text:
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
[cell cut: 4595758 characters, first 2000000 kept]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaBook