FRENCH AFFAIRS--APPROACH OF A FRENCH SQUADRON--APOLOGY REQUIRED.
In his annual message at the commencement of the session the
President gave a general statement of our affairs with France, and
promised a special communication on the subject at an early day.
That communication was soon made, and showed a continued refusal
on the part of France to pay the indemnity, unless an apology was
first made; and also showed that a French fleet was preparing for
the American seas, under circumstances which implied a design either
to overawe the American government, or to be ready for expected
hostilities. On the subject of the apology, the message said:
"Whilst, however, the government of the United States was
awaiting the movements of the French government, in perfect
confidence that the difficulty was at an end, the Secretary
of State received a call from the French chargé d'affaires in
Washington, who desired to read to him a letter he had received
from the French minister of foreign affairs. He was asked
whether he was instructed or directed to make any official
communication, and replied that he was only authorized to
read the letter, and furnish a copy if requested. It was an
attempt to make known to the government of the United States,
privately, in what manner it could make explanations, apparently
voluntary, but really dictated by France, acceptable to her,
and thus obtain payment of the twenty-five millions of francs.
No exception was taken to this mode of communication, which
is often used to prepare the way for official intercourse;
but the suggestions made in it were, in their substance,
wholly inadmissible. Not being in the shape of an official
communication to this government, it did not admit of reply or
official notice; nor could it safely be made the basis of any
action by the Executive or the legislature; and the Secretary of
State did not think proper to ask a copy, because he could have
no use for it."
One cannot but be struck with the extreme moderation with which
the President gives the history of this private attempt to obtain
a dictated apology from him. He recounts it soberly and quietly,
without a single expression of irritated feeling; and seems to have
met and put aside the attempt in the same quiet manner, it was
a proof of his extreme indisposition to have any collision with
France, and of his perfect determination to keep himself on the
right side in the controversy, whatever aspect it might assume. But
that was not the only trial to which his temper was put. The attempt
to obtain the apology being civilly repulsed, and the proffered copy
of the dictated terms refused to be taken, an attempt was made to
get that copy placed upon the archives of the government, with the
view to its getting to Congress, and through Congress to the people;
to become a point of attack upon the President for not giving the
apology, and thereby getting the money from France, and returning to
friendly relations with her. Of this attempt to get a refused paper
upon our archives, and to make it operate as an appeal to the people
against their own government, the President (still preserving all
his moderation), gives this account:
"Copies of papers, marked Nos. 9, 10, and 11 show an attempt
on the part of the French chargé d'affaires, many weeks
afterwards, to place a copy of this paper among the archives
of this government, which for obvious reasons, was not allowed
to be done; but the assurance before given was repeated, that
any official communication which he might be authorized to
make in the accustomed form would receive a prompt and just
consideration. The indiscretion of this attempt was made
more manifest by the subsequent avowal of the French chargé
d'affaires, that the object was to bring the letter before
Congress and the American people. If foreign agents, on a
subject of disagreement between their government and this,
wish to prefer an appeal to the American people, they will
hereafter, it is hoped, better appreciate their own rights, and
the respect due to others, than to attempt to use the Executive
as the passive organ of their communications. It is due to the
character of our institutions that the diplomatic intercourse of
this government should be conducted with the utmost directness
and simplicity, and that, in all cases of importance, the
communications received or made by the Executive should assume
the accustomed official form. It is only by insisting on this
form that foreign powers can be held to full responsibility;
that their communications can be officially replied to; or
that the advice or interference of the legislature can, with
propriety, be invited by the President. This course is also best
calculated, on the one hand, to shield that officer from unjust
suspicions; and, on the other, to subject this portion of his
acts to public scrutiny, and, if occasion shall require it,
to constitutional animadversion. It was the more necessary to
adhere to these principles in the instance in question, inasmuch
as, in addition to other important interests, it very intimately
concerned the national honor; a matter, in my judgment, much
too sacred to be made the subject of private and unofficial
negotiation."
Having shown the state of the question, the President next gave
his opinion of what ought to be done by Congress; which was, the
interdiction of our ports to the entry of French vessels and French
products:--a milder remedy than that of reprisals which he had
recommended at the previous session. He said:
"It is time that this unequal position of affairs should cease,
and that legislative action should be brought to sustain
Executive exertion in such measures as the case requires.
While France persists in her refusal to comply with the terms
of a treaty, the object of which was, by removing all causes
of mutual complaint, to renew ancient feelings of friendship,
and to unite the two nations in the bonds of amity, and of
a mutually beneficial commerce, she cannot justly complain
if we adopt such peaceful remedies as the law of nations and
the circumstances of the case may authorize and demand. Of
the nature of these remedies I have heretofore had occasion
to speak; and, in reference to a particular contingency, to
express my conviction that reprisals would be best adapted to
the emergency then contemplated. Since that period, France,
by all the departments of her government, has acknowledged
the validity of our claims and the obligations of the treaty,
and has appropriated the moneys which are necessary to its
execution; and though payment is withheld on grounds vitally
important to our existence as an independent nation, it is
not to be believed that she can have determined permanently
to retain a position so utterly indefensible. In the altered
state of the questions in controversy, and under all existing
circumstances, it appears to me that, until such a determination
shall have become evident, it will be proper and sufficient to
retaliate her present refusal to comply with her engagements
by prohibiting the introduction of French products and the
entry of French vessels into our ports. Between this and the
interdiction of all commercial intercourse, or other remedies,
you, as the representatives of the people, must determine. I
recommend the former, in the present posture of our affairs, as
being the least injurious to our commerce, and as attended with
the least difficulty of returning to the usual state of friendly
intercourse, if the government of France shall render us the
justice that is due; and also as a proper preliminary step to
stronger measures, should their adoption be rendered necessary
by subsequent events."
This interdiction of the commerce of France, though a milder measure
than that of reprisals, would still have been a severe one--severe
at any time, and particularly so since the formation of this treaty,
the execution of which was so much delayed by France; for that was
a treaty of two parts--something to be done on each side. On the
part of France to pay us indemnities: on our side to reduce the
duties on French wines: and this reduction had been immediately made
by Congress, to take effect from the date of the ratification of
the treaty; and the benefit of that reduction had now been enjoyed
by French commerce for near four years. But that was not the only
benefit which this treaty brought to France from the good feeling it
produced in America: it procured a discrimination in favor of silks
imported from this side of the Cape of Good Hope--a discrimination
inuring, and intended to inure, to the benefit of France. The author
of this View was much instrumental in procuring that discrimination,
and did it upon conversations with the then resident French minister
at Washington, and founding his argument upon data derived from
him. The data were to show that the discrimination would be
beneficial to the trade of both countries; but the inducing cause
was good-will to France, and a desire to bury all recollection of
past differences in our emulation of good works. This view of the
treaty, and a statement of the advantages which France had obtained
from it, was well shown by Mr. Buchanan in his speech in support of
the message on French affairs; in which be said:
"The government of the United States proceeded immediately
to execute their part of the treaty. By the act of the 13th
July, 1832, the duties on French wines were reduced according
to its terms, to take effect from the day of the exchange of
ratifications. At the same session, the Congress of the United
States, impelled, no doubt, by their kindly feelings towards
France, which had been roused into action by what they believed
to be a final and equitable settlement of all our disputes,
voluntarily reduced the duty upon silks coming from this side
of the Cape of Good Hope, to five per cent., whilst those from
beyond were fixed at ten per cent. And at the next session,
on the 2d of March, 1833, this duty of five per cent. was
taken off altogether; and ever since, French silks have been
admitted into our country free of duty. There is now, in fact, a
discriminating duty of ten per cent. in their favor, over silks
from beyond the Cape of Good Hope.
"What has France gained by these measures in duties on her
wines and her silks, which she would otherwise have been bound
to pay? I have called upon the Secretary of the Treasury, for
the purpose of ascertaining the amount. I now hold in my hand
a tabular statement, prepared at my request, which shows, that
had the duties remained what they were, at the date of the
ratification of the treaty, these articles, since that time
would have paid into the Treasury, on the 30th September, 1834,
the sum of $3,061,525. Judging from the large importations which
have since been made, I feel no hesitation in declaring it as my
opinion, that, at the present moment, these duties would amount
to more than the whole indemnity which France has engaged to
pay to our fellow-citizens. Before the conclusion of the ten
years mentioned in the treaty, she will have been freed from
the payment of duties to an amount considerably above twelve
millions of dollars."
It is almost incomprehensible that there should have been such
delay in complying with a treaty on the part of France bringing her
such advantages; and it is due to the King, Louis Philippe to say,
that he constantly referred the delay to the difficulty of getting
the appropriation through the French legislative chambers. He
often applied for the appropriation, but could not venture to make
it an administration question; and the offensive demand for the
apology came from that quarter, in the shape of an unprecedented
proviso to the law (when it did pass), that the money was not to
be paid until there had been an apology. The only objection to the
King's conduct was that he did not make the appropriation a cabinet
measure, and try issues with the chambers; but that objection has
become less since; and in fact totally disappeared, from seeing a
few years afterwards, the ease with which the King was expelled
from his throne, and how unable he was to try issues with the
chambers. The elder branch of the Bourbons, and all their adherents,
were unfriendly to the United States, considering the American
revolution as the cause of the French revolution; and consequently
the source of all their twenty-five years of exile, suffering and
death. The republicans were also inimical to him, and sided with the
legitimists.
The President concluded his message with stating that a large French
naval armament was under orders for our seas; and said:
"Of the cause and intent of these armaments I have no authentic
information, nor any other means of judging, except such as
are common to yourselves and to the public; but whatever may
be their object, we are not at liberty to regard them as
unconnected with the measures which hostile movements on the
part of France may compel us to pursue. They at least deserve
to be met by adequate preparations on our part, and I therefore
strongly urge large and speedy appropriations for the increase
of the navy, and the completion of our coast defences.
"If this array of military force be really designed to affect
the action of the government and people of the United States on
the questions now pending between the two nations, then indeed
would it be dishonorable to pause a moment on the alternative
which such a state of things would present to us. Come what may,
the explanation which France demands can never be accorded;
and no armament, however powerful and imposing, at a distance,
or on our coast, will, I trust, deter us from discharging the
high duties which we owe to our constituents, to our national
character, and to the world."
Mr. Buchanan sustained the message in a careful and well-considered
review of this whole French question, showing that the demand of
an apology was an insult in aggravation of the injury, and could
not be given without national degradation; joining the President in
his call for measures for preserving the rights and honor of the
country; declaring that if hostilities came they were preferable to
disgrace, and that the whole world would put the blame on France.
Mr. Calhoun took a different view of it, declaring that the state
of our affairs with France was the effect of the President's
mismanagement, and that if war came it would be entirely his fault;
and affirmed his deliberate belief that it was the President's
design to have war with France. He said:
"I fear that the condition in which the country is now placed
has been the result of a deliberate and systematic policy.
I am bound to speak my sentiments freely. It is due to my
constituents and the country, to act with perfect candor and
truth on a question in which their interests is so deeply
involved. I will not assert that the Executive has deliberately
aimed at war from the commencement; but I will say that,
from the beginning of the controversy to the present moment,
the course which the President has pursued is precisely the
one calculated to terminate in a conflict between the two
nations. It has been in his power, at every period, to give
the controversy a direction by which the peace of the country
might be preserved, without the least sacrifice of reputation
or honor; but he has preferred the opposite. I feel (said Mr.
C.) how painful it is to make these declarations; how unpleasant
it is to occupy a position which might, by any possibility,
be construed in opposition to our country's cause; but, in my
conception, the honor and the interests of the country can only
be maintained by pursuing the course that truth and justice may
dictate. Acting under this impression, I do not hesitate to
assert, after a careful examination of the documents connected
with this unhappy controversy, that, if war must come, we are
the authors--we are the responsible party. Standing, as I fear
we do, on the eve of a conflict, it would to me have been a
source of pride and pleasure to make an opposite declaration;
but that sacred regard to truth and justice, which, I trust,
will ever be my guide under the most difficult circumstances,
would not permit."
Mr. Benton maintained that it was the conduct of the Senate at the
last session which had given to the French question its present
and hostile aspect: that the belief of divided counsels, and of a
majority against the President, and that we looked to money and
not to honor, had encouraged the French chambers to insult us by
demanding an apology, and to attempt to intimidate us by sending a
fleet upon our coasts. He said:
"It was in March last that the three millions and the
fortification bill were lost; since then the whole aspect of
the French question is changed. The money is withheld, and
explanation is demanded, an apology is prescribed, and a French
fleet approaches. Our government, charged with insulting France,
when no insult was intended by us, and none can be detected in
our words by her, is itself openly and vehemently insulted. The
apology is to degrade us; the fleet to intimidate us; and the
two together constitute an insult of the gravest character.
There in no parallel to it, except in the history of France
herself; but not France of the 19th century, nor even of the
18th, but in the remote and ill-regulated times of the 17th
century, and in the days of the proudest of the French Kings,
and towards one of the smallest Italian republics. I allude,
sir, to what happened between Louis XIV. and the Doge of Genoa,
and will read the account of it from the pen of Voltaire, in his
Age of Louis XIV.
"'The Genoese had built four galleys for the service of Spain;
the King (of France) forbade them, by his envoy, St. Olon, one
of his gentlemen in ordinary, to launch those galleys. The
Genoese, incensed at this violation of their liberties, and
depending too much on the support of Spain, refused to obey the
order. Immediately fourteen men of war, twenty galleys, ten
bomb-ketches, with several frigates, set sail from the port of
Toulon. They arrived before Genoa, and the ten bomb-ketches
discharged 14,000 shells into the town, which reduced to ashes
a principal part of those marble edifices which had entitled
this city to the name of Genoa the Proud. Four thousand men were
then landed, who marched up to the gates, and burnt the suburb
of St. Peter, of Arena. It was now thought prudent to submit,
in order to prevent the total destruction of the city. The King
exacted that the Doge of Genoa, with four of the principal
senators, should come and implore his clemency in the palace
of Versailles; and, lest the Genoese should elude the making
this satisfaction, and lessen in any manner the pomp of it, he
insisted further that the Doge, who was to perform this embassy,
should be continued in his magistracy, notwithstanding the
perpetual law of Genoa, which deprives the Doge of his dignity
who is absent but a moment from the city. Imperialo Lercaro,
Doge of Genoa, attended by the senators Lomellino, Garibaldi,
Durazzo, and Salvago, repaired to Versailles, to submit to what
was required of him. The Doge appeared in his robes of state,
his head covered with a bonnet of red velvet, which he often
took off during his speech; made his apology, the very words
and demeanor of which were dictated and prescribed to him by
Seignelai,' (the French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs).
"Thus, said Mr. B., was the city of Genoa, and its Doge, treated
by Louis XIV. But it was not the Doge who was degraded by this
indignity, but the republic of which he was chief magistrate,
and all the republics of Italy, besides, which felt themselves
all humbled by the outrage which a king had inflicted upon one
of their number. So of the apology demanded, and of the fleet
sent upon us, and in presence of which President Jackson,
according to the _Constitutionnel_, is to make his decision,
and to remit it to the Tuileries. It is not President Jackson
that is outraged, but the republic of which he is President; and
all existing republics, wheresoever situated. Our whole country
is insulted, and that is the feeling of the whole country;
and this feeling pours in upon us every day, in every manner
in which public sentiment can be manifested, and especially
in the noble resolves of the States whose legislatures are
in session, and who hasten to declare their adherence to the
policy of the special message. True, President Jackson is not
required to repair to the Tuileries, with four of his most
obnoxious senators, and there recite, in person, to the King
of the French, the apology which he had first rehearsed to the
Duke de Broglie; true, the bomb-ketches of Admiral Mackau have
not yet fired 14,000 shells on one of our cities; but the mere
demand for an apology, the mere dictation of its terms, and the
mere advance of a fleet, in the present state of the world, and
in the difference of parties, is a greater outrage to us than
the actual perpetration of the enormities were to the Genoese.
This is not the seventeenth century. President Jackson is not
the Doge of a trading city. We are not Italians, to be trampled
upon by European kings; but Americans, the descendants of
that Anglo-Saxon race, which, for a thousand years, has known
how to command respect, and to preserve its place at the head
of nations. We are young, but old enough to prove that the
theory of the Frenchman, the Abbé Raynal, is as false in its
application to the people of this hemisphere as it is to the
other productions of nature; and that the belittling tendencies
of the New World are no more exemplified in the human race than
they are in the exhibition of her rivers and her mountains, and
in the indigenous races of the mammoth and the mastodon. The
Duke de Broglie has made a mistake, the less excusable, because
he might find in his own country, and perhaps in his own family,
examples of the extreme criticalness of attempting to overawe
a community of freemen. There was a Marshal Broglie, who was
Minister at War, at the commencement of the French Revolution,
and who advised the formation of a camp of 20,000 men to
overawe Paris. The camp was formed. Paris revolted; captured
the Bastile; marched to Versailles; stormed the Tuileries;
overset the monarchy; and established the Revolution. So much
for attempting to intimidate a city. And yet, here is a nation
of freemen to be intimidated: a republic of fourteen millions of
people, and descendants of that Anglo-Saxon race which, from the
days of Agincourt and Cressy, of Blenheim and Ramillies, down to
the days of Salamanca and Waterloo, have always known perfectly
well how to deal with the impetuous and fiery courage of the
French."
Mr. Benton also showed that there was a party in the French
Chambers, working to separate the President of the United States
from the people of the United States, and to make him responsible
for the hostile attitude of the two countries. In this sense acted
the deputy, Mons. Henry de Chabaulon, who spoke thus:
"The insult of President Jackson comes from himself only. This
is more evident, from the refusal of the American Congress to
concur with him in it. The French Chamber, by interfering,
would render the affair more serious, and make its arrangement
more difficult, and even dangerous. Let us put the case to
ourselves. Suppose the United States had taken part with General
Jackson, we should have had to demand satisfaction, not from
him, but from the United States; and, instead of now talking
about negotiation, we should have had to make appropriations
for a war, and to intrust to our heroes of Navarino and Algiers
the task of teaching the Americans that France knows the way to
Washington as well as England."
This language was received with applause in the Chamber, by the
extremes. It was the language held six weeks after the rise of
Congress, and when the loss of the three millions asked by the
President for contingent preparation, and after the loss of the
fortification bill, were fully known in Paris. Another speaker in
the Chamber, Mons. Rancé, was so elated by these losses as to allow
himself to discourse thus:
"Gentlemen, we should put on one side of the tribune the
twenty-five millions, on the other the sword of France.
When the Americans see this good long sword, this very long
sword, gentlemen (for it struck down every thing from Lisbon
to Moscow), they will perhaps recollect what it did for the
independence of their country; they will, perhaps, too, reflect
upon what it could do to support and avenge the honor and
dignity of France, when outraged by an ungrateful people. [Cries
of 'well said!'] Believe me, gentlemen, they would sooner
touch your money than dare to touch your sword; and for your
twenty-five millions they will bring you back the satisfactory
receipt, which it is your duty to exact."
And this also was received with great approbation, in the
Chamber, by the two extremes and was promptly followed by two
royal ordinances, published in the _Moniteur_, under which the
Admiral Mackau was to take command of a "squadron of observation,"
and proceed to the West Indies. The _Constitutionnel_, the
demi-official paper of the government, stated that this measure was
warranted by the actual state of the relations between France and
the United States--that the United States had no force to oppose to
it--and applauded the government for its foresight and energy. Mr.
Benton thus commented upon the approach of this French squadron:
"A French fleet of sixty vessels of war, to be followed by sixty
more, now in commission, approaches our coast; and approaches
it for the avowed purpose of observing our conduct, in relation
to France. It is styled, in the French papers, a squadron
of observation; and we are sufficiently acquainted with the
military vocabulary of France to know what that phrase means.
In the days of the great Emperor, we were accustomed to see the
armies which demolished empires at a blow, wear that pacific
title up to the moment that the blow was ready to be struck.
These grand armies assembled on the frontiers of empires, gave
emphasis to negotiation, and crushed what resisted. A squadron
of observation, then, is a squadron of intimidation first, and
of attack eventually; and nothing could be more palpable than
that such was the character of the squadron in question. It
leaves the French coast contemporaneously with the departure of
our diplomatic agent, and the assembling of our Congress; it
arrives upon our coast at the very moment that we shall have
to vote upon French affairs; and it takes a position upon our
Southern border--that border, above all others, on which we are,
at this time, peculiarly sensitive to hostile approach.
"What have we done, continued Mr. B., to draw this squadron
upon us? We have done no wrong to France; we are making no
preparations against her; and not even ordinary preparations
for general and permanent security. We have treaties, and are
executing them, even the treaty that she does not execute. We
have been executing that treaty for four years, and may say that
we have paid France as much under it as we have in vain demanded
from her, as the first instalment of the indemnity; not, in
fact, by taking money out of our treasury and delivering to
her, but, what is better for her, namely, leaving her own money
in her own hands, in the shape of diminished duties upon her
wines, as provided for in this same treaty, which we execute,
and which she does not. In this way, France has gained one or
two millions of dollars from us, besides the encouragement to
her wine trade. On the article of silks, she is also gaining
money from us in the same way, not by treaty, but by law. Our
discriminating duties in favor of silks, from this side the Cape
of Good Hope, operate almost entirely in her favor. Our great
supplies of silks are from France, England, and China. In four
years, and under the operation of this discriminating duty, our
imports of French silks have risen from two millions of dollars
per annum to six millions and a half; from England, they have
risen from a quarter of a million to three quarters; from China,
they have sunk from three millions and a quarter to one million
and a quarter. This discriminating duty has left between one and
two millions of dollars in the pockets of Frenchmen, besides
the encouragement to the silk manufacture and trade. Why, then,
has she sent this squadron, to observe us first, and to strike
us eventually? She knows our pacific disposition towards her
not only from our own words and actions, but from the official
report of her own officers: from the very officer sent out last
spring, in a brig, to carry back the recalled minister."
Mr. Benton then went on to charge the present state of our affairs
with France distinctly and emphatically upon the conduct of the
Senate, in their refusal to attend to the national defences--in
their opposition to the President--and in the disposition manifested
rather to pull down the President, in a party contest, than to
sustain him against France--rather to plunder their own country than
to defend it, by taking the public money for distribution instead of
defence. To this effect, he said:
"He had never spoken unkindly of the French nation, neither
in his place here, as a senator, nor in his private capacity
elsewhere. Born since the American Revolution, bred up in
habitual affection for the French name, coming upon the stage
of life when the glories of the republic and of the empire were
filling the world and dazzling the imagination, politically
connected with the party which, a few years ago, was called
French, his bosom had glowed with admiration for that people;
and youthful affection had ripened into manly friendship. He
would not now permit himself to speak unkindly, much less to use
epithets; but he could not avoid fixing his attention upon the
reason assigned in the _Constitutionnel_ for the present advance
of the French squadron upon us. That reason is this: 'America
will have no force capable of being opposed to it.' This is the
reason. Our nakedness, our destitution, has drawn upon us the
honor of this visit; and we are now to speak, and vote, and
so to demean ourselves, as men standing in the presence of a
force which they cannot resist, and which had taught the lesson
of submission to the Turk and the Arab! And here I change the
theme: I turn from French intimidation to American legislation;
and I ask how it comes that we have no force to oppose to this
squadron which comes here to take a position upon our borders,
and to show us that it knows the way to Washington as well as
the English? This is my future theme; and I have to present the
American Senate as the responsible party for leaving our country
in this wretched condition. First, there is the three million
appropriation which was lost by the opposition of the Senate,
and which carried down with it the whole fortification bill, to
which it was attached. That bill, besides the three millions,
contained thirteen specific appropriations for works of defence,
part originating in the House of Representatives, and part in
the Senate, and appropriating $900,000 to the completion and
armament of forts.
"All these specific appropriations, continued Mr. B., were lost
in the bill which was sunk by the opposition of the Senate to
the three millions, which were attached to it by the House of
Representatives. He (Mr. B.) was not a member of the conference
committee which had the disagreement of the two Houses committed
to its charge, and could go into no detail as to what happened
in that conference; he took his stand upon the palpable ground
that the opposition which the Senate made to the three million
appropriation, the speeches which denounced it, and the
prolonged invectives against the President, which inflamed the
passions and consumed the precious time at the last moment of
the session, were the true causes of the loss of that bill; and
so leaves the responsibility for the loss on the shoulders of
the Senate.
"Mr. B. recalled attention to the reason demi-officially
assigned in the _Constitutionnel_, for the approach of the
French fleet of observation, and to show that it came because
'America had no force capable of being opposed to it.' It was
a subsidiary argument, and a fair illustration of the dangers
and humiliations of a defenceless position. It should stimulate
us to instant and vigorous action; to the concentration of all
our money, and all our hands, to the sacred task of national
defence. For himself, he did not believe there would be war,
because he knew that there ought not to be war; but that belief
would have no effect upon his conduct. He went for national
defence, because that policy was right in itself, without regard
to times and circumstances. He went for it now, because it was
the response, and the only response, which American honor could
give to the visit of Admiral Mackau. Above all, he went for
it because it was the way, and the only manly way, of letting
France know that she had committed a mistake in sending this
fleet upon us. In conclusion, he would call for the yeas and
nays, and remark that our votes would have to be given under the
guns of France, and under the eyes of Europe."
The reproach cast by Mr. Benton on the conduct of the Senate, in
causing the loss of the defence bills, and the consequent insult
from France, brought several members to their feet in defence of
themselves and the body to which they belonged.
"Mr. Webster said his duty was to take care that neither in
nor out of the Senate there should be any mistake, the effect
of which should be to produce an impression unfavorable or
reproachful to the character and patriotism of the American
people. He remembered the progress of that bill (the bill
alluded to by Mr. Benton), the incidents of its history, and the
real cause of its loss. And he would satisfy any man that the
loss of it was not attributable to any member or officer of the
Senate. He would not, however, do so until the Senate should
again have been in session on executive business. As soon as
that took place, he should undertake to show that it was not to
any dereliction of duty on the part of the Senate that the loss
of that bill was to be attributed.
"Mr. Preston of South Carolina said every senator had concurred
in general appropriations to put the navy and army in a state
of defence. This undefined appropriation was not the only
exception. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Benton) had said
this appropriation was intended to operate as a permanent
defence. The senator from Missouri (Mr. Benton) had preferred
a general indictment against the Senate before the people of
the United States. It was strange the gentleman should ask the
departments for calculations to enable us to know how much was
necessary to appropriate, when the information was not given to
us when we rejected the undefined appropriations. I rejoice,
said Mr. P., that the gentleman has said even to my fears there
will be no French war. France was not going to squabble with
America on a little point of honor, that might do for duellists
to quarrel about, but not for nations. There was no reason why
blood should be poured out like water in righting this point of
honor. If this matter was placed on its proper basis, his hopes
would be lit up into a blaze of confidence. The President had
recommended making reprisals, if France refused payment. France
had refused, but the remedy was not pursued. It may be, said
he, that this fleet is merely coming to protect the commerce
of France. If the President of the United States, at the last
session of Congress, had suggested the necessity of making this
appropriation, we would have poured out the treasury; we would
have filled his hands for all necessary purposes. There was one
hundred thousand dollars appropriated that had not been called
for. He did not know whether he was permitted to go any further
and say to what extent any of the departments were disposed to
go in this matter.
"Mr. Clayton of Delaware was surprised at the suggestion of
an idea that the American Senate was not disposed to make the
necessary appropriations for the defence of the country; that
they had endeavored to prevent the passage of a bill, the
object of which was to make provision for large appropriations
for our defence. The senator from Missouri had gone into a
liberal attack of the Senate. He (Mr. C.) was not disposed to
say any thing further of the events of the last night of the
session. He took occasion to say there were other matters in
connection with this appropriation. Before any department or
any friend of the administration had named an appropriation for
defence, he made the motion to appropriate five hundred thousand
dollars. It was on his motion that the Committee on Military
Affairs made the appropriation to increase the fortifications.
Actuated by the very same motives which induced him to move that
appropriation, he had moved an additional appropriation to Fort
Delaware. The motion was to increase the seventy-five thousand
to one hundred and fifty thousand, and elicited a protracted
debate. The next question was, whether, in the general bill,
five hundred thousand dollars should be appropriated. He
recollected the honorable chairman of the Committee on Finance
told them there was an amendment before that committee of
similar tenor. As chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs,
he felt disinclined to give it up. The amendment fell on the
single ground, by one vote, that the Committee on Finance had
before it the identical proposition made by the Committee on
Military Affairs. He appealed to the country whether, under
those circumstances, they were to be arraigned before the
people of the country on a charge of a want of patriotism. He
had always felt deeply affected when those general remarks
were made impugning the motives of patriotism of the senators.
He was willing to go as far as he who goes farthest in making
appropriations for the national protection. Nay, he would be in
advance of the administration."
Mr. Benton returned to his charge that the defence bills of the last
session were lost through the conduct of the Senate. It was the
Senate which disagreed to the House amendment of three millions to
the fortification bill (which itself contained appropriations to the
amount of $900,000); and it was the Senate which moved to "adhere"
to its disagreement, thereby adopting the harsh measure which so
much endangers legislation. And, in support of his views, he said:
"The bill died under lapse of time. It died because not acted
upon before midnight of the last day of the session. Right or
wrong, the session was over before the report of the conferees
could be acted on. The House of Representatives was without a
quorum, and the Senate was about in the same condition. Two
attempts in the Senate to get a vote on some printing moved by
his colleague (Mr. Linn), were both lost for want of a quorum.
The session then was at an end, for want of quorums, whether the
legal right to sit had ceased or not. The bill was not rejected
either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, but it
died for want of action upon it; and that action was prevented
by want of time. Now, whose fault was it that there was no time
left for acting on the report of the conferees? That was the
true question, and the answer to it would show where the fault
lay. This answer is as clear as mid-day, though the transaction
took place in the darkness of midnight. It was this Senate!
The bill came to the Senate in full time to have been acted
upon, if it had been treated as all bills must be treated that
are intended to be passed in the last hours of the session. It
is no time for speaking. All speaking is then fatal to bills,
and equally fatal, whether for or against them. Yet, what was
the conduct of the Senate with respect to this bill? Members
commenced speaking upon it with vehemence and perseverance, and
continued at it, one after another. These speeches were fatal
to the bill. They were numerous, and consumed much time to
deliver them. They were criminative, and provoked replies. They
denounced the President without measure; and, by implication,
the House of Representatives, which sustained him. They were
intemperate, and destroyed the temper of others. In this way
the precious time was consumed in which the bill might have
been acted upon; and, for want of which time, it is lost. Every
one that made a speech helped to destroy it; and nearly the
whole body of the opposition spoke, and most of them at much
length, and with unusual warmth and animation. So certain was
he of the ruinous effect of this speaking, that he himself
never opened his mouth nor uttered one word upon it. Then came
the fatal motion to adhere, the effect of which was to make
bad worse, and to destroy the last chance, unless the House of
Representatives had humbled itself to ask a conference from
the Senate. The fatal effect of this motion to adhere, Mr. B.
would show from Jefferson's Manual; and read as follows: 'The
regular progression in this case is, that the Commons disagree
to the amendment; the Lords insist on it; the Commons insist on
their disagreement; the Lords adhere to their amendment; the
Commons adhere to their disagreement; the term of insisting
may be repeated as often as they choose to keep the question
open; but the first adherence by either renders it necessary
for the other to recede or to adhere also; when the matter is
usually suffered to fall. (10 Grey, 148.) Latterly, however,
there are instances of their having gone to a second adherence.
There must be an absolute conclusion of the subject somewhere,
or otherwise transactions between the Houses would become
endless. (3 Hatsell, 268, 270.) The term of insisting, we are
told by Sir John Trevor, was then (1678) newly introduced into
parliamentary usage by the Lords. (7 Grey, 94.) It was certainly
a happy innovation, as it multiplies the opportunities of trying
modifications, which may bring the Houses to a concurrence.
Either House, however, is free to pass over the term of
insisting, and to adhere in the first instance. (10 Grey,
146.) But it is not respectful to the other. In the ordinary
parliamentary course, there are two free conferences at least
before an adherence. (10 Grey, 147.)'
"This is the regular progression in the case of amendments,
and there are five steps in it. 1. To agree. 2. To disagree.
3. To recede. 4. To insist. 5. To adhere. Of these five steps
adherence is the last, and yet it was the first adopted by the
Senate. The effect of its adoption was, in parliamentary usage,
to put an end to the matter. It was, by the law of Parliament,
a disrespect to the House. No conference was even asked by the
Senate after the adherence, although, by the parliamentary law,
there ought to have been two free conferences at least before
the adherence was voted. All this was fully stated to the Senate
that night, and before the question to adhere was put. It was
fully stated by you, sir (said Mr. B., addressing himself to
Mr. King, of Alabama, who was then in the Vice-President's
chair). This vote to adhere, coupled with the violent speeches,
denouncing the President, and, by implication, censuring the
House of Representatives, and coupled with the total omission
of the Senate to ask for a conference, seemed to indicate a
fatal purpose to destroy the bill; and lost it would have been
upon the spot, if the House of Representatives, forgetting the
disrespect with which it had been treated, and passing over the
censure impliedly cast upon it, had not humbled itself to come
and ask for a conference. The House humbled itself; but it was a
patriotic and noble humiliation; it was to serve their country.
The conference was granted, and an amendment was agreed upon
by the conferees, by which the amount was reduced, and the sum
divided, and $300,000 allowed to the military, and $500,000 to
the naval service. This was done at last, and after all the
irritating speeches and irritating conduct of the Senate; but
the precious time was gone. The hour of midnight was not only
come, but members were dispersed; quorums were unattainable; and
the bill died for want of action. And now (said Mr. B.) I return
to my question. I resume, and maintain my position upon it. I
ask how it came to pass, if want of specification was really the
objection--how it came to pass that the Senate did not do at
first what it did at last? Why did it not amend, by the easy,
natural, obvious, and parliamentary process of disagreeing,
insisting, and asking for a committee of conference?
"Mr. B. would say but a word on the new calendar, which
would make the day begin in the middle. It was sufficient to
state such a conception to expose it to ridicule. A farmer
would be sadly put out if his laborers should refuse to come
until mid-day. The thing was rather too fanciful for grave
deliberation. Suffice it to say there are no fractions of days
in any calendar. There is no three and one fourth, three and one
half, and three and three fourths of March, or any other month.
When one day ends, another begins, and midnight is the turning
point both in law and in practice. All our laws of the last day
are dated the 3d of March; and, in point of fact, Congress,
for every beneficial purpose, is dissolved at midnight. Many
members will not act, and go away; and such was the practice of
the venerable Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, who always acted
precisely as President Jackson did. He put on his hat and went
away at midnight; he went away when his own watch told him it
was midnight; after which he believed he had no authority to act
as a legislator, nor the Senate to make him act as such. This
was President Jackson's course. He stayed in the Capitol until a
quarter after one, to sign all the bills which Congress should
pass before midnight. He stayed until a majority of Congress was
gone, and quorums unattainable. He stayed in the Capitol, in
a room convenient to the Senate, to act upon every thing that
was sent to him, and did not have to be waked up, as Washington
was, to sign after midnight; a most unfortunate reference to
Washington, who, by going to bed at midnight, showed that he
considered the business of the day ended; and by getting up and
putting on his night gown, and signing a bill at two o'clock in
the morning of the 4th, showed that he would sign at that hour
what had passed before midnight; and does not that act bear date
the 3d of March?"
Mr. Webster earnestly defended the Senate's conduct and his own; and
said:
"This proposition, sir, was thus unexpectedly and suddenly put
to us, at eight o'clock in the evening of the last day of the
session. Unusual, unprecedented, extraordinary, as it obviously
is, on the face of it, the manner of presenting it was still
more extraordinary. The President had asked for no such grant
of money; no department had recommended it; no estimate had
suggested it; no reason whatever was given for it. No emergency
had happened, and nothing new had occurred; every thing known
to the administration at that hour, respecting our foreign
relations, had certainly been known to it for days and for weeks
before.
"With what propriety, then, could the Senate be called on to
sanction a proceeding so entirely irregular and anomalous?
Sir, I recollect the occurrences of the moment very well,
and I remember the impression which this vote of the House
seemed to make all around the Senate. We had just come out of
executive session; the doors were but just opened; and I hardly
remember whether there was a single spectator in the hall or
the galleries. I had been at the clerk's table, and had not
reached my seat when the message was read. All the senators
were in the chamber. I heard the message certainly with great
surprise and astonishment; and I immediately moved the Senate
to disagree to this vote of the House. My relation to the
subject, in consequence of my connection with the Committee on
Finance, made it my duty to propose some course, and I had not
a moment's doubt or hesitation what that course ought to be. I
took upon myself, then, sir, the responsibility of moving that
the Senate should disagree to this vote, and I now acknowledge
that responsibility. It might be presumptuous to say that I
took a leading part, but I certainly took an early part, a
decided part, and an earnest part, in rejecting this broad grant
of three millions of dollars, without limitation of purpose
or specification of object; called for by no recommendation,
founded on no estimate, made necessary by no state of things
which was made known to us. Certainly, sir, I took a part in
its rejection; and I stand here, in my place in the Senate,
to-day, ready to defend the part so taken by me; or rather,
sir. I disclaim all defence, and all occasion of defence, and I
assert it as meritorious to have been among those who arrested,
at the earliest moment, this extraordinary departure from all
settled usage, and, as I think, from plain constitutional
injunction--this indefinite voting of a vast sum of money to
mere executive discretion, without limit assigned, without
object specified, without reason given, and without the least
control under heaven.
"Sir, I am told that, in opposing this grant, I spoke with
warmth, and I suppose I may have done so. If I did, it was
a warmth springing from as honest a conviction of duty as
ever influenced a public man. It was spontaneous, unaffected,
sincere. There had been among us, sir, no consultation, no
concert. There could have been none. Between the reading of the
message and my motion to disagree there was not time enough for
any two members of the Senate to exchange five words on the
subject. The proposition was sudden and perfectly unexpected. I
resisted it, as irregular, as dangerous in itself, and dangerous
in its precedent, as wholly unnecessary, and as violating the
plain intention, if not the express words, of the constitution.
Before the Senate I then avowed, and before the country I now
avow, my part in this opposition. Whatsoever is to fall on those
who sanctioned it, of that let me have my full share.
"The Senate, sir, rejected this grant by a vote of twenty-nine
against nineteen. Those twenty-nine names are on the journal;
and whensoever the expunging process may commence, or how far
soever it may be carried, I pray it, in mercy, not to erase
mine from that record. I beseech it, in its sparing goodness,
to leave me that proof of attachment to duty and to principle.
It may draw around it, over it, or through it, black lines, or
red lines, or any lines; it may mark it in any way which either
the most prostrate and fantastical spirit of man-worship, or
the most ingenious and elaborate study of self-degradation may
devise, if only it will leave it so that those who inherit my
blood, or who may hereafter care for my reputation, shall be
able to behold it where it now stands.
"The House, sir, insisted on this amendment. The Senate adhered
to its disagreement. The House asked a conference, to which
request the Senate immediately acceded. The committees of
conference met, and, in a short time, came to an agreement. They
agreed to recommend to their respective Houses, as a substitute
for the vote proposed by the House, the following:
"'As an additional appropriation for arming the fortifications
of the United States, three hundred thousand dollars.'
"As an additional appropriation for the repair and equipment
of ships of war of the United States, five hundred thousand
dollars.'
"I immediately reported this agreement of the committees of
conference to the Senate; but, inasmuch as the bill was in the
House of Representatives, the Senate could not act further on
the matter until the House should first have considered the
report of the committees, decided thereon, and sent us the bill.
I did not myself take any note of the particular hour of this
part of the transaction. The honorable member from Virginia (Mr.
Leigh) says he consulted his watch at the time, and he knows
that I had come from the conference, and was in my seat, at a
quarter past eleven. I have no reason to think that he is under
any mistake in this particular. He says it so happened that he
had occasion to take notice of the hour, and well remembers it.
It could not well have been later than this, as any one will be
satisfied who will look at our journals, public and executive,
and see what a mass of business was dispatched after I came from
the committees, and before the adjournment of the Senate. Having
made the report, sir, I had no doubt that both Houses would
concur in the result of the conference, and looked every moment
for the officer of the House bringing the bill. He did not come,
however, and I pretty soon learned that there was doubt whether
the committee on the part of the House would report to the House
the agreement of the conferees. At first I did not at all credit
this; but it was confirmed by one communication after another,
until I was obliged to think it true. Seeing that the bill was
thus in danger of being lost, and intending, at any rate, that
no blame should justly attach to the Senate, I immediately moved
the following resolution:
"'_Resolved_, That a message be sent to the honorable the
House of Representatives, respectfully to remind the House of
the report of the committee of conference appointed on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the
House to the amendment of the Senate to the bill respecting the
fortifications of the United States.'
"You recollect this resolution, sir, having, as I well remember,
taken some part on the occasion.
"This resolution was promptly passed; the Secretary carried
it to the House, and delivered it. What was done in the House
on the receipt of this message now appears from the printed
journal. I have no wish to comment on the proceedings there
recorded--all may read them, and each be able to form his own
opinion. Suffice it to say, that the House of Representatives,
having then possession of the bill, chose to retain that
possession, and never acted on the report of the committee.
The bill, therefore, was lost. It was lost in the House of
Representatives. It died there, and there its remains are to
be found. No opportunity was given to the members of the House
to decide whether they would agree to the report of the two
committees or not. From a quarter past eleven, when the report
was agreed to by the committees, until two or three o'clock in
the morning, the House remained in session. If at any time there
was not a quorum of members present, the attendance of a quorum,
we are to presume, might have been commanded, as there was
undoubtedly a great majority of the members still in the city.
"But now, sir, there is one other transaction of the evening
which I feel bound to state, because I think it quite important,
on several accounts, that it should be known.
"A nomination was pending before the Senate, for a judge of the
Supreme Court. In the course of the sitting, that nomination
was called up, and, on motion, was indefinitely postponed. In
other words, it was rejected; for an indefinite postponement
is a rejection. The office, of course, remained vacant, and
the nomination of another person to fill it became necessary.
The President of the United States was then in the capitol,
as is usual on the evening of the last day of the session, in
the chamber assigned to him, and with the heads of departments
around him. When nominations are rejected under these
circumstances, it has been usual for the President immediately
to transmit a new nomination to the Senate; otherwise the
office must remain vacant till the next session, as the vacancy
in such case has not happened in the recess of Congress. The
vote of the Senate, indefinitely postponing this nomination,
was carried to the President's room by the Secretary of the
Senate. The President told the Secretary that it was more than
an hour past twelve o'clock, and that he could receive no
further communications from the Senate, and immediately after,
as I have understood, left the capitol. The Secretary brought
back the paper containing the certified copy of the vote of the
Senate, and indorsed thereon the substance of the President's
answer, and also added that, according to his own watch, it was
a quarter past one o'clock."
This was the argument of Mr. Webster in defence of the Senate
and himself; but it could not alter the facts of the case--that
the Senate disagreed to the House appropriation--that it adhered
harshly--that it consumed the time in elaborate speeches against
the President--and that the bill was lost upon lapse of time, the
existence of the Congress itself expiring while this contention,
began by the Senate, was going on.
Mr. Webster dissented from the new doctrine of counting years by
fractions of a day, as a thing having no place in the constitution,
in law, or in practice;--and which was besides impracticable, and
said:
"There is no clause of the constitution, nor is there any law,
which declares that the term of office of members of the House
of Representatives shall expire at twelve o'clock at night
on the 3d of March. They are to hold for two years, but the
precise hour for the commencement of that term of two years
is nowhere fixed by constitutional or legal provision. It has
been established by usage and by inference, and very properly
established, that, since the first Congress commenced its
existence on the first Wednesday in March, 1789, which happened
to be the 4th day of that month, therefore, the 4th of March
is the day of the commencement of each successive term, but
no hour is fixed by law or practice. The true rule is, as I
think, most undoubtedly, that the session holden on the last
day, constitutes the last day, for all legislative and legal
purposes. While the session commenced on that day continues,
the day itself continues, according to the established practice
both of legislative and judicial bodies. This could not well be
otherwise. If the precise moment of actual time were to settle
such a matter, it would be material to ask, who shall settle
the time? Shall it be done by public authority; or shall every
man observe the tick of his own watch? If absolute time is to
furnish a precise rule, the excess of a minute, it is obvious,
would be as fatal as the excess of an hour. Sir, no bodies,
judicial or legislative, have ever been so hypercritical,
so astute to no purpose, so much more nice than wise, as to
govern themselves by any such ideas. The session for the day,
at whatever hour it commences, or at whatever hour it breaks
up, is the legislative day. Every thing has reference to the
commencement of that diurnal session. For instance, this is the
14th day of January; we assembled here to day at twelve o'clock;
our journal is dated January 14th, and if we should remain until
five o'clock to-morrow morning (and the Senate has sometimes
sat so late) our proceedings would still all bear date of the
14th of January; they would be so stated upon the journal, and
the journal is a record, and is a conclusive record, so far as
respects the proceedings of the body."
But he adduced practice to the contrary, and showed that the
expiring Congress had often sat after midnight, on the day of
the 3d of March, in the years when that day was the end of the
Congress; and in speaking of what had often occurred, he was right.
I have often seen it myself; but in such cases there was usually an
acknowledgment of the wrong by stopping the Senate clock, or setting
it back; and I have also seen the hour called and marked on the
journal after twelve, and the bills sent to the President, noted
as passed at such an hour of the morning of the fourth; when they
remained untouched by the President; and all bills and acts sent to
him on the morning of the fourth are dated of the third; and that
date legalizes them, although erroneous in point of fact. But, many
of the elder members, such as Mr. Macon, would have nothing to do
with these contrivances, and left the chamber at midnight, saying
that the Congress was constitutionally extinct, and that they had
no longer any power to sit and act as a Senate. Upon this point Mr.
Grundy, of Tennessee, a distinguished jurist as well as statesman,
delivered his opinion, and in consonance with the best authorities.
He said:
"A serious question seems now to be made, as to what time
Congress constitutionally terminates. Until lately, I have not
heard it seriously urged that twelve o'clock, on the 3d of
March, at night, is not the true period. It is now insisted,
however, that at twelve o'clock on the 4th of March is the true
time; and the argument in support of this is, that the first
Congress met at twelve o'clock, on the 4th of March. This is
not placing the question on the true ground; it is not when the
Congress did meet, or when the President was qualified by taking
the oath of office, but when did they have the constitutional
right to meet? This certainly was, and is, in all future cases,
on the 4th of March; and if the day commence, according to the
universal acceptation and understanding of the country, at the
first moment after twelve o'clock at night on the 3d of March,
the constitutional right or power of the new Congress commences
at that time; and if called by the Chief Magistrate to meet at
that time, they might then qualify and open their session. There
would be no use in arguing away the common understanding of the
country, and it would seem as reasonable to maintain that the
4th of March ended when the first Congress adjourned, as it is
to say that it began when they met. From twelve o'clock at night
until twelve o'clock at night is the mode of computing a day by
the people of the United States, and I do not feel authorized
to establish a different mode of computation for Congress. At
what hour does Christmas commence? When does the first day of
the year, or the first of January, commence? Is it at midnight
or at noon? If the first day of a year or month begins and ends
at midnight, does not every other day? Congress has always acted
upon the impression that the 3d of March ended at midnight;
hence that setting back of clocks which we have witnessed on the
3d of March, at the termination of the short session.
"In using this argument, I do not wish to be understood as
censuring those who have transacted the public business here
after twelve o'clock on the 3d of March. From this error, if
it be one, I claim no exemption. With a single exception, I
believe, I have always remained until the final adjournment
of both Houses. As to the President of the United States, he
remained until after one o'clock on the 4th of March. This was
making a full and fair allowance for the difference that might
exist in different instruments for keeping time; and he then
retired from his chamber in the Capitol. The fortification bill
never passed Congress; it never was offered to him for his
signature; he, therefore, can be in no fault. It was argued that
many acts of Congress passed on the 4th of March, at the short
session, are upon our statute books, and that these acts are
valid and binding. It should be remembered that they all bear
date on the 3d of March; and so high is the authenticity of our
records, that, according to the rules of evidence, no testimony
can be received to contradict any thing which appears upon the
face of our acts."
To show the practice of the Senate, when its attention was called to
the true hour, and to the fact that the fourth day of March was upon
them, the author of this View, in the course of this debate, showed
the history of the actual termination of the last session--the
one at which the fortification bill was lost. Mr. Hill, of New
Hampshire, was speaking of certain enormous printing jobs which were
pressed upon the Senate in its expiring moments, and defeated after
midnight; Mr. Benton asked leave to tell the secret history of this
defeat; which being granted, he stood up, and said:
"He defeated these printing jobs after midnight, and by speaking
against time. He had avowed his determination to speak out the
session; and after speaking a long time against time, he found
that time stood still; that the hands of our clock obstinately
refused to pass the hour of twelve; and thereupon addressed
the presiding officer (Mr. Tyler, the President _pro tem._),
to call to his attention the refractory disposition of the
clock; which, in fact, had been set back by the officers of the
House, according to common usage on the last night, to hide from
ourselves the fact that our time was at an end. The presiding
officer (Mr. B. said) directed an officer of the House to put
forward the clock to the right time; which was done; and not
another vote was taken that night, except the vote to adjourn."
This was a case, as the lawyers say, in point. It was the refusal
of the Senate the very night in question, to do any thing except
to give the adjourning vote after the attention of the Senate was
called to the hour.
In reply to Mr. Calhoun's argument against American arming, and that
such arming would be war on our side, Mr. Grundy replied:
"But it is said by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Calhoun), that, if we arm, we instantly make war: it is war. If
this be so, we are placed in a most humiliating situation. Since
this controversy commenced, the French nation has armed; they
have increased their vessels of war; they have equipped them;
they have enlisted or pressed additional seamen into the public
service; they have appointed to the command of this large naval
force one of their most experienced and renowned naval officers;
and this squadron, thus prepared, and for what particular
purpose we know not, is now actually in the neighborhood of
the American coast. I admit the proceeding on the part of the
French government is neither war, nor just cause of war on our
part; but, seeing this, shall we be told, if we do similar
acts, designed to defend our own country, we are making war?
As I understand the public law, every nation has the right to
judge for itself of the extent of its own military and naval
armaments, and no other nation has a right to complain or call
it in question. It appears to me that, although the preparations
and armaments of the French government are matters not to be
excepted to, still they should admonish us to place our country
in a condition in which it could be defended in the event the
present difficulties between the two nations should lead to
hostilities."
In the course of the debate the greater part of the opposition
senators declared their intention to sustain measures of defence; on
which Mr. Benton congratulated the country, and said:
"A good consequence had resulted from an unpleasant debate.
All parties had disclaimed the merit of sinking the
fortification bill of the last session, and a majority had
evinced a determination to repair the evil by voting adequate
appropriations now. This was good. It bespoke better results
in time to come, and would dispel that illusion of divided
counsels on which the French government had so largely
calculated. The rejection of the three millions, and the loss
of the fortification bill, had deceived France; it had led her
into the mistake of supposing that we viewed every question in
a mercantile point of view; that the question of profit and
loss was the only rule we had to go by; that national honor
was no object; and that, to obtain these miserable twenty-five
millions of francs, we should be ready to submit to any quantity
of indignity, and to wade through any depth of national
humiliation. The debate which has taken place will dispel that
illusion; and the first dispatch which the young Admiral Mackau
will have to send to his government will be to inform it that
there has been a mistake in this business--that these Americans
wrangle among themselves, but unite against foreigners; and that
many opposition senators are ready to vote double the amount
of the twenty-five millions to put the country in a condition
to sustain that noble sentiment of President Jackson, that the
honor of his country shall never be stained by his making an
apology for speaking truth in the performance of duty."