[THE president’s message being under consideration in
committee of the whole, Mr. Taylor moved a series of resolutions,
embracing references of various parts of the message.
The first resolution having been read for consideration, Mr.
Clay (speaker) moved to amend the same by adding to the end
thereof the following words:
‘And that the said committee be instructed to inquire, whether
any, and, if any, what provisions of law are necessary to insure,
to the American colonies of Spain, a just observance of the
duties incident to the neutral relation in which the United
States stand, in the existing war between them and Spain.’]
MR. CLAY said, that his presenting, at so early a period of the
session, this subject to the consideration of the house, was in
consequence of certain proceedings which he had seen represented in
the public prints as having taken place before certain of our courts
of justice. Two or three cases bearing on this subject had come to
his knowledge, which he wished to state to the house. The first had
occurred at Philadelphia, before the circuit court of the United States
held in that city. The circumstances of the case, for which, however,
he did not pretend to vouch, having received them through the channel
already indicated, were these; if they were incorrectly stated, he was
happy that a gentleman had taken his seat this morning from that city,
who would be able to correct him: that nine or ten British disbanded
officers had formed in Europe the resolution to unite themselves
with the Spanish patriots in the contest existing between them and
Spain; that, to carry into effect this intention, they had sailed from
Europe, and in their transit to South America had touched at the port
of Philadelphia; that during their residence in Philadelphia, wearing
perhaps the arms and habiliments of military men, making no disguise
of their intention to participate in the struggle, they took passage
in a vessel bound to some port in South America; that a knowledge
of this fact having come to the ears of the public authorities, or,
perhaps, at the instigation of some agent of the Spanish government,
a prosecution was commenced against these officers, who, from their
inability to procure bail, were confined in prison. If, said Mr. Clay,
the circumstances attending this transaction be correctly stated,
it becomes an imperious duty in the house to institute the inquiry
contemplated by the amendment which I have proposed. That this was
an extraordinary case, was demonstrated by the fact of the general
sensation which it had excited on the subject, in the place where it
had occurred. Filled, as that respectable and populous city is, with
men who differ widely on political topics, and entertaining various
views of public affairs, but one sentiment prevailed on this subject,
which was favorable to the persons thus arraigned. With regard to
the conduct of the court on this occasion, he would say nothing. The
respect which, whilst he had a seat on this floor, he should always
show to every branch of the government, the respect he entertained
for the honorable judge who had presided, forbade him from pronouncing
the decision of that court to have been unwarranted by law. But he
felt himself perfectly sustained in saying, that if the proceeding was
warranted by the existing law, it was the imperious duty of congress
to alter the law in this respect. For what, he asked, was the neutral
obligation which one nation owed to another engaged in war? The essence
of it is this; that the belligerent means of the neutral shall not
be employed in the war in favor of either of the parties. That is the
whole of the obligation of a third party in a war between two others;
it certainly does not require of one nation to restrain the belligerent
means of other nations. If those nations choose to permit their means
to be employed in behalf of either party, it is their business to
look to it, and not ours. Let the conduct of the persons prosecuted
be regarded in the most unfavorable light; let it be considered as the
passage of troops through our country, and there was nothing in our
neutral obligations forbidding it. The passage of troops through a
neutral country, according to his impressions, was a question depending
on the particular interest, quiet, or repose, of the country traversed,
and might be granted or refused at its discretion, without in any
degree affecting the obligations of the neutral to either of the
parties engaged in the controversy. But, surely, this was not a case of
the passage of troops the persons apprehended not being in sufficient
number, nor organized or equipped in such manner, as, under any
construction, to constitute a military corps. On this case he would
detain the house no longer, he said; for he was satisfied they could
not but agree with him, if the law justified the proceeding that had
taken place, that law ought to be immediately amended. Other cases
had occurred, in which it appeared to him it became the congress
to interpose its authority. Persons sailing under the flag of the
provinces had been arraigned in our courts, and tried for piracy;
in one case, after having been arraigned, tried, and acquitted of
piracy, the same individuals, on the instigation of a Spanish officer
or agent, had been again arraigned for the same offence. The gentleman
from Massachusetts would correct him if he was wrong, for the case had
occurred in the town of Boston. We admit the flag of these colonies
into our ports; we profess to be neutral; but if our laws pronounce,
that the moment the property and persons under that flag enter our
ports, they shall be seized, the one claimed by the Spanish minister
or consul as the property of Spain, and the other prosecuted as
pirates, that law ought to be altered, if we mean to perform our
neutral professions. I have brought the subject before this house
thus promptly, because I trust that _in this house_ the cause will
find justice; that, however treated elsewhere, on this floor will be
found a guardian interest attending to our performance of the just
obligations of neutrality. Hitherto, he said, whatever might have
been our intentions, our acts had been all on the other side. From the
proclamation of 1815, issued to terminate an expedition supposed to be
organizing in Louisiana, an expedition only in the mind of Chevalier
de Onis, down to the late act――whether the measure was a proper one
or not, he did not say; his confidence in the executive led him to
suppose it was adopted on sufficient grounds――down to the order for
suppressing, as it was called, the establishments at Amelia Island and
Galveston――all the acts of the government had been on one side; they
all bore against the colonies, against the cause in which the patriots
of South America were arduously engaged. It became us, he said, to look
to the other side, honestly intending neutrality, as he believed we
did. Let us recollect the condition of the patriots; no minister here
to spur on our government, as was said in an interesting, and, it
appeared to him, a very candid work, recently published in this country,
respecting the progress of the South American revolution; no minister
here to be rewarded by noble honors, in consequence of the influence
he is supposed to possess with the American government. No; their
unfortunate case was what ours had been, in the years 1778 and 1779;
their ministers, like our Franklins and Jays at that day, were skulking
about Europe, imploring inexorable legitimacy for one kind look――some
aid to terminate a war afflicting to humanity. Nay, their situation
was worse than ours; for we had one great and magnanimous ally to
recognize us, but no nation had stepped forward to acknowledge any of
these provinces. Such disparity between the parties, demanded a just
attention to the interests of the party which was unrepresented; and
if the facts which he had mentioned, and others which had come to his
knowledge, were correct, they loudly demanded the interposition of
congress. He trusted the house would give the subject their attention,
and show that here, in this place, the obligations of neutrality would
be strictly regarded in respect to South America.
[Mr. Sergeant, of Philadelphia, said the statement made by Mr.
Clay was substantially correct, and, after a few other remarks
by the same gentleman, the amendment moved by Mr. Clay was
agreed to without opposition.]