Kitabı oku: «Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)», sayfa 146
It appears that very soon after the General Government went into operation, this practice was the subject of remonstrance; this was under the Administration of General Washington. It has been the subject of negotiation and remonstrance under every succeeding Administration. But it is alleged, because it was not settled in the Treaty of 1794, that it was not considered by General Washington as justifiable cause of war, and it is inferred that it ought not now to be considered as sufficient cause for the continuance of the war. What, sir, shall constitute cause of war? The spoliation of your property? Not so, say gentlemen, because the expenditure for redress will be greater than the injury sustained. The violation of the personal liberty of your citizens and the degradation of the ensign of your sovereignty? No, say gentlemen, General Washington did not consider these as sufficient cause of war. Will, then, any injury, or any combination of injuries, authorize or require national resentment? The reasoning of the gentlemen would lead us to a negative conclusion. But in their estimate of the actual causes of the present war, they appear to consider the business of impressment as trivial, and the Orders in Council as every thing. What, sir, will you go to war for property, the value of which is only relative, and which, compared with personal liberty, is worthless, and refuse to go to war for the personal liberty of the citizen? for that which is alike
"Given to the fool, the vain, the evil —
To Ward, to Waters, Chartres, and the Devil!"
You will wage war, and not to rescue your fellow-citizens from imprisonment and stripes? But however this subject was to be viewed before we were actually involved in war, it must now be put on a footing of certainty; if our claim be not secured it will be surrendered; to make peace without obtaining any security against the abuse of which we complain, would be to acquiesce in it, and to acquiesce in it would be to surrender the rights of the country. This was the reasoning of Mr. King, who in one of his communications to Government on this subject says, he has abandoned negotiation, because to acquiesce in the views of the British Government would be to surrender our rights. And shall I be obliged, sir, to come here with volumes of documents to prove the rights of the citizen; to demonstrate that the naval officers of Britain have not a right to incarcerate him; to drag him to the gangway and flog him? Shall I be obliged by a laborious process of reasoning to prove the obligation of Government to rescue him from such suffering? No, gentlemen generally have abandoned this ground, and say, that the impressment of our citizens is, under proper circumstances, justifiable cause of war; and the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. Pearson,) who opened the debate on this subject says, that if a fit proposition, accompanied by means calculated to give it a fair chance of success, were tendered and did not procure a cessation of the practice of impressment, he would support the war. What is the proposition which he submits? That we shall prohibit from serving in our ships the seamen of Great Britain and other foreign seamen, and confine our crews to our own citizens. This being done he will support the war. I challenge gentlemen on the other side of the House to say distinctly to the people, for whom an honorable gentleman (Mr. Quincy) has said this debate was intended, that this war should not be continued for the protection of our seamen; they will not, they dare not. But if they are against the continuance of the war, it is on that ground and no other. The honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) says, Great Britain has a right to insist on the services of her own subjects, and that England would not be England if she could not command them. I say that America will cease to be America if she suffers her to command them at the price of the liberty of her citizens and the honor of her flag. The same gentleman says, England will nail the flag to the mast and go to the bottom with it, rather than surrender the right of taking her seamen from on board our merchant vessels. I hope, sir, we shall imitate the noble example she sets us, and make every sacrifice rather than give up our citizens to bondage and stripes.
But, say gentlemen, the public law of all nations on earth, ancient and modern, has denied the right of expatriation. Admit that they are correct, and for the purpose of the argument, I do admit that such is the general law. But what is this law as modified by the practice of nations? Every nation which has thus forbidden expatriation has at the same time granted naturalization, and the general practice of nations is undoubtedly the law of nations. Does not England naturalize foreigners? Does she not naturalize your citizens? If she does not do it as generally as you do, it is because it is not her policy to do so; it is enough that she naturalizes your seamen; it is enough that all nations have, at the same moment, forbidden expatriation and granted naturalization. The law must be the result of neither exclusively, but of both these practices. Mr. Burke, (the great Edmund,) who was certainly no innovator, denominates Charles XII. the murderer of Patkul. Patkul was born a Swedish subject and had repeatedly taken up arms against his Sovereign; he was adopted by Russia and had been her Minister at the Court of Poland. Charles XII., the Sovereign to whom his natural allegiance was due, obtained possession of his person and put him to death – this act Mr. Burke denominates murder!
Governments which have naturalized foreigners have protected their naturalized subjects, and the Government to whom the native allegiance of such subjects was due, though they have denied the right of expatriation, have not impugned the protecting interposition of the adopted sovereign. If they have, it has been considered as an act of unprincipled violence, and in the instance of Patkul has merited and received the denomination of murder. On this subject I will quote a single sentence from one of Mr. King's letters; he says, "it behooves the British Government to adhere to the principle of natural allegiance wholly, or renounce it wholly." Contending themselves for the right of naturalization, can the British Government deny it to others? On the part of this Government sufficient evidence of its pacific and accommodating disposition appears in its offer to surrender every thing it can, consistently with national faith. On the part of Britain a protraction of the war, by refusing to meet us on the terms proposed, can proceed from no other motive than a determination to continue that abuse of power which she has inflicted and we have suffered so long. The ground taken by this country is what we must insist upon keeping, and I doubt not we will succeed if we contend for it as we ought. The informality of the negotiation between our Chargé d'Affaires and the British Government has been mentioned as a cause of its failure. If there had been an amicable disposition on the part of the British Government, the authority would have been considered ample. If there be not an amicable disposition we will negotiate in vain. We must fight, or we shall never succeed in obtaining a recognition of our rights. I will advert to one argument of the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Emott,) who has examined this subject with ability. It is that one which appeared to me to make the greatest impression on the House. He said he had examined the voluminous document on the subject of impressment, which was printed during the last session by order of the House, and that it did not appear from that document that more than ninety-three American seamen had been impressed in the year 1809; from which I believe every one who heard him inferred that it was proved affirmatively by that document, that no more than ninety-three American seamen, who were named therein, were impressed in that year. Now, what is the fact? The document does not state in one case, perhaps of eight or ten, when the impressment took place, and there are one thousand five hundred and fifty-eight persons named in that document. Of course the gentleman could not be authorized to say that but ninety-three, or any other precise number, were impressed in 1809. All those, the date of whose detention is not stated, may have been impressed in 1809. It is probable much the greatest portion was. A more particular examination of this point of inquiry will prove the magnitude of the evil. From the 1st of April, 1809, to the 30th of September, 1810, a period of eighteen months only, a single agent of this Government, in London, received one thousand five hundred and fifty-eight applications from impressed seamen. How many were unable to apply? Men imprisoned on board ships of war, scattered over the ocean and on distant stations, how could they apply to Mr. Lyman in London and give in their names? The number impressed must have been great, indeed, when a single agent in the short space of eighteen months, registered the names of one thousand five hundred and fifty-eight applicants. Of this number a part was discharged, acknowledged to be Americans beyond the possibility of denial; a small number is detained as being born in England, and the remainder are detained under various pretexts – such as supposed to be born in England, being on distant stations, having consular certificates proving them Danes, Swedes, &c.; as if they had any better right to take from on board an American vessel a Swede or a Dane than an American citizen. Even their own doctrine goes to assert a right to seize none but their own subjects. I ask, now, whether the impression made by the gentleman from New York was a just one? Whether it does not appear probable that at least one thousand of those contained in this list were impressed without even a plausible pretext? But if in a single statement I make out a result so variant from the statement of the gentleman, I beg you and the public to test the other statements of the gentleman in the same way. Not, sir, that the gentleman made the statement with any unfair intention, for no man is more honorable or correct – he has my highest esteem – but, it will show how liable we are to err – nay, how prone we are to err when our feelings and habit of thinking run with our argument. So much for impressment. It is an abuse such as cannot be tolerated by an independent nation. It is one which ought to be resisted by war.
The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and decided in the affirmative – For the bill 77, against it 42, as follows:
Yeas. – Willis Alston, jun., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Daniel Avery, Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John Clopton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Peter Little, Aaron Lyle, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, Samuel L. Mitchill, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, James Pleasants, jun., Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson, Samuel Ringgold, Thomas B. Robertson, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Lemuel Sawyer, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong, John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., William Widgery, and Richard Wynn.
Nays. – John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Hermanus Bleecker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin Chittenden, Matthew Clay, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jun., Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., William Lowndes, Archibald McBryde, James Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jun., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.
Ordered, That the title be, "An act in addition to the act, entitled 'An act to raise an additional military force, and for other purposes.'"
Friday, January 15
Land claims in Missouri Territory – Confirmation of private claims – Pre-emptions
Mr. Hempstead observed, that he had certain resolutions to submit, on which, as they were somewhat in detail, he would ask the liberty to make a few remarks. Under the second section of the first act for adjusting land claims in the Territory of Louisiana, (now Missouri,) each actual settler was entitled to six hundred and forty acres of land, together with such other and further quantity as heretofore had been allowed for the wife and family of such actual settler, agreeably to the laws, usages, and customs of the Spanish Government. A majority of the Board of Land Commissioners in that Territory were, under that section, so liberal in their grants, that it excited the alarm of Government. This alarm, sir, was soon transferred to the people, and has continued ever since; because a majority of the Board passed from one extreme to the other, and granted, in many instances, only one hundred, one hundred and fifty or two hundred arpens, where they had before granted seven or eight hundred arpens. The grants for the smaller quantities are contained in the lists of grants, and being final against the United States, would never come before Congress, unless upon petitions from individual claimants. Other boards of Commissioners, acting under the same law, have granted to the actual settler in every instance, when the law had been complied with, six hundred and forty acres; and it would seem to me, sir, that the people of the Missouri Territory are entitled to the same justice.
The second resolution is to provide as well for rejected claims, in which no testimony has been adduced, as when testimony has been received; and to prevent individual claimants from loading our table with petitions. The mode pointed out will present all claims to Congress at one time. With these observations I shall submit the resolutions for the sanction of the House:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing, in favor of the claimants, the re-examination of the grants of land made by the board of Commissioners for ascertaining and adjusting the titles and claims to land in the district of Louisiana, under the second section of the act, entitled "An act for ascertaining and adjusting the titles and claims to land within the Territory of Orleans and the district of Louisiana," passed the 2d of March, 1805; and also the grants made by the Recorder of Land Titles for the Territory of Missouri, under that part of the third section of the act, entitled "An act further providing for settling the claims to land in the Territory of Missouri," passed the 13th of June, 1812, which provides for settlement of donation rights in all cases where the quantity of land granted is less than six hundred and forty acres; and that said committee have leave to report by bill, or otherwise.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of authorizing the Recorder of Land Titles for the Territory of Missouri to receive testimony in all the claims to land in which none has been adduced, and which are rejected in the report made by the late board of Commissioners for ascertaining and adjusting the titles and claims to land in the then district of Louisiana, now Territory of Missouri; and, afterwards, to arrange into classes, according to their respective merits, as well the claims embraced by this resolution, as the other rejected claims mentioned in said report, and made abstracts containing the substance of the evidence in support of such claims, and such other information and remarks as may be necessary to a proper decision thereon, and report on said claims to the General Commissioner of the Land Office; and that said committee have leave to report by bill, or otherwise.
Resolved, That said committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of granting the right of pre-emption to actual settlers on the public lands in the said Territory of Missouri; and that said committee have leave to report by bill, or otherwise.
The resolutions were then agreed to.
Monday, January 18
Two other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, Peleg Taliman; and from Pennsylvania, William Piper, appeared, and took their seats.
Encouragement to Privateer Captures
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill "relating to captures."
[The bill provides that compensation shall be allowed to the officers and crews of our public vessels, for vessels of the enemy necessarily destroyed at sea after their capture.]
Mr. Bassett stated to the House the considerations by which the Naval Committee had been induced to report this bill. It grew more immediately out of the case of the Guerriere destroyed by the Constitution – a case precisely in point. Such a principle as that which the bill proposed, he believed, had been engrafted in the British service. It was at least required by equity and sound policy, where the public service required the destruction of a vessel for fear of recapture by the enemy in its disabled state, that some compensation should be made to the captors in lieu of that which would have accrued from the sale of the vessel had it been brought into port.
Mr. H. Clay (Speaker) spoke in opposition both to the principles and details of the bill. He was disposed to believe the principle unprecedented in any other country; but even if it were not, he thought it ought not to exist in this country. It would have the effect to make it the interest of the captor, unless the vessel should be immediately on the coast, or in the very mouth of our rivers, to destroy the captured vessel. On consulting the underwriters, gentlemen would find the premium required on bringing in a vessel of any description from any considerable distance, would be equal to one-half her value; and, as proof of it, Mr. C. instanced the high insurance even from Charleston and New Orleans, along our own coast, to a northern port. The strongest possible temptation would, therefore, be offered by giving half the value of the destroyed vessel to the captors in case of her destruction. Mr. C. moved to strike out the first section of the bill.
Mr. Bassett replied to Mr. Clay, and defended the bill, on the ground of expediency and of precedent. In the British nation, he said, rewards were always liberally bestowed on skill and valor, and they must always be by every country that wishes to encourage these qualities in its citizens. The principle did exist in the British service, not by statutory, but by admiralty regulations; and in all such cases rewards had been liberally dispensed.
Mr. Bacon opposed the bill as inexpedient and unprecedented. To show that it went beyond the British legal provisions in that respect, he quoted a statute of that nation which allows to the captors of vessels so destroyed, as the bill contemplates, a bounty of five pounds for every man found alive on board said captured vessels, the aggregate to be equally distributed among the crew of the captors. Further, he believed, that Government had not gone.
Mr. Cheves on this remarked, that every encouragement was afforded to British naval officers, by their Government, as well by promotions to higher office and to nobility, &c., which were not known in this country, as by pecuniary rewards and pensions, not in all cases by statutory, but by Executive sanctions. He was disposed to be liberal to our officers, to foster our rising navy. But, though friendly to the principle, he objected to the particular details of the bill, which he thought susceptible of modifications which would be better made in select committee than in the House. He, therefore, moved that the committee rise.
Mr. Quincy objected to the principle of the bill, which he thought fundamentally questionable. He was for providing specially by statute for each case after its occurrence, where the circumstances of the case required an exercise of liberality by Congress, and to legislate generally for future occurrences.
The committee then rose, reported progress, and were refused leave to sit again; and,
On motion of Mr. Cheves, the bill was recommitted to the Naval Committee.
