"_Resolved by the Senate of the United States in Congress
assembled_, That the President be informed the Senate have
received, with the purest pleasure, the evidences of the
continued friendship of the French Republic, which
accompanied his Message of yesterday.
"That he be requested to assure that magnanimous nation,
through the proper organ, that the Senate unite with him in
all the feelings expressed to the Minister of France, on
the presentation of the Colors of his nation, and devoutly
wish that this symbol of the triumphs and enfranchisement
of that great people, given as a pledge of faithful
friendship, and placed among the evidences and memorials of
the freedom and independence of the United States, may
contribute to cherish and perpetuate the sincere affection
by which the two Republics are so happily united."
Mr. ELLSWORTH moved that these resolutions should lie on the table until
to-morrow, that members should have an opportunity of perusing
attentively the papers accompanying the Message of the PRESIDENT.
Mr. BUTLER said, that he should very reluctantly, in general cases,
oppose a motion of the kind now made; but, on the present occasion, he
could not give it his assent. If the resolutions were intricate, or by
the question the judgment of the Senate could be committed, he should
accord in the wish expressed by the mover; but, as the resolutions go
merely to an expression of the sentiments of the House respecting the
French Republic, their feelings and judgment must be as ripe for such
expression now as they can be at any future period. It was not like a
law that was to affect the Senate hereafter; it had nothing to do with
the internal situation of the country or municipal regulations; but they
only went to express a sympathetic feeling for the French Republic, and
a wish to see them enjoy every happiness under the form of government
they have lately chosen.
This cannot commit the Senate, he conceived. If the motion for
postponement prevailed, it might convey a distrust of the sense of the
Senate respecting that Republic. He felt a lively sense towards that
nation on account of the glorious cause in which they had embarked; of
their gallantry and spirit in their arduous struggle to place men upon a
footing they were entitled to, raising them from a state of the most
abject and debasing slavery.
He declared himself always ready to express his feelings on the
magnanimity of such a people. If other members of the Senate possessed
not those feelings, they could now give the resolutions their negative.
He did not wish for a postponement, as it might be viewed as in a manner
slighting the Republic.
Mr. ELLSWORTH believed there was no real difference of opinion on the
subject. All felt an ardent friendship for the French; but one mode of
expressing it might be more proper than another. Besides, it might be a
doubt whether an expression of the feelings of the Senate on this
occasion was necessary--the Representatives had already spoken. He was
not, as the member who spoke before him, ready on all occasions to
express his sentiments; but only on fit occasions, and then he wished to
do it in the most proper manner. The operations of his mind, he
confessed, were slow. He wished more time for the perusal of the
documents laid before the Senate by the President.
Mr. LIVERMORE was also in favor of postponement.
Mr. LANGDON observed, that since members did so earnestly require time,
he should not urge an immediate decision; he should no longer object to
a postponement till to-morrow. He was happy to hear gentlemen say there
was no difference of sentiment upon the present occasion; he hoped that,
upon subjects relative to France, this might always be the case, and
that the Senate would not confine itself to empty professions of
attachment, but would evince it by substantial deeds.
Mr. TAZEWELL did not wish to press the business to an immediate
decision, since members desired time. He confessed he did not expect a
motion for a postponement would be made, as the resolutions he offered
contained nothing more than the PRESIDENT had expressed on the occasion.
However, if it was wished that the Senate should express their
sentiments in still stronger language than the PRESIDENT, he should not
object.
The opposition to the motion for postponement being withdrawn, it was
agreed to.
WEDNESDAY, January 6.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion made yesterday on the
Message of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, of the 4th instant, and
the presentation of the flag of the French Republic; and,
On motion of Mr. CABOT, seconded by Mr. ELLSWORTH, to expunge these
words from the second paragraph of the motion: "that he be requested to
assure that magnanimous nation, through the proper organ"--
Mr. STRONG was in favor of striking out. He observed that the
communication made to the Senate by the PRESIDENT consisted of two
distinct parts, the letter from the French Committee of Safety and the
address accompanying the flag. In the letter not one word was said about
the flag; it was written in October, '94, and there was probably then no
idea of sending one. The letter and the flag only happened to be
delivered at the same time; there was no other connection between them.
The letter, he said, was in answer to one from this country, and was
meant to close a complimentary correspondence. It required no answer; it
would puzzle any one to make an answer to it. An attempt was made by the
resolution offered, which proved it impossible to answer it. The
resolution forsook the contents of the letter, which, he repeated,
closed the correspondence. The United States had presented to the
National Convention our flag; or rather our Minister (and he was
unwilling to question the propriety of his so doing) presented it on
behalf of this Government; a French flag was sent in return; then the
propriety of an answer on this ground became the sole question. This
flag had been delivered to the PRESIDENT, who made an answer on the
presentation of it--a complete and perfect answer. He communicated his
answer to the Senate. Then was it proper, he asked, that the Executive
should be requested to make a second answer, and nearly in the same
words? The PRESIDENT, in his answer, expressly says, that he speaks not
only his own sentiments, but those of the citizens at large, including,
no doubt, the Senate. In this situation of the transaction nothing can
be proper to be done by the Senate but to express their opinion of the
propriety of his answer; and this would be accomplished by adopting the
substance of the resolution, after striking out the words proposed.
There could be (he concluded by observing) no difference of feeling in
the Senate on the occasion. The only difference was in the mode of
expressing it, and he inclined, for the reasons given, to that which was
the object of the motion for striking out.
Mr. ELLSWORTH was also of opinion that the subject divided itself into
two distinct parts. The first object was an expression of the pleasure
of the Senate at this new evidence of the friendship of France, and
joining with the PRESIDENT in all the feelings he had expressed on the
occasion. This would be effectually done by entering on the journals the
resolution as proposed to be amended. The PRESIDENT received the flag
and answered, then communicated the transaction to the Senate.
It appeared, by the papers communicated, he contended, that there was no
connection between the letter of the Committee of Public Safety and the
flag. He would not say that both were not very important transactions,
but they were disconnected. The letter was written much antecedent to
the sending of the flag--it was written in '94, and was intended to
close a correspondence. The correspondence began by an address from the
Convention, while Robespierre was an active member of it. This address
was to Congress: the PRESIDENT transmitted it to each House, and they
sent it back to the Executive, requesting he would answer it, with
expressions of the friendly dispositions of the United States towards
France. The resolutions of the Houses and the letter of the Executive
were transmitted through Mr. Monroe. The letter now in the view of the
Senate is an answer to that, and closes the complimentary
correspondence, if it ever can close. Propriety did not require another
word from the Senate; indeed, decency did not admit it, for it could not
be contended that the correspondence should be kept up _ad infinitum_.
As to the flag, how can it require an answer from the Senate? It was not
presented to them by the French Minister, but to the PRESIDENT, who had
answered, not only for himself, but for the citizens of the United
States; and he imagined it would not be contended that the members of
the Senate were not citizens.
It is not advanced, he said, that the PRESIDENT did not express the
sentiments of the Senate in the answer to the Minister; on the contrary,
his words are borrowed in this resolution. But it is wished he should
answer again in the same strain, and this was, in his opinion, neither
necessary nor even proper.
Mr. ELLSWORTH next combated the resolution as originally offered as
unconstitutional. Nothing, he contended, could be found in the
constitution to authorize either branch of the Legislature to keep up
any kind of correspondence with a foreign nation. To Congress were
given the powers of legislation and the right of declaring war. If
authority beyond this is assumed, however trifling the encroachment at
first, where will it stop? It might be said, that this was a mere matter
of ceremony and form, and, therefore, could do no harm. A correspondence
with foreign nations was a business of difficulty and delicacy--the
peace and tranquillity of a country may hinge on it. Shall the Senate,
because they may think it in one case trifling, or conceive the power
ought to be placed in them, assume it? If it was not specially delegated
by the constitution, the Senate might, perhaps, but it is positively
placed in the hands of the Executive. The people who sent us here, (said
Mr. E.) placed their confidence in the PRESIDENT in matters of this
nature, and it does not belong to the Senate to assume it.
So forcibly, he said, were both Houses impressed with the impropriety of
the Legislature corresponding with any foreign power, that, when it was
announced to them that the unfortunate Louis XVI. had accepted the
constitution of '89, the communication was sent back to the PRESIDENT,
with a request that he would answer it on their behalf, with
congratulations and best wishes.
But even this, he considered, they had not strictly a right to do. It
was only saving appearances. Neither branch had a right to dictate to
the PRESIDENT what he should answer. The constitution left the whole
business in his breast. It was wrong to place him in the dilemma of
disobliging the Legislature or sacrificing his own discretion. But if
such practices had inadvertently been followed, it was full time to
secede from them.
He recapitulated, in a few words, and concluded, by observing, that
should the motion for striking out prevail, members would still be in
order to amend the resolution, if they chose, by adding to the warmth of
expression it already contained.
Mr. BUTLER considered the situation into which the member up before him
seemed desirous that the Senate should be placed, as highly degrading;
they were to be deprived of the right of expressing their own
sentiments, they were to have no voice, no will, no opinion of their
own, but such as it would please the Executive to express for them.
The only fault he found in the resolve was, that it was not full and
expressive enough. He observed, that it appeared the studied desire of
one part of the House to cut off all communication between the people of
the United States and the people of the French Republic. Their
representatives are now told, that they can have no will, no voice, but
through the Executive. Their constituents never intended that they
should be placed in this ridiculous point of view, and he declared he
never could sit under it silently.
He turned to the journals of the Senate to show that in the proceedings
in the case of the answer to the communication from Robespierre and
others, there was a considerable division in the Senate, and the mode
adopted was by a majority only; but did not meet the sense of the Senate
very generally.
Upon the presentation of the flag to the PRESIDENT, the Minister
particularly observes, that it is for the people of the United States.
The PRESIDENT in his answer, speaks of himself and his own feelings. He
read part of his answer--"Born in a land of Liberty," &c. He does
intimate, he observed, in a cursory manner, that he trusts he speaks the
sentiments of his fellow-citizens: but does not attempt to make any
professions of either branch of the Legislature, thinking, no doubt,
that when the subject came before them, they would speak for themselves.
Suppose, he asked, that the expression of friendship contained in the
PRESIDENT's Address on the occasion, fell short of the feelings of the
Senate, would they, he asked, adopt the expressions for their own? For
his own part, he declared, he could not leave it to others to speak his
sentiments, but chose to reserve that right to himself. Even if no
communication had been received from the French Republic, no token of
attachment, the present period in their affairs, the establishment of a
new government, would warrant an address of congratulation. There could
be no impropriety in it, unless there were objections to drawing nigher
to the Republic. Besides, the address of the Committee of Safety was
certainly intended for the Legislature, being directed to the
Representatives, unless it could be denied that the Senate were
Representatives of the people of the United States.
There was nothing in the constitution, he contended, that could prevent
the Legislature from expressing their sentiments: it was not an
Executive act, but a mere complimentary answer to a complimentary
presentation. If this right was denied them, where would the principle
stop? The Senate might be made in time mere automata. It was as proper,
he contended, for the Senate to express an opinion on the occasion as
for the PRESIDENT or the House of Representatives.
He concluded by observing, that the resolution as offered, said as
little as could be said on the occasion, and he never could consent to
the striking out, which would cause it to be entered only on the
journal, and would be an indirect slight of the French Republic, as the
sentiments of the Senate would not be communicated to them.
Mr. TAZEWELL was happy to find no difference in the Senate as to the
substance of the resolution. As the form, however, had been made matter
of debate, some importance had been given to it which its intrinsic
consequence perhaps did not deserve, and it became the Senate to weigh
well their decision. It certainly, he said, could not be unknown to the
Senate, that unfavorable impressions have travelled abroad respecting
their feelings and sentiments towards the French, and he suggested to
their consideration whether if the present motion for striking out
prevailed, even in the face of their own precedents, it would not give
countenance to the surmise. On a former occasion, he stated, a
communication was made to the Senate through the PRESIDENT, informing
that the King of France had accepted the Crown under the constitution of
1789. The Senate were not content on that occasion with barely approving
what the PRESIDENT had done, but requested the PRESIDENT to say in their
behalf, that they were happy at the event, and to assure the king of
their good will for the prosperity of the French nation and his own.
What difference, he asked, was there on that occasion and the present,
when the French just adopted and organized a new government? Will it not
be said, he asked, that the robes of royalty have charms with the
Senate, which the humble habiliments of Democracy do not possess in
their eyes, if on the present occasion they should deviate from a
precedent established before royalty was abolished? This would be
naturally implied, and the Senate, he conceived, should avoid the
imputation. There was no necessity pleaded in favor of striking out; if
the motion was not insisted on, it would remove impressions which it was
useful should be removed, and which he trusted would be removed.
He dwelt on the impropriety of the Senate's rejecting a form of
proceeding in this case, not only sanctioned by their own precedent, but
by the practice of both the PRESIDENT and Senate. Why, especially, he
asked, should they give rise to invidious comparisons between themselves
and the other branch? He hoped the motion for striking out would not
prevail.
Mr. ELLSWORTH conceived there existed a material difference between the
present case and that cited by the member last up. The communication was
then to Congress, now to the PRESIDENT, who had only given an account of
the transaction to the Senate. He added, however, that the line of
conduct pursued by the Senate on the former occasion did not meet his
approbation; they expressed hopes which he never thought could be
realized, and in the event it proved so; for before the sentiments of
the Senate could cross the Atlantic, the unfortunate king and
constitution were both over-thrown. This, he argued, should make the
Senate wary in their proceedings in analogous cases. Upon the
communication from Robespierre, Barrere, and others, the Senate were
more cautious, they said nothing about the constitution, but only
requested the PRESIDENT to express in their behalf the sentiments of
friendship, &c., which the Senate entertained for France. The Senate
gave the PRESIDENT a short text on that occasion; and he wrote according
to his own discretion, and perhaps expressed more than the Senate would
have said. If a short text was given, this objection occurred; if the
Senate amplified, then they dictated improperly to the PRESIDENT what he
should write.
The example of the House of Representatives had been mentioned; he
conceived it was no rule of proceeding for the Senate. The fact was,
that the resolve carried in that House was upon a very slight view
indeed of the papers communicated. Indeed, it would appear upon the face
of it, that it was penned before the papers were read. This was, in his
opinion, no example for imitation; the Senate ought to proceed with
their usual deliberation.
It had been said that doubts had gone abroad, whether the Senate were
friendly to France. Those doubts had been raised by writers among us,
the same who also endeavor to convince the Americans that the friendship
of France towards them was not cordial. This must appear unfounded from
the proceeding now the object of debate, and the former suspicion must
be removed by an insertion of the substance of the resolution now before
the Senate on their journals.
Mr. TAZEWELL said a few words to show that there was no difference
between the case he had already cited, the proceeding of the Senate,
when they expressed their satisfaction at the manner in which the
National Convention had honored the memory of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and the
present case.
Mr. Ross differed. In the former instances, the PRESIDENT made the
original communications to the Senate before he had answered them; now
he has answered and only communicates an account of the transaction.
Mr. BURR was against striking out. The National Convention, he observed,
might, when they received the answer to their first communication, have
said, as is now said on the floor of the Senate, that the correspondence
there ended, and that it was not necessary to make us a reply; but they
acted differently, and he hoped the Senate would acknowledge the receipt
of their pledge of friendship. Indeed he said, he could not see that any
great harm would arise in the two branches of the Legislature
interchanging even once a year a letter of friendship and good will with
the Republic. It was objected that the present resolution was no answer
to the letter. A few lines would make it so, and they might easily be
added. The omission did not prove, as had been asserted by one member,
that it was impossible to answer it. That it was not impossible was
testified by the proceedings of the other branch. He did not intend to
slight the dignity of the Senate, however, he said, by quoting the
proceedings of the other House as a binding rule of proceeding for this;
but their proceedings certainly proved the possibility of making an
answer; and besides, there was full as much propriety in looking for
precedents in their conduct, as in the proceedings of a British
Parliament. Each, however, in their place might deserve weight, though
not implicit reliance.
He advocated the rights of the Senate to answer for themselves, and the
propriety of acknowledging the receipt of the Colors, which were not
sent to the Executive exclusively.
He concluded by citing the Senate's own precedents in analogous cases,
and he hoped that it would not be insisted that the practice of two or
three successive years deserved to be laid to the charge of
inadvertency.
After a few words more from Messrs. STRONG, BURR, READ, and BUTLER, the
yeas and nays were called upon striking out, which were taken and
stood--yeas 16, nays 8, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Bingham, Bradford, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster,
Gunn, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Read, Ross,
Rutherford, Strong, Trumbull, and Walton.
NAYS.--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Langdon,
Martin, Robinson, and Tazewell.