MONDAY, December 9.
GABRIEL CHRISTIE, from Maryland, THOMAS CLAIBORNE and GEORGE HANCOCK,
from Virginia, JOSEPH WINSTON, from North Carolina, JOHN HUNTER and
ANDREW PICKENS, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their
credentials, and took their seats in the House.
TUESDAY, December 10.
The House resumed the reading of the communications received from the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, on Thursday last, and made a further
progress therein.
WEDNESDAY, December 11.
BENJAMIN BOURNE and FRANCIS MALBONE, from Rhode Island, appeared,
produced their credentials, and took their seats in the House.
FRIDAY, December 13.
THOMAS TREDWELL, from New York, and JOHN PATTON, from Delaware,
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.
_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill
to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United
States; and that Mr. GILES, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. AMES, Mr. HARTLEY,
Mr. HILLHOUSE, Mr. FITZSIMONS, and Mr. BOUDINOT, be the said committee.
MONDAY, December 16.
SAMUEL DEXTER, Junior, from Massachusetts, JOSHUA COIT and ZEPHANIAH
SWIFT, from Connecticut, and RICHARD WINN, from South Carolina,
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.
THURSDAY, December 19.
The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of State,
accompanying a report on the privileges and restrictions on the commerce
of the United States in foreign countries, made pursuant to a resolution
of the House of the twenty-third of February, one thousand seven hundred
and ninety-one; which was read, and ordered to be committed to the
Committee of the whole House, to whom are committed the confidential
communications from the PRESIDENT respecting the measures which have
been pursued for obtaining a recognition of the treaty between the
United States and Morocco, and for the ransom of prisoners and
establishment of peace with the Algerines.
FRIDAY, December 20.
WILLIAM HINDMAN, from Maryland, and SAMUEL GRIFFIN, from Virginia,
appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats.
MONDAY, December 23.
ALEXANDER D. ORR, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, and
took his seat in the House.
THURSDAY, December 26.
A petition of Abram Trigg, of the State of Virginia, was presented to
the House and read, complaining of an undue election and return of
Francis Preston, to serve as a member of this House for the said State.
_Ordered_, That the said petition be referred to the Committee of
Elections; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same,
with their opinion thereon, to the House.
FRIDAY, December 27.
DANIEL HEISTER, from Pennsylvania, appeared, produced his credentials,
and took his seat in the House.
WEDNESDAY, January 1, 1794.
URIAH FORREST and THOMAS SPRIGG, from Maryland, appeared, produced their
credentials, and took their seats in the House.
THURSDAY, January 2.
ISAAC COLES, from Virginia, and WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, from North
Carolina, appeared, produced their credentials, and took their seats in
the House.
FRIDAY, January 3.
_Commerce of the United States._[48]
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions on
the commerce of the United States in foreign countries.
Mr. MADISON, after some general observations on the report, entered into
a more particular consideration of the subject. He remarked, that the
commerce of the United States is not, at this day, on that respectable
footing to which, from its nature and importance, it is entitled. He
recurred to its situation previous to the adoption of the constitution,
when conflicting systems prevailed in the different States. The then
existing state of things gave rise to that Convention of Delegates from
the different parts of the Union, who met to deliberate on some general
principles for the regulation of commerce, which might be conducive, in
their operation, to the general welfare, and that such measures should
be adopted as would conciliate the friendship and good faith of those
countries who were disposed to enter into the nearest commercial
connections with us. But what has been the result of the system which
has been pursued ever since? What is the present situation of our
commerce? From the situation in which we find ourselves after four
years' experiment, he observed, that it appeared incumbent on the United
States to see whether they could not now take measures promotive of
those objects for which the Government was in a great degree instituted.
Measures of moderation, firmness, and decision, he was persuaded, were
now necessary to be adopted, in order to narrow the sphere of our
commerce with those nations who see proper not to meet us on terms of
reciprocity.
Mr. M. then read the following resolutions:
[The principle of these resolutions will be best seen in
the debates upon them.]
Mr. M. took a general view of the probable effects which the adoption of
something like the resolutions he had proposed, would produce. They
would produce, respecting many articles imported, a competition which
would enable countries who do not now supply us with those articles, to
do it, and would increase the encouragement on such as we can produce
within ourselves. We should also obtain an equitable share in carrying
our own produce; we should enter into the field of competition on equal
terms, and enjoy the actual benefit of advantages which nature and the
spirit of our people entitle us to.
He adverted to the advantageous situation this country is entitled to
stand in, considering the nature of our exports and returns. Our exports
are bulky, and therefore must employ much shipping, which might be
nearly all our own: our exports are chiefly necessaries of life, or raw
materials, the food for the manufacturers of other nations. On the
contrary, the chief of what we receive from other countries, we can
either do without, or produce substitutes.
It is in the power of the United States, he conceived, by exerting her
natural rights, without violating the rights, or even the equitable
pretensions of other nations--by doing no more than most nations do for
the protection of their interests, and much less than some, to make her
interests respected; for, what we receive from other nations are but
luxuries to us, which, if we choose to throw aside, we could deprive
part of the manufacturers of those luxuries, of even bread, if we are
forced to the contest of self-denial. This being the case, our country
may make her enemies feel the extent of her power. We stand, with
respect to the nation exporting those luxuries, in the relation of an
opulent individual to the laborer, in producing the superfluities for
his accommodation; the former can do without those luxuries, the
consumption of which gives bread to the latter.
He did not propose, or wish that the United States should at present go
so far in the line which his resolutions point to, as they might go. The
extent to which the principles involved in those resolutions should be
carried, will depend upon filling up the blanks. To go to the very
extent of the principle immediately, might be inconvenient. He wished,
only, that the Legislature should mark out the ground on which we think
we can stand; perhaps it may produce the effect wished for, without
unnecessary irritation; we need not at first go every length.
Another consideration would induce him, he said, to be moderate in
filling up the blanks--not to wound public credit. He did not wish to
risk any sensible diminution of the public revenue. He believed that if
the blanks were filled with judgment, the diminution of the revenue,
from a diminution in the quantity of imports, would be counterbalanced
by the increase in the duties.
The last resolution he had proposed, he said, is, in a manner, distinct
from the rest. The nation is bound by the most sacred obligation, he
conceived, to protect the rights of its citizens against a violation of
them from any quarter; or, if they cannot protect, they are bound to
repay the damage.
It is a fact authenticated to this House by communications from the
Executive, that there are regulations established by some European
nations; contrary to the Law of Nations, by which our property is
seized and disposed of in such a way that damages have accrued. We are
bound either to obtain reparation for the injustice, or compensate the
damage. It is only in the first instance, no doubt, that the burden is
to be thrown upon the United States. The proper department of Government
will, no doubt, take proper steps to obtain redress. The justice of
foreign nations will certainly not permit them to deny reparation when
the breach of the Law of Nations appears evidently; at any rate, it is
just that the individual should not suffer. He believed the amount of
the damages that would come within the meaning of this resolution, would
not be very considerable.
Mr. M.'s resolutions being seconded, were presented and read by the
Clerk.
Mr. W. SMITH rose to make some remarks on the observations of Mr.
MADISON, when a motion was made by Mr. FITZSIMONS, that the committee
should rise, and report progress, and that the House should give order
for printing the resolutions.
After some further remarks by two or three members, Mr. MADISON said he
had no wish to precipitate the discussion; he was content that the
committee should now rise, and that a future early day should be
assigned.
MONDAY, January 6.
JAMES GILLESPIE, from North Carolina, appeared, produced his
credentials, and took his seat in the House.
_Pay of Soldiers._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill for completing and better supporting the Military Establishment of
the United States. The bill being read,
On the clause of the bill for augmenting the pay of the soldiers from
three to four dollars per month, Mr. IRVINE proposed an addition of a
fifth dollar, which seemed to meet the unanimous sense of the members;
but Mr. CLARK thought this last augmentation too great. They might, in
this way of proceeding, raise the pay in time to ten dollars a month.
Mr. SCOTT was of opinion that there was no just proportion between the
wages of ordinary labor and that of military service. He could not hire
a workman, who was to sleep at peace in his bed, and to dine at a good
table, for the pay that was given to a soldier for enduring the
hardships of his dangerous profession. An augmentation of their pay
would flatter the troops. It would put them in good humor; and therefore
he hoped that the five dollars would be carried through the House.
Mr. SMILIE said, that the expense of living had been considerably raised
in every part of the United States. The pay of the soldiers ought, in
common justice, to be advanced in an equal degree with that of the other
persons employed in the service of the State. Congress had lately
received a petition from some gentlemen employed in the public offices
of Philadelphia. The officers of the army had been talking of a similar
necessity of an advance in their pay. The United States ought to pay
well, that they might obtain good men. Many recruits had, upon late
occasions, enlisted, and several of them in Philadelphia, who never
should have been admitted into the Military Establishment of any nation
whatever.
Mr. WADSWORTH did not see any reason for the proposed additional dollar
per month. If he had thought it necessary, he should have been very
ready to mention it. In the States north of Pennsylvania, the wages of a
common laborer were not, upon the whole, superior to those of a common
soldier. It had been alleged that, by augmenting the pay of the troops,
we should get better men. This was a doctrine which he, for one, did not
understand. The present Western Army were as good troops as ever went
into the field, and much better than the late Continental Army. Men of a
sober character did not and would not enlist. Recruits might have very
good morals, and it was certain that many honest men did not love labor.
Curiosity, levity, the heat of youth, and other very excusable motives,
sent people to the army; but it never was, nor never will be, the place
where a thoughtful and industrious private man would be ambitious to
exert his talents. For this reason, he was convinced that to enlarge the
pay would answer no good purpose. As to the militia, who were, many of
them, substantial people, it was in vain to imagine that they would
fulfil the end of an army in the Indian war. They had been tried, and
the experiment had failed. He again adverted to the impossibility of
supplying the ranks with recruits above the most ordinary classes of
life. He never had seen an army, such as it was believed that the
additional dollar would assemble, and he despaired ever to see such an
army. There was, however, an act of bounty, which might be of infinite
service to the troops, and which he should take a future opportunity of
moving. He referred to a provision for the widows and children of such
soldiers as should happen to lose their lives in the service.
Mr. BOUDINOT said, that he should be very sorry to recommend the
augmentation, if he thought that it would induce farmers, and sober,
industrious people to quit their families and professions in exchange
for a military life. This, he thought, would indeed be a very alarming
consequence, and, did he apprehend it, he should undoubtedly oppose the
intended increase. He had no apprehensions of that kind. America would
be in a very bad situation, indeed, if an additional pay of twelve
dollars a year could bribe a farmer or manufacturer to enlist. He should
look very strange at any of his neighbors who should tell him that they
had embraced such an offer. Instead of augmenting the pay, perhaps it
was better to add something to the rations; those, for example, of salt
and flour. He thought it safest to agree to the four dollars, because
if they voted for five, the bill would probably be thrown out of the
other House; and thus, by grasping at too much, the movers of the
amendment would lose the bill altogether. Originally, troops had been
raised for less than two dollars per month. The pay had since been
augmented to three, and was now on the way of being raised to four. He
wished to make its advances gradual. If we looked at the situations of
other countries, and contemplated the state of their finances, we should
be convinced that America paid her troops as well in proportion to her
ability as any other people in the world, and that her soldiers had no
right to complain.
Mr. MONTGOMERY spoke a few words in favor of an advance to five dollars.
Mr. SCOTT said, that Pennsylvania had some time ago raised a few
companies of soldiers for her frontier service, and given them two
pounds ten shillings currency per month, which was equal to six dollars
and two-thirds. In consequence of this, the companies had been filled
with some of the most respectable kind of people in the country. They
were quite of a different class from the recruits raised for the Western
Army. He wished to try the five dollars. This superior pay was reported
to have hurt the Continental recruiting service. He thought it very
possible that such had been the case. If Government give the proposed
five dollars, the Continental Army might, perhaps, get all the levies
which it wanted from these very companies.
Mr. HUNTER would have voted for six dollars.
Mr. BEATTY said, that he was for giving five dollars, from a conviction
that it was requisite for the service.
Mr. SMILIE was decidedly for the additional augmentation. The recruits,
he said, who had been raised in this city were sad fellows, and not fit
to be trusted. Better pay would bring forward better men.
Mr. SMITH said that, as to the rate of labor, good men were hired to
work in Vermont for eighteen pounds a year, which is equal to four
dollars per month, and out of that they find their own clothes. He
thought it a very dangerous plan to raise the wages of soldiers at this
time, when every article was above its natural price; because, when
things return to their old level, it would be impossible to reduce their
wages. The people of Europe had, by their wars, increased the demand for
the produce of our farms, and this had raised the wages of labor. The
members of Congress had six dollars per day, and it would be no easy
matter to alter that, which he seemed to hint might not be quite
improper. He thought that high pay would only serve to make the soldiers
get drunk. It would be much better to give them some substantial
gratification at the end of the service.
Mr. WADSWORTH said that the army, in getting four dollars, got plenty,
and he despaired of seeing five dollars pass through that House; but,
were they to vote twenty dollars, they never would be able to enlist
that class of men whom it was expected five dollars would collect. A
member had mentioned, as a proof of the possibility of enlisting the
sons of farmers, the instance of a party in one of the New England
States, who had formed themselves into a military body, and had gone
westward in quest of a settlement, but were cut to pieces by the
Indians. He knew this; and he had likewise heard of others who had since
gone from the same quarter, and upon the same errand. He had inquired
about their characters, and had found, just as he had expected, that
they were very honest, good sort of people, but somewhat of a rambling
disposition, and not remarkably industrious. As to the notion of
enlisting men, and attaching them to their country, by five dollars a
month, it would not do. The old Continental Army were very good
soldiers, but certainly some of them did not fight for the sake of their
country, since they deserted by scores. They were, however, brought
back, and fought very well. Their reasons for deserting, he did not
pretend to know; but this he knew, that they were very idle and very
worthless fellows, which did not hinder them from doing their duty. Mr.
W. added, that it was a mistake to propose giving five dollars a month
for fear that we should not be able to get recruits. In a short time our
communication by sea would be cut off. We would likewise be prevented
from emigrations into the back country. Recruits would then be had in
the greatest abundance for four dollars a month, as great numbers of
people would then be thrown out of employment, and enlist for want of
it.
The amendment to the bill, of adding two dollars instead of one, was
rejected.
Mr. CLARK then moved, as an amendment of the bill, that there should be
an addition of four ounces of bread or flour, and four ounces of meat to
each ration.
Mr. HARTLEY was for augmenting the rations. He knew that they were too
small. In cultivated countries they might do, but not in the backwoods,
where vegetables were not to be had.
Mr. WADSWORTH was convinced that the rations were sufficient unless on a
march. He spoke, he said, from experience.
Mr. GILES had been frequently informed by officers in the army, that the
rations were all defective. In the backwoods, the soldiers had been
often reduced to such distress for want of vegetables, as to go in
search of acorns to supply their place.
Mr. FITZSIMONS said, that he had been informed that the principal
objection to the rations was the inferior quality of the meat, and that
this arose from the leanness of the cattle, as being exhausted by hard
driving. Instead, therefore, of a regular increase, it might perhaps be
better to provide for accidental contingencies.
Mr. MURRAY moved, and his motion was seconded, to amend the amendment by
striking out the words, and "four ounces of meat."
Mr. SMITH said, that an aide-de-camp, who was his relation, and now
serving in the army, had wrote him that they were just now well fed,
well clothed, in good health, and as good spirits as an army had ever
enjoyed. The reason of the common rations of provisions failing in a
march, was owing to the waste in cooking. The amendment of Mr. CLARK,
and the additional amendment of Mr. MURRAY, were both withdrawn.
The committee now rose and reported the amendment, and the bill and
amendment were ordered to lie on the table.
_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to report whether any, and
what, alteration ought to be made in the ration now allowed to the
troops of the United States; and that Mr. IRVINE, Mr. DEARBORN, and Mr.
HEISTER, be the said committee.
TUESDAY, January 7.
_Flag of the United States._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act making an alteration in the
Flag of the United States."
Mr. GOODHUE thought it a trifling business, which ought not to engross
the attention of the House, when it was their duty to discuss matters of
infinitely greater consequence. If we are to alter the flag from
thirteen to fifteen stripes, with two additional stars, because Vermont
and Kentucky have been added, we may go on adding and altering at this
rate for one hundred years to come. It is very likely, before fifteen
years elapse, we shall consist of twenty States. The flag ought to be
permanent.
Mr. LYMAN was of a different opinion. He thought it of the greatest
consequence not to offend the new States.
Mr. THATCHER ridiculed the idea of being at so much trouble, as a
consummate specimen of frivolity. At this rate, every State should alter
its public seal when an additional county or township was formed. He was
sorry to see the House take up their time with such trifles.
Mr. GREENUP considered it of very great consequence to inform the rest
of the world that we had now two additional States.
Mr. NILES was very sorry that such a matter should even for a moment
have hindered the House from going into more important affairs. He did
not think the alteration either worth the trouble of adopting or
rejecting; but he supposed that the shortest way to get rid of it was to
agree to it, and for that reason, and no other, he advised to pass it as
soon as possible.
The committee agreed to it, and the Chairman reported the bill. The
House then took it up.
Mr. BOUDINOT thought it of consequence to keep the citizens of Vermont
and Kentucky in good humor. They might be affronted at our rejecting the
bill.
Mr. GOODHUE said, he felt for the honor of the House, when spending
their time on such sort of business. But, since it must be passed, he
had only to beg this favor, that it might not appear upon the journals,
and go into the world as the first of the bills passed this session.
Mr. MADISON was for the bill passing.
Mr. GILES thought it very proper that the idea should be preserved of
the number of our States, and the number of stripes corresponding. The
expense was but trifling, compared with that of forming the Government
of a new State.
Mr. SMITH said, that this alteration would cost him five hundred
dollars, and every vessel in the Union sixty. He could not conceive what
the Senate meant by sending them such bills. He supposed that it must be
for want of something better to do. He should indulge them, but let us
have no more alterations of this sort. Let the flag be permanent.
It was ordered that the bill be read a third time to-morrow.
FRIDAY, January 10.
_French Emigrants from St. Domingo._
Mr. SAMUEL SMITH, from the committee to whom was referred the petition
of William Patterson, Samuel Sterrett, and Gustavus Scott, the committee
appointed by the Legislature of Maryland to draw and distribute the
moneys granted by that State for the relief of the French emigrants from
the Island of St. Domingo, made a report:
Mr. S. SMITH said, that there never was a more noble and prompt display
of the most exalted feelings, than had been exhibited on this occasion.
He believed that such a scene of distress had never before been seen in
America. Three thousand fugitives had been at once landed, without the
least previous expectation of their arrival. The whole inhabitants
instantly assembled, and deputed a committee, of which he was one, to go
on board the vessels, and examine their situation. Thirteen thousand
dollars were instantly subscribed. Fifteen hundred of these people were
quite helpless; three hundred and fifty of them were old men, or women
without their husbands, or children without their parents. Some had
credit, and some had not. Five hundred of them had been sent to France
by the Minister, at the expense of the Republic; the rest remain in this
country.
Mr. MADISON wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of
establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted
to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He
acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his
finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right
to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for
the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say to what
lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be
carried. He did not agree with the member who spoke last, that nothing
like the generosity of America had ever been heard of before. As one
example in contradiction to this assertion, he mentioned, that when the
city of Lisbon had, in 1755, been overwhelmed by an earthquake, the
Parliament of England instantly voted one hundred thousand pounds for
the support of the sufferers. In doing this, they had, he believed,
acted in unison with the feelings of the British nation, and such
feelings did that nation the utmost honor. He likewise imagined, that
the Parliament had acted agreeably to the British Constitution, which
allowed them an indefinite and absolute right in disposing of the money
of their constituents. But as to the American Congress, the case was
widely different. He was satisfied that the citizens of the United
States possessed an equal degree of magnanimity, generosity, and
benevolence, with the people of Britain, but this House certainly did
not possess an undefined authority correspondent with that of a British
Parliament. He wished that some other mode could be devised for
assisting the French sufferers than by an act of Congress. He was in
hopes that some other mode, equally effectual, and less exceptionable,
might be devised. As to what our Executive Government had already done,
as quoted from the official despatches by the gentleman who spoke last,
the inference did not apply; for in that emergency, a delay would have
been equivalent to a total denial. It had been said, that we owed the
French every sentiment of gratitude. It was true; but it was likewise
true that we owed them something else than sentiments, for we were
indebted to them a very large sum of money. One of the instalments of
that debt would be due in a short time, and perhaps it might be safest
for Congress to advance the sums now wanted for the French refugees, in
part of that debt, and leave it to the decision of the French Ministry
whether they would accept of such a payment or not. He did not wish to
press this expedient upon the House, but he begged leave to submit it to
their consideration; and as he had not yet been able to resolve in his
own mind what line of conduct the House ought to pursue, he requested
that the discussion of the question might for a short time be deferred.
Mr. CLARK wished that the gentleman who spoke last would be careful of
preserving consistency. It was only a few days ago that he had laid
before the House a resolution, by which Congress were to indemnify all
such citizens of the United States as had suffered losses by the British
pirates. He supposed that for this, there would be found as little
authority in the articles of the constitution, as for relieving the
fugitives from Cape François.
Mr. MADISON, in explanation, replied, that the two cases were widely
different. The vessels of America sailed under our flag, and were under
our protection, by the law of nations, which the French sufferers
unquestionably were not. As to the resolution he had proposed, it was
not then before the House, and hence he could not speak to it with
propriety. It was very possible that the House might find it wrong, and
reject it. He wished not to be misunderstood, for he was sure that every
member in that House felt the warmest sympathy with the situation of the
sufferers. He would be very glad to find a proper way for their relief.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he had not been able to discover upon what
authority the House were to grant the proposed donation. If the question
should that day come to a vote, which he trusted it would not, he had
resolved to give his voice in favor of the sufferers: but, when he
returned to his constituents, he would honestly tell them that he
considered himself as having exceeded his powers, and so cast himself on
their mercy. He felt many obstacles to voting away this money without
further deliberation.
Mr. BOUDINOT declared, that he had never been able to discover any
difficulty in the matter. By the law of nature, by the law of
nations--in a word, by every moral obligation that could influence
mankind, we were bound to relieve the citizens of a Republic who were at
present our allies, and who had formerly been our benefactors. He could
not for a moment endure the idea of a hesitation on such a question.
When a number of our fellow-creatures had been cast upon our sympathy,
in a situation of such unexampled wretchedness, was it possible that
gentlemen could make a doubt whether it was our duty to relieve them? It
had been said that the House was not, by the constitution, authorized to
give away money for such purposes. He was satisfied, that to refuse the
assistance requested, would be to act in direct opposition both to the
theory and practice of the constitution. In the first place, as to the
practice, it had been said that nothing of this kind had ever occurred
before under the Federal Constitution. He was astonished at such an
affirmation. Did not the Indians frequently come down to this city, on
embassies respecting the regulating of trade, and other business--and
did not the Executive, without consulting Congress at all, pay their
lodgings for weeks, nay, for whole months together? and was not this
merely because the Indians were unable to pay for themselves? Nobody
ever questioned the propriety of that act of charity. Again; when
prisoners of war were taken, there was no clause in the constitution
authorizing Congress to provide for their subsistence: yet it was well
known that they would not be suffered to starve. Provision was instantly
made for them, before we could tell whether the nation to whom they
belonged would pay such expenses, or would not pay them. It was very
true that an instalment would soon be due to France, nor did he object
to reimbursement in that way, if it could be so obtained. But, in the
mean time, relief must be given, for he was convinced that he had still
stronger obligations to support the citizens of our allies than either
Indians or prisoners of war. In the second place, as to the theory of
the constitution, he referred gentlemen to the first clause of the
eighth section of it. By that clause Congress were warranted to provide
for exigencies regarding _the general welfare_, and he was sure this
case came under that description.
Mr. FITZSIMONS thought that it would be expedient to lose as little time
as possible in going into the committee. It was hard on the State of
Maryland to support of itself such an immense number of people. Besides,
the period for which that State had engaged to furnish them with
subsistence was expiring; so that it was absolutely necessary to come to
an early decision whether the House would assist them or not. Mr. Genet
had made a discrimination among the sufferers; some of them he had
promised to assist, and others, as _aristocrats_, he had disowned
altogether.
Mr. DEXTER read the clause referred to by Mr. BOUDINOT, but could not
draw from it any such inference. He was very unwilling to vote against
the proposition, and therefore solicited a delay, that he might have
leisure to find proper reasons for voting in its favor.
Mr. GILES was averse to precipitation in an affair of such magnitude.
The report had been read for a first time to-day; it had then been read
for a second time to-day. As if all this had not been sufficient, the
House must likewise go into a committee this day. Like the gentleman who
had just sat down, he felt many doubts as to the legality of such an act
of bounty; and he wished, before he gave a vote on either side of the
question, to free himself from these doubts. He considered duty to his
constituents as a very solemn trust. Some personal insinuations had been
cast out, as if gentlemen who professed constitutional scruples had
wished to embarrass the subject. Reflections of this kind could answer
no good purpose. Gentlemen (said Mr. G.) appeal to our humanity. The
appeal is out of place. That is not the question; but whether, organized
as we are, under the constitution, we have a right to make such a grant?
He did not understand why an application was made to Congress in
particular. It would have been made with greater propriety to the
Provincial Assemblies, as their power over the purses of their
constituents was more extensive than that of this House over the
revenues of the United States.
[The motion for the House resolving itself into a committee immediately
was then withdrawn, and the report was committed to a Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union.]
MONDAY, January 13.
_Commerce of the United States._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States, in foreign countries, when
Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) rose and addressed the Chair as follows:
Mr. Chairman: Among the various duties which are assigned by the
constitution to the Legislature of the United States, there is, perhaps,
none of a more important nature than the regulation of commerce, none
more generally interesting to our fellow-citizens, none which more
seriously claims our diligent and accurate investigation.
It so essentially involves our navigating, agricultural, commercial, and
manufacturing interest, that an apology for the prolixity of the
observations which I am about to submit to the committee, will scarcely
be requisite.
In the view which I shall take of the question, disengaging the inquiry
from all topics of a political nature, I shall strictly confine myself
to those which are commercial, and which alone are, in my judgment,
properly connected with the subject.
Called upon to decide on propositions, merely commercial, and springing
from a report, in its nature limited to commercial regulations, it would
be as ill-timed, as it would be irregular, to mingle with the discussion
considerations of a political nature. I shall, accordingly, reject from
the inquiry every idea which has reference to the Indians, the
Algerines, or the Western posts. Whenever those subjects require our
deliberations, I shall not yield to any member in readiness to vindicate
the honor of our country, and to concur in such measures as our best
interests may demand.
This line of procedure will, I trust, be deemed by those gentlemen who
follow me, the only proper one, and that the debate will be altogether
confined to commercial views; these will of themselves open a field of
discussion sufficiently spacious, without the intervention of arguments
derived from other sources. It would indeed argue a weakness of ground
in the friends of the propositions, and imply a distrust of the merits
of their cause, were they compelled to bolster it up with such
auxiliaries, and to resort for support to arguments, not resulting from
the nature of the subject, but from irrelative and extraneous
considerations.
The propositions, as well as the report, being predicated upon facts and
principles having relation to our commerce and navigation with foreign
countries, by those facts and principles, and those alone, ought the
propositions to stand or fall.
It will not be denied that this country is at present in a very delicate
crisis, and one requiring dispassionate reflection, cool and mature
deliberation. It will be much to be regretted then, if passion should
usurp the place of reason, if superficial, narrow, and prejudiced views
should mislead the public councils from the true path of national
interest.
The report of the Secretary of State, on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries is now before
the committee. The tendency of that report (whatever may have been the
design of the reporter) appears to be to induce a false estimate of the
comparative condition of our commerce with certain foreign nations, and
to urge the Legislature to adopt a scheme of retaliating, regulations,
restrictions, and exclusions.
The most striking contrast which the performance evidently aims at, is
between Great Britain and France. For this reason, and as these are the
two Powers with whom we have the most extensive relations in trade, I
shall, by a particular investigation of the subject, endeavor to lay
before the committee an accurate and an impartial comparison of the
commercial systems of the two countries in reference to the United
States, as a test of the solidity of the inferences which are attempted
to be established by the report. A fair comparison can only be made with
an eye to what may be deemed the permanent system of the countries in
question. The proper epoch for it, therefore, will precede the
commencement of the pending French Revolution.
The commercial regulations of France during the period of the Revolution
have been too fluctuating, too much influenced by momentary impulses,
and, as far as they have looked towards this country with a favorable
eye, too much manifesting an object of the moment, which cannot be
mistaken to consider them as a part of a system. But though the
comparison will be made with principal reference to the condition of our
trade with France and Great Britain, antecedent to the existing
revolution, the regulations of the subsequent period will perhaps not be
passed over altogether unnoticed.
The table which I have before me comprises the principal features of the
subject within a short compass. It is the work of a gentleman of
considerable commercial knowledge, and I believe may be relied on for
its correctness. An attentive reference to it will, with some
supplementary remarks, convey a just conception of the object; a view to
conciseness and simplicity has excluded from it all articles (the
production and manufactures of the United States) which are not of
considerable importance.
Accustomed as our ears have been to a constant panegyric on the generous
policy of France towards this country in commercial relations, and to as
constant a philippic on the unfriendly, illiberal, and persecuting
policy of Great Britain towards us in the same relations, we naturally
expect to find in a table which exhibits their respective systems,
numerous discriminations in that of France in our favor, and many
valuable privileges granted to us, which are refused to other foreign
countries; in that of Great Britain frequent discriminations to our
prejudice, and a variety of privileges refused to us which are granted
to other foreign nations. But an inspection of the table will satisfy
every candid mind, that the reverse of what has been supposed is truly
the case--that neither in France nor the French West Indies, is there
more than one solitary and important distinction in our favor, (I mean
the article of fish oil,) either with regard to our exports thither, our
imports from thence, or our shipping; that both in Great Britain and the
British West Indies, there are several material distinctions in our
favor, with regard both to our exports thither and to our imports from
thence, and, as it respects Great Britain, with regard also to our
shipping; that in the market of Great Britain, a preference is secured
to six of our most valuable staples, by considerably higher duties on
the rival articles of other foreign countries; that our navigation
thither is favored by our ships, when carrying our own productions,
being put upon as good a footing as their own ships, and by the
exemption of several of our productions, when carried in our ships, from
duties which are paid on the like articles of other foreign countries
carried in the ships of those countries; and that several of our
productions may be carried from the United States to the British West
Indies, while the like productions cannot be carried thither from any
other foreign country; and that several of the productions of those
countries may be brought from thence to the United States, which cannot
be carried from thence to any other foreign country.
TUESDAY, January 14.
_Commerce of the United States._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries; when Mr.
MADISON rose in reply to Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina.
Mr. M. began by observing that he had expected, from what was intimated
yesterday, the sequel of what was then said against the resolutions
before the committee; but, as there was a silence in that quarter, and
no other member has risen on either side of the question, he himself
would request the attention of the committee.
It had been much pressed that, in the discussion of this subject, it
should be viewed in its commercial relations only. He was perfectly
willing to meet every objection that could be urged on that ground; but,
as he conceived it impossible to do full justice to the interests of the
United States without taking some collateral considerations into view,
he should be obliged, in the course of his remarks, to point at the
political disposition and conduct of some of the nations of Europe
towards this country.
The propositions immediately before the committee turned on the
question, whether any thing ought to be done at this time, in the way of
commercial regulations, towards vindicating and advancing our national
interests. Perhaps it might be made a question with some, whether, in
any case, legislative regulations of commerce were consistent with its
nature and prosperity.
He professed himself to be a friend to the theory which gives to
industry a free course, under the impulse of individual interest and the
guidance of individual sagacity. He was persuaded that it would be happy
for all nations, if the barriers erected by prejudice, by avarice, and
by despotism, were broken down, and a free intercourse established among
them. Yet to this, as to all other general rules, there might be
exceptions; and the rule itself required what did not exist--that it
should be general.
To illustrate this observation, he referred to the Navigation Act of
Great Britain, which, not being counterbalanced by any similar acts on
the part of rival nations, had secured to Great Britain no less than
eleven-twelfths of the shipping and seamen employed in her trade. It is
stated that, in 1660, when the British act passed, the foreign tonnage
was to the British, as one to four; in 1700, less than one to six; in
1725, as one to nineteen; in 1750, as one to twelve; in 1774, nearly the
same. At the commencement of the period, the tonnage was but 95,266
tons; at the end of it, 1,136,162.
As another illustration, he mentioned the case where two countries
happened to be in such a relation to each other, that the one, by
discouraging the manufactures of the other, might not only invigorate
its own, but transplant the manufacturers themselves. Here the gain
would be a clear one, and the effect evidently consistent with the
principle of the theory.
To allow trade to regulate itself is not, therefore, to be admitted as a
maxim universally sound. Our own experience has taught us that, in
certain cases, it is the same thing with allowing one nation to regulate
it for another. Were the United States, in fact, in commercial
intercourse with one nation only, and to oppose no restrictions whatever
to a system of foreign restrictions, they would, of necessity, be
deprived of all share in the carriage, although their vessels might be
able to do it cheapest, as well as of the only resources for defence on
that side where they must always be most exposed to attack. A small
burden only in foreign ports on American vessels, and a perfect equality
of foreign vessels with our own in our own ports, would gradually banish
the latter altogether.
The subject, as had been remarked on a former occasion, was not a novel
one; it was coeval with our political birth, and has at all times
exercised the thoughts of reflecting citizens. As early as the year
succeeding the peace, the effect of the foreign policy, which began to
be felt in our trade and navigation, excited universal attention and
inquietude. The first effort thought of was an application of Congress
to the States for a grant of power, for a limited time, to regulate our
foreign commerce, with a view to control the influence of unfavorable
regulations in some cases, and to conciliate an extension of favorable
ones in others. From some circumstances then incident to our situation,
and particularly from a radical vice in the then political system of the
United States, the experiment did not take effect.
The States next endeavored to effect their purpose by separate but
concurrent regulations. Massachusetts opened a correspondence with
Virginia and other States, in order to bring about the plan. Here,
again, the effort was abortive.
Out of this experience grew the measures which terminated in the
establishment of a Government competent to the regulation of our
commercial interests and the vindication of our commercial rights.
As these were the first objects of the people in the steps taken for
establishing the present Government, they were universally expected to
be among the first fruits of its operation. In this expectation, the
public were disappointed. An attempt was made in different forms, and
received the repeated sanction of this branch of the Legislature, but
they expired in the Senate--not, indeed, as was alleged, from a dislike
to the attempt altogether, but the modifications given to it. It has not
appeared, however, that it was ever renewed in a different form in that
House, and for some time it has been allowed to sleep in both.
If the reasons which originally prevailed against measures such as those
now proposed had weight in them, they can no longer furnish a pretext
for opposition.
When the subject was discussed in the first Congress, at New York, it
was said that we ought to try the effect of a generous policy towards
Great Britain; that we ought to give time for negotiating a treaty of
commerce; that we ought to await the close of negotiations for
explaining and executing the treaty of peace. We have now waited a term
of more than four years. The treaty of peace remains unexecuted on her
part, though all pretext for delay has been removed by the steps taken
on ours; no treaty of commerce is either in train or in prospect;
instead of relaxations in former articles complained of, we suffer new
and aggravated violations of our rights.
In the view which he took of the subject, he called the attention of the
committee particularly to the subject of navigation, of manufactures,
and of the discrimination proposed in the motion between some nations
and others.
On the subject of navigation, he observed that we were prohibited by the
British laws from carrying to Great Britain the produce of other
countries from their ports, or our own produce from the ports of other
countries, or the produce of other countries from our own ports, or to
send our own produce from our own or other ports in the vessels of other
countries. This last restriction was, he observed, felt by the United
States at the present moment. It was, indeed, the practice of Great
Britain, sometimes to relax her Navigation Act so far, in time of war,
as to permit to neutral vessels a circuitous carriage; but, as yet, the
act was in full force against the use of them for transporting the
produce of the United States.
On the other hand, the laws of the United States allowed Great Britain
to bring into their ports any thing she might please, from her own or
from other ports, and in her own or in other vessels.
In the trade between the United States and the British West Indies, the
vessels of the former were under an absolute prohibition, whilst British
vessels in that trade enjoyed all the privileges granted to others, even
the most favored nations, in their trade with us. The inequality in this
case was the more striking, as it was evident that the West Indies were
dependent on the United States for the supplies essential to them, and
that the circumstances which secured to the United States this
advantage, enabled their vessels to transport the supplies on far better
terms than could be done by British vessels.
It might be regarded (he observed) as a general rule, that, where one
nation consumed the necessaries of life produced by another, the
consuming nation was dependent on the producing one. On the other hand,
where the consumption consisted of superfluities, the producing nation
was dependent on the consuming one. The United States were in the
fortunate situation of enjoying both these advantages over Great
Britain. They supply a part of her dominions with the necessaries of
life; they consume superfluities which give bread to her people in
another part. Great Britain, therefore, is under a double dependence on
the commerce of the United States. She depends on them for what she
herself consumes; she depends on them for what they consume. In
proportion as a nation manufactures luxuries must be its disadvantages
in contests of every sort with its customers. The reason is obvious.
What is a luxury to the consumer is a necessary to the manufacturer. By
changing a fashion or disappointing a fancy only, bread may be taken
from the mouths of thousands whose industry is devoted to the
gratification of artificial wants. He mentioned the case of a petition
from a great body of buckle makers, presented a few years ago to the
Prince of Wales, complaining of the use of strings instead of buckles in
the shoes, and supplicating his Royal Highness, as giving the law to
fashions, to save them from want and misery by discontinuing the new
one. It was not (he observed) the Prince who petitioned the
manufacturers to continue to make the buckles, but the manufacturers
who petitioned their customer to buy them. The relation was similar
between the American customers and the British manufacturers; and if a
law were to pass for putting a stop to the use of their superfluities,
or a stop were otherwise to be put to it, it would quickly be seen from
which the distress and supplications would flow. Suppose that Great
Britain received from us alone the whole of the necessaries she
consumes, and that our market alone took off the luxuries with which she
paid for them: here the dependence would be complete, and we might
impose whatever terms we please on the exchange. This, to be sure, is
not absolutely the case; but, in proportion as it is the case, her
dependence is on us. The West Indies, however, are an example of
complete dependence. They cannot subsist without our food. They cannot
flourish without our lumber and our use of their rum. On the other hand,
we depend on them for not a single necessary, and can supply ourselves
with their luxuries from other sources. Sugar is the only article about
which there was ever a question; and he was authorized to say that there
was not, at the most, one-sixth of our consumption supplied from the
British islands. In time of war or famine the dependence of the West
Indies is felt in all its energy. It is sometimes such as to appeal to
our humanity as well as our interest for relief. At this moment the
Governor of Jamaica is making proclamation of their distresses. If ever,
therefore, there was a case where one country could dictate to another
the regulations of trade between them, it is the case of the United
States and the British West Indies. And yet the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. SMITH) had considered it as a favor that we were allowed
to send our provisions in British bottoms, and in these only, to the
West Indies.
WEDNESDAY, January 15.
_Commerce of the United States._
A proposition being made to go into a Committee of the Whole on Mr.
MADISON's resolutions,
The House then went into committee.
Mr. FORREST, after a long pause, observed, that, as no other person
appeared disposed to rise on the occasion, although he felt himself
unequal to doing that justice to the subject which many others were, yet
he considered it his duty to offer a few remarks which had occurred to
him in the course of the debate.
In all our discussions of commercial affairs, the principal point to be
kept in view was the promotion of the essential and permanent interests
of our country, keeping in mind this maxim, (as true in respect to
nations as individuals,) that there is no friendship in trade. He then
entered into a consideration of our commercial connection with Great
Britain, and observed that we should avoid letting our former
prejudices, or those arising from recent transactions, influence our
judgments. We should not regard the favoring of the French or British
nation, but study to do that which would tend to the promotion of our
own commerce and the interest of our own navigation. In this pursuit, we
must keep in view our relative situation with European nations,
particularly those of France and Great Britain, and more particularly
the latter, with whom the proposed resolutions contemplate a change. Of
all possible times, (said he,) I believe this the most improper to try
the experiment.
If the British Government have been instrumental in letting the
Algerines loose upon us; if their privateers commit acts of piracy upon
our neutral flag, let it at least, in the first instance, be made matter
of negotiation. Neutral nations must suffer some inconvenience; and it
will be much better policy to come forward at once and say we are at
war. We will not submit to vexatious insults, when they are too much to
suffer, rather than make this commercial warfare, by which it is
impossible, in the course of human events, but that we must be much the
greatest sufferers; and how humiliating would it be, after trial, even
to propose to make it a drawn battle!
Let us examine the subject. Of the whole fair trade of Great Britain,
taking their imports and exports into view, their trade with the United
States will be found to be one-sixth, or thereabouts. Take the imports
and exports of the United States, and you will find that full one-half
the value of our whole trade is with Great Britain and her dependencies.
Who will suffer most? She, by the interruption of one-sixth, with the
means of getting most of the articles we supply, on as good terms, from
other nations, with great internal sources of revenue, and a people used
to bear any taxes asked of them; or we, with an interruption of one-half
our trade and commerce, not so well off with respect to internal
resources, and the complaints of our citizens, not accustomed to heavy
taxation? Let those who rely upon the effect it will have on the English
manufacturers and artisans, look back to 1773 and 1774, and recollect
the effect it then had.
But there is one circumstance that should have weight with every mind.
It will be found that three-fourths of all the impost revenue of this
country are derived from our commerce with the British. Shall we hazard
an entire loss of this revenue? And if lost or greatly interrupted, from
whence shall we supply its deficiency, without, at least, in their
minds, oppressing the people of this country? I am not a stockholder or
a bankholder. I am too poor to be either, and therefore can have no
separate interest in view, and, where I am known, I shall not be charged
with partiality to Great Britain; but I hope I am free from such
unwarrantable prejudices as to lead me into measures to the injury of my
country.
I lay it down as a principle not to be controverted, that our
intercourse with Great Britain, in a commercial point, (I mean, putting
the mode of carriage out of account, and confining it to the importation
and exportation, and restrictions and bounties thereon,) is as favorable
as we can expect, and, taken in the aggregate, full as favorable as with
France, their Navigation Act excepted.
With respect to navigation, I have long thought it ought not to be
submitted to; but are we to expect, at a moment like this, acting (as
they will certainly believe we shall) under the impulse of resentment,
they will waive an atom of their Navigation Act to the result of our
resolutions? It is vain. Let us not hazard that which is certain, which
the safeguard of experience has proved, for that we know not of.
It has been mentioned as a grievance that our produce is sent to France,
Holland, Spain, Portugal, &c., and that our imports are, in a great
degree, confined to Great Britain. Our merchants must pay their debts,
and surely it is for their interest to sell their articles for the
highest price they will bring, and purchase where they can obtain
cheapest. Our produce is sent to those countries to pay our debts in
Great Britain.
There has been nothing to lead me to a judgment how the blanks are to be
filled. If, with such high duties as to prohibit the articles, our chief
source of revenue will be wiped off, and the consequence may, nay, must
be, direct taxation. If low, it will only exhibit, without gratifying, a
resentment, and the consumers of these articles, the yeomanry of this
country, will have to pay the tax. If it is said that it is intended to
encourage our own factories, let us select those which we can
manufacture, and lay prohibitory duties on the foreign articles.
Mr. F. reprobated the idea of suffering partial or merely political
motives to influence in the discussion of the subject. Commercial
subjects ought to be considered in an independent point of view. He
hoped, therefore, that the committee would endeavor to divest themselves
of every incidental impression, originating in impulses from particular
events, and contemplate the question simply on its own merits.
Mr. FITZSIMONS declared that, in the course of this discussion, he had
not heard one single argument advanced which, admitting the premises to
be true, could persuade him to give his consent to the first of the
resolutions. It was possible that he might agree to some of those that
followed. He was perfectly convinced that a judicious system of
regulations would be of infinite advantage to the maritime interest of
America. He was of opinion that the first resolution was by far too
indefinite. The substance of the whole arguments advanced on both sides
tended only to establish a fact, which was already perfectly well known,
that the Governments of Europe act, in regard to the commerce of the
United States, just as they think proper. The lesson was a very good
one, and he trusted that, with a proper attention to temporary
circumstances, this country would improve by it.
Mr. MADISON regarded the objection of the gentleman as entirely of a
new kind. He had refused his consent to the first of the resolutions,
because it was indefinite. But the propositions laid before the House a
few days ago with respect to the Algerines were fully as indefinite, and
yet the gentleman who spoke last had recommended them. The order of
procedings in the present question is perfectly candid and regular,
consonant to the practice of the House, and the practice of the
gentleman himself.
Mr. AMES wished, that gentlemen, instead of indefinite declamation,
would lay their finger on each particular wrong that Britain had done to
us. He did not know of any particular advantage that we had derived in
our commerce with France. He wished to discountenance a spirit of
revenge, and to ascertain on what side the benefits of our commerce lay,
and wherein they consisted. He did not like unfair comparisons,
Mr. NICHOLAS said, that he would not, at this time of day, attempt to
detain the House any further than by just observing that the practice of
_comparisons_ had originated among the gentlemen who opposed the
resolutions.
At this stage, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.
THURSDAY, January 16.
_Commerce of the United States._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the Report of the Secretary of State on the privileges and restrictions
on the commerce of the United States in foreign countries, when
Mr. NICHOLAS rose and spoke as follows:
Mr. Chairman: I feel a great embarrassment in speaking on this subject,
from a distrust of my ability to treat properly its acknowledged
importance, and from the apparent expectation of the audience. I feel
too, as the member from Maryland who spoke yesterday did, from the
imputation of motives, well knowing that the Representatives of my
country are industriously reported to be enemies of the Government, and
promoters of anarchy, and that the present measure is imputed to these
principles. It is somewhat remarkable, that farther north we are charged
with selfishness, and want of attachment to the general welfare, for a
supposed opposition to measures of the import of the present. I mention
this contradictory inference, to show that the shameful designs charged
upon us, are not proved by the fact, and to place the guilt where it
only exists, in the malignity of the accuser.
It is a commonly received opinion, that trade should be intrusted to the
direction of those immediately interested in it, and that the actual
course of it is the best which it could take; this principle is by no
means a safe one, and, as applied to the trade of America, is extremely
fallacious. It can never be just, where the beginning and growth of a
commerce have not been free from all possible constraint, as to its
direction; as that can never be called a business of election which has
been created under foreign influence. The manner in which America was
first peopled, and the nurture she received from Great Britain, afford
the most striking contrast to the requisite before mentioned. The first
inhabitants of America were educated in Great Britain, and brought with
them all the wants of their own country, to be gratified chiefly by the
productions of that country. Aided by British capital, in the settlement
of the wilderness, and depending on the same means for the conveyance of
its produce to a place of consumption, it was inevitable, that the
demand for British commodities should keep pace with the improvement of
the country. In the commencement of American population and its early
stages, there does not appear to have been a chance of comparing the
advantages of commercial connection with different countries, and it
will be found that in its progress, it was still more restrained. In the
last years of the dependence of America on Great Britain, the principal
part of America was occupied by large trading companies, composed of
people in Great Britain, and conducted by factors, who sunk large sums
in the hands of the farmers, to attach them to their respective stores,
by which means competition was precluded, and a dependence on the
supplies of those stores completely established. Since the Revolution,
the business has been conducted by persons in the habit of dependence on
Great Britain, and who had no other capital than the manufactures of
that country furnished on credit. The business is still almost wholly
conducted by the same means. In no stage of its growth then, does there
appear to have been a power in the consumer to have compared the
productions of Great Britain with those of any other country, as to
their quality or price, and therefore there is no propriety in calling
the course of trade, the course of its choice.
The subject before the committee naturally divides itself into
navigation and manufactures, in speaking of which, I shall offer some
other considerations, to show that the same effects are by no means to
be expected from the greatest commercial wisdom in individuals, which
are in the power of the general concert of the community; the one having
in view profit on each separate transaction, the other, promoting an
advantageous result to the whole commerce of the country.
In considering the importance of navigation to all countries, but
especially to such as have so extensive a production of bulky articles
as America, I think I shall show that the last observation is accurately
right, and that the interest of the whole community, not those only who
are the carriers, but those also who furnish the object of carriage,
positively demands a domestic marine, equal to its whole business; and
that, even if it is to exist under rates higher than those of foreign
navigation, it is to be preferred. In circumstances of tolerable
equality, that can never however entirely be the case; for, in the
carriage of the produce of one country, by the shipping of another, to
any other place than the country to which the shipping belongs, there is
considerably more labor employed than would have been by domestic
shipping, as the return to their own country is to be included. On this
ground, it may be confidently asserted, that where the materials of
navigation are equally attainable, they will always be more
advantageously employed by the country for whose use they are intended;
and that if, under such circumstances, another country is employed as
the carrier, it must be under the influence of some other cause than
interest, as it respects that particular business. A dependence on the
shipping of another country tends to establish a place of deposit in
that country of those exports which are for the use of others, if it is
at a convenient distance from them. The superintendence of property
makes short voyages desirable for the owner, and the connection that
soon takes place between the money capital of a country and its shipping
interests, greatly strengthens the vortex. The attainment of wealth
beyond the demands of navigation, leads to an interest in the cargo
itself, and then the agency in selling to the consumer becomes
important. It is apparent that, as the final sale depends on the wants
of the purchaser, all intermediate expenses of care and agency must be
taken from the price to which the maker would be entitled. Our own
commerce has involved this loss, in a remarkable degree, and it has gone
to an enormous extent, from a necessity of submitting to the perfidy of
agents, arising from a dependence established by means of the so much
boasted credit.
That there is this tendency in the employment of foreign shipping, is
not only proved by the commercial importance of Holland, which became
thus, from her naval resources, the storehouse of Europe, without
furnishing any thing from her own productions, but also from the varied
experience of America. Before the Revolution, every thing for European
consumption was carried to Great Britain, but, since America has
possessed shipping of her own, and in the Northern States, there has
been an accession of capital, the export to England is reduced one-half.
It is true, indeed, that there is still nearly one-half of what she
receives, that is re-exported, but it will be found that she still
retains a proportioned share of those influences which formerly carried
the whole. Great Britain, under all the discouragements of our laws,
which, we are told by the mercantile members of the committee, amount to
a prohibition where they have any rivals, did, until the European war,
possess one-third of the foreign tonnage employed in America. This has
been supported by the dependence into which the Southern States were
placed by credit, and here, as in every other step of the connection,
this engine extorts advantages from us, beyond the compensation which is
always secured in the first advance. If there wanted other proof of the
British interest in the American navigation being supported in direct
opposition to our interests, it may be found in the comparative state of
the tonnage employed, where it appears that, after the protecting duties
once had their effect, the additional tonnage, to a considerable amount,
has been entirely American, and that the British tonnage has remained
very nearly stationary, and in proportion to their undue influence.
In time of war, in addition to the inconveniences before stated, which
are enhanced by throwing the trade from its accustomed channel, there
are great and important losses brought on a country by this kind of
dependence. If your carriers are parties to the war, you are subjected
to the war freight and war insurance on your cargo, and you are cut off
from all the markets to which they are hostile; and, indeed, from our
experience in the present war, I may say you are cut off from the market
of your carriers themselves, as it would have been impossible for
British vessels to have escaped in our seas last summer. To what extent
this loss goes may be seen from a calculation in the Secretary of
State's report on the fisheries, making the proportion of war to that of
peace in the one hundred years, as forty-two to one hundred; and on that
calculation there can be no hesitation in determining that the interest
of the farmers requires that this foreign dependence should end here.
But the European war, by making a temporary exclusion of British
shipping, has already brought on us the greatest mischief of such a
regulation: and, by the encouragement it has afforded to our shipping,
almost completed the remedy; so that we have reason to consider this as
a fortunate period. But, it is not merely the advancement of our marine
that is contemplated by the present resolutions; the security of that
which we have is also dependent on them. The danger from the Algerines
has been estimated in this House at five per cent. on the vessel and
cargo, but the whole encouragement to our own shipping in our existing
laws consists in the one-tenth additional duty on goods imported in
foreign vessels. Whenever there shall be a European peace, which cannot
be far distant, the whole difference between the two sums will be a
direct encouragement on British ships, and will probably be equal to two
freights. Do gentlemen rely on the precarious prospect of building
frigates, and the more precarious service to be rendered by them when
built, so much as to neglect any other regulations for the safety of our
shipping when they are so much in their power?
Having shown that the actual state of our commerce is by no means the
most beneficial, as far as navigation is concerned, I will proceed to
consider the benefits derived from the consumption of those European
manufactures which form the principal part of the stores of America. And
here it may safely be said, that national policy by no means justifies
the almost exclusive preference given to those of Great Britain. It is
not always true that the commodity which is bought for least money is
the best bargain, for the means of payment form an important
consideration in all traffic, and accommodations in it may more than
counterbalance an inequality of price. If one man will receive an
article in exchange which you can sell to no other, it will certainly be
a saving to deal with him at a high advance on his property. If there
are countries which would become great consumers of American produce, on
the terms of reciprocal consumption, and we find a difficulty, as is
often the case, in vending that produce, is it not of great national
importance to excite those acts which are to become the foundation of
the connection, even if, in the first instance, it is to be attended
with inconvenience and loss? France may be made a connection of this
sort. She is at this time almost, if not quite, on a footing with Great
Britain in the consumption of American products, and every hand which
shall receive employment from us will add to her wants. We are told that
it is of no less importance to us to find a country which can supply us
advantageously than one which will consume our productions; and that, as
commerce is no longer carried on by barter, it is no less beneficial to
sell in one country and buy in another, than if we could complete the
exchange in the same country. This might be true, if your production was
limited, and the demand for it certain; but, with a greatly improving
agriculture, and some risk in our markets, the object is important.
Great Britain being the factory of those things which would make her
most dependent on the agricultural interest, and the national wealth
being probably at the greatest height, there is no expectation that her
consumption will increase. On the other hand, as labor is now to receive
its direction in France to the manufacturing arts, so far as concerns
America, you will take from the agricultural strength a large class of
people, and by that means create a dependence on you, at least to the
amount of their own consumption, and the wealth you will diffuse will
give ability to thousands who are now too poor to bid for your
commodities. Nor is it probable that you will purchase this important
benefit on very disadvantageous terms; for it is agreed on all hands
that many important arts are well understood there, and that labor,
which forms the principal part of the cost of most articles, is
considerably cheaper in France than in England.
Another very important operation of a discrimination in favor of France
will be that, by encouraging liberal industry, you may put an end to
some practices which, in the existing state of consumption, greatly
depreciate our commodities. I mean the public provision made in
granaries, and the supply from them in times of scarcity, which destroys
the competition that raises every thing to its just value. Different
consequences have been foretold as likely to result from those
measures, to which I shall give a short examination. We are told that
the preference long since given by our laws has been equal to a
prohibition of British vessels, and that, to the extent to which it has
gone, the best effects have been produced. To secure this operation from
a recent attack, and at the same time to extend it to some branches of
trade, to which its principles would equally extend, is the object of
the marine resolutions. We have no reason to apprehend bad consequences
from an action which has hitherto had good consequences. As to the
increased duties on manufactures, I think the prospect in no way
threatening; for, if there should be found no country to supply our
wants on better terms, the diminution of consumption will be only in
proportion to the duty. This can be by no means alarming, considered as
the worst consequence of the measure to men with whom the impost is the
favorite mode of collecting the revenue, at a time when the public wants
are equal to any possible produce. If there shall be found a competitor
with Great Britain for our consumption, the great object will be
attained, as it must be accompanied by a corresponding consumption of
American productions. But we are told that there will be a conflict of
commercial regulations between this country and Great Britain, and that
the consequence will be, the loss of the market she affords us. The
probable consequences of such a conflict will best determine whether it
is to be expected, as it will commence, on her part as well as ours,
with a view to consequences. The danger which she can alone apprehend is
the loss of the market for her manufactures; and to obviate this, it
would be absurd to widen the breach between us, as that would tend, in a
direct proportion, to the establishment of unfriendly habits and
manufactures, either here or in other countries, which would rival her
own. If, however, the ultimate advantage would justify such measures,
the immediate distress of her people would forbid it. The American trade
must be the means of distributing bread to several hundred thousand
persons, whose occupations would be wholly ended with the trade, and the
Government is by no means in a situation to bear their discontent. Their
navigation and manufactures draw many important ingredients from America
which would be lost to them. The creditors of the people of America, to
an immense amount, would be deprived of the remittances which depend on
a friendly intercourse. On the whole, it would add to the disorders of
the Government among those who, perhaps, have heretofore contributed to
its support, without gratifying any thing but an arrogant resentment.
But we are told that our own citizens would be equal sufferers, and are
more to be injured by being stopped in a career of rapid improvement. It
will be hard to anticipate any real misfortune to America in such a
contest, unless the temporary loss of indulgencies, which are by no
means necessary, can be so called. The consumption of Great Britain is,
according to the most friendly calculation, not more than one-third of
our purchases from her, and, therefore, the national wealth, independent
of the gratification of our appetites, will receive an immense addition,
and a vast fund will be procured to make lasting and valuable
improvements, which would be degraded by comparison with the gewgaws of
a day. It is to be remarked that the diminution of our exports would be
divided among large classes of people, and in all cases forms a
deduction from the annual income, rather than a total loss. This will
result from the various objects of American industry and the division of
the markets of its produce. This forms an important difference between
America and Great Britain, in an estimate of the effects of a rupture
between the two countries. In my opinion, the habits of the Southern
States are such as to require the control which is said to be the
consequence of these measures. Under the facility offered by the modes
of trade before spoken of, and the credit which is said to be so
beneficial, they have not only involved themselves in debt, but have
contracted habits which, with the power of gratification, must always
keep them so. We did hope that the administration of justice would have
corrected the evil, but we now find that it cannot be corrected but by
entire changes. It is founded in the policy of the merchant himself, and
this circumstance is enough to present to the minds of the committee a
long train of dependent mischiefs. It is a fact, supported by the best
evidence, that our merchants who get their goods from the manufacturer
pay as much for them as the shopkeeper who buys at Baltimore or
Philadelphia. This is one of the consequences of the want of credit
which always will follow a reliance on collection from farmers; and
there can be no doubt that the merchant is indemnified for his disgrace
as well as his advance. The result of the whole train of indulgence is,
that our goods are bought at an advance from a half to one-fourth of
what they could be afforded for in cash sales. Nor does the mischief
stop here. It brings a subjection which materially affects the sale of
our produce. I do believe, myself, that the war with Great Britain did
not bring half the mischief on us that their credit has; and I very much
suspect a credit for consumption will always be found equally
mischievous. It by no means resembles money loans, as is insinuated by
the gentleman from South Carolina, by freeing a man's own resources for
any other use. It is certain that there is no other safe regulation of a
farmer's expenses than his income; and experience every day proves that,
when so regulated, they always fall short of the income, and that, when
they depend on credit, they always exceed it, and thereby subject future
revenue. Lessening the importation of foreign manufactures will increase
our household fabrics, which experience has proved to be highly
profitable, as the labor is done by a part of the community of little
power in any other application. Regular efforts in this way have been,
in my country, certainly productive of independence.
Mr. GOODHUE.--Mr. Chairman: The propositions now before us having been
considered by several gentlemen, who have already spoken, and who have
given such a particular detail of calculations, I shall confine myself
to some general observations on the subject.
The gentleman from Maryland has made an observation which struck me very
forcibly as applied to the subject before us, because it is a maxim to
which all mankind have assented, and upon which all mankind continually
practise--it was this: "there is no friendship in trade;" and it maybe
added, as a necessary consequence, there ought to be no hatred in trade.
By following a path founded upon so obvious a maxim as the foregoing, we
may be sure of a right guide, but if we deviate from it, we are in
danger of being led into unforeseen error and mischief. It is
unquestionably our duty to attend to the navigation and commerce of our
country, and give it every proper encouragement which time and
circumstances admit; this has ever been my wish and my conduct.
This object, so important and desirable, must be effected by fixed
principles and regulations, such as giving our vessels a decided
preference in our own ports above the ships of every other nation
whatever, by paying less tonnage and other duties; by suffering no
foreign ships to bring into the United States the productions of any
other country than the one to which they belong; and by prohibiting
foreign ships from coming to the United States from those places where
our own ships are prohibited.
These are the fixed principles and regulations by one or all of which
our navigation and commerce can only be promoted, and must never be
deviated from, when adopted in favor of any one nation whatever--unless
it be in return for some special advantage granted to us by any
particular nation as an equivalent. Hitherto, our Government has
proceeded to distinguish foreign ships, only by making them pay greater
tonnage and duties than our own. If circumstances required it, and the
time is judged a seasonable one, I shall be willing to proceed further.
Let us examine what advantages we enjoy in consequence of any commercial
treaties we have already formed, for the propositions before us are
proposed to affect only those nations with whom we have no treaties. We
have commercial treaties with Prussia, Sweden, France, and Holland, and
in the dominions of neither of those powers have our ships or the
produce of this country (except in the single article of our oil in
France) been admitted on any more favorable terms than the ships or
produce of any other nation; and for this obvious reason, because our
treaties only ensure the advantages they may grant to the most favored
nation; and, being circumstanced in such a manner as not judging it for
their interest to distinguish any one by its favors, we are left only in
the enjoyment of a trade with them on the terms common to all other
nations. This being the case, I would not give one farthing to have like
treaties formed with every other nation, for they have not been, and
never can be, of any service to us; if we expect to derive any advantage
from commercial treaties, we must stipulate for some certain good, for
some other good which we may grant them in return.
Mr. CLARK differed from many members who had spoken before him, in the
view they took of the subject; he conceived it ought to be considered in
a political light. We had many wrongs to complain of, and we should
endeavor to obtain redress. The English have violated our treaty, just
after it was ratified, by taking away our negroes, and since by holding
our posts; they have also set the savages on our backs, and have not
they let loose the Algerines upon us? Shall we sit still and bear it?
How can we help it? it is asked. They will retaliate, we are told. How
retaliate? Will they refuse to sell us their manufactures? He remembered
that, even in old times, a non-importation agreement made them repeal
their stamp act. We have surely as well now as we had then a right not
to buy their goods; we don't want to cram our provisions down their
throats, or to force them to buy our lumber. During the non-importation
agreement, we did not perish with cold; we found, even then, that among
ourselves we could make wherewith to clothe ourselves; we are surely as
able to do it now. We then gained our point; we should now be much more
powerful with the same weapon: many of her manufacturers are already
starving for want of employment. We should add greatly to their
distress, and soon bring the Government to their senses, and they will
be glad to enter into a commercial treaty with us.
The balance of trade with Great Britain is much against us; and by
carrying to Portugal and Spain what we send to them, we should receive
cash in return. France will not always be in a storm, and a supply of
the manufactured articles we want may soon be received from that
quarter.
He did not see to what purpose calculations three hours long had been
brought forward. It was very well for merchants to calculate in their
counting houses; but he conceived the Legislature should determine the
question upon political considerations. He concluded by remarking, that
he believed by this time the committee must pretty clearly see that he
was in favor of the resolutions.
Mr. PARKER considered the resolutions on the table as indefinite and
unintelligible. If revenue is the object, we should remember the remark
of _Dr. Swift_, that in the arithmetic of taxation, two and two do not
always make four, but sometimes only _one_. He thought there was a
jarring in the third resolution, which contradicted the first. The
leading clause of the first resolution, which has occasioned so long a
debate, is in these words: "That the interest of the United States would
be promoted by further restrictions and higher duties, in certain cases,
on the manufactures and navigation of foreign nations employed in the
commerce of the United States, than those now imposed." The third
resolution which Mr. P. referred to, is in these words: "That the duty
on vessels belonging to the nations having commercial treaties with the
United States, ought to be reduced to ---- per ton." The resolutions
meant either too much, or nothing. He would move to amend the first
resolution, but that he hoped it would be altogether cast aside.
Mr. S. SMITH (of Maryland) rose and apologized to the committee for
presuming to intrude upon them a second time by the delivery of his
sentiments. He said that a personal attack had been made yesterday upon
him in that House. It had met him out of doors, and had gone into the
world. After he had done speaking yesterday, a member had risen, and
held forth as a fundamental observation, that "gentlemen possessing
capitals of their own were in favor of the propositions; but that
dealers upon credit were against them." When this remark was made, as he
had but just sat down from delivering his negative to the resolutions,
he could not help thinking himself aimed at as one of those dealers upon
credit. [Here the member referred to rose, and solemnly declared that a
personal allusion to Mr. SMITH had never entered his mind.] Mr. S. went
on to observe, that the whole assertion was erroneous. The merchants of
America are men of liberal sentiments--more so, he believed, than
merchants of any other part of the world. They are not to be biased by
the petty motives of interest, in prejudice to the public interest of
their country. The gentleman whom he referred to had spoke of an
alarming British influence in some of the commercial cities of America.
He had alleged that merchants, by their connection with Britain, would
be under its influence; but there was no such thing. In this country,
merchants studied the constitution, and were attached to it. In other
countries, they minded only profit. As a reflection had been thrown on
merchants who dealt upon credit, he should take leave to observe that
credit was a very good thing. As to himself, he had before the war
began, acquired, by his industry, as much property as placed him beyond
the necessity of credit. By the war he was reduced to nothing. After the
peace, he again began as he set out at first. By the same industry and
the same talents, he had once more acquired independence. By the British
buccaneers, he had lost as much, since the present war began, as the
gentleman to whom he rose in reply, would think a tolerable fortune for
dividing among his sons; yet he could still spare time from his business
for the service of his country.
The question was then taken to postpone the subject to the first Monday
in March next; and it was resolved in the affirmative--yeas 51, nays 47,
as follows:
YEAS.--Theodorus Bailey, Abraham Baldwin, Thomas Blount, Thomas P.
Carnes, Gabriel Christie, Abraham Clark, Isaac Coles, Henry Dearborn,
George Dent, William Findlay, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,
Nicholas Gilman, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, William B. Grove,
George Hancock, Carter B. Harrison, John Heath, Daniel Heister, John
Hunter, William Irvine, Matthew Locke, William Lyman, Nathaniel Macon,
James Madison, Alexander Mebane, William Montgomery, Andrew Moore, Peter
Muhlenberg, Joseph Neville, Anthony New, John Nicholas, Nathaniel Niles,
Alexander D. Orr, Josiah Parker, John Patton, Andrew Pickens, Francis
Preston, Robert Rutherford, Thomas Scott, John S. Sherburne, John
Smilie, Israel Smith, Thomas Spring, Thomas Tredwell, Philip Van
Cortlandt, Abraham Venable, Francis Walker, Benjamin Williams, and
Joseph Winston.
NAYS.--Fisher Ames, James Armstrong, John Beatty, Elias Boudinot,
Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Lambert Cadwalader, Thomas
Claiborne, David Cobb, Peleg Coffin, Joshua Coit, Jonathan Dayton,
Samuel Dexter, Thomas Fitzsimons, Uriah Forrest, Dwight Foster, Ezekiel
Gilbert, Henry Glenn, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Samuel Griffin,
Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, William Hindman, Samuel Holten, John
Wilkes Kittera, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Francis Malbone,
Joseph McDowell, William Vans Murray, Jeremiah Smith, Samuel Smith,
William Smith, Zephaniah Swift, Silas Talbot, George Thatcher, Uriah
Tracy, Jonathan Trumbull, John E. Van Allen, Peter Van Gaasbeck, Peleg
Wadsworth, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, John Watts, Paine Wingate,
and Richard Winn.
Monday, January 20.
_Algerine Affairs._
The Committee of Ways and Means, appointed, pursuant to the resolutions
of the House, on the communications from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES relative to Algiers, brought in a report, which was twice read,
and referred to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the
Union.
_Ordered_, That it be printed for the use of the members.
The report states that the naval force for the protection of the trade
of the United States, shall consist of four ships of forty-four guns
each, 18 and 9 pounders, and two of twenty guns each. The aggregate sum
wanted for this purpose is estimated at six hundred thousand dollars; to
raise which, one per cent. additional duty is proposed to be laid on
imported goods now paying seven and one-half per cent.; five per cent.
additional on stone, marble, &c.; and on all stone and earthenware,
three cents additional; on salt, per bushel, six cents additional, per
ton, on all vessels of the United States employed in foreign trade; and
twenty-five cents additional, per ton, on all other vessels.
On motion of Mr. FITZSIMONS, an addition was made to the Committee of
Ways and Means; so that it now consists of a member from every State,
who are to make another report respecting the fortifying the ports and
harbors of the United States.
_Ordered_, That Mr. GILMAN, Mr. WATTS, Mr. ORR, Mr. PATTON, Mr. BALDWIN,
and Mr. ISRAEL SMITH, be added to the committee appointed to report to
this House the naval force adequate to the protection of the commerce of
the United States against the Algerine corsairs, together with an
estimate of the expense, and the ways and means of defraying the same.
TUESDAY, January 28.
_French Refugees._
A petition of Peter Gauvain and Louis Dubourg, in behalf of the French
refugees of Cape François, now at Baltimore, was presented to the House
and read, praying that Congress will speedily decide on the memorial of
the committee appointed by the Legislature of Maryland, to draw for, and
distribute, the moneys granted by that State for the relief of the
French emigrants from the Island of St. Domingo.
Mr. MURRAY moved that it should be referred to the Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, along with the report of the select
committee upon it. He thought it would be an act of humanity to relieve
the persons mentioned in the petition. And if that was improper, he
thought that the next greatest act of humanity which could be done, was
to relieve them from suspense.
Mr. CLARK was of opinion that the matter should be instantly taken up,
as the fund for their relief expired on the 2d of February next.
Mr. HUNTER, from South Carolina, mentioned a remarkable exertion of
benevolence respecting persons of this kind which had taken place in
that State. The motion was agreed to, and the House directly resolved
itself into a committee on the question.
It was then moved and seconded, that the PRESIDENT be authorized to pay
$10,000 of the public money for the use of the refugees, and to
negotiate the payment of it, with the Ministry of France.
Mr. BOUDINOT was convinced, that, by the constitution, the House had a
right to give it in the first instance. He considered the committee as
too confined, and thought that it should have comprehended all the
people of this sort in North America. Many of these people since winter
set in, must have perished of cold and want in the streets of
Philadelphia, but for the benevolence of some well-disposed people. He
urged the committee, in the most pathetic language, to extend immediate
and effectual relief.
Mr. S. SMITH was confident that Congress would be repaid with thanks by
the Republic of France. He said that a supply of powder and ball had
been sent from one of the Southern States to St. Domingo, and that the
price had been punctually and thankfully repaid. Santhonax and Polverel
had been recalled, who were the authors of all the mischief that had
happened. The refugees expected to return to their settlements before
the first of May, and they would then be very able and very willing to
repay the money themselves.
Mr. SMILIE recommended the entering into a negotiation with the French
Ambassador, for securing payment of what sum should be voted.
Mr. CLARK hoped that the motion would instantly pass. In a case of this
kind, we were not to be tied up by the constitution. Were Algerines cast
upon the mercy of America, in such a situation, he would pay them the
same tribute of humanity. The French Ambassador had restricted his
services to a particular class of people. It was not the business of the
House, whether the refugees at Baltimore were democrats or aristocrats.
They were men; and, as such were entitled to compassion and to relief.
Mr. S. SMITH, in reply to Mr. SMILIE, said, that Mr. Genet, when
solicited on behalf of these people, made answer that he was not
authorized on the part of the Republic to give them any thing, but sent
them $2,000 from himself.
Mr. SMILIE replied that Mr. SMITH had mistaken him; he did not wish to
seek money from Mr. Genet. But he thought it would be singular to give
away so large a sum, without endeavoring to secure the approbation of
the French Minister, as a step towards repayment.
Mr. DEXTER had formerly entertained scruples, but he now approved the
motion.
Mr. NICHOLAS did not approve the motion in its original shape, nor did
he like it better for its being now altered into a motion for
authorizing the PRESIDENT to pay the money. Mr. N. expressed, in the
strongest and most unequivocal language, his compassion for the
sufferers; but, as he had not seen a way pointed out of relieving them,
agreeably to the constitution, he recommended a shorter one. Out of the
liberal compensation which the members of that House received from the
country, he thought that the sum wanted might easily be subscribed. He
did not know whether the Republic would thank us for helping them;
perhaps they might be accounted rebels.
Mr. FITZSIMONS proposed a second amendment of the original motion.
Mr. NICHOLAS replied: If this thing goes down at all, it should be as an
act of charity, and marked in giving, that it is going beyond our power,
but that, from a knowledge of the universal wish of our constituents,
and a sense of our general obligations to France, we have granted the
money.
Mr. SCOTT pressed for the relief in reference to the citizens of
Baltimore. If they were invaded by an army, we certainly would assist
them; and where is the difference, (added Mr. S.,) whether they be an
army of fighters, or an army of eaters. We must relieve them, to be
sure.
Mr. S. SMITH said that these distressed people were all women and
children, except three old men. The boys who were old enough, had been
bound apprentices. The men had been enlisted by the advice of Mr. Genet,
who said the Republic wanted recruits. He had likewise obtained two
ships for five hundred of the refugees who wanted to go to France. Genet
was able to do nothing more for them, as the $2,000 that he gave, were
out of his own pocket. It had been alleged that there was no precedent
for relieving these people. He mentioned two: The Americans in captivity
at Algiers had been assisted by the British Consul. Some years ago, the
crew of an American vessel had been shipwrecked on the coast of
Portugal. They were assisted with the utmost generosity by a private
gentleman. In both cases, Congress thankfully repaid the money advanced.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NICHOLAS) had offered his salary, but
the idea had not been supported, so that it went for nothing. And are we
(said Mr. S.) to stand up here, and tell the world that we dare not
perform an act of benevolence? Is this to be the style of an American
Congress? The gentleman from Virginia had said that perhaps these people
would be considered as traitors by the Republic. Were women and
fatherless children to be regarded as traitors? Mr. S. was extremely
affected, and apologized more than once to the House for the warmth with
which he spoke. He said that himself and several others who had
witnessed the scene of distress, were surprised; the gentleman did not
feel as they did.
Mr. MADISON possessed constitutional scruples. He thought that the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) would not have injured his cause
by a greater moderation of language, nor his credit for benevolence by
not saying that his sympathy arose chiefly from being an eye-witness.
At last, the SPEAKER proposed to the committee an amendment, which met
the ideas of the members, and the resolution passed, as follows:
_Resolved_, That a sum not exceeding ---- dollars be appropriated for
the support of such of the inhabitants of St. Domingo, resident within
the United States, as shall be found in want of such support.
That a regular account of the moneys so expended be kept; and that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES be requested to obtain a credit therefor,
in the accounts between the French Republic and the United States.
_Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a bill in
conformity with the foregoing resolution, and providing for the due
application of the moneys aforesaid; and that Mr. AMES, Mr. TRACY, and
Mr. DENT, be the said committee.
THURSDAY, February 6.
_War with Algiers._
The resolution being read for building four ships of 44 guns and two
ships of 20 guns--
Mr. MADISON rose to inquire whether there was in the public stores of
the United States, a sufficient quantity of cedar and live oak for
building the proposed six vessels? He was answered that there was not.
Mr. M. then observed, that it was evident this fleet could not be ready
for effective service in the course of the present year. He imagined
that there was another resolution, precedent as to the time of voting
it, which ought to be before the committee. The resolution to which he
alluded, was that assigning a sum of money to buy a cessation of
hostilities from the Regency of Algiers. He was of opinion that the
project of fitting out an armed squadron was liable to many solid
objections. There were two points of light in which this subject might
be surveyed. The first of these was, whether the Algerines acted from
their own impulse in this matter? In that case, they were known to be in
the habit of selling a peace; and, if they are willing to do so, he
fancied that it might be purchased for less money than the armament
would cost. On the other hand, if they do not act from their own
impulse, but upon the instigation of Britain, we may depend upon it that
they cannot be bought. Britain will keep them hostile. There is
infinitely more danger of a British war from the fitting out of ships
than from the resolution on the report of the Secretary of State. The
distance which the ships would have to sail is not less than three
thousand miles, and their number is too small for a decisive advantage.
The combined powers would embrace the equipment of these ships as an
excellent opportunity to pick a quarrel with the United States. Mr. M.
expressed his doubts with regard to the propriety of this measure,
because the expense would be immense, and there was no certainty of
reaping any benefit from it.
Mr. CLARK was anxious to state his doubts on this subject, that
gentlemen, who, by their habits of life, had met with opportunities of
better information than he possessed, might correct him where he was
wrong. In the first place, the ships would be too small in point of
number to be of any kind of importance, amidst the numerous navies of
Europe. The distance from any friendly port, where, in case of
accidents, they might repair, was likewise very great. It was to be
expected that, when they fell in with British ships of war, that the
latter would endeavor to search them for prohibited cargoes, and for
seamen, because they were in the practice of impressing their own
countrymen wherever they could find them. This would produce a quarrel.
There was a scheme which occurred to him, and which he judged would be
less expensive and more effectual. This was, to hire the Portuguese to
cruise against the Algerines. He understood that the Court of Lisbon
desired to keep her ships of war in actual service. The British have
been in the habit of building frigates for the service of the Algerines,
and, as he was informed, mariners, at a distance upon sea could
distinguish in what country vessels were built by their construction.
Hence it would be difficult for the captain of an American frigate to
ascertain at sea a British ship of war from an Algerine. He had an
objection to the establishment of a fleet, because, when once it had
been commenced, there would be no end of it. We must then have a
Secretary of the Navy, and a swarm of other people in office, at a
monstrous expense. If we build six ships this year, we should next year
find it necessary to build six more, and so on. The combined powers
would find a much better pretence for a war by this armament than from
the resolutions on the Report of the Secretary. Mr. C. closed his
speech, which was heard with great attention, by observing that he rose
principally to submit his opinions on this question as hints for those
who were better qualified to form a judgment on the subject than
himself.
Mr. BALDWIN expressed his doubts as to every part of this subject. He
had not been able to gain any information that was satisfactory. To
block up the Mediterranean was, he believed, impracticable. Bribery
alone could purchase security from the Algerines. Spain and Britain had
always found this method the cheapest. He had much confidence in the
gentleman who had been employed to go as an Envoy to Algiers from this
country. He was a thorough man. Mr. B. had yet formed no decided
opinion, and could wish to suspend his judgment till he learned the
issue of the present application to the Dey. If bribery would not do, he
should certainly vote for equipping a fleet.
Mr. NICHOLAS feared that we were not a match for the Algerines. A small
number of sailors were sufficient to navigate one of their ships, and
they had a militia to man them who were innumerable. He had not been
able to form an exact opinion, but he was afraid that we were not a
match for them by sea.
Mr. S. SMITH rose chiefly to answer the interrogatories proposed by Mr.
CLARK, as to what harbors in Europe American ships could retire to for
shelter? In an early part of his life, Mr. S. said that he had been in
that part of the world, and could assure the House that there was no
want of proper harbors to refit or obtain provisions in. The first he
mentioned was Toulon; Marseilles, likewise, had a most excellent harbor,
and there was no doubt that our vessels would be received there in the
most friendly way, as the Algerines had lately declared war against the
Republic of France. Spain had, likewise, several excellent
ports--Malaga, Cadiz, Barcelona, and Ferrol. In all these the American
squadron would be heartily welcome, and meet with all kinds of naval
stores in the greatest abundance. Lisbon, also, was a fine harbor, and
Oporto would be proper for the same purpose. So that, in case of
accident, the armament had nothing to fear from wanting a place of
retreat. He had no doubt that our vessels and our sailors would both be
much superior to those of the Algerines. Their ships were old and
crazy, and were presents made them by the powers with whom they are not
at war. The American bottoms must be better; and our fleet will most
likely have its station between Oran and Malaga, and, stretching across
between those two ports, block up the mouth of the Straits. He adverted
to the mistake of Mr. BALDWIN, who had said that Spain never attempted
to block up the Straits; the proper answer to which was, that Spain had
an extensive coast, not less than four or five hundred miles, within the
Mediterranean; so that she was quite differently situated, with regard
to them, from America. Mr. S. mentioned, as a consolatory circumstance,
that our profit was twice as great at present, in commerce, as it was
before the war, in spite of all the spoliations committed by Britain,
and by Spain; and, if the war continues, the profits will continue to
multiply twice as fast as they would otherwise do. As an evidence of
this fact, he mentioned the high price of wheat at present in this
market, and asked whether any gentleman had heard of a price so high at
this season of the year before? A gentleman (Mr. NICHOLAS) had spoken of
an Algerine militia. Why, sir, (said Mr. S.,) I shall set down against
them the American militia, and so that account is settled. He estimated
that the whole American exports and imports, in round numbers, was
twenty millions of dollars each; and that the extra insurance on account
of the Algerines, from one end of the year to the other, would not be
less than five per cent. to the whole, which was altogether two millions
of dollars. From this Mr. S. inferred that it must be the very worst
kind of economy to hazard an expense of two millions of dollars of
insurance, for the sake of saving the charges of this armament. He did
not see it improbable that the Algerines might very soon be on our
coast, under the command of British or American renegadoes. It was
nothing uncommon, among seamen, for two captains to be in the greatest
friendship to-day, and plundering each other's vessels to-morrow. As an
example of what Americans, in particular, are capable of doing, he
repeated the history of a Mr. Cooper, of Virginia, who, some years ago,
fitted out a ship for the express purpose of cruising against American
vessels bound from or to the East Indies. He sent a person into the
harbor of Algiers to solicit a commission from the Dey, and this envoy
had very near been taken prisoner, as the Dey wanted to have made a
slave of him. Mr. S. said that Mr. Cooper was known to be a man of
courage, of perseverance, and as possessing that species of intellectual
resources which qualify an adventurer for bold undertakings. He
inferred, from this anecdote, that, if Mr. Cooper, a man of respectable
birth and connections, could form such a scheme, what was not to be
feared from the common set of seamen? He could not tell where the danger
might end; nor did he know whether Philadelphia itself would be in
safety. They might speak of their forts as much as they pleased; he knew
their force, and did not much value it. The British had gone past them,
and what was to hinder the Algerines, or such a man as Mr. Cooper, from
getting past them? Were he on the coast of an enemy, he should not have
the least scruple of engaging to run a ship by such forts, when there
was in view so great a prospect as the plunder of Philadelphia. He
strongly pressed the necessity of sending out the proposed fleet as
quickly as possible.
Mr. AMES attacked the mover of the resolutions on the Report of the
Secretary (Mr. MADISON) for not displaying in the affair of the
Algerines some part of the spirit which he had exerted on the other
occasion. He thought it shameful to buy a peace, and that there could be
no security, if we did. He recommended an armament. Portugal had shown
herself friendly; and, referring to what Mr. CLARK had stated, he was of
opinion she would give our ships shelter in her ports. He thought that
six stout frigates at the mouth of the Straits would do the business. He
went at considerable length into Mr. MADISON's resolutions, and
condemned, upon various grounds, the arguments and conduct of the
gentlemen who supported them. Yesterday, we were told that Britain durst
not quarrel with America, and to-day she is represented as ready to do
it. Our commerce is on the point of being annihilated, and, unless an
armament is fitted out, we may very soon expect the Algerines on the
coast of America.
Mr. GILES, in reply, said that Mr. AMES drew inconsistent pictures. One
day he represented the American commerce at the summit of prosperity;
the next, it was reduced to nothing. In defence of the commercial
regulations, he reminded the House that Britain, and not Algiers, was
the real object of alarm, and the real source of hostility. It was,
therefore, proper to provide remedies against both of these illustrious
confederates. Algiers was but the instrument, Britain was the cause. The
reliance of Britain upon this instrument plainly showed that she was not
equal to a war and a commercial contest. She had, therefore, turned
loose the Algerines upon us--a fact which is pretty generally
acknowledged on both sides of the House. It is, therefore, in the power
of Britain to prevent the progress of these pirates. The commercial
restrictions will reduce Britain to difficulty, and she will then, for
the sake of friendship with America, be glad to put a stop to the
Algerine ravages. Until some measure of this kind has been adopted,
Britain, as she has raised up Algiers, will keep her up. The cheapest
mode of getting peace will certainly be by embracing the commercial
regulations. Mr. G. was averse to the proposal of a fleet. He agreed
very much with the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. CLARK,) that it would
be a better expedient to hire the fleet of Portugal. He considered the
establishment of a maritime force as having a direct tendency to war;
whereas, the commercial restrictions had the same tendency to peace. The
sending of American armed ships into the midst of the fleets of Europe
would certainly produce a quarrel. It had been well remarked, (by Mr.
CLARK,) that, if an attempt was made to search our ships of war, like
our merchantmen, it would infallibly produce a public affront, and
consequent hostilities.
Mr. MADISON, in reply to some remarks which had fallen from Mr. SMITH,
respecting the present high price of wheat in the American market, said,
that he had been informed of a place where wheat sold for four shillings
and sixpence per bushel only, where the dollar passes for six shillings.
Mr. M. supposed that Britain could render very essential service to the
Algerines, without embarking in a war. She has not embarked in a war to
the north-west of the Ohio, but she has done the same thing, in
substance, by supplying the Indians with arms, ammunition, and, perhaps,
with subsistence. He did not assert that Britain directed the plan of
the Indian expeditions, for he had no explicit evidence that they
actually did so. In the same way that they gave underhand assistance to
the Indians, they would give it to the Algerines, rather than hazard an
open war.
The committee now rose, without coming to the question.
FRIDAY, February 7.
JOHN PAGE, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, and took
his seat in the House.
_Algerine War._