_Vice President of the United States,
and President of the Senate._
The Address was taken up by paragraphs.
The fourth and fifth paragraphs were moved to be struck out by Mr.
MASON.[60]
Mr. MASON observed, that he had hoped nothing contained in the Address
reported as an answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, would have been such as
to force the Senate to precipitate decisions. The two clauses he
objected to disappointed him in that hope. They were calculated to bring
again into view the important subject which occupied the Senate during
their June session. This he conceived could answer no good purpose; the
minority on that occasion were not now to be expected to recede from the
opinions they then held, and they could not therefore join in the
indirect self-approbation which the majority appeared to wish for, and
which was most certainly involved in the two clauses which he should
hope would be struck out. If his motion were agreed to, the remainder of
the Address would, in his opinion, stand unexceptionable. He did not
see, for his part, that our situation was every way auspicious.
Notwithstanding the treaty, our trade is grievously molested.
Mr. KING observed, that the principal features observable in the answer
reported to the PRESIDENT's Address, were to keep up that harmony of
intercourse which ought to subsist between the Legislature and the
PRESIDENT, and to express confidence in the undiminished firmness and
love of country which always characterize our chief Executive
Magistrate. He objected to striking out especially the first clause,
because founded on undeniable truth. It only declares that our
prospects, as to our external relations, are not more satisfactory than
a review of our internal situation would prove. Was not this
representation true, he asked; could it be controverted? This clause, he
contended, contained nothing reasonably objectionable; it did not say as
much as the second, to which only most of the objections of the member
up before him applied, an answer to which he should defer, expecting
that a question would be put on each in order.
The Chair requested that the motion should be reduced to writing. Mr.
MASON accordingly reduced it to writing, and it went to striking out
both clauses at once.
Mr. MASON agreed most cordially that the situation of our external
relations were not more a cause of joy than our situation at home. But
the obvious meaning of the clause, he conceived, was an indirect
approval of our situation relative to external concerns; and to this he
could not give his assent, as he did not consider their aspect as
prosperous or auspicious.
Mr. BUTLER said, that when the committee was appointed to draft an
answer, he hoped they would have used such general terms as to have
secured a unanimous vote. He was willing to give the Chief Magistrate
such an answer as respect to his station entitled him to, but not such a
one as would do violence to his regard for the constitution and his duty
to his constituents. He could not approve of long and detailed answers,
however unexceptionable the Speech might be in matter, and however
respectable the character might be from whom it came. He had hoped, from
the peculiar situation of the country, and of the Senate, that nothing
would have been brought forward in the answer, on the subject which
agitated the June Executive session, calculated to wound the feelings of
members. He had been disappointed; it was evident that some members of
the Senate could not give their voice in favor of the Address in its
present shape, without involving themselves in the most palpable
inconsistency.
He had long since, for his own part, declared himself against every
article of the treaty, because in no instance is it bottomed on
reciprocity, the only honorable basis. After this declaration, how could
he, or those who coincided in opinion with him, agree to the present
Address without involving themselves in the most palpable inconsistency?
The sentence objected to, notwithstanding the explanation of the
gentleman from New York, appeared to him so worded as to lead the
citizens at large to believe that the spoliations on our commerce were
drawing to a fortunate close. This was not, he conceived, warranted by
the existing state of things. Indeed, he protested, he knew no more of
the actual situation of the treaty negotiation than the remotest farmer
in the Union; could he then declare, he asked, that it was drawing to a
happy close? Indeed, from the latest information received, far from our
situation having been ameliorated by the negotiations of our Executive,
he conceived our trade as much in jeopardy as ever.
As to the internal prosperity, he owned there was some cause for
congratulation; but even in this his conviction could not carry him as
far as the clauses in the Address seemed to go. In a pecuniary point of
view, the country had made a visible progress; but he saw in it no basis
of permanent prosperity. There were no circumstances attendant on it
that gave a fair hope that the prosperity would be permanent. The chief
cause of our temporary pecuniary prosperity is the war in Europe, which
occasions the high prices our produce at present commands; when that is
terminated, those advantageous prices will of course fall.
Mr. B. now came to speak of the second objectional clause. He regretted
whenever a question was brought forward that involved personality in the
most indirect manner. He wished always to speak to subjects unconnected
with men; but the wording of the clause was unfortunately such as to
render allusion to official character unavoidable. He objected
principally to the epithet _firm_, introduced into the latter clause, as
applied to the Supreme Executive. Why _firmness_? he asked. To what? or
to whom? Is it the _manly_ demand of restitution made of Great Britain
for her accumulated injuries that called forth the praise? for his own
part he could discern no firmness there. Is it for the _undaunted_ and
_energetic_ countenance of the cause of France, in her struggle for
freeing herself from despotic shackles? He saw no _firmness_ displayed
on that occasion. Where then is it to be found? Was it in the opposition
to the minority of the Senate and the general voice of the people
against the treaty that that _firmness_ was displayed? If it is that
_firmness_ in opposing the will of the people, which is intended to be
extolled, the vote shall never, said Mr. B., leave the walls of the
Senate with _my_ approbation.
Mr. READ said, he was not in the habit of giving a silent vote, and, as
many of his constituents were adverse to the instrument to which he had
given his assent, he thought this a fit opportunity to say something on
the subject.
Gentlemen on the other side had spoken of their feelings; did they
suppose, he asked, that those who were in the majority had not feelings?
Also, gentlemen declared they would not recede from their former
determinations; did they expect that the majority would recede?
He had, he said, taken the question of the treaty in all its aspects,
and considered it maturely, and though he lamented that he differed in
opinion on that subject with his colleague, and a portion of the people
of his State, he nevertheless remained convinced that the ratification
of it was advisable: it rescued the country from war and its desolating
horrors.
After reading that part of the PRESIDENT's Speech to which the clauses
objected to were an echo, he asked, whether any one could say, under the
conviction that the measures of Government had prevented a war, that our
view of foreign relations was not consolatory? On all hands, he
observed, the idea of a war was deprecated; both sides of the House
wished to avoid it; then is it not a consolatory reflection to all that
its horrors have been averted? Is there a man who does not believe that,
had the treaty not been ratified, we should have had war? If the country
had been plunged into a war, would it be as flourishing as it is?
The trifling vexations our commerce has sustained are not to compare to
the evils of hostility. What good end could have been answered by a war?
The Address, in the part under discussion, says no more than that we
rejoice at the prospect that the blessings of peace will be preserved;
and does not this expectation exist?
Great Britain, in the plenitude of her power, had availed herself of the
right she had under the law of nations, of seizing enemies' goods in
neutral vessels; but has allowed compensation to some Americans, and a
system of mild measures on our part is the best security for further.
But the Senate and the PRESIDENT are the constitutional treaty-making
powers. If mistaken in their decisions, they cannot be accused of having
been misled by sudden and immatured impressions. He should conceive
himself unfit to fill a chair in the Senate, if he suffered himself to
be carried away by such impressions. The people could not, in their town
meetings, deprived of proper information, possibly form an opinion that
deserved weight, and it was the duty of the Executive not to be shaken
in their determination by tumultuous proceedings from without. Upon this
ground he much approved the PRESIDENT's conduct, and thought it entitled
to the epithet, firm.
In local questions, affecting none but the interest of his constituents,
he should attend to their voice, but on great national points, he did
not consider himself as a Representative from South Carolina, but as a
Senator for the Union. In questions of this last kind, even if the
wishes of his constituents were unequivocally made known to him, he
should not conceive himself bound to sacrifice his opinions to theirs.
He viewed the PRESIDENT as standing in this situation, and though he
might hear the opinions of the people from every part of the United
States, he should not sacrifice to them his own conviction; in this line
of conduct he has shown his firmness, and deserves to be complimented
for it by the Senate.
Mr. ELLSWORTH was opposed to striking out. The clause records a fact,
and if struck out, the Senate deny it. The PRESIDENT asserts it; in the
Address reported, the Senate assent; a motion is made to strike out; is
it because the truth of it is doubted? It cannot be called an
unimportant fact, therefore its omission will not be imputed to
oversight. The latter part of the clause expresses our gratitude to
Almighty God. Will the Senate refuse to make an acknowledgment of that
kind? Do they not admit that He is the source of all good, and can they
refuse to acknowledge it? And if so, is it possible that, in admitting
the fact and expressing the sentiment, which so naturally flows from it,
the Senate should wound the feelings of any friend to his country?
The truth of the fact is as clear as that the sun now shines; the
sentiment is unexceptionable; he, therefore, recommended to his friend
the mover, not to insist upon striking out merely, but that he should
vary the motion, and propose a substitute.
To bring the mind to the point with precision, it was necessary to
attend to the wording of the clause. He read it. As to the signification
of that part which relates to our foreign concerns, he did not consider
it as hypothetical, but a positive declaration of a conviction that
their situation is satisfactory, and on that ground he wished to meet
the question.
The clause objected to expresses an expectation that the causes of
external disagreement which have unhappily existed, will be peaceably
done away. He said he had that expectation; many have it not. Those who
have it not will negative the clause; those who have it will vote in its
favor; the result will be the sense of a majority; the Senate could not
be expected, more than on other occasions, to be unanimous; if the
declarations contained in those clauses are supported, they will be
considered as the sense of the majority of the Senate; others may
dissent; but because unanimity could not be obtained, it was no reason
why the majority should give a virtual negative to the declaration which
they conceived founded on truth.
Mr. TAZEWELL said, the discussion had taken a turn different from that
which he expected when he heard the motion. He understood the motion at
the time it was made, and still so understood it, as not intending to
question the propriety of any thing which was contained in the
PRESIDENT's communication to both Houses of Congress. But from what had
been said, (by Mr. READ, of South Carolina,) that part of the answer to
the PRESIDENT's communication which had given rise to the motion, was
intended to have a further operation than he originally believed. He
asked what had given rise to the practice of returning an answer of any
kind to the PRESIDENT's communication to Congress in the form of an
Address? There was nothing, he said, in the constitution, or in any of
the fundamental rules of the Federal Government, which required that
ceremony from either branch of the Congress. The practice was but an
imitation of the ceremonies used upon like occasions in other countries,
and was neither required by the constitution, nor authorized by the
principles upon which our Government was erected. But having obtained,
he did not intend now to disturb it. To allow the utmost latitude to the
principle which had begotten the practice, it could only tolerate the
ceremony as a compliment to the Chief Magistrate. It could not be
permitted to arrest all opinions previous to regular discussions, nor to
operate as a means of pledging members to the pursuit of a particular
course, which subsequent and more full inquiries might show to be
extremely improper. Every answer, therefore, to the PRESIDENT's
communication ought to be drawn in terms extremely general, neither
seducing the PRESIDENT into a belief that this House would pursue a
general recommendation into points not at first contemplated by them,
nor pledge themselves to the world that that state of things was just,
which time had not permitted them thoroughly to examine. The clauses now
under consideration had, at least in one instance, deviated from this
principle. They declare to the world, "That the interesting prospect of
our affairs with regard to the foreign powers, between whom and the
United States controversies have subsisted, is not more satisfactory
than the review of our internal situation." The communications from the
PRESIDENT have not uttered so bold a sentiment, nor is there any thing
in those communications that justifies the assertion of this fact.
Placing the treaty with Great Britain out of the question, which seems
to have been the uppermost consideration when this sentence was penned,
the seizure of our provision vessels since the signature of that treaty,
and the unwarrantable imprisonment of our seamen, are acts which cloud
our prosperity and happiness. The minds of the Americans must be brought
to consider these things as trivial incidents in our political affairs,
before the sentence under consideration can be approved. He said he
must, therefore, vote for the motion to strike out the two clauses of
the answer, in order that some more fit expressions might then be
introduced to succeed them. He hoped the answer might be couched in
terms just and delicate towards the PRESIDENT, without wounding the
feelings of any Senator; and he believed both might be done without any
difficulty, after the two clauses were expunged.
After some further observations from Messrs. MASON, BUTLER, and
BLOODWORTH, in which the latter expressed the opinion that he did
conceive the terms of our peace with Great Britain consistent with the
dignity and honor of the United States, the question was put, and
decided for striking out--ayes 8, noes 14.
On a further attempt to amend one of the clauses some conversation took
place more remarkable for ingenuity than interesting for solidity, being
chiefly a debate upon words. The Senate divided on it--7 to 15.
On the question, of agreeing to the Address, it was carried--14 to 8, as
follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
Frelinghuysen, King, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine,
Read, Ross, Strong, and Trumbull.
NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Butler, Langdon, Martin,
Mason, Robinson, and Tazewell.
_Ordered_, That the committee who prepared the Address wait on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and desire him to acquaint the Senate at
what time and place it will be most convenient for him that it should be
presented.
Mr. KING reported, from the committee, that they had waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and that he would receive the Address of
the Senate to-morrow at 12 o'clock. Whereupon, resolved, that the Senate
will, to-morrow at 12 o'clock, wait on the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES accordingly.
SATURDAY, December 12.
Agreeably to the resolution of yesterday, the Senate waited on the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and the VICE PRESIDENT, in their name,
presented the Address then agreed to.
To which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES was pleased to make the
following reply:
GENTLEMEN: With real pleasure I receive your Address,
recognizing the prosperous situation of our public affairs,
and giving assurances of your careful attention to the
objects demanding Legislative consideration; and that, with
a true zeal for the public welfare, you will cheerfully
co-operate in every measure which shall appear to you best
calculated to promote the same.
But I derive peculiar satisfaction from your concurrence
with me in the expressions of gratitude to Almighty God,
which a review of the auspicious circumstances that
distinguish our happy country have excited; and I trust the
sincerity of our acknowledgments will be evinced by a union
of efforts to establish and preserve its peace, freedom,
and prosperity.