Kitabı oku: «Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)», sayfa 32

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.