparation
    has not yet been made for many of those injuries. But that
    is a concern which the United States will look to and settle
    for themselves. The high character of the American people is
    a sufficient pledge to the world that they will not fail to
    settle it, on conditions which they have a right to claim.

    "More recently, the true policy of the British Government
    towards the United States, has been completely unfolded. It has
    been publicly declared by those in power, that the Orders in
    Council should not be repealed until the French Government had
    revoked all its internal restraints on the British commerce;
    and that the trade of the United States with France and her
    allies, should be prohibited, until Great Britain was also
    allowed to trade with them. By this declaration, it appears
    that, to satisfy the pretensions of the British Government,
    the United States must join Great Britain in the war with
    France, and prosecute the war until France should be subdued;
    for without her subjugation, it were in vain to presume on
    such a concession. The hostility of the British Government to
    these States has been still further disclosed. It has been made
    manifest that the United States are considered by it as the
    commercial rival of Great Britain, and that their prosperity
    and growth are incompatible with her welfare. When all these
    circumstances are taken into consideration, it is impossible
    for your committee to doubt the motives which have governed the
    British Ministry in all its measures towards the United States
    since the year 1805. Equally it is impossible to doubt, longer,
    the course which the United States ought to pursue towards
    Great Britain.

    "From this review of the multiplied wrongs of the British
    Government since the commencement of the present war, it must
    be evident to the impartial world, that the contest which is
    now forced on the United States, is radically a contest for
    their sovereignty and independence. Your committee will not
    enlarge on any of the injuries, however great, which have had a
    transitory effect. They wish to call the attention of the House
    to those of a permanent nature only, which intrench so deeply
    on our most important rights, and wound so extensively and
    vitally our best interests, as could not fail to deprive the
    United States of the principal advantages of their Revolution,
    if submitted to. The control of our commerce by Great Britain,
    in regulating, at pleasure, and expelling it almost from the
    ocean; the oppressive manner in which these regulations have
    been carried into effect, by seizing and confiscating such of
    our vessels, with their cargoes, as were said to have violated
    her edicts, often without previous warning of their danger;
    the impressment of our citizens from on board our own vessels
    on the high seas, and elsewhere, and holding them in bondage
    till it suited the convenience of their oppressors to deliver
    them up; are encroachments of that high and dangerous tendency,
    which could not fail to produce that pernicious effect; nor
    would these be the only consequences that would result from it.
    The British Government might, for a while, be satisfied with
    the ascendency thus gained over us, but its pretensions would
    soon increase. The proof which so complete and disgraceful a
    submission to its authority would afford of our degeneracy,
    could not fail to inspire confidence, that there was no limit
    to which its usurpations, and our degradation, might not be
    carried.

    "Your committee, believing that the free-born sons of America
    are worthy to enjoy the liberty which their fathers purchased
    at the price of so much blood and treasure, and seeing in the
    measures adopted by Great Britain, a course commenced and
    persisted in, which must lead to a loss of national character
    and independence, feel no hesitation in advising resistance by
    force; in which the Americans of the present day will prove to
    the enemy and to the world, that we have not only inherited
    that liberty which our fathers gave us, but also the will and
    power to maintain it. Relying on the patriotism of the nation,
    and confidently trusting that the Lord of Hosts will go with us
    to battle in the righteous cause, and crown our efforts with
    success, your committee recommend an immediate appeal to arms."

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the doors were then closed, and the House
sat with doors closed the remainder of the day's sitting.

A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH that the proceedings upon
the said Message of the President be had and conducted with open
doors; and the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 45, nays 77.

On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the said report was ordered to lie on the
table.

                         _Declaration of War._

On a motion made, and leave given, Mr. CALHOUN, from the same
committee, presented a bill declaring war between Great Britain and her
dependencies and the United States and their territories; which was
read the first time; and opposition being made thereto by Mr. RANDOLPH,
the question was taken in the form prescribed by the rules and orders
of the House, to wit: "Shall the bill be rejected?" And determined in
the negative--yeas, 45, nays, 76.

The bill was then read the second time, and committed to a Committee of
the Whole to-day.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
said bill; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the
Chair, and Mr. BASSETT reported that the committee had had the said
bill under consideration, and made some progress therein, and had
directed him to ask leave to sit again.

_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House have leave to sit
again on the said bill.

And then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning eleven o'clock.


THURSDAY, June 4.

A motion was made by Mr. MILNOR that the doors of the House be now
opened; and was determined in the negative.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill declaring War between Great Britain and her Dependencies and
the United States and their Territories; and after some time spent
therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. BASSETT reported that
the committee had had the said bill under consideration, and made no
amendment thereto.

A motion was then made by Mr. QUINCY to amend the said bill, by adding
thereto a new section, as follows:

    "SEC. ----. _And be it further enacted_, That, from and after
    the passage of this act, 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,' passed the first day of May, one thousand
    eight hundred and ten; and, also, the act, entitled 'An act
    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,"' passed the second day of March, one thousand eight
    hundred and eleven; and, also, the act, entitled 'An act laying
    an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of
    the United States for a limited time,' passed the fourth day of
    April, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, be, and the same
    hereby are, repealed."

A motion was thereupon made by Mr. NELSON, that the bill and the
proposed amendment be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House:

And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative.

The question was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. QUINCY;
and determined in the negative--yeas 42, nays 82.

No other amendment being proposed to the said bill, the question was
taken that it be engrossed, and read the third time; and passed in the
affirmative--yeas 78, nays 45, as follows:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson
    Archer, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William
    Blackledge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler,
    John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran,
    John Clopton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Roger Davis,
    John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle,
    William Findlay, James Fisk, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn,
    Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John
    A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson,
    Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefevre,
    Peter Little, Wm. Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, Thomas
    Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Samuel
    L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson,
    Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens,
    William Piper, James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, William M.
    Richardson, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan
    Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam
    Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong,
    John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert
    Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Robert Wright,
    and Richard Wynn,.

    NAYS.--John Baker, Josiah Bartlett, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam
    Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus
    Champion, Martin Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport,
    jr., William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold,
    Charles Goldsborough, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip
    B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., George C. Maxwell,
    Archibald McBryde, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Jonathan O.
    Mosely, Thomas Newton, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr.,
    Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, William Reed,
    Henry Ridgely, William Rodman, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart,
    Lewis B. Sturges, George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin
    Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton,
    Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.

_Ordered_, That the said bill be read the third time to-day.

The said bill was engrossed, and read the third time accordingly, and
the question stated that the same do pass: Whereupon, a motion was
made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the farther consideration of the said bill
be postponed until the first Monday in October next; and the question
thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 42, nays
81.

A motion was then made by Mr. STOW, that the farther consideration of
the said bill be postponed until to-morrow; and the question thereon
being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 48, nays 78.

A motion was then made by Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, that the House do now
adjourn; and the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 43, nays 82.

The question was then taken, that the said bill do pass; and resolved
in the affirmative--yeas 79, nays 49, as follows:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,
    Daniel Avery, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,
    William Blackledge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William
    Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Langdon Cheves, James
    Cochran, John Clopton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Roger
    Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle,
    William Findlay, James Fisk, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn,
    Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Boiling Hall, Obed Hall, John
    A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson,
    Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefevre,
    Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon,
    Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim,
    James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas
    Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James
    Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson, Samuel
    Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer
    Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel
    Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong,
    John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert
    Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Robert Wright,
    and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--John Baker, Josiah Bartlett, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam
    Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus
    Champion, Martin Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport,
    jr., William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Chas.
    Goldsborough, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip B. Key,
    Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., George C. Maxwell, Archibald
    McBryde, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill,
    Jonathan O. Mosely, Thomas Newbold, Joseph Pearson, Timothy
    Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph,
    William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Thomas Sammons,
    Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges,
    George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Peleg
    Tallman, Uri Tracy, Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton,
    Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.

_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act declaring War between Great
Britain and her Dependencies, and the United States and their
Territories."

Mr. MACON and Mr. FINDLAY were appointed a committee to carry the
bill entitled "An act declaring War between Great Britain and her
Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories," to the
Senate, and to inform them that the House of Representatives have
passed the same, in confidence, and to request their concurrence
therein.


THURSDAY, June 18.

                         _Bill Declaring War._

A confidential message was received from the Senate, by a committee
of that body appointed for the purpose, consisting of Mr. ANDERSON
and Mr. VARNUM, notifying the House that the Senate have passed the
bill, entitled "An act declaring War between Great Britain and her
Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories," with
amendments; in which they desire the concurrence of the House.

The House proceeded to consider the said amendments; when a motion was
made by Mr. SHEFFEY, that the said bill and amendments be postponed
indefinitely.

A motion was then made by Mr. MILNOR, that the said bill and amendments
do lie on the table; and the question thereon being taken, it passed in
the affirmative--yeas 71, nays 46.

The House resumed the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to
the aforesaid bill; when the question recurred on the motion of Mr.
SHEFFEY, and, being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 44,
nays 85, as follows:

    YEAS.--John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, James
    Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin
    Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr., William Ely,
    James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough,
    Edwin Gray, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip B. Key,
    Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., Archibald McBryde, James Milnor,
    Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha
    R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, William Reed, Henry
    M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford,
    Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges, George Sullivan,
    Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Pierre Van
    Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.

    NAYS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,
    Daniel Avery, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett,
    William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown,
    William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis
    Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John Clopton, Lewis
    Condict, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, Roger Davis, John
    Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William
    Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson
    Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed
    Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard
    M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph
    Lefevre, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel
    Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel
    McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Morgan, Jeremiah
    Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen
    Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James Pleasants, jr.,
    Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson, Samuel Ringgold, John
    Rhea, John Roane, Nathaniel Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer
    Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie,
    George Smith, John Smith, Wm. Strong, John Taliaferro, George
    M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, David R.
    Williams, William Widgery, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn.

A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the said bill and amendments
be postponed until the first Monday in October next. And the question
thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 49, nays
80.

A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the said bill and
amendments be postponed until the first Monday in July next. And the
question thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas
51, nays 79.

The said amendments were then concurred in by the House. And Mr. MACON
and Mr. FINDLAY were appointed a committee to inform the Senate of the
concurrence of the House in the said amendments.

Mr. CRAWFORD, from the Joint Committee for Enrolled Bills, reported
that the committee had examined the said bill, and had found the same
to be truly enrolled; when the Speaker signed the said bill, and the
Committee of Enrollment were ordered to take it to the Senate, for the
signature of their President.

Shortly after, Mr. CRAWFORD, from the same committee, reported that the
committee had presented the said bill to the President of the United
States, for his approbation, and that they were instructed by the
President to inform the two Houses that he had approved and signed the
same.

On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the injunction of secrecy was removed from
so much of the journals as relates to the President's Message of the
1st instant, with the proceedings thereon. And then the House adjourned
until to-morrow morning, 11 o'clock.


FRIDAY, June 19.

                        _Occupation of Florida._

On motion of Mr. TROUP,

_Resolved_, That the committee to whom was referred so much of the
President's Message, at the commencement of the session, as relates
to the Spanish American colonies, be instructed to inquire into the
expediency of authorizing the President of the United States to occupy
East and West Florida without delay.

And then the doors were opened.


MONDAY, June 22.

On motion made, and leave given, Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee
appointed on that part of the President's Message, at the commencement
of the session, which relates to Spanish American colonies, presented a
bill authorizing the President of the United States to take possession
of a tract of country lying south of the Mississippi Territory, of the
State Georgia, and for other purposes; which was read the first time.
When a question was taken whether the subject matter of the said bill
required secrecy; and passed in the affirmative--yeas 71, nays 44.

The said bill was then read the second time, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole to-morrow; and the doors were then opened.


THURSDAY, June 25.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
authorizing the President to take possession of a tract of country
lying south of the Mississippi Territory, of the State of Georgia, and
for other purposes; and, after some time spent therein, the Speaker
resumed the chair, and Mr. LEWIS reported that the committee had had
the said bill under consideration, and made an amendment thereto;
which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where it was again read,
and concurred in by the House. The question was then taken that the
said bill be engrossed, and read the third time; and passed in the
affirmative--yeas 70, nays 48, as follows:

    YEAS.--William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Burwell Bassett,
    William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Robert Brown, William
    Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Matthew Clay, James
    Cochran, John Clopton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford,
    Richard Cutts, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel
    Dinsmoor, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas
    Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy,
    Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, John M. Hyneman,
    Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner
    Lacock, Peter Little, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, George C.
    Maxwell, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Alexander McKim, Samuel
    L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson,
    Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens,
    William Piper, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan
    Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Samuel
    Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong,
    John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert
    Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, and Robert
    Wright.

    NAYS.--Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus
    Bleecker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, William A.
    Burwell, Epaphroditus Champpion, Langdon Cheves, Martin
    Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr., William Ely,
    James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough,
    Edwin Gray, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr.,
    Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., William Lowndes,
    Archibald McBryde, Jas. Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph
    Pearson, Timothy Pitkin jr., James Pleasants, jr., Elisha R.
    Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, William M. Richardson,
    Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Thomas Sammons, Adam Seybert,
    Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Lewis B.
    Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Laban
    Wheaton, Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.

_Ordered_, That the said bill be read the third time to-day.

The said bill was engrossed, and read the third time accordingly: When
a motion was made by Mr. RIDGELY, that the same be postponed until
Monday next; and the question being taken, it was determined in the
negative.

The question was then taken that the said bill do pass; and resolved in
the affirmative.

_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act authorizing the President to
take possession of a tract of country lying south of the Mississippi
Territory and of the State of Georgia, and for other purposes."

Mr. MITCHILL and Mr. TROUP were appointed a committee to carry the said
bill to the Senate, and inform them that this House have passed the
same, in confidence, and request their concurrence therein; and the
doors were then opened.


FRIDAY, June 26.

A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the injunction of secrecy
imposed by this House on the bill, entitled "An act authorizing the
President to take possession of a tract of country lying south of
the Mississippi Territory and of the State of Georgia, and for other
purposes," together with the injunction of secrecy imposed upon the
proceedings of the said bill, be taken off: and, on the question that
the House do now proceed to the consideration of the said motion, it
was determined in the negative.

A motion was then made by Mr. RIDGELY, that the House do come to the
following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested, if, in his opinion, it be compatible with the
    public interest, to lay before this House, confidentially or
    otherwise, full information of all the proceedings that have
    been had under and by virtue of the act of Congress, entitled
    "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;" and
    also copies of all instructions that may have been issued by
    the Executive branch of this Government under the said act.

And on the question that the House do now proceed to the consideration
of the said resolution, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 78, nays 38.

The question was then taken that the said resolution do pass; and
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 58, nays 51.


WEDNESDAY, July 1.

Mr. RIDGELY, from the committee appointed, on the 26th ultimo, to
present a resolution to the President of the United States, reported
that the committee had performed that service, and that the President
answered, that a due attention should be paid to the subject.

                        _Occupation of Florida._

A Message was then received from the President of the United States, by
Mr. Coles, his Secretary, who delivered in the same, and withdrew.

The Message was read, and is as follows:

  _To the House of Representatives of the United States:_

    In compliance with the resolution of the House of
    Representatives, of the twenty-sixth of June, I transmit the
    information contained in the documents herewith enclosed.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  JULY 1, 1812.


The said documents were read; and the doors were then opened.

[The following letters, forming a part of the documents accompanying
the above Message of the President of the United States, were ordered
to be published by the House on the 6th instant.]

        _From the Secretary of State to General George Matthews
                     and Colonel John McKee, dated_

                                           DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
                                                _January 26, 1811_.

    The President of the United States having appointed you,
    jointly and severally, Commissioners for carrying into effect
    certain provisions of an act of Congress (a copy of which is
    enclosed) relative to the portion of the Floridas situated to
    the east of the Perdido, you will repair to that quarter with
    all possible expedition, concealing from general observation
    the trust committed to you, with that discretion with which the
    delicacy and importance of the undertaking require.

    Should you find Governor Folch, or the local authority existing
    there, inclined to surrender, in an amicable manner, the
    possession of the remaining portion or portions of West Florida
    now held by him in the name of the Spanish Monarchy, you are
    to accept, in behalf of the United States, the abdication of
    his, or of the other existing authority, and the jurisdiction
    of the country over which it extends. And, should a stipulation
    be insisted on for the redelivery of the country, at a future
    period, you may, engage for such redelivery to the lawful
    sovereign.

    The debts clearly due from the Spanish Government to the people
    of the Territory, surrendered, may, if insisted on, be assumed
    within reasonable limits, and under specified descriptions, to
    be settled hereafter as a claim against Spain in an adjustment
    of our affairs with her. You may also guarantee, in the name of
    the United States, the confirmation of all such titles to land
    as are clearly sanctioned by Spanish laws; and Spanish civil
    functionaries, where no special reasons may require changes,
    are to be permitted to remain in office, with the assurance of
    a continuation of the prevailing laws, with such alterations
    only as may be necessarily required in the new situation of the
    country.

    If it should be required, and be found necessary, you may agree
    to advance, as above, a reasonable sum for the transportation
    of the Spanish troops.

    These directions are adapted to one of the contingencies
    specified in the act of Congress, namely, the amicable
    surrender of the possession of the Territory by the local
    ruling authority. But, should the arrangement contemplated by
    the statute, not be made, and should there be room to entertain
    a suspicion of an existing design in any foreign power to
    occupy the country in question, you are to keep yourselves on
    the alert, and on the first undoubted manifestation of the
    approach of a force for that purpose, you will exercise with
    promptness and vigor, the powers with which you are invested
    by the President to preoccupy by force, the Territory, to the
    entire exclusion of any armament that may be advancing to take
    possession of it. In this event you will exercise a sound
    discretion in applying the powers given with respect to debts,
    titles to land, civil officers, and the continuation of the
    Spanish laws; taking care to commit the Government on no point
    further than may be necessary. And should any Spanish military
    force remain within the country, after the occupancy by the
    troops of the United States, you may, in such case, aid in
    their removal from the same.

    The universal toleration which the laws of the United States
    assure to every religious persuasion, will not escape you as an
    argument for quieting the minds of uninformed individuals, who
    may entertain fears on that head.

    The conduct you are to pursue in regard to East Florida,
    must be regulated by the dictates of your own judgments, on
    a close view and accurate knowledge of the precise state of
    things there, and of the real disposition of the Spanish
    Government, always recurring to the present instruction as
    the paramount rule of your proceedings. Should you discover
    an inclination in the Governor of East Florida, or in the
    existing local authority, amicably to surrender that province
    into the possession of the United States, you are to accept it
    on the same terms that are prescribed by these instructions in
    relation to West Florida. And, in case of the actual appearance
    of any attempt to take possession by a foreign power you will
    pursue the same effective measures for the occupation of the
    Territory, and for the exclusion of foreign force, as you are
    directed to pursue with respect to the country east of the
    Perdido, forming, at this time, the extent of Governor Folch's
    jurisdiction.

    If you should under these instructions, obtain possession of
    Mobile, you will lose no time in informing Governor Claiborne
    thereof, with a request that he will, without delay, take the
    necessary steps for the occupation of the same.

    All ordnance and military stores that may be found in the
    Territory must be held as the property of the Spanish
    Government, to be accounted for hereafter to the proper
    authority; and you will not fail to transmit an inventory
    thereof to this Department.

    If, in the execution of any part of these instructions, you
    should need the aid of a military force, the same will be
    afforded you upon your application to the commanding officer
    of the troops of the United States on that station, or to the
    commanding officer of the nearest post, in virtue of orders
    which have been issued from the War Department. And, in case
    you should moreover need naval assistance, you will receive the
    same upon your application to the naval commander, in pursuance
    of orders from the Navy Department.

    From the Treasury Department will be issued the necessary
    instructions in relation to imposts and duties, and to the
    slave ships whose arrival is apprehended.

    The President, relying upon your discretion, authorizes you
    to draw upon the Collectors of Orleans and Savannah for such
    sums as may be necessary to defraying unavoidable expenses
    that may be incurred in the execution of these instructions,
    not exceeding, in your drafts on New Orleans, eight thousand
    dollars, and in your drafts on Savannah two thousand dollars,
    without further authority; of which expenses you will hereafter
    exhibit a detailed account, duly supported by satisfactory
    vouchers.

    POSTSCRIPT.--If Governor Folch should unexpectedly require and
    pertinaciously insist that the stipulation for the redelivery
    of the territory should also include that portion of the
    country which is situated west of the river Perdido, you are,
    in yielding to such demand, only to use general words that
    may by implication comprehend that portion of the country;
    but, at the same time, you are expressly to provide, that such
    stipulation shall not, in any way, impair or affect the right
    or title of the United States to the same.


_The Secretary of State to General Matthews._

                                  DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _April_ 4, 1812.

    SIR,--I have had the honor to receive your letter of the
    fourteenth of March, and have now to communicate to you the
    sentiments of the President, on the very interesting subject to
    which it relates.

    I am sorry to have to state that the measures which you appear
    to have adopted for obtaining possession of Amelia Island, and
    other parts of East Florida, are not authorized by the law of
    the United States, or the instructions founded on it, under
    which you have acted.

    You were authorized by the law, a copy of which was
    communicated to you, and by your instructions, which are
    strictly conformable to it, to take possession of East
    Florida, only in case one of the following contingencies
    should happen: either that the Governor or other existing
    local authority should be disposed to place it amicably in the
    hands of the United States, or that an attempt should be made
    to take possession of it by a foreign power. Should the first
    contingency happen, it would follow, that the arrangement being
    amicable, would require no force on the part of the United
    States to carry into effect. It was only in case of an attempt
    to take it by a foreign power that force could be necessary, in
    which event only were you authorized to avail yourself of it.

    In either of these contingencies was it the policy of the law,
    or purpose of the Executive, to wrest the province forcibly
    from Spain; but only to occupy it with a view to prevent its
    falling into the hands of any foreign power, and to hold that
    pledge, under the existing peculiarity of the circumstances
    of the Spanish Monarchy, for a just result in an amicable
    negotiation with Spain.

    Had the United States been disposed to proceed otherwise, that
    intention would have been manifested by a change of the law,
    and suitable measures to carry it into effect. And as it was in
    their power to take possession whenever they might think that
    circumstances authorized and required it, it would be more to
    be regretted, if possession should be effected by any means
    irregular in themselves, and subjecting the Government of the
    United States to unmerited censure.

    The views of the Executive respecting East Florida, are further
    illustrated by your instructions as to West Florida. Although
    the United States have thought that they had a good title to
    the latter province, they did not take possession until after
    the Spanish authority had been subverted by a revolutionary
    proceeding, and the contingency of the country being thrown
    into foreign hands, had forced itself into view. Nor did they
    then, nor have they since, dispossessed the Spanish troops of
    the post which they occupied. If they did not think proper to
    take possession by force, of a province to which they thought
    they were justly entitled, it could not be presumed that they
    should intend to act differently, in respect to one to which
    they had not such a claim.

    I may add, that, although due sensibility has been always
    felt for the injuries which were received from the Spanish
    Government in the last war, the present situation of Spain has
    been a motive for a moderate and pacific policy towards her.

    In communicating to you these sentiments of the Executive on
    the measures you have lately adopted for taking possession of
    East Florida, I add, with pleasure, that the utmost confidence
    is reposed in your integrity and zeal to promote the welfare
    of your country. To that zeal the error into which you have
    fallen, is imputed. But, in consideration of the part which you
    have taken, which differs so essentially from that contemplated
    and authorized by the Government, and contradicts so entirely
    the principle on which it has uniformly and sincerely acted,
    you will be sensible of the necessity of discontinuing the
    service in which you have been employed.

    You will, therefore, consider your powers as revoked on the
    receipt of this letter. The new duties to be performed will be
    transferred to the Governor of Georgia, to whom instructions
    will be given on all the circumstances to which it may be
    proper, at the present juncture, to call his attention. I am,
    &c.,

                                                  GENERAL MATTHEWS, &c.



_The Secretary of State to His Excellency D. B. Mitchell, the Governor
of Georgia._

                                 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _April 10, 1812_.

    SIR,--The President is desirous of availing the public of your
    services, in a concern of much delicacy and of high importance
    to the United States. Circumstances with which you are in some
    degree acquainted, but which will be fully explained by the
    enclosed papers, have made it necessary to revoke the powers
    heretofore committed to General Matthews, and to commit them to
    you. The President is persuaded that you will not hesitate to
    undertake a trust so important to the nation, and peculiarly to
    the State of Georgia. He is the more confident in this belief,
    from the consideration that these new duties may be discharged
    without interfering, as he presumes, with those of the station
    which you now hold.

    By the act of the fifteenth of January, one thousand eight
    hundred and eleven, you will observe that it was not
    contemplated to take possession of East Florida, or any part
    thereof, unless it should be surrendered to the United States
    amicably by the Governor, or other local authority of the
    province, or against an attempt to take possession of it by a
    foreign power: and you will also see that General Matthews'
    instructions, of which a copy is likewise enclosed, correspond
    fully with the law.

    By the documents in possession of the Government, it appears
    that neither of these contingencies have happened; that,
    instead of an amicable surrender by the Governor, or other
    local authority, the troops of the United States have been used
    to dispossess the Spanish authority by force. I forbear to
    dwell on the details of this transaction, because it is painful
    to recite them. By the letter to General Matthews, which is
    enclosed, open for your perusal, you will fully comprehend the
    views of the Government respecting the late transaction; and,
    by the law, the former instructions to the General, and the
    late letter now forwarded, you will be made acquainted with
    the course of conduct which it is expected of you to pursue in
    future, in discharging the duties heretofore enjoined on him.

    It is the desire of the President that you should turn your
    attention and direct your efforts, in the first instance, to
    the restoration of that state of things in the province which
    existed before the late transactions. The Executive considers
    it proper to restore back to the Spanish authorities, Amelia
    Island, and such other parts, if any, of East Florida, as may
    have thus been taken from them. With this view, it will be
    necessary for you to communicate _directly_ with the Governor
    or principal officer of Spain in that province, and to act in
    harmony with him in the attainment of it. It is presumed that
    the arrangement will be easily and amicably made between you. I
    enclose you an order from the Secretary of War to the commander
    of the troops of the United States to evacuate the country,
    when requested so to do by you, and to pay the same respect
    in future to your order in fulfilling the duties enjoined by
    the law, that he had been instructed to do to that of General
    Matthews.

    In restoring to the Spanish authorities Amelia Island, and such
    other parts of East Florida as may have been taken possession
    of in the name of the United States, there is another object to
    which your particular attention will be due. In the measures
    lately adopted by General Matthews to take possession of that
    territory, it is probable that much reliance has been placed,
    by the people who acted in it, on the countenance and support
    of the United States. It will be improper to expose these
    people to the resentment of the Spanish authorities. It is not
    to be presumed that those authorities, in regaining possession
    of the Territory, in this amicable mode, from the United
    States, will be disposed to indulge any such feeling towards
    them. You will, however, come to a full understanding with the
    Spanish Governor on this subject, and not fail to obtain from
    him the most explicit and satisfactory assurance respecting it.
    Of this assurance you will duly apprise the parties interested,
    and of the confidence which you repose in it. It is hoped,
    that, on this delicate and very interesting point, the Spanish
    Governor will avail himself of the opportunity it presents to
    evince the friendly disposition of his Government toward the
    United States.

    There is one other remaining circumstance only to which I
    wish to call your attention, and that relates to General
    Matthews himself. His gallant and meritorious services in our
    Revolution, and patriotic conduct since, have always been held
    in high estimation by the Government. His errors, in this
    instance, are imputed altogether to his zeal to promote the
    welfare of his country; but they are of a nature to impose on
    the Government the necessity of the measures now taken, in
    giving effect to which you will doubtless feel a disposition to
    consult, as far as may be, his personal sensibility. I have the
    honor to be, &c.,

                                                           JAMES MONROE.

    P. S.--Should you find it impracticable to execute the duties
    designated above, in person, the President requests that you
    will be so good as to employ some very respectable character
    to represent you in it, to whom you are authorized to allow a
    similar compensation. It is hoped, however, that you may be
    able to attend to it in person, for reasons which I need not
    enter into. The expenses to which you may be exposed will be
    promptly paid to your draft on this Department.


_The Secretary of State to D. B. Mitchell, Esq., Governor of Georgia._

                      DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _May_ 27, 1812.

    SIR,--I have had the honor to receive your letter of the second
    instant, from St. Mary's, where you had arrived in discharge of
    the trust reposed in you by the President, in relation to East
    Florida.

    My letter by Mr. Isaacs, has, I presume, substantially answered
    the most important of the queries submitted in your letter, but
    I will give to each a more distinct answer.

    By the law, of which a copy was forwarded to you, it is
    made the duty of the President to prevent the occupation of
    East Florida by any foreign power. It follows that you are
    authorized to consider the entrance, or attempt to enter,
    especially under existing circumstances, of British troops, of
    any description, as the case contemplated by the law, and to
    use the proper means to defeat it.

    An instruction will be immediately forwarded to the commander
    of the naval force of the United States, in the neighborhood of
    East Florida, to give you any assistance, in case of emergency,
    which you may think necessary, and require.

    It is not expected, if you find it proper to withdraw the
    troops, that you should interfere to compel the patriots to
    surrender the country, or any part of it, to the Spanish
    authorities. The United States are responsible for their own
    conduct only, not for that of the inhabitants of East Florida.
    Indeed, in consequence of the comportment of the United States
    to the inhabitants, you have been already instructed not to
    withdraw the troops, unless you find that it may be done
    consistently with their safety, and to report to the Government
    the result of your conferences with the Spanish authorities,
    with your opinion of their views, holding in the mean time the
    ground occupied.

    In the present state of our affairs with Great Britain the
    course above pointed out is the more justifiable and proper. I
    have the honor to be, &c.,

                                                           JAMES MONROE.



FRIDAY, July 3.

A message was received from the Senate, by Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, and
Mr. LEIB, a committee appointed for the purpose, notifying the House
that the Senate have rejected the bill, entitled "An act authorizing
the President to take possession of a tract of country lying south of
the Mississippi Territory and of the State of Georgia, and for other
purposes."


MONDAY, July 6.

On motion of Mr. BIBB,

_Resolved_, That the injunction of secrecy, so far as concerns "An
act to enable the President of the United States, under certain
contingencies, 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," passed on the twelfth of January,
one thousand eight hundred and eleven, and "A bill authorizing the
President to take possession of a tract of country lying south of
the Mississippi Territory and of the State of Georgia, and for other
purposes;" passed the twenty-fifth of June last, and the proceedings
thereon, respectively, be removed. And, also, so far as relates to
the following letters: two from the Secretary of State to General G.
Matthews, one dated the twenty-sixth of January, one thousand eight
hundred and eleven, and the other the fourth of April, one thousand
eight hundred twelve and two from Mr. Monroe to General D. B. Mitchell,
one dated the tenth of April, the other the twenty-seventh of May, one
thousand eight hundred and twelve.

The doors were then opened.




TWELFTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 2, 1812.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.


MONDAY, November 2, 1812.

The second session of the twelfth Congress commenced this day at the
city of Washington, conformably to the act passed at the last session,
entitled "An act fixing the time for the next meeting of Congress;" and
the Senate assembled in their Chamber.

                               PRESENT.

  NICHOLAS GILMAN and CHARLES CUTTS, from New Hampshire.
  JOSEPH B. VARNUM, from Massachusetts.
  CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, from Connecticut.
  JEREMIAH B. HOWELL, from Rhode Island.
  JONATHAN ROBINSON, from Vermont.
  JOHN LAMBERT, from New Jersey.
  MICHAEL LEIB, from Pennsylvania.
  OUTERBRIDGE HORSEY, from Delaware.
  SAMUEL SMITH, from Maryland.
  JESSE FRANKLIN and JAMES TURNER, from North Carolina.
  JOHN GAILLARD, from South Carolina.
  WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD and CHARLES TAIT, from Georgia.
  GEORGE W. CAMPBELL, from Tennessee.
  THOS. WORTHINGTON and ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, from Ohio.

There being no quorum, the Senate adjourned till to-morrow.


TUESDAY, November 3.

ANDREW GREGG, from the State of Pennsylvania, and JOHN TAYLOR, from the
State of South Carolina, severally attended.

WILLIAM H. CRAWFORD, President _pro tempore_, resumed the chair.

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

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
a quorum of the House is assembled and ready to proceed to business.
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 communication that he
may be pleased to make to them.

The Senate concurred in the appointment of a joint committee on their
part, agreeably to the resolution last mentioned; and Messrs. GAILLARD,
and SMITH of Maryland, were appointed the committee.

A committee was appointed agreeably to the 42d rule for conducting
business in the Senate. Messrs. LEIB, FRANKLIN, and GREGG, are the
committee.

_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.

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


WEDNESDAY, November 4.

OBADIAH GERMAN, from the State of New York, took his seat in the Senate.

On motion by Mr. LEIB, a committee of three members were appointed,
who, with three members of the House of Representatives, to be
appointed by the said House, shall have the direction of the money
appropriated to the purchase of books and maps for the use of the two
Houses of Congress; and Messrs. LEIB, TAIT, and CAMPBELL of Tennessee,
were appointed the committee on the part of the Senate.

                     _President's Annual Message._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _Fellow-citizens of the Senate
        and House of Representatives_:

    On our present meeting, it is my first duty to invite your
    attention to the providential favors which our country has
    experienced, in the unusual degree of health dispensed to its
    inhabitants, and in the rich abundance with which the earth
    has rewarded the labors bestowed on it. In the successful
    cultivation of other branches of industry, and in the progress
    of general improvement favorable to the national prosperity,
    there is just occasion, also, for our mutual congratulations
    and thankfulness.

    With these blessings are necessarily mingled the pressures and
    vicissitudes incident to the state of war into which the United
    States have been forced by the perseverance of a foreign power
    in its system of injustice and aggression.

    Previous to its declaration, it was deemed proper, as a measure
    of precaution and forecast, that a considerable force should be
    placed in the Michigan Territory, with a general view to its
    security, and, in the event of war, to such operations in the
    uppermost Canada as would intercept the hostile influence of
    Great Britain over the savages, obtain the command of the lake
    on which that part of Canada borders, and maintain co-operating
    relations with such forces as might be most conveniently
    employed against other parts. Brigadier General Hull was
    charged with this provisional service; having under his command
    a body of troops composed of regulars and volunteers from
    the State of Ohio. Having reached his destination after his
    knowledge of the war, and possessing discretionary authority to
    act offensively, he passed into the neighboring territory of
    the enemy, with a prospect of easy and victorious progress. The
    expedition, nevertheless, terminated unfortunately, not only in
    a retreat to the town and fort of Detroit, but in the surrender
    of both, and of the gallant corps commanded by that officer.
    The causes of this painful reverse will be investigated by a
    military tribunal.

    A distinguishing feature in the operations which preceded and
    followed this adverse event, is the use made by the enemy
    of the merciless savages under their influence. Whilst the
    benevolent policy of the United States invariably recommended
    peace, and promoted civilization among that wretched portion of
    the human race; and was making exertions to dissuade them from
    taking either side in the war, the enemy has not scrupled to
    call to his aid their ruthless ferocity, armed with the horrors
    of those instruments of carnage and torture which are known to
    spare neither age nor sex. In this outrage against the laws of
    honorable war, and against the feelings sacred to humanity,
    the British commanders cannot resort to a plea of retaliation;
    for it is committed in the face of our example. They cannot
    mitigate it, by calling it a self-defence against men in arms;
    for it embraces the most shocking butcheries of defenceless
    families. Nor can it be pretended that they are not answerable
    for the atrocities perpetrated; since the savages are employed
    with a knowledge, and even with menaces, that their fury could
    not be controlled. Such is the spectacle which the deputed
    authorities of a nation, boasting its religion and morality,
    have not been restrained from presenting to an enlightened age.


    The misfortune of Detroit was not, however, without a consoling
    effect. It was followed by signal proofs that the national
    spirit rises according to the pressure on it. The loss of an
    important post, and of the brave men surrendered with it,
    inspired every where new ardor and determination. In the States
    and districts least remote, it was no sooner known, than every
    citizen was ready to fly with his arms, at once, to protect
    his brethren against the blood-thirsty savages let loose by
    the enemy on an extensive frontier, and to convert a partial
    calamity into a source of invigorated efforts. This patriotic
    zeal, which it was necessary rather to limit than excite, has
    embodied an ample force from the States of Kentucky and Ohio,
    and from parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia. It is placed,
    with the addition of a few regulars, under the command of
    Brigadier General Harrison, who possesses the entire confidence
    of his fellow-soldiers, among whom are citizens, some of them
    volunteers in the ranks, not less distinguished by their
    political stations, than by their personal merits. The greater
    portion of this force is proceeding on its destination, towards
    the Michigan Territory, having succeeded in relieving an
    important frontier post, and in several incidental operations
    against hostile tribes of savages, rendered indispensable by
    the subserviency into which they had been seduced by the enemy;
    a seduction the more cruel, as it could not fail to impose a
    necessity of precautionary severities against those who yielded
    to it.

    At a recent date, an attack was made on a post of the enemy
    near Niagara, by a detachment of the regular and other forces,
    under the command of Major General Van Rensselaer, of the
    militia of the State of New York. The attack, it appears,
    was ordered, in compliance with the ardor of the troops, who
    executed it with distinguished gallantry, and were, for a time,
    victorious; but not receiving the expected support, they were
    compelled to yield to reinforcements of British regulars and
    savages. Our loss has been considerable, and is deeply to be
    lamented. That of the enemy, less ascertained, will be the more
    felt, as it includes, among the killed, the commanding general,
    who was also Governor of the province; and was sustained by
    veteran troops, from inexperienced soldiers, who must daily
    improve in the duties of the field.

    Our expectation of gaining the command of the lakes, by the
    invasion of Canada from Detroit, having been disappointed,
    measures were instantly taken to provide, on them, a naval
    force superior to that of the enemy. From the talents and
    activity of the officer charged with this object, every thing
    that can be done may be expected. Should the present season
    not admit of complete success, the progress made will insure,
    for the next, a naval ascendency, where it is essential to our
    permanent peace with, and control over, the savages.

    Among the incidents to the measures of the war, I am
    constrained to advert to the refusal of the Governors of
    Massachusetts and Connecticut to furnish the required
    detachments of militia towards the defence of the maritime
    frontier. The refusal was founded on a novel and unfortunate
    exposition of the provisions of the constitution relating to
    the militia. The correspondences which will be before you,
    contain the requisite information on the subject. It is obvious
    that, if the authority of the United States to call into
    service and command the militia for the public defence, can
    be thus frustrated, even in a state of declared war, and of
    course, under apprehensions of invasion preceding war, they
    are not one nation for the purpose most of all requiring it;
    and that the public safety may have no other resource, than
    in those large and permanent military establishments which
    are forbidden by the principles of our free Government, and
    against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a
    constitutional bulwark.

    On the coasts, and on the ocean, the war has been as
    successful as circumstances inseparable from its early
    stages could promise. Our public ships and private cruisers,
    by their activity, and, where there was occasion, by their
    intrepidity, have made the enemy sensible of the difference
    between a reciprocity of captures, and the long confinement
    of them to their side. Our trade, with little exception, has
    safely reached our ports; having been much favored in it by
    the course pursued by a squadron of our frigates, under the
    command of Commodore Rodgers. And in the instance in which
    skill and bravery were more particularly tried with those
    of the enemy, the American flag had an auspicious triumph.
    The frigate Constitution, commanded by Captain Hull, after a
    close and short engagement, completely disabled and captured a
    British frigate; gaining for that officer, and all on board, a
    praise which cannot be too liberally bestowed; not merely for
    the victory actually achieved, but for that prompt and cool
    exertion of commanding talents, which, giving to courage its
    highest character, and to the force applied its full effect,
    proved that more could have been done in a contest requiring
    more.

    Anxious to abridge the evils from which a state of war cannot
    be exempt, I lost no time after it was declared, in conveying
    to the British Government the terms on which its progress
    might be arrested, without awaiting the delays of a formal and
    final pacification; and our Chargé d'Affaires at London was,
    at the same time, authorized to agree to an armistice founded
    upon them. These terms required that the Orders in Council
    should be repealed as they affected the United States, without
    a revival of blockades violating acknowledged rules; and that
    there should be an immediate discharge of American seamen from
    British ships, and a stop to impressment from American ships,
    with an understanding that an exclusion of the seamen of each
    nation from the ships of the other should be stipulated; and
    that the armistice should be improved into a definitive and
    comprehensive adjustment of depending controversies. Although
    a repeal of the Orders susceptible of explanations meeting
    the views of this Government had taken place before this
    pacific advance was communicated to that of Great Britain, the
    advance was declined from an avowed repugnance to a suspension
    of the practice of impressments during the armistice, and
    without any intimation that the arrangement proposed, with
    respect to seamen, would be accepted. Whether the subsequent
    communications from this Government, affording an occasion for
    reconsidering the subject on the part of Great Britain, will
    be viewed in a more favorable light, or received in a more
    accommodating spirit, remains to be known. It would be unwise
    to relax our measures, in any respect, on a presumption of such
    a result.

    The documents from the Department of State, which relate to
    this subject, will give a view also of the propositions for
    an armistice, which have been received here, one of them from
    the authorities at Halifax and in Canada, the other from the
    British Government itself, through Admiral Warren; and of the
    grounds on which neither of them could be accepted.

    Our affairs with France retain the posture which they held at
    my last communications to you. Notwithstanding the authorized
    expectations of an early as well as favorable issue to the
    discussions on foot, these have been procrastinated to
    the latest date. The only intervening occurrence meriting
    attention, is the promulgation of a French decree purporting to
    be a definitive repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. This
    proceeding, although made the ground of the repeal of British
    Orders in Council, is rendered, by the time and manner of it,
    liable to many objections.

    The final communications from our special Minister to Denmark,
    afford further proofs of the good effects of his mission, and
    of the amicable disposition of the Danish Government. From
    Russia, we have the satisfaction to receive assurances of
    continued friendship, and that it will not be affected by the
    rupture between the United States and Great Britain. Sweden
    also professes sentiments favorable to the subsisting harmony.

    With the Barbary Powers, excepting that of Algiers, our
    affairs remain on the ordinary footing. The Consul General,
    residing with that Regency, has suddenly, and without cause,
    been banished, together with all the American citizens found
    there. Whether this was the transitory effect of capricious
    despotism, or the first act of predetermined hostility, is not
    ascertained. Precautions were taken by the Consul on the latter
    supposition.

    The Indian tribes, not under foreign instigations, remain at
    peace, and receive the civilizing attentions which have proved
    so beneficial to them.

    With a view to that vigorous prosecution of the war to which
    our national faculties are adequate, the attention of Congress
    will be particularly drawn to the insufficiency of existing
    provisions for filling up the Military Establishment. Such
    is the happy condition of our country, arising from the
    facility of subsistence and the high wages for every species
    of occupation, that notwithstanding the augmented inducements
    provided at the last session, a partial success only has
    attended the recruiting service. The deficiency has been
    necessarily supplied during the campaign by other than regular
    troops, with all the inconveniences and expense incident to
    them. The remedy lies in establishing more favorably for the
    private soldier, the proportion between his recompense and the
    term of his enlistment. And it is a subject which cannot too
    soon or too seriously be taken into consideration.

    The same insufficiency has been experienced in the provisions
    for volunteers made by an act of the last session. The
    recompense for the service required in this case is still less
    attractive than in the other. And although patriotism alone has
    sent into the field some valuable corps of that description,
    those alone who can afford the sacrifice can be reasonably
    expected to yield to that impulse.

    It will merit consideration, also, whether, as auxiliary to
    the security of our frontiers, corps may not be advantageously
    organized, with a restriction of their services to particular
    districts convenient to them. And whether the local and
    occasional services of mariners and others in the seaport
    towns, under a similar organization, would not be a provident
    addition to the means of their defence.

    I recommend a provision for an increase of the general officers
    of the army, the deficiency of which has been illustrated by
    the number and distance of separate commands, which the course
    of the war and the advantage of the service have required.

    And I cannot press too strongly on the earliest attention of
    the Legislature, the importance of the reorganization of the
    staff establishment, with a view to render more distinct and
    definite the relations and responsibilities of its several
    departments. That there is room for improvements which will
    materially promote both economy and success, in what appertains
    to the army and the war, is equally inculcated by the examples
    of other countries, and by the experience of our own.

    A revision of the militia laws for the purpose of rendering
    them more systematic, and better adapting them to the
    emergencies of the war, is, at this time, particularly
    desirable.

    Of the additional ships authorized to be fitted for service,
    two will be shortly ready to sail; a third is under repair,
    and delay will be avoided in the repair of the residue. Of the
    appropriations for the purchase of materials for ship building,
    the greater part has been applied to that object, and the
    purchase will be continued with the balance.

    The enterprising spirit which has characterized our naval
    force, and its success, both in restraining insults and
    depredations on our coasts, and in reprisals on the enemy, will
    not fail to recommend an enlargement of it.

    There being reason to believe that the act prohibiting the
    acceptance of British licenses is not a sufficient guard
    against the use of them for purposes favorable to the interests
    and views of the enemy, further provisions on that subject are
    highly important. Nor is it less so, that penal enactments
    should be provided for cases of corrupt and perfidious
    intercourse with the enemy, not amounting to treason, nor yet
    embraced by any statutory provisions.

    A considerable number of American vessels which were in England
    when the revocation of the Orders in Council took place,
    were laden with British manufactures, under an erroneous
    impression that the non-importation act would immediately
    cease to operate, and have arrived in the United States. It
    did not appear proper to exercise, on unforeseen cases of
    such magnitude, the ordinary powers vested in the Treasury
    Department to mitigate forfeitures, without previously
    affording to Congress an opportunity of making on the subject
    such provisions as they may think proper. In their decision,
    they will doubtless equally consult what is due to equitable
    considerations and to the public interest.

    The receipts into the Treasury during the year ending on the
    30th of September last, have exceeded sixteen millions and a
    half of dollars; which have been sufficient to defray all the
    demands on the Treasury to that day, including a necessary
    reimbursement of near three millions of the principal of the
    public debt. In these receipts is included a sum of near five
    millions eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars, received
    on account of the loans authorized by the acts of the last
    session: the whole sum actually obtained on loan amounts
    to eleven millions of dollars, the residue of which, being
    receivable subsequent to the 30th of September last, will,
    together with the current revenue, enable us to defray all the
    expenses of this year.

    The duties on the late unexpected importations of British
    manufactures will render the revenue of the ensuing year more
    productive than could have been anticipated.

    The situation of our country, fellow-citizens, is not
    without its difficulties; though it abounds in animating
    considerations, of which the view here presented of our
    pecuniary resources is an example. With more than one nation
    we have serious and unsettled controversies; and with one,
    powerful in the means and habits of war, we are at war. The
    spirit and strength of the nation are nevertheless equal to
    the support of all its rights, and to carry it through all its
    trials. They can be met in that confidence. Above all, we have
    the inestimable consolation of knowing that the war in which
    we are actually engaged, is a war neither of ambition nor of
    vain glory; that it is waged, not in violation of the rights of
    others, but in the maintenance of our own; that it was preceded
    by a patience without example, under wrongs accumulating
    without end: and that it was finally not declared until every
    hope of averting it was extinguished, by the transfer of the
    British sceptre into new hands clinging to former councils; and
    until declarations were reiterated to the last hour, through
    the British Envoy here, that the hostile edicts against our
    commercial rights and our maritime independence would not be
    revoked; nay, that they could not be revoked without violating
    the obligations of Great Britain to other powers, as well as to
    her own interests. To have shrunk, under such circumstances,
    from manly resistance, would have been a degradation blasting
    our best and proudest hopes; it would have struck us from
    the high ranks where the virtuous struggles of our fathers
    had placed us, and have betrayed the magnificent legacy
    which we hold in trust for future generations. It would have
    acknowledged, that, on the element which forms three-fourths
    of the globe we inhabit, and where all independent nations
    have equal and common rights, the American people were not an
    independent people, but colonists and vassals. It was at this
    moment, and with such an alternative, that war was chosen.
    The nation felt the necessity of it, and called for it. The
    appeal was accordingly made, in a just cause, to the just and
    all-powerful Being who holds in his hand the chain of events,
    and the destiny of nations. It remains only, that, faithful
    to ourselves, entangled in no connections with the views of
    other powers, and ever ready to accept peace from the hand of
    justice, we prosecute the war with united counsels and with
    the ample faculties of the nation, until peace be so obtained,
    and as the only means, under the Divine blessing, of speedily
    obtaining it.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _November 4, 1812_.


The Message and documents were read, and twelve hundred and fifty
copies ordered to be printed for the use of the Senate.


THURSDAY, November 12.

PHILIP REED, from the State of Maryland, took his seat in the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, November 18.

ALLAN B. MAGRUDER, appointed a senator by the Legislature of the State
of Louisiana, (and who arrived on the 15th,) produced his credentials,
was qualified, and then took his seat in the Senate.

WILLIAM HUNTER, from the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, and JAMES LLOYD, from the State of Massachusetts,
severally took their seats in the Senate.


FRIDAY, November 20.

STEPHEN R. BRADLEY, from the State of Vermont, took his seat in the
Senate.


MONDAY, November 23.

JOHN POPE, from the State of Kentucky, took his seat in the Senate.


THURSDAY, November 26.

RICHARD BRENT, from the State of Virginia, attended; and there being no
quorum present the Senate adjourned.


FRIDAY, November 27.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion submitted the
24th instant, that they proceed to ascertain the classes in which
the Senators of the State of Louisiana should be inserted, as the
constitution and rule heretofore prescribe; and, having agreed thereto,

On motion by Mr. TAYLOR,

_Ordered_, That the Secretary roll up, and put into the ballot box,
two lots, No. 1 and No. 3; that the Senator for whom lot No. 1 shall
be drawn, shall be inserted in the class of Senators whose terms of
service expire on the third day of March next; and the Senator for whom
lot No. 3 shall be drawn, shall be inserted in the class of Senators
whose terms of service expire four years after the third day of March
next.

Whereupon, the numbers above mentioned were by the Secretary rolled up
and put into the box, and No. 1 was drawn for ALLAN B. MAGRUDER, who is
accordingly in the class of Senators whose terms of service will expire
on the third day of March next; and No. 3 was drawn for THOMAS POSEY,
who is accordingly in the class of Senators whose terms of service will
expire in four years after the third day of March next.


MONDAY, November 30.

GEORGE M. BIBB, from the State of Kentucky, arrived on the 29th, and
attended this day.


MONDAY, December 7.

THOMAS POSEY, appointed a Senator by the Governor of the State
of Louisiana in place of John Destrahan, resigned, produced his
credentials, was qualified, and then took his seat in the Senate.


WEDNESDAY, December 9.

                     _Encouragement to Privateers._

On motion by Mr. GILES,

_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the
expediency of offering encouragements at this time to all mariners and
seamen to bring within any of the ports of the United States British
public and private armed ships, as well as merchant ships or vessels,
belonging to the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland; and that the committee have leave to report by bill or
otherwise.

Messrs. GILES, LLOYD, SMITH of Maryland, TAIT, and TAYLOR, were
appointed the committee.


FRIDAY, December 11.

SAMUEL W. DANA, from the State of Connecticut, attended.

              _Capture of the Macedonian and the Frolic._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I transmit to Congress copies of a letter to the Secretary of
    the Navy, from Captain Decatur, of the frigate United States,
    reporting his combat and capture of the British frigate
    Macedonian. Too much praise cannot be bestowed on that officer
    and his companions on board, for the consummate skill and
    conspicuous valor by which this trophy has been added to the
    naval arms of the United States.

    I transmit, also, a letter from Captain Jones, who commanded
    the sloop of war Wasp, reporting his capture of the British
    sloop of war Frolic, after a close action, in which other
    brilliant titles will be seen to the public admiration and
    praise.

    A nation, feeling what it owes to itself and to its citizens,
    could never abandon to arbitrary violence, on the ocean, a
    class of them which give such examples of capacity and courage,
    in defending their rights on that element; examples which ought
    to impress on the enemy, however brave and powerful, preference
    of justice and peace, to hostility against a country, whose
    prosperous career may be accelerated, but cannot be prevented
    by the assaults made on it.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, _Dec. 11, 1812_.


The Message and papers were read, and referred to the committee
appointed 9th November last, to consider that part of the Message
of the President of the United States which relates to the Naval
Establishment.


THURSDAY, December 31.

              _Death of the Representative, John Smilie._

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate of the
death of JOHN SMILIE, late a member of the House of Representatives,
from the State of Pennsylvania; and that his remains will be interred
this day at two o'clock.

_Resolved_, That the Senate will attend the funeral of JOHN SMILIE,
late a member of the House of Representatives from the State of
Pennsylvania, this day at two o'clock; and, as a testimony of respect
for the memory of the deceased, they will go into mourning, and wear a
black crape round the left arm for thirty days.


TUESDAY, January 5, 1813.

The credentials of JOHN GAILLARD, appointed a Senator by the
Legislature of the State of South Carolina, for six years, commencing
on the 4th day of March next, were presented, read, and ordered to lie
on file.


WEDNESDAY, January 6.

The credentials of ABNER LACOCK, appointed a Senator by the Legislature
of the State of Pennsylvania for the term of six years, commencing on
the 4th day of March next, were read, and ordered to lie on file.


MONDAY, January 11.

JAMES A. BAYARD, from the State of Delaware, arrived on the 9th
instant, and attended this day.


WEDNESDAY, January 13.

                     _Capture of British Vessels._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate of the United States_:

    I transmit to the Senate copies of the correspondence called
    for by their resolution of the 7th instant.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.


                                              JANUARY 13, 1813.

The Message and papers therein referred to were read, and referred
to the committee appointed the 9th November, on so much of the
Message of the President of the United States as relates to the Naval
Establishment, to consider and report thereon.

The documents are as follow:

                            BLACK ROCK, _October_ 9, 1812.

    SIR: I have the honor to inform you that, on the morning of the
    8th instant, two British vessels, which I was informed were
    His Britannic Majesty's brig Detroit, late the United States'
    brig Adams, and the brig Hunter, mounting fourteen guns, but
    which afterwards proved to be the brig Caledonia, both said
    to be well armed and manned, came down the lake, and anchored
    under the protection of Fort Erie. Having been on the lines for
    some time, and in a measure inactively employed, I determined
    to make an attack, and, if possible, get possession of them; a
    strong inducement to this attempt arose from a conviction that,
    with those two vessels, added to those which I have purchased
    and am fitting out, I should be able to meet the remainder of
    the British force on the upper lakes, and save an incalculable
    expense and labor to the Government. On the morning of their
    arrival, I heard that our seamen were but a short distance
    from this place, and immediately despatched an express to
    the officers, directing them to use all possible despatch in
    getting the men to this place, as I had important service
    to perform. On their arrival, which was about 12 o'clock, I
    discovered that they had only twenty pistols, and neither
    cutlasses nor battle axes; but on application to Generals
    Smyth and Hall, of the regulars and militia, I was supplied
    with a few arms, and General Smyth was so good, on my request,
    as immediately to detach fifty men from the regulars, armed
    with muskets; by four o'clock, in the afternoon, I had my men
    selected and stationed in two boats which I had previously
    prepared for the purpose; with those boats, fifty men in each,
    and under circumstances very disadvantageous, my men having
    had scarcely time to refresh themselves, after a fatiguing
    march of five hundred miles, I put off from the mouth of
    Buffalo creek, at one o'clock the following morning; and at
    three I was alongside the vessels; in about ten minutes I had
    the prisoners all secured, the topsails sheeted home, and the
    vessels under way; unfortunately the wind was not sufficiently
    strong to get me up against a rapid current into the lake,
    where I understood another armed vessel lay at anchor, and I
    was obliged to run down the river by the forts, under a heavy
    fire of round, grape, and canister, from a number of pieces
    of heavy ordnance, and several pieces of flying artillery;
    was compelled to anchor at a distance of about four hundred
    yards from two of their batteries. After the discharge of the
    first gun, which was from the flying artillery, I hauled to
    the shore, and observed to the officer that if another gun
    was fired, I would bring the prisoners on deck, and expose
    them to the fate we should all share; but notwithstanding they
    disregarded the caution, continuing a constant and destructive
    fire, one single moment's reflection determined me not to
    commit an act that would subject me to the imputation of
    barbarity. The Caledonia had been beached in as safe a position
    as the circumstances would admit of, under one of our batteries
    at Black Rock; I now brought all the guns of the Detroit on one
    side, next the enemy, stationed the men at them, and directed
    a fire, which was continued as long as our ammunition lasted,
    and circumstances permitted. During the contest, I endeavored
    to get the Detroit on our side, by sending a line (there being
    no wind) on shore, with all the line I could muster; but the
    current being so strong the boat could not reach the shore. I
    then hauled on shore, and requested that warps should be made
    fast on the land and sent on board, the attempt to do which
    again proved useless. As the fire was such as would, in all
    probability, sink the vessel in a short time, I determined to
    drop down the river, out of reach of the batteries, and make
    a stand against the flying artillery. I accordingly cut the
    cable and made sail, with very light airs, and at that instant
    discovered that the pilot had abandoned me. I dropped astern,
    for about ten minutes, when I was brought up on our shore, on
    Squaw Island; got the boarding boat made, had all the prisoners
    put in and sent on shore, with directions for the officer to
    return for me, and what property we could get from the brig; he
    did not return, owing to the difficulty of the boat's getting
    ashore. Discovering a skiff under the counter, I sent the four
    remaining prisoners in the boat, and, with my officer, I went
    on shore to bring the boat off; I asked for protection to the
    brig of Lieutenant Colonel Scott, who readily gave it; at this
    moment I discovered a boat, with about forty soldiers, from
    the British side, making for the brig; they got on board, but
    were soon compelled to abandon her, with the loss of nearly all
    their men. During the whole of this morning both sides of the
    river kept up, alternately, a constant fire on the brig, and so
    much injured her that it was impossible to have floated her.
    Before I left her, she had received twelve shot, of large size,
    in her bends, her sails in ribands, and her rigging all cut to
    pieces. To my officers and men, I feel under great obligations;
    to Captain Towson, and Lieutenant Roach, of the second regiment
    of artillery; Ensign Presstman, of the infantry; to Cornelius
    Chapin, Mr. John McComb, Messrs. John Tower, Thomas Davis,
    Peter Overtacks, James Sloan, resident gentlemen of Buffalo,
    for their soldier and sailor-like conduct; in a word, every
    man fought with their hearts animated only by the interest and
    honor of their country. The prisoners I have turned over to
    the military. The Detroit mounted six six-pound long guns; a
    commanding lieutenant, a lieutenant of marines, a boatswain and
    gunner, and fifty-six men; about thirty American prisoners on
    board; muskets, pistols, and battle-axes; in boarding her, I
    lost one man, one officer wounded; Mr. John C. Cummings, acting
    midshipman, a bayonet through the leg; his conduct was correct,
    and deserves the notice of the Department.

    The Caledonia mounted two small guns, blunderbusses, pistols,
    muskets, cutlasses, and boarding pistols; twelve men, including
    officers; ten prisoners on board; the boat boarding her,
    commanded by Sailing-master George Watts, performed his duty in
    a masterly style; but one man killed and four wounded badly, I
    am afraid mortally.

    I enclose you a list of the officers and men engaged in the
    enterprise, and also a view of the lake and river in the
    different situations of attack; in a day or two I shall forward
    the names of the prisoners. The Caledonia belongs to the
    Northwest Company, laden with furs, worth, I understood, two
    hundred thousand dollars.

                                                       JESSE D. ELLIOTT.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON,
        _Secretary of the Navy_.



_Lieutenant Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy._

                           BLACK ROCK, _October_ 10, 1812.

    SIR: In my letter of yesterday's date, I stated my intention
    to enclose to you a list of the officers and men engaged with
    me in capturing His Britannic Majesty's brig, the Detroit, and
    brig Caledonia. The incessant fire of the enemy, and my own
    constant engagements for the protection of the vessels, compel
    me to postpone sending that list until another opportunity.
    Last evening, having observed an intention, on the part of
    the enemy, to remove the ordnance and military stores with
    which the Detroit was charged, I determined at once to set
    her on fire; thereby to prevent her having the aid of masts
    and yards in getting her guns into boats, she having five
    twelve-pound guns in her hold, and six six-pounders upon her
    deck, that I could prepare them, and, with my sailors, remove
    the ordnance during the night, when unobserved by the enemy.
    These preparations I am now making, and shall, with as much
    expedition as possible, continue to get the ordnance, and place
    it in our battery, as we are much in want--- not one piece at
    Black Rock. The Caledonia I have perfectly recovered from the
    enemy.

    I have the honor to be, with great respect, &c.,

                                                       JESSE D. ELLIOTT.



_Lieutenant Elliott to Commodore Chauncey, dated_

                           BLACK ROCK, _October 10, 1812_.

    SIR: I have the honor to inform you that, on the morning of the
    6th instant, two vessels, under British colors, came down Lake
    Erie, and anchored under the protection of Fort Erie; that,
    on the same day, a detachment of men arrived from New York,
    accompanied by Sailing-masters Watts and Chisson, with some
    masters' mates and midshipmen; that, on the morning following,
    I, with two boats previously prepared for the purpose, boarded
    and took possession of them, with the loss of two men killed,
    Samuel Fortune and Daniel Martin, and four wounded--Acting
    Midshipman John C. Cummings, John Garling, Nathan Armstrong,
    Jerome Sardie, and John Yosen. As there is not a probability
    of your receiving this shortly, I have made a communication to
    the Department upon the subject, a copy of which I enclose for
    your perusal. I beg you will not have conceived me hasty in
    making this attack. I acted as if the action came directly from
    yourself.

    Let me recommend to your particular attention the officers
    and men who performed this service--each and all did their
    duty. The ensign of the Adams I will send you at an early
    opportunity; it is at your disposal. The particulars, as it
    regards the vessels, I will forward you in a day or two; at
    present I am much engaged. With sentiments, &c.

    P. S. I have neglected mentioning to you the names of the
    vessels captured. One, His Britannic Majesty's brig, "the
    Detroit," formerly the United States' brig Adams; the other,
    a brig belonging to the Northwest Company, loaded with skins,
    called the Caledonia.


_Commodore Chauncey to Paul Hamilton, Esq., Secretary of the Navy._

                     SACKETT'S HARBOR, _October 16, 1812_.

    SIR: I have great pleasure in informing you that, by a
    gentleman who arrived here yesterday afternoon, from Buffalo,
    I learn that Lieutenant Elliott, with about sixty sailors, and
    a number of volunteer militia, cut out from under the guns of
    Fort Erie, on the night of the 8th instant, the brig Adams
    (lately surrendered at Detroit) and the schooner Caledonia,
    laden with peltry, said to be very valuable; but, in running
    these vessels for Black Rock, they both grounded, in such a
    situation that the British fort was firing on them, when my
    informant left there on Friday morning last. It was, however,
    believed that, if they could not be got off, they could be
    destroyed. I, however, hope that Lieutenant Elliott will
    be able to save both vessels; for, such an addition to our
    little force on Lake Erie, at this time, would be invaluable.
    Lieutenant Elliott deserves much praise for the promptness with
    which he executed this service; as the sailors had only arrived
    at Black Rock on the 8th, and he had no particular orders from
    me, except to have boats built and prepared for cutting out the
    British vessels, which I knew rendezvoused near Fort Erie. If
    Lieutenant Elliott succeeds in saving the Adams and Caledonia,
    I think that we shall obtain the command of Lake Erie before
    December; but, as to this lake, I hardly know what to say, as
    there has not a single pound of powder, nor a gun, arrived yet,
    and I can make no calculation when any will arrive. I feel
    quite discouraged, and shall be tempted to seek the enemy, with
    the Oneida alone, if the guns do not arrive soon.

    The sailors have all arrived at their places of destination;
    but the marines have not arrived. I, however, hope to see them
    to-day or to-morrow.

    I have the honor to be, &c.

                                                         ISAAC CHAUNCEY.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON,
        _Secretary of the Navy_.



SACKETT'S HARBOR, _October 27, 1812_.

    SIR: I have the honor of enclosing you copies of two letters
    from Lieutenant Elliott, giving an account of his having cut
    out from under Fort Erie, on Lake Erie, in a most gallant
    manner, two British brigs, the Detroit (late Adams) and the
    Caledonia. The Detroit was manned and armed as a man of war;
    the Caledonia belonged to the Northwest Company, and was loaded
    with peltry.

    Nothing that I can say, more than I have already said in a
    former communication upon this subject, will add to the credit
    of Lieutenant Elliott, and the gallant officers and men who
    accompanied him. The thing speaks for itself, and will, I am
    sure, be duly appreciated by all who may have any idea of the
    difficulties that he had to encounter, after getting possession
    of these vessels. I have the honor to be, &c.

                                                         ISAAC CHAUNCEY.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON,
        _Secretary of the Navy_.



WASHINGTON, _Jan, 8, 1812_.

    SIR: In answer to your note, requesting of me "a general
    description of the armament and stores on board at the time of
    the capture of the Adams, and the probable number of men," I
    can state that I sailed from Maiden in the Adams, and arrived
    at Fort Erie on the morning preceding the night in which you
    captured that vessel. I left her in the afternoon, and crossed
    in her boat to Buffalo, with a flag. When I left the Adams, she
    had on board five guns mounted, (six and four pounders,) and
    six long twelves in her hold. She had also on board a quantity
    of powder and ball, and a number of boxes of muskets. I am not
    able to state, of my own knowledge, the number of stand of
    arms, but I have been informed that nearly all the arms taken
    at Detroit were on board; if that was the fact, the number must
    have been two thousand. The number of the crew that I left
    on board could not vary much from sixty, and the number of
    American prisoners about thirty, including three officers. I
    have the honor to be, &c.

                                                      HARRIS H. HICKMAN.

  Lieut. D. ELLIOTT, _U. S. Navy_.



NAVY DEPARTMENT, _October 27, 1812_.

    SIR: I have received, with great satisfaction, your
    communication of the ninth instant, and have been desired
    by the President of the United States to return to you, and
    through you to the officers and men under your command, in the
    expedition to Fort Erie, which terminated to the glory of the
    American arms, his particular thanks. I am, with great respect,
    &c.

                                                          PAUL HAMILTON.

    P. S. Your having abstained from fulfilling your intimation
    that you would expose your prisoners to the enemy's fire, is
    highly approved.

  JESSE D. ELLIOTT, Esq.,
        _Lieut. Commanding, Black Rock._


TUESDAY, January 26.

             _Honors to Hull. Decatur, Jones, and Elliott._

The amendment to the joint resolution relative to the brilliant
achievements of Captains Hull, Decatur, and Jones, having been reported
by the committee correctly engrossed, the resolution was read a third
time as amended; and the title thereof was amended, to read as follows:
"A resolution relative to the brilliant achievements of Captains Hull,
Decatur, Jones, and Lieutenant Elliott."

_Resolved_, That this resolution pass with amendments.


FRIDAY February 5.

JAMES BROWN, appointed a Senator by the State of Louisiana, in the
place of John Noel Detrehan, resigned, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat in the Senate.


TUESDAY, February 9.

The credentials of CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, appointed a Senator by the
Legislature of the State of Connecticut for the term of six years,
commencing on the 4th day of March next, were read, and laid on file.


WEDNESDAY, February 10.

                      _Counting Electoral Votes._

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 of the United States, and of notifying the persons
elected of their election, and have appointed Messrs. MACON and
TALLMADGE, tellers, on their part.

_Ordered_, That Mr. FRANKLIN be appointed a teller of the ballots for
President and Vice President of the United States, on the part of the
Senate, in place of Mr. GAILLARD, absent from indisposition.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that
the House is now ready to attend the Senate in opening the certificates
and counting the votes of the Electors of the several States, in the
choice of a President and Vice President of the United States, in
pursuance of the resolution of the two Houses of Congress; and that the
President of the Senate will be introduced to the Speaker's Chair, by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The two Houses of Congress, agreeably to the joint resolution,
assembled in the Representatives' Chamber, and the certificates of the
Electors of 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:

  --------------------------------------------------------------+
                    |      President.     |   Vice President.   |
       States.      +----------+----------+----------+----------+
                    |  James   | De Witt  | Elbridge |  Jared   |
                    | Madison. | Clinton. |  Gerry.  |Ingersoll.|
  ------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
   New Hampshire    |     -    |     8    |     1    |     7    |
   Massachusetts    |     -    |    22    |     2    |    20    |
   Rhode Island     |     -    |     4    |     -    |     4    |
   Connecticut      |     -    |     9    |     -    |     9    |
   Vermont          |     8    |     -    |     8    |     -    |
   New York         |     -    |    29    |     -    |    29    |
   New Jersey       |     -    |     8    |     -    |     8    |
   Pennsylvania     |    25    |     -    |    25    |     -    |
   Delaware         |     -    |     4    |     -    |     4    |
   Maryland         |     6    |     5    |     6    |     5    |
   Virginia         |    25    |     -    |    25    |     -    |
   North Carolina   |    15    |     -    |    15    |     -    |
   South Carolina   |    11    |     -    |    11    |     -    |
   Georgia          |     8    |     -    |     8    |     -    |
   Kentucky         |    12    |     -    |    12    |     -    |
   Tennessee        |     8    |     -    |     8    |     -    |
   Ohio             |     7    |     -    |     7    |     -    |
   Louisiana        |     3    |     -    |     3    |     -    |
  ------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
      Totals        |   128    |    89    |   131    |    86    |
  ------------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+

The whole number of votes being 217, of which 109 makes a majority;
JAMES MADISON had for President of the United States 128 votes, and
ELBRIDGE GERRY had for Vice President of the United States 131 votes:

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 ELBRIDGE GERRY, Vice President of the
United States, for four years, commencing on 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; and, on motion, adjourned.


THURSDAY, February 11.

                        _Vice President Elect._

On motion, by Mr. FRANKLIN,

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be requested to
cause to be transmitted to ELBRIDGE GERRY, Esq., of Massachusetts, Vice
President elect of the United States, notification of his election to
that office, and that the President of the Senate do make and sign a
certificate in the words following, to wit:

    "_Be it enacted_, That the Senate and House of Representatives
    of the United States of America, being convened at the city
    of Washington, on the second Wednesday of February, in the
    year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, the
    underwritten President of the Senate, pro tempore, did, in the
    presence of the said Senate and House of Representatives,
    open all the certificates and count all the votes of the
    Electors for a President and Vice President of the United
    States; whereupon it appeared that JAMES MADISON, of Virginia,
    had a majority of the votes of the Electors as President,
    and ELBRIDGE GERRY, of Massachusetts, had a majority of the
    votes of the Electors as Vice President; by all which it
    appears that JAMES MADISON, of Virginia, has been duly elected
    President, and ELBRIDGE GERRY, of Massachusetts, has been duly
    elected Vice President of the United States, agreeably to the
    constitution.

    "In witness whereof, I have herewith set my hand and caused the
    seal of the Senate to be affixed, this ---- day of February,
    1813."

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


MONDAY, February 22.

                 _Capture and Destruction of the Java._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

                                           _To the Senate and House of
                               Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress a letter, with accompanying documents,
    from Captain Bainbridge, now commanding the United States'
    frigate, the Constitution, reporting his capture and
    destruction of the British frigate, the Java. The circumstances
    and the issue of this combat, afford another example of the
    professional skill and heroic spirit which prevail in our naval
    service. The signal display of both, by Captain Bainbridge, his
    officers, and crew, command the highest praise.

    This being a second instance in which the condition of the
    captured ship, by rendering it impossible to get her into
    port, has barred a contemplated reward of successful valor,
    I recommend to the consideration of Congress the equity and
    propriety of a general provision, allowing, in such cases, both
    past and future, a fair proportion of the value which would
    accrue to the captors, on the safe arrival and sale of the
    prize.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  FEBRUARY 22, 1813.


The Message and accompanying documents were read, and referred to the
committee appointed the 9th of November, who have under consideration
the naval affairs of the United States, to consider and report thereon.


TUESDAY, February 23.

              _Naturalized Citizens Claiming Protection._

Mr. LEIB presented the memorial of a number of inhabitants of the
city and liberties of Philadelphia, stating that they are natives of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and citizens of the
United States by adoption; and that, by a late proclamation, issued by
the Prince Regent of said Kingdom, the penalty of death is denounced
against such of the natural born subjects thereof as shall adhere
or give aid to the United States, thereby subjecting them to the
punishment for treason against said Kingdom whenever the United States
shall call upon them to take part in the existing war, and praying such
provision for their protection as the wisdom of Congress may dictate;
and the memorial was read.


WEDNESDAY, March 3.

                     _Six o'clock in the evening._

                             _Adjournment._

The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution from the House of
Representatives, for the appointment of a joint committee to wait on
the President of the United States, and notify him of the intended
recess, and concurred therein; and Messrs. VARNUM and GAILLARD were
appointed the committee on the part of the Senate.

Mr. VARNUM reported, from the committee, 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.
Whereupon, the President adjourned the Senate to meet on the fourth
Monday in May next.


INAUGURAL SPEECH.

          _From the National Intelligencer of March 5, 1813._

Yesterday being the day on which commenced the second term of Mr.
Madison's re-election to the Presidency, he took the oath to support
the Constitution of the United States, administered to him by Chief
Justice Marshall, in the presence of many members of Congress, the
Judges of the Supreme Court, the foreign Ministers, and a great
concourse of ladies and gentlemen. The President was escorted to the
Capitol by the cavalry of the District, and received, on his approach
to it, by the several volunteer corps of this city, Georgetown, and
Alexandria, drawn up in line for the purpose. Previous to taking the
oath in the Chamber of the House of Representatives, the President
delivered the following

                                SPEECH:

About to add the solemnity of an oath to the obligations imposed by a
second call to the station in which my country heretofore placed me, I
find, in the presence of this respectable assembly, an opportunity of
publicly repeating my profound sense of so distinguished a confidence,
and of the responsibility united with it. The impressions on me are
strengthened by such an evidence, that my faithful endeavors to
discharge my arduous duties have been favorably estimated; and by a
consideration of the momentous period at which the trust has been
renewed. From the weight and magnitude now belonging to it, I should
be compelled to shrink, if I had less reliance on the support of an
enlightened and generous people, and felt less deeply a conviction,
that the war with a powerful nation, which forms so prominent a
feature in our situation, is stamped with that justice, which invites
the smiles of Heaven on the means of conducting it to a successful
termination.

May we not cherish this sentiment, without presumption, when we reflect
on the characters by which this war was distinguished?

It was not declared on the part of the United States, until it had been
long made on them, in reality though not in name; until arguments and
expostulations had been exhausted; until a positive declaration had
been received, that the wrongs provoking it would not be discontinued;
nor until this last appeal could no longer be delayed without breaking
down the spirit of the nation, destroying all confidence in itself
and in its political institutions, and either perpetuating a state of
disgraceful suffering, or regaining, by more costly sacrifices and more
severe struggles, our lost rank and respect among independent powers.

On the issue of the war are staked our national sovereignty on the
high seas, and the security of an important class of citizens, whose
occupations give the proper value to those of every other class. Not
to contend for such a stake, is to surrender our equality with other
powers on the element common to all, and to violate the sacred title
which every member of the society has to its protection. I need not
call into view the unlawfulness of the practice by which our mariners
are forced, at the will of every cruising officer, from their own
vessels into foreign ones, nor paint the outrages inseparable from it.
The proofs are in the records of each successive administration of our
Government; and the cruel sufferings of that portion of the American
people have found their way to every bosom not dead to the sympathies
of human nature.

As the war was just in its origin, and necessary and noble in its
objects, we can reflect with a proud satisfaction, that, in carrying it
on, no principle of justice or honor, no usage of civilized nations, no
precept of courtesy or humanity have been infringed. The war has been
waged on our part with scrupulous regard to all these obligations, and
in a spirit of liberality which was never surpassed.

How little has been the effect of this example on the conduct of the
enemy!

They have retained as prisoners of war citizens of the United States,
not liable to be so considered under the usages of war.

They have refused to consider as prisoners of war, and threatened
to punish as traitors and deserters, persons emigrating, without
restraint, to the United States; incorporated, by naturalization into
our political family, and fighting under the authority of their adopted
country, in open and honorable war, for the maintenance of its rights
and safety. Such is the avowed purpose of a Government which is in the
practice of naturalizing, by thousands, citizens of other countries,
and not only of permitting, but compelling, them to fight its battles
against their native country.

They have not, it is true, taken into their own hands the hatchet and
the knife, devoted to indiscriminate massacre; but they have let loose
the savages, armed with these cruel instruments; have allured them into
their service, and carried them to battle by their sides, eager to glut
their savage thirst with the blood of the vanquished, and to finish the
work of torture and death on maimed and defenceless captives: and, what
was never before seen, British commanders have extorted victory over
the unconquerable valor of our troops, by presenting to the sympathy of
their chief awaiting massacre from their savage associates.

And now we find them, in further contempt of the modes of honorable
warfare, supplying the place of a conquering force, by attempts to
disorganize our political society, to dismember our confederated
Republic. Happily, like others, these will recoil on the authors; but
they mark the degenerate counsels from which they emanate; and if they
did not belong to a series of unexampled inconsistencies, might excite
the greater wonder, as proceeding from a Government which founded the
very war in which it has been so long engaged, on a charge against the
disorganizing and insurrectional policy of its adversary.

To render the justice of the war on our part the more conspicuous, the
reluctance to commence it was followed by the earliest and strongest
manifestations of a disposition to arrest its progress. The sword was
scarcely out of the scabbard, before the enemy was apprised of the
reasonable terms on which it would be resheathed. Still more precise
advances were repeated, and have been received in a spirit forbidding
every reliance not placed on the military resources of the nation.

These resources are amply sufficient to bring the war to an honorable
issue. Our nation is, in number, more than half that of the British
isles. It is composed of a brave, a free, a virtuous, and an
intelligent people. Our country abounds in the necessaries, the arts,
and the comforts of life. A general prosperity is visible in the public
countenance. The means employed by the British Cabinet to undermine it,
have recoiled on themselves; have given to our national faculties a
more rapid development; and draining or diverting the precious metals
from British circulation and British vaults, have poured them into
those of the United States. It is a propitious consideration, that an
unavoidable war should have found this seasonable facility for the
contributions required to support it. When the public voice called for
war, all knew and still know, that without them it could not be carried
on through the period which it might last; and the patriotism, the
good sense, and the manly spirit of our fellow-citizens, are pledges
for the cheerfulness with which they will bear each his share of the
common burden. To render the war short, and its success sure, animated,
and systematic exertions alone are necessary; and the success of our
arms now may long preserve our country from the necessity of another
resort to them. Already have the gallant exploits of our naval heroes
proved to the world our inherent capacity to maintain our rights on
one element. If the reputation of our arms has been thrown under
clouds on the other, presaging flashes of heroic enterprise assure us
that nothing is wanting to correspondent triumphs there also, but the
discipline and habits which are in daily progress.




TWELFTH CONGRESS.--SECOND SESSION.

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES

IN

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.


MONDAY, November 2, 1812.

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:

    _From New Hampshire_--Samuel Dinsmoor, Obed Hall, and John A.
    Harper.

    _From Massachusetts_--Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Richard
    Cutts, Wm. Ely, Isaiah L. Green, Ebenezer Seaver, William M.
    Richardson, Charles Turner, jr., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White,
    Wm. Widgery.

    _From Rhode Island_--Richard Jackson, jr.

    _From Connecticut_--Epaphroditus Champion, John Davenport, jr.,
    Lyman Law, and Jonathan O. Mosely.

    _From Vermont_--Martin Chittenden, Wm. Strong.

    _From New York_--Daniel Avery, Harmanus Bleecker, James Emott,
    Asa Fitch, Sam. L. Mitchill, Benjamin Pond, Thomas Sammons,
    Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr.

    _From New Jersey_--Adam Boyd, Lewis Condict, Jacob Hufty, and
    Thomas Newbold.

    _From Pennsylvania_--Wm. Anderson, David Bard, Robert Brown,
    William Crawford, William Findlay, Abner Lacock, Aaron Lyle,
    Jonathan Roberts, Wm. Rodman, Adam Seybert, John Smilie, Geo.
    Smith, and Robert Whitehill.

    _From Maryland_--Stevenson Archer, Charles Goldsborough, Joseph
    Kent, Philip B. Key, Peter Little, Alexander McKim, Samuel
    Ringgold, Philip Stuart, and Robert Wright.

    _From Virginia_--John Baker, Burwell Bassett, Matthew Clay,
    John Dawson, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Aylett Hawes,
    Joseph Lewis, jr., William McCoy, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton,
    James Pleasants, jr., and John Roane.

    _From North Carolina_--Willis Alston, jr., William Blackledge,
    Meshack Franklin, Nathaniel Macon, Archibald McBryde, and
    Joseph Pearson.

    _From South Carolina_--William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Elias
    Earle, William Lowndes, Thos. Moore, and Richard Wynn.

    _From Georgia_--William W. Bibb, Geo. M. Troup.

    _From Kentucky_--Henry Clay, _Speaker_, Joseph Desha, and
    Stephen Ormsby.

    _From Tennessee_--Felix Grundy, John Rhea, and John Sevier.

    _From Ohio_--Jeremiah Morrow.

    _From Indiana Territory_--Jona. Jennings, _Delegate_.

A quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole House, being present,
it was ordered that the Clerk do acquaint the Senate therewith.

On motion of Mr. DAWSON, a committee was appointed 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 communication he may be pleased to make to them.

Mr. DAWSON and Mr. BLEECKER were appointed the committee on the part of
the House.


TUESDAY, November 3.

Several other members, to wit: From Massachusetts, FRANCIS CARR; from
Connecticut, TIMOTHY PITKIN, jr.; from Vermont, SAMUEL SHAW; from New
York, ARUNAH METCALF, SILAS STOW, and URI TRACY; from Pennsylvania,
JOHN M. HYNEMAN; from Virginia, JOHN SMITH, and THOMAS WILSON; from
North Carolina, RICHARD STANFORD; from S. Carolina, LANGDON CHEVES, and
DAVID R. WILLIAMS; and, from Kentucky, RICHARD M. JOHNSON, appeared,
and took their seats.

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 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 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 to them, and that the President answered that he would
make a communication to the two Houses of Congress to-morrow at 12
o'clock.

And then the House adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, November 4.

Several other members, to wit: From Vermont, JAMES FISK; from North
Carolina, WM. R. KING and ISRAEL PICKENS; from Georgia, BOLLING HALL;
and from Kentucky, ANTHONY NEW, appeared, and took their seats.

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. [For
which, see Senate proceedings of this date, _ante_, page 567.]

The Message having been read was referred, with the documents
accompanying it, to the Committee of the whole House on the state of
the Union.


THURSDAY, November 5.

                   _Constitution and the Guerriere._

Mr. DAWSON rose and said:--Mr. Speaker, I take this early moment
to present to you a resolution which I feel pleasure and pride in
believing will meet the general approbation, not only of this House,
but of the nation.

The President of the United States, in his Message, which was read on
yesterday, has, in terms eloquent and appropriate, made mention of an
engagement which has taken place between an American frigate and one of
His Britannic Majesty's, which has rendered to the officers and crew of
our frigate that justice which they so justly merited; an engagement in
which American tars have proven to the world, that when commanded by
officers of skill, valor, and fidelity, they are capable of contending
with, and of vanquishing, those of any nation on the earth, upon
any element--even on that element where British skill has so justly
acquired so much celebrity, and that the American flag, when authorized
by the constituted authorities of our country, will command respect
on the high road of nations. Far, very far be it from me to boast--it
ill becomes an individual or a nation, and is never the concomitant of
true courage; but on the present occasion it seems to me proper that we
should express our sentiments--our feelings, and thereby the feelings
of the nation. I shall, therefore, without further comment, offer you
the following resolution, observing that the facts stated have been
ascertained at the proper department, and the proofs are on my table:

    _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the
    President of the United States be, and he is hereby, requested
    to present, in the name of Congress, to Captain Isaac Hull,
    a gold medal, with suitable emblems and devices; and that
    the sum of ---- thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby,
    appropriated, to be distributed as prize money to the officers
    and crew of the United States' frigate the Constitution, of
    forty-four guns, according to the provisions of the act for
    the better government of the Navy of the United States; in
    testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of the
    gallantry, good conduct, and services of Captain Hull, the
    officers, and crew, of the said frigate Constitution, in
    attacking, vanquishing, and capturing the British frigate
    the Guerriere, mounting fifty-four carriage guns, thereby
    exhibiting an example highly honorable to the American
    character, and instructive to our rising Navy.

Some conversation passed on the proper mode of disposing of this
subject, in the course of which

Mr. SEYBERT suggested the propriety of also giving some distinctive
or medals to the crew of the Constitution, who he thought were too
generally overlooked in such cases.

Mr. WRIGHT approved the spirit of the resolution, but hoped the other
officers would receive swords, and the men suitable rewards; and
confidently hoped a gold medal would be voted to the nearest relative
of Lieutenant William Bush of the marines, a young gentleman from his
district, who fell gallantly fighting in that action, covered with
wounds and glory; he, therefore, for that purpose, moved that the
resolution be referred to a select committee.

The resolution was eventually ordered to lie on the table till a
committee should be appointed to whom it should be referred.


FRIDAY, November 6.

Several other members, to wit: from New Jersey, GEORGE C. MAXWELL; from
Massachusetts, EZEKIEL BACON; from Connecticut, LEWIS B. STURGES; and
from Pennsylvania, JAMES MILNOR, appeared, and took their seats.

GEORGE POINDEXTER, the Delegate from the Mississippi Territory, also
appeared, and took his seat.


MONDAY, November 9.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, SAMUEL TAGGART; from
Connecticut, BENJAMIN TALLMADGE; from New York, EBENEZER SAGE, and
THOMAS R. GOLD; from Pennsylvania, ROGER DAVIS; from Delaware, HENRY M.
RIDGELY; and from Virginia, JOHN TALIAFERRO, appeared, and took their
seats.

                    _Encouragement to Privateers._

Mr. MITCHILL presented a petition of sundry owners and agents of
privateers in the city of New York, praying for a reduction of the
duties on prizes and prize goods; that prize property, on condemnation,
may be delivered to them to be disposed of and distributed; that the
time necessary to procure condemnations may be shortened; that the
fees of the officers of prize courts may be limited to a certain sum,
and that prize owners and their agents be authorized to order prizes
arrived in one port to any other port, at their discretion, at any time
before the actual libelling of such prizes.

             _Exemption of Soldiers from Arrest for Debt._

Mr. BACON stated that, under the present law, exempting from arrest of
privates in the Army of the United States in certain cases of debt,
frauds had been, and more extensively might be, committed; inasmuch
as a soldier who was tired of the service, by giving his bond for a
feigned debt for an amount greater than twenty dollars, could procure
himself to be arrested and kept out of service, &c. Mr. B. further
illustrated the evasions to which the present law is liable, and
concluded by moving the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the Committee on Military Affairs be
    instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law
    for exempting altogether from liability to arrest, or being
    taken in execution for debt, of any non-commissioned officer,
    musician, or private, belonging to the Army of the United
    States, or to any volunteer corps, when called into service
    pursuant to to law.

The resolution was agreed to.


TUESDAY, November 10.

Another member, to wit, from Virginia, JAMES BRECKENRIDGE, appeared,
and took his seat.

                           _Mounted Troops._

Mr. RICHARD M. JOHNSON observed that he had draughted a resolution for
the consideration of the House, the object of which was to authorize
an expedition of mounted volunteers against the several Indian tribes
hostile to the United States. He said the people of the United States
had the power and the will to break up and to extirpate those hostile
savages, to desolate their country, or compel them to surrender at
discretion, as the Miamies had done lately when they beheld the strong
arm of the Government uplifted and ready to fall upon them heavily. And
it was the imperious duty of Congress so to organize this power, and so
to direct this will, as to make it effectual and most destructive to
the enemy in the line of its operation. Mr. J. said a winter campaign
of mounted men well selected, well organized, and well conducted for
sixty days, would close an Indian war, which was restrained on their
part by no ties of religion, by no rules of morality, by no suggestions
of mercy, by no principles of humanity. Sir, said he, you well know
that we cannot so guard any part of our extended line of frontier as
to prevent entirely the incursions of savages, so long as they have a
place of safety or hiding place upon our borders; by reason of which
a few desperate savages, well armed with their rifles, tomahawks, and
scalping knives, and paid for the scalps of our citizens, may travel in
the night, watch their place of assassination undiscovered, and fall
upon our infant settlements thus exposed and massacre them without
distinction of age or sex, and not leave even an infant to lisp the sad
tale of sorrow to the passing stranger. Such has been the fact in many
places on our frontier since the battle of Tippecanoe; and such was the
melancholy fact near the Ohio river, in Indiana, when upwards of twenty
persons were horribly murdered in cold blood, without the opportunity
of resistance; the most of these unfortunate victims were women and
children, whose heads were roasted by the fire, and in this cruel mode
tortured to death, and under circumstances which would blacken and dye
with deeper disgrace the most infamous and abandoned set of beings on
earth. Since the defeat of Braddock, Mr. J. observed, the conflict
with the Indians had always been an unequal one, and the United States
had never carried on such a campaign against them as would bring them
to their reason. He observed, that a winter campaign of mounted men
would place us on an equality in our contest with the Indians; and he
pledged himself for the efficacy of such an expedition, if sanctioned
and authorized by Congress, and left to the Executive of Kentucky,
so far as the forces were taken from that State. On such a campaign
they must meet us in battle, or surrender at discretion; they could
not avoid our search nor evade our pursuit--the season would furnish
certain means of discovery; their strongholds would be broken up; their
squaws and children would fall into our hands, and remain sure pledges
against savage ferocity and barbarity. Nothing do they so much fear as
to have their squaws taken prisoners. Their winter quarters would be
discovered and their stock of winter provisions would be destroyed;
and once since the Revolution the friend of his country would enjoy
the satisfaction of seeing our savage enemies humbled in the dust and
solely at our mercy, notwithstanding all the arts of British intrigue
to the contrary. On the contrary, we want no additional evidence, no
train of reasoning, nor a particular detail of facts, to convince us
that any other kind of force, and at any other period, will only give
us a partial remedy. Upon any other principle we give the savage foe
every advantage. When threatened and pursued by a force sufficient
to chastise them, no warriors can be found--they scatter through the
woods like the wild beasts of the forest. Send a small party, and
they are immediately surrounded and cut off by superior numbers. In
fact, sir, they will not meet at their own doors and firesides equal
numbers in honorable combat--they must always have some great and
decided advantage. In the several attacks made upon Fort Wayne, Fort
Harrison, and Bellevue--at which places our officers and soldiers acted
with a firmness and gallantry deserving the highest praises of their
country--the Indians retreated at the approach of assistance, and could
not be found. We witnessed the same scene when our army penetrated
their country from Fort Wayne, who burnt their towns and destroyed
their crops. In short, sir, late in the spring, in the summer, and in
the fall, every thicket, every swamp--nay, every brush-heap surrounded
with weeds furnishes a hiding place; and it is in vain to search after
Indians at such a time, if they are not disposed to be seen. Mr. J.
said, with this imperfect picture before us, which, however, contained
undeniable facts, Congress could not reconcile it to its duty not to
take such steps as would speedily terminate the war with the savages.
Such steps had been taken as to produce much temporary distress among
the Pottawatamies and other tribes, and the destruction of their
villages and crops would employ many of their warriors in procuring
subsistence for their squaws and children, which consequently gave
a correspondent relief to our frontier settlements; that a winter
campaign well conducted was indispensable to complete the work which
was begun with so much zeal, but which could not produce all the
benefit that might be expected from a regular authorized expedition;
for it would be recollected that the mounted men had gone out suddenly
upon the spur of the occasion, without compensation, with a view
to relieve the frontiers from the disasters of Hull's humiliating
surrender; and in such voluntary associations many men would consider
themselves under less obligations than if employed by the Government,
although the party with whom he had the honor to act served beyond
the time for which they enrolled themselves, and never quitted the
service until honorably discharged. Mr. J. observed, if the savages are
unmindful of the many acts of benevolence, of justice and friendship
exercised towards them by the United States; if British influence, or
British gold, or any other consideration, could induce them to continue
the savage practice of imbruing their hands alike in the blood of the
warrior in the field, and the infant in its mother's arms; if they
will be bound by no obligation however sacred; by no treaty, however
solemnly made; by no dictate of nature, no matter how self-evident; the
United States are absolved from all acts of further forbearance; and
we are called upon by every feeling of duty and honor to disarm them
of their fury and put them beyond the power of injury. Mr. J. said he
had not intended to trouble the House with so many preliminary remarks,
but he had seen in his place the Chairman of the committee to whom the
resolution was to be referred, and he was anxious that the design and
object of the motion should be known, that the committee might act with
despatch if it met with their views:

    _Resolved_, That the select committee to whom was referred so
    much of the President's Message as relates to military affairs,
    be instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing
    an expedition of mounted volunteers against the Indian tribes
    hostile to the United States.

The resolution was agreed to _nem. con._, without debate.


THURSDAY, November 12.

Another member, to wit, from Kentucky, SAMUEL MCKEE, appeared and took
his seat.


FRIDAY, November 13.

Several other members, to wit: from New York, THOMAS B. COOKE; from
New Jersey, JAMES MORGAN; from Virginia, JOHN RANDOLPH; and from North
Carolina, LEMUEL SAWYER, appeared, and took their seats.


MONDAY, November 16.

Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, WILLIAM REED; from
Rhode Island, ELISHA R. POTTER; from Virginia, DANIEL SHEFFEY; from
North Carolina, JAMES COCHRAN; from South Carolina, RICHARD WYNN,
appeared, and took their seats.


TUESDAY, November 17.

                     _Encouragement to Privateers._

Mr. BASSETT, from the committee appointed on that part of the
President's Message which relates to the Naval Establishment, reported,
in part, a bill in addition to the act concerning letters of marque,
prizes, and prize goods; which was read twice, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

The bill is as follows:

          A Bill in addition to the act concerning letters of
                    marque, prizes, and prize goods.

    _Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That all
    prize property, upon sentence of condemnation, shall, at the
    request of the owners of the private armed vessel by which
    the capture shall have been made, or of their agents, be, by
    the marshal of the district in whose custody the same may be,
    delivered over to the said owners or their agents, to be by
    them sold or disposed of at their discretion, and the proceeds
    thereof distributed by them agreeably to the provisions of
    law: _Provided_, That all fees, costs, and charges, arising
    on the process of condemnation, be first paid, and that the
    duties accruing on such prize goods, as also two per cent. on
    the estimated value of such prize property, after deducting
    all duties, costs, and charges, (which value, as it respects
    the cargo, shall be ascertained in the same manner as is
    provided by law for ascertaining the value of goods subject
    to ad valorem duties; and as it respects the vessel, to be
    ascertained by appraisers to be appointed in the same manner,)
    shall be first paid, or secured to be paid, to the collector of
    the district into which such prize property may be brought for
    condemnation; which two per cent. shall be in lieu of the two
    per cent. on the net amount of the prize money reserved by the
    seventh section of the act to which this act is in addition,
    and shall be pledged and appropriated to the same fund as is
    thereby provided for.

    SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That all bonds taken for
    the security of the two per cent. fund before provided for
    shall be made payable within sixty days from the time of taking
    such bonds.

    SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the owners of any
    private armed vessel or vessels, or their agents, may, at any
    time before a libel shall be filed against any captured vessel
    or her cargo, remove the same from any port into which it may
    be first brought, to any other port in the United States,
    subject to the same restrictions, and complying with the same
    regulations, with respect to the payment of duties, which are
    provided by law in relation to other vessels arriving in port
    with cargoes subject to duty: _Provided_, That before such
    removal the said captured property shall not have been attached
    at the suit of any adverse claimant, or a claim against the
    same have been interposed in behalf of the United States.

    SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That wherever the proceeds
    of any prize property has been, or shall be, deposited with the
    clerk of any district court, pursuant to the orders of said
    court, upon condemnation, the same shall, at the request of the
    owners of the private armed vessel by which the capture shall
    have been made, or of their agents, be paid over to them, to be
    by them distributed agreeably to the provisions of law.


WEDNESDAY, November 18.

Another member, to wit, JOSIAH QUINCY, from Massachusetts, appeared,
and took his seat.


THURSDAY, November 19.

                         _Privateer Prize Law._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill in
addition to the act concerning prizes and prize goods.

Mr. BASSETT, as chairman of the committee who reported the bill,
explained its provisions, and enforced the necessity of its adoption.
He took occasion to advert to the numerous captures made by our private
armed vessels, and their utility as a system of annoyance to the enemy.
In every case in which they had come in conflict, they had acquitted
themselves in a manner that redounded to their credit.

After some further conversation on the details of the bill, the
following section was, on motion of Mr. BACON, substituted for the
fourth section of the bill:

    "SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That in cases of sale
    of prize property by the marshal of any district, or wherever
    the proceeds thereof has been or shall be deposited with the
    clerk of any district court, pursuant to the orders of said
    court upon condemnation, the same shall, by the said marshal or
    clerk respectively, at the request of the owners of the private
    armed vessel by which the capture shall have been made, or of
    their agents, be paid over to them, to be by them distributed
    agreeably to the provisions of law: _Provided_, That all fees,
    costs, and charges, arising on condemnation, be first paid, and
    all duties accruing on such prize property, as also the two per
    cent. fund accruing on such proceeds, be first paid, or secured
    to be paid, to the collector of the district into which such
    prize may be brought for condemnation, and that the marshal
    and clerk shall be allowed for their services respectively, in
    selling, receiving, and paying over as aforesaid, a commission
    of one per cent. and no more, on the net proceeds of such prize
    property, after deducting the duties, the two per cent. and
    charges aforesaid: _Provided, also_, That such commission shall
    not exceed, upon any property included in one condemnation, the
    sum of one thousand dollars."

The bill as thus amended was then ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading.

                             _Retaliation._

The engrossed bill "vesting the power of retaliation in the President
of the United States in certain cases," was read a third time.

A debate of more than an hour took place on the question of its
passage, which was finally determined _in the negative_, by yeas and
nays--51 to 61.


FRIDAY, November 20.

                           _Pay of the Army._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill concerning the
pay of the Army of the United States, which was read.

Mr. WILLIAMS, as chairman of the committee who reported it, rose to
explain the provisions of the bill. He said he hoped the consideration
of the bill would not involve a discussion of the justice or necessity
of the war. War, said he, is now declared; we have thrown ourselves
between our country and the enemy; and it becomes us to carry her
triumphantly through the war, or be responsible for the disgrace a
contrary course would incur. The reason of the introduction of the
first provision of the bill, he said, was the palpable fact, that the
present pay of the Army, taking into consideration the price of labor
throughout the Union, was much below the average rate. The committee,
in the investigations of this business, had, with much labor, consulted
all sources of information accessible to them, and in no part of the
United States did it appear to be conceded by their Representatives,
that the fair price of labor was less than nine dollars per month.
Even if the price was as low as eight, or say seven dollars, wherefore
should the soldier receive less than any other man? This is a subject
on which every gentleman could decide by recurring to his own
neighborhood, and inquiring, what was there the price of labor. If he
could not procure the service of an individual there for less than
eight dollars, how can he refuse the soldier that price which I now
solicit for him? The ranks are not filled; we know it by too melancholy
a proof; and it is our duty to fill them. How shall we best do it? It
will not be contended that your population is insufficient; no, sir;
the inducement is not adequate. There is no avocation of life, no
employment, however hazardous, which fails to be pursued from a want of
persons ready to engage in it. No, sir; if you want men to scale the
mountains of ice under the Northern pole, or endure the fervid rays
of a vertical sun in the hither India, to brave the stormy ocean, or
search for mines in the bowels of the earth; only find them adequate
compensation, and there are men enough to be found. The compensation
for services performed, ought always to be in proportion to the risk
incurred. This is a position which cannot be controverted. There is no
reason why the ranks of your Army are not filled so forcible, as that
you do not give enough to the privates.

Mr. W. then briefly adverted to other provisions of the bill. To the
second section he apprehended little objection; it had been found to
be necessary, and ample precedent might be found for it. To the third
section there might and probably would be some objection. It was
founded, he said, on the principle that every man owed to the country
which protected him, military service; the same principle, already
engrafted in our laws, which obliged the youth of 18 years old to
enter into the militia, warranted his retention in the service when
he had voluntarily enlisted. The fourth section spoke for itself and
needed no explanation.

The second section having been read--

Mr. WHEATON said he conceived this section to involve an infraction of
the constitution. Any person who had contracted a debt had certainly
given a pledge, not only of his property, but of his body to his
creditor. It is the creditor's right to take his body in default of
payment, and the creditor was by this section, in the case of those
enlisting in the army, completely taken out of his hands. Ample
encouragement, Mr. W. said, might be given to enlistments without
infringing the constitution. He had no objection to privilege the
soldier from arrest after enlistment, but he could not consent to the
passage of a law, having an _ex post facto_ operation, which went to
exempt him from obligations previously contracted. He therefore moved
to strike out the words "before or" from the second section above
recited.

Mr. BACON spoke in support of this provision. It was necessary to guard
against fraud. He said, in the village in which he lived, such frauds
had been committed, by the creation of fictitious debts, under which
a person enlisting had procured himself to be arrested. After this
arrest, on giving bail, he was set at large. Whilst going at liberty,
his commander had attempted to take him; but a writ of _habeas corpus_
having been taken out, it had been determined by the courts that a
man was the property of his bail until the suit was determined. And
that determination, Mr. B. said, would never take place so long as
the United States had an occasion for the man's services; because, by
the same collusion which commenced it, the suit may be continued from
term to term of court, until the term of enlistment has expired. He
had merely stated facts. He had known an instance of an officer being
obliged to move his whole corps over the line to avoid these petty
depredations on their ranks; and he would venture to say that the
officers would much rather face the enemy in the field, than the host
of legal depredators in Massachusetts, on those enlisted for the public
service. The principle of this provision was not novel, he said, for it
existed already.

The motion to strike out the section was then negatived by a large
majority.

The third section was then read.

Mr. STOW rose and said, that the respect he felt for the House, seemed
to forbid that he should propose to them any thing not fully matured:
but, that at the same time the objections to one section of the bill
under consideration, appeared to him so many and so important, that he
could not refrain from urging them, though as he feared in somewhat of
an irregular and desultory way. In excuse he said, he had supposed the
present bill agreeable to the one reported in the Senate, and had not
observed the difference till that moment. His objections were to the
3d section, and which he should close by moving that it be stricken
out. He arranged his objections principally under three heads: 1st. Its
tendency to violate the public morals. 2d. Interference with public
economy--and 3d, its violation of the spirit of the Constitution of the
United States.

He remarked, that proper instruction and discipline of youth lay at
the bottom of all that was valuable in this life, and perhaps of the
life to come. That it was of great importance in every Government,
but above all that it was infinitely so in ours, where the people
were real sovereigns, and where the Government would be ill or well
administered, according as the youths were bred in temperance, virtue,
and obedience. This section of the bill goes to cut up those qualities
by the roots. It says to the uneasy boy in his teens, you may enlist
and throw off all parental authority; you may enlist and defraud the
parent or master, who has maintained you in your helpless state, of his
just reward. The strongest ties of affection and gratitude, you may,
by enlisting, dissolve in a moment. Nay, more, we say deliberately and
solemnly--we will pay this promoted villain $300 for his iniquity! For
such is the amount of the bounty and wages for three years. Who, sir,
will be most likely to avail himself of this privilege, or rather of
this course? Not the sober, faithful minor, who might be trusted in a
camp with some degree of safety, but the fickle, turbulent restless
youth, the one of all others who wants the salutary restraint of a
parent or guardian. This is the person whom you are about to allow to
plunge himself into all the dissipations, into all the seductions, and
into all the vices of a camp!

But, sir, said he, it is inhuman, as well as immoral. Humanity calls
upon you to take care of and educate the miserable offspring of the
poor. Who will take them; who will provide for their infancy, if at
the moment they are able to make any remuneration for this humane,
this tender care, you offer them $300 to turn ingrate? But, sir, not
only the public morals, but the public economy require that you should
not enlist minors without the consent of their parents, guardians, or
masters. What does public economy require, but that every one should
serve the Republic in that capacity in which he can be most useful?
And, sir, let me add that patriotism requires the same thing. If the
blacksmith or the farmer is most useful in his calling, there is as
much patriotism in attending to the anvil and the farm, as to the
bayonet and the sword. Men of mature age, by accepting the terms you
offer, or not, determine where they can be most useful; but does not
every principle of economy forbid that you should go into the private
family, the workshops, and the manufactory, regardless of the opinion
of the father and superintendent, and seduce the young man from
learning some useful and honorable employment, and in lieu thereof,
at that tender, at that doubtful period of human life, you plunge
him into all the immoralities of a camp, and turn him a vagabond on
society. No, sir, true economy requires that children should be well
educated, well governed, and faithfully bred to some honest calling.
The very principle, notwithstanding all the talk of patriotism, is
recognized in the price you offer for soldiers, as well by the former
law, as by the present bill. You offered by the former law, five
dollars per month, by the present bill eight dollars. That is, you
say to the world, that by being a soldier, you render to your country
services worth five or eight dollars. Now, sir, for five or eight
dollars per month is it prudent, is it economical, to dissolve the
all-important relation of governor and governed in respect to youth?
To break up your infant manufactories, and to deprive poor children at
once of a useful employment, and a home? But, sir, perhaps it will be
said that necessity, the safety of the Republic, requires this. When
the legions of Britain were upon our shores, when we were struggling
for our very existence, the necessity was not then thought sufficiently
imperious to warrant such a principle. Can it then be said, that with
treble the population, and in an offensive war, necessity requires the
dangerous innovation? Certainly not. Again, the law, then and now,
allows the soldier to be arrested for a debt amounting to two dollars;
and will you say, that the debt in which there can be no deception
incurred, for the most necessary of all things, food, clothing, and
instruction for infancy, shall be disregarded? I trust, sir, that a
principle so unreasonable will never prevail. But, lastly, said Mr.
S., I do contend that the clause is contrary to the spirit, if not the
letter, of the constitution. That constitution provides that private
property shall not be taken without reasonable compensation. The
property which a parent has in the services of his son, of a guardian
in the services of his ward, and a master in the services of his
servant, though differing widely in degree, is as real and oftentimes
more important than the farmer has in his personal estates, or the
planter in his slave. It also impairs the force of contract, which is
strictly interdicted to the States, and _a fortiori_ not to be done
to the General Government. For these and for many other reasons which
might be added, Mr. S. moved to strike out the third section of the
bill.

Mr. MILNOR said that if he understood the third section of the bill
under consideration, it allows recruiting officers to enlist minors
above the age of eighteen years, without regard to their situation as
apprentices to tradesmen, or living under the care and guardianship
of their parents; and its object was to hold out to young minds a
temptation to desert the useful course destined for them by their
friends, for the purpose of becoming soldiers. Now, said Mr. M.,
whatever may be the necessity of war, on some occasions, and however
necessary some might think that in which we are now engaged, which
was a question he should not now meddle with, he was desirous that
its operations should be so conducted, as to do as little injury as
possible to our fellow-citizens; and, as the leading principle in the
conduct of all politicians should be a regard to the public good,
he hoped for a general concurrence in this sentiment; that, for his
own part, he wished the war to be felt as little as possible in the
families and occupations of the people. We are not, said he, to be
organized into a military Government. However necessary some may deem
this war, all will desire a short one. Thank God, no Napoleon has yet
risen up amongst us to change our free institutions into a military
despotism. Encourage, if you please, a military spirit, that we may be
ready for the national defence, when necessary; but let it be done in
the spirit of the constitution, by means of a well-regulated militia;
let your citizens and your farmers surrender their apprentices and
children to be trained and instructed in military tactics, at stated
times, that, when arrived at the state of manhood, they may be ready
for their country's service. But what is here proposed? To go into the
workshop of the industrious mechanic, or into a parent's dwelling, and
entice away by the lure of money and military glory, the apprentice
and the child. No matter what moneys may have been expended in his
education, or how great has been parental exertion to advance the
future prospects of the child, any recruiting officer, or even a common
soldier, profligate in his principles, and inured to vicious habits, is
by this bill encouraged to seduce him from his duty.

Mr. TROUP said the objections to this provision were lame in their
nature; he only wished they were half as sound as they were novel.
It was the result of the experience of men older than themselves in
military concerns, that this very description of population, between
eighteen and twenty-one, constituted the strength and vigor of every
war. What was the fact as respected France? So just was this principle
in the contemplation of France, that her whole army is made up of
these young men; and yet an attempt is made to deter us from using
them by a flimsy pretext, that to employ them would be violating the
obligations of a contract and the principles of morality. If our
feelings and sympathies be suffered to influence us in favor of the
individual who voluntarily enlists, the reasons are much stronger in
favor of discharging one-half of those already in your ranks, than the
description just spoken of. There is scarcely any man over the age of
twenty-one years, between whom and other individuals there is not some
strong obligatory moral tie, which we ought not to sever if we could
conveniently avoid it. Look at the case of a husband deserting his wife
and children, or of a man, above twenty-one, deserting his aged parent,
dependent on him for subsistence. Are not these cases equally strong?
The doctrine of the gentlemen, whether on the score of morality or
expediency, will apply to cases above as well as below the age of
twenty-one.

Mr. GOLD premised, that he did not rise to enter into the general
policy of the war; nor could he deny it to be the duty of those who
have declared the war, to provide an army to carry it on. But he added,
it is better for the army to be augmented by very liberal bounties and
wages, than that important principles should be violated and an inroad
made upon the great relations and interests of society. Are gentlemen
aware how extensive is the province of master and apprentice? How
wide-spread the relation in the community? A sensation will be produced
which gentlemen seem not to have anticipated. The respective States
have, with studious care, legislated upon and regulated the various
duties and obligations of masters and apprentices. Under those laws,
a clear obligation is created upon the apprentice to serve till of
age; and in some States, to compensate for absence or desertion during
the stipulated apprenticeship; for a faithful performance, the parent
or guardian becomes responsible; and for non-performance, liable for
damages to the master. Can the authors of this bill imagine that those
solemn obligations contained in indentures of apprenticeship, will
dissolve and vanish under the charm of the bill? Can the fundamental
principles of the constitution, rendering contracts sacred, be thus
uprooted and destroyed? Can this bill deprive the master of his
action, secured to him by the laws of the State, against the master or
guardian for absence or desertion of the apprentice? Here is a most
serious bearing upon the laws of the States, regulating this important
relation. But gentlemen allege _necessity_; the army must be filled up;
officers are imposed on by fraudulent minors, who receive the bounty,
and then claim a release upon the plea of non-age. In answer, let
gentlemen beware how they yield to this fancied plea of necessity. All
history attests the danger of yielding essential principles to State
necessities; to temporary pressure and impulses; such precedents become
infinitely mischievous in society. No fancied benefit can compensate
for the evil of such examples. How easy is it to remove much of the
complaints by providing that the minor, who shall impose upon the
recruiting officer, shall refund the bounty he received before he shall
receive his discharge. Such a provision would be just, and not violate
general principles.

Mr. LITTLE.--In removing one evil, Mr. Chairman, let us beware that we
do not substitute a greater. The object of the section proposed to be
stricken out of the bill on your table, and now under consideration,
is to fill up the ranks of your army. From every attention I have been
able to bestow on this subject, which, permit me to say, I am anxiously
desirous, as much so, I trust, as any gentleman in this committee, to
see realized, will, if returned in its present shape, in my humble
opinion, be productive of much evil, and perhaps of little good. You
receive into the army, by voluntary enlistment, that description of our
fellow-citizens, at a time of life to them the most interesting and
auspicious as respects their future pursuits and welfare. I have always
been given to understand that the camp is but illy calculated in those
stations which they only can fill in the army, either to improve their
understandings or perfect them in such habits as are calculated to
acquire a respectable subsistence, or fit them for the domestic duties
of their future lives. In the course of nature, they, it may be truly
said, constitute the future strength and glory of every country. The
laws of this land render every act of theirs illegitimate. Abstract
from the consideration of a soldier, for which they are only rendered
fit from their corporeal powers, everything with them is premature; if
forced into existence, like the flower or fruit unseasonably raised in
a hot-bed, wears the external qualities, but, in fragrance and taste,
is unnatural and insipid.

Sir, have we not some reason to doubt the constitutionality of this
section. In its operation, it evidently will vitiate contracts, which
ought always to be held sacred, solemnly and voluntarily entered
into by the parent or guardian with the matter of an apprentice,
reciprocally beneficial, founded on the most laudable and praiseworthy
principles, on the faithful performance of which materially depends the
future welfare of the youth, to which I believe may reasonably be added
the comforts and good order of society. Do we not know, Mr. Chairman,
that, at that period of their lives and servitude, in which you make
them liable, if this section is retained, to be drawn from the service
of their masters, that then, and only then, are they enabled and become
qualified to make some remuneration for the pains and attention paid
to their improvement and instruction by the worthy and industrious
mechanic or manufacturer; and will you, by this unpropitious act,
endanger the future happiness of the former, and withhold that just
reward due to the industry of the latter? You annihilate this contract,
which ought to be held, if possible, inviolate by the Government. Every
principle of justice and sound policy dictates its rigid fulfilment.
Are we not aware, sir, of the immense sums now invested and actively
employed in the different manufactories distributed over our extensive
country? Do we not know that the manual labor of them is conducted
principally by such who now are, or will in time, come within the
provision of this section of your bill? Have this Government, and
the people of this country, no interest in the prosperity of these
manufactories? I have been always taught, and for one do religiously
believe, on their materials virtually depends the completion of our
independence as a nation. Let me entreat you to reflect before you
hazard this dangerous experiment, lest, in the adoption of this
hitherto novel principle, and in its operation, you may endanger the
safety, or, at least, the prosperity of our Republic, by giving its
manufactories a vital stab.

Sundry other amendments were proposed in the committee, after the bill
was reported to the House, and negatived. The bill was then ordered to
be engrossed for a third reading.


SATURDAY, November 21.

                           _Pay of the Army._

An engrossed bill "concerning the pay of the non-commissioned officers,
musicians, privates, and others of the Army, and for other purposes,"
was read the third time.

Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Speaker, I am sensible that I owe an apology for
addressing you at so early a period of the session, and so soon
after taking my seat, if not to the House at least to my particular
constituents. It is well known to them, at least to very many of
them, for I have taken no pains to conceal the intention, that I came
to this session of Congress with a settled determination to take no
part in the deliberation of the House. I had adopted this resolution,
not so much from a sense of self-respect, as of public duty. Seven
years' experience in the business of this House, has convinced me that
from this side of the House all argument is hopeless; that whatever
a majority has determined to do, it will do in spite of any moral
suggestion, or any illustration made in this quarter. Whether it be
from the nature of man, or whether it be from the particular provisions
of our constitution, I know not, but the experience of my political
life has perfectly convinced me of this fact, that the will of the
Cabinet is the law of the land. Under these impressions, I have felt it
my duty not to deceive my constituents; and had, therefore, resolved by
no act or expression of mine, in any way, to countenance the belief,
that any representation I could make on this floor could be useful to
them, or that I could serve them any farther than by a silent vote.
Even now, sir, it is not my intention to enter into this discussion.
I shall present you my thoughts rather by way of protest than of
argument. And I shall not trouble myself afterwards with any cavils
that may be made; neither by whom, nor in what manner.

I should not have deviated from the resolution of which I have spoken,
were it not for what appears to me the atrocity of the principle, and
the magnitude of the mischief contained in the provisions of this
bill. When I speak of the principle as atrocious, I beg distinctly
to be understood as not impeaching the motives of any gentlemen, or
representing them as advocating an atrocious principle. I speak only of
the manner in which the object presents itself to my moral view.

It is the principle contained in the third section of the bill of
which I speak. That section provides, that "every person above the
age of eighteen years, who shall be enlisted by any officer, shall be
held in the service of the United States during the period of such
enlistment; any thing in any act to the contrary notwithstanding." The
nature of this provision is apparent, its tendency is not denied. It is
to seduce minors of all descriptions, be they wards, apprentices, or
children, from the service of their guardians, masters, and parents. On
this principle, I rest my objection to the bill. I meddle not with the
nature of the war. Nor is it because I am hostile to this war, both in
its principle and its conduct, that I at present make any objection to
the provisions of the bill. I say nothing against its waste of public
money. If eight dollars a month for the private be not enough, take
sixteen dollars. If that be not enough take twenty. Economy is not my
difficulty. Nor do I think much of that objection of which my honorable
friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. MILNOR) seemed to think a great deal;
the liberation of debtors from their obligations. So far as relates
to the present argument, without any objection from me, you may take
what temptations you please, and apply them to the ordinary haunts for
enlistment--clear the jails--exhaust the brothel--make a desert of
the tippling shop--lay what snares you please for overgrown vice, for
lunacy, which is of full age, and idiocy out of its time.

But here stop. Touch not private right--regard the sacred ties of
guardian and master--corrupt not our youth--listen to the necessities
of our mechanics and manufacturers--have compassion for the tears of
parents.

In order to give a clear view of my subject, I shall consider it under
three aspects--its absurdity--its inequality--its immorality.

In remarking on the absurdity of this principle it is necessary to
recur to that part of the Message of the President of the United States
at the opening of the present session of Congress, which introduced the
objects proposed in this bill to the consideration of the House; and
to observe the strange and left-handed conclusions it contains. The
paragraph to which I allude is the following:

    "With a view to that vigorous prosecution of the war, to
    which our national faculties are adequate, the attention of
    Congress will be particularly drawn to the insufficiency of
    existing provisions for filling up the Military Establishment.
    Such is the happy condition of our country, arising from the
    facility of subsistence and the high wages for every species
    of occupation, that, notwithstanding the augmented inducements
    provided at the last session, a partial success only has
    attended the recruiting service. The deficiency has been
    necessarily supplied during the campaign, by other than regular
    troops, with all the inconveniences and expense incident to
    them. The remedy lies in establishing more favorably for the
    private soldier, the proportion between his recompense and the
    term of enlistment. And it is a subject which cannot too soon
    or too seriously be taken into consideration."

Mr. Speaker--What a picture of felicity has the President of the United
States here drawn in describing the situation of the yeomanry of this
country! Their condition happy--subsistence easy--wages high--full
employ. To such favored beings what would be the suggestions of love,
truly parental? Surely that so much happiness should not be put at
hazard. That innocence should not be tempted to scenes of guilt. That
the prospering ploughshare should not be exchanged for the sword. Such
would be the lessons of parental love. And such will always be the
lessons which the President of the United States will teach in such a
state of things, whenever a father of his country is at the head of the
nation. Alas! Mr. Speaker, how different is this Message! The burden of
the thought is, how to decoy the happy yeomen from home, from peace,
and prosperity, to scenes of blood--how to bait the man-trap; what
inducements shall be held forth to avarice, which neither virtue nor
habit, nor wise influences, can resist. But this is not the whole. Our
children are to be seduced from their parents. Apprentices are invited
to abandon their masters. A legislative sanction is offered to perfidy
and treachery. Bounty and wages to filial disobedience. Such are the
moral means by which a war, not of defence or of necessity, but of
pride and ambition, should be prosecuted. Fit means to such an end.

The absurdity of this bill consists in this: in supposing these
provisions to be the remedy for the evil, of which the President
complains. The difficulty is, that men cannot be enlisted. The remedy
proposed is, more money--and legislative liberty to corrupt our
youth. And how is this proved to be a remedy? Why it has been told
us, on the other side of the House, that this is the thing they do in
France. That the age between eighteen and twenty-one is the best age
to make soldiers. That it is the most favorite age, in Bonaparte's
conscription. Well, sir, what then? Are we in France? Is Napoleon our
king? Or is he the President of the United States? The style in which
this example has been urged on the House, recalls to my recollection
very strongly a caricature print which was much circulated in the early
period of our Revolutionary war. The picture represented America as
a hale youth, about eighteen or twenty-one, with a huge purse in his
pocket. Lord North, with a pistol at his breast, was saying "deliver
your money." George the Third, pointing at the young man, and, speaking
to Lord North, said, "I give you that man's money for my use." Behind
the whole group was a Frenchman capering, rubbing his hands for joy,
and exclaiming, "Be Gar! just so in France!" Now, Mr. Speaker, I have
no manner of doubt, that the day that this act passes, and the whole
class of our Northern youth is made subject to the bribes of your
recruiting officers, that there will be thousands of Frenchmen in these
United States, rubbing their hands for joy, and exclaiming, "Be Gar!
just so in France." Sir, the great mistake of this whole project lies
in this: that French maxims are applied to American States. Now it
ought never to be lost sight of by the legislators of this country,
that the people of it are not and never can be Frenchmen--and, on the
contrary, that they are, and can never be any thing else than freemen.

The true source of the absurdity of this bill, is a mistake in the
nature of the evil. The President of the United States tells us that
the Administration have not sufficient men for their armies. The reason
is, he adds, the want of pecuniary motive. In this lies the error. It
is not pecuniary motive that is wanting to fill your armies. It is
moral motive in which you are deficient. Sir, whatever difference of
opinion may exist among the happy and wise yeomanry of New England,
in relation to the principle and necessity of this war, there is very
little, or at least much less diversity of sentiment, concerning the
invasion of Canada, as a means of prosecuting it. They do not want
Canada as an object of ambition; they do not want it as an object of
plunder. They see no imaginable connection between the conquest of
that province and the attainment of those commercial rights which
were the pretended objects of the war. On the contrary, they see, and
very plainly too, that if our Cabinet be gratified in the object of
its ambition, and Canada become a conquered province, that an apology
is immediately given for extending and maintaining in that country
a large military force; under pretence of preserving the conquered
territories--really, with a view to overawe adjoining States. With this
view of that project the yeomanry of New England want that moral motive
which will alone, in that country, fill your armies with men worthy
enlisting. They have no desire to be the tools of the ambition of any
man, or any set of men. Schemes and conquest have no charms for them.

Abandon your projects of invasion; throw your shield over the seaboard
and the frontier; awe into silence the Indians in your territory;
fortify your cities; take the shackles from your commerce; give us
ships and seamen; and show the people of that country a wise object of
warfare; and there will be no want of men, money, or spirit.

I proceed to my second objection, which was to the inequality of the
operation of the provisions of this bill. It is never to be forgotten,
in the conduct of the Government of these United States, that it is a
political association of independent sovereignties, greatly differing
in respect of wealth, resource, enterprise, extent of territory, and
preparation of arms. It ought, also, never to be forgotten, that the
proportion of physical force which nature has given does not lie within
precisely the same line of division with the proportion of political
influence which the constitution has provided. Now, sir, wise men,
conducting a political association thus constructed, ought always to
have mainly in view, not to disgust any of the great sections of the
country, either in regard to their interests, their habits, or their
prejudices. Particularly ought they to be cautious not to burden any
of the great sections in a way peculiarly odious to them, and in
which the residue of the States cannot be partakers, or at least only
in a very small degree. I think this principle of political action is
incontrovertible. Now, sir, of all the distinctions which exist in
these United States, that which results from the character of the labor
in different parts of the country, is the most obvious and critical.
In the Southern States, all the laborious industry of the country is
conducted by slaves; in the Northern States it is conducted by the
yeomanry, their apprentices, or children. The truth is, that the only
real property, in the labor of others, which exists in the Northern
States, is that which is possessed in that of minors--the very class of
which, at its most valuable period, this law proposes to divest them.
The planter of the South can look round upon his fifty, his hundred,
and his thousand of human beings, and say, These are my property. The
farmer of the North has only one or two _ewe lambs_--his children--of
which he can say, and say with pride, like the Roman matron, "These
are my ornaments." Yet these, this bill proposes to take from him, or
(what is the same thing) proposes to corrupt them--to bribe them out of
his service; and that, too, at the very age when the desire of freedom
is the most active, and the splendor of false glory the most enticing.
Yet, your slaves are safe; there is no project for their manumission in
the bill. The husbandman of the North, the mechanic, the manufacturer,
shall have the property he holds in the minors subject to him put to
hazard. Your property in the labor of others is safe. Where is the
justice--where the equality--of such a provision?

It is very well known in our country--indeed it is obvious, from the
very nature of the thing--that the exact period of life at which
the temptation of this law begins to operate upon the minor, is the
moment when his services begin to be the most useful to the parent or
master. Until the age of 18, the boy has hardly paid to the parent
or master the cost of his clothing and education. Between the age of
18 and 20, is just the period of profit to the father and master. It
is also the period at which, from the approximation towards manhood,
service begins to grow irksome, and the desire of liberty powerful.
The passions are then, also, in their most ungoverned sway; and the
judgment, not yet ripe, can easily be infatuated and corrupted by the
vain dreams of military glory. At this period, your law appears with
its instruments of seduction. It offers freedom to the minor's desire
of liberty--plunder to his avarice--glory to his weakness. In short,
it offers bounty and wages for disobedience to his natural or social
obligations. This is a true view of this law. That it will have that
full operation which its advocates hope and expect--that it will fill
your armies with runaways from their masters and fathers--I do not
believe; but, that it will have a very great operation, I know. The
temptation to some of our youth will be irresistible. With my consent,
they shall never be exposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope what I am now about to say will not be construed
into a threat. It is not uttered in that spirit; but only to evince the
strength of my convictions concerning the effect of the provisions of
this law on the hopes of New England, particularly of Massachusetts.
But pass it, and if the Legislatures of the injured States do not come
down upon your recruiting officers with the old laws against kidnapping
and man-stealing, they are false to themselves, their posterity, and
their country.

Mr. FISK expressed the astonishment he felt at the observation which
had fallen from the gentleman last up. He certainly agreed with the
gentleman in one thing: that those who are in pursuit of a favorite
object frequently overleap the bounds of reason and decorum in
support of it. Now, it had been a favorite object with that gentleman
to shield the British Government from blame; and it was an object
which he certainly pursued with the greatest ardor and anxiety. In
the address of that gentleman's political friends, in Congress, to
their constituents, subsequent to the declaration of war, it had been
deceptively said, that a disposition existed in the British Government
to make an arrangement on the subject of impressment. Now, sir, that
the ground is taken from under them, we hear that the object of the war
is an unrighteous one, and we are guilty of waging it. Is it indeed
guilty to defend our country? said Mr. F. The gentleman would overawe
the Indians. Sir, the most innocent party in the war against us is the
savage himself. How comes he in the ranks against us, with his tomahawk
and scalping knife? Why is he impelled to shed our blood? Why has the
gentleman shielded British instigation of their outrages?

Again, sir, has the gentleman no feeling for the sufferings, no ear
for the groans of our suffering seamen? Has he no sympathy for those
relations of life, from which the seamen is torn away, and for that
moral sentiment which is violated in that outrage--and are we _guilty_
because we seek to shield our citizens from it? Are we guilty because
we resist the British scalping knife? Recall the year '98 to your
recollection, sir, and the pompous display of energy at that day, and
the armies raised--to fight whom?--a few miserable Frenchmen whom they
could catch at sea. War was then a mere amusement. Why, that we are now
at war with the nation who has been seizing our property, capturing
our citizens, and carrying them into slavery--why are our means for
carrying on war to be limited?

As to the provision of this bill so much objected to, was it esteemed
such a violation of all right and principle in the commencement of
the Revolution to take children of sixteen years of age from their
parents? That was a period when the youth of the country were invited
to the field. I was one who accepted the invitation, and I have never
regretted it. But, says the gentleman, will you take the child from the
parent? Sir, which excites the most tears--a child leaving his parent
to defend his country, or a parent torn from his family and his country
to fight for a foreign power? The truth is, that most of those who
object to this bill would destroy all the means of carrying on the war,
if they could. It was not thought immoral in the war of the Revolution
to take youths of this age, nor were they the least efficient part of
our army.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said, if it was possible for him to keep down those
feelings of indignation which pressed upon his mind, in what he had now
to offer, he would speak with due respect to the orders of the House,
and not infringe its privileges. He wished, indeed, he had not occasion
to speak; but, sir, said he, it is my misfortune to be the Chairman
of the Military Committee, more, Mr. Speaker, by your partiality than
by any merit of mine. I am compelled to rise. I have been stigmatized
by the gentleman (Mr. QUINCY) as the introducer into this House of
an atrocious principle. If such language comports with our rules of
order, I must submit, seeing it is uttered where he is protected;
but, sir, I must pronounce it a libel on myself, and throw it back on
him who uttered it, as a foul, atrocious libel on the committee. Sir,
I came here not disposed to use such language; nothing but extreme
injury should extort it from me. I wish that the gentleman had kept
the resolve he informed us he had formed; as he could not do so, I
would that he had been good enough to spare me from the acrimony of
his remarks. Atrocity! The advocate of an atrocious principle! Let the
gentleman recur to those who originated this principle; let him go back
to the day of the Revolution, and damn the memory of the patriots of
those times, the fruit of whose labors he so ill deserves to enjoy. The
provisions of those days authorized the enlistment of all over the age
of sixteen years. Nor does the statement which the gentleman from New
York made alter the case, for if there be an increase of population
since the Revolution, there appears to be a correspondent deterioration
of patriotism. The gentleman from Massachusetts admits that a necessity
may exist to justify the course proposed by the bill. Well, sir, was
there ever a crisis calling on a people for vigorous exertions more
awful than that which impends over us now? Now, when a vile spirit of
party has gone abroad and distracted the Union? Now, that the State
which the gentleman represents is almost in arms against us? And, in
such a state of things are we to be told that we are espousing an
atrocious principle, because we are seeking for the means to defend
our country? The will of the President is the law of the land, says
the gentleman. How can he expect his arguments to be attended to,
when the first word he utters after taking his seat is to insult and
abuse every one opposed to him in opinion. I beg your pardon, Mr.
Speaker, I ask that of the House, for the language I am compelled to
use; but so long as I am a man, so help me God, when I am told I am
actuated by an atrocious principle, I will throw it back in the teeth
of the assertor as an atrocious falsehood. Look back on the principle
adopted by the friends of that gentleman--I wish I could say who were
his friends--I do not call the honest federalist, who is willing to
support his country's rights, his friend--even in England, the nation
from which he talks of receiving his religion and morality, and I
might add, his ideas of _our_ rights--even in that country they do not
prevent enlistment of minors--that is, they are not discharged on the
ground of minority. I have said before, sir, that we had examples in
our own Government, drawn not to be sure from the purest times, but
which more than covered the whole case. A law was passed in 1798 which
authorized the enlistment not only, of minors but every description
of persons whom the President of the United States thought proper to
have enlisted--which authorized him to send his recruiting sergeants
into every family and take those who suited him best. This was the
principle of his friends. Does the gentleman say that it was atrocious
in 1798 to defend ourselves against the French? But it has become so
now, seeing the defence we seek is against the English. The gentleman
has said we act on an absurd principle; that we have mistaken the means
of carrying on the war to effect: we want the moral means. By this I
presume he would be understood that the people are opposed to the war,
particularly to our land operations. There seems then to be no moral
objection to the war on the ocean. And, sir, if it be not immoral to
support the war on the ocean, on what possible principle can it be
immoral, in the same cause, to support it on the land? The war on both
elements is for the same object; not as the gentleman says, to rob and
plunder in Canada, but, according to the motto of the gallant Captain
Porter, for "free trade and sailors' rights."

Mr. PITKIN remarked that the power given to a recruiting officer
to enlist minors was a new principle. It had not been acted upon
before, or since the Revolution--this is a new mode of raising an
army; were gentlemen prepared to adopt this new principle? Although
by the resolves of the Congress of 1776, minors could be enlisted,
yet apprentices were exempted--and if any were enlisted, yet, on
proper application, they were discharged, unless it could be shown
the enlistment was with the consent of their masters or guardians.
By the law of '98, the President certainly could direct relative
to the age and size of a recruit--yet to whom did he apply? Not
to apprentices--not to wards--and then if an officer enlisted an
apprentice without the consent of his master, he could be taken away
from him by the writ of _habeas corpus_ and the officer held liable
for damages. The eleventh section of the law for raising an additional
military force contained a similar provision, and it was also necessary
the consent of the master or guardian should be in writing.

Mr. P. did not intend to meddle at all with the policy of war--he
should confine himself to the consideration of the most important
principle contained in the third section of the bill. The effect of
this bill goes to infringe all the State laws. They all provide for the
relations which exist between a master and his apprentice--a guardian
and his ward; if the apprentice runs away he can be procured and
brought back; and some of the States provide, that when the apprentice
comes again into the possession of his master, that he shall serve
not only the time lost, but an extra time, to remunerate his master
by these services for the losses he has sustained. If you take away
his apprentice you deprive him of his property--this is a loss to
the master, or he must recover where the services are due; that is,
of the parent or guardian, who are one of the contracting parties
to the indentures--and where is the remedy? Will not the officer be
also liable to the State laws? Does not the constitution say, no laws
shall be passed abrogating contracts? This bill will in its operation
sanction the violation of contracts, or it means nothing--it sanctions
the right to take away the property of guardians, parents or masters,
without providing any compensation for the same. I repeat, you are
introducing a new principle in the mode of administering Government.
The pressure is also beyond comparison unequal on the Northern States.
Do gentlemen plead the necessity of the case? Does a necessity exist
superior to the laws? Are we to understand that the _salus populi_
shall rule without control? If not, then what is meant by this grant to
take the property of your constituents, and leave them no remedy for
the injury? The honorable gentleman from South Carolina has referred to
the practice of other nations. Great Britain herself never incorporated
apprentices into her armies.

Mr. WILLIAMS admitted that apprentices were exempt--but minors were not.

Mr. PITKIN agreed but even when minors are enlisted without the consent
of their guardians or masters, they can be released by the writ of
_habeas corpus_. I believe that, in 1756, Great Britain passed an act
which was designed to extend to only the colonies; it allowed indented
servants to be enlisted into the army--but this act made provision for
the master, if the compensation was claimed within so many months after
enlistment, and the necessary facts were proved before any two justices
of the peace. Whether this act was ever carried into effect I do not
know--but I do know that compensation was provided for the property
taken from the master in the person of, his servant.

Mr. TROUP.--If a stranger in the gallery had listened to the member
from Massachusetts, he would have supposed that the provision of the
bill against which the gentleman's anathemas were most vehemently
levelled, authorized the recruiting sergeant to enter the house of the
citizen, drag from it the young man, and transport him, loaded with
chains, (as is said to be the practice of one nation of Europe,) to the
armies. Who would have supposed that the provisions merely authorized
the recruiting sergeant to accept the voluntary service of the young
man, between eighteen and twenty-one? The service due to the country,
prior in point of time, paramount in obligation, must yield, says
the gentleman, to the service due to the master, the parent, or the
guardian. If, sir, in the days of Rome's greatness, if in the proud
days of Grecian glory, the man could have been found base and hardy
enough to withhold the young men from the public service, to turn them
from the path of honor, or to restrain them from the field of fame,
he would have been hurled from the Tarpeian Rock or consigned to the
Cave of Trophonius. The young man is preferred here, not because he
is preferred in France, but because his physical constitution and
his moral temperament peculiarly qualify him for the arduous duties
of the field and camp; bodily vigor and activity, ardor, enterprise,
impetuosity; without family, and therefore without the cares which
family involve. No wife, no helpless children. Without care, but for
his country. Without fear, but for her dishonor. He is most eminently
qualified for the duties of the camp and the field; all experience has
proved it.

Mr. MACON said it appeared the House was now in a situation in which
it had frequently been heretofore; that is, they take up a very
small subject and make a very great one of it. The only question for
discussion appeared to him to be, whether or not they would enlist into
the Army young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. He was
very sorry that, at this early period of the session, a discussion
had been introduced into the House, which had at all times better be
let alone, that of foreign influence. He did not mean to discuss it;
but, if gentlemen were anxious for it, he was perfectly willing to
set aside a day for the consideration of the subject, and go about it
methodically. He regretted very much that the feature to which he had
alluded had been inserted in the bill; because he had been in hopes
that, on the question of raising the pay of the Army, they would, one
and all, have manifested a disposition to support the rights of the
country. In the hope that they would yet come to an agreement on the
subject; that they could give some vote of unanimity in relation to
the war, he should move for a recommitment of the bill, with a view to
amend it by striking out the third section. It appeared to him that,
until a man had acquired political rights, he ought not to be called
on to defend his country. The gentleman from South Carolina says the
principle of this section already exists in our militia laws. I admit
it; and hence, I have always, when our militia laws have been under
consideration, moved to strike out "eighteen" and insert "twenty-one."
I hope, if we do not take recruits under twenty-one, we will alter the
militia laws also, and let the country rely for its defence on those
who manage its concerns. He hoped the House would consent to recommit
the bill, and, in some one vote, show something like unanimity.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose to speak at the same moment with Mr. MACON, but,
being first seen by the SPEAKER, obtained the floor.

Mr. R. said that he was extremely happy, as he did not notice his
friend from North Carolina, at the time of his rising--in which case he
should certainly have given way to him according to custom--that he had
caught the Speaker's eye first. I was about to rise, said Mr. R., for
the purpose of making a similar motion; and there are considerations on
which it is unnecessary for me to dwell, and towards which I will not
even hint, that render it at least as agreeable to me that the motion
for recommitment should come from that respectable and weighty quarter,
rather than from myself. I shall vote for it upon the same grounds
which would have induced me ultimately to vote against the bill;
because it contains provisions, I might say principles, unsusceptible
of modification, and, in my judgment, hostile to all those principles
which I have hitherto entertained, and to which it is impossible for me
to give the sanction of my support. I shall not vote against the bill,
for some of the reasons urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts on
my right, (Mr. QUINCY,) with more of eloquence than temperance, and
answered in a style not dissimilar by my worthy friend on my left, (Mr.
WILLIAMS.) They both reminded me of a stroke of perhaps the only comic
poet this country has produced:

    "The more they injured their side,
    The more argument they applied."

The gentleman from Massachusetts touched a chord, which, he ought to
have known, was that which would insure the passage of this bill; which
would excite a temper that would indispose the House to listen to the
still small voice of conscience and of reason. I, sir, shall vote
for the recommitment of this bill, and for reasons which I am almost
ashamed to urge; which I hope to be excused for adducing. They have
nothing to do with the question of impressment, of maritime war, of the
invasion of Canada, of Indian warfare; but, sir, they are principles
which, from length of time, I am sorry to say, have grown so obsolete,
like some of the older statutes of those countries of more ancient date
than ourselves, that, though I am not ashamed of them, I am almost
ashamed to mention them--they are those professed by the Republican
party in the year 1798, which I had the honor of attempting, at least,
to support in those days--the principles, as reduced to record, of
the present Chief Magistrate of our country in those days. In truth,
it has been insinuated, if not asserted, with much more of candor than
of logical address, that the principles of the bill are those of the
former friends of the gentleman from Massachusetts on my left, from
which, I suppose, that gentleman has, in some way or other, deserted.
This goes to prove, as far as the authority of the gentleman from
Vermont and of my worthy friend from South Carolina has influence, that
a long course of opposition has instilled into the gentleman something
of the principles which did not belong to his friends while in power;
that he is a deserter from his party, and consequently that I have
remained a faithful sentinel at my post. I did not expect to hear it
said, sir, that this bill was not to be opposed because a similar bill
had been passed in what used to be called the Reign of Terror. In other
words, I did not expect to hear it stated that the principles of the
Administration of the predecessor of Jefferson, which, I suppose, he
would now be as ready to recant as any man in the nation, justified
the bill; that it ought to be passed, because it was fashioned in
conformity to such doctrines. It is now, sir, I think, some thirteen
or fourteen years ago, since a similar question was agitated on the
floor of this House, and it was my lot to be compelled to sustain the
same side of the question which I sustain to-day--for I will not use
the qualified term, _attempt_ to sustain, against one of the proudest
names in this country--against the man who now presides, I will not say
with what splendor of abilities, at the head of the judicial department
of our Government.[30] The House will readily agree that, plain must
have been that question which could have been supported with such
unequal odds; that strong must have been that side of the argument
against such an advocate. It was one of those occasions on which the
gentleman who then presided in the House declared "he never witnessed
a more unpromising debate:" it was so--for it was one of those which
tended to put that gentleman and his friends into the situation which
so many of them--I will not say all--for there are some illustrious
examples to the contrary--into the situation which many of them have
since occupied. It was an assertion of the great fundamental principles
of our Government against arbitrary, high-toned courtly notions. The
party then in power had been nearly as long in office as the party
now in power, and looked at the question pending before them, with a
very different eye, while they wielded the sceptre, than that with
which they look at the question now, when the sceptre is applied to
their backs. I am sorry to say that I fear that the converse of the
proposition is, in a great degree, true, and that those principles
which I then supported, and which were the ground of the revolution of
political sentiment in 1801 which thereafter ensued, have fallen, as
it were, in abeyance; that, in fact, we have forgotten our oracle.

I have said, on a former occasion, and if I were Philip, I would
employ a man to say it every day, that the people of this country,
if ever they lose their liberties, will do it by sacrificing some
great principle of free government to temporary passion. There are
certain great principles, which if they be not held inviolate at all
seasons, our liberty is gone. If we give them up, it is perfectly
immaterial what is the character of our Sovereign; whether he be King
or President, elective or hereditary--it is perfectly immaterial what
is his character--we shall be slaves--it is not an elective government
which will preserve us.

But I am afraid I have fallen somewhat into error, by wandering from
the course I proposed. On the occasion to which I have alluded, I
maintained that the provision of a bill then pending, similar to
that I now object to, was arbitrary, unconstitutional and unjust,
because it was in the nature of an _ex post facto_ law. It _is_ of the
nature of an _ex post facto_ law--it is more--it tends to exalt the
military authority over the civil--it is this or it is nothing. If
the section pronounce an ambiguous voice, to be construed according
to expediency, then is there so much greater reason to recommit the
bill, to reduce it to some shape which shall render it intelligible
to the meanest capacity. It goes to alter the nature of a remedy--to
impair the obligation of a contract. A man has contracted a debt, and
his creditors arrest him. He enlists. He enlists through the grates
of a prison, or within the limits of prison bounds. The contract
between this man and the creditor is varied by the law, because the
remedy of the creditor is changed. Let us not have a descant on the
cruelty of imprisonment for debt, and the expediency of introducing
other provisions on that subject. That is not the question. It is on a
law for exempting a particular class of men from those penalties and
provisions which attach to all other classes of society. The military
of all classes in society, that class which we are about to exempt
from the general provisions attaching to other classes, is that of
which the people of this country have been led by all our writers, by
all our authorities, to entertain the most watchful and justly founded
jealousy. It is on principles somewhat analogous to these, or rather
the same, much better enforced, that an opposition was maintained to
a law, not dissimilar in its provisions from this, in the winter of
1799-1800.

In the fury and tempest of his passion, my friend from South Carolina
seemed to overlook, what I thought he would be one of the last to
forget, that we live in a limited Government, possessing restricted
powers, which we cannot exceed. Has the constitution, with the most
jealous scrutiny, defined the privileges of a member of this House,
not permitting us to define our own, and made our principal privilege
an exemption from arrest; and do we clothe ourselves with a power of
exempting from arrest, _ad libitum_, a whole class of society--of
creating a privileged order? We are, indeed, a privileged order, but
we are privileged by the constitution. I ask the gentleman from South
Carolina whence he derives the power of creating a privileged order,
and, shall this assumption of power be attempted in favor of the
military, of all other classes? In my opinion, sir, the section to
which I have had reference is freighted with most fatal consequences.
I will suppose a case. Suppose a man had a writ served upon him, and
he afterwards enlists; that an escape warrant is taken out against
him, and a contest ensues between the recruiting sergeant and the
civil officer for this man, and that the civil authority supports its
officer by calling out the force at its disposal. What would be the
upshot? What is it to lead to? I need not state the consequences.
These principles, sir, were urged thirteen years ago; they are urged
now, in the same place, and on the same occasion. I cannot consent,
in deference to any gentlemen, however great their zeal, to admit
that I merely urged them at that time, from party views, to put down
one description of persons in order to get into their warm berths. I
cannot consent to such an admission, and, therefore, cannot give my
support to any bill which contains such provisions. I have said this
will be an _ex post facto_ law. It is so; it operates not only after
the right has accrued to the creditor to sue out his writ, but after
it is in a course of execution. Let me put another case. Suppose that
Congress were to pass a law that every malefactor under the sentence
of death, who enlisted in the Army, should not have the sentence of
the law executed on his body. Have you not as good a right to do that
as to pass this law? Would you consent to see a scuffle at the gallows
between the civil authority and the military for the body of that
wretch?

I will put another case, sir. A son, who is the only support of a
widowed and aged mother, in some moment of hilarity, perhaps of
intoxication, led astray by the phantom Glory, enlists in the army
of the United States. I speak of one who is a minor. Although I know
that freemen of this country cannot be property in the sense in which
a slave is property, yet, I do allow that the mother has a property
in the time of that child; that he is under an obligation from which
no human law can absolve him--an obligation imposed upon him by the
maternal throes that issued him into life--by the nourishment drawn
from the parent's breast--by the cherishing hand which fostered him
through imbecility and infancy. You have not a right to take him--I
hope, then, sir, that no question will be made of your power.

I put another case, said Mr. R. Although an apprentice and a minor
are not property in the sense in which a slave is property, there
is a class of men, unluckily, in certain parts of our country (in
Philadelphia, for instance--I mean that class called "redemptioners,")
who were sold but yesterday in the markets of that city. Is the
gentleman who represents that district (Mr. SEYBERT) willing that
they shall absolve themselves from their contract by enlisting in the
Army? If he is, I am. A redemptioner sold in Philadelphia for a term
of years, bought in the market as fairly as any other commodity--(I
say fairly, because bought with his own consent, and as he believes,
for his own advantage)--such a person, if tempted to enlist, will,
unquestionably, prefer the pay and emolument of the soldier in your
Army to his present situation. With regard to apprentices, I very
much fear, sir, that those who enlist will, for the greater part, be
of that description for whom their masters have advertised six cents
reward, and forewarned all persons from harboring them. I remember,
when a small boy, to have seen a series of prints by Hogarth, called
"The Progress of Industry and Idleness." The gradations were not more
regular than natural. The one ends with wealth, honor, and an eligible
matrimonial connection with the daughter of his master, with whom he
had been admitted into partnership; the other is brought up by the
gibbet. Their names were Thomas Idle and William Goodchild. I believe,
sir, that more of the Thomas Idles than of any other will enlist under
this law, and I sincerely hope they will; for I very much fear that
even William Goodchild, after he has gone through the discipline of a
camp for five years, will be utterly unfit for any other species of
employment. This is not all. There are other considerations, which I
forbear to touch--which, I should have supposed, would have brought
themselves home to the bosom of every gentleman in this House. Personal
indisposition has prevented my attendance in this House, and I did not
hear of this bill until last night. It was then mentioned to me by
one who is fast in the old faith, and has often brought the House to
a recollection of good old principles; and I did hope that they would
this day have received more strenuous aid from that quarter than they
have. I hope the House will refuse to pass the bill, if it were only
to show that there is some one act of the Administration of 1799-1800,
which the present possessors of power have not copied from their
statute book. There remains only this, and the eight per cent. stock
loan--and we are saved from the latter only by the infractions of that
law, which we imperiously refused at the last session to repeal. It is
the infractions of this law which has poured money into our coffers,
and saved us from the disgrace of an eight per cent. loan. There is
another part of this bill which strikes me as being inexpedient; but,
as I do not wish to blend considerations of expediency with those of
great and vital principles, I shall waive any thing on that head.

The question was then taken on the motion to recommit the bill, and
lost. For recommitment 42, against it 62.

The question was then taken that the said bill do pass; and resolved
in the affirmative--yeas 64, nays 37.


MONDAY, November 23.

                         _Proposed new State._

On motion of Mr. POINDEXTER, the House resolved itself into a Committee
of the Whole, on the bill to authorize the people of Mississippi
Territory to form a constitution and State Government, and for the
admission of the same into the Union.

Mr. RICHARDSON moved to strike out the first section of the bill.

This motion was supported by Mr. PITKIN, principally on the ground
of the inexpediency on general principle, of giving to a Territory
embracing a population of only twenty or thirty thousand souls, a
representation in the Senate equal to that possessed by other States,
some of which contained a million of inhabitants. Another objection
was, that the bill proposed to incorporate within a State the town and
citadel of Mobile, now in possession of a foreign power; and thus make
it the duty of a State to expel from its territory a force which the
President had not thought fit to remove.

The motion was opposed by Mr. POINDEXTER, who contended that the
population of the Territory was much greater than was represented; and
even if it were not what it is, that a precedent was to be found in
the incorporation of Ohio and of Louisiana. He represented in glowing
terms, the anxiety of the people of the Territory to be enabled to
bear their share of the expense as well as the dangers of the present
war in support of our just rights; in which cause they had already
employed twelve hundred militia, which the gentleman could not say
of the populous State he represented; and if that were not enough,
they were ready to put a bayonet into the hands of every man in the
Territory capable of bearing arms. As to the occupancy of Mobile by
the Spaniards, it was not a valid objection; but if it were, he said
he hoped it would soon be invalidated; he trusted that the spirit of
the country would aid the disposition of the Executive to repel every
foreign enemy from our territories.

The motion to strike out the first section was negatived, yeas 24.

After some amendment to the bill, the committee rose and reported it to
the House.

Mr. PITKIN renewed the motion to strike out the first section of the
bill; which was negatived by a large majority.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.


TUESDAY, November, 24.

                        _Mississippi Territory._

An engrossed bill to enable the people of the Mississippi Territory 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, was
read the third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it
passed in the affirmative--yeas 63, nays 39.


WEDNESDAY, November 25.

                     _Constitution and Guerriere._

Mr. BASSETT communicated to the House the following documents:

                         NAVY DEPARTMENT, _Nov. 21, 1812_.

    SIR: In order to enable the committee to form a satisfactory
    opinion as to the compensation to be provided for the officers
    and crew of the frigate Constitution, for the capture and
    subsequent destruction of the British frigate the Guerriere, I
    have the honor to state to you that the Constitution rated 44,
    and mounted 55 guns; that the Guerriere rated 38 and mounted
    54 guns. The Guerriere, although entirely dismasted, and in
    other respects much crippled, could have been brought into
    port without incurring any other risk than that of recapture;
    but Captain Hull conceived that if he had manned the Guerriere
    for the purpose of sending her into port, he would have so
    far reduced the crew of the Constitution that he might have
    subjected both vessels to capture. He presumed that, under
    all circumstances, it would be better for him to destroy
    the Guerriere, and preserve the force of the Constitution
    unimpaired, and his having done so unquestionably proceeded
    from the most patriotic considerations.

    The Guerriere was a frigate of the first class in the
    British navy; and, no doubt, when the engagement between the
    Constitution and her commenced, she was completely fitted in
    all respects for the most serious service. The cost of such a
    ship, independently of her stores, could not have been less
    than two hundred thousand dollars, and her stores were worth,
    in all probability, fifty thousand dollars at least; besides,
    she had on board a number of prize goods, the value of which
    cannot be ascertained; but was probably equal to fifty thousand
    dollars more. So that the whole value of the Guerriere, her
    stores and prize goods, at the time the action commenced, may
    fairly be estimated at three hundred thousand dollars.

    Had Captain Hull have incurred the risk before mentioned, and
    succeeded in getting the Guerriere into port, the officers
    and crew of the Constitution, considering the Guerriere as
    her equal, would have been entitled to the whole of the
    Guerriere, her stores and prize goods. Sooner, however, than
    run the risk of losing the Constitution, he determined to
    destroy the whole. The question then arises, what, under these
    circumstances, ought the officers and crew to be allowed? For
    my own part, I have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion
    that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars would not be too
    liberal a provision, or too great an encouragement for the
    great gallantry, skill, and sacrifice of interest displayed on
    this occasion; and I am persuaded that, if such a provision
    were made, the difficulties of manning our frigates, at present
    experienced, would vanish.

    It may further be remarked, that Captain Hull, while on the
    cruise, on which he captured and destroyed the Guerriere, burnt
    two enemy's vessels, viz: the brig Lady Warren and the brig
    Adeora, and obliged the enemy to burn the brig Dolphin, with
    a cargo of hemp and Russia goods, and to abandon an English
    barque laden with timber: for no part of which have the
    officers or crew of the Constitution received any compensation.

    I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient
    servant,

                                                          PAUL HAMILTON.

  Hon. B. BASSETT.



WASHINGTON, _Nov. 23, 1812_.

    SIR: In compliance with your request, I have the honor to state
    to you that my opinion, as to the value of the Guerriere, at
    the time the action between her and the Constitution commenced,
    is, that, exclusively of her stores and prize goods, she was
    probably worth two hundred thousand dollars; and my impression
    is, that her stores and prize goods must have been worth one
    hundred thousand dollars.

    I am informed that, independently of their stores, the frigate
    President cost two hundred and twenty thousand dollars; that
    the Chesapeake cost two hundred and twenty thousand dollars;
    and that the Congress cost one hundred and ninety-seven
    thousand dollars. These vessels were certainly built on good
    terms; and it is from their cost that I form my idea as to the
    probable value of the Guerriere; and my impression as to the
    value of her stores and prize goods is derived from personal
    observation and information obtained on the occasion from
    different persons.

    I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your obedient
    servant,

                                                             ISAAC HULL.

  Hon. BURWELL BASSETT, _Chairman, &c._


                       _Medals and Prize Money._

On motion of Mr. BASSETT, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole, on the report of the Naval Committee on the proposed vote
of a gold medal to Captain Isaac Hull, late commander of the frigate
Constitution, and silver medals to the other officers, and a sum of
---- thousand dollars, to be distributed as prize-money among the
officers and crew, as an expression of the sense entertained by this
House of their bravery and conduct in attacking and vanquishing the
British frigate Guerriere.

Mr. BASSETT spoke in support of the resolution. He stated the magnitude
of the achievement; the amount of value of the capture; and assigned
many reasons particularly in favor of the donation to the officers and
crew, on whom collectively he proposed to bestow the sum of $100,000,
and made a motion to that effect. He said the prize money arising from
the capture, had not the public service required the destruction of
the Guerriere, would have amounted to much more; and the merits of
those concerned in the capture entitled them to this remuneration. He
dilated on the present low price of wages on board our public ships,
and adverted to the seaman's hardships and the seaman's risk, &c.

The question on filling up the blank with "one hundred thousand
dollars," was then taken, and decided in the affirmative--50 to 37.

The committee rose and reported their agreement to the resolution.


FRIDAY, November 27.

A new member to wit, from Georgia, WILLIAM BARNETT, returned to serve
as a member of this House, in the place of Howell Cobb, resigned,
appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.


TUESDAY, December 1.

                         _Naturalization Laws._

On motion of Mr. LACOCK, the House resumed the consideration of the
bill supplementary to the naturalization laws.

On motion of Mr. LACOCK, the bill was amended by adding thereto the
following additional section:

    "_And be it further enacted_, That every naturalized citizen
    of the United States, or the Territories thereof, shall
    forfeit such citizenship on his voluntarily departing from and
    remaining out of the United States for and during the term of
    two years."

On motion of Mr. FITCH, the following other section was also
incorporated in the bill:

    "_And be it further enacted_, That all persons who shall have
    been naturalized subsequent to the 18th day of June last, shall
    be entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizens of the
    United States, from the date of such naturalization, any thing
    in the declaration of war against Great Britain, or any other
    act, to the contrary notwithstanding."

Mr. FISK moved to strike out _nine_ months, the time allowed to
citizens to take the benefit of our naturalization laws, and insert
_three_. He said he could not see why so long a time should be allowed.
The longest time extended to our citizens in Canada is thirty days;
and he did not see why so much more liberality should be extended to
their citizens here. He was opposed to their remaining here longer than
necessary, the more especially as they employed themselves in exciting
divisions, and fomenting the party feuds which now agitate the country.

Mr. LACOCK thought the time proposed was too short; that in some
districts they could scarcely hear of the law within that time, and at
any rate might not be able to meet with a tribunal, at which to comply
with the requisites of the naturalization law, before the expiration of
that period.

Mr. FISK withdrew his motion for the present.


THURSDAY, December 3.

SHADRACK BOND, returned to serve as a delegate, in this House, for the
Illinois Territory, appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.


SATURDAY, December 5.

                         _Privateer Captures._

Mr. MCKIM presented a petition of Commodore Joshua Barney, on behalf of
himself and the owners, officers, and crews, of sundry private armed
vessels of war, "praying to be considered as claimants to all property
proven to be enemy's property, found on board of vessels sailing under
the American flag, having on board British manufactured goods, coming
from Great Britain to the United States, and under the protection of
British licenses, which have been captured by them, or that they may
participate as '_informers_' in the seizure and condemnation of the
said property under the non-importation."--Referred to the Committee of
Ways and Means.


MONDAY, December 7.

Another member, to wit, from Virginia, EDWIN GRAY, appeared, and took
his seat.


TUESDAY, December 8.

Another member, viz: from Virginia, WILLIAM A. BURWELL, appeared, and
took his seat.


WEDNESDAY, December 9.

                   _Imprisonment of American Seamen._

Mr. BASSETT offered to the House the following resolution:

    Whereas, It is represented, that Great Britain has seized
    sundry persons fighting under the American flag, laying claims
    to them alike incompatible with justice and the rights of the
    United States as an independent nation:

    _Resolved_, That the President be requested to lay before this
    House the information he has received on that subject, and the
    measures taken to redress an evil which violates the rights and
    interests, and outrages the feelings of a free and independent
    people.

Mr. BASSETT stated that several cases had come to his knowledge in
which the British naval commanders had seized persons taken on board of
American armed vessels, and confined them, in one instance, in irons,
and in another had transported them to England for trial. It was not
his intention now to go into an examination of these cases. Such an
examination was not necessary to authorize the House to call for the
information required. He had given its present form to the motion he
had offered, because its adoption would go to show that the councils
of the nation were not indifferent to this subject. It would, he
trusted, further enable the Executive to show that it never slumbered
on any occasion in which the rights of the people were concerned; and
he had no doubt the information to be received would show it. When it
was received, the House might take what course it pleased; perhaps no
legislative act would grow out of it. But it was proper, in any event,
that the House should be in possession of information required.

Mr. MILNOR said he had no objection to the call for information, but
he excepted to the form of the resolution, for two reasons. It was
prefaced by a preamble, which was not usual in such cases, which
preamble, moreover, assumed as fact circumstances of which the House
had no official or authentic information. His other objection was,
that it expressed an opinion on a point on which he was not ready to
express one. Mr. M. said he knew not the extent of the evil of which
the gentleman complained. If it was merely that Great Britain laid
claim to her own subjects fighting our battles against her, he would
at least not say that this was an act on the part of Great Britain
deserving all those severe epithets which the gentleman had thought
proper to attach to it. The resolution stated facts not before the
House, and expressed an opinion on an act the degree of enormity of
which depended on the circumstances respecting which it was proposed to
ask for information. Mr. M. wished that the House should not lightly
be compelled into a discussion of this subject, and especially as the
gentleman had intimated the probability that no legislative act was to
grow out of the information called for.

Mr. SEYBERT said, as his colleague's principal objection to the motion
appeared to be a difficulty as to facts, he hoped to procure his
vote for its adoption by stating at least one which had come to his
knowledge. I, said Mr. S., had the honor to have a nephew on board the
ship Wasp. He informed me this morning that after they had been carried
into Bermuda, several of their crew were taken and confined in irons;
that he saw them in that situation; and that their crime was, having
fought the battles of our country. What may be my colleague's feelings
on this occasion, I know not--I hope they are honorable to himself and
the House--for myself I wish the subject investigated. Mr. S. concluded
by expressing his hope that the resolution would pass.

Mr. MACON said he was anxious to obtain information on this subject,
but doubted the propriety of the preamble. After the information was
received, it would be time enough to express an opinion on the subject.
He had no doubt that we must at last come to the determination to
protect every man that is on board of a ship of the United States. It
is what Great Britain herself does; and in this respect we ought to
follow her example. If these people undertake to fight our battles,
we ought to protect them. Mr. M. said he was opposed to the preamble,
because he did not wish to give reasons to the departments of the
Government for any call for information the House thought proper to
make; it was enough that the House should ask for it, and the President
should give or withhold it. The practice heretofore was against the
course now pursued.

Mr. BIGELOW said he had no objection to the call for information,
divested of the preamble and the opinion expressed in it, except that
it did not go far enough. He proposed to amend it by adding thereto the
following words, "accompanied with all the evidence in his possession,
which will tend to show whether such persons are American citizens or
British subjects."

Mr. BASSETT said he was indifferent as to the form, provided he
obtained the substance; he, therefore, should submit to such
modification as the gentleman from North Carolina should think proper
to make. But, said Mr. B., as it has been said that there is no
information before the House, I state that I understand, and it is my
belief, that six men of the crew of the United States brig Nautilus
were detained and sent to England for trial; and that Commodore Rodgers
had detained as hostages for their safety twelve British subjects. I
state also to the House that I understand and believe that six seamen
of another armed vessel have been detained, and that General Pinckney
had detained a like number of British subjects. I state that I have
received information that the boatswain of the Wasp had been put in
irons after she was taken. These violations of humanity and the law of
nations I believe to require retaliation. When I voted against a bill
on this subject (Mr. WRIGHT'S) it was not because I was opposed to
retaliation. No, sir; retaliation in war is often mercy--it puts an end
to those cruelties which would otherwise frequently disgrace parties at
war, and is indispensable in the conduct of hostilities.

Mr. B. having withdrawn his motion, it was substituted by the
following, offered by Mr. MACON:

    "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to cause to be laid before this House any information
    which may be in his possession touching the conduct of British
    officers towards persons taken in American armed ships."

Mr. RANDOLPH said he trusted that the resolution now before the House
would meet with no objection; although against the resolution as
first proposed, he must have voted for it, notwithstanding all the
odium which might have attached to such a vote. He hoped, he said,
that rigorous retaliation would take place if our countrymen found in
arms had been treated as criminals and not as prisoners of war. He
hoped we should have ample atonement for every drop of American blood
which should be spilt in such manner. Having taken occasion to pay a
handsome compliment to the gallantry of our Navy, which was not heard
with sufficient distinctness to be reported, Mr. R. concluded by hoping
there would be no objection to the resolution.

Mr. MILNOR said he thought it due to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
BASSETT) to state that, owing to the noise which prevailed in the
House, he had not before heard the statement which the gentleman had
now been kind enough to make. He had heard of no such case as that
alluded to by his colleague; but he trusted he had been sufficiently
guarded not to commit himself, even to the most invidious construction,
as opposed to a proper investigation of this subject. To the present
motion he yielded his perfect acquiescence. Mr. M. said he trusted that
in any thing that related to the honor of the country in the contest in
which we are now engaged, whatever might have been his opinion of the
propriety of entering into it, he should not be found more backward
than other gentlemen in sustaining the just rights of the nation.

Mr. SHEFFEY said, if American citizens had been treated in the manner
represented, he was clearly of opinion that severe retaliation ought to
follow. But did gentlemen pretend that a British subject, running away
from a British vessel, and found on board of one of ours, was to be
considered as entitled to be treated as a prisoner of war? Could this
doctrine be asserted by any gentleman? He presumed not. The resolution,
as it now stood, would not elicit the facts material as to this
point. He, therefore, moved to amend it, by inserting, after the word
"persons," the words "other than British subjects."

Mr. SEYBERT said he was happy to hear the declaration last made by his
colleague, (Mr. MILNOR.) He hoped the amendment first offered would be
rejected with disdain. [The SPEAKER declared that such language was
not proper in debate, the expression being too strong, and such as
sometimes led to a personal altercation, always to be avoided.] Mr.
S. thanked the Speaker for his caution; he meant no personality; but
he thought it did not become this House to debate whether the persons
in question were British subjects or not, when they had been put in
irons for fighting the battles of the country. Let the proof rest on
the aggressor on national law and the violator of the rules of war. He
hoped the House would without hesitation reject the amendment. I may go
too far, said he, by stating too much; but I will say thus much without
risk of contradiction: that the boatswain of the Wasp, a warrant
officer of the United States, had been twelve years within the United
States and has a wife and children here. These, I hope, are sufficient
characteristics to insure him our support: I will give him mine, and
have no doubt the House will do the same.

Mr. RANDOLPH said that the proposed amendment brought strongly to view
the impropriety of the House, on the rude suggestions of any member,
committing itself hastily by a definite determination which to-morrow
they might be disposed to retract. He believed this was one of those
cases in which there was no necessity for haste. The House would be as
competent to-morrow, to decide on the subject of the resolution and
the proposed amendment, and in a manner to redound, at least, as much
to the credit of the House and the national good, as now. With regard
to his own opinions, if they were of any importance with his worthy
colleague, he would at once say they were on this subject the opinions
of that man, from whom he never did dissent but upon one question,
without being wrong--that man who was emphatically called for eight
years our Commander-in-chief--the founder of this nation--the author
of the constitution--our first President--the man who was made for the
office, and the office for him--the man who discharged all its duties
so perfectly, as if it had been only to show those who come after him
their incompetency. Mr. R. said he would ask his worthy colleague, what
he supposed would have been the fate of a certain Benedict Arnold,
had he been brought alive to the American camp, after his desertion
from it? On that subject there can be but one opinion. On another
question, if his opinion was of any value, he would state it. It was
not a loose thought, taken upon the impulse of the moment; but the
result of meditation and reflection. As long as foreigners, naturalized
by our laws, remain on our soil, he was ready to throw over them the
mantle of the constitution--he would protect them, as he would protect
the native citizen, at the hazard of the last shilling of the public
revenue, and the last drop of the blood of our people. But, when they
go abroad on the high seas; when they come to this country to acquire
a neutrality of character, now indeed no longer to be found here; when
they come here only to neutralize goods in the Baltic, at Heligoland,
in the Black Sea, the White Sea, and the Red Sea, and the passing to
and fro on the highway of nations; if it please God, their old master
George the Third, or Napoleon, or Alexander of Russia, should lay his
hand on them, they were welcome, Mr. R. said, for him. He would not
spend one shilling, one drop of American blood, to redeem such a man;
much less would he have retaliation executed on subjects of the nation
claiming him, with whom we should happen to come in collision, which
might have to be expiated by the native blood of these States. I would
not, said Mr. R., have the New England man or old Virginian executed by
any despot, limited or unlimited in authority, in order to secure to
us the worthless property in the man who is a Christian in Christendom
and a Mussulman in Turkey. But, Mr. R. asked, did not this question
assume a different shape, when this man was not going to and fro on
the high seas in search of plunder, which he calls patriotism, but,
when he is found in a public ship of war of the United States? On that
subject--for it was a new question--he was not prepared to decide. It
was not, Mr. R. said, and the House might rely on it, the sentiment of
the people of these States--it might be of some comparatively small,
and therefore only insignificant section of the community--that we
should enter into a contestation with France and England for property
in their subjects.

Mr. R. here drew a comparison between the practice of harboring
slaves in some of our Northern cities, Philadelphia for instance, and
the countenance given in this country to European emigrants. As to
these foreigners, Mr. R. said he owed them nothing. He was sorry they
had ever found refuge here--he wished he had driven them from our
shores--or have permitted, as we have the merchants, to go out where
they pleased, without attempting to protect them.

Mr. QUINCY rose, he said, simply to express his regret, that a debate
in this form and manner should have arisen. The question which had been
touched, was one which required all the information and light which
could be shed on it. The principles connected with it were so numerous
and critical, that it required all the reflection of which gentlemen
were capable, to enable them to discuss and decide it in a proper
manner. He rose also to express his regret that a motion for amendment
should be made by a gentleman with whom he frequently coincided in
opinion, which went to exclude information of the manner in which
officers treated persons other than British subjects. He could not vote
against receiving information of any kind--particularly on a subject so
interesting. Mr. Q. was proceeding in his remarks, when--

Mr. SHEFFEY withdrew his motion.

Mr. BASSETT explained his ideas of expatriation. He would not protect
the man who had left the country with an intention not to return, &c.,
but he would protect the man who went out to fight the battles of the
country.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose for the purpose of moving an amendment. He adverted
to the language of the resolution, and drew a distinction between
the character of privateers and of our public armed vessels. Was it
competent, he asked, to the Government to receive as testimony the
statement of the commander or crew of an American corsair? It was well
known, too, he remarked, that the high wages which had been paid to
the crews of the privateers, was one of the reasons why the American
Navy was in some degree unmanned. And, was it not a different question,
whether we should interpose our authority between the subject of a
foreign nation and his Government, when that subject is fighting your
battles, bleeding on the deck of your public ship, at twelve dollars
a month, and when he is decoyed into a corsair by the temptation of
eighty, fifty, or forty dollars a month? There is a difference, sir,
said Mr. R. I trust, said he, if we receive the information we are
about to ask, we shall get it from a pure and authorized source, such
as no man can question. I mean the commanders of our public ships of
war. Mr. R. concluded by moving to strike out "American," and insert
"public," so as to read "public armed ships."

Mr. WIDGERY expressed his surprise at the various expedients resorted
to, to embarrass this question; and hoped this would have the same fate
as the other. He said he could tell the gentleman that many privateers
had been manned without a cent of wages. But, suppose they had been
manned in other ways, were not privateers as useful in annoying the
enemy as public ships? No man that knew any thing about maritime
affairs would deny it. Whereever our privateers had come across an
armed vessel of the enemy, of any thing like equal force, they had
done their duty like American tars. We are at war, Mr. W. said, and
ought to check the enemy wherever we come in contact with them. He
believed the privateering carried on had been of great advantage to us
and injury to our enemy. As to the objection which had been offered to
receiving the statement of their commanders, what were gentlemen afraid
of? No disparagement to the commanders of the navy, (for he respected
them all,) he knew gentlemen commanding privateers whose opinions were
entitled to as great respect as that of any other, and whose word could
not be questioned. In relation to the cases referred to in the resolve,
particularly that of the boatswain, Mr. W. said we were bound by every
principle of the law of nations to support him to the last cent of our
money, more especially as he had a warrant under the seal of the United
States. The conduct of our enemy was the less justifiable, as she
manned her own ships with people of all nations.

Mr. RANDOLPH'S proposed amendment was negatived by a large majority;
and the resolution was agreed to without further debate or opposition.


FRIDAY, December 11.

                        _Macedonian and Frolic._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I transmit to Congress copies of a letter to the Secretary of
    the Navy, from Captain Decatur, of the frigate "United States,"
    reporting his combat and capture of the British frigate
    Macedonian. Too much praise cannot be bestowed on that officer
    and his companions on board, for the consummate skill and
    conspicuous valor by which this trophy has been added to the
    naval arms of the United States.

    I transmit, also, a letter from Captain Jones, who commanded
    the sloop-of-war Wasp, reporting his capture of the British
    sloop-of-war, the Frolic, after a close action, in which other
    brilliant titles will be seen to the public admiration and
    praise.

    A nation feeling what it owes to itself and to its citizens
    could never abandon to arbitrary violence on the ocean, a class
    of them which gives such examples of capacity and courage, in
    defending their rights on that element; examples which ought to
    impress on the enemy, however brave and powerful, a preference
    of justice and peace, to hostility against a country whose
    prosperous career may be accelerated, but cannot be prevented,
    by the assaults made on it.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  WASHINGTON, December 11, 1812.



U. S. SHIP UNITED STATES, AT SEA.

                                                       October 30, 1812.

    SIR: I have the honor to inform you that, on the 25th instant,
    being in the latitude 29° north, longitude 29° 30' west, we
    fell in with, and, after an action of one hour and a half,
    captured His Britannic Majesty's ship Macedonian, commanded by
    Captain John Carden, and mounting forty-nine carriage guns,
    (the odd gun shifting.) She is a frigate of the largest class,
    two years old, four months out of the dock, and reputed one
    of the best sailers in the British service. The enemy being to
    windward, had the advantage of engaging us at his own distance;
    which was so great that, for the first half hour, we did not
    use our carronades, and at no moment was he within the complete
    effect of our musketry or grape. To this circumstance, and a
    heavy swell which was on at the time, I ascribe the unusual
    length of the action.

    The enthusiasm of every officer, seaman, and marine, on board
    this ship, on discovering the enemy, their steady conduct
    in battle, and the precision of their fire, could not be
    surpassed. Where all have met my fullest expectations it
    would be unjust in me to discriminate. Permit me, however,
    to recommend to your particular notice my first lieutenant,
    William H. Allen; he has served with me upwards of five years,
    and to his unremitted exertions in disciplining the crew is to
    be imputed the obvious superiority of our gunnery exhibited in
    the result of this contest.

    Subjoined is a list of the killed and wounded on both sides.
    Our loss, compared with that of the enemy, will appear small.
    Among our wounded you will observe the name of Lieutenant Funk,
    who died a few hours after the action; he was an officer of
    great gallantry and promise, and the service sustained a severe
    loss in his death.

    The Macedonian lost her mizzenmast, fore and main-topmasts, and
    main-yard, and was much cut up in her hull.

    The damage sustained by this ship was not such as to render her
    return into port necessary; and had I not deemed it important
    that we should see our prize in, should have continued our
    cruise.

    With the highest consideration and respect, I am, sir, your
    obedient humble servant.

                                                        STEPHEN DECATUR.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON.

    _List of killed and wounded on board the United States._

    Thomas Brown, New York, seaman; Henry Shepherd, Philadelphia,
    seaman; William Murray, Boston, boy; Michael O'Donnel, New
    York, private marine; John Roberts, private marine--_killed_.

    John Mercer Funk, Philadelphia, lieutenant, (since dead;) John
    Archibald, New York, carpenter's crew; Christian Clark, ditto,
    seaman; George Christopher, ditto, ordinary seaman; George
    Mahar, ditto ditto; William James, ditto ditto; John Lawton,
    ditto, private marine--_wounded_.

    On board the Macedonian there were thirty-six killed, and
    sixty-eight wounded; among the former, were the boatswain, one
    master's mate, and the schoolmaster; and of the latter were
    the first and third lieutenants, one master's mate, and two
    midshipmen.


NEW YORK, _November 24, 1812_.

    SIR: I here avail myself of the first opportunity of informing
    you of occurrences of our cruise, which terminated in the
    capture of the Wasp, on the 18th of October, by the Poictiers,
    of seventy-four guns, while a wreck from damages received
    in the engagement with the British sloop-of-war Frolic, of
    twenty-two guns, sixteen of them thirty-two-pound carronades,
    four twelve-pounders on the main deck, and two twelve-pound
    carronades on the top-gallant forecastle; making her superior
    in force to us by four twelve-pounders. The Frolic had struck
    to us, and was taken possession of two hours before our
    surrendering to the Poictiers.

    We had left the Delaware on the 13th; the 16th had a heavy
    gale, in which we lost our jib-boom and two men; half-past
    eleven on the night of the 17th, in latitude 37 degrees north,
    and longitude 65 degrees west, we saw several sail, two of
    them appearing very large; we stood for them for some time,
    then shortened sail, and steered the remainder of the night
    the course we had perceived them on. At daylight, on Sunday
    the 18th, we saw them ahead; gave chase, and soon discovered
    them to be a convoy of six sail, under the protection of a
    sloop-of-war; four of them large ships, mounting from sixteen
    to eighteen guns. At thirty-two minutes past eleven A. M., we
    engaged the sloop-of-war, having first received her fire at
    the distance of fifty or sixty yards, which space we gradually
    lessened until we laid her on board, after a well-supported
    fire of forty-three minutes; and although so near, while
    loading our last broadside, that our rammers were shoved
    against the side of the enemy, our men exhibited the same
    alacrity which they had done during the whole of the action.
    They immediately surrendered upon our gaining their forecastle,
    so that no loss was sustained on their side after boarding.

    Our maintop-mast was shot away between four and five minutes
    from the commencement of the firing, and falling, together
    with the maintopsail-yard, across the larboard fore and
    fore-topsail braces, rendered our head-yards unmanageable the
    remainder of the action. At eight minutes, the gaff and mizzen
    topgallant-mast came down, and at twenty minutes from the
    beginning of the action every brace and most of the rigging
    was shot away. A few minutes after separating from the Frolic
    both her masts fell upon deck; the main-mast going close by the
    deck, and the foremast going twelve or fifteen feet above it.

    The courage and exertions of the officers and crew fully
    answered my expectations and wishes. Lieutenant Biddle's
    active conduct contributed much to our success, by the exact
    attention paid to every department during the engagement, and
    the animating example he afforded the crew by his intrepidity.
    Lieutenants Rogers, Booth, and Mr. Rapp, showed, by incessant
    fire from their divisions, that they were not to be surpassed
    in resolution or skill. Mr. Knight, and every other officer,
    acted with a courage and promptitude highly honorable, and I
    trust have given assurance that they may be relied on whenever
    their services may be required.

    I could not ascertain the exact loss of the enemy, as many
    of the dead lay buried under the masts and spars that had
    fallen on deck, which two hours' exertion had not sufficiently
    removed. Mr. Biddle, who had charge of the Frolic, states that,
    from what he saw, and from information from the officers,
    the number killed must have been about thirty, and that of
    the wounded about forty or fifty; of the killed, is her
    first lieutenant and sailing-master; of the wounded, Captain
    Winyates, and the second lieutenant.

    We had five killed and five wounded, as per list: the wounded
    are recovering. Lieutenant Claxton, who was confined by
    sickness, left his bed a little previous to the engagement, and
    though too weak to be at his division, remained on deck, and
    showed, by his composed manner of noting its incidents, that we
    had lost by his illness the services of a brave officer.

  I am, respectfully, &c.

                                                            JACOB JONES.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON.


The Message and documents having been read--

On motion of Mr. RANDOLPH, they were referred to the Committee on Naval
Affairs, with instructions to report a suitable expression of the
Legislative approbation of the services detailed.

Mr. R. said he did not wish by this motion to limit the committee to
reporting a resolution; or to preclude them from expressing approbation
in a more substantial manner.


WEDNESDAY, December 16.

                      _Navy of the United States._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill
from the Senate, which had been previously twice read in the House.

Mr. SAWYER made a motion to add the word "teen" to "four," so as to
make it fourteen 74 gun ships.

Mr. S. thought it a proper occasion to try the question whether we
were to have a navy or not. He took the occasion to congratulate the
House upon the repeated victories of our little navy over the enemy;
and of the grateful prospect of a speedy termination to the despotism
of the seas. National piracy is about to be exterminated, and all
nations permitted to traverse their great highway in safety. The thing
can be done; and if we say so, with the will of God, will be done.
The experiment upon which the proof hangs has been made. British arms
cannot withstand American upon the sea. The bully has been disgraced
by an infant; and fear shall no longer restrain an abject world from
vindicating its long violated rights. Give us but a respectable fleet,
and it is all we ask. But what can we do with four seventy-fours? They
are a mere mockery. If we do mean to make a serious stand upon the
ocean, such a force must be out of all character. If we mean merely to
annoy her trade, (and he trusted we meant more,) frigates will do; but,
to make any serious impression that way, we must have a respectable
fleet; at least, in his opinion, fourteen sail-of-the-line. That would
give us a preponderance on our own coast, and enable us to bring in
our prizes with safety. Who can bear the idea of our being obliged to
burn or sink all the ships we may take away from the enemy, for fear
of their being recaptured? He thought we should save enough by the
protection they would afford to our prizes to support the expense of
them. We can easily support such a force. The expense, distributed
over our widely-extended population, would be less than a dollar a
head; and, where is the American who would grudge such a sum for such
an object? The people, I am confident, will cheerfully pay it, because
we are now at war, and a navy is found the most efficient weapon in
our hands against the enemy. He therefore trusted that if it was the
disposition of the House to have a navy, they would establish such a
one as would answer some purpose.

Mr. SEYBERT said he did not anticipate that the bill from the Senate
would have been called for to-day by the Chairman of the Naval
Committee; notwithstanding he had bestowed some attention on the
subject, he confessed his remarks would be made in a manner not
entirely satisfactory to himself; he would, however, proceed with them.

Mr. Chairman, said he, I wish it was as easy to build, equip, and man
the seventy-fours, as it will be to add the word "teen" to "four," as
is proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina. So far from adding to
the number of these ships, contemplated by the bill, he had intended to
move that no seventy-four gun ships should be, at this time, authorized
by the Legislature.

On a former occasion, Mr. S. continued, when a naval establishment was
the subject under consideration, he stated at length his reasons for
opposing the propositions before the House. The opinions which he then
advanced concerning an extensively permanent naval establishment for
the United States were still believed to be well grounded. He did not
hesitate to declare his intention, at this time, and under the pressure
of present circumstances, to yield much to general feelings, and the
sentiments of the nation; nevertheless, he should guard against being
carried too far by the current of popular opinion. It is equally my
duty, said he, to keep in view what is conceived to be the permanent
and vital national interest. He declared a uniform opposition to
that establishment, which could not be brought within the means and
resources of the nation to maintain it. We have made war, said he, to
guarantee the honor and independence of the nation, as well as for
the support of the just rights of our citizens; with these objects in
view, he had consented to authorize a regular force of 25,000 men, and
advocated one more numerous, though in principle he was opposed to
standing armies. If, then, a great portion of my fellow-citizens deem
an increase of the Naval Establishment essential to promote the great
work, why should it be refused on my part? No opposition would be made
by him to the principle or spirit of the bill before the House, though,
he confessed, he did not approve the provisions as to the kind of force
therein contemplated.

Mr. S. continued.--At this time our principal object should be, to
authorize that species of force which can be furnished in the shortest
period, and which promises to be the most efficient in the present
contest. If the views of the Government were not now confined to the
present war, he considered it inexpedient to build public ships. It
was necessary that the revenue should be cautiously applied. If it be
employed so as to carry on the war with vigor, he would not shrink
from any appropriation which could tend to produce that effect;
by protracting the contest for the want of means, expense will be
accumulated, and we should achieve nothing.

Mr. S. would not assent to an increase of the navy, with a view to
reconcile other measures to the opposition--to him that vote promised
no such result. Our political opponents, continued he, will tell us,
as regards the navy, you are doing right to add to it; thus far we
will go with you; we always maintained this to be the proper course;
as to your golden dreams in Canada, we will abandon them to yourselves
exclusively. Such were his present impressions; it would gratify him to
find himself to have been mistaken. He declared his intention to oppose
the building of 74's, or double-decked ships, and to advocate a greater
number of the largest class frigates. If, however, his statements
should not prove satisfactory to the House, he declared the failure
would not induce him ultimately to vote against that species of force
which a majority might deem expedient.

If, said Mr. S., the great reason for now laying the keels of the
double-decked ships, be (as was lately acknowledged elsewhere by
high authority) to test the intentions of the legislature as to a
permanent naval establishment, he, for one, declared, he would not thus
be tested, nor could he be thereby induced to vote in favor of the
proposition; he would always be governed by circumstances.

The declaration of the committee, that it was proper to meet "like
with like," or, in other words, because the British have seventy-four
gun ships, the United States should have them of the same class, would
have no effect on him. We might as well say, because there are ships
in the British service, which carry one hundred and twenty guns,
we should also have such. This reasoning is fallacious. No one has
attempted to advocate the latter proposition. Admitting that you had
four seventy-four gun ships on your navy list, he maintained, they
would answer no good purpose. In the course of the following year,
their number will be more than doubled and trebled on the part of the
enemy. The consequence would be, that your most expensive ships must
either combat under very unpromising circumstances, or they would
be blockaded in your harbors, and then be worse than useless; they
must be kept at a heavy expense, and their crews would deprive other
ships of the men necessary for their equipment. He said, the opinions
which he had just advanced were not the result of idle speculations
at the fireside; they were supported by intelligent commanders, and
rested upon the firm base of experience; they were confirmed by the
conversations of some whose splendid achievements adorned the pages
of our Revolutionary history, and by others, who rank as heroes of
the present war. He asked, why need we resort to other authority,
when that of the head of the Naval Department can be brought to bear
testimony in favor of the propositions laid down? In the year 1798, the
Secretary of the Navy informed the House that twelve seventy-fours, as
many frigates, and twenty or thirty smaller vessels, "would probably
be found sufficient to insure our future peace with the nations of
Europe." In 1811, it was declared that, "twelve sail of seventy-fours
and twenty well-constructed frigates, with our smaller vessels," were
necessary to annoy the commerce of the enemy, and guard our coasts. To
this he added that, in the year 1811, during a state of peace with the
United States, the British had seven ships-of-the-line on the American
stations, independent of fifties, frigates, and smaller vessels; at the
same time, they had thirty-nine ships-of-the-line on the stocks! Tell
me, said he, what is to keep a great proportion of them from your coast
in 1813?

Mr. MCKEE said, he had not expected this subject would have been taken
up to-day, or to say any thing on it when it should be taken up. But,
said he, for what purpose, I feel impelled to ask, are you going to
build these vessels? Are you to spend four or five millions of dollars,
in addition to your present extraordinary expenditures, to protect
commerce? Will this old argument, in favor of a navy, now be used,
which we have so often heard heretofore? Sir, where is your commerce
now to protect? Will you protect that clandestinely destined to Great
Britain? No, surely. Will you protect that destined to the coast of
France? Let us reflect what commerce you can carry on with France. None
worth protection, or of any moment to the great body of the American
people. Does France purchase your tobacco or cotton, which heretofore
have found a market there? She has never been a purchaser of provisions
or breadstuffs. What is the state of trade between us and France? Your
cotton, in France, is taxed with enormous duties. No man who is not
under the influence of the moon would, at this time, think of making a
shipment there. Would you ship your commerce there merely to surrender
so much property into the grasp of the Emperor? It would be the extreme
of folly. Where, then, will you protect your commerce? To the Baltic,
sir? You can carry on in that quarter no commerce at all interesting
to the great body of the American people. In what does your export to
that region consist? In articles of colonial produce; not in articles
the produce of your soil. Will you tax the great agricultural community
for the purpose of protecting this extraneous commerce? I ask if the
people of the West, of the Atlantic, of the Middle States, or any
other portion of the American people, will be content to be taxed to
support a navy for the protection of a commerce in foreign produce, by
which but few individuals in the nation can be benefited? There is no
commerce to protect, unless it be that which exchanges specie for the
production of the East Indies, and benefits no part of the community.
Having no valuable commerce now to protect, the object of adding
vessels to your navy, must be to fight your battles at sea.

If you would propose a navy as a means of carrying on war, bend your
resources to that object. We have been told that the trident of
Neptune is passing into our hands. But, sir, the sovereignty of the
ocean is not to be acquired by four ships-of-the-line and five or six
frigates. You can have no legitimate object in building such vessels
as proposed, unless it be to carry on the war. If that be your object,
make your means commensurate to the end you have in view.

Do you yet contend that the object is to protect commerce? Your
commerce is not worth the cost. And who would pay it? The merchants?
No, sir. They will pay only their proportion. I recollect, when a boy,
to have seen a little book, in which I admired the pictures more than
the reading, in which were the representations of a king, a priest, a
soldier, and a farmer; a label issuing from the mouth of each contained
these words: The king says, "I govern all;" the priest, "I pray for
all;" the soldier, "I fight for all;" and the farmer, "I pay for all."
This, sir, is perfectly true as regards the American farmers--they pay
for all. And what advantage do they derive from it? What advantage are
my constituents to derive from the expenditure of this money?


THURSDAY, December 17.

                        _Increase of the Navy._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill to increase the Navy of the United States.

Mr. SEYBERT moved to amend the first section of the bill by striking
out "four seventy-fours and," so as to erase the provision for building
vessels of that description.

Mr. GOLD.--The provision in the bill to introduce ships-of-the-line
into the Navy, I consider, Mr. Chairman, as fixing the great policy of
a navy under this Government. Frigates we have had, but in common with
petty nations; for the Barbary Powers have frigates; the provision now
offered rises higher and promises something worthy of the constitution,
something honorable to the Government. I rejoice, Mr. Chairman, at
the favorable circumstances, and hail the auspices under which we now
meet this question; we are no longer left to erring speculations, to
uncertain reasoning, but have under our eyes the sure and infallible
test of experience, of practice in war with a naval force. Within a few
weeks our tars have thrice grappled with the enemy, and thrice have
they triumphed in combat; the success has swelled the American bosom
with joy from Orleans to Maine--all without exception of party, vie in
demonstrations of joy and in the bestowment of honors upon the victors.

While such a scene is presented here, gloom and dissatisfaction
prevail in the metropolis of Great Britain--those who have been so
long accustomed to conquer, receive the capture of the Guerriere with
as much astonishment as they would behold a suspension of the laws of
nature. A strange event to Britons!

How often, sir, has it been echoed and re-echoed within these walls,
that it would be in vain to attempt any thing with a navy against Great
Britain, unless we could bring ship to ship and man to man--could
equal our enemy on the ocean. How much mistaken have gentlemen been;
how vain is human reason! The earliest stage of the first war under
the Government has yielded a clear, full, and incontestable refutation
of the argument. While the American arms have suffered disgrace upon
disgrace on what was deemed the natural and proper theatre for the
display of our power; while by land all is gloomy and comfortless, and
the heart sickens under the past, our little Navy, a handful of men,
has nobly sustained us upon the ocean, and banished that despondency
which our disasters by land must have otherwise produced.

If, sir, under such auspices, such overwhelming evidence of the
efficiency of a navy, this question is to be put by, I shall despair
of a navy; we may rank with Algiers in a force of frigates, but shall
do nothing worthy of a community of eight millions of souls, placed by
Heaven in a situation most favorable to commerce and naval power.

The objections, sir, to a navy are not a little amusing. Do you move
the question in peace, it is objected, that commerce flourishes and
you want not protection; at another time it is said not to be worth
the expense of a navy, and lastly a navy will draw America into the
European vortex and involve us in a war. Now that we are in war, a new
book of logic is opened, and it is objected, that you have not time
to build a navy, the war will be over before ships can be finished.
It is thus, sir, that the arguments against a navy are made to answer
and refute themselves; nay, more, the argument in war is a satire and
reproach to the objection in peace. "There is not now time to build a
navy," reproaches us for not having passed the requisite laws at the
last session.

I have always considered the great policy of a navy settled by the
constitution; need I spend time to show, that no great specific power
was delegated to the General Government unless it was deemed necessary;
not necessary for a dormitory, but to be executed for the general
protection and welfare. This was the polar star--the test and criterion
that governed in the delegation of powers by the States--powers not
necessary to be exercised for the general good were retained by the
several States. What greatly strengthens the argument is, the power to
provide a navy is not only given to the General Government, but taken
away or denied to the several States. In adopting the constitution,
this question was considered at rest, and a navy was deemed the
necessary consequence of this power; in the Virginia Convention,
where great talent and ingenuity was displayed in the debate, the
point was so considered, and the objection rested on that ground; the
consequence of adoption was supposed to be an unequal strengthening of
the commercial parts of the Union. So deeply impressed was President
WASHINGTON with the importance of a navy, and so true to his duty and
just claims of commerce for protection, that he could not consent
to quit his high station in the public councils without placing on
record his sentiments for the good of his country--this he did in his
speech to the fourth Congress (second session) in language that well
attests his wisdom and paternal care and solicitude for his country. He
recommended and urged the policy of a navy in the strongest terms, and
I will not believe that the parting lesson of that great and good man
will be lost to his country--there is certainly too much respect for
his memory to disregard his solemn advice and counsel on any subject.
In this policy Mr. JEFFERSON also concurred at a period most auspicious
to fair inquiry and dispassionate judgment; it was before the tempest
of party arose, to obscure the great luminary of truth and blacken the
political horizon.

Mr. WIDGERY.--Mr. Chairman, it will be recollected that I was last
session of Congress opposed to the building of seventy-fours, until
we had got more frigates. I have been rather opposed to them in
the Committee of Naval Affairs, not because I was opposed to an
augmentation of the Navy, but because I thought it more to the
advantage of the country to build frigates and sloops of war at
present; and if, hereafter, when we have sailors plenty to man the
large ships with, it should be thought best to have larger ships, it
may be very well to build them; but, at present, our resources are
inadequate to build the seventy-fours and the ten frigates, and say
eight or ten sloops of war, which are absolutely necessary for the
protection of our seacoast, in order to keep off the British gun-brigs
or privateers. The ships-of-the-line will not answer this purpose, when
they are at sea; they must keep deep water; they cannot, with safety,
follow in under the land those small vessels which annoy our coasters,
and capture them all along shore. Within a few days, I have accounts
of a small privateer, of eight guns, having captured twenty or thirty
sail of coasting vessels. Sir, it is a sight to see a public armed
ship of the United States anywhere on our shore to the eastward of
Boston--a seacoast of 200 miles--when the enemy can take every thing
that passes out to sea, and a country in which there are the best of
ship-harbors, where they might cruise with safety, always having a
harbor handy to run into. I cannot feel willing to build seventy-fours,
to the exclusion of the smaller ships, of which we are so much in want
at this time. If you had the money in your chest, and all ready for the
building four seventy-fours, and all the timber in the yard--which you
have not--still I should have doubts on my mind as to the propriety of
those heavy ships. Say, if you please, that you had those ships built,
could you send them to sea? I presume not, if at war with England,
because she would always blockade your harbors wherever they were; and
if you sent them out, perhaps you would never have to man them again;
not because our ships in single combat are not a match for hers, but,
because they have more ships than they know what to do with; they would
always outnumber you at sea, and they would be able to come up with
and capture your four ships. But, for what purpose are you to send
them out? Certainly, not to take merchantmen. They are not calculated
for that purpose, unless you had more than four of them. In case you
had a number sufficient to intercept their East India fleet, which,
generally, are under strong convoys of heavy ships, then it might be an
object to send them to sea. If you are to keep them in port, for the
purpose of harbor defence, you must always keep them manned; it will
be too late to man them after the enemy comes in sight. And there is,
in my mind, another difficulty: In the manning these heavy ships, you
will have to impress men to go on board of them, or raise the wages
up to what is given in a merchant ship; because the sailors will not
be willing to go on board large ships, when they have no chance for
prize money. On the other hand, they will be very willing to enter on
board cruising ships, such as frigates or sloops of war, in hopes of
taking prizes; and you have not, at present, a sufficient number of
sailors to man what smaller vessels we want. If you build frigates
and sloops of war, they can be furnished without your advancing the
money; the merchants will build them, and loan them to the Government.
The frigates and smaller vessels can be put afloat in six months from
the time they are agreed for; and your ships-of-the-line will not be
finished in less than two years; and if they do not cost 30 per cent.
more than they are calculated at, I will dare pay all I am worth
towards them for nothing. I am willing to go for almost any number of
frigates, because I know you can have them built without advancing a
dollar until they are ready for service, and because I am convinced
they are most for our interest. Popular opinion, I know, has great
weight at times; let us not be carried off on the wings of enthusiasm;
we are at present at very great expense, and we ought to act prudently
with our finances, or they will soon become low. At the same time, I
cannot agree with the gentleman from Kentucky, who says he is opposed
to any augmentation of the Navy, and asks if you are willing to tax the
planters for the building a Navy, and the protection of the merchant?
Sir, will not the same reasoning apply against the maritime towns being
taxed to support the army of 10,000 men in the West? Gentlemen say,
stay on shore, and you will be safe. Sir, may we not, in return, say to
the gentlemen who are settling the cheap lands of the interior, keep
among us; go not into the Indian country; we cannot be taxed to defend
you. This reasoning will apply with as much force against the interior
as theirs does against the Atlantic towns. Sir, we are all one people,
and, in order to remain so, we must be willing to defend at all points.

Mr. BASSETT spoke several times in the course of the debate. The
following is the substance of the whole of his remarks: He said, on
rising, that it was with no feigned diffidence that he addressed the
House. I shall, said he, have credit with every one in the assertion
that I am most anxious that the proposition I have made should succeed.
Must I not, then, deplore the feebleness of voice, the want of force,
of manner, and promptness of mind and thought, which limit me? But
I shall feel compensated if the House will, in heart, join me in
regretting that a cause worthy of the first of advocates has fallen
into such puny hands. For the _cause_, then, will they hear me, and for
their country's good will they improve each hint I may let fall, by
their better judgment. It is true, sir, we have little experience--I
cannot boast of naval knowledge in our land--but, yet, we are not quite
deficient. Let it be remembered, that it is on the first principles
that we are to decide; that we are to mark the outlines only, which
depend much on general reasoning, and, in doing which, we may resort
to the experience of others. I will follow (though with unequal step)
the course taken by my predecessor last year, and, on the question to
fill this blank, bring the whole subject before the committee. It will
be assumed, as then proved, that protection is due to every national
right, which cannot be estimated by pecuniary calculation, but must
be tested by national ability only to defend and protect them. To the
mode of effecting so desirable an object, I shall confine myself. The
report has assumed it as a principle almost of instinct to oppose like
to like, and so says the history of man, whom we find ever availing
himself of the improvements of his assailant for self-defence. Hence
has the art of war become to all nations the most interesting science,
and no citizen is more estimable than he who can direct the national
force with most efficiency. The importance of a naval force is amply
attested on record. I will first, sir, point you to the conflicts
between the rival Republics of Rome and Carthage, and ask you to
remember the agency that their vessels had in them. Had the Romans
confined themselves to the land, never had Carthage been destroyed. The
history of Europe, from Venice to Great Britain, is too familiar to all
who hear me, to require reference to particulars. It is sufficient for
me to call attention to the effect of naval power, as it passed from
nation to nation. What was the power of Venice and Genoa when they led
the van of naval power? How quickly did the sceptre of Portugal rise,
as she assumed a station on the ocean! how sink as she lost her naval
preponderance! How did a navy once support the United Provinces! and
how is it now the salvation of Great Britain! It is then a fact, that a
naval armament gives effect to the power of a nation, as do the musket
and bayonet, the cannon and the mortar. And how, sir, is it attempted
to rebut this fact? By showing a physical disability in the country to
avail itself of this force? No. For then would they be rebutted by the
extent of our coasts, by the materials for ship-building, (so ample,)
and the known habits and genius of our countrymen, as each day is
evincing. And here, sir, I wish I could follow up the beautiful figure
of my friend, who, on a former occasion, showed you our continent,
extending to either ocean, with the finger of Munificence pointing to
the goodly heritage.

We have then these facts: that a navy is a powerful means of national
operation; that our local situation is fitted for its use; and that we
have the necessary materials. To which it is objected that your infant
Navy must be opposed to one which has reached the full manhood of power
on the ocean. I admit it. But shall we therefore abandon the ocean,
yield our birthright, our goodly heritage, without a struggle? Or,
shall we not rather, deducing argument from example, like the gallant
Captain Hull, avoid their fleets and capture their single ships.

I am aware that habit impels some to be fearful on this subject, and
the experience of the past will not convince them. With diffidence,
therefore, do I refer to the efficiency of twelve ships-of-the-line
and twenty frigates, as demonstrated last session. Let me ask of
gentlemen who thus think, who thus feel, to examine the extent of their
argument. Does it not go, not only to the abandonment of the ocean,
but to the seacoast also? I shall trust to former statements for the
magnitude of this sacrifice, with the observation, that abandoning the
ocean involves the loss of one million four hundred thousand tons of
shipping; and that in giving up the coasts, you lose a valuable portion
of your soil, and some of your fairest cities. I will not dwell on the
magnitude of this sacrifice, because I cannot believe that Americans
will abandon any right which there is a prospect to maintain. I cannot,
I admit, answer as conclusively the objection, that much time will
be passed before this force can be procured; yet, I believe, that a
mind which relied on that objection, might be satisfied that late
preparation is better than none. Nor could a mind, so circumstanced,
fail to see, that, while making preparation, you come every day nearer
your object; in neglecting it, you are every day further from it,
and you are, in neglecting it, blending ultimate loss with temporary
sacrifice.

Mr. Chairman, is it for an infant nation, or a popular Government, to
be deterred by the want of preparation? What is it that the youth has
not to prepare, or when was it that a popular Government taxed itself
with previous preparation? But why this argument of despair? What were
your preparations for the Revolutionary war, and when made? After an
army was in your country. Yet were they then made and effectually
made. By the bravery of our fathers our soil was secured; on us it
rests to secure our rights on the water, common to every independent
nation, and as clearly ours as they are essential to our interests.
What is this argument of infancy? Had not the Navy of Great Britain a
beginning? Yes. There was a time when Britain had no ship. What then?
She was invaded, and more, she was conquered. At this day, her wooden
walls, as they are proverbially called, are her defence and protection.
Is it admitted that the British fleet secures her from attack? If so,
would not a fleet secure us from attack also? But we have it not. Is
it not then our duty, as guardians of the public interest, to provide
this powerful, this necessary means of defence? But some are alarmed
at the cost. Permit me to recur to the calculation of the last year.
And first, as to the information derived from British experience, whose
example may be taken as precedent on maritime subjects; at least they
make a powerful argument, where they are rejected as full proof. In
recurring to British estimates, it certainly was unexpected to the
American eye to see the same sum charged for a soldier as for a sailor,
viz: ---- dollars per month; and as unexpected, on investigating
the British expenditures for a series of years, to find that the
appropriations for the Navy are found less than those for the Army, as
will be seen by reference to the _Annual Register_. In corroboration of
this is our own history, as appears from the calculations made by my
predecessor, of which I will avail myself.

Is it not then demonstrated by foreign and domestic experience, that
a naval force is the cheapest the nation can resort to for defence
and protection? Is it not also proved, that a force believed to be
competent, might be obtained at a sum greatly within the means of the
Government--say twelve millions of dollars--or a fourth less than
the ordinary amount of revenue for a year in good times? Test this
subject in another way. The cost of your Navy, twelve millions; give
up the ocean, and you lose, for one item, one million four hundred
thousand tons of shipping, which at fifty dollars the ton, would be
worth five times the sum. Yet that would unquestionably be the least
item in the account, because that would be but one loss, while that
of your coasting, and other trade, would swell into a great annual
amount, and be as great a sacrifice of convenience as profit. Nor is
such a conclusion the less to be deprecated, because it is difficult
to foresee all the evils which must result from the abandonment of
one essential right of an independent nation. I know it may be said
by those who view this subject differently from me, that they do not
mean to abandon the ocean. It is, then, for them to show the difference
between not abandoning a right, and not defending it; for I cannot
believe that any gentleman will contend that the national defence shall
be left to privateers. They have most justly been considered an aid to
the national arm, but Heaven forbid that they should be relied on as
principal. A private arm, with power to shield the nation, is what I
could not contemplate without terror. I cannot believe it necessary to
pursue this argument.

To return then: The force adequate to the defence of our seas would
cost twelve millions. I will not say that this whole expense ought to
be incurred in one year; indeed, it ought to be remarked, that of the
twenty frigates, nearly eight are ready for service. Let the principle
be yielded, and we can then enter on the calculation as to the portion
which may be procured each year. The decision, too, would, in my
judgment, be the strongest inducement to the enemy to make peace when
they saw that you were progressing to a force which they could not
meet. If, indeed, the force which has been named was not altogether
adequate to the object of defending your own waters, you would find,
having that force, that you could make any small addition that was
requisite without difficulty. In reference to the opinions of others,
in some measure, did the select committee determine on the number of
ships, and their force, to be procured this year. Thus if the first
blanks are filled with four seventy-six gun ships, they cost, per
estimate, $333,000, and will require an appropriation of $1,332,000. If
the other blank be filled with six thirty-eight gun ships, which, by
estimate, cost $220,000, the requisite appropriation for them will be
$1,320,000. For the sloops of war, the last blank I have calculated at
$61,200, which would require an appropriation of $367,200; which, with
the necessary appropriation for the four frigates ordered to be rebuilt
last year, viz: the Philadelphia, New York, General Greene, and Boston,
will amount to $3,500,000. This would give you four seventy-sixes and
eighteen frigates, mostly of the best size. Compare the efficiency of
that force with the interest of three millions and a half, the cost,
and you cannot but be gratified with the result. I say, Mr. Chairman,
the interest; because, though it was not in the province of the select
committee to look out the ways and means, yet was it so interested as
to their object, that they could but ask how was the money to be had;
and they were satisfied that three millions and a half could, with
facility, be loaned for navy purposes. I state this with no view to
limit the ways and means, but only that until the subject is given them
to provide for, the House might not be embarrassed with the difficulty
of money.

With the humble hope that the views of the committee have been shown
to be at least most reasonable, if not most correct, I beg leave to
say a few words as to the different kinds of vessels proposed. I will
not ask that the clerk should read that excellent letter from Captain
Stewart, because I presume every gentleman who wishes information
has read it more than once. From that and the other documents, the
committee thought themselves warranted in recommending four seventy-six
gun ships. In addition to the sufficient reasons offered there, that
a large ship, with fewer men and a less cost, will be more efficient
than small ones, by the table A it is most conclusively evinced, that
a seventy-six, at one round, throws on the enemy four pounds fourteen
ounces of ball for each man; whereas, the gunboat throws only ten
ounces. I only give the extremes, that the argument may be the more
readily taken. Here, too, we have the fact, that six hundred and fifty
men are sufficient for a seventy-six, while four hundred and twenty
are required for a frigate. The annual expense is, for the large ship,
$202,110; for the frigate, $110,000. While in action, the larger ship
is equal or superior to three frigates. To support this calculation by
figures, we have the opinions of Captains Hull, Stewart, and Morris;
and Mr. Hamilton says, that all the officers in service concur in
the opinion; and I am told that such is the real history of naval
conflicts. Mr. Hamilton mentions one, and Captain Stewart mentions
another, of four French frigates attacking a British seventy-four, of
which one was sunk, two taken, and the other run off.

It is cause of some exultation to me, that our naval men, where the
opportunity is afforded them, give the example to prove our theory. As
I am told, orders were sent from Washington in September to Captain
Chauncey, then at New York, who made his preparation, took his workmen
with him to the Lakes, and some days since we had the account that
he had built and launched, before November was out, a frigate of
twenty-six guns. The gallant Chauncey enables me to present an argument
that would, could I do it justice, I am sure, have much weight. Will
any gentleman regret that this twenty-six gun ship has been built,
though the mastery of the Lakes has been acquired without it? Neither
shall we regret the building of the seventy-sixes, though peace,
which God send, should come before they are launched. There is yet
one other objection too important to be passed over, though it was on
a former occasion so ably canvassed. It is the difficulty of getting
seamen. That difficulty exists, I do admit. Yet is not the difficulty
insurmountable. Here again I avail myself of the illustrations of my
friend from South Carolina.

The gentleman has again referred to the difficulty of manning your
ships, and deems impressment indispensable. Sir, I admit the weakness
of our nation, and lament it too. Yet I cannot believe that the hard
hand of tyranny is essential to their well-being; and I regret that in
an assembly of freemen, that this, the most if not the only detestable
example England has set us as to a navy, should be so much relied on.
Look to the fact, that in five years forty-two thousand seamen deserted
from the British navy. Look to the fact, that their prisoners require
to be committed to return to their own country. It is with no little
pride that I call the attention of the gentleman and the committee to
our gallery. Did a British gallery ever exhibit such a spectacle? No,
a seaman there is a slave, and seldom puts his foot on shore but under
the guard of an officer. Let us therefore be cautious in admitting that
though Great Britain has been most successful, that she owes it to the
hard, to the iron hand of impressment. It would not be difficult to
find in her naval institutions other principles to which the mind would
delight to attribute her superiority, rather than that from which we
cannot but turn in disgust.

Mr. STOW said he should not consider the motion made by the honorable
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SEYBERT) as going to defeat the main
object of the bill, which was a liberal increase of the navy, because
he understood his intention to be to move a larger number of frigates
if the clause for seventy-fours should be stricken out. The question
then he should consider as simply whether it was best at present to
build any ships-of-the-line, or to confine our exertions to frigates
only? He said his own opinions had leaned pretty strongly to the latter
side till, as a member of the Navy Committee, he had been led to a
more careful examination of the subject; and he confessed that that
examination had fully convinced him of the utility, and he might say
necessity, of building some line-of-battle ships. The propriety of
building them, as well as a proportion of lighter ships, grew out of
the different objects to which they were to be applied. There could
be no doubt of the superior advantages of frigates and sloops of war
when employed in cruising against our enemy's commerce, but whenever
the object is to repel a powerful force, ships-of-the-line ought to
be resorted to. They form batteries infinitely more effective in
proportion to their expense than frigates. To illustrate this--the
cost of a seventy-four is less than one-third more than that of a
forty-four gun frigate, yet the force is as three to one, or according
to the lowest estimate I have heard, as two to one. This is easily
explained when we consider that to make a seventy-four is little more
than adding another deck to a large frigate. It would then appear
evident, that unless we resorted to this kind of force, we should fight
our enemy on the most unequal terms. She could at any time lay a few
heavy ships at the mouths of our harbors and in our narrow waters, and
thus effectually destroy not only our foreign trade, but what was of
infinitely more importance, she could destroy the whole of our coasting
trade.

Further, said Mr. S., knowing that we have no powerful ships, she
can easily protect by convoy all her valuable fleets; but if we had
four ships-of-the-line she would be driven to the enormous expense of
convoying every fleet of merchantmen sailing to any part of America by
five or six seventy-fours, or they would be exposed to capture by our
fleet.

But, said Mr. S., it is objected that they would be blockaded. This
objection was equally against frigates; but he was perfectly willing to
put it upon that ground, that Great Britain would attempt to blockade
them. What then would be the case? She must employ six blockading
ships, supported at an enormous expense, at such a distance; and as had
been fully shown by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES,)
last year, six more ships at least must be occupied in preparing and
sailing to replace the first six--thus employing twelve ships to four.
And after all, the attempt to confine our ships would frequently be
rendered abortive by storms. Again, it has been objected that we had
no harbors south of Montauk Point, in which, if pursued, our ships
could take shelter. If by this was meant barely that we had no harbor
properly fortified, he admitted it was true; and it was also equally
true as applied to our heavy frigates; but if it was meant that there
was no harbor in which ships could enter that was capable of being
properly defended, it was entirely erroneous. For many such there were,
and where sufficient works could be erected in a few months.

Mr. S. said a strong reason for building seventy-fours, and to which
he particularly requested the attention of the committee, grew out of
the state of our preparation. We have timber for four seventy-fours,
seasoned and ready for use, which could not be applied to frigates,
without great loss. And this explained the fact, that we could build
seventy-fours sooner than frigates, unless the timber thus provided
should be cut up, which, after years of deliberate preparation for
seventy-fours, would appear like children's play. He said in a case of
this kind, he thought great respect was due to experience. That many
years ago all the ships of war belonging to the nations of Europe were
small, but that, without one exception, they had resorted to a certain
proportion of heavy ships. From this circumstance, as well as from the
uniform opinion of our own officers, he inferred that these were the
most conclusive reasons in favor of them.

The question was then taken on the motion to strike out the
seventy-fours, and negatived. The committee rose and had leave to sit
again.


FRIDAY, December 18.

                        _Increase of the Navy._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill to increase the Navy of the United States.

Mr. CUTTS then moved to strike out the seventy-fours, with a view to
increase the number of frigates to be built to ten, and to add a number
of sloops of war.

Mr. C. spoke at considerable length in support of his motion, and in
favor of frigates and sloops of war in preference to seventy-four gun
ships.

The question was then taken on striking out the provision respecting
seventy-fours, and was carried--for the amendment 56, against it 53.

Mr. CUTTS moved an amendment authorizing the building of ten ships of
war, of forty-four guns, and ten sloops of war.--Motion lost by a
great majority.


MONDAY, December 21.

On motion of Mr. BASSETT, the petitions of J. A. Chevallie, attorney of
Amelie Eugene de Beaumarchais, presented on the 24th of December, 1805,
and 2d of April, 1806, together with all the documents concerning the
said claim, were referred to the Committee of Claims.

_Encouragement to Privateering by Public Armed and Private Armed
Vessels._

Mr. BASSETT, from the Committee on the Naval Establishment, presented
a bill relating to captures; which was read twice, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole on Wednesday next. The bill is as follows:

    A Bill relating to captures.

    _Be it enacted, &c._, That where any ship or vessel in the
    service of the United States shall have captured, or may
    hereafter capture, a ship or vessel belonging to an enemy,
    of equal or inferior force, and it shall become necessary to
    destroy such prize to prevent her falling into the hands of
    the enemy, or for the security of such ship or vessel so in
    the service of the United States, the Secretary of the Navy
    is hereby required to issue his commission to one or more
    fit person or persons, who, on the best evidence that can be
    procured, shall proceed to estimate the value of such ship
    or vessel, prize as aforesaid, in the port into which the
    capturing vessel shall first enter, and make return on oath of
    said estimate or valuation to the Secretary of the Navy.

    SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the Secretary of the
    Navy shall thereon proceed to apportion the sum, which shall
    be equal to one-half the said valuation or estimate, as prize
    money, among the officers and crew making such capture, and
    cause the same to be paid to them accordingly.

    SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That each commissioned
    officer shall receive six dollars per day for each day he shall
    be employed in making the aforesaid estimate: _Provided_, His
    compensation shall in no case exceed ---- dollars.

    SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That every captain or
    commanding officer of any vessel in the service of the United
    States immediately on his coming into port, after having
    captured a ship or vessel of equal or superior force, shall
    make report thereof to the Secretary of the Navy, describing
    particularly the size and equipment of the ship or vessel so
    destroyed, and the nature and extent of the damage done her in
    the action, as also the causes and inducements for destroying
    his prize, which report, in part, shall be received as evidence
    by the commissioners aforesaid.

    SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That the Secretary of the
    Navy shall cause the account of the money so by him ordered
    to be paid, to be settled at the end of one year, and all the
    unclaimed dividends he shall cause to be paid over to the Navy
    Hospital Fund.

Mr. BASSETT, from the same committee, also presented a bill regulating
pensions to persons on board private armed ships; which was read twice,
and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Thursday next. The bill
is as follows:

         A Bill regulating pensions to persons on board private
                              armed ships.

    _Be it enacted, &c._, That the two and a half per centum
    reserved in the hands of the collectors and consuls by the
    act of June, eighteen hundred and twelve, entitled "An act
    concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods," shall
    be paid into the Treasury, under the like regulations provided
    for other public money, and shall constitute a fund for the
    purposes of this act, and such other purposes as Congress may
    direct, for the aid and comfort of the seamen of the United
    States.

    SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the Secretary of
    the Navy be authorized and required to place on the pension
    list, under the like regulations and restrictions as are used
    in relation to the Navy of the United States, any officer or
    seamen who, on board of any private armed ship or vessel,
    bearing a commission or letter of marque, shall have been,
    in the line of duty, wounded or otherwise disabled; if an
    officer, allowing him one-half his monthly pay for the greater
    disability, and so in proportion; and if a seaman, or acting
    as a marine, the sum of six dollars per month for the greater
    disability, and so in proportion; which several pensions shall
    be paid, by direction of the Secretary of the Navy, out of the
    fund above provided.

    SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the commanding
    officer of every vessel having a commission, or letters of
    marque and reprisal, shall enter in his journal the name and
    rank of any officer, and the name of any seamen who, during
    his cruise, shall, in the line of his duty, have been wounded
    or disabled, describing the manner and extent, as far as
    practicable, of such wound or disability.

    SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That every collector shall
    transmit quarterly to the Secretary of the Navy a transcript of
    such journals as may have been reported to him, so far as they
    give a list of the officers and crew, and the description of
    wounds and disabilities, the better to enable the Secretary to
    decide on claims for pensions.

                   _Duties on Privateer Prize Goods._

Mr. CHEVES, from the Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred
the bill from the Senate directing the Secretary of the Treasury to
remit certain fines, penalties, and forfeitures, reported the same
with amendments, the principal one of which is to strike out the words
"and the dependencies thereof," so as to exclude from the operation of
the bill, the cases of goods brought in from Canada, &c.--The bill was
referred to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. C. also introduced the following report:

    The Committee of Ways and Means, to whom were referred so much
    of the petition of the owners and agents of sundry private
    armed vessels fitted out of the port of New York, as prays the
    reduction of the duties on prize goods, and the petitions of
    sundry owners of private armed vessels fitted out of the port
    of Boston, and of sundry owners of like vessels fitted out of
    the ports of Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia, also praying a
    reduction of the duties on prize goods, report:

    That a letter from John Ferguson and John L. Laurence, agents
    for the petitioners from New York, and a letter from the
    Secretary of the Treasury, both addressed to the chairman of
    the committee, and which accompany this report, contain all
    the facts and views which will probably be found material
    in the examination and consideration of this subject; and
    that this committee, having maturely considered them, are of
    opinion, that a reduction of the duties on prize goods, without
    embracing, at the same time, all importations made in the
    prosecution of the ordinary commerce of the country, cannot,
    consistently with sound policy and rational legislation, be
    made, and that a general reduction would diminish a revenue,
    where it does not distress the consumer, and would not produce
    any material increase of gain to the captors. The committee,
    therefore, recommend the following resolve:

    _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to grant the prayer of the
    petitioners.

    _Documents referred to in the above report._

                              WASHINGTON, _Nov. 23, 1812_.

    SIR: We take the liberty of enclosing to you, for the
    inspection of the Committee of Ways and Means, sundry papers
    connected with the application by the owners of privateers in
    New York, for a reduction of duties on prize goods. They are as
    follow:

    No. 1, exhibits the proceeds of the schooner Venus and cargo,
    captured by the privateer Teazer.

    No. 2, is a statement of the cost of the privateers General
    Armstrong and Governor Tompkins.

    No. 3, contains extracts of letters from several privateer
    agents.

    The Committee of Ways and Means are (including the accompanying
    documents) in possession of three statements of prize sales,
    where the property was, in each case, of a different character
    from the others. The cargo of the New Liverpool consisted
    (contrary to our impressions when before the committee)
    altogether of wine, amounting to 27,959 gallons, whereon
    the duty was 46 cents per gallon, which consumed more than
    one-half of the proceeds of vessel and cargo, and, connected
    with the other charges, left the owners of the privateer about
    one-sixth of the captured property. The Industry was laden
    with 152 bbls. salmon; and the benevolent intentions of the
    privateersmen to restore to an indigent owner the amount of
    her loss, terminated, in consequence of the high duties and
    charges, in an inability to present her with more than a paltry
    sum, scarcely worth her acceptance. The Venus had a cargo of
    rum, sugar, fruit, and preserves, which produced $17,637 68,
    and was charged with duties amounting to $8,287 63. The vessel,
    being well calculated for a privateer, was bought in by the
    captors for that business. But, experience teaching them that
    the profits of private naval warfare are by no means equivalent
    to the hazard, they have abandoned that intention, and are
    now offering the Venus for sale in the public newspapers, but
    cannot find a purchaser.

    We would respectfully suggest to the Committee of Ways and
    Means that great anxiety exists in New York, that Congress
    may give the question of a reduction of prize duties a speedy
    decision; which, if favorable, will revive the spirit and zeal,
    now expiring, with which privateering was undertaken at the
    commencement of the war; and, if unfavorable, will prevent
    those who have purchased vessels for warlike enterprises, in
    which they cannot now dispose of any interest, from incurring
    losses accumulated under fruitless expectations.

    We have taken the liberty of reminding the committee that
    no naval force of any efficiency can be supported by the
    Government but at an expense far greater than the amount of
    the duties of which we pray the remission; and that there is
    probably no other species of naval armament half so destructive
    as privateers to the commerce of an enemy.

    The employment of a great number of experienced masters of
    vessels and seamen necessarily engaged in them, whose services
    could not probably be obtained in any other way, and whose
    skill and intrepidity produce so much honor to the country,
    forms another important consideration.

    To these may be added, that, in no other way, can the
    mercantile interest be so effectually united in the support
    and prosecution of the war, as by offering inducements to
    the investments of its otherwise unemployed capital in such
    enterprises.

    We are, sir, with great respect, your obedient servants,

                                                          JOHN FERGUSON,
                                                       JOHN L. LAWRENCE.

  Hon. L. CHEVES, _Chairman, &c._



TUESDAY, December 22.

                   _Imprisonment of American Seamen._

The SPEAKER laid before the House the following Message from the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

    _To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

    I transmit to the House of Representatives a report of the
    Secretary of State, complying with their resolution of the 9th
    instant.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  DECEMBER 21, 1812.

                     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _Dec. 19, 1812_.

    The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the resolution of
    the House of Representatives of the 9th instant, requesting
    information touching the conduct of British officers towards
    persons taken in American armed ships, has the honor to lay
    before the President the accompanying papers marked A, B, C,
    from which it appears, that certain persons, some of whom are
    said to be native, and others naturalized citizens of the
    United States, being parts of the crews of the United States
    armed vessels the "Nautilus" and the "Wasp," and of the private
    armed vessel the "Sarah Ann," have been seized, under the
    pretext of their being British subjects, by British officers,
    for the avowed purpose, as is understood, of having them
    brought to trial for their lives, and that others, being part
    of the crew of the Nautilus, have been taken into the British
    service.

    The Secretary of State begs leave also to lay before the
    President the papers marked D and E. From these it will
    be seen, that whilst the British naval officers arrest as
    criminals such persons taken on board American armed vessels
    as they may consider British subjects, they claim a right to
    retain on board British ships of war American citizens who
    may have married in England, or been impressed from on board
    British merchant vessels; and that they consider an impressed
    American, when he is discharged from one of their ships, as a
    prisoner of war. All which is respectfully submitted.

                                                           JAMES MONROE.

                                  (A.)

                _Sir John Borlase Warren to Mr. Monroe._

                            HALIFAX, _September 30, 1812_.

    SIR: Having received information that a most unauthorized act
    has been committed by Commodore Rodgers, in forcibly seizing
    twelve British seamen, prisoners of war, late belonging to
    the Guerriere, and taking them out of the English cartel brig
    Endeavor on her passage down the harbor of Boston, after
    they had been regularly embarked on board of her for an
    exchange, agreeable to the arrangements settled between the
    two countries, and that the said British seamen so seized,
    are now detained on board the United States frigate President
    as hostages; I feel myself called upon to request, sir, your
    most serious attention to a measure so fraught with mischief
    and inconvenience, destructive of the good faith of a flag
    of truce and the sacred protection of a cartel. I should be
    extremely sorry that the imprudent act of any officer should
    involve consequences so particularly severe as the present
    instance must naturally produce, if repeated; and although it
    is very much my wish, during the continuance of the differences
    existing between the two countries, to adopt every measure
    that might render the effect of war less rigorous, yet, in
    another point of view, the conviction of the duty I owe my
    country would, in the event of such grievances as I have
    already stated being continued, not admit of any hesitation in
    retaliatory decisions; but as I am strongly persuaded of the
    high liberality of your sentiments, and that the act complained
    of has originated entirely with the officer who committed it,
    and that it will be as censurable in your consideration as it
    deserves, I rely upon your taking such steps as will prevent a
    recurrence of conduct so extremely reprehensible in every shape.

    I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir,
    your most obedient and most faithful humble servant,

                                                    JOHN BORLASE WARREN,

                     _Admiral of the Blue, Commander-in-Chief, &c._

  JAMES MONROE, Esq., _Secretary of State_.

                _Mr. Monroe to Sir John Borlase Warren._

                     DEPARTMENT OF STATE, _Oct. 28, 1812_.

    SIR: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the 30th
    September, complaining that Commodore Rodgers, commanding a
    squadron of the United States Navy at the port of Boston, had
    taken twelve British seamen, lately belonging to His Britannic
    Majesty's ship the Guerriere, from a cartel in the harbor of
    Boston, and that he had detained them on board the President, a
    frigate of the United States, as hostages.

    I am instructed to inform you, that inquiry shall be made into
    the circumstances attending, and the causes which produced the
    act, of which you complain; and that such measures will be
    taken, on a knowledge of them, as may comport with the rights
    of both nations, and may be proper in the case to which they
    relate.

    I beg you, sir, to be assured that it is the sincere desire
    of the President to see (and to promote, so far as depends on
    the United States) that the war which exists between the two
    countries be conducted with the utmost regard to humanity. I
    have the honor to be, &c.,

                                                           JAMES MONROE.

  Sir JOHN B. WARREN, _Admiral of the Blue_,
        _Commander-in-Chief, &c._

                                  (B.)

                              WASHINGTON, _Dec. 17, 1812_.

    SIR: I have the honor to annex a list of twelve of the crew of
    the late United States sloop of war Wasp, detained by Captain
    John Beresford, of the British ship Poictiers, under the
    pretence of their being British subjects.

    I have the honor to be, respectfully, sir, your obedient
    servant,

                                          GEORGE S. WISE, _Purser_.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON, _Sec'ry Navy_.


[Here follow several other documents, not deemed of material
importance, except the following:]

                                  (C.)

          _Extract of a letter from Major General Pinckney to
                      the Secretary of War, dated_

                                      HEADQUARTERS, CHARLESTON,
                                                _November 4, 1812_.

    "Information having been given upon oath to Lieutenant
    Grandison, who at present commands in the Naval Department
    here, that six American seamen, who had been taken prisoners on
    board of our privateers, had been sent to Jamaica to be tried
    as British subjects for treason, he called upon the marshal to
    retain double that number of British seamen as hostages. The
    marshal, in consequence of instructions from the Department
    of State, asked my advice on the subject, and I have given my
    opinion that they ought to be detained until the pleasure of
    the President shall be known. The testimony of Captain Moon
    is herewith. I hope, sir, you will have the goodness to have
    this business put in the proper train to have the President's
    pleasure on this subject communicated to the marshal."

The Message and documents were, on motion, referred to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.


WEDNESDAY, December 23.

Another member, to wit, from Louisiana, THOMAS BOLLING ROBERTSON,
appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.

                        _Increase of the Navy._

The bill from the Senate to increase the Navy of the United States,
was read a third time; and the question, being stated, "Shall the bill
pass?"

Mr. MCKEE spoke at considerable length against its passage, and
concluded by moving to postpone it to Monday, with a view to obtaining
further information on the subject of the materials, &c.

The motion to postpone was supported by Mr. ALSTON and Mr. SEYBERT, and
opposed by Mr. MILNOR, Mr. BASSETT, and Mr. WIDGERY. The votes were for
postponement 51, against it 73.

So the motion was lost.

The question recurring on the passage of the bill,

Mr. POTTER said, as he represented a commercial State, and his
constituents at present were very anxious for a navy, he felt it his
duty to assign his reasons for the vote he was about to give. He said,
when he saw his political friends, with only one exception, in favor
of the bill under consideration, and the anxious solicitude of the
gentleman on the other side of the House for its fate, he felt himself
much embarrassed; but while he was by his feelings at times almost
impelled to vote in its favor, his judgment compelled him to vote
against it.

Mr. P. said his objections to a navy were that it would cost more
than ever it would be worth to the nation; that we could not build,
man, and support the ships contemplated, in addition to our present
establishment, without resorting to the same means for their support
as other maritime nations had done; that it must be supported by
impression or oppression; we must either impress our citizens to man
our Navy, and compel them to serve against their wills for almost
nothing, or oppress the nation with taxes not to be endured, to enable
the Government to give such wages as would induce our seamen to enter
voluntarily into our service. He said it had been observed by the
friends of the bill, and particularly by his friend from Pennsylvania,
(Mr. MILNOR,) that the Navy was at this time very popular with all
parties, in this House and the nation; that they had done honor to
themselves and to their country, while our army had, in almost every
instance, been defeated and disgraced. Mr. P. said we had been very
unfortunate in the selection of some of our commanding officers, who
had, as it would seem, been appointed more because they wanted office,
than because they were qualified for it; some of them were too old, and
others too young; but he believed we had as good officers in our Army
as we had in the Navy, and whenever the time should arrive that would
afford them a fair opportunity, that they would equally distinguish
themselves.

Mr. P. said there was a kind of popular delusion at this time about
a Navy, that he found difficult to oppose. He said it was at least
popular with all those who expected to make money out of it, and
with many from the most honorable motives. But he believed, when the
people, who were to pay all, and receive nothing, come to see that
we had spent for them the last year upwards of twenty millions of
dollars, and that notwithstanding all the moneys we had received,
by double duties, and otherwise, that we had increased the national
debt, in that year, ten millions six hundred thousand dollars, and
that we want, for the expenses of the present year, agreeably to the
report of the Secretary of the Treasury, $31,925,000, exclusive of the
expense of the contemplated increase of our Navy, and for losses and
war contingencies--that when they should put those sums together, and
apportion them to the several States, agreeable to the constitution,
and see that but few individuals, and not many States, would have
personal property sufficient to pay their proportions--that this
delusion as to those who have eventually all this money to pay would at
least vanish.

It was likewise said that the spirit of the nation demanded this
increase of our Navy. He remembered very well that it was so said on
a former occasion, and that the finger of Heaven pointed to war, but
it was very soon found that the finger of the people pointed to peace.
It was then said, as it is now said, that we were a divided people,
and it was necessary to convince foreign nations that we would support
our own Government. The then Executive was addressed from all parts of
the United States, with pledges of life, fortune, and sacred honor,
in support of what he had done, or should do. This was intended to
correct the error abroad as to our being a divided people, and for
no other purpose. Its object was entirely misunderstood by the then
President. He thought they were uneasy and wanted something to steady
them. An army was raised, and taxes laid for their benefit;--a navy was
provided which did honor to themselves and the nation, that protected
our commerce, and caused our flag to be respected in every sea, in
consequence of which our revenue continued to increase, notwithstanding
all the depredations committed on our commerce, and the nation appeared
to be prosperous and happy; but when the people were called upon to
test the sincerity of their pledges and promises, by the payment of a
tax of only two millions of dollars, they said they had been entirely
misunderstood, that those pledges were intended to have an influence
abroad, and not for the purpose of trouble at home, and that they would
not pay taxes to support a navy or army; and, the first opportunity
they had, they changed the Administration. If they would not then pay
two millions of dollars, to support that Administration, can they be
expected to pay nearly fifty millions for the support of this, for the
same purposes?

Mr. P. said this Administration, during the last session of Congress,
was addressed from all parts of the Union, and from many of the States
in their legislative capacities, promising to support them with their
lives, fortunes, and sacred honors, in common form. This perhaps was
to have its influence abroad. The Administration, believing them
sincere, have been induced to declare war, and are left to carry it
on without money. They find that those pledges and promises cost but
little, and are worth nothing; and the consequence will be, that when
the people are called upon to pay those enormous expenses, the present
Administration will share the same fate from them as the former did.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. CUTTS) said the expense of this
Navy would swamp the present, as it had done a former Administration;
that, Mr. P. said, was a business of their own, it was no concern of
his; but if with their means they could not manage the affairs of the
nation, with their present experience, having seen the rock on which
a former Administration split, they would richly deserve it; his only
object was to keep his constituents from being mired down with debt and
taxes.

Many gentlemen support this bill upon the principle that this settles
the question; that we are to become a great naval power, and to have a
permanent Naval Establishment; to this Mr. P. said he objected for the
reasons he had assigned; he said he had found mankind much the same:
give them power, and they would not only use, but abuse it--give them
money, and they will spend it, and want to borrow; and, he said, if an
Administration like the present, without money, without an army, or
navy, would plunge this country so unprepared into a war, and continue
it for the present existing cause, and extend their views of conquest
to the Floridas, the Canadas, Quebec, Halifax, and Nova Scotia,
whenever they should have money, an army, and ships; the next thing
they would want colonies, as other nations had done, and that Bermuda
and New Providence would be in our way; and we must have Jamaica to get
good rum and sugar. And instead of this country enjoying peace, which
is above all things the most desirable, we should be involved like
other nations in perpetual war.

Mr. RANDOLPH moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill
till to-morrow.--Lost.

So the bill was passed.

                    _Medal to Commodore Preble, &c._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

    I transmit to the House of Representatives a report of the
    Secretary of the Navy, complying with their resolution of the
    16th instant.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  DECEMBER 23, 1812.


The following is the report referred to in the above Message:

                         NAVY DEPARTMENT, _Dec. 21, 1812_.

    SIR: On the subject of the resolution of the honorable the
    House of Representatives, of the 16th instant, I have the honor
    to state, that, in pursuance of the resolution of Congress of
    the 3d March, 1805, a gold medal, emblematical of the attacks
    on the town, batteries and naval force, of Tripoli, by the
    squadron under Commodore Preble's command, was presented
    to Commodore Preble, in the manner stated in the enclosed
    letter, dated May 17, 1806: That one month's pay was allowed,
    "exclusive of the common allowance, to all the petty officers,
    seamen, and marines, of the squadron, who so gloriously
    supported the honor of the American flag, under the orders
    of their gallant commander, in the several attacks:" That no
    sword has been presented to either of the commissioned officers
    or midshipmen, who distinguished themselves in the several
    attacks: And that it is not known to this Department that there
    ever was made by Congress a specific appropriation of $20,000
    for the purpose of carrying into effect the resolution referred
    to.

    With respect to that part of the resolution which requests
    the President to cause a sword to be presented to each of
    the commissioned officers and midshipmen who distinguished
    themselves, it is presumed that the President saw what to
    his mind appeared difficulties of great delicacy, from the
    peculiar language of the resolution. By the resolution, he was
    requested to present swords to such only as had distinguished
    themselves; and all having been represented to him as having
    acted gloriously, he could not in justice draw with precision
    a line of discrimination. He felt, it is presumed, a repugnance
    to the making of a selection, which, by implication, would
    necessarily have cast an unmerited reproach upon all not
    therein included. A degradation of that kind might have greatly
    injured the service, and could not possibly have been grateful
    to the honorable feelings of the favored officers.

    I have the honor to be, with the greatest respect, your
    obedient servant,

                                                          PAUL HAMILTON.

  To the PRESIDENT.



                          NAVY DEPARTMENT, _May 17, 1812_.

    SIR: In pursuance of the resolution of Congress of the 3d
    March, 1805, requesting the President of the United States to
    cause a gold medal to be struck, emblematical of the attacks
    on the town, batteries, and naval force, of Tripoli, by the
    squadron under your command, and to present it to you in such
    manner as in his opinion would be most honorable to you, the
    medal, which will herewith be delivered to you by Lieutenant
    Jones, has been struck. You will receive it, sir, as a
    testimony of your country's estimation of the important and
    honorable services rendered by you; and you will be pleased to
    accept an assurance of the great pleasure I have in the honor
    of presenting it to you.

    I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your most
    obedient servant,

                                                               R. SMITH.

  To Com. EDWARD PREBLE.

                From the records of the Navy Department.

                                                          PAUL HAMILTON.


After some conversation as to the proper course for this business
to take, it was referred to a select committee, to consist of seven
members, to consider and report thereon.

Mr. QUINCY, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. ROANE, Mr. LACOCK, Mr. TROUP, Mr. EMOTT,
and Mr. DINSMOOR, were appointed the committee.


MONDAY, December 28.

              _Public Lands--Cash System and Reduction of
                                Price._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report
of the Committee on the Public Lands, made on the second instant,
respecting an extension of the time limited by law for the payment of
lands purchased of the United States.

The report concludes with the following resolutions, the adoption of
which the committee recommend:

    "_Resolved_, That such part of the laws for the sale of public
    lands as allow a credit on part of the purchase money, be
    repealed; and that the price at which lands shall be offered in
    future shall be one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre.

    "_Resolved_, That in future sales a portion of the public lands
    be offered in tracts of eighty acres.

    "_Resolved_, That two years be given in addition to the time
    allowed by law to the purchasers of public lands, whose time
    of payment shall have or may expire on or before the first day
    of January, 1814, on condition that all the interest that has
    accrued or may accrue on or before the 18th day of March next,
    shall be paid at that day, and the interest that may become
    due thereafter shall be paid at the day on which the time,
    according to existing laws, shall expire for making payment."

Considerable desultory debate took place on these propositions; but the
committee rose without coming to any decision thereon, and obtained
leave to sit again.


TUESDAY, December 29.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
"supplementary to the act for the more perfect organization of the Army
of the United States," and on the bill "in addition to the act for
raising an additional military force."

The bills having been read through, a motion was made by Mr. DAVID
R. WILLIAMS to fill the blanks in the first bill, for the amount of
bounty, &c., and the question having been stated--

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said, the embarrassment which he felt on the present
occasion, was not of an ordinary kind; he was so solemnly impressed
with the importance of the subject before the committee, he was fearful
its success might, in some degree, depend on his efforts to sustain it;
and, feeling that the interest, perhaps the character of his country,
might be committed by the decision, he was humbled that its cause could
not by him be more ably supported. He felt, however, some confidence
from the circumstance that the Military Committee was entitled to the
candor of the House, because it had not presented mere fragments,
to be acted on in detail, but a system on which to rest the future
prosecution of the war. An explanation of its merits, from the relation
in which he stood to that committee, was probably expected of him.

Without going back to the unavoidable and just causes of the war in
which we were engaged, he would presume it was the object of all to
terminate it successfully, and that there now remained no other mode
than to call into the field a force adequate to the command of every
honorable object. The force was abundant throughout the community, to
secure, if directed with skill, spirit, and enterprise, our defence
everywhere; and, by offence, to make the enemy feel it had become his
interest to abstain from plunder and oppression.

The character of our Government had been so depressed in Europe, not
more by foreign than domestic misrepresentation, as much even within
these walls as without them, it had become necessary to make war to
place our backs against the wall and prove to European marauders
there is a point beyond which we will not recede. This good the war
has accomplished; but it has become more than ever necessary to prove
that we will not only declare war, but can prosecute it with energy
and courageous enterprise. The honor, the character of the nation,
require that the British power on our borders shall be demolished in
the next campaign--her American provinces once wrested from her, every
attempt to recover them will be chimerical, except through negotiation.
The road to peace then lies through Canada. When we shall once be in
possession of it, peace, honorable peace, the sole object of us all, is
secured. But some gentlemen affect a sympathy for the Canadians--why,
say they, will you make war on them? They have not injured us. Nor,
sir, has the British tar injured us, although he is the instrument of
plunder and impressment. It is to conquer the sovereignty of the soil,
to raze the British power, to reach, by such means, her profligate and
unjust ministry, that war is waged at all--the unarmed will never fall
on American bayonets; it is not against the people of either Canada or
Great Britain, but against the English subject in arms, that the war is
directed. By physical force then alone can we proceed.

Having shown the necessity of augmenting the regular forces, it was
equally material to provide for filling the ranks, and for keeping
them at their full complement when filled. With this view was the 1st
section introduced. The greatest evil, incident to the recruiting
service, results from the number of persons to whom the public money
was necessarily distributed; in proportion to the number of persons
with whom it is intrusted, will be its misapplication. To remedy
this it is proposed to appoint officers to each regiment, for that
particular purpose, in no way different from those already appointed,
who shall be employed in recruiting for their respective regiments;
these to be under the order of a major, who shall receive and be
accountable for the issue of money and clothes for that service.
The ranks filled, the presence of all the officers on the present
establishment will be indispensable, as in our service the proportion
of privates to the officers is greater than in any other service
whatever. The new organization which was given to the Army at the last
session increased the number of privates in each company, without a
corresponding increase of officers. If two lieutenants were necessary
in a company, for the purpose of discipline and recruiting, when it
consisted of only sixty-four privates, assuredly three are as much so
now it is raised to ninety. The recruits, as fast as they are enlisted,
may be concentrated under the eye of the major, where they may be
exercised and drilled, so that when he joins the regiment, they will be
qualified to enter the ranks and face the enemy.

One other objection he could anticipate--perhaps those who can sneer
at the disasters and misfortunes of the late campaign may object that
there is no encouragement to vote additional forces, seeing those which
have been already raised have been so illy employed. It becomes us all
to be equally faithful to our country, whether her arms are victorious
or not; it is in times of discomfiture that the patriot's resolution
and virtues are most needed. It is no matter by what party names we
are distinguished; this is our country--we are children of the same
family, and ought to be brothers in a common cause. The misfortune
which befalls one portion, should sink deep in the hearts of the others
also. What misfortune so great as the loss of character? If we shall
forget our impatience under disgrace, and look back on the events that
have passed, with only as much candor as becomes us, this objection
must vanish. Under the circumstances in which it found itself, without
experience, either in itself or others to guide it, Administration
ought not to be censured for the bad military appointments it may have
made, however much it may deserve, if it shall retain men in employ,
when found incapable to discharge the duties intrusted to him. He
was fearless of contradiction in declaring, all our disasters sprung
from a cause which no man in the nation could have anticipated. It
was next to impossible any human being could have foreseen, much less
provided against it. It was with pain and reluctance he felt it his
duty to speak of an officer fallen and disgraced; he wished he could
discover any cause for the surrender of Detroit, less heinous than
treachery or cowardice--between them he saw nothing to choose. Justice
will hereafter, if party heat denies it now, pronounce the plan of the
campaign, as intrusted to General Hull, easy to be accomplished and
judicious in its objects. The commandant was furnished with every means
necessary for success--with money, men, provisions, and munitions of
war, in abundance. What better mode could have been adopted, to prevent
Indian hostility and intercept British supplies of the instruments of
massacre? That your army had not been protected beyond the point with
which communications could have been maintained, is evident from the
events which followed. What was there to mar success? The commandant
at Maiden needed only an apology to surrender! What if the other Hull
had commanded? Every thing would have fallen before him--great science
was not necessary; courage and faithfulness would have accomplished
every thing. A train of heavy artillery was not required to batter a
breach for the assault; it was not necessary to fire a single gun--not
a cartridge need have been expended--the bayonet alone was adequate
to have taken Maiden at any hour from the moment the American army
crossed into Canada, till its most shameful retreat. The fort was not
enclosed--one entire side was open to assault. Yes, sir, had the brave
Hull, who bore your "thunder on the mountain wave," directed the valor
of the army, he would have poured the storm of victory resistless on
the foe. This black deed, without a battle, was consummated in the
_solicitous_ surrender of the brave corps which were hastening to his
relief; these, too, were arrested and thrown back on the community,
leaving the whole Western frontier exposed to savage inroad. Hence
all our misfortunes! After this, will it be contended that the
accidental appointment of an improper agent shall cause a refusal of
the force necessary to drag our drowned honor up from the ocean of
infamy into which it has been plunged? Impossible! Economy of life and
treasure call for a vigorous campaign--away with lifeless expedients;
miserable inertness must be banished--zeal and energy must be infused
everywhere. One protracted campaign will cost twenty-fold more than the
expenditure now asked for. Let this be the signal for resolution--the
first evidence of energetic policy. Let us suppose ourselves leading
the forlorn hope, and assume the spirit and vigor characteristic
of such an enterprise--the army will feel it--the people will feel
it--disaster and disgrace will then disappear. It is to save the public
treasure--the people's blood; it is for the reclamation of character,
I ask for high bounties and premiums; and, so asking, I hope not to be
denied.

The question was then taken on filling the several blanks in the first
bill, and carried.

Mr. H. CLAY congratulated the committee and the nation on the system
which had been presented to their consideration, and the prospect
of prosecuting the next campaign with a vigor which should insure
a successful result. He rose at this time, however, to propose an
amendment to the bill, the object of which was to repeal so much
of former laws as authorizes a bounty of land to the recruits. He
was satisfied that, as respected the nation, this was a waste of
its capital, without producing a single provident result. As to the
recruiting service, he was convinced, from what he had heard, that it
added scarcely any inducement to the recruit--that it had not added
a hundred men to the army. He confessed he had been much mistaken as
to the effect it had been expected to produce, &c. Mr. C. added many
remarks going to support his positions, stating, among other things,
that the land would in the end get into the hands of speculators, and
the individuals for whose benefit it was intended would derive no
advantage from it. Now that it was proposed to increase the bounty in
money, he thought it would be a proper occasion to repeal so much of
the existing laws as allowed a bounty in land, on which the recruits
set generally as much value as if it were located in the moon. Mr. C.
concluded by making a motion to that effect.

Mr. TROUP and Mr. BIBB stated objections to the motion, as going
to withdraw what was certainly, in many parts of the country, an
inducement to enlistments, at a time when every means ought to be
called into action for the purpose of filling the ranks of the army.

Mr. CLAY'S motion was then agreed to by the committee.

The other bill before the committee, going to authorize the raising an
additional force of twenty thousand men for one year, was then taken
up, and the blanks therein severally filled.

Mr. PITKIN, adverting to the provision of the bill which gives the
appointment of officers below the rank of colonel to the President
alone, inquired the reasons why, contrary to the general usage, the
Senate were precluded from concurrence in these appointments?

Mr. WILLIAMS stated that the motive of the committee in proposing this
provision was, to avoid the delay incidental to the minor appointments,
which could be much more easily and effectually made by the colonels of
the regiments, respectively, who would be personally acquainted with,
and responsible for, the good conduct of those who were appointed.

Mr. TALLMADGE moved to strike out the section of the bill which directs
the manner in which the company officers shall be appointed. He said
he had hoped that the committee would have risen and given at least
one day for consideration; that they would have maturely weighed and
deliberately made up their minds on this question. It is true that, in
1798, there was a power given to the President of the United States
to appoint all officers for ten thousand men under the rank of field
officers; but the appointment of all field officers was retained to
the President and Senate. Mr. T. said he knew how perfectly easy it
was to go on step by step, and yield power till it all passed out of
our hands. The argument now is a plea of urgency. What was the case in
1798? Not the same as now. Congress had been making preparations on the
contingency of war. The language of the law which has been referred to
is to this effect: in case of war being declared by any foreign power,
or the country actually invaded, then the President shall have the
power of appointing these officers. Such a provision was very different
from that now proposed. Mr. T. was also opposed to this section in the
bill, because he would not pass a bill going, as far as in the power
of this House, to take away the power of appointment from the Senate.
It was a disrespect he would not offer to them, to call upon them
to ratify a law depriving themselves of a power they have uniformly
possessed and exercised.

The question was taken on Mr. TALLMADGE'S motion to strike out the
section, and lost.

The committee rose and reported the two bills and the House adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, December 30.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The question was then taken on engrossment of the bill for a third
reading, and passed in the affirmative--yeas 70, nays 37, as follows:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., Stevenson Archer, Daniel Avery,
    Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, William Barnett, Burwell Bassett,
    William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Robert Brown, William A.
    Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Langdon
    Cheves, Matthew Clay, James Cochran, John Clopton, William
    Crawford, Richard Cutts, Roger Davis, Joseph Desha, Samuel
    Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack
    Franklin, Charles Goldsborough, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy,
    Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John
    M. Hyneman, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter
    Little, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, Thomas Moore, William
    McCoy, Samuel McKee, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow,
    Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens,
    James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson,
    Thomas B. Robertson, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts,
    Ebenezer Sage, Thos. Sammons, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, George
    Smith, John Taliaferro, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Charles
    Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, William
    Widgery, and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam
    Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus
    Champion, Martin Chittenden, John Davenport, jr., William Ely,
    James Emott, Thos. R. Gold, Edwin Gray, Jacob Hufty, Richard
    Jackson, jr., Lyman Law, Joseph, Lewis, jr., George C. Maxwell,
    Archibald McBryde, Jonathan O. Mosely, Thos. Newbold, Joseph
    Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy,
    John Randolph, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman,
    Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel
    Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and
    Thomas Wilson.

So the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

The House then proceeded to the consideration of the report of the
Committee of the Whole on the other bill reported by the committee,
entitled "A bill in addition to the act to raise an additional military
force, and for other purposes"--the first section of which is as
follows:

    _Be it enacted, &c._, That, in addition to the present Military
    Establishment of the United States, there be raised twenty
    regiments of infantry, to be enlisted for the term of one year,
    unless sooner discharged.

[The remainder of the bill is mere detail; the bounty on enlistment
sixteen dollars.]

Mr. GOLD said this was a bill involving questions of great importance,
as well in principle as in its details. There was one feature
especially of the bill which required mature consideration; he alluded
to the limited period of service of the proposed additional force.
There was no pressing emergency to hurry the bill; and he, therefore,
moved to postpone the further consideration of it to Monday, which was
negatived.

                         _Death of Mr. Smilie._

So soon as this decision was declared--

Mr. FINDLAY rose.--It is my melancholy duty, said he, to announce to
this House that my venerable colleague and old friend and associate,
JOHN SMILIE, is no more. He departed this life at two o'clock this
afternoon.

A committee was then appointed to superintend the funeral of the
deceased, consisting of Messrs. FINDLAY, LYLE, BROWN, ROBERTS, DAVIS,
LACOCK, and HYNEMAN.

A resolution was unanimously adopted, requesting each member of the
House, in testimony of their respect to the memory of JOHN SMILIE, to
wear crape on the left arm for one month.

And, on motion of Mr. FITCH, the House then adjourned.


THURSDAY, December 31.

On motion of Mr. FINDLAY,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House will attend the
funeral of the late JOHN SMILIE, this day, at two o'clock.

_Resolved_, That a message be sent to the Senate to notify them of the
death of John Smilie, late a member of this House, and that his funeral
will take place at two o'clock, this day.

And then the House adjourned.


SATURDAY, January 2, 1813.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of
the Whole on the bill in addition to the act for raising an additional
military force.

The amendments made by the House having been agreed to, the question
was stated, Shall the bill be engrossed, and read a third time?

Mr. MOSELY said that, in stating concisely some of the reasons which
would induce him to vote against the present bill, he should not
attempt to enter into a consideration of the justice or expediency
of the war, nor the policy of continuing it. War is declared, and
it appears to be the determination of those who have the control of
our public concerns to prosecute it with the utmost vigor; yes, sir,
with a vigor that, within twelve months from the enlistment of the
twenty thousand men to be raised by this bill, we are told must bring
it to a successful termination. Really, Mr. Speaker, when I listened
to the confident assurance of the honorable Chairman of the Military
Committee, that with these twenty thousand men, in addition to the
troops already raised, and voted to be raised, we should in a single
campaign be able to conquer Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,
and that the object of all these conquests was to procure an honorable
peace, I almost felt myself persuaded as a peace man to join the
honorable gentleman in his project of fighting for peace one year, with
such a certainty of obtaining it at the expiration of that period; but
unfortunately I could not but recollect the fate of similar assurances
made on former occasions. When we were about declaring war, I very
well remember that we were told with equal confidence by gentlemen
anxious to engage in it (and who would listen to no arguments, even
for delay, against the measure) that we had only to declare war, and
Canada would, in the course of a few months, at most, be ours; that the
militia alone, with the aid of a very few regulars, would be competent
to the conquest of the whole country, except the fortress of Quebec;
and that that must very soon fall of course. An honorable gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. FISK) informed us that the people of those Provinces
would almost conquer themselves; that they were at least pre-disposed
to be conquered--to use his own expression, that they were "panting" to
participate in our liberty.

Experience has now proved the fallacy of these predictions. Gentlemen
must now be convinced that Canada is not to be conquered quite so
easily as they had imagined--that it is not to be subdued with a
few thousand militia, regulars, or volunteers, though aided by
proclamations. I mention proclamations, because they seem to be
considered as an indispensable auxiliary on all great emergencies. What
can be done by proclamation, I will readily concede we are competent to
do. No nation, I believe, ever arrived at greater perfection in the art
of proclamation-making than we have done; and if history is faithful to
record them, we shall in this particular at least bear the palm from
all the world.

Sir, it can afford pleasure to no man, who feels as he ought for the
honor and interest of his country, to dwell unnecessarily upon the
disasters and disgrace which have everywhere attended our military
operations from the commencement of the war to the present time. I mean
upon land; for to our little Navy too much praise cannot be given. Our
gallant seamen have not only afforded to their countrymen examples of
valor worthy of imitation, but they have also taught us a lesson of
wisdom, by which I am happy to find we have manifested a disposition to
profit. But, sir, while gentlemen must feel mortified at the miserable
termination of all our boasted military exploits thus far, and might
wish to draw a veil over the disgraceful scenes which have taken place,
it cannot be done; it would be unwise to attempt it. We ought rather to
look at the causes which have produced our misfortunes, and pursue a
course in future which may not expose us to similar evils.

Mr. GOLD said the annals of this Government, the last six months,
commencing with the declaration of war, would be found the most
interesting, the most deplorable.

In that period, we have seen a war declared, precipitately and
prematurely; for, notwithstanding all the arguments urged on that
occasion, with so much zeal and eloquence, time has dissipated all;
the illusion has vanished; your army, so confidently expected, did
not, under the magic of that declaration, spring into existence; the
condition of your enlistments would not, I apprehend, at this hour,
justify the declaration of war. We have seen, sir, that war conducted
in a manner well to comport with the spirit in which it was declared;
disaster upon disaster in rapid succession have followed; the tone and
heart of the country broken; universal disgust at the past, and deep
concern and anxiety for the future, prevail everywhere.

And what, Mr. Speaker, is now proposed for the future--what is to
retrieve our affairs--on what are our hopes to rest? An army of
twelve-months' men! A broken reed! An army and term of service, which
well nigh lost the country in the Revolutionary war; an army which in
every step and stage of that war received the uniform and reiterated
censure and condemnation of Washington, and every intelligent officer
of that period; an army that stands recorded by every historian of
that war with deep reproach and reprobation. Such is the foundation of
our future hopes; shutting our eyes upon the lessons of experience, we
live but to repeat former errors and renew our sufferings. Shall we
never learn, that a soldier is not the creature of an hour; that he
must be seasoned to the hardships of war; that to remove your recruit
from his fireside, from his plentiful board, and all the comforts with
which he is surrounded, to the theatre of service, there to sleep on
the ground in tents, with two or three articles of subsistence only,
is to give him up a victim to disease, to consign him to the grave?
This precise result is presented to the mind by the melancholy review
of the last campaign; disease and death have walked abroad in our
armies on the frontier; they have been swept to the grave as by the
besom of destruction. It has not stopped with your army; the frontier
inhabitants, infected by the diseases of the camp, fly from the deadly
theatre as from a destroying angel! Shall we never learn the difference
between our situation, and that of nations who have a competent
military establishment, sufficient at all times for both offensive and
defensive operations?

The slender Military Establishment of the United States, whilst it
consults economy, and favors the genius of the Government, forbids
a hasty resort to war, especially extra-territorial and offensive
war; time for preparation, after the measure is resolved on, is
indispensable; and a disregard of our situation in this respect cannot
fail to induce defeat and disaster--to produce such a campaign as has
just now closed.

But, Mr. Speaker, wherefore change the term of enlistment, from five
years, or during the war, to one year? The sole avowed object of the
war by land was the conquest of the Canadas. Are you at this hour
nearer your object than on the day you declared war, or has that
object, with a steady and sure pace, constantly receded from you as you
have advanced in the war? Is Canada so far conquered that you can now
reduce the term of enlistment? It is impossible to shut our eyes on the
past; while all is disgust and despondency with our own citizens--sick
of the past, and concerned for the future; while every post brings
to the Cabinet fearful and alarming changes in the sentiments of the
people under this ill-fated war; your enemy, the Canadians, take
courage, their wavering sentiments have become resolved, and union
in defence of their firesides, the land that gives them bread, is
spreading and cementing all in the patriotic vow.

There was a time, sir, when you had friends in the Upper Province;
there were many who wished well to your arms, and would have greeted
your approach, but that ill-fated policy which precipitated every
thing, which in zeal for the end overlooked the means, has blasted
all our hopes from that quarter. The Canadian, while he knows your
power, distrusts your wisdom and your capacity to conduct the war;
he dares not commit himself, his all, to such auspices. Hence, sir,
difficulties thicken on every side, and at least three times the force
is now necessary to effect the conquest, which would have been required
at the commencement of the war. Have we made an impression on the
Prince Regent and his Ministry? are they now more disposed to succumb
and accept your terms than before the war? How stand the people of
the British Empire? Instead of their coercing the Government into our
terms, which we fondly anticipated, the late election to Parliament
shows them disposed to go hand in hand with the Government in resisting
our claims and inflicting on us all the evils of war. "Maritime Rights"
are echoed and re-echoed with applause throughout the Empire. Such,
sir, are the bitter fruits of your policy, and to what farther point
the same hand shall conduct the destinies of the country, remains to be
seen.

I seek not to aggravate the misconduct of the war, nor to commend our
enemies, but only wish, sir, that we may see things as they are, our
actual situation, and thus look danger in the face. Do you persevere
in the conquest of Canada? Pass not the barrier with an army of less
than forty-five or fifty thousand men: if you do, in my apprehension,
the defeats and disasters of the past campaign will be visited upon
you; another army will be made to pass under the yoke, and at the
end of the year, you will find yourself still further removed from
your object. The tug of war is now placed fairly before us, we cannot
advance without meeting it. Such, Mr. Speaker, are the grounds on
which I object to this twelve-months' army; it is not adapted to the
professed object of the war, the conquest of Canada. Is there, sir,
any other object in contemplation of the Government; any other land of
leeks and onions, which Heaven has given us, or to which our destinies
lead? Is the South of easier access than the North, and is the circle
of hostility to be extended to that quarter? We profess a pacific
policy; moderation and justice are our boast; let us beware how we
commit to the hazard this high and enviable character; how we yield, on
specious grounds, to the mad and destructive policy which we reprobate
in others; a policy which has in all periods overwhelmed nations with
calamity, and swelled the tide of human misery.

I fear there are points in our neutral course, in our relative conduct
towards Great Britain and France which will not bear examination. You
proclaimed the Berlin and Milan decrees revoked, and put upon Great
Britain the threatened alternative of non-intercourse. Was the fact
so? You took a promise for the fact; you proclaimed the fact, while
France herself, the author of the deed and party to be benefited,
denies and disowns it as done at the time. Here was a fatal error, a
departure from the straight line of justice; and when our error in this
was palpable to all the world, we gave no explanation, no excuse, but
persevered in a measure which led to war. It is this course, sir, this
departure from even-handed neutrality between Great Britain and France,
that has lost you the support of your own citizens to a great and
alarming extent, and at this moment sustains the British Ministry in
the hearts of Englishmen. It is this belief of our Government's leaning
to France, that has carried that Ministry so triumphantly through the
late elections to Parliament.

If any thing could add to the gloom and sicken the mind under the
prospect before us, it is the inauspicious conjunction of events.
America and France both making war at the same time on Great Britain;
we making the enemy of France our enemy, and this at the ill-fated
moment when the all-grasping Emperor of that country is rolling a
baleful cloud, charged with destruction, north upon the Russian Empire;
upon a power always just to America; upon our truest and best friend in
the European theatre. Against such a friend, at such a period, we have
beheld the march of the Corsican through rivers of blood; his footsteps
are traced over the ashes of the proudest cities, and he sits himself
down, at length, at Moscow, like Marius over the ruins of Carthage.

The question was then taken on Mr. CLAY'S motion, and negatived.

Mr. MACON moved to strike out one, and insert five years as the
term of enlistment. He regretted as much as any one the disasters
which had befallen the country; and there was but one way to obviate
their effects, and that was by rising superior to them, as a part
of the nation had already done--he meant the Western country, where
a patriotism had been exhibited equal to that which might have
distinguished Rome in its best days. Their zeal was equal to their
bravery--and the only drawback on their enterprise was the difficulty
of finding something to eat in the wilderness. We must rise after
reverses. What, sir, said Mr. M., would have become of Rome, had she
desponded when Hannibal defeated her armies? She rose upon it and
became the mistress of the world. What would have been the situation
of our cause in the Revolution, if, after the British successes in
Jersey, we had desponded? But the men of Pennsylvania and New Jersey
rose on it, and victory and triumph followed. Our object now ought
to be to recover the ground we have lost, and meet the enemy with
troops that will insure success. We are told, sir, this war has united
England to a man. Sir, I never expected aid from our enemies. Let us
follow so good an example, and unite to a man; let us remember the old
Continental maxim--"United we stand, divided we fall." If we were as
united in defence of our rights, as England is in her usurpations,
this war would not last a single campaign--and I hope in this respect
we shall, at least, learn wisdom from an enemy. The calculations about
one or two campaigns, however, in present circumstances, are visionary.
We have engaged an enemy not in the habit of yielding very soon. But,
if we were to unite, the question would soon be settled. The cause
and object of this war has been more concisely stated by one of those
actively engaged in it, than by any other person--I mean Captain
Porter's motto--"Free trade and sailors' rights;" no man could have
given a better definition of it. It appears to me that one part of this
continent ought to be zealous for the rights of seamen--another part
for a free export trade; and, if we were, as we ought to be, united,
the war would be carried on with energy and with success. I agree with
the gentleman from New Jersey, that this thing is not to be done by
paper men. My opinion is, that the best thing we can do, is to raise
men for five years. Let the Legislature of the country do its duty. If
the thirty-five thousand men, now authorized, be not enough, let us
get as many as will be adequate to the end we propose. Gentlemen have
thought proper to review former transactions. I would be willing to
pass them over. I believe almost every measure adopted by the General
Government would have had its destined effect if adhered to. You have
always got the better of the argument; you have better proclamations;
but what avails all this? Britain has impressed your seamen, and given
you blows for good words. You have been heretofore told your paper
measures were worth nothing: now that it is proposed to give blow for
blow, what is said? That you are departing from the pacific system,
which the same persons before reprobated, and to which they have become
friendly only after every attempt at pacification has failed. Sir, we
are now engaged in war, and we must succeed or we must yield the rights
of sailors and free trade. Does any man doubt that the war is justly
undertaken? Is there a man in the nation--I care not of what political
sect, many as there are--who believes that the war is not undertaken
on just grounds--that we had not borne with their indignities till we
could have borne them no longer? After plundering your property and
impressing your seamen on the ocean, their agents have been sent into
this nation to sow divisions among us, who ought to be but one family.
What crime has been left undone? what injury have we not suffered?
Could one be added to the catalogue? It seems to me not. No man loves
peace more than I do, and if it had not been for Great Britain sending
her agents to our firesides, I do not know but I should have voted
against the war. It seemed to me like an attempt on a man's daughter.
Not content with vexing and harassing you whenever you went from home,
they came here to put strife into your family. You have been told that
the Prince Regent and his Ministers are firm. Sir, we never calculated
on their receding, but on the energies and force of the nation to
obtain redress, and if we had been united, we should have equalled
our most sanguine expectations. Let us follow their example, and
determine to maintain our national rights, as they do to maintain their
usurpations on them.

Mr. M. CLAY seconded the motion of Mr. MACON to strike out "one year"
and insert "five," as the term of enlistment. He said an army ought to
be seasoned before it was carried into the field. We have heard much
said, observed he, about sickness in your army; much of the sickness,
some time ago, at New Orleans, and much lately of the sickness at
Plattsburg. Have you ever heard of an army on earth that was carried
into the field before it had been seasoned in the camp? It must, to be
good for any thing, be first disciplined in camp, and become inured to
the mode of living and the fare of soldiers. It will take some time to
season men to the change in their mode of living which must take place
on going into camp. It will take a year to prepare them for the field.
Without discipline they will be useless. Your seamen are brave and
successful because they know what they go to sea for. Take a landsman
on board a ship, and what sort of a sailor will he make? Such as the
French have on board their vessels. We take no man into the Navy but
who understands his business and the purpose for which he goes there,
and we see the effects of it. I do not wish it understood, sir, if I
vote against the bill, that I am opposed to the war. No, sir. It is a
righteous war, into which I go with hand and heart. We may differ about
the mode, but that is all. I speak from experience more than from any
thing else. Let us raise a sufficient army to serve during the war, be
it long or short. It is absurd to suppose that we shall not succeed in
our enterprise against the enemy's provinces. We have the Canadas as
much under our command as she has the ocean; and the way to conquer
her on the ocean is to drive her from the land. I am not for stopping
at Quebec or anywhere else; but I would take the whole continent from
them, and ask them no favors. Her fleets cannot then rendezvous at
Halifax as now, and having no place of resort in the North, cannot
infest our coast as they have lately done. It is as easy to conquer
them on the land as their whole navy could conquer ours on the ocean.
As to coping with them at sea, we cannot do it. We can annoy them,
but not meet them on the open sea. I would meet them and hurt them,
however, where we can. We must take the continent from them. I wish
never to see a peace till we do. God has given us the power and the
means; we are to blame if we do not use them. If we get the continent,
she must allow us the freedom of the sea. I hope, sir, the amendment of
my friend from North Carolina, going to make this army more efficient,
may be adopted.

Mr. PLEASANTS said, before the question was taken, he wished to
submit a few of the reasons why he was opposed to the amendment. The
question before the House, if he correctly understood it, was not,
what were the best materials of which to make an army; whether men for
the war, for five years, or for twelve months; but the question was,
what is the kind of force, and for what length of time can you raise
an army to take the field at the earliest period? I hesitate not a
moment, Mr. P. said, to declare, that if it were within the compass
of our ability to raise an army for five years by voting it, I would
authorize it. Not a moment should I doubt on the subject. The history
of the world is strongly in favor of such an army. But we perfectly
know, from the progress of the recruiting service, that we have already
authorized as many men of that description as we shall probably be able
to raise. This force is wanted to render the next campaign efficient.
I consider the bill merely as a substitute for the volunteer system
heretofore pursued. Of what materials will this army be composed?
Of young men ready to volunteer their services for one year in the
form of regulars; and in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, men will
enlist in this corps who would not enlist for five years, or for the
war. I am sanguine in the opinion, that this measure, if now adopted,
will do away the defects of the present volunteer system, and I am
fully of opinion, that under it, a force may be drawn into the field
ready to act efficiently in the next campaign. I am not one of those,
sir, notwithstanding the accounts we have heard of our disasters, who
despair of the Republic. If we turn to history we shall find that we
have never engaged in any war in which we have come out better in the
first campaign than we have in this. Look at the war undertaken under
the auspices of Gen. Washington against the Indians. What was the
history of it? We all recollect the campaign under Harmar, and its
bloody scenes. The campaign under St. Clair cannot be forgotten. We
then suffered defeat upon defeat, disaster upon disaster, in the course
of the war, which was not terminated till the treaty of Greenville, in
1795, though it may be said to have virtually terminated by the defeat
of the Indians by General Wayne, which occurred previous to the treaty.
If this country be willing to go into the contest heart and hand, we
shall in a very short time demonstrate to the enemy all we want to
convince her of, that it is in reality her interest to be at peace
with this country. I hope, sir, the motion to amend the bill will not
prevail. I am perfectly convinced that the bill as it is will enable us
to call a valuable force into service, and I am sanguine in the hope,
that, with its aid, together with the other force we shall have, we may
clear the continent of the enemy's dominion in one campaign, though I
do not undertake to predict that we shall.

The question was then taken on Mr. MACON'S proposed amendment, and
lost.

The question recurred on the passage of the bill to a third reading.

Mr. PEARSON said, not unfrequently it happens, Mr. Speaker, both in
private and political life, that men of the clearest perceptions and
most correct motives, experience much difficulty and embarrassment
in determining on the course best to be pursued, or the application
of means best calculated to produce a given object. The object most
devoutly wished for by myself, and, no doubt, equally desired by every
honest and honorable man in this community, is, that my country should
once more be restored to the enjoyment of peace. Under the pressure of
existing circumstances, involved in a war with a powerful nation--a
war now prosecuted for a doubtful, or, at least, strongly controverted
question of national right--a war, the prosecution of which, so far
as relates to our military operations, has everywhere, and on all
occasions, been attended with disgrace, defeat, or disaster; under
such circumstances, I confess, sir, I am not free from embarrassment
in determining on the course demanded by genuine patriotism, or best
calculated to restore the blessings of peace to the country. I rejoiced
to hear the honorable Chairman of the Military Committee (Mr. D. R.
WILLIAMS) declare, the other day, that his object was also peace. It
must be a source of gratification to the country to learn that some of
the strongest advocates for the declaration of war begin now to think
and talk of peace.

The honorable gentleman, however, urges the passage of the bill
under consideration, (which authorizes the enlistment of twenty
thousand additional regular troops for one year; and provides for the
appointment of proportionally an unusual number of officers, with
all the accompanying paraphernalia of an army,) as the means best
calculated to produce the end in view. Did I believe, sir, that the
passage of this bill, or (what is more difficult and less likely to
happen) the actual enlistment of the proposed additional force would
secure to us our object, I would not only consent to give this force,
but ten times the number, if it were by force alone to be obtained; but
when I reflect on the special and sole cause for which it is avowed
the war is now prosecuted; when I consider the relative strength,
situation, and disposable force, by sea and land, of the two nations,
and especially when my recollection is assailed (for we cannot, nor
ought we to close our senses against such damning facts) with the
heretofore scanty enlistments; the confusion and insubordination which
has pervaded many parts of your army; the extraordinary expense already
incurred, and the uniform disasters which have marked all your military
operations, I cannot bring my mind to the belief that the force now
proposed can produce any desirable effect.

Mr. Speaker: As much as I was opposed to the declaration of war, and as
much as subsequent events have convinced me of the correctness of the
vote I gave on that momentous question, it is not my purpose on this
occasion to question the policy of that unfortunate act. My mind is
bent on peace; to that object my efforts are directed. The impression
is strongly fixed on my understanding, that this war can be terminated
with honor and advantage to this nation, without the further effusion
of human blood. If so, surely no Christian will deny but justice,
humanity, and sound policy demand that nothing should remain undone,
on our part, to stop this career of carnage and bloodshed. I have
said, sir, that it is my impression that this war can be terminated
with honor and advantage to this nation, without a further appeal
to arms. In stating this opinion, I do not mean to be understood as
identifying the honor of the nation with the honor of those by whom the
war was declared; or, in other words, I do not admit that the national
honor rests solely in the hands of those who may happen to be in the
Administration, or who may happen to constitute a majority in Congress.
No, sir, this is an elective Government--the power and ultimate
responsibility rest with the people; they cannot be dishonored unless
they pertinaciously approve of unwise or wicked measures, and continue
to support the authors of such measures. It is, therefore, not with me
a primary consideration, in the suggestions I am about to make, how far
the honor or reputation, for political wisdom, of any individuals may
be affected by the adoption of the plan for peace which has occurred to
my mind. I do not know that any honorable gentleman will be affected
by it, should it be adopted. I hope he will not; to me it is perfectly
indifferent who are in power, so that the affairs of the nation are
well conducted.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever may have been the original causes for the
declaration of this war, we are now taught to believe that the question
in contest is reduced to a single point. The British Orders in Council
were repealed on the 21st of June, three days after our declaration of
war; and, of course, without a knowledge of that event, the blockade of
May, 1806, had long ceased to exist. The sole avowed cause, therefore,
remaining, and for which the war is now carried on, is the practice
of impressment from on board our merchant vessels. This subject has
for many years engaged the attention of both nations; it has been a
fruitful theme of execration and declamation for almost every editor
and orator of the age. Great as our cause of complaint may have been,
(and I am not disposed to palliate it,) it must be admitted by all who
understand the nature and true bearing of the question, that it had
been subjected to much exaggeration. Permit me, sir, to remark, that
notwithstanding the importance, the difficulty, and delicacy which
have been justly attributed to this subject, and the unwillingness at
all times manifested on the part of the British Government to abandon
or derogate from the _abstract_ right of impressing her own seamen
from on board neutral merchant vessels, it is very far from being
certain that she has not been willing to enter into such arrangement
with this Government, as would place the question of impressment on
a basis both safe and honorable to this nation. By a reference to
the correspondence of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney with the British
Commissioners, which preceded the treaty concluded by those gentlemen
in the year 1806, but which was unfortunately rejected by the then
President, it is evident that the interest of impressment was, in the
opinion of those gentlemen, placed on a footing well calculated to
secure our own seamen from the abuse against which we had complained,
and against which it was our duty to protect them. This opinion was
not only expressed in forcible and decisive language at the time of
entering into the arrangement, but repeated by Mr. Monroe more than a
year after, in a formal letter to the Secretary of State. The language
of that gentleman, now your Secretary of State, is peculiarly emphatic,
and must be within the recollection of every gentleman in this House.
Without troubling the House with the reading of the documents referred
to, it is sufficient for me to state, that your present Secretary of
State did, in a letter addressed to Mr. Madison, dated February 28,
1808, declare "that he always believed, and did still believe, that the
ground on which the interest of impressment was placed by the paper
of the British Commissioners of the 8th of November, 1806, and the
explanations which accompanied it, was both honorable and advantageous
to the United States."

Thus, sir, as we have conclusive evidence of a disposition on the
part of the British Government, at one period at least, to advance
considerable length towards an adjustment of this long-contested
question; and as we have no evidence that different principles and
claims are now asserted from those then advanced; I think it fair
to conclude, that it is still in our power to put an end to this
controversy with safety to our seamen, and advantage to the nation.
Instead, then, of passing this bill, and spending the blood and
treasure of our countrymen in the prosecution of this war, I conceive
it our duty to make an effort for the sanction of our just rights, and
the restoration of peace, without a further appeal to force. It is my
decided opinion that such an effort, if fairly and liberally made by
this House, and the Executive branch of the Government, would not fail
in producing the desired effect.

The peculiar nature of the question, which now constitutes the sole
object for continuing the war; the intimation given by the Executive in
the correspondence with the British Government, since the declaration
of war, together with the opinions stated by Mr. Monroe and Mr.
Pinkney, in their letter to the Secretary of State of January 3, 1807,
all tend to confirm me in the belief, that it is the duty of Congress
to pass a law which would not only check desertions from the British
service, by excluding persons of that description from employ in our
service, but also deprive the British Government of the apology alleged
for impressing American seamen, by excluding British subjects from the
commercial and public service of the United States. Having alluded to
the letter of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Pinkney of the 3d of January, 1807, I
will take the liberty of reading from it a short extract. After stating
the opinion they had formerly expressed, that although the British
Government did not feel itself at liberty to relinquish formally, by
treaty, its claim to search our merchant vessels for British seamen,
its practice would nevertheless be essentially, if not completely,
abandoned, they observe: "That opinion has since been confirmed by
frequent conferences on the subject with the British Commissioners,
who have repeatedly assured us that, in their judgment, we were made
as secure against the exercise of their pretension by the policy which
their Government had adopted, in regard to that very delicate and
important question, as we could have been made by treaty. It is proper
to observe, however, that the good effect of this disposition, and its
continuance, may depend, in a great measure, on the means which may be
taken hereafter by the Congress to check desertions from the British
service. If the treaty is ratified, and a perfect good understanding
is produced by it between the two countries, it will be easy for their
Governments, by friendly communications, to state to each other what
they respectively desire, and in that mode to arrange the business as
satisfactorily as it could be done by treaty."

Thus, sir, had the treaty of 1806 been ratified and a good
understanding been produced between the two countries, Congress were
warned, even in that event, that it was their duty to lend their aid
in rendering effectual and perpetual any arrangement which might be
made on this subject of impressment. As to the late communications
from the Executive department, made to the British Government, since
the declaration of war, it is not my intention at this time to enter
into a particular examination of their merit or demerit. I will barely
remark, that to me they present a novelty in the history of war and
diplomacy. Propositions, alleged to be of a pacific nature, made in six
days after the declaration of war! Such a procedure (much as I desire
peace and much as I was opposed to the war) is to my mind, to say the
least, extremely extraordinary, and its policy incomprehensible. It
is the more so from the circumstance of a British Minister being on
the spot at the moment of declaring the war and keeping up a continued
correspondence with the Secretary of State to the last moment of the
existence of peace. Under such circumstances I should conceive each
nation ought to have known the _ultimatum_ of the other and not waited
for the form of a declaration of war, to resume the negotiation
and give a new shape to their proposition. I confess that I am not
surprised at the result of this war negotiation--every thing was
demanded to be yielded by our enemy, for which the war was declared,
even as a preliminary in the first instance to an armistice, and in the
second instance as preliminary to a negotiation. The equivalent offered
on our part was of a nature which it was not within the province of
the Executive to confirm, and, of course, depended on what Congress
might or might not do on the subject. In addition to this, our agent
in London, through whom those propositions were made, did not possess
regular and competent powers, and was considered by the British
Government as incompetent to act with them on such a subject on equal
terms of obligation and responsibility. Whatever, therefore, may be
my opinion in relation to those late propositions, and however illy
calculated they may have been to produce any desirable result, I am far
from considering them unworthy the particular attention of this House.
I allude particularly to the equivalent proposed as an inducement for
the discontinuance of the practice of impressment. Here, for the first
time in the whole history of the long-protracted discussion on this
subject, it is intimated that something effectual will be done on our
part to prevent the cause of the abuse of which we complain--a promise
is given, in the event of obtaining the concessions demanded, that a
law would be passed by Congress to prohibit the employment of British
seamen in the public or commercial service of the United States. This,
then, is what I ask you now to do--pass a law effectually to exclude
all British subjects from the public and private maritime service of
the United States; let the law be well guarded against the possibility
of violation or evasion; and let us be determined rigidly to enforce
it; place this law in the hands of your Executive; let him immediately
appoint one or more honest, able, independent commissioners; men who
neither have nor expect an office; men in whom the nation, without
regard to party, would be willing to confide; give them ample powers to
form a treaty or arrange the sole question which is now the pivot on
which this war depends. Do all this; do it faithfully, and I venture
to predict you will obtain a peace, and secure your just rights more
speedily, more effectually, and more satisfactorily to the people of
this country, than by all the military operations in the compass of
your power.


MONDAY, January 4.

EDWARD HEMPSTEAD, returned to serve as the Delegate in this House from
the Territory of Missouri, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill for raising for one
year an additional military force of twenty thousand men.

The question was stated on the engrossment of the bill for a third
reading.

Mr. BRIGHAM.--Mr. Speaker, the bill under consideration, if passed into
a law, will deeply affect my constituents and the public in general.
It provides for prosecuting this war on a more extensive scale--it
is a kind of second declaration of war. The objects of conquest are
multiplied; the field of operation is enlarged; the Army must be
increased with the addition of 20,000 regular troops; and enlistments
encouraged by additional bounty and wages. Sir, this is the system of
arrangement to prosecute the scheme of foreign invasion. One error
frequently prepares the way for another; we are now unhappily involved
in the calamities of war, and the question is, how we shall prosecute
and support it.

Mr. B. said he had been uniformly, and in principle, opposed to this
war, and of course opposed to all the measures connected with it;
that, in his opinion, this war was both politically and morally wrong;
that it was declared without suitable preparation, without necessity,
without an army, without adequate resources, and without unanimity;
it has been prosecuted without success; we have also gained nothing
but loss, defeat, and disgrace; the people are alarmed at the loss of
their peace, distressed with the fruits of the war, and have serious
apprehensions of what may be the future measures of Congress on this
subject.

Sir, continued Mr. B., this war is of an offensive character; it is a
war of conquest, totally inconsistent with the spirit and genius of
our constitution, and, if prosecuted in the present divided state of
the country, I fear it may be fatal to our most valuable institutions.
Republics, sir, ought never to be engaged in a foreign, offensive war;
they are calculated only for defensive war.

Sir, there is something unaccountable, that the disposition to
prosecute this war should increase, as the causes of the war decrease,
and the means and ability to carry it on lessen. The war which we
now have on hand is predicated principally on the Orders in Council.
The impressment of seamen, during the last session of Congress, was
considered of minor importance and as a proper subject of negotiation
between the two nations, and was so considered in the days of General
Washington, in those of Mr. Jefferson, and why not now by Mr. Madison?

Sir, the Orders in Council which interfered with our neutral rights
are revoked. The President, in his Message at the commencement of this
session, declared the fact, and the war now rests solely on the subject
of impressment. I do not believe that the prosecuting of this war will
have a tendency to bring about an amicable and satisfactory adjustment
on this subject, and at the end of the war, if it ever ceases, this
question of impressment must be settled by treaty.

Sir, at this time, and under these circumstances, we are called on to
augment our standing army to the number of 55,000 regular troops, to
prosecute the war with vigor, and, as some say, for glory.

Sir, if this system of warfare is carried into effect, we shall
unavoidably create an annual expense of forty millions of dollars; and
where is your money to defray this expense? Why, you must take it from
the pockets of our constituents, and from those who are opposed to this
war; and if you fail of obtaining the necessary loans, you must stop
payment; the nation will become bankrupt, and future generations will
be loaded with an enormous debt.

Sir, can this be for the honor and interest of the American people; can
it be for the satisfaction of our constituents; are they in love with
this war? Are they prepared to barter away their property and their
peace for the hazards and fatigue of a foreign war, which promises
nothing but poverty and distress? It is impossible. Sir, it is said
that we are now about to make one sublime military effort, which shall
do honor to this nation; that with these troops we are to take, not
only the Canadas, but Halifax and Nova Scotia, and, for aught I know,
East Florida, follow up the Tippecanoe expedition, and exterminate the
Indians. Mr. B. said that he never had known the incipient cause nor by
what authority General Harrison made his incursion into the wilderness,
beyond where the United States had extinguished the Indian titles, and
destroyed the Prophet's town, but said that he hoped the time would
come when he should know the merits of that enterprise.

Mr. B. said if the friends of this bill and of the war could accomplish
their darling object, subdue and take possession of the Canadas, and
all the other British provinces in North America, in his opinion it
would be a great public misfortune--fatal to the civil liberties of the
country, and change the character of our Government.

Sir, said Mr. B., with these impressions I deprecate the taking of the
Canadas, or the other British provinces, as I do the loss of liberty
and the ruin of this country. This war cannot be perpetuated and
prosecuted without violating the laws of humanity and justice, the laws
of religion and morality--and these laws are to be respected as well by
nations as by individuals; and we have not only reason to believe, but
do believe, that the God of Armies, who superintends the concerns of
men, will give success to our arms, or blast our enterprise, according
to its moral character. If the Canadas are subdued and conquered, it
must be done by force of arms; and what have the inhabitants of those
provinces been guilty of, which warrant this Government in putting them
to the sword?

Sir, they are now inoffensive, and quietly pursuing their own business;
they are content under their own Administration; they are protected by
their own Government, and are not panting for the liberties of this
country, as was vainly supposed the last season, nor do they ask us to
relieve them from the oppression of their own Government, which General
Hull, in his tender mercy, promised them in his pompous proclamation,
on the condition that they would revolt from their rightful Sovereign,
and put themselves under _his_ gracious protection; nor were they
terrified by the threat of extermination, if found fighting in their
own defence by the side of an Indian; nor were they to be seduced from
their allegiance by promises which could not be performed. No, sir,
nor do they ask any favor but that you cease from troubling. Sir, they
will not submit, and they have told you, by their actual resistance,
that they will defend themselves, their councils, their firesides,
their wives, and their children, their rights and their property; and
they are not to be subdued but at the price of blood. And where is your
authority, where is your right to go home, invade, and break into a
foreign territory, and there establish a slaughter-house for the brave
sons of America; there spill your blood, and expend your treasure,
destroy cities, and demolish houses, plunder the inhabitants, and waste
the substance of the industrious and the innocent? Sir, there is no
right but a Napoleon right, and that right is power, and not that which
reason approves.

Mr. B. said that the war was becoming more and more unpopular in
the Eastern States, especially in the State which he had the honor
to represent; and they had, in their late elections, come forth and
declared it in a voice and language which cannot be misunderstood. And
whether there will be a majority in the next Congress in favor of this
war was uncertain--he hoped not.

Mr. RIDGELY said he claimed the patience of the House while he assigned
the reasons that would influence him to vote against the bill now
under consideration. He considered the force contemplated to be raised
by the bill as unnecessary. The present Military Establishment of
the United States consisted of various descriptions of troops; they
were the regular army, the rangers, the volunteers, and the militia.
The regular army was made up of the Peace Establishment, authorized
by the acts of the 16th of March, 1802, and the 12th of April, 1808,
containing about 10,000 men, including officers, and of the "additional
military force," which was directed to be raised by the act of the 11th
January, 1812; these different establishments were incorporated by
an act passed on the 26th of June last; and the present regular army
of the United States, as authorized by law, consisted of twenty-five
regiments of infantry, three regiments of artillery, two of light
dragoons, one of riflemen, and one of light artillery, containing in
all about thirty-six thousand men, including company officers and
privates; of these the President might have not exceeding fifteen
thousand enlisted for eighteen months, and the residue enlisted for
five years, unless sooner discharged. Of the rangers, there were
seven companies by the acts of 27th January, and 1st July, 1812, and
about four or five hundred men. By the act of the 6th February last,
the President was authorized to accept of any company or companies of
volunteers, either of artillery, cavalry, or infantry, who might offer
their services to the number of fifty thousand men; their commissioned
officers were to be appointed in the manner prescribed by law in the
several States and Territories to which they might respectively belong,
and they could only, according to the fair construction of this act, be
considered as militia, liable to be called on to do military duty at
any time within two years after they were accepted by the President,
and bound to continue in service one year after arriving at the place
of rendezvous. By the law of the 6th of July last, the President was
empowered to appoint and commission the officers of the volunteers who
had or should offer their services, and to form them into battalions,
squadrons, &c., and they were thus converted from militia into a
species of regular force. By the act of the 10th of April last, the
President was authorized to call on the several States and Territories
for their respective proportions of a detachment of one hundred
thousand militia; and the call has been made, I believe, on every State
and Territory. The present military force, then, of the United States,
as authorized by existing laws, consists of upward of one hundred and
eighty-six thousand men, all of whom, when in service, are subject to
the rules and articles of war. Of these, the militia can only be used
in the prosecution of this war for defensive purposes; the regulars and
the volunteers may be ordered to act offensively against the enemy.
They may amount, as we have seen, to eighty-six thousand men; and if
Canada be as weak and badly defended as gentlemen seem to suppose, and
the Administration should persist in their determination to conquer
it, they should, I think, be satisfied with such a force to obtain
an object so easily attainable. But, sir, said Mr. R., our present
Military Establishment is certainly sufficient for all purposes of
defence; and I wish to see no land forces raised for any other purpose.
I have no hesitation in declaring that I should lament to see Canada or
any of the British provinces on this continent in our possession, or
forming a part of the American Republic. They will never be worth, to
this nation, in any point of view, the blood and treasure that their
acquisition will cost us. It has been said by the honorable chairman of
the Committee on Military Affairs, that there are now in Canada twelve
thousand regular troops, and that the militia amount to six thousand.
To any thing that gentleman should say, as matter of fact within his
own knowledge, I should give the most implicit credit. But his estimate
of the militia of Canada must be too low. His sources of information
on this point must have been incorrect. The population of Canada (and
when I speak of Canada, I mean both Upper and Lower Canada) has been
variously stated, from three to five hundred thousand souls; according
to no account, I believe, can it be less than three hundred thousand;
and, I presume, no gentleman on this floor will say that estimate is
too high. Take, then, the population of Canada to be 300,000 souls;
what number of militia should this population furnish? We will take
the State of New Jersey as a guide for our calculation; according to
the census of 1810, the population of that State is 245,255, and its
militia, by the return for the same year, 33,740, and the militia bears
about the same proportion to the population in the States, generally,
as it does in this State. If, then, the militia of Jersey, with its
population, amounts to near thirty-four thousand, we may, I think,
without danger of contradiction, estimate the militia of Canada (with a
larger population) at between thirty and forty thousand; to these add
the twelve thousand regular troops, and, in all probability, before we
can act offensively against them in the Spring, the number of these
troops will be greatly increased, and they may have an efficient force
of about fifty thousand men to oppose an invading army. It ought to
be recollected, also, that a generous people, contending in their own
defence, are actuated by far different and more worthy motives than an
army of soldiers can be who attempt their subjugation. The Canadians
will contend for their homes, their wives, their children; for every
thing that can or that ought to be dear to the human heart. They will
be excited in such a cause to the boldest deeds. Instead of traitors,
we shall find them true to their country and themselves, and able and
ready to exert all their energies in their own defence. If we conquer
them, it must be by great exertions, and with immense loss. To subdue a
people acting under the impulse of such considerations as will operate
on them, will require a force at least double to that which they can
oppose to us. But can any man imagine that, if we invade the British
colonies, the war will be there? Will the pride of Britain, powerful
as she is at sea, and ready at any moment to meet every emergency,
permit her tamely to look on and see her provinces wrested from her,
without exerting herself with all her energies for their security? Will
she make no diversions in their favor? Will she suffer us to carry the
war into her territories, and not retort upon us? Does an unprotected
seacoast of two thousand miles afford her no opportunities of attacking
us? Do our rich and flourishing cities, exposed without defence on
the seaboard, to the cannon of her ships of war, furnish her with
no objects worthy her attention? Will the city of New York, laid in
ashes, atone for the invasion of Canada; or, will the acquisition of
Canada compensate to us for the loss of New York? Sir, said Mr. R., ten
Canadas, ten times told, would not be worth to this nation that single
city.

But of what value would these provinces be to us, if they could be
easily acquired? Shall we, by their conquest, obtain the objects for
which this war is waged? Shall we thereby secure our commercial rights?
Not at all, sir. On the other hand, if the British Government would
offer them to us, it would be our true policy to refuse to accept
them. It is known to everybody that the population of several of the
Eastern States is now full, and that great numbers of their citizens
are constantly emigrating. The direction this emigration takes, it is
also well known, is South and West. This surplus of population of the
Eastern States settles on the banks of the Ohio and Mississippi, and
carries with it its Eastern habits, and, if you please, its Eastern
prejudices. They become connected and united with the people of the
South and West. This union and intercourse will tend to render as
the brothers of one family the citizens of this extended Empire. The
prejudices of the South against the North, and the North against the
South, are weakened daily and will be destroyed. The course this
emigration takes is just as it should be. The currents flow from the
extremities into the centre of the country. The operation is most
beneficial to the nation, and tends constantly to strengthen and
cement the union of the States. But if the British provinces should be
conquered and become incorporated into the Republic, the direction of
the emigration from the Northern and Eastern States will be at once
changed. It will take a North instead of a South course. It will go
just where it ought not to go. The strength of the nation, already too
much scattered, will be still more weakened by a further expansion
of its territory and population. The Northern and Eastern States,
at present possessing more than their proper proportion of wealth,
population, and strength, and having different habits, pursuits, and
interests, from the Middle and Southern States, will, by the addition
of these provinces, and the settlement of their surplus of population
in them, acquire a weight and influence that this Union cannot control.
It will exist only at their pleasure, and, in a few years, the
destruction of this Government and a separation of the States will be
the inevitable consequence.

Mr. PITKIN rose and said:--Before, Mr. Speaker, we give our sanction
to this bill; before we agree to add so large a force to our present
army, making the whole number fifty-five thousand men, is it not a
duty we owe to ourselves and to our constituents, seriously to inquire
into the policy, into the necessity of the measure, as well as into
the present state of our relations with that nation against which we
have declared war? Almost at the very instant when Congress declared
war against Great Britain, the Orders in Council, and the blockade of
May, 1806, the most prominent causes of the war, were removed. I have
always, sir, considered the Orders in Council as the greatest obstacle
to the restoration of harmony and free intercourse between the two
countries. Had this obstacle been removed before the declaration of
war, no one can believe that the Executive would have recommended,
or that a majority in either House of Congress would have adopted
a measure always fraught with evils in all governments, and which,
in a Government like ours, ought never to be resorted to but in the
last extremity. I cannot believe that the President, in that case,
would have recommended it, when, on the 26th of July, 1811, through
the Secretary of State, he informed the British Minister that, on the
revocation of the Orders in Council, the non-importation law would be
removed, and, of consequence, commercial intercourse would be restored
between the two nations. It would be strange, indeed, if the President
should, in one moment, restore a free intercourse between the two
countries, and, in the next, recommend to Congress a declaration of
war, solely on account of another topic remaining in dispute. And,
in case such recommendation had been made, if any confidence is to
be placed in the declared opinions of gentlemen, many who voted for
the war would not, under such circumstances, have given it their
support. Unfortunately for the country, the President did not embrace
the opportunity, presented by the repeal of the Orders in Council,
to remove the non-importation law, and thereby smooth the way for a
complete restoration of harmony between Great Britain and the United
States. Sir, this would have been done, and the remaining subject of
dispute been left in the same situation as before the declaration of
war, to be adjusted by amicable arrangements. But, sir, as this was
not done, it remains for us, it remains for the people of the United
States, to determine whether they will encounter all the evils, all the
calamities of war; whether they will sacrifice the fairest prospects,
and the best interests of this rising country, on the point now in
dispute with Great Britain.

In the few remarks I shall submit to you, sir, and to the House, it
is not my intention to go into the consideration of all the original
avowed causes of the war; but to confine myself to the new aspect of
affairs, presented to us since the declaration of war by the removal of
the Orders in Council and blockades.

On the subject of impressments, for which alone the war is now to be
continued, what, let me ask, is the principle for which our Government
contends? It is this, sir: that the flag of the merchant vessel shall
cover all who sail under it; or, in other words, that our flag shall
protect all the foreigners our merchants may think proper to employ
in their service, whether naturalized or not. Before we raise immense
armies, before we sacrifice any more of the lives of American citizens,
let us inquire--

1st. Whether the principle, if yielded to us to-morrow, would benefit
our native seamen, or would promote the real permanent interests of
their country.

2d. Whether there is a probability of obtaining a recognition of this
principle by a continuance of the war.

The foreigners employed in our service are those who have not been
naturalized, and those who have taken the benefit of our naturalization
laws. The former constitute nearly the whole: the latter class is very
inconsiderable. The foreigners of the first description, of course,
were in competition with our native seamen, and either exclude them
from employment, or lessen the rate of their wages. In this way, then,
the employment of foreign seamen is an injury to our native seamen;
and, in a national point of view, it may well be questioned, whether
their employment subserves the permanent and solid interest of the
country.

Is it not, sir, of the first importance to us, as a commercial and
maritime nation, especially when it may be engaged in a war with a
great naval power, to be able to have a sufficient number of native
seamen employed in our service? Seamen, who shall be attached by every
tie to this country, and on whom we can depend for its defence in time
of danger?

This, sir, it is presumed, cannot be denied. If so, is it not the
dictate of wisdom and of sound policy for us to give encouragement to
our native seamen in preference to those of any foreign country?

The situation in which we now are proves the correctness, as well as
the importance, of the position. We are now at war with Great Britain.
And, at the very time when this war was declared, thousands of British
seamen who had not been naturalized in this country, were, and they
still continue in our employment. These seamen (I am speaking, sir,
of those not naturalized) are now claimed as British subjects, and,
indeed, by our own laws, are now considered as alien enemies. Will
gentlemen suffer me to turn their attention to this last fact?

By a law passed the 6th of July, 1798, it is enacted, that "whenever
there shall be a declared war between the United States and any
foreign nation or Government, &c., all natives, citizens, denizens, or
subjects, of the hostile nation or Government, being males of the age
of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States,
_and not actually naturalized_, shall be liable to be apprehended,
restrained, secured, and removed, _as alien enemies_." Ought we, sir,
to depend upon these men to man our fleets, or to defend our ports and
harbors? So far as foreigners of this description are concerned, I do
not hesitate to say that it is not for the interest of this country
that our flag should protect them, and that I will never consent to
continue this war for the maintenance of this principle on their
account. It is well known, sir, that not only Great Britain, but that
France, and all the nations of Europe, claim a right to the services of
all their subjects in time of war. In the exercise of this right, the
history of Europe shows that, at the commencement of almost all wars,
proclamations have been issued by the belligerent powers, recalling
their subjects to aid in the defence of their respective countries.
During the present war in Europe, this has been done by Great Britain,
by France, and the other belligerent powers. With respect to this claim
of allegiance, it is not my intention to enter into the discussion
whether, in the abstract, it is well or ill founded. This would lead
me too far, and would tend to no practical good. I will, however,
observe, that it is a right, a claim, which has been long exercised in
Europe, and has been sanctioned and acknowledged by the most able and
distinguished European writers on public law.

With respect to foreigners, who have been naturalized under our laws,
the question is of a more distinct nature, and presents greater
difficulties. We ought, undoubtedly, to fulfill all our obligations
towards them. What these obligations are, and how far they extend, are
questions about which a diversity of sentiment may prevail.--While they
remain within our territories, and within our exclusive jurisdiction,
they are shielded by the general principle, that all within our
dominion and exclusive jurisdiction, are, of course, protected against
all claims whatever, and never to be molested in any way without our
consent. But, sir, when they go without our territories, and beyond
our exclusive jurisdiction, and come within the sphere of the claim
of their former Government, the opinion of the best writers on public
law seems to be, that the obligation of the country, under whose laws
they have been naturalized, does not extend to guaranty them against
such claims, unless their allegiance was changed with the consent of
their former Government. But, sir, whatever speculative opinions may
be entertained on this subject, the number of naturalized seamen is
so small, that few, if any, can be of opinion that we ought to have
declared war, or that we ought to continue it on their account alone.
The whole number of seamen naturalized from 1796 to 1810, as appears by
the returns made to the Department of State, is 1,332. This includes
those of all nations. What proportion of these were British, or how
many of them are now in our service, it is impossible to determine. I
presume, however, the number of naturalized British seamen now in our
employ does not exceed two or three hundred. Shall we, sir, continue
the war for these men?

I am aware, sir, that with respect to impressment from our merchant
vessels, abuses have happened, that although the right of taking
American citizens is not claimed, the British commanders have not been
scrupulous whether they took British subjects or American citizens.
Sir, these abuses I never can, and I never will justify. I am
satisfied, however, that they have been exaggerated.

But, sir, let me ask, if we have not really intended to protect foreign
seamen under our flag, if we have not been guilty of gross negligence,
to say the least of it, towards our native seamen? whether, by our
laws, and the practice under them, we have afforded them all that
protection and security to which they are entitled?

In 1796, Congress passed an act for the relief and protection of
American seamen. By this act, the collectors of the several ports were
directed, on application, to enter the names of seamen, being citizens
of the United States, to grant them certificates, in a form given in
the act. In this certificate, the collector is to describe the person
of the applicant: also, to declare that, on proof produced to him
agreeable to the act, the seaman is a citizen of the United States of
America.

It is not a little singular that, although the proof of citizenship to
be produced to the collector must be agreeable to the directions of
the act, the act itself nowhere directs what that proof must be. Every
collector, therefore, has, under this act, used his own discretion, or
has pursued such directions as he may have received from the Government
as to the kind of proof. What, sir, has been the practice under this
law? Have those certificates, or protections, as they are commonly
called, been confined to _bona fide_ American citizens? No, sir; we
cannot, we ought not, to shut our eyes against facts too notorious
to be concealed or denied. Under this act, made expressly for the
protection of American seamen, every foreign seaman, almost, at the
moment of setting his feet on our shores, has obtained a certificate
from some collector, that he is a citizen of the United States; and,
with this certificate in his pocket, although perhaps a deserter
from his own Government, he enters a public or private vessel, as an
American seaman. The mode of obtaining proof of citizenship is well
understood. Among other modes, some of which are too disgraceful to
be mentioned in this place, those foreign seamen will go before a
magistrate, and, although hardly able to speak the English language
intelligibly, will swear, for each other, that they were born within
the United States, and are American citizens. On such proof, a proof of
this sort, the collector issues his certificate.

It will be recollected, sir, that this subject was brought before this
House during the last session, in a case from Philadelphia, when a
certificate of this kind was obtained by the most flagrant and avowed
act of perjury on the part of a foreigner who had just arrived in this
country. It was found, on inquiry, that there was no law, either of
Pennsylvania or of the United States, to punish the man for this act
of false swearing. Not only have these protections been thus obtained
by fraud and perjury, but they have also, long since, been an object
of barter; they have been bought and sold, and transferred from one to
another, not only in this country, but in foreign countries.

To show the extent of this traffic in seamen's protections, permit me
to state some facts, of which I have no doubt, knowing the source
from whence I have derived them. An American captain having a ship in
Bristol, in England, without a crew, he applied to a man who kept a
boarding-house for sailors, to procure a crew of American sailors in
port; he showed him a great number of American protections, which he
agreed to sell him for two guineas each, and with the aid of these to
procure him a crew. By high wages, and by suiting these protections to
the description of British sailors, he procured this captain his ship's
crew; not only so, but when the ship was about to sail, and it was
doubtful whether those who had engaged for the voyage would actually go
on board, this man actually procured some of a press gang to take them
as American sailors, who had deserted from their ships, and put them
on board. When we ourselves place no confidence in these certificates,
when we know that they are thus obtained by fraud and perjury, can we
expect that foreign nations will give credit to them? Instead of being
a shield and protection to the real American sailor, they have become a
dangerous weapon of offence.

If, sir, it is not for the permanent interest of the United States
to employ so many transient foreign seamen, we ought long since, not
only to have refused these false protections, but to have passed laws
for the encouragement of our native seamen, similar to those which
have been adopted in commercial countries, and are commonly called
navigation acts. This would, in some measure, have relieved us from the
evils which we now experience, in consequence of the employment of so
many foreign seamen.


TUESDAY, January 5.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House resumed the order of the day on the bill for raising an
additional military force of 20,000 men for one year, the question
being on the passage of the bill to a third reading.

Mr. BOYD.--Mr. Speaker: It is with great diffidence that I address
the Chair. When the bill now before the House was under discussion on
Saturday last; that is, the then proposed amendment to insert eighteen
months, instead of one year, I was offering my reasons why I thought
that that amendment ought to prevail; when, unfortunately for me, I
was considered as taking too great a latitude, and prevented from
connecting my remarks. As there is little difference, in point of
principle, as the bill then was and now is, I embrace this opportunity
to make up that deficiency, and will now take care to stick as close as
possible to the text.

Sir, I am opposed to passing the bill to a third reading, because I
believe it to be altogether inadequate to the purpose intended to be
accomplished by it. Sir, when I last addressed the Chair, I then took a
retrospective view of our past expectations, plans, and propositions,
from which we expected to derive great advantages. Such were the
expectations of that time, that I did not accord with them. Those
expectations have not been realized; but, instead thereof, we have met
with disappointments and misfortunes. I thought that viewing the errors
of the past was the most certain way to avoid the future; and I am not
at this time sensible of that being erroneous.

Mr. Speaker, I am an old man, and not in the habit of public speaking;
and if I have not the faculty of composing my arguments in so connected
a form as a lawyer's special pleadings, I hope the House will excuse
me, and grant me their indulgence to do it in such form as my capacity
will admit of.

[The SPEAKER observed that it was unpleasant to the Chair that the
gentleman should indulge in such remarks; he had certainly no wish not
to give full latitude to debate. Mr. B. said he stood corrected, and
was allowed to proceed.]

Then, Mr. Speaker, I object, because, in my opinion, it is not
calculated to produce the desired effect, or that which is intended
by it: that is, to raise a force competent to the conquest of the
Canadas in the given time. I will ask how many regiments you have
in your present establishment? Say thirty-five, and you add twenty,
making together fifty-five: what use is there in multiplying regiments
without men? The Chairman did state that from prudential motives, he
had thought it inexpedient to give the number now actually in service,
or enlisted by the present establishment. Sir, it is not my wish to go
into a strict inquiry; the regard I have for the honor of my country
forbids me; but I will suppose seventeen thousand, and, I believe,
that is large; then there is left officers for eighteen thousand
men. Are these not sufficient for the recruiting service? to engage
every man who is willing to serve his country? to place a recruiting
officer in almost every town and village in the United States? They
are; and, therefore, you ought not to create an unnecessary addition.
If the present establishment is not full, what is the reason? Either
that the pay and bounty are not sufficient inducements, or there is a
dislike to the service; your creating more regiments will not remove
that difficulty. I am against the bill, because the term of service
is too short to answer any valuable purpose. Suppose them intended to
operate as a force against Canada. Let us see how that will answer the
purpose: You send out your warrants to commence the enlistment of the
proposed troops at this time; how long a time, is it contemplated,
will be necessary for their enlistment? My opinion is, that you will
not have them half full in four months; it is then time to take the
field, and they are then raw troops. The honorable Chairman (Mr. D. R.
WILLIAMS) states to you the number of troops necessary for defensive
operations, according to his calculation, to be ten thousand; deducting
that number from the present establishment, supposing it to be full.
It is not for me to say how far the present establishment is short
of the whole number, or will be at that time; but we know that it is
far short; we do not know that it can be filled, and if it cannot,
then those calculations are fictitious. He also states to you that
the regular force in the Canadas is not to be estimated at less than
twelve thousand, and three thousand in Halifax, besides their militia.
According to this, and my views, you cannot enter Canada the next
campaign with man for man; and surely that is not sufficient for
conquest in an enemy's country. But I will suppose that you conquer
a part of the country; that part must be garrisoned if you will keep
it. In a year from the time of enlistment their term expires, and what
becomes of your conquest, without force to keep it, supposing it to be
made? Say that the officers will be called into service in four months,
and there is some of the men enlisted six or eight months hence; the
officers must serve until the expiration of the term of the last man
engaged, or a derangement must take place--always a disagreeable
occurrence in an army.

Sir, if you have not numbers sufficient to bear down all opposition,
invade it not: act on the defensive until you have engaged your men,
and for a term of time sufficient to answer your purpose; then may
you count upon success and honor. I do not say that I believe land
conquests will produce an acknowledgment of our rights on the ocean. I
believe it will not; but unless you act with great regularity, system,
and economy, you cannot avoid it; you must meet with nothing but
disappointments and disgrace.

Mr. LAW said as he was originally opposed to the war, and the
preparatory steps which led to it, he could not admit the principle,
_that because war was declared_ he was bound to acquiesce, and lend
his aid to promote every plan for prosecuting the war which might be
proposed, however wild and extravagant the same might appear. He said
he felt it a duty, and he claimed it as a right, (although he was not
ambitious very often to exercise the right,) to offer objections to
any measures which might be introduced, if he supposed they were not
calculated to produce the effect intended, although he might not be
in favor of the object itself; or if he believed the measure proposed
would be productive of real evil. Now, sir, on this important occasion
it would be wise for a moment to look back, and if we can bear the pain
of retrospection, consider what this nation once was, what it might be,
and what it in fact is. Time was, and that within the recollection of
us all, when industry, commerce, prosperity, and peace, gladdened the
hearts of this once happy people, and the use of arms was known only
as a pacific pastime. The nation, like some individuals, could not
bear the intoxicating influence of prosperity. It might have preserved
its enviable condition, but it labored and groaned under the weight
of national blessings; it submitted to regard the sinister views and
malign influence of foreign powers; it listened--fatally listened--to
a serpent more fell than the serpent of old. And now how sad is the
reverse, let a dejected and impoverished nation answer; in the past,
we see departed comforts; before us, we behold ruin and distress.
The unhappy crisis to which we have arrived has been progressive.
Had the transition been sudden, the nation would have been driven to
desperation. We have been often admonished by those who foresaw the
present evils; and had we been wise, might have avoided the calamities
in which the country is now involved, and from which there is at
present no prospect of speedy relief.

Sir, we will no longer dwell on times past; we will now briefly notice
the causes which were alleged in the manifestoes which immediately
preceded the declaration of war, and what was said to be the object,
and attempt to show that the bill now under consideration is
unnecessary for the attainment of the original object; that it will be
injurious to the militia, and may endanger the liberties of the country.

As to the causes of the war, without admitting or denying their justice
on national principles to justify the act at the time it was declared,
he might say that some of the pretended causes have never been
seriously relied on by our own Government. The principal one has been
wholly removed; and but one of the ingenious catalogue now remains,
and that might easily be adjusted to the mutual satisfaction of both
nations. And, sir, it ought not to be forgotten, that the act declaring
war was carried with great labor and much reluctance; and such was the
majority in each branch of Congress that it might well have justified
a doubt as to the expediency when it did pass. Besides, a large
proportion of the United States were then, and even since have been
opposed to the act. And this opposition was not confined to those who
have been slanderously reported to be in the interest of Great Britain.
The disgust and abhorrence was felt by some of the best patriots and
purest bosoms in the country. Experience has also proved that the
public sentiment was against the war; witness the feeble ranks of your
volunteers, the slow and reluctant march of the militia, and the tardy
progress in the recruiting service. Sir, the disgrace and disasters
which have hitherto attended the army, have resulted more from a want
of confidence in the justice and propriety of the war, than from the
lack of talents in those who have conducted the battles, incompetent
as they have been represented to command. A nation like this cannot
be driven to war. They must feel the justice and necessity of it, and
the justice must be so strong as to pierce every heart. This would be
felt in a necessary and defensive war; then, indeed, the nation would
smite with one arm. Before such a people, roused in such a cause, the
veteran legions of Napoleon would be compelled to bite the dust. Such,
alas! is not our case. We have a war, without the spirit or unanimity
which springs from these causes, and without the pecuniary means of
supporting it. Such a war must be disastrous! On what, sir, is the
honor of this nation now suspended? On the Navy! that little navy which
was despised, neglected, and forgotten, until it fought itself into
notice, and rescued the sinking honor of the country.

What, sir, was the avowed object of this war? It has ever been said
that conquest, with a view of extending our territory, and enlarging
our dominion, was not the wish of this Government. The idea of this
Republic following the footsteps of foreign ambitious nations, was so
repugnant to the genius of the American people, and the constitution
under which we live, that few, if any, of the warmest advocates of the
war dare avow it.

The pretence was to take, or rather to receive Canada; for it was
vainly supposed the inhabitants of that province would readily join
our standard, on the first invitation. But we must go through the
form of conquest to protect them from the charge of treason to their
own Government. We were to hold Canada until peace should return, and
then it was to be delivered up in exchange for maritime rights. And
this it was supposed would be a powerful weapon in our hands in the
negotiation. With this view the bills augmenting the Army, raising the
volunteers, and transferring the militia, passed. By the present bill,
and the project connected with it, the original plan is abandoned with
the volunteers and militia, and we are now presented with a compound
system of conquest, extermination, and defence. It would seem with the
force of fifty-five thousand regular troops, we are to conquer all the
residue of North America; exterminate every tawny infidel this side
of the Isthmus of Darien, and defend a seacoast many hundred miles
in extent from the incursions of the enemy! This is truly a gigantic
project. He said he could not give it his aid; and he thought some
honorable gentlemen who voted for the war would, when they reflected
on the magnitude of the scheme now presented, seize this occasion to
retire, unwilling to entail on themselves and posterity the expense and
ruin which would flow from the project, if carried into execution.

Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Speaker, I fear that the state of my health may
prevent my doing justice to my sentiments concerning this bill. I will,
however, make the attempt though I should fail in it.

The bill proposes that 20,000 men should be added to the existing
Military Establishment. This, at present, consists of 35,000 men.
So that the effect of this bill is to place, at the disposal of the
Executive, an army of 55,000. It is not pretended that this addition
is wanted either for defence or for the relief of the Indian frontier.
On the contrary, it is expressly acknowledged that the present
establishment is sufficient for both of those objects. But the purpose
for which these 20,000 men are demanded is, the invasion of Canada.
This is unequivocally avowed by the chairman of the Committee of
Military Affairs, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS,) the organ, as is admitted, of
the will and the wishes of the American Cabinet.

The bill, therefore, brings, necessarily, into deliberation, the
conquest of Canada, either as an object, in itself desirable, or
consequentially advantageous, by its effect, in producing an early and
honorable peace.[31]

Before I enter upon the discussion of those topics, which naturally
arise from this state of the subject, I will ask your indulgence,
for one moment, while I make a few remarks upon this intention of
the American Cabinet thus unequivocally avowed. I am induced to this
from the knowledge, which I have, that this design is not deemed to
be serious by some men of both political parties; as well within this
House as out of it. I know that some of the friends of the present
Administration do consider the proposition as a mere feint, made for
the purpose of putting a good face upon things, and of strengthening
the hope of a successful negotiation, by exciting the apprehensions of
the British Cabinet for the fate of their colonies. I know, also, that
some of those who are opposed in political sentiment to the men who
are now at the head of affairs, laugh at these schemes of invasion;
and deem them hardly worth controversy, on account of their opinion of
the imbecility of the American Cabinet, and the embarrassment of its
resources.

I am anxious that no doubt should exist upon this subject either in the
House or in the nation. Whosoever considers the object of this bill to
be any other than that which has been avowed, is mistaken. Whosoever
believes this bill to be a means of peace, or any thing else than an
instrument of vigorous and long-protracted war, is grievously deceived.
And whoever acts under such mistake, or such deception, will have to
lament one of the grossest, and perhaps one of the most critical errors
of his political life. I warn, therefore, my political opponents; those
honest men, of whom I know there are some, who, paying only a general
attention to the course of public affairs, submit the guidance of their
opinions to the men who stand at the helm, not to vote for this bill
under any belief that its object is to aid negotiation for peace. Let
such gentlemen recur to their past experience on similar occasions.
They will find that it has been always the case, whenever any obnoxious
measure is about to be passed, that its passage is assisted by the
aid of some such collateral suggestions. No sooner do the Cabinet
perceive that any potion, which they intend to administer, is loathed
by a considerable part of the majority, and that their apprehensions
are alive lest it should have a scouring effect upon their popularity,
than certain under-operators are set to work, whose business it is to
amuse the minds, and beguile the attention of the patients while the
dose is swallowing. The language always is: "Trust the Cabinet doctors.
The medicine will not operate as you imagine, but quite another way."
After this manner the fears of the men are allayed, and the purposes of
the Administration are attained under suggestions very different from
the true motives. Thus, the embargo, which has since been unequivocally
acknowledged to have been intended to coerce Great Britain, was
adopted, as the Executive asserted, "to save our essential resources."
So, also, when the present war was declared against Great Britain,
members of the House were known to state that they voted for it under
the suggestion that it would not be a war of ten days: that it was
known that Mr. Foster had instructions to make definitive arrangements,
in his pocket; and that the United States had only to advance to the
point of war, and the whole business would be settled. And now an army,
which, in point of numbers, Cromwell might envy, greater than that with
which Cæsar passed the Rubicon, is to be helped through a reluctant
Congress, under the suggestion of its being only a parade force, to
make negotiation successful; that it is the incipient state of a
project for a grand pacification!

I warn also my political friends. These gentlemen are apt to place
great reliance on their own intelligence and sagacity. Some of these
will tell you that the invasion of Canada is impossible. They ask where
are the men--where is the money to be obtained? And they talk very
wisely concerning common sense and common prudence, and will show, with
much learning, how this attempt is an offence against both the one
and the other. But, sir, it has been my lot to be an observer of the
character and conduct of the men now in power for these eight years
past. And I state, without hesitation, that no scheme ever was, or ever
will be, rejected by them, merely on account of its running counter
to the ordinary dictates of common sense and common prudence. On the
contrary, on that very account, I believe it more likely to be both
suggested and adopted by them. And, what may appear a paradox, for that
very reason, the chance is rather increased that it will be successful.

I could illustrate this position twenty ways. I shall content myself
with remarking only upon two instances, and those recent; the present
war, and the late invasion of Canada. When war against Great Britain
was proposed at the last session, there were thousands in these
United States, and I confess to you I was myself among the number,
who believed not one word of the matter. I put my trust in the old
fashioned notions of common sense, and common prudence. That a people,
which had been more than twenty years at peace, should enter upon
hostilities against a people which had been twenty years at war; that
a nation, whose army and navy were little more than nominal, should
engage in a war with a nation possessing one of the best appointed
armies and the most powerful marine on the globe; that a country, to
which neutrality had been a perpetual harvest, should throw that great
blessing away for a controversy in which nothing was to be gained, and
every thing valuable put in jeopardy; from these, and innumerable like
considerations, the idea seemed so absurd that I never once entertained
it as possible. And now, after war has been declared, the whole affair
seems so extraordinary and so utterly irreconcilable to any previous
suggestions of wisdom and duty, that I know not what to make of it
or how to believe it. Even at this moment my mind is very much in
the state of certain Pennsylvania Germans, of whom I have heard it
asserted that they are taught to believe, by their political leaders,
and do at this moment consider the allegation, that war is at present
existing between the United States and Great Britain, to be a "federal
falsehood."

It was just so with respect to the invasion of Canada. I heard of it
last June. I laughed at the idea, as did multitudes of others, as
an attempt too absurd for serious examination. I was in this case
again beset by common sense and common prudence. That the United
States should precipitate itself upon the unoffending people of that
neighboring colony, unmindful of all previously subsisting amities,
because the parent State, three thousand miles distant, had violated
some of our commercial rights; that we should march inland, to defend
our ships, and seamen; that with raw troops, hastily collected,
miserably appointed, and destitute of discipline, we should invade
a country defended by veteran forces, at least equal, in point of
numbers, to the invading army; that bounty should be offered and
proclamations issued, inviting the subjects of a foreign power to
treason and rebellion, under the influences of a quarter of the country
upon which a retort of the same nature was so obvious, so easy, and,
in its consequences, so awful; in every aspect, the design seemed
so fraught with danger and disgrace, that it appeared absolutely
impossible that it should be seriously entertained. Those, however, who
reasoned after this manner were, as the event proved, mistaken. The war
was declared. Canada was invaded. We were in haste to plunge into these
great difficulties, and we have now reason, as well as leisure enough,
for regret and repentance.

The great mistake of all those, who reasoned concerning the war and
the invasion of Canada, and concluded that it was impossible that
either should be seriously intended, resulted from this, that they
never took into consideration the connection of both those events with
the great election for the Chief Magistracy which was then pending.
It never was sufficiently considered by them, that plunging into war
with Great Britain was among the conditions on which the support for
the Presidency was made dependent. They did not understand, that an
invasion of Canada was to be in truth only a mode of carrying on an
electioneering campaign. But since events have explained political
purposes, there is no difficulty in seeing the connections between
projects and interests. It is now apparent to the most mole-sighted how
a nation may be disgraced, and yet a Cabinet attain its desired honors.
All is clear. A country may be ruined, in making an Administration
happy.

I said, Mr. Speaker, that such strange schemes, apparently
irreconcilable to common sense and common prudence, were, on that very
account, more likely to be successful. Sir, there is an audacity,
which sometimes stands men instead both of genius and strength. And
most assuredly, he is most likely to perform that which no man ever
did before, and will never be likely to do again, who has the boldness
to undertake that which no man ever thought of attempting in time
past, and no man will ever think of attempting in time future. I would
not, however, be understood as intimating that this Cabinet project
of invasion is impracticable, either as it respects the collection of
means and instruments, or in the ultimate result. On the contrary,
sir, I deem both very feasible. Men may be obtained. For if forty
dollars bounty cannot obtain them, a hundred dollars bounty may, and
the intention is explicitly avowed not to suffer the attainment of the
desired army to be prevented by any vulgar notions of economy. Money
may be obtained. What by means of the increased popularity derived from
the augmentation of the navy, what by opening subscription offices
in the interior of the country, what by large premiums, the cupidity
of the moneyed interest may be tempted beyond the point of patriotic
resistance, and all the attained means being diverted to the use of
the army, pecuniary resources may be obtained, ample at least for the
first year. And, sir, let an army of thirty thousand men be collected,
let them be put under the command of a popular leader, let them be
officered to suit his purposes, let them be flushed with victories,
and see the fascinating career of military glory opening upon them,
and they will not thereafter ever be deficient in resources. If
they cannot obtain their pay by your votes, they will collect it by
their own bayonets; and they will not rigidly observe any air-lines
or water-lines in enforcing their necessary levies; nor be stayed
by abstract speculation concerning right, or learned constitutional
difficulties.

I will now proceed to discuss those topics which naturally arise out
of the bill under consideration, and examine the proposed invasion of
Canada, at three different points of view.

1. As a means of carrying on the subsisting war.

2. As a means of obtaining an early and honorable peace.

3. As a means of advancing the personal and local projects of ambition
of the members of the American Cabinet.

Concerning the invasion of Canada, as a means of carrying on the
subsisting war, it is my duty to speak plainly and decidedly, not only
because I herein express my own opinions upon the subject, but, as I
conscientiously believe, the sentiments also of a very great majority
of that whole section of country in which I have the happiness to
reside. I say then, sir, that I consider the invasion of Canada as a
means of carrying on this war, as cruel, wanton, senseless, and wicked.

You will easily understand, Mr. Speaker, by this very statement of
opinion, that I am not one of that class of politicians which has for
so many years predominated in the world, on both sides of the Atlantic.
You will readily believe, that I am not one of those who worship in
that temple, where Condorcet is the High Priest and Machiavel the
God. With such politicians the end always sanctifies the means; the
least possible good to themselves perfectly justifies, according to
their creed, the inflicting the greatest possible evil upon others.
In the judgment of such men, if a corrupt ministry at three thousand
miles distance shall have done them an injury, it is an ample cause to
visit with desolation a peaceable and unoffending race of men, their
neighbors, who happen to be associated with that ministry by ties of
mere political dependence. What though these colonies be so remote
from the sphere of the questions in controversy, that their ruin or
prosperity could have no possible influence upon the result? What
though their cities offer no plunder? What though their conquest can
yield no glory? In their ruin there is revenge. And revenge to such
politicians is the sweetest of all morsels. With such men, neither I
nor the people of that section of country in which I reside hold any
communion. There is between us and them no one principle of sympathy
either in motive or action.

That wise, moral, reflecting people, which constitute the great mass
of the population of Massachusetts--indeed, of all New England--look
for the sources of their political duties nowhere else than in those
fountains from which spring their moral duties. According to their
estimate of human life and its obligations, both political and moral
duties emanate from the nature of things, and from the essential and
eternal relations which subsist among them. True it is, that a state
of war gives the right to seize and appropriate the property and
territories of an enemy. True it is, that the colonies of a foreign
power are viewed, according to the law of nations, in the light of its
property. But in estimating the propriety of carrying desolation into
the peaceful abodes of their neighbors, the people of New England will
not limit their contemplation to the mere circumstance of abstract
right, nor ask what lawyers and jurisprudists have written or said, as
if this was conclusive upon the subject. That people are much addicted
to think for themselves, and in canvassing the propriety of such an
invasion, they will consider the actual condition of those colonies,
their natural relations to us, and the effect which their conquest and
ruin will have, not only upon the people of those colonies, but upon
themselves, and their own liberties and constitution. And above all,
what I know will seem strange to some of those who hear me, they will
not forget to apply to a case occurring between nations, as far as is
practicable, that heaven-descended rule which the great author and
founder of their religion has given them for the regulation of their
conduct towards each other. They will consider it the duty of these
United States to act towards those colonies as they would wish those
colonies to act, in exchange of circumstances, towards these United
States.

The actual condition of those colonies, and the relation in which they
stood to the United States antecedent to the declaration of war, were
of this nature. Those colonies had no connection with the questions
in dispute between us and their parent State. They had done us no
injury. They meditated none to us. Between the inhabitants of those
colonies and the citizens of the United States, the most friendly and
mutually useful intercourse subsisted. The borderers on this, and
those on the other side of the St. Lawrence, and of the boundary line,
scarcely realized that they were subjects of different governments.
They interchanged expressions and acts of civility. Intermarriages took
place among them. The Canadian sometimes settled in the United States;
sometimes our citizens emigrated to Canada. After the declaration
of war, had they any disposition to assail us? We have the reverse
expressly in evidence. They desired nothing so much as to keep perfect
the then subsisting relations of amity. Would the conquest of those
colonies shake the policy of the British cabinet? No man has shown
it. Unqualified assertions, it is true, have been made, but totally
unsupported by any evidence, or even the pretence of argument. On the
contrary, nothing was more obvious than that an invasion of Canada
must strengthen the Ministry of Great Britain, by the excitement and
sympathy which would be occasioned in the people of that country in
consequence of the sufferings of the innocent inhabitants of those
colonies, on account of a dispute in which they had no concern, and of
which they had scarcely a knowledge. All this was anticipated--all this
was frequently urged to this House, at the last and preceding sessions,
as the necessary effect of such a measure. The event has justified
those predictions. The late elections in Great Britain have terminated
in the complete triumph of the friends of the British Ministry. In
effecting this change, the conduct of the United States in relation
to Canada has had, undeniably, a mighty influence, by the disgust and
indignation felt by the British people at a step so apparently wanton
and cruel.

As there was no direct advantage to be hoped from the conquest of
Canada, so also, there was none incidental. Plunder there was none--at
least, none which would pay the cost of the conquest. Glory there was
none. Could seven millions of people obtain glory by precipitating
themselves upon half a million, and trampling them into the dust? A
giant obtain glory by crushing a pigmy! That giant must have a pigmy's
spirit who could reap, or hope, glory from such an achievement.

Surely a people, with whom we were connected by so many natural and
adventitious ties, had some claims upon our humanity. Surely if
our duty required that they and theirs should be sacrificed to our
interests or our passions, some regret mingled in the execution of
our purpose. We postponed the decree of ruin until the last moment.
We hesitated--we delayed until longer delay was dangerous. Alas! sir,
there was nothing of this kind or character in the conduct of the
Cabinet. The war had not yet been declared, when General Hull had his
instructions to put in train the work of destruction. There was an
eagerness for the blood of the Canadians--a headlong precipitation
for their ruin, which indicated any thing else rather than feelings
of humanity, or visitings of nature, on account of their condition.
Our armies were on their march for their frontier, while yet peace
existed between this country and the parent State; and the invasion
was obstinately pursued, after a knowledge that the chief ground of
controversy was settled by the abandonment of the British Orders in
Council; and after nothing remained but a stale ground of dispute,
which, however important in itself, was of a nature for which no man
has ever yet pretended that for it alone war would have been declared.
Did ever one Government exhibit towards any people a more bloody and
relentless spirit of rancor? Tell me not of petty advantages--of
remote, and possibly useful contingencies which might arise from the
devastation of those colonies. Show any advantage which justifies
that dreadful vial of wrath which, if the intention of the American
Cabinet had been fulfilled, would, at this day, have been poured out
upon the heads of the Canadians. It is not owing to the tender mercies
of the American Administration, if the bones of the Canadians are not
at this hour mingled with the ashes of their habitations. It is easy
enough to make an excuse for any purpose. When a victim is destined to
be immolated, every hedge presents sticks for the sacrifice. The lamb
who stands at the mouth of the stream, will always trouble the water,
if you take the account of the wolf who stands at the source of it.
But show a good to us bearing any proportion to the multiplied evils
proposed to be visited upon them. There is none. Never was there an
invasion of any country worse than this, in point of moral principle,
since the invasion of the West Indies by the Buccaneers, or that of the
United States by Captain Kidd. Indeed, both Kidd and the Buccaneers
had more apology for their deed than the American Cabinet. They had at
least the hope of plunder; but in this case there is not even the poor
refuge of cupidity. We have heard great lamentations about the disgrace
of our arms on the frontier. Why, sir, the disgrace of our arms on the
frontier is terrestrial glory, in comparison with the disgrace of the
attempt. The whole atmosphere rings with the utterance, from the other
side of the House of this word "glory"--"glory" in connection with this
invasion. What glory? Is it the glory of the tiger, which lifts his
jaws, all foul and bloody, from the bowels of his victim, and roars
for his companions of the wood to come and witness his prowess and his
spoils? Such is the glory of Genghis Khan, and of Bonaparte. Be such
glory far, very far, from my country. Never, never may it be accursed
with such fame.

    "Fame is no plant that grows on mortal soil,
    Nor in the glistering foil
    Set off to the world, nor in broad rumor lies,
    But lives and spreads aloft, by those pure eyes,
    And perfect witness of all-judging Jove,
    As he pronounces lastly on each deed."

    May such fame as this be my country's meed!

But the wise and thoughtful people of our Northern section will confine
their reflections to the duties which result from the actual condition
of those colonies, and their general relations to the United States;
they will weigh the duties the people of the United States owe to
themselves, and contemplate the effect which the subjugation of those
Canadians will have upon our own liberties and constitution. Sir, it
requires but little experience in the nature of the human character,
and but a very limited acquaintance with the history of man, to be
satisfied that with the conquest of the Canadas, the liberties and
constitution of this country perish.

Of all nations in the world, this nation is the last which ought to
admit, among its purposes, the design of foreign conquests. States such
as are these, connected by ties so peculiar; into whose combination
there enters necessarily numerous jealousies and fears; whose interests
are not always reconcilable; and the passions, education, and character
of whose people, on many accounts, are repugnant to each other; with
a constitution made merely for defence; it is impossible that an
association of independent Sovereignties, standing in such relations to
each other, should not have the principles of its union, and the hopes
of its constitution, materially affected by the collection of a large
military force, and its employment in the subjugation of neighboring
territories. It is easy to see that an army collected in such a state
of society as that which exists in this country, where wages are high
and subsistence easily to be obtained, must be composed, so far as
respects the soldiery, for the most part of the refuse of the country;
and as respects the officers, with some honorable exceptions indeed,
must consist, in a considerable degree, of men desperate sometimes in
fortune, at others in reputation; "choice spirits;" men "tired of the
dull pursuits of civil life," who have not virtue or talents to rise
in a calm and settled state of things, and who, all other means of
advancement or support wanting or failing, take to the sword. A body
of thirty or fifty thousand such men, combined, armed, and under a
popular leader, is a very formidable force. They want only discipline
and service to make them veterans. Opportunity to acquire these,
Canada will afford. The army which advances to the walls of Quebec, in
the present condition of Canadian preparation, must be veteran. And
a veteran army, under a popular leader, flushed with victory, each
individual realizing, that while the body remains combined, he may be
something, and possibly very great; that if dissolved, he sinks into
insignificance; will not be disbanded by vote. They will consult with
one another, and with their beloved chieftain, upon this subject; and
not trouble themselves about the advice of the old people who are
knitting and weaving in the chimney corners at Washington. Let the
American people receive this as an undoubted truth, which experience
will verify. Whoever plants the American standard on the walls of
Quebec, conquers it for himself, and not for the people of the United
States. Whoever lives to see that event--may my head be low in the
dust before it happen!--will witness a dynasty established in that
country by the sword. He will see a King or an Emperor, dukedoms, and
earldoms, and baronies, distributed to the officers, and knights' fees
bestowed on the soldiery. Such an army will not trouble itself about
geographical lines, in portioning out the divisions of its new empire;
and will run the parallels of its power by other steel than that of the
compass. When that event happens, the people of New England, if they
mean to be free, must have a force equal to defend themselves against
such an army. And a military force equal to this object will itself be
able to enslave the country.

Mr. Speaker--When I contemplate the character and consequences of this
invasion of Canada; when I reflect upon its criminality and its danger
to the peace and liberty of this once happy country; I thank the great
Author and Source of all virtue, that through His grace that section
of country in which I have the happiness to reside, is, in so great
a degree, free from the iniquity of this transgression. I speak it
with pride, the people of that section have done what they could to
vindicate themselves and their children from the burden of this sin.
That whole section has risen, almost as one man, for the purpose of
driving from power, by one great constitutional effort, the guilty
authors of this war. If they have failed, it has not been through the
want of will or of exertion, but in consequence of the weakness of
their political power. When in the usual course of Divine Providence,
who punishes nations as well as individuals, His destroying angel shall
on this account pass over this country--and sooner or later, pass it
will--I may be permitted to hope that over New England his hand will
be stayed. Our souls are not steeped in the blood which has been shed
in this war. The spirits of the unhappy men who have been sent to an
untimely audit, have borne to the bar of divine justice no accusations
against us.

This opinion, concerning the principles of this invasion of Canada,
is not peculiar to me. Multitudes who approve the war, detest it. I
believe this sentiment is entertained, without distinction of parties,
by almost all the moral sense, and nine-tenths of the intelligence,
of the whole northern section of the United States. I know that men
from that quarter of the country will tell you differently. Stories
of a very different kind are brought by all those who come trooping
to Washington for place, appointments, and emoluments; men who will
say any thing to please the ear, or do any thing to please the eye
of Majesty, for the sake of those fat contracts and gifts which it
scatters; men whose fathers, brothers, and cousins, are provided for
by the Departments; whose full-grown children are at, suck at the
money-distilling breasts of the Treasury; the little men who sigh
after great offices; those who have judgeships in hand or judgeships
in promise; toads that live upon the vapor of the palace, that
swallow great men's spittle at the levees; that stare and wonder at
all the fine sights which they see there; and most of all wonder at
themselves--how they got there to see them. These men will tell you,
that New England applauds this invasion.

But, Mr. Speaker, look at the elections. What is the language they
speak? The present tenant of the Chief Magistracy rejected, by that
whole section of country, with the exception of a single State
unanimously. And for whom? In favor of a man, out of the circle of his
own State without much influence, and personally almost unknown. In
favor of a man against whom the prevailing influence in New England
had previously strong political prejudices; and with whom, at the time
of giving him their support, they had no political understanding; in
favor of a man whose merits, whatever in other respects they might be,
were brought into notice, in the first instance, chiefly so far as that
election was concerned, by their opinion of the utter want of merit of
the man whose re-election they opposed.

Among the causes of that universal disgust which pervaded all New
England, at the Administration and its supporters, was the general
dislike and contempt of this invasion of Canada. I have taken some
pains to learn the sentiments which prevail on this subject in New
England, and particularly among its yeomanry, the pride and the hope
of that country. I have conversed with men, resting on their spades
and leaning on the handles of their ploughs, while they relaxed for
a moment from the labor by which they support their families, and
which gives such a hardihood and character to their virtues. They
asked--"What do we want of Canada? We have land enough. Do we want
plunder? There is not enough of that to pay the cost of getting it.
Are our Ocean rights there? Or is it there our seamen are held in
captivity? Are new States desired? We have plenty of those already. Are
they to be held as conquered territories? This will require an army
there. Then, to be safe, we must have an army here. And with a standing
army, what security for our liberties?"

These are no fictitious reasonings. They are the suggestions I doubt
not of thousands and tens of thousands of our hardy New England
yeomanry; men who, when their country calls, at any wise and real
exigency, will start from their native soils and throw their shields
over their liberties, like the soldiers of Cadmus, "armed in complete
steel;" yet men, who have heard the winding of your horn to the Canada
campaign, with the same apathy and indifference with which they would
hear in the streets the trilling of a jews-harp, or the twirring of a
banjo.

The plain truth is, that the people of New England have no desire for
Canada. Their moral sentiment does not justify, and they will not
countenance its invasion. I have thus stated the grounds on which they
deem, and I have felt myself bound to maintain, that this contemplated
invasion of that territory is, as it respects the Canadians, wanton
and cruel; because it inflicts the greatest imaginable evils on them,
without any imaginable benefit to us; that, as it respects the United
States, such an invasion is senseless, because, ultimately, ruinous
to our own political safety; and wicked, because it is an abuse of
the blessings of Divine Providence, and a manifest perversion of His
multiplied bounties, to the purpose of desolating an innocent and
unoffending people.

I shall now proceed to the next view I proposed to take on this
project of invading Canada, and consider it in the light of a means
to obtain an early and honorable peace. It is said, and this is the
whole argument in favor of this invasion, in this aspect, that the
only way to negotiate successfully with Great Britain, is to appeal
to her fears and raise her terrors for the fate of her colonies. I
shall here say nothing concerning the difficulties of executing this
scheme; nor about the possibility of a deficiency both in men and
money. I will not dwell on the disgust of all New England, nor on
the influence of this disgust with respect to your efforts. I will
admit, for the present, that an army may be raised, and that during
the first years it may be supported by loans, and that afterwards it
will support itself by bayonets. I will admit farther, for the sake of
argument, that success is possible and that Great Britain realizes the
practicability of it. Now, all this being admitted, I maintain that the
surest of all possible ways to defeat any hope from negotiation, is
the threat of such an invasion, and an active preparation to execute
it. Those must be very young politicians, their pin-feathers not yet
grown, and however they may flutter on this floor, they are not yet
fledged for any high or distant flight, who think that threats and
appealing to fear are the ways of producing a disposition to negotiate
in Great Britain, or in any other nation which understands what it owes
to its own safety and honor. No nation can yield to threat, what it
might yield to a sense of interest; because, in that case, it has no
credit for what it grants, and what is more, loses something in point
of reputation, from the imbecility which concessions made under such
circumstances indicate. Of all nations in the world, Great Britain
is the last to yield to considerations of fear and terror. The whole
history of the British nation is one tissue of facts, tending to show
the spirit with which she meets all attempts to bully and brow-beat her
into measures inconsistent with her interests or her policy. No nation
ever before made such sacrifices of the present to the future. No
nation ever built her greatness more systematically, on the principles
of a haughty self-respect, which yields nothing to suggestions of
danger, and which never permits either her ability or inclination to
maintain her rights to be suspected. In all negotiations, therefore,
with that power, it may be taken as a certain truth, that your chance
of failure is just in proportion to the publicity and obtrusiveness of
threats and appeals to fear.

The American Cabinet understands all this very well, although this
House may not. Their policy is founded upon it. The project of this
bill is to put at a still further distance the chance of amicable
arrangement, in consequence of the dispositions which the threat of
invasion of their colonies, and attempt to execute it, will excite in
the British nation and Ministry. I have some claim to speak concerning
the policy of the men who constitute the American Cabinet. For eight
years I have studied their history, characters, and interests. I know
no reason why I should judge them severely, except such as arise from
those inevitable conclusions, which avowed principles and distinct
conduct have impressed upon the mind. I say, then, sir, without
hesitation, that in my judgment, the embarrassments of our relations
with Great Britain, and keeping alive between this country and that
a root of bitterness, has been, is, and will continue to be, a main
principle of the policy of this American Cabinet. They want not a solid
settlement of our differences. If the nation will support them in it,
they will persevere in the present war. If it will not, some general
arrangements will be the resort, which will leave open opportunities
for discord; which on proper occasions will be improved by them. I
shall give my reasons for this opinion. I wish no sentiments of mine to
have influence any farther than the reasons upon which they are founded
justify. They are public reasons, arising from undeniable facts; the
nation will judge for itself.

The men who now, and who, for these twelve years past, have, to the
misfortune of this country, guided its councils and directed its
destinies, came into power on a tide, which was raised and supported
by elements constituted of British prejudices and British antipathies.
The parties which grew up in this nation took their origin and form at
the time of the adoption of the treaty negotiated by Mr. Jay, in 1794.
The opposition of that day, of which the men now in power were the
leaders, availed themselves, very dexterously, of the relics of that
hatred towards the British name which remained after the Revolutionary
war. By perpetually blowing up the embers of the ancient passions,
they excited a flame in the nation; and by systematically directing it
against the honorable men who at that time conducted its affairs, the
strength and influence of those men were impaired. The embarrassments
with France, which succeeded, in 1798 and 1799, were turned to the same
account. Unfortunately, those who then conducted the public affairs
attended less to the appearance of things, than to their measures; and
considered more what was due to their country than was prudent, in the
state of the prejudices and jealousies of the people, thus artfully
excited against them. They went on, in the course they deemed right,
regardless of personal consequences, and blind to the evidences of
discontent which surrounded them. The consequences are well known. The
supreme power in these United States passed into the hands which now
possess it; in which it has been continued down to the present time.
The transfer of power was effected, undeniably, principally on the
very ground of those prejudices and antipathies which existed in the
nation against Great Britain; and which had been artfully fomented by
the men now in power, and their adherents, and directed against their
predecessors. These prejudices and passions constitute the main pillar
of the power of these men. In my opinion, they never will permit it
to be wholly taken away from them. They never will permit the people
of this country to look at them and their political opponents, free
of that jaundice with which they have carefully imbued the vision of
their own partisans. They never will consent to be weighed in a balance
of mere merits; but will always take care to keep in reserve some
portion of these British antipathies, to throw as a make-weight into
the opposite scale, whenever they find their own sinking. To continue,
multiply, strengthen, and extend these props of their power, has been,
still is, the object of the daily study and the nightly vigils of
our American Cabinet. For this the British Treaty was permitted to
expire by its own limitation; notwithstanding the state of things
which the Treaty of Amiens had produced in Europe was so little like
permanent peace, that the occurrence of the fact, on which the force
of that limitation depended, might easily have been questioned, with
but little violence to the terms, and in perfect conformity with its
spirit. For this a renewal of the Treaty of 1794 was refused by our
Cabinet, although proffered by the British Government. For this the
treaty negotiated by Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney in 1807 was rejected.
For this, in 1811, fifty thousand dollars were paid out of the public
Treasury to John Henry, for the obvious purpose of enabling the
American Cabinet to calumniate their political opponents, on this very
point of British influence, upon the eve of elections, occurring in
Massachusetts, on the event of which the perpetuation of their own
power was materially dependent.

Mr. Speaker, such men as these never will permit a state of things
to pass away, so essential to their influence. Be it peace or war
arrangement or hostility, the association of these British antipathies
in the minds of the mass of the community, with the characters of
their political opponents, constitutes the great magazine of their
power. This composes their whole political larder. It is, like Lord
Peter's brown loaf, their "beef, mutton, veal, venison, partridge,
plum-pudding, and custard."

From the time of the expiration of the British Treaty of 1794, and the
refusal to renew it, the American Cabinet have been careful to precede
negotiation with some circumstances or other, calculated to make it
fail, or at least to make a successful result less certain. Thus in
1806, when, from the plunder of commerce, by British cruisers, a
negotiation, notwithstanding the obvious reluctance of the Cabinet, was
forced upon them, by the clamors of the merchants, the non-importation
law of April, in that year, was obtruded between the two countries.
In the course of the debate upon that law, it was opposed upon this
very ground, that it was an obstacle to a successful negotiation.
It was advocated, like the bill now under discussion, as an aid to
successful negotiation. It was also said by the opponents of the law
of 1806, that Great Britain would not negotiate under its operation,
and that arrangement, attempted under proper auspices, could not be
difficult, from the known interests and inclinations of that nation.
What was the consequence? Precisely that which was anticipated. The
then President of the United States was necessitated to come to this
House, and recommend a suspension of the operation of that law, upon
the openly-avowed ground of its being expedient to give that evidence
of a conciliatory disposition; really, because, if permitted to
continue in operation, negotiation was found to be impracticable. After
the suspension of that law, a treaty was formed. The merits of that
treaty, it is not within the scope of my present argument to discuss.
It is sufficient to say, it was deemed good enough to receive the
sanction of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney. It arrived in America and was
rejected by the authority of a single individual; apparently because
of the insufficiency of the arrangement about impressment. Really
because a settlement with Great Britain, at that time, did not "enter
into the scope of the policy" of the American Cabinet. The negotiation
was indeed renewed, but it was followed up with the enforcement of the
non-importation law, and the enactment of the embargo. Both which steps
were stated at the time, as they proved afterwards, to be of a nature
to make hopeless successful negotiation.

In this State the Executive power of this nation formally passed into
new hands, but substantially remained under the old principles of
action, and subject to the former influences. It was desirable that
a fund of popularity should be acquired for the new Administration.
Accordingly, an arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine, and no
questions asked, concerning the adequacy of his powers. But, lest this
circumstance should not defeat the proposed arrangement, a clause was
inserted in the correspondence containing an insult to the British
Government, offered in the face of the world, such as no man ever gave
to a private individual whom he did not mean to offend. The President
of the United States said, in so many words, to the person at the head
of that Government, that he did not understand what belonged to his
own honor, as well as it was understood by the President himself. The
effect of such language was natural, it was necessary; it could not
but render the British Government averse to sanction Mr. Erskine's
arrangement. The effect was anticipated by Mr. Robert Smith, then
acting as Secretary of State. He objected to its being inserted, but it
was done in the President's own handwriting. As Mr. Erskine's authority
was denied by the British Government, it is well known that in fact, on
the point of this indignity, the fate of that arrangement turned. Can
any one doubt that our Cabinet meant that it should have this effect?
I send you word, Mr. Speaker, that I have agreed with your messenger,
and wish you to ratify it. I think you, however, no gentleman,
notwithstanding; and that you do not understand, as well as I, what is
"due to your own honor." What think you, sir? Would you ratify such
an arrangement if you could help it? Does a proffer of settlement,
connected with such language, look like a disposition or an intention
to conciliate? I appeal to the common sense of mankind on the point.

The whole stage of the relations, induced between this country and
Great Britain, in consequence of our embargo and restrictive systems,
was, in fact, a standing appeal to the fears of the British Cabinet.
For, notwithstanding those systems were equal in their terms, so far
as they affected Foreign Powers, yet their operation was notoriously
almost wholly upon Great Britain. To yield to that pressure, or to any
thing which should foster, in this country, the idea that it was an
effectual weapon of hostility, was nothing more than conceding that
she was dependent upon us. A concession, which, when once made by
her, was certain to encourage a resort to it by us on every occasion
of difficulty between the two nations. Reasoning, therefore, upon the
known nature of things, and the plain interests of Great Britain, it
was foretold that, during its continuance she would concede nothing.
And the event has justified these predictions. But the circumstance the
most striking, and that furnishing the most conclusive evidence of the
indisposition of the American Cabinet to peace, and their determination
to carry on the war, is that connected with the pretended repeal of the
French decrees, in November, 1810, and the consequent revival, in 1811,
of our restrictive system against Great Britain.

If ever a body of men were pledged to any thing, the American Cabinet,
its friends and supporters, were pledged for the truth of this fact;
that the French decrees of Berlin and Milan were definitively repealed
as it respects the United States, on the first of November, 1810. If
ever any body of men staked their whole stock of reputation upon any
point, our Cabinet did it on this. They and their partisans asserted
and raved. They denounced every man as a British partisan who denied
it. They declared the restrictive system was revived by the mere effect
of the proclamation. But lest the courts of law should not be as
subservient to their policy as might be wished, they passed the law of
the 2d of March, 1811, upon the basis of this repeal, and of its being
definitive. The British Government refused, however, to recognize the
validity of this repeal, and denied that the Berlin and Milan decrees
were repealed on the first of November, 1810, as our Cabinet asserted.
Thus, then, stood the argument between the British Ministry and our
Cabinet. The British Ministry admitted that if the Berlin and Milan
decrees were repealed on the 1st of November, 1810, they were bound to
revoke their Orders in Council. But they denied that repeal to exist.
Our Cabinet, on the other hand, admitted that if the Berlin and Milan
decrees were not repealed on the 1st of November, 1810, the restrictive
system ought not to have been revived against Great Britain. But they
asserted that repeal to exist. This was, virtually, the state of the
question between the two countries on this point. And it is agreed, on
all hands, that this refusal of the British Government to repeal their
Orders in Council, after the existence of the repeal of the Berlin and
Milan decrees, as asserted by the American Cabinet, was the cause of
the declaration of war between the two countries. So that in truth,
the question of the right of war depended upon the existence of that
fact; for if that fact did not exist, even the American Cabinet did
not pretend that, in the position in which things then stood, they had
a right to declare war, on account of the continuance of the British
Orders in Council.

Now, what is the truth in relation to this all-important fact,
the definitive repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees on the 1st
of November, 1810; the pivot upon which turned the revival of the
restrictive system and our declaration of war? Why, sir, the event has
proved that in relation to that fact the American Cabinet was, to say
the least, in an error. Bonaparte himself, in a decree, dated the 28th
of April, 1811, but not promulgated till a year afterwards, distinctly
declares that the Berlin and Milan decrees were not definitively
repealed, as relates to the United States, on the 1st of November,
1810. He also declares that they are then, on that twenty-eighth of
April, for the first time, repealed. And he founds the issuing of this
decree on the act of the American Congress of the 2d of March, 1811.
That very act, which was passed upon the ground of the definitive
repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, on the 1st of November, 1810;
and which, it is agreed on all sides, the American Government were
bound in honor not to pass, except in case of such antecedent repeal.

Were ever a body of men so abandoned in the hour of need, as the
American Cabinet, in this instance by Bonaparte? Was ever any body of
men so cruelly wounded in the house of their friend? This, this was
"the unkindest cut of all." But how was it received by the American
Cabinet? Surely they were indignant at this treatment. Surely the air
rings with reproaches upon a man who has thus made them stake their
reputation upon a falsehood; and then gives little less than the lie
direct, to their assertions. No, sir, nothing of all this is heard from
our Cabinet. There is a philosophic tameness that would be remarkable,
if it were not, in all cases affecting Bonaparte, characteristic. All
the Executive of the United States has found it in his heart to say,
in relation to this last decree of Bonaparte, which contradicts his
previous allegations and asseverations, is, that "This proceeding is
rendered, by the time and manner of it, liable to many objections!"

I have referred to this subject as being connected, with future
conduct, strikingly illustrative of the disposition of the American
Cabinet to carry on the war, and of their intention, if possible,
not to make peace. Surely, if any nation had a claim for liberal
treatment from another, it was the British nation from the American,
after the discovery of the error of the American Government, in
relation to the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees, in November,
1810. In consequence of that error, the American Cabinet had ruined
numbers of our own citizens, who had been caught by the revival of the
non-intercourse law; they had revived that law against Great Britain,
under circumstances which now appeared to have been fallacious; and
they had declared war against her, on the supposition, that she had
refused to repeal her Orders in Council, after the French decrees
were in fact revoked: whereas, it now appears that they were in fact
not revoked. Surely the knowledge of this error was followed by an
instant and anxious desire to redress the resulting injury. As the
British Orders in Council were in fact revoked, on the knowledge of the
existence of the French decree of repeal, surely the American Cabinet
at once extended the hand of friendship; met the British Government
half way; stopped all farther irritation; and strove to place every
thing on a basis best suited to promote an amicable adjustment. No,
sir, nothing of all this occurred. On the contrary, the question
of impressments is made the basis of continuing the war. On this
subject, a studied fairness of proposition is preserved, accompanied
with systematic perseverance in measures of hostility. An armistice
was proposed by them. It was refused by us. It was acceded to by the
American General on the frontiers. It was rejected by the Cabinet. No
consideration of the false allegation on which the war in fact was
founded; no consideration of the critical and extremely consequential
nature to both nations of the subject of impressment; no considerations
of humanity, interposed their influence. They renewed hostilities. They
rushed upon Canada. Nothing would satisfy them but blood. The language
of their conduct is that of the giant, in the legends of infancy:

    "Fee, faw, fow, fum,
    I smell the blood of an Englishman;
    Dead or alive, I will have some!"

Can such men pretend that peace is their object? Whatever may result,
the perfect conviction of my mind is, that they have no such intention,
and that if it comes it is contrary both to their hope and expectation.

I would not judge these men severely. But it is my duty to endeavor
to judge them truly; and to express fearlessly the result of that
judgment, whatever it may be. My opinion results from the application
of the well-known principle of judging concerning men's purposes and
motives: to consider rather what men do, than what they say; and to
examine their deeds in connection with predominating passions and
interests; and on this basis decide. In making an estimate of the
intentions of these or any other politicians, I make little or no
account of pacific pretensions. There is a general reluctance at war,
and desire of peace, which pervades the great mass of every people; and
artful rulers could never keep any nation at war any length of time,
beyond their true interests, without some sacrifice to that general
love of peace which exists in civilized men. Bonaparte himself will
tell you that he is the most pacific creature in the world. He has
already declared, by his proclamation to Frenchmen, that he has gone
to Moscow for no other end than to cultivate peace, and counteract
the Emperor of Russia's desire of war. In this country, where the
popular sentiment has so strong an impulse on its affairs, the same
obtrusive pretension must inevitably be preserved. No man or set of
men ever can or will get this country at war, or continue it long in
war, without keeping on hand a stout, round stock of gulling matter.
Fair propositions will always be made to go hand in hand with offensive
acts. And when something is offered so reasonable that no man can doubt
but it will be accepted, at the same moment something will be done of
a nature to embarrass the project, and if not to defeat at least to
render its acceptance dubious. How this has been in past time, I have
shown. I will now illustrate what is doing and intended at present.

As from the uniform tenor of the conduct of the American Cabinet,
in relation to the British Government, I have no belief that their
intention has been to make a solid arrangement with that nation; so,
from the evidence of their disposition and intention, existing abroad
and on the table, I have no belief that such is at present their
purpose. I cannot possibly think otherwise, than that such is not their
intention. Let us take the case into common life. I have demands, Mr.
Speaker, against you, very just in their nature, but different. Some of
recent, others of very old date. The former depending upon principles
very clearly in my favor. The latter critical, difficult, and dubious,
both in principle and settlement. In this state of things, and during
your absence, I watch my opportunity, declare enmity; throw myself
upon your children and servants and property, which happen to be in
my neighborhood, and do them all the injury I can. While I am doing
this, I receive a messenger from you, stating that the grounds of the
recent injury are settled; that you comply fully with my terms. Your
servants and children, whom I am plundering and killing, invite me to
stay my hand until you return, or until some accommodation can take
place between us. But, deaf to any such suggestions, I prosecute my
intention of injury to the utmost. When there is reason to expect your
return, I multiply my means of injury and offence. And no sooner do I
hear of your arrival, than I thrust my fist into your face, and say
to you--"Well, sir, here are fair propositions of settlement; come
to my terms, which are very just; settle the old demand in my way,
and we will be as good friends as ever." Mr. Speaker, what would be
your conduct on such an occasion? Would you be apt to look as much at
the nature of the propositions, as at the temper of the assailant?
If you did not at once return blow for blow, and injury for injury,
would you not at least take a little time to consider? Would you not
tell such an assailant, that you were not to be bullied nor beaten
into any concession? If you settled at all, might you not consider
it your duty in some way to make him feel the consequences of his
strange intemperance of passion? For myself, I have no question
how a man of spirit ought to act under such circumstances. I have
as little, how a great nation, like Great Britain, will act. Now, I
have no doubt, sir, that the American Cabinet view this subject in
the same light. They understand well, that by the declaration of war,
the invasion of Canada, the refusal of an armistice, and perseverance
in hostilities, after the principal ground of war had been removed,
they have wrought the minds of the British Cabinet and people to
a very high state of irritation. Now is the very moment to get up
some grand scheme of pacification; such as may persuade the American
people of the inveterate love of our Cabinet for peace, and make them
acquiescent in their perseverance in hostilities. Accordingly, before
the end of the session, a great tub will be thrown out to the whale.
Probably, a little while before the Spring elections, terms of very
fair import will be proffered to Great Britain. Such as, perhaps, six
months ago our Cabinet would not have granted, had she solicited them
on her knees. Such as probably, in the opinion of the people of this
country, Great Britain ought to accept; such perhaps as in any other
state of things, she would have accepted. But such as, I fear, under
the irritation produced by the strange course pursued by the American
Cabinet, that nation will not accept. Sir, I do not believe that our
Cabinet expect that they will be accepted. They think the present
state of induced passion is sufficient to prevent arrangement. But to
make assurance doubly sure, to take a bond of fate, that arrangement
shall not happen, they prepare this bill. A bill, which proposes an
augmentation of the army for the express purpose of conquering the
Canadas. A bill which, connected with the recent disposition evinced by
our Cabinet, in relation to those provinces, and with the avowed intent
of making their subjugation the means of peace, through the fear to
be inspired into Great Britain, is as offensive to the pride of that
nation as can well be imagined; and is, in my apprehension, as sure a
guarantee of continued war as could be given. On these grounds, my mind
cannot force itself to any other conclusion than this, that the avowed
object of this bill is the true one; that the Canadas are to be invaded
the next season; that the war is to be protracted: and that this is the
real policy of the American Cabinet.

I will now reply to those invitations to "union," which have been so
obtrusively urged upon us. If by this call to union is meant a union
in a project for the invasion of Canada, or for the invasion of East
Florida, or for the conquest of any foreign country whatever, either
as a means of carrying on this war or for any other purpose, I answer,
distinctly, I will unite with no man nor any body of men for any such
purposes. I think such projects criminal in the highest degree, and
ruinous to the prosperity of these States. But, if by this invitation
is meant union in preparation for defence, strictly so called; union
in fortifying our seaboard; union in putting our cities into a state of
safety; union in raising such a military force as shall be sufficient
with the local militia in the hands of the constitutional leaders,
the Executives of the States, to give a rational degree of security
against any invasion; sufficient to defend our frontiers, sufficient
to awe into silence the Indian tribes within our Territories; union
in creating such a maritime force as shall command the seas on the
American coasts, and keep open the intercourse, at least between
the States: if this is meant, I have no hesitation; union on such
principles you shall have from me cordially and faithfully. And this,
too, sir, without any reference to the state of my opinion, in relation
to the justice or necessity of this war. Because I will understand such
to be the condition of man, in a social compact, that he must partake
of the fate of the society to which he belongs, and must submit to the
privations and sacrifices its defence requires, notwithstanding these
may be the result of the vices or crimes of its immediate rulers. But
there is a great difference between supporting such rulers in plans of
necessary self-defence, on which the safety of our altars and firesides
especially depend, and supporting them in projects of foreign invasion,
and encouraging them in schemes of conquest and ambition, which are
not only unjust in themselves, but dreadful in their consequences;
inasmuch as, let the particular project result as it may, the general
effect must be, according to human view, destructive to our own
domestic liberties and constitution. I speak as an individual. Sir, for
my single self, did I support such projects as are avowed to be the
objects of this bill, I should deem myself a traitor to my country.
Were I even to aid them by loan, or in any other way, I should consider
myself a partaker in the guilt of the purpose. But when these projects
of an invasion shall be abandoned; when men yield up schemes which not
only openly contemplate the raising of a great military force, but also
the concentrating them at one point, and placing them in one hand;
schemes obviously ruinous to the fates of a free Republic--as they
comprehend the means by which such have ever heretofore been destroyed;
when, I say, such schemes shall be abandoned, and the wishes of the
Cabinet limited to mere defence and frontier and maritime protection,
there will be no need of calls to union. For such objects there is not,
there cannot be, but one heart and soul in this people.

Mr. ARCHER said, so great was the respect which he felt for the House,
so deep was the consciousness which he entertained of his inability
to do justice to a cause, especially one of so much magnitude and
importance, of which he might be the advocate, that he would be
doing injustice to his feelings were he not to express the weight
of the embarrassments which oppressed him. But the wide range which
the present discussion had taken, involving considerations of great
national interest, and calling forth the cruel asperities of political
intolerance, seemed to leave him no alternative in the discharge of
his duty, but to repel the unfounded insinuations which had flown in
so copious a stream from the other side of the House. Were gentlemen
to confine themselves to a temperate investigation of the propriety
of adopting measures either recommended by the Executive, or proposed
by the majority, who is there that would not listen with pleasure
and satisfaction? But when the liberty of debate was prostituted in
disseminating the most unfounded charges, in the indiscriminate abuse
of the constituted authorities of the nation, he confessed he could
not "always be a hearer, and never reply." The few observations he had
to make would be without either system or arrangement, having bestowed
no previous consideration on the subject, and should be confined not
so much to the bill for raising an additional army, as the remarks and
arguments of those gentlemen who had preceded him on the other side of
the House.

And here, he said, he hoped to be permitted first to notice the charge
which had been confidently made by a gentleman from New York (Mr. GOLD)
against the majority of the House. He had asserted (and he seemed to
dwell upon the assertion with peculiar satisfaction) that war had been
declared by Congress prematurely and without due preparation; that
to embark in a war with a powerful nation, without a large standing
army, was impolitic in the extreme. This principle, said Mr. A., in
the general might be true, but it had certainly no application to this
country. Our Government was founded on the broad basis of popular
opinion, liable to fluctuation upon the first appearance of any system
which might be calculated to destroy the liberties of the people. A
laudable jealousy of their rulers throbbed in the heart of every man
in the country, who would seize the first opportunity to change an
Administration that would raise a standing army in time of peace,
whatever might be the professed objects of such an Administration. From
this jealousy the natural result would be, that the men who raised
the army would never declare the war which it was intended to wage.
He would refer to the Administration of Mr. Adams. An army had been
then raised, or attempted to be raised, to defend the country against
an anticipated French invasion. The professed object was disbelieved,
and the people, apprehending an invasion of their rights, removed from
power the men who had voted for the army. All our institutions were
repugnant to a standing army in time of peace. Anticipated invasion
would seldom justify it, because it might be made a pretext for the
purpose at all times, and with the most dangerous views. What had
been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. QUINCY) seemed to
confirm this position, for he had expressed his fears of the army, even
in a state of declared war, when that army was to be employed out of
the limits of the country; and if jealousy existed at such time, the
conclusion would naturally follow that it would exist to a greater
degree in a time of peace. The argument then of the gentleman, if it
proved any thing, proved too much, because its effect would always be
to frustrate the views of the Government, and prevent it from going
to war to avenge even the grossest insult, or to assert even its most
indisputable rights. But an appeal had been made with much confidence
to the history of all Europe, to bear him out in the charge he had
made, and it had been said that no instance of a nation's engaging in
a war without having a well-regulated and disciplined army could be
adduced. This, said Mr. A., will be admitted, but he presumed it was
incumbent upon the gentleman to show that some analogy existed between
the Governments of Europe and that of the United States, before his
argument could have any application to the subject. There the people
had no voice in the selection of their rulers. There the arbitrary
will of the monarch was the law of the land, and his decrees, however
oppressive or obnoxious, were enforced by the hand of power, without a
murmur or complaint. There each Government is surrounded by kingdoms
powerful and strong, the ambition of whose rulers prompts them to seize
upon every occasion to enlarge the boundaries of their dominions. For
one of these powers, even in the most peaceful condition of the world,
to be destitute of a powerful and permanent military force, would
evince an inattention to its own security and independence, which would
demonstrate the incapacity of its monarch to govern his subjects, or
to preserve the integrity of his possessions. But the dissimilarity
of the Government and situation of the United States would show the
inapplicability of the gentleman's maxim to this country. Here we have
no powerful neighbor whose incursions we dread. Here we are happily
removed, by a wide-extended ocean, from those nations who, upon a
declaration of war by us, could overrun the country with a military
force, or endanger its civil institutions. Here we have a people
proudly jealous of their liberties, who will put down constitutionally
every attempt in a state of peace to raise a Military Establishment.
To have delayed, then, the declaration of war against England, until
the ranks of the army authorized to be raised had been completely
filled, would have been a most certain course to have defeated the
object which Congress had in view. The jealousies and fears which
would have been the necessary consequence of such delay, would have
brought into power men of far different views; men who, if the natural
conclusion to be drawn from the arguments of some of them could be
admitted, would sooner submit to all the indignities we had received
from Great Britain, than resist her. The war was therefore not declared
prematurely, but was delayed to as late a period as the nature of
our institutions would permit. And, if what he had said would not be
sufficient to satisfy the gentleman from New York of his error, the
army that was so shamefully surrendered at Detroit, if it had been
commanded by a man of spirit and fidelity, would long before this, by
the possession which it would have given us of an important province
of the enemy, have convinced him that war was not declared without
preparation. But, for having said so much upon this point, some apology
seemed to be necessary upon his part, and he could only say that he had
been induced to do so, because, having been one of the majority who
voted for war against England, the charge seemed to be an imputation
against his character, which the duty every man owed to himself bound
him to repel.

It had been said by a gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. PITKIN) that
the nature of the war had been changed; the principal cause had been
removed by the British Order in Council of June 23d, 1812, by which
her previous orders were repealed; that it was a well-ascertained fact
that war would not have taken place if this intelligence had reached
the United States before its declaration; and that the Executive ought
to have acceded to the terms proposed through Admiral Warren, and
have terminated the contest. These were grounds which demanded some
consideration, and he trusted that he would be able to show, from
authentic documents, that his premises were erroneous, and that of
course his conclusions did not follow. But he would now admit, for
the sake of argument, (what he should hereafter prove incorrect,)
that the Orders in Council were the principal cause of the war; he
could not, for himself, see how, even then, the war ought in justice
to have terminated. Did it follow that minor considerations should
be placed out of view or yielded up entirely? Would it have been
proper for the Government to have entered into no stipulations for the
security of American seamen? Would it have been proper in them to have
claimed on behalf of our citizens no indemnity for the vast amount of
spoliations which have been made on the property of American merchants?
Unquestionably not. Until these considerations, admitting them to be
of minor importance, should have been satisfactorily adjusted, to have
made a peace, in his opinion, would have been the height of impolicy.
Sir, said he, it is not sufficient that the injury should cease, but
that ample compensation should be made for the commission of the wrong.
This was the case every day between individuals in civil society,
and why ought not the rule to apply with equal force to States, in
their relation to each other? Justice was its foundation, and that
would operate upon the one as well as the other. These considerations
alone, perhaps, ought to be deemed sufficient to show that the course
the gentlemen would have taken would have been unwise. But, supposing
them to have no weight, he thought it might be satisfactorily shown
that, to have acceded to the terms proposed by the British Government,
would have been an actual abandonment of the principal cause which
had induced hostilities. To have negotiated without entering into an
arrangement in relation to the important interest of impressment,
would unquestionably have been a relinquishment of the right which
we claimed, to be exempted from its exercise. But it was said that
was a secondary consideration. From whence was this conclusion drawn?
Were we more regardful of the property than the personal liberty of
the citizen? Was it taken from an impression which had gone abroad
in the country? or from the unofficial conversation of the members
of the House? These opinions (if the expression were allowed) he
would call extra judicial, and entitled to no consideration. But to
show that impressment was the principal cause, he would resort to
the best evidence of which the case was susceptible. He would appeal
to the archives and records of the country, which, in his opinion,
would be conclusive, to show what the opinions of Congress were upon
that subject. And, in the first place, would call the attention of
the House to the report of the committee to whom our foreign affairs
were intrusted, which was made on the 29th of November, 1811. After
commenting on the operation of the Orders in Council, they say:

    "That they are not of that sect whose worship is at the shrine
    of a calculating avarice, and while they are laying before the
    House the just complaints of our merchants against the plunder
    of their ships and cargoes, they cannot refrain from presenting
    to the justice and humanity of their country the unhappy
    case of our impressed seamen. Although the groans of these
    victims of barbarity for the loss of (what would be dearer
    to Americans than life) their liberty; although the cries
    of their wives and children in the privation of protectors
    and parents have of late been drowned in the louder clamors
    at the loss of property; yet is the practice of forcing our
    mariners into the British navy, in violation of the rights of
    our flag, carried on with unabated rigor and severity. If it
    be our duty to encourage the fair and legitimate commerce of
    the country by protecting the property of the merchant, then,
    indeed, by as much as life and liberty are more estimable than
    ships and goods, so much more impressive is the duty to shield
    the persons of our seamen, whose hard and honest services are
    employed equally with those of the merchants, in advancing,
    under the mantle of its laws, the interests of their country."

Again, the same committee, in the report which they made to the House,
detailing the causes which should induce the House to declare war, say,
(after speaking of the evils flowing from the Orders in Council:)

    "That they will proceed to the consideration of another
    wrong, which has been still more severely felt. This is
    the impressment of our seamen, a practice which has been
    unceasingly maintained by Great Britain in the wars to which
    she has been a party since our Revolution. That they cannot
    convey, in adequate terms, the deep sense which they entertain
    of the injustice and oppression of this proceeding. Under the
    pretext of impressing British seamen, Americans were seized in
    British ports, on the high seas, and in every other quarter to
    which the British power extends, were taken on board British
    men of war, and compelled to serve there as British subjects.
    In this mode our citizens were wantonly snatched from their
    own country and their families; deprived of their liberty, and
    doomed to an ignominious and slavish bondage; compelled to
    fight the battles of a foreign country, and often to perish
    in them. Our flag has given them no protection; it has been
    unceasingly violated, and our vessels exposed to danger by the
    loss of the men taken from them. That while this practice is
    continued, it is impossible for the United States to consider
    themselves an independent nation, for every case produces a new
    proof of their degradation."

These reports, by the adoption of the measures they recommended, were
sanctioned by the Congress of the United States, and may be considered
as furnishing strong, if not full and complete evidence, that the
Legislative department of the Government considered the impressment of
our seamen as the principal cause which impelled them to have recourse
to the last resort of injured nations. The opinion of the Executive
had been manifested in clear and explicit terms upon the subject, in
the Message of the Chief Magistrate of the 1st of June, 1812. Thus we
have these concurrent proofs against the assertions of the gentleman
from Connecticut, (Mr. PITKIN.) If, then, as it appears clearly to
have been, from the documents before alluded to, that impressment
was the principal cause of the war, that it was an injury which no
independent nation could submit to without surrendering a portion of
its sovereignty, would it not be admitted, even on the ground which
had been taken, that, to have terminated the war by acceding to the
propositions alluded to, would have been degrading to the nation, and
have manifested the incompetency of the Executive to have conducted
with firmness the helm of State which had been submitted to his
guidance and direction? And no doubt could be entertained had such
an event taken place, but we should have heard denunciations against
the Administration proceeding from the very quarter whence they now
flow. Then they would have been made with infinitely more justice,
because they would have been supported by reason and by truth. We
should have then found the opposition appealing to the sympathies of
the people, and proclaiming that their most inestimable rights had been
surrendered by Government in the pacification; that although they were
originally opposed to a war, when it had once been declared they would
have prosecuted it until the claim had been abandoned by the British
Government. For, it cannot be concealed that unless, in the present
contest, Great Britain can be compelled to relinquish her claim to
the right of impressment, unless it be made the _sine qua non_ by the
American Government, to any arrangement of the existing differences
between the two nations, our claim to exemption from the practice must
be forever given up, and Great Britain will feel herself at liberty to
continue to exercise it with ten-fold rigor and severity.

Mr. A. declared that, notwithstanding the clamor of French influence
and French alliance, he felt no apprehensions upon that subject, as he
was well convinced it was not the intention or wish of our Government
to engulf us in the unfathomable vortex of European warfare. One word
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. GOLD) and he had done. It had been
considered by him as a most unfortunate circumstance that we should be
engaged in a war with Great Britain when Russia was struggling for her
independence. The most amicable relations existed, it was true, between
Russia and the United States; but would the gentleman have us on that
account to submit to every species of indignity from the ally of that
power? He beheld with as much detestation and abhorrence the conduct
of the French Emperor as any man could possibly do. His ambitious
progress was everywhere marked with blood. The vengeance of Heaven,
he trusted, would arrest him in his career to universal conquest and
dominion. The present condition of Russia, although her people groaned
under a despotism of the most unrelenting nature, must excite the
sympathy of every man in this country, because she was contending for
her independence, and he would wish her complete success in the war
in which she was now engaged, but that her triumph would protract the
restoration of peace to his own country.

Mr. GRUNDY.--Mr. Speaker, had this debate been confined to the bill
before you, I should certainly not have troubled the House with any
remarks of mine; but as the gentlemen opposed to the war in which we
are engaged have selected this as a fit occasion to bring before this
House and the nation a full view of all the relations which exist
between this and other countries, an apology at least is furnished for
a member of that committee, to whose examination these subjects have
been confided, to give his ideas upon the various points suggested.
This I shall endeavor to do with temper and moderation.

I will now proceed to state, as accurately and as concisely as I am
able, the manner in which the points in difference between the two
nations ought to be considered.

Upon some of the subjects in controversy, for instance, that of
impressment, negotiation had been tried unsuccessfully for twenty
years, as I will show before I sit down, from the public records of
the country; on others it had been tried for a shorter period. At the
last session of Congress, when every hope of obtaining justice in any
other way was lost, the United States declared war, not to procure
a repeal of the Orders in Council only, but to obtain redress for
the unjust spoliations which had been committed on the property of
American citizens, and to cause Great Britain to cease the practice
of impressment. Other causes of irritation existed, but these were
the prominent causes of the war. It may be taken as granted, in
this discussion, that those orders are revoked, notwithstanding the
objectionable manner of the revocation. You are now asked to lay down
the sword before you have obtained any of the objects of the war,
except the abolition of these obnoxious orders. I request gentlemen to
reflect, whether this is not, in point of fact, an abandonment of the
other points in dispute? Do you not, by ceasing to prosecute the war
which is already commenced, declare, in the strongest possible terms,
that you will not make war for the injuries which remain unredressed?
Can any man persuade himself that you will obtain that by negotiation
for which you have determined you will not fight! and that, too, from
a nation at all times disposed to depress this growing country? That
politician must have a very imperfect knowledge of the considerations
which influence all Cabinets, who does not know that the strongest
inducement which can be brought to operate in favor of an injured
nation, is the apprehension of retaliation, or fear of war, entertained
by the other party. I cannot, perhaps, establish this more clearly in
any other way than by recurring to the history of a transaction which
took place between the United States and Great Britain. Immediately
after the attack on the Chesapeake, this Government demanded
reparation. The terms proposed were reasonable, and such as a nation,
inclined to act justly, would promptly have acceded to. For five years,
or more, did the British Government refuse, or rather fail, to make
that arrangement, which, at the last session, produced a satisfactory
adjustment on that subject. Why, sir, was justice so long delayed,
and why was it at last obtained? The British Minister discovered a
determination in Congress to submit no longer. He saw that, unless
something was done, friendly relations between the two countries must
immediately cease. He saw that public sentiment called so loudly for an
opportunity of obtaining that justice by force which had been refused
to fair argument, that he granted us that reasonable satisfaction which
had been so long withheld. Sir, had he not seen the approaching storm,
no atonement for that wanton outrage on our national sovereignty had
yet been made. If you now say that you will not prosecute the war,
the enemy must view it as a decision pronounced by this Government,
that war shall not be waged by the American nation for the impressment
of her citizens, or for depredations committed on commerce. It might
as well be said, in plain, intelligible language, that the ocean is
to be abandoned by the people of the United States, except so far as
depends on the will of Great Britain. If both the property and liberty
of American citizens on the ocean are subject to her disposal, you
cease to possess the rights of a sovereign and independent nation. For
my own part, if we have the right to claim security for the liberty
and property of our citizens against that nation, of which no man dare
express a doubt, I am for asserting it until the object is attained, or
the ability of this nation fails; of the latter I have no fear.

It is pretended that this Government is not desirous of peace, and that
this is a war of conquest and ambition. I beg gentlemen to refrain
from making statements which they themselves do not believe. After the
declaration of war, what has been the conduct of the Executive? Through
Mr. Russell, our Chargé des Affaires at London, they have offered to
conclude an armistice on terms which would remove every pretext for
complaint on the part of Great Britain. He proposed that this country
should exclude from her service British seamen. It is true that Lord
Castlereagh urged Mr. Russell's want of powers, and stated that the
American Congress alone could make the necessary provisions on that
subject. If, however, sincerity had existed with the British Ministry,
a temporary arrangement could have been made, by which hostilities
would have been suspended until the legitimate authorities of this
country could have expressed an opinion. If Mr. R. had not adequate
powers to conclude an armistice, the proposition made by Mr. Monroe
to Admiral Warren was not liable to the same objection. In substance,
both propositions were the same; to the latter, no offer of compliance
has been tendered. If I have any objections to the late overtures
made by the Executive, it is that too great an anxiety for peace is
manifested; but when the nature of our institutions is consulted, a
strong propensity for domestic quiet is discovered; and, therefore, the
Administration should be indulged in any measure calculated to restore
harmony between the two countries, provided the honor and interests of
the nation are not compromitted.

I ask gentlemen in opposition to lay aside party feelings, and reflect
whether, if we now recede, points are not conceded to the enemy, which
they would not yield if in power. They affect to be the followers of
WASHINGTON. I will show them what his opinions were on the subject of
impressment. From them the pretended Washingtonians of the present day
will discover their degeneracy. Yes, sir, the Father of his Country
too well understood the value of liberty ever to consent that the most
obscure individual of his country should be deprived of it by a foreign
despot. So early as the year 1792, the British nation commenced the
practice of impressment, as now exercised by it. On the 11th day of
June, in that year, the then Secretary of State addressed a letter to
Mr. Pinkney, the American Minister at London, in which the practice
of impressment is strongly reprobated; and let it be remembered,
that although this letter was written by the Secretary, it contained
the sentiments of the President of the United States. In order that
the House may more fully comprehend what were the sentiments of that
man, whose memory we all venerate, I will read so much of the letter
referred to, as relates to this subject:

    "The peculiar custom in England of impressing seamen on
    every appearance of war will occasionally expose our seamen
    to peculiar oppressions and vexations. It will be expedient
    that you take proper opportunities in the mean time of
    conferring with the Minister on this subject, in order to form
    some arrangement for the protection of our seamen on those
    occasions. We entirely reject the mode which was the subject
    of a conversation between Mr. Morris and him; which was, that
    our seamen should always carry about them certificates of their
    citizenship. This is a condition never yet submitted to by any
    nation--one with which seamen would never have the precaution
    to comply. The casualties of their calling would expose them to
    the constant destruction or loss of this paper evidence; and
    thus the British Government would be armed with legal authority
    to impress the whole of our seamen. The simplest rule will be,
    that the vessel being American, shall be evidence that the
    seamen on board her are such."

If, at so early a period, the right of search for men was objected
to by this Government, how much more forcible is the objection now?
We were then a young nation; we have since increased in resources by
which our rights can be maintained; whilst the violation of those
rights have been augmented in a greater degree. On the 6th of November,
1792, the Secretary of State wrote to the American Minister at London
a letter, in which, when speaking on the subject of impressment, the
following language is used: "It is unnecessary to develop to you the
inconveniences of this conduct, and the impossibility of letting it go
on. I hope you will be able to make the British Ministry sensible of
the necessity of punishing the past and preventing the future." I know,
Mr. Speaker, that there is danger of fatiguing the House by recurring
to documents of this sort, but my apology is a good one: those to which
I refer have never been printed for the information of the members of
this House, nor have the public had an opportunity of inspecting them.
I hope, therefore, to be indulged in pursuing the sentiments of former
Administrations further on a subject of so much interest. On the 20th
of February, 1800, Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, addressed the
President of the United States on the subject of a proposed treaty
between the two countries, upon which occasion he makes the following
remark: "That he transmits Mr. Liston's note of the 4th of February,
together with his project of a treaty for the reciprocal delivery of
deserters; which appears to the Secretary utterly inadmissible, unless
it would put an end to impressment; which Mr. Liston seemed to imagine,
while the seventh paragraph of his project expressly recognizes the
right of impressing British subjects, and consequently American
citizens as at present." Mr. Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury, when
giving his opinion to the President, says--"That the project of a
treaty proposed by His Britannic Majesty for the reciprocal delivery
of deserters from the land and naval service, does not sufficiently
provide against the impressment of American seamen, and is therefore
deemed inadmissible."

Mr. Stoddert, who acted as Secretary of the Navy, at that period, when
advising the President on the same subject, says--"That the Secretary
is clearly of opinion that it is better to have no article, and meet
all consequences, than not to enumerate merchant vessels, on the
high seas, among the things not to be forcibly entered in search of
deserters."

The letter of the present Chief Justice of the United States to Mr.
King, Minister at London, dated on the 20th of September, 1800, places
this subject in a strong light; he says--

    "The impressment of our seamen is an injury of very serious
    magnitude, which deeply affects the feelings and the honor of
    the nation. This valuable class of men is composed of natives
    and foreigners, who engage voluntarily in our service. No right
    has been asserted to impress the natives of America. Yet they
    are impressed; they are dragged on board British ships of war,
    with the evidence of citizenship in their hand, and forced by
    violence then to serve until conclusive testimonials of their
    birth can be obtained. These must most generally be sought
    for on this side the Atlantic. In the mean time acknowledged
    violence is practised on a free citizen of the United States by
    compelling him to engage and to continue in foreign service.
    Although the Lords of the Admiralty uniformly direct their
    discharge on the production of this testimony, yet many must
    perish unrelieved, and all are detained a considerable time
    in lawless and injurious confinement. It is the duty as well
    as the right of a friendly nation to require that measures
    be taken by the British Government to prevent the continued
    repetition of such violence by its agents. This can only be
    done by punishing and frowning on those who perpetrate it. The
    mere release of the injured, after a long course of service and
    of suffering, is no compensation for the past and no security
    for the future. It is impossible not to believe that the
    decisive interference of the Government in this respect would
    prevent a practice, the continuance of which must inevitably
    produce discord between two nations which ought to be friends
    to each other."

In another part of the same letter, Mr. Marshall observes, "the United
States require positively that their seamen who are not British
subjects, whether born in America or elsewhere, shall be exempt from
impressment."

From these documents we clearly collect what was the view which the
first and second Presidents of the United States had on this subject,
and that of the principal officers of the Government. It appears that
this exemption from impressment is no new claim set up by men now in
power. It is as old as the Government itself, and there never has been,
nor can there be, an Administration in this country who dare surrender
this point to any foreign power. Once relinquished, we had as well
abandon the ocean altogether. If the liberty of American citizens is
to be subject to the will, not of the English Government, but what is
infinitely worse, of every petty officer that navigates a British
ship, it is in vain that we boast of freedom; we do not possess it;
and only let the British Government understand you distinctly on this
point, and you need talk no more of American commerce.

It has been said, by a gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. PEARSON,)
that, if we exclude British seamen from our service by law, one of
two things must happen--either a peace would be the result, or the
people of this country _all_ unite in a vigorous prosecution of the
war. If I have mistaken the meaning of the gentleman, I wish him to
correct me at this time, and answer the question directly, if, in that
event, he will support the war? [Mr. PEARSON explained.] Mr. GRUNDY
proceeded: Sir, from the explanation given, it will, I fear, be as
difficult to come to an understanding with that gentleman, as it is
to accommodate the points in dispute with the British Ministry; for,
although the gentleman says he will not surrender an essential right of
the country, a question might be made by him as to what were essential
rights. I will, nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, make one more effort to
elicit the opinion of the gentleman on this subject. I ask him whether
he considers the impressment of American seamen "a violation of an
essential right of this country?" [Mr. PEARSON said he so considered
it.] Then, said Mr. GRUNDY, from the gentleman's own declaration he
is bound to support us in the war, if the principle of impressment
is not relinquished by Great Britain. I have no hesitation in saying
that, in a time of peace, I am willing British seamen, not naturalized
in this country, should be excluded from our service. I believe that
such a regulation would inflict no injury or inconvenience on the
country. Whenever, therefore, a proposition to this effect is made, so
as to take effect at the conclusion of the war, I shall vote for it.
I consider it a direct encouragement to our own seamen, calculated to
foster and cherish the enterprise and industry of that important class
of our citizens.


THURSDAY, January 7.

Mr. BLEECKER.--Mr. Chairman: I have a very few, very desultory, and I
fear very unimportant observations to make on the subject now before
the committee. They will be few, not because the subject does not
abound with various fruitful and interesting topics, but because an
indisposition of some days has unfitted me for any considerable effort
of memory.

I was opposed to the war when it was declared, because I was
confidently persuaded that the evils of which we complained were of a
nature not to be remedied by war. I thought, too, sir, that by entering
into war, we were plunging ourselves into evils a million fold greater
than those from which we sought to be relieved. I was opposed to the
war, because I thought that, notwithstanding all the decrees and orders
of the belligerents affecting our neutral rights, we might enjoy a
commerce more extensive and profitable than we could have in a time
of European peace. The war in Europe was, in fact, a blessing to this
country. I was opposed to the war, because I knew that the whole of
one of the great political parties in the Northern and Eastern, the
most commercial section of the country, which was most interested in
the avowed objects of the war, openly condemned it; and I believed
that a great portion of the other party was secretly opposed to it.
This objection was to my mind perfectly conclusive. If there had been
no other reason against the war, this was enough. What, sir, go to war
when that part of the country which has most of its wealth, strength,
and resources, is decidedly opposed to it! go to war for commercial and
maritime rights, when the people of that part of the country which is
principally interested in its commerce and navigation, openly execrate
war!

It seemed to me that it became legislators who were disposed to
exercise a paternal regard over the interests of the nation, to give up
their own opinions, their prejudices and partialities, rather than go
to war with a people thus divided. And permit me to say, sir, without
any disparagement to the members of this House, that thousands and tens
of thousands of the inhabitants of that part of the country of which I
have been speaking, are as competent to understand the true interest
and honor of the nation, as gentlemen who happen to be members of
Congress.

I was opposed to the war, because I thought it might expose our
happy form of Government--our excellent political institutions--to
a dangerous trial. I was afraid, sir, that the war might produce a
pressure upon the Government which it would not be able to sustain. I
was opposed to the war, and this was the bitter draught, because it
brought us into concert and co-operation with the great destroyer,
the grand enemy of freedom and humanity throughout the world. I was
opposed to the war, because I believed the state of things in Europe,
out of which our difficulties arose--a state of things which the United
States had no power to control--was in its nature transient. Rather
than plunge ourselves into the vortex of European politics; rather than
encounter the evils and dangers of war, I thought it would be wise and
prudent to wait until "the troubled waters should subside, and the
ancient landmarks of the world reappear above the flood;" with a living
statesman, I thought I saw in the very cloud which blackened all our
horizon, the bow which was set for a token, that the tempest would not
be forever.

But, sir, war was declared, and the doctrine has since been
promulgated, that it is now the duty of every man to support it; that
all inquiry must be hushed, and all examination of its expediency and
propriety cease. So far as this doctrine inculcates obedience to the
laws, it has my cordial approbation; but inasmuch as it denies the
right of the citizen to examine into the causes of the war, to express
and publish his opinions respecting its policy, it is an insult to
the understanding of an intelligent people, and inconsistent with the
character and spirit of the constitution. War is declared by law. How
shall the law be repealed? How can we get rid of the war, if we may
not say that it is inexpedient, impolitic, and ruinous? How abominable
the doctrine is, that the declaration of war shuts the door against
all inquiry, is manifest from the consideration, that it would enable
a wicked Administration to perpetuate its power by declaring war.
Again, sir, I would ask the advocates of the doctrine I am reprobating,
when will it be proper to show the folly and ruinous consequences of
the war? Suppose the war to have continued five or ten years, and the
country to be impoverished, its commerce annihilated, its resources
exhausted, its best blood expended in wild and fruitless projects of
conquest, the people oppressed by debts and taxes, will it then be
deemed improper to expose the absurdity and mischief of continuing
the war? Surely, sir, it will be patriotic and laudable to alarm the
people, to entreat them to put an end to that which is the cause of
their calamities. And if such conduct will _then_ be proper, it must be
laudable and patriotic _now_ to show them their evils and dangers, and
to point them to the means of escape.

But, sir, what has been the state of the country since the declaration
of war? I speak again in reference to public opinion. The people of
the North and East have poured out their feelings and opinions, their
complaints and groans, in addresses, petitions, resolutions, and
remonstrances against the war. Look, sir, at the Presidential election,
and you see all the Northern and Eastern States; with the exception
of Vermont, arrayed against the Administration. You see the people
disregarding the old line of party division and distinction. Yes,
sir, in spite of such division and distinction, "burying their mutual
animosities," their ancient prejudices, "in their common detestation"
of the policy of the Government, rising up in their might and strength
to manifest their hostility to the course of measures it has pursued.
This, Mr. Chairman, is a state of things which ought to arrest the
attention, and engage the reflection of the National Legislature, for
without that section of country our strength is weakness. I know how
ungracious and invidious topics of this kind are to some gentlemen.
But, sir, we cannot help it that the country is made up of sections. We
are legislating for such a country, and it is our business and duty to
regard the circumstances, the interests, and feelings of the people of
different parts of the Union. We declared war for commerce; the people
most interested in commerce were opposed to it. We continue the war for
sailors' rights, and three-fourths of our native American seamen belong
to New York and the Eastern States, the people of which are sighing
for peace. It ought to be remembered, too, sir, that the war itself
must have the effect of driving a vast portion of our sailors out of
the country into foreign service.

But, Mr. Chairman, whatever may have been the reasons for declaring
war, the question is not now what it was when war was declared. Our
relations with the belligerents have materially and essentially
changed. So much have they changed, that I declare, without fear of
contradiction, that had they been on the 17th of June last what they
now are, we should not have gone to war. I hope no gentleman of this
committee will deny this. But if any gentleman should deny it, the
nation will not believe him. Sir, we have received new, important,
and interesting evidence of the true state of our foreign relations
since the declaration of war. Facts which were then unknown, and
which have shed a flood of light upon the situation and policy of the
United States, have since been published to the world. The repeal of
the Orders in Council itself, by removing the principal cause of the
war, has produced a most material change; for had they been repealed
before the war was declared, there would have been no war; and let it
be remembered, that they were repealed before the war was known in
England. But this is not all to which I refer. I mean to speak of the
evidence we have received respecting our relations with France; and
I hope gentlemen will not be startled or offended by what I am about
to say. I declare confidently and boldly _that Napoleon has inveigled
us into the war_. He has cajoled and deceived us. But for his arts,
intrigues, and duplicity, the United States would not now have been at
war with Great Britain. Yes, sir, he has led us on step by step, until
he brought us to the edge of the precipice, and plunged us into the
abyss. We have been humbled and mortified. He has triumphed over our
character, our honor, our rights, our independence. I do not say these
things hastily, carelessly, or lightly. And I will add, that after the
discovery of the deceit and duplicity which the Emperor of France has
practised upon us, it became the duty of this Government to go back to
the ground it occupied before the President's proclamation of November,
1810, or to declare immediate war against France. A proper regard to
the honor, the character, and independence of the country, demanded
this of its Government.

Sir, the proof of what I have said is plain; and it is time that it be
stated here, and spread before the nation. I beg the attention of the
committee to the facts on which it rests. I need not go back farther
than to the law of May, 1810, which provided that the non-intercourse
act should cease, as to that belligerent which should _first repeal_
its decrees violating our neutral rights, and that it should operate on
the other, which should fail so to do, within three months after the
President's proclamation of the fact of such repeal. This law, and the
conduct of the President under it, are the immediate cause of the war,
and the present unhappy state of the country. On the 5th of August,
1810, the Duke de Cadore wrote his famous letter to General Armstrong,
the American Minister in Paris, stating that the Berlin and Milan
decrees would, upon certain conditions, cease on the first of November
then next. On the authority of this letter, the President of the United
States issued his proclamation, declaring the fact, that the French
decrees were repealed. But the British Government, not considering
the letter of the Duke de Cadore sufficient evidence of their repeal,
did not revoke their Orders in Council, and, in consequence, our
non-intercourse act went into operation against Great Britain the
February following. Notwithstanding the proclamation of the President,
great doubts existed in this country, whether the French decrees were
in fact repealed. To remove these doubts, to confirm the proclamation,
to prevent inquiry and investigation in the judicial tribunals of the
country, the act of March, 1811, was passed. Yet, sir, it has ever
since been denied that the decrees of Berlin and Milan were repealed.
The public prints have teemed, and the tables of this House have been
loaded with the proofs of their existence and execution. You remember,
sir, an impressive argument, in many respects original, an unanswered
and unanswerable argument of the honorable gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH) on this subject in this House, towards the close of
the last session. But, sir, notwithstanding all this, this Government
persisted in declaring that the French decrees were repealed. I do not
mean to discuss that stale matter. The statement I make is necessary to
my present purpose. The question of their repeal was the subject of a
very voluminous and long-continued correspondence between Mr. Foster,
the British Minister, and our Secretary of State. The discussion, I
believe, was protracted to the last moment of peace. War was declared
on the 18th of June. Some weeks afterwards, appeared in this country
a decree of Napoleon, issued in May last, and bearing date the 28th
of April, 1811. This is an extraordinary paper, and deserves some
attention. I will read it:

"APRIL 28, 1813.

"_Napoleon, Emperor of the French, &c._

    "On the report of our Minister of Foreign Relations:

    "Seeing, by a law passed 2d March, 1811, the Congress has
    ordered the execution of the provisions of the act of
    non-intercourse, which prohibits the vessels and merchandise of
    Great Britain, her colonies and dependencies, from entering the
    ports of the United States.

    "Considering that the said law is an act of resistance to the
    arbitrary pretensions consecrated by; the British Orders in
    Council, and a formal refusal to adhere to a system invading
    the independence of neutral powers and of their flag; we have
    ordered, and do decree, as follows:

    "The decrees of Berlin and Milan are definitively, and to date,
    from 1st November last, considered as not existing in regard to
    American vessels."

Now, sir, did this decree exist at the time of its date? No, sir, the
date is _false_. If the decree existed in April, 1811, why was it not
communicated to this nation, the only one interested in the subject?
Why was it not communicated to Mr. Russell, who so strongly urged
upon the French Government the necessity of furnishing some evidence
of the repeal of the decrees. For the purpose of communicating some
satisfactory information on that subject to this country, he detained
the John Adams in France, in _July_, 1811. You will remember Napoleon's
decree is dated in _April_. Permit me here to read a passage of Mr.
Russell's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the 15th of July, 1811.

    "On the 14th of June, Mr. Hamilton, of the John Adams, reached
    Paris, and informed me that this vessel had arrived at
    Cherbourg. Unwilling to close my despatches by her, without
    being able to communicate something of a more definite and
    satisfactory character than any thing which had hitherto
    transpired, I immediately called at the Office of Foreign
    Relations, but, the Minister being at St. Cloud, I was obliged
    to postpone the interview which I sought until the Tuesday
    following. At this interview, I stated to him the arrival
    of the frigate, and my solicitude to transmit by her to the
    United States some _act_ of this Government, justifying the
    expectation with which the important law which she had brought
    hither had, undoubtedly, been passed."

After Mr. Russell had left Paris, he wrote from England to Mr.
Barlow, who succeeded him, "for additional proofs of the removal of
the decrees." Mr. Barlow seems to be very anxious "to get the treaty
through, carrying an unequivocal stipulation, that shall lay that
question to rest."

But it was all in vain; no authentic evidence of the repeal was
furnished. This decree did not exist; and why was it not issued? Why
was the evidence of the repeal of the decrees withheld? The answer is
obvious. _The United States were not yet committed to go to war with
Great Britain._ Napoleon knew very well that when _proper_ evidence of
the repeal of his decrees was furnished, the English Orders in Council
would be repealed, and the United States would not go to war with Great
Britain. For, sir, he knew very well, and we know very well, that for
the subject of impressments alone, this country would not go to war. It
cannot be denied, that for this cause we should not have declared war.
This Government has never been disposed to go to war on that ground
alone. The present President of the United States made an arrangement
with Mr. Erskine, which gladdened the heart of every man in the nation,
without any provision on that subject, without any mention of it; and
there was not a murmur in the country, on account of its omission. Mr.
Pinkney, too, as stated by the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. TROUP,)
yesterday, again and again, offered to accommodate with England, on
the rescinding of the Orders in council, without any reference to
impressments.

Sir, this decree itself is an insult to this Government. It is issued
expressly, because we had taken our stand against England; it is
declared to be issued in consequence of our act of March, 1811, when,
in fact, the President's proclamation and the act of March were founded
on the repeal of the decrees. To show the correctness of my remarks on
this part of the subject; to show that Napoleon has triumphed over our
honor and character, I beg leave to call the attention of the committee
to Mr. Russell's letter to Mr. Monroe, dated the 9th of June, 1811. His
language does credit to his understanding and feelings:

    "To have waited for the receipt of the proclamation, in order
    to make use of it for the liberation of the New Orleans
    Packet, appeared to me a preposterous and unworthy course
    of proceeding, and to be nothing better than absurdly and
    _basely_ employing the declaration of the President, that the
    Berlin and Milan decrees _had been_ revoked, as the means of
    obtaining their _revocation_. I believed it became me to take
    higher ground, and without confining myself to the mode best
    calculated to recover the property, to pursue that which the
    _dignity_ of the American Government required.

    "A crisis, in my opinion, presented itself, which, was
    to decide whether the French edicts were retracted as a
    preliminary to the execution of our law; or whether, by the
    non-performance of one party, and the prompt performance of the
    other, the order in which these measures ought to stand was
    to be reversed, and the American Government shuffled into the
    lead, where _national honor_ and the law required it to follow."

It would have been _base_ to have employed the President's
proclamation, that the Berlin and Milan decrees had been revoked as the
means of obtaining their revocation. But what, sir, is the price we
have at length paid for the repeal? The President's proclamation was
not enough; the act of March added to it was not enough; we could not
procure the revocation till we went to war. For, sir, the Emperor would
not issue this decree till he knew that we were pledged and committed
to go to war with Great Britain. How he knew this, sir, it is not for
me to say. We all know, however, that he had all the acts of this
Government to satisfy him of the course we were pursuing--the step we
were about to take. He had the President's Message, the report of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, the war speeches of the members of this
House, the laws for raising armies, and the embargo. In the month of
May, then, when the policy of this country in relation to Great Britain
was settled, he issued his decree, just in such time, too, sir, that
it could not reach this country till we had plunged into the war. And
well, in such a state, might he repeal his decrees, which, by the war
itself, would be superseded--would become a nullity.

Thus, sir, believing the French decrees to be repealed, we departed
from our neutral stand by enforcing the non-intercourse law against
Great Britain. We have in vain waited for such evidence of their
repeal as would have induced Great Britain to rescind her Orders in
Council--the great cause of the war. Their revocation depended upon
the repeal of the French decrees; and had they been revoked, there
would have been no war between the United States and Great Britain.
The decree, declaring the edicts of France to be revoked, is at length
issued, when the Emperor knows it is too late to prevent the war. The
decree is communicated to the English Government, the Orders in Council
are revoked on the ground of the repeal of the French decrees, but
the United States have declared war. How, sir, can I make this matter
plainer? Our whole course against Great Britain has proceeded from
the belief of the repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees; but that
evidence of their repeal, which would have stopped our course, by means
of which the Orders in Council would have been revoked, and the war
would have been avoided, is withheld till the Emperor knows that war is
inevitable. Thus, sir, have we been duped, deceived, and inveigled.

I repeat it, sir, had we, on the 17th June, understood our foreign
relations as we now understand them, we should not have declared war.
And would it not have been just and magnanimous in this Government,
when all doubt was removed on the subject of the French decrees, to
have acknowledged its error? Did not the honor, the character, the
independence of the country require of us to go back to our original
neutral ground? I rose principally for the purpose of presenting this
view of the arts and deceit of the French Emperor to the committee. I
regret that I have not done it more fully and clearly; and I hope that
some gentleman more competent to a proper examination of the subject
will yet take it up before we get through this discussion.

Mr. TALLMADGE said he felt a peculiar embarrassment in rising to offer
to the consideration of the committee some of his own reflections on
the important subject now under debate, from a twofold consideration.
In the first place, the magnitude of the question might claim the aid
of more exalted talents than he pretended to possess, and, therefore,
to do it justice, he feared, would not be in his power. For, said
Mr. T., in the extensive range of debate which has been permitted by
the Chair, the whole field of our foreign relations has been open to
examination, and the policy of our own Government in relation to Great
Britain has been deemed fairly within the range of discussion.

In the second place, the gentlemen who had preceded have occupied the
ground so ably, and discussed the subject so extensively, that it
was somewhat difficult to present arguments entirely novel to arrest
the attention of the committee. Having a belief, however, that there
were some important considerations, in relation to the bill now
under debate, which had not yet been brought into view, he begged the
attention of the committee while he endeavored to lay before them the
views which he had taken of the subject, and which constrained him most
decidedly to oppose the passage of the bill.

Before I enter upon the merits of the subject, said Mr. T., I take
occasion to express my hearty assent to declarations made by honorable
gentlemen that this is no time to indulge the bickerings of party; and
that it is greatly to be desired that all distinctions of this sort
were entirely laid aside and forgotten. Sir, I should consider it the
most auspicious event of my life if I could see every gentleman on this
floor determined to take and maintain the true old American ground
occupied by the patriots of '76. Although it may be painful to the
feelings of an honorable mind to be assailed with odious appellations,
and charged with duplicity and falsehood, yet the mind which has virtue
for its basis, a conscious integrity for its support, and firmness
sufficient to enable the man to do his duty, may hope to pass unhurt by
such malicious darts.

Standing, as I do, in the highly-responsible situation of one of
the legislators of this extensive country, I hope to have stability
and integrity sufficient to enable me to discharge my duty to my
constituents. If, after having passed through the Revolutionary war,
and having never changed my political creed to the present day, an
odious epithet could induce me to alter my course, I should be unworthy
the confidence of my country. But whence, Mr. Chairman, proceeds this
system of slander and abuse? From the foul presses of our country. To
whom are some of the fairest characters which have ever adorned this
or any other country indebted for the odious epithets of monarchists,
foreign agents, tories, and the like? To your imported patriots,
who, weary of the dull pursuits of industry on their native soil, or
escaping from the justice of the laws of their own country, have fled
to this happy land to instruct its inhabitants in the true principles
of liberty and equality.

To this set of newly-fledged politicians, and men of a similar stamp,
is this once happy country indebted for one-half the miseries and much
of the disgrace which it suffers.

I have been led into this digression in consequence of remarks which
have fallen from the other side of the House, but will now return to my
subject.

A gentleman from New York, (Mr. STOW,) who addressed you early in this
debate, told us that he reprobated the war, and had no confidence in
the Administration to conduct it to a successful issue, but should vote
for the bill to enable them to carry it on. This is strange political
logic to my understanding. While I subscribe fully to his premises,
the reasonings of my mind bring me to a very different result. Because
I deprecate this war as pregnant with great evils, if not ruin to my
country, I will, therefore, take all constitutional measures to bring
it to a speedy and honorable close; and because I have no confidence
in the Executive department of our Government, nor in the subordinate
agents who have been appointed to vote for this bill, which, if
adopted, will enlist still greater evils on this devoted country.

In presenting the subject to this honorable committee, in its most
appropriate form, it may be proper to examine into the prominent causes
of our dispute, which has terminated in open war with Great Britain.
These I take to be three, viz:

1. The Orders in Council.

2. Impressment of our seamen.

3. The attack upon the Chesapeake.

That we may narrow the point in controversy as much as possible, I
remark that ample and satisfactory atonement having been made for the
violation of our rights by the attack on the Chesapeake, one cause of
disquietude and a prominent one too, has been finally removed. It has
indeed been frequently remarked on this floor, that the satisfaction
offered for the unauthorized attack on the frigate Chesapeake was
long delayed, and very reluctantly offered. However painful it may be
to censure the conduct of our own Government, yet a sense of justice
obliges me to say, that to every overture made by Great Britain to
accommodate this unpleasant affair, our Administration attached
some exceptionable condition which closed the door to an amicable
adjustment. The committee cannot have forgotten the early disavowal
of this wanton aggression on the honor of our flag by the British
Government, and the tender of satisfaction which was made, but failed
because our Minister was instructed to couple with this complaint the
subject of impressment; nor can they have forgotten how indignant
the Ministry and nation were when the President assumed the right of
judging what would best comport with the honor of their King. Few, I
believe, who read the offensive remark, expect a different result from
that which ensued. And while I am upon this subject I take occasion
to remark, that in all our attempts to negotiate with the British
Government there seems to have been some untoward circumstance, some
unfortunate condition, either accidentally or intentionally, attached
to the question at issue, which has defeated the negotiation.

It would be within the scope of my present plan to take a particular
review of the British Orders in Council, as well as the subject of
impressments. But inasmuch as the documents relating to these two
subjects have been laid on every gentleman's table; and more especially
when I reflect that both topics have been very ably discussed by some
gentlemen who have preceded me, and especially by the gentleman who has
just sat down, (Mr. BLEECKER,) I shall content myself with taking but
a brief review of these prominent, and I may add, the only remaining
causes for the present war. As to the Orders in Council, it ought not
to be forgotten, that during several lengthy discussions to obtain
their repeal, as well by our Ministers in London, as at this place,
they have been considered as the prominent point in dispute. So, again,
as to the origin of our restrictive system; it cannot be forgotten that
the friends and abettors of those measures uniformly professed that
they were adopted as retaliatory for the Orders in Council. From the
first partial non-importation act, which passed on the eighteenth of
April, 1806, down to the law of the second of March, 1811, the object
has been, on the very face of the law, to procure a repeal of the
Orders in Council, and of the Berlin and Milan decrees. If any doubt
should remain on the mind of any member of this committee as to this
fact, I beg him to turn his eye to the restrictive code, and I presume
he will find the evidence to be abundant and complete. In this system
of anti-commercial regulations, I find the origin and progress of our
present political calamities. And here, Mr. Chairman, I shall readily
admit, that we had grievances and complaints, great and heavy, against
both of the belligerents; nor have I the least inclination to palliate
or excuse them. My object is to show, what I have uniformly expressed
on this floor, that our system of non-importation, non-intercourse,
and embargo, have been directed against the Orders in Council, as
to Great Britain, and nothing else; and finally, have brought this
country into a ruinous war. Is there a man within these walls, who
does not now believe (as was fully predicted when the law passed) that
the conditions held out to the two great belligerents, to induce them
to repeal their obnoxious edicts, violating the neutral commerce of
the United States, placed the execution of our law in the hands of a
foreign Government? Is there a man of ordinary capacity in the United
States, having the means of information, who now believes that the
Berlin and Milan decrees were repealed on the 1st of November, 1810,
according to the proclamation of the President of the United States,
solemnly announcing that fact; and that they thenceforward ceased to
violate our neutral commerce? Does not candor constrain all to confess
that, long after the pretended repeal of the aforesaid decrees, our
commerce was harassed in every sea where French cruisers could reach
it? Need I point you to the piratical seizures and burning of American
property in the Baltic, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic seas, by
the privateers and fleets of the French Empire; subsequent to this
pretended repeal, and sanctioned expressly by its authority? If all
other evidence should be deemed insufficient, I inquire whether the
French Emperor himself has not sufficiently humbled this country
(if indeed our cup of humiliation had not been full before) by his
own formal antedated repeal of his Berlin and Milan decrees, long
subsequent to the time imposed on the President by the Duke of Cadore?

It cannot have escaped the attention of the committee, or of the
nation, that Napoleon's decree, respecting the Berlin and Milan
decrees, bears date the 28th of April, 1811, and is explicitly bottomed
on the law of Congress passed March 2, 1811; the sole object of which
law was to confirm the proclamation of the President which had then
been issued more than four months, and the legality of which had
become very questionable. This decree may be found among the documents
accompanying the President's Message of November 4th, 1812, and on the
forty-sixth page of those printed papers.

If further evidence should be needed to prove the abominable fraud
of this transaction, it may be found in the correspondence of our
Minister at Paris, in the summer of 1811, wherein he remarks, that
he had repeatedly demanded evidence of the repeal of the Berlin and
Milan decrees, but none could be obtained. And yet, forsooth, we are
now furnished with a decree dated in April preceding, but not issued
until we are so entangled in French toils, that war with Great Britain
was inevitable. If this fact alone had been understood, I put it to
the candor of this honorable committee to say, whether they would
have consented to the declaration of war against Great Britain at the
time and for the reasons which were given? I say, without fear of
contradiction, that they would not. If my premises are true, and the
inference undisputed, since the Government has been grossly deceived
and drawn into this war, for reasons and causes which did not then
exist, most assuredly it becomes our duty as well as interest to
relieve the country from its pressure as soon as possible.

In addition to all this, it is a singular fact in the history and
progress of this war, that in five days after its declaration, (viz.
on the 23d of June, 1812,) and as soon as the aforesaid decree of the
French Emperor was made known to the British Ministry by Mr. Russell,
an Order in Council was issued, repealing the former obnoxious orders,
which had been ostensively the most prominent cause of the war; and yet
the President has never issued his proclamation announcing that fact,
as by the terms of the law of March 2d, 1811, he was expressly bound
to do. On this failure of the President to do what the law enjoined on
him to perform, as well as having issued his proclamation of November,
1810, without possessing the facts required by the law to support him,
I make no comment. The account is still unsettled between him and this
injured country.

The Orders in Council having thus been revoked, the continuance of the
war seems to rest upon the impressment of our seamen alone. Give me
leave then to inquire into the grounds of this practice, as claimed by
Great Britain. Is it not bottomed on the ancient doctrine of perpetual
allegiance--or in other words, that the native-born subject can never
so expatriate, as that the mother country may not claim his service
in time of war? Is this a novel doctrine, either as to time, or the
nation who now attempts to enforce it? I venture to say that Great
Britain has practised upon this principle ever since she has been a
nation; and it is farther manifest that France, and all the maritime
powers of Europe, have maintained the same doctrine. Nay, sir, we
maintain the same doctrine in our own country; in proof of which,
witness the President's proclamation at the commencement of this war;
and notice also the recent case of Clark the spy, who was condemned
to suffer death by a court martial, and was pardoned by the President
on the ground of his owing allegiance to the United States, although
residing in an enemy's territory, and having been naturalized or sworn
allegiance to the King of Great Britain. Hence it would seem, that the
principle set up was not novel nor singular. But what is the principle
in contest between the two Governments? Great Britain claims the right
to visit neutral merchant ships on the high seas; and if she finds
any of her natural born subjects, to take them into her service. The
Government of the United States denies to her this right, and asserts,
that a foreigner naturalized in this country, is absolved from all
allegiance to the parent State. The practice of Great Britain under
her principle, has undoubtedly subjected some of our native citizens
to capture and involuntary service, from causes which I need not here
repeat. In all such cases, I take it to be admitted on all hands, that
she sets up no claim, and therefore every abuse of this sort is capable
of remedy. But on this head I have no hesitation in expressing my
unqualified belief, founded on documents which have been laid on our
tables, that the list of such impressed seamen is greatly exaggerated.
Out of the number six thousand two hundred and fifty-seven of American
citizens said to have been impressed, and forming a standing head piece
to the list of our grievances, I very much question if five hundred
native Americans can be found among them all. The documents lately
furnished by the Secretary of State, if carefully examined, will serve
very much to substantiate this fact. Many names are there returned who
have only forwarded their claims to our Consul at London, and who, very
probably, never set foot on American ground. Others again are continued
on the list who have been discharged years ago, and others who have
voluntarily engaged in her service.

The question then at issue, I take to be this--Shall the war with Great
Britain be continued to oblige her to relinquish the practice of taking
from our merchantmen her native British sailors? If we could obtain
the principle by continuing the war, I think it can be demonstrated,
that it would be injurious to the American seamen to have it so
established, inasmuch as it would, by increasing the number of our
seamen, necessarily diminish their wages. But, circumstanced as Great
Britain is, contending for her existence against the most formidable
power on earth, and resting her last hopes upon her navy, I presume she
will never relinquish the principle.

The inquiry has been made, with some solicitude, what will you do
with _naturalized foreigners_? I answer, treat them hospitably, and
extend the arm of protection and all the blessings of government to
them while they continue within your territorial jurisdiction; but if
they leave your territory, and choose to go upon the great highway
of nations, the risk and the choice are their own, as will be the
peril. Put the case fairly to the yeomanry of our country, and let
them understand the subject, that this war is to be carried on for
the purpose of protecting foreigners while sailing on the high seas,
and I very much incline to the opinion, that they would, dismiss the
authors of this war from further service, or oblige them soon to bring
it to a close. Sir, I will not consent to waste one drop of pure
American blood, nor to expend a single dollar, to protect, on the
high seas, all the vagabonds of Europe. Valuable as may have been the
acquisition in obtaining many great and good men as emigrants from
Europe, still I must maintain the opinion, that all the blessings of
liberty and domestic government, which are secured to them in common
with our native citizens, ought to be an ample compensation. I know
it is no easy matter to draw the precise line where protection shall
cease; but in a question of such moment as peace or war, the prosperity
and happiness, perhaps the misery and ruin of our country, I cannot
hesitate as to the course proper to be pursued.

With respect to protections, they have become so much a matter of
bargain and sale, that having been counterfeited and sold in almost
every port in Great Britain, as well as in America, they have long
since ceased to answer any valuable purpose. It has been a fact long
since well established, that a foreigner, who could scarcely speak our
language, could procure a protection in Great Britain purporting to be
evidence of his _American citizenship_. This then may account for the
light and contemptuous treatment given to this species of evidence by
the officers of the British navy.


FRIDAY, January 8.

                           _Mounted Rangers._

Mr. JENNINGS said that it must be recollected by the House, that the
act which was passed at the last session of Congress, for the raising
certain companies of rangers for the protection of the frontiers, had
expired. Those rangers were raised under the apprehension of attacks
from the savages; and these apprehensions have unfortunately been
realized far beyond the general anticipation. When those companies were
raised, Mr. Speaker, we expected long since to have taken possession of
the British Province of Upper Canada, thereby to have intercepted the
connection and communication between the British and the northwestern
Indians. It will therefore readily be perceived, that in consequence
of our disappointed expectations in that quarter, the northwestern
frontier will be more exposed to the savage knife and tomahawk, at the
opening of the approaching spring, than they have been heretofore. This
description of force, if again organized, and stationed at suitable
points without the frontier settlements, will render it more efficient,
and in a better situation to range the woods and prevent the unapprised
attack of the savage upon the helpless women and children. If we had to
expect invasion from a civilized foe, our situation would not excite
so much terror, but the savage character draws no distinction between
the helpless infant and the prisoner of war. Under such circumstances,
no calculation of expenditure ought to have any weight against a
measure calculated to afford a necessary and proper protection to such
an important and extensive frontier of the United States. The secrecy
and facility with which the savages can assail that frontier, renders
it improper that we should depend entirely for protection upon the
volunteers and militia of an adjoining State. They carry with them
their prejudices, and too often forget the sacred rights of private
property. This fact has unfortunately been verified by a petition which
I presented yesterday from the territory which I represent. But I
cannot believe that such is the character of the citizens of Kentucky,
although I do believe that the cause of that plundering, so far as it
did take place in the western part of the territory of Indiana, by a
portion of the Kentucky volunteers, may be found in the unhallowed
exertions of local political purposes, to impress on the minds of
at least some of those volunteers, that they were to defend British
agents, British partisans, and persons having connection with the
savages.

I shall now (said Mr. J.) present to the House the following
resolutions which I have prepared, as well for the purpose of offering
a bounty in lands to those who would volunteer their services as
rangers for the protection of the northwestern frontier, as for the
purpose of inquiring into the expediency of paying the militia and
volunteers who have already rendered important services in shielding
the helpless from savage cruelty:--

    "_Resolved_, That the Committee on Military Affairs be, and
    they are hereby, directed to inquire into the expediency
    of authorizing the President of the United States to raise
    at least twelve companies of rangers, by the acceptance of
    volunteers or enlistment for one year, to be mounted or
    otherwise, as the service may require.

    "_Resolved_, That the said committee inquire into the
    expediency of allowing a bounty in land to those who shall
    tender their services as rangers, and be accepted by the
    President of the United States.

    "_Resolved_, That the said committee inquire likewise into the
    expediency of making provision for compensating the militia
    or volunteers, who may have been called out, or whose services
    may have been accepted by the Executives of either of the
    territories of the United States."

The resolutions were ordered to lie on the table.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill from the Senate authorizing the raising of twenty thousand men,
for one year, if in the opinion of the President of the United States
the public service shall require it.

Mr. WHEATON said: Mr. Speaker, every intelligent man, whose age has
given him an opportunity of combining experience with observation, must
know that there are times when, on certain questions relating to the
great interests of the nation, the sober remonstrances of truth and
reason are of little or no avail against the misguided impetuosity of
public prejudice. To such a crisis, if we have not already arrived, it
is greatly to be feared that we are fast approaching. To float along
the current of popular opinion requires very little exertion; but the
man that is placed in a situation where the public safety demands that
he should stem the torrent and buffet the storm, cannot but reflect,
with peculiar sensibility, on the very unequal task he has to perform.
The bill, now under consideration, has opened a field of discussion on
the general policy of the war, in which its advocates and opponents
seem to have given full range to their imaginations; and the arguments,
on both sides, have apparently been attended with various success.
There can, however, be little doubt on which side the victory will
finally be declared. It is well known that the majority are determined,
and the bill will pass. I had therefore resolved to take no part in
the dispute, but to content myself with giving a simple vote. But,
reflecting that I am called upon to act on a subject by me deemed
important, not only for myself, but for the good of the people whom
I have the honor to represent, who will be equally interested in the
result, I have felt myself impelled, both by duty and inclination, to
state some of the reasons on which that vote will be grounded.

The bill proposes giving authority to the President of the United
States to raise twenty thousand regular troops, in addition to the
thirty-five thousand already authorized by law. This may be right
or wrong, proper or improper, according to times and circumstances,
and the objects which the measure is contemplated to effect. Were
the country invaded by a foreign foe, and a foe so powerful as to
make this additional number of troops necessary for its defence, I
should say it were right and proper to raise them, whatever expense it
might be to the nation. But if, as the advocates of the bill profess,
these men are to be enlisted, and, together with those heretofore
authorized, are to form a powerful army for the purpose of foreign
conquest, I have no hesitation in giving it, as my opinion, that it
is improper and wrong, or, at least, as the President has told us
respecting the French decree repealing those of Berlin and Milan, that
"the proceeding is rendered, by the time and manner of it, liable to
many objections." Objections, it is apprehended, may arise from want
of powers given to Congress by the constitution, either expressed or
implied, to do this thing, with its professed object in view--that is,
foreign conquest. And if these are unavailing, common reason and common
sense furnish objections, sufficiently strong, to the expediency of
our undertaking such enterprises. Objections, for want of sufficient
powers given by the constitution, may be considered as novel; but,
if sound, they should nevertheless prevail. The war itself is novel,
this being the first of the kind that ever we have undertaken since
that instrument was formed, or since we became an independent nation.
If the constitution gives Congress any power to carry on foreign
wars, those powers must be collected from expressions it contains,
or from some clear and necessary implication from something that is
therein expressed. It will be very readily admitted, that our national
Government is a Government of a very simple construction, and that it
possesses very limited powers; being established by compact, not by
conquest, it has not all the powers incident to the sovereignties of
other countries; not produced _by_ conquest, it was not made _for_
conquest. "The enumeration of certain rights in the constitution shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
and 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." The framers of this constitution took
particular care, not only to define the powers they intended to give,
but the objects to which that power should be applied, and therefore,
but for those defined objects, Congress have no powers at all. The
objects are first pointed out clearly and plainly, and then the powers
necessary to their attainment. The people of this country, after having
effected the Revolution and established their independence, considering
their great transmarine distance from the nations of the Old World, and
all their jarring and rival interests, flattered themselves with the
expectation of long peace. Unapprehensive of being attacked at home,
they had no idea of making war for the purpose of conquest abroad.
"Peace and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with
none," was their motto, and the same sentiment has been sanctioned by
a man, whom the advocates of this war have never ceased to admire.
An aversion to standing armies was among the causes that induced the
Declaration of Independence; without standing armies, it was then
believed, and we now know full well, foreign wars cannot be carried
on. Foreign wars did not, therefore, come within the scope of that
policy that dictated the constitution. I am not insensible, that, by
the constitution, a power is given to Congress to declare war, (not to
make it,) but their power is not to be exercised but in the spirit of
that instrument, and for the attainment of some or all of the objects
for which it was framed. And what are those objects? Why, and for
what was the constitution made? Its authors have told us. It was for
"the forming of a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring
domestic tranquillity, providing for the common defence, promoting the
general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity," and all these benefits for the people that then
did, or who thereafter should, belong to, or reside in the territory
then embraced by the United States, and none other. The constitution
was not made for any other, nor can it give jurisdiction over any
other. If all or any of these objects are endangered, and it can be
made to appear that raising the additional army proposed by this bill
be necessary to the preservation and security of them, and can afford
a rational prospect of producing such an effect, then my objections to
the measure, so far as they arise from the apprehension of the want of
constitutional authority, will be obviated. But here, permit me to ask,
whether adding twenty thousand new troops to our present regular army,
will be likely to have the effect of forming a more perfect union among
the people of these States, or whether the little progress already made
in the war has not produced fearful apprehensions of a sad reverse?
If justice be not already established in our country, can there be
any probability that a more formidable army will effect an object so
desirable? No; for it is a well-known maxim, as true now as in those
ancient times when it was written, that "_Inter arma leges silent_."
So romantic an idea, as being able to establish justice through the
world, could not have entered the heads of those that framed the
constitution. Much has been said respecting the laws of nations; but
they are now nowhere to be found, but in those books that treat on that
subject; they were formed by the nations of the civilized world, and
evidenced by the treaties, compacts, and agreements, entered into by
them; but the Governments of Europe, in their struggle for power and
dominion, seem to have disregarded or broken them down; and they being
the majority in number, and superior in strength, it is not at present
in our power to build up and enforce them. The unavoidable state of
the world must be submitted to, until human nature shall, by its Great
Author, be corrected. Nor can we, from what we have experienced,
promise ourselves, from foreign war, an increase of tranquillity at
home. But we are authorized, and are bound to provide for our common
defence, and to raise armies, as well of regulars as militia, for
that purpose, whenever the unfortunate situation of our country may
render such a measure necessary; and our raising of a regular army
could never have been contemplated by the framers of the constitution
for any other purpose, and therefore give no authority so to do, and,
as if conscious that this were the case, the committee that penned
the act passed by Congress in June last, declaring war, made use of a
form altogether unusual in other countries on similar occasions. The
act declares that "war exists between the United Kingdoms of Great
Britain and Ireland, and the United States;" going upon the idea,
that hostilities had then been actually commenced against us by that
Government, and our country invaded by a British armed force. Such a
doctrine would have been very proper, and it might have been proper to
raise armies in pursuance of it, had it been true. But such was not the
fact. No hostile invasion of the country, by the British Government,
had then been made, attempted or threatened. But some may say, and do
say, that, if it were not a point then, it is now, and that, therefore,
if we had no right to raise regular armies then, it being a time of
peace, we may feel ourselves fully authorized now, since war has been
declared, to raise new ones, or make additions to the old. This,
indeed, would be contrary to a principle universally received and
adopted, that no one should be permitted to take the advantage of his
own wrong.

I know it is a doctrine, that the ruling party in this country, both
in and out of this House, are every day zealously endeavoring to
inculcate, that even admitting the war to have been wrong, at its
commencement, it has now become the constitutional duty of its original
opponents to afford every aid and encouragement to its prosecution.
But this is a doctrine that I think no one can yield his assent to,
till he is made to believe that two lines, constantly diverging,
may finally meet in the same point. If our country has been in any
degree invaded, and such invasion be in consequence of our having
first invaded the territories of the invaders, it is proper for us,
by withdrawing the cause, to put an end to the effect. The last, and
not the least object of the powers given by the constitution, is "to
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Many
arguments cannot be necessary to show the tendency of foreign wars to
destroy liberty. I believe history does not furnish an instance of
any people long free, after engaging in the mad projects of foreign
conquest. While Rome was content with her ancient boundaries, her
inhabitants were blessed with freedom; but, afterwards, jealousies,
tumults, insurrections, and seditions, and those two great plagues
and scourges of mankind--anarchy and tyranny--following in the train,
destroyed every vestige of liberty among that people. Is there any
liberty left among the people of France, or of those countries that
France has conquered? Fortunate for them, if they are less enlightened
than we are; for, in such case, though slaves, they may not be quite so
miserable ones. "The very age and body of our constitution, its form
and pressure," indicative of the genius and temper of the people that
adopted it, are all opposed to the prosecution of wars for conquest.
Such enterprises must not be undertaken, or the constitution must be
destroyed. Gentlemen seem already inclined to attribute the disgrace
and defeats that have hitherto marked our progress in this war, rather
to the form and constitution of our Government, than to the weakness
and folly of its Administration. The French Emperor has been extolled,
and his mode of conducting wars has been more than intimated as being
worth our imitation. If, in making foreign conquests, we would have
his success, we must make use of his means, and then we may bid adieu
to our former happy institutions, our laws, and our liberty. On this
ground, therefore, I am opposed to the progress of this war. But if I
had not a scruple left, as to the authority given to Congress by the
constitution to make this war for conquest, (and perhaps I ought not to
have,) my sense of its inexpediency, while I shall have any regard for
the welfare and prosperity of my country, will forever forbid my giving
it the smallest aid.

Mr. H. CLAY (Speaker) said he was gratified yesterday by the
recommitment of this bill to a Committee of the whole House, from two
considerations: one, since it afforded to him a slight relaxation
from a most fatiguing situation; and the other, because it furnished
him with an opportunity of presenting to the committee his sentiments
upon the important topics which had been mingled in the debate. He
regretted, however, the necessity under which the Chairman had been
placed of putting the question,[32] precluded him from an opportunity
he had wished to have enjoyed of rendering more acceptable to the
committee any thing he might have to offer on the interesting points it
was his duty to touch. Unprepared, however, as he was to speak on this
day, of which he was more sensible from the ill state of his health, he
would solicit the attention of the committee for a few moments.

I was a little astonished, I confess, said Mr. C., when I found this
bill permitted to pass silently through the Committee of the Whole, and
that, not until the moment when the question was about to be put for
its third reading, was it selected as that subject on which gentlemen
in the opposition chose to lay before the House their views of the
interesting attitude in which the nation stands. It did appear to me
that the loan bill, which will soon come before us, would have afforded
a much more proper occasion, it being more essential, as providing
the ways and means for the prosecution of the war. But the gentlemen
had the right of selection, and having exercised it, no matter how
improperly, I am gratified, whatever I may think of the character of
some part of the debate, at the latitude in which for once they have
indulged. I claim only, in return, of gentlemen on the other side of
the House, and of the committee, a like indulgence in expressing, with
the same unrestrained freedom, my sentiments. Perhaps in the course
of the remarks which I may feel myself called upon to make, said he,
gentlemen may apprehend that they assume too harsh an aspect; I have
only now to say that I shall speak of parties, measures, and things, as
they strike my moral sense, protesting against the imputation of any
intention on my part to wound the feelings of any _gentleman_.

Considering the situation in which this country is now placed, in
a state of actual war with one of the most powerful nations on the
earth, it may not be useless to take a view of the past, of various
parties which have at different times appeared in this country, and
to attend to the manner by which we have been driven from a peaceful
posture. Such an inquiry may assist in guiding us to that result--an
honorable peace--which must be the sincere desire of every friend to
America. The course of that opposition, by which the administration
of the Government had been unremittingly impeded for the last twelve
years, was singular, and, I believe, unexampled in the history of
any country. It has been alike the duty and the interest of the
Administration to preserve peace. Their duty, because it is necessary
to the growth of an infant people, their genius and their habits.
Their interest, because a change of the condition of the nation
brings along with it a danger of the loss of the affections of the
people. The Administration has not been forgetful of these solemn
obligations. No art has been left unessayed; no experiment, promising
a favorable result, left untried to maintain the peaceful relations
of the country. When, some six or seven years ago, the affairs of the
nation assumed a threatening aspect, a partial non-importation was
adopted. As they grew more alarming, an embargo was imposed. It would
have attained its purpose, but it was sacrificed upon the altar of
conciliation. Vain and fruitless attempt to propitiate! Then came a
law of non-intercourse, and a general non-importation followed in the
train. In the mean time, any indications of a return to the public law
and the path of justice, on the part of either belligerent, are seized
with avidity by the Administration--the arrangement with Mr. Erskine is
concluded. It is first applauded, and then censured by the opposition.
No matter with what sincerity the Administration cultivates peace,
the opposition will insist that it alone is culpable for any breach
between the two countries. Because the President thought proper, in
accepting the proffered reparation for the attack on a national vessel,
to intimate that it would have better comported with the justice
of the King (and who does not think so?) to punish the offending
officer, the opposition, entering into the royal feelings, sees in
that imaginary insult abundant cause for rejecting Mr. Erskine's
arrangement. On another occasion, you cannot have forgotten the
hypercritical ingenuity which they displayed to divest Mr. Jackson's
correspondence of a premeditated insult to this country. If gentlemen
would only reserve for their own Government half the sensibility which
is indulged for that of Great Britain, they would find much less to
condemn. Restriction after restriction has been tried; negotiation
has been resorted to, until longer to have negotiated would have
been disgraceful. Whilst these peaceful experiments are undergoing a
trial, what is the conduct of the opposition? They are the champions
of war; the proud, the spirited, the sole repository of the nation's
honor; the exclusive men of vigor and energy. The Administration, on
the contrary, is weak, feeble, and pusillanimous--"incapable of being
kicked into a war." The maxim, "not a cent for tribute, millions for
defence," is loudly proclaimed. Is the Administration for negotiation?
The opposition is tired, sick, disgusted with negotiation. They want to
draw the sword and avenge the nation's wrongs. When, at length, foreign
nations, perhaps, emboldened by the very opposition here made, refused
to listen to the amicable appeals made, and repeated and reiterated
by the Administration, to their justice and to their interests; when,
in fact, war with one of them became identified with our independence
and our sovereignty, and it was no longer possible to abstain from it,
behold the opposition become the friends of peace and of commerce. They
tell you of the calamities of war; its tragical events; the squandering
away of your resources; the waste of the public treasure, and the
spilling of innocent blood. They tell you that honor is an illusion!
Now we see them exhibiting the terrific forms of the roaring king of
the forest. Now the meekness and humility of the lamb! They are for
war, and no restrictions, when the Administration is for peace; they
are for peace and restrictions, when the Administration is for war. You
find them, sir, tacking with every gale, displaying the colors of every
party, and of all nations, steady only in one unalterable purpose: to
steer, if possible, into the haven of power.

During all this time the parasites of opposition do not fail by cunning
sarcasm or sly inuendo to throw out the idea of French influence, which
is known to be false; which ought to be met in one manner only, and
that is, by the lie direct. The Administration of this country devoted
to foreign influence! The Administration of this country subservient
to France! Great God! how is it so influenced? By what ligament,
on what basis, on what possible foundation, does it rest? Is it on
similarity of language? No! we speak different tongues; we speak the
English language. On the resemblance of our laws! No! the sources of
our jurisprudence spring from another and a different country. On
commercial intercourse? No! we have comparatively none with France.
Is it from the correspondence in the genius of the two governments?
No! here alone is the liberty of man secure from the inexorable
despotism which everywhere else tramples it under foot. Where, then,
is the ground of such an influence? But, sir, I am insulting you by
arguing on such a subject. Yet, preposterous and ridiculous as the
insinuation is, it is propagated with so much industry, that there are
persons found foolish and credulous enough to believe it. You will,
no doubt, think it incredible (but I have nevertheless been told the
fact) that an honorable member of this House, now in my eye, recently
lost his election by the circulation of a story in his district, that
he was the first cousin of the Emperor Napoleon. The proof of the
charge was rested on a statement of facts which was undoubtedly true.
The gentleman in question it was alleged had married a connection of
the lady of the President of the United States, who was the intimate
friend of Thomas Jefferson, late President of the United States, who
some years ago was in the habit of wearing red French breeches. Now,
taking these premises as established, you, Mr. Chairman, are too good a
logician not to see that the conclusion necessarily followed!

Throughout the period he had been speaking of, the opposition had
been distinguished, amidst all its veerings and changes, by another
inflexible feature--the application of every vile epithet, which our
rich language affords, to Bonaparte. He has been compared to every
hideous monster and beast, from that of the _Revelations_ to the most
insignificant quadruped. He has been called the scourge of mankind,
the destroyer of Europe, the great robber, the infidel, and--Heaven
knows by what other names. Really, gentlemen remind me of an obscure
lady in a city, not very far off, who also took it into her head, in
conversation with an accomplished French gentleman, to talk of the
affairs of Europe. She, too, spoke of the destruction of the balance of
power, stormed and raged about the insatiable ambition of the Emperor;
called him the curse of mankind--the destroyer of Europe. The Frenchman
listened to her with perfect patience, and when she had ceased, said to
her, with ineffable politeness: "Madam, it would give my master, the
Emperor, infinite pain, if he knew how hardly you thought of him."

Sir, gentlemen appear to me to forget that they stand on American soil;
that they are not in the British House of Commons, but in the Chamber
of the House of Representatives of the United States; that we have
nothing to do with the affairs of Europe--the partition of territory
and sovereignty there--except in so far as these things affect the
interests of our own country. Gentlemen transform themselves into
the Burkes, Chathams, and Pitts, of another country, and forgetting,
from honest zeal, the interests of America, engage, with European
sensibility, in the discussion of European interests. If gentlemen
ask me, if I do not view with regret and sorrow the concentration
of such vast power in the hands of Bonaparte, I reply that I do. I
regret to see the Emperor of China holding such immense sway over the
fortunes of millions of our species. I regret to see Great Britain
possessing so uncontrolled a command over all the waters of our globe.
And if I had the ability to distribute among the nations of Europe
their several portions of power and of sovereignty, I would say that
Holland should be resuscitated, and given the weight she enjoyed in
the days of her De Witts. I would confine France within her natural
boundaries--the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Rhine--and make her a
secondary naval power only. I would abridge the British maritime
power, raise Prussia and Austria to first-rate powers, and preserve
the integrity of the Empire of Russia. But these are speculations. I
look at the political transactions of Europe, with the single exception
of their possible bearing upon us, as I do at the history of other
countries or other times. I do not survey them with half the interest
that I do the movements in South America. Our political relation is
much less important than it is supposed to be. I have no fears of
French or English subjugation. If we are united, we are too powerful
for the mightiest nation in Europe, or all Europe combined. If we
are separated, and torn asunder, we shall become an easy prey to the
weakest of them. In the latter dreadful contingency, our country will
not be worth preserving.

In one respect there is a remarkable difference between Administration
and the Opposition--it is in a sacred regard for personal liberty. When
out of power, my political friends condemned the surrender of Jonathan
Robbins; they opposed the violation of the freedom of the press, in the
sedition law; they opposed the more insidious attack upon the freedom
of the person, under the imposing garb of an alien law. The party now
in opposition, then in power, advocated the sacrifice of the unhappy
Robbins, and passed those two laws. True to our principles, we are now
struggling for the liberty of our seamen against foreign oppression.
True to theirs, they oppose the war for this object. They have indeed
lately affected tender solicitude for the liberties of the people, and
talk of the danger of standing armies, and the burden of taxes. But it
is evident to you, Mr. Chairman, that they speak in a foreign idiom.
Their brogue betrays that it is not their vernacular tongue. What! the
opposition, who in 1798 and 1799, could raise an useless army to fight
an enemy three thousand miles distant from us, alarmed at the existence
of one raised for a known specified object--the attack of the adjoining
provinces of the enemy? The gentleman from Massachusetts, who assisted
by his vote to raise the army of twenty-five thousand, alarmed at the
danger of our liberties from this very army!

I mean to speak of another subject, which I never think of but with
the most awful considerations. The gentleman from Massachusetts, in
imitation of his predecessors of 1799, has entertained us with Cabinet
plots, Presidential plots, which are conjured up in the gentleman's
own perturbed imagination. I wish, sir, that another plot of a much
more serious kind--a plot that aims at the dismemberment of our
Union--had only the same imaginary existence. But no man, who had paid
any attention to the tone of certain prints, and to transactions in
a particular quarter of the Union for several years past, can doubt
the existence of such a plot. It was far, very far from my intention
to charge the opposition with such a design. No, he believed them
generally incapable of it. He could not say as much for some who were
unworthily associated with them in that quarter of the Union to which
he referred. The gentleman cannot have forgotten his own sentiment,
uttered even on the floor of this House, "peaceably if we can, forcibly
if we must;" in and about the same time Henry's mission to Boston was
undertaken. The flagitiousness of that embassy had been attempted to
be concealed by directing the public attention to the price which the
gentleman says was given for the disclosure. As if any price could
change the atrociousness of the attempt on the part of Great Britain,
or could extenuate in the slightest degree the offence of those
citizens who entertained and deliberated upon the infamous proposition!
There was a most remarkable coincidence between some of the things
which that man states, and certain events in the quarter alluded to.
In the contingency of war with Great Britain, it will be recollected
that the neutrality and eventual separation of that section of the
Union was to be brought about. How, sir, has it happened, since the
declaration of war, that British officers in Canada have asserted to
American officers that this very neutrality would take place? That they
have so asserted can be established beyond controversy. The project is
not brought forward openly, with a direct avowal of the intention. No,
the stock of good sense and patriotism in that portion of the country
is too great to be undisguisedly encountered. It is assailed from
the masked batteries of friendship to peace and commerce on the one
side, and by the groundless imputation of opposite propensities on the
other. The affections of the people are to be gradually undermined.
The project is suggested or withdrawn; the diabolical parties, in
this criminal tragedy, make their appearance or exit, as the audience
to whom they address themselves are silent, applaud or hiss. I was
astonished, sir, to have lately read a letter, or pretended letter,
published in a prominent print in that quarter, written not in the
fervor of party zeal, but coolly and deliberately, in which the writer
affects to reason about a separation, and attempts to demonstrate its
advantages to different sections of the Union, deploring the existence
now of what he terms prejudices against it, but hoping for the arrival
of the period when they shall be eradicated.

The war was declared because Great Britain arrogated to herself the
pretension of regulating foreign trade, under the delusive name of
retaliatory Orders in Council--a pretension by which she undertook
to proclaim to American enterprise, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no
farther." Orders which she refused to revoke after the alleged cause
of their enactment had ceased; because she persisted in the act of
impressing American seamen; because she had instigated the Indians
to commit hostilities against us; and because she refused indemnity
for her past injuries upon our commerce. I throw out of the question
other wrongs. The war in fact was announced, on our part, to meet the
war which she was waging on her part. So undeniable were the causes
of the war; so powerfully did they address themselves to the feelings
of the whole American people, that when the bill was pending before
this House, gentlemen in the opposition, although provoked to debate,
would not, or could not, utter one syllable against it. It is true they
wrapped themselves up in sullen silence, pretending that they did not
choose to debate such a question in secret session. Whilst speaking of
the proceedings on that occasion, I beg to be permitted to advert to
another fact that transpired--an important fact material for the nation
to know, and which I have often regretted had not been spread upon our
journals. My honorable colleague (Mr. MCKEE) moved, in Committee of the
Whole, to comprehend France in the war; and when the question was taken
upon the proposition, there appeared but ten votes in support of it, of
whom seven belonged to this side of the House, and three only to the
other.

It is said that we were inveigled into the war by the perfidy of
France; and that had she furnished the document in time, which was
first published in England, in May last, it would have been prevented.
I will concede to gentlemen every thing they ask about the injustice
of France towards this country. I wish to God that our ability
was equal to our disposition to make her feel the sense of that
injustice. The manner of the publication of the paper in question, was
undoubtedly extremely exceptionable. But I maintain that, had it made
its appearance earlier, it would not have had the effect supposed;
and the proof lies in the unequivocal declarations of the British
Government. I will trouble you, sir, with going no further back than
to the letters of the British Minister, addressed to the Secretary of
State, just before the expiration of his diplomatic functions. It will
be recollected by the committee that he exhibited to this Government a
despatch from Lord Castlereagh, in which the principle was distinctly
avowed, that to produce the effect of the repeal of the Orders in
Council, the French decrees must be absolutely and entirely revoked
as to all the world, and not as to America alone. A copy of that
despatch was demanded of him, and he very awkwardly evaded it. But, on
the 10th of June, after the bill declaring war had actually passed
this House, and was pending before the Senate, (and which, I have no
doubt, was known to him,) in a letter to Mr. Monroe, he says: "I have
no hesitation, sir, in stating that Great Britain, as the case has
hitherto stood, never did, nor ever could engage, without the greatest
injustice to herself and her allies, as well as to other neutral
nations, to repeal her orders as affecting America alone, leaving them
in force against other States, upon condition that France would except
singly and specially America from the operation of her decrees." On
the 14th of the same month, the bill still pending before the Senate,
he repeats: "I will now say, that I feel entirely authorized to assure
you, that if you can at any time produce a full and unconditional
repeal of the French decrees, as you have a right to demand it in your
character of a neutral nation, and that it be disengaged from any
question concerning our maritime rights, we shall be ready to meet
you with a revocation of the Orders in Council. Previously to your
producing such an instrument, which I am sorry to see you regard as
unnecessary, you cannot expect of us to give up our Orders in Council."
Thus, sir, you see that the British Government would not be content
with a repeal of the French decrees as to us only. But the French
paper in question was such a repeal. It could not, therefore, satisfy
the British Government. It could not, therefore, have induced that
Government, had it been earlier promulgated, to repeal the Orders in
Council. It could not, therefore, have averted the war. The withholding
of it did not occasion the war, and the promulgation of it would not
have prevented the war. But gentlemen have contended that, in point of
fact, it did produce a repeal of the Orders in Council. This I deny.
After it made its appearance in England, it was declared by one of the
British Ministry, in Parliament, not to be satisfactory. And all the
world knows, that the repeal of the Orders in Council resulted from
the inquiry, reluctantly acceded to by the Ministry, into the effect
upon their manufacturing establishments, of our non-importation law,
or to the warlike attitude assumed by this Government, or to both. But
it is said that the Orders in Council are done away, no matter from
what cause; and that having been the sole motive for declaring the war,
the relations of peace ought to be restored. This brings me into an
examination of the grounds for continuing the war.

I am far from acknowledging that had the Orders in Council been
repealed, as they have been, before the war was declared, the
declaration would have been prevented. In a body so numerous as this,
from which the declaration emanated, it is impossible to say with
any degree of certainty what would have been the effect of such a
repeal. Each member must answer for himself. I have no hesitation
then, in saying, that I have always considered the impressment of
American seamen as much the most serious aggression. But, sir, how
have those orders at last been repealed? Great Britain, it is true,
has intimated a willingness to suspend their practical operation, but
she still arrogates to herself the right to revive them upon certain
contingencies, of which she constitutes herself the sole judge. She
waives the temporary use of the rod, but she suspends it _in terrorem_
over our heads. Supposing it was conceded to gentlemen that such a
repeal of the Orders in Council, as took place on the 23d of June
last, exceptionable as it is, being known before the war, would have
prevented the war, does it follow that it ought to induce us to lay
down our arms without the redress of any other injury? Does it follow,
in all cases, that that which would have prevented the war in the first
instance should terminate the war? By no means. It requires a great
struggle for a nation prone to peace as this is, to burst through its
habits and encounter the difficulties of war. Such a nation ought but
seldom to go to war. When it does, it should be for clear and essential
rights alone, and it should firmly resolve to extort, at all hazards,
their recognition. The war of the Revolution is an example of a war
began for one object and prosecuted for another. It was waged in its
commencement against the right asserted by the parent country to tax
the colonies. Then no one thought of absolute independence. The idea
of independence was repelled. But the British Government would have
relinquished the principle of taxation. The founders of our liberties
saw, however, that there was no security short of independence, and
they achieved our independence. When nations are engaged in war, those
rights in controversy, which are acknowledged by the Treaty of Peace,
are abandoned. And who is prepared to say that American seamen shall
be surrendered the victims to the British principle of impressment?
And, sir, what is this principle? She contends that she has a right
to the services of her own subjects: that, in the exercise of this
right, she may lawfully impress them, even although she finds them in
our vessels, upon the high seas, without her jurisdiction. Now, I deny
that she has any right, without her jurisdiction, to come on board
our vessels on the high seas, for any other purpose but in pursuit of
enemies, or their goods, or goods contraband of war. But she further
contends that her subjects cannot renounce their allegiance to her
and contract a new obligation to other Sovereigns. I do not mean to
go into the general question of the right of expatriation. If, as is
contended, all nations deny it, all nations at the same time admit and
practice the right of naturalization. Great Britain, in the very case
of foreign seamen, imposes perhaps fewer restraints upon naturalization
than any other nation. Then, if subjects cannot break their original
allegiance, they may, according to universal usage, contract a new
allegiance. What is the effect of this double obligation? Undoubtedly,
that the Sovereign having possession of the subject would have a right
to the services of the subject. If he return within the jurisdiction
of his primitive Sovereign, he may resume his right to his services,
of which the subject by his own act could not divest himself. But his
primitive Sovereign can have no right to go in quest of him, out of
his own jurisdiction into the jurisdiction of another Sovereign, or
upon the high seas, where there exists either no jurisdiction, or it
belongs to the nation owning the ship navigating them. But, sir, this
discussion is altogether useless. It is not to the British principle,
objectionable as it is, that we are alone to look; it is to her
practice--no matter what guise she puts on. It is in vain to assert the
inviolability of the obligation of allegiance. It is in vain to set
up the plea of necessity, and to allege that she cannot exist without
the impressment of her seamen. The truth is, she comes, by her press
gangs, on board of our vessels, seizes our native seamen, as well as
naturalized, and drags them into her service. It is the case, then, of
the assertion of an erroneous principle, and a practice not conformable
to the principle--a principle which, if it were theoretically right,
must be forever practically wrong. We are told by gentlemen in the
opposition that Government has not done all that was incumbent on it
to do to avoid just cause of complaint on the part of Great Britain;
that, in particular, the certificates of protection, authorized by
the act of 1796, are fraudulently used. Sir, Government has done too
much in granting those paper protections. I can never think of them
without being shocked. They resemble the passes which the master grants
to his <DW64> slave: "Let the bearer, Mungo, pass and repass without
molestation." What do they imply? That Great Britain has a right to
take all who are not provided with them. From their very nature they
must be liable to abuse on both sides. If Great Britain desires a
mark by which she can know her own subjects, let her give them an
ear mark. The colors that float from the mast head should be the
credentials of our seamen. There is no safety to us, and the gentlemen
have shown it, but in the rule that all who sail under the flag (not
being enemies) are protected by the flag. It is impossible that this
country should ever abandon the gallant tars who have won for us such
splendid trophies. Let me suppose that the Genius of Columbia should
visit one of them in his oppressor's prison and attempt to reconcile
him to his wretched condition. She would say to him, in the. language
of the gentlemen on the other side, "Great Britain intends you no
harm; she did not mean to impress you, but one of her own subjects;
having taken you by mistake, I will remonstrate, and try to prevail
upon her by peaceable means to release you, but I cannot, my son,
fight for you." If he did not consider this mockery, he would address
her judgment, and say, "You owe me, my country, protection; I owe you
in return obedience. I am no British subject, I am a native of old
Massachusetts, where live my aged father, my wife and my children.
I have faithfully discharged my duty. Will you refuse to do yours?"
Appealing to her passions, he would continue, "I lost this eye in
fighting under Truxton with the Insurgent; I got this scar before
Tripoli; I broke this leg on board the Constitution when the Guerriere
struck." If she remained still unmoved, he would break out, in the
accents of mingled distress and despair,

    "Hard, hard, is my fate! once I freedom enjoyed,
            Was as happy as happy could be!
    Oh! how hard is my fate, how galling these chains!"

I will not imagine the dreadful catastrophe to which he would be driven
by an abandonment of him to his oppressor. It will not be, it cannot
be, that his country will refuse him protection!

It is said that Great Britain has been always willing to make a
satisfactory arrangement of the subject of impressment; and that Mr.
King had nearly concluded one prior to his departure from that country.
Let us hear what that Minister says upon his return to America. In his
letter dated at New York, in July, 1803, after giving an account of
his attempt to form an arrangement for the protection of our seamen,
and his interviews to this end with Lords Hawkesbury and St. Vincent;
and stating that, when he had supposed the terms of a convention
were agreed upon, a new pretension was set up (the _mare clausum_,)
he concludes: "I regret not to have been able to put this business
on a satisfactory footing, knowing as I do its very great importance
to both parties; but I flatter myself that I have not misjudged the
interests of our own country, in refusing to sanction a principle that
might be productive of more extensive evils than those it was our aim
to prevent." The sequel of his negotiation, on this affair, is more
fully given in the recent conversation between Mr. Russell and Lord
Castlereagh, communicated to Congress during its present session. Lord
Castlereagh says to Mr. Russell:

    "Indeed there has evidently been much misapprehension on
    this subject, and an erroneous belief entertained that an
    arrangement in regard to it has been nearer an accomplishment
    than the facts will warrant. Even our friends in Congress--I
    mean those who were opposed to going to war with us--have
    been so confident in this mistake, that they have ascribed
    the failure of such an arrangement solely to the misconduct
    of the American Government. This error probably originated
    with Mr. King; for, being much esteemed here, and always well
    received by the persons in power, he seems to have misconstrued
    their readiness to listen to his representations, and their
    warm professions of a disposition to remove the complaints of
    America in relation to impressment, into a supposed conviction
    on their part of the propriety of adopting the plan which he
    had proposed. But Lord St. Vincent, whom he might have thought
    he had brought over to his opinions, appears never for a moment
    to have ceased to regard all arrangement on the subject to be
    attended with formidable, if not insurmountable obstacles.
    This is obvious from a letter which his Lordship addressed to
    Sir William Scott at the time."

Here Lord Castlereagh read a letter, contained in the records before
him, in which Lord St. Vincent states to Sir William Scott the zeal
with which Mr. King had assailed him on the subject of impressment,
confesses his own perplexity, and total incompetency to discover
any practical project for the safe discontinuance of that practice,
and asks for counsel and advice. "Thus you see," proceeded Lord
Castlereagh, "that the confidence of Mr. King on this subject was
entirely unfounded."

Thus, continued Mr. CLAY, it is apparent, that, at no time, has the
enemy been willing to place this subject on a satisfactory footing. I
will speak hereafter of the overtures made by the Administration since
the war.

The disasters of the war admonish us, we are told, of the necessity of
terminating the contest. If our achievements upon the land have been
less splendid than those of our intrepid seamen, it is not because
the American soldier is less brave. On the one element, organization,
discipline, and a thorough knowledge of their duties, exist on the
part of the officers and their men. On the other, almost every thing
is yet to be acquired. We have, however, the consolation that our
country abounds with the richest materials, and that, in no instance,
when engaged in action, have our arms been tarnished. At Brownstown,
and at Queenstown, the valor of veterans was displayed, and acts of
the noblest heroism were performed. It is true, that the disgrace
of Detroit remains to be wiped off. That is a subject on which I
cannot trust my feelings, it is not fitting I should speak. But this
much I will say, it was an event which no human foresight could
have anticipated, and for which the Administration cannot be justly
censured. It was the parent of all the misfortunes we have experienced
on land. But for it the Indian war would have been in a great measure
prevented or terminated, the ascendency on Lake Erie acquired, and
the war pushed perhaps to Montreal. With the exception of that event,
the war, even upon the land, had been attended by a series of the
most brilliant exploits, which, whatever interest they may inspire on
this side of the mountains, have given the greatest pleasure on the
other. The expedition under the command of Governor Edwards and Colonel
Russell, to Lake Peoria, on the Illinois, was completely successful. So
was that of Captain Craig, who, it is said, ascended that river still
higher. General Hopkins destroyed the Prophet's town. We have just
received intelligence of the gallant enterprise of Colonel Campbell.
In short, sir, the Indian towns have been swept from the mouth to the
source of the Wabash, and a hostile country has been penetrated far
beyond the most daring incursions of any campaign during the former
Indian war. Never was more cool, deliberate bravery displayed than
that by Newnan's party from Georgia. And the capture of the Detroit,
and the destruction of the Caledonia, (whether placed to our maritime
or land account,) for judgment, skill, and courage, on the part of
Lieutenant Elliott, has never been surpassed.

What cause, Mr. Chairman, which existed for declaring the war has been
removed? We sought indemnity for the past and security for the future.
The Orders in Council are suspended, not revoked; no compensation for
spoliations; Indian hostilities, which were before secretly instigated,
now openly encouraged; and the practice of impressment unremittingly
persevered in and insisted upon. Yet Administration has given the
strongest demonstrations of its love of peace. On the 29th June, less
than ten days after the declaration of war, the Secretary of State
writes to Mr. Russell, authorizing him to agree to an armistice, upon
two conditions only; and what are they? That the Orders in Council
should be repealed, and the practice of impressing American seamen
cease, those already impressed being released. The proposition was for
nothing more than a real truce; that the war should in fact cease on
both sides. Again, on the 27th July, one month later, anticipating a
possible objection to these terms, reasonable as they are, Mr. Monroe
empowers Mr. Russell to stipulate in general terms for an armistice,
having only an informal understanding on these points. In return, the
enemy is offered a prohibition of the employment of his seamen in
our service, thus removing entirely all pretext for the practice of
impressment. The very proposition which the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. PITKIN) contends ought to be made, has been made. How are these
pacific advances met by the other party? Rejected as absolutely
inadmissible; cavils are indulged about the inadequacy of Mr. Russell's
powers, and the want of an act of Congress is intimated. And yet the
constant usage of nations I believe is, where the legislation of
one party is necessary to carry into effect a given stipulation, to
leave it to the contracting party to provide the requisite laws. If
he fails to do so, it is a breach of good faith, and a subject of
subsequent remonstrance by the injured party. When Mr. Russell renews
the overture, in what was intended as a more agreeable form to the
British Government, Lord Castlereagh is not content with a simple
rejection, but clothes it in the language of insult. Afterwards, in
conversation with Mr. Russell, the moderation of our Government is
misinterpreted and made the occasion of a sneer, that we are tired of
the war. The proposition of Admiral Warren is submitted in a spirit
not more pacific. He is instructed, he tells us, to propose that the
Government of the United States shall instantly recall their letters of
marque and reprisal against British ships, together with all orders and
instructions for any acts of hostility whatever against the territories
of His Majesty or the persons or property of his subjects. That small
affair being settled, he is further authorized to arrange as to the
revocation of the laws which interdict the commerce and ships of war
of His Majesty from the harbors and waters of the United States. This
messenger of peace comes with one qualified concession in his pocket,
not made to the justice of our demands, and is fully empowered to
receive our homage, the contrite retraction of all our measures adopted
against his master! And in default, he does not fail to assure us,
the Orders in Council are to be forthwith revived. Administration,
still anxious to terminate the war, suppresses the indignation which
such a proposal ought to have created, and in its answer concludes
by informing Admiral Warren, "that if there be no objection to an
accommodation of the difference relating to impressment, in the mode
proposed, other than the suspension of the British claim to impressment
during the armistice, there can be none to proceeding, without the
armistice, to an immediate discussion and arrangement of an article on
that subject." Thus it has left the door of negotiation unclosed, and
it remains to be seen if the enemy will accept the invitation tendered
to him. The honorable gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. PEARSON)
supposes, that if Congress would pass a law, prohibiting the employment
of British seamen in our service, upon condition of a like prohibition
on their part, and repeal the act of non-importation, peace would
immediately follow. Sir, I have no doubt if such a law were passed,
with all the requisite solemnities, and the repeal to take place, Lord
Castlereagh would laugh at our simplicity. No, sir, Administration
has erred in the steps which it has taken to restore peace, but its
error has been not in doing too little, but in betraying too great a
solicitude for that event. An honorable peace is attainable only by
an efficient war. My plan would be to call out the ample resources of
the country, give them a judicious direction, prosecute the war with
the utmost vigor, strike wherever we can reach the enemy, at sea or
on land, and negotiate the terms of a peace at Quebec or Halifax. We
are told that England is a proud and lofty nation that, disdaining
to wait for danger, meets it half way. Haughty as she is, we once
triumphed over her, and if we do not listen to the counsels of timidity
and despair we shall again prevail. In such a cause, with the aid of
Providence, we must come out crowned with success; but if we fail,
let us fail like men--lash ourselves to our gallant tars, and expire
together in one common struggle, fighting for "seamen's rights and free
trade."

Mr. MCKEE moved an amendment to the bill, going to place the
appointment of the other field officers of each regiment, as well as
the Colonels, in the President and Senate. The motion was agreed to.


MONDAY, January 11.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill for raising an additional military force of twenty thousand men
for one year.

Mr. SHEFFEY said he felt grateful for the opportunity which had been
afforded him, to deliver his sentiments on the subject before the
committee. It was now about a year ago, when he had stated his reasons
at length on the question of the war then meditated against Great
Britain. Since that time, he had been generally a silent, though not an
inattentive spectator. Conscious that there had fallen to his share a
full portion of the frailty common to man, he felt disposed to distrust
his own opinion. He had even hoped he might be mistaken, he had hoped
that experience would prove the fallacy of his apprehensions; that the
predictions of gentlemen, who differed from him in sentiment, would be
realized; that the rights of the country would be secured by arms, to
which the majority had resorted; and that the evils anticipated would
vanish before us. On a review, however, of the reasons which had then
influenced him, aided by the experience of the last year, he found his
opinions, not only unshaken, but strongly confirmed.

The bill before us, said Mr. S., contemplates an addition of twenty
thousand men to the army heretofore authorized to be raised. By the
measures preparatory to the war, upwards of thirty-six thousand men
were directed to be enlisted; with the addition now contemplated,
our regular army will amount to more than fifty-six thousand men.
The question which at once presents itself to every mind disposed to
inquire, is, what is the object of this vast military force? We are
here not left to conjecture; this inquiry has been anticipated, and
we have been directly told by the chairman of the Military Committee,
(Mr. WILLIAMS,) that it is intended for offensive purposes; that the
conquest of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, is to be achieved.
If I have any right to deliberate on this subject, and to express the
opinion which my view of the real interests of the country dictates,
I at once say, that I cannot give my assent to raise such a force for
such a purpose. Was an augmentation of the army required to defend
us against any enemy, either on the maritime or inland frontier, no
member of this House would more readily accord the means of defence and
protection than myself. In such event, I shall not inquire how we got
into the situation, or by whose temerity the enemy has been brought
on our borders. I shall consider _defence_ as a matter of imperious
necessity, forbidding all calculation as to means and consequences.
But, as it is admitted by all, that the force already authorized is
more than sufficient for every defensive purpose; as it is expressly
avowed that it is required for offensive operations in the territories
of the enemy, the question assumes a different shape; it is stripped
of the overruling influence which attends necessity; it becomes a mere
question of expediency, controlled by the various considerations which
reason and policy may dictate. So far as my conduct is concerned,
before I can consent to the prosecution of the war, in the manner
contemplated, I must be convinced that the objects in controversy are
not only just, but of sufficient importance in their practical effect
on the community to justify such an experiment, and not attainable in
any other way; that there is a reasonable probability that such a war
will secure to us those objects; and that we are not endangering the
greater good, to obtain an exemption from the lesser evil; hazarding
certain great rights, to secure others of far inferior importance.

I regret that I cannot, consistently with my sense of duty, yield the
unlimited confidence in their measures, which the majority demand. My
reason must be convinced, before my confidence can be bestowed. There
are, indeed, cases where superior virtue and wisdom, tested by long
and successful experience, have a strong claim to our confidence.
But this, in my opinion, is not the case here. A retrospect of the
transactions of the last eight years, will show how much gentlemen have
been mistaken and disappointed in their views of our foreign policy;
particularly that part which is connected with the difficulties in
which we now find ourselves, and which may be said to be the groundwork
of them. In making this declaration, and in leading your attention to
the facts, it is not my object to give offence to any one. I believe
gentlemen are actuated by the purest motives, and sincerely disposed
to render essential service to the country. I speak of facts only,
intending to show a mistaken, not a corrupt or vicious course.

Our difficulties with Great Britain commenced soon after the treaty of
1794 (generally called "Jay's Treaty") expired by its own limitation,
in consequence of the peace of Amiens. About that time the British
Government offered to our Minister, then resident in London, a renewal
of the treaty. That instrument had been negotiated under the auspices,
and received the sanction of WASHINGTON, the father and benefactor of
his country. It is true, that its stipulations did not embrace every
subject which we could have wished; and those that were embraced, were
not so advantageously settled as might have been done, had we had
it in our power to have dictated the terms. But it is equally true,
that experience refuted all the speculations, and dissipated all the
apprehensions, with which the country was filled at the time of its
ratification. During its operation we enjoyed a degree of prosperity
unexampled in this or any other country. Our leading interests
flourished in a manner unknown before, and unexperienced since; our
agriculture was encouraged by high prices and ready markets for its
products; the freedom of navigation, and the enterprise of our people,
carried our commerce to every part of the globe. I ask this House
and this nation, whether their hopes or wishes extend beyond what we
then enjoyed? If they do, they hope for that which is opposed by all
human probability, and they wish for that which has scarcely ever
fallen to the lot of man. We were, indeed, not exempt from every evil,
or gratified by every possible good. What nation or individual ever
reached that state? But the great essentials of national prosperity
were in our possession. Our Government, however, was not satisfied. The
overture of the British Government was rejected, under the impression,
no doubt, that better terms could be obtained; that the situation
of Great Britain would compel her to yield to our demands, however
extensive.

Soon after the rejection of this overture, Great Britain assumed
the right to interdict the trade in the products of her enemies'
colonies, when taken directly from those colonies to the mother
country, conformably, as she asserted, to the principles adopted in
the war of 1756. In consequence of which, our Government, with a
view to coerce her into a relinquishment of her pretensions, passed
the partial non-importation act of 1806. It had not the intended and
promised effect. They again resorted to negotiation, and repealed the
restriction. About this time, a change happened in the British Cabinet,
highly auspicious to our interests. "Our friends," yes, our old
friends, who had espoused our cause in time of peril and danger, who
had defended our rights during all the vicissitudes of the Revolution,
and who had manifested their friendship for us on every occasion
since, got into power. With these men, a negotiation was opened by our
Government through the instrumentality of our Ministers, Messrs. Monroe
and Pinkney, which resulted in a treaty, as our own Ministers declared,
"both honorable and advantageous to the United States," and the best
that could be obtained. It was not only "advantageous" as it respected
our commerce, but the informal understanding which accompanied it,
would have secured us against the abuses of impressments; so our own
Ministers believed. But it was rejected without being even submitted
to the Senate. The reasons have never been disclosed to the nation. I
presume, however, that it was confidently expected that such was the
situation of Great Britain, that any terms that we should dictate would
be granted.

The terms which our Government demanded not being accorded on the part
of Great Britain, a new policy was resorted to by our Government,
which was held up to the nation as a sovereign remedy for all our
difficulties, which were daily increasing. An embargo, not limited in
its duration, was laid on our shipping. The prominent virtues of this
remedy were supposed to be--that it would coerce the belligerents, but
particularly Great Britain, into an abandonment of their injurious
measures; and above all, that it would save us from being involved in
war. The experience of one year, however, manifested how little its
supporters understood of the means and resources of other nations, and
of the character of our own. The privations to which a great portion of
our people were subjected in consequence of this measure coerced our
Government into a repeal, long before any sensible impression could be
made on Great Britain. The embargo was abandoned, because the people
would bear it no longer, and the non-intercourse system was adopted
in its stead. This also had its day--but this, like the embargo,
experience condemned as injurious and ruinous policy; and the public
voice called for its repeal. It was succeeded by the act of the first
of May, 1810, the source of our present difficulties.

When this act passed this House, we were told that its provisions held
out the strongest inducement to each of the great belligerents, to
precede its rival in the abrogation of the injurious edicts affecting
the commerce of this country, and that whoever might lead the other
would unquestionably follow. It required very little sagacity to
penetrate this subject. It was easily foreseen that this measure would
be employed to detach us from our neutral situation, which it was so
much our interest, and had been so much our desire, to maintain. This
apprehension experience has realized. We now feel the consequences in
their fullest extent.

After we had become the dupes of French perfidy, by putting in force
the non-importation system against Great Britain, under the belief,
that on the first day of November, 1810, the decrees of Berlin and
Milan were repealed, the falsehood of which has since been placed
beyond all rational doubt, it happened as had been anticipated, that
finding the inefficiency of the restrictive system against Great
Britain, the nation was called on, about the commencement of last
session, to assume a threatening attitude towards that power. We were
then told by the supporters of our foreign policy, that war would not
be necessary. That justice was withheld from us by the Government
of that nation under the impression that force would not be used to
maintain our rights, which impression it was only necessary to remove
by manifesting a determined spirit in making warlike preparations. This
prevailed with many, and the army was voted. But it did not intimidate
our enemy. We were then told, that it was necessary to declare war, as
affording conclusive evidence of our sincerity: but that it would not
be necessary to continue it beyond a few weeks, when our objects would
be attained by a just and honorable peace. We were also told, at the
same time, that in six weeks after the declaration of war, we should
be in possession of a great portion of the enemy's colonies. All these
promises have been disappointed. We have effected nothing by commercial
restrictions, nothing by arms, and nothing by negotiation; and, if
there is not a change in our policy, the war promises to be perpetual.

Having detained you thus long with these preliminary topics, permit
me to draw your attention to those that grow directly out of the bill
before the committee. I have said, that the causes ought not only to
be just, but important in their effect on the community, to justify a
resort to arms. I will say more. A nation situated as this is, who has
so much to lose, and so little to gain, ought not to relinquish its
peaceful state but in the last extremity. Are the causes which existed
at the time when this war was declared, of that character which,
according to this idea, justified its commencement; and are those now
remaining sufficient to sanction its continuance?

I exclude all consideration of the abstract justice of our complaints
against Great Britain. Upon that subject I never had but one opinion. I
always did believe that her conduct towards this country was not only
unjust as it affected us, but impolitic as it affected herself.

Before the war commenced last Summer, the Orders in Council formed
the principal ground of complaint against Great Britain. I venture
to assert, without the dread of contradiction, that if the repeal
which has since taken place had happened and been known here before
we resorted to the sword, we should have remained at peace. I make
this declaration on (what I deem) the most unquestionable authority.
The proof is on record. In 1808, Mr. Jefferson, then President of the
United States, through our Minister in London, proposed to the British
Government to relinquish the embargo as to her, on condition the
Orders in Council were revoked. In 1809, Mr. Madison entered into the
arrangement with Mr. Erskine, which made the same condition the sole
foundation for restoring amicable intercourse between the two nations.
In 1810 and 1811, the discussions between our Government and that of
Great Britain were confined almost exclusively to that subject. And in
1812, preceding the declaration of war, the Secretary of State informed
the British Envoy, that if the Orders in Council were revoked, the
non-importation act would cease immediately. During the whole of this
period, our complaints were directed to the Orders in Council, and our
measures, (I speak of our restrictive system,) so far as they affected
Great Britain, were adopted with a single eye to their repeal. Until
the war was declared, I did not suppose that it would be waged for any
other object.

The Orders in Council, though a violation of our maritime rights in
point of principle, were practically of very little injury to our
commerce at the commencement of the war in which we are now engaged.
The reasons are obvious. Our commerce to France, Holland, Italy,
&c., never was of great importance. And the effect of the French
"municipal regulations" had caused it to dwindle into insignificance.
The exclusions, restrictions, impositions, and confiscations, so
permanent in the commercial code (and practice) of Napoleon, had
inspired our merchants with a due portion of caution, how they ventured
their property into the power of a Government actuated by no liberal
principle, and bound by no faith. From this state of things, it was not
difficult to conjecture that the period was not distant when Great
Britain must become convinced of the inefficiency of the Orders in
Council, so far as respected their retaliatory object on her enemy. How
could France be distressed by the British interdiction of her foreign
commerce, when France herself was hostile to that commerce--when she
adopted every measure to narrow, to shackle, and ultimately to exclude
it? We had even strong evidence that British statesmen began to waver
on the subject. The vote in the House of Commons, during the last
Winter, showed a minority unusually strong, and indicated most clearly
that before long the Orders in Council were doomed to perish. But, with
this information before our eyes, we hurried on to war without waiting
for the event, or even without waiting for preparation.

The Orders in Council have since been repealed. The manner has indeed
been objected to by the honorable Speaker, (Mr. CLAY,) because the
right to secure them in certain events is reserved. But surely this
cannot be and has not been considered by our Government a serious
objection; for without such reservation the power to revive them
existed to every possible extent. The only question is, do they cease
to violate our neutral commerce? This is not doubted. The remaining
obstacle, therefore, to a good understanding between the two nations,
and the sole ostensible cause for persevering in the war, is the
subject of impressments.

This is, indeed, a difficult and unquestionably an interesting subject.
Not that I place entire confidence in the sympathetic descriptions
of the magnitude of the evil, which we have so often heard and daily
heard in this House. I am inclined to believe fancy has  the
picture too highly. There is one reason, above all others, which leads
me to that conclusion. It is this: In that section of the United
States of which two-thirds of our seamen are natives, there is a
strong, overwhelming current of opinion against this war. Can it be
possible that the country where dwells the kindred of those who are
said to be incarcerated in great numbers in the "floating dungeons" of
Great Britain is not only indifferent about the fate of its children,
but opposes, as ruinous, the war waged for their protection? It is
certainly a curious spectacle to see the defenders of seamen's rights
come from those portions of the Union that have little commerce, and
few, if any, seamen. I do not mean to insinuate that those gentlemen
do wrong in espousing the cause of the oppressed, to whatever quarter
they may belong; but I state the fact to show that their sympathies
may possibly have magnified the evil--and to infer from it, that the
opposition of those most immediately interested is to be ascribed,
not to their insensibility, but to their apprehensions that this war,
instead of securing seamen's rights, will banish their seamen into
foreign service.

The controversy between this country and Great Britain seems to
have been brought to a single point. She claims the service of her
seafaring subjects in time of danger. Our Government admits this
right. To give effect to the right thus claimed and admitted, she
insists that her officers may go on board our merchant ships on the
high seas, or in her ports--search for and take her subjects. This our
Government deny, and claim the immunity of the flag so far as persons
are concerned; because, under the pretext of taking British subjects,
American citizens are frequently taken. It does, indeed, not distinctly
appear in the late communication from our Executive to the British
Government, that they mean by the terms American citizens, whether
it includes naturalized persons as well as natives. With respect to
those of the first description, I confess I feel no great interest
for their immunity abroad or on the high seas; I am one of those who
think that we act sufficiently liberal when we offer them any asylum
from the oppression or poverty of their own country, receive them
into our bosom, and extend to them all the advantages belonging to
us; and so long as they remain within our territorial limits, they
shall, with my consent, have the full benefit of the protection which
our laws afford to all. But I cannot consent that the native blood
of this country shall be profusely wasted to protect aliens born,
wherever they may ramble. We all profess a deep solicitude for the
interest of seamen. To describe their distresses and to eulogize
their valor and patriotism, is one of the topics of the day. And yet
we are contending for principles which, if successful, will bring
a host of foreigners in competition with them to elbow them out of
employment. But it is said that Great Britain does the same--that by
the act passed during the reign of George II., foreign seamen are
naturalized who have been in the King's service for two years, and
that she has no right to object if we imitate her conduct. It is true
she has adopted such a regulation. But I have never heard of any
instance where she has contended that such a person is absolved from
his natural allegiance, if he comes within the power of his original
sovereign. I have understood that act to mean that such persons should
become entitled to certain rights--not absolved from any duties towards
others, should they leave the country. That they should have the right
to hold lands--be admitted under the regulations of the navigation
act as British seamen on board merchant ships, and participate in the
pension and hospital provisions. Should I be mistaken, however, I am
not inclined to relinquish my opinion, merely because the practice of
Great Britain is opposed to it.

Sir, I do not find fault with the Administration for insisting on the
immunity of our flag, as it respects the seamen. I approve of the
principle. It is of that character which at a proper time and with
proper means is (in effect and to all general purposes) attainable,
if we do not by ill-timed and imprudent efforts frustrate it. It is
supposed that the present is the auspicious moment to insist on our
rights. That pressed as Great Britain is by the most powerful enemy the
world ever saw, who threatens her very existence; the impression which
we can make upon her by our arms, will be greater than at any other
time. This very circumstance renders the attainment of our object more
difficult, and makes our case hopeless. Her danger forbids a compliance
with our demands. In her present struggle, her naval power constitutes
her security. Without that she would long since have become a French
province. This every man in England knows and feels. It is well known
that four-fifths of her seamen on board her navy render not voluntary
but compulsory service. Should this principle be established, which
in all cases would afford a secure asylum in our merchant ships, it
is dreaded by British statesmen and the British people, that their
seamen, allured by higher wages and easier employment, would abandon
their service, and thus render their country accessible to their
enemy. Hence you see every Ministry, of whatever political party or
distinction, tremblingly alive to this subject. They dare not touch
it in the present state of that country. No man could maintain his
power a moment after having hazarded the public safety by making an
experiment, the effect of which could not be foreseen, and may be
productive of such disastrous consequences. This spirit is manifest
in all the communications from the British Cabinet to our Government.
We have seen the sentiments of Lord Grenville, Lord Auckland, Lord
Holland, and Mr. Fox, men whose prepossessions were in our favor, and
who on almost every other subject supported our pretensions. On this
subject they resisted our demands, because they dared not grant them.
While I conceive the claims of our Government as not going too far, I
doubt their prudence as to the time and manner of giving them effect.
I fear that instead of realizing our wishes the measures pursued are
calculated to deprive us of every hope hereafter. In the present
unexampled state of the world, according to my limited conception of
our true interest, we ought to have seriously avoided all hostile
collision with foreign powers. We ought to have cherished the resources
within our grasp. Nothing is more obvious than the remark made by the
honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. BLEECKER,) that, with all the
injuries which we received from the belligerents, our commerce was more
extensive and more profitable in the aggregate than if Europe had been
at peace. We might have obtained (and we ought not to have rejected)
such temporary arrangements with England, (with whom our commerce
was chiefly carried on,) which, though they did not embrace all our
interests, would have secured those of first importance and kept us
at peace. The benefits of such a policy are to my mind self-evident.
Should Europe be restored to tranquillity and assume something like its
former appearance, (and I do not believe the present state of things
durable,) we should have been able to have effected every valuable
object, because such a change will probably bring with it a respect for
the rights of nations, which have now no existence but in name. And
should an imposing attitude have been wanting to give effect to our
claims, we should have exhibited an unbroken spirit and unexhausted
resources.

An honorable member from Tennessee, (Mr. GRUNDY,) the other day, read
some extracts from the instructions transmitted to our Minister in
London, in 1792. His object was to show the deep interest which the
great man who then presided over this nation felt on the subject of
impressments. I sincerely wish that while gentlemen resort to his
opinions to support theirs, they would consent to imitate his conduct.
Nothing can be more strikingly different than his policy and that which
is now pursued.

In 1793 the subject of impressments did not form the only complaint
against Great Britain. The Treaty of Peace remained unexecuted on her
part. To that was added the great injury which our commerce sustained
by the extensive captures made by her cruisers during that year. The
interest which was felt for the success of the French Revolution,
against which Great Britain had arrayed herself, tended to excite the
nation, even beyond the measure of its wrongs, and ripen it for war.
But the wisdom of WASHINGTON saved us from being drawn into the vortex,
which has since devoured all who approached it. His genius considered
the true interests of his country to consist in the preservation of its
peace; and he had firmness enough to preserve it, though opposed by the
strong feelings of the people. Notwithstanding the accumulated wrongs
which we had received, he sent a messenger of peace, and ultimately
gave his assent to a treaty in which there was not one stipulation even
to restrain the abuses of impressments, which the year before he had
declared could not be longer tolerated. Why was this done by him, who,
to say the least, had as much affection for his country's rights, as
the politicians of the present day--whom fear never influenced--and who
could safely calculate on the support of the people, should he resort
to arms? The answer is obvious. Peace upon almost any terms was better
than a hopeless, endless contest. What a contrast does his example
present to the conduct of those who now direct the destinies of this
nation, and who, while they reject his policy, resort to his opinions
to support their own?

Upon the subject of foreign war, and the objects connected with it,
the opinions of gentlemen of the majority have certainly undergone a
strange revolution since they came into power. Little more than twelve
years ago, they deprecated foreign war as inconsistent with the spirit
of our institutions, and the genius of our Government. Nothing short
of self-defence, when attacked in our own country, was considered as
a justification for abandoning our peaceful pursuits, and mingling
in hostility with European powers. Every other object was deemed
subordinate to the preservation of peace, because with it was connected
every benefit which it had pleased Providence to bestow upon us, and
which our detached situation rendered secure. We now hear those very
gentlemen talk of Rome and Greece in their proudest days, when they
inspired terror into the inhabitants of distant climes and carried
their arms to every quarter of the globe; and their example is held
up for our imitation. The almost boundless extent of our territory is
become too limited, and we hear of conquests in the North and South, as
essential to our security and happiness. In taking a retrospect, and
contrasting former opinions with present conduct, a person would almost
be inclined to distrust his observation, was there not left on record
monuments with sentiments of former times entertained by gentlemen in
the days of humility, when they were struggling against power. Permit
me to call your attention to a resolution of the Virginia Assembly,
adopted in 1798, said to be draughted by Mr. Madison, now President
of the United States, upon this subject. It was then considered the
standard of Republican opinion, by all who professed to be of that
party. It in substance declares, that though the General Assembly view
with indignation the violations of our commerce, the impressment of our
seamen, and other wrongs committed by foreign nations, yet detached as
the United States are from European concerns, they should deprecate a
war waged for any other object except self-defence, in cases of actual
invasion. This resolution had an eye to our relations with France,
from whom we had then received every injury and indignity she could
inflict, and with whom we were in a state of partial hostility; but it
explicitly declares, that we ought to engage in offensive war, for no
object whatever. Let the sentiment be compared with the conduct of the
same men now they are in power.

Sir, I am one of those who doubt our capacity to obtain the conquest
of the British provinces. I believe that the opinion, that we are a
very powerful nation abroad, is a fanciful delusion. To be powerful
abroad, requires a Government of sufficient energy, not only to bring
into action all the physical and pecuniary resources of the country,
but to command them promptly. The very nature of our Government,
where every thing depends immediately upon the people, forbids the
idea that you can effect one or the other. The inconveniences and
privations to which they must be subjected, are sufficient causes with
the great body of the community, who do not perceive very distinctly
how they are to be benefited by an offensive war, to turn their faces
against it. Their Representatives, knowing their feelings, dare not
press them with a heavy hand, which at once destroys every thing like
energy. Besides, the want of promptitude, the characteristic defect of
such a Government, whose powers are divided into many hands, prevents
the resources even within their reach to be obtained and applied in
time to insure success. The consequence of all this is--imbecility
in obtaining, and want of celerity in applying the necessary means.
This may be considered as a very great evil, particularly to those who
have presented to us the example of Rome in her proudest days, when
she was mistress of the world, for our imitation. Sir, I rejoice that
such is the state of my country. It is the legitimate offspring of our
free institutions. The people are strong and the Government is weak;
whenever this state of things shall be reversed, then shall we be able
to inspire terror into other nations. But until that period shall
arrive, we shall exhibit weakness and slowness of action, as to all
offensive and external purposes.

To retain the British provinces as an indemnity for our losses, is
an event which I cannot wish, because I can see no possible benefit
resulting from it. Have we not already territory enough? Is it
desirable to incorporate with us a people composed of heterogeneous
materials, who are not only unaccustomed to our institutions, but
many of whom entertain an unconquerable hatred for them? I believe it
would have been better had we never acquired any foreign territory
at all. If we had been contented with the limits embraced by the old
thirteen United States, the prospects of remaining a united people,
and preserving our free institutions, would, in my conception, be much
more flattering. I am, therefore, opposed to new acquisitions. But
it is repeatedly urged that the possession of Canada is necessary to
secure us from the hostilities of the savage tribes on our northwestern
borders; was this the fact, I might yield my assent to prosecute the
war to attain that object. But experience has shown that we can have
peace with them, though Canada is in the possession of a foreign power.
For seventeen years after the Treaty of Greenville we were entirely
exempt from Indian hostilities; and not until we waged war ourselves,
did they become troublesome upon our frontiers.

My apprehensions are not solely confined to the danger resulting from
military power; there are other consequences equally to be dreaded,
which I fear may overwhelm us, should we continue in this course. There
is one peculiarly delicate, but equally important--so delicate, that
gentlemen have supposed it ought not even to be mentioned. Sir, shall
I not be permitted to point to the yawning gulf beneath? Shall I not
attempt to arrest your progress in the path where lies a serpent that
will sting you to death? I deprecate disunion as an event pregnant with
every evil. The moment it happens, civil liberty is banished from this
country. I feel deeply interested that it should not happen. Permit
me, however, to observe, that a union is connected by a consciousness
which is felt that the various interests of the different sections are
consulted and protected, and not by force. If you wish to perpetuate
the Union, you must preserve that opinion. The moment that it shall
no longer exist, the ties that bind us together become feeble indeed.
The present war, though ostensibly waged for principles in which the
Northern and Eastern people have a deep interest, is considered by
them--and they certainly understand their interest best--as calculated
to prostrate it. They feel the evils of your measures daily, and they
see no prospect that they ever will be benefited by them. The physical
power of the country is in their hands, and it requires nothing but
public sentiment, which quickly follows public interest, and you ripen
them for a state of things most of all to be deprecated. I hope we
shall avert the evil by banishing the cause of discontent.

Besides the immediate physical evils which present themselves as
probably resulting from our measures, there are other moral evils which
I must dread. Our Government was made to secure the happiness of the
people, and every thing which even remotely is calculated to impair
their moral sense, will have an effect upon their situation. When the
people shall become attached to principles inconsistent with morality,
or with their tranquil, civil pursuits, their prosperity and their
freedom are at hazard. The spirit of conquest and of military glory,
however fascinating, is baneful to the prosperity and liberty of every
country. This spirit has shown itself in our country, of late, in an
unusual degree. We have become tired of the peaceful character of our
pursuits; and we want nothing but success on this first attempt to
encourage us to become a great military nation, attempting conquest in
every quarter. Whenever that happens, we shall share the destiny of
other nations. When the same spirit and the same councils prevail, the
misery of the mass of the people is the support of the national glory.

One of the evils which I dread, as attending the war, and in my opinion
not the least, Mr. Chairman, is, that we have united our exertions with
the efforts of the great destroyer of mankind, who, having prostrated
the independence of almost every nation on the continent of Europe,
has drawn us into our present situation, to assist him in humbling his
remaining enemy, whose destruction is, above all others, nearest his
heart. I do not believe that gentlemen are so far lost to all sense of
their country's interest, as designedly to unite the destiny of this
nation with him, who lives only to destroy. I believe them, when they
declare that such is not their intention. But we are united in fact.
His ostensible object is the liberty of the seas: so is ours. His
successes are our successes, and his defeats are our defeats. Being
thus associated in fact--having one common object--if the war continues
any time, we shall be associated in name also. When pressed beyond
our present expectation by our enemy, we shall not make any difficulty
in submitting to arrangements which may appear to us advantageous, but
which are calculated to fasten us to the car of the conqueror. We may
want men to enable us to obtain the object of our offensive operations
in the North; France can furnish them. We may want ships to defend our
coast; we can obtain them from the same quarter. But, for these things,
we must stipulate an equivalent; and what can that be, but to unite in
striking England from the list of independent nations?

Mr. ROBERTSON.--Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that the House will
listen (if it listens at all) with much reluctance to a further
discussion of the subject under consideration. Nevertheless, it is
my intention explicitly, but concisely to state some of the reasons,
which influence me to support the measure proposed; some of the views
connected with them, which command my approbation, and induce my
aid. Sir, I propose to make a few remarks on the bill itself, and
subsequently, without following gentlemen in the wide and expansive
range of argumentative, declamatory, and defamatory eloquence, in which
they have thought fit to indulge, to reply to some of the observations
which struck me with most force, and which my memory still retains.

The honorable Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs is entitled
to the thanks of this House, and of the nation, for the able and lucid
exposition he has given, of the plan intended to be pursued by the
Government in the prosecution of the war in which we are engaged, and
of the objects for the attainment of which an increase of the Military
Establishment is deemed necessary. What is that plan, and what are
the objects in contemplation? The power of the nation is to be called
out; a portion for a defence of our seacoast and extensive frontier;
the residue to be sent forth to battle against our implacable foe, to
drive him from the American continent, and thus to insure our future
peace, if not our Union and independence. These objects are avowed, and
efforts and energy are necessary to their success.

The propriety of defending our country can be denied by none. This
proposition is clear. Even the gentlemen on the other side of the
House (as it is fashionable to speak) do not oppose it. For myself
I do not hesitate to say, it presses itself on my feelings with
irresistible force. When I take into consideration the exposed
situation of the people whom it is my pride and honor to represent,
when I view them surrounded by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians,
skirted by strongholds in the possession of a nation devoted to our
foe, containing in the bosom of their country a class of beings
always on the watch to overwhelm them in ruin, I lose sight of other
considerations, and am compelled to urge, as I do most earnestly, that
no obstacles may be thrown in the way of our complete protection.
I have lived for some years in the country to which I have called
your attention. I have not been altogether an inattentive observer,
nor indifferent to its interests. The neglected state of the militia
under the territorial government, its present unorganized and unarmed
state, have not escaped my notice. But we must "blame the culture, not
the soil." The inhabitants are brave, expert in the management of the
horse and in the use of arms. The materials are good. It is unnecessary
to dwell on these, or to mention other circumstances of an internal
nature. Suffice it to be observed, our situation is insecure. I have
stated, sir, that we are surrounded by numerous and warlike tribes of
Indians. I will not recount their numbers, nor blazon their powers of
doing mischief. Those facts are too notorious to require repetition.
I have stated that strongholds in our immediate neighborhood are in
the possession of a people devoted to our enemy. The Spaniards on our
eastern frontier are under their perfect control. They considered
the English as fighting for the independence of Spain, their native
country, their religion, and their King. In their towns an extensive
British trade is carried on, and from their ports, where they refit,
issue forth the armed vessels of that nation to the annoyance of the
commerce of our country. The Indians too are excited against us. On
my journey from New Orleans to this place, passing through the Creek
confederacy, I received certain information that the Spanish commandant
at St. Marks had assured them that their friends the British were
expected soon in considerable force at that place and at Pensacola, and
that they should be furnished with arms and other munitions of war to
be used against the Americans. Sir, humanity to that people, as well
as the irresistible claims we have to protection, require that a force
should be stationed on the Mobile and Mississippi sufficient to prevent
the effect of British and Spanish machination, or to throw back on
themselves the evils of hostility.

I now proceed to examine some of the objections which have been made,
not to the bill, but to the further prosecution of the war. The war is
denounced as unconstitutional, cruel, the effect of French influence,
and as intended to place James II. on the throne of America. In making
the first objection, gentlemen could not have been serious; they
could not have expected that it would have been deemed worthy of an
answer. The power to make war belongs to all nations; is of the essence
of Government; but the Constitution of the United States gives it
expressly, in so many words: "The Congress shall have power to declare
war, to raise and support armies." Whether the war be defensive or
offensive, depends on circumstance and accident, but cannot affect the
right. If war be defensive and offensive, still the whole is equal to
its parts. But to what does this doctrine lead? Do gentlemen believe
it to be true? Then it becomes their duty to move for the appointment
of a committee to inquire into the circumstances of the capture of the
Macedonian, and if it be discovered that she was taken at more than a
marine league from the shore, to cashier the American officer, declare
the attack and capture unconstitutional, and restore the vessel to her
former master. Then an enterprise, giving rise to a new era in maritime
history, and entwining round the brows of the United States a wreath
of imperishable laurel, turns out to be a violation of that instrument
on the sacredness of which depends the Union and happiness of America.
The war is not unconstitutional, nor can it, by any possibility, be so
considered.

But it is said that, as the Orders in Council are repealed, the
question of impressment is the only one in controversy between the
United States and Great Britain; and, on the subject, the honorable
gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. PEARSON,) has, without difficulty,
settled principles about which jurists have differed in opinion. He
contends that individuals cannot divest themselves of their allegiance;
that the right of expatriation does not exist; that the practice of
naturalization is wrong. These opinions are as erroneous as they are
repugnant to every principle of human liberty, and owe their origin to
feudal times and feudal States; times and States, the prolific sources
of the vilest principles in politics and morals.

I believe that every civilized nation under the sun is in the practice
of naturalizing foreigners. The omnipotent Parliament of Great Britain
exercises this right. The rights of all independent nations are equal.
Whatever course Great Britain pursues in relation to the subjects or
citizens of other countries, these countries are authorized to pursue
in relation to the subjects of Great Britain. Whatever her admirers
may say to the contrary, if she does not acknowledge, she is compelled
to act in conformity to this principle. Where is there in her history
an example of her punishing as a traitor, a Briton naturalized by a
foreign Government, although found in arms against her? If a subject
could not divest himself of his natural allegiance; if once a subject
always a subject, were true, how is it that Napper Tandy was suffered
to escape punishment? Why was he not hanged as a traitor? He was born
in Ireland, became a French citizen, served in war against his native
country, was taken, tried, and found guilty of high treason; but when
a terrible retaliation was threatened by France, in the event of his
execution, that nation, which never yields to threats, restored him to
his then adopted country.

But gentlemen are opposed to the further prosecution of the war. Do
they contend that the causes which rendered it necessary have been
removed? Have we obtained the objects for which it was commenced?
Is the new and before unheard-of system of blockade abandoned? A
system which, under the pretence of being a military measure, was
converted into a commercial scheme beneficial to the belligerents,
and destructive alone to the rights of the neutrals. Have our citizens
been restored to their country? Is any disposition evidenced to omit
tearing them from their homes and families in future? What will be the
consequence of laying down our arms, of shrinking from our present
attitude? We are at the feet of Great Britain: and after having for
years attempted in vain to obtain justice, we are to recommence
fruitless negotiation. Admit that we are unable to enforce our demands,
to support our independence, that we cannot carry on war, that the
friends of the British Government in this country (to use their
own expression) will not permit us; in such a situation, with such
admission, to expect justice would be folly in the extreme. England
would return to her habitual spoliations, would re-establish that
state precisely the most beneficial to herself, the most injurious to
us: infinitely better to her than peace on fair terms, for then the
opportunity would be lost of feeding and enriching her navy at our
expense; better than war, as the numerous prizes brought into her ports
of late very clearly prove. Formerly the losses were exclusively ours.
Yes, sir, willingly would she return to, and forever continue, her
former career of depredation; and the next ten years would add another
thousand to the thousand American vessels already carried into her
ports.

Too long did we suffer disgrace and degradation. Peace, with all its
blessings, may be enjoyed at too dear a price. But yet, while it was
possible to preserve it, we shut our eyes against the most flagrant
injuries; we affected not to hear the loudest insults. Peace was
congenial to our habits, favorable to the principles of our Government.
It was not to be apprehended it would be, nor cannot be now believed
that it was wantonly abandoned. Whilst tranquillity prevailed it was
wise to dwell on its advantages. Now, that in spite of all our efforts
we are at war, it is well to inquire whether circumstances may not grow
out of it favorable to our future happiness and prosperity.

The British possessions in America present themselves to our view and
invite a conquest. I am struck with the contrariety of opinion which
prevails among gentlemen. Some of them speak of the country as barren,
the climate as inclement, the inhabitants thereby scattered over the
face of the territory. If this be true, it will not be considered
as worth defending, and as by its loss Britain loses nothing, the
sympathy which she seems to have excited, and the doleful jeremiads to
which her anticipated disasters have given rise, are as unnecessary
as they are misplaced. But others say, no doubt from its importance
to its European sovereign it will be defended to the last extremity;
that the United States cannot take it; that the army we propose to
send into the field will prove insufficient. When gentlemen differ so
widely, no satisfactory conclusion can be drawn from their opinions.
Sir, Canada will be defended, and it is from a belief of that fact,
and from a knowledge of the force which Great Britain may bring into
the field, that the troops now demanded become necessary. We have
heard an estimate of that force too often to be again repeated. It has
lost nothing of its magnitude and importance. Its valor has received
the highest praise, and we are triumphantly asked if we expect to
intimidate Great Britain.

Sir, none but cowards calculate on the cowardice of their foe. We do
not expect to intimidate her. We expect to meet her armies in the field
and to vanquish them. The power of Britain must be extinguished in
America. She must no longer be permitted to corrupt the principles and
to disturb the peace and tranquillity of our citizens. Our frontier
inhabitants must not be kept in dread and danger from her Indian
allies. And never shall we be secure among ourselves, and exempt
from the mischievous intrigues of Europeans, until European power is
expelled across the Atlantic. The gentleman from Massachusetts says,
that Canada entered into the scheme of the war. It certainly does now
enter into the scheme of the war. Sir, no citizen of the United States
would have given his consent to an unprovoked attack on that country
merely for the purpose of getting possession of it. But I do, for one,
rejoice that, under present circumstances, we thus have an opportunity
afforded us, not only to make our enemy feel our power, but to drive
him from this continent, and to remove one of the most frequent causes
of war among nations--neighborhood and contiguity. The evils of peace,
on the terms of gentlemen in opposition, cannot be borne. Let us then,
with firmness, persevere in the contest in which we are engaged, until
it can be terminated on principles compatible with the rights and honor
of the nation.

The committee now rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit
again.


TUESDAY, January 12.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House again resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, on the
bill to raise an additional army of twenty thousand men, for one year.

Mr. EMOTT addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Chairman: I mean no common-place remark, when I declare to you,
that I address you on the subjects which have been brought into this
debate, and as I think properly so brought, with great reluctance.
My general deportment since I have been honored with a seat on this
floor, is sufficient evidence to you and the committee that I feel an
unwillingness to mingle in the war of words which is carried on here.
There are causes which add to this repugnance on the present occasion.
The debate has been continued for such a length of time, and in part
has been conducted with so much asperity, that the minds of all have
become fatigued, and the passions of many inflamed. I know, and I duly
appreciate the difficulties which, under such circumstances, surround
and face the speaker. But, sir, there are considerations of public
duty, and individual propriety, which urge, nay, demand of me, to ask
your patience, and the indulgence of the House, while I present to you
and to them my view of the great subjects involved in this discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that, in the discussion I am about commencing,
I shall render myself obnoxious to the wit of gentlemen who think
that, to bring into view other topics than those which arise out of
the details of the bill now on your table, is to go beyond the range
of legitimate debate. The bill contemplates the raising an additional
military force of twenty thousand men; thus increasing the Military
Establishment, or the standing army of the country, to upwards of
fifty-five thousand men. Now, sir, with the details of this bill I
have nothing to do. Nay, I will confess to you that I like the bill as
it stands, providing for enlistments for one year only, better than
I should were it amended, as has been proposed, by prolonging the
terms, precisely for the reason that the force will be less efficient
and dangerous, and more under legislative control. I meddle not with
the fitness of the instrument. That is the business of other men;
but, being opposed to the continuance of the war offensively, as I
was to its commencement, I cannot consent to grant any further force
to carry it on. The only check, or control, which the Legislature can
constitutionally have over a war after it is begun, is in withholding
the means; and, in voting the means, either in men or money, every
member of the Legislature ought to be satisfied of the necessity of
prosecuting the war.

According to my best judgment, sir, this war was improperly commenced,
and it is unnecessarily continued; and I shall now proceed to explain
the grounds of that judgment by an examination of the causes of the
war, as they existed at its commencement, and as they now remain. As
this is the first time the subject has been brought into debate, and,
indeed, the earliest opportunity which has been allowed, of an open
discussion, I am sure I shall be pardoned for going into detail, if I
even should be tedious, as I know I shall be uninteresting. It is a
right which I think I may claim, to state distinctly my reasons and
motives for the votes which I have given, and may give, in relation to
the war, after what has been said in this House, and out of it, about
the opposition to the views of the Administration.

In making this examination, I shall pass in review, in as brief a
manner as possible, the three great subjects of complaint against
Great Britain; her orders of blockade, her Orders in Council, and her
practice of impressment. But for one or all of these, the war certainly
would not have been declared; and I may assume that, for but one or
all of these, the war ought not to be continued. I cannot, indeed,
but recollect, that the gentleman from Louisiana has mentioned the
conquest of Canada, and of the Floridas, as causes for the continuance
of the war. As respects the Canadas, I have heretofore understood that
their reduction might be a consequence of the war, but never until now
did I know that it was to be shifted into a cause for carrying it on.
And, in regard to the Floridas, I will not consent that their conquest
should, in the existing relations of this country, be either a cause
or consequence of war. I will confess to you, that an invasion of the
colonies of Spain at this time, under the stale excuses of convenience
or necessity, strikes me with abhorrence. It is not only against the
genius of our Government, and, as I hope, the character of our people,
but, if persisted in, will be a foul blot in our national history.

    [Here the speaker entered into an elaborate documentary
    investigation to show that the Decree of Blockade, and the
    Orders in Council, were not adequate causes for war at the time
    it was declared--and that both these causes had since ceased
    to exist, the Orders in Council having been revoked, and the
    fictitious, or paper blockades, discontinued.]

Impressment of Seamen.--The injury done to our seamen under the British
practice of impressment, was also made a cause of the war, and to the
eye, at least, it is the only one which now remains.

Mr. Chairman, the discussion of this subject is attended with
adventitious difficulties, growing out of the times and the state of
the country. The public mind, in some sections of the Union, is in such
a feverish state on this account, from tales oft told of bondage worse
than <DW64> slavery, and of condemnation without trial, that the person
who is willing to "hear the other party," is at once branded with
foreign partialities, and threatened with the trial by mob. Besides,
sir, it is intimated that a negotiation is to be had, or may possibly
be attempted, which may be affected by an open discussion of the topic.
In point of duty, I feel myself called upon to take some notice of the
subject, but my view of it will be less perfect than in a different
situation I should think desirable.

The President, in the war Message, thus introduces the subject:
"British cruisers have been in the continued practice of violating
the American flag on the great highway of nations, and of seizing
and carrying off persons sailing under it; not in the exercise of a
belligerent right, founded on the law of nations against an enemy, but
of a municipal prerogative over British subjects." As this does not
present the case in its true light, I shall, for the purpose of fairly
bringing to view the conflicting claims of the two nations, give you
an extract from the letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Monroe, of the 5th of
January, 1804, containing instructions for a treaty with Great Britain:
"With this exception, (persons in the military service of an enemy)
we consider a neutral flag on the high seas, as a safeguard to those
sailing under it. Great Britain, on the contrary, asserts a right to
search for and seize her own subjects; and under that cover, as cannot
but happen, are often seized and taken off, citizens of the United
States, and citizens or subjects of other neutral countries, navigating
the high seas, under the protection of the American flag."

The claim, then, on the part of the British is, that in time of war
they have a right to enter neutral merchant vessels on the high seas,
to search for and seize their subjects, being seamen. On our part it
is, that on the high seas the flag shall cover and protect all sailing
under it, whether British subjects or American citizens. These are
distinctly the claims of right on the part of the two nations, and I
shall so consider them, without regard to practice apart from right.

One or two remarks, sir, before I enter upon the subject. The first
is, that I do not mean to moot the point, relative to the rights of
our naturalized citizens, or the extent of our duties towards them.
But this I will say, that I am willing to give them all the protection
which the situation of the country and its true interests will justify.
I know that the unruly passions and the meddling dispositions of
some foreigners, have raised prejudices in the minds of many persons
against all foreigners. But I know, also, and I speak without reference
to political opinions or prejudices, that among our naturalized
citizens are to be found men, and many men, too, of great worth and
respectability, and who are extensively useful to the country. These
men have my good will, and it is certainly my wish, that they should be
fostered and protected, as far as it can be done, without putting at
hazard the great interests and the permanent welfare of the country.
But, sir, to this class of our citizens, the claim that they are
to be protected on the high seas by our flag, is really of little
importance. Our claim never was, and I am sure never will be, that they
are to be protected, if they put themselves within the power of their
former Sovereign, by going to his ports, or placing themselves on his
territories. And yet such is the state of the commerce of the world,
that it can scarcely happen in a mercantile voyage, in this or the
other hemisphere, that the vessel will not at some time be in a British
port, and the crew on British ground; our right of flag will not then
save our adopted citizens from impressment. For the slight benefit,
therefore, to our naturalized citizens, which can arise under our
claim, if established, I am sure the well-meaning and reasonable part
of them will not ask the country to continue the war on their account.

Another remark which I wish to make is, that I am most decidedly
the friend, nay, sir, if you please, the partisan, of the seamen of
the country. I have no doubt that this nation is destined to be a
great maritime power; and that, in times not very far distant, we are
to owe our prosperity, as a commercial people, and possibly, under
Providence, our security, to our seamen. I am therefore a friend to
"seamen's rights," properly understood and fairly enforced; but this
shall not blind me to the rights of others. Besides, in a war to be
carried on for seamen alone, and that, too, on the abstract question
of the right of flag, I can see great danger to the seamen in their
just claims to protection; and, I must beg their friends, in and out
of this House, to reflect before they act. As surely as the war is
continued on this ground alone, so surely will seamen become unpopular,
and their rights be neglected. When the evils of the war press upon the
country, and press they will; when the many lives sacrificed, and the
countless millions expended, shall be brought to view, is it not to be
apprehended that seamen and their claim will be remembered, only as the
cause of the scenes of expense and blood through which we are to pass?
It is not dealing fairly with our seamen, to make them the scape-goats
of this war.

The British then claim the right, in time of war, to take their seamen
out of neutral merchant vessels on the high seas.

_Is this claim a novel one?_ That the claim is novel, is certainly
intimated by the Committee of Foreign Relations, when they say that
the impressment of which we complain, is "a practice which has been
unceasingly maintained by Great Britain in the wars to which she has
been a party since our Revolution." Indeed, it has been most roundly
asserted, and by many it is believed, that the British claim was made
for the first time after our war; that it originated in views hostile
to our commerce and maritime rights; and that in practice it is only
brought to bear upon us. In truth, however, whatever may be the justice
of the claim, it is not a recent one. It has, in a greater or less
degree, been practised on in all the wars in which England has been
engaged for the two last centuries.

The instructions to armed ships are not frequently made public; but it
so happens, that we have in print an instruction on this very point,
given in 1646, by the Earl of Northumberland, Lord High Admiral of
England, to Sir John Pennington, which goes beyond the present claim:
"As you meet with any men of war, merchants, or other ships, belonging
to any foreign Prince or State in any road where you, or any of His
Majesty's fleet, may happen to come, you are to send to see whether
there be any of His Majesty's subjects on board; and if any seamen,
gunners, pilots, or marines, (whether English, Scotch, or Irish,) be
found on board, you are to cause such of his Majesty's subjects to
be taken forth, and so disposed of as they shall be forthcoming, to
answer their contempt of His Majesty's proclamation in that kind."
These instructions were modified in the reign of Charles the Second,
so as to exclude public armed vessels, and with this modification
they have come down to the present times. If it were at all necessary
to the purposes of my argument, I might show that this right has been
exercised both towards France and Holland, long before we had existence
as a nation. Their vessels have been searched, and British seamen taken
from them. But enough has been said to prove that the claim, if unjust,
is not novel.

_Is the claim peculiar to the British?_ I am justified in saying that
this claim, in time of war, to search for and seize seamen in neutral
merchant vessels, on the high seas, has been made and exercised by
every maritime nation in Europe. To be more particular--I assert, and
stand ready to prove, that it has been made and enforced by France as
well as England, and is now. It would be a waste of time to go very
much at large into the French usages on this subject. I propose to do
little more than to refer to one or two French ordinances, and then
show from our State papers their practical application to us.

By the French laws, and they are ancient laws, the seamen of the
country are all classed, and enrolled, and licensed. In 1784, an edict
was made which is still in force, declaring, that any classed seaman,
who shall, in time of peace, be found serving in foreign ships, shall
be sentenced to fifteen days' confinement, and reduced to the lowest
wages, and serve two years extraordinary at the lowest rate; but those
who, in time of war, shall be arrested in foreign ships, or passing
into foreign countries, shall be sentenced to three years' service
in the galleys. Under the authority of this, and similar ordinances,
the French have taken their seamen out of our vessels, and in some
instances our seamen with them.

Mr. Chairman, the first proof relative to the committee, is the
impressment document of January last, known to the American people as
the 6,057 document. The Secretary of State, Mr. Monroe, at the close of
the introductory report, says, "it is equally impossible, from the want
of precise returns, to make an accurate report of the names or number
of _citizens of the United States, who have been compelled to enter
into the French service, or are held in captivity under the authority
of that Government_, whether taken from vessels captured on the high
seas, or seized in rivers, ports, or harbors; the names of a few only,
greatly below the number believed to be so detained, being within the
knowledge of this Department. A detail therefore is not attempted, with
respect to this part of the call of the House of Representatives." Yes,
sir, it is known to the Administration, that some of our citizens have
been compelled to enter into the service of the French Emperor, while
others are held in captivity by him. Ask, however, for their names, and
you have for answer, that all the persons detained are not known to the
Government, and therefore it cannot be material that you should have
the names of any. Say to gentlemen, here is a case of American rights
violated, and you will be told, that the injury, in practice, is not
of sufficient importance to justify strong measures against the French
Government. Be it so. But attempt to prove to the same gentlemen, that
the practical operation of British blockades and Orders in Council, is
not such as to require war, you will then hear, that it is necessary to
fight about the principle.

I have one other paper to lay before the committee, on this subject.
For some years back, the information about French impressments has
been general and vague, or altogether withheld. Formerly this was
otherwise. In a report respecting the impressment of seamen in 1797,
made by the Secretary of State to this House, on the 27th of February,
1798, we have the names of upwards of twenty American citizens, taken
out of American vessels, on the high seas, by French privateers. We
have more, sir. This same report states, that two French seamen named
Lewis had been impressed from on board the American ship Bryseis by
a French Commodore's ship; that Francis Gibbons, a native of France,
but married and resident at New London in Connecticut, was impressed
from the American ship Edward, at Rochefort, by authority of the
French Republic, and put on board a French ship of war: and that Henry
Doughty, an American, was impressed at sea from the American brig Elsa
by the French frigates Lapancy and Thetis. I could instance other
cases, but these are sufficient to show, that neither the claim nor the
exercise of it is peculiar to the British.

If this right, or claim of right, however, is made a mere pretext by
any nation to seize and detain our seamen, I am willing to allow that
it would be a cause of war. But even in this case, war ought not to
be waged until we have done our duty to our seamen and the offending
nation, by making suitable regulations to prevent the employment
of the seamen of such nation. Have we done this, as respects Great
Britain? Perhaps some such regulation is to be found in the law which
defines what vessel is an American vessel, and which, as such, is
entitled to hoist our flag. Look at it, sir. According to the act of
December, 1792, an American ship is one wholly owned by an American
citizen, and commanded by a person also a citizen. The crew may be all
foreigners--all Englishmen, if you please--all English deserters. In
this, therefore, we find no security to the British Government.

But, we have also the law of May, 1796, which provides, that the
collectors may register seamen calling themselves American, and grant
certificates of citizenship. Out of this law, it is presumed, has
grown the practice of granting protections, as they are called--papers
procured from notaries and magistrates, ofttimes on the most barefaced
perjuries, and always considered as a species of negotiable property
for value received. Sir, these protections, in their abuse, are a
scandal to the nation. It has made false swearing an employment, and
the granting of false papers a business. The price of such a paper is
as well known in the great seaport towns as is that of your stocks. All
ages and complexions and tongues may have this badge of citizenship, by
paying the charges in such cases provided. If this, however, was not
so; if protections were only granted to real Americans; it is difficult
to see how this is to prevent the employment of British sailors. It is
not necessary that the persons navigating an American vessel should
have them.

This act of ours was presented to the British Government by Mr. King,
in January, 1797, and Lord Grenville, on the 27th of March following,
in a manner highly conciliatory, and certainly with much force, stated
specific objections to the law. The Executive, when in July last he
answered the call of the Senate for papers relative to impressments,
omitted this letter of Lord Grenville, but he gives a letter from the
then Secretary of State, to our Minister at the British Court, of the
third of October, 1797, in which the force of the objections seems to
be admitted: "Lord Grenville's observations on the act of Congress for
the relief and protection of American seamen, present difficulties
which demand consideration at the ensuing session." Nothing was,
however, done at that or any future session. In truth, we have done
nothing to prevent the employment of British seamen in our public or
private ships; and they are to be found in both. And yet, with this
fact staring us in the face, we are called upon to say that the war is
altogether just on our part!

It will probably be urged that the British practice under this claim,
in its application to us, was sufficient to prove that the reclamation
of their seamen was not so much the object of the British Government,
as the seizure of our seafaring citizens: that it had become so
outrageous as not only to justify, but to require war. Without, sir,
meaning to excuse or to palliate the taking even the cabin boy, if done
knowingly and wittingly; and being willing to admit, that about the
period of the attack on the Chesapeake, we had much and serious cause
to complain on the subject, I must be permitted to say that I have not
evidence to satisfy me, that when we declared war, the practice of the
British was such as to prove that the claim on their part was a mere
pretext to take our sailors. In truth, I believe, if the Administration
have not deceived themselves on this subject, that they have attempted
a gross deception on the public.

The instructions given at this day, by the British Admiralty to a
naval commander, on this subject, directs him, "when he meets with
any foreign ship or vessel, to send a lieutenant to inquire whether
there may be on board of her any seamen who are the subjects of His
Majesty; and if there be, to demand them, provided it does not distress
the ship; he is to demand their wages up to the day; but he is to do
this without detaining the vessel longer than shall be necessary, or
offering any violence to, or in any way ill-treating the master or
his crew." Mr. Monroe may perhaps recognize in this, the instructions
shown to him after his arrangement, and of which he declared himself
satisfied; but whether he does or not, it must be conceded that it
provides for a moderate exercise of the right. The person who is to
make the search is an officer of some standing; he is only to take
seamen who are British subjects, excluding thereby, not merely our
citizens, but all foreigners; and he is not to take even British
seamen, if, by it, he destroys the crew, or endangers the vessel.
Allowing the right to exist, it is difficult more fairly to regulate
its exercise.

But it may be urged that the practice of the British commanders does
not correspond with these instructions; that they search and seize at
large, according to their will and pleasure. I know, sir, that the
habits and education of a military man, not unfrequently make him act
as if power and right meant the same thing: and I, therefore, have
no doubt that there have been abuses. But I do most conscientiously
believe that these abuses have been greatly magnified, and are, even by
the well meaning, vastly overrated. I am aware that I shall be referred
to the impressment document of last session. This document, sir, is so
illy understood, and has been the source of so much misrepresentation,
that I must be allowed slightly to review it.

The Secretary, in the report says, that the list transmitted had been
received from our agent at London, and "contains the names of American
seamen and citizens who have been impressed and held in bondage in
His Britannic Majesty's ships of war, for the several quarters of
1809 and 1810." The list is headed, "A return or list of American
seamen and citizens who have been impressed and held on board of His
Britannic Majesty's ships of war, from 1st of April to the 30th of
June, inclusively," and so of the other quarters. Now the plain meaning
of this is, if any meaning it has, that the persons whose names were
thus sent to us were impressed and made to serve on board British armed
ships, at some period in the years 1809 and 1810. Indeed, this has been
so stated in this House, and in the Administration prints. And yet the
most superficial examination will show that this is not true. Let me
read to you one or two names: "4868. David Wiley." In the column of
the "result of applications and remarks," we have this explanation of
his case: "Impressed on shore at New Brunswick, and taken on board the
Plumper, was detained two days, when the commander put him on board a
vessel bound to Aberdeen, from thence worked his passage to London, and
appeared at this office 29th August, 1805; is evidently an American.
Discharged." Here, then, we have a man who was not on board a British
ship in 1809, and whose "bondage" did not probably continue more than
two days.

Again, "4936. Richard Butler, representing himself of Petersburg,
Pennsylvania. Impressed 1797 at the Cape of Good Hope, from the Mercury
of Baltimore, and detained on board the Garland." Remark: "Remained
on board the Garland two months, then draughted to the Tremendous, in
which he served two and a half years, was then discharged; has never
received his wages or prize-money; says he was well used on board both
ships. Was discharged as an American citizen at the Cape of Good Hope;
his pay and prize-money lists were given to the consul at the Cape.
Discharged." This man, therefore, according to the statement of our
Consul, so far from having been impressed and held on board a British
ship in 1809, had been impressed in 1797, and discharged in 1799. I
might, sir, give you many other cases equally strong, but these are
sufficient to prove that, by design or mistake, the document is wrongly
headed; that the persons named in the list were not all on board
British ships in 1809 and 1810; and, therefore, that, in its general
results, it does not show the state of the British practice in those
years.

In truth, the list is nothing more than the return of the names of
persons who, within the year, had applied to Mr. Lyman, our Consul and
agent for seamen, for protections against future, or for his aid in
getting released from present impressment. It was his duty, as I do
not doubt it was made his interest, to receive all applications, and
when necessary, to lay them before the proper British authority. Jew
and Greek, Turk and Christian, the growth of our own soil, and the
produce of other countries, all threw themselves upon Mr. Lyman, and
he, laboring in his vocation, granted patents of citizenship, or made
his claim on the British Admiralty. Sir, there is not a man who, in
practice or by inquiry, has made himself acquainted with the manner
in which this business is transacted, but knows that many foreigners
who never saw this country, or sailed under its flag, have attempted,
by application to our agents abroad, to shield themselves against
British impressment. The Secretary of State, Mr. Monroe, needs no
information on this subject, having himself resided in London as our
Minister. It was the duty of our agent to send home some account of
his proceedings, and I have no objection to his making such a list as
we have before us. But I do object to its being palmed on the American
nation as a true history of British impressments affecting our people
and nation. I pray you look at this list. In the year commencing in
April, 1809, and ending in March, 1810, we have about nine hundred and
forty names; and of these, about seven hundred are given with blanks
in the columns for the "towns and States of which they represent
themselves to be citizens"--"when impressed"--"where impressed"--"ships
from whence taken"--"nations"--"masters." The time and the result of
the application are only given. And from these entries in Mr. Lyman's
book you are called upon to admit that the applicant was an American,
and that he was impressed in the year 1809 by the British, on the high
seas, out of an American vessel. Really, this is asking too much.

Mr. Chairman, I have examined the list from April, 1809, to April,
1810, with great attention, for the purpose of ascertaining the number
of impressments which took place in that year, and I will now make to
you one or two statements, which may cast some light on the subject of
the British practice. The number which, by the list, appears to have
been impressed in that year, is one hundred. It will be understood that
in this number I do not include those whose names are carried out in
blank, as has been stated. It is uncertain whether such persons ever
were impressed; and, at all events, it is fair to presume, that their
service on board British ships had commenced before 1809, or otherwise
there could be no difficulty in giving dates. Of the one hundred,
seventy-six were discharged, and six had deserted, leaving less than
twenty to be accounted for.

Another result: Of the persons thus taken, fifty-seven were impressed
on shore, and forty-three at sea. Again: Thirty of these seamen, when
impressed, made part of the crews of British vessels, and thirty-four
American vessels; and of the thirty-four, twelve were taken on land;
leaving about twenty-two persons taken from American vessels on the
high seas. It is possible, sir, that in these statements I may not be
perfectly accurate; I am certain, however, that I am substantially so.

I do not mean to represent that this is a full account of all the
impressments which took place in 1809; on the contrary, I admit that
it is not. Many impressments were certainly made of persons undeniably
British subjects, who would scarcely think of applying to Mr. Lyman,
and will not, therefore, be found in his book. Many persons, also,
having a right to his interference, were not then known to him. My
object in making these explanations, was to show that the 6,057
document does not furnish such strong evidence of British aggression as
has been supposed.

The number of our seamen impressed by the British has been so variously
represented, that I have, from motives of curiosity as well as duty,
been desirous to arrive at something like a reasonable certainty
on the subject. We hear of ten, twenty, nay, forty thousand of our
citizens, confined in the floating dungeons of Great Britain, fighting
her battles against their will. The evidence of this, however, is only
to be found in the imagination of gentlemen. It is the old story over
again, of the "six men in buckram." In part representing the greatest
commercial State in the Union, it may be expected that I have some
personal knowledge on this subject, but indeed I have none such to
give. Is there not in this some proof that the evil has been magnified?
I have sought for information in quarters where only it is to be found,
among the shipping merchants and ship owners of the country. I will
now furnish you with the opinion of an intelligent gentleman from
Marblehead, whose means of information are ample, and whose veracity
will not be doubted. I mean my friend from Massachusetts, who sits
before me. (Mr. REED.) He has favored me with this statement.

    "In answer to your inquiry relative to the seamen of
    Marblehead, I have to remark that the average shipping of that
    port, for the last twenty years, may be estimated at about
    19,006 tons, of which it is fair to calculate ten thousand
    tons were employed in foreign commerce, and the residue in the
    fisheries and in the coasting trade. Allowing six men to every
    hundred tons, which is the usual estimate, it gives an average
    of eleven hundred and seventy-six seamen in all, and six
    hundred in our foreign trade, each year; the number of seamen,
    therefore, employed from Marblehead for the last twenty years,
    must have been considerable, say five thousand. I have resided
    at that place nearly twenty years, and, during the greater part
    of the time, have been actively engaged in commerce. According
    to my own recollection, aided by that of others who have the
    best means of information, I do not believe that twenty of
    the seamen of Marblehead, native or naturalized, have been
    impressed by the British within the twenty years, and it is not
    known that one has been demanded without being released."

As there is no reason to suppose that Marblehead has been more
fortunate with respect to impressments than other places, we have here
something whereby to form an estimate of the number of our seamen
taken by the British. My own conviction is, that the American seamen,
impressed and held by the British, at the commencement of this war,
did not much exceed five hundred in all, and certainly did not amount
to one thousand. Permit me, sir, to mention one circumstance which
speaks loudly on this subject. If the practice of impressment had been
as outrageous as has been represented, it must have fallen with great
force on the Eastern States, as it is there the mass of our seamen
are found. We are then to expect much feeling and passion on this
account. The war must be popular when the cause of it is brought home
to every man's door. No such thing, sir. The war is confessedly odious
there. It is in States where seamen never grew that the war has its
strongest advocates. It is there that you principally find the dark
pictures of sailors' sufferings, and hear the loud and long appeals to
the sympathies and passions of the people about seamen's rights and
seamen's injuries.

I have now, sir, finished the remarks which I intended to make on the
British claim and practice of impressment. We have for years past
had so much idle declamation on the subject, that a dispassionate
investigation of it appeared to me to be called for. In the course of
these remarks, I have attempted to show that the claim was neither
novel nor peculiar, and it is not wholly unsupported by reason; that
our true interest calls more for a fair regulation of the practice than
an abandonment of the rights; and that the conduct of the British, of
late, has been such as to warrant an opinion, that an arrangement may
be made, having for its object a proper regulation of the practice,
leaving the rights of both nations, whatever they may be, untouched.
Sir, with this view of the subject, it is not possible for me to
consent to the adoption of measures, having for their object the
further prosecution of the war offensively on our part; and I cannot,
therefore, vote for the bill on your table. The war has not yet assumed
a character. We have, indeed, added much, and are about to add more,
to the public debt. Already a portion of our citizens are burdened
with oppressive exactions in the form of duties, and heavy taxes are
staring all in the face. But yet our homes and altars remain safe and
unpolluted. Let us seize this moment to give the nation peace, and
the people happiness. This is the appointed time, and if we do not
improve it, I fear my country is to suffer in its prosperity and its
institutions. For Heaven's sake let us pause!

Mr. MACON said after failing in his attempt to amend the bill, he had
considered it of very little importance; indeed, in its present form,
he was not anxious whether it passed or not; and he had intended not
to have troubled the committee on the subject, but the strange course
which the debate had taken had called him up almost against his own
consent. He could truly say that he would not have offered a word to
the committee, had not those who oppose the bill have brought into the
discussion French influence, operating by a sort of magic on every
act of the Executive. The conduct of the Executive had undergone
the strictest scrutiny by these gentlemen, and their own arguments
would, in his opinion, convince every impartial man, that it had been
perfectly fair and upright to all foreign nations; the least attention
to the documents, which have from time to time been published, would
also convince every man of it, and satisfy all that the great object
of the Government had been peace, and that peace was maintained
until it could no longer be done without surrendering almost every
national right worth preserving. Mr. M. said he would endeavor in his
observations to follow the example which had been set the last two
days: not to utter a word to wound the feelings of any one; nor would
he refer to the documents, because every member possessed them, and
they had been published for the information of the people; and he was
sure that the committee must be tired with hearing a sentence here,
and a paragraph there, read from them. The true way to understand them
was to read the whole. But he had never been in the practice of making
many quotations from books or documents, and he thought it unnecessary
to make any now. He was clearly of opinion that the gentlemen who were
opposed to the Administration had the right to say whatever they
thought of it, and to select the subject on which they would speak; and
as they had made the selection, he hoped they would have an opportunity
now to deliver their sentiments. He, however, regretted that they had
selected this bill; because, of all the bills which may be brought
before the House the present session, not one, he thought, would
require despatch more than this. The loss of a day now may be the loss
of the next campaign. He had expected that this general debate, which
seems to include every thing but the bill, would have been delayed
until the loan should be under discussion.

The points made in the debate seem to be: impressment; the right to
expatriate; the right to naturalize; and French influence; neither
of which have any connection with the bill, which is to raise troops
for one year. Sir, said Mr. M., I will not retort a charge of British
influence, and so balance one assertion against the other, because I
do not believe that there is much of either in the nation; but if I
was to say there was none, I should not say what I believe. People
may honestly differ in opinion as to the effect which the success of
England or France over the other might have on the interests of the
United States, without being under the influence of either; and this,
no doubt, is the case with thousands.

I will, before I proceed further, notice some of the observations made
by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. EMOTT.) If I have not understood
him or any other gentleman correctly, I hope that I shall be corrected;
because it is my sincere desire to state their statements fairly; and
it is not always possible to take down their own words. He said, if
there was any English influence, it was the influence of Locke and
Sidney. As well might he have spoken of the influence of any other
patriots who lived before us. Their influence will be respected
wherever their works shall be read; but that sort of influence is
not the influence of which we have heard so much, and which I intend
hereafter to notice. He also mentioned the influence which drove the
first settlers to Plymouth. Yes, sir, that influence was truly British,
and that sort of influence Great Britain has been exercising ever since
the first settlers, by their own industry and exertions, got into a
situation to be useful to her; and that influence, or rather that
persecution, compelled the first settlers of Carolina to leave the
other provinces, and to settle a second time in the woods, and, as soon
as they were able, to pay taxes. That same influence followed them,
and made their condition much worse. It pursued the people in every
part of the continent, until they declared themselves independent; and,
from that day to this, she has not treated the United States as she has
treated other independent nations.

Mr. Chairman, I was astonished when the gentleman told us he was not a
friend to standing armies; and, almost in the same breath, said that,
at the last session, he voted for raising the twenty-five thousand men,
and that he did not mean to go to war when he gave the vote. For what
purpose, then, could they be wanted? Experience had already shown that
the old establishment was quite sufficient in time of peace. Indeed, a
very considerable part of that was raised soon after the affair of the
Chesapeake, and under an expectation that war would follow, and not for
a regular peace establishment.

The same gentleman told us, that impressment by the British Government
was no new thing. This is certainly true as far as regards her own
subjects, and from her own vessels; but the systematic impressment of
foreigners from foreign ships, is a new thing; and that, too, when
the men and the ships both belong to the same nation. That Government
never attempted to impress Spaniards, Dutch, French, Swedes, or
Danes, from vessels belonging to the same nation with the person; and
it is this new doctrine, which operates solely on us, of which we
complain. The question between us and England has nothing to do with
the doctrine that free ships shall make free goods, or free men, if
gentlemen please. And why draw that into the debate on the impressment
of American citizens from American vessels? No law or precedent can
be produced for this abominable and wicked practice. It was never
attempted to be justified, notwithstanding impressment is no new thing
with her. Every Sovereign, said the gentleman, has a right to the
service of all his subjects in time of war. But this right is like some
others which Sovereigns claim; it is without a remedy. Of what avail
is the proclamation of the Prince Regent in this country, ordering
the British subjects home? None. Many of them are still here, and,
probably, will remain until the termination of the war, and the British
Government will never dream of punishing one of them for disobedience.
But, admit this right in Sovereigns to its fullest extent, and it does
not give one Sovereign the right to impress the citizens or subjects
of another; nor does it justify such an act; of course it does not
touch the act of which we complain; that is, the impressing of American
seamen from American vessels.

It is curious that, throughout this whole debate, there seems to have
been drawn a distinction between the rights of a man who cultivates the
soil, and of him who follows the sea, and that this distinction should
have been drawn by those who claim to be the champions of commerce and
of a navy, and who have told us that agriculture and commerce were
inseparable. Ought it not, then, to follow, that the rights of those
employed on land or water should also be inseparable? This strange
doctrine, as was observed by the gentleman from Louisiana, (Mr.
ROBERTSON,) may dust the eye, but cannot stagger the understanding of
any one.

The same gentleman said, that we had taken no measures to exclude
British seamen from American vessels. For what purpose were protections
given to American seamen? Surely to protect them against impressment,
and to show that we had no desire to protect others; and what more
ought to have been done, he did not tell us. I ask, did any nation
ever do more? Besides, has not the United States, over and over
again, offered to make an arrangement with England on the subject of
sailors, which should be satisfactory to both, by securing to each the
use of their own sailors? and has she not always refused to make any
arrangement about them? And it may be fairly asked here, what measures
Great Britain has taken to prevent her officers from impressing our
seamen? None that I have heard of, and she is the aggressor. We have
not injured her, while she has been impressing our sailors whenever she
wanted and could find them. If the United States wanted sailors ever so
much, they could not impress one of hers, and she knows this; and she
would not suffer one of them to be impressed by any foreign power; and
we must determine to defend the rights of ours, or it will be idle to
talk about navigation, commerce, and a navy. Indeed, if commerce and
agriculture be inseparable, you must defend the rights of the persons
concerned in both, or both must be injured. There are no neutrals able
to carry our products to market, and if you will not protect your
seamen, they will not carry them.

It is worthy of remark, that, for twenty years past, the Government of
the United States has been trying to settle the question of sailors
with Great Britain, and that every attempt has failed, and that it is
just now discovered that we have always begun wrong. My colleague (Mr.
PEARSON) and the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. PITKIN,) it appears,
could settle this great question without much difficulty. If they can,
I wish most sincerely they would. I am, however, apprehensive that they
are a little mistaken, because General Washington, when President,
having Major Pinckney, now Major General Pinckney, for Minister at
London, tried without effect. Mr. Adams renewed it with Mr. King for
Minister; Mr. Jefferson with Colonel Monroe and Mr. Pinkney, now the
Attorney General; and Mr. Madison, with the last named Pinkney. All
these Presidents and Ministers, with the aid of every Cabinet, have
failed. Every description of political opinion, with the greatest
talents, have been employed and done nothing. At the end of twenty
years we have gained nothing, and lost our labor; the question is as
unsettled as ever; and we have been worsted in this way, that, while we
were negotiating, they were impressing seamen.

We have been told by my colleague, that it is not the right, but the
abuse of impressment of which we complain. It is true, sir, that we
do not complain of Great Britain impressing her own subjects; she may
do as she pleases with them; that is no concern of ours; all we ask
of her is to keep her hands off our people; and we deny her right to
impress American citizens; and if the abuse be the impressing them,
of that we do complain, and not without just cause, because she has
impressed many of them, and compelled them to fight her battles; and
I have understood, after we had declared that war existed between her
and us, that she detained those she had before impressed as prisoners
of war, and this may be a part of her public law. Indeed, we have
heard much about universal law and public law, neither of which, from
the statements made, seem to have much regard to right or justice,
which ought to be the foundation of all law. One universal law seems
to be, that Sovereigns can command their subjects to return home in
case of war; another, that no person can expatriate himself; and Great
Britain is no doubt willing to acknowledge another, by which she might
impress sailors from all the world. As to the first, we need not
trouble ourselves about it; and the second, the United States have not
acknowledged; and we are now contending against impressment; and permit
me here to observe, that the republicans have always considered the
impressment of citizens a more serious injury than the spoliation of
property.

I must return to Porcupine's paper,[33] which, as well as I now
recollect, never contained a sentence in favor of the Revolution,
or much in praise of the constitution, if it was praised at all; no
outrage was committed which it did not approbate; a few of the outrages
of that time shall be stated: The Rogue's March was played under the
window of the man who drew the Declaration of Independence, The man
who first took up arms after the fall of Charleston, and whose body
had been almost riddled in defence of his country, was a member of
Congress, and was insulted at the circus. Another member, of no common
cast of mind, was insulted at the theatre; a man who will do his duty
in whatever situation he may be placed. Another, returning home with
his family, was insulted and almost mobbed; he is now one of the
Cabinet, mentioned by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. QUINCY.)
If I was not almost exhausted I would give some of the details of these
then fashionable transactions. I will only add, it was nothing in those
days for a few men to whip a printer whose publications they did not
like. All these outrages and violations of law, it is believed, were
not only approved by the editor of the before-named paper, but other
Federal papers also. This same editor claimed to have more subscribers
for his paper than any other editor in the Union. And after he returned
to Europe, he wrote and published about some of his former supporters.
Had this have been a French editor, and acted toward the Federal party
as he did toward the Republican, and the subscribers to his paper
Republicans, could not those who look at every thing now done to find
French influence, have had as good a field to hunt in as any they have
yet found? At the very time these events took place, the majority
talked as much about French influence as the minority now does; they
had clues, sub-plots, ocean massacres, and a hundred other equally
ridiculous and unfounded tales, which circulated for a day. I have
mentioned these things not with an intent to wound the feelings of
any man living, but with a view of trying to persuade those who talk
so much about French influence, to look at both sides of the question
about foreign influence; and if they will, I hope we shall never hear
of it again in this House.

Mr. Genet, when he was Minister of France, began to intrigue, for which
he was dismissed. Mr. Liston, when he was Minister of England, began
the same work, for which he was not dismissed. If the Republicans had
then been in power, and Liston a French Minister, could not a strict
examination of the documents have placed it as easily as many other
acts have been to French influence?

While all these things were doing, and many others quite as strange,
the gentlemen call themselves the followers of General WASHINGTON. If
they be truly his followers, they ought to adhere to his principles,
and attend to his last advice. Every act of his went to perpetuate the
Union and to attach the States to each other. I fear the sentiments
contained in his farewell address to the nation are getting out
of fashion with those who claim to be his exclusive followers; or
why do we hear within these walls, the foundation of which he laid
for union, union, union; disunion spoken of, "peaceably if we can,
forcibly if we must;" and why listen to idle and unfounded tales about
foreign influence, which can never injure us as long as we stick to
the old maxim--united we stand, divided we fall? Straws show which
way the wind blows! What has become of the newspaper called the
Washington Federalist? The name was, I have understood, changed to the
Independent American; out of that, I believe, was raised the Federal
Republican--all good names; but why lose the name of Washington to a
paper supported by his exclusive followers? And this is the first time
to my recollection that they have adopted Republican in their calendar.

I have heard that Federalism is not now the same that it was when Mr.
Adams was President: we shall know more about this if ever they get
into power again; be this as it may, every man has a right to change
his opinion; it is a right which no Government can take from him, and
when convinced that he is wrong, it is his duty to change. But I had
thought, when Mr. Adams was President, we were told that he followed
the plan of General Washington, and that he was then a favorite with
the party who elected him, but a great change has taken place in
regard to him. I always thought him an honest man, and I think so
still. After Mr. Adams got out of fashion, Colonel Burr became so
great a favorite with the Federal gentlemen who were then in Congress,
that they voted thirty-five times for him to be President, when they
must have known that not one elector who voted for him intended him
for President. Afterward, Mr. Madison was a favorite; but, after the
refusal of the British Government to ratify the arrangement made
with Mr. Erskine, they examined the matter, and discovered he had
not done right, and he got out of fashion. Then the late worthy and
venerable Vice President and Colonel Monroe became favorites; Colonel
Monroe got out of fashion about the time he was appointed Secretary
of State; and, lastly, Mr. De Witt Clinton became a favorite. I hope
he will not be injured by it, but he seems to be losing ground, as we
have been told it was not his merit that induced the Federalists to
support him for President, but the demerit of Mr. Madison. This does
not appear to be a good reason, because they might have selected a man
from their own party, who they thought had merit. But all these things
may be the doings of those who, a former member of this House called
ultra-Federalists; and it will be recollected that all these men became
favorites, on the old doctrine of, "divide and conquer;" and it ought
not to be forgotten that, when Messrs. Ellsworth and Davie returned
from France, their political friends were a little shy of them;
indeed, I should not be surprised if Messrs. Jay, King, Walcott, and
Dexter, should not much longer be favorites. If we may judge from the
public prints, Commodore Rodgers is no longer one, though he, like the
others, is understood to be a Federalist; but these men will never say,
"peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must." I would really thank any
gentleman to tell me what is now meant by the party name, Federalist.

It is a fact on record, that General Washington did not approve of
self-created societies, and I have understood that some of the people
who claim to be his exclusive followers, have their self-created
Washington Benevolent Societies, wherever they can establish them, and
that they are political societies, and they were intended to oppose
some other society; perhaps the Tammany. This could not justify the
proceeding. As to myself, I do not care if there was one in every three
miles square in the nation, so that I am left free not to be a member.

We naturalize, without hearing a complaint from any quarter, emigrants
from Great Britain, of every trade and profession, merchants, lawyers,
doctors, and even divines; to which may be added tradesmen and
mechanics; they all go where they please, live among us, and take part
in the politics of the day. If foreign influence could be introduced
into the country by naturalizing, we should have more of British than
of French; but naturalizing seems well enough for every body but a
sailor, but do not permit him to become a citizen; he will be in
the way of native sailors, who want encouragement; besides, we know
that Great Britain will impress him, and we know as well, when her
officers want men, they care not whether they are American or English.
The native American has never complained that the naturalizing of
foreigners of his trade or profession, injured him; nor has a complaint
been heard from a native seaman against naturalizing foreign sailors;
and we have had experience enough to know that our merchants could
complain, and complain almost against their own complaint. Let their
property be captured, or expected to be captured, under a new order in
France or England, and more complaints will be made about it, than the
impressing of a dozen citizens. The situation of the merchant, when
plundered, is bad enough, but his property is not taken away without
a trial of some sort before a judge learned in the law, whose duty it
ought to be to decide according to law; he also employs lawyers to have
justice done him. Not so with the sailor; when impressed, there is no
learned judge to decide his case, or lawyer to have justice done; force
is law to him, and his oppressor judge; he is put on board ships, and
compelled to fight battles, in which neither he nor his country have
any concern: deprived of the right to complain or petition; he is poor,
friendless--Great God! can it be possible, that we shall yield the
point of impressment, for the sake of carrying on a little trifling
trade by hook or by crook!

All agree that we ought to fight for the rights of native seamen, and
all agree that some of them have been impressed; why not all, then,
join, heart in hand, to maintain their rights? Is it because the
British officers impress from our vessels others besides natives? This
cannot lessen their just claim to the protection of their country. We
have, however, been told that only ninety-three persons were impressed
in one year from American vessels; if only three of them had been the
sons of the gentleman (Mr. EMOTT) who gave the information, I ask,
would he have been contented with the long investigation of documents,
to ascertain if any of the diplomatic meanders turned towards French
influence? No, sir, he would not; he would have demanded of the
National Government to have his children restored to his arms; he
could demand this in a way to be heard. Far different is the case with
these unfortunate parents who have had their sons impressed; they are
too poor and friendless to be heard; the rights of the nation may be
abandoned by little and little, until none be left; exactly as you
may take a cent at a time from one thousand dollars, until none be
left. All must determine to protect American seamen on board American
vessels, or not hereafter pretend to claim any jurisdiction over the
vessels when they are out of the limits of the United States. If a
single citizen should be impressed on American land, the whole nation
would be in a flame; the right to protection is the same, whether on
American land or an American vessel.

It has been said that we do not act justly; that we encourage British
seamen to run away, because we do not apprehend them and send them
back, when they have run away from their vessels; they run away before
our people see them, of course there is no encouragement to the running
away. As to the sending them back, we are not bound to do it; and if it
depended on me one should never be sent back, until the British ceased
impressing and plundering our citizens, and I would agree that every
man who engaged in the war on our side should have the right to be
naturalized, though he fled from British naval tyranny.

It is remarkable that, while we hear not a word said to justify England
for impressing and plundering the people of the United States, that so
much should have been said to prove that we ought not to have gone to
war with her, and that we were wrong in doing so. This is the best way
that could have been devised to keep her aggressions out of view; not
to say a word about them, and talk a great deal about the hardships of
war, and the taxes which must be imposed to carry it on, winding up all
their lamentations for the state of the country, with, if it was not
for the war, a little trade could be carried on. Impressment, then,
is a mere trifle, compared with this trade, and it may be that Great
Britain understands it so, and is willing to gratify us with this trade
for kin-sake, as long as we are contented to be impressed for kin-sake.
The citizens who are impressed would tell her, if telling would release
them, that nations are no kin.

This surely has been the most unfortunate Government from its
establishment to the present time that ever existed; almost every thing
that has been done is wrong: it was wrong to fix the seat of Government
here; it was wrong to place this House and the houses for the offices
so far from each other; it was wrong to give paper protections to
American seamen; it was wrong to have a little mercy in the revenue
laws; it was wrong to repeal the internal taxes; I believe that was
called oppression--though I am no prophet, I venture to predict, that
to lay them to carry the war on will be wrong also; to take Canada
would be wrong;--indeed, it would be difficult to find any thing which
has been done right, according to the modern Federal creed. How are we
to get things right? Give up the chair you are in to one, the White
House to another, and they will soon give you a sedition law which will
put all right. The great discovery which these gentlemen have made,
that so much has been wrong under every Administration, would surprise
the people, were they not this moment astonished at the discovery of
perpetual motion by Redheffer--two such great discoveries must add
vastly to the character of the nation.

The attempt to take Canada is so wicked that some of the gentlemen
are quite alarmed at it. We hear of the unoffending Canadians, but not
of the unoffending sailor; at one time they are the most unoffending
and loyal people in the world, at another they are French, and not fit
to be united in our Government. We have heard much of the same sort
formerly said about the people of Louisiana, and they have become a
State, without any trouble to themselves or the Union. What has become
of that high Federal spirit which disdained to buy Louisiana? Where is
it when Canada is mentioned? The Federalism which desired to conquer
Louisiana and keep it by force of arms, is changed when Canada is the
question. The outrageous conduct of Great Britain is as much worse than
that of Spain, as her impressment and plundering were worse than the
refusal of the right of deposit. For one, I am willing to have Canada
and Florida, and have them you must before many years. The situation of
Mobile is such as to compel you before very long to take possession of
it. Canada and Florida would rid us of bad neighbors, and make us more
happy.

The committee then rose and reported the bill.

The several amendments made in Committee of the Whole were agreed to by
the House.

Mr. FITCH again moved to strike out the 4th section, giving the
President exclusively the appointment of all officers under the rank of
field officers.

The question was decided in the negative by yeas and nays. For the
motion 34, against it 74.

And the bill was then (half past six o'clock) ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, without a division.

And on motion, the House adjourned until to-morrow.


WEDNESDAY, January 13.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The bill, in addition to the act passed at the last session "to raise
an additional military force"--the object of which is to raise twenty
regiments of men for one year, if deemed necessary by the President to
the public service--was read a third time, and the question stated,
"Shall the bill pass?"

Mr. KENT.--Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance I rise to trouble
the House with any remarks of mine, at a time when their patience must
be so completely exhausted, by the unusual length of the debate which
has already taken place upon the subject before you. The bill on your
table proposes to raise an additional military force of twenty thousand
men, and it has been objected to on account of its expense, and the
consequent danger growing out of it to the liberties of our country. We
are, sir, in a state of war; and what is evidently the course which we
should pursue whilst in that situation? We should advocate and support
such measures as are calculated to bring that war, justly made on our
part, to a speedy, honorable, and successful conclusion. Viewing the
bill on your table as a measure of that description, I shall give it
my support, regardless of that additional expense which gentlemen so
emphatically dwell upon. Nay, sir, it is better to expend the thirty
millions of dollars (even if that sum was necessary) so repeatedly
spoken of on the other side of the House as the cost of the war for two
years, to accomplish our object, than to expend the same sum in five
years, even if we could effect our object with equal certainty.

However commendable economy may be in every other situation in life, in
war it is inadmissible; it loses its character; it becomes parsimony:
you might as well attempt to unite profusion and avarice as war and
economy. All that the utmost prudence can require of you when in a
state of war, is to make your means ample; lay your plans well; and to
the judgment and the skill in these particulars only can you look for
economy or for savings; for the want of an inconsiderable supply of men
or money, a campaign might prove disastrous, to recover which would
require an immense sacrifice of blood and treasure.

The Army has been represented as dangerous to the liberties of the
country. At one moment we are told that, when it shall be completed,
it will be unequal to the conquest of a petty province adjoining us,
and not exceeding in population the State of Maryland; the next moment
we are told that it will endanger the liberties of seven millions of
freemen. Arguments thus paradoxical need no refutation. Sir, I do not
pretend to have any military experience, and I am willing to concede
the point to those possessing it, that men enlisted for three or five
years are preferable to those enlisted for one year as proposed by
the bill; yet I feel confident that every object will be accomplished
by this bill that is intended. It is not proposed to rely solely on
an army of this description to carry on the war; you have nearly a
sufficient military force authorized for five years, and you want the
men to be raised by this bill only as auxiliaries, till the ranks of
that army can be filled. With these observations on the bill before
you, I shall proceed to make a few remarks upon what has fallen from
gentlemen on the other side of the House; in doing which I shall
endeavor to confine myself to what has not been noticed by others, or,
if attended to, not sufficiently so.

If I understood an honorable gentleman from Connecticut correctly, who
addressed you the other day, (Mr. PITKIN,) he said we were contending
for the employment of foreigners. We contend, sir, for nothing which,
as an independent nation, we are not entitled to, and which the laws
of nations do not guarantee to us. What have been the propositions
heretofore made by our Government to Great Britain upon this subject?
I find, by a recurrence to the correspondence of Messrs. Monroe and
Pinkney with that Government, in 1806, that we made the following
propositions, the most material of which were omitted yesterday (not
intentionally I hope) by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. EMOTT.) Here
Mr. K. read the following proposals from the public documents of 1807
and 1808. We offered--

1. To afford no refuge or protection to British seamen.

2. To deliver them up if they took refuge among us.

3. To make laws for restoring them.

4. To aid in searching for, seizing, and restoring them.

5. To keep them in our prisons when requested.

6. To prohibit our citizens from carrying them off.

7. To prohibit their employment.

8. To make penal laws for punishing their employers.

9. To make it our duty to restore them.

10. To extend the foregoing provisions, not only to deserters, but to
all seafaring people.

These propositions went completely to secure to Great Britain the
services of all her seafaring subjects, except such as were naturalized
under our laws, which amounted to but few, indeed; thirteen hundred
British seamen only having been naturalized since the commencement of
our Government, and, in all probability, an equal number of our seamen
have been naturalized by Great Britain during the same period. Yet, to
my astonishment, have I heard it stated, during this debate, that our
Government had made no serious propositions to secure to Great Britain
the services of her seamen.

But equitable as these propositions were, they were rejected.
Notwithstanding, sir, our Government, anxious in their pursuit after
peace, have gone still further; they have, through our late Chargé
d'Affaires in London, (Mr. Russell,) proposed to Great Britain to
exclude from our naval service, as well public as private, all her
seamen, including those which may hereafter be naturalized; and
notwithstanding the liberality and justice of this proposal, it, like
all others, has been made without producing the desired effect. And
what more, sir, could have been asked of us, required, or granted, than
is contained in these offers? Nothing more, unless, indeed, they had
asked for our independence, and, yielding to the requisition, we had
granted it. When an American vessel is at sea, it is amenable to no
laws but those of its own country and the laws of nations; and where,
in either of these, will the advocates for impressment find their
justification? Sir, had not the practice of impressment been treated
as a casual, a trivial circumstance, during this debate, I should not
have presumed to trouble the House with my desultory remarks; and my
principal object in addressing the House, was to ask their attention
to a document which appears to have been overlooked, and which, if
necessary, will place the abomination of that practice in colors too
strong to be mistaken.

Here Mr. K. read the following extract of a letter from the Secretary
of State to Mr. Monroe, dated January 4th, 1804--

    "The whole number of applications made by impressed seamen
    to our Consul in London, between the month of June, 1797,
    and September, 1804, were two thousand and fifty-nine. Of
    this number, one hundred and two seamen only were detained as
    British subjects, which is less than one-twentieth of the whole
    number impressed. Eleven hundred and forty-two were discharged,
    or ordered to be so, and eight hundred and five were detained
    for further proof, with the strongest presumption that the
    greater part, if not the whole, were Americans, or other
    aliens, whose proof of citizenship had been lost or destroyed."

It is, then, evident, from this document, that, for every British
seamen obtained by this violent proceeding, a number of Americans, or
other aliens, with whom Great Britain has no right to meddle, not less
than twenty for one have been the victims to it. Sir, have we become
so lost to the real independence and sovereignty of the country, that
we are prepared to yield to this degrading, debasing, and humiliating
badge of vassalage?

The Romans, of old, had a practice of making the governors of those
countries they conquered pass annually beneath their yoke, as a mark
of submission; but we, doomed to humiliation far greater, are made
to pass daily, nay, hourly, beneath one much more galling. Some
gentlemen object to the propositions made by Mr. Russell, and assert
that he was not authorized. They should recollect that Mr. Russell's
letter, containing this final offer to the British Government, was
communicated to this House by the President, and, had it not met with
his concurrence, it is presumable he would, in his communication, have
expressed his disapprobation towards it. Nay, a similar offer has been
made by the Secretary of State to Admiral Warren.

I know not whether the feelings of shame or indignation predominate in
my breast, when I see gentlemen constantly laboring to place their own
Government in the wrong; and, in contradiction to the official records
of this House, insist that we are contending for the employment of
foreigners.

The language of our Government upon that subject, is this, sir: that,
if the oppressed and unfortunate inhabitants of Europe, escaping from
their tyranny and panting after their long-lost liberty, seek a refuge
in our happy country, upon their compliance with our naturalization
laws, we are willing to extend to them those blessings we enjoy; but
should they become dissatisfied with the advantages which the interior
of the country affords them, and they think proper to depart from our
shores, we say to them, we will not risk our peace for their protection
beyond our territorial limits. So far from our contest with Great
Britain being for the employment of her subjects, it is a contest for
shielding a large and valuable portion of our fellow-citizens from
British thraldom, under the lash of which they have too long labored;
and who will dare discriminate in that protection which is equally due
to all, that is due to the meanest individual in the community, and
withhold it from a class of men who have done honor to the American
character, and covered themselves with glory?

Mr. RANDOLPH rose, apparently laboring under the effects of a serious
indisposition, and addressed the Chair.

I rise (said he) with a heart saddened by the disgrace of our common
country, and sickened by the way in which the business of the State has
been managed.

Of the temper and virulence which have manifested themselves in this
debate, I shall not have any occasion to divest myself in the course of
the very few remarks which I fear I shall be enabled to make, because
towards them I have no purpose. Indeed, when I look around me, I am
exceedingly sad; and I know not now if it will be in my power to go on.

I had intended, if time and health permitted, to address to this
Assembly some few observations, confined principally to the change
which has taken place in the relations of our country since the
declaration of war, not only respecting that belligerent with whom we
are engaged in hostilities, but her adversary also. But the course
that this debate has taken imposes upon me a painful duty, which I
trust God will give me strength to discharge: the duty of reviewing
past transactions in the Government, which, from my heart, I would,
instead of bringing them up on the present occasion, gladly discharge
from my memory. But self-defence is the first law of nature. The merest
reptile, the worm itself, will turn when trod upon. Nor is the force of
the blow lessened by its being dealt, as in the present case, by the
hand--I will not say under the garb and circumstances--of Friendship.

It was my lot, sir, and I may assuredly say my misfortune, to take
some little share in those transactions which brought about a civil
revolution in the Government of this country. I hope that I am
understood. I feel I shall be understood, when I speak of this, by
all wise and good men; and it is with them only that I wish to hold
intercourse--to commune. It is of their good opinion alone that I am
ambitious, if indeed ambition dwell any where in my heart.

Let me endeavor to recall to recollection the state of things about the
period when I had the unhappiness to dedicate myself to political life.

Through the opposition, bold but just, which was made by myself, and
those associated with me, to the measures of that Administration,
an entire change was effected in the control of the Government. One
Administration was ejected from power, and another took its place. Is
it necessary for me to descant upon the topics of difference which then
separated the two great parties in the Government? Is it necessary
for me at this time of day to make a declaration of the principles
of the Republican party? Is it possible that such a declaration could
be deemed orthodox when proceeding from lips so unholy as those of an
excommunicant from that church? It is not necessary. Those principles
are on record; they are engraved upon it indelibly by the press, and
will live as long as the art of printing is suffered to exist. It is
not for any man at this day to undertake to change them. It is not
for any man who then professed them, by any guise or circumlocution,
to conceal apostacy from them, for they are there--there in the
book. What are they? They have been delivered to you by my honorable
colleague--what are they? Love of peace, hatred of offensive war;
jealousy of the State Governments towards the General Government, and
of the influence of the Executive Government over the co-ordinate
branches of that Government; a dread of standing armies; a loathing
of public debt, taxes, and excises; tenderness for the liberty of
the citizen; jealousy, Argus-eyed jealousy, of the patronage of the
President. From these principles what desertions have we not witnessed?
Will you have a list of them? I shall not undertake it.

Principle does not consist in names. Federalism is a real thing--not
a spectre, a shadow, a phantom. It is a living addition to the power
of the General Government, in preference to the power of the States;
partiality for the Executive power, in distinction to that of the
co-ordinate Departments of the Government; the support of great
military and naval force, and of an "energetic" administration of
the Government. That is what is called Federalism. Yes, an energetic
Administration, not in its real, but technical sense; for it has a
sense as technical as any in our laws. _That_ is Federalism. And, when
I am opposing the course which looks toward the rearing up of great
Military and Naval Establishments, of an extent not only incommensurate
with the necessity but the ability of my country, I care not with whom
I vote; I will be true to my principles. Let any man lay his finger
upon a vote in which, since I have had the honor (if, indeed, it be an
honor) of a seat in this House, I have departed from those principles,
and I will consent that, _quoad hoc_, I am a Federalist. But it will be
in vain to search for such a vote.

So strenuous, sir, had been the contest--so hot the spirit of rivalship
between the two contending parties--that, after the Revolution of 1801,
a curious spectacle was presented to this nation and to the world--a
spectacle which, I am bold to say, never did before make its appearance
in any Government, and never will appear again. It was this: that, as
if the character that each party had borne when in collision with one
another was indelible, the two parties, after power was transferred
from one to the other, did actually maintain the same character which
they had derived from impressions received during their late conflict:
and the admiring world saw with astonishment the case of an opposition
minority attempting to force upon a reluctant Administration patronage
and power, which that Administration put by, and sternly refused to
accept. Yes, sir; for a time so completely had the Republicans been
imbued with the principles which they professed whilst in a minority,
that, after becoming the majority, the Federalists pressed on their
old adversaries power and patronage, to which they absolutely opposed
themselves, repelling, for a season, every project of the kind. Is it
necessary for me to allude to the reduction of the Army--to say by whom
it was made? Sir, the proposition for it was originally made by the
personage now addressing you; it came from what was then considered
the Governmental side of the House. And by whom was it opposed? By
gentlemen who had so long fought under the banners of a Government of
"energy," that they were not content to submit to the diminution of its
patronage or its power, even in the hands of their political opponents.
I speak of facts. Such a case will never occur again. Nay, indeed, in
a little time, the sweets of power had their effect on one side of the
House, as the frowns of adversity had upon the other; and after awhile,
the court and country parties as easily changed sides as right and left
do when a man turns upon his heel.

Yes, sir, the tone of this House was soon changed. We succeeded,
however, in the reduction of the Army; but I will trust to the
recollection of gentlemen, upon all sides of the House, by what
instrumentality this change was effected. The Commander of that Army
was retained in his position. I have not leisure, health, or strength,
to go into the details; gentlemen will remember them. Meanwhile, peace
with this country was negotiated in France by the commissioners sent
by Mr. Adams, and was followed up very soon afterwards by the short
respite that the truce of Amiens gave to European combatants, wearied
rather than satiated with slaughter. These events placed this country
in the happiest condition. Of the proceeds of the direct and internal
taxes voted by the predecessors of the administration of Mr. Jefferson,
one moiety at least came into the Treasury after their dismissal from
office. But these proceeds were not necessary to give an overflow
of money into the Treasury, which we never ceased to have until we
departed from those principles of government and that policy which
brought us into power. We sailed on for some time in the full tide of
successful experiment, unobstructed by squalls or adverse gales, if we
except only the Yazoo breeze. That question was, if I forget not, the
first cause of a breach between those persons who had a direct lead in
the Government of the country. There were men who did not hesitate, in
opposition to all the heads of your Departments, to throw themselves
into the breach at that time attempted in the constitution of the
country, to defend it, and to defend it with success. It appears, from
some documents that have lately been laid upon our table, that errors
of that day have been perceived, and that tender consciences which at
that time revolted, are now entirely reconciled to the compromise which
was then stamped with the reprobation of almost every honest man from
Georgia to Virginia. There were considerations of personal feeling
which gave to other parts of the Union, and to certain individuals
therein, a bias on that subject; and I should be extremely sorry to be
considered as passing any thing like general censure upon the advocates
of that measure in or out of this House. I refer only, of course, to
those who were not parties concerned in the fraud.

At that time, sir, all was prosperity and joy. At that time were
accumulated in the Treasury those surpluses which, in one year,
nearly equalled the sum for which, in the present year, the revenue
is deficient, notwithstanding the loan of last year, and to make up
which deficiency the head of the Treasury has been able to devise no
other means than a resort to new loans. Yes, sir, there were then those
surpluses in the Treasury, the ghosts of which lingered along its
vaults for a time after their corporeal bodies departed, and were then
heard of no more.

But to proceed. The expenditures of the Government, during the first
four years of the Jefferson Administration, exclusive of payments on
account of the public debt, averaged only eight millions of dollars a
year. In the four last years of the Jefferson Administration, those
expenditures were very greatly increased, amounting in the year
1808, (the last of the four,) without any increase of Army and Navy
expenditures, to upwards of sixteen millions of dollars--rivalling
the expenditures of any one year of Mr. Adams's war, and amounting
to one-half as much as was expended by the Father of his Country in
his eight years of the Presidency, during which he was called upon to
establish public credit, to maintain a bloody Indian war, and to lay
the foundation of that character of integrity which the Government
has so long sustained abroad, notwithstanding the misconduct of its
rulers. Yes, sir, it is a curious but notorious fact, that in 1808 and
1809--and I speak of 1809, for, although the present incumbent came
into office on the 3d of March of that year, expenses were incurred and
voted in his predecessor's time--the expenditures of the Government
outraged all belief when compared with the objects on which they
were lavished. And here, Mr. Chairman, let me put to you, and to the
gentleman on my right, if it be within the compass of any man's powers
to detract more from the merit of an administration of the Government
of the United States in managing at least one branch of the revenue
than has been done by that honorable gentleman? What has he said? I
will not repeat his words; to do so would be odious, invidious; but I
well know if what he did say had come from the other side of the House,
it would have been set down to the rancor of party spirit; to personal
spleen; or to want of respect for the White house, or the Red house, or
some other house. What has become of that vast amount of money? No man
knows; and to the best of my knowledge and belief, so help me God, no
man will ever know.

I find, as I anticipated, a difficulty in dragging along my miserable
body, and my feeble mind, in this discussion; a difficulty not less,
perhaps, than that of dragging along with me the attention of members
of this House. I ask its patience, its pardon, and its pity.

But to continue. In this prosperous state of our country, the war in
Europe was renewed, or about to be renewed. The Government of the
United States would naturally, from the situation of affairs in that
quarter of the world, experience a temporary diminution in its revenue,
which it need not feel or regard, because it had been enabled to make
that noble provision for a sinking fund, for lessening the national
debt, for paying off the mortgages on the estate of every man in the
country and of those who are unborn. It had made that noble provision,
which was attempted to be diverted to the necessities created by the
policy of the last four years of Jefferson's Administration, and
the actual diversion of which, I believe, was the first act of this
Administration. It had made that appropriation of eight millions of
dollars for a sinking fund, not to be touched for any other purpose,
and which, at the time of the appropriation, no man dared to believe
would be gambled away.

The war in Europe brought to this country, among other birds of
passage, a ravenous flock of neutralized carriers, which interposed the
flag of neutrality, not only between the property, but even between
the persons of the two belligerent powers; and it was their clamor
principally, aided by the representations of those of our merchants
who saw and wished to participate in the gains of such a commerce,
that the first step was taken in that policy of restriction, which it
was then foreseen would lead to the disastrous condition in which we
now find ourselves. Yes, it was then foreseen and foretold. What was
then prophesied is now history. It is so. "You," said the prophet,
"are prospering beyond all human example. You, favorites of Almighty
God, while all the rest of the world are scourged, and ravaged, and
desolated by war, are about to enter into a policy called _preventive_
of war; a policy which comes into this House in the garb of peace,
but which must end in war." And in war it _has_ ended. Yes, sir, we
have been tortured, fretted, goaded, until at last, like some poor man
driven from his family by discord at home, who says to himself, "any
thing, even exile, is better than this," we have said that we will take
war; we will take _any thing_ for a change. And when war came, what
said the people? _They_ said, "any thing for a change!"

At that time circumstances occurred, and I hope the House will pardon
me for alluding to them. It is absolutely necessary that I should do
so. They have been spoken of by others before me; they were at the
time, and have been since, detailed in the most solemn manner on the
floor of this body. A denial of them has been challenged and never
received. At that time, I repeat, circumstances occurred which made
it my duty to oppose the projects of the Executive Government of this
country in its relations with foreign powers.

At that time nothing that the _Spanish_ Government could do, not even
the invasion of our own territory, not even the capture and carrying
off, not from our decks, but our soil, a portion of our citizens,
could rouse this House to a spirit which would, in my judgment, have
comported not only with its honor, but was absolutely indispensable
to its dignity. We were wanting in the assertion of the rights of our
own country over its soil and jurisdiction, by which assertion, then,
we might have averted the calamities which have since befallen us; but
a project for that purpose, recommended by the committee to whom that
subject was referred, did not meet the approbation of the House. And
from that day and date, the black cloud has thickened over us; has
become more and more dense. From that day and date, have we departed
from those counsels--in my humble judgment, at least--from those
principles, adherence to which had induced the people of the United
States to clothe us with their power and confidence.

What have we done since? From that day, with a short interruption, the
policy of this Government has actually subserved, as far as it could,
the purposes of _France_. I speak of facts; of facts susceptible of
proof, which may be felt, seen, touched, heard, and understood by all
except those too indolent to examine them, or too ignorant for the
light of truth to have any effect upon their understandings. I say,
sir, that the policy of this Government has, from that time, subserved
the purposes of France. And how do I prove it? Why, sir, by way of
meeting the French decrees, which prohibit to us all intercourse with
Great Britain, we cut off the intercourse between us and the whole
world. We virtually held out to our great commercial cities--to Boston,
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston--the same language as
Bonaparte had held to his own cities: "I know that you are suffering,
and unhappy; that the grass is growing in your streets; that the
ships at your wharves are rotting, until they are fit only for fuel;
that your trade is dwindling only to nothing; but what is all that to
my continental system? What are a few seaport towns--enterprising,
wealthy, and prosperous, as indeed they are--what are they, compared
to my continental system?" And, sir, what was our "restrictive"
system? Similar in point of effect--certainly cotemporaneous in
point of time--to Bonaparte's "continental system." Sir, it is a
matter susceptible of demonstration, if I possessed the physical
power to go through with it, that the system recommended by the then
President of the United States, of laying an embargo on all ships and
vessels in our ports, for the purpose of "keeping in safety these
essential resources," took place in consequence of a communication
from our Minister in Paris to this Government, transmitting certain
correspondence of his with the French Government. And although in the
message to both Houses of Congress, recommending the measure, the
President does use the term "belligerent powers," I do attest the fact,
and I call upon other gentlemen, who know it, to attest it also, that,
while the message purposely referred to both "belligerents," not one
scrip of manuscript relating to the other "belligerent" accompanied
that message; nor was there any thing contained in that message
relating to that "belligerent," but a scrap from an English paper,
about the size of a square of its columns, containing some speculations
of a London editor; and I say that there did not exist in this House,
nor in this nation--if there did, let the evidence be produced--any
knowledge of the existence of the orders in council, which have been
put forward as justifying the embargo. If their existence had been
known at the time, would the President in his message recommending an
embargo have failed to notice the fact? Would he not have used it as
one of the strongest inducements to the adoption of this system? Would
those "orders" not have been published in the National Intelligencer,
which is considered--and certainly not without cause, in view of
certain things which we have lately seen in it--to be the Court
paper? Produce the National Intelligencer of that date; there is not
one syllable to be found in it concerning the Orders in Council. No,
sir, in his message on the occasion referred to, the President did
not produce any _acts_ of the "belligerents" referred to, but only
the correspondence between General Armstrong, our Minister at Paris,
and that Government, on the subject of the construction of one of its
first decrees. It was in consequence of the more recent decrees of
France, and not of the British Orders in Council, that the embargo was
recommended and laid. And yet, in the discussion which came off on that
measure, it was represented as a weapon against England, which would be
more efficient than any war, and must bring her to our feet: it would
give effect to the object which Bonaparte had in view, of destroying
her by consumption, by cutting her off from the commerce of the world.
Although I state these facts, I know that it may be proven--and I am
sorry that it can--by reference to the journals of this House, and by a
report, too, of an honorable and respectable committee of this House,
that the embargo was designed to obviate the effects of the Orders in
Council.

But, sir, it is indisputably true, that there was no mention in the
embargo message of those Orders in Council--no allusion to them in
debate upon it--no knowledge of them at the time that the embargo law
was passed, that can be proven by any document whatsoever entitled to
the least respect; and I will even go so far as to allow as evidence
the authority of any newspaper. The members of that committee had
heard so much of the Orders in Council, and the effect that it was
pretended that the embargo would have upon them, that in their report,
speaking of them, they absolutely transposed cause and effect. It is
unfortunate that it should be so; but it is nevertheless true. Events
subsequent to the period to which I have now brought myself have been
detailed in this debate in a manner so clear, so lucid, so convincing,
by two honorable gentlemen from New York, that there is no need of
my repeating the narrative: but I must be permitted to say that the
statement made yesterday by a gentleman from New York, (Mr. EMOTT,)
will be refuted when Euclid shall come to be considered a shallow
sophist, and not before. My honorable friend from the same State,
who spoke a few days ago, called upon gentlemen to handle that part
of the subject--the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and
the inveiglement thereby of this country into a war with England--in
a manner more able than, he was pleased to say, he himself had done
it. The attempt to do this would, indeed, be to gild refined gold, to
paint the lily, to add to the perfume of the violet--in all cases a
most ridiculous and wasteful excess. And yet, sir, the situation in
which I unhappily stand, and in which it was my lot to stand at the
conclusion of the last session of Congress, compels me to say a word on
this subject. You will remember, sir, that it was my misfortune, during
the first session of this Congress, to oppose the attempt to impress
upon this House and the nation certain most preposterous, absurd, and
false propositions; for the temerity of which effort I came under the
censure--implied, at least, if not to say direct--of this honorable
body. The contrary propositions, which I undertook to maintain, were,
first, that the Berlin and Milan decrees were not repealed on the first
of November, 1810, and that the only evidence of any such repeal, up
to that date, was _the President's Proclamation_ of the second of that
month; and secondly, that the British Orders in Council did, in point
of fact, establish no serious insurmountable obstacle to negotiation
between that Government and the United States. Why, sir, I shall not
here go into any argument on this point; if I had the ability, I have
not the will; and, if I had the will, I have not the ability. Nor can
it be necessary, when the Emperor of France himself comes into court,
and cannot reject his own authority, as borne in his own laws. Yes,
sir, he did come forth, and, in his antedated decree of the 28th of
April, 1811--though it unquestionably ought to bear date full twelve
months later--does, in the most offensive of all possible ways,
establish the fact, not only that the Berlin and Milan decrees were
not repealed (as all the world knew except the President of the United
States) on the first of November, 1810, but that they were in his mind
when he issued his decree, dated 28th April, 1811. They were repealed,
finally, in consequence--of what? Of your doing that which for years
he had been attempting, by menace and blandishment, to induce you to
do--that is to say, embark in war with England, taking sides with
France, "causing," as the phrase was, "our flag to be respected:" And
this, too, after your having posted up in the ledger of this House that
war with one of the "belligerents" was equivalent to submission to the
other!

My other proposition was, that the Orders in Council constituted no
insurmountable obstacle to negotiation between this country and Great
Britain. And what was the fact in regard to them? Why, that almost at
the time that this position was taken on this floor--a few weeks only
thereafter--the Orders in Council were repealed.

I put it to you, sir, and to the great mass of the people of this
country--to the honest, laborious, unsuspecting, kind-hearted,
confiding, generous, and just people--had the fact been known that the
French decrees were _not_ repealed, and that the Orders in Council
_were_ repealed, whether any man, in any station, would have had the
confidence to propose a declaration of war against England, taking part
against her, and siding with France in the conflict in which those
nations are engaged?

And, whilst I am upon this subject, permit me to say, suppose the
proposition which was repeatedly made--in more than one instance by
the person who is now addressing you, and supported with the greatest
ability by gentlemen on the other side of the House--to postpone
our declaration of war against Great Britain until the autumn, when
we might be in some state of preparation and readiness for it--had
succeeded, what would have been the consequence? At this time we should
have been at peace; we should have been lying secure in that snug safe
haven of neutrality, in which the good sense of the greatest and best
men of this country have always attempted to moor the public ship.
_Now_, where are we? And shall this war be called a popular war; a war
of the people; a war called for by the public voice, into which this
country has been plunged, not more by the agency of the friends of
Government than of its enemies, in the hope of the latter that this
Administration would sink and founder in it, and they rise to power
thereupon? Is it possible that that can be deemed a war of the people,
a popular war, which has enabled a gentleman known to be of the most
respectable connections, and possessed, I believe, of considerable
talent--but who, put in competition with the veteran politician now
at the helm of Government, is but a boy in politics--a person whose
pretensions are so extremely inferior, to rival the present Chief
Magistrate in the confidence of the people, and for a time, as you
know, make him tremble for his re-election? It is, however, some
consolation to reflect that, in all free Governments, the public
voice will sooner or later be heard upon all their measures, and in
condemnation of those which the opinion of that public detests and
execrates. This is a great law of politics; it is to the political
what gravitation is to the physical world; it cannot be counteracted.
Statesmen know it, feel it; they do not reason to it, but from it; they
never lose sight of it, but are guided by it in all their measures. And
those of us who live to see the next Congress, will live to see the
effects of that law in this House.

Sir, we have passed so many laws, we have had so many objects for
enticing the belligerents on the one hand and coercing them on the
other, and enticing and coercing them together, that I feel some little
difficulty, in the present state of my brain, in referring to them by
title or date; but it is the law passed on this subject, in consequence
of which the celebrated letter of the 1st of August of the Duc de
Cadore was written, to which I desire most particularly to refer. If,
after the proclamation of the President of the United States of the
1st of November thereafter, issued in consequence of that letter,
revoking so much of our non-intercourse law as related to France, an
unbroken warfare being kept up by France on our commerce--a fact as
notorious as the existence of any fact in nature--was it not good
cause for reinstating the law in relation to France, and putting her
on her ancient ground? Then I would be glad to know, for one, whether
our continuing at war with England was any better cause for keeping
up the interdiction in relation to her, after she had revoked her
Orders in Council? In other words, it being admitted by gentlemen on
one side, as it has been contended by gentlemen on the other, that the
revocation of the Orders in Council by Great Britain was such a one as
did satisfy the terms of the non-intercourse act, what was the reason
that the proclamation required by our law in such case did not issue?
Why, sir, the state of war between the United States and Great Britain
being offensive on our part--being of our own making--was held to be a
cause why we cannot execute our law as relates to her. Now, whilst the
continued war upon us by France, by seizures of our merchant vessels
and their cargoes, is not considered an obstacle to its execution in
regard to her, is it not as clear as the noon-day sun, that if the
making of war by France on the United States did not constitute any
good cause for withholding the revocation as to her, when she professed
to have repealed her Berlin and Milan decrees, there was no reason
why it should not have been extended to Great Britain also, when she
actually repealed her Orders in Council?

I am extremely at a loss to say whether my judgment, my memory, my
imagination, or my command of words, fit me for the expression of the
few scattered ideas I have on this subject; I fear that they may fail
me. But I believe it will be conceded, on all hands, that if, after
the revocation of the British Orders in Council, the President of the
United States had, as he honorably might have done, made that repeal
the basis of negotiation with Great Britain, there is not a man in this
country--certainly there is none among his admirers and adherents--who
would not have hailed him as the restorer of the peace and prosperity
of the country, which had been so idly (I had almost said so wickedly)
disturbed. But, regardless of every consequence, we went into war
with England as an inconsiderate couple go into matrimony, without
considering whether they have the means of sustaining their own
existence, much less that of any unfortunate progeny that should happen
to be born of them. The sacrifice was made. The blood of Christians
enjoying the privileges of jury trial, of the writ of _habeas corpus_,
of the freedom of conscience, of the blessings of civil liberty,
citizens of the last Republic that ambition has left upon the face
of a desolate earth--the blood of such a people was poured out as an
atonement to the Moloch of France. The Juggernaut of India is said
to smile when it sees the blood flow from the human sacrifice which
its worship exacts; the Emperor of France might now smile upon us.
But no, sir, our miserable offering is spurned. The French monarch
turns his nose and his eyes another way. He snuffs on the plains of
Moscow a thousand hecatombs, waiting to be sacrificed on the shrine
of his ambition; and the city of the Czars, the largest in the world,
is to be at once the altar and the fire of sacrifice to his miserable
ambition. And what injury has the Emperor of Russia done to him? For
what was he contending? For national existence; for a bare existence;
for himself and the people who are subject to his sway. And what, sir,
are you doing? Virtually fighting the battles of his foes; surrendering
yourself to the views of his adversary, without a plea--without any
thing to justify your becoming the victims of his blasting ambition.

Yes, sir, after having for years attempted to drive us by menace into
war with England, when he has seen us fairly embarked in it, and the
champions of human rights bleeding in his cause, the Ruler of France
has turned with contempt from your reclamations; he has left your
Minister, who was charged with those reclamations, to follow him in his
Russian campaign, to whip up his jaded Pegasus, and, travelling at his
heels, to overtake him if he can.[34]

For these injuries and insults what atonement has been made? What
satisfaction has been received for your plundered property? And what
is the relation in which you stand to France? At this moment, when
it is well known that it would not require one additional man in the
army or navy to make good, in the eye of nations, your character as an
independent and high-spirited people, you are prostrate at the feet of
your's and the world's undoer. Is there any thing yet wanting to fill
up the full measure of injustice you have sustained? Gentlemen on all
sides are obliged to admit that the provocation which we have received
from France is ample; that the cup of it is overflowing. And yet, what
is our situation in relation to that destroyer of mankind--him who,
devising death to all that live, sits like a cormorant on the tree
of life; who cannot be glutted, nor tired, with human carnage; the
impersonation of death; himself an incarnate death?

All this, I say, does prove--and if it does not I call on gentlemen to
disprove the fact--that there is a difference in the standard by which
we measure French aggressions and the aggressions of any other people
under the sun. When Spain was the ally of France she was--what? She was
secure from our indignation. There was not a murderer, a barbarian, in
all our Western wilderness that was not safe under the Spanish cloak.
For why? Because the King of Spain, such as he was--for he wore only
the semblance of a crown--was in alliance with France; and he must not
be touched.

But what has _Revolutionary_ Spain done? What offence has she
committed against France? That she is not only helpless, destitute
of resources, unable to return a blow, but, above all, is coveted
by France, are considerations which cannot justify, on the part of
France, conduct towards her more infamous than that of the English
at Copenhagen--conduct cowardly as it is unprincipled. But, sir, I
forewarn gentlemen of the Southern country--I do beseech them, with a
sincerity which no man can have a right to question--to beware how they
transfer the theatre of war from the rocks and snows of Canada to the
sandhills, the rice-fields, the tobacco plantations of the Southern
States. For them to think of voluntarily consenting to make that region
the theatre of the war, would compel me to believe that they are on the
verge of that madness which precedes the destruction of all doomed by
Heaven to perish.

Sir, I have just touched, with trembling and faltering hand, some of
the preliminary observations which I had intended, at some time or
other, to make, into which I have now been prematurely forced to enter,
not more unexpectedly than unavoidably, by the strange turn which this
debate has taken.

There are two other points--for, in respect to the Orders of Council,
I shall not say a word about them--upon which I am very anxious to
offer myself to your attention: the one the celebrated point of
impressment, which, though it has been very ably handled, is not yet
exhausted: the other the Indian war on our Western border. And I also
wish to say something on the subject of negotiation. In the midst of
a war with one of the greatest powers of Europe, why should the gleam
of the tomahawk and the scalping-knife, the cries of massacred women
and children reaching our ears--why should these fright us from our
propriety? Why, we are told the Indians of the West have been stirred
up to war with us by British agents. But what is the fact? That we
have no Indian war, but a war of our own seeking, as I have already,
in the course of this session, read to you certain proofs; and I will
now give you another. It is this: It is agreed on all hands--no man
has attempted to dispute it--that, in the affair of the battle of
Tippecanoe, the commander and the officers distinguished themselves
by the greatest gallantry. How has it happened, then, that while we
have been freely voting medals to those gallant officers of our navy
who have distinguished themselves on the ocean--and I hope we shall
vote them something more substantial--not a whisper has been heard in
relation to those who have been engaged in this expedition against the
Indians? The subject has not been even inquired into.

Do we know, at this moment, as a Legislature, the causes of that
disastrous business--I call it so from its consequences--or by whose
authority this war was made? Or, is it come to this: that Governors
of our Territories are to consider themselves as so many Hastings
and Wellesleys of our country, and that, while they do not involve
us in war with Christians like themselves, they may go to any extent
in exterminating the Red Barbarians here as in the East Indies
Governors and Proconsuls of the British Government do there in regard
to uncivilized powers of that quarter of the globe? Is it discovered
that our Territorial Governors may at pleasure invade the territory
of other nations--for, inconsiderable and contemptible though they
be, the Indian tribes _are_ nations--in like manner that the British
authorities make war upon those nations of the East? Yes, sir, not only
is this a war of our own seeking--not only we had it in our power to
keep the peace--but in the country which was the scene of the battle,
and in the adjacent country, it was the most popular war ever waged.
The frontier people of this country have been in the habit of driving
the heathen before them; and to them the chase of the deer, the elk,
and the antelope, is not so grateful as that of the red men they
hunt. I believe that it is the cause of serious regret to many of the
people of the West that there is now no longer any motive to drive
them from their lands. As to the Red Men, the Big-Knives have, without
any foreign prompting or instigation, driven them off from a country
more extensive than that over which the Emperor of France wields
his sceptre. So I put aside this item of Indian war altogether as a
matter of account in the list of our grievances against the British
Government. There is not a shadow of foundation for believing that
these Indians were or could have been instigated to take up the hatchet
against us until hostile arms had been taken up against them. When
driven to the wall they must fight or die--the last alternative left to
them--for which nobody can blame them.

It was, sir, a saying of one of the best men who ever wrote, in
correspondence with a friend, that he had no time to write a shorter
letter; and I can truly say that I have not _time_ to deliver a shorter
speech. I know that this question will be taken to-day, for I have been
so admonished; and my own very severe and sudden indisposition, which I
am almost ashamed to name, will compel me to detain your attention much
longer than under other circumstances would have been the case.

A word, now, on the subject of impressment. Our foreign trade had
grown beyond the capacity of either our tonnage or seamen to manage.
Our mercantile marine was an infant Hercules; but it was overloaded
beyond its strength: the crop was too abundant to be gathered by our
hands alone. The consequence was, and a natural one too, that not
only the capitalists flocked into our country from abroad to share
in our growing commerce, but the policy also of our Government was
adapted to it, and a law was passed to enable us to avail ourselves
of the services of British seamen and seamen of other countries. And,
in doing this, we availed ourselves of the pretext--which, as long as
the countries to which they belonged winked at it, was fair for us to
use--of taking these British seamen for Americans. It was in 1796 that
commenced the act, to which reference has been made, and that system of
"protections," as they were called, the very mention of which, at this
day, causes a burst of honest indignation in the breast of citizens
whose situation enables them to ascertain their true character. If
these "protections," so termed, have not been forged all over Europe,
it is only for the reason that the notes of a certain bank of which
I have heard have not been forged, viz: that, the bank being broke,
its notes were so worthless that people would not even steal them.
The "protections" are attainable by everybody; by men of all ages,
countries, and descriptions. They are a mere farce. The issuing of them
has gone far to disgrace the character of the country, and has brought
into question and jeopardy the rights of real American citizens. This
question of impressment, delicate as it has been said to be--difficult
as in one view it certainly is--is, of all others, in my judgment,
the most compact. With the gentleman from New York, I will say that
the tide of emigration has brought to the shores of our country many
most valuable characters; some of them persons with whom I have the
honor of being in habits, not only of intimacy, but friendship. I
believe there does not exist one man of this description, who comes
_bona fide_ to this country to settle himself and children here, that
would require you to go to war on his account. And, sir, I believe
that the belligerent position itself in which you now find yourself
will relieve you in a great degree of this evil, for many seamen who
have so long, by virtue of these "protections," passed themselves off
for American, will find it to be very convenient to be Portuguese
or Swedish seamen, or seamen of some other State than the United
States--some State that is not at war with England. Sir, there is a
wide difference between the character of American seamen and seamen of
every other country on earth. The American seaman has a home on the
land, a domicil, a wife and children, to whom he is attached, to whom
he is in the habit of returning after his voyages; with whom he spends,
sometimes, a long vacation from the toils of maritime life. It is not
so with the seamen of other countries. For the protection of men of the
first description, I am disposed, if necessary, to use the force of the
country, but for no other. I know, indeed, that some gentlemen who have
spoken much on the subject of the principle of impressment, will tell
you that the right to take from a neutral vessel one seaman, if carried
to its extent, involves a right to take any, or all seamen. Why, sir,
in like manner, it might be argued that the taking illegally of one
vessel at sea involves the right to take every vessel. And yet, sir,
who ever heard of two nations _going to war_ about a single case of
capture, though admitted not to be justified by the laws? Such a case
never did and never will occur.

Of one thing we are certain: it rests upon no doubtful ground: that
Great Britain, rather than surrender the right of impressing her own
seamen, will nail her colors to the mast, and go down with them. And
she is right, because, when she does surrender it, she is Samson shorn
of his strength: the sinews of her power are cut. I say this openly
in the House of Representatives; and I am not communicating to the
enemy a secret of any value, because she has herself told us that she
can never surrender it. She has told us so, not when she stood in the
relation of an enemy toward us, but in the friendly intercourse of
the British Ministry with our late Commissioners at London. Turn to
the book: I wish the honorable gentleman, if he has it, would for a
moment let me have the use of it. You are told in that book that every
effort was made by the American Commissioners to effect a relaxation
of this right; that the British Ministry evinced the sincerest desire
to give satisfaction to them on this point: _but_ what? The Admiralty
was consulted; they waked up out of their slumbers the Civilians at
Doctors' Commons to deliberate upon it; and they came to the conclusion
that the Government of Great Britain could not give up that right.
Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, the Commissioners of the United States
to negotiate a treaty with the Government of Great Britain, in their
correspondence with their own Government, give this fact to excuse
themselves for failing to accomplish their object, and to prove that
every thing had been done that could be on their part, and every thing
conceded on the other side that the most friendly disposition could
warrant--and here I do not speak of masked friendship, but of real
friendship. Although every thing possible had been done, this right of
impressment of her own seamen was a _sine qua non_ on the part of Great
Britain--one which would not, could not, must not, be surrendered. And,
sir, if this question of the right of impressment was one on which we
were to go to war with Great Britain, we ought to have gone to war
_then_; because we were then told by the highest authority in that
Government that this was a point which never would be given up.

I find, sir, that I cannot trust my broken voice to _read_ the book,
now that it is in my hand, but must rely upon my recollection for facts.

Now, this question lies as I have said, in a very small compass. The
right of Great Britain to take her own seamen from your merchant
vessels, (if it be a right,) is one which she has exercised ever since
you were a People, wherever occasions for its exercise have occurred.
Will you not only go to war, but wage a _bellum ad internecinum_ for
it? Will you wage an endless war of extermination for this right,
which, you have known for two and twenty years of your national
existence, she will not relinquish? A gentleman from Tennessee, of
whose capacity few men have more respectful opinion than myself, has
quoted the diplomatic correspondence as far back as 1792, to show what
General WASHINGTON's opinions were on this question of impressment, and
this opinion of the Father of his Country is now held up to the people
of the United States for the purpose of enlisting their prejudices
in the conviction that, by involving the country in warfare, we are
at this moment treading in the footsteps of that great man, and
acting upon his principles. Nothing can be more untrue. To say that
the Treaty of Louisiana was negotiated two years after the letter of
instruction quoted from the Washington Administration, and that that
treaty contained no provisions on this point, is a reply in full on
this course of argument. But what does the correspondence referred to
prove? What every treaty, what every negotiation, has proven: that
England would not give up this point, although she made offers for
guarding against abuse--offers more favorable to us than ours to her.
And yet the Administration of this Government have had the hardihood or
the folly to plunge the nation into a war for it--for a point on which
General Washington, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Jefferson, men differing from
each other as may be in every aspect, had been content to negotiate,
rather than go to war for its assertion.

What was the offer made to our Government by the British Ministry? If
I do not forget, their offer was that they would not impress American
seamen. Their offer to us was not accepted, but it was beyond question,
in my opinion, more beneficial than the proposition which we on that
occasion made to them.

But it may be said that the right of search cannot be endured; that
the protection of our flag must be held inviolate; that if a search
of our ships be permitted for British seamen, they may actually take
American seamen. Sir, there is no doubt of the fact that by mistake,
sometimes perhaps by wilful misconduct, on the part of officers engaged
in the search, such a thing may happen. But, should we not think it
exceedingly strange that the misconduct of an officer of the American
Government, in one case in twenty if you will, should be a cause of
war for any nation against us? It is one of those cases which does
occur, and will forever occur, to a neutral power, whenever a general
war is lighted up. It is one of the prices which this country has to
pay for its rapid accession of wealth, such as is unheard of in the
annals of any other nation but our own. And this, sir, is the state of
things in which we have undertaken, in children's language, to quarrel
with our bread and butter; and to identify ourselves with one of the
belligerents in a war in which we have no proper concern. I will not
touch at all the abstract question of the right of impressment: it has
been so much more ably handled by others that I shall not say a word
about it. I address myself to the common sense of the planter, the
farmer, the agriculturist of our country--are you willing upon such
grounds as these to continue this war? I have no doubt what will be
their answer.

On these subjects I have delivered my sentiments more than once before
in this House. I think of them with horror as the accursed cause of
this war. Not that the men who are in power are worse men than other
people, but that they have brought upon this land of peace and freedom
issues the end of which it would be impossible for any human being to
divine.

One thing is certain, that the right of search does practically
exist, and has been acknowledged by all nations. The President of the
United States and his Secretary of State, as great masters of the Law
of Nations, will be among the first to acknowledge it; they _have_
acknowledged it, and by our treaties with foreign powers, this country
has heretofore acknowledged it, so far as concerns the right to search
for contraband goods and enemy's property. Suppose that there are
notorious abuses under this right: should we be justified in declaring
that no search whatever of our merchant vessels shall be allowed?
There is no doubt that, under the color of the right of search--for
I am advocating its lawful purposes only--abuses have been committed
on neutrals; and as long as men exist it will be so. The liability to
abuse of this right is the price which neutrals pay for the advantages
which they derive from their neutrality; and I should like to know
whether it would be for me to join in the contest in which these
belligerents are engaged for the recovery of my _neutral_ rights. Where
are those rights when great maritime powers become belligerent? There
are neutral rights undoubtedly, but there are also neutral duties. And
shall a neutral nation, a nation which has in that character prospered
and flourished more than any people on the face of the globe, sacrifice
those rights and those advantages, and resort to war against one of
those belligerents--and for what? For a point of honor! Yet, whilst in
this Quixotic spirit we have gone to war with England; although we have
been robbed, reviled, contemned throughout by the Emperor of France, we
can see no cause of war with him!

What shall we say of the _French_ doctrine in relation to this subject
of impressment? If that has been dwelt upon in this debate by any
honorable gentleman of this House it has escaped my notice. What is
the French doctrine on this subject--established at the time when the
United States stood in relations of peace and amity to that power, when
every heart beat high with sympathy for the success of French freedom;
when some of those who have since transferred their admiration, I will
not say their love, to the present head of the French Government, to
the enemy of French freedom, and all freedom, to all commerce, and
right, and religion--at the time when some of those who have since
so lamentably changed on this subject felt an interest for freedom
and France scarcely inferior to that which they felt for freedom and
America? What were then the doctrines of the French Government? That
all who spoke the English language should be treated as Englishmen,
unless they could give proof to the contrary; the _onus probandi_ lying
on those who spoke the language of Locke, and Newton, and Milton, and
Shakspeare. Yes, sir, whilst the English Government establishes no such
doctrine, the French Government acts upon the principle that speaking
the English language is _prima facie_ evidence of your being a British
subject, and would justify their treating you as an enemy, the burden
of the proof to the contrary being thrown upon yourself.

And, sir, is it nothing to the bill which we are now debating, for
raising an additional army of twenty thousand men--or is it a departure
from order to hint on this floor at a circumstance which all men
are employed and occupied in discussing at their firesides?--that
this army, to constitute an aggregate of fifty-five thousand regular
troops, is about to be put under the control of the man who was
the author of the Anonymous Letters at Newburg at the close of the
Revolutionary war, inciting a handful of men, the remnant of the old
American army--perhaps not numbering six thousand altogether--to give
_a master_ to the nation? Is that a consideration to have no weight
upon such a question as this? With me, sir, it is conclusive. I will
tell gentlemen on both sides of the House that a Government or a man
may despise a calumny--that the arrows of slander will fall blunt and
harmless upon them--provided that the Government and the man be true
to itself and himself. Yes, sir, ask yourself this question in regard
to any man, to whom you are about to confide important trusts: Does
he pay his just debts? Is he a man of truth? Does he discharge as he
ought the duties of a friend, a brother in society? After having done
that, be his politics what they may, and his peculiarity of opinion
in politics what it may, he is a good man; he acquires the esteem of
all who know him; he is impenetrable to mere vulgar calumny. This
Government ought to employ men of real worth and capacity: it is not
always that those showing qualities attracting attention in private
life, or as companions, are of _real_ capacity. Do those who administer
the Government make it a rule to employ in the public service none but
men of real capacity, or worth, of integrity, and of high character?
Do they give their contracts and offices without fear, favor, or
affection, to men of responsibility and character--to such men as you
would in private life give your own contracts to? Or do they bestow
them, as is done in some Governments differently constituted from ours,
where church preferment and military preferment are sometimes made
a dirty job of Parliamentary interest? Do they employ men of clean
hands, with fair characters; or is every caitiff, without examination,
welcome to their arms, provided he can bring with him the proof of his
treachery to his former employers? It depends on these facts whether
confidence is due to any Administration of the Government.

Sir, I have much yet to say which appeared to me, when I rose, not
to be unworthy your attention; but I confess to you, with feelings
something like contrition, that my opinion on this subject has
undergone a change.

There is one point, however, on which I do not know how to speak in
this place with the reverence which is due to it. I cannot pass it
over, and yet I know not how to touch it. Yes, sir, there is one
reflection pressing itself as a crown of thorns upon my own head,
which I am bound to present to the consideration of this Assembly and
this people. Is it fitting that the only two nations among whom the
worship of the true God has been maintained with any thing like truth
and freedom from corruption; that the only two nations among whom this
worship has been preserved unstained, shall be the two now arrayed
against each other in hostile arms in a conflict in which, let who will
conquer in the fight, his success in one point, if that be an object,
will have been attained: so much of human life, liberty, and happiness,
will have perished in the affray--in the service of this scourge with
which it has pleased God, in his wisdom and justice, not in his mercy,
to inflict mankind? Is it fitting that those hands which unite in
giving to idolaters and to the heathen the Word of God, the Book of
Life--that those hands, and those alone, should be thus drenched in
each other's blood? Will you unite as a Christian with your Protestant
brother across the Atlantic for these noble purposes, and then plunge
the dagger into his breast with whom you are associated in a cause so
holy--one so infinitely transcending the low, the little, the dirty
business we are called upon here to transact? I hope that the sacrifice
may be stopped. We have nothing to expect from the mission of our
Minister to the Ruler of France, whether at Moscow, or wherever else he
may be. The Deity or Devil whom we worship is not to be mollified by
our suppliant appeals. Let us turn from him--come out of his house--and
join in the worship of the true and living God, instead of spilling the
blood of his people on the abominable altar of the French Moloch.

Sir, I have done. I could have wished to continue my remarks further,
but I cannot.

When Mr. RANDOLPH concluded, the House adjourned.


THURSDAY, January 14.

                      _Additional Military Force._

The House then resumed the consideration of the bill to raise twenty
additional regiments of infantry for one year.--The question being on
the passage of the bill.

Mr. STOW, said: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the delicacy and novelty of
my situation, as well from the indulgence of the House, as from the
neutral course which I mean to pursue. He must have been indeed an
inattentive observer of mankind who proposes to himself such a course
without being exposed to difficulties and dangers from every side. Our
country has experienced them too long from the great belligerents of
Europe, and an individual will quickly find them here. For even this
House is not exempt from its great party belligerents who issue their
conflicting decrees and Orders in Council; and, in imitation of the
hostile Europeans, it is sometimes a sufficient cause of condemnation
to have been spoken with by the adverse side. Yet, notwithstanding all
these dangers, I mean to launch my neutral bark on this tempestuous
ocean, conscious of the rectitude of my intentions, and humbly hoping
for the approbation of my country and my God.

The proper extent of the discussion growing out of this bill seemed to
be confined to these inquiries: Can the force contemplated be obtained?
If obtained, will it accomplish the end proposed? And lastly, will
the force be an economical one? If the discussion had been confined
to these limits I would have listened, and not have spoken; but, sir,
it has taken a wider range, and assumed a more important aspect. It
has embraced the present, and past, and the future. The causes of the
war, and the mode of conducting it, have been investigated, and even
confident predictions have been made as to its end. The history and
the state of our negotiations have been carefully examined--and the
Presidential order of succession has been scrutinized by the light of
experience as well as that of prophecy. We have sometimes been forced
into the scenes of private life; and, at other times, we have been
chained to the car of Napoleon. In short, sir, the discussion has
ranged as wide as existence, and, not content with that, the speakers
"have exhausted worlds, and then imagined new." I do not pretend to
censure this--it may be well for the people to have their political
concerns thus splendidly dressed and passed in review before them.
But still I will attempt to call the attention of the House from the
regions of fiction, of fancy, and of poetry, to the humble, but I
trust no less profitable, sphere of reality and prose. Passing by many
of those things which have amused by their ingenuity, or surprised
by their novelty, but which do not deserve a serious answer, I will
endeavor to state distinctly the grounds taken by the opponents of this
bill, or rather the opponents of furnishing the means of prosecuting
the war: Firstly. It is alleged "that the war was originally unjust."
Secondly. "That if the war was originally just, it has become unjust
to continue it in consequence of the revocation of the British
Orders in Council." Thirdly. "That it is inexpedient to prosecute
the war, because we have no means of coercing our enemy or enforcing
our claims." Fourthly. "That we are unable to support the war." And
fifthly. "That, in consideration of all these circumstances, the House
ought to withhold the means of further prosecuting the war."

First, then, it was alleged that the war was originally unjust. Here
let me call on the House to distinguish between unjust and inexpedient.
Nothing can be more important than to have clear and distinct ideas
about those words which lie at the bottom of a science, or inquiry.
This is happily illustrated in mathematics--there every word, by the
help of diagrams, is carefully defined; and the consequence is, that
there are no disputes among mathematicians, while their labors have
done honor to mankind. A thing may be just and yet inexpedient: the
justice of an act relates to the conduct of another, the expediency of
our own situation. It may be just for me to sue the man who withholds
from me the smallest sum; and yet so inexpedient as to be even
ridiculous. Thus a war may be perfectly just, and at the same time
highly inexpedient. This, if I mistake not, was the ground generally
taken the last year by the opponents of the war, particularly by the
gentleman from Virginia before me, (Mr. SHEFFEY,) which pointed out the
distinction which I have endeavored to do, though with more ability
and success. I hope the House will bear this distinction in mind;
because it is of the greatest importance in the investigation which I
intend to make. Before I enter further on the argument, I ask the House
to indulge me for a moment while I explain my views relative to the
commencement of the war. I never saw any want of provocation on the
part of Great Britain. I never for an instant doubted the justice of
the war, while I urged its inexpediency with all my might. I considered
man placed here by a beneficent Providence, on a fertile soil, and in a
happy climate, enlightened by science, and protected by the wisest of
laws. By our Revolution cut adrift, as I may say, from the old world,
before the storm which was about to desolate Europe arose, I fondly
hoped that this new world would furnish one fair experiment of what
science, liberty and peace, might achieve, free from those corruptions
which have eternally attended on war. I hoped to see the country
improved, and bound together by roads and canals, to see it adorned
by literary institutions, and by every establishment which reflects
honor upon man. Nor do I yet believe that this was an Utopian vision,
or an idle dream. I still believe it might all have been realized by a
different course--but the nation has determined on war, and, though it
was not my choice, I still maintain that it is not unjust.

I shall now examine the second proposition, "that if the war was
originally just, its further prosecution is unjust." On what ground
does this rest? It is this, that the Orders in Council were the cause
of the war; those orders having ceased, the prosecution of the war
becomes unjust. Here again justice and expediency are confounded.
It was never maintained, that the Orders in Council rendered war
more just than many other outrages, though they went farther to
prove its expediency, and even necessity. It therefore follows,
that their repeal does not affect the justice of the war; unless
accompanied with compensation for the spoliations committed under
them, and atonement made for other wrongs. Neither of these, is it
pretended, has been done; except so far as relates to the affair of
the Chesapeake, and which I purposely left out of the catalogue of
grievances. An injury which was a just cause of war, remains a just
cause for its continuance, till atonement is offered, or till it is
settled by negotiation. But, sir, an ample justification of war remains
in the impressment of our seamen. The claim on our part is not, as
has been alleged, a claim to protect British seamen--it is a claim
to protect American citizens. Nay, more, as respects the justice of
the continuance of the war, it is a claim only, that they will cease
from the practice during the truce, that it may be seen whether it is
possible to arrange it by negotiation. Is it unjust to continue the
war, till this demand is complied with? or does any American wish to
see his country prostrated still lower?

Having thus far explained my ideas relative to the justice of the
commencement and continuance of the war, I will now proceed to answer
the third objection, namely: That it is inexpedient to carry it
on, because we have no means of coercing our enemy--of compelling
him--to what? barely to a just and honorable peace; for that is all
we demand. And have we no means of doing this? Better, then, to
surrender the charter of our independence, confess we are incapable
of self-protection, and beg his most gracious Majesty to again take
us under his paternal care. Such a doctrine, sir, is as unfounded,
as it is degrading to the American character. We have ample means of
compelling Great Britain to do us justice; they are to be found in
the value of our commerce; in the enterprise of our privateers; in the
gallantry of our ships of war, and the conquest of her provinces. Our
custom (considering her in the light of a mechanic or merchant who
supplies) is of vital importance to Great Britain. It is not to be
measured by its amount, in pounds, shillings, and pence, but by the
strength and support she derives from the intercourse. For, while I
admit that Great Britain does not send half her exports to the United
States, I do maintain, that the custom of this country is of more
importance to her, than that of the whole world besides. It is with a
nation as with an individual, if he exchange luxuries for luxuries, or
superfluities, such as ribands for ribands, which he consumes, he adds
nothing to his wealth; but if he exchange his luxuries, or his ribands,
for bread, or for such materials as give scope to his industry, he is
then benefited, and enriched by the interchange. Such is the situation
of Great Britain with regard to America. She, and her dependencies,
receive more of provision, and raw materials, from America, than from
all other parts of the world together. Our trade exactly gives effect
to her industry, her machinery, and her capital. And it is this which
has, in a great degree, enabled her to make such gigantic efforts in
the awful contest in which she is engaged. Our privateers; will they
have no effect on Great Britain? Will she learn nothing from the loss
of three or four hundred ships? And will she be insensible to the
efforts of our little Navy? Can they touch no nerve in which Britons
feel? Far different are my conclusions, from what I have seen in
British papers--they show that she is tremblingly alive to that subject.

Sir, I will now consider her provinces, about which so much has been
said. I, too, will speak of that wonderful country, called Canada,
which unites in itself all contrarieties! Which is so cold and sterile,
as to be not worth possessing; and so fertile, that if, by any calamity
it should become ours, it would seduce away our population; which is so
unhappy under the British Government as not to lure our inhabitants;
yet so happy, that it is criminal to disturb their felicity;--whose
inhabitants, if united with ours, would destroy us, because they have
none of the habits of freemen; and who, well knowing the privileges of
their free Government, will defend them to the last. A country which is
of no importance to Great Britain, and whose loss would not make her
feel; a country which is so valuable to Great Britain that she will
never give it up. A country so weak that it is inglorious to attack it;
and a country so strong that we can never take it. But, sir, leaving
these, and a thousand other contradictions, the work of fancy or of
spleen, I will present to the House what I believe to be a true view of
the subject, drawn from a near residence and much careful examination.
Canada is of great importance both to Great Britain and the United
States. It is important to Great Britain in the amount and kind of
its exports. In the last year preceding war, its exports amounted to
between seven and nine millions of dollars, an amount almost as great
as the exports of the United States preceding the Revolutionary war.
And had the most discerning statesman made out an order, he could not
have selected articles better adapted to the essential wants of Great
Britain. It has been said that Canada is of less value than one of the
sugar islands of the West Indies. Sir, in the present state of the
world, Canada is of more importance to Great Britain, in my opinion,
than the whole West India Islands taken together. In danger, as she
is, of being shut out from the Baltic, and fighting for her existence,
she wants not the luxuries, the sugars, and the sweetmeats of the West
Indies--she wants the provisions, the timber, the masts, and the spars
of the North.

Canada is also of the greatest importance to the United States, in
a commercial and political point of view. I have in a great measure
explained its commercial importance, by stating its exports; a large
portion of which were the products of the United States. Let an
attentive observer cast his eye for one moment on the map of North
America; let him bear in mind, that from the forty-fifth degree of
latitude the waters of Canada bound for a vast extent one of the most
fertile, and which will become, one of the most populous parts of the
United States; and he will readily perceive that the river St. Lawrence
must soon be the outlet for one-third of all the products of American
labor. The same circumstances will enable it to lay an impost on
one-third of our imported articles. Nor will the evil to our revenue
end here. Great Britain will be enabled to smuggle her goods through
this channel into all parts of the Union. It will be in vain that you
attempt to counteract her by laws; from the great length and contiguity
of her possessions, she will forever evade them, unless by your laws
you can change the nature of man. But its greatest importance is in a
political point of view: for, although not as happy in its government
as the United States, it is sufficiently so to draw off multitudes of
our new settlers, when the intermediate lands of the State of New York,
which separate it from New England, shall be fully occupied. From this
circumstance it will divide the American family, and, by the commercial
relations which I have pointed out, it will exert a dangerous influence
over a part of our country; for the transition from commercial
dependence, to political allegiance, is too obvious to be insisted
on. Having endeavored to show the importance of Canada to both of the
contending nations, I I will only add that it is within our power.

The fourth objection is, that we cannot support the war--that we
have not the ability to carry it on. Before I proceed to answer
this objection, permit me, sir, to notice a single inconsistency of
the gentlemen by whom it has been urged. It is this: in one part of
their argument, they represent the people as too happy to enlist,
and in another part as too poor to pay! Both of these propositions,
I presume, cannot be true. Not to dwell longer, however, upon this
contradiction, I do maintain, sir, that the nation is fully able to
prosecute the war. On what does the ability of a nation depend? A
person who will give himself the trouble of examining things rather
than words, will find that it is proportioned to the number of laborers
and the productiveness of their labor. Wherever, from soil, climate,
or improvement, the labor of a country will produce more than a supply
of the necessaries of life, it is evident that the surplus time may be
devoted to idleness, to the production and consumption of luxuries,
or to the carrying on of war. To illustrate this farther--suppose the
labor of a person for five days will support him six, then it is clear,
that the labor of five men will support the sixth man in idleness or
in war. Now, sir, there is nowhere that the labor of seven millions
of people will produce so much as in this country; consequently,
nowhere have seven millions of people so great an ability to carry on
a war. The quantity of circulating medium, whether made of paper or of
silver dollars, has very little to do with the subject. If it is made
of paper, and to a great extent, it only shows that the people are
in their habits commercial; and that the faith of contracts is well
supported. The real ability of a nation lies in what I have stated; and
he must be a weak politician who cannot call it forth.

Mr. Speaker, I will now consider the last, and by far the most
important objection of all; and one, without which, I certainly would
not have spoken. It is, that in consideration of all the circumstances
in which we are placed, it is the duty of this House to withhold
the means of further prosecuting the war. It will not be denied,
I trust, that this is a fair statement of the scope and object of
most of the reasonings which have been employed; and that without
this construction, they would be irreconcilable with common sense.
This doctrine, in my opinion, goes not only to the overthrow of our
constitution, but to the destruction of liberty itself. The principle
of our Government is, not only that the majority shall rule, but that
they shall rule in the _manner_ prescribed by the constitution. So that
if it could be proved that a majority of the people were in favor of
certain measures, it would not be sufficient till they had pronounced
that decision through the _constitutional_ organs. In short, it must
have been a principal object with the framers of our constitution to
suspend, at least for a limited time, the effects of popular opinion.
The constitution has committed the legislative power to three co-equal
branches; and to the same hands has it entrusted the power of declaring
war; while it has expressly confided the treaty-making power (and which
alone can make peace) to two only of those branches. The claim now set
up, goes to invest that branch which has no authority in the matter,
not only with the treaty-making power, but also with a complete control
over the other two branches. Thus _one_ branch of the Government
forcing the nation to _desist_ from doing what _three_, including
itself, had thought best to _perform_. Let us test the correctness
of this principle by applying it to another co-equal branch of the
Government. Let us suppose the President has made a treaty of peace,
which is disapproved of by the Senate--and suppose upon this he should
say, the war ought not to be further prosecuted, and refuse to employ
the public force, would you not impeach him? Most unquestionably you
would. I expressly admit that cases may be imagined, where such a
course would be proper--where it would be not only the duty of this
House to withhold supplies, but where it would be the duty of an
individual to resist the laws; but such are extreme cases, not provided
for by any organization of Government. What, sir, has been the practice
of the British House of Commons? Have they ever refused supplies
because a war was unpopular, since their revolution? Did not the same
Parliament, which resolved that they would consider any man as an enemy
to his country, who would advise his Majesty to the further prosecution
of offensive war in America, still vote the means for carrying on the
war? A similar case occurred when Mr. Fox came last into power--he
disapproved of the commencement and conduct of the war, and yet he
called for and received the necessary supplies.

Mr. CALHOUN observed, that he could offer nothing more acceptable, he
presumed, to the House, than a promise not to discuss the Orders in
Council, French decrees, blockades, or embargoes. He was induced to
avoid these topics for several reasons. In the first place, they were
too stale to furnish any interest to this House or country. Gentlemen
who had attempted it, with whatever abilities, had failed to command
attention; and it would argue very little sagacity on his part not to
be admonished by their want of success. Indeed, whatever interest had
been at one time attached to these subjects, they had now lost. They
have passed away; and will not soon, he hoped, return into the circle
of politics. Yes, sir, as reviled as has been our country's efforts
to curb belligerent injustice, as weak and contemptible as she has
been represented to be in the grade of nations, she has triumphed in
breaking down the most dangerous monopoly ever attempted by one nation
against the commerce of another. He would not stop to inquire whether
it was the non-importation act, or the menace of war, or, what was
the most probable, the last operating on the pressure produced by the
former. The fact is certain, that the Orders in Council of 1807 and
1809, which our opponents have often said that England would not yield,
as they made a part of her commercial system, are now no more. The same
firmness, if persevered in, which has carried us thus far with success,
will, as our cause is just and moderate, end in final victory. A
further reason which he had, not to follow our opponents into the
region of documents and records, was, that he was afraid of a decoy;
as he was induced to believe from appearances that their object was
to draw our attention from the merits of the question. Gentlemen had
literally buried their arguments under a huge pile of quotations; and
had wandered so far into this realm of paper, that neither the vision
of this House has been, nor that of the country will be, able to follow
them. There the best and worst reasons share an equal fate. The truth
of the one and error of the other, are covered with like obscurity.

Mr. C. said he would not multiply proof on a course of conduct the bad
effect of which was too sensibly felt to be easily forgot, and the
continuation of which was but too apparent in the present discussion.
For what was the object of the opposition in this debate? To defeat
the passage of this bill? It has been scarcely mentioned; and contains
nothing to raise that storm which has been excited against it. The bill
proposes to raise twenty thousand men only, and that for one year; and
surely there is nothing in that calculated to lay such strong hold of
the jealousy or fear of the community. What then is the object of the
opposition? Gentlemen certainly do not act without an intention; and
wide as has been the range of debate, it cannot be so lawless as to be
without an object. It was not, he repeated, to defeat the passage of
this bill; no, but what was much more to be dreaded, to thwart that,
which the bill proposes to contribute to, the final success of the war;
and for this purpose he must do the opposition the credit to say, they
have resorted to means the best calculated to produce the effect. In a
free Government, in the government of laws, two things are necessary
for the effectual prosecution of any great measure; the law by which
the executive officer is charged with the execution and vested with
suitable powers; and the co-operating zeal and union of the people,
who are always indispensable agents. Opposition to be successful must
direct its efforts against the passage of the law; or, what was more
common and generally more effectual, to destroy the union and the zeal
of the people. Either, if successful, is effectual. The former would in
most cases be seen and reprobated; the latter, much the most dangerous,
has, to the great misfortunes of Republics, presented at all times a
ready means of defeating the most salutary measures. To this point the
whole arguments of opposition have converged. This gives a meaning to
every reason and assertion, which have been advanced, however wild and
inconsistent. No topic has been left untouched, no passion unessayed.
The war has been represented as unjust in its origin, disastrous in its
progress, and desperate in its farther prosecution. As if to prevent
the possibility of doubt, a determination has been boldly asserted not
to support it. Such is the opposition to the war, which was admitted
on all sides to be just; and which in a manner received the votes even
of those who now appear to be willing to ruin the country in order to
defeat its success.

But, say our opponents, as they were opposed to the war, they are not
bound to support it; and so far has this opposition been carried, that
we have been accused almost of violating the right of conscience,
in denying the right set up by gentlemen. The right to oppose the
efforts of our country, while in war, ought to be established beyond
the possibility of doubt, before it can be justly adopted as the
basis of conduct. How conscience can be claimed in this case cannot
be very easily imagined. We oppose not by laws or penalties; we only
assert that the opposition experienced cannot be dictated by love of
country, and is inconsistent with the duty which every citizen is under
to promote the prosperity of the Republic. Its necessary tendency is
to prostrate the country at the feet of the enemy, and to elevate a
party on the ruins of the public. Till our opponents can prove that
they have a right which is paramount to the public interest, we must
persist in denying the right to thwart the success of the war. War
has been declared by a law of the land; and what would be thought of
similar attempts to defeat any other law, however inconsiderable its
object? Who would dare to avow an intention to defeat its operation?
Can that, then, be true in relation to war which would be reprobated
in every other case? Can that be true which, when the whole physical
force of the country is needed, withdraws half of that force? Can that
be true which gives the greatest violence to party animosity? What
would have been thought of such conduct in the war of the Revolution?
Many good citizens friendly to the liberty of our country were opposed
to the declaration at the time; could they have been justified in such
opposition as we now experience? To terminate the war through discord
and weakness is a hazardous experiment. But, in the most unjust and
inexpedient war, it can scarcely be possible, that disunion and defeats
can have a salutary operation. In the numerous examples which history
furnishes, let an instance be pointed out, in any war, where the
public interest has been promoted by divisions, or injured by concord.
Hundreds of instances may be cited of the reverse. Why, then, will
gentlemen persist in that course where danger is almost unavoidable,
and shun that where safety is almost certain?

But, sir, we are told that peace is in our power without a farther
promotion of the war. Appeal not, say our opponents, to the fear, but
to the generosity of our enemy. England yields nothing to her fears;
stop, therefore, your preparation, and throw yourself on her mercy,
and peace will be the result. We might, indeed, have pardon, but not
peace on such terms. Those who think the war a sacrilege or a crime,
might consistently adopt such a course; but we, who know it to be for
the maintenance of the just rights of the community, never can. We are
farther told that impressment of seamen was not considered a sufficient
cause of war; and are asked why should it be continued on that account?
Mr. C. observed that he individually did not feel the force of the
argument; for it had been his opinion, that the nation was bound to
resist so deep an injury even at the hazard of war; but, admitting its
full force, the difference is striking between the commencement and
the continuance of hostilities. War ought to be continued until its
rational object, a permanent and secure peace, could be obtained. Even
the friends of England ought not to desire the termination of the war,
without a satisfactory adjustment of the subject of impressment. It
would leave the root that must necessarily shoot up in future animosity
and hostilities. America can never quietly submit to the deepest of
injury. Necessity might compel her to yield for a moment; but it would
be to watch the growth of national strength, and to seize the first
favorable opportunity to seek redress. The worst enemy to the peace of
the two countries could not desire a more effectual means to propagate
eternal enmity.

But it is said that we ought to offer to England suitable regulations
on this subject to secure to her the use of her own seamen; and because
we have not, we are aggressors. He denied that we were bound to tender
any regulations, or that we had not. England was the party injuring.
She ought to confine her seamen to her own service; or, if that was
impracticable, propose such arrangements that she might exercise her
right without injury to us. This is the rule that governs all analogous
cases in private life. But we have made our offer; it is, that the ship
should protect the sailor. It is the most simple and only safe rule;
but, to secure so desirable a point, the most liberal and effectual
provisions ought and have been proposed to be made on our part to guard
the British Government against the evil they apprehended, the loss of
her seamen. The whole doctrine of protection heretofore relied on,
and still recommended by the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. P.,) is
false and derogatory to our honor; and under no possible modification
can effect the desirable objects of affording safety to our sailors,
and securing the future harmony of the two countries. Nor can it be
doubted, if governed by justice, she will yield to the offer of our
Government, particularly if what the gentleman from New York (Mr.
BLEECKER) says be true, that there are ten thousand of her seamen
in our service. She would be greatly the gainer by the arrangement.
Experience, it is to be feared, however, will teach that gentleman that
the evil lies much deeper. The use of her seamen is a mere pretence.
The blow is aimed at our commercial greatness. It is this which has
animated and directed all of her injurious councils towards this
country. England is at the same time a trading and fighting nation;
two occupations naturally at variance, and most difficult to be united.
War limits the number and extent of the markets of a belligerent,
makes a variety of regulations necessary; and produces heavy taxes,
which are inimical to the prosperity of manufactories and consequently
commerce. These causes combined give to trade new channels, which
direct it naturally to neutral nations. To counteract this tendency,
England, under various but flimsy pretences, has endeavored to support
her commercial superiority by monopoly. It has been our fortune to
resist with no inconsiderable success this spirit of monopoly. Her
principal object in contending for the right of impressment is to have,
in a great measure, the monopoly of the sailors of the world. A fixed
resistance will compel her to yield this point as she has already done
her Orders in Council. Success will amply reward our exertions. Our
future commerce will feel its invigorating effects. But, say gentlemen,
England will never yield this point, and every effort on our part
to secure it is hopeless. To confirm this prediction and secure our
reverence, the prophecies of the last session are relied on. Mr. C.
felt no disposition to disparage our opponents' talents in that line;
but he very much doubted whether the whole chapter of woes had been
fulfilled. He would, for instance, ask whether so much as related to
sacked towns, bombarded cities, ruined commerce, and revolting blacks,
had been realized?

Such, then, is the cause of the war and its continuation; and such the
nature of the opposition experienced, and its justification. It remains
to be seen whether the intended effect will be produced. Whether
animosity and discord will be fomented, and the zeal and union of the
people to maintain the rights and indispensable duties of the community
will abate; or, describing it under another aspect, whether it is the
destiny of our country to sink under that of our enemy or not. Mr. C.
said he was not without his fears and his hopes.

On the one hand our opponents had manifestly the advantage. The love
of present ease and enjoyment, the love of gain, and party zeal, were
on their side. These constitute part of the weakness of our nature.
We naturally lead that way without the arts of persuasion. Far more
difficult is the task of the majority. It is theirs to support the
distant but lasting interest of our country; it is theirs to elevate
the minds of the people, and to call up all of those qualities by which
present sacrifices are made to secure a future good. On the other
hand, our cause is not without its hope. The interest of the people
and that of the leaders of a party are, as observed by a gentleman
from New York, (Mr. STOW,) often at variance. The people are always
ready, unless led astray by ignorance or delusion, to participate in
the success of the country, or to sympathize in its adversity. Very
different are the feelings of the leaders; on every great measure they
stand pledged against its success, and almost invariably consider
that their political consequence depends on its defeat. The heat of
debate, the spirit of settled opposition, and the confident prediction
of disaster, are among the causes of this opposition between the
interest of a party and their country; and in no instance under our
own Government have they existed in a greater degree than in relation
to the present war. The evil is deeply rooted in the constitution of
all free Governments, and is the principal cause of their weakness and
destruction. It has but one remedy, the virtue and intelligence of the
people--it behooves them, as they value the blessings of their freedom,
not to permit themselves to be drawn into the vortex of party rage. For
if by such opposition the firmest Government should prove incompetent
to maintain the rights of the nation against foreign aggression, they
will find realized the truth of the assertion that government is
protection, and that it cannot exist where it fails of this great and
primary object. The authors of the weakness are commonly the first to
take the advantage of it, and to turn it to the destruction of liberty.

Mr. DESHA.--Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain you long;
my principal object in rising is to conjure gentlemen to bring this
debate to a close. Sir, what can gentlemen flatter themselves by
suffering this discussion to be protracted to so unwarrantable a
length? It cannot be supposed that the substantial part of this House
(I mean those who think much and speak little) will, by theoretical
or sophisticated remarks, be driven from their course. Then, sir,
those long-winded speeches must be either intended for the gallery,
or for gentlemen's constituents. It would certainly be unjustifiable
to sport away the public money; to exhaust the public patience in
making long speeches, merely for the purpose of amusing the ear of the
gallery. And, sir, your constituents would much rather you would act
with decision, with promptitude, in adopting measures calculated for a
vigorous prosecution of the war, that it might be brought to a speedy
and honorable termination, than to take up weeks in detailing the
causes of the war. The people are fully apprised of the causes of the
war, from the documents that have been promulgated; they are satisfied
that it is a just and necessary war: that it has been forced upon us
by the injustice and oppression of our enemy, occasioned in a great
measure by the violent opposition of a party to the Administration.
Sir, act so as to give a vigorous prosecution to the war, and act
promptly, and the people will support you with manly firmness,
independent of the consideration of expense.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contemplates raising twenty thousand men for
one year. Although I shall vote for the bill under consideration, I do
not altogether approve of it. Sir, the time of service is too short to
answer a valuable purpose. I am not so sanguine as to suppose that we
will overrun the British provinces in one season. I should like it much
better if the time of service, as has been proposed, was extended to
eighteen months, and the bounty raised in proportion. You would then
have the advantage of two campaigns; in the last of which, you might
calculate on a certainty of being able to do something of a decisive
character, as you would have the advantage of disciplined troops;
and really, sir, if this bill is to answer any valuable purpose, it
ought to have been passed some time since. Gentlemen certainly must
see that the object of the opposition is procrastination; they have
predicted that the bill under consideration, if adopted, will not only
run the country to extraordinary expenses, swell the national debt to
an enormous size, but that it will ultimately bring disgrace on the
Government. And, sir, they are determined that their predictions shall
be realized, by putting off the passage of the bill until late in the
season thereby preventing you from obtaining the men in time to do
any thing of a decisive character next summer. This, in my mind, is
unquestionably their object; and I believe the ambition of some of them
is such, that, rather than be found false prophets, they would endanger
the only republic in the world. Sir, I do not wish to be understood to
include the whole Federal party; far from it. I believe there are some,
and I hope a considerable portion, who are American in principle, and
would, perhaps, go as far as any American in defending their country's
rights. Sir, it is not my intention to arraign motives; but, speaking
of party, what has been the conduct of the Federalists for twelve years
past, ever since the termination of the Reign of Terror? A uniform
opposition to every thing of a prominent character proposed by the
different republican Administrations. Now, sir, if Mr. Jefferson and
Mr. Madison had been the weakest of men, as well as the wickedest,
(which no man in his senses, who had any respect for his character,
or standing in society, would assert,) they must have accidentally
happened on something right in the course of twelve years.

Mr. Speaker, it is mortifying to see gentlemen who call themselves
Americans, rise up in the face of the nation to palliate and
vindicate the conduct of an enemy, and at the same time reprobate,
in the strongest language of ridicule, every step proposed by the
Administration calculated to counteract the iniquitous and destructive
policy of our enemy. Can such conduct be called American? Sir, when it
ought to be the duty and pride of every man having any pretensions to
American principles, to rally under the governmental standard, in order
to assist in expelling our tyrannical oppressors from the continent, by
which extricating the Government from its present difficulties, you see
the Federal party making every exertion in their power to make the war
a dishonorable one.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is in the nature of tyrannical or
despotical Governments to take arbitrary strides; yet, sir, I do
believe that the impositions and oppressions heaped upon the
American Government; the evils under which we at this time labor,
are measurably, if not entirely, attributable to the party hostility
arrayed against the Administration. Sir, they have, by their uniform
opposition, led the British to believe that they had a powerful party
in this country; that parties were nearly equally balanced; that it
would be impossible for a Republican Administration to adhere to any
decided stand taken against England, and that finally the English
party would prevail. Thus, sir, have Government been beset by party.
They have been baffled in every peaceable step calculated to vindicate
our rights, or redress our grievances, until, by the injustice of
our foreign enemy, bottomed on the aid they calculated on receiving
from our domestic foes, the Government have been forced into war.
And now you are told to put a stop to the war, and try once more if
Briton will not do us justice. Degrading thought! Sir, we have already
humbled ourselves in making proposals, and all efforts on the part
of the Administration failed. The world has seen and understood that
the failure was attributable to her own wickedness, and not to our
pertinacity. Sir, the American Administration has exhibited an example
of moderation unparalleled in the annals of the world; our forbearance
has astonished the universe, and we have the consolation to see that
neither the guilt of aggression, nor the folly of ambition, can be
fairly attributed to it. Negotiation, as well as patience, has been
exhausted. Instead of appealing again to the justice of a Government
that makes principle bend to power, we have been necessarily compelled
(though reluctantly) to appeal to arms, and I trust in God that they
will never be laid down short of justice.

Mr. CHEVES rose.--It was for some time during this debate, said he, my
intention to have mingled my unimportant opinions and sentiments with
those of other gentlemen in this discussion; but I gave way from time
to time before the eagerness of others who were desirous of presenting
themselves to your attention, and I had entirely abandoned the idea
of taking any part in the argument; but the sudden and unexpected
indisposition at this moment of my worthy friend and honorable
colleague, (Mr. WILLIAMS,) the chairman of the committee with whom
this bill originated, who was expected to close the debate, has left a
vacuum in the argument which I propose to fill. Could he have addressed
you, as he was prepared and anxious, in the faithful discharge of his
duty to do, it would have rendered the feeble attempt which I shall
make as unnecessary as it would have been impertinent and obtrusive.
I propose, then, to speak, as my honorable friend would probably have
done, generally, but briefly, on the several heads of discussion
which have been introduced into the debate, which has not been on the
bill before you, but on the general merits of the war; the origin,
progress, and continuance of it. I mean not to censure the wide range
which this discussion has taken. It is fair and right in gentlemen of
the opposition to select some occasion during each session on which to
discuss the great questions of state which the public events of the
passing times present; and the one furnished by the bill before you was
perhaps as proper as any other.

Almost all the gentlemen who have addressed you, have very gravely told
you, by way of exordium, of their unquestionable right to do so, and
of the firmness with which they mean to assert and exercise it, as if
there had been, at any time, really an opposition to this freedom of
discussion. These introductions must be a little amusing to the members
of this House and to the attendants in your galleries, who have been
in the habit of listening to the gentlemen. But if there ever could
have been a doubt on this subject, and surely there never was any, the
debate, which I hope is about to be closed, affords an ample refutation
of it. There are parts of this debate which will descend to distant
posterity as a monument of the freedom of discussion in this Hall. I
trust, sir, we shall furnish few such testimonials--I hope never to
see another exhibition on this floor. They must be looked upon with
apprehension by all those who consider the restraints of personal
politeness and the urbanity of social esteem as affording a better
security to those who love peace and good manners, for the preservation
of these valuable objects, than can be lent by the strongest arm or
the severest sanctions which positive institutions have established;
restraints under which even "vice itself loses half its evil, by losing
all its grossness." I shall imitate the example of gentlemen who
followed in the debate--I shall pour oil upon the waves, and endeavor
to still the raging of the storm.

Gentlemen, fruitful in epithets, yet rather fruitful in their abundance
than in their variety, have called this an unjust, wanton, wicked,
and unnecessary war. I, on the contrary, assert it to be a just and
necessary war. One characteristic difficulty here presents itself,
which has occurred in all the discussion in and out of this House
on this subject. What is a just and necessary war? By the advocates
of war it is asserted that the injuries and insults of the enemy
demanded war, and rendered this war just and necessary. The opponents
of war admit the magnitude of the insults and injuries, but deny the
inference. They assert that the war is unnecessary and not justifiable,
because the pecuniary expenditure and loss will exceed in value the
commercial objects for which we are contending. The advocates of war
deny both the premises and the conclusion. The objects of the war are
not merely commercial, but, if they were, the inference is denied.
They admit that the pecuniary expenditure and loss will exceed the
pecuniary value of the commercial objects for which they contend, but
they deny that a war for commercial objects is therefore unnecessary
or indefensible. To an intelligible argument it seems, therefore, under
these circumstances, necessary that we should begin by some definition
of a just and necessary war; and yet it seems to be a melancholy labor
in a great and free State, where public sentiment should be unequivocal
on such subjects, to proceed by rules of logic to establish great
first principles of public sentiment; but I fear that, as all good
things are purchased by concomitant sacrifices, we have not obtained
the innumerable blessings and advantages of the freedom of speech and
of the press for nothing. I fear they have sometimes substituted an
erring reason for a better guide--the great uncontaminated current of
public feeling--the moral sense of the nation, of which the honorable
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. QUINCY) so often tells so much.

But we must inquire, what is a just and necessary war? A war is just
and necessary when waged to protect and defend the violated pecuniary
interests of the country; or to defend and secure the sovereign rights
and independence of a country; or, lastly and principally, to support
and maintain the national honor. The last, indeed, embraces all the
others; and, if I have distinguished, it is rather in conformity with
custom, or for the purpose of elucidation than from any practical
separation which I admit between the last and the former. But I
am likely to incur the derision of the honorable gentlemen in the
opposition by speaking of national honor. They seem not to have
admitted the term into their vocabulary; they treat it as a new
language; they remind me of the character of _Goldfinch_ in one of
_Holcroft's_ plays, who, when he hears the Romans mentioned, exclaims,
"Romans! Romans! who are they?" So the gentlemen, "national honor!
what's that? what's that?" Yet, sir, strange as it may seem to the
honorable gentlemen over the way, the maintenance of the principle
of national honor, by which I mean that principle which animates and
sustains an elevated fitness of character and conduct, is the only
justifiable cause of war; and, if necessary, the principle ought to be
maintained by all the sacrifices of war in its worst shape. No war is
justifiable or necessary which is waged merely for pecuniary objects,
if we can suppose such a war, for all wars involve expense and loss
greater than the amount of any pecuniary objects for which they can
be waged. On the ground of interest merely they would not, therefore,
be justifiable; and there is to be superadded, what cannot be valued
in money, the value of human life. But the value of every thing is
founded on the security with which it is enjoyed. One unpunished
violation of right provokes another and another, until all security is
destroyed; and, therefore, it is necessary to resist given infractions
of pecuniary right by sacrifices beyond the value of the right itself,
because resistance is necessary to the security of all other pecuniary
rights--nay, to the security of all other rights. Security of rights
is a political thing; it is the protection of Government; it derives
its value, and a great portion of its power, too, from a faithful
and unrelaxed application of it to all the rights and interests of
a nation; and is diminished in its value, and in its power also, by
any failure to afford the protection which is due by Government to
the subjects and the interests under its control. To abandon any
interest is to abandon all, and to protect one is to protect all; war,
therefore, waged to protect one political right is waged to protect
all political rights; no war is, in consequence, made for any given
right merely as such, but for all the rights and interests which are
bound together in a nation under the social and civil compacts. To
compare the expenditure and losses of war with the value of commercial
objects, which may be the immediate cause of war, is to talk idly,
and to forget the true end of all war and the first great purpose of
Government--security. A great man (Sir James Mackintosh) has said,
"the paramount interest of every State, that which comprehends all
others, is security." Will you, then, it may be inquired, go to war to
avenge the infraction of the smallest right under the protection of
Government, and for this object jeopardize every other, and spill the
blood of your fellow-citizens? Certainly not. There is a fitness which
cannot be defined in anticipation, but which is easily discoverable
when the occasion occurs, which determines when a war is necessary.
It may depend upon the nature of the injury; on the character which
the nation has acquired; on its ability to avenge the injury; on the
character of the nation which has inflicted the injury, and a thousand
other circumstances. The question ought always to be, What becomes
the nation? What is due to the national honor? What is necessary to
sustain an elevated fitness of character and conduct in the nation?
If the injury sustained be one which cannot or will not probably be
repeated, it is less necessary to avenge it. If the nation be poor
and feeble, it may be obliged to submit to the violation of a great
right. If it be great and powerful, it must sometimes resent a smaller
injury; it may sometimes disdain to notice a considerable aggression
upon its rights; in short, in no instance is the expense of the war a
rule which will prove it just and necessary, or otherwise; in every
instance is national honor, that is, a fitness of character and
conduct, the rule by which its necessity and justifiable character are
determinable. Generally when a nation is able to resist with effect the
infraction of important pecuniary rights, it seems indubitable that an
elevated fitness of character and conduct requires resistance. But this
obligation is increased, and is less doubtful when any of the sovereign
rights of a nation are infringed, as in gross and reiterated insults to
the national flag, habitual violations of the personal liberty of its
subjects, invasion of its territories, and the like; these are assaults
upon its independence, and there is no room left for an inquiry into
the fitness of resistance; it may indeed be supposed to change from a
question of expediency to an act of necessity; it is a struggle for
self-preservation; the nation acts upon a principle which is inherent
in the meanest insect, and of which inanimate matter is not divested;
the worm, when trodden on, writhes in resistance as well as anguish,
and the reaction of inanimate matter seems to be the repulsive act of
self-preservation.

What, then, did an elevated fitness of character and conduct require
of the American Government, in relation to Great Britain, at the
moment war was declared? What does it still require? I repeat, the
war is a just and necessary war. This will be proved by adverting to
the causes of the war. What, then, were the causes of the war? They
were principally new and before unheard-of blockades--the Orders in
Council, which have been generally so called, by way of pre-eminence;
the spoliations of our commerce under various unfounded and insulting
pretexts, and the impressment of our seamen. I am not permitted by the
circumstances under which I address you to go at length into any of
these subjects. But I may ask, what on the ocean did we enjoy but by
the sufferance of Great Britain? What insults, what injuries had we not
suffered? When did they begin; when, though they may have been varied
in character, were they relaxed in degree, and when were they probably
to cease?

Great Britain has been properly selected as the first object of our
hostility. When a proposition was made to include France as well as
Great Britain in the declaration of war, gentlemen on neither side
of the House did support it. The opposition prints throughout the
Union laughed it to scorn. Few men thought of resisting both at once.
The voice of both parties appeared to be against it. The Government,
obliged to resist, was obliged to select its enemy. Should France have
been selected? With the blood of our citizens insultingly slaughtered
without the slightest provocation, on the shores of our own territory,
unatoned for till the moment of the declaration of war, with the
habitual impressment of our seamen in every sea, with the continual
and reiterated violation of your right to seek where you choose a
market for your native produce, all before your eyes, and with no hope
of a discontinuance of these injuries, we are told that we ought to
have diverted our enmity from Great Britain, and directed it against
France. Where, sir, could we attack France? Where are her colonies
into which we could carry our arms? Where could we subjugate her
provinces? Where are her ships?--where her commerce? Where could we
have carried on against her any of the operations of war? Would the
chivalry of gentlemen on the other side of the House have suggested an
invasion of France? An honorable gentleman from New York, (Mr. GOLD)
said it would not have required another man nor another ship, to
have resisted France. But, why, I pray you? Because such a resistance
would have been confined to the idle and nugatory act of declaring
it. Effectual resistance would have been impracticable. Gentlemen
would resist France, would declare war against France, merely to show
their indignation at her perfidy and injustice; and here I confess
my feelings go with the gentlemen--I would do so too, had we no
other enemy to contend with. But if we had abandoned or deferred our
resistance to the injuries of England and as a pretext for it assailed
France, would not the act have been idle and weak? Would it not have
been wicked, to borrow one of the epithets which gentlemen have applied
to the war with England, so to have sported with the public feelings
and the national resentment as to have declared war against France,
the minor aggressor, whom we could not touch, and to have suppressed
our resentment against Great Britain, whose injuries were unlimited
and unceasing, and whom alone we could reach? But why, sir, are the
injuries these nations have done contrasted, and those of the one made
an apology for those of the other? Why are we partisans of either? Have
we no country of our own? Is there a land upon the globe so fair, so
happy, and so free? And, beholding and enjoying these blessings,

    "Breathes there a man with soul so dead
    Who never to himself hath said,
    _This is my own, my native land_!"

Sir, I feel neither as a Frenchman nor Briton, but as an American.
As a citizen of the United States, I bear no affection to any other
country. If I have any feeling of partiality for either of the great
belligerents, it is for the country, and the people of Great Britain.
From them I draw my blood in a very short descent. But that nation is
the injurer of my country, and I can see her in no other light than
that of an enemy, nor can I find any apology for her in the injuries
France has done us. Sir, the Government did right in discriminating
between Britain and France, and selecting the former. It was the only
mode of real practical resistance. The world would have laughed at us
had we declared war against France, who was no longer able to injure
us, whom we could not assail with effect, and have left the unceasing
injuries of Great Britain to go on unresisted and unresented. The
world would have considered it as a mere cover for our pusillanimity.
I say, then, that the Government was not tricked into a war with Great
Britain. It was commenced in the prosecution of the best and most
deliberate policy. It was the only honorable and practicable course. If
there has been an error, and I think there has, it was in not having
long since resisted England. War against England should have followed
the first embargo; that was a wise measure, but it could not endure
forever; it carried the policy of commercial restriction upon the enemy
as far as such a policy should ever be carried, which from its nature
can only be temporary. It at the same time prepared the nation for war;
it brought home your wealth and seamen; it brought home your vessels,
and placed you in the attitude in which the nation ought to have been
previous to war, and its termination ought to have been followed by
immediate and vigorous war. The pulse of the nation was high, and the
confidence of the people in their rulers and resources great. Distrust
has grown out of the hesitation and timidity then manifested. If the
embargo had been followed up by war, some of the greatest injuries we
have since suffered would not have occurred. France would not have
ventured to have seized and sequestered our vessels and property as she
subsequently did. She was tempted to do it because she saw we would
suffer and submit to any injury.

Gentlemen say, that popular opinion was against the war. I deny it,
sir. It was called for by popular opinion; and this will not be
disproved, however soon popular opinion shall incline to peace, and
gentlemen on the other side of the House regain the reins of power,
as they are not unlikely to do, however just and necessary the war.
Any man who thought with half the ability with which the gentlemen do,
must have believed that in voting for war, he was probably surrendering
himself politically a victim on the altar of his country; yet it is
frequently declared, that the majority have declared this war to
preserve their seats. They declared it against popular opinion, too, to
preserve their seats, which they hold by the tenure of popular opinion!
Are gentlemen serious? Look at the history of nations, and see if the
war-makers have been generally the peacemakers.

But war was prematurely declared, it is said, because we had not a
regular disciplined army at the time. Preparation for operations on
land must have been relative to the defence of our own territory, or
the invasion of the enemy's territory. The militia are the proper
and the adequate defenders of the soil on which they live; for this
purpose we did not want any other army. They might have been made
more extensively useful. I join not with their revilers--I wish that
their usefulness had not been circumscribed by a doctrine subversive
of the true principles of the constitution which was maintained on
this floor. I rejoice that I combated that doctrine; yet I do not
mean to consider them as a fit army of invasion. I acknowledge that
we were not prepared with a regularly-disciplined army, qualified
for the invasion and conquest of the enemy's country. But should we
have been prepared by winter, the time to which gentlemen wished to
have deferred the declaration of war? It is a truth that a Government
like ours never will, and never can, be prepared for war in peace.
The great and effective preparation for war must grow out of the
progress and events of the war. Notwithstanding our disasters on land,
I believe our preparation is greater, and our situation better, than
it would have been had the war been deferred. We were to expect, in
the commencement of the war, to suffer such misfortunes. Except in
the affair of Detroit, nothing has happened which should cause us to
blush: that disgrace, like the disgrace of the Chesapeake, will be the
harbinger of glory--I take it as an omen of victory. I pledge myself,
if the war continue it will be so in the event. As the war stands at
this moment, we have suffered little, and we have humbled the pride of
the enemy where it was most insulting. We have insured the confidence
of the nation, from the seashore to the mountains beyond them, as far
as our population reaches, in our naval ability. I ask the gentlemen
on the other side of the House, whether we have not gained something
in this respect by the war? In one word, who would now commence the
war and take the chance of better success in preference to the actual
fortune of the war since it has been declared. It was not prematurely
declared. I now contend the war ought to be continued. Some gentlemen
have thought fit to say in debate, that the only alleged cause of war
was formed by the Orders in Council. But from their own act, their
celebrated protest, I will prove the contrary. Impressment is there
enumerated as among the causes of war, as it was in all the public
acts of the time relative to the causes of war. Without more words, I
am authorized in asserting that impressment was one of the principal
causes of the war; and although had the Orders in Council been revoked,
and their revocation known to us before war was declared, we would no
doubt have temporized longer; yet this cause itself must in the end
have produced war.

It appears that very soon after the General Government went into
operation, this practice was the subject of remonstrance; this was
under the Administration of General WASHINGTON. It has been the subject
of negotiation and remonstrance under every succeeding Administration.
But it is alleged, because it was not settled in the Treaty of 1794,
that it was not considered by General WASHINGTON as justifiable cause
of war, and it is inferred that it ought not now to be considered as
sufficient cause for the continuance of the war. What, sir, shall
constitute cause of war? The spoliation of your property? Not so, say
gentlemen, because the expenditure for redress will be greater than
the injury sustained. The violation of the personal liberty of your
citizens and the degradation of the ensign of your sovereignty? No,
say gentlemen, General WASHINGTON did not consider these as sufficient
cause of war. Will, then, any injury, or any combination of injuries,
authorize or require national resentment? The reasoning of the
gentlemen would lead us to a negative conclusion. But in their estimate
of the actual causes of the present war, they appear to consider the
business of impressment as trivial, and the Orders in Council as
every thing. What, sir, will you go to war for property, the value
of which is only relative, and which, compared with personal liberty,
is worthless, and refuse to go to war for the personal liberty of the
citizen? for that which is alike

    "Given to the fool, the vain, the evil--
    To Ward, to Waters, Chartres, and the Devil!"

You will wage war, and not to rescue your fellow-citizens from
imprisonment and stripes? But however this subject was to be viewed
before we were actually involved in war, it must now be put on
a footing of certainty; if our claim be not secured it will be
surrendered; to make peace without obtaining any security against
the abuse of which we complain, would be to acquiesce in it, and to
acquiesce in it would be to surrender the rights of the country. This
was the reasoning of Mr. King, who in one of his communications to
Government on this subject says, he has abandoned negotiation, because
to acquiesce in the views of the British Government would be to
surrender our rights. And shall I be obliged, sir, to come here with
volumes of documents to prove the rights of the citizen; to demonstrate
that the naval officers of Britain have not a right to incarcerate
him; to drag him to the gangway and flog him? Shall I be obliged by a
laborious process of reasoning to prove the obligation of Government to
rescue him from such suffering? No, gentlemen generally have abandoned
this ground, and say, that the impressment of our citizens is, under
proper circumstances, justifiable cause of war; and the gentleman from
North Carolina, (Mr. PEARSON,) who opened the debate on this subject
says, that if a fit proposition, accompanied by means calculated to
give it a fair chance of success, were tendered and did not procure a
cessation of the practice of impressment, he would support the war.
What is the proposition which he submits? That we shall prohibit from
serving in our ships the seamen of Great Britain and other foreign
seamen, and confine our crews to our own citizens. This being done he
will support the war. I challenge gentlemen on the other side of the
House to say distinctly to the people, for whom an honorable gentleman
(Mr. QUINCY) has said this debate was intended, that this war should
not be continued for the protection of our seamen; they will not, they
dare not. But if they are against the continuance of the war, it is on
that ground and no other. The honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH) says, Great Britain has a right to insist on the services of
her own subjects, and that England would not be England if she could
not command them. I say that America will cease to be America if she
suffers her to command them at the price of the liberty of her citizens
and the honor of her flag. The same gentleman says, England will
nail the flag to the mast and go to the bottom with it, rather than
surrender the right of taking her seamen from on board our merchant
vessels. I hope, sir, we shall imitate the noble example she sets us,
and make every sacrifice rather than give up our citizens to bondage
and stripes.

But, say gentlemen, the public law of all nations on earth, ancient
and modern, has denied the right of expatriation. Admit that they are
correct, and for the purpose of the argument, I do admit that such
is the general law. But what is this law as modified by the practice
of nations? Every nation which has thus forbidden expatriation has
at the same time granted naturalization, and the general practice of
nations is undoubtedly the law of nations. Does not England naturalize
foreigners? Does she not naturalize your citizens? If she does not do
it as generally as you do, it is because it is not her policy to do so;
it is enough that she naturalizes your seamen; it is enough that all
nations have, at the same moment, forbidden expatriation and granted
naturalization. The law must be the result of neither exclusively,
but of both these practices. Mr. Burke, (the great Edmund,) who was
certainly no innovator, denominates Charles XII. the murderer of
Patkul. Patkul was born a Swedish subject and had repeatedly taken up
arms against his Sovereign; he was adopted by Russia and had been her
Minister at the Court of Poland. Charles XII., the Sovereign to whom
his natural allegiance was due, obtained possession of his person and
put him to death--this act Mr. Burke denominates murder!

Governments which have naturalized foreigners have protected their
naturalized subjects, and the Government to whom the native allegiance
of such subjects was due, though they have denied the right of
expatriation, have not impugned the protecting interposition of the
adopted sovereign. If they have, it has been considered as an act of
unprincipled violence, and in the instance of Patkul has merited and
received the denomination of murder. On this subject I will quote a
single sentence from one of Mr. King's letters; he says, "it behooves
the British Government to adhere to the principle of natural allegiance
wholly, or renounce it wholly." Contending themselves for the right
of naturalization, can the British Government deny it to others? On
the part of this Government sufficient evidence of its pacific and
accommodating disposition appears in its offer to surrender every thing
it can, consistently with national faith. On the part of Britain a
protraction of the war, by refusing to meet us on the terms proposed,
can proceed from no other motive than a determination to continue that
abuse of power which she has inflicted and we have suffered so long.
The ground taken by this country is what we must insist upon keeping,
and I doubt not we will succeed if we contend for it as we ought.
The informality of the negotiation between our Chargé d'Affaires and
the British Government has been mentioned as a cause of its failure.
If there had been an amicable disposition on the part of the British
Government, the authority would have been considered ample. If there
be not an amicable disposition we will negotiate in vain. We must
fight, or we shall never succeed in obtaining a recognition of our
rights. I will advert to one argument of the gentleman from New York,
(Mr. EMOTT,) who has examined this subject with ability. It is that
one which appeared to me to make the greatest impression on the House.
He said he had examined the voluminous document on the subject of
impressment, which was printed during the last session by order of the
House, and that it did not appear from that document that more than
ninety-three American seamen had been impressed in the year 1809; from
which I believe every one who heard him inferred that it was proved
affirmatively by that document, that no more than ninety-three American
seamen, who were named therein, were impressed in that year. Now, what
is the fact? The document does not state in one case, perhaps of eight
or ten, when the impressment took place, and there are one thousand
five hundred and fifty-eight persons named in that document. Of course
the gentleman could not be authorized to say that but ninety-three,
or any other precise number, were impressed in 1809. All those, the
date of whose detention is not stated, may have been impressed in
1809. It is probable much the greatest portion was. A more particular
examination of this point of inquiry will prove the magnitude of the
evil. From the 1st of April, 1809, to the 30th of September, 1810, a
period of eighteen months only, a single agent of this Government, in
London, received one thousand five hundred and fifty-eight applications
from impressed seamen. How many were unable to apply? Men imprisoned on
board ships of war, scattered over the ocean and on distant stations,
how could they apply to Mr. Lyman in London and give in their names?
The number impressed must have been great, indeed, when a single agent
in the short space of eighteen months, registered the names of one
thousand five hundred and fifty-eight applicants. Of this number a part
was discharged, acknowledged to be Americans beyond the possibility
of denial; a small number is detained as being born in England, and
the remainder are detained under various pretexts--such as supposed
to be born in England, being on distant stations, having consular
certificates proving them Danes, Swedes, &c.; as if they had any better
right to take from on board an American vessel a Swede or a Dane than
an American citizen. Even their own doctrine goes to assert a right to
seize none but their own subjects. I ask, now, whether the impression
made by the gentleman from New York was a just one? Whether it does
not appear probable that at least one thousand of those contained in
this list were impressed without even a plausible pretext? But if in a
single statement I make out a result so variant from the statement of
the gentleman, I beg you and the public to test the other statements
of the gentleman in the same way. Not, sir, that the gentleman made
the statement with any unfair intention, for no man is more honorable
or correct--he has my highest esteem--but, it will show how liable we
are to err--nay, how prone we are to err when our feelings and habit of
thinking run with our argument. So much for impressment. It is an abuse
such as cannot be tolerated by an independent nation. It is one which
ought to be resisted by war.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and decided in
the affirmative--For the bill 77, against it 42, as follows:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,
    Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett,
    Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Robert
    Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun,
    Francis Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John Clopton,
    Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, Roger Davis,
    John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle,
    William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson,
    Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John
    A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson,
    Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, Aaron
    Lyle, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander
    McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow,
    Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel
    Pickens, James Pleasants, jun., Benjamin Pond, William M.
    Richardson, Samuel Ringgold, Thomas B. Robertson, John Rhea,
    John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Lemuel Sawyer,
    Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George
    Smith, John Smith, William Strong, John Taliaferro, George M.
    Troup, Charles Turner, jr., William Widgery, and Richard Wynn.

    NAYS.--John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Hermanus Bleecker, James
    Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin
    Chittenden, Matthew Clay, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr.,
    William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles
    Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jun.,
    Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., William Lowndes,
    Archibald McBryde, James Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph
    Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy,
    John Randolph, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman,
    Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel
    Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Laban Wheaton, Leonard
    White, and Thomas Wilson.

_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act in addition to the act, entitled
'An act to raise an additional military force, and for other purposes.'"


FRIDAY, January 15.

            _Land claims in Missouri Territory--Confirmation
                   of private claims--Pre-emptions._

Mr. HEMPSTEAD observed, that he had certain resolutions to submit,
on which, as they were somewhat in detail, he would ask the liberty
to make a few remarks. Under the second section of the first act for
adjusting land claims in the Territory of Louisiana, (now Missouri,)
each actual settler was entitled to six hundred and forty acres of
land, together with such other and further quantity as heretofore had
been allowed for the wife and family of such actual settler, agreeably
to the laws, usages, and customs of the Spanish Government. A majority
of the Board of Land Commissioners in that Territory were, under
that section, so liberal in their grants, that it excited the alarm
of Government. This alarm, sir, was soon transferred to the people,
and has continued ever since; because a majority of the Board passed
from one extreme to the other, and granted, in many instances, only
one hundred, one hundred and fifty or two hundred arpens, where they
had before granted seven or eight hundred arpens. The grants for the
smaller quantities are contained in the lists of grants, and being
final against the United States, would never come before Congress,
unless upon petitions from individual claimants. Other boards of
Commissioners, acting under the same law, have granted to the actual
settler in every instance, when the law had been complied with, six
hundred and forty acres; and it would seem to me, sir, that the people
of the Missouri Territory are entitled to the same justice.

The second resolution is to provide as well for rejected claims,
in which no testimony has been adduced, as when testimony has been
received; and to prevent individual claimants from loading our table
with petitions. The mode pointed out will present all claims to
Congress at one time. With these observations I shall submit the
resolutions for the sanction of the House:

    _Resolved_, That the Committee on the Public Lands be
    instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing,
    in favor of the claimants, the re-examination of the grants
    of land made by the board of Commissioners for ascertaining
    and adjusting the titles and claims to land in the district
    of Louisiana, under the second section of the act, entitled
    "An act for ascertaining and adjusting the titles and claims
    to land within the Territory of Orleans and the district of
    Louisiana," passed the 2d of March, 1805; and also the grants
    made by the Recorder of Land Titles for the Territory of
    Missouri, under that part of the third section of the act,
    entitled "An act further providing for settling the claims to
    land in the Territory of Missouri," passed the 13th of June,
    1812, which provides for settlement of donation rights in all
    cases where the quantity of land granted is less than six
    hundred and forty acres; and that said committee have leave to
    report by bill, or otherwise.

    _Resolved_, That the Committee on the Public Lands be
    instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing the
    Recorder of Land Titles for the Territory of Missouri to
    receive testimony in all the claims to land in which none has
    been adduced, and which are rejected in the report made by the
    late board of Commissioners for ascertaining and adjusting the
    titles and claims to land in the then district of Louisiana,
    now Territory of Missouri; and, afterwards, to arrange into
    classes, according to their respective merits, as well the
    claims embraced by this resolution, as the other rejected
    claims mentioned in said report, and made abstracts containing
    the substance of the evidence in support of such claims,
    and such other information and remarks as may be necessary
    to a proper decision thereon, and report on said claims to
    the General Commissioner of the Land Office; and that said
    committee have leave to report by bill, or otherwise.

    _Resolved_, That said committee be instructed to inquire into
    the expediency of granting the right of pre-emption to actual
    settlers on the public lands in the said Territory of Missouri;
    and that said committee have leave to report by bill, or
    otherwise.

The resolutions were then agreed to.


MONDAY, January 18.

Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, PELEG TALIMAN; and from
Pennsylvania, WILLIAM PIPER, appeared, and took their seats.

                 _Encouragement to Privateer Captures._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
"relating to captures."

[The bill provides that compensation shall be allowed to the officers
and crews of our public vessels, for vessels of the enemy necessarily
destroyed at sea after their capture.]

Mr. BASSETT stated to the House the considerations by which the
Naval Committee had been induced to report this bill. It grew more
immediately out of the case of the Guerriere destroyed by the
Constitution--a case precisely in point. Such a principle as that which
the bill proposed, he believed, had been engrafted in the British
service. It was at least required by equity and sound policy, where
the public service required the destruction of a vessel for fear of
recapture by the enemy in its disabled state, that some compensation
should be made to the captors in lieu of that which would have accrued
from the sale of the vessel had it been brought into port.

Mr. H. CLAY (Speaker) spoke in opposition both to the principles
and details of the bill. He was disposed to believe the principle
unprecedented in any other country; but even if it were not, he thought
it ought not to exist in this country. It would have the effect to make
it the interest of the captor, unless the vessel should be immediately
on the coast, or in the very mouth of our rivers, to destroy the
captured vessel. On consulting the underwriters, gentlemen would find
the premium required on bringing in a vessel of any description from
any considerable distance, would be equal to one-half her value;
and, as proof of it, Mr. C. instanced the high insurance even from
Charleston and New Orleans, along our own coast, to a northern port.
The strongest possible temptation would, therefore, be offered by
giving half the value of the destroyed vessel to the captors in case of
her destruction. Mr. C. moved to strike out the first section of the
bill.

Mr. BASSETT replied to Mr. CLAY, and defended the bill, on the ground
of expediency and of precedent. In the British nation, he said, rewards
were always liberally bestowed on skill and valor, and they must
always be by every country that wishes to encourage these qualities in
its citizens. The principle did exist in the British service, not by
statutory, but by admiralty regulations; and in all such cases rewards
had been liberally dispensed.

Mr. BACON opposed the bill as inexpedient and unprecedented. To show
that it went beyond the British legal provisions in that respect, he
quoted a statute of that nation which allows to the captors of vessels
so destroyed, as the bill contemplates, a bounty of five pounds for
every man found alive on board said captured vessels, the aggregate
to be equally distributed among the crew of the captors. Further, he
believed, that Government had not gone.

Mr. CHEVES on this remarked, that every encouragement was afforded to
British naval officers, by their Government, as well by promotions
to higher office and to nobility, &c., which were not known in this
country, as by pecuniary rewards and pensions, not in all cases by
statutory, but by Executive sanctions. He was disposed to be liberal to
our officers, to foster our rising navy. But, though friendly to the
principle, he objected to the particular details of the bill, which
he thought susceptible of modifications which would be better made
in select committee than in the House. He, therefore, moved that the
committee rise.

Mr. QUINCY objected to the principle of the bill, which he thought
fundamentally questionable. He was for providing specially by statute
for each case after its occurrence, where the circumstances of the
case required an exercise of liberality by Congress, and to legislate
generally for future occurrences.

The committee then rose, reported progress, and were refused leave to
sit again; and,

On motion of Mr. CHEVES, the bill was recommitted to the Naval
Committee.


TUESDAY, January 19.

                         _Privateer Pensions._

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill regulating pensions to persons on board private armed ships.

[This bill directs that the two per cent. reserved in the hands of
consuls and collectors, in pursuance of an act of June last, respecting
private armed vessels, &c., be paid into the Treasury, to constitute a
fund for pensions to persons disabled on board private armed vessels,
of the mode and degree of which disability the log book of each vessel
is to be evidence.]

Mr. BURWELL moved to strike out the vital section of the bill, with a
view to try the principle. In support of the motion, he remarked that
he conceived it improper to adopt a principle so extremely liable to
abuse as this, especially when pensions had been refused to at least
equally meritorious sufferers during the Revolution. The evidence
which the log book of a vessel would afford, would be so very liable
to error, and so indefinite, as not to be entitled to that conclusive
weight given to it by the bill. The proper course, he conceived, would
be, to leave the subject open to the annual disposition of Congress;
which was now the case with certain other pensions.

Mr. BASSETT stated, in reply, that, at the last session, two per cent.
having been reserved from the wages of the seamen on board private
armed vessels, for the avowed and declared purpose of constituting
a fund for pensions to the wounded, this bill now merely indicated
the mode of carrying this provision into effect. The money had been
reserved by the collectors and consuls, and as it was never the
intention of Congress to make them a present of it, it remained for
Congress to direct the mode of its distribution. If the principle was
incorrect, it ought to have been objected to when the pledge was given
by the House last session on the subject.

The question on striking out the section was negatived by a very small
majority; and the committee rose and reported the bill.

Mr. STOW made a motion going to confine the pensions allowed by the
bill to such as should be disabled in actual service, and spoke in
support of his motion.

Mr. MCKIM opposed the motion. The services rendered by the privateers
were valuable to the country and ought to be encouraged. The duties on
prize goods, he said, brought into the port of Baltimore alone, had
amounted to three hundred and fifty-four thousand dollars. This showed
the importance of this system in a pecuniary point of view.

Mr. STOW questioned the benefit rendered to the public interest by
privateering, and said he was in favor of letting this fund accumulate,
and first see whether there was sufficient to pension those having
received known wounds in action, before they agreed to extend it to all
casualties on board private armed vessels.

Mr. LITTLE asserted the utility of privateers and their efficiency as a
means of annoying the enemy, He bore testimony to the bravery they had
displayed in all conflicts with the enemy, and to the injuries they had
inflicted on his commerce. The enterprising individuals concerned in it
ought to be encouraged; for, by the impediments to the prosecution of
their enterprise, many had been already discouraged and had dismantled
their vessels. If properly encouraged, they would scour every sea,
however distant, and ransack every port and harbor in search of the
enemy. He was in favor of exhibiting the most liberal disposition
towards them.

Considerable further debate took place on the amendment, which was at
last agreed to by a very small majority.

Mr. RHEA subsequently moved to recommit the bill to the same committee
which reported it, for the purpose of amendment; and the bill was
recommitted.


WEDNESDAY, January 20.

                      _Astronomical Observatory._

Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee to whom was referred the memorial of
William Lambert, and the report made thereon by the Secretary of State
at the last session, presented a bill authorizing the establishment of
an Astronomical Observatory; which was read twice, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole on Friday next.

The report is as follows:

    On the 27th December, 1809, Mr. Lambert addressed the House of
    Representatives upon the expediency of establishing a first
    meridian for the United States at their permanent seat of
    Government. This was ordered for consideration to a select
    number of gentlemen, who, on the 28th March, eighteen hundred
    and ten, laid upon the table an able and learned opinion,
    accompanied with scientific calculations illustrative of the
    object. They concluded their investigation by recommending that
    provision should be made, by law, for determining, with the
    greatest accuracy, the distance between the City of Washington
    and Greenwich in England, and that the proper instruments
    should be procured.

    Afterwards, on the 23d January, 1811, the memorial was referred
    to a select committee; and, on the 23d of the ensuing February,
    that committee was discharged, and the memorial referred to the
    Secretary of State for his consideration.

    Conformably to the desire of the House, that officer wrote to
    the Speaker a letter which, after having been read, on the
    third day of July, 1812, was ordered to lie on the table. That
    letter was, on the 8th December last, ordered to the present
    committee, who have diligently weighed the matters which it
    contains.

    It is their opinion that astronomical observations are highly
    useful to a navigating and commercial people, already eminent
    for their progress in science and the arts, and who are
    laboring for the completion of their national dignity and
    splendor.

    The most ready method of obtaining the information to be
    derived from noting the phenomena of the heavens, is by the
    establishment of an observatory. This may be erected at the
    city of Washington. By such an institution, means may be
    adopted not only to fix the first meridian, but to ascertain
    a great number of other astronomical facts and occurrences
    through the vigilance of a complete astronomer.


THURSDAY, January 21.

The House met with closed doors; and, after being opened, another
member, to wit, from New York, PETER B. PORTER, appeared, and took his
seat.


FRIDAY, January 22.

                     _Encouragement to Privateers._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
report of the Committee of Ways and Means on the petitions of Joshua
Barney and Stephen Kingston.

The resolution, reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, "that
it is inexpedient to legislate upon the subject of the petitions,"
was disagreed to; and the following was reported to the House as a
substitute thereto:

    "_Resolved_, That any right or claim of the United States to
    British property which may have been captured by American
    privateers, arising from forfeiture under any provision of the
    non-importation acts, ought to be relinquished for the benefit
    of the captors."

The question on the original resolution was also disagreed to by a vote
of the House. For disagreeing 61, against it 47.

And the resolution proposed in Committee of the Whole as a substitute,
was, as stated above, agreed to; and was referred to the Committee of
Ways and Means to bring in a bill in pursuance thereof.

                          _Impressed Seamen._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I transmit, for the information of Congress, copies of a
    correspondence between John Mitchell, Agent for American
    Prisoners of War at Halifax, and the British Admiral commanding
    at that station.

    I transmit for the like purposes copies of a letter from
    Commodore Rodgers to the Secretary of the Navy.

  JANUARY 22, 1813.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.


    _Extract of a letter from John Mitchell, Esq., Agent for
      American Prisoners of War at Halifax, to the Secretary of
      State, dated_

"DECEMBER 5, 1812.

    "I cover you a copy of a correspondence, which took place
    in consequence of different applications I received, either
    by letter or personally, from persons detained on board His
    Britannic Majesty's ships of war in this place.

    "I formerly mentioned to you that the Admiral had assured me
    that he would discharge all the citizens of the United States
    who were in the fleet, and actually did discharge several. This
    induced me to think I should be correct, and in the perfect
    line of my duty, in sending him a list of the applicants to me,
    and requesting an inquiry to be made, and discharges granted
    to all who were citizens of the United States; I, therefore,
    covered him a list of the names now enclosed to you, which
    produced his letter to me of the same date, (December 1, 1812.)

    "I read it with surprise, because some of the men had informed
    me their captains had refused to report them to the Admiral.
    Now, if no one here was, or is, allowed to do it, their
    situation is hopeless.

    "It is not my place, sir, to reason with you on this business.
    _Proof of Nativity_, in his first letter, is a strong
    expression; and how few are in possession of it, and how many
    who cannot obtain it.

    "The second paragraph, in the second letter, prevents my
    interfering; and I have since been obliged to send a man away,
    requesting him to apply to his commanding officer."

    _Copy of a letter from John Mitchell, Esq., Agent for American
      Prisoners of War at Halifax, to Sir John Borlase Warren,
      dated_

                                              DECEMBER 1, 1812.

    SIR: Since the sailing of the last cartels, in which you were
    pleased to send home several Americans, who had been in His
    Britannic Majesty's service, others who are now on board of the
    Centurion and Statira have requested of me to procure their
    discharge, and to be sent home.

    Will you, sir, have the goodness to direct an inquiry, and
    order the release of such as are citizens of the United States?

    Besides the enclosed list, I am told there are others whose
    names I have not.

    I have the honor to be, &c.,

                                            JOHN MITCHELL, _Agent_.


    _Copy of a letter from Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren, to
      John Mitchell, Esq., Agent for American Prisoners of War at
      Halifax, dated_

                                              DECEMBER 1, 1812.

    SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
    of this date, respecting some men, therein mentioned, on board
    His Majesty's ships under my command, said to be citizens of
    the United States, and in reply, beg to acquaint you, that
    whenever I have received representations from the captains of
    His Majesty's ships of any part of their crews being citizens
    of America, with sufficient proof of their nativity, I have
    directed their discharge from the service.

    I must observe to you that I cannot permit the interference of
    any applications from men belonging to His Majesty's ships, but
    through their commanding officers: and in your department, of
    prisoners of war only, I shall at all times be most happy to
    receive your communications.

    I have the honor to be, &c.,

                                                         JOHN B. WARREN.

    _Copy of a letter from John Mitchell, Esq., Agent for American
      Prisoners of War at Halifax, to Admiral Sir John Borlase
      Warren, dated_

                                              DECEMBER 3, 1812.

    SIR: I had yesterday the honor to receive your letter, dated
    the 1st instant, in which you observe that you cannot permit
    the interference of any application from men on board of His
    Britannic Majesty's ships of war, but through their commanding
    officers.

    Desirous of conforming as far as possible to established
    regulations, permit me the honor to inquire of your Excellency,
    if by your letter I am to understand that I am not to receive
    the applications of seamen declaring themselves citizens of
    the United States, who are on board of His Majesty's ships of
    war, and communicate the same to you? If this is the meaning,
    I shall most certainly conform, though I must lament the
    regulation.

    I have the honor to be, &c.,

                                          J. MITCHELL, _Agent, &c._

    _Copy of a letter from Admiral Sir John Borlase Warren, to
      John Mitchell, Esq., Agent for American Prisoners of War at
      Halifax, dated_

                                              DECEMBER 4, 1812.

    SIR: In reply to your letter, dated yesterday, I have to
    acquaint you that whenever any address is made relative to men
    on board His Majesty's ships, it must be by the commanders of
    such vessels direct.

    I cannot permit any application by other persons in time of
    war, but in the above mode.

    It will always afford me pleasure to attend to your wishes
    in any respect relative to the situation or exchange of
    prisoners, or to afford any aid or relief in my power. I have
    the honor to be, &c.,

                                                         JOHN B. WARREN.

            _From Commodore Rodgers to the Secretary of the
                                 Navy._

                                            U. S. FRIGATE PRESIDENT,
                                      BOSTON, _Jan. 14, 1813_.

    SIR: Herewith you will receive two muster books, of His
    Britannic Majesty's vessels Moselle and Sappho, found on board
    the British packet Swallow.

    As the British have always denied that they detained on board
    their ships of war American citizens, knowing them to be such,
    I send you the enclosed, as a public document of their own, to
    prove how illy such an assertion accords with their practice.

    It will appear by these two muster books that so late as August
    last, about an eighth part of the Moselle and Sappho's crews
    were Americans; consequently, if there is only a quarter part
    of that proportion on board their other vessels, that they have
    an infinitely greater number of Americans in their service than
    any American has yet had an idea of.

    Any further comment of mine on this subject, I consider
    unnecessary; as the enclosed documents speak but too plainly
    for themselves. I have the honor to be, &c.,

                                                           JOHN RODGERS.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON, _Secretary of the Navy_.


The Message and documents were read, and referred to the Committee of
Foreign Relations.


TUESDAY, January 26.

                           _Treasury Notes._

On motion of Mr. CHEVES, the House resolved itself into a Committee
of the Whole on the bill reported by the Committee of Ways and Means
authorizing the issuing of Treasury notes for the service of the year
1812.

    [The bill authorizes the President of the United States to
    cause to be issued Treasury notes to the amount of five
    millions of dollars, and also, if he shall deem it expedient,
    to issue a further amount, not exceeding five millions of
    dollars, provided the amount issued under the latter provision
    shall be deemed and held to be in part of the loan of sixteen
    millions of dollars authorized by the bill passed this day. The
    notes to bear interest at the rate of five and two-fifths per
    cent. per annum, to be redeemed one year after the day on which
    they are respectively issued.]

The bill having been read through by sections, and no objection having
been made thereto, the committee rose and reported it.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading without
division; and then the House adjourned.


FRIDAY, January 29.

A new member, to wit, from New York, THOMAS P. GROSVENOR, elected to
supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Robert Le Roy
Livingston, appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and took
his seat.

                        _Grant to Daniel Boone._

Mr. HEMPSTEAD, from the committee to whom were referred the petition
of Daniel Boone, and the resolutions of the Legislature of Kentucky in
his behalf, made a report; which was read twice, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

                        _Territory of Missouri._

Mr. MCKEE, from the select committee which was directed to inquire into
the propriety of amending the act for the government of the Missouri
Territory, reported against any amendment. The report is as follows:

    That they have had the subject to them referred under their
    consideration, and have examined the act above recited. The
    principal difficulty suggested to the committee, occurring in
    the execution of the law, appears to relate to the election
    of a delegate to represent the interest of the Territory in
    the Congress of the United States. By the first clause of
    the 6th section of the act it is provided "that the House of
    Representatives shall be composed of members elected every
    second year, by the people of the said Territory, to serve for
    two years." By the 13th section of the said act it is also
    provided "that the citizens of the said Territory entitled
    to vote for Representatives to the General Assembly thereof,
    shall, at the time of electing their Representatives to the
    said General Assembly, also elect one delegate from the said
    Territory to the Congress of the United States." It also
    appears that an election was held in pursuance of the act
    on the second Monday of November last, when a delegate was
    elected. It appears that doubts have been entertained whether
    the delegate thus elected can legally hold his seat after the
    3d day of March next, and an alteration of the law has been
    suggested as necessary to obviate the difficulty. It seems to
    the committee that the first clause of the 6th section, and the
    13th section of the act, taken together, leaves no room for
    doubt, but evidently fixes the period for which the delegate
    may hold his seat at two years from the second Monday of
    November last; and it follows, as a necessary consequence, that
    the delegate elected in pursuance of the law, and for the term
    of two years, cannot be deprived of his right to a seat by any
    subsequent law.

    It also appears to the committee that the Territorial
    Legislature are furnished, by the 7th section of the act, with
    competent power to change the time of holding elections so as
    to obviate any difficulty that may occur in the subsequent
    elections of a delegate.

    The committee, therefore, recommend the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the act entitled "An act providing for the
    government of the Territory of Missouri," requires no amendment.

    _By Benjamin Howard, Governor of the Territory of Louisiana,
      Commander-in-Chief of the Militia thereof, and Superintendent
      of Indian Affairs, in and over the same_:

                            A PROCLAMATION.

In discharge of those duties enjoined on the Governor of this Territory
by an act of the Congress of the United States of America, approved
the 4th of June, 1812, entitled "An act providing for the government
of the Territory of Missouri," I have made the following arrangements,
preparatory to the new organization of Government to be instituted by
the said act, and which will commence its operation on the first Monday
in December next; that is to say;

I have divided the future Territory of Missouri into five counties,
excluding from the civil jurisdiction of each of said counties any
tract or tracts of country which may fall within their respective
general limits, as hereinafter set forth, the Indian title to which may
not have been extinguished.

That portion of territory situated north of the Missouri River, and
usually known by the name of the Forks, as lying between that river
and the river Mississippi, shall compose one county, and be called the
county of St. Charles.

That portion of territory bounded by the Missouri river on the north;
by the Mississippi on the east; on the south by the Platin creek, from
its mouth to its source; thence by a west line to the Missouri river,
or to the western boundary of the Osage purchase; and on the west, by
the said western boundary of the Osage purchase, shall compose one
other county, and be called the county of St. Louis.

That portion of territory bounded by the county of St. Louis on the
north; on the east by the Mississippi; on the south by Apple creek,
from its mouth to its source; thence by a due west line to the western
boundary of the Osage purchase; and on the west, by the said western
boundary of the Osage purchase, shall compose one other county, and be
called the county of St. Genevieve.

That portion of territory bounded on the north by the south limit of
the county of St. Genevieve; east by the Mississippi; west by the
western boundary of the Osage purchase; and south by that line which
formerly separated the commanders of Cape Girardeau and New Madrid, and
known more recently as the boundary between these two districts, shall
compose one other county, and be called the county of Cape Girardeau.

That portion of territory bounded north by the south limit of the
county of Cape Girardeau; east by the Mississippi; south by the 33d
degree of north latitude, (the southern boundary of this Territory as
settled by act of Congress;) west by the western boundary of the Osage
purchase; and from the southern extremity thereof to the 33d degree of
north latitude aforesaid, shall compose one other county, and be called
the county of New Madrid.

And I do hereby make known and declare that elections of
Representatives, to serve in the General Assembly of the future
Territory of Missouri, shall be holden throughout the Territory, on
the second Monday of November next, at the respective seats of justice
of the present districts, which are hereby declared to be the seats of
justice for the several future counties respectively except that the
town of New Madrid shall be the seat of justice of the future county
of New Madrid, which said future county will comprehend the present
districts of New Madrid and Arkansas; to wit: at the town of St.
Charles for the future county of St. Charles, at which time and place
there will be chosen for the said county two Representatives. At the
town of St. Louis for the future county of St. Louis, at which time and
place there will be chosen four Representatives. At the town of St.
Genevieve for the future county of St. Genevieve, at which time and
place there will be chosen for the said county three Representatives.
At the town of Cape Girardeau for the future county of Cape Girardeau,
at which time and place there will be chosen for the said county two
Representatives. And at the town of New Madrid for the future county
of New Madrid, at which time and place there will be chosen for the
said county two Representatives.

And I do, moreover, make known and declare that on the said second
Monday of November next, an election will also be holden, at the
several seats of justice aforesaid, for a Territorial delegate to the
Congress of the United States. And I do enjoin and require that these
elections be holden by the sheriffs of the present districts, or in
their absence, or inability to act, by the coroners respectively; that
the said sheriffs or coroners shall take the polls of those qualified
to vote; that the clerks of the courts of the present districts, or
their deputies, shall respectively write down the names of the voters
in a fair and legible manner, and that the presiding judges of the
courts of the present districts respectively, or in case of absence, or
inability to act, the next in commission shall attend, and be judges
of the qualification of the voters; that the said elections shall be
opened at the respective seats of justice aforesaid, at or before 9
o'clock in the morning of the said second Monday of November, and close
at sunset of that day.

And the sheriffs or coroners respectively, after having caused the
proces-verbal of said polls to be signed by the clerks or their
deputies, who may have respectively committed the same to writing, and
countersigned by the judges respectively who may have attended the
elections, will themselves certify the same, explicitly stating, at
large, the names of the persons elected as Representatives, and the
name of the person having the greatest number of votes as a delegate
to Congress, and make immediate return thereof to the Governor of the
Territory.

And I do, lastly, enjoin and require, that the Representatives of the
several future counties, so as aforesaid to be elected, do convene in
the town of St. Louis on the first Monday in December next, as provided
by the act of Congress aforesaid.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the Territory of
Louisiana to be hereunto affixed. Given under my hand, at the town
of St. Louis, the first day of October, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and twelve, and of the independence of the
United States of America the thirty-seventh.

                                                     BENJAMIN A. HOWARD.

For the information of the people who are called on to decide the right
of suffrage by the Governor's proclamation, we have inserted below
that part of the law which defines the qualification as well of the
Representative as of the voter.

"No person shall be eligible or qualified to be a Representative,
who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-one years, and who
shall not have resided in the Territory one year next preceding the
day of election, and who shall not be a freeholder within the county
in which he may be elected; and no person holding an office under
the United States, or an office of profit under the Territory, shall
be a Representative. In case of vacancy, by death, resignation, or
removal or otherwise of a Representative, the Governor shall issue a
writ to the county wherever a vacancy may be as aforesaid, to elect
another person to serve the residue of the term. That all free white
male citizens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years,
who have resided in said Territory twelve months next preceding an
election, and who shall have paid a territorial or county tax,
assessed at least six months previous thereto, shall be entitled to
vote for Representatives to the General Assembly of said Territory."

The report was ordered to lie on the table.

                   _Arming and Classing the Militia._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill supplementary to the
act for arming the militia, and for classing the same.

Mr. FITCH moved to strike out all that part of the bill which provides
for the classing the militia of the United States.

Mr. ELY said that he was totally opposed to the classification of
the militia; that it had been pressed upon us from year to year, by
gentlemen from the Southern section of the Union, he knew not why;
that he thought the effects of the measure in rendering the militia
efficient, for constitutional purposes, were very trifling and
unimportant. From some cause or other, the militia in the Southern
States are very little improved, and gentlemen seemed to imagine that
classification was to supply the place of arms, of organization, of
discipline, of every thing. This would not prove to be the case. He
said that the laws heretofore made had proved in the Northern States,
particularly in Massachusetts, abundantly sufficient to answer all
the purposes of forming an efficient militia; but they have been
followed up by State regulations which had been enjoined by penalties
sufficiently severe. These, he had understood, had been in a great
measure neglected in the South, and this was the reason that the
militia were so imperfect; and if the States would not enforce those
laws, he had no idea they would enforce this. The sums expended on the
militia in Massachusetts, both from the public treasury and by private
individuals, is very great--that State has furnished more than sixty
artillery companies, with their pieces, ammunition carriages, and
every thing appurtenant to them, complete; the artillery and cavalry
are completely uniformed and equipped, and are required so to be by
law; for the greater part, the infantry are in uniform complete,
are well armed, and are equal in all respects to any militia in the
world. That this classification would add to their burdens, and they
had already burdens enough; that it would be an insidious thing, and
so considered by the militia, and go to destroy the harmony of the
militia corps. That if gentlemen in the South thought it would be
useful, let their State governments, who were the best judges, adopt
as much of it as they pleased. No one would object to that, if they
did not interfere with existing regulations. All will acknowledge that
the State Governments have it in their power, and it has been, in some
form or other, exercised by some of the States, and particularly by
Pennsylvania--this measure will interfere with their favorite mode. He
said he was disposed to have the militia in the South improved, but he
prayed gentlemen not to adopt a measure calculated to injure one part
of the militia, more than it would benefit the other; he hoped the
provisions for classing the militia would be stricken out of the bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS and Mr. STOW opposed the motion.

The question was decided by yeas and nays: For striking out 58, against
it 65.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.


SATURDAY, January 30.

A new member, to wit, from North Carolina, WILLIAM KENNEDY, elected
to supply the vacancy occasioned by the death of Gen. Thomas Blount,
appeared, was qualified, and took his seat.

                     _Constitution and Guerriere._

The engrossed bill providing compensation to Captain Hull, and the
officers and crew of the frigate Constitution, for the capture and
destruction of the British frigate Guerriere, was read a third time.

[The bill authorizes a grant of $50,000.]

Mr. MCKEE opposed the passage of the bill, on the ground that the
President has no authority to expend the public money in gratuitous
grants to individuals.

Mr. SAWYER stated, that he wished to make some remarks in reply to Mr.
MCKEE, but, from the lateness of the hour, and an indisposition with
which he was oppressed, it was not now in his power. He therefore moved
an adjournment, which was carried--ayes 54.


MONDAY, February 1.

Mr. SEAVER presented a petition of Benjamin Waterhouse, medical doctor,
of Boston, stating that he is willing, and wishes to undertake the
inoculation of the army of the United States with the "kine-pock
inoculation," and praying the aid and patronage of Congress in that
undertaking.--Referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

                     _Constitution and Guerriere._

The House resumed the order of the day on the bill making compensation
to the officers and crew of the Constitution for the destruction of the
frigate Guerriere. The bill being on its third reading--

Mr. SAWYER spoke in support of the bill, and in reply to Mr. MCKEE.

Mr. DAWSON.--Mr. Speaker: The bill which is now on your table, and
which I hope will soon receive your signature, was drawn from a
resolution, or rather the part of a resolution which I had the honor to
offer you at the very commencement of the session.

When I offered you that resolution, I did hope, and I did believe,
that it would have received the immediate attention and unanimous
approbation of this House; that regardless of those punctilios which
too often shackle the best intentions, and do injury to the best
causes, and in compliance with the sentiments and feelings of the
nation, we should have immediately expressed our own, thereby giving
force to that expression, and have rendered that tribute which is
justly due to undaunted valor, and to modest merit; that we should have
declared our admiration, and the high sense we entertain of the gallant
conduct of the defenders of their country's flag, and the defenders of
her rights, and while we gave to some testimonials of our approbation,
we should have yielded to all that which is justly due.

In this expectation I have been wofully disappointed; doubts,
difficulties, and delays have taken place; commitment has succeeded
commitment, and so many amendments, or rather alterations, have been
made to the original resolution, that I can scarcely call it my own; it
has received the fostering care of so many stepfathers that I am almost
constrained to disown it as illegitimate; but as it is natural to
protect that which we call "our own," although all the features do not
please us, so I shall vote for that bill although all its provisions do
not please me.

Some gentlemen, with a liberality which I neither envy, nor shall I
imitate, are willing to load those brave tars with all the praise,
with all the applause, which the pride of language can bestow, or
which a resolution written on paper gilded with gold can confer; and,
becoming their own judges, they think _that_ ample compensation for
all the hardships they have suffered, for all the dangers they have
encountered, for all the wounds they have received. With all the
respect which I feel for these honorable gentlemen, and the high value
which I set on their good opinion, I do not think it ample compensation
to the brave and indigent tars who have boldly fought your battles, and
generously sacrificed their interest for your good; they merit some
more substantial stuff than air; they have acquired for you, sir, they
have given to your enemy, something more substantial.

Others there are, who are well pleased to bestow on the brave
officers who have distinguished themselves, some testimonials of our
approbation--some insignia of their merit. With these gentlemen I most
perfectly agree, and most cordially voted in favor of the bill for that
purpose. But, while I remember the gallant captain who proudly steps
the quarterdeck, I will not forget the sailor boy, "who whistles o'er
the lee," or the aged mariner who fathoms the deep, and on whom, when
the battle rages, danger has no more effect than the foaming surge
which surrounds him has on the hard rock, when it dashes and breaks
against its side; they all, sir, are entitled to your applause and
gratitude; they all demand your justice; and to render that justice is
the object of the bill now on your table, as I will presently show,
and which had it passed at an earlier period of the session, as I did
expect it would, your "Constellation" would not have lain for weeks
within your view for the want of men, and is still, I believe, in your
waters, but would long since have been at sea, and would have added new
trophies to those already won.

The Secretary of the Navy, I mean the late Secretary, in whose
veracity and integrity I have the highest confidence, who carries
to his retirement the best wishes of my heart, and under whose
auspices this gallant exploit was achieved, and Commodore Hull, whose
disinterestedness seems only equalled by his valor, have informed us
that "the Guerriere" when she went into action was worth two hundred
thousand dollars, and that she had articles on board to the value
of one hundred thousand dollars. She was one of the finest frigates
in the British navy, well manned, and commanded by one of their
most experienced and gallant captains! This ship, our frigate, "the
Constitution," of equal force, attacked, vanquished, and captured,
after a short, though one of the most brilliant actions recorded in
the naval history of any country; thereby giving certain presages of
future glory, and a character to our rising navy, coeval almost with
its existence, and setting an example which other officers and crews,
equally emulous of fame, have since imitated, and have obtained the
same laurels, which will never fade.

Agreeably to the act for the better government of the Navy of the
United States, the ship, with all articles on board her, became their
prize; they might have used it to their best advantage; they might have
brought her into port, and divided the whole among themselves; but
apprehensive that from the crippled state of the prize she might again
fall into the hands of your enemy; nay, sir, that your own frigate
might be endangered in protecting and convoying her, they with that
liberality, with that magnanimity which marks the character of the
sailor, determined to destroy her, thereby sacrificing their interest
for your good.

And here, Mr. Speaker, let me ask what other class of men in our
society can you find who would have acted thus nobly? I fear, sir, we
shall search for them in vain. I am sure, sir, that we shall not find
them among those who daily violate your laws, relieve your enemy of his
surplus manufactures, or supply him with your provisions, and then come
here and receive indemnification, remission for the crimes which they
have committed.

And, sir, what is the mighty boon which these brave and indigent tars
ask from you? or rather was it that I, in the name of justice, demanded
for them?--it is one-sixth part in value of that property--of their
property, which they have sacrificed for your good, rather than it
should fall into the hands of your enemy. And will you refuse it? No,
you will not, you cannot, you dare not. You will not, because every
consideration of policy, and the best interest of our country, forbid
it; you cannot, because every feeling which ennobles the human heart,
and I think I know yours, forbids it; you dare not, because justice
forbids it; and you dare not do an act so flagitious.

Mr. Speaker, during the very lengthy discussions which have taken place
in this session, I have remained silent in my seat; this has not arisen
from a supineness of disposition, or from an inattention to the public
business, or the public welfare, but in the hope, that when gentlemen
had exhausted all their eloquence, they would have permitted us to
progress, and to place our country in the situation demanded by the
crisis; and I should have indulged that disposition which I have to be
silent, had not an attempt been made to deprive the brave and needy
tars of that which is justly due to them; but under these circumstances
I could not restrain my feelings, and have to regret that I cannot give
to them that utterance which the occasion calls for.

[The argument against this bill was, that it would be setting a
precedent which would be considered authoritative in future cases; that
it was giving a donation for an act of duty only, though gallantly
performed. It was rewarding a service, which, had it been rendered on
land, would have received no remuneration, as experience had proved
in the case of the Tippecanoe expedition; and that it was contrary
to justice to confer pecuniary rewards on one class of our citizens
in exclusion of others. In favor of the bill it was stated that the
captured vessel, if she had been brought into port, would have produced
six times the amount now proposed to be allowed to her; and that the
captors ought not to incur a total loss from the destruction of the
vessel, which the fear of her falling into the hands of the enemy
had rendered necessary to the public service. It was urged, that if
any _city_ in the United States had to legislate on this subject,
five times as much would have been awarded as is now proposed. All
the gentlemen who spoke, offered the tribute of their respect to the
gallantry and conduct of the officers and seamen of our public vessels.]

The question on the passage of the bill was decided in the
negative--yeas 55, nays 59.


WEDNESDAY, February 3.

                   _Virginia Military Bounty Lands._

The House then proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of the
Whole on the report of the select committee touching the claims of the
officers and soldiers of the Virginia line of the Revolutionary army to
military bounty lands.

The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the whole
House in their disagreement to the resolution recommended by the select
committee, which is as follows:

    _Resolved_, That provision should be made for securing to the
    officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary army of Virginia,
    on State establishment, in the land or sea service of the said
    State, the bounty lands which were promised to them, either
    by a law or resolution of the said Commonwealth, out of the
    lands not otherwise appropriated, and lying on the northwest
    side of the river Ohio, within the Virginia cession, to be
    of good quality, according to the true intent and meaning of
    the promises made on the part of Virginia, and that, if a
    sufficiency of good land within the meaning of the aforesaid
    engagement cannot there be found, that their bounties shall be
    satisfied out of any other public land of the United States,
    not heretofore otherwise appropriated:

And was determined in the affirmative--yeas 66, nays 41.


FRIDAY, February 5.

             _Encouragement to Public and to Private Armed
                              Privateers._

On motion of Mr. MCKIM,

_Resolved_, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be instructed to
inquire into the expediency of relinquishing, in favor of the officers
and crews of the public armed ships of the United States, a greater
portion of the value of prizes than they are now by law entitled
to; and, also, to inquire into the expediency of providing further
encouragement to equipping and employing private armed vessels of war
against the ships and commerce of the enemy; and that the committee
have leave to report by bill, or otherwise.


WEDNESDAY, February 10.

A message was received from the Senate informing the House that, owing
to the indisposition of Mr. GAILLARD, the Senate have appointed Mr.
FRANKLIN the teller, on their part, at the counting of the votes of the
Electors for President and Vice President of the United States.

                     _Counting of Electoral Votes._

The hour of 12 having arrived, the Senate entered the Hall
of Representatives, preceded by their President, Secretary,
Sergeant-at-Arms, and Doorkeeper, and proceeded to seats prepared
for them--the members of the House having risen to receive them, and
remaining standing until all had entered. The President of the Senate
took a seat which had been prepared for him at the Speaker's right
hand, and the Secretary of the Senate was placed beside the Clerk of
the House. The Tellers--Mr. FRANKLIN of the Senate, and Messrs. MACON
and TALLMADGE of the House--were seated at a table in front of the
Speaker's chair.

The President of the Senate then proceeded to open and hand to the
Tellers the sealed returns from each State, which were severally read
aloud by one of the Tellers, and noted down and announced by the
Secretaries of each House.

The votes having all been opened and read, the following result was
announced from the Chair, by the President of the Senate, viz:

  +----------------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
  |                |        President.       |     Vice President.     |
  |                +------------+------------+------------+------------+
  |    STATES.     |   James    |   De Witt  |  Elbridge  |   Jared    |
  |                |  Madison.  |  Clinton.  |   Gerry.   | Ingersoll. |
  +----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
  | New Hampshire  |      -     |      8     |      1     |      7     |
  | Massachusetts  |      -     |     22     |      2     |     20     |
  | Rhode Island   |      -     |      4     |      -     |      4     |
  | Connecticut    |      -     |      9     |      -     |      9     |
  | Vermont        |      8     |      -     |      8     |      -     |
  | New York       |      -     |     29     |      -     |     29     |
  | New Jersey     |      -     |      8     |      -     |      8     |
  | Pennsylvania   |     25     |      -     |     25     |      -     |
  | Delaware       |      -     |      4     |      -     |      4     |
  | Maryland       |      6     |      5     |      6     |      5     |
  | Virginia       |     25     |      -     |     25     |      -     |
  | North Carolina |     15     |      -     |     15     |      -     |
  | South Carolina |     11     |      -     |     11     |      -     |
  | Georgia        |      8     |      -     |      8     |      -     |
  | Kentucky       |     12     |      -     |     12     |      -     |
  | Tennessee      |      8     |      -     |      8     |      -     |
  | Ohio           |      7     |      -     |      7     |      -     |
  | Louisiana      |      3     |      -     |      3     |      -     |
  |                +------------+------------+------------+------------+
  |   Total        |    128     |     89     |    131     |      86    |
  +----------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+

                   RECAPITULATION OF ELECTORAL VOTES.

                 _For President of the United States._

  JAMES MADISON, of Virginia,        128
  DE WITT CLINTON, of New York,       89
                                     ---
                                     217

               _For Vice President of the United States._

  ELBRIDGE GERRY, of Massachusetts,  131
  JARED INGERSOLL, of Pennsylvania,   86
                                     ---
                                     217

The President of the Senate, in pursuance of the joint resolutions of
the two Houses, then announced the state of the votes to both Houses of
Congress, and declared "That JAMES MADISON, of the State of Virginia,
was duly elected President of the United States, for four years, to
commence on the fourth day of March next; and that ELBRIDGE GERRY was
duly elected Vice President of the United States, for the like term of
four years, to commence on the said fourth day of March next."

The two Houses then separated, and the Senate returned to their Chamber.


THURSDAY, February 11.

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have
appointed a committee, on their part, to join such committee as this
House may appoint on their part, to wait upon the President of the
United States, and to inform him of his re-election, for four years, to
commence on the fourth day of March next.

                        _Regulation of Seamen._

The House resumed the consideration of the bill excluding foreign
seamen from the service of the United States.

Mr. PITKIN'S motion to strike out the first section of the bill, for
the purpose of inserting a proposed amendment, being still under
consideration, considerable discussion took place on it, but it was
eventually withdrawn to give way to the following motion.

Mr. RIDGELY moved to strike out of the first section all the words in
brackets, as follows:

    SEC. 1. _Be it enacted, &c._, That from and after the
    termination, by a treaty of peace, of the war in which the
    United States are now engaged with Great Britain, it shall not
    be lawful to employ as seamen, or otherwise, on board of any
    public vessel of the United States, or of any vessel owned by
    citizens of the United States, or sailing under their flag,
    any person or persons, except natural born citizens of the
    United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of
    such treaty being made and concluded, [or persons who, being
    resident within the United States at the time of such treaty,
    and having previously declared, agreeably to existing laws,
    their intention to become citizens of the United States, shall
    be admitted as such within five years thereafter in the manner
    prescribed by law.]

After some conversation, the motion was negatived by yeas and nays--for
it 40, against it 80.


SATURDAY, February 13.

              _Encouragement for Privateering--Bounty for
                              Prisoners._

Mr. BASSETT, from the Committee on the Naval Establishment, made a
report relative to the expediency of affording greater encouragement to
privateering. The report is as follows:--

    That, in relation to the first inquiry, they find that, by the
    British statutes of the 13th and 27th of George the Second,
    the whole prize of each and every public armed vessel is given
    to the officers and crews making the capture; and they find
    this principle published by British proclamation, in relation
    to the present war with the United States. The laws of the
    United States, vol. 3, page 360, direct that, if a capture be
    made by an American public armed vessel, of equal or superior
    force, the capturing vessel shall have the whole; in all other
    cases of capture, one-half is distributed to the officers,
    and the other half is paid to the Commissioners of the Navy
    Pension Fund, pledged, first, for the payment of pensions,
    and the surplus to be disbursed for the comfort and benefit
    of seamen. This fund for Navy pensions amounts to something
    more than two hundred thousand dollars, yielding an annual
    interest of fifteen thousand dollars; and the amount of
    pensions is from seven to eight thousand dollars; leaving a
    yearly balance of seventeen thousand dollars in favor of the
    fund, and this without the addition of the prizes made this
    war, which are known to exceed one hundred thousand dollars,
    and will probably amount to two hundred thousand dollars, so
    as to double the fund; while only four persons have been added
    to the list by the war, to receive twenty-one dollars. From
    the above it appears, that, from the old pension list, the
    amount of pensions is little more than three per centum on the
    amount of prizes. Were five per cent. from the future prizes,
    to be added to this fund, on past experience it would promise
    an adequate sum for the payment of pensions. Your committee,
    however, concluded that it would not do to rely conclusively
    on past experience, and, on the ground of certainty, deemed
    it best for the fund to remain as established for another
    year, when more experience would give more confidence to the
    decision. As this report is intended to bring the subject under
    the view of the House, with the hope that it will not be lost
    sight of at the next session, it will be proper here to add,
    that, with some of the committee, the idea was entertained
    that ten per cent. should be withheld from distribution, viz.:
    five per cent. for the pension, and five for the navy hospital
    fund; in which not only the imbecility of decrepitude, but the
    imbecility of infancy should always find an asylum. On the
    other branch of the inquiry, your committee give their fullest
    attestation to the utility and importance of privateers. If, at
    other times and in other countries, the effect of individual
    exertion has been distrusted, the unexampled gallantry of our
    citizens, in that way, since the declaration of war, assures
    us that, with Americans, even the individual arm can make an
    efficient impression on the foe. The mode, however, of giving
    encouragement, they found not free from difficulty. As least
    liable to objection, they recommend that a bounty be paid for
    every prisoner brought in; and, that this proposition may be
    regularly before the House, they report a bill.

Mr. BASSETT, from the Naval Committee, then reported a bill allowing
a bounty to privateers. [Allowing a bounty of ---- dollars for each
person they bring in.] Twice read and committed.

                     _Additional General Officers._

On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the House resolved itself into a Committee
of the Whole on the bill authorizing the appointment of additional
general officers in the Army of the United States.

[The bill provides for the appointment of ---- additional Major
Generals, and ---- Brigadier Generals.]

The following letters from the Secretary of War were read:

                       ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,

                              WASHINGTON, _December 23, 1812_.

    SIR: Before I reply to your question, "how many major generals
    and brigadiers are necessary for an army of thirty-five
    thousand men?" it may not be amiss to state what is believed
    to have been the proportion of officers of these grades in
    the Revolutionary army, and what is understood to be the
    proportion, at this time, in European armies.

    In the first army of the Revolution, raised in 1775, we had a
    commander-in-chief, four major generals, and eight brigadiers.
    In 1776, five brigadiers were promoted to the rank of major
    generals, and twenty-three brigadiers appointed. In 1777, six
    brigadiers were promoted to the rank of major generals, and
    three major generals and eighteen brigadiers appointed.

    The loss of papers in the War Office, by fire, in 1800, renders
    it impossible to say, with precision, at what particular
    periods many of these general officers left the service; but
    it is within my recollection that, on the 28th of June, 1778,
    fourteen major generals, and sixteen brigadiers, were actually
    in service of the United States. Yet, by referring to the
    official letters of General Washington, in 1778 and 1779, it
    will be seen that a further increase of general officers was
    often and warmly recommended.

    The main army, under the immediate command of General
    Washington, it is believed, never amounted to thirty-five
    thousand men, and it is by no means certain that this number
    was ever in service at one and the same time, in the whole of
    what was designated "the continental army." Yet, at no period,
    between the first of May, 1777, and the close of the war, had
    we less than thirty general officers in service.

    It was deemed necessary, in the Revolution, and it is
    understood to be the general practice in Europe, at this time,
    to have at least one brigadier general for every two thousand
    men, and one major general for every four thousand.

    In this country we have never had a grade between the
    commander-in-chief and that of major general; hence it was
    found necessary, in the "continental army," to give to the
    senior major general the command of the right wing, and to the
    next in rank, that of the left, which, from the limited number
    of general officers, often left a division to a brigadier, a
    brigade to a colonel, and a regiment to a subordinate field
    officer; but, in Europe, this difficulty is obviated by the
    appointment of general officers of higher grades.

    From the best information I have been able to obtain on this
    subject, I have no hesitation in saying that eight major
    generals, and sixteen brigadiers, to command the divisions
    and brigades of an army of thirty-five thousand men, is the
    lowest estimate which the uniform practice of France, Russia,
    and England, will warrant, and that this is much below the
    proportion of officers of these grades actually employed in the
    army of the Revolution.

    As you have not required my opinion whether it be necessary
    to have a higher grade than that of major general, I have not
    deemed it proper to touch this subject, and have confined
    myself to the number of major generals and brigadiers deemed
    necessary to command the divisions and brigades of an army of
    thirty-five thousand men. It may not, however, be improper to
    remark that, if it is intended to have no higher grade than
    that of major general, their number should be increased to
    eleven; so as to give one for the chief command, one for each
    wing, and one for each division of four thousand men.

    I am, sir, very respectfully, yours, &c.

                                        T. H. CUSHING, _Adj't Gen._

  The Hon. SECRETARY OF WAR.



WAR DEPARTMENT, _Feb. 10, 1813_.

    SIR: In reply to the letter you did me the honor to write
    to me, on the 5th instant, by direction of the Committee on
    Military Affairs, I respectfully submit the following opinions:

    1st. That an increased number of general officers is essential
    to the public service. The number of regiments provided for
    by law, is, two of light dragoons, three of heavy artillery,
    one of light artillery, one of riflemen, and forty-five of
    infantry, making, together, fifty-two regiments.

    The simplest organization is ever the best. Hence it is, that,
    as a regiment consists of two battalions, so a brigade should
    consist of two regiments, and a division of two brigades.

    This sphere of command will be found in practice, sufficiently
    large. The management of two thousand men in the field, will be
    ample duty for a brigadier, and the direction of double that
    number will give full occupation to a major general. To enlarge
    the sphere of command in either grade would not be a mean of
    best promoting the public good.

    Taking these ideas as the basis of the rule, and taking
    for granted, also, that our ranks are filled, the present
    establishment would require twenty-five brigadiers and
    twelve major generals. But the latter admission requires
    qualification, and, under existing circumstances, it may be
    sufficient that the higher staff should consist of eight major
    generals, and sixteen brigadiers.

    The general argument, on this head, might be fortified by our
    own practice during the war of the Revolution, and by that of
    European nations at all times. Believing, however, that this
    view of the subject has been already taken by the adjutant
    general, in a late communication to you, I forbear to do more
    than suggest it.

    2. The recruiting service would be much promoted, were the
    bounty in land commutable into money, at the option of the
    soldier, and at the end of his service. This modification would
    be addressed to both descriptions of men--those who would
    prefer money, and such as would prefer land.

    I need hardly remark that bounties, at the close of service,
    have many advantages over those given before service begins.
    The former tie men down to their duty; the latter furnish, if
    not the motive, at least the means of debauch and desertion.

    Another, and a public reason, for the preference, may be found
    in the greater convenience with which money may be paid at the
    end, than at the commencement of a war.

    I have the honor to be, with great respect, &c.

                                                         JOHN ARMSTRONG.

  Hon. D. R. WILLIAMS,
        _Chairman Com. on Military Affairs_.


The bill authorizing the appointment of additional general officers in
the Army of the United States, was then read a third time, and passed
by yeas and nays: for the bill 95, against it 30.


MONDAY, February 15.

                    _Suspension of Non-Importation._

Mr. CHEVES, from the Committee of Ways and Means, made the following
report:--

    The Committee of Ways and Means report: That they have deemed
    it to be their duty, that the public service may not suffer
    and that the public credit may be duly supported, to look
    beyond the ways and means of the present year, and to take into
    consideration the revenue which may be wanted for the year
    1814. That an estimate of the probable amount of the revenue
    which will accrue under existing laws, and be receivable within
    that year, has been submitted to Congress in the Annual Report
    of the Secretary of the Treasury made during the present
    session. That, comparing the amount thereof with the sums which
    will probably be required by a prudent regard to the public
    credit, it appears to the committee indispensably necessary to
    make a further provision; that this may be done by a partial
    suspension of the non-importation acts, which will not greatly
    lessen their injurious effects upon the enemy, by an additional
    duty on foreign tonnage, and by the imposition of internal
    taxes and duties: That, in their opinion, all these means will
    be necessary to supply the revenue which will be wanted: That
    it is impracticable, during the present session, consistently
    with a due attention to the other business of the nation, to
    enact the laws necessary to embrace the last-mentioned object;
    but that this may be done without difficulty and without a
    delay which will be injurious either to the public credit or
    the public service, by an earlier meeting of Congress than the
    constitutional period, which it will be the duty of Congress,
    or the Executive branch of the Government, to fix at such time
    as shall be deemed most proper and expedient: That it is,
    however, necessary that the suspension of the non-importation
    acts which is contemplated should be enacted at the present
    session of Congress: and for this purpose and the imposition of
    additional duties on foreign tonnage, they beg leave to report
    a bill. They also report herewith a correspondence between the
    Secretary of the Treasury and this committee on the subject of
    this report.

    _Letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to
      the Secretary of the Treasury_:

                                  COMMITTEE-ROOM, Feb. 3, 1813.

SIR: I am directed by the Committee of Ways and Means to request from
you the favor of a reply to the following questions:

1. What, in your opinion, would be the probable amount of revenue
applicable to the service of the year 1814, which would result from a
modification or partial repeal of the non-importation acts, such as is
suggested in your letter, of the 10th of June, 1812, addressed to the
Committee of Ways and Means?

2. Is the modification suggested by that letter the best in your
opinion that can be devised to obtain a given revenue, with the least
possible diminution of the effects of the non-importation acts? If not,
be pleased to suggest such alterations and improvements as occur to
your mind.

3. Are there, in your opinion, any further legal provisions
necessary, or will any be expedient, more effectually to enforce the
non-importation acts, or to insure the more effectual collection of the
revenue?

4. Would it, in your opinion, be advisable to increase the duty on
foreign tonnage? If it would, to what amount? and what would be the
probable addition to the revenue applicable to the year 1814 by such
increase? I am, &c.,

                                                         LANGDON CHEVES.

  Hon. ALBERT GALLATIN, &c.

                       _Answer of the Secretary._

                             TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Feb. 9, 1813.

SIR: I have the honor to submit the following answer to the questions
proposed in your letter of the 3d instant:

1. It is believed from the reasons stated in my letter of the 10th June
last to the Committee of Ways and Means, that the amount of revenue
applicable to the service of the year 1814, which would result from a
modification of the non-importation acts suggested in the said letter,
may be estimated at about five million of dollars, provided that
modification takes place during the present session of Congress.

2. No better modification, for the purposes therein intended, has
suggested itself than that proposed in the letter aforesaid. But it
would seem requisite, for the same object, that no drawback should be
allowed on the re-exportation of the merchandise which may be thus
imported.

3. The most important legal provision which appears necessary to
enforce the non-importation acts, is a positive prohibition of a
restoration by order of court of merchandise, the importation of which
is prohibited by law. It is also believed that it will be necessary
to order all the cargoes of salt, particularly from Lisbon, to be
discharged under the inspection of proper officers; and it appears
reasonable that the expense should be defrayed by the importers.

4. It appears, in every point of view, highly desirable, that the duty
on foreign tonnage should be increased. A duty of ten dollars per
ton does not seem greater than what is required for the protection
of American vessels. But I cannot form any correct estimate of the
probable addition resulting to the revenue from such increase. Much
would depend on the suppression of the trade carried on by American
vessels with enemies' licenses.

With respect to the necessity of providing an additional revenue
for the year 1814, I beg leave to refer to the statements made and
opinions expressed, when I had the honor several weeks ago to wait
on the Committee of Ways and Means. And I beg leave to add that
this necessity has been considerably increased by the subsequent
expenditures authorized by law; amongst which must be particularly
mentioned the act for the increase of the navy, and that for raising
twenty thousand men for one year. Indeed, considering the general rate
of expenditure resulting from the war measures which have been adopted,
I am of opinion it will be necessary to recur both to a modification
or repeal of the non-importation acts and to the proposed internal
taxes, in order to provide a revenue commensurate with those expenses.
When an additional revenue of five millions was believed sufficient,
that opinion was predicated on the supposition made by the committee,
that annual loans of only ten or twelve millions of dollars would be
wanted. With a revenue of twelve millions of dollars for this year, it
is ascertained that a loan of at least sixteen millions is necessary.

I have the honor to be, &c.,

                                                        ALBERT GALLATIN.

  Hon. LANGDON CHEVES, _Chairman, &c._


The report and documents were read.

Mr. CHEVES then introduced the bill above mentioned, which was read the
first time, and ordered to be read a second time by a vote of 44 to 36.


TUESDAY, February 16.

Mr. MILNOR presented a memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for
promoting the Abolition of Slavery, complaining that American vessels,
navigated by American citizens, are engaged in the African slave trade,
under the flags of foreign nations, and praying that Congress will take
this subject into consideration, and pass such laws as will remedy the
evil of which they complain.--Referred to a select committee; and Mr.
MILNOR, Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. GROSVENOR, Mr. WHEATON, and Mr. EARLE, were
appointed the committee.

                         _Naturalization Laws._

On motion of Mr. LACOCK, the House resolved itself into a Committee of
the Whole, on the bill to amend the naturalization laws of the United
States; which, having been amended in committee, was reported to the
House.

Mr. LACOCK moved to amend the bill by extending the naturalization of
aliens to all those "who have heretofore or may within nine months
hereafter, declare their intention agreeably to law to become citizens
of the United States," and declaring that they may be admitted as such.

This motion was negatived.--For the amendment 45, against it 48.

On the question of concurrence with the committee in striking out
the second section of the bill, which deprives of his right to the
privileges of citizenship any citizen who shall depart from and remain
without the limits of the United States for a term of two years--the
yeas and nays were, for striking out the section 71, against it 43.

The bill having been thus amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading.


WEDNESDAY, February 17.

The engrossed bill supplementary to the several acts on the subject of
a uniform rule of naturalization, was read a third time.

Mr. BACON opposed its passage on the ground of the impolicy of
encouraging the emigration of alien enemies during the existence of
war; and concluded a short speech against the bill by moving its
commitment to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. GRUNDY supported the motion on the ground of defects in the detail
of the bill, which he wished to amend.

The motion for recommitment was carried by a large majority, and the
bill made the order of the day for Monday.

                              _War Taxes._

Mr. LITTLE introduced the following resolution, with some remarks in
favor of the policy of the non-importation act, to which he avowed
himself to be very friendly, and to the suspension of which he was
opposed:

    "_Resolved_, That the Committee of Ways and Means be, and
    hereby are, instructed to report to this House a bill or bills
    laying taxes for the support of the War."

The question of considering of this resolution was decided in the
affirmative, by yeas and nays--for consideration 66, against it 38.

The resolution being thus presented to the House for its adoption--

A desultory debate of two hours took place on it, in the course of
which a motion was made by Mr. GRUNDY to lay the resolution on the
table, and negatived--60 to 45.

The following was the course of the debate, which was of too irregular
a nature to be reported entire:

Mr. GRUNDY opposed the motion, because it had already been declared
impracticable, by the Committee of Ways and Means, to act properly on
the subject at the present session.

Mr. LITTLE supported it, on the ground of his opposition to a
suspension of the non-importation act, a measure which he reprobated
as injurious to the manufactures of our country, and weakening
our measures against Great Britain, of which he considered the
non-importation act to be as powerful as any.

Mr. STOW advocated the motion, because he wished the House to redeem
the pledge given at the last session, that taxes would be laid at this,
and to observe something like consistency in their proceedings.

Mr. WEIGHT was also warmly in favor of the measure, and rather imputed
blame to the Committee of Ways and Means for not having before acted on
this subject, without waiting for instructions from the House.

Mr. BIBB replied to the remarks which had been made in favor of the
resolution. At the last session it was presumed that it would be
necessary to lay taxes at this session; but the revenue accruing in the
intermediate time had swelled so far beyond its anticipated amount as
to render it unnecessary to levy taxes for the service of the ensuing
year.

Mr. WRIGHT again spoke in favor of the motion.

Mr. RICHARDSON was decidedly in favor of a repeal or modification of
the non-importation act, though he believed both that measure and the
imposition of taxes would be necessary to supply the revenue.

Mr. MCKIM was in favor of the motion, because he was opposed to the
suspension or weakening of the non-importation act.

Mr. CHEVES spoke at length in defence of the Committee of Ways and
Means, and in demonstration of the impracticability of acting on the
subject properly at the present session. Sitting day and night, and
passing by all other business, a proper system of taxation could not be
digested and put into the form of law before the end of the session.
Two only out of fourteen of the bills it would be necessary to pass
to carry the system proposed at the last session into effect, would
require the whole of the present session to perfect them. The passage
of a system of taxation, besides, would not obviate the necessity of
the passage of the law suspending partially the non-importation act. It
would require both. The taxes, he agreed, must be laid, but could not
at the present session.

Mr. WRIGHT replied.

Mr. STOW again spoke. He would, if all the tax bills could not be
passed, at least pass one, and break the charm which seemed to withhold
the House from touching the subject.

Mr. ARCHER moved to strike out the whole of the resolution, for the
purpose of inserting an instruction to the Committee of Ways and Means
to report a bill or bills, pursuant to the report of the Committee of
Ways and Means on this subject, which passed the House on the 4th day
of March, 1812.

This modification of the motion was accepted by Mr. LITTLE.

Mr. CHEVES then withdrew his objection to the motion, as it contained
a definite instruction, and he felt a delicacy as a member of the
Committee of Ways and Means in opposing it, though he was convinced it
would be impracticable to pass the bills at the present session.

Mr. ROBERTS opposed the motion, and expressed his regret that the
discussion, which was fixed for to-morrow, should be forestalled by
this resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON warmly opposed the motion, as going to cast censure on
a committee which had labored day and night in its vocation, and
requiring them to originate measures which they had already declared it
impracticable to act on at the present session, &c.

Mr. WIDGERY also spoke against the motion, decidedly.

The question on the adoption of the resolution as modified by Mr.
ARCHER, was decided in the negative--yeas 47, nays 69.


THURSDAY, February 18.

                    _Encouragement to Privateering._

On motion of Mr. LITTLE, the House resolved itself into a Committee
of the Whole, on the bill remitting the claim of the United States to
certain goods, wares, &c., captured by the private armed vessels of the
United States.

Mr. MCKIM, under the belief that the bill as it now stands does not
place privateers on a better footing than before, and does not answer
the object intended by the resolution which produced it, proposed the
following substitute by way of amendment:

    "That all right and claim of the United States to British
    property, which may have been captured by American privateers,
    arising from forfeiture under any provision of the act entitled
    'An act to prohibit commercial intercourse between the United
    States and Great Britain and France and their dependencies, and
    for other purposes,' and an act entitled 'An act concerning
    the commercial intercourse between Great Britain and France
    and their dependencies, and for other purposes,' and an act
    supplementary to the last mentioned act, be, and the same is
    hereby relinquished for the benefit of the owners, officers,
    and crews of the privateers respectively that may have captured
    the same."

This amendment produced some discussion, in which Messrs. MCKIM and
WRIGHT advocated the motion, and Messrs. ROBERTS and FISK opposed it;
when the question was taken and lost, without a division.

Mr. ROBERTS moved to amend the bill, so as to include captures made of
goods which were shipped anterior to as well as since the declaration
of war was known in England. This amendment was adopted, 46 to 32.

The committee then rose, reported the bill to the House, as amended;
the amendments were concurred in, and the bill ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time to-morrow, 47 to 39.


FRIDAY, February 19.

Another member, to wit, from New Hampshire, GEORGE SULLIVAN, appeared,
and took his seat.

             _Encouragement of Private Armed Privateering._

The engrossed bill to release the claims of the United States on
certain goods, wares, and merchandise, captured by private armed
vessels, was read a third time, and debated.

The bill was passed by the vote, by yeas and nays--for the bill 52,
against it 38:


_Capture of the Java._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress a letter, with accompanying documents,
    from Captain Bainbridge, now commanding the United
    States frigate "the Constitution," reporting his capture
    and destruction of the British frigate "the Java." The
    circumstances and the issue of this combat afford another
    example of the professional skill and heroic spirit which
    prevail in our naval service. The signal display of both by
    Captain Bainbridge, his officers, and crew, command the highest
    praise.

    This being a second instance in which the condition of the
    captured ship, by rendering it impossible to get her into
    port, has barred a contemplated reward of successful valor,
    I recommend to the consideration of Congress the equity and
    propriety of a general provision, allowing, in such cases, both
    past and future, a fair proportion of the value which would
    accrue to the captors on the safe arrival and sale of the prize.

    FEB. 22, 1813.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.



U. S. FRIGATE CONSTITUTION,

                             ST. SALVADOR, _January 3d, 1813_.

    SIR: I have the honor to inform you that, on the 29th ultimo,
    at 2 P. M., in south latitude 13° 6', and west longitude 38°,
    about ten leagues distant from the coast of Brazil, I fell in
    with, and captured, His Britannic Majesty's frigate Java, of
    49 guns, and upwards of four hundred men, commanded by Captain
    Lambert, a very distinguished officer. The action lasted one
    hour and fifty-five minutes, in which time the enemy was
    completely dismasted, not having a spar of any kind standing.
    The loss on board the Constitution was nine killed and
    twenty-five wounded, as per enclosed list. The enemy had sixty
    killed and one hundred and one wounded, certainly; (among the
    latter, Captain Lambert, mortally;) but by the enclosed letter,
    written on board this ship, by one of the officers of the Java,
    and accidentally found, it is evident that the enemy's wounded
    must have been much greater than as above stated, and who must
    have died of their wounds previously to their being removed.
    The letter states sixty killed and one hundred and seventy
    wounded.

    For further details of the action, I beg leave to refer you
    to the enclosed extracts from my journal. The Java had, in
    addition to her own crew, upwards of one hundred supernumerary
    officers and seamen, to join the British ships of war in the
    East Indies; also, Lieutenant General Hislop, appointed to
    the command of Bombay, Major Walker, and Captain Wood, of
    his staff, and Captain Marshall, master and commander in the
    British navy, going to the East Indies to take command of a
    sloop of war there.

    Should I attempt to do justice, by representation, to the
    great and good conduct of all my officers and crew, during
    the action, I should fail in the attempt; therefore, suffice
    it to say, that the whole of their conduct was such as to
    merit my highest encomiums. I beg leave to recommend the
    officers particularly to the notice of Government, and also the
    unfortunate seamen who were wounded, and the families of those
    brave men who fell in the action.

    The great distance from our own coast, and the perfect wreck we
    made of the enemy's frigate, forbade every idea of attempting
    to take her to the United States. I had, therefore, no
    alternative but burning her, which I did on the 31st ultimo,
    after receiving all the prisoners and their baggage, which was
    very tedious work, only having one boat left out of eight, and
    not one boat left on board the Java.

    On blowing up the frigate Java, I proceeded to this place,
    where I have landed all the prisoners, on their parole, to
    return to England, and there remain until regularly exchanged,
    and not to serve in their _professional capacities_, in any
    place, or in any manner whatever, against the United States of
    America, until said exchange is effected. I have the honor to
    be, &c.

                                                     WILLIAM BAINBRIDGE.

  Hon. PAUL HAMILTON, _Secretary Navy_.



TUESDAY, February 23.

                      _The Frigate Constitution._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill,
reported by the Naval Committee this morning, to compensate the
officers and crew of the United States frigate Constitution for the
destruction of the British frigates Guerriere and Java. [This bill
provides that ---- dollars shall be paid out of the Treasury to Captain
Hull and the officers and crews of the Constitution frigate, and a
like sum to Captain Bainbridge and his crew, for their two gallant
achievements; and appropriates a sum of ---- dollars therefor.]

Mr. BASSETT moved to fill the first blank with fifty thousand dollars.

After some conversation between Messrs. BASSETT, ELY, STOW, and MILNOR,
on the propriety of making a general instead of a special provision on
this head, as recommended by the President, the question on filling the
first blank with fifty thousand dollars was carried in the affirmative,
ayes 60.

The second blank was then filled with one hundred thousand dollars.

The committee rose and reported the bill; and the amendments were
concurred in.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time.


WEDNESDAY, February 24.

                      _The Frigate Constitution._

The bill making compensation to the officers and crew of the frigate
Constitution for the destruction of the British frigates Guerriere and
Java, was read a third time and passed, by yeas and nays. For the bill
61, against the bill 39.

                          _Order in Council._

The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES:

  _To the Senate and House of
        Representatives of the United States_:

    I lay before Congress copies of a proclamation of the
    British Lieutenant Governor of the island of Bermuda, which
    has appeared under circumstances leaving no doubt of its
    authenticity. It recites a British Order in Council of the 26th
    of October last, providing for the supply of the British West
    Indies and other colonial possessions, by a trade under special
    licenses; and is accompanied by a circular instruction to the
    Colonial Governors, which confines licensed importations from
    ports of the United States, to the ports of the Eastern States
    exclusively.

    The Government of Great Britain had already introduced into
    commerce during war, a system, which, at once violating the
    rights of other nations, and resting on a mass of forgery and
    perjury unknown to other times, was making an unfortunate
    progress in undermining those principles of morality and
    religion which are the best foundation of national happiness.

    The policy now proclaimed to the world, introduces into
    her modes of warfare a system equally distinguished by the
    deformity of its features, and the depravity of its character;
    having for its object to dissolve the ties of allegiance and
    the sentiments of loyalty in the adversary nation, and to
    seduce and separate its component parts, the one from the other.

    The general tendency of these demoralizing and disorganizing
    contrivances will be reprobated by the civilized and Christian
    world; and the insulting attempt on the virtue, the honor, the
    patriotism, and the fidelity of our brethren of the Eastern
    States, will not fail to call forth all their indignation and
    resentment, and to attach more and more all the States to that
    happy Union and Constitution, against which such insidious and
    malignant artifices are directed.

    The better to guard, nevertheless, against the effect of
    individual cupidity and treachery, and to turn the corrupt
    projects of the enemy against himself, I recommend to the
    consideration of Congress the expediency of an effectual
    prohibition of any trade whatever, by citizens or inhabitants
    of the United States, under special licenses, whether relating
    to persons or ports; and, in aid thereof, a prohibition of all
    exportation from the United States in foreign bottoms--few of
    which are actually employed--whilst multiplying counterfeits
    of their flags and papers are covering and encouraging the
    navigation of the enemy.

                                                          JAMES MADISON.

  FEBRUARY 24, 1813.


The Message and accompanying documents were referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.

                            _Extra Session._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to alter
the time of the next meeting of Congress--a motion being under
consideration to fix on the fourth Monday in October.

Mr. GRUNDY spoke in reply to some observations of Mr. JOHNSON (on
yesterday) in favor of that day. Mr. G. was decidedly in favor of
meeting in May; he believed it necessary to the support of public
credit that the House should meet in May. Had not the Committee of
Ways and Means first taught him that an early session was necessary
with that view, if revenue should not, as it would not, be provided
at this session, he should not have been found advocating an extra
session. The House had been told by their financial committee, that it
was indispensably necessary forthwith to provide a revenue; and that a
paper system, without a foundation of permanent revenue, would involve
the nation in disgrace or irretrievable ruin. Mr. G. quoted various
reports of the Committee of Ways and Means to show that they had made
such statements. With these facts staring him in the face, how could
he do otherwise than urge an early session? If it was indispensably
necessary a day or two ago to provide a revenue, what had since
occurred obviating that necessity? Nothing. War had been declared,
and it was the duty of those who declared it to provide the ways and
means of carrying it on. Mr. G. protested against the idea which had
been advanced of giving enormous interest for loans, and against
accumulating a large debt, almost without the knowledge of the people
on whom it would be saddled, and expressed his determination, as far as
lay in his power, to go on and provide the ways and means.


SATURDAY, February 27.

                        _Power of Retaliation._

The bill giving to the President of the United States the power of
retaliation in certain cases therein mentioned, was read a third time.

A motion was made by Mr. QUINCY to adjourn--lost, 56 to 16.

The bill was then passed by the following vote:

    YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,
    David Bard, William Barnett, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,
    William Blackledge, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis
    Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John Clopton, Richard
    Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle,
    Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L.
    Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper,
    John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, William Kennedy, William
    R. King, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Thomas Moor, William
    McCoy, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh
    Nelson, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William
    Piper, James Pleasants, jr., John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan
    Roberts, Thomas B. Robertson, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George
    Smith, John Taliaferro, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill,
    David R. Williams, and Robert Wright.

    NAYS.--Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion,
    Martin Chittenden, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas P. Grosvenor,
    Lyman Law, Jos. Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Elisha R.
    Potter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, William Rodman, Daniel
    Sheffey, Richard Stanford, and Leonard White.[35]


MONDAY, March 1.

                          _Foreign Licenses._

An engrossed bill to prohibit the use of licenses or passes, issued
under the authority of any foreign Government, was read the third time.

And on the question, "Shall this bill pass?" it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 59, nays 32.

                        _Relations with France._

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, after observing on the propriety of the House having
all the information on foreign affairs which was accessible; and
remarking, also, that they were much in the dark in respect to our
relations with France, moved the following resolution:

    _Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
    requested to cause to be laid before this House the French
    decree, purporting to be a repeal of the Berlin decrees,
    referred to in his Message of the 4th of November last;
    together with such information as he may possess concerning
    the time and manner of promulgating the same; and, also, any
    correspondence or information touching the relations of the
    United States with France, in the office of the Department of
    State, not heretofore communicated, which, in the opinion of
    the President, it is not incompatible with the public interest
    to communicate.

And on the question to agree to the same, it passed in the
affirmative--yeas 102, nays 4.

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH and Mr. KENNEDY were appointed a committee to present
the said resolution to the President.

On motion, the House adjourned.


TUESDAY, March 2.

                 _Non-Exportations in Foreign Bottoms._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill prohibiting the exportation of certain articles therein specified,
in foreign vessels.

Mr. CLAY spoke at considerable length in favor of this bill, as forming
a complete system, connected with one which passed the House the other
day, prohibiting the use of foreign licenses on board vessels of the
United States, suited to the present relations of the United States,
and to the proper action on the enemy.

Mr. ROBERTSON spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman, I do not often trespass
on the patience of the House, but I request their attention whilst I
state a few of the reasons which compel me to oppose the bill now under
consideration.

I am the more disposed to do this, because my opposition arises from
considerations in a great measure peculiar to myself, and because I
differ with gentlemen in the correctness of whose opinions I usually
concur. Without, then, considering the principles it involves, I reject
this bill, because it is not in fact what it professes to be; it is
not a restrictive measure; its provisions may operate prejudicially
on ourselves, but cannot affect the enemy. In one of two general
systems, I might go along with gentlemen. Let us have non-importation,
non-intercourse, and embargo--thus the restrictive system may have its
full bearing; let us refuse to purchase manufactures of the British;
let us refuse to furnish them with provisions, then we may be consoled
for the privations which we ourselves must experience, by reflecting on
the great evils which we inflict on the enemy.

I can but smile at the patriotism of honorable gentlemen, who affect
to starve the English by refusing to buy their manufactures, whilst
they inundate the army, the navy, the colonies of that nation, with
a profusion of all the necessaries and luxuries of life--they will
starve a few miserable manufacturers, whilst they industriously feed
their armed men. With the most glaring and barefaced inconsistency,
they object to admitting into our markets any the minutest article of
British manufacture, that the inhabitants may perish for the want of
means to purchase bread; whilst bread is exported with a hope that it
should, indeed a perfect certainty that it will be consumed by this
same people. I cannot concur in these half-way measures. I voted for a
repeal of the non-importation act. I hoped that commerce, sufficiently
hazardous and fettered by the present state of the world, would cease
to be shackled by ourselves. I hoped, that now the sword was drawn,
we should carry on war in the usual and accustomed manner--that the
Government would be aided by the receipt of revenue arising from
duties and imposts--that the people would be thus partially relieved
from taxes--that the nation would be strengthened and inspired by an
accession of wealth, now more than ever necessary.

But whatever, sir, might be my opinion of this bill, viewed as a
restrictive measure; for other considerations it meets with my decided
disapprobation. We prohibit neutrals from clearing out from our ports
with the productions of our country, whilst our own vessels are left
free to do so. We deny to them that commerce, which as a neutral
we formerly enjoyed. Heretofore we complained of the injustice of
belligerents, and now that we are engaged in war, and that too for
_neutral rights and free trade_, we are about to practise similar
abuses. Aware that some apology would be deemed necessary, we call it
a municipal regulation; it may be so--and perhaps we are borne out by
strict law; but we attempt a justification on the ground of cutting
off our enemy from supplies, of which he stands in need, and which,
notwithstanding his perilous situation, he dares to hope to receive
through a train of insolent artifices, derogatory to the integrity of
the Union, and disgraceful to those with whom they shall prevail.

Now, sir, if the measure proposed could in any way counteract his
views--if it went the full length of preventing him from procuring the
various articles which his necessities require, I confess it would
be inflicting a punishment, which not only the laws of war would
authorize, but which the unprecedented baseness of his late attempt
most loudly calls for; but no such effect will be produced. For what
is there to prevent our vessels from transporting the products of the
United States to Amelia, Pensacola, St. Bartholomews, there to be
deposited, and thence carried in neutral or British bottoms to Jamaica,
the Bahamas, or wheresoever else they may be wanted? And again, if,
notwithstanding the hostile attitude in which we stand in relation
to each other England is compelled to encourage a trade by license,
will not her necessities equally induce her to connive at exportation?
Can it be doubted, that her armed vessels would not be instructed to
allow our provisions to pass unmolested, when, by pursuing a contrary
conduct, she would be starving her own colonies? And is it not clear
that a traffic, which the war prevents from being direct, would
continue to be carried on, as it is at present, through intermediate
ports?

Mr. Chairman, the present scheme seems to me to be merely calculated to
produce vexation and embarrassment at home; to operate with peculiar
hardship on neutral rights, without inflicting on the enemy any injury
commensurate with these evils. Sir, if gentlemen wish to reap the full
effect of a restrictive system, that system must be rigid and complete.
Let our ports be sealed; let there be neither egress nor ingress;
let us neither buy nor sell, and let us prepare to bear the positive
burdens of active war. No section of our widely-extended Union could
then complain of _peculiar_ oppression. The plan would present itself
to us, recommended, at least, by the generality of its operation; by
the impartiality of its character. But, if this cannot be done, if
the shipping interests of some of the States, and the manufacturing
establishments of others, must be encouraged, and if others still must
sell their wheat and flour, let us pursue the opposite course; let
us sweep restrictive measures by the board; thus should we enjoy all
the advantages which would result to the Government from imposts, all
the benefits that would accrue to individuals from exports. In either
of these modes of proceeding I might concur; but I cannot consent to
the plan now submitted, nor acquiesce in the wisdom or policy of our
existing regulations. They are not promotive of the general welfare,
but, on the contrary, are ruinous to the interests of that portion
of the Union whose interest it is peculiarly my duty to protect.
Yet, I cannot help observing that, however under their oppressive
operation commerce languishes, and Southern agriculture is completely
annihilated, they are tolerated by the Eastern States, because they
promote their domestic manufactures, and impoverish and embarrass the
Government; and they are advocated and supported by the Middle States,
because they consider, or affect to consider them, as very patriotic;
because they inflict privations, which, by-the-by, they do not feel;
and, finally, because, nevertheless, they are enabled to sell off, at
excellent prices, the productions of their farms. Thus, sir, a feast
is spread before us; but it is served up, however splendidly and
abundantly, in shallow dishes; and, while the foxes of the Eastern and
Middle States lap up the soup with great dexterity, the storks of the
Mississippi, Mobile, and Altamaha, look on, perhaps with admiration,
but certainly with no satisfaction whatever. While, sir, the spleen of
hostility towards the Government is gratified, while the manufacturing
establishments of the East are promoted, while the middle section of
the Union disposes of, at high prices, the abundant harvest of their
fields, what becomes of the commerce of our country? What fate befalls
the agriculture of the South? Our cotton rots on the stalk. From this
proscription of foreign manufactures, the grower of the raw material is
irretrievably ruined. Possibly he may sell an inconsiderable portion
of his crop, for contemptible prices, to domestic manufacturers, while
he is compelled to buy, at enormous rates, the articles which his
wants require. If he wishes to sell, he finds no competition among
purchasers. Does he find it necessary to purchase, he suffers equally
from the want of competition among those who sell.

A debate of considerable length took place, in which Mr. CALHOUN
supported the bill, though opposed to the amendment made on motion of
Mr. QUINCY in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. GROSVENOR spoke as follows:

Mr. Speaker: When I had the honor to address you, on a measure which
has finally passed this House, I stated, at some length, my reasons for
believing that the Government had no serious intention to pass the bill
now before you. But, sir, from a furious zeal, this day manifested in a
certain quarter, to drive the measure through this House, I fear I was
mistaken. I therefore deem it an indispensable duty, in the name of
the commercial and agricultural districts which I represent, to enter
my solemn protest against this new project of the Government.

I shall not enter into any argument, to show the impolicy, the
injustice, and the danger of such a measure, considered as a measure
of non-exportation. The task has been most ably and successfully
performed by an honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. LOWNDES;)
he has shown, that connected with the maritime power of the enemy, and
with other bills already passed this House, this measure has all the
blasting qualities, without even the few equivocal benefits of a broad
restrictive system; and he has demonstrated the irreparable mischiefs
which must result from such weak and mongrel measures. His reasoning
has not been met--it cannot be refuted--I will not weaken its effect on
the House, by attempting to enforce it.

My principal object in rising, was to examine the grounds upon which
the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,) who
last addressed you, has rested his justification of the measure.
He has assured us, that it is not at all intended as a part of any
new system; that its object is in no respect a prohibition of free
and fair exportation. Sir, whatever gentlemen may intend, it is too
palpable for denial, that this measure is, in truth, a restrictive
and an anti-commercial measure, and in conjunction with the license
bill already passed, must operate (as far as such weak and unnatural
measures can operate) as a broad and iron system of non-exportation.

But, sir, what are the intention and the objects of the bill according
to the view of that honorable gentleman: "To avenge insult"--"to
retaliate on the enemy his attempts to destroy us"--"to carry to his
own lips his own poisoned chalice." And where are these insults, these
injuries, these vital attempts of the enemy to be found? Henry's
celebrated mission, after rioting for a time on the spoils of the
Treasury, has found the tomb of the Capulets. And although its ghost
seems to haunt the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, yet sure
I am, that a thing of air would not have inspired him with all those
bitter feelings which he has poured forth upon the enemy.

No, sir, it is the last Message of the President which contains all
this dreadful matter. In that Message came before us an Order in
Council by the Prince Regent, and a letter from a British Secretary,
to a West India Governor. Sir, by that order, certain West India ports
are opened to the importation of articles which they wish to purchase,
and to the exportation of produce which they wish to sell. This is no
new practice; in every European war, the belligerent mother country has
never failed to open some of her colonies to neutral commerce. By this
order nothing more is done, and so far from any insult or injury to us
in the body of the order, our nation is not even named.

The honorable gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) has
pertinently asked, to what extent you would carry your new principles
of honor and retaliation. The enemy spares the commerce of the East,
and destroys that of the South; you must equalize them by destroying
the former. You cannot stop here. If the enemy _blockades_ the South,
you must _embargo_ New England. If he burns Charleston and Norfolk,
you must burn New York and Boston. In fine, any thing spared in one
section of the Union by the enemy, which he has the power to destroy,
and not spared in another, must be destroyed by our Government, by way
of equalizing the burdens of the war.

The gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,) to whom I have so
often alluded, was disposed highly to compliment the people of the
Northern States. He declared his full confidence in their fidelity,
patriotism, and honor, and he believes that they will not only spurn
with contempt the attempt to seduce them, but will hail the present
measure as just, honorable, and wise. Sir, the patriotism of that
people is undoubtedly as warm and as disinterested as that of any
people on this globe; and if, indeed, this were an attack on their
honor, they would need no such law as this to teach them their duty,
or to compel them to perform it. But, sir, I do not believe that
their patriotism will feel insulted. They will hardly be satisfied by
flattery and compliment for this attack upon their commerce. I would
not be surprised if they should answer the honorable gentleman somewhat
in this manner: "Hands off, Mr. CALHOUN, if it please you; we do not
dislike your compliments; indeed, we are pleased with the notes of
this new tune from the South. We will do any thing in reason to oblige
you; but really, sir, to be complimented out of our commerce; to be
flattered into poverty; to be cowed into service, is a little more than
the rules of civility demand."

It has been avowed on this floor, [by Mr. Speaker CLAY,] that this bill
is only one part of a contemplated system of rigid non-exportation.
Have gentlemen reflected on the disastrous consequences of such a
system at the present time? The district which I have the honor to
represent, is a portion of an extensive tract of mercantile and
agricultural country, extending up the Hudson River far into the
interior of New York. The merchants and farmers of that country did
believe, that when you appealed to arms, your restrictive system was
at rest forever. They had a right so to believe, from the declarations
of gentlemen on this floor, and from the unequivocal conduct of
Government. Under this belief, during the present winter the merchants
have constantly purchased produce at high and advanced prices. In the
numerous villages scattered on either side of the Hudson River, and
over immense tracts far to the west of it, the stores are groaning
with the productions of their soil. Sir, when the Spring opens, they
will find all their prospects blasted, and bankruptcy staring in
their faces. Through the whole frozen interior of the North and East,
the condition of the merchants and farmers is similar, and similar
disastrous consequences will be realized.

We are involved in war with a nation powerful in her resources, clothed
in complete armor, and to whom, from long habit, a state of warfare has
become almost a national condition. We need all our resources and all
our energies to save this war from a disgraceful conclusion. What then
but madness can dictate a policy tending to dry up our resources and
paralyze our energies. Wounded by the spear of war, what but downright
political quackery could prescribe those "restrictive" nostrums, to
restore the nation to health and vigor? Are the old chimerical notions
of _starving_ the enemy, yet floating in the brains of gentlemen? In
despite of experience, do they yet believe that our blessed country
_alone_ can produce food for the world? Are the countries of the Baltic
and Caspian Seas no longer cultivated? Has the Nile ceased to fructify
the fields of Egypt? Have Sicily and the Barbary coasts returned to a
barren state of nature? Has France herself agreed to bury her surplus
breadstuffs in the earth? Or has England lost that ascendency on the
ocean, and forgot all those commercial arts, by which she was wont to
procure supplies from all those countries? Seven years of restrictions
have in vain been tried. Your enemy has laughed you to scorn, and your
own people have cursed the policy that crushed their prosperity. There
is no doubt that, as at the time you laid the embargo, the closing of
your ports now, might produce a temporary inconvenience to the enemy;
but the measure would finally and permanently recoil on our merchants,
and even farmers. These men have, therefore, a deep and vital interest
in this question. Twice already they have been sacrificed to test the
efficacy of our "restrictive energies."

Do you intend again to stretch them on the rack, again to cover the
country with sackcloth and ashes? Is another brood of "restrictive"
harpies, more unseemly and more hungry than their predecessors, to be
let loose among them? And is this bill a pioneer to the new swarms of
"continental" locusts?

Mr. Speaker, I shudder when I behold that anti-commercial demon, which
for seven years has been glutted with the mangled limbs of commerce,
still hovering about this bill. The deluded people did believe that,
when "you let slip the dogs of war," the monster had fallen, never
again to trample down their rights, or devour the remnant of their
prosperity. They were mistaken. He has risen invigorated from the blow;
like the horse leech, he continues to cry, "give, give!" He never will
be satisfied while the farmers of the North and the East are prosperous
and powerful, or while the ships of an independent merchant float
safely and successfully on the ocean. Sir, I do trust in Heaven, that
the people of this Union will not sleep forever--I do trust, that
the time is not far distant when the rulers of this nation shall be
compelled again to travel in the paths of peace, commerce, and honor. I
do trust that this new system, fraught as it is with new destruction,
will meet an effectual overthrow. On this floor, I have no hope of such
an event. The current of influence is here too strong to be resisted.
But if the God of nations "doth seek our rulers, and hath given our
Senators wisdom," it must find its grave in the other branches of the
Government.

Mr. QUINCY opposed the bill, and after some remarks from Mr. BLACKLEDGE
in reply to him, the question on concurring with the Committee of
the Whole in their amendment was taken, to wit: to strike out from
the fifth line of the first section, the words, "and every," and to
insert "wheat, flour, rice, cotton, tobacco, indigo, tar, pitch, or
turpentine, or any other article, the growth, produce, or manufacture
of the United States:." And passed in the affirmative--yeas 69, nays 29.

                        _Constitution and Java._

The House took up for consideration the resolution from the Senate
requesting the President of the United States to present to Captain
William Bainbridge a gold medal, with suitable inscriptions, and to
the officers of the frigate Constitution silver medals, in testimony
of the high sense entertained by Congress of their gallantry and skill
in achieving the capture and destruction of the British frigate Java;
which was read three times, and passed.

                        _Bounty to Privateers._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill allowing a
bounty to privateers; but the committee being unable to progress for
want of a quorum, it rose and reported the fact to the House; and
the bill and report were ordered to lie on the table, and the House
adjourned.


WEDNESDAY, March 3.

                             _Navy Yards._

On motion of Mr. REED,

_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby,
directed to report to this House, at the next session of Congress, a
statement of the number of Navy Yards belonging to, and occupied for
the use of the United States; the accommodations provided in each, with
the number of officers and men attached to each, with their rank and
pay; also, the quantity and species of timber provided in each. Also, a
statement of the expenditures made in each yard during the years 1811
and 1812; the number of vessels required during that time, with the
species, quantity, and cost of repairs on each vessel, and the manner
in which such repairs have been made, whether by contract or otherwise,
and the terms. Also, the amount of timber provided under the law
making an annual appropriation of two hundred thousand dollars, with a
statement of the contracts made under said act, and the terms thereof:
Also, the number of officers in the naval service of the United States,
their rank, pay, and employ.

                     _Encouragement to Privateers._

The bill allowing a bounty to privateers was passed through a Committee
of the Whole, and ordered to lie on the table, under the impression
that it could not be acted on at the present session.


EVENING SITTING, _5 o'clock_.

                        _Thanks to the Speaker._

On motion of Mr. SAWYER,

_Resolved unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be presented to
HENRY CLAY, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in the
discharge of the arduous duties assigned him while in the Chair.

Whereupon, the Hon. SPEAKER rose and made the following observations:

    "I thank you, gentlemen, for the testimony you have just
    so kindly delivered in approbation of my conduct in the
    Chair. Amidst the momentous subjects of deliberation which
    undoubtedly distinguish the 12th Congress as the most memorable
    in the annals of America, it has been a source of animating
    consolation to me, that I have never failed to experience the
    liberal support of gentlemen in all quarters of the House. If
    in the moment of ardent debate, when all have been struggling
    to maintain the best interests of our beloved country as they
    have appeared to us respectively, causes of irritation have
    occurred, let us consign them to oblivion, and let us in the
    painful separation which is about to ensue, perhaps forever,
    cherish and cultivate a recollection only of the many agreeable
    hours we have spent together. Allow me, gentlemen, to express
    the fervent wish that one and all of you may enjoy all possible
    individual happiness, and that in the return to your several
    homes you may have pleasant journeys."

                          _Closing Business._

On motion of Mr. DAWSON, a committee was appointed, jointly with a
committee to be appointed by the Senate, to wait upon the President of
the United States, and inform him that the two Houses are now ready to
adjourn, and desire to know whether he has any further communication to
make to them during the present session.

Messrs. DAWSON and GROSVENOR were appointed the committee on the part
of the House.

The Senate agree to the resolution for the appointment of a joint
committee to wait on the President of the United States, and notify
him of the proposed recess of Congress, and have appointed a committee
on their part.

For some time a quorum was not present.

Bills from the Senate were waiting. A call of the House was had, and it
appeared that sixty-four members only were present.

After receiving from the President all the bills which had passed, and
being informed by the committee that he had no further communications
to make, the House adjourned _sine die_.

FOOTNOTES:

[30] Chief Justice Marshall.

[31] This debate, although arising on a subject which implied a limited
discussion, soon passed beyond its apparent bounds, and instead of
being confined to the simple military question of raising additional
troops, expanded into a discussion of the whole policy, objects and
causes of the war, and became the principal debate of the session. All
the leading members of the House took part in it; and many new members,
then young, and whose names have since become famous, then took their
start.

[32] The Chairman had risen to put the question, which would have cut
Mr. C. off from the chance of speaking, by returning the bill to the
House.

[33] The well-known political writer, William Cobbett, publishing a
gazette under the name of Peter Porcupine.

[34] Mr. Barlow's journey to Wilna, where he only arrived to die.

[35] The following is the act as passed:

_Be it enacted, &c._, That in all, and every case, wherein, during
the present war between the United States of America and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, any violations of the laws and
usages of war among civilized nations, shall be or have been done and
perpetrated by those acting under authority of the British Government,
on any of the citizens of the United States, or persons in the land or
naval services of the United States, the President of the United States
is hereby authorized to cause full and ample retaliation to be made,
according to the laws and usages of war among civilized nations, for
all and every such violation as aforesaid.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, in all cases where any
outrage or act of cruelty or barbarity shall be or has been practised
by any Indian or Indians, in alliance with the British Government,
or in connection with those acting under the authority of the said
Government, on citizens of the United States or those under its
protection, the President of the United States is hereby authorized
to cause full and ample retaliation to be done and executed on such
British subjects, soldiers, seamen, or marines, or Indians, in alliance
or connection with Great Britain, being prisoners of war, as if the
same outrage or act of cruelty or barbarity had been done under the
authority of the British Government.

Approved, March 3, 1813.




INDEX TO VOL. IV.


  A

  _Absentees_, recall of, resolution to direct the Speaker to request
        their attendance, 533.

  ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY, resigns seat in Senate, 3.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  _Allegiance, Foreign_, petition of inhabitants of Kentucky, stating
        that the King of Great Britain, by proclamation, claims the
        allegiance of all persons born in his dominions, 46;
    had authorized their impressment, &c., &c.,--petition prays for
        resistance of this assumption, 46.
    _See Index_, vol. 1.

  ALEXANDER, EVAN, Representative from North Carolina, 36;
    moves a committee of inquiry relative to proving the acts and
        proceedings of States, 87.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Algerine War._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  ALSTON, LEMUEL J., Representative from South Carolina, 36, 125, 187,
        315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  ALSTON WILLIS, jr., Representative from North Carolina, 36, 125, 187,
        315, 425, 577;
    on the value of blank ballots, 125;
    on a vote of approbation of the conduct of the Executive, 129;
    opposes the postponement of the resolution relative to the
        apportionment of representation, 224;
    on the ratio of representation, 319;
    on laying additional duties, 431;
    on establishing a quartermaster's department, 477.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  AMY DARDIN, report on petition of, 216;
    bill read, &c., 218;
    report for relief of, agreed to, 538.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Amendments to the Constitution._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  ANDERSON, JOSEPH, Senator from Tennessee, 5, 28, 116, 176, 252, 420;
    presents memorial of Legislative Council of Mississippi Territory,
        265;
    on the incorporation of a Bank of the United States, 266;
    on a recess of Congress, 412.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  ANDERSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 124, 187, 315,
        424, 577.

  ARCHER, STEVENSON, Representative from Maryland, 424, 577;
    on foreign relations, 466;
    on the policy of the war, 638;
    on war taxes, 715.

  _Armed Vessels_, public and private, encouragement of, resolution
        relative to, 711.
    _See Privateers._

  ARMSTRONG Gen., his letter to Mr. Pinkney, 361;
    letter of, on additional general officers, 713.

  _Army, pay of the._--In the House, bill concerning the pay of the army
        considered, 581;
    the present pay of the army much below the average price of labor,
        581;
    wherefore should the soldier receive less than any other man, 581;
    the compensation should be proportioned to the risk, 581;
    to second section of the bill little objection apprehended, 581;
    third section founded on the principle that every man owes to the
        country which protects him, military service, 581;
    second section involves an infraction of the constitution, 582;
    any man who had contracted a debt had certainly given a pledge not
        only of his property but of his body to his creditor, 582;
    this right of the creditor to take the body is completely taken out
        of his hands in regard to those who enlist, 582;
    has an _ex post facto_ operation, 582;
    this provision necessary to guard against fraud, 582;
    persons enlisted procure themselves to be arrested under fictitious
        debts, 582;
    when let out on bail and the commander attempts to take him he is
        rescued on a _habeas corpus_, and courts decide the man to be
        the property of his bail, 582;
    motion to strike out lost, 582;
    third section encourages the uneasy boy to throw off parental
        authority or to defraud a master, its tendency is to violate
        public morals and the spirit of the constitution, and to
        interfere with public economy, 582;
    it is unknown as well as immoral, 582;
    other objections, 583;
    minors above eighteen allowed to enlist, 583;
    you go into the workshop and the parent's dwelling and entice away
        the apprentice and the child, 583;
    this very population constitutes the strength and vigor of war, 583;
    what was the fact in France, 583;
    her army is made up of young men, 583;
    the case of husbands deserting wives and children aged parents, is
        as much entitled to sympathy, 583;
    better resort to liberal bounties and wages than violate important
        principles, 584;
    the extensiveness of the relation of master and apprentice, 584;
    can these relations dissolve under the charm of this bill, 584;
    necessity is alleged, 584;
    beware how you yield to this fancied necessity, 584;
    this section will be productive of much evil and perhaps little
        good, 584;
    reason to doubt its constitutionality, 584;
    amendments negatived and bill ordered to third reading, 584;
    the atrocity of the principle and the magnitude of the evil
        contained in this bill, 585;
    third section is calculated to seduce minors from their masters,
        guardians, and parents, 585;
    the absurdity of this provision--its inequality--its immorality
        considered, 585, 586;
    sixteen was the age called upon in the revolution, 587;
    which excites the most regret, a child leaving his parents to defend
        his country, or a parent torn from his family to defend a
        foreign power, 588;
    the charges against this bill are a libel on the House, 588;
    atrocious principle! let gentlemen damn the memory of the patriots
        of the revolution who originated this principle, 588;
    if there is an increase of population, there appears to be a
        deterioration of patriotism since the revolution, 588;
    what was the law in 1798, 588;
    the power to enlist minors is a new principle, 588;
    third section examined, 589;
    reason for the preference of young men, 589;
    House now prepared to take up a small subject and make a great thing
        of it, 589;
    a man ought not to be called on to defend his country until he has
        acquired political rights, 589;
    moved to recommit the bill, 590;
    it is of the nature of an _ex post facto_ law, and tends to exalt
        the military over the civil authority, 591;
    the third section freighted with most fatal consequences, 591;
    cases supposed, 591;
    recommitment lost, 592;
    bill passed, 593.

    _Military Force additional._--In the Senate, a bill to authorize the
        President to accept and organize certain military corps, &c.,
        considered, 405;
    be productive of no efficacy, 405;
    be inoperative, 405;
    system of volunteers the favorite one of the Government, 405;
    the number should be reduced, 405;
    only a formidable display of armies on paper, 405.

    _In the House_, bill taken up, 547;
    is it such as to require secrecy? 548;
    voted affirmatively, 548;
    bill ordered to be engrossed and passed, 548.

    _In the House_, bills for the more perfect organization of the army,
        and to raise an additional military force considered in
        committee, 611;
    moved to fill the blanks relative to bounty, 611;
    the military committee present a system on which to rest the future
        operation of the war, 611;
    explanation of its merits, 611;
    object with all to terminate the war successfully, 611;
    no other mode than to call into the field a force adequate to
        command every honorable object, 611;
    the good the war has accomplished relative to our character abroad,
        611;
    the honor of the nation requires that British power on our borders
        should be demolished in the next campaign, 611;
    after seeing the necessity of augmenting the regular forces, it was
        equally material to provide for filling the ranks, and keeping
        them at their full complement, 612;
    it is proposed to appoint recruiting officers for each regiment,
        612;
    it may be said the results of the last campaign are so unfavorable
        that there is no object to vote further sums, 612;
    all our disasters sprang from a cause no man in the nation could
        anticipate, 612;
    treachery or cowardice caused the surrender at Detroit, 612;
    question on filling the blanks carried, 613;
    moved to repeal the offer of bounty land to the recruits, 613;
    this is a waste of the nation's capital without a single provident
        result, 613;
    it is proposed to increase the bounty in money, 613;
    motion agreed to, 613;
    blanks in the other bill authorizing an additional military force
        severally filled, 613;
    reason for giving the appointment of officers below the rank of
        colonel to the President alone, 613;
    bills reported to the House, 613;
    first bill ordered to be engrossed, 613;
    question on the engrossment of the bill to raise an additional
        military force, 614;
    great anticipations from the action of twenty thousand men in a
        single year, 614;
    when war was declared it was said Canada would be conquered in a
        single year, 614;
    experience has proved the fallacy of these predictions, 615;
    no pleasure to dwell upon the disasters and disgrace that have
        attended our military operations, 615;
    the annals of the last six months are most deplorable, 615;
    the tone and heart of the country broken, universal disgust at the
        past, anxiety and concern for the future, 615;
    what is now proposed for the future, 615;
    an army of twelve months' men--a broken reed, 615;
    an army and term of service which well nigh lost the country in the
        revolutionary war, 615;
    wherefore change the term of enlistment from five years or during
        the war to one year, 615;
    feelings of the Canadians, 616;
    let us see things as they are, and look danger in the face, 616;
    points in our relative conduct towards France and Great Britain
        which will not bear examination, 616;
    moved to strike out one and insert five years as the term of
        enlistment, 616;
    we must rise after reverses, 616;
    if we were to unite the question would soon be settled, 617;
    cause of the war concisely stated by Capt. Porter, "Free trade and
        sailor's rights," 617;
    is there a man doubts the war was justly undertaken? 617;
    what injury have we not suffered, 617;
    you have been told the Prince Regent and his ministers are firm, let
        us follow their example, 617;
    an army should be seasoned before it is taken into the field, 617;
    it will take a year to prepare them for the field; without
        discipline they are useless, 617;
    let us raise an army for the war, 617;
    we must take the continent from Britain, 617;
    the question is what is the kind of force, and for what length of
        time can you raise an army to take the field at the earliest
        period? 618;
    under this measure a force may be drawn into the field ready to act
        efficiently in the next campaign, 618;
    we have never engaged in any war in which we have come out better in
        the first campaign, 618;
    if this country will go into the war heart and hand, we shall
        shortly demonstrate to the enemy that it is her interest to be
        at peace with us, 618;
    amendment lost, 618;
    question on the passage of the bill, 618.

    All desire peace, but what is the best course to obtain it, 618;
    will the passage of this bill, and the actual enlistment of the
        proposed force secure peace? 618;
    this war can be terminated with honor and advantage without further
        effusion of human blood, 619;
    this does not mean that the honor of the nation is identical with
        the honor of those who declared the war, 619;
    the question of contest is reduced to a single point, 619;
    the British Orders in Council have been repealed, the practice of
        impressment alone remains, 619;
    this has been subjected to much exaggeration, 619;
    it is not certain England has been unwilling to enter into such an
        arrangement as would place this question on a fair and honorable
        basis, 619;
    see the correspondence of Messrs. Monroe and Pinkney, 619;
    at one period she was willing to advance considerable lengths
        towards an adjustment, 619;
    our duty to make an effort for the sanction of our just rights and
        the restoration of peace without further appeal to force, 619;
    facts tending to confirm this belief, 620;
    the late communications from the Executive to the British Government
        present a novelty in the history of war and diplomacy, 620;
    this bill is a kind of second declaration of war, 621;
    the war is both politically and morally wrong, 621;
    it is of an offensive character, 621;
    something unaccountable that the disposition to prosecute this war
        should increase, 621;
    it rests now solely on the subject of impressment, 621;
    this must be settled by treaty, 621;
    we shall create an annual expense of forty millions, 621;
    if Canada could be taken it would be a great public misfortune, 621;
    this war cannot be prosecuted without violating the laws of humanity
        and justice, of religion and morality, 621;
    it is becoming more unpopular in the Eastern States, 622;
    the force contemplated to be raised is unnecessary, 622;
    the present military establishment is certainly sufficient for all
        purposes of defence, 622;
    neither Canada nor any other British province will be worth the
        blood and treasure they will cost us, 622;
    the militia of Canada estimated too low, 622;
    of what value would these provinces be to us, 623;
    duty to inquire into the policy and necessity of this measure, as
        well as the present state of our relations with Great Britain,
        623;
    would the principle, if yielded to us to-morrow, benefit our native
        seamen, or promote the real interests of the country? 624;
    is there probability of obtaining a recognition of this principle by
        a continuance of the war? 624;
    the traffic in American protections, 625;
    the bill is altogether inadequate to the purpose intended to be
        accomplished, 626;
    it cannot be admitted that because the war is declared, we are bound
        to lend aid to promote every plan for prosecuting it which may
        be proposed, 627;
    the bill is unnecessary for the attainment of the original object of
        the war, 627;
    some of the pretended causes of the war have never been seriously
        relied on by our Government, 627;
    what was the avowed object of this war? 628;
    the pretence was to take or rather to receive Canada, 628;
    the effect of this bill is to place at the disposal of the Executive
        an army of fifty-five thousand men, 628;
    the purpose for which these men are demanded is the invasion of
        Canada, 628;
    is the conquest of Canada an object desirable in itself, or
        advantageous by its effect in promoting an early and honorable
        peace? 628;
    _note_, 628;
    the intention of the American Cabinet thus unequivocally avowed,
        628;
    anxious that no doubt should exist on this subject, 628;
    no scheme ever was or ever will be rejected by the men now in power
        merely on account of its running counter to the ordinary
        dictates of common sense and common prudence, 629;
    illustration, 629;
    the great mistake of all those who reasoned concerning the war and
        the invasion of Canada, that it was impossible, was that they
        never took into consideration the connection of these events
        with the then pending election of Chief Magistrate, 629;
    the invasion of Canada considered as a means of carrying on the
        subsisting war, a means of obtaining an early and honorable
        peace, and a means of advancing the personal and local projects
        of ambition of the members of the American Cabinet, 630;
    never was there an invasion in any country worse than this in point
        of moral principle, since the invasion of the Buccaneers, or of
        Capt. Kidd, 632;
    they had the hope of plunder, here there is not even the poor refuge
        of cupidity, 632;
    the disgrace of our arms on the frontier is terrestrial glory
        compared with the disgrace of the attempt, 632;
    this nation is the last which ought to admit the design of foreign
        conquest, 632;
    multitudes who approve of the war detest the invasion, 633;
    look at the elections, what do they speak? 633;
    the people of New England have no desire for Canada, 633;
    the surest way to defeat any hope from negotiation is this threat of
        invasion, 634;
    the American Cabinet understood this, 634;
    the project of this bill is to put further off the chance of
        amicable arrangement, 634;
    the present men were raised to power by elements constituted of
        British prejudices and British antipathies, 634;
    such men will never permit a state of things to pass away so
        essential to their influence, 635;
    the Cabinet has been careful to precede negotiation with some
        circumstance sure to make it fail, ever since the refusal to
        renew the Treaty of 1794, 635;
    the Executive power passed into new hands, under the old influences
        and principles of the former Administration, 635;
    the whole stage of the relations induced between this country and
        Great Britain was a standing appeal to the fears of Great
        Britain, 635;
    what is the truth in relation to the repeal of the Berlin and Milan
        decrees? 636;
    were ever a body of men so abandoned in the hour of need as the
        American Cabinet by Bonaparte? 636;
    reasons for referring to this subject, 636;
    illustrations of what is doing and intended at present, 637;
    the invitations to union which have been so obtrusively urged, 638;
    the liberty of debate prostituted in disseminating the most
        unfounded charges, 639;
    it has been charged that war had been declared prematurely and
        without due preparation, 639;
    it has been said that the nature of the war is changed, 640;
    what the Legislature considered as the cause of war, 641;
    the manner in which the points of difference between the two nations
        ought to be considered, 641;
    negotiation has been tried in the matter of impressment for twenty
        years, 641;
    it is pretended that this Government is not desirous of peace, and
        that this is a war of conquest and ambition, 642;
    if we now recede, are not points conceded to the enemy which the
        opposition never would concede if in power, 642;
    how much more powerful is the objection to the right of search now
        than when first made, 643;
    exemption from impressment is no new claim set up, 644;
    the evils we have complained of were of a nature not to be remedied
        by war, 644;
    what has been the state of the country since the declaration of war,
        645;
    our relations with the belligerents have essentially changed since
        war was declared, 645;
    Napoleon has inveigled us into a war, 645;
    why was the evidence of a repeal of the decrees withheld, 646;
    believing the French decrees repealed, we departed from our neutral
        stand, by enforcing the non-intercourse law against Great
        Britain, 647;
    the prominent causes of the war examined, 648;
    whether this bill is right or wrong depends upon circumstances, 652;
    it is said to be the constitutional duty of the opponents of the war
        to afford every aid and encouragement, 653;
    not the most suitable measure to be selected by the opposition, upon
        which to show their resistance, 653;
    a view of the past, of different parties which have at various times
        appeared, and the manner by which we have been driven from a
        peaceful posture, 654;
    the course of the opposition in impeding the Government for the last
        twelve years has been unexampled in history, 654;
    gentlemen seem to forget that they stand on American soil, 655;
    a plot for the dismemberment of the Union, 656;
    cause of the declaration of war, 656;
    it is said France inveigled us into the war, 656;
    the war might have been declared even if the Orders in Council had
        been repealed earlier, 657;
    it is said Great Britain has always been willing to make a
        satisfactory arrangement on the subject of impressment, 658;
    what cause which existed for declaring the war has been removed,
        659.

    What is the object of this vast military force? 660;
    retrospect of the last eight years, to show how much gentlemen have
        been mistaken and disappointed in their views of foreign policy,
        661;
    the picture of impressments has been too highly , 663;
    in that section of the Union where two-thirds of the seamen come
        from, there is an overwhelming opinion against the war, 663;
    the controversy seems brought to a single point, 663;
    it is supposed this is the auspicious moment to assert our rights,
        664;
    the opinions of the majority have undergone a strange revolution,
        664;
    the conquest of the British provinces doubtful, 665;
    physical and moral evils resulting from your measures, 666;
    some observations on the bill itself, 666;
    none can deny the propriety of defending the country, 666;
    objections to the further prosecution of the war examined, 667;
    contrariety of opinions respecting Canada, 668;
    none but cowards calculate on the cowardice of their foe, 668;
    the war was improperly commenced and is unnecessarily continued,
        669;
    examination of the causes as they existed at the commencement and
        exist now, 669;
    the claim on the part of Britain relative to seamen, 670;
    this claim examined, 670, 671, 672, 673;
    the points made in debate, impressment, the right to expatriate, the
        right to naturalize, and French influence, 675;
    a distinction been drawn throughout this debate between the rights
        of a man who cultivates the soil, and one who follows the seas,
        675;
    every attempt to settle the question of impressment for twenty years
        has failed, 676;
    it is said that it is the abuse of impressment of which we complain,
        676;
    Porcupine paper, 676;
    all agree that we ought to fight for the rights of our seamen, why
        not all join heart and hand to do so, 678;
    this has been a most unfortunate Government as ever existed; every
        thing has gone wrong, 678;
    bill ordered to be engrossed, 679.

    Question on the passage of the bill, 679;
    the army has been represented as dangerous to the liberties of the
        country, 679;
    what have been the propositions heretofore made by our Government to
        Great Britain? 679;
    equitable as they were all were rejected, 680;
    for every British seaman obtained by impressment a number of
        Americans have been made victims, 680;
    the change of Administration in former years, 681;
    characters of the two contending parties, 681;
    course of the successful party, 682;
    proceedings of our Government, 683, 684;
    the Orders in Council constituted no insurmountable obstacle to
        negotiation between this country and Great Britain, 685;
    if the President had made that repeal a basis of negotiation, every
        man in the country would have hailed him as the restorer of
        peace, 686;
    the ruler of France has turned with contempt from your reclamations,
        686;
    what atonement has been made for these insults and injuries, 686;
    the Indian wars on the frontier, 686;
    has this subject been inquired into, 687;
    a word on the subject of impressments, 687;
    Great Britain rather than surrender the right of impressing her own
        seamen, will nail her colors to the mast and go down with them,
        688;
    this lies in a small compass, 688;
    what was the offer made to our Government by the British Ministry?
        688;
    the right of search does exist, and has been acknowledged by all
        nations, 689;
    the French doctrine in relation to impressment, 689;
    author of the Newburg letters to command your army, 690;
    can the force contemplated be obtained; will it accomplish the end
        proposed, and will it be an economical force? 690;
    the grounds taken by the opponents of this bill examined, 691, 692;
    what is the object of this debate, 694;
    to thwart the final success of the war, 694;
    all the arguments of the opposition have been directed to destroy
        the union and zeal of the people, 694;
    but say our opponents, as they were opposed to the war, so they are
        not bound to support it, 694;
    but we are told that peace is in our power without a further
        prosecution of the war, 694;
    it is said we ought to offer England suitable regulations on this
        subject to secure to her the use of her seamen, 695;
    will the intended effect of the opposition be produced? 695;
    gentlemen are conjured to bring this debate to a close, 696;
    the success against the Canadas doubtful, 696;
    mortifying to see the conduct of the enemy vindicated and palliated,
        696;
    the several heads of discussion introduced in this debate
        considered, 697;
    what is a just and necessary war? 698;
    what did an elevated fitness of character and conduct require of
        this nation when war was declared? 699;
    popular opinion was not against this war, 700;
    impressment alone would have ultimately produced war, 700;
    all public law, it is said, has denied the right of expatriation,
        701;
    bill passed, 702.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  AVERY, DANIEL, Representative from New York, 424, 577.


  B

  BACON, EZEKIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 187, 315,
        424, 578;
    supports the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95;
    offers a resolution relative to petitions respecting the
        Presidential election in Massachusetts, 105;
    on a vote of approbation of the conduct of the Executive, 127;
    on Miranda's expedition, 144;
    reports relative to challenges and duels, 191;
    against the petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    on reduction of the navy, 244;
    against the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on pay of the army, 582;
    against encouragement to privateer captures, 704.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  BAYLY, MOUNTJOY, Sergeant-at-Arms to the Senate, 403.

  BAINBRIDGE, WILLIAM, letter relative to the capture of the frigate
        Java, 717.

  BAKER, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 425, 577;
    on the location of a military academy, 531.

  _Bank of the United States_, dividends on stock of, 188;
    capital of branches, 188;
    expenses and losses, 188;
    report on, 216.

  _Bank of the United States._--In the House, report on the memorial of
        the stockholders of the United States' Bank, 215.

    _In Senate._--Petition of the President and Directors for a renewal
        of their charter, 252;
    bill to incorporate the subscribers considered, 266;
    moved to strike out the first section, in order to try the
        principle, 266;
    reasons of the committee for reporting the bill, 266;
    Congress has power to pass such a bill, 266;
    powers granted by the eighth section of the first article, 266;
    the enumeration of certain powers excludes all other powers not
        enumerated, this point examined, 267;
    not true when applied to express grants of power, strictly
        incidental to some original substantive power, 267;
    subject examined, 267;
    it is said Congress can exercise no power by implication, yet can
        pass all laws necessary to carry the constitution into effect,
        267;
    the power to create the Supreme Court must be derived by
        implication, 268;
    explained by an example, 268;
    according to the construction given to other parts of the
        constitution, Congress has the right to incorporate a bank to
        enable it to manage the fiscal concerns of the nation, 268;
    the law to erect light-houses is not a law to regulate commerce,
        269;
    it is said the advocates of a bank differ among themselves in fixing
        upon the general power to which the right to create a bank is
        incidental, 269;
    no man ventures to declare that a bank is not necessary, 270;
    this is an apparent objection to the constitutional argument, 270;
    the medium of State banks, 270;
    the means by which the constitutional powers may be carried into
        effect, may vary if the powers do not, 270;
    the motion to strike out goes to the entire destruction of the bill,
        271;
    the usefulness of the present bank admitted, 271;
    what is the state of the bank in this city, 271;
    the conduct of the bank has been honorable, liberal, and impartial,
        271;
    in every instance where it possessed the ability, it has met the
        wishes of the government, 271;
    it is said these stockholders have enjoyed a boon for twenty years
        from which all others have been excluded, 272;
    it is impossible to devise any written system of Government which
        after a lapse of time, extension of empire, &c. shall be able to
        carry its own provisions into operation, hence the necessity of
        implied or resulting powers, 272;
    whence do you get the right to erect custom-houses, but as an
        implied power, 272;
    want of power to grant an act of incorporation has ever appeared the
        most unsound and untenable objection, 272;
    the situation of this bank on the expiration of its charter, and the
        effects on the community consequent upon it, 273;
    the amount of specie in the United States, 273;
    effects which the dissolution of the bank will have on the revenue
        and fiscal concerns of the country, 274;
    will your money when collected be safe in the State banks? 274;
    irksome to oppose a law which has been in existence twenty years,
        and acquiesced in by the State and General Governments, 275;
    it has been said, that it is the fashion to eulogize the
        constitution, 275;
    if it could be shown that there had been aberrations by Congress
        from the enumerated powers of the constitution, would it be
        correct to use those aberrations as precedents? 276;
    the present constitution was adopted as a remedy for the
        non-compliance of the States with the requisitions under the
        Articles of Confederation, 277;
    the present Government is in its nature and character a government
        of enumerated powers, reserving all unenumerated to the State
        Governments, or to the people, 277;
    "to provide for the common defence and general welfare," explained,
        277;
    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, 278;
    instances of aberrations from the enumerated powers examined, 278;
    erection of light-houses, 278;
    custom-houses, 278;
    these two powers indispensably connected with and subservient to
        particular enumerated powers, 278;
    light-houses among the common, necessary, and proper means, for the
        regulation of commerce, 279;
    is the incorporation of a bank of this character? 279;
    the defying manner of the arguments advanced in favor of the renewal
        of the charter, has occasioned this debate, in order to avert
        the passage of an unjustifiable law, 280;
    it is said that this has been made a party question, although the
        first law passed prior to the formation of parties, 280;
    explanation, 280;
    the pointed difference which has been made between the opinions and
        instructions of State legislatures, and the opinions and details
        of deputations from Philadelphia, 280;
    the new and unconstitutional veto which this bill establishes, 281;
    the vagrant power to erect a bank after having wandered throughout
        the whole constitution, has been located on that provision which
        authorizes Congress to lay and collect taxes, 281;
    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? 281;
    what is a corporation such as the bill contemplates? 282;
    the States have the exclusive power to regulate contracts, 282;
    what participation has this bank in the collection of the revenue?
        282;
    the operations of the Treasury Department may be as well conducted
        without a bank as with one, 283;
    the management of the landed system, 283;
    it is said the construction given to the constitution has been
        acquiesced in by all parties, 283;
    when gentlemen attempt to carry this measure on the ground of
        acquiescence, do they forget that we are not in Westminster
        Hall? 284;
    the doctrine of precedents applied to the Legislature, is fraught
        with the most mischievous consequences, 284;
    not empowered by the constitution, nor bound by any practice under
        it to renew the charter to this bank, 284;
    all power may perhaps be resolved into that of the purse, by whom is
        it wielded? 284;
    the Duke of Northumberland is said to be the most considerable
        stockholder in the bank, 285;
    the principle here involved is most important; 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, 285;
    the bank has answered the most sanguine expectations of its authors,
        285;
    we are required to discard the lessons of experience, to try some
        new scheme, 285;
    we are to ruin many innocent and unoffending individuals, and
        derange the finances, and for what? 286;
    it is a contest between a few importing States, and the people of
        the United States, 286;
    it is a contest between the friends and enemies of the federal
        constitution revived, 286;
    if we yield to the States the collection of our revenue, what will
        remain of our Federal Government? 286;
    it will be a political fiction, 286;
    hostility to the Union would prompt to join the hue and cry against
        this institution, 286;
    it is said that debate is useless on this question, 287;
    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, 287;
    the great cause of the inefficiency of the former was owing to its
        dependence on the States for the means to carry its powers into
        effect, 287;
    the present constitution was framed with ample authority to pass all
        laws necessary and proper for the attainment of its objects,
        287;
    erroneous impressions have arisen from ignorance of facts relative
        to the practical fiscal operations of the government, 287;
    the power to create a bank is not derived by implication, 287;
    the Convention granted to the new Government in express and
        unequivocal language, ample authority to use all the means
        necessary and proper for the attainment of the ends for which it
        was instituted, 287;
    the question of constitutionality depends upon facts dehors the
        instrument, 287;
    if it be a fact 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, 287;
    endeavor to prove this to be a fact, 287;
    the erection of a bank by the Congress of 1781, 287;
    the opinion of General Hamilton, 288;
    character of the Congress of 1781 stated, 288;
    authority of Washington, 288;
    the cry is, "down with the bank, huzzah for the party!" 288;
    sound interpretation of the words "necessary and proper," 289;
    those opposed to the bill, predicate their arguments upon the
        probability that the State banks will answer, this is an
        admission of the necessity, 289;
    congeniality between a bank and the collection of our revenue, 289;
    the repeated sanctions the bank has received from different
        Administrations is strangely accounted for, 290;
    whence was derived a power to pass a law, laying an embargo without
        limitation, 290;
    twelfth article of the amendments to the constitution considered,
        290;
    it is not pretended that our fiscal concerns could be managed with
        gold and silver, 290;
    if the bank is removed, the Secretary of the Treasury must
        nationalize the bank paper of the great importing States, 291;
    charges of British influence, 291;
    the embarrassments at Philadelphia, it is said, could not have been
        occasioned by the bank, 292;
    Kentucky, I am only thine, 292;
    former course of proceeding in regard to the principle of a bill and
        its details, 292;
    the course of the press on this subject, 292;
    it is said, that this question is discussed on party grounds, 293;
    a view of the beginning and operations of the bank, 293;
    no democrat has been admitted as a director of this institution,
        except in New York, 294;
    petty mischievous intrigue for carrying measures through Congress,
        294;
    for what do merchants form a part of the bank deputies? 294;
    what did mechanics here say relative to granting this charter? 294;
    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 non-renewal of the charter of the bank, 294;
    if not renewed, difficult to obtain loans, it is said, 295;
    instructions to Senators, their force discussed, 296;
    a State has not a moral right to violate the constitution, and
        cannot give it to her Legislature, nor the Legislature to the
        Senator, 296;
    the primary question is, whether the General Government when it
        first came into operation, did not possess the power of creating
        a National Bank, 296;
    to answer this, 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, 297;
    it is admitted by all that the agency of a bank affords the greatest
        facility and security of any plan that can be devised for the
        collection of a revenue, and its transmission to the Treasury,
        297;
    other admissions stated, 297;
    the consequence which follows from these admissions, 297;
    if Congress once possessed this power, what has taken it away? 297;
    to create this bank is said to be legislation by implication, 298;
    it is said the corporation will be a monopoly, 298;
    anticipated dangers of erecting corporations, 298;
    a violation of the constitution, however solemnly sanctioned or long
        endured, can never become right, 299;
    difference in the present case, 299;
    recapitulation, 299;
    rule of construction in construing the constitution, when
        legislating on enumerated powers, 300;
    the authority to grant this charter is found in section seven,
        clauses first, second, and last, 301;
    meaning of the words "necessary and proper," 301;
    great stress is laid on that amendment which says "all power not
        expressly granted, shall be retained," &c., 301;
    it is easy to prove that the broad grant given to Congress to
        legislate for the District of Columbia, in all cases is
        restricted and paled in by the constitution, 302;
    this power to charter a bank is expressly granted, 302;
    it is necessary and proper for carrying into effect another general
        power to borrow money, 302;
    no arguments yet advanced to prove that this power is an original
        and substantive, and not a derivative or implied power, 303;
    to determine if a measure is just and proper, we must consider
        whether it has a just or useful relation to the end, 303;
    of all depositories banks are the safest, 303;
    it is asked, why not confine the duty of the bank to collecting the
        public revenue? 303;
    Congress are to devise means most sure and expeditious to borrow
        money, 303;
    the safety and facility of commercial operations are greatly
        promoted by a general currency, 304;
    it is said Washington doubted, 304;
    objections offered by Mr. Jefferson, 304;
    remarks of Hamilton, 304;
    consequences of destroying the bank, 305;
    distresses which will follow, 305;
    answer to objections, 305, 306;
    the prompt and secure collection of our revenue is principally owing
        to the influence of the bank, 307;
    other objections examined, 307;
    objections to the construction of different clauses of the
        constitution examined, 308;
    it is said 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, 309;
    further debate, 310;
    vote a tie, 311;
    remarks of the Vice President, 311;
    gives the casting vote against striking out the first section, 311.

    _In the House._--Bill to renew the charter of the Bank of the United
        States considered, 335;
    moved to strike out the first section, 335;
    motion intended to test the principle of the bill, 335;
    Congress possesses no power to incorporate a bank, 335;
    even if possessed, it is inexpedient to exercise it, 335;
    ruin to the merchants and embarrassment to the government would not
        be paramount to sustaining the several obligations of supporting
        the constitution, 335;
    reason of the construction given by various persons, 335;
    this is in its nature obnoxious alarming in its tendency, and its
        influence irresistible, 335;
    parts of the constitution which bear any analogy to this subject
        stated, 336;
    does the establishment of a bank come within their meaning? 336;
    it must be shown that the bank is necessary to the operations of the
        government, that without its aid our fiscal concerns cannot be
        managed, 337;
    two things necessary to insure the stability of the
        government--avoid every measure that will produce uneasiness
        among the states or that will extend the jurisdiction of the
        government to subjects purely local, 337;
    has not the bank produced serious alarm? 337;
    the abuse of the convenience of obtaining loans is more dreaded than
        any other evil which will follow this measure, 338;
    this is the most important subject upon which this Congress will be
        required to act, 338;
    connection subsisting between the agricultural and commercial
        interests, 339;
    enlightened legislators have entertained but one opinion on this
        subject both in this country and Europe, 339;
    utility of bonds cannot be doubted, 339;
    prosperity of the country attributed to this active capital which
        has excited industry, 340;
    accommodations furnished by the bank, 340;
    principal portion of the trade and business of the Union has been
        conducted on a paper medium, 340;
    put down this bank and how are your revenues to be collected, 340;
    this is not the time or place to inquire whether banks are
        beneficial or not to the nation, 341;
    the section admitting of an increase of the capital stock a very
        dangerous feature, 341;
    the Articles of Confederation and the present constitution do not
        differ as regards any power delegated by the states to Congress,
        342;
    interpretation of the constitution, 342;
    experience shows that the decisions of Congress vary with the men
        who compose that body, and cannot be cited as settling a
        principle, 342.

    This bill aims a deadly blow at some of the best principles of the
        constitution, 343;
    this bill assumes the exercise of legislative powers which belong
        exclusively to the State Governments, 343;
    one of the most serious dangers this government is threatened with,
        is the tendency to produce collisions between State and Federal
        authorities, 344;
    the great line of demarcation between the powers of the two is well
        understood, 344;
    axioms laid down in discussing constitutional questions, 345;
    sufficient to call upon the advocates of a bank to show its
        constitutionality, 345;
    argument of Hamilton, 345;
    the federal government is said to be sovereign with regard to all
        the objects for which that government was instituted, 345;
    this is a petitio principii, 345;
    it is said, the bank is an innocent institution, 346;
    one of its most obvious and distinguished characteristics is that it
        exempts the private property and persons of the stockholders,
        346;
    it authorizes the stockholders to take usurious interest, 346;
    this bank incorporation possesses other qualities at war with the
        laws of the several states, 346;
    it is contended that the right to incorporate a bank is delegated to
        Congress, and five or six different provisions of the
        constitution are referred to as giving this right, 347;
    the very circumstance of so many different heads of authority is
        conclusive evidence that it has no very direct relation to any
        of them, 347;
    the "sweeping clause," 347;
    Hamilton's mode of reasoning, 347;
    it is contended that the right to incorporate a bank is included in
        the power to lay and collect taxes, 347;
    no man ought to complain of the weakness of a government whose
        powers may be _reasoned up_ by logic like this, 347;
    the constitution is not a mere designation of ends for which the
        government was established, leaving to Congress a discretion as
        to the means, 348;
    it is contended that the right to incorporate a bank is implied in
        the power to regulate trade between the states, 348;
    it is said to be included in the power to borrow money, 348;
    absurdities into which this doctrine of implication leads, 349;
    it is said to be necessary to the regular and successful
        administration of the finances, 349;
    one or more state banks in almost every state, 349;
    it is said, if the bank would be constitutional without the
        existence of the state banks, it would be equally so with, 349;
    question to strike out the first section carried, 350;
    _note_, 350;
    passage of the bill in the House, 350;
    _note_, 351.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Bankrupt Act._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  BARD, DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187, 315, 424,
        577.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  BARKER, JOSEPH, Representative from Massachusetts, 36.

  BARRY, WILLIAM T., Representative from Kentucky, 316;
    on the admission of the Territory of Orleans as a State, 320.

  BARTLETT, JOSIAH, Representative from New Hampshire, 424.

  BASSETT, BURWELL, Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 315,
        424, 577;
    on the number of seamen in the naval service, 228;
    urges reform in the expense of the navy, 231;
    on reduction in the navy, 239, 244;
    on the claim of Matthew Lyon, 426;
    on encouragement of privateers, 581;
    on prize money to the officers and crew of the Constitution, 593;
    on the imprisonment of American seamen, 594, 595;
    in favor of a naval establishment, 603;
    on encouragement to privateer captures, 703;
    on privateer pensions, 704.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Batture at New Orleans._--In Senate, memorial of Edward Livingston,
        presented and referred, 118.

    _In the House._--Resolution to refer the subject of title to the
        Attorney General for him to collect testimony, &c., 148;
    the true course is to give the parties the right of appeal from the
        Orleans court to Supreme Court of the United States, 148;
    important law points involved, 148;
    the batture claimed is in the bed of the river, 148;
    what could the Attorney General do in the case? 148;
    what influence was his opinion to have? 148;
    impossible to see how an individual having property, in which he was
        put in possession in 1804, by a judicial decision, could be
        dispossessed of it in 1807, 148;
    this batture never was claimed as private property until after it
        came into possession of the United States, 149;
    nothing new to refer a subject to the head of a department, 149;
    a constitutional difficulty in the case, 149;
    has Congress the power to decide the validity of this claim? 149;
    has Congress a right in order to determine the title to landed
        property, to refer it to any tribunal whatever? 149;
    admitting all this to be true, it does not apply to the present
        case, 149;
    the question is whether it is public property or not, 149;
    question examined on the ground of the right of the citizen, 150;
    if a citizen is put in possession of property by a decree of a
        court, and afterwards dispossessed by military power, where
        should he come if not to this House to claim redress? 150;
    this claim should never be confounded with the Yazoo claim, 150;
    the doctrine _nullum tempus occurrit reipublicæ_, is a dangerous
        one, 150;
    the present case stated, 151;
    is there a precedent for this transaction? 151;
    the President has not carried the law into effect, 151;
    the act of 1807 contains two clauses bearing on the subject, 152;
    if there has been any violation of right, it was in the passage of
        the law under which the President acted, 152;
    resolutions offered in the House, 191;
    laid on the table, 192;
    bill to provide means to ascertain the title considered, 223;
    various amendments considered, 223.

  BAYARD, JAMES A., Senator from Delaware, 26, 121, 176, 264, 403, 571;
    reports to Senate a bill for a National Bank, 183;
    moves an amendment to the bill to enable the President to take
        possession of the country east of the Perdido, 313;
    against the declaration of war, 418.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  BAYLIES, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 124.

  BIBB, GEORGE M., Senator from Kentucky, 400, 570.

  BIBB, WILLIAM W., Representative from Georgia, 36, 125, 188, 315, 425,
        577;
    on the ordinance of 1787, 42;
    on the ordinance of 1787, 46;
    on the bill relative to batture at New Orleans, 223;
    on the admission of the territory of Orleans as a State, 320, 324;
    on Indian affairs, 428;
    on the British intrigues, 516, 519;
    against the renewal of Whitney's patent right, 533;
    on war taxes, 715.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  BIDWELL, BARNABAS, 437;
    _note_, 437.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  BIGELOW, ABIJAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 317, 424, 577;
    against the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 386;
    on imposing additional duties, 538.

  _Bill to prevent abuse_ of privileges enjoyed by foreign ministers,
        169.

  BLACKLEDGE, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 36, 425, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  BLAISDELL, DANIEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 124, 187, 316;
    against the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 377.

  BLAKE, JOHN, jr., Representative from New York, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Blank ballots, shall they be counted?_--In the House on election for
        Speaker two blank ballots were cast, shall they be counted? 125;
    blank pieces of paper cannot be considered as votes, 125;
    instance, the election for President in 1801, 125;
    is there to be a Speaker without an election? 125;
    the committee report that no candidate has a majority, 125;
    the Speaker may become President and preside over the destinies of
        the nation, 125;
    no analogy with the Presidential election, 125;
    establish such a precedent, and it may put an end to this
        government, founded on the principle that the majority shall
        govern, 125;
    motion for a new ballot carried, 125.

  BLEECKER, HARMANUS, Representative from New York, 424, 577;
    on imposing additional duties, 540;
    against the embargo bill, 550;
    on the objects of the war, 644.

  BLOUNT, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 36, 425;
    on a quartermaster's department, 477.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  BOONE, DANIEL, petition of, 707.

  BOYD, ADAM, Representative from New Jersey, 36, 124, 187, 315, 424,
        577;
    on the batture at New Orleans, 149;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    on the reduction of the navy, 242;
    on foreign relations, 460;
    on the bill laying an embargo, 544, 545;
    on an additional military force, 626.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  BOYLE, JOHN, Representative from Kentucky, 46.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  BRADLEY, STEPHEN R., Senator from Vermont, 3, 118, 166, 250, 400, 576;
    appointed President _pro tem._ of the Senate, 26;
    on a recess of Congress, 412.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Breach of Privilege._--Report of committee relative to the letter of
        I. A. Coles, 204.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  BRECKENRIDGE, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 125, 187, 315, 424,
        579.

  BRENT, RICHARD, Senator from Virginia, 33, 118, 168, 252, 400, 570;
    on a Bank of the United States, 295.

  _Bribery._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Brigadier Generals additional._--In the House the bill to authorize
        the President to appoint additional brigadier generals
        considered, 551;
    if these officers are intended to command the militia the bill
        should not pass, 551;
    Governors of States better acquainted with qualifications of the
        militia officers than the President, 551;
    what spirit can be in the people to submit to this? 551;
    no necessity of more generals for the regulars, 551;
    if this bill passes our government will be as bad as that of Great
        Britain before the revolution, 551.

  BRIGHAM, ELIJAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 424, 577;
    on rules and orders of the House, 471;
    on imposing additional duties, 541;
    on an additional military force, 621.

  _British Intrigues._--Message from the President to Congress, with
        certain documents, showing that through the British Minister a
        secret agent was employed in certain of the States, fomenting
        disaffection to the authorities, and in intrigues to the
        disaffected, 506;
    letter of Mr. Henry to Mr. Monroe, with the documents, 506;
    letter of the Secretary of the Governor of the British provinces to
        Mr. Henry, employing him as a secret agent, 506;
    letter of general instructions to Henry by is employer, 507;
    credential of Henry, 507;
    answer to the Secretary accepting the employment, 507;
    answer to the letter of instructions, 508;
    letters of Henry to the Governor General, from Burlington, Windsor,
        Amherst, and Boston and Montreal, 513;
    letter of Mr. Henry to Mr. Peel, with a memorial to Lord Liverpool,
        for compensation for services rendered, 514;
    letter of Mr. Peel, containing the answer to the memorial, 514;
    report of Secretary of State, relative to persons connected with
        Henry, 515.

    Motion to print, 515;
    protest against attributing the sentiments expressed in these
        letters as belonging to the Federalists, to citizens of
        Connecticut, 515;
    no confidence in the statements, 516;
    a full investigation ought to be had, 516;
    the papers are honorable testimony in favor of the eastern section
        of the Union, 516;
    what is the fact, 516;
    serious consideration should be given before such gross abuse of any
        section is published, 517;
    papers calculated merely to put the people on their guard against
        emissaries, 517;
    they show the deep hostility of this foreign power to our
        government, 517;
    British Ministers have at some periods of their lives been employed
        on such business, 517;
    extracts from letters of Mr. Erskine, 517;
    a division of the Union is not a new subject, 518;
    these documents will exhibit to the American people what sort of a
        nation we have to deal with, 518;
    is the information useful to us, 518;
    the subject should be followed up with a full and prompt
        examination, 518;
    no difference of opinion in supporting the integrity of the Union,
        519;
    motion to print agreed to, 519;
    Mr. Henry has done service to this country by this communication,
        and ought to be protected, 519;
    question referred to the committee on foreign relations, with
        authority to send for persons and papers, 519;
    letter from the British Minister disclaiming all knowledge of John
        Henry's asserted mission, 522;
    report from the committee on foreign relations relative to these
        disclosures, 524;
    _note_, 525.

  _British Minister, conduct of_, in the Senate, resolutions relative
        to, reported, 169;
    bill relating to privileges of foreign ministers also reported, 169;
    resolutions approving the conduct of the Executive, in refusing to
        hold any further communication with Mr. Jackson, considered,
        169;
    peculiarities of our Government, 170;
    the refusal of the Executive may lead to war, yet Congress alone has
        power to declare war, 170;
    Congress should express its opinion on the act of the Executive,
        170;
    this is due to the people, 170;
    it is due to the Executive, 170;
    will the President have the co-operation of Congress? 170;
    it is of national importance that the will of Congress should be
        expressed, 171;
    would the conduct of Great Britain be very different under these
        different conditions of the people and the government, 171;
    did any people ever gain any thing by dissensions? 171;
    never wrong to join the standard of your country in a war with
        foreign nations, 171;
    are the facts stated in the resolution supported by the
        correspondence? 172;
    letter of Mr. Jackson, 172;
    what does it amount to? 172;
    the insult is gross and outrageous, 173;
    other expressions examined, 173, 174;
    Canning's course, 174;
    if the facts are justified by the correspondence, what can prevent
        unanimity on the present occasion? 175;
    ordered to third reading, 176;
    passed, 176.

    _In the House._--An important paper headed "Circular," has not been
        communicated to Congress, 192;
    resolution, calling on the President for a copy, 192;
    despatch of Mr. Canning also called for, 192;
    improper to call upon the President for that which cannot be
        officially in his possession, 192;
    a copy in Secretary's office, 192;
    motion carried, 192;
    other papers called for, 192;
    "Circular" of Mr. Jackson, 193.

    The first question involves the veracity and dignity of the American
        Government, and the reputation of a British Envoy, and in some
        degree the British Ministry, 193;
    origin of the mission from Great Britain to the United States, 193;
    what were the circumstances which characterized its progress and
        termination? 194;
    if such were the circumstances, does not the occasion require that
        the American Government take a firm and decided stand? 195;
    the present is no time for causeless crimination of our Government,
        195;
    the terms offered to us are not honorable and reciprocal, 195;
    the resolution is rendered peculiarly important by the occasion,
        195;
    there is more than a presumption that Mr. Erskine had the power to
        enter into the arrangement he made, 195;
    what did the President know of his powers? 196;
    did he know that Mr. Erskine had not full power? 196;
    it was not his duty to know that he had not full powers? 197.

    Motion to postpone indefinitely the resolution approving the conduct
        of the Executive relative to the British Minister, considered,
        197;
    the resolution unnecessary and pernicious, 197;
    it descends to a style of expression unworthy of the country and the
        dignity of its Government, 198;
    it looks toward war, 198;
    a resolution of approbation against all example for the last eight
        years, 198;
    some doubts whether the majority were the same party as in former
        years, 199;
    the right of approbation implies the right of disapprobation, 199;
    it is proposed that this solemn assembly, representing the American
        people, shall descend from its dignity to utter against an
        individual the language of indignation and reproach, 199;
    this is to be done under pretence of asserting their rights and
        vindicating their wrongs, 200;
    it is no slight responsibility which this House is about to assume,
        200;
    all the other questions agitated in this debate dwindle into
        insignificance, 200;
    no speaker yet has taken the precise terms of the resolution as the
        basis of his argument, 200;
    the resolution analyzed, 200;
    it asserts that a certain idea is conveyed which is indecorous and
        insolent, 200;
    what is this idea? 201;
    what are the expressions in which it is conveyed? 201;
    parts of the letter examined in which the idea is conveyed, 201;
    a corroborative view of the subject, 202;
    recapitulation, 203;
    the resolution merely respects the conduct of the British Envoy,
        204;
    it is not an answer to a message from the President of the United
        States, 205;
    it is not a declaration of war, 205;
    the correspondence between the British Minister and the American
        Secretary examined, 205;
    the whole civilized world a spectator of this discussion, 205;
    resolution ordered to be read a third time, 206;
    authorities to show the competency of Mr. Erskine's powers, 206;
    Erskine never entertained a doubt of the competency of his powers,
        206;
    extracts from his letters, 207;
    the British Government could not disavow the acts of its Minister
        without incurring the charge of bad faith, 207;
    past transactions reconsidered, 207;
    this measure will fix a stain on the American character and hazard
        the peace and prosperity of the country, 208;
    fate of every country to cherish demagogues, 208;
    the letters of Jackson do not contain the insult imputed to them,
        209;
    the insult examined, 209;
    what were the circumstances upon which the King justified his
        disavowal? 209;
    the want of authority in Mr. Erskine assigned as the sole ground,
        210;
    letters further examined, 210;
    the insult explained away, 210;
    resolution passed, 211.

  BROWN, JAMES, Senator from Louisiana, 573.

  BROWN, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 124, 188.

  BROWN, OBADIAH, elected Chaplain of the House, 37.

  BROWN, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187, 315,
        424, 577.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  BURWELL, WILLIAM A., Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 197, 315,
        424, 594;
    on an extra session, 103;
    on permitting Swedish and Portuguese vessels to load, 127;
    on the petition for a division of the Mississippi Territory, 141;
    on the Batture at New Orleans, 148;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 155;
    on trade to the Baltic, 205;
    opposes the postponement of the resolution relative to the
        apportionment of representation, 224;
    on the Bank of the United States, 335;
    on privateer pensions, 704.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  BUTLER, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 187;
    makes a report on the conduct of General Wilkinson, 248.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.


  C

  CALHOUN, JOHN C., Representative from South Carolina, 425, 577;
    on foreign relations, 447;
    on the case of Nathaniel Rounsavell, 529;
    on mode of relief of Caraccas, 532;
    makes a report on foreign relations, 554;
    presents a bill declaring war against Great Britain, 554;
    on an additional military force, 693.

  CALHOUN, JOSEPH, Representative from South Carolina, 36, 125, 187,
        315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER, Senator from Ohio, 176, 250, 400, 566.

  CAMPBELL, GEORGE W., Representative from Tennessee, 36;
    on submission to the late dictate England and France, 48;
    against amendments of the Senate requiring an immediate arming, &c.,
        of public vessels, 97;
    on an extra session, 103;
    Senator from Tennessee, 400, 566;
    on a recess of Congress, 412.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CAMPBELL, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 37, 124, 191, 320.
    _See Index_, vols. 2 and 3.

  CARR, FRANCIS, Representative from Massachusetts, 577.

  _Caraccas, Relief of._--In the House, resolution to authorize the
        President to procure and send flour for the inhabitants of
        Caraccas, 532;
    better to suspend the restrictive system as to them, 532;
    why should party feelings enter into this proposition? 532;
    the amendment proposed would virtually repeal the embargo, 532;
    no necessity to suspend the embargo, 532;
    other amendments offered, 532;
    resolution passed, 532;
    $50,000 voted, 532.

  _Census of the Union._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  CHAMBERLAIN, JOHN C., Representative from New Hampshire, 124, 187,
        316.

  CHAMBERLIN, WILLIAM, Representative from Vermont, 124, 187, 316.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CHAMPION, EPAPHRODITUS, Representative from Connecticut, 36, 124, 187,
        315, 424, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CHAMPLIN, CHRISTOPHER, Senator from Rhode Island, 176, 252.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  CHAUNCEY, ISAAC, letters to the Secretary of the Navy, 572, 573.

  CHEVES, LANGDON, Representative from South Carolina, 425, 577;
    in favor of a naval establishment, 477;
    on an additional military force, 697;
    on encouragement to privateer captures, 704;
    reports a bill to authorize the issue of Treasury notes, 706;
    on war taxes, 715.

  CHITTENDEN, MARTIN, Representative from Vermont, 36, 124, 187, 316,
        424, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CLARKSON'S History of Slavery presented to Congress, 112.

  CLAY HENRY, Senator from Kentucky, 177, 252;
    on the bill relative to non-intercourse with France and Great
        Britain, 177;
    presents petition of Elisha Winters for reward, for causing the
        death of the Mississippi River Pirate, 184;
    gives notice of asking leave to bring in a bill supplementary to the
        act relative to the punishment of certain crimes, 185;
    on the occupation of Florida, 261;
    on incorporating a Bank of the United States, 279;
    reports against extending the charter of the old bank, 311;
    reports a bill to enable the President to take possession of the
        country east of the Perdido, 313;
    Representative from Kentucky, 425, 577;
    elected Speaker, first session, 12th Congress, 425;
    address, 425;
    on the Statutes of Limitation, 475;
    on a naval establishment, 496;
    offers an amendment to the bill to enable the people of Mississippi
        to form a State Government, 520;
    on the limits of Louisiana, 523;
    in favor of the bill laying an embargo, 545;
    on an additional military force, 613;
    against encouragement to privateer captures, 703;
    acknowledges vote of thanks of the House, 719.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CLAY, MATTHEW, Representative from Virginia, 37, 125, 187, 315, 424,
        577;
    on an additional military force, 617.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  CLINTON, DEWITT, voted for as President, in 1812, 574.

  CLINTON, GEORGE, Vice President, presides in the Senate, 3, 116;
    elected Vice President in 1808, 27;
    number of votes for, as President, 27;
    as Vice President, 27;
    as Vice President gives casting vote in Senate against U. States'
        Bank, 311;
    takes seat in Senate as Vice President, 400;
    decease of, 411.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  CLOPTON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 36, 187, 319, 427;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 112.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  COBB, HOWELL, Representative from Georgia, 125, 187, 315, 425.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  COCHRAN, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 125, 187, 315,
        435, 580.

  COLES, ISAAC A., letter to the Speaker of the House, 183.
    _See Index_, vol. 1, 2.

  _Cod-Fisheries._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Commerce of the United States._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Committees, Select_, resolution relative to formation of, 426;
    members of, in House, 426.

  _Compensation of President and Vice President._--_See Index_, vols. 1,
        2.

  CONDICT, JOHN, Senator from New Jersey, 3, 118, 168, 252, 400.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  CONDIT, LEWIS, Representative from New Jersey, 424, 577.

  _Congress_, second Session of Tenth, 3;
    meeting of the two Houses to count Electoral votes, 27;
    adjournment of second Session of Tenth, 114;
    first Session of Eleventh, 116;
    third Session of Eleventh Congress, 250;
    third Session of Eleventh Congress adjourned, 312;
    adjournment of third Session of Eleventh Congress, 399;
    commencement of first Session of Twelfth Congress, 400;
    second Session of Twelfth meets, 566.

    _Extra Session._--_In House_, motion to alter the time of the next
        meeting of Congress, 101;
      moved to strike out May, for the purpose of inserting September,
        102;
      this is a momentous crisis, 102;
      country in a situation of extreme danger, 102;
      Congress should be constantly in session till a more favorable
        state of affairs exists, 102;
      nothing likely to occur to do away with the necessity of an extra
        session, 102;
    why should Congress come here at the time proposed? 102;
    a new President comes in, who will desire communication with our
        ministers before the meeting of Congress, 102;
    occurrences are presenting themselves every day, requiring some
        other ground to be taken, 102;
    a total abandonment of the ocean will be submission, 102;
    are we to renew negotiation, when every circumstance manifests that
        it would be useless? 102;
    the present suspension of commerce and discontents at home, are
        sufficient reasons for calling Congress earlier than December,
        103;
    new Administration should meet Congress as early as possible, 103;
    war the only means to secure the interest and honor of the nation,
        103;
    reasons that Congress should meet in May, 103;
    is the nation to be saved by long speeches? 103;
    forty-eight hours sufficient to pass all laws for the present
        crisis, 103;
    an early session will contribute to tranquillize the minds of the
        people, 103;
    if peace is attainable, we must have it; if not, then war, 103;
    necessary to change our situation previous to next meeting of
        Congress, 103;
    reason of the fear in Great Britain that Parliament would not meet
        often enough, 104;
    Congress do more good by staying away, 104;
    leave an extra session to the Executive, 104;
    motion to strike out lost, 104;
    bill passed, 104.

    _In the Senate_, resolution offered for a recess from the 29th of
        April, 412;
    ordered to be engrossed, 412;
    moved to fill the blank with "4th Monday in June," 412;
    sufficiently early to take measures in consequence of the expiration
        of the embargo, 412;
    a long time would accommodate better than a short time, 412;
    effect on the public mind the same, 412;
    the question should not be decided on the mere ground of personal
        convenience, 412;
    an adjournment for any length of time, like deserting our posts,
        412;
    not deserting our posts, 413;
    by staying here, Congress cannot expedite the measures ordered, 413;
    eighth of June adopted, 413;
    resolution passed, 413.

  _Connecticut_, vote for President, in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Constitution and Guerriere_, letter from the Secretary of the Navy,
        on the action between, 593;
    bill to compensate the officers and crew of Constitution frigate,
        709;
    considered, 709, 710;
    bill to compensate officers and crew of, considered, 717, 719.

  _Contested Elections._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 3.

  _Convoy System._--In the House, bill reported to employ public armed
        vessels to convoy the lawful commerce of the United States, 225;
    moved to discharge the Committee of the Whole, 226;
    embraces two important principles not to be discussed in committee,
        226;
    motion lost, 226.

  COOK, ORCHARD, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 141, 352;
    in favor of an immediate arming of the public vessels, 97, 98;
    on additional duties on English and French goods, 109.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  COOKE, THOMAS B., Representative from New York, 424, 580.

  COX, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 124, 187.

  CRAIG, Sir J. H., his instructions to John Henry, 507.

  CRAWFORD, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 124, 187, 315,
        424, 577.

  CRAWFORD, WILLIAM H., Senator from Georgia, 3, 121, 168, 250, 400,
        566;
    on the repeal of the embargo act, 11;
    on incorporating a Bank of the United States, 266, 305;
    on an increase of the navy, 407;
    elected President _pro tem._ of the Senate, 409;
    presides in the Senate as President _pro tem._, 566.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CRIST, HENRY, Representative from Kentucky, 125, 188.

  CANNING, Mr., extract from speech of, in Parliament, 120.

  _Cuba_, emigrants from.--In Senate, resolution relative to, offered,
        121;
    referred, 122;
    further resolution, 122.

  _In the House._--Bill relative to the remission of certain penalties
        considered, 163;
    the bill, 163;
    opinion of Court of South Carolina, 163;
    the former act on the importation of slaves, 163;
    present case directly violates that law, 163;
    what reason for enacting this law, if the principles of the law of
        1807 were correct? 164;
    this is a case of a peculiar nature, attended with singular
        circumstances, 164;
    the laws of South Carolina forbid bringing those persons into the
        State, 164;
    the persons bringing them, must give security to have them carried
        out, which could not be done under the non-intercourse law, 164;
    slaves brought to New Orleans, 164;
    the objects of this bill do not appear on the face of it, 164;
    bill passed, 165.

  CULPEPER, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Cumberland Road_, report on, 530.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  CUSHING, T. H., Adjutant-General, letter of, 712.

  CUTTS, CHARLES, Senator from New Hampshire, 250, 400, 566.

  CUTTS, RICHARD, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 187, 315,
        577;
    moves to strike out "seventy-fours," and insert "frigates," 606.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.


  D

  DANA, SAMUEL W., Representative from Connecticut, 36, 124, 187;
    on necessity of additional revenue cutters, 47;
    on the immediate arming of the public vessels, 98;
    on a vote of approbation of the conduct of the Executive, 128;
    on prosecutions for libel, 134;
    on amendment to, 137;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 152, 161;
    on an investigation of the Navigation Laws, 188;
    on the call on the President for papers, 192;
    on the torpedo experiment, 218, 220;
    on the loan bill, 227;
    on reform in the expense of the Navy, 230;
    on reduction of the Navy, 243;
    Senator from Connecticut, 250, 400, 570.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  DAVENPORT, JOHN, jr., Representative from Connecticut, 36, 124, 187,
        315, 424, 577;
    on the proceedings on counting the electoral votes, 105.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  DAVIESS, JOSEPH HAMILTON, _note_, 435.

  DAVIS, ROGER, Representative from Pennsylvania, 424, 578.

  DAWSON, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 315, 424,
        577;
    moves to refer the letter of Robert Fulton, 214;
    reports on, 214;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    on the ratio of representation, 432;
    on foreign relations, 452;
    on the burning of Richmond Theatre, 474;
    on the petition of Ursuline Nuns at New Orleans, 476;
    on the limits of Louisiana, 523;
    offers a resolution of honor to officers and seamen of the
        Constitution, for the capture of the Guerriere, 578;
    on compensation to the officers and crew of the frigate
        Constitution, 709.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  DEANE, JOSIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Debates, reporting of._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  DECATUR, STEPHEN, his letter to the Secretary of the Navy 598.

  _Defensive Measures against Great Britain, under John Adams._--_See
        Index_, vol. 2.

  _Delaware_, vote for President, in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Delegates from Territories._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  DESHA, JOSEPH, Representative from Kentucky, 36, 125, 187, 315, 425,
        577;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 69;
    on Foreign Relations, 450;
    on an additional military force, 696.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  DINSMOOR, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 424, 577.

  _Diplomatic Intercourse._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Divorces_ in the District of Columbia, report on, 505.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  DUNN, THOMAS, elected doorkeeper of the House, 126;
    elected sergeant-at-arms to the House, 425.

  DURELL, DANIEL M., Representative from New Hampshire, 36;
    in favor of immediate arming of the public vessels, 100;
    on an extra session, 103.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Duties on Imports._--In Senate, bill for imposing additional duties
        read the third time, 31;
    motion to postpone to a distant day, 31;
    the subject is a commercial one exceedingly important, 31;
    the bill can be advocated only upon the ground that a war is about
        to ensue, and to prepare the public treasury to sustain its
        prosecution, 32;
    but neither the one nor the other is expected or necessary, 32;
    Gallatin's reports, 32;
    the measure will also be both unequal and unjust, 32;
    the new duty will operate as a bounty to forestalled and
        speculators, 32;
    bill passed, 32.

    _In the House._--The bill to impose additional duties considered,
        107;
    motion to confine increased duties to goods of England and France,
        109;
    motion lost, bill ordered to be engrossed, 109.

    _Manufactures, Domestic._--In the House, resolution to lay an
        additional duty on coarse hemp and flax considered, 428;
    cotton added, 428;
    the proposition should include all the domestic manufactures of the
        country, 428;
    the present a favorable time to adopt some measures to encourage and
        support domestic manufactures, 428;
    merely a proposition to instruct a committee, 428;
    laid on the table, 428;
    taken up, 431;
    amendment laying a duty on salt moved, 431;
    irregular manner of proceeding, 431;
    further debate on the practice of the House, 431;
    ill-timed to tax an article when it may be very difficult to procure
        it, 431;
    why this great cry about domestic manufactures? 432;
    what will be the effect of taxing salt, 432.

    _In the House._--Engrossed bill laying additional duties, 538;
    the creation of a public debt ought to be accompanied with the means
        of its extinguishment, 538;
    this is the true secret of rendering public credit immortal, 538;
    it is surprising to learn that doubling the duties is the only means
        to be provided for this purpose, 539;
    this will be a most unpopular tax, 539;
    it is an unjust measure, 539;
    what will be the consequence of passing the bill? 539;
    great changes have taken place since the adoption of the present
        tariff, 540;
    three purposes intended to be furthered by duties on imported
        merchandise, 540;
    the objections to the bill are palpable and obvious, 540;
    its tendency to promote smuggling, 541;
    the unfortunate policy adopted in 1806 has destroyed the purity and
        elevation of commercial morals, 541;
    a reliance on the impost as the means of supporting the war in
        connection with an abandonment of the internal taxes, teaches
        that our Government is unfit for the purpose of foreign and
        offensive war, 541;
    the protection and regulation of commerce has become a prime object
        of legislation, 541;
    it is the cause of war, 542;
    this increase of impost is a tax which will operate unjustly and
        unequally, 542;
    burden on the people of the Eastern States, 542;
    desirable to recommit the bill in order to learn the sentiments of
        the House on the repeal or the partial suspension of the present
        non-importation act, 542;
    if this act was suspended and we had a trading and not a fighting
        war, we should have sufficient revenue under the present rates
        of duties, 543;
    letter of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of revenue
        examined, 544;
    a very left-handed way of encouraging the manufactures of this
        country, 543;
    motion to strike out the words "one hundred" before per centum lost,
        543.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Duties on Tonnage._--_See Index_, vol. 1.


  E

  EARLE, ELIAS, Representative from South Carolina, 425, 577.

  _Electoral Votes for President_, examination and counting of, 27.

    _Opening and Counting._--In House, resolution offered to notify the
        Senate, 105;
    it is now proposed that the Senate come to the House, and that the
        Speaker leave the chair to make room for the President of
        another body, 105;
    such a proceeding would derogate from the dignity if not the rights
        of this body, 105;
    a respect we owe ourselves and the people never to suffer the
        privileges of this House to be diminished, 105;
    in counting the votes the House of Representatives is not assembled
        as a distinct body, 105;
    propriety in this course because by the constitution the Vice
        President is to open the votes, 105;
    moved that when the Senate was introduced the Speaker relinquish the
        chair to him, 105;
    propriety of the President of the Senate presiding at a joint
        meeting, 105;
    as regards the privileges of the House against the claims of the
        other, the ninth part of a hair was important, 105;
    the English Commons obtained their privileges inch by inch, 105;
    if he comes to this House, the President of the Senate comes by
        courtesy, and can assume the chair only as a matter of favor,
        106;
    the constitution prescribes the powers of each body, and no fear of
        encroachment, 106;
    motion carried, 106;
    votes counted, 106;
    counting of, 573, 711.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Electors of President._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  ELLIOT, JAMES, Representative from Vermont, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  ELLIOT, JESSE D., letters to the Secretary of the Navy, 571, 572.

  ELY, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 187, 315,
        424, 577;
    on arming and classing of the militia, 708.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Embargo._--In Senate resolution to repeal the act laying an embargo
        offered, 5;
    light in which it has been viewed by France, 5;
    not a measure of hostility or coercion as applied to her, 5;
    little effect on England, 5;
    could America expect to starve her? 6;
    it was a farce, 6;
    ample time had been given for her to make other arrangements, 6;
    what accounts have we from there? 6;
    they can actually purchase provisions cheaper now from other places
        than they formerly had done from us, 6;
    turn to another article of trade, cotton, 6;
    it has been said a want of this article would distress the British
        manufacturers and produce clamor among them, and hence
        accelerate the repeal of the Orders in Council, 6;
    are not all the evil consequences anticipated from the embargo
        likely to be realized? 6;
    Great Britain become the carriers of the world, these carriers will
        supply themselves, 6;
    get supplies of cotton elsewhere, 6;
    this embargo 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, 7;
    it should be abandoned as a measure wholly inefficient for the
        objects designed, 7;
    some thought its efficiency would be secured by adding a
        non-intercourse law, 7;
    this idea futile, 7;
    the United States are consumers of British products, 7;
    what had patriotism really done? 7;
    non-intercourse law cannot be executed, 7;
    party spirit should now have been laid aside, and all consulted for
        the common good, 7;
    if the spirit of commercial speculation has overcome all patriotism,
        it is time foreign intercourse should cease, 7;
    the proposition for repeal hardly merits respect or serious
        consideration, 8;
    a most important subject, deeply implicating, and perhaps
        determining the fate of the commerce and navigation of this
        country, 8;
    our commerce has unquestionably been subject to great embarrassment,
        vexation, and plunder from the belligerents of Europe, 8;
    both France and England have violated the laws of nations, 8;
    the one professes to relent at the inconvenience she occasions you,
        and the other in addition to depredation and conflagration,
        treats you with the greatest disdain, 8;
    their conduct gave rise to the embargo, 8;
    if it has been proved by experience to be inoperative so far as
        regards them, and destructive as respects ourselves, it should
        be repealed, 8;
    the propriety of this is now the question, 8;
    three points naturally to be considered, 8;
    the security which it gave to our navigation, and the protection it
        offered our seamen, its effects on France and Great Britain in
        coercing them to adopt a more just and honorable policy towards
        us, the effects it has and may produce on ourselves, 8;
    it has already answered all that can be expected in regard to
        security to navigation and seamen, 8;
    its longer continuance will counteract these objects, 8;
    its operation is nugatory on France, 9;
    its operation on Great Britain, 9;
    the subject should be taken up with coolness, 10;
    it is charged that there is a disposition to break down commerce,
        for the purpose of erecting manufactures on its ruins, 10;
    the charge a mere electioneering trick, 10;
    the ground is taken that the embargo has prevented all our commerce,
        10;
    this is not shown, 10;
    operation of the Decrees of France, 10;
    operation of the Orders in Council, 10;
    a tribute required for license to trade, 10;
    has the embargo been productive of the consequences expected to
        result from it, 11;
    it has not had a fair trial in consequence of misrepresentations,
        11;
    has the embargo operated more upon the United States than on the
        European powers, 11;
    one object of the resolution doubtless to obtain information of the
        operation of the embargo throughout the Union, 11;
    the sentiments of the people of Georgia on the subject, 12;
    effects of the measure on ourselves, 12;
    the produce of the lands of Georgia lies on hand, 12;
    it is said that Great Britain will find some source whence to obtain
        the supplies she has heretofore got from us, 12;
    the cotton interest is willing to run the risk of the continuance of
        the embargo, 12;
    it is said this measure cannot be executed, 12;
    it has been so far executed as to produce a good effect, 12;
    the charge of an intention to destroy commerce examined, 13;
    a disposition to make this measure permanent, 13;
    this measure intended and calculated to promote the interests of
        France, 13;
    no danger from war, it is said, except through a repeal of the
        embargo, 13;
    statements in relation to the present views of England favorable to
        the embargo are not entitled to credit, 13;
    cause of the change in Mr. Canning's language, 14;
    the Essex resolutions, 14;
    how are these orders and decrees to be opposed but by war, except we
        keep without their reach, 14;
    attempts to ridicule the measure exposed, 14;
    it is said that if the embargo is repealed we can carry on a safe
        and secure trade to the extent of nearly four-fifths the amount
        of our domestic productions, 14;
    this statement examined, 15;
    if the embargo had not been laid, would the British aggressions have
        stopped with the Orders in Council, 15;
    if the embargo is repealed, and our vessels suffered to go out, it
        will expose us to new insults and aggressions, 15;
    it is said that a perseverance in a measure opposed to the interests
        and feelings of the people may lead to opposition and
        insurrection, 15;
    this is an argument _in terrorem_, 15;
    more information needed on this subject, 16;
    better if the proposition had expressed indignation at the injuries
        our Government had received, 16;
    situation of the European world when Congress deemed it necessary to
        pass the embargo, 16;
    prudence and policy dictated this measure, 17;
    the mission of Mr. Rose, 17;
    effects of the measure on the country, 18;
    feelings of gentlemen who once possessed the power of the nation,
        but have now lost it, 18;
    the outrages of the belligerents should have awakened such
        indignation as to suppress these feelings, until some measures
        could be devised to meet the crisis, 18;
    the greatest inconvenience perhaps attending popular governments
        stated, 19;
    two objects contemplated by the embargo, 19;
    the first, precautionary, operating upon ourselves, 19;
    the second, coercive, operating upon the aggressing belligerents,
        19;
    the first considered and explained, 19;
    effects of the embargo, 20;
    our fate is in our own hands, with union we have nothing to fear,
        20;
    danger of exposing one's self to the charge of being under British
        influence, 21;
    the patrons of the miscreants who utter these slanders know better,
        21;
    the wrongs of Great Britain to us intended to be removed by the
        treaty, 21.

    _Enforcement of the Embargo_, bill making further provision for,
        reported, 21;
    sections of the bill, 21;
    an embargo over a country like ours a phenomenon in the civilized
        world, 21;
    opinions relative to the embargo, 21;
    course proposed to be pursued, 22;
    this bill bears marks of distrust of the people, entertained by the
        Government; it places the coasting trade under further vexatious
        restraints, 22;
    particulars in which it is placed under the regulation of the
        President, 22;
    other sections intrench on the ordinary concerns of the great body
        of the people, 22;
    the military may be employed by agents under this bill, 23;
    authority of the marshal competent to execute the laws, 23;
    further objections to the bill, 23;
    the bill presents temptations for addressing the popular sensibility
        too strong to be resisted by gentlemen in the opposition, 23;
    they have presented its provisions in an alarming aspect, 23;
    the bill contains no new principle, every provision is justified by
        precedents in pre-existing laws, 24;
    it is said the embargo is a permanent measure, and its effects
        ruinous at home and ineffectual abroad, 24;
    it is said the public councils are pressing on to measures pregnant
        with most alarming results, 24;
    the great principle of objection, it is said, consists in the
        transfer of legislative powers to the Executive Department, 24;
    objections to the provisions of the bill relative to the coasting
        trade, examined, 25;
    power granted to the President over the military force in previous
        acts of the Legislature, 26;
    passage of the bill, 26.

    _In the House._--Many resolutions have been submitted on the subject
        of foreign relations and the embargo, 40;
    surprising to see so many resolutions and none contemplating its
        continuance, 40;
    where is that spirit which separated us from Great Britain? 40;
    just as our measure of last year is beginning to operate we are
        called upon to repeal, 40;
    what is the purport of the proclamation issued by one of the
        belligerents? 41;
    resolutions offered to exclude vessels of belligerents having force
        decrees or orders violating the lawful commerce of the United
        States; also imports from such powers, and also to inquire into
        the expediency of amending the embargo act, 41;
    it is time for those who think the embargo a lawful and proper
        measure, to come forward and declare it, 41;
    neither of the powers of Europe have shown any disposition to relax,
        neither should we, 41;
    only three alternatives are open to us--war, embargo, or submission,
        41;
    the last out of the question, 41;
    shall it be war or embargo? 41;
    let that be adopted which will best maintain our rights and
        independence, 41;
    the embargo does not cause the pressure on the people, 41;
    public opinion in the Northern part of the Union requires the
        embargo to be raised, 41;
    let the debate go on, 41;
    first and second resolutions agreed to, 42.

    _Embargo, Temporary._--Bill for, passed in the Senate, 410;
    In the House, message received from the President relative to laying
        an embargo for sixty days, 544;
    bill reported, read twice, and referred to the Committee of the
        Whole, 544;
    moved to strike out sixty, and insert one hundred and twenty days,
        544;
    the time will be much too short for the whole amount of American
        property abroad to return, 544;
    motion lost, 544;
    is this to be considered as a peace or war measure? 544;
    it is understood to be a war measure, and it is intended it shall
        lead directly to it, 544;
    objections to parts of the bill, 544;
    drafted according to the wishes of the Secretary of the Treasury,
        544;
    if it is a precursor to war what is the situation of our fortresses
        and of the country generally? 545;
    none can question the propriety of the proposition, 545;
    are we now to cover ourselves with shame and indelible disgrace by
        retreating from the measures and grounds we have taken? 545;
    the conduct of France may be a subject of future consideration, 545;
    no difficulty or terror in the war except what arises from novelty,
        545;
    a source of pride that the Executive has recommended this measure,
        545;
    this is not a measure of the Executive, but is engendered by an
        intense excitement upon the Executive, 545;
    the people of the country will consider it a subterfuge for war,
        545;
    at the end of sixty days we shall not have war, because the
        Executive dare not plunge us in war, 545;
    are we prepared to assail the enemy or repel her attacks? 545;
    motion to strike out first section lost, 545;
    the President does not mean war, 545;
    unless Great Britain relents we must make war, says the President,
        546;
    we should not go to war unprepared, 546;
    what occurred in the Committee of Foreign Relations, 546;
    if you mean war, if the spirit of the country is up to it, why have
        you spent five months in idle debate? 546;
    not possible to commence war with safety within four months, 546;
    warning of the danger and ruin which threaten our defenceless cities
        and towns, 547;
    the intelligent part of the community are against war, 547;
    bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 547;
    moved to read third time to-morrow, 547;
    policy on the part of the majority should dictate this indulgence,
        547;
    the minority has acted with more propriety than was ever known, 547;
    other reason for delay, 547;
    motion lost, 547;
    bill passed, 547.

    Bill returned to the House with amendments by the Senate, 548;
    moved to postpone indefinitely, 548;
    it is a pure, unsophisticated, reinstated embargo, 548;
    the same power which originates can continue this oppressive
        measure, 548;
    it is not an embargo preparatory to war, but an embargo as a
        substitute for war, 548;
    this point examined, 548;
    Heaven help our merchants from an embargo protection, 549;
    an express was sent off on the day preceding the Message, 549;
    is this measure expedient, and can it be executed? 549;
    this House should desist from the dangerous course they are
        pursuing, 550;
    views of Great Britain, 550;
    motion to postpone, 550;
    main question ordered, 550.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  EMOTT, JAMES, Representative from N. Y., 124, 187, 315, 424, 577;
    on Miranda's expedition, 143;
    on commercial intercourse, 353;
    presents petition of merchants of New York, 432;
    on an additional military force, 668.

  EPPES, JOHN W., Representative from Virginia, 37, 125, 187, 315;
    on the resolution calling on the President for papers, 192;
    on the convoy system, 225;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 360.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  EVANS, OLIVER, claim for different applications of steam-power, 404.

  _Executive Departments._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Expatriation._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Expenditure of Public Money._--In the House, a resolution to appoint
        a committee to inquire into the expenditure of public money,
        429;
    the result of a former inquiry, 429;
    how do pursers in the Navy receive their money? 429;
    extract from a letter, 429;
    the abuses should cease, 429;
    resolution agreed to, 430.

  _Extra Session._--Bill to alter the time of the meeting of Congress
        considered, 717.
    _See Congress._


  F

  _Federal Judges_, amendment of the constitution to secure the removal
        of, 530.
    _See Index_, vol. 3, _Amendments of the Constitution_.

  FINDLAY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187, 315,
        424, 577;
    on a vote of approbation of the conduct of the Executive, 128;
    on foreign relations, 454.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  FISK, JAMES, Representative from Vermont, 36, 315, 424, 577;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 153;
    on the Torpedo experiment, 220, 221;
    offers a resolution relative to the apportionment of representation,
        223;
    opposes postponement of the resolution relative to the apportionment
        of representation, 224;
    on the ratio of representation, 318;
    on the Bank of the United States, 338;
    against a naval establishment, 504;
    on the pay of the army, 587;
    on amendments to the naturalization law, 594.

  FISK, JONATHAN, Representative from New York, 124, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  FITCH, ASA, Representative from New York, 424, 577.

  _Flag of the United States._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Florida, West, occupation of._--In the Senate, bill to extend the
        laws of the Territory of Orleans over West Florida, reported,
        252;
    debate on its passage, 253;
    the first important question is whether the United States have a
        good title to the territory, 253;
    what were the limits of Louisiana before the treaty and cession of
        1762-3 between France, Spain, and Great Britain? 253;
    the treaty of cession between the United States and France examined,
        253;
    the expediency of taking possession of this territory cannot be
        doubted, 254;
    other grounds upon which this bill might be supported, entirely
        independent of the cession, 255;
    state of the Spanish colonies in relation to the Spanish Government,
        255;
    this bill may be justified independent of title by the law of
        self-preservation, 255;
    this bill contains two important provisions, it incorporates with
        the territory of Orleans the province of West Florida, and it
        extends to that province the laws now in force in the Territory,
        255;
    two questions naturally involved, 1st, has the United States a good
        title? 2d, is it expedient? 256;
    authority of the President to direct a forcible occupation of the
        Territory a preliminary question, 256;
    has not this proclamation transcended the limits of the President's
        power? 256;
    what is the nature and import of this proclamation? 256;
    it is not only war, but an act of legislation too, 256;
    new power conferred by acts of Congress, 257;
    not a shadow of authority exists, 257;
    title examined, 257;
    as founded on the doctrines of estoppel and occupancy, 257;
    title of France, 258.

    An instrument thus obtained not obligatory, 258;
    title derived under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, 258;
    cause of the war of 1756, 258;
    its results, 258;
    remarks on the evidences and facts relative to title, 260;
    our title indisputable against both France and Spain, 261;
    the treachery by which the King of Spain is alleged to have lost his
        crown, 261;
    our title to West Florida examined, and the propriety of the recent
        measures for the occupation of it, 261;
    our title depends on the limits of the province of Louisiana, and a
        just exposition of treaties, 261;
    to determine this, it is only necessary to fix the eastern boundary,
        261;
    the province of Louisiana comprised West Florida previous to 1762,
        262;
    what was then done? 262;
    what, then, is the true construction of the treaties of St.
        Ildefonso and of April, 1803? 262;
    is the proclamation an authorized measure of war and legislation?
        examined, 263;
    had the President failed to embrace the opportunity he would have
        been criminally inattentive to the dearest interests of his
        country, 264.

  _Floridas, occupation of_, an act to authorize, 422;
    postponed, 423;
    resolution relative to, 561.

  _Florida, purchase of._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Foreign Ministers, abuse of Privileges._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Foreign Relations._--In House, resolution that the United States
        cannot, without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, and
        independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain and
        France, considered, 48;
    the resolution too clear to need demonstration, 48;
    the committee believed there could be no difference of opinion on
        the subject of the resolution, although there might be on the
        mode of resistance, therefore it was presented, 48;
    not necessary to show that the decrees of France and orders of Great
        Britain were an assumption of power to give laws to this country
        in direct violation of our neutral rights, 48;
    the real question is, shall we govern ourselves or be controlled by
        the will of others? 49;
    upon our offer to remove the embargo if either party would rescind,
        no heed has been given, 49;
    the proposition now offered unexceptionable, 49;
    the course advocated in the report of the committee is loathsome,
        49;
    the resolution offers a solemn pledge to the nation that the present
        system of public measures shall be totally abandoned, 49;
    adopt it and there is an end of the policy of deserting our rights
        under the pretence of maintaining them, 49;
    the terms of the resolution contain an assertion and a pledge, 49;
    none need have difficulty in screwing their courage up to the
        assertion, 50;
    the pledge is a glorious one, 50;
    what is submission and what does the pledge not to submit imply, 50;
    objects of the edicts and orders, 50;
    tenor of publications from the East which are sent here, 50;
    objects of the two powers with regard to us, 51;
    efforts of our Minister, 51;
    the chapter of negotiation, 52;
    the conduct of officers of the British navy and the connivance of
        the British government, 52;
    further aggressions, 53;
    the present an extraordinary crisis, 54;
    examination of the situation of this country in relation to France
        and Great Britain, and also the injuries and aggressions they
        have committed upon our neutral rights, 54;
    injuries of Great Britain, 54;
    principal injuries committed by France, 55;
    consequences which result from this series of injuries, 55;
    the rude treatment of the report of the committee, 56;
    how did the report originate, 57;
    not one of all the principal positions contained it which is true in
        the sense and to the extent assumed by the committee, 57;
    the alternatives of submission, war, or embargo considered, 57;
    what is disgraceful submission? 58;
    we can trade not only with one, but with both these belligerents
        notwithstanding these restrictive decrees, 58;
    the other alternative of war with both is absurd, 59;
    further examination of the report, 59, 60;
    objections considered, 61.

    A silent vote on the proposition would have produced a better effect
        than this discussion, 63;
    the report seems to consider the system recommended as including a
        continuance of the embargo, 63;
    the embargo is severely felt by the country at large, 63;
    in some places it requires all the exertions of patriotism to
        support it, 63;
    members have contended as to which section suffered most, 64;
    it is said that this is a delusion, 64;
    it is thought the country cannot feel much as it feeds well, 64;
    in point of revenue how does it work? 65;
    as a measure of finance it has laid the axe to the root, 66;
    would the constitutional convention have given to Congress power to
        lay an embargo for one or two years, if it had been agitated?
        66;
    the character of this measure examined, 66;
    it is said the embargo is evaded, and thus has not been so tightly
        drawn with regard to Great Britain, 67;
    the continuance of our measures may divert trade from us to other
        channels, 67;
    it is said, the honor of the country is at stake, a removal of the
        embargo would be submission to Great Britain, 68;
    what is the nature of the rights in question, 68.

    The continuance of the embargo as an assertion of our rights is not
        an efficient mode of resistance, 69;
    if gentlemen were really Americans, they would not tamely give up
        the honor of their country by submitting to French decrees and
        British orders, 70;
    do they mean that independence should be wrested from us without a
        struggle? 70;
    what are the reasons why the embargo has not come fully up to the
        expectations of its supporters? 70;
    yet it has been particularly serviceable in many instances? 70;
    a retrograde step at this time would mark the Government with
        pusillanimity, 70;
    effect of the French decrees, 71;
    results of the British orders, 71;
    the House of Representatives only of Maryland have passed
        resolutions against the embargo, 72;
    the militia system caused the change in Maryland and not the
        embargo, 72;
    it is said, the embargo has destroyed the commerce of the country,
        72;
    the embargo is a disagreeable thing, but by swallowing it, we shall
        bring health, 73;
    some States have passed laws for suspending executions, 73;
    the only question is, shall we defend ourselves or shall we submit?
        74;
    upon this question, in every point of view too clear to admit of a
        doubt, a debate has arisen embracing all our foreign relations,
        75;
    the offer to suspend the embargo laws for a suspension of the Orders
        in Council, has been contemptuously rejected, those orders
        justified, and an extension of their operation threatened, 75;
    in this crisis every man should do his part, 75;
    the original imposition of the embargo was wise in a precautionary
        point of view, 75;
    after the operation of the Orders in Council was known insurance
        could not have been effected at Baltimore to London for 90
        guineas per cent., 75;
    mercantile distresses have been exaggerated, 76;
    the embargo has preserved us from bloodshed, 76;
    if the embargo has failed it is no cause of triumph, 76;
    it is asked if we are prepared to violate the public faith, 76;
    will submission pay the public debt? 76;
    it is said the embargo itself is submission, 77;
    it is the opponents of the measure who call it submission, 77;
    who, in the United States, are most anxious to have the embargo
        repealed? 77;
    ultra-federalists, 77;
    the embargo is the most deadly weapon we can use against Great
        Britain, 77;
    what is the nature of her wants, and what her capacity and means of
        supply? 77;
    there are not contained within the British empire at this time
        supplies for the home and colonial consumption, 78;
    to remove the embargo will betray a timid, wavering, indecisive
        policy, 78;
    supplies should be withheld from Spain and Portugal, as Great
        Britain is coerced through them, 78;
    the embargo preserves this nation in peace, while it presses those
        who injure us, 78;
    it should not be repealed in part, 79;
    give merchants a spot as large as the square of this House to go to,
        and they would carry away the whole of our surplus produce, 79;
    the Orders in Council originated in deadly hostility to us, 79;
    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, 80;
    objections examined and considered, 81;
    it is said the embargo should be removed because it has operated as
        a bounty to the British trade, 81;
    constitutionality of the embargo settled, 82;
    it is said if Great Britain, during the Revolution, maintained a war
        against the world, will she truckle now? 82;
    deposition of sundry English merchants before the House of Lords,
        82;
    it is said the destruction of St. Domingo has caused such a demand
        for sugar, that the cultivation of cotton in the British West
        Indies has ceased, 83;
    it is disgracefully said that, nations like individuals, should
        pocket their honor for money, 83;
    why are we called upon to make the declaration of this resolution?
        84;
    it is not expedient to adopt the second resolution, 84;
    what will be the effect of the embargo, if continued, as respects
        ourselves? 85;
    its pressure is on the whole country, and it carries misery
        throughout the land, 85;
    a better line of conduct for the United States to pursue pointed
        out, 85;
    will most of our property be taken by the belligerents if the
        embargo is removed? 86;
    merchants do not consider the risk very great, 86;
    we are not reduced to the dilemma of making choice out of any of the
        alternatives recommended by the committee, 86;
    the resolution is unnecessary because no clear, definite, practical
        results can flow from it, 87;
    it is said we are bound to vote, whether the assertion is true or
        false, 87;
    it is said the resolution is harmless at the worst, 88;
    it should be rejected on account of the "company it keeps," 88;
    we have gone on so long in error that it is not easy to say what
        should be done, 88;
    a retrospective view of our affairs, 88, 89, 90;
    it may be said, what has happened could not be prevented, 91;
    it is said, if we suffer our commerce to go on the ocean, it will be
        crippled by France or Great Britain, 92;
    nothing so well calculated to call out the resistance and obstinacy
        of Great Britain, as this measure of the embargo, 92;
    the King of England dare not yield to our embargo, 93;
    the object of our present legislation should be to relieve our
        country from the distresses under which it groans, 93;
    resolution divided by omitting the words "and France," 94;
    first part passed in committee, 94;
    second part passed, 94;
    resolution passed in the Senate, 94;
    other resolutions passed, 94.

    _In the House._--The report of the Committee on Foreign Relations
        considered, 432;
    explanation of the views of the committee, 432;
    the report is only in part, with the intention to follow up the
        resolutions if adopted, with ulterior ones, 432;
    committee satisfied that all hope of accommodating our differences
        with Great Britain by negotiation, must be abandoned, 433;
    are the maritime rights which Great Britain is violating, such as we
        ought to support at the hazard and expense of a war? 433;
    no prospect of a speedy repeal of the Orders in Council, 433;
    we are a young nation, and cherish some pride and spirit, as well as
        justice and moderation, 433;
    we ought to go to war, in opposition to the Orders in Council, 433;
    the United States can make a serious impression upon Great Britain,
        at sea, even without a navy, 433;
    question taken on the first resolution for filling the ranks of the
        present army, and carried, 434;
    question on the agreement to the second resolution, authorizing the
        raising an additional regular force, 434;
    are seven millions of Americans to be protected in their lives and
        liberties by ten thousand vagabonds, who were fit food for
        gunpowder? 434;
    it would be necessary to know the ulterior views of the committee,
        434;
    for what purpose are these troops wanted? 434;
    the gentleman was a member of the committee, and attended its
        sittings, 434;
    it is due to the committee to explain their conduct in the outset,
        434;
    Republicans should remember that a few years ago, a set of men who
        held different politics, held the reins of Government, 435;
    if your minds are resolved on war, you are still Republicans, 435;
    what are we called upon to decide? it is whether we will resist by
        force the attempt made by that Government to subject our
        maritime rights to the capricious rule of her will, 435;
    war is already begun, 435;
    it is a question of peace or war, 436;
    how can gentlemen calling themselves Republicans, advocate such a
        war? 436;
    those who opposed the army are denounced as partisans of France,
        436;
    in 1805, the committee recommended raising troops owing to the
        defenceless condition of the frontiers; yet, this report was
        considered too strong by the House, 437;
    it is insinuated that the massacre on the Wabash was instigated by
        the British Government, 437;
    _note_ 437;
    this war of conquest, for the acquisition of territory and subjects,
        is to be a new commentary on the doctrine that republics are
        destitute of ambition, 438;
    the war spirit in gentlemen from the South, not surprising, 438;
    gentlemen avowed they would not go to war for the carrying trade,
        yet they stickle for our commercial rights, and will go to war
        for them, 438;
    gratifying to find the demoralizing and destructive consequences of
        the non-importation law acknowledged, 439;
    the committee has out-stripped the Executive, 439;
    our people will not submit to be taxed for this war of conquest and
        dominion, 439;
    the defenceless state of our seaports, 440;
    danger arising from the black population, 440;
    the unjust and illiberal imputation of British attachments against
        certain characters in this country, 440;
    further debate 441;
    the expulsion of the British from their North American possessions,
        and granting letters of marque and reprisal against Great
        Britain, are contemplated, 442;
    for the first time there seems to be but one opinion with the great
        majority of this body, that war with Great Britain is
        inevitable, 442;
    we must now oppose her further encroachments by war, or formally
        annul the Declaration of Independence, 442;
    the Canadian French, 443;
    why are they to be despised? 443;
    it has been denied that British influence had any agency in the
        massacre on the Wabash, 443;
    our identity with the people and institutions of Great Britain, 444;
    the ties of religion, language, blood, as it regards Great Britain,
        are dangerous ties to this country, with her present hostile
        disposition, 444;
    the military regular forces have been called mercenaries, 445;
    it is a question of war or submission, 445;
    it is contended that it is a dispute about the carrying trade, 445;
    the carrying trade is as much the right of the American people as
        the carrying the products of their own soil, and is secured by
        the British treaty, 446;
    the massacre on the Wabash, 446;
    the principles that ought to govern civilized nations, have at all
        times been disregarded by the officers and agents of the British
        Government, 446;
    mercenary objects should not be ascribed to gentlemen, as motives
        for the war, 446;
    the report means nothing but war or empty menace, 447;
    the gentleman from Virginia is in error, through inadvertency, or
        mistake, 447;
    a menacing system has nothing to commend it, 447;
    menaces should be resorted to with as much caution and seriousness
        as war itself, and should, if not successful, be invariably
        followed by it, 448;
    an additional force is a measure evidently improper, but as a
        preparation for war; but undoubtedly necessary in that event,
        448;
    this country should never resort to war but for causes the most
        urgent and necessary, 448;
    if the war ensues it can be proved justifiable and necessary by
        facts undoubted, and universally admitted, 448;
    the question, in the opinion of opponents, is reduced to this single
        point--which shall we do, abandon or defend our own commercial
        rights? 448;
    gentlemen will not say, we have not a good cause for war, but insist
        that it is our duty to define it, 448;
    what do they mean by this? 448;
    the objections urged, consist of an enumeration of the evils
        incident to war, however just and necessary; if they have any
        force, it is calculated to produce unqualified submission to
        every species of insult, 448;
    it is said the country is in an unprepared state, 449;
    whose is the fault? 449;
    it is said the nation will not pay taxes, for the defence will cost
        more than the profit, 449;
    the dangers of war are next held up, 449;
    no disposition manifested on the part of Great Britain to relax her
        oppression or to make restitution for damages, but, on the
        contrary, a disposition to persist in her lawless aggressions,
        450;
    remonstrances against atrocities have been made, in vain, 451;
    we have been plundered, oppressed, and insulted, but the day of
        retribution is at hand, 451;
    if the British Government would cease to violate our neutral and
        national rights, our difficulties would be at an end, 451;
    we must prepare to maintain the right to carry our produce to what
        market we please, or to be content without a market, 452;
    no objection to declare the points for which we go to war, 452;
    the previous question should not be used, to put an end to this
        debate, 452;
    further debate, 453;
    the resolutions considered as a measure of hostility, according to
        the views of their advocates and as a measure of defensive
        preparations, agreeable to the spirit of the Executive
        recommendation, 453;
    the invasion of Canada to be deprecated as an act of foreign
        conquest, 454;
    war to be feared from a manly dread of its consequences, 454;
    retrospect of our relations with Britain since nearly the
        commencement of the present Government of the United States,
        455;
    this view shows the expediency of increasing our regular force, 455;
    by the adoption of this report, we are entering on a system of
        operations of the utmost national moment, 455;
    some regret that vigorous measures had not been adopted long since,
        456;
    why should the wise policy of the past be condemned? 457;
    reasons for opposing the measure, 457;
    this is to be a foreign offensive war, as regards Canada, 458;
    all the belligerents had deserved war at our hands, 458;
    but the policy of the Republicans had been to cherish peace, and to
        avoid war, even to this time, 458;
    in 1778-'9, the best interests of the country forbade war, and so
        the people determined, 458;
    professions of peace brought in the Republican party to power, 458;
    if there were any differences between the causes of the war then,
        and now, it was in favor of the former period, 458;
    what were the facts? 458;
    it is said to be a principle of honor to resist a first insult, 458;
    impossible to perceive how the present, of all others, had become
        the necessary and accepted time for war, 458;
    if the country ever determines on war, any force should be voted,
        459;
    reasons for voting for the measure, 459;
    the right of carrying our own produce, in our own ships, to any
        quarter, should never be yielded, 460;
    it is said, the war will be one of aggrandizement, of conquest, 460;
    if we force England to a treaty, how long will she keep it? 461;
    new men and new doctrines have succeeded to the old Republican
        party, 462;
    the nation has been brought to its present alarming and
        unprecedented situation, by means in nowise unaccountable, 462;
    by steps as direct and successive as the pictures of the "Rake's
        Progress," 462;
    America ought to be proud of her Anglo-Saxon origin, 462;
    it has been asked, why was the country unprepared for defence? 463;
    this is not to be a party war, it is said, 463;
    "Goose Creek," 464;
    _note_, 464;
    second resolution carried, 464;
    third resolution carried, 465;
    fourth and fifth resolutions carried, 465;
    sixth resolution laid on the table, 465;
    taken up, 466;
    what reasons are there to induce us to authorize our merchant
        vessels to arm against unlawful molestation on the high seas,
        467;
    what is the object of this measure? 467;
    resolution concurred in, 468;
    report on, 554.

  FOSTER, AUGUSTUS J., as British minister disclaims any knowledge of
        John Henry, 522.

  _France, relations with_, during John Adams' administration, _see
        Index_, vol. 2.

  _Franking Privilege._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2, _Post Office_.

  FRANKLIN, JESSE, Senator from North Carolina, 3, 116, 176, 252, 400,
        566.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  FRANKLIN, MESHACK, Representative from North Carolina, 125, 188, 316,
        425, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Freedom of Conscience._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _French Refugees._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _French Spoliations_, statement and representation of Capt. Samuel
        Chew, 526;
    laid on the table, 527.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Frontiers, Protection of._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Fugitives from Justice._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  FULTON, ROBERT, letter relative to torpedoes, 213;
    referred, 214.


  G

  GAILLARD, JOHN, Senator from South Carolina, 3, 116, 166, 250, 400,
        566;
    appointed President _pro tem._ of Senate, 179;
    elected, 184.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  GALLATIN, ALBERT, reports relative to barred claims, 185;
    letter as Secretary of the Treasury, 188;
    Secretary of the Treasury, letter of, relative to suspension of
        non-importation, 714.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2.

  GANNETT, BARZILLAI, Representative from Massachusetts, 124, 187, 319.

  GARDENIER, BARENT, Representative from New York, 48, 124, 191, 350;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 87;
    on remunerating those who resisted the law for a direct tax, 137;
    on prosecutions for libel, 139;
    on the call on the President for papers, 192;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  GARDNER, FRANCIS, Representative from New Hampshire, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  GARDNER, GIDEON, Representative from Massachusetts, 124, 188, 316.

  GARLAND, DAVID S., Representative from Virginia, 212, 315.

  GARNETT, JAMES M., Representative from Virginia, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _General Officers, additional_, bill relative to, considered, 712.

  _Georgia_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Georgia Land Claim._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  GERMAN, OBADIAH, Senator from New York, 116, 166, 250, 400, 566;
    on the declaration of war, 416.

  _German Language_, laws in, _see Index_, vol. 2.

  GERRY, ELBRIDGE, elected Vice President, 574.
    _See Index_ vols. 1, 2.

  GHOLSON, THOMAS, Jr., Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 315,
        426, 577;
    on foreign relations, 53;
    on the Batture at New Orleans, 151;
    on the conduct of the British minister, 193;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    reports on the petition of Amy Dardin, 216;
    on the admission of the territory of Orleans as a State, 324;
    in favor of the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on the statutes of limitations, 475;
    on the British intrigues, 516.

  GILES, WILLIAM B., Senator from Virginia, 3, 116, 166, 250, 400;
    on the repeal of the Embargo Act, 18;
    reports a bill for the enforcement of the embargo laws, 21;
    on the bill for the enforcement of the embargo, 23;
    offers an amendment to extend non-intercourse to all foreign
        nations, 118;
    reports a bill to prevent abuse of privileges by foreign ministers,
        169;
    on the conduct of the British minister, 169;
    on incorporating a bank of the United States, 275;
    on an additional military force, 405.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  GILMAN, NICHOLAS, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 116, 166, 250, 400,
        566;
    reports the bill engrossed in favor of an additional military force,
        403.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  GOLD, THOMAS R., Representative from New York, 124, 187, 315, 424,
        577;
    on the Batture at New Orleans, 151;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    favors postponement of the resolution relative to the apportionment
        of representation, 224;
    on the ratio of representation, 317;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 388;
    on rules and orders of the House, 468;
    on making provision for a corps of engineers, 531;
    on pay of the army, 584;
    in favor of a naval establishment, 601;
    on an additional military force, 615.

  GOLDSBOROUGH, CHARLES, Representative from Maryland, 36, 124, 187,
        315, 577;
    on the ratio of representation, 319.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  GOODRICH, CHAUNCEY, Senator from Connecticut, 3, 116, 166, 250, 400,
        566;
    on the bill for the enforcement of the embargo, 21.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  GOODWYN, PETERSON, Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 315,
        424, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Goose Creek_, _note_, 464.

  GRAY, EDWIN, Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 188, 316, 432,
        594.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  GREEN, ISAIAH L., Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 424, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  GREGG, ANDREW, Senator from Pennsylvania, 5, 116, 166, 264, 400, 510;
    elected President _pro tem._, _see Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  GRISWOLD, STANLEY, Senator from Ohio, 121, 166.

  GROSVENOR, THOMAS P., Representative from New York, 706.

  GRUNDY, FELIX, Representative from Tennessee, 425, 577;
    on domestic manufactures, 428;
    on Indian affairs, 428;
    on foreign relations, 434;
    on the British intrigues, 519;
    on the recall of absentees, 533;
    on the bill laying an embargo, 544;
    presents a bill to raise an additional military force, 547;
    on the objects of the war, 641;
    on war taxes, 715;
    on an extra session, 717.

  _Gunboats._--_See Index_, vol. 2.


  H

  _Habeas Corpus_, suspension of, &c., _see Index_, vol. 3.

  HALE, WILLIAM, Representative from New Hampshire, 124, 187, 319.

  HALL, BOLLING, Representative from Georgia, 425, 577.

  HALL, OBED, Representative from New Hampshire, 424, 577.

  _Hall of the House of Representatives_, how it may be used, 214.

  HAMILTON, PAUL, Secretary of the Navy, letter to Lieut. Elliot, 573.

  _Hamilton, Mrs., claim of_, in the House, report on the petition of
        Elizabeth Hamilton, 212;
    report favors the claims of the petitioner on grounds of equity, but
        declares they are barred by the statute of limitations and ought
        not to be granted, 215;
    the late Gen. Hamilton had no claim on the Government under the
        resolution of the old Congress, 215;
    no claim, notwithstanding the statute, 215;
    hundreds of cases equally hard, 215;
    the impoverished old soldiers should be relieved before claims of
        this kind are granted, 215;
    if the statute was unjust it should be repealed; if not, exceptions
        should not be made but with extreme care, 215;
    Gen. Hamilton in service until the close of the war, 215;
    did not resign his commission by accepting a seat in Congress, 215;
    Congress had relieved the daughters of Count de Grasse, 215;
    the statute of limitations was never intended to bar just claims,
        215;
    bill ordered to be reported, 217;
    bill reported and amendments proposed, 218;
    passage of the bill, 218.

  HARPER, JOHN A., Representative from New Hampshire, 424, 577.

  HARRIS, JOHN, Representative from New York, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  HAVEN, NATHANIEL A., Representative from New Hampshire, 124, 187, 320.

  HAWES, AYLETT, Representative from Virginia, 424, 577.

  _Hazen, Charlotte_, petition of, 266.

  HEISTER, DANIEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 126, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  HEISTER, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36.

  HELMS, WILLIAM, Representative from New Jersey, 36, 124, 187, 316;
    against petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  HEMPSTEAD, EDWARD, Delegate from Missouri Territory, 620;
    on Mississippi land claims, 702.

  HENRY, JOHN, letters of, 506, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514;
    memorial to Lord Liverpool, 514.

  HICKMAN, HARRIS H., letter to Lieutenant Elliot, 573.

  HILLHOUSE, JAMES, Senator from Connecticut, 3, 116, 166;
    offers resolution to repeal the embargo act, 5;
    on the repeal of the embargo act, 5;
    resigns his seat in the Senate, 250.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  HOGE, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  HOLLAND, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 37, 125, 203, 315;
    on the immediate arming of the public vessels, 98;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 157;
    in favor of the admission of Mississippi, 352.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  HOLMES, DAVID, Representative from Virginia, 36.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  _Home Manufactures in the House._--_See Index_, vol 3.

  HORSEY, OUTERBRIDGE, Senator from Delaware, 250, 400, 566;
    on the occupation of Florida, 255.

  _House._--Meeting of 2d session of 10th Congress, 36;
    assembles on 1st session, 11th Congress, 124;
    adjournment of 1st session of 11th Congress, 165;
    adjourns at close of 2d session of 11th Congress, 249;
    meeting at 3d session of 11th Congress, 315;
    meets at 1st session of 12th Congress, 424;
    adjourns at close of 1st session of 12th Congress, 544;
    meets at 2d session of 12th Congress, 577;
    adjourns 3d session of 12th Congress, 720.

  HOWARD, BENJAMIN, Representative from Kentucky, 36, 125, 187;
    presents the petition of naturalized British subjects, 46;
    his proclamation as Governor of the Missouri Territory, 707.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  HOWELL, JEREMIAH B., Senator from Rhode Island, 400, 566.

  HOWLAND, BENJAMIN, Senator from Rhode Island, 3.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  HUBBARD, JONATHAN H., Representative from Vermont, 124, 187, 316.

  HUFTY, JACOB, Representative from New Jersey, 124, 187, 315, 424, 577.

  HUMPHREYS, REUBEN, Representative from New York, 36.

  HUNGERFORD, JOHN P., Representative from Virginia, 424;
    declared not entitled to a seat, 432.

  HUNTINGTON, EBENEZER, Representative from Connecticut, 315.

  HUNTER, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 400, 570.

  HYNEMAN, JOHN M., Representative from Pennsylvania, 424, 577.


  I

  ILSLEY DANIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 36.

  _Impeachment._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Importation of Slaves._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Imports._--_See Duties on Imports._

  _Imprisonment for Debt._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Inaugural Address_ of James Madison, on commencing his second term as
        President, 575.

  _Indemnity for Spoliations._ _See Index_, vol. 1., _Great Britain_.

  _Indiana Territory._--Committee appointed to consider the expediency
        of dividing, 87;
    report of committee relative to a division of, 96.

  _Indian Affairs._--In the House, a resolution offered to extend the
        laws of the United States over all white persons residing on
        Indian lands within the United States in which the title is not
        extinguished, 428;
    Indian countries have become an asylum for persons guilty of every
        enormity, 428;
    do not the laws of the United States at present extend to cases of
        this kind, 428;
    a recent case in Georgia, 428;
    some defects in the present law by which petty officers escape, 428;
    laid on the table, 428.

  _Indian lands within a State, rights over._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Indian Trading Houses._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  INGERSOLL, JARED, voted for as Vice President in 1812, 574.

  _Inoculation of the Army_, petition relative to, 709.

  _Intercourse, Commercial._--In the House, bill from the Committee of
        Foreign Relations considered, 352;
    the bill, 353;
    exempts all vessels, owned wholly or in part by American citizens,
        and merchandise, from seizure or forfeiture, which have left
        British ports prior to February 2d, 1811, 353;
    moved to amend so as to exempt all vessels and merchandise, 353;
    the amendment will at once give a clear deck, 353;
    the law of May last, authorized the President to proclaim the fact,
        if either France or Great Britain revoked her edicts, and
        non-intercourse should ensue with the other, 353;
    France revoked her edicts; Britain did not, and non-intercourse is
        in force with her, 353;
    this fact doubted, and should be inquired into, 353;
    the bills to lay additional duties, and to authorize a loan, furnish
        additional reasons for this bill, 353;
    if the non-intercourse has not gone into effect, new taxes and loans
        are not needed, 353;
    proceedings of the Executive relative to Great Britain, 353;
    the President has acted differently under two laws, which ought to
        have the same practical construction, 354;
    is it said, the President had no knowledge of the blockading orders
        of May, or that it was avowed to be comprehended in the Orders
        in Council? 354;
    as to France, what are the edicts revoked, and how? 354;
    the Rambouillet decree, 354;
    it purports to be an act of reprisal on this country, 354;
    what ought to have been the feelings of the Administration and of
        the country, in relation to this measure? 355;
    this is taking property under false pretences, in its nature, 355;
    another view of this decree, 355;
    another mistake of this Government, 355;
    the practical operation of our law, 355;
    apologists of the Emperor point to the act of 1st June, 355;
    object in view in this examination of the decree of Rambouillet,
        356;
    threats and insults of the French Emperor, 356;
    have these decrees been so revoked or modified as to cease to
        violate the neutral commerce of the United States? 356;
    these decrees have two distinct operations, 356;
    the seizure of our property, and its sale, 356;
    if there has been any modification, it only prevents future
        seizures, leaving the property already seized to take the course
        of confiscation and sale, 356;
    has there been such a revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, as
        warranted the proclamation? 357;
    it was not credited that it could be issued on the letter of the
        Duke of Cadore, 357;
    what is the understanding of the French courts and officers on the
        subject? 357;
    the revocation, if any, was a future one, 357;
    it was also conditional, 357;
    puzzling to determine whether it was a condition precedent or
        subsequent, 358;
    the conditions on the part of England, 358;
    conditions on the part of France, 358;
    conditions on the part of this country, 358;
    the right of not being vexed or endangered by paper blockades,
        respected, 358;
    the flag is to protect the property, and search is not to be
        permitted, 359;
    how are we to cause those rights to be respected? 359;
    are we prepared for those conditions? 359;
    it may be said, that the letter of the Duke of Cadore, if not itself
        a decree, is evidence of a rescinding decree, 359;
    the letter of Mr. Russell, 359;
    moved to strike out the whole of the bill, 360;
    it is a new duty for Representatives to present under a suspicious
        aspect, either the motives or the acts of the Executive branch
        of their Government, 360;
    in no nation, ancient or modern, was such a thing seen, unless in
        the last stages of corruption, 360;
    the whole fact should have been stated in regard to the letter of
        the Duc de Cadore, and the answer of General Armstrong, 360;
    why is the President's proclamation disapproved? 360;
    the letter of Mr. Erskine was not a repeal of the British orders,
        360;
    no difference in the ground taken by the Executive, except that one
        arrangement was with Great Britain, and the other with France,
        360;
    shown 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 that
        blockade must have been included in the demand under the act of
        last session, 361;
    extract from the Message of the President, 361;
    declaration of our Secretary to General Armstrong, 361;
    declaration of General Armstrong and the Duc de Cadore, 361;
    statement of Lord Wellesley, 361;
    do. 361;
    thus the demand was confined to the blockade of 1806, 362;
    was this blockade such a violation of the neutral rights of the
        United States, as to come decidedly within the act of last
        session? 362;
    this blockade presents three distinct characters, 362;
    1st. It obstructs a trade from one port to another, of the same
        enemy; 2d. It obstructs trade from the port of one enemy to the
        port of another; 3d. It obstructs trade of neutrals from their
        own country to any part of the coast from the Elbe to Brest,
        362;
    it is in violation of the principles contended for by every
        Administration under the American Government, 362;
    letters of Mr. King and Mr. Marshall, 362;
    some observations on the bill before the House, 363;
    the construction put on the non-intercourse law is perfectly within
        its object, 363;
    further explanation of the law, 363;
    views of the committee, 363;
    unwillingness to imply by any vote, a recognition of the efficacy of
        the non-intercourse law, which could not have an operative force
        until May, is a motive to sustain the amendment, 364;
    truth of the position as to the operation of the law, demonstrable,
        364;
    not answer to argue from the intention of the legislature, 364;
    the words of the act are explicit, and the meaning plain, 364;
    pledge contained in the act relative to commercial intercourse
        between the United States and Great Britain and France, 364;
    explanation of this pledge, 364;
    the same proposition was presented to both the latter nations, 365;
    if either would revoke its edicts, no goods or wares of the other,
        should, three months thereafter, be imported into the United
        States, 365;
    France did so revoke her edicts, 365;
    this amendment proposes to repeal the non-intercourse act, excluding
        the merchandise of Great Britain, although France has so
        repealed her edicts, and Great Britain has not, 365;
    this is a direct breach of faith, 365;
    the excuse is, that the President had no right to issue his
        proclamation, and that the assurances of France were deceptive,
        365;
    the President is expressly instructed by the non-intercourse act to
        make the proclamation, 365;
    as well might the legitimacy of a treaty be questioned after it had
        been ratified, 365;
    how could the President act a different part upon the evidence in
        the case? 365;
    if this diplomatic evidence is not to be received, an end is put to
        all diplomatic intercourse, 365;
    if Great Britain had made the like communication, and the President
        had taken the like course, what would have been said by these
        gentlemen? 365;
    they approve the proclamation in the case of Great Britain, but
        denounce a similar proposition in the case of France, 366;
    it is said, the non-intercourse act is not in force; whence do
        gentlemen derive the power to declare an act of Congress not in
        force? 366;
    the revoked decrees of France are considered by some as more
        obnoxious than the British Orders in Council, 366;
    who can be an apologist of France or England, when each has charged
        the other with the first aggressions on our commerce? 366;
    while Great Britain finds some able advocates in this House, she
        will find no necessity to redress our wrongs, 366.

    In viewing the course which has been adopted this session, it is
        surprising that the present measure should be called up for
        adoption, 367;
    it is now evident that the President was duped by the French
        Emperor, and led to issue his proclamation, 367;
    what has occurred to alter the face of affairs, to induce this new
        attempt to fasten on the restrictive system against our
        intercourse with Great Britain? 367;
    the last communication from the President furnishes the most
        conclusive evidence of the treachery of Bonaparte, 367;
    how has the President's proclamation been verified? 368;
    the remonstrance of Mr. Russell remains unanswered, and the New
        Orleans packet remains under seizure to this day, 368;
    after thirteen days a partial suspension of the decrees was ordered,
        368;
    a suspension not as to sequestration, but as to condemnation, 368;
    with this statement before their eyes, will gentlemen assert that
        the decrees were revoked? 368;
    are we bound by any faithful performance had on the part of France?
        368;
    have either France or Great Britain complied with the condition?
        369;
    must this sacrifice be made in order to bolster up the President's
        proclamation so prematurely issued? 369;
    is this an honest neutrality to revive the restrictive system
        against Great Britain, while the French decrees are still in
        force? 369;
    the present measure is intended as a propitiatory sacrifice to
        conciliate Napoleon, 369;
    is it calculated to produce this effect? 369;
    a view of the course which has been pursued can answer, 369;
    the amendments contemplate the continuance and enforcement of the
        non-intercourse law, 370;
    after long delay the Administration has condescended to develop
        their policy, 370;
    the proposition contained in these amendments has relation to the
        most momentous and most elevated of our legislative obligations,
        371;
    the nature and effects of this commercial restrictive system are no
        longer matter of speculation, 371;
    only a word on its nature necessary, 371;
    the system contained in the law of May, 1810, and March, 1809, is
        injurious, is not fiscal in its nature, nor protective of
        manufactures, nor competent to coerce either belligerent, 371;
    who was ever the friend of non-intercourse? 371;
    it was agreed upon because the majority could agree upon nothing
        else, 372;
    the system should therefore be abandoned, 372;
    its advocates say we cannot abandon it, for our faith is plighted,
        372;
    is any such faith plighted? if so, whence did it arise? 372;
    under the act of May, 1810, 372;
    what is its character and the obligations arising under it? 372;
    the obligations arise under a certain section, 373;
    divested of technical expression, it provides that a new commercial
        condition shall result on the occurrence of a certain fact,
        which fact the President shall declare, 373;
    the terms our act proposed was the modification or revocation of
        certain 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," 373;
    has the act been done, and in such a manner as to amount to an
        honorable fulfilment or acceptance of our terms? 373;
    the occurrence of the fact of revocation involves the propriety of
        the proclamation, 373;
    has the fact occurred? 373;
    this point examined with regard to France, 374;
    letter of the Duc de Cadore examined, 374;
    point of honor to be saved to France, 376;
    how was Great Britain to accede to the terms? 376;
    the declaration on the part of France further examined, 376;
    the fact must be done and the effect produced, but the terms of that
        act must be excepted, 376;
    the proffer we made was only to revive the non-intercourse law
        against the contumacious belligerent, after three months from
        the date of the proclamation, 376;
    what the French mean, 376;
    our efficient concurrence in Bonaparte's plan of policy, 376;
    is it possible to point out any variation in the policy of France to
        this country before and since this letter? 377;
    the true nature of this Cadore policy is to be discovered in the
        character of Bonaparte, 377;
    it is impossible to reason with those who deny that the decrees now
        exist, 377;
    the act now proposed is required by no obligation, 377;
    the present is the most favorable moment for the abandonment of
        these restrictions, 377;
    the edicts of the President are far more detestable to the merchants
        than those of France or George III., 377;
    it is time to take our own rights into our own keeping, 378;
    why not give the same credence to the letters of the Duke of Massa
        and the Duc de Gaete, as would be given to a letter from the
        Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain? 378;
    about to shut up the only avenue to our commercial hope, it is said,
        378;
    this point examined, 378;
    extracts of letters from Liverpool, 378;
    one gentleman willing to surrender the carrying trade to Great
        Britain, 378;
    three classes of your citizens to be provided for as contemplated in
        the provisions of this bill, 379;
    first, sequestrations in France, Spain, Italy, &c.; second, those
        who have sailed to France under the faith of the Duke of
        Cadore's letter; third, importers of British manufactures, 379;
    it is to be hoped the time is not far distant when we shall assert
        and defend our rights, 379;
    are we prepared, after having been insulted, robbed and deceived by
        the French Emperor, to follow the example of petty servile
        states, and throw this people into the embraces of that monster?
        379;
    principal object of the amendment to renew the non-intercourse of
        1809, so far as respects Great Britain, 379;
    the amendment to suspend the whole restrictive system should be
        adopted, 379;
    this amendment changes the position recommended by the Executive,
        but not much more than the bill with the amendment under
        consideration, 379;
    this bill would have been scouted as the production of a madman
        previous to the reign of Bonaparte, 380;
    we have conclusive evidence that the edicts are not so revoked that
        their operation ceased on that day, 380;
    how are we to cause our rights to be respected? 380;
    further debate respecting the operation of the decrees, 381;
    examination of the non-intercourse system from the date of the law
        of March, 1809, to inquire what its professed object is, 381;
    it is thus demonstrated that if we suffer this system to go into
        operation, we are not only again to reduce our citizens to a
        state of bankruptcy in their private fortunes, but our Treasury
        is likewise to be more completely bankrupt, 382;
    what has been the further effect of this law? 382;
    history of its results, 383;
    further remarks, 383;
    correspondence examined, 384;
    will the servile manner in which the rescinding the blockade is
        coupled as a condition with the withdrawing the Orders in
        Council, escape notice? 385;
    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, &c., 385;
    after seeing how the law of May, 1810, has been used with the French
        Government, until it had assumed the character of a threat,
        together with the various changes of position taken by our
        Government, it demonstrates a management which will not leave
        much doubt whether it be indispensable to suffer this law to go
        into effect as a measure of resistance against England, or good
        faith to France, 385;
    the proclamation was issued when there was no official information
        of the repeal of the decrees, 385;
    the faith of the nation is not pledged by the law of 1810, 386;
    it may even be admitted that this law has all the binding force of
        treaties, 387;
    before France can claim a fulfilment of any such promise, she should
        not only revoke her injurious acts, but it should be done fairly
        and honestly, and without at the same time adopting other
        measures equally injurious, 387;
    is this that fair and honest repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees?
        is this that _bona fide_ performance of the condition? 387;
    it is an attempt to gull and deceive us by an artful, intriguing
        policy, 387;
    this is the favorite moment to erase the restrictive system from
        your statute books, 387;
    the consequences of its continuance examined, 387;
    it becomes this Government, in all our concerns with the
        belligerents of Europe, to manifest to both a fair, impartial
        and equal conduct, 388;
    has such a spirit characterized the proceedings of our Government?
        388;
    has a similar temper and disposition been shown to Great Britain as
        to France, in the interpretation of the Cadore letter? 388;
    this part of the case will not well bear scrutiny, 389;
    the bill on the table is calculated much more to put in jeopardy the
        neutral character of our Government, 389;
    the principle of the act of May was just and equal, 389;
    the most copious source of error is found in the extent of the
        Berlin and Milan decrees, 389;
    had France proved faithful to her engagements, the United States
        would at this moment have had a prosperous commerce with Europe,
        390;
    why shall we at this moment make this marked distinction between
        France and England? 390;
    the great question is, does the fact upon which the proclamation was
        alone to issue, and on which its legitimacy solely depends,
        exist, or does it not exist? 391;
    the very doubt ought to decide the question, 391;
    such is the case that we are enabled to prove a negative, 391;
    the letter of the Duc de Cadore examined, 391;
    the case further examined, 392;
    the purity of the source whence our arguments come has been
        questioned, 393;
    the order of May, 1806, has scarcely a single feature of a regular
        blockade, 394;
    notice of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine, 395;
    if the Berlin and Milan decrees had been actually repealed, what
        would we have gained? 395;
    there can be no importation of American productions into France, but
        on terms utterly inadmissible, 395;
    it is vain to seek for the justification of this measure from any
        thing France has done, 396;
    the disposition of Bonaparte towards us rests not alone on his acts
        of aggression, rapine and plunder, 396;
    motion to postpone lost, 397;
    it was contended that the Emperor of France had not fulfilled his
        engagement, 397;
    amendment offered, 397;
    lost, 397;
    further debate, 397;
    previous question moved, 397;
    carried, 397;
    adjournment moved, 397;
    lost, 397;
    bill passed, 398;
    the bill, 398.

    _Intercourse Foreign._--Message from the President relative to the
        execution of the act of 1806, appropriating two million dollars
        for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending our foreign
        intercourse, 26.

    _Intercourse Non._--In Senate, bill to interdict commercial
        intercourse, &c., read the third time, 28;
    the effect of the measure must be war with Great Britain, it is
        stated, 28;
    what excuse is there for leaving the country in such a defenceless
        state? 28;
    what are our preparations? 28;
    what is the state of the treasury? 28;
    what plans are offered for replenishing it? 29;
    if we are to have war, with whom is it to be prosecuted? 29;
    under these circumstances what is the course that policy would
        dictate to this country to pursue? 29;
    consequences of non-intercourse under such circumstances, 30;
    who has been the first aggressor? 30;
    bill passed, 31.

    _In the House._--Resolution previously referred, 106;
    nature of the bill reported, 106;
    whole subject of embargo and non-intercourse should be incorporated
        in one bill, 106;
    referred to committee on foreign relations, with instructions to
        bring in a bill, 107;
    the whole to present a general system, 107.

    Bill for interdicting commercial intercourse between the United
        States and Great Britain considered, 107;
    moved to strike out the first section in order to try the principle
        of the bill, 107;
    impossibility of carrying the system into effect, 107;
    rather than accept this system it would be better to remain under
        the embargo, 107;
    the idea of the efficacy of this system examined, 107;
    for the future the remedy is--to follow nature, 108;
    she dictates the removal of all obstructions, 108;
    the removal of the embargo would give an opportunity for
        negotiations, 108;
    also show the effect of the orders and decrees, if these were not
        injurious no further steps would be necessary, 108;
    legal opposition to the embargo laws in Massachusetts, 108;
    when did the violation of our rights commence? 108;
    so long ago no time could be fixed, 108;
    the hot-bed politicians stirred up the people of New England, 108;
    if we cannot get war, or a continuance of the embargo,
        non-intercourse should be carried into effect, 108;
    England will treat before going to war, 109;
    when the embargo shall cease, war will be the only honorable course,
        if reparation is not made, 109;
    the embargo as a precautionary and coercive measure, 110;
    when the injuries were committed resistance or submission was our
        only course, 110;
    time to change our measures and place our future reliance in
        Providence and the energies and valor of the citizens, 110;
    this bill is conducive to the interests of the country, 110;
    it maintains our attitude and continues our solemn protest, 110;
    it reserves the great question to be decided at the next Congress,
        110;
    objections to the bill considered, 111;
    question on striking out first section lost, 111;
    the embargo should be adhered to, until a majority of the people
        prefer war, 112;
    there is no middle course, 112;
    the great object of the United States in her foreign relations is to
        maintain honorable peace, 112;
    reason for resorting to the embargo, 112;
    objects for which it has been pursued, 112;
    why should they now be abandoned? 112;
    now is the most critical period for the effect of the embargo, 112;
    views of Great Britain, 113;
    what will be the inference drawn from adopting this measure? 113;
    firmness peculiarly requisite at this time, 113;
    motion to strike out lost, 114.

    _In the Senate._--Amendment to the act offered, purporting to extend
        it to all public armed vessels until modified by treaty, 118;
    a necessity to consider the subject arises from the limitation of
        certain sections of the act, 119;
    this extension should have been made at the last session, 119;
    it is merely a municipal proposition, 119;
    overtures of the British cabinet, 119;
    motive of resisting the aggression of France, 119;
    reasons why modifications should be made by treaty, 119;
    Great Britain cannot complain, 119;
    extract from Canning's speech, 120;
    two conclusions deduced, 120;
    the principle contended for not new, 120;
    report on the amendment, 122.

    _In the House._--Resolution to suspend the non-intercourse act
        offered, 127;
    bill from the Senate to revive and amend certain parts of the act
        relative to non-intercourse considered, 152;
    what led to the exclusion of British vessels? the attack on the
        Chesapeake, 152;
    shall the measure of hostility be continued after the cause has been
        done away, 152;
    the interdiction of the act was founded on the violation of our
        rights by the belligerents, 153;
    the hostility ceased when the act was passed, 153;
    it was not the act, 153;
    upon the passage of this bill may depend the destinies of this
        country, 153;
    the question is what regulation shall be made respecting public
        ships, 154;
    shall we exclude both--admit both, or discriminate? 154;
    England has made reparation, 154;
    the ground we have taken in respect to France and England reviewed,
        154;
    the system proposed is one of impartiality to the belligerent powers
        of Europe, 155;
    why were French armed ships excluded? 155;
    it was considered a measure favoring Great Britain, 155;
    do away every possible justification that can be urged by France for
        not meeting our overtures for peace, 155;
    if you wish to gain the advantage of union at home, take away every
        pretext for the violation of your rights, 155;
    did not this bill place the two belligerents on equal footing? 156;
    state of the continent, 156;
    it is said, we should not discriminate, for France has no public
        armed vessels, 156;
    it is not consistent with our honor and dignity to admit French
        ships within our waters, 157;
    if we are at peace with Great Britain are they entitled to all the
        rights of hospitality one nation can show to another? 157;
    this bill is a concession to Great Britain and is not a hostility to
        France, 157;
    what injuries has France done? 157;
    if you discriminate under the same circumstances you jeopardize the
        peace of the country, 157;
    what has Britain done which would require a discrimination as to her
        public vessels? 158;
    the bill should be passed in its present form, any material
        alteration will cause it to be lost, and thus will end all that
        has taken place between this country and Great Britain, 158;
    purport of the amendment proposed, 158;
    admission of English and exclusion of French ships, 159;
    cause of the interdict of British vessels, 159;
    there has been no satisfactory adjustment of our difficulties with
        Great Britain, 159;
    proceedings adopted to obtain a direct question on the first
        amendment, 159;
    a precedent furnished, 159;
    moved to exclude both French and English vessels, 159;
    lost, 159;
    amendment moved that penalties and forfeitures incurred should be
        recoverable after the act had expired, 160.

    A discrimination should be made, for one nation has complied with
        the conditions of the non-intercourse act, whilst the other has
        not changed her position, 160;
    the armed vessels of either should not be admitted, 160;
    should so act that neither of the belligerents could charge us with
        partiality, 160;
    desirable that nothing should be done to embarrass negotiations,
        160;
    this bill has passed the Senate unanimously, 161;
    this bill does not conform to any system of policy, 161;
    it is said this bill is considered as comporting with the views of
        the Executive, 161;
    nothing due for any boon Great Britain has given us, 162;
    what is the declaration of the British minister? 162;
    difficult to say what other system would be proper, 162;
    bill passed, 163.

    _In the Senate._--Have been for years contending against the tyranny
        of the ocean, and pledged ourselves to the world not to
        surrender our rights, 177;
    war preferable to ignominious peace, 177;
    what are the means for carrying on war? 177;
    it is said, no object is attainable by war with Great Britain, 177;
    it will deprive her of those supplies of raw materials obtained from
        this country, 178;
    it will reproduce and cherish a commercial spirit in us, 178;
    this bill is a total dereliction of all opposition to the edicts of
        the belligerents, 178;
    motion to recommit the bill lost, 178.

    Question, shall the Senate adhere to their amendments? 179;
    the interests of the country require that the subject shall be
        finally acted upon, 179;
    committee of conference appointed, 179;
    report and the question to adhere, 180;
    review of the causes that led to the measures of this government,
        180, 181;
    it is better for Congress to rise and do nothing than to do that
        which will only injure ourselves, 182;
    Senate vote to adhere, 182.


  J

  JACKSON, F. J., his circular to British Consuls, 193.

  JACKSON, JOHN G., Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187;
    in favor of immediate arming of the public vessels, 101;
    on an extra session of Congress, 102;
    on resolution relative to election of presidential electors in
        Massachusetts, 105;
    moves to postpone the consideration of a vote of approbation of the
        conduct of the Executive, 129;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 158.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  JACKSON, RICHARD S., Representative from Rhode Island, 37, 124, 187,
        316, 424, 577;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 84.

  _Jails of States._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  JEFFERSON, THOMAS, message as President at a 2d session of 10th
        Congress, 3;
    franking privilege conferred on, 28;
    calls extra session of the Senate, 33;
    results of his administration, _note_, 114;
    franking privilege granted to, 122.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  JENKINS, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 37, 124, 205, 315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  JENNINGS, JONATHAN, Delegate from Indiana Territory, 187, 315, 425,
        577;
    on raising mounted rangers, 650.

  JOHNSON, RICHARD M., Representative from Kentucky, 36, 125, 187, 315,
        428, 577;
    on foreign relations, 50;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 157;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    in favor of the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on foreign relations, 442;
    against a naval establishment, 486;
    on the limits of Louisiana as a State, 523;
    offers a resolution to raise mounted volunteers, 580.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  JONES, JACOB, his letter to the Secretary of the Navy, 598.

  JONES, WALTER, Representative from Virginia, 37, 125, 188, 319.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  _Judiciary System_, bill to amend, read twice, 84, 87.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Judges, Federal_, removal of, in the House, constitution not perfect,
        and provision made for amendment, 351;
    the amendment is to place the judiciary on the same foundation as
        the British judiciary, 351;
    resolutions offered, 352;
    House refused to consider, 352.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.


  K

  KELLY, JAMES, Representative from Pennsylvania, 37.

  KENAN, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 37, 125, 188, 315.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  KENNEDY, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 125, 187, 316,
        709.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  KENT, JOSEPH, Representative from Maryland, 424, 577;
    on an additional military force, 679.

  _Kentucky._--Vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  KEY, PHILIP B., Representative from Maryland, 37, 124, 191, 315, 426,
        577;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 63;
    on an inquiry relative to prosecutions under the sedition law, 139;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    on reduction of the navy, 227;
    on the British intrigues, 518.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 3.

  KING, RUFUS, number of votes for, as Vice President, 27;
    letter to Lord Grenville, 362.
    _See Index_, vol. 1.

  KING, WILLIAM R., Representative from North Carolina, 425, 577;
    on laying additional duties, 431;
    on foreign relations, 459.

  KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  KITCHEL, AARON, Senator from N.J., 3.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  KNICKERBOCKER, HERMAN, Representative from New York, 124, 192, 316.


  L

  LACOCK, ABNER, Representative from Pennsylvania, 425, 577;
    on the naturalization laws, 543, 715.

  LAMBERT, JOHN, Senator from New Jersey, 33, 116, 166, 250, 400, 566.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Land office_, bill to establish, read second time in the Senate, 405.

  _Lands, Western_, _see Index_, vols. 1, 3, _Public lands_.

  LANGDON, JOHN, number of votes for, as Vice President, 27.

  LAW, LYMAN, Representative from Connecticut, 424, 577;
    in favor of a naval establishment, 492;
    on an additional military force, 627.

  LEFEVRE, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 424.

  LEIB, MICHAEL, Senator from Pennsylvania, 21, 26, 116, 166, 250, 400,
        566;
    makes a report relative to foreign vessels, 122;
    offers resolutions relative to demands on Great Britain, 179.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  LEWIS, JOSEPH, jr., Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 314,
        424, 577;
    presents the petition of the Directors of Washington Bridge Company,
        74;
    presents a bill to establish a turnpike company in the District of
        Columbia, 84.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Library of Congress._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Licenses, Foreign_, bill relative to passed, 718.

  _Lighthouse Duties._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Limitation, Statutes of_, in the House, resolution requiring the
        Committee on Claims to inquire into the expediency of repealing
        or suspending the statutes of limitation, so far as they operate
        in bar of the payment of certain claims referred, 468;
    report of committee, 468;
    report considered, 475;
    all this class of claims, being liquidated claims, can be allowed,
        so the Treasury Department states, without danger of fraud or
        imposition, 475;
    the amount is $300,000, of which one-fifth may not be applied for,
        475;
    what is the statute of limitations? 475;
    in such statutes there are always exceptions, 475;
    what would be the course of an individual? 475;
    report not to open the act disagreed to, 475;
    resolution recommending provision for their payment agreed to, 475
    resolution from the committee considered and referred, 526.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  LITTLE, PETER, Representative from Maryland, 424, 577;
    on pay of the army, 584;
    on privateer pensions, 704;
    on war taxes, 715.

  LIVERMORE, EDWARD ST. LOE, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124,
        191, 351;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 127;
    opposes the postponement of the resolution relative to the
        apportionment of representation, 224.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  LIVERPOOL, Lord, his despatch to Sir George Prevost, 515.

  LIVINGSTON, EDWARD, memorial relative to the Batture at Orleans, 118.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2.

  LIVINGSTON, ROBERT LE ROY, Representative from New York, 124, 187,
        315, 424.

  LLOYD JAMES, jr., Senator from Massachusetts, 3, 33, 117, 166, 252,
        403;
    on the repeal of the embargo act, 8;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 28;
    on the postponement of the bill for additional duties, 31;
    on incorporating a bank of the United States, 270;
    on an increase of the navy, 405.

  _Loan Bill._--In the House, the bill to authorize a loan not exceeding
        the principal of the public debt, considered, 227;
    no objection to the principle of the bill, 227;
    doubtful as to the amount required, 227;
    borrowing money, should not be called paying the public debt, 227;
    all authority to borrow money should be express and specific as to
        the sum, 227;
    money wanted to defray the debts heretofore contracted, 227;
    specific in fact, 227;
    amendments proposed, 227;
    bill ordered to be engrossed, 227;
    further debate, 229;
    bill passed, 229.

  _Louisiana_ Lead Company, bill to incorporate rejected, 530.

  _Louisiana Purchase._--_See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  _Louisiana Territory_, petition of inhabitants, 474.
    _See Territories._

  _Louisiana, State of._--In the House, the bill for the admission of
        Louisiana, &c., considered in Committee, 523;
    amendment relative to the boundary offered, 523;
    better that this addition of territory should be the subject of a
        separate law, 523;
    there is no difficulty in either way, 523;
    the bill for admission should state the boundary, 523;
    motion passed, 523;
    question relative to the inhabitants of Florida Territory, attached
        to this bill, 523;
    passage of the bill for the admission of Louisiana, 526.

  _Louisiana_, vote for President in 1812, 573, 711.

  LOVE, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 316;
    makes a report on petition of citizens engaged in Miranda's
        expedition, 46;
    favors the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  LOWNDES, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 425, 577;
    in favor of a naval establishment, 489.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  LYLE, AARON, Representative from Pennsylvania, 124, 187, 315, 424,
        577.

  LYON, MATTHEW, Representative from Kentucky, 48, 125, 212;
    supports the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95;
    relative to prosecutions for libel, 134;
    charge in the indictment against him for libel, 135;
    facts in his case, 135;
    on the torpedo experiment, 219, 221.

    _Claim of._--In the House, a memorial of Matthew Lyon for refunding
        his fine, under the Sedition Act, 426;
    moved to refer to the Committee on Claims, 426;
    if the petitioner has any claim, it is because the law is
        unconstitutional, of which this committee are not the proper
        judge, 426;
    moved to refer to a select committee, 426;
    the whole subject of these prosecutions was referred to a committee
        at a former session, which had been prevented from acting; if
        there is justice in any of this class of claims, it should be
        known, 427;
    idle to attempt to do by statute, what the constitution has
        endeavored in vain to enforce, 427;
    amendment proposed to the reference, 427;
    proper measures had not been taken to prevent a recurrence of
        measures of this kind, 427;
    amendment carried, 427.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.


  M

  MACLAY, SAMUEL, Senator from Pennsylvania, 3;
    resigns his seat in Senate, 26.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  MACON, NATHANIEL, Representative from North Carolina, 36, 125, 187,
        315, 425, 577;
    offers resolution relative to the expediency of continuing the
        embargo, 41;
    opposes the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95;
    on the immediate arming of the public vessels, 98;
    on an extra session, 104;
    on counting blank ballots, 125;
    declines to be a candidate for the Speakership, 125;
    on an inquiry relative to prosecutions under the Sedition Law, 138,
        139;
    on the Batture at New Orleans, 149;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 160;
    on the remission of certain fines on emigrants from Cuba, 164;
    opposes postponement of the resolution relative to the apportionment
        of Representation, 224;
    on the ratio of representation, 316;
    on the admission of the Territory of Orleans, as a State, 321, 324;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 397;
    on laying additional duties, 431;
    on a Quartermaster's Department, 477;
    on the British intrigues, 518;
    on the State limits of Mississippi, 522;
    on mode of relief of Caraccas, 532;
    on pay of the army, 589;
    on the imprisonment of American seamen, 595;
    on an additional military force, 616;
    on an additional military force, 674.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  MADISON, JAMES, his letter as Secretary of State, on the object of the
        secret appropriation for foreign intercourse, 26;
    elected President in 1808, 27;
    number of votes for, as President, 27;
    number of votes for, as Vice President, 27;
    first inaugural of, 33;
    letter to the Senate on the time of taking the oath of office, 33;
    first message to Congress, 167;
    message to first Session of Twelfth Congress, 401;
    his Message at second Session of Twelfth Congress, 567;
    elected President, 574.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2.

  MAGRUDER, PATRICK, chosen clerk of the House, 126;
    elected clerk of the House, 425.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MAGRUDER, ALLAN B., Senator from Louisiana, 569.

  MALBONE, FRANCIS, Senator from Rhode Island, 35, 116;
    decease of, 121.

  _Maritime Defence_, bill relative to, read twice in Senate, 413.

  MARION, ROBERT, Representative from South Carolina, 37, 125, 187;
    on the remission of certain fines on emigrants from Cuba, 163, 164.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MARSHALL, J., letter to Mr. King, 362.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  _Maryland_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Massachusetts_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711;
    resolutions relative to a war with Great Britain, 415.

  MASTERS, JOSIAH, Representative from New York, 37.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MATHERS, JAMES, appointed Sergeant-at-arms, by the Senate, 3;
    chosen Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate, 116.

  MATTHEWS, VINCENT, Representative from New York, 126, 188.

  MATHEWSON, ELISHA, Senator from Rhode Island, 3, 116, 166, 250.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MAXWELL, GEORGE C., Representative from New Jersey, 426.

  MCBRIDE, ARCHIBALD, Representative from North Carolina, 125, 187, 315,
        430, 577.

  MCCOY, WILLIAM, Representative from Virginia, 424, 577.

  MCCREERY, WILLIAM, Representative from Maryland, 36;
    presents petition of citizens confined in the jails at Carthagena,
        South America, 37.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MCKEE, SAMUEL, Representative from Kentucky, 125, 187, 315, 425, 580;
    on foreign relations, 456;
    against a naval establishment, 484;
    on the bill laying an embargo, 544;
    on an increase of the Navy, 600.

  MCKIM, ALEXANDER, Representative from Maryland, 124, 188, 315, 424,
        577;
    presents petition of American prisoners in Carthagena, 141;
    on Miranda's Expedition, 142;
    on the Torpedo experiment, 220;
    on reduction of the Navy, 227;
    on disbanding the master commandants in the Navy, 242;
    in favor of the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on privateer pensions, 704.

  MCKINLEY, WILLIAM, Representative from Virginia, 316.

  _Medals and Prize Money_, for the officers and crew of the
        Constitution, reported on, 593.

  _Mediterranean Trade._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  MEIGS, RETURN JONATHAN, jr., Senator from Ohio, 26, 116, 166;
    resigns his seat in the Senate, 264.

  _Memorial_, from citizens of New York relative to the embargo, &c.,
        413;
    remarks, 414.

  _Meridian, a_ first, Report on the establishment of, 222.

  _Message_ of President Jefferson at second Session of the Tenth
        Congress, 3;
    on expenses of foreign intercourse, 26;
    of President Madison at first Session of Eleventh Congress, 117;
    of President Madison at second session, Eleventh Congress, 167;
    communicating circular of F. J. Jackson, 193;
    with report of Secretary of State relative to Tombigbee and Alabama
        rivers, 213;
    of President Madison at third Session of Eleventh Congress, 251;
    confidential from the President to the Senate in secret session,
        312;
    relative to reparation for the attack on the frigate Chesapeake,
        403;
    relative to the battle of Tippecanoe, 403;
    and documents relative to the hostile policy of Great Britain, 404;
    on the Hudson River and Lake Ontario Canal, 404;
    relative to British Intrigues to dismember the Union, 408;
    relative to a temporary embargo, 410;
    relative to the battle of Tippecanoe, 466;
    with proceedings of a convention in Orleans Territory, 506;
    do. with documents relative to British intrigues, 506;
    relative to an embargo, 544;
    on affairs with Great Britain, 551;
    and documents relative to Florida, 562;
    Annual to both Houses of Congress, 567;
    communicating the capture of the Macedonian and Frolic, 570;
    and documents relative to the capture of British vessels on Lake
        Erie, 571;
    communicating captures and destruction of the Java, 574;
    with documents relative to the capture of the frigate Macedonian,
        597;
    relative to conduct of British officers to persons taken in American
        armed ships, 608;
    relative to impressed seamen, 705;
    relative to the capture of the frigate Java, 716;
    relative to the Orders in Council, 717.

  _Messages, Presidential._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  METCALF, ARUNAH, Representative from New York, 424, 577.

  MILLEDGE, JOHN, Senator from Georgia, 21;
    chosen President _pro tem._ of the Senate, 27.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  MILLER, PLEASANT M., Representative from Tennessee, 125, 187, 315;
    on the admission of the Territory of Orleans as a State, 323.

  _Military Force, additional._--_See Army._

  _Military Academy._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Militia_, arming and classing of considered, 708.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MILNOR, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187, 315,
        424, 577;
    on an extra session of Congress, 102;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 107;
    on the sale of all the gunboats, 229;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 367;
    on the protection of American seamen, 429;
    on the British intrigues, 519;
    on increased pay of the Army, 583;
    on the imprisonment of American seamen, 594, 595.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Mining Company_, bill for the incorporation of, in upper Louisiana,
        405;
    bill passed, 409.

  _Mint, establishment of._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2.

  _Miranda's Expedition._--In the House, petition of thirty-six American
        citizens confined at Carthagena, in South America, under
        sentence of slavery, 37;
    referred, 39;
    report of committee, 46;
    resolution of committee considered, 95;
    postponement moved, 95;
    lost, 95;
    an agreement on the resolution would involve the government in
        difficulty without answering any good purpose, 95;
    it would tend to prove that the government had connection with the
        expedition, 95;
    the persons had engaged themselves in foreign service, 95;
    had been taken and condemned for piracy, 95;
    appeal to humanity, 95;
    such an appeal could not involve the government, 95;
    the men had been deluded, 95;
    they had been sufficiently punished, 95;
    resolution lost, 96.

    Resolution offered, that the President take measures to effect their
        liberation if satisfied they were involuntarily drawn into the
        enterprise, 142;
    in this case to lean to the side of humanity is an act of great
        injustice and cruelty to society, 142;
    it is not a question like redeeming our brethren from slavery in
        Tripoli, but whether this government would lend its countenance
        to the class of men concerned in the expeditions of Miranda and
        Aaron Burr, 142;
    in passing this resolution we hold up a premium to vice, 142;
    no justice in the proposed interference, 143;
    a bounty should be allowed on the exportation of every man of
        similar principles, 143;
    the Spanish government never would release them until the government
        interfered, 143;
    the only money necessary was to defray the expense of bringing them
        back, 143;
    if the President has the power he has not chosen to exercise it,
        143;
    did not knowingly engage in this expedition, 143;
    they declare they did not understand the nature of the expedition,
        143;
    reasons to show this, 144;
    a judicial investigation was had in New York previous to
        embarkation, 144;
    those who enlisted the men declare they were not informed of the
        object of the expedition, 144;
    embarrassment of their situation, 144;
    if the men were guilty they should not receive the benefit of the
        interposition of government, 144;
    these appeals for mercy would apply better to the Spanish
        government, 145;
    subject of the greatest delicacy for the United States to interfere,
        145;
    statement of a lawyer, 145;
    we should place the President in a very unpleasant situation, 146;
    what has the British Government done? 146;
    have not the British subjects been liberated? 146;
    what has been the situation of Great Britain to Spain? 146;
    what connection exists between the statements that have been made
        and the merits of the case? 147;
    question lost, 147.

  _Mississippi Territory._--Memorial of Legislative Council 264;
    report on petition of citizens, 465.
    _See Territories._

  _Mississippi, free navigation of._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Missouri Territory._--_See Territories._

  MITCHELL, JOHN, letters relative to American prisoners, 705.

  MITCHILL, SAMUEL L., Senator from New York, 3;
    on the repeal of the embargo act, 16;
    Representative from New York, 315, 424, 577;
    on the ratio of representation, 317;
    makes a report on the Spanish American colonies, 436;
    on the bill to enable the people of Mississippi to form a State
        Government, 521;
    on imposing additional duties, 539;
    on the temporary embargo bill, 550;
    reports on an astronomical observatory, 705.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  MONROE, JAMES, number of votes for, as Vice President, 27.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2.

  MONTGOMERY, DANIEL, jr., Representative from Pennsylvania, 36.

  MONTGOMERY, JOHN, Representative from Maryland, 36, 125, 187, 315;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 159;
    on remission of certain fines on emigrants from Cuba, 164;
    against granting petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    reports on Bank of the United States, 215;
    against the claim of Jared Shattuck, 352.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MOORE, ANDREW, Senator from Virginia, 5;
    on the repeal of the embargo act, 11.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  MOORE, NICHOLAS B., Representative from Maryland, 36, 125, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MOORE, THOMAS, Representative from South Carolina, 53, 125, 187, 315,
        425, 577.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  MORGAN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 424, 580.

  MORROW, JEREMIAH, Representative from Ohio, 36, 125, 187, 315, 425,
        577;
    reports on the claim for military services in the old French war,
        319.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MORROW, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  MOSELY, JONATHAN O., Representative from Connecticut, 36, 124, 187,
        315, 424, 577;
    on an additional military force, 614.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Mounted Troops._--In the House, resolution presented to authorize an
        expedition of mounted volunteers against certain hostile Indian
        tribes, 579;
    the people have the will and power to extirpate these tribes or
        compel their surrender, 579;
    duty of Congress to organize this power and direct this will, 579;
    since the defeat of Braddock no campaign had been carried on with
        them suitable to bring them to reason, 579;
    experience of the past, 579;
    the work has been begun and should be completed, 580;
    subject considered, 650;
    resolutions relative to, offered, 651;
    laid on the table, 651.

  MUMFORD, GURDON S., Representative from New York, 36, 212, 316;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 49;
    opposes laying up of the frigates, 229;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 378.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.


  N

  _National University._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Naturalization Laws._--In the House, resolution relative to amending
        the law, offered, 543;
    by the law the courts are prohibited naturalizing foreigners since
        the declaration of war, 543;
    to persons who have taken their first papers the Government is
        pledged, 543;
    resolution referred, 543;
    supplementary bill introduced, 594;
    amendments offered, 594.

    _In the House._--Motion to amend considered, 715;
    motion lost, 715;
    section depriving of his right any one who leaves the country for
        two years, lost, 715;
    bill ordered to be engrossed, 715;
    passage opposed, 715;
    bill recommitted, 715.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2.

  _Naturalized Citizens._--Petition for protection, 574.

  _Naval Establishment._--Bill relative to, read third time in the
        Senate, 176.

    _In the House._--Bill to employ an additional number of seamen and
        marines, considered; amendments propose immediate arming and
        manning all the armed vessels, 97;
    President already authorized to fit out these vessels when the
        public service requires, 97;
    if no occasion exists, the expense is a sufficient argument against
        it, 97;
    take six months to prepare our ships, 97;
    they are rotting now at the docks, 97;
    if out at sea they might be useful, 97;
    a naval force, the most effectual protection to our seaports, 97;
    however small our naval force it should not be undervalued, 97;
    a war with Great Britain could be carried on only by distressing her
        trade, 97;
    if we had a navy it would furnish the strongest temptation to attack
        our seaports, 98;
    moved to refer amendments of the Senate to a committee of the whole,
        98;
    motion lost, 98;
    no estimate accompanies this bill, 98;
    this House as much right to judge of the force requisite as any
        other department, 98;
    advantages that will accrue to the nation from a few fast-sailing
        frigates, 98;
    what defence a few frigates would be could not be understood, 98;
    our power of coercion is not on the ocean, 98;
    sufficient evidence in history to warn the United States against a
        naval force, 98;
    facts bearing on the case, 98;
    economy is good in time of peace, but not for war, 99;
    it is shocking doctrine that this country ought to have a navy
        competent to cope with a detachment of the British navy, 99;
    England now sole mistress of the ocean, 99;
    as well think of embarking a hundred thousand men to attack France
        on her soil, as of building ships enough to oppose the British
        navy, 99;
    the question is whether we will call into actual service the little
        navy we possess, 99;
    those attempting to argue in favor of this measure involve
        themselves in absurdities, 99;
    these absurdities exposed, 99;
    not wealth enough in this whole nation if each should give his all,
        to maintain our rights against Great Britain, 100;
    at the close of the Revolutionary war we had but one frigate, and
        the best thing we did was to give that away, 100;
    the insult at Savannah, 100;
    would it be good policy to let our means of carrying on war on the
        ocean rot at our docks? 100;
    why then should they not be manned? 100;
    the expense of this measure will compel Congress to borrow money,
        100;
    disadvantages of loans, 100;
    on the score of protection to trade it is not proper to fit out a
        navy, 101;
    this proposition a mere entering wedge, 101;
    causes an extension of Executive patronage which should be limited,
        101;
    nothing in the nature of the Government or foreign relations to
        require a navy, 101;
    not now discussing the propriety of raising a naval force for
        offensive purposes, 101;
    an invasion, whether on land or water, touches equally the
        life-blood of every man, 101.

    _In the House._--Bill to reduce the naval force read in committee,
        227;
    moved to strike out so much as provides that all the frigates but
        three shall be sold, 228;
    moved to strike out the whole section, 228;
    the navy should be put on the footing of the peace establishment,
        228;
    reform in the expenditure desired, 228;
    other amendments proposed, 228;
    motion to insert Washington as a place for a navy yard carried, 229;
    indefinite postponement moved, 229;
    withdrawn, 229;
    question to strike out so much as orders the sale of all the
        gunboats, 229;
    mortifying to witness the events unfolding in the Old World, and the
        paralyzing system going on in this country, 229;
    some system should be adopted for the protection of our commerce,
        229;
    "millions for defence, not a cent for tribute," 229;
    the vessels should be fitted out, 230;
    motion to place the navy on the footing of 1806, 230;
    the system of the navy yards requires a thorough reform, 230;
    mode of equipment referred to, 230;
    a reform in the expense, not the abolition of the navy, was the
        great desideratum, 230;
    what appearance would the passage of this bill present to the world,
        after the resolutions adopted at the commencement of the
        session? 230;
    the _terrapin_ policy, 231;
    no one can be insensible to the necessity of protection, 231;
    consider the immense space exposed, 231;
    the navy is at present sufficiently reduced, 231;
    it is asked, what has the navy done? 231;
    not that want of system at the navy yards which is complained of,
        232;
    the smaller vessels are in perfect repair, 232;
    what mighty good has the army done by land? 232;
    the effects of a naval force upon Cornwallis, 232;
    the people of the United States are destined to become a great naval
        power, 232;
    object of the present reduction is to enable the Government to
        dispense with loans and taxes, 233;
    nothing can so tend to strangle the infant Hercules of the American
        navy, as the injudicious manner in which that power has been
        attempted to be brought into action, 233;
    the revenue necessary for a naval establishment is founded on
        commercial greatness, 233;
    but we have changed and perverted all this, 233;
    whence come these proceedings which we find? 233;
    the reduction will not do any effectual service, 234;
    comparative expenses of the navy under the several administrations,
        235;
    expenses of the marine corps, 236;
    expenses of the navy yards, 236;
    annual cost of a seaman, 236;
    arguments considered, 237;
    is it necessary to continue this establishment in its present state?
        238;
    when the United States had forty sail afloat and eight thousand
        seamen, they had no navy yards, 238;
    our duty to commence a thorough investigation, 239;
    examinations of the committee, 239;
    repairs of the vessels, 239;
    naval equipments, 239;
    motion to strike out so much as orders the sale of all the frigates
        but three, lost, 240;
    section relative to dismissal of seamen lost, 240.

    Motion to strike out the section which reduces the marine corps
        considered, 240;
    former price of rations, 240;
    proportion of mariners to seamen, 240;
    who are the true friends of the Administration? 240;
    section stricken out, 242;
    motion to amend so as to disband the master commandants, 242;
    reasons asked for, 242;
    the proposition is preposterous, 242;
    never been any reason assigned for the creation of these officers,
        242;
    this amendment called submission to the belligerents, 242;
    our situation requires a war speech against somebody, 243;
    well if our relative expenditures could be brought back to Mr.
        Adams' Administration, 243;
    amendments proposed, 244;
    save an expenditure of near a million dollars, 244;
    the original bill in a different form, 244;
    amendment proposed to limit the number of seamen to fifteen hundred,
        245;
    this retrenchment in the navy will end in smoke, 245;
    Adams' Administration made the only reform ever made in the naval
        establishment, 245;
    reduction made by the act of 1801, 245;
    proceedings in 1806, 245;
    further debate, 246;
    amendment moved, 247;
    lost, 247;
    original amendment passed, 247.

    _In the Senate._--The bill relative to an increase of the navy
        considered, 405;
    amendment proposed, authorizing the President to cause to be built,
        as soon as possible, a blank number of frigates, 405;
    offered from a sense of duty to support the dignity, protect the
        rights, and advance the best interests of the country, 406;
    if it be not the purpose of the Government to engage in an open,
        actual, efficient war, or to place the nation in such a complete
        state of defence as to avert war from our readiness to meet it,
        then some of the measures of the present session are not only
        inexcusable, but nearly treasonable, 406;
    what was the consequence of the course of the Government in 1793?
        406;
    look at the case of the war with Tripoli, 406;
    then followed the decrees, 406;
    commerce has been abandoned, 406;
    what was the leading object of the adoption of the Federal
        Constitution in the northern parts of the Union? emphatically to
        protect commerce, 406;
    the only money paid into the Treasury which can justly be placed to
        the exclusive credit of the commerce, is the sum retained in
        commerce; how, then, has she done every thing for the
        Government? 407;
    who are most interested in commerce; the growers of the articles, or
        the factors, or freighters employed in their exchange? 407;
    exports of foreign productions constitutes a commerce which is the
        legitimate offspring of war, and expires with the first dawnings
        of peace, 408;
    it is prosecuted chiefly by commercial cities east and north of the
        Potomac, 408;
    a navy can injure commerce, but cannot afford it protection, unless
        it annihilates the naval force of the adverse nation, 408;
    these frigates are to be employed in destroying the commerce of the
        enemy, and not in fighting her armed vessels, according to the
        representations of gentlemen, 408;
    bill concerning the Naval establishment considered, 477;
    moved to fill the blank of the first section with $480,000; a great
        question, involving, in this subject, to a considerable extent,
        the fate of a species of national defence, the most essential
        and necessary, 478;
    if the infant Naval establishment is put down, the majority of this
        House run a great risk of becoming the minority, 478;
    it has been said this country is a great land animal, which should
        not venture into the water, 478;
    the ocean is the farm of a great portion of our people, 478;
    we are now going to war, to protect their rights, 478;
    if Great Britain had not the Canadas on our border, how could we
        attack or resist her? 478;
    the Naval establishment has been too much neglected, 478;
    the committee ask what this House will do, principally toward
        establishing and perpetuating a respectable naval force, for the
        protection of the rights of the people exposed on the ocean,
        478;
    the adoption of a respectable Naval establishment is deemed improper
        on the grounds of its enormous expense, and the inability of the
        nation to resist with effect, the immense naval power of Great
        Britain, 478;
    its expense during eighteen years, 479;
    an examination of the figures and statements, 479;
    the average annual expense is little more than twice the amount of
        our economical civil list, 479;
    less expensive than the military establishment, 479;
    compare the service of the army with that of the navy, 479;
    if the expenses have been extravagant, there is an opportunity
        through experience, to reform the abuse, 479;
    a naval force the cheapest defence, 479;
    compare its expense with that of permanent fortifications, 479;
    the force proposed is sufficient to protect us on our own seas, and
        defend our ports and harbors against the naval power of Great
        Britain, 479;
    such is the opinion of naval men, 479;
    a triple force will be required by the enemy to put himself on a
        footing of equality with that of the United States, 480;
    the force sent here must be relieved every three months, 480;
    Halifax is the only suitable port Great Britain has on this coast,
        480;
    great misconception on the subject of the British naval force, 480;
    this force examined, 480;
    only a limited number of ships can be directed by her towards a
        given point, 480;
    her seamen, also, are limited, 480;
    her pecuniary resources are limited, 480;
    what number of vessels is she practically able to keep in
        commission? 480;
    some oppose this bill, lest we should become too great a naval
        power, 481;
    but a navy is said to be anti-republican, 481;
    we are told that navies have ruined every nation that has employed
        them, 481;
    objections to the bill, 481;
    after the war is over, the navy will remain, 482;
    the army will be disbanded, 482;
    it is inexpedient to commence a permanent naval establishment, 482;
    we are unprepared for it, 482;
    we cannot protect our commerce on the ocean, 482;
    the expenses of a Naval establishment exceed the profits which arise
        from the commerce it protects, 483;
    these expenses are a serious objection, 483;
    what has the nation benefited for the past enormous expenditure?
        483;
    details of the expenditure at the Washington Navy Yard, 483;
    a navy will be the means of exciting many wars, 483;
    consider the fate of all nations who have been famous for their
        navies, 483;
    Great Britain must sink under the heavy pressure, 484;
    our vessels may only tend to swell the present catalogue of the
        British Navy, 484;
    small ships are proper for the service of the United States, 484;
    if we proceed to build a Naval establishment, it may affect the
        destinies of this nation to the latest posterity, 484;
    this nation is not inevitably destined to become a great naval
        power, 484;
    reasons why a permanent establishment will prove ruinous, 484;
    the proposed establishment cannot be maintained, without permanent
        internal taxes and a constant increase of public debt, 484;
    navies have never been considered adequate to the complete
        protection of commerce, 484;
    the situation of Europe is in all respects different from ours, 485;
    instructions of the Virginia Legislature to their Senators in
        Congress, in 1801, 485;
    establish a navy and this country may bid farewell to peace, 485;
    our little navy has already contributed much towards the irritation
        which exists between us and England, 486;
    the object in view is as ruinous to the finances of the people as it
        will be destructive to the peace of the nation, 486;
    since the political revolution in 1801, the question of building a
        navy has never before been presented directly to the
        consideration of Congress, 486;
    the United States cannot maintain a navy without oppression to the
        great mass of the community in the persons of tax-gatherers,
        486;
    the system as well as the expense objected to, 486;
    _note_, 486;
    the people will not support such a naval establishment, 487;
    the advocates of a navy need not expect to cover the deformity and
        danger of the system, by telling the people they are the friends
        to the protection of commerce, 487;
    the division of sentiment in the delegations from different States,
        487;
    search for examples in ancient and modern history, 487;
    has the navy of Britain ever been confined to the protection of her
        lawful commerce? 488;
    the report has assumed principles as erroneous as they are novel,
        488;
    maritime commerce has only a coeval right of protection with other
        objects; still the greatest means and resources of the
        Government have been devoted to its protection, 488;
    it is asked how we shall contend with a maritime nation, without a
        navy? objections to the object in view answered, 489;
    the nature of commerce, 489;
    the value of commerce has been strangely misunderstood, 489;
    but we have determined to defend it, 490;
    we must employ the cheapest and most efficacious means of hostility
        we possess, 490;
    if it is absurd to protect commerce by a navy, how much more so by
        an army, which costs more than a navy, 490;
    the strongest recommendation of a navy to free governments has been
        that it was capable of defending, but not of enslaving, 490;
    a navy, it is said, would terminate in an aristocracy or a minority,
        490;
    the constitution was formed by the union of independent States, that
        the strength of the whole might be employed for the protection
        of every part, 490;
    an army the States can have without the Union, but an adequate navy
        they cannot, 490;
    the experience of the world, 491;
    expenses of the navy, 491;
    it is said our resources are insufficient for its equipment, 491;
    the bill embraces two objects, 492;
    one relates to the repairs and equipment of the ships in service;
        the other contemplates building ten additional frigates, and
        laying the foundation of a new Naval establishment, 492;
    as an abstract question, it is for the interest of the United States
        to begin the establishment, 492;
    this proved by its connection with the great and essential interests
        of the country, 492;
    commerce springs from our agriculture, and must be protected, 493;
    while England and France have been contending for the mastery, we,
        with a suitable naval force and strict neutrality, might have
        pursued a gainful trade, 493;
    this question must have an influence on our destiny favorable if
        decided negatively, and adverse if decided affirmatively, 493;
    the constitution is not imperative with regard to regulating and
        protecting commerce, 494;
    the general principles and remote consequences upon which this
        question has been considered, 494;
    how it is proposed to protect commerce, 495;
    from a naval power have flowed the most copious streams of human
        misery, 495;
    the plunder of half the world has not sustained the British Navy,
        495;
    a diversity of opinions has always existed on this subject, 496;
    extraordinary that so much unreasonable jealousy should exist in
        regard to a Naval establishment, 496;
    the source of alarm is in ourselves, 497;
    abundant security in the nature of our Government against abuse,
        497;
    what maritime strength is it expedient to provide for the United
        States? 497;
    three different degrees of power present themselves, 497;
    these degrees considered, 497;
    views of Col. Daviess, 498;
    _note_, 498;
    what was folly in 1798 may be wisdom now, 498;
    blank filled with $100,000, 498;
    bill reported to the House, 498;
    question on filling the blank for repairing with $480,000, it was
        carried, 498;
    question on agreeing to the report of the committee to strike out
        the section which contemplated building new frigates, 499;
    the time inauspicious to begin a navy, 499;
    our ships probably fall a prey to the superior force of England,
        499;
    the necessity and duty of a systematic protection of our maritime
        rights by maritime means, 499;
    interest is our only sure and permanent bond of union, 499;
    the national protection of our essential interests will be
        undertaken by the States if it is not by Congress, 499;
    the nature of the interest to be protected, and the nature of the
        protection to be extended, 500;
    the locality of the interest, 500;
    it is the leading interest of more than one-half, and the
        predominant interest of more than one-third of the Union, 500;
    comparison of our commerce with that of Great Britain, 501;
    the permanency of this interest exhibits the folly and madness of
        its neglect, 501;
    as to the nature of the protection, rights in their nature local can
        only be maintained where they exist, and not where they do not
        exist, 502;
    the nature and degree of maritime protection, and our capacity to
        extend it, 502;
    our exertions should be extended rather than graduated by the
        present exigency, 502;
    there can be no mistake touching the branch of interest most
        precious to commercial men, 502;
    some difference of opinion may arise touching the nature and extent
        of this naval force, 503;
    is it a want of pecuniary or physical capacity? 503;
    this policy will produce confidence at home and respect abroad, 503;
    effect of the opposite policy, 503;
    a navy never had and never could protect our commerce, 504;
    every nation which has embarked in a naval establishment has
        eventually been crushed by it, 504;
    the embarrassments of our commerce are not owing to a want of a
        navy, 504;
    this establishment proposed could not be supported but by a ruinous
        expense, 504;
    question on striking out carried, 504;
    amendments offered to procure a dockyard, and to build four
        frigates, 505;
    do. lost, 505;
    bill ordered to a third reading, 505.

    _In the House._--Bill from the Senate considered, 599;
    moved to add the word "teen," to "four," making fourteen gunships,
        599;
    time to try the question whether we are to have a navy, 599;
    British arms cannot withstand American on the seas, 599;
    four seventy-fours are mere mockery, 599;
    can easily support such a force 599.

    Should guard against being carried too far by the current of popular
        opinion, 599;
    should authorize that force which can be prepared at the shortest
        notice, 599;
    for what purpose are these ships to be built? 600;
    where is your commerce to protect? 600;
    the object of these vessels, then, is to fight your battles, 600;
    moved to strike out all relating to seventy-fours, 601;
    to introduce these ships would fix the policy of a navy upon the
        Government, 601;
    scene in the British metropolis, 601;
    if in view of recent events a navy is not sustained, its case is
        hopeless, 601;
    the constitution settles the policy of a navy, 601;
    seventy-fours as compared with smaller vessels for service, 602;
    protection due to every right, best mode to effect it, 603;
    importance of a naval force attested on record, 603;
    facts which we have in the case, 603;
    is it for an infant nation to be deterred by a want of preparation?
        603;
    what were the preparations for the Revolutionary war? 603;
    a naval force the cheapest the nation can resort to for defence and
        protection, 604;
    cost of the force, 604;
    the different kinds of vessels proposed, 604;
    the question is whether it is best to build any ships of the line or
        to confine our efforts to frigates, 605;
    the objects for their employment to be considered, 605;
    ships better for battle, frigates and sloops for cruisers, 605;
    as we have no powerful ships, England can easily protect by convoy
        all her valuable fleets, 605;
    it is said these ships would be blockaded, 605;
    we are in a prepared state to build seventy-fours, 606;
    motion to strike out seventy-fours negatived, 606;
    motion to strike out seventy-fours, and insert frigates and sloops,
        carried, 606;
    question on the passage of the bill, 609;
    a navy will cost more than it ever will be worth to the nation, 609;
    a kind of popular delusion at this time about a navy, 609;
    further objections, 610;
    bill passed, 610.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Navigation Laws._--In the House, resolutions relative to vessels
        coming from ports to which our vessels cannot go and also
        sea-letter vessels offered, 188;
    motion to refer to Committee on Commerce, 188;
    investigation, the object of the resolutions, 188;
    character of the propositions such as to require it, 188;
    they are founded on permanent principles, to which the nation may
        adhere in every alternative, 188;
    reference carried, 189.

  _Negroes, Kidnapping of._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  NELSON, HUGH, Representative from Virginia, 424, 577;
    on rules and orders of the House, 471;
    presents the petition of citizens of Louisiana Territory, 474;
    on the temporary embargo bill, 547.

  NELSON, ROGER, Representative from Maryland, 37, 125, 187;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 72;
    presents a bill authorizing an increased naval force, 84;
    favors the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95;
    reports on petition of officers of the Revolution, 212.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Neutral Rights, violation of._--In the House, resolutions submitted,
        which are designed to vindicate the commercial rights of the
        United States against belligerents of Europe, 189;
    their introduction not inconsistent with the most friendly
        negotiation, 189;
    high time these rights were vindicated or abandoned, 189;
    upon what principles do the belligerents pretend to justify these
        commercial restrictions? 189;
    not the true principle, 189;
    what principles are more specifically asserted by Great Britain?
        189;
    the right to blockade by proclamation, 189;
    the only principle we recognize, 190;
    this right founded on the most arbitrary power, 190;
    have we not the same right as Great Britain to prohibit trade? 190;
    objected, that the adoption of the resolutions would lead to
        hostility, 190;
    the resolutions, 190;
    laid on the table, 191.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  NEW, ANTHONY, Representative from Kentucky, 424, 577;
    on the claim of Matthew Lyon, 426.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2,3.

  NEWBOLD, THOMAS, Representative from New Jersey, 36, 124, 187, 319,
        424, 577.

  _New Hampshire._--Vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _New Jersey._--Vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Newspapers._--Three daily ordered for the House, 425.

  NEWTON, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 315, 424,
        577;
    on additional revenue cutters, 47, 48;
    on permitting Swedish and Portuguese vessels to land, 127;
    on the remission of certain fines on emigrants from Cuba, 164;
    against a committee on manufactures, 193;
    relative to the conduct of the British Minister, 206;
    reports on the mortality of the troops near New Orleans, 247;
    on laying additional duties, 431.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  _New York._--Vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  NICHOLAS, WILSON CARY, Representative from Virginia, 37, 141;
    on the proceedings on counting the electoral votes, 105;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 109.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  NICHOLSON, JOHN, Representative from New York, 124, 188, 319.

  _Non-Exportation, Temporary._--Bill passed Senate, 411.

  _Non-Exportation in Foreign Bottoms._--In the House, the bill to
        prohibit the exportation, &c. of certain articles considered,
        719;
    bill is not what it professes to be, 719;
    it denies commerce to neutrals, 719;
    merely calculated to produce vexation and embarrassment at home,
        719;
    what are the intentions and objects of the bill as stated? 720;
    only a part of a contemplated system of non-exportation, 721;
    certain articles struck out, 722.

  _Non-Importation_, suspension of, report on, 713.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Non-Intercourse._--_See Intercourse._

  _North Carolina_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.


  O

  _Oaths._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Observatory_, astronomical report on, 705.

  _Ohio._--Vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Ohio State Government._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Officers of the Revolution_, report on petition of, 212.

  _Officers, removal of._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Offices, plurality of._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  ORMSBY, STEPHEN, Representative from Kentucky, 442, 577.

  _Ordinance of 1787, action of Indiana._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Orleans Territory._--_See Territories._


  P

  PARKER, NAHUM, Senator from New Hampshire, 3, 116, 166;
    resigns his seat in the Senate, 250.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  PEARSON, JOSEPH, Representative from North Carolina, 126, 187, 315,
        425, 577;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 390;
    on an additional military force, 618.

  _Pennsylvania._--Vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Pennsylvania Insurgents._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Petitions, reception of._--_See Index_, vol. 2, & _Slavery_, vol. 1.

  PICKENS, ISRAEL, Representative from North Carolina, 425, 577;
    on Indian Affairs, 428.

  PICKERING, TIMOTHY, Senator from Massachusetts, 3, 116, 166, 250;
    on the repeal of the embargo act, 21;
    on incorporating a bank of the United States, 302.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  PICKMAN, BENJAMIN, jr., Representative from Mass., 124, 197, 319;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 160;
    moves to postpone the resolution relative to the apportionment of
        Representation, 224.

  PIKE, CAPT. Z. M., bill making compensation to, 96.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  PINCKNEY, C. C., number of votes for, as President, 27.

  PIPER, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 424, 703.

  PITKIN, TIMOTHY, jr., Representative from Connecticut, 36, 124, 187,
        315, 424, 577;
    against immediate engrossment of the bill relative to the power of
        territorial governments, 40;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    reports on the establishment of a first meridian, 222;
    on the ratio of representation, 317;
    on the admission of the territory of Orleans as a State, 326;
    against the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 397;
    on rules and orders of the House, 472;
    on the British intrigues, 515;
    on French spoliations, 526;
    on pay of the Army, 588;
    on an additional military force, 623.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  PLEASANTS, JAMES, jr., Representative from Virginia, 424, 577;
    presents memorial of inhabitants of St. Louis, 434;
    on an additional military force, 617.

  POINDEXTER, GEORGE, delegate from Mississippi, 36, 126, 187, 319, 425,
        578;
    reports a bill relative to the power of territorial governments, 39;
    proposes to have the bill engrossed at once, for a third reading,
        39, 40;
    on territorial government for Mississippi, 42;
    on the petition for a division of the Mississippi territory, 141;
    on the admission of the territory of Orleans as a State, 325;
    in favor of Mississippi being admitted into the Union, 352;
    on Indian affairs, 428;
    on the bill to enable the people of Mississippi to form a State
        government, 519;
    on the admission of Louisiana, 523.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  POND, BENJAMIN, Representative from New York, 424, 577.

  POPE, JOHN, Senator from Kentucky, 3, 118, 166, 250, 400, 570;
    on the repeal of the Embargo act, 7;
    on the enforcement of the Embargo, 26;
    on the occupation of Florida, 253;
    on incorporating a bank of the United States, 285;
    on a recess of Congress, 412.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  PORTER, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187, 316.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  PORTER, PETER B., Representative from New York, 124, 187, 316, 424,
        705;
    on the Bank of the United States, 343;
    reports relative to the continuance of the charter of the United
        States Bank, 398;
    on Foreign Relations, 432;
    on the bill laying an Embargo, 546.

  POTTER, ELISHA R., Representative from Rhode Island, 124, 187, 315,
        430;
    on imposing additional duties, 542;
    on an increase of the Navy, 609.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  POSEY, THOMAS, Senator from Louisiana, 570.

  _Postage of Newspapers._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Post Office._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Potomac River, Bridge._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  POYDRAS, JULIEN, Delegate from the Orleans Territory, 141, 187, 315;
    on the Batture at New Orleans, 148, 149.

  PREBLE, Commodore, letter of the Secretary of the Navy relative to a
        gold medal for, 610.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Presents to Ministers._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Presidency, Vacancy in._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _President_, certificate of election of, 27.

  _Presidential Election_, certificate of, 574.

  _Presidential Election in Massachusetts._--In House, resolution
        relative to the mode in which it was conducted, 105;
    the present course will make no difference in the result, but it
        should induce the House to consider the propriety of providing
        some mode of distinguishing between legal and illegal elections,
        105.

  _Previous Question._--In the House, amendment offered to the rules,
        that when the previous question is ordered to be taken, upon the
        motion in question being put, every member who has not spoken
        shall be at liberty to speak once, 468;
    this secures to every member the right to speak at least once on
        every question, 468;
    what is to justify this measure of imposing silence? it is said the
        right of debate has been abused, 468;
    the majority insist that the rule will not be abused, 469;
    neither the journals of State Legislatures nor the laws of
        Parliament offered examples for this arbitrary proceeding, 469;
    there is a difference between the freedom of debate and the abuse of
        it when you cannot get a decision without an exertion of
        physical strength, 469;
    this has been our course several times, 469;
    a debate is often prolonged to prevent a decision, 469;
    if the majority abuse this responsibility, the people will correct
        it, 469.

    If the majority do not possess it under the constitution, it should
        not be given to them, 469;
    the rule deserves the character of a _Gag-law_ more than the
        sedition law ever did, 469;
    this question affects the essential principles of civil liberty, and
        saps its hopes at the very foundation, 469;
    the ground taken by those who oppose this proposition is, its
        necessity and convenience, 469;
    these are the points which should be most vigilantly guarded, 469;
    the subject is in some respects difficult to manage, 469;
    a feeling in and out of the House unpropitious to an impartial
        debate, 469;
    what is that principle of civil liberty which is amalgamated and
        identified with the very existence of a legislative body? 469;
    the right of every individual member is in fact the right of his
        constituents, 470;
    let not any man say this power will not be abused, 470;
    the right to speak is an individual right, limit it as you please,
        consistent with its single exercise, 470;
    it is not true that this power ever was, or ever can be, necessary
        in a legislative body, 470;
    it may be sometimes convenient, 471;
    the haste and clatter which always attends the close of a session is
        urged in favor of this measure, 471;
    should a member, on great questions, be denied the privilege of
        speaking? 471;
    to interdict the freedom of speech is a violation of right, 471;
    freedom of speech is secured by the constitution, 472;
    shall we be deprived of it when we come to this House? 472;
    this rule has always been in practice, 472;
    the principle is, that a majority at any time in this House can, by
        calling the previous question, cut off all debate, 472;
    a new construction was given at the close of last session, by which
        this rule, which it is proposed to amend, was adopted, 472;
    no such power ever before the last session exercised over the
        members, 472;
    see Journal of the first session of the Third Congress, 472;
    reason of the introduction of the previous question, 473;
    no necessity for it exists, 473;
    amendment lost, 474;
    further amendment proposed, 474;
    rules adopted, 474;
    _note_, 474.

  _Privateers_, encouragement to--petition of citizens of New York for a
        reduction of duties on prizes, 578;
    bill for encouragement of, 580.

    _Captures_, petition relative to, 594;
    a bill relating to captures, 606;
    do. regulating pensions to persons on board private armed ships,
        607;
    duties on privateer prize goods, report on, 607;
    documents referred to in the report, 607;
    bill granting a bounty to, considered, 719;
    passed, 719.

    _In the House._--Bill to compensate officers and crew of our public
        vessels, for vessels of the enemy necessarily destroyed at sea,
        703;
    bill grows out of the case of the Guerriere and Constitution, 703;
    principles of the hill unprecedented in any country, 703;
    bill defended on the ground of expediency and precedent, 704;
    inexpedient and unprecedented, 704.

    _In the House._--Bill to provide pensions for persons disabled in
        private armed vessels, 704;
    improper to adopt a principle so liable to abuse, 704;
    a per cent. of wages had been, heretofore, reserved to provide a
        fund for this object, 704;
    important services rendered by privateers, 704;
    doubtful, 704;
    bill recommitted, 705;
    report on, 712.

    _In the House._--Bill to encourage by remitting all claim to duties
        on captured goods, 716;
    private armed vessels, encouragement of, bill for the, passed, 716.

  _Proceedings, confidential_, in the Senate, 415.

  _Protective duties._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Pro tem. appointment, duration of._--In the Senate, will an
        appointment under a State executive to represent a State in the
        Senate, cease on the first day of the meeting of the
        Legislature, considered, 118;
    resolution submitted, 121;
    amendment moved and lost, 121;
    resolution passed, 121.

  _Public credit_, bill to provide for the support of, passed, 122.

  _Public lands_, report on the cash system, 611.

  _Public lands._--_See Index_, vols. I, 2, 3.

  PUGH, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.


  Q

  _Quakers, memorial of._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Quartermaster's Department._--In the House, a bill for the
        establishment of, from the Senate, came up for its third
        reading, 476;
    no necessity for this office, and that of a Purveyor of public
        supplies, 477;
    the great object is to provide for a Quartermaster-General's
        department, instead of military agents, as employed at present,
        477;
    these agents, without much responsibility, had nearly controlled the
        whole war department, 477;
    the duties of Quartermaster-General and Purveyor are very different,
        477;
    the former is next in consequence to the Commander-in-chief, every
        movement of the army is first communicated to him, 477;
    if not a Purveyor of supplies during the Revolutionary war, there
        was a clothier, who did nearly the same business, 477;
    impossible to go to war without a Quartermaster-General, 477;
    bill passed, 477.

  QUINCY, JOSIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 187, 316,
        424, 581;
    on resolution relative to amending the act laying an embargo, 41;
    on voting twelve additional revenue cutters, 48;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 49, 56;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 107;
    relative to prosecutions for libel, 134;
    on the call on the President for papers, 192;
    on the conduct of the British minister, 197;
    on the Torpedo experiment, 220;
    favors postponement of resolution relative to the apportionment of
        representation, 224;
    offers a resolution relative to Col. Washington, 226;
    on the ratio of representation, 318;
    on the admission of the territory of Orleans as a State, 327;
    against the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 370;
    on laying additional duties, 431;
    on rules and orders of the House, 469;
    on a Quartermaster's department, 477;
    in favor of a Naval establishment, 499;
    on the British intrigues, 516;
    on the temporary embargo bill, 547;
    on the temporary embargo bill, 548;
    moves an amendment to the bill declaring war with Great Britain,
        559;
    on the pay of the army, 585;
    on the policy of the war, 628;
    on encouragement to privateer captures, 704;
    on non-importation in foreign bottoms, 722.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.


  R

  RANDOLPH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 37, 125, 217, 425, 580;
    on proceedings on counting electoral votes, 105;
    on counting blank ballots, 125;
    on a vote of approbation of the conduct of the Executive, 127;
    on postponing do., 129;
    on Miranda's Expedition, 142, 146;
    on the Batture at New Orleans, 149;
    offers a resolution relative to the decease of Colonel Washington,
        225;
    reports a bill for the reduction of the Naval establishment, 227;
    on the future Naval establishment, 232;
    on the reduction of the Marine corps, 240;
    on disbanding the master commandants, 242;
    on reduction of the Navy, 245;
    on the claim of Matthew Lyon, 426;
    on the expenditure of public money, 429;
    against the bill for the Government of the territory of Louisiana,
        430;
    on foreign relations, 434, 436, 462;
    on mode of relief of Caraccas, 532;
    on the bill laying a temporary embargo, 545, 546;
    on pay of the Army, 590;
    on the imprisonment of American seamen, 595, 596;
    on an additional military force, 681.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  _Rangers for the Frontier_, bill to raise passed in the Senate, 404.

  REA, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  REED, PHILIP, Senator from Maryland, 3, 121, 168, 250, 400, 569.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  REED, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 424, 580.

  _Report_, on the petition of citizens engaged in Miranda's expedition,
        and confined in the jails at Carthagena, 47;
    in Senate relative to foreign armed vessels, 122;
    of Secretary of Treasury relative to barred claims, 188;
    on the letter of I. A. Coles, 204;
    on claim of Elizabeth Hamilton, 212;
    on the claim of Alexander Scott, for Indian depredations, 217;
    on the mortality of the troops at Terre aux Boeuf, 247;
    on the conduct of General Wilkinson, 248;
    on extending charter of the bank, 311;
    on the claim of General Wilkinson, 312;
    on the claim for services in the old French war, 319;
    on the Spanish American colonies, 436;
    with amendments to the report on memorial of Legislative council of
        Mississippi for admission as a State, 465;
    relative to the pay of the officers and soldiers of the battle of
        Tippecanoe, 475;
    on sundry divorces in the district of Columbia, 505;
    on the disclosures of John Henry, 524;
    _note_, 525;
    relative to the Cumberland Road, 530;
    relative to the conduct of Judge Toulmin, 533;
    on an Astronomical observatory, 705;
    relative to amending the act for the Government of the Missouri
        Territory, 707;
    on the suspension of non-importation, 713.

  _Representation, ratio of._--In the House, resolution to apportion one
        Representative to forty-five thousand inhabitants offered, 224;
    motion to postpone, 224;
    better be decided at the next session, 224;
    better to decide the ratio now than after the result of the census
        was known, 224;
    if a law is now passed, the fractions would cause an alteration,
        224;
    this is an attempt to settle a principle before the facts are known,
        224;
    if postponed till after the census and a particular ratio should
        suit the three large States, they would carry it without regard
        to fractions in the small States, 224;
    if made now it will enable the Legislatures to district the States,
        224;
    extreme difficulty in settling it after the results of the census
        were known, 225;
    its settlement heretofore had ended in a bargain between the members
        from the different States, 225;
    laid on the table, 225;
    question on filling the blank with the number of souls which should
        entitle to a Representative, 316;
    it should be filled before the result of the census is known, 316;
    better if the bill declare that the House should consist of a
        certain number of members to be apportioned hereafter, 316;
    a very important bill fixing the construction of a provision of the
        constitution, 317;
    important considerations in favor of a large number, 317;
    the present Congress may fix the ratio, but it will not be
        obligatory upon the next Congress, 318;
    the bill premature, 318;
    violation of the constitution to pass this bill, 318;
    it establishes a ratio which must be abortive, 318;
    the apportionment must be according to the numbers in each State,
        318;
    the numbers are as yet unknown, 318;
    idea of its unconstitutionality unwarranted, 318;
    bill fixes only the ratio, 318;
    object of declaring the ratio is that the State Legislatures may
        proceed to district their States, 318;
    postponement opposed, 319;
    postponement urged, 319;
    bill laid on the table, 319;
    question on filling the blank for the number of inhabitants to a
        Representation, 432;
    37,000 moved, 432;
    bill ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 432.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2.

  _Reprisals on British Commerce._--Amendments to the bill declaring
        war, 416.

  _Resignation, does it cause a Vacancy?_--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Resolution._--To. repeal the embargo act, 5;
    relative to counting Electoral votes, 27;
    relative to the time of the meeting of the House, 36;
    relative to the expediency of continuing the embargo, 41;
    relative to citizens engaged in Miranda's expedition, 47;
    relative to submission to the late edicts of England and France, 48;
    relative to copies of public documents, 56;
    relative to admission of British vessels in American ports, 94;
    do., passed, 94;
    relative to immediate measures for public defence, 95;
    relative to counting Electoral votes, 105;
    relative to petitions respecting the Presidential election in
        Massachusetts, 105;
    of thanks to Speaker Varnum, 114;
    relative to the decease of Senator Malbone, 121;
    relative to exiled Cubans and their slaves, 121, 122;
    relative to prosecutions for libel, 133;
    relative to the decease of Senator Malbone, 141;
    relative to the liberation of American prisoners confined at
        Carthagena, 142;
    on decease of Samuel White, 168;
    relative to the conduct of the British Minister, 169;
    relative to demands on Great Britain, 179;
    do., withdrawn, 179;
    relative to publishing the laws of Louisiana in the English
        language, 184;
    relative to barred claims, 186;
    relative to the navigation laws, 188;
    on the violation of neutral rights, 189;
    relative to the batture at New Orleans, 191;
    calling on the President for papers, 192;
    for the appointment of a committee of manufactures, 189;
    vote on, 193;
    relative to trade to the Baltic, 206;
    relative to a Bank of the United States, 216;
    relative to the establishment of a first meridian, 223;
    relative to apportionment of representation, 224;
    relative to the decease of Col. Washington, 225;
    relative to secrecy in the Senate, 313;
    confidential from the House, 314;
    amendments to do., 314;
    on an amendment to the constitution relative to the removal of
        federal judges, 352;
    of thanks to Speaker Varnum, 399;
    relative to the burning of Richmond theatre, 404;
    relative to British intrigues, &c., 409;
    relative to the decease of Vice President George Clinton, 412;
    relative to a recess of Congress, 412;
    relative to the accounts of Gen. Wilkinson, 414;
    on the bill declaring war, 416;
    authorizing the President to address a proclamation to the
        inhabitants of Canada, 421;
    relative to extending the laws of the United States over whites in
        the Indian territories, 428;
    relative to the protection of American seamen, 429;
    relative to increased military and naval force in present state of
        foreign relations, 465;
    relative to memorial of Legislative Council of Mississippi, 466;
    relative to paying the officers and soldiers who served on the
        Wabash, 466;
    of inquiry relative to exciting the Indians on the western frontier,
        466;
    relative to the pay of officers and soldiers in the battle of
        Tippecanoe, 476;
    relative to limitation of claims on the Government, 526;
    relative to Virginia military bounty lands, 527;
    committing Nathaniel Rounsavell to the custody of the
        sergeant-at-arms, 528;
    discharging Nathaniel Rounsavell, 530;
    relative to the removal of federal judges, 530;
    of respect to the memory of Vice President Clinton, 531;
    relative to the relief of Caraccas, 531, 532;
    relative to amendment of naturalization laws, 543;
    of inquiry relative to violations of secrecy, 548;
    relative to the occupation of Florida, 561;
    of inquiry relative to any proceedings respecting the country South
        of Georgia, 562;
    to supply each Senator with newspapers, 566;
    to inquire into the expediency of offering encouragement to
        privateers, 570;
    of respect for the memory of John Smilie, 571;
    of honors to Hull, Decatur, Jones, and Elliott, 573;
    relative to the capture of the Guerriere, 578;
    relative to the exemption of soldiers from arrest for debt, 578;
    relative to authorizing an expedition of mounted volunteers, 580;
    relative to sales of the public lands for cash, 611;
    relative to the decease of Smilie, 614;
    relative to raising mounted rangers, 651;
    relative to the land claims in Mississippi Territory, 703;
    relative to encouragement of privateers, 705;
    relative to Virginia military bounty lands, 710;
    calling for information relative to repeal of the decrees of France,
        718;
    of thanks to the Speaker, 719;
    for information relative to the navy yards, 719.

  _Retaliation._--Bill giving power to the President, read third time,
        718;
    passed, 718;
    the bill, 718.

  _Revenue Cutters._--In the House, bill to authorize the employment of
        twelve additional, considered, 47;
    this force necessary for the proper execution of the revenue laws,
        47;
    has any letter been received from the Secretary of the Treasury? 47;
    information had been received directly from him, 47;
    more than verbal information required to make the proceeding
        correct, 48;
    never more than ten employed in the most flourishing times, 48;
    no consequence to the House whether there had been a written
        communication, so the information come from the proper source,
        48;
    committee rise, 48;
    engrossed bill read a third time, 74;
    motion to recommit lost, 74;
    bill passed, 74.

  RHEA, JOHN, Representative from Tennessee, 36, 125, 187, 315, 425,
        577;
    on an extra session, 103;
    on the conduct of the British Minister, 204;
    favors postponement of the resolution relative to the apportionment
        of representation, 225;
    on reduction of the navy, 243, 244;
    on domestic manufactures, 428;
    on Indian affairs, 428;
    on the bill to enable the people of Mississippi to form a State
        Government, 521.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Rhode Island._--Vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711;
    resolutions relating to maritime defence, &c., 413;
    admission of, _see Index_, vol. 1.

  RICHARDS, JACOB, Representative from Pennsylvania, 37.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  RICHARDS, MATHIAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187,
        315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  RICHARDSON, WILLIAM M., Representative from Massachusetts, 496, 577;
    on the bill to authorize the people of Mississippi to form a
        constitution, 592.

  _Richmond Theatre._--Resolution in Senate relative to the burning of,
        404.

  RIDGELY, HENRY M., Representative from Delaware, 424, 578;
    on an additional military force, 622.

  RIKER, SAMUEL, Representative from New York, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  RINGGOLD, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 316, 424, 577.

  _Roads Post._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  ROANE, JOHN T., Representative from Virginia, 125, 187, 315, 425, 577.

  ROBERTS, JONATHAN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 424, 577;
    on foreign relations, 455;
    against a naval establishment, 493;
    on the recall of absentees, 533.

  ROBERTSON, THOMAS BOLLING, Representative from Louisiana, 577;
    in favor of an additional military force, 666;
    on non-exportation in foreign bottoms, 719.

  ROBINSON, JONATHAN, Senator from Vermont, 3, 116, 166, 250, 403, 566.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  RODMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 424, 577.

  ROGERS, JOHN B., letter with documents relative to impressed seamen,
        706.

  ROOT, ERASTUS, Representative from New York, 141, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  ROSS, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 124, 191;
    moves an amendment relative to the inquiry respecting prosecutions
        for libel, 137, 138;
    on the remission of certain fines on emigrants from Cuba, 163, 164;
    on the conduct of the British Minister, 195.

  ROWAN, JOHN, Representative from Kentucky, 97.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  RUSSELL, JOHN, Representative from New York, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  RYLAND, HERMAN W., letter to John Henry, 506.


  S

  SAGE, EBENEZER, Representative from New York, 124, 187, 316, 424, 577.

  SAMMONS, THOMAS, Representative from New York, 124, 187, 315, 424,
        577;
    on the bill to authorize the appointment of additional
        brigadier-generals, 551.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Savannah, relief of._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  SAWYER, LEMUEL, Representative from North Carolina, 36, 125, 187, 316,
        425, 580;
    against immediate arming of the public vessels, 100;
    on the appointment of a committee of manufactures, 189;
    on a Naval establishment, 599.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  SAY, BENJAMIN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 37, 141;
    presents memorials from officers of the Revolutionary army in
        Pennsylvania, 56.

  SCUDDER, JOHN A., Representative from New Jersey, 315.

  _Seamen, American._--In the House, a resolution offered relative to an
        inquiry into the laws for the protection of American seamen,
        429;
    our laws materially defective on this subject, 429;
    their object should be twofold--to protect _bona fide_ American
        citizens, and to prevent the abuse of those protections by
        citizens of other countries, 429;
    case of an Italian at Baltimore, 429.

    _In the House._--Resolution of inquiry relative to the seizure by
        Great Britain of persons fighting under the American flag and
        laying claims to them, &c., 594;
    several cases had occurred, 594;
    objections to the form and expression of the resolution, 594;
    instance of many of the crew of the Wasp, 595;
    every man must be protected that is on board a ship of the United
        States, 595;
    motion withdrawn and a substitute offered, 595;
    vigorous retaliation should be made if our countrymen found in arms
        are treated as criminals, 595;
    not a question whether such persons are British subjects or not, if
        they have been fighting our battles, 596;
    naturalized foreigners should be protected the same as native
        citizens, 596;
    expatriation, 597;
    resolution agreed to, 597.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Seamen, Regulation of._--Bill for, 712;
    passed, 713.

  _Seat of Government._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  SEAVER, EBENEZER, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 192,
        315, 424, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Secret Proceedings, publication of._--In the House, report of the
        committee directed to inquire whether there had been any
        violation of the secrecy imposed by the House considered, 527;
    Nathaniel Rounsavell brought to the bar of the House and questioned,
        527;
    ordered into custody till further notice, 527;
    letter from Rounsavell, 527;
    manner in which the information relative to the embargo was obtained
        without doors, 527;
    explanations of members, 528;
    Rounsavell dismissed, 527.

    _In the House._--Resolution offered to inquire if there had been a
        violation of the secrecy imposed, 548;
    do. passed, 548.

  _Secret Proceedings._--Confidential supplemental journal of, 544.

  _Secretary of State._--His letters to Gen. Matthews and Col. McKee
        relative to possession of Florida, 562, 563;
    do. to governor of Georgia, 564.

  _Sedition Law._--In the House, resolution offered for an inquiry as to
        what prosecutions for libels had been instituted under the act
        to punish certain crimes against the United States, 133;
    if the committee inquire in the case of libels at common law it is
        proper they should inquire in the other case, 133;
    one member been a sufferer under the sedition law, 133;
    resolution moved, 133;
    amendment proposed relating to any private compensation to such
        sufferers, 133;
    Government could not rightfully inquire into this, 134;
    the disclosure might be amusing if the House had power to make it,
        134;
    who compensated Callender? 134;
    prosecutions under the common law and the sedition law essentially
        different, 134;
    who contributed to the gentleman from Kentucky (Lyon), 134;
    this appears to be a proposition to aid a single individual, and by
        the amendment gentlemen seem anxious to prevent him from gaining
        more than he had paid, 134;
    the public should know many of the circumstances of that case, 134;
    the imprisonment, 135;
    charge of libel in the indictment of Lyon, 135;
    what do these words amount to? 135;
    the law was passed after the words were uttered, 135;
    further facts in the case, 136;
    amendment lost, 137;
    amendment moved to inquire what compensation should be made to those
        who had suffered in consequence of the act to lay and collect a
        direct tax, 137;
    where shall we stop if we tread back on the steps of each other?
        137;
    propriety of going the whole length of the principle, 137;
    those who paid the tax should also be remunerated, 137;
    this principle has not been assumed, 138;
    where is the difference in the cases of any of these sufferers? 138;
    is this House sitting as a body to remunerate those who violated the
        laws? 138;
    moved to postpone indefinitely, 138;
    the whole discussion of the sedition law turned on its
        constitutionality, 138;
    if unconstitutional, can it be viewed in the same light as if
        constitutional? 138;
    the subject of contribution considered, 139;
    let the inquiry be made, 139;
    what good purpose can it answer? 139;
    under what clause of the constitution was Capt. Murray remunerated,
        139;
    duty of the House to make the inquiry, 139
    further debates, 140;
    indefinitely postponed, 140.

  _Seditious Practices._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Senate._--Adjourns at close of Second Session of Tenth Congress, 33;
    extra Session of, 33;
    adjourns, 35;
    adjourns at First Session, Eleventh Congress, 123;
    adjourns at Second Session, Eleventh Congress, 186;
    Third Session, Eleventh Congress adjourns, 312;
    adjourns at close First Session, Twelfth Congress, 423.

  SEVIER, JOHN, Representative from Tennessee, 425, 577.

  SEYBERT, ADAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 187, 315, 424, 577;
    in favor of a committee on manufactures, 193;
    on the Bank of the United States, 340;
    against a Naval establishment, 481;
    on the case of Nathaniel Rounsavell, 529;
    on the renewal of Whitney's patent right, 537;
    on the bill laying an embargo, 544, 545;
    on the imprisonment of American seamen, 595, 596;
    on an increase of the navy, 599.

  SHATTUCK, JARED, his claim, 352.

  SHAW, SAMUEL, Representative from Vermont, 37, 124, 187, 315, 424,
        577.

  SHEFFEY, DANIEL, Representative from Virginia, 125, 316, 425, 580;
    on the batture at New Orleans, 148;
    offers resolutions relative to the batture at New Orleans, 191;
    supports petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    on the admission of the Territory of Orleans as a State, 321;
    in favor of the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on the imprisonment of American seamen, 596;
    on an additional military force, 660.

  _Slave Trade._--Memorial relative to, 714.

  _Slaves, Importation of._--_See Index_, vol. 3. Duties on Imports.

  _Slavery and Slaves._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  SLOAN, JAMES, Representative from New Jersey, 36;
    favors the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  SMELT, DENNIS, Representative from Georgia, 40, 125, 191, 316.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  SMILIE, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 141, 187, 315,
        424, 577;
    opposes the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95;
    against the immediate arming of the public vessels, 97;
    on an extra session of Congress, 102;
    on the proceedings on counting the electoral votes, 105;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 158;
    opposes the postponement of the resolution relative to the
        apportionment of representation, 225;
    on the resolution relative to the decease of Col. Washington, 225;
    on laying additional duties, 431;
    presents memorial of managers of Union Canal Company, 432;
    on rules and orders of the House, 469;
    on the British intrigues, 518;
    on the case of Nathaniel Rounsavell, 528;
    on mode of relief of Caraccas, 532;
    on the bill laying an embargo, 545;
    decease of, 614.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  SMITH, DANIEL, Senator from Tennessee, 3.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  SMITH, GEORGE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 124, 187, 315, 424,
        577.

  SMITH, JEREMIAH K., Representative from New Hampshire, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  SMITH, JOHN, Senator from New York, 3, 121, 176, 252, 400.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  SMITH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 36, 125, 187, 315, 425,
        577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  SMITH, SAMUEL, Senator from Maryland, 3, 33, 116, 168, 250, 400, 566;
    on the repeal of the Embargo Act, 10;
    offers resolution relative to the mode of counting the Electoral
        vote, 27;
    on incorporating a Bank of the United States, 292.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187, 315;
    on adherence of the Senate to amendments to the bill respecting
        non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 180.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _South Carolina_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Soldiers of the Revolution._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  SOUTHARD, HENRY, Representative from New Jersey, 36, 124, 187, 315;
    opposes the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  STANFORD, RICHARD, Representative from North Carolina, 36, 125, 187,
        315, 425, 577;
    on counting blank ballots, 125;
    on prosecutions for libel, 133, 134;
    on the conduct of the British Minister, 197;
    on foreign relations, 457;
    on rules and orders of the House, 469.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  STANLEY, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 125, 187, 315;
    relative to the conduct of the British Minister, 208.

  _State Balances._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  STEDMAN, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 191.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  STEPHENSON, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 125, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  STEVENSON, ARCHER, Representative from Maryland, 424, 577.

  _St. Domingo._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  _St. Louis_, memorial of inhabitants of, 434.

  STORY, JOSEPH, Representative from Massachusetts, 96;
    in favor of an immediate arming of the public vessels, 97.

  STORER, CLEMENT, Representative from New Hampshire, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  STOW, SILAS, Representative from New York, 424, 577;
    on the bill laying an embargo, 544;
    on the temporary embargo bill, 547;
    on pay of the army, 582;
    in favor of building seventy-fours, 605;
    on an additional military force, 690;
    on privateer pensions, 704;
    on war taxes, 715.

  STRONG, WILLIAM, Representative from Vermont, 424, 577.

  STEWART, PHILIP, Representative from Maryland, 426, 577.

  STURGES, LEWIS B., Representative from Connecticut, 36, 124, 187, 316,
        424, 578;
    on commercial intercourse with France and Great Britain, 364.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Suability of States._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  SULLIVAN, GEORGE, Representative from New Hampshire, 424, 716.

  SUMPTER, THOMAS, Senator from South Carolina, 3, 116, 166.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  SWART, PETER, Representative from New York, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  SWOOPE, JACOB, Representative from Virginia, 125, 187, 316.


  T

  TAGGART, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 37, 126, 187, 316,
        424, 578.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  TAIT, CHARLES, Senator from Georgia, 176, 250, 400, 566.

  TALIAFERRO, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 432, 578.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  TALLMADGE, BENJAMIN, Representative from Connecticut, 36, 124, 187,
        315, 424, 578;
    on the Torpedo experiment, 221;
    on establishing a Quartermaster's department, 477;
    on the resolution of the Senate relative to the decease of the Vice
        President, 531;
    on an additional military force, 613;
    on the causes of the war, 647.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  TALLMAN, PELEG, Representative from Massachusetts, 424, 703.

  _Taxes, War._--In the House, resolution to instruct the Committee of
        Ways and Means to report a bill laying taxes for the support of
        the war, 715;
    opposed, as impracticable, 715;
    advocated because the House should redeem pledges of last session,
        715;
    unnecessary to lay taxes, 715;
    impracticable to act on the subject at this session, 715;
    further debate, 716;
    resolution lost, 716.

  _Taxes, direct and indirect._--_See Index_, vol. 2.

  TAYLOR, JOHN, Representative from South Carolina, 36, 125, 187, 315;
    opposes the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95;
    on non-intercourse, 106;
    on Miranda's expedition, 145;
    on non-intercourse with Great Britain and France, 153, 159, 160;
    on the remission of certain fines, on emigrants from Cuba, 164;
    reports on the letter of I. A. Coles, 204;
    Senator from South Carolina, 260, 400, 566;
    on incorporating a bank of the United States, 300;
    reports in favor of postponing bills relative to the Mississippi
        territory becoming a State, &c., 411;
    on the memorial of citizens of New York, 414.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Tennessee_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Tennessee, admission of._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Territorial Governments, ordinance of 1787._--In the House, bill
        reported to take away from Governors of Territories the power of
        proroguing or dissolving their legislature, 39;
    moved to engross for a third reading, 39;
    a decision of a question of this kind should not be precipitated,
        39;
    the ordinance for the government of territories should be treated
        with as much delicacy as the constitution of the General
        Government, 39;
    this is a mistake; the ordinance is a mere statute, 40;
    these ordinances should be regarded as a compact between the General
        Government and the territories, 40;
    questionable whether an alteration could be made without their
        consent, 40;
    mature deliberation, not procrastination, was what was wanted, 40;
    the ordinance is considered as a compact equally sacred with the
        Constitution of the United States, and as unalterable, without
        the consent of the parties to it, 40;
    opinion of St. George Tucker, 40;
    effect of taking away this power, 40;
    taking away the power to prorogue would not deprive the governors of
        their veto on laws, 40;
    now, if there is any misunderstanding, the Governor sends them home,
        40;
    right of this House to pass the bill denied, 42;
    condition of the cession by Georgia, 42;
    _note_, 42;
    basis of the territorial governments, 42;
    amendment proposed, 42;
    two parts to the ordinance, 43;
    opinion of Judge Tucker, 43;
    special reason for the bill, 43;
    this principle must have been adopted originally without any
        discussion, 44;
    this was an objection to George III., in the Declaration of
        Independence, 44;
    opinion of Judge Tucker read, 44;
    parties to the present compact, 44;
    what was the policy of the ordinance, and what the object of its
        framers? 44;
    if you have a right to repeal one part of the ordinance, you can
        another part, 44;
    the Constitution of the United States does not give to the people of
        the territories the same rights as the people of the States, 45;
    the articles of this ordinance were enacted previous to the adoption
        of the constitution, and are made binding by that instrument,
        45;
    the old Congress wisely reserved the right to control the people of
        the territories, 45;
    the state of things now existing in Mississippi noticed, 45;
    what part of these articles is unalterable? 45;
    the articles of ordinance and not the form of government, 45;
    application of the opinion of Judge Tucker, 45;
    situation of the people will be improved, 45;
    whatever leads to the conclusion that the people are always wrong
        and the Executive right, strikes at the root of republican
        institutions, 45;
    facts respecting the people of Mississippi, 45;
    no proposition for the good of this territory, but has met the
        opposition of Georgia, 46;
    a compact exists between the United States and Georgia, and let it
        be adhered to, 46;
    indefinite postponement moved, 46;
    carried, 46.

    _Territory of Louisiana._--In the House, bill for the government of
        the Louisiana Territory considered, 430;
    moved to strike out the section requiring a freehold to be possessed
        by all voters, 430;
    moved to amend by striking out every qualification but that of free
        white male citizens, &c., 430;
    question considered, whether it is better to require voters to hold
        freehold property, or to suffer every man to possess the
        privilege who is twenty-one years old, 430;
    life and liberty are superior to property, 430;
    dearer to the poor man than all his property to the rich, 430;
    impossible to carry the principle of equality to its fullest extent,
        430;
    remonstrance of the inhabitants of St. Louis, 434.

    _Territory of Mississippi._--In the House, petition for the division
        of, 141;
    moved to lay on the table, 141;
    consent of three parties necessary to a division, 141;
    the Territory, Georgia, and the United States, neither has
        consented, 141;
    if the request was improper, the report of a committee would settle
        it, 141;
    no harm can arise from the inquiry, 141;
    certain facts might be inquired into, such as population, their
        character, &c., 141;
    petition laid on the table, 142;
    report in favor of admitting the Mississippi Territory into the
        Union, 352;
    have sufficient population before a representative is elected, 352;
    Orleans when admitted had a minor population, 352;
    some respect due to the feelings of the Eastern States, 352;
    admission of one State during a session was sufficient, 352;
    why not wait for the actual census of the territory? 352;
    resolution agreed to, 352.

    _In the Senate._--Bill to authorize Mississippi to form State
        Government referred, 411;
    report on, 411.

    _In the House._--Bill to authorize the people of Mississippi
        Territory to form a State Government, 519;
    the population is sufficient, and authority has heretofore wisely
        been conferred in all such cases, 519;
    particulars respecting the limits, 520;
    amendment offered relative to the Territory of West Florida, 520;
    debate thereon, 521;
    carried, 522;
    bill passed, 522;
    bill to authorize the people to form a State government considered,
        592;
    inexpedient to give a territory with so small a population an equal
        representation in the Senate with a State, 592;
    proposes to include Mobile, now in possession of a foreign power,
        592;
    population greater than represented, 592;
    anxious to bear their share of the burdens of the war, 592;
    bill ordered to third reading and passed, 592.

    _Territory of Orleans._--In Senate, bill to authorize the Territory
        of Orleans to form a State Government, 265;
    various amendments proposed, 265;
    bill read a third time, 265.

    _In the House._--Bill for admitting the Territory of Orleans as a
        State into the Union, 320;
    the bill proposes to include in the State all that part of the
        territory lying west of the Perdido, the right to this part is
        declared to be subject to negotiation; if it becomes a State,
        this right of negotiation will be taken from the President, 320;
    the necessity of a State government calls for this measure, 320;
    it is a point of country particularly important to the Union, 320;
    power of self-preservation necessary to the people there, 321;
    the objection of title does not meet the merits of the bill, 321;
    not ready to transfer the inheritance purchased by the blood of our
        fathers to foreigners, 321;
    doubtful if 30,000 inhabitants in the territory, 321;
    these people are a part of the nation, and should so be considered,
        321;
    the great object is to make us one people, 321.

    Have we constitutional authority to legislate on this subject, and
        is it expedient so to do? 321;
    by the enacting clause of our constitution it was ordained and
        established for the _then_ United States, 322;
    its framers and those who adopted it never intended its immediate
        operation should extend to any people that did not then, or
        should not thereafter, be included in the limits of the United
        States, 322;
    they did not intend to enter into partnership of this sort, 322;
    Orleans was not within these limits when the constitution was
        established, 322;
    upon this principle we may form all the territories into States,
        then what will become of the old United States? 322;
    the constitution requires that Senators should have been citizens
        nine years, a period longer than the people of this territory
        have belonged to the Union, 322;
    it is said, several new States have been formed by Congress, 322;
    these were formed out of territories within the limits of the Union
        on the adoption of the constitution, 322;
    even if constitutional, it is an extremely impolitic and inexpedient
        measure, 323;
    two applications pending, neither has sufficient population, 323;
    it is objected to this bill that the population of the State will
        not be American, 323;
    what power have we to negotiate about the territory of any of the
        States? 323;
    objections to annexing West Florida to Orleans, 323;
    amendment moved to consolidate the Orleans and Mississippi
        Territories, 323;
    a stipulation in the treaty of cession, 324;
    to waste the territories would violate previous engagements, 324;
    the consent of Georgia would be necessary, 324;
    meaning of the constitution, 324;
    the right to become States was conceded to the old territories
        before the adoption of the constitution, 325;
    the article of the constitution was unnecessary unless it applied to
        new territory, 325;
    not for us to consider who shall be their Senators, 325;
    Mobile and Orleans should not be under the same government, 325;
    the trust embraced in the amendment is too extensive for a local
        State government, 325;
    other geographical limits proposed, 325;
    amendment disagreed to, 326;
    claims of the United States respecting the western limits of the
        Orleans Territory, 326;
    this bill extends jurisdiction over the province of Texas, 326;
    remarks relative to arranging the western boundary, 326;
    the principle of this bill materially affects the liberties and
        rights of the whole people of the United States, 327;
    it would justify a revolution in this country, 327;
    if this bill passes, the bonds of the Union are virtually dissolved,
        327;
    called to order, 327;
    repeated, that its passage is virtually a dissolution of the Union,
        &c., 327;
    decision of the Speaker on the propriety of the expression demanded,
        327;
    decision that a portion of the remarks are in order, and a portion
        not, 327;
    appeal from the decision, 327;
    Speaker not sustained, 327;
    the separation of the States resulting from a violation of the
        constitution, is a necessity deeply to be deprecated, 327;
    the bill assumes that this National government without recurrence to
        conventions of the people or Legislatures of the States, can
        admit new portions in countries out of the original limits of
        the United States, 328;
    if this authority is delegated by the constitution, it results from
        its general nature as from its particular provisions, 328;
    the preamble examined, 328;
    its meaning, the extent of the country at that time, Louisiana not
        then in the limits, 328;
    if any particular power exists, it is the treaty-making power, 329;
    this power examined, 329;
    this question goes to the very seat of the power and influence of
        the present members of the Union, 329;
    the term, "New States," applies to territory within the then limits
        of the Union, 329;
    evidence of history, 329;
    resolution passed, July 3d, 1788, is further authority, 329;
    its meaning, 330;
    the evidence should be very strong to prove the terms intended
        something else besides this obvious purpose, 330;
    its meaning can be proved, both affirmatively, with regard to new
        States from the existing limits, and negatively, against new
        States without those limits, 330;
    this assertion examined, 330;
    is it possible that such a power, if it had been intended to be
        given by the people, should have been left dependent upon the
        effect of general expressions, 331;
    it is not so much a question concerning the exercise of sovereignty,
        as it is who shall be sovereign, 331;
    the treaty-making power has limitations, 331;
    the situation of New Orleans, 332;
    the moral and political consequences of usurping this power, 332;
    what is this liberty of which so much is said? 333;
    no fear of analyzing the nature of this love of our Union, 333;
    this bill, if passed is a death-blow to the constitution, 334;
    the bill will neither justify a dissolution of the Union nor lead
        any citizen attached to it to contemplate it, 334;
    our authority to erect new States is proved by theory and practice,
        334;
    the articles of confederation are evidence, 334;
    similarity of the constitution and the articles of confederation in
        many sections, 324;
    further debate, 324;
    indefinite postponement lost, 335;
    bill passed, 335.

  _Territories._--_See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Territory, Missouri_, report relative to amending the act for the
        government of, 707.

  THOMAS, JESSE B., Delegate from Indiana Territory, 53;
    moves the appointment of a committee relative to a division of the
        Indiana Territory, 87;
    makes a report relative to a division of the Indiana Territory, 96.

  THOMPSON, JOHN, Representative from New York, 36, 124, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  THURSTON, BUCKNER, Senator from Kentucky, 3, 116, 166.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  TIFFIN, EDWARD, Senator from Ohio, 3;
    reports engrossed bill on non-intercourse with Great Britain, 28.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Tippecanoe, Battle of_, message communicating, 466.

  _Title of President._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Torpedo Experiments._--In the House, letter from Robert Fulton, 213;
    the author a man of science and successful experiment, 214;
    letter referred, 214;
    report on do., 214;
    resolution to grant Mr. Fulton use of the Hall for a public lecture,
        214;
    the Hall is exclusively appropriated to legislative purposes, 214;
    an injurious precedent, 214;
    hold out the idea that the House sanctioned it, 214;
    words "public lecture" struck out and "explaining" inserted, 215;
    bill making an appropriation for an experiment on the practical use
        of the Torpedo, or submarine explosion, 218;
    is this such a proposition that we can step out of the ordinary
        course of encouragement given to inventors? 218;
    is the experiment worthy to be made? 218;
    this resolution appropriates money for an experiment, 219;
    nothing new in it, 219;
    the invention of David Bushnell, 219;
    difference between the two, 219;
    all-important to defend our ports and harbors, 219;
    Mr. Fulton has little merit in originating this thing, 220;
    alarm occasioned to the British during the Revolutionary war, 220;
    verses of Hopkinson, 220;
    if one of these machines in a hundred should take effect, the object
        would be perfectly gained, 220;
    nothing result from it of service to the country, 220;
    if a fair experiment is intended, the appropriation is totally
        inefficient, 220;
    why has not the invention been patronized by the French, 221;
    an actual experiment should be made on an enemy's vessel, 221;
    experience during the war, 221;
    the experiment should not be made, 221;
    bill passed, 222.

  TOULMIN, Judge, report relative to the conduct of, 533.

  TRACY, URI, Representative from New York, 124, 191, 315, 424, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Treason and Sedition_, bill to define.
    _See Index_, vol. 2.

  _Treasury Notes_, issue authorized, 421;
    bill to authorize the issue of, 706.

  _Treaty with Great Britain._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  TRIGG, ABRAM, Representative from Virginia, 36.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  TROUP, GEORGE M., Representative from Georgia, 36, 125, 187, 315, 425,
        577;
    opposes immediate engrossment of the bill relative to the power of
        territorial governments, 39, 40;
    on the ordinance of 1787, 44, 46;
    moves to postpone the bill relative to the ordinance of 1786, 46;
    in favor of immediate arming of the public vessels, 98;
    on the petition relative to the Mississippi Territory, 141;
    on the Batture at New Orleans, 149;
    on violation of neutral rights, 189;
    on the British intrigues, 517, 519;
    on pay of the army, 583.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  TURNER, CHARLES, jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 187, 315,
        424, 577.

  TURNER, JAMES, Senator from North Carolina, 3, 116, 166, 264, 403,
        566.

  _Two-thirds vote._ _See Index_, vol. 3.


  U

  UPHAM, JABEZ, Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 187.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Union_, dissolution of, 327.

  _Ursuline Nuns_ of New Orleans, petition of, 476.


  V

  VAN ALLEN, JAMES I., Representative from New York, 36
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  VAN CORTLANDT, PHILIP, Representative from New York, 47.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  VAN CORTLANDT, PIERRE, jr., Representative from New York, 424, 577.

  VAN <DW18>, NICHOLAS, Representative from Delaware, 141, 212, 330.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  VAN HORNE, ARCHIBALD, Representative from Maryland, 36, 125, 187, 315.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  VAN RENSSELAER, KILLIAN K., Representative from New York, 36, 124,
        187, 315.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  VARNUM, JOSEPH B., Representative from Massachusetts, 36, 124, 187,
        315;
    on measures of non-intercourse, 114;
    acknowledges the thanks of the House, 114;
    elected Speaker, 125, 126;
    remarks, 126;
    against petition of Elizabeth Hamilton, 215;
    acknowledges the thanks of the House to him as Speaker, 399;
    Senator from Massachusetts, 400, 566.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 2, 3.

  _Vermont_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  VERPLANCK, DANIEL C., Representative from New York, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  _Vessels Registering and clearing._--_See Index_, vol. 1.

  _Veto, Executive_, on the bill providing for the trial of small causes
        in the District Courts, 410.

  _Vice President_ CLINTON, decease of, 531.

  _Virginia_ Bounty Lands, resolution relative to, 527, 710.

  _Virginia_, vote for President in 1808, 27;
    in 1812, 573, 711.

  _Vote of Approbation._--In the House, to approve the conduct of the
        President, considered, 127;
    an alteration has taken place in the manner of doing business at the
        commencement of Congress, 127;
    message of Jefferson to Congress, 127;
    wisdom of suspending the speech of the President to Congress, 127;
    an answer to the address was in fact the greatest opportunity which
        the opposition to the measures of the administration had of
        sifting and canvassing those measures, 127;
    whatever goes to take away this opportunity, goes to narrow down the
        minority, or opposition, 127;
    the present is an occasion which behoves this House to express its
        opinion on public affairs, 128;
    it is due to the executive, 128;
    resolution moved, 128;
    this proposition contemplates a novelty in our legislative
        proceedings, 128;
    where would it end if the House were now to make a solemn
        resolution, approving the conduct of the President, 128;
    to adopt the resolution at this time would not comport with the
        object of the mover, 128;
    the conduct of the last administration in this respect met the
        approbation of the country, 129;
    postponement moved, 129;
    in his proclamation the President has deserved well of his country,
        127;
    is this an abstract proposition? 128;
    is this House to have no influence on the conduct of the Executive?
        130;
    the President is condemned by some for his proclamation, 130;
    how the non-importation act was repealed, 131;
    prospect of good terms with Great Britain, 132;
    this act of duty which the President has done is only an ordinary
        one, 132;
    why then give him our approbation? 133;
    indefinitely postponed, 133.


  W

  _War, Declaration of, against Great Britain._--Confidential message
        sent to the Senate by the President, 415;
    do. from the House, 415;
    the act declaring war as passed by the House, 415;
    read twice and referred, 415;
    debated in committee, 415;
    amendment proposed, 416;
    motion to postpone to the first Monday in November, 416;
    a general view of the situation of the country--of its means to
        carry on offensive operations, as well as to defend itself, and
        of the situation and relative strength of the country we are
        required to make war upon, 416, 417;
    our situation upon the lakes to Detroit and Fort Malden, 418;
    motion lost, 418;
    amended to authorize privateering on Great Britain and France, 418;
    bill passed on committee, 418;
    reported to the Senate, correctly engrossed, 418;
    moved to postpone to October thirty-first, 418;
    not a time to declare war, 418;
    the Senate should not act from passion or any considerations which
        do not arise out of an extended and distinct view of the
        interests of the country, 418;
    neither the government nor the people had expected or were prepared
        for war, 418;
    you have an immense property abroad, a great portion in England, and
        part on the ocean, hastening home, 419;
    the question of war had been doubtful till the present moment, 419;
    it was supposed they were obliged to advance, or become the object
        of reproach and scorn to friends and foes, 419;
    if we were doubtful as to war, how could, how was it to be known by
        merchants and others that the nation would be wantonly plunged
        in war, 419;
    we should select the time when the first shock should be least
        disastrous and best resisted, 419;
    what should hurry us into war, 420;
    question on postponement lost, 420;
    motion to adjourn carried, 420.

    _In the House._--Bill to declare war against Great Britain reported,
        55;
    read first time, 558;
    opposed, 558;
    question on the rejection of the bill lost, 558;
    amendment moved, 559;
    lost, 559;
    moved to recommit the bill and amendment, 559;
    ordered to be engrossed and passed, 559;
    returned from the Senate with amendments, 560;
    moved to lay on the table, 560;
    lost, 560;
    moved to postpone indefinitely, 560;
    lost, 560;
    moved to postpone until October, 560;
    lost, 560;
    moved to postpone to July, 560;
    lost, 560;
    Senate amendments concurred in by the House, 560;
    signed by the President, 561.

  WATERHOUSE, BENJAMIN, petition relative to inoculation of the army,
        709.

  WEAKLEY, ROBERT, Representative from Tennessee, 127, 187, 315.

  WELLESLEY, LORD, extracts from his letters to Mr. Pinkney, 361.

  _West Point_ or Washington as a location for a military academy, 531.

  WHARTON, JESSE, Representative from Tennessee, 36;
    presents petitions from the officers of the revolutionary army, 56.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WHEATON, LABAN, Representative from Massachusetts, 124, 187, 316, 424,
        577;
    on the admission of the Territory of Orleans as a State, 321;
    on pay of the army, 582;
    on the policy of the war, 652.

  WHITE, LEONARD, Representative from Massachusetts, 424, 577.

  WHITE, SAMUEL, Senator from Delaware, 3, 27, 116.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  WHITEHILL, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 36, 124, 187,
        315, 424, 577.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WHITMAN EZEKIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 141, 188.

  WHITESIDE, JENKIN, Senator from Tennessee, 118, 176, 325.

  _Whitney's Patent Right to the Cotton Gin; renewal of._--In the bill
        for the relief of Eli Whitney considered, 533;
    moved to strike out so much as related to a renewal, 533;
    although the bill assumed the character of a private act, it
        involved considerations of great national importance, 533;
    source of authority over the subject, 534;
    here is a delegation of power to promote science and art, and a
        description of the _mean_ authorized to be employed, 534;
    the distinction between the _mean_ and the _object_ should be kept
        constantly in view, 534;
    this renewal is not intended or calculated to promote science or
        useful arts, 534;
    the object of the constitution is attained by granting monopolies
        for a limited time to _future_ and not to _past_ inventions,
        534;
    the passage of the bill is a departure from the intent of the
        constitution, 534;
    the operation of this bill will levy a tax on Georgia and
        Mississippi and Louisiana Territories only, which is not a
        uniform tax throughout the country, 534;
    the right of using has been purchased by the Legislatures of some of
        the States, 535;
    the patent expired four years ago, and an unqualified right then
        vested in the people of the United States, 535;
    the famous case of Miller _vs._ Taylor, 536;
    English decisions, 536;
    has Congress the right to divest the people of their right? 536;
    the passage of this bill will render justice to Whitney, 537;
    he has received but trifling compensation, 537;
    case of Whitney _vs._ Carter, 537;
    absolute necessity of the gin to bring the cotton of the United
        States to market, 538;
    extract from Edwards' History of the West Indies, 538;
    the case of Arkwright, 538;
    committee rose, 538.

  WIDGERY, WILLIAM, Representative from Massachusetts, 426, 577;
    on the temporary embargo bill, 547;
    on the imprisonment of American seamen, 597;
    on an increase of the navy, 602.

  WILBOUR, ISAAC, Representative from Rhode Island, 36;
    supports the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WILKINSON, GEN. JAMES, letter to Speaker of the House, 227;
    claim of, report on, 312.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WILLIAMS, DAVID R., Representative from South Carolina, 36, 425, 577;
    on submission to the late edicts of England and France, 75;
    opposes the resolution for immediate measures to liberate American
        prisoners in Carthagena, 95;
    against immediate arming of the public vessels, 99;
    on an extra session of Congress, 102;
    on establishing a quartermasters department, 477;
    against a naval establishment, 499;
    on the temporary embargo bill, 547;
    on increased pay of the army, 581;
    on pay of the army, 586;
    on an additional military force, 611.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WILLIAMS, MARMADUKE, Representative from North Carolina, 111.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WILSON, ALEXANDER, Representative from Vermont, 36.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WILSON, JAMES, Representative from New Hampshire, 124, 187, 315.

  WILSON, NATHAN, Representative from New York, 36.

  WILSON, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 425, 577.

  WINTERS, ELISHA, petitions for the reward for destroying Mason, the
        Mississippi river pirate, 184.

  WITHERSPOON, ROBERT, Representative from South Carolina, 125, 188,
        315;
    reports on the claim for Indian depredations, 217.

  _Witnesses, payment of in impeachment cases._--_See Index_, vol. 3.

  WORTHINGTON, THOMAS, Senator from Ohio, 264, 400, 566.
    _See Index_, vol. 3.

  WRIGHT, ROBERT, Representative from Maryland, 315, 424, 577;
    on the ratio of representation, 318;
    on the admission of the Territory of Orleans as a State, 334;
    on an amendment to the constitution relative to the removal of
        federal judges, 351;
    in favor of the admission of Mississippi, 352;
    on Indian affairs, 428;
    on foreign relations, 446;
    on rules and orders of the House, 469;
    on the British intrigues, 516.
    _See Index_, vols. 2, 3.

  WYNN, RICHARD, Representative from South Carolina, 47, 141, 212, 316,
        425, 586.
    _See Index_, vols. 1, 3.


  Y

  _Yeas and Nays in the Senate._--On the bill for the enforcement of the
        embargo act, 26;
    on bill to prohibit commercial intercourse with Great Britain, 31;
    on postponement of the bill for additional duties, 32;
    on bill to provide for the support of public credit, 122;
    on resolution relative to the conduct of the British Minister, 176;
    on the bill relative to non-intercourse with Great Britain and
        France, 179;
    on the adherence of the Senate to amendments to the bill respecting
        non-intercourse with Great Britain, 182;
    on striking out first section of the bill to establish a National
        Bank, 184;
    on the resolution relative to publishing the laws of Louisiana in
        the English language, 184;
    on motion to postpone further consideration of bill to establish a
        National Bank, 184;
    on bill to authorize the Territory of Orleans to form a State
        constitution, 185;
    relative to the admission of Orleans territory, 265;
    on striking out first section of bill to incorporate a United States
        Bank, 311;
    on resolution relative to secrecy, 312;
    on bill to raise an additional military force, 404;
    on the bill relative to the limits of Louisiana, 409;
    on removing the injunction of secrecy relative to a temporary
        embargo, 410;
    on a temporary embargo, 410;
    on House bill relative to temporary non-exportation, 411;
    on a recess of Congress, 413;
    in committee on the declaration of war, 416;
    on the declaration of war with Great Britain passing to third
        reading, 418;
    on the issue of Treasury notes, 421;
    on the bill to authorize the President to accept volunteers, 421;
    on resolutions relative to the Canadas, 422.

    _In the House._--On the motion to postpone the bill relative to the
        ordinance of 1787, 46;
    on the bill to authorize the President to employ additional revenue
        cutters, 74;
    on the resolution prohibiting the admission of British vessels into
        American ports, 94;
    on bill relative to non-intercourse with Great Britain and France,
        163;
    on the resolution relative to the conduct of the British Minister,
        211;
    relative to the bill respecting the convoy system, 226;
    on the bill to continue the charter of the Bank of the United
        States, 351;
    _note_, 351;
    on the bill relative to commercial intercourse with France and Great
        Britain, 398;
    in committee on resolution to raise additional troops, 464;
    on the bill to enable the people of Mississippi to form a State
        government, 522;
    on the admission of Louisiana, 526;
    on the bill declaring war with Great Britain, 559;
    do. on the amendments of the Senate to the bill declaring war, &c.,
        560;
    in committee on the bill to authorize the President to take
        possession of territory south of Mississippi, 561;
    on an additional military force, 613;
    on the bill for an additional military force, 702.




                               A LIST OF

                   NEW WORKS IN GENERAL LITERATURE,

    =Published by D. APPLETON & CO., 346 & 348 Broadway, New York.=

                   *       *       *       *       *

     _Complete Catalogues, containing full descriptions, to be had
                  on application to the Publishers._

                    =Agriculture and Rural Affairs.=

  Boussingault's Rural Economy,                                     1 25
  The Poultry Book, illustrated,                                    5 00
  Waring's Elements of Agriculture,                                   75

                =Arts, Manufactures, and Architecture.=

  Appleton's Dictionary of Mechanics. 2 vols.                      12 00
  Appleton's Mechanics' Magazine. 3 vols. each,                     3 50
  Allen's Philosophy of Mechanics,                                  3 50
  Arnot's Gothic Architecture,                                      4 00
  Bassnett's Theory of Storms,                                      1 00
  Bourne on the Steam Engine,                                       0 75
  Byrne on Logarithms,                                              1 00
  Chapman on the American Rifle,                                    1 25
  Coming's Preservation of Health,                                    75
  Cullum on Military Bridges,                                       2 00
  Downing's Country Houses,                                         4 00
  Field's City Architecture,                                        2 00
  Griffith's Marine Architecture,                                  10 00
  Gillespie's Treatise on Surveying,
  Haupt's Theory of Bridge Construction,                            3 00
  Henck's Field-Book for R. R. Engineers,                           1 75
  Hoblyn's Dictionary of Scientific Terms,                          1 50
  Huff's Manual of Electro-Physiology,                              1 25
  Jeffers' Practice of Naval Gunnery,                               2 50
  Knapen's Mechanics' Assistant,                                    1 00
  Lafever's Modern Architecture,                                    4 00
  Lyell's Manual of Geology,                                        1 75
   "      Principles of Geology,                                    2 25
  Reynold's Treatise on Handrailing,                                2 00
  Templeton's Mechanic's Companion,                                 1 00
  Ure's Dict'ry of Arts, Manufactures, &c. 2 vols.                  5 00
  Youmans' Class-Book of Chemistry,                                   75
     "     Atlas of Chemistry, cloth, 2 00
     "     Alcohol,  50

                              =Biography.=

  Arnold's Life and Correspondence,                                 2 00
  Capt. Canot, or Twenty Years of a Slaver,                         1 25
  Cousin's De Longueville,                                          1 00
  Croswell's Memoirs,                                               2 00
  Evelyn's Life of Godolphin,                                         50
  Garland's Life of Randolph,                                       1 50
  Gilfillan's Gallery of Portraits. 2d Series,                      1 00
  Hernan Cortez's Life,                                               38
  Hull's Civil and Military Life,                                   2 00
  Life and Adventures of Daniel Boone,                                38
  Life of Henry Hudson,                                               38
  Life of Capt. John Smith,                                           38
  Moore's Life of George Castriot,                                  1 00
  Napoleon's Memoirs. By Duchess D'Abrantes,                        4 00
  Napoleon. By Laurent L'Ardèche,                                   3 00
  Pinkney (W.) Life. By his Nephew,                                 2 00
  Party Leaders: Lives of Jefferson, &c.                            1 00
  Southey's Life of Oliver Cromwell,                                  38
  Wynne's Lives of Eminent Men,                                     1 00
  Webster's Life and Memorials. 2 vols.                             1 00

                      =Books of General Utility.=

  Appletons' Southern and Western Guide,                            1 00
      "      Northern and Eastern Guide,                            1 25
  Appletons' Complete U. S. Guide,                                  2 00
      "      Map of N. Y. City,                                       25
  American Practical Cook Book,
  A Treatise on Artificial Fish-Breeding,                             75
  Chemistry of Common Life. 2 vols. 12mo.
  Cooley's Book of Useful Knowledge,                                1 25
  Cust's Invalid's Own Book,                                          50
  Delisser's Interest Tables,                                       4 00
  The English Cyclopaedia, per vol.                                 2 50
  Miles on the Horse's Foot,                                          25
  The Nursery Basket. A Book for Young Mothers,                       38
  Pell's Guide for the Young,                                         38
  Reid's New English Dictionary,                                    1 00
  Stewart's Stable Economy,                                         1 00
  Spalding's Hist. of English Literature,                           1 00
  Soyer's Modern Cookery,                                           1 00
  The Successful Merchant,                                          1 00
  Thomson on Food of Animals,                                         50

                   =Commerce and Mercantile Affairs.=

  Anderson's Mercantile Correspondence,                             1 00
  Delisser's Interest Tables,                                       4 00
  Merchants' Reference Book,                                        4 00
  Oates' (Geo.) Interest Tables at 6 Per Cent. per Annum. 8vo.      2 00
    "      "    Do. do. Abridged ed.                                1 25
    "      "    7 Per Cent. In'st. Tables,                          2 00
    "      "    Abridged,                                           1 25
  Smith's Mercantile Law,                                           4 00

                        =Geography and Atlases.=

  Appleton's Modern Atlas. 34 Maps,                                 3 50
      "      Complete Atlas. 61 Maps,                               9 00
  Atlas of the Middle Ages. By Koeppen,                             4 50
  Black's General Atlas. 71 Maps,                                  12 00
  Cornell's Primary Geography,                                        50
      "     Intermediate Geography,
      "     High School Geography,

                               =History.=

  Arnold's History of Rome,                                         3 00
     "     Later Commonwealth,                                      2 50
     "     Lectures on Modern History,                              1 25
  Dew's Ancient and Modern History,                                 2 00
  Koeppen's History of the Middle Ages. 2 vols.                     2 50
      "       The same, folio, with Maps,                           4 50
  Kohlrausch's History of Germany,                                  1 50
  Mahon's (Lord) History of England, 2 vols.                        4 00
  Michelet's History of France, 2 vols.                             3 50
      "      History of the Roman Republic,                         1 00
  Rowan's History of the French Revolution,                           63
  Sprague's History of the Florida War,                             2 50
  Taylor's Manual of Ancient History,                               1 25
     "     Manual of Modern History,                                1 50
     "     Manual of History. 1 vol. complete,                      2 50
  Thiers' French Revolution. 4 vols. Illus.                         5 00

                   =Illustrated Works for Presents.=

  Bryant's Poems. 16 Illus. 8vo. cloth,                             3 50
     "       "    cloth, gilt,                                      4 50
     "       "    mor. antique,                                     6 00
  Gems of British Art. 30 Engravings. 1 vol. 4to. morocco,         18 00
  Gray's Elegy. Illustrated. 8vo.                                   1 50
  Goldsmith's Deserted Village,                                     1 50
  The Homes of American Authors. With Illustrations, cloth,         4 00
      "               "     cloth, gilt,                            5 00
      "               "     mor. antqe.                             7 00
  The Holy Gospels. With 40 Designs by Overbeck. 1 vol. folio.
    Antique mor.                                                   20 00
  The Land of Bondage. By J. M. Wainwright, D.D. Morocco,           6 00
  The Queens of England. By Agnes Strickland. With 29 Portraits.
    Antique mor.                                                   10 00
  The Ornaments of Memory. With 18 Illustrations. 4to. cloth, gilt, 6 00
       "            "          Morocco,                            10 00
  Royal Gems from the Galleries of Europe. 40 Engravings,          25 00
  The Republican Court; or, American Society in the Days of
    Washington. 21 Portraits. Antique mor.                         12 00
  The Vernon Gallery. 67 Engr's. 4to. Ant.                         25 00
  The Women of the Bible. With 18 Engravings. Mor. antique,        10 00
  Wilkie Gallery. Containing 60 Splendid Engravings. 4to. Antique
    mor.                                                           25 00
  A Winter Wreath of Summer Flowers. By S. G. Goodrich.
    Illustrated. Cloth, gilt,                                       3 00

                           =Juvenile Books.=

  A Poetry Book for Children,                                         75
  Aunt Fanny's Christmas Stories,                                     50
  American Historical Tales,                                          75

                      UNCLE AMEREL'S STORY BOOKS.

  The Little Gift Book. 18mo. cloth,                                  25
  The Child's Story Book. Illus. 18mo. cl.                            25
  Summer Holidays. 18mo. cloth,                                       25
  Winter Holidays. Illus. 18mo. cloth,                                25
  George's Adventures in the Country. Illustrated. 18mo. cloth,       25
  Christmas Stories. Illus. 18mo. cloth,                              25
  Book of Trades,                                                     50
  Boys at Home. By the Author of Edgar Clifton,                       75
  Child's Cheerful Companion,                                         50
  Child's Picture and Verse Book. 100 Engs.                           50

                         COUSIN ALICE'S WORKS.

  All's Not Gold that Glitters,                                       75
  Contentment Better than Wealth,                                     63
  Nothing Venture, Nothing Have,                                      63
  No such Word as Fail,                                               63
  Patient Waiting No Loss,                                            63
  Dashwood Priory. By the Author of Edgar Clifton,                    75
  Edgar Clifton; or Right and Wrong,                                  75
  Fireside Fairies. By Susan Pindar,                                  63
  Good in Every Thing. By Mrs. Barwell,                               50
  Leisure Moments Improved,                                           75
  Life of Punchinello,                                                75

                    LIBRARY FOR MY YOUNG COUNTRYMEN.

  Adventures of Capt. John Smith. By the Author of Uncle Philip,      38
  Adventures of Daniel Boone. By do.                                  38
  Dawnings of Genius. By Anne Pratt,                                  38
  Life and Adventures of Henry Hudson. By the Author of Uncle Philip, 38
  Life and Adventures of Hernan Cortez. By do.                        38
  Philip Randolph. A Tale of Virginia. By Mary Gertrude,              38
  Rowan's History of the French Revolution. 2 vols.                   75
  Southey's Life of Oliver Cromwell,                                  38
  Louis' School-Days. By E. J. May,                                   75
  Louise; or, The Beauty of Integrity,                                25
  Maryatt's Settlers in Canada,                                       62
     "      Masterman Ready,                                          63
     "      Scenes in Africa,                                         63
  Midsummer Fays. By Susan Pindar,                                    63

                         MISS McINTOSH'S WORKS.

  Aunt Kitty's Tales, 12mo.                                           75
  Blind Alice; A Tale for Good Children,                              38
  Ellen Leslie; or, The Reward of Self-Control,                       38
  Florence Arnott; or, Is She Generous?                               38
  Grace and Clara; or, Be Just as well as Generous,                   38
  Jessie Graham; or, Friends Dear, but Truth Dearer,                  38
  Emily Herbert; or, The Happy Home,                                  37
  Rose and Lillie Stanhope,                                           37
  Mamma's Story Book,                                                 75
  Pebbles from the Sea-Shore,                                         37
  Puss in Boots. Illus. By Otto Specter,                              25

                         PETER PARLEY'S WORKS.

  <DW19>s for the Fireside,                                         1 13
  Parley's Present for all Seasons,                                 1 00
  Wanderers by Sea and Land,                                        1 13
  Winter Wreath of Summer Flowers,                                  3 00

                TALES FOR THE PEOPLE AND THEIR CHILDREN.

  Alice Franklin. By Mary Howitt,                                     38
  Crofton Boys (The). By Harriet Martineau,                           38
  Dangers of Dining Out. By Mrs. Ellis,                               38
  Domestic Tales. By Hannah More. 2 vols.                             75
  Early Friendship. By Mrs. Copley,                                   38
  Farmer's Daughter (The). By Mrs. Cameron,                           38
  First Impressions. By Mrs. Ellis,                                   38
  Hope On, Hope Ever! By Mary Howitt,                                 38
  Little Coin, Much Care. By do.                                      38
  Looking-Glass for the Mind. Many plates,                            38
  Love and Money. By Mary Howitt,                                     38
  Minister's Family. By Mrs. Ellis,                                   38
  My Own Story. By Mary Howitt,                                       38
  My Uncle, the Clockmaker. By do.                                    38
  No Sense Like Common Sense. By do.                                  38
  Peasant and the Prince. By H. Martineau,                            28
  Poplar Grove. By Mrs. Copley,                                       38
  Somerville Hall. By Mrs. Ellis,                                     38
  Sowing and Reaping. By Mary Howitt,                                 38
  Story of a Genius.                                                  38
  Strive and Thrive. By do.                                           38
  The Two Apprentices. By do.                                         38
  Tired of Housekeeping. By T. S. Arthur,                             38
  Twin Sisters (The). By Mrs. Sandham,                                38
  Which is the Wiser! By Mary Howitt,                                 38
  Who Shall be Greatest? By do.                                       38
  Work and Wages. By do.                                              38

                             SECOND SERIES.

  Chances and Changes. By Charles Burdett,                            38
  Goldmaker's Village. By H. Zschokke,                                38
  Never Too Late. By Charles Burdett,                                 38
  Ocean Work, Ancient and Modern. By J. H. Wright,                    38
  Picture Pleasure Book, 1st Series,                                1 25
     "        "      "   2d  Series,                                1 25
  Robinson Crusoe. 300 Plates,                                      1 50
  Susan Pindar's Story Book,                                          75
  Sunshine of Greystone,                                              75
  Travels of Bob the Squirrel,                                        37
  Wonderful Story Book,                                               50
  Willy's First Present,                                              75
  Week's Delight; or, Games and Stories for the Parlor,               75
  William Tell, the Hero of Switzerland,                              50
  Young Student. By Madame Guizot,                                    75

                =Miscellaneous and General Literature.=

  An Attic Philosopher in Paris,                                      25
  Appletons' Library Manual,                                        1 25
  Agnell's Book of Chess,                                           1 25
  Arnold's Miscellaneous Works,                                      3 0
  Arthur. The Successful Merchant,
  A Book for Summer Time in the Country,                              50
  Baldwin's Flush Times in Alabama,                                 1 25
  Calhoun (J. C.), Works of. 4 vols. publ. each,                    2 00
  Clark's (W. G.) Knick-Knacks,                                     1 25
  Cornwall's Music as it Was, and as it Is,                           63
  Essays from the London Times. 1st & 2d Series, each,                50
  Ewbanks' World in a Workshop,                                       75
  Ellis' Women of England,                                            50
    "    Hearts and Homes,                                          1 50
    "    Prevention Better than Cure,                                 75
  Foster's Essays on Christian Morals,                                50
  Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield,                                     75
  Grant's Memoirs of an American Lady,                                75
  Gaieties and Gravities. By Horace Smith,                            50
  Guizot's History of Civilization,                                 1 00
  Hearth-Stone. By Rev. S. Osgood,                                  1 00
  Hobson. My Uncle and I,                                             75
  Ingoldsby Legends,                                                  50
  Isham's Mud Cabin,                                                1 00
  Johnson's Meaning of Words,                                       1 00
  Kavanagh's Women of Christianity,                                   75
  Leger's Animal Magnetism,                                         1 00
  Life's Discipline. A Tale of Hungary,                               63
  Letters from Rome. A. D. 138,                                     1 90
  Margaret Maitland,                                                  75
  Maiden and Married Life of Mary Powell,                             50
  Morton Montague; or a Young Christian's Choice,                     75
  Macaulay's Miscellanies. 5 vols.                                  5 00
  Maxims of Washington. By J. F. Schroeder,                         1 00
  Mile Stones in our Life Journey,                                  1 00

                      MINIATURE CLASSICAL LIBRARY.

  Poetic Lacon; or, Aphorisms from the Poets,                         38
  Bond's Golden Maxims,                                               31
  Clarke's Scripture Promises. Complete,                              38
  Elizabeth; or, The Exiles of Siberia,                               31
  Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield,                                     38
      "       Essays,  38
  Gems from American Poets,                                           38
  Hannah More's Private Devotions,                                    31
     "    "     Practical Piety. 2 vols.                              75
  Hemans' Domestic Affections,                                        31
  Hoffman's Lays of the Hudson, &c.                                   38
  Johnson's History of Rasselas,                                      38
  Manual of Matrimony,                                                31
  Moore's Lalla Rookh,                                                38
     "    Melodies. Complete,                                         38
  Paul and Virginia,                                                  31
  Pollok's Course of Time,                                            38
  Pure Gold from the Rivers of Wisdom,                                38
  Thomson's Seasons,                                                  38
  Token of the Heart. Do. of Affection. Do. of Remembrance. Do.
    of Friendship. Do. of Love. Each,                                 31
  Useful Letter-Writer,                                               38
  Wilson's Sacra Privata,                                             31
  Young's Night Thoughts,                                             38
  Little Pedlington and the Pedlingtonians,                           50
  Prismatics. Tales and Poems,                                      1 25
  Papers from the Quarterly Review,                                   50
  Republic of the United States. Its Duties, &c.                    1 00
  Preservation of Health and Prevention of Disease,                   75
  School for Politics. By Chas. Gayerre,                              75
  Select Italian Comedies. Translated,                                75
  Shakespeare's Scholar. By R. G. White,                            2 50
  Spectator (The). New ed. 6 vols. cloth,                           9 00
  Swett's Treatise on Diseases of the Chest,                        3 00
  Stories from Blackwood,                                             50

                           THACKERAY'S WORKS.

  The Book of Snobs,                                                  50
  Mr. Browne's Letters,                                               50
  The Confessions of Fitzboodle,                                      50
  The Fat Contributor,                                                50
  Jeames' Diary. A Legend of the Rhine,                               50
  The Luck of Barry Lyndon,                                         1 00
  Men's Wives,                                                        50
  The Paris Sketch Book. 2 vols.                                    1 00
  The Shabby Genteel Story,                                           50
  The Yellowplush Papers. 1 vol. 16mo.                                50
  Thackeray's Works. 6 vols, bound in cloth,                        6 00
  Trescott's Diplomacy of the Revolution,                             75
  Tuckerman's Artist Life,                                            75
  Up Country Letters,                                                 75
  Ward's Letters from Three Continents,                             1 00
    "    English Items,                                             1 00
  Warner's Rudimental Lessons in Music,                               50
  Woman's Worth,                                                      38

                         =Philosophical Works.=

  Cousin's Course of Modern Philosophy,                             3 00
     "     Philosophy of the Beautiful,                               62
     "     on the True, Beautiful, and Good,                        1 50
  Comte's Positive Philosophy. 2 vols.                              4 00
  Hamilton's Philosophy. 1 vol. 8vo.                                1 50

                        =Poetry and the Drama.=

  Amelia's Poems. 1 vol. 12mo.                                      1 25
  Brownell's Poems. 12mo.                                             75
  Bryant's Poems. 1 vol. 8vo. Illustrated,                          3 50
     "       "    Antique mor.                                      6 00
  Bryant's Poems, 2 vols. 12mo. cloth,                              2 00
     "       "    1 vol. 18mo.                                        63
  Byron's Poetical Works. 1 vol. cloth,                             3 00
     "       "      "     Antique mor.                              6 00
  Burns' Poetical Works. Cloth,                                     1 00
  Butler's Hudibras. Cloth,                                         1 00
  Campbell's Poetical Works. Cloth,                                 1 00
  Coleridge's Poetical Works. Cloth,                                1 25
  Cowper's Poetical Works,                                          1 00
  Chaucer's Canterbury Tales,                                       1 00
  Dante's Poems. Cloth,                                             1 00
  Dryden's Poetical Works. Cloth,                                   1 00
  Fay (J. S.), Ulric; or, The Voices,                                 75
  Goethe's Iphigenia in Tauris. Translated,                           75
  Gilfillan's Edition of the British Poets.
    12 vols. published. Price per vol. cloth,                       1 00
    Do. do. Calf, per vol.                                          2 50
  Griffith's (Mattie) Poems,                                          75
  Hemans' Poetical Works. 2 vols. 16mo.                             2 00
  Herbert's Poetical Works. 16mo. cloth,                            1 00
  Keats' Poetical Works. Cloth, 12mo.                               1 25
  Kirke White's Poetical Works. Cloth,                              1 00
  Lord's Poems. 1 vol. 12mo.                                          75
    "    Christ in Hades. 12mo.                                       75
  Milton's Paradise Lost. 18mo.                                       38
     "     Complete Poetical Works,                                 1 00
  Moore's Poetical Works. 8vo. Illustrated,                         3 00
    "        "       "    Mor. extra,                               6 00
  Montgomery's Sacred Poems. 1 vol. 12mo.                             75
  Pope's Poetical Works. 1 vol. 16mo.                               1 00
  Southey's Poetical Works. 1 vol.                                  3 00
  Spenser's Faerie Queene. 1 vol. cloth,                            1 00
  Scott's Poetical Works. 1 vol.                                    1 00
     "    Lady of the Lake. 16mo.                                     38
     "    Marmion,                                                    37
     "    Lay of the Last Minstrel,                                   25
  Shakspeare's Dramatic Works,                                      2 00
  Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered. 1 vol. 16mo.                         1 00
  Wordsworth (W.). The Prelude,                                     1 00

                           =Religious Works.=

  Arnold's Rugby School Sermons,                                      50
  Anthon's Catechism on the Homilies,                                 06
     "     Early Catechism for Children,                              06
  Burnet's History of the Reformation. 3 vols.                      2 50
     "     Thirty-Nine Articles,                                    2 00
  Bradley's Family and Parish Sermons,                              2 00
  Cotter's Mass and Rubrics,                                          38
  Coit's Puritanism,                                                1 00
  Evans' Rectory of Valehead,                                         50
  Grayson's True Theory of Christianity,                            1 00
  Gresley on Preaching,                                             1 25
  Griffin's Gospel its Own Advocate,                                1 00
  Hecker's Book of the Soul,
  Hooker's Complete Works. 2 vols.                                  4 00
  James' Happiness,                                                   25
  James on the Nature of Evil,                                      1 00
  Jarvis' Reply to Milner,                                            75
  Kingsley's Sacred Choir,                                            75
  Keble's Christian Year,                                             37
  Layman's Letters to a Bishop,                                       25
  Logan's Sermons and Expository Lectures,                          1 13
  Lyra Apostolica,                                                    50
  Marshall's Notes on Episcopacy,                                   1 00
  Newman's Sermons & Subjects of the Day,                           1 00
    "      Essay on Christian Doctrine,                               75
  Ogilby on Lay Baptism,                                              50
  Pearson on the Creed,                                             2 00
  Pulpit Cyclopædia and Ministers' Companion,                       2 50
  Sewell's Reading Preparatory to Confirmation,                       75
  Southard's Mystery of Godliness,                                    75
  Sketches and Skeletons of Sermons,                                2 50
  Spencer's Christian Instructed,                                   1 00
  Sherlock's Practical Christian,                                     75
  Sutton's Disce Vivere--Learn to Live,                               75
  Swartz's Letters to my Godchild,                                    38
  Trench's Notes on the Parables,                                   1 75
     "     Notes on the Miracles,                                   1 75
  Taylor's Holy Living and Dying,                                   1 00
     "     Episcopacy Asserted and Maintained,                        75
  Tyng's Family Commentary,                                         2 00
  Walker's Sermons on Practical Subjects,                           2 00
  Watson on Confirmation,                                             06
  Wilberforce's Manual for Communicants,                              38
  Wilson's Lectures on Colossians,                                    75
  Wyatt's Christian Altar,                                            38

                         =Voyages and Travels.=

  Africa and the American Flag,                                     1 25
  Appletons' Southern and Western Guide,                            1 00
      "      Northern and Eastern Guide,                            1 25
      "      Complete U. S. Guide Book,                             2 00
      "      N. Y. City Map,                                          25
  Bartlett's New Mexico, &c. 2 vols. Illus.,                        5 00
  Burnet's N. Western Territory,                                    2 00
  Bryant's What I Saw in California,                                1 25
  Coggeshall's Voyages. 2 vols.                                     2 50
  Dix's Winter in Madeira,                                          1 00
  Huc's Travels in Tartary and Thibet. 2 vols                       1 00
  Layard's Nineveh. 1 vol. 8vo.                                     1 25
  Notes of a Theological Student. 12mo.                             1 00
  Oliphant's Journey to Katmundu,                                     50
  Parkyns' Abyssinia. 2 vols.                                       2 50
  Russia as it Is. By Gurowski,                                     1 00
     "   By Count de Custine,                                       1 25
  Squier's Nicaragua. 2 vols.                                       5 00
  Tappan's Step from the New World to the Old,                      1 75
  Wanderings and Fortunes of Germ. Emigrants,                         75
  Williams' Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 2 vols. 8vo.                    3 50

                          =Works of Fiction.=

                         GRACE AGUILAR'S WORKS.

  The Days of Bruce. 2 vols. 12mo.                                  1 55
  Home Scenes and Heart Studies. 12mo.                                75
  The Mother's Recompense. 12mo.                                      75
  Woman's Friendship. 12mo.                                           75
  Women of Israel. 2 vols. 12mo.                                    1 50
  Basil. A Story of Modern Life, 12mo.                                75
  Brace's Fawn of the Pale Faces, 12mo.                               75
  Busy Moments of an Idle Woman,                                      75
  Chestnut Wood. A Tale. 2 vols.                                    1 75
  Don Quixotte, Translated. Illustrated,                            1 25
  Drury (A. H.). Light and Shade,                                     75
  Dupuy (A. E.). The Conspirator,                                     75
  Ellen Parry; or, Trials of the Heart,                               63

                           MRS. ELLIS' WORKS.

  Hearts and Homes; or, Social Distinctions,                        1 50
  Prevention Better than Cure,                                        75
  Women of England,                                                   50
  Emmanuel Phillibert. By Dumas,                                    1 25
  Farmingdale. By Caroline Thomas,                                  1 00
  Fullerton (Lady G.). Ellen Middleton,                               75
     "         "   Grantley Manor. 1 vol. 12mo.                       75
     "         "   Lady Bird. 1 vol. 12mo.                            75
  The Foresters. By Alex. Dumas,                                      75
  Gore (Mrs.). The Dean's Daughter. 1 vol. 12mo.                      75
  Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield. 12mo.                               75
  Gil Blas. With 500 Engr's. Cloth, gt. edg.                        2 50
  Harry Muir. A Tale of Scottish Life,                                75
  Hearts Unveiled; or, I Knew You Would Like Him,                     75
  Heartsease; or, My Brother's Wife. 2 vols.                        1 50
  Heir of Redclyffe. 2 vols, cloth,                                 1 50
  Heloise; or, The Unrevealed Secret. 12mo.                           75
  Hobson. My Uncle and I. 12mo.                                       75
  Holmes' Tempest and Sunshine. 12mo.                               1 00
  Home is Home. A Domestic Story,                                     75
  Howitt (Mary). The Heir of West Wayland,                            50
  Io. A Tale of the Ancient Fane. 12mo.                               75
  The Iron Cousin. By Mary Cowden Clarke,                           1 25
  James (G. P. R.). Adrian; or, Clouds of the Mind,                   75
  John; or, Is a Cousin in the Hand Worth Two in the Bush,            25

                        JULIA KAVANAGH'S WORKS.

  Nathalie. A Tale. 12mo.                                           1 00
  Madeline. 12mo.                                                     75
  Daisy Burns. 12mo.                                                1 00
  Life's Discipline. A Tale of Hungary,                               63
  Lone Dove (The). A Legend,
  Linny Lockwood. By Catherine Crowe,                                 53

                         MISS McINTOSH'S WORKS.

  Two Lives; or, To Seem and To Be. 12mo.                             75
  Aunt Kitty's Tales. 12mo.                                           75
  Charms and Counter-Charms. 12mo.                                  1 00
  Evenings at Donaldson Manor,                                        75
  The Lofty and the Lowly. 2 vols.                                  1 50
  Margaret's Home. By Cousin Alice,
  Marie Louise; or, The Opposite Neighbors,                           50
  Maiden Aunt (The). A Story,                                         75
  Manzoni. The Betrothed Lovers. 2 vols.                            1 50
  Margaret Cecil; or, I Can Because I Ought,                          75
  Morton Montague; or, The Christian's Choice,                        75
  Norman Leslie. By G. C. H.                                          75
  Prismatics. Tales and Poems. By Haywarde,                         1 25
  Roe (A. S.). James Montjoy. 12mo.                                   75
       "     To Love and to Be Loved. 12mo.                           75
       "     Time and Tide. 12mo.                                     75
  Reuben Medlicott; or, The Coming Man,                               75
  Rose Douglass. By S. R. W.                                          75

                          MISS SEWELL'S WORKS.

  Amy Herbert. A Tale. 12mo.                                          75
  Experience of Life. 12mo.                                           75
  Gertrude. A Tale. 12mo.                                             75
  Katherine Ashton. 2 vols. 12mo.                                   1 50
  Laneton Parsonage. A Tale. 3 vols. 12mo.                          2 25
  Margaret Percival. 2 vols.                                        1 50
  Walter Lorimer, and Other Tales. 12mo.                              75
  A Journal Kept for Children of a Village School,                  1 00
  Sunbeams and Shadows. Cloth,                                        75
  Thorpe's Hive of the Bee Hunter,                                  1 00
  Thackeray's Works. 6 vols. 12mo.                                  6 00
  The Virginia Comedians. 2 vols. 12mo.                             1 50
  Use of Sunshine. By S. M. 12mo.                                     75
  Wight's Romance of Abelard & Heloise. 12mo.                         75




                     ~Standard Historical Works.~


                                  I.

                         THE HISTORY OF ROME.

                       By THOMAS ARNOLD, D. D.,

     LATE REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF
                 OXFORD, AND HEAD MASTER RUGBY SCHOOL.

                 1 large vol. 8vo. pp. 686. Price, $3.


                                  II.

                          HISTORY OF FRANCE,
             FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE PRESENT TIME.

    By M. MICHELET, PROFESSEUR A LA FACULTE DES LETTRES, PROFESSEUR
                        A L'ECOLE NORMALE, &c.

                  Translated by G. H. SMITH, F. G. S.

             2 vols. 8vo. pp., 480 and 400. Price, $3 50.


                                 III.

                          HISTORY OF GERMANY,
             FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE PRESENT TIME.

                       By FREDERICK KOHLRAUSCH.

      TRANSLATED FROM THE LAST GERMAN EDITION. By JAMES D. HAAS.

       With a complete index prepared expressly for the American
    edition. 1 vol. 8vo., pp. 487. Price $1 50; or, an Illustrated
                     Edition, neatly bound, $2 50.


                                  IV.

                          HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
           FROM THE PEACE OF UTRECHT TO THE PEACE OF PARIS.

                            By LORD MAHON.

          2 large vols. 8vo. pp., 590, 609, well printed, $4.


                                  V.

              A DIGEST OF THE LAWS, CUSTOMS, MANNERS, AND
            INSTITUTIONS OF THE ANCIENT AND MODERN NATIONS.

   By THOMAS DEW, LATE PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY.

             1 vol. 8vo. pp. 670, well printed, price, $2.


                                  VI.

                A MANUAL OF ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY.

                      By W. C. TAYLOR, LL.D., &c.

             1 large volume, 8vo., pp. 866. Price, $2 25.


                                 VII.

             THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION, FROM THE FALL OF
              THE ROMAN EMPIRE TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

                             By F. GUIZOT.

                       TRANSLATED BY W. HAZLITT.

                         4 vols. 12mo., $3 50.




~Important Philosophical Works.~


                                   I.

              PHILOSOPHY OF SIR WILLIAM HAMILTON, BART.,

      PROFESSOR OF LOGIC AND METAPHYSICS IN EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY.

                        Arranged and Edited by

                             O. W. WIGHT,
        Translator of Cousin's "History of Modern Philosophy."

             One vol. 8vo., pp. 530, well printed. $1 50.

    "Sir William Hamilton has attained to the very highest
    distinction as a philosopher, and in some respects
    he is decidedly superior to any of his illustrious
    predecessors--Reid, Stuart or Brown. With a remarkable power
    of analysis and discrimination, he combines great decision and
    elegance of style, and a degree of erudition that is almost
    without a parallel."--_Edinburgh Review._


                                  II.

              COURSE OF THE HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY.

                         By M. VICTOR COUSIN.

                      TRANSLATED BY O. W. WIGHT.

              Two volumes 8vo., well printed. Price, $3.

    "M. Cousin is the greatest philosopher of France."--_Sir
    William Hamilton._

    "A writer, whose pointed periods have touched the chords of
    modern society, and thrilled through the minds of thousands
    in almost every quarter of the civilized world."--_Edinburgh
    Review._


                                  III.

                   THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BEAUTIFUL.

                   FROM THE FRENCH OF VICTOR COUSIN.

               TRANSLATED, WITH NOTES, BY J. O. DANIEL.

                  One neat vol. 12mo. Price, 63 cts.


                                  IV.

               THE POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY OF AUGUSTE COMTE.

                    FREELY TRANSLATED AND CONDENSED

                         BY HARRIET MARTINEAU.

       Two volumes 8vo., pp. 516, 577, well printed. Price, $4.


                                   V.

               LECTURES ON THE TRUE, THE BEAUTIFUL, AND
                               THE GOOD.

                           BY VICTOR COUSIN.

                      TRANSLATED BY O. W. WIGHT.

                 One neat volume 8vo. (Nearly ready.)




~Interesting American Biographies.~


                                   I.

                THE LIFE OF JOHN RANDOLPH, OF ROANOKE.

                          BY HUGH A. GARLAND.

     Complete in 1 volume 8vo., pp. 698, with 2 portraits. $1 50.


                                  II.

                     THE LIFE OF WILLIAM PINKNEY,

                            BY HIS NEPHEW,

                    THE REV. WILLIAM PINKNEY, D. D.

           One volume 8vo., pp. 407, with fine portrait. $2.

    "Mr. Pinkney is certainly one of the historical men of this
    country: having filled some very important positions in her
    councils and representations, and occupied an interesting
    period of her history. His character has been marked, both as
    the subject of admiration by his friends, and of aspersion
    and suspicion by his enemies. This book comes forth to
    defend and justify, and make more clear what was 'obviously
    misunderstood or seemingly misrepresented.' The spirit of
    the book is commendable, and gives us much to admire in
    the life of one 'who adorned the republic of letters, and
    illustrated the virtues that belong to the enlightened American
    citizen.'"--_Cincin. Times._


                                  III.

                 LIFE AND MEMORIALS OF DANIEL WEBSTER.

                         BY GEN. S. P. LYMAN.

               Two neat volumes 16mo., well printed. $1.

    "These sketches have been re-written. They are from the pen
    of Gen. S. P. Lyman, whose general character, as well as his
    intimate relations with the family of the deceased statesman,
    sufficiently guarantee their authenticity. A number of
    anecdotes are interspersed, which show forth Mr. Webster's
    inner man in the most engaging light. None can desire a
    better portraiture of his life and character than is here
    presented."--_N. Y. Courier._


                                  IV.

            A MEMOIR OF THE LATE REV. WM. CROSWELL, D. D.,

      RECTOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE ADVENT, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.

                            BY HIS FATHER.

           One handsome volume 8vo., pp. 528, portrait. $2.

    "This work, which is composed principally of the writings of
    the Rev. Mr. Croswell himself, has been compiled by his father
    at the age of threescore and ten years. A memoir presented
    under these circumstances to the public, cannot fail to demand
    universal attention. This will be sustained by the intrinsic
    merits of the work itself, which as a record on Christian
    experience, trial, and consolation, is one of the most
    beautiful memorials of the kind we have ever read. Mr. Croswell
    seems to have been a man of quick fancy and elegant learning.
    We find scattered through his Memoir a number of graceful
    poems on various subjects, but principally religious, which
    display both taste and talent. But the sincere and fervent
    piety apparent on every page of the volume, must still be
    considered as its chief charm, and its highest recommendation
    to the class of readers to whom the work especially addresses
    itself."--_South. Lit. Gazette._


                                   V.

             LIVES OF EMINENT LITERARY AND SCIENTIFIC MEN
                              OF AMERICA.

                         BY JAMES WYNNE, M. D.

           One neat volume 12mo. pp., 356, well printed. $1.

[Illustration: APPLETONS' PUBLISHING ESTABLISHMENT.]

                       =D. APPLETON & COMPANY=,

                     346 & 348 BROADWAY, NEW YORK,

                =BOOKSELLERS, PUBLISHERS, & IMPORTERS=,

    RESPECTFULLY invite the attention of Literary and Professional
    Gentlemen, Heads of Public Institutions, the Trade, and the
    Public generally, to their very Extensive and Choice Collection
    of

                            STANDARD WORKS,

                         ENGLISH AND AMERICAN,

           Embracing the Best Editions of the Best Authors.

                        THEIR OWN PUBLICATIONS

 =Comprise some of the most Important Works in the English Language.=

                    THEIR SCHOOL-BOOK PUBLICATIONS

               _Cover every branch of Human Knowledge._

  => =Catalogues Furnished Gratis on application to the Publishers.=

                        THEY PUBLISH APPLETONS'
                 =RAILWAY AND STEAM NAVIGATION GUIDE,=
                         =Published Monthly=,
            UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE RAILWAY COMPANIES.

          =Illustrated with over Sixty Maps. Price 25 cents.=




Transcriber's Notes:


    Simple spelling, grammar, and typographical errors were
    silently corrected.

    Punctuation normalized.

    Anachronistic and non-standard spellings retained as printed.

    Italics markup is enclosed in _underscores_.

    Bold markup is enclosed in =equals=.

    Fancy or unusual font markup is enclosed in ~tildes~.

    On page 24 the printer appears to have dropped a line just
    after "This is not possi-." Footnote added by transcriber.

    White Right Pointing Index symbol is denoted by =>.






End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Abridgement of the Debates of
Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.), by Various

*** 