Kitabı oku: «Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)», sayfa 72
Wednesday, January 30
Jared Shattuck's Claim
The House resolved itself into a committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Jared Shattuck – 59 to 29.
The report is favorable to the claimant – a bill for the relief of this person having in two former sessions passed this House, but not been acceded to in the Senate.
Mr. Montgomery, in a speech of some length, opposed the claim, and moved that the committee rise, with a view to printing the papers relating to the claim, which he conceived was not fully understood.
This motion was debated, and lost – 56 to 43.
The report was also debated, and agreed to – 57 to 39.
The committee then rose and reported their agreement to the report.
Thursday, January 31
Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, Orchard Cook, appeared, and took his seat.
Mississippi Territory
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report of the select committee in favor of admitting the Mississippi Territory into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
A desultory debate of two or three hours took place on the resolution.
Messrs. Poindexter, Johnson, Gholson, McKim, Sheffey, Holland, and Wright, spoke in favor of the resolution, and Messrs. Bacon, Pitkin, Quincy, Bigelow, and Blaisdell, against it. The arguments in favor of its passage were, among others, that the territory could, when possessing a population of 60,000, claim admission as a right; that it now contained probably 45,000, and would, more than probably, before a Representative could be elected under the new constitution, contain full 60,000 souls; that, after admitting Orleans to the rank of a State, with a minor population, at the present session, it would be the height of injustice to refuse the same privilege to Mississippi, which had been so much longer a part of the united territory, and against the admission of which into the Union none of the constitutional objections had weight which had been urged against the admission of Orleans. The opponents of the resolution argued that some respect was due to the feelings, however grounded, of the eastern States, in relation to the creation of new States on the western waters; that the admission of one State during a session was sufficient; if two were admitted into the Union, in the course of three months, the people of the eastern States would be justly alarmed at the diminution of their relative weight in the scale of the Union; that, since it was acknowledged the new State could not be represented before the thirteenth Congress, there could be no occasion for pressing this subject so urgently at this time. Why not, it was asked, wait for the actual census of the territory? The very solicitude which was manifested to get this subject through Congress, it was said, showed there was something wrong, and was a strong argument against the adoption of the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to in Committee of the Whole – ayes 62.
The committee rose, and reported their agreement to the resolution.
The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the Whole in their agreement to the said resolution, and resolved in the affirmative – yeas 68, nays 47.
Friday, February 1
Commercial Intercourse
The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following bill reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations:
A bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act concerning the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes."
Be it enacted, &c., That no vessel owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United States, which shall have departed from a British port prior to the second day of February, one thousand eight hundred and eleven, and no merchandise owned wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United States, imported in such vessel, shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture, on account of any infraction or presumed infraction of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement.
Mr. Emott moved to amend the same by striking out the words in italic, and to insert in their place, "or merchandise." The bill, as amended, would read as follows:
"That no vessel or merchandise shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture on account of any infraction, or presumed infraction, of the provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement."
Mr. Emott. – Mr. Chairman: As the bill which is now on your table is calculated to relieve our merchants in part from the restrictive system which has again been attempted to be put in operation, I so far approve of it; but as it does not appear to me to go far enough, I rise for the purpose of moving an amendment, which, if adopted, will once more give us a clear deck; and while I am up, the committee will permit me, as concisely as the nature of the subject will admit, to assign the reasons which induce me to propose the amendment.
By the law of the first of May last, the President was authorized, in case either of the great belligerents, before the third of March, revoked her anti-neutral edicts, to proclaim the same, and if the other did not in three months also revoke, a non-intercourse with her was to follow. On the second day of November, the President had proclaimed, as a fact, that France had made the necessary revocation; and it follows, if he was correct as to the fact, that on the second day of this month, the non-intercourse went into operation against Great Britain.
As many formerly, and more latterly, have doubted as to the fact thus proclaimed, it becomes, sir, a duty which we owe to ourselves and to the people, to inquire into its existence; for if it be true that no such repeal, as was contemplated by the law, has taken place; if, indeed, the President has been deceived, or was mistaken, we cannot too soon make it known, and relieve the country from the vexation and embarrassment which must result from the present state of things.
If, sir, additional motives were necessary, we may find them in the bills which have this morning been introduced into the House by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, at the instance of the Secretary of the Treasury, one of which goes to lay large additional duties, and the other to authorize a loan. The reasons assigned by the Secretary for this new and heavy tax on our citizens are, that as the greater part of our duties on imports are collected on goods coming from Great Britain and her colonies, and as those duties will cease with the revival of the non-importation, it becomes necessary, in order to prevent a defalcation in the revenue, to tax the production of other countries much beyond the present rate. On this presumed defalcation, too, in some degree depends the proposition for a loan, or, if a loan be necessary, the amount of it. In this point of view, it becomes highly important to ascertain whether the non-intercourse has gone into operation; for if it has not, I trust we shall not proceed to give form and shape to the recommendation of the Secretary, that we shall not burden the country with new taxes, or subject it to large loans.
In the commencement of this inquiry, Mr. Chairman, we naturally ask ourselves, what edicts are to be revoked, and how are they to be revoked? It is not material to extend this inquiry to Great Britain, as we know of no revocation on her part, and, under all circumstances, we have not, I fear, much reason to believe that there will be such revocation. But it may be well to notice here something which has the appearance of inconsistency, on the part of our Executive, towards that Government.
The non-intercourse law of March, 1809, contains a provision, that, "in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the President shall declare the same by proclamation, and the non-intercourse was then to cease as to the nation revoking. It was under this law, and in consequence of the power so given to the President, that the celebrated, though ill-fated arrangement, was made between the Executive and the British Minister, Mr. Erskine. Now, sir, by referring to this arrangement, you will find, that on April 18, Mr. Erskine proposed to Secretary Smith the revocation of the orders in council of January and November, 1807, as a compliance on the part of Great Britain with the terms of the act of March; and our Secretary, on the same day, declaring that the withdrawing of such orders would be deemed satisfactory by the President, the arrangement was completed on the 19th, and a proclamation accordingly issued on the ground, and assuming the fact, that the British edicts had ceased to violate our neutral commerce, and again opening the intercourse between the two countries after the 10th of June.
This arrangement, and the short and hasty correspondence connected with it, you will recollect, sir, were presented to Congress with the Message, at the opening of the summer session of 1809, and we then passed a law, the object of which was to ratify and to carry into effect the arrangement. Here, then, we have an explicit opinion from both the Executive and the Legislature, that the only British orders which came within the spirit and intent of the law of March, were those of January and November 1807, and that, when those orders were revoked, the edicts of Great Britain ceased to violate the commerce of the United States.
I pray you now, Mr. Chairman, to turn with me to the law of May last; you will there find the precise phraseology of the act of March: "In case either Great Britain or France shall so revoke or modify her edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States," the President is to make known the fact by proclamation. The authority given to the President is in both cases the same, and it was to have been presumed that it would have been exercised on the same terms. But, sir, it will be found, on referring to the papers, that, under the act of May, the Executive made a further requisition. The revocation of the orders in council of January and November was not to satisfy us, but the blockade of the year preceding was to be also annulled.
In the letter from Secretary Smith to our Minister at London, of the 5th of July, 1810, and which enclosed a copy of the law of May, it is said, "that in explaining the extent of the repeal which is required on the British side, Mr. Pinkney will let it be distinctly understood, that it must necessarily include an annulment of the blockade of 1806;" and our minister accordingly, in his letter to Lord Wellesley, of the 21st of September, tells him it is his duty to state "that an annulment of the blockade of May, 1806, is considered by the President to be as indispensable, in the view of the act, as the revocation of the British orders in council." Nay, so far has the President gone in this particular as to give the French Government a pledge that this will be required on the part of Great Britain. In the letter from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, 1810, the latter is authorized, if it should be found necessary, to "let it be understood that a repeal of the illegal blockades of a date prior to the Berlin decree, namely, that of May, 1806, will be included in the condition required of Great Britain."
It is not my intention at this time, to enter into a discussion on the subject of blockades, nor am I to be understood as giving countenance to the system of paper blockades, whether that system proceeds from or is attempted to be enforced by England or by France; but, sir, I have gone into this examination to show that the President has acted differently under two laws which ought to have the same practical construction, because the terms used in them were alike; that under the law of May, 1810, he added a condition to a settlement with Great Britain, which he did not require under the law of March, 1809; and why this difference?
Will it be said, that when the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine the President had no knowledge of the blockading orders of May, 1806? Not so, sir. By recurring to a report made by Mr. Madison, as Secretary of State, in December, 1808, of belligerent decrees and orders affecting neutral commerce, you will find this very blockade; and certainly what he knew as Secretary in December, he must have known as President in the April following. Shall I be told the President had discovered that the blockade had been "avowed to be comprehended in, and identified with, the orders in council?" I fear this will not be a satisfactory answer. For, in this case, if the orders in council are rescinded, the connection between them and the blockade will then stand as it was supposed by the Executive to stand when the arrangement was entered into.
Persons, Mr. Chairman, more prone to jealousy than myself, and who are disposed to find fault with the late Executive projects, may perhaps point to that passage in the letter from Secretary Smith to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d of May, 1810, in which it is said, that the President has read, with surprise and regret, the reply of Lord Wellesley to the note requiring explanations with respect to the blockade of France, which "evinces an inflexible determination to persevere in the system of blockade," as affording a reason for this added condition: they may say that it was thrust in when our Administration were satisfied that it would not be acceded to by the British, and for the purpose of preventing an accommodation with, and keeping up the irritation against, that nation. But while, for myself, I disclaim this inference, I must confess that I am at a loss to assign a sufficient motive for the difference in the two cases.
As to France, sir, what were the edicts to be revoked, and how revoked? I shall have occasion, before I sit down, to notice the Berlin and Milan decrees. But were there not other decrees?
We have before us the Rambouillet decree, with a date of the 23d of March, 1810, which declares that "all vessels navigating under the flag of the United States, or possessed in whole or in part by a citizen or subject of that power, which, counting from the 20th of May, 1809, have entered, or shall enter into the ports of our Empire, of our colonies, or of the countries occupied by our arms, shall be seized, and the product of the sales shall be deposited in the surplus fund." Thus embracing almost the whole of continental Europe; for, with the exception of the Russian ports on the Baltic, and two or three places in the European peninsula, every port frequented by the Americans belonged either to the Empire of France, to the colonies of that Empire, or to countries occupied by the forces of the Empire. The seizures under this decree were consequently great and distressing to our merchants.
This decree purports to be an act of reprisal on this country, and for what cause? Not for any act of hostility by us; not for any seizures or confiscations of French vessels or French property under the authority, or within the limits of this Government. No, sir, a pretence of this kind appeared too absurd to be inserted even in a French decree. It is true that General Armstrong, in his letter to Secretary Smith, of the 10th of September, 1810, communicates a verbal explanation which accompanied the last letter of the French Minister: "If you confiscate French property under the law of non-intercourse, they will confiscate your property under their decree of Rambouillet." Ay, sir, and they have given a practical explanation that they would confiscate our property under the decree, although we did not confiscate their property under the non-intercourse law. Look at the decree itself, and you will find the motive, or rather the pretext for this act of reprisal. It is grounded on the passing of the act of the 1st of March, 1809, and it is grounded on that alone.
Thus, because we deemed it advisable to pass a law which we supposed was a mere municipal regulation, inasmuch as it related to our own citizens, or our own territories; a law, which, according to its letter, applied equally to both belligerents, and which was not to commence its operation until the 20th of May, contained in itself a notice sufficient to prevent any injury to French subjects; for this cause, and for this alone, the Emperor adopts, as an act of reprisal, a decree which subjects to seizure and confiscation, not only American property which should reach the continent after notice of the decree, or even after its date, but property which arrived there at any time for the preceding twelve months. I will not stop to inquire what would and what ought to have been the feelings of the Administration and of the country, if such an outrage had been committed by England for such a cause. But, sir, if the French Government is allowed to have in the act of March an excuse for reprisal, we had better discontinue making laws altogether; for it is difficult to find in our statute book a law less hostile to France, or more within the right of an independent Government to enact.
To see the true character of this decree, we must approach it a little nearer; and with the letters of the Duke of Cadore in my hand – those letters, sir, which have occasioned our present embarrassments – I am strangely deceived if this proceeding of the French Government does not appear to partake of the nature of an offence which, as respects individuals, is called swindling. It is a taking of property under false pretences.
Allow me now, Mr. Chairman, to present you with another view of this decree. The Duke of Cadore, in his letter of the 5th of August, 1810, says: "Now Congress retrace their steps; they revoke the act of the 1st of March; the ports of America are opened to French commerce, and France is no longer interdicted to the Americans." And in his letter of the 7th of September, he uses these expressions: "His Majesty has always wished to favor the commerce of the United States. It was not without reluctance that he used reprisals towards the Americans, while he saw that Congress had ordered the confiscation of all French vessels which might arrive in the United States."
"As soon as His Majesty was informed of this hostile act, he felt that the honor of France, involved in this point, could not be cleansed but by a declaration of war." Now "the American vessels which shall arrive in France, will not be subject to confiscation, because the act of Congress, which had served as a motive to our reprisals, is repealed." From this exposition of the views of the French Government, handed to us by the Minister of Exterior Relations, we perceive that he places the Rambouillet decree entirely to the account of the non-intercourse law of March; and from the course of reasoning used by him, it seems to be admitted that the decree, and the seizures under it, could not be justified, but while the obnoxious law was in force.
But we here again meet with another of the mistakes of this most just Government, which is so jealous of its honor and so friendly to our commerce. The fact happens to be that the law never was repealed. By its own limitation it expired with the then session of Congress, and, of course, went out of existence on the 28th of June, 1809. Thus this poor law, which is now brought up in judgment against us, had quietly descended to the tomb of the Capulets almost a year before the Emperor and King thought it consistent with his interest, or for the honor of his empire, to commence his measures of retaliation. The limitation clause could not have escaped the attention of His Majesty when he read the law; and, I trust, we yet have pride enough to believe that he knows there is an American Congress, and notices the periods of our meeting and departure, if he is careless about our proceedings. When, therefore, Napoleon issued the plundering decree of Rambouillet, he knew that the law on which he placed his justification had long since expired. But he knew a further fact, that the law never did affect French vessels. The British navy kept them at home, and we excluded English vessels only. Such was the practical and the only practical operation of our law.
I am aware that the apologists of the Emperor will point to the act of the 1st of June, 1809, as reviving or continuing certain sections of the law of March. Let me not be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I do not mean to insinuate that the Emperor has apologists in this House, in this ark of independence and liberty of a great people; but, in whatever place this suggestion shall be offered, it may be answered that the French Government have not noticed the last law in their decree, or in any of their official papers. And it may be further remarked that the law of June, like that of March, was limited to the end of the next session of Congress, and, of course, ceased its operation on the 1st of May, 1810. As the decree issued on the 14th of May, and the seizures under it were after that time, it would seem, to a man of common understanding, who believes the transactions between nations are, or ought to be, regulated by the rules of honest, plain dealing, that the Emperor, when he had knowledge of the fact, would have loosened his hold on our property. And yet we find that, when we approach him on this subject, he laughs us to scorn.
The object which I had in view, in this examination of the Rambouillet decree, was, to mark its true character, to show that this decree emphatically outraged our neutral rights, and that, if it was submitted to by this country, our code of national rights will be found hereafter in the same books with those of the kingdoms which belong to the Confederation of the Rhine. Our merchants are induced to adventure to France by a prospect of large profits, and by promises of great security if their vessels have not been "denationalized." They take there many a valuable cargo, until the amount of property becomes an object of imperial attention, and then it is seized upon by an irresistible and unrelenting hand, without notice, and upon pretexts void of any foundation. Can a decree, or order, or edict, be pointed out in the long history of our wrongs and our sufferings, which is more strongly marked with injustice, or which more strongly "violates our neutral commerce?"
I will not detain the committee by entering into a particular examination of the French decrees, which, in the commencement of the last year, authorized the seizure of such a number of American vessels at St. Sebastians, at Naples, and in the North of Europe. It would lead me too far into the views and conduct of the French Government towards this country, for the purposes of this discussion. But, sir, in this volume of documents, I see, with emotions which I am sure are in unison with those of the American people, the famous note, signed "Champagny, Duke de Cadore," of the 4th of February last, written to justify those seizures, and, as he says, "that the President may the better know the friendly intentions of France towards the United States, and her favorable dispositions to American commerce;" in which we are told that we are "without just political views, without honor, and without energy." And are we so sunk in the estimation of the mighty conqueror, that he thinks it necessary and proper to use this as his official language towards us? Surely, sir, he mistakes the character and the spirit of this people if he believes they are to be broken down, or brought into his views, by insults or threats. As our Government had, a few months before, discharged and disgraced a British Minister for a supposed insult by an insinuation, it was to have been expected that, on this occasion, equal spirit would be shown. But to such as formed corresponding expectations, what will be their feelings when they find that the only Executive notice of the note is found in the letter of Mr. Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of June last, in which the Secretary says, that, "as the John Adams is daily expected, and as your farther communications by her will better enable me to adapt to the actual state of our affairs with the French Government, the observations proper to be made in relation to the seizure of our property, and to the letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 14th of February; it is, by the President, deemed expedient not to make, at this time, any such animadversions."
Let us now see, Mr. Chairman, whether these decrees have been "so revoked or modified as that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce of the United States."
These decrees have two distinct operations, the seizure of our property, and the subsequent sale of that property; and, without attempting to prove a proposition which appears self-evident, I shall take it for granted that, if it was an infringement of our rights to seize the property, it is equally an infringement of our rights to proceed to the confiscation and sale of such property. Nay, sir, if we allow to the French Government the plea of retaliation, the infringement of our rights will commence with the confiscation and sale of our vessels after the cause of retaliation has been removed by us, and known so to be by the Emperor. A revocation or modification of these decrees, so that they should cease to violate our fair commerce, therefore, would look as well to an indemnity for the past as a security for the future; it necessarily includes a restoration of the property already taken, as well as an engagement against future captures. This appears to have been, at one time, the opinion of our Administration; for you will find, by recurring to the letter from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of June, 1810, which enclosed a copy of the law of May, the determination of our Executive is thus made known: "If, however, the arrangement contemplated by the law should be acceptable to the French Government, you will understand it to be the purpose of the President not to proceed in giving it effect, in case the late seizure of the property of the citizens of the United States has been followed by an absolute confiscation, and restoration be finally refused." And in the letter from Mr. Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, this determination is expressed with added strength: "As has been heretofore stated to you, a satisfactory provision for restoring the property lately surprised and seized by the order, or at the instance of the French Government, must be combined with a repeal of the French edicts, with a view to a non-intercourse with Great Britain; such a provision being an indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the United States."
Without asking for the evidence which the President had as to the repeal or modification of these decrees, I now put it to the committee whether every member of it is not perfectly convinced that if any modification, or suspension, or repeal, has taken place, it goes no farther than to restrain future seizures, leaving the property already seized to take the course of confiscation and sale? Do we not know, that, in the months of October and November, our vessels and merchandise have been brought under the hammer in pursuance of those decrees; and have we not lately seen, in our public journals, a list of some eighteen or twenty ships advertised by the French Government for sale at Bayonne, on the 5th of December? Nay, sir, the Executive was informed, before he issued his proclamation, by the letter from the Duke of Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 12th of September, 1810, that, "as to the merchandise confiscated, it having been confiscated as a measure of reprisal, the principles of reprisal must be the law in that affair." Words cannot be found which would more satisfactorily "evince an inflexible determination" to retain the property. As the principles of reprisal are to be the law, it follows that a restoration of the property depends on the discretion of the Emperor, and is not to be claimed by us as a matter of right, but of favor. And what have we to propose, according to the principles of reprisal, to obtain the restoration? Is it, that we have suffered the non-intercourse law to expire? Why, sir, this had taken place long before the letter of the Duke of Cadore. Is it a restoration of French property seized under the law of non-intercourse? This cannot take place; because, in truth, there was no such seizure.
We will now examine whether there has been such a revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees as warranted the proclamation. And here let me remark that, when the President acted under this law, he was not exercising the treaty-making power. He was the mere agent of the Legislature, and as such agent, he was confined and limited by his letter of attorney, the law. He had not, therefore, as has been asserted, a discretion, nor had he any thing to do with considerations of comity or courtesy. He was to ascertain when there was an actual and practical revocation, and then make known the fact; the consequences were left with the legislature. Indeed, sir, this power to give publicity to a fact might have been committed to one of the Secretaries, or to a clerk in the offices, and if it had, we should have smiled at the suggestion that its exercise depended on considerations of courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, when the proclamation first appeared, my impression was, and such, too, I understood to be the general impression, that the President had some document unknown to the American people. The letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, was already before the public, but it was not credited that on this letter the proclamation had been issued. Since we have received the Message the subject is at rest. It is now known and acknowledged that the President had not, and to this moment has not, any other evidence of a revocation. Now, sir, in this letter, I see neither the form nor the substance of a revocation.
