By the President: TIMOTHY PICKERING, _Secretary of State_.
MONDAY, May 15, 1797.
This being the day appointed by the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, of the 25th of March last, for the meeting of Congress,
the following members of the House of Representatives appeared, produced
their credentials, and took their seats, to wit:
_From New Hampshire._--ABIEL FOSTER and JONATHAN FREEMAN.
_From Massachusetts._--THEOPHILUS BRADBURY, DWIGHT FOSTER, NATHANIEL
FREEMAN, Jr., SAMUEL LYMAN, HARRISON GRAY OTIS, JOHN READ, SAMUEL
SEWALL, WILLIAM SHEPARD, GEORGE THATCHER, JOSEPH BRADLEY VARNUM, and
PELEG WADSWORTH.
_From Rhode Island._--CHRISTOPHER G. CHAMPLIN and ELISHA R. POTTER.
_From Connecticut._--JOSHUA COIT, SAMUEL W. DANA, JAMES DAVENPORT,
CHAUNCEY GOODRICH, ROGER GRISWOLD, and NATHANIEL SMITH.
_From Vermont._--MATTHEW LYON.
_From New York._--DAVID BROOKS, JAMES COCHRAN, LUCAS ELMENDORPH, HENRY
GLENN, JONATHAN N. HAVENS, HEZEKIAH L. HOSMER, EDWARD LIVINGSTON, JOHN
E. VAN ALLEN, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and JOHN WILLIAMS.
_From New Jersey._--JONATHAN DAYTON, JAMES H. IMLAY, and MARK THOMPSON.
_From Pennsylvania._--DAVID BARD, JOHN CHAPMAN, GEORGE EGE, ALBERT
GALLATIN, JOHN ANDRE HANNA, THOMAS HARTLEY, JOHN WILKES KITTERA, BLAIR
M'CLENACHAN, SAMUEL SITGREAVES, JOHN SWANWICK, and RICHARD THOMAS.
_From Maryland._--GEORGE BAER, Jr., WILLIAM CRAIK, JOHN DENNIS, GEORGE
DENT, WILLIAM HINDMAN, WILLIAM MATTHEWS, and RICHARD SPRIGG, Jr.
_From Virginia._--SAMUEL JORDAN CABELL, THOMAS CLAIBORNE, MATTHEW CLAY,
JOHN CLOPTON, JOHN DAWSON, THOMAS EVANS, WILLIAM B. GILES, CARTER B.
HARRISON, DAVID HOLMES, WALTER JONES, JAMES MACHIR, DANIEL MORGAN,
ANTHONY NEW, JOHN NICHOLAS, ABRAM TRIGG, and ABRAHAM VENABLE.
_From North Carolina._--THOMAS BLOUNT, NATHAN BRYAN, JAMES GILLESPIE,
WILLIAM BARRY GROVE, MATTHEW LOCKE, NATHANIEL MACON, RICHARD STANFORD,
and ROBERT WILLIAMS.
_From South Carolina._--ROBERT GOODLOE HARPER, JOHN RUTLEDGE, Jr., and
WILLIAM SMITH, (of Charleston District.)
_From Georgia._--ABRAHAM BALDWIN and JOHN MILLEDGE.
And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number, being
present,
The House proceeded, by ballot, to the choice of a SPEAKER; and, upon
examining the ballots, a majority of the votes of the whole House was
found in favor of JONATHAN DAYTON, one of the Representatives for the
State of New Jersey: whereupon,
Mr. DAYTON was conducted to the chair, from whence he made his
acknowledgments to the House, as follows:
"Accept, gentlemen, my acknowledgments for the very
flattering mark of approbation and confidence exhibited in
this second call to the chair, by a vote of this House.
"Permit me, most earnestly, to request of you a continuance
of that assistance and support, which were, upon all
occasions, during the two preceding sessions, very
liberally afforded to me; and, without which, all my
exertions to maintain the order, and expedite the business
of the House, must be, in a great degree, unsuccessful."
TUESDAY, May 16.
Several other members, to wit: from New Jersey, JAMES SCHUREMAN and
THOMAS SINNICKSON; from Virginia, JOHN TRIGG; and from South Carolina,
THOMAS SUMPTER, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified,
and took their seats in the House.
_President's Speech._
It being near twelve o'clock, the SPEAKER observed that it had been
usual on similar occasions to the present, to send a message to the
Senate, to inform them that the House is now ready to attend them in
receiving the communication of the PRESIDENT, agreeably to his
appointment: such a message was agreed to, and sent accordingly.
Soon after, the members of the Senate entered, and took the seats
assigned them; and a little after twelve, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES entered, and took the chair of the SPEAKER, (which he vacated on
the entrance of the Senate, the President and Clerk of the Senate being
placed on the right hand of the chair, and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the Clerk on the left.) After sitting a moment, he
rose and delivered the following Speech. [See Senate proceedings,
_ante_.]
Having concluded his Speech, after presenting a copy of it to the
President of the Senate, and another to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the President retired, as did also the members of the
Senate; and the Speaker having resumed his chair, he read the Speech:
after which, on motion, it was ordered to be committed to a Committee
of the Whole to-morrow.
WEDNESDAY, May 17.
Several other members, to wit: from New Hampshire, WILLIAM GORDON and
JEREMIAH SMITH; from Pennsylvania, ANDREW GREGG; appeared, produced
their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.
_The President's Speech._
The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT in the
chair, on the President's Speech. It was read by the Clerk.
Mr. CRAIK then moved a resolution, which, he observed, was merely a
matter of form, as there had been one to the same effect, on every
similar occasion. It was, "that it is the opinion of this committee,
that a respectful Address should be presented to the President in answer
to his Speech to both Houses of Congress, containing assurances, that
this House will take into consideration the various and important
matters recommended to their consideration." The committee agreed to the
resolution. They rose, and it immediately passed the House in the common
form.
On motion, it was _Ordered_, That a committee be appointed to prepare an
Answer to the Speech.
Mr. VENABLE, Mr. KITTERA, Mr. FREEMAN, Mr. RUTLEDGE, and Mr. GRISWOLD,
were nominated to report the Answer.
FRIDAY, May 19.
RICHARD BRENT, from Virginia, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.
_Documents Referred to in the President's Speech._
The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a communication from
the Department of State, containing sundry documents referred to by the
President in his Speech to both Houses, numbered from 1 to 18. He
proceeded to read No. 1, viz:
1. A letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State, dated
Paris, December 20, 1796, giving an account of his arrival at Bordeaux;
of his journey from thence to Paris, in which, from the badness of the
roads, he broke three wheels of his carriage; of the ill treatment he
received from M. Delacroix, &c. He remarks, that it is not surprising
that the French Republic have refused to receive him, since they have
dismissed no less than thirteen foreign Ministers; and since they have
been led to believe by a late emigrant, that the United States was of no
greater consequence to them than the Republics of Genoa or Geneva. He
also mentions, that it seemed to be the opinion in France, that much
depended on the election of the President, as one of the candidates was
considered the friend of England, the other as devoted to France. The
people of France, he observes, have been greatly deceived, with respect
to the United States, by misrepresentation, being led to believe that
the people and Government have different views; but, adds he, any
attempt to divide the people from the Government, ought to be to the
people of the United States, the signal for rallying. Gen. Pinckney
several times mentions Mr. Monroe in this letter with great respect; and
says that before his arrival the Directory had been very cool towards
him, but, since that time, they had renewed their civilities to him.
2. Is a report of Major General Mountflorence to General Pinckney, dated
December 18, 1796, on the subject of American vessels brought prizes
into the ports of France.
3. Extract of a letter from Gen. Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Paris, January 6, 1797, in which he mentions the distressed
situation of American citizens, arriving in the ports of France, who
were immediately thrown into prison, and could not be released, until an
order was got from the American Minister, countersigned by the French
Minister of Foreign Affairs; and no Minister being acknowledged there at
present, no relief could be afforded. He, however, applied to M.
Delacroix on their behalf, by means of the secretary, Major Rutledge,
and got them attended to through the Minister of General Police. General
Pinckney gives a further account of conversations which passed between
his secretary and M. Delacroix, on the subject of his quitting Paris, in
which he told him he must do so, or be liable to the operation of the
police laws; but refused to commit his orders to writing. He mentions
Barras's answer to Monroe's address as a curious production; but says it
was not particularly calculated as an answer to what was said by Mr.
Monroe, as he had it prepared, and was unacquainted with what would be
said by Mr. Monroe.
4. Extract of a letter from Gen. Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Amsterdam, February 18, informing him, that, having had official
notice to quit the French Republic, he had gone to Amsterdam.
5. Extract of a letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Amsterdam, March 5, in which he observes, that before he left
Paris, it was rumored that the Dutch were determined to treat American
vessels in the same manner as the French had done. He now believes that
the French wished them to do so, as he had lately received intelligence
that the Dutch had objected to do this, alleging that it would be a
great injury to them, as they should then lose their trade with this
country, and if so, they would be deprived of furnishing that support to
the French which they then gave them. France acquiesced because she saw
it was her interest; and having 25,000 troops in Batavia, it was
generally known that they could do what they pleased with that country.
The General adds, with detestation, that there are American citizens
who fit out privateers to cruise against the trade of this country.
6. Extract of a letter from Major General Mountflorence to General
Pinckney, dated Paris, February 14, mentioning the capture of a vessel
from Boston, and another from Baltimore, by an American citizen on board
a privateer: adding, that American citizens of this class are
continually wishing for more rigorous laws against American commerce.
7. Extract of a letter from the same to the same, dated Paris, February
21, giving an account of two more American vessels being brought into
L'Orient by the same man, and of another vessel taken by a French
privateer.
8. Extract of a letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State,
dated Amsterdam, March 8, mentioning the capture of several American
vessels; he also speaks of the disagreeableness of his situation; and
was of opinion that the new third of the French Councils would determine
whether this country and France were to remain at peace or go to war.
Though the former was desirable, he wished the measures of our
Government to be firm.
9. Speech of Barras, President of the French Directory, on Mr. Monroe's
recall.
10. The decree of the Executive Directory of March 2, relative to the
seizure of American vessels.
11. Extract of a letter from John Quincy Adams, Esq., Minister Resident
of the United States, near the Batavian Republic, to the Secretary of
State, dated at the Hague, November 4, 1796, giving an account of the
disposition of the people of that country towards this, which he states
to be friendly; and this he attributes to its being their interest to be
so. This country, he remarks, is the only quarter from which they
receive regular payments. He adds, however, that they have no will in
opposition to the French Government.
12. Extract of a letter from the Committee of Foreign Relations of the
Batavian Republic, to the above Minister, dated September 27, 1796,
making it appear very desirable that the United States should join them
in their common cause against Great Britain, reminding him of the many
services which they had rendered to this country.
13. Extract of a letter from John Quincy Adams in answer to the above,
wherein he says he shall not omit to forward their letter to this
country.
14. Extract of a letter from John Quincy Adams to the Secretary of
State, dated Hague, February 17, 1797, representing the French Republic
as paying as little attention to other neutral powers as to the United
States. He alludes to their conduct towards Hamburg, Bremen, Copenhagen,
&c.
15. Extract of a letter from Rufus King, Esq., to the Secretary of
State, dated London, March 12, 1797, to the same effect.
16. A letter from the Minister of Spain, resident in Philadelphia, to
the Secretary of State, dated May 6, 1797, complaining of the injurious
operation of the British Treaty against Spain, in three respects, viz:
as it destroys the doctrine of free ships making free goods; as it makes
certain articles contraband of war, which in former treaties were not
considered so; and as it gives to Great Britain a right to navigate the
Mississippi, which that Minister insists belonged not to us to give, as
it belonged wholly to Spain before it gave the right to the United
States, by the late treaty, to navigate that river. He concludes his
letter with saying, that the King of Spain is desirous of harmony
between the two countries, and relies upon the equity of his complaints
for satisfaction.
17. A letter from the Secretary of State to the Spanish Minister, in
answer to the above; in which he acknowledges that the treaty lately
concluded between the two countries had proved satisfactory to the
United States, as it put an end to a dispute which had existed for many
years respecting the navigation of the Mississippi, and also as it
afforded satisfaction to our mercantile citizens for the capture of our
ships and cargoes. All these, he allowed, were acts of substantial
justice; but all the other stipulations were wholly voluntary, and
perfectly reciprocal. With respect to the three articles of complaint
respecting the British Treaty, he justified the stipulations as being
just and consistent, and such as this country had a right to enter into.
18. A letter from General Pinckney to the Secretary of State, dated
Paris, February 1, stating that the day after the arrival of the news of
Buonaparte's successes in Italy, he received a letter from M. Delacroix,
directing him to leave Paris. General Pinckney concludes this letter
with observing, that the French seem to speak of this country as if it
were indebted to them for independence, and not to any exertions of our
own. Our treaty with Great Britain is execrated; they wish us to have no
connection with that country; they wish to destroy the trade of Great
Britain, and they look upon us as her best customer.
The whole of these documents having been read, on motion, they were
committed to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and
500 copies ordered to be printed.
MONDAY, May 22.
JAMES A. BAYARD, from Delaware, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.
_Answer to President's Speech._
On motion, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
DENT in the chair, on the Answer reported to the President's Speech,
which was read by the Clerk, as follows:
The committee to whom it was referred to prepare an Answer
to the Speech of the President of the United States,
communicated to both Houses of Congress, on Tuesday, the
16th May, 1797, report the following:
_To the President of the United States_:
SIR: The interesting detail of those events which have
rendered the convention of Congress at this time
indispensable, (communicated in your Speech to both
Houses,) has excited in us the strongest emotions. Whilst
we regret the occasion, we cannot omit to testify our
approbation of the measure, and to pledge ourselves that no
considerations of private inconvenience shall prevent, on
our part, a faithful discharge of the duties to which we
are called.
We have constantly hoped that the nations of Europe, whilst
desolated by foreign wars, or convulsed by intestine
divisions, would have left the United States to enjoy that
peace and tranquillity to which the impartial conduct of
our Government has entitled us; and it is now with extreme
regret we find the measures of the French Republic tending
to endanger a situation so desirable and interesting to our
country.
Upon this occasion, we feel it our duty to express, in the
most explicit manner, the sensations which the present
crisis has excited, and to assure you of our zealous
co-operation in those measures which may appear necessary
for our security or peace.
Although the first and most ardent wish of our hearts is
that peace may be maintained with the French Republic and
with all the world, yet we can never surrender those rights
which belong to us as a nation; and whilst we view with
satisfaction the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which
have marked the measures of the Supreme Executive of our
country, in its attempts to remove, by candid explanations,
the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full
force of that indignity which has been offered our country
in the rejection of its Minister. No attempts to wound our
rights as a sovereign State will escape the notice of our
constituents: they will be felt with indignation, and
repelled with that decision which shall convince the world
that we are not a degraded people; that we can never submit
to the demands of a foreign power without examination, and
without discussion.
Knowing, as we do, the confidence reposed by the people of
the United States in their Government, we cannot hesitate
in expressing our indignation at the sentiments disclosed
by the President of the Executive Directory of France, in
his Speech to the Minister of the United States. Such
sentiments serve to discover the imperfect knowledge which
France possesses of the real opinions of our constituents.
An attempt to separate the people of the United States from
their Government, is an attempt to separate them from
themselves; and although foreigners who know not the genius
of our country may have conceived the project, and foreign
emissaries may attempt the execution, yet the united
efforts of our fellow-citizens will convince the world of
its impracticability.
Happy would it have been, if the transactions disclosed in
your communication had never taken place, or that they
could have been concealed. Sensibly, however, as we feel
the wound which has been inflicted, we think with you, that
neither the honor nor the interest of the United States
forbid the repetition of advances for preserving peace; and
we are happy to learn that fresh attempts at negotiation
will be commenced; nor can we too strongly express our
sincere desires that an accommodation may take place, on
terms compatible with the rights, interest, and honor of
our nation. Fully, however, impressed with the uncertainty
of the result, we shall prepare to meet with fortitude any
unfavorable events which may occur, and to extricate
ourselves from the consequences, with all the skill we
possess, and all the efforts in our power. Believing with
you that the conduct of the Government has been just and
impartial to foreign nations; that the laws for the
preservation of peace have been proper, and that they have
been fairly executed, the Representatives of the People do
not hesitate to declare that they will give their most
cordial support to the execution of principles so
deliberately and uprightly established.
The many interesting subjects which you have recommended to
our consideration, and which are so strongly enforced by
this momentous occasion, will receive every attention which
their importance demands; and we trust, that by the decided
and explicit conduct which will govern our deliberations,
every insinuation will be repelled which is derogatory to
the honor and independence of our country.
Permit us, in offering this Address, to express our
satisfaction at your promotion to the first office in the
Government, and our entire confidence that the pre-eminent
talents and patriotism which have placed you in this
distinguished situation, will enable you to discharge its
various duties with satisfaction to yourself, and advantage
to our common country.
The Clerk having finished reading the Answer, the Chairman proceeded to
read it paragraph by paragraph. The three first paragraphs were read
without any thing being said upon them; but, upon the fourth being
read--
Mr. EVANS moved, that instead of "will be felt with _indignation_,"
should be inserted, "will be felt with _sensibility_," as a milder
phrase; as he wished to avoid using expressions more harsh than was
necessary.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, if his colleague would give him leave, he believed he
had an amendment to offer, which would be proper to be offered before
one he had moved, as he believed there was a rule in the House which
forbids the striking out a clause after it had been amended; and if the
amendment he should propose obtained, it might be necessary to strike
out a part of that paragraph. It was his intention to move a new
paragraph, to be inserted between the first and second. He believed it
would be in order to do so.
The Chairman wished the proposition to be read.
Mr. NICHOLAS asked if it was not always in order to insert a new
section.
The Chairman believed it was, provided it was not intended as a
substitute for another.
Mr. NICHOLAS said he should candidly avow it to be his intention to
insert several new sections. For the information of the committee, he
would, therefore, read the whole, though he meant at present, to move
only one.
The following are the propositions which Mr. N. read in his place; the
first of which was under consideration:
After the first section insert:
"Although we are actuated by the utmost solicitude for the
maintenance of peace with the French Republic, and with
all the world, the rejection of our Minister and the manner
of dismissing him from the territories of France, have
excited our warmest sensibility; and, if followed by
similar measures, and a refusal of all negotiation on the
subject of our mutual complaints, will put an end to every
friendly relation between the two countries; but we flatter
ourselves that the Government of France only intended to
suspend the ordinary diplomatic intercourse, and to bring
into operation those extraordinary agencies which are in
common use between nations, and which are confined in their
intention to the great causes of difference. We therefore
receive with the utmost satisfaction, your information that
a fresh attempt at negotiation will be instituted; and we
expect with confidence that a mutual spirit of
conciliation, and a disposition on the part of the United
States to place France on the footing of other countries,
by removing the inequalities which may have arisen in the
operation of our respective treaties with them will produce
an accommodation compatible with the engagements rights,
duties, and honor of the United States.
"We will consider the several subjects which you have
recommended to our consideration, with the attention which
their importance demands, and will zealously co-operate in
those measures which shall appear necessary for our own
security or peace.
"Whatever differences of opinion may have existed among the
people of the United States, upon national subjects, we
cannot believe that any serious expectation can be
entertained of withdrawing the support of the people from
their constitutional agents, and we should hope that the
recollection of the miseries which she herself has suffered
from a like interference, would prevent any such attempt by
the Republic of France; but we explicitly declare for
ourselves and our constituents that such an attempt would
meet our highest indignation, and we will repel every
unjust demand on the United States by foreign countries;
that we will ever consider the humiliation of the
Government as the greatest personal disgrace."
Mr. THATCHER observed, the gentleman from Virginia had read three or
four paragraphs, in the form of amendments. He presumed he did not mean
to add these, without striking out some part of the report. He wished
him to say what part he meant to strike out, that they might see how the
Answer would stand when amended in the way he proposed. If they stood
together, they would be inconsistent.
Mr. GILES presumed it was the object of the committee to bring into view
a comparison of ideas in some shape or other, and he thought the
amendment proposed was calculated to produce this effect. If he
understood the Answer as reported, it was predicated upon the principle
of approving all the measures which had been taken by the Executive with
respect to France, whilst the amendment avoided giving that approbation.
The simple question was, which of the two grounds the House would take?
He believed the best way of ascertaining this, would be to move to
insert, and if the amendments were carried, to recommit the report, to
be made conformable to them.
Mr. GALLATIN said, when an amendment was carried which affected other
parts of a composition, it was not usual to strike out, but to
recommit.
The Chairman having declared the motion to be in order,
Mr. NICHOLAS said, the present crisis was, in his mind, the most serious
and important which this country had known since the declaration of its
independence; and it would depend much, perhaps, upon the Answer which
they were about to return to the Speech of the President, whether we
were to witness a similar scene of havoc and distress to that which was
not yet forgotten; such as had been passed through upon an important
occasion, but such as could be entered upon only as a last resource. The
situation in which we stood with respect to France called for the most
judicious proceeding; it was his wish to heal the breach, which was
already too wide, by temperate, rather than widen it by irritating
measures. He hoped, on this occasion, they should get rid of that
irritation which injury naturally produced on the mind. He declared he
felt for the insult which had been offered to Mr. Pinckney; and he felt
more for him, from the dignity with which he had borne it, which had
proved him a proper character for the embassy. He was sorry that it
should have been thought necessary by the French Republic to refuse to
acknowledge him as the Minister of this country; but he did not think it
right to suffer this first impression to influence their proceedings
upon this business. If the insults offered were a sufficient cause for
war, let the subject be examined by itself, separate from all others;
but, if it be our wish to proceed with negotiation, he thought it wisest
and best to adopt a firm but moderate tone.
As he before observed, he felt for the situation of the gentleman
employed by this country; he thought it was a trying one, and did great
honor to himself, and he deserved the thanks of his country for the good
temper with which he had sustained it; but Mr. N. confessed the subject
did not strike him with all the force with which it seemed to have
impressed the mind of that respectable character. He did not consider
the insult offered to Government as going further than the ill-treatment
which our Minister had received. He believed that the circumstances,
which appeared in the papers laid before them, in some degree accounted
for the conduct of the French Government. It appears that at first the
Directory were willing to receive Mr. Pinckney, but when they saw his
credentials they refused to acknowledge him. This circumstance, he said,
seemed to give a character to the transaction which explained its
meaning.
It will be recollected, said Mr. N., that since the cause, or imagined
cause (let it be one or the other) of complaint against this country,
that there has been an intercourse between the two Governments on this
subject. It was to be expected that if there had been any intention in
Government to have come to an adjustment of the difference between the
two countries, our Minister would have been clothed with some power of
accommodation. Mr. N. supposed that when the French Directory agreed to
receive him, this was their opinion; but upon seeing his letters of
credence, they found no such power was given or intended. [He read the
object of his mission from the President's Speech, viz: "faithfully to
represent," &c.]
If these, he said, were all the objects expressed in his letters of
credence--and if there had been more, the President would doubtless have
informed them of it--the matter perfectly justified the character he had
given of it.
He made these observations, because he thought on an occasion like the
present, the truth should be made to appear, and though an insult had
been offered to this country, which could not fail to produce
irritation, yet that irritation should stop short of the point where it
would produce action, as he was certain any steps taken which might
hazard the peace of the country, would not conduce to the welfare of its
citizens.
There was a subject, he said, which seemed to have involved itself with
this, and of which he should take some notice, viz: a charge against
certain persons with being attached to the French cause. It might,
perhaps, be the opinion of some members of that House, more particularly
of strangers, that he was improperly influenced by party zeal in favor
of the French, a zeal which it had been blazoned forth existed to an
immoderate degree in this country. He had frequently heard insinuations
of this sort, which he considered so groundless as to be worthy only of
contempt; but when charges of this kind were made in the serious manner
in which they were now brought forward, it was necessary to call for
proof. Who, said he, is the man who has this proof? He knew of none. For
his own part, he had no intercourse with the French but of the commonest
kind. He wished those who possessed proofs of improper conduct of this
kind, would come forward and show them--show who are the traitors of
whom so much is said. He was not afraid of the impressions any such
charges brought against him, might make upon his constituents, or where
he was known; indeed, he had not the arrogance to believe the charge was
levelled against him, though he believed he was frequently charged with
a too great attachment to the French cause.
When he first came into that House, he found the French embroiled with
all their neighbors, who were endeavoring to tear them to pieces. He
knew what had been the situation of this country when engaged in a
similar cause, and was anxious for their success. Was there not cause
for anxiety, when a nation, contending for the right of self-government,
was thus attacked? Especially when it was well known, that if the powers
engaged against France had proved successful, this country would have
been their next object. Had they not, he asked, the strongest proofs
(even the declarations of one of their Governors) that it was the
intention of England to declare war against America, in case of the
successful termination of the war against France? It redounded to the
honor of the citizens of this country, he said, that they had never
shown a disposition to embark in the present European war.
The difference, Mr. N. said, between the Address reported, and the
proposition he had brought forward was this: the former approved all the
measures of the Executive, and the latter recommended an inquiry
relative to the operation of the British Treaty. It was this question
upon which the committee would decide, and it was of importance, he
said, that they should weigh the causes of difference between us and the
French Republic, and not decide that we are right, without examination,
because, if, after being brought to hostility, we are obliged to
retract, it would show our former folly and wantonness.
Mr. N. said he would inquire into the rights of France as they respected
three principal subjects, which were more particularly causes of
complaint between the two countries. These were, the right of our
vessels carrying English goods, the article respecting contraband goods,
and that respecting the carrying of provisions. He knew no better way to
determine how far we could support those articles of the British Treaty,
than by extracting the arguments of our own ministerial characters in
support of these measures. With respect to the question of free ships
making free goods, his impressions were very different from those of the
Secretary of State. He says, with respect to the regulation of free
ships making free goods, it is not changing a right under the law of
nations; that it had never been pretended to be a right, and that our
having agreed to it in one instance, and not in another, was no just
cause of complaint by the French Government. He advocates this
transaction in his letter to Mr. Adet last winter. Mr. N. said, he knew
not what was the origin of the law of nations upon the subject; he knew
not how it came into existence; it had never been settled by any
convention of nations. Perhaps, however, the point now under
consideration came as near to a fixed principle, as any other of what
are called the laws of nations ever did, as only one nation in Europe
could be excepted from the general understanding of it. Mr. Pickering,
he thought, seemed not to have given full force to this circumstance,
but seemed to have weakened the evidence. [He referred to what Mr.
Pickering had said upon the subject.] It was Mr. Pickering's idea, that
the stipulation of free ships making free goods, was a mere temporary
provision; that it was not an article in the law of nations, but a new
principle introduced by the contracting parties. In order to prove this
was not the case, Mr. N. referred to the provisions entered into by the
armed neutrality of the north of Europe; to a treaty between France and
Spain; to a note from the Court of Denmark; and to the declaration of
the United States themselves on the subject.
With respect to contraband articles, he had little to say. It was
asserted that the articles stipulated in the British Treaty as
contraband, were made so by the law of nations. Where the doctrine was
found he could not say. It had been quoted from _Vattel_; this authority
might be correct; but he never found any two writers on this subject
agree as to this article. In a late publication on the law of nations
(_Marten's_) he found it directly asserted that naval stores were not
contraband. But he said, if the contrary were the law of nations, they
were bound to extend the same privilege to France which they gave to
England: they could not have one rule for the one nation, and a
different one for the other.
The 18th article of the British Treaty, respecting the carrying of
provisions, always struck him as a very important one. It had heretofore
been contended that this article did not go to any provisions except
such as were carrying to besieged or blockaded places; but he believed
the British had constantly made it a pretence for seizing provisions
going to France. Indeed, if he was not mistaken, the British Minister
had publicly declared in the House of Commons, that the provisions on
board the vessels intended for the Quiberoon expedition had been
supplied from what had been captured in American vessels.
Mr. N. contended that this was the opinion of the Executive of this
country, as published in all the public papers, and of course known to
the Government of France. In the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Pinckney
in 1793, he declares that there is only one case in which provisions are
contraband, and shows the necessity of a neutral nation observing the
same rules towards all the powers at war. But, in the present case, the
right was ceded during the present war.
It was an unfortunate circumstance against the neutrality of this
country, to find a doctrine so differently applied at different times.
It was a strong proof of the progress of the passions. It might be
considered as a fraudulent thing, in one instance, to give up a right
for a compensation to ourselves.
Mr. N. concluded with observing that he had gone over the subject, he
feared, not without being considered tedious by the committee; but he
felt himself greatly interested in the present decision. He believed any
additional irritation in their measures would place peace out of our
reach. He believed, therefore, it was their business to avoid it. He
believed it would be for the honor and happiness of the country to do
so.
Mr. W. SMITH said, as the gentleman last up had taken a wide range of
argument, he must excuse him if he confined himself, in his reply, to
those parts of his observations only which appeared to him essentially
to relate to the subject under consideration.
He believed the question was, whether they should alter the report in
the manner proposed; that is, whether they should strike out words
which expressed the sensibility of this House at the unprovoked insults
offered by the French Republic to our Government and country, or adopt
the gentleman's amendment, which he read.
If they agreed to this amendment, they must necessarily expect from the
French Republic fresh insult and aggression; for it seemed to admit that
hitherto no insult had been intended.
The amendment might be divided, Mr. S. said, into two parts. The first
went to vindicate the French from any intentional insults towards this
country: it even held out an idea that the Executive ought to offer some
concessions to France, and even designated the kind of concession. He
should, therefore, without taking notice of what the gentleman had said
about the political parties of this country, or what he had said
respecting himself personally, confine his observations to the points in
question.
The first point was, whether the conduct of France was justifiable in
rejecting our Minister, and sending him from the Republic in the manner
they had done?
He thought the committee had abundant materials before them completely
to refute the first proposition; and he was surprised, knowing that
these documents were in the hands of every member, that the gentleman
from Virginia could expect to impress their minds with the idea that no
indignity whatever had been offered by the French Government to this
country in that transaction.
Mr. S. said, that it appeared most clearly that the French Directory
intended to treat this Government with marked indignity; for though the
gentleman from Virginia suggested an opinion that their refusal to
receive Mr. Pinckney was owing altogether to his not being invested with
extraordinary powers, this was evidently not the case, as the Directory
had been well informed as to the character in which Mr. Pinckney came,
before they received his letters of credence, as appears by the letter
of M. Delacroix to Mr. Monroe, styling Mr. Pinckney his successor, and
by other documents communicated by the President, (which he read.) There
was no doubt, then, with respect to the Directory being well acquainted
with the character in which Mr. Pinckney went to France, viz: as
Minister Plenipotentiary or ordinary Minister; but, after keeping him in
suspense near two months, on the day after the news arrived of
Bonaparte's successes in Italy, he was ordered, by a peremptory mandate,
in writing, to leave the French Republic. This mandate was accompanied
by a circumstance which was certainly intended to convey an insult; it
was addressed to him as an Anglo-American, a term, it is true, they
sometimes used to distinguish the inhabitants of the United States from
those of the West India Islands, but, in his opinion, here evidently
designed as a term of reproach, as he believed no other similar
instance could be mentioned. Upon this circumstance, however, he laid no
stress; the other indignities which our Minister had received were too
great to require any weight to be given to this circumstance.
The gentleman from Virginia had confined the complaints of the French
Government to three articles of the British Treaty; though, if the
committee referred to the letter of Mr. Delacroix, it would be found
that they did not confine them within so narrow a compass. They
complain, first, of the inexecution of treaties; there are several
points of complaint relative to that head. 2d. Complaints against the
decrees of our Federal Courts. 3d. Against the law of June, 1794; and,
4th. Against the Treaty with Great Britain. Yet the gentleman confines
himself altogether to the latter. And really he did not expect at this
time of day, after the subject had been fully discussed, and determined,
and the objections refuted over and over again, that any gentleman would
have endeavored to revive and prove their complaints on this head well
founded. The three articles were: 1st, that free ships did not make free
goods; 2d, the contraband article; and 3d, the provision article.
1. The stipulation with respect to neutral vessels not making neutral
goods in the British Treaty, was not contrary to the law of nations; it
only provided that the law of nations was to be carried into effect in
the manner most convenient for the United States. But this doctrine, he
said, was no new thing. It had been acknowledged most explicitly by Mr.
Jefferson, Secretary of State, in July, 1793, and was so declared to the
Minister of France; yet no objection was made to it until the British
Treaty was ratified, though long previous thereto French property was
captured on board our vessels. Mr. Jefferson, writing on this subject to
the French Minister, said: "You have no shadow of complaint;" the thing
was so perfectly clear and well understood by the law of nations. This
happened as long ago as July or August, 1793. But two years afterwards,
when the British Treaty was promulgated, the whole country was thrown
into a flame by admitting this very same doctrine. France herself had
always acted under this law of nations, when not restrained by treaty:
in _Valin's_ Ordinances of France this clearly appears. The armed
neutrality was confined to the then existing war; Russia herself, the
creator of the armed neutrality, entered into a compact with England, in
1793, expressly contravening its principles. The principle was then not
established by our Treaty with England; but such being the acknowledged
law of nations, it was merely stipulated that it should be exercised in
the manner least injurious to us.
2. The next article of complaint was with respect to contraband goods.
If gentlemen will consult the law of nations, they will find that the
articles mentioned in the British Treaty are by the law of nations
contraband articles. They will find that in all the treaties with
Denmark and Sweden, Great Britain had made the same stipulation. Indeed,
the gentleman had acknowledged that it was so stated by some writers on
the law of nations; but he wished to derogate from the authority of
those writers, in the same way as Mr. Genet, in his correspondence with
Mr. Jefferson, had called them "worm-eaten folios and musty aphorisms;"
to _Vattel_ might be added _Valin's_ Ordinances, a very respectable work
in France. How, then, can the gentleman with truth say that we have
deviated from the law of nations?
3. The last point which the gentleman took notice of was the provision
article. There was no doubt that this Government would never allow
provisions to be deemed contraband, except when going to a besieged or
blockaded port. Though he made this declaration, yet it was but candid
to acknowledge that this was stated by _Vattel_ to be the law of
nations. [He read an extract from _Vattel_.]
When this was stated by Lord Grenville to Mr. Pinckney, our then
Minister in London, Mr. Pinckney acknowledged it to be so stated in
_Vattel_, but very ingeniously argued that France could not be
considered as in the situation mentioned in _Vattel_, since provisions
were cheaper there than they were in England, and therefore the case did
not apply. When our Envoy was sent to London, both parties were
tenacious on this ground. Our Minister was unwilling to agree to this
construction of the law of nations; but the British Minister insisted
upon it, and if there had not been some compromise, the negotiation must
have been broken off, and a war probably ensued. The result was,
therefore, that, without admitting it to be the law of nations, it was
agreed that where provisions were contraband by the law of nations, they
should be paid for, but not confiscated, as the law of nations
(admitting that construction) would have authorized. Therefore some
advantage was secured to France, for if Great Britain had confiscated
our vessels going to France with provisions, it would certainly have
damped the ardor of our citizens employed in that commerce; but under
this regulation our merchants were certain of being paid for their
cargoes, whether they arrived in France or were carried into England.
These were the three grounds of objection which the gentleman from
Virginia had stated as grounds of complaint by the French against the
British Treaty.
Before he went further, he would observe that, admitting (which he did
not admit) that there had been solid grounds of objection against the
British Treaty, before it was ratified, yet they ought now to be closed.
It had received a full discussion at the time; it had been carried into
effect, was become the law of the land, and was generally approved of by
the country. Why, then, endeavor to stir up the feelings of the public
against it by alleging it to be just cause of complaint? If the
committee wanted any proof of the approbation which that instrument had
received, he thought it might be gathered from the general approbation
which had been given of the administration of the late President on his
retirement from office, in doing which the people had doubtless taken
into view the whole of his conduct. Nor did he think the people had
shown any hostility to the Treaty in their late election of members to
that House. Indeed, he believed that the approbation which the Treaty
received increased in proportion as the subject came to be understood.
Admitting further, that the Treaty had changed the existing state of
things between Great Britain and France, by having granted commercial
favors to Great Britain; by the 2d article of our treaty with France,
the same favors would immediately attach to France, so that she could
have no reason to complain on that ground. Indeed France had herself new
modified the treaty between that country and this, and had taken to
herself what she deemed to be the favors granted to Great Britain. [Mr.
S. read the decree on this subject of 2d March last.]
Mr. S. said, he believed he had examined all the observations of the
gentleman from Virginia, relative to the Treaty, which were essential to
the subject under consideration. He did not wish to go much farther on
the present occasion, because he agreed with him, that it was proper
they should keep themselves as cool and calm as the nature of the case
would admit; but he thought whilst so much deference was paid to the
feelings of France, some respect ought to be paid to the feelings of
America. He hoped the people of America would retain a proper respect
and consideration for their national character; and however earnestly he
wished that the differences subsisting between the two countries might
be amicably settled, yet, he trusted that our national dignity would
never be at so low an ebb as to submit to the insults and indignities of
any nation whatever. In saying this, he expressed his hearty wish to
keep the door of negotiation with France unclosed; but at the same time
he strongly recommended to take every necessary step to place us in a
situation to defend ourselves, provided she should still persist in her
haughty demeanor.
Mr. S. said, as he knew indecent and harsh language always recoiled upon
those who used it, he did not wish to adopt it; but, at the same time,
it was due to ourselves to express our feelings with a proper degree of
strength and spirit. He was not in the habit of quoting any thing from
M. Genet, but there was one expression of his which he thought contained
good advice, "all this accommodation and humility, all this
condescension attains no end."
After the gentleman from Virginia had dwelt sufficiently upon the danger
of irritating the French, he had emphatically called upon us to
recollect our "weakness." It might have been as well if he had left that
to have been discovered from another quarter. He hoped we had
sufficient confidence in the means of defence which we possessed, if
driven to the last resort; and he believed if there was any one more
certain way of provoking war than another, it was that of proclaiming
our own weakness.
He hoped such a language would now be spoken as would make known to the
French Government that the Government and people of this country were
one, and that they would repel any attempt to gain an influence over our
Councils and Government. The gentleman had said that there did not
appear to be any design of this kind, and had endeavored to do away what
was stated as the opinion in France, in General Pinckney's letter. He
did not mean to rest this altogether upon the reports of an emigrant,
whom General Pinckney mentions as having represented this country
divided, and of no greater consequence than Genoa or Geneva, but he took
the whole information into view. [He read the extract relative to this
subject.]
It was evident, Mr. S. said, from this information from France, that an
opinion had been industriously circulated there that the Government and
people of this country were divided; that the Executive was corrupt and
did not pursue the interests of the people; and that they might, by
perseverance, overturn the Administration, and introduce a new order of
things. Was not such an opinion of things, he asked, calculated to
induce France to believe that she might make her own terms with us? It
was well known what the French wished, and it was time to declare it
plainly. His opinion was that they designed to ruin the commerce of
Great Britain through us. This was evident. They talk of the British
Treaty; but they suffered it to lie dormant for near twelve months,
without complaining about it. Why were they silent till within a few
weeks before the election of our President? Why did they commit
spoliations upon our commerce long before the British Treaty was ever
dreamt of? Their first decree, directing spoliations of our property,
and the capture of our provision ships, was on the 9th of May, 1793, a
month before the provision order of Great Britain, which was dated June
8, 1793; and why have they, from that time to this, been committing
spoliations on our commerce? The British Treaty was published in Paris
in August, 1795; a year after, in July, 1796, they determine to treat us
in the same way that we suffer other nations to treat us, and this
decree was not made known to our Government till the October following,
a few weeks before the election of President.
But this was not all; the French had pursued similar measures towards
all the other neutral powers. Sweden, in consequence, had no Minister in
their country, and was on the eve of a rupture. The intention of the
French evidently was, to compel all the neutral powers to destroy the
commerce of Great Britain; but he trusted this country had more spirit
than to suffer herself to be thus forced to give up her commerce with
Great Britain; he trusted they would spurn any such idea.
Mr. S. hoped the observations which he had made would not be construed
into a wish to see the United States and France involved in a war. He
had no objection to such measures being taken for preserving peace
between the two countries as should be consistent with national honor.
It was a delicate thing for them to suggest what the Executive ought to
do. It was out of their province to direct him. The Executive had
various considerations to take into view. We had injuries to complain of
against France, for the spoliations committed upon our commerce. If the
Executive conceive we have a right to redress, that subject will of
course constitute a part of our Envoy's instructions. Would it then be
proper, said he, for this House to interfere with the Executive, to
obtrude its opinion and say, "You must give up this point; we take upon
us (without any authority by the constitution) to give _carte blanche_
to France, without any indemnification or redress."
The gentleman says it is the object of the amendment on the table to
recommend to the Executive to remove any inequalities in the treaties;
that was alone sufficient to vote it out.
There had been no period since the Revolution which had so powerfully
called on Americans for that fortitude and wisdom which they knew so
well how to display in great and solemn emergencies. It was not his
intention to offend any one by stating the question in such strong
terms; but he was persuaded that when the present situation of our
affairs with respect to France was well understood, it would be found
that to acquiesce in her present demands was virtually and essentially
to surrender our self-government and independence.
TUESDAY, May 23.
Two other members, to wit: from North Carolina, JOSEPH MCDOWELL, and
from Virginia, JOSIAH PARKER, appeared, produced their credentials, were
qualified, and took their seats.
_Answer to the Presidents Speech._
The House then went into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. DENT in the
chair, on the amendment of Mr. NICHOLAS to the report of the select
committee, in answer to the President's Speech.
Mr. FREEMAN first rose. He observed, that in his observations on the
subject before the committee, amid the conflicting opinions of gentlemen
whom he respected, he did not mean to express his own either with
confidence or with zeal. Though one of the committee that had reported
the Address, he could not approve it _in toto_. He had two principal
objections to it. First, to that part which went to an unequivocal
approbation of all the measures of the Executive respecting our foreign
relations; and, secondly, to that part which contained expressions of
resentment and indignation towards France. In framing an answer to the
President, he conceived the committee should have refrained from
expressing an unqualified approbation of all the measures of the
Executive. To omit it would not imply censure. By introducing it, it
forced all those who entertain even doubts of the propriety of any one
Executive measure to vote against the Address.
The principal causes of the irritation on the part of France, insisted
upon in the Answer, were the rejection of our Minister, and the
sentiments contained in the Speech of the President of the Directory to
our late Minister. If gentlemen would look into the documents laid
before the House by the President, he was confident they would find the
true reason for the refusal to receive our Minister. He came only as an
ordinary Minister, without any power to propose such modifications as
might lead to an accommodation, and when the Directory discovered this
from his credentials they refused him. In answer to this, it had been
urged that M. Delacroix, Minister of Foreign Affairs, from the first,
well knew that Mr. Pinckney was only the successor to Mr. Monroe, and
that his coming in that quality was not the reason why the French
refused to receive him. Mr. F. referred to the documents which had been
laid before the House on this subject, from which it appeared that the
secretary of M. Delacroix had suggested a reason for the apparent change
of opinion on the subject of receiving Mr. Pinckney. Suppose, the
secretary observed, that M. Delacroix had made a mistake at first in the
intentions of the Directory, was that mistake to be binding on the
Directory?
He did not wish to be understood to consider the conduct of the French
as perfectly justifiable; but he could not conceive that it was such as
to justify, on our part, irritating or violent measures. As to the
Speech of the President of the Directory, he could not say much on it,
he did not perfectly understand it. As far as he did, he considered it a
childish gasconade, not to be imitated, and below resentment. [He read
part of it]. It was certainly arrogant in him to say that we owed our
liberty to their exertions. But if the French could derive any
satisfaction from such vain boasting he had no objection to their
enjoying it. There was another part of the Speech that had been
considered as much more obnoxious. It was said to breathe a design to
separate the people here from their Government. The part alluded to was
no more than an expression of affection for the people; he could see
nothing in this irritating or insulting; it was a mode of expression
which they used as to themselves, and by which they wished to convey
their affection for the whole nation. The term people, certainly
included the Government, and could not with propriety, therefore, be
said to separate the people from it.
An idea had been thrown out by the gentleman from South Carolina, that
the people generally approved of the British Treaty; he inferred it from
the fate of the late elections. For his part he could see no great
alteration to have been produced by the late elections; and if there had
been it would not have been an evidence to his mind that the people
approved of the British Treaty. He believed, for his part, that the
opinions of a great majority of the people had been uniformly averse to
it; and those who advocated it were by this time nearly sick of it. It
was true a spirit was aroused by the cry of war at the time the subject
of appropriation was pending, that produced petitions, not approving
however of the stipulations of the treaty, but asking that it might be
carried into effect since it had reached so late a stage.
Another engine, he observed, had been wielded with singular dexterity.
Much had been effected by the use, or rather abuse, of the terms
federalist and anti-federalist, federalism and anti-federalism. When the
Federal Constitution was submitted to the people, to approve it, and
endeavor to procure its ratification, it was federalism. Afterwards,
when the Government was organized and in operation, to approve every
measure of the Executive and support every proposition from the
Secretary of the Treasury, was federalism; and those who entertained
even doubts of their propriety, though they had been instrumental in
procuring the adoption of the constitution, were called
anti-federalists. In 1794 to be opposed to Madison's propositions, the
resolution for the sequestration of the British debts, and the
resolution prohibiting all intercourse with Great Britain, was
federalism. In 1796 it was federalism to advocate the British Treaty;
and now he presumed that it would be federalism to support the report of
the committee and hightoned measures with respect to France. In 1793 he
acknowledged that federalism assumed a very different attitude from what
it had on the present occasion; it was then the attitude of meekness, of
humanity, and supplication. The men who exclusively styled themselves
federalists, could only deplore with unavailing sighs the impotence of
their country, and throw it upon the benevolence and magnanimity of the
British Monarch. Their perturbed imaginations could even then see our
cities sacked and burnt, and our citizens slaughtered. On the frontier
they heard the war-hoop, and the groans of helpless women and children,
the tortured victims of savage vengeance. Now we are at once risen from
youth to manhood, and are ready to meet the haughty Republic of France
animated with enthusiasm and flushed with victory. Mr. F. observed, that
he rejoiced however that gentlemen adopted a bolder language on this
than had been used on the former occasion. He felt his full shame in the
national degradation of that moment. He was in favor of firm language;
but he would distinguish between the language of manly firmness and
that of childish petulance or ridiculous bombast.
Mr. GRISWOLD said, if he understood the state of the business, the
question was, whether the committee would agree to the amendment
proposed by the gentleman from Virginia? If it contained sentiments
accordant to the feelings of the committee, it would of course be
adopted; if not, it would doubtless be rejected.
He supposed it would form an objection to this amendment, if it were
found to be inconsistent with the other parts of the report. He believed
this to be the case; but he would not make objections to it on this
ground. He would examine the paragraph itself, and see whether it
contained sentiments in unison with those of the committee. He believed
this would not be found to be the case, and that when the committee had
taken a view of it, it would be rejected.
If he understood the proposition, it contained three distinct
principles, viz:
1. To make a new apology for the conduct of the French Government
towards this country.
2. That the House of Representatives shall interfere with and dictate to
the Executive in respect to what concessions ought to be made to the
French Republic.
3. It depends upon the spirit of conciliation on the part of France for
an adjustment of the differences existing between the two Governments.
The apology, he said, was a new one, and one which the French had not
thought of making for themselves; for they tell us, as it appears from
Mr. Pinckney's letter to the Secretary of State, "they will not
acknowledge or receive another Minister Plenipotentiary from the United
States, until after the redress of the grievances demanded of the
American Government, and which the French Republic has a right to expect
from it." We say (or rather the gentleman from Virginia says in his
amendment) they rejected our Minister because he had not power enough;
therefore, for the apology now made for the French Government they were
indebted to the ingenuity of the mover.
Now, said Mr. G., I do not wish that the House of Representatives should
undertake to make apologies for the conduct of the French Government
towards this. It was true they needed apology; but he did not think it
was proper for us to make it for them. Further, as this apology was not
made by themselves, but wholly different from their own assertions, it
was not likely that they would fall into it. They say, "Permit us to
sell our privateers in your ports; annul treaties and repeal laws, and
then we will tell you on what terms we will receive Mr. Pinckney, and
peace from you." After this declaration, he did not think it would be
proper to attempt any new apology for them. He therefore supposed, that
so far as this proposition offered a new apology for the French
Republic, it could not meet with the approbation of the committee.
The next proposition contained in the amendment was, that the House of
Representatives should interfere with the Executive power of this
country, and dictate to it what sort of steps should be taken towards
reconciling the French Government. He asked whether this was consonant
to the principles of the constitution? Whether the constitution had not
delegated the power of making treaties to other branches of the
Government? He believed it had, and that therefore we had no right to
dictate to the Executive what should or what should not be done with
respect to present disputes with the French Government. On this ground,
therefore, he considered it as improper.
In the next place, the amendment contained another proposition, viz:
that we rely upon a spirit of conciliation on the part of France for an
accommodation of differences. And, said Mr. G., do we really rely upon
this? Have we such evidence as should incline us to rely upon it? Have
the French Government expressed any inclination to settle the
differences subsisting between them and us? The communications which
were received from the Supreme Executive, do not bear this complexion.
The communication from the French Minister to this Executive does not
wear it. Our proclamations are called _insidious_; our Minister is
insulted and rejected; and attempts are made to divide the people of
this country from their Government. Is this conciliation? Does it not
rather appear as if they intended to alienate the affections of the
people from their Government, in order to effect their own views? He was
convinced it did, and that they could not rely upon a spirit of
conciliation in them. For his own part, he did not rely upon it; he
relied upon this country being able to convince the world that we are
not a divided people; that we will not willingly abandon our Government.
When the French shall be convinced of this, they will not treat us with
indignity. Therefore, he trusted, as the proposed amendment did not
contain such sentiments as were likely to accord with the feelings of
the committee, that it would be rejected.