appeared to him, from various documents, that all the steps taken by the
Executive had a view to an eventual appeal to arms, which it was his
wish (as it was the wish of many in that House) to avoid. It was proper,
therefore, that the clashing opinions should be discussed. If the
proposition brought forward for this purpose was not sufficiently simple
and explicit, he wished it might be made more so. For he believed the
question to be, whether the committee be prepared to pass a vote,
approving of the whole course of the conduct of the Executive, or
whether France should be put upon the same ground with the other
belligerent powers. That she is at present upon the same footing, no
gentleman had attempted to show. Gentlemen who wish to get rid of this
ground, say this is a thing which should be left to the Executive. He
thought it was, however, a proper subject for their discussion; for
whatever power the Executive had with respect to making of treaties,
that House had the means of checking that power. Suppose, said Mr. G., I
were on this occasion called upon to tax my land, was it not necessary I
should inquire into the subject, and endeavor to avoid a measure which
would probably prove a serious drain upon the blood and treasure of the
country? He was unwilling to have his land taxed for the purpose of
supporting a war on this principle. It was evident that the French took
one ground in this dispute, and the United States another, and whilst
this continued to be the case, no negotiation would have any effect.
Indeed, said he, it is war; and if the measure proposed was taken, we
make war if we do not declare it.
Mr. BALDWIN said, he had taken the liberty to express his concern
several years ago, that this custom of answering the PRESIDENT's Speech,
which was but a mere piece of public ceremony, should call up and demand
expressions of opinion on all the important business of the session,
while the members were yet standing with their hats in their hands, in
the attitude of receiving the communications, and had not yet read or
opened the papers which were the ground of their being called together.
It applied very strongly in this instance, as this was a new Congress,
and a greater proportion than common of new members; he thought it an
unfavorable attitude in which to be hurried into the very midst of
things, and to anticipate business of such vast importance to the
country, before they had time to attend to the information which had
been submitted to them. He trusted some fit occasion would before long
be found to disencumber themselves of a ceremony, new in this country,
which tended only to evil and to increasing embarrassments. He observed
that it was under the influence of these impressions, he had made it a
rule to himself, for many sessions, to vote for those amendments and
those propositions in the Address which were most delphic and ambiguous,
and while they were respectful to the PRESIDENT, left the House
unpledged and open to take up the business of the session as it
presented itself in its ordinary course. It was on this ground he should
vote for the amendment now under consideration.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, when the report of the committee should be before
them, he should have some remarks to make upon it; but at present he
should offer only a few observations upon the proposed amendment.
He said he had strong objections to the amendment; but one so strong
that he need not urge any other: it was, that in agreeing to it they
should dictate to the Executive, which he believed would be infringing
upon the Executive power. As it was his peculiar duty to give
instructions to Ministers, it would be improper in them to say what
should be the instructions given to a Minister; but if it were not so,
he should not vote for those of the gentleman from Virginia.
In the instructions of a Minister, it was usual to comprise a variety of
propositions. Certain things were first to be proposed; if these could
not be obtained, he was instructed to come forward with something else,
and if this could not be got, he went on to his ultimatum. But, if the
proposition of the gentleman from Virginia were to obtain, his
instructions would be publicly known. In vain would it be for him to
offer this or that, they will say the House of Representatives has
directed you what to do, and we will not agree to any thing else. This
would be contrary to all diplomatic proceedings; for that reason he
should be opposed to the House saying what should be his instructions.
Indeed, if it were usual, he should be against it in this instance, as
he believed it would encourage an extravagant demand. What, said he,
have they said to our Minister--or rather to the person who was formerly
our Minister, but who then had no power? They told him to go away; they
had nothing to say to him: they would receive no more Ministers from the
United States until their grievances were redressed. This country is
charged with countenancing an inequality of treaties. The French have
said, redress our grievances in a certain way. But, said Mr. R., if we
do this, we shall put ourselves under the dominion of a foreign power,
and shall have to ask a foreign country what we shall do. This was a
situation into which we must not fall without a struggle.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, though he had wished to have taken a little more
time before he had troubled the committee with his observations; yet, as
there now appeared an interval, he should take the opportunity of
occupying it for a few minutes.
He should not answer the observations of the gentleman from Georgia,
with respect to the style of the Answer reported; but he believed that
those gentlemen who would look at it without a perverted vision, would
not discover the faults in it which that gentleman had discovered. He
thought it rather remarkable for the simplicity of its style than for a
redundancy of epithet. He discovered more of the latter in the amendment
than in the original report. It was true that the superlative was used
in different places, but he thought it was used where it ought to be. He
would not, however, detain the committee with matter so immaterial, but
would proceed to what appeared to him of some consequence.
A stranger who had come into the House during this debate, and heard
what had fallen from the mover of the proposed amendment, and from
members who had followed him, would have supposed, that instead of an
act of ordinary course being under discussion, they had been debating
the question of a declaration of war against France.
He would declare, for himself at least, on the subject of war, that he
agreed in certain of the sentiments of gentlemen on the other side of
the House. A state of war was certainly a curse to any nation; to
America it would be peculiarly a curse. It ought to be avoided by all
possible means. It was not only impolitic, but madness, to run into war.
But he thought there were two sides of the subject. He thought that
peace was the greatest of all possible blessings; but he also thought
that peace might be purchased too dearly, and war avoided at too great
an expense. He thought peace might cost a greater value than money--our
independence. This was no new sentiment in this country. It was thought
that peace might be bought too dearly in the Revolutionary war; they
then thought it better to be at war than to submit to the alternative
evils. France also shows that she prefers a state of war--a war carried
on at an unexampled expense of blood and treasure--to a state of peace
with despotism. He thought, therefore, that we should hold a language of
a firm and manly tone. To preserve peace by all honorable means, but not
by dishonorable means. As he observed last session, on a similar
occasion, we should cultivate peace with zeal and sincerity; but
whenever our intention of doing so was publicly expressed, it ought to
be accompanied with an opposite assertion of a determination, if our
endeavors to maintain peace fail, that then every resource of the nation
shall be called into existence in support of all that is dear to us.
Such a declaration, at this time, was extremely proper. At present, he
said, all the observations which had been made relative to war, were
very premature. They might be brought into consideration, when any
measure should be discussed which might lead to a war with France. Then
would be the time to count the cost and the benefit. At present, he
conceived, our only object was, to inquire what were the feelings which
the conduct of France had created in our minds, and whether we were
prepared to express those feelings.
Shall we, said he, from a fear of irritating the French Republic, in a
communication with our own Executive, suppress our feelings, or what is
worse, suppress the truth? For his own part, he saw nothing in the
present business but an expression of feelings naturally excited by the
occasion; nothing but a declaration of facts. This being the case, the
question was, whether, from fear of irritating the French Government,
they should suppress these feelings.
It would be well to consider what would be the consequence of this
condescension. He did not think they were warranted in believing that
they should put France in a better humor with us by this means. He was
sure that gentlemen who were in the last Congress would recollect that
the Answer to the Address was reported in very mild terms, from a spirit
of accommodation in the committee who formed it, and that it was
afterwards pruned in the House with care, yet there had been no
amelioration of the disposition of the French towards this country.
Instead of inducing them to behave better to us, had it not been with a
knowledge of this that they have offered us fresh insult and indignity?
Indeed, Mr. Pinckney suggests an idea that this moderation of ours may
have been one of the operating causes of sending our Minister from their
country. Besides, gentlemen have not pointed out the particular
expressions which they consider as irritating in the report. For his own
part, he thought the amendment might be considered as more irritating
than the draft of the committee. What was the language of the amendment?
[He read it.] He gave it as his opinion, that there was more of war and
bullying in it than in the original report. It was true the threat it
contained was accompanied by an _if_. Now, all the difference between
the draft and the amendment was, that in the former, instead of using
the _if_, they had at once expressed indignation at the insults offered
to this country by the French Republic, and given assurances to the
Executive that they would repel indignity with indignation.
But, said he, let us, on this occasion, confine ourselves to the real
question now before us. We have been informed, said he, by the
PRESIDENT, in his Speech to both Houses, of the conduct of the French
towards this Government, and have since received the documents upon
which this report was founded. He had not yet heard any gentleman
justify the conduct of the French. He had heard, indeed, some attempts
to palliate or apologize for it, but none to vindicate it. His ideas of
these things were, that the French had not only injured us, but added
insult to injury; and while he retained this belief, he could not help
feeling indignation and resentment. The question before the House was
not, Will we resent it? Our actions, better than our words, show our
desires for peace. It was a desire in which we were too much interested,
to be doubted; yet it was proper that this desire should be accompanied
with expressions of our feelings on the occasion. What objections could
there be to this? If we were sunk so low, if our fears of the French
Republic are so great, that we dare not express what we feel, our
situation was become really deplorable. He hoped this was not, nor ever
would be the case. He hoped we should cultivate peace with sincerity,
but with firmness. For if the French Republic is so terrible to us, that
we must crouch and sink before her; if we hold our rights at her nod,
let gentlemen say so. And if we are to give up ourselves to her, let it
be an act of the Government; do not let us conceal under the appearance
of spirit, actual submission. Nations, it was true, might be brought
into such a situation as to be obliged to surrender some of their rights
to other nations; but when this is done, it should be done with some
degree of character. Let it not be done as a confession of guilt. Let
us, said he, however, surrender any thing, sooner than the fair fame of
our country. He was not a military man, nor did he know how he should
act upon such an occasion; but he knew what we ought to do. We ought,
rather than submit to such indignity, to die in the last ditch. Why
insinuate that the Government had been wrong? was it not enough to
submit to injury; shall we not only receive the stripes, but kiss the
rod that inflicts them?
Mr. OTIS observed, that he was so little accustomed to the mode of
conducting a debate in that honorable House, that he hardly knew in what
manner to apply his remarks to the subject before the committee. A
specific motion had been laid on the table by the gentleman from
Virginia, which reduced the true question before them to a narrow
compass; but the mover, in discussing his own proposition, had enlarged
upon subjects dear to his mind, and familiar to his recollection. In
this circuit he had been ably followed by the gentleman from South
Carolina, and others; so that the whole subject of the Address to the
PRESIDENT, and the reply of the committee, was brought into view, with
many considerations that did not belong to it. It was his design to have
remained silent until the subject had been exhausted by other gentlemen,
and if any remark of an important nature had been omitted, which was not
likely to have been the case, he would have suggested such ideas as
might have presented themselves to his mind; but a motion having been
made for the committee to rise, he would then offer a few observations,
not so much for the sake of illustrating the question, which had been
done most successfully, but in order to declare his sentiments upon this
important occasion. He so far agreed with the gentleman from Georgia,
that he believed, upon ordinary occasions, an Answer to the PRESIDENT's
Address should be calculated to preserve an harmonious intercourse
between the different departments of Government, rather than to pledge
either branch of the Legislature, collaterally, upon subjects that would
come regularly under their consideration. But the present was not an
ordinary occasion, and the situation of the country required that the
Answer should not be a spiritless expression of civility, but a new
edition of the Declaration of Independence. He expressed his regret that
upon this question gentlemen should have wandered into a review of
measures and subjects, so frequently examined, so deliberately settled,
and which had a tendency to rekindle party animosity. If they would
never acquiesce in the deliberate acts of the Government, because their
personal sentiments had been adverse to them in the season of their
discussion, there could be no end to controversy. For his part he
conceived that all party distinctions ought now to cease; and that the
House was now called by a warning voice, to destroy the idea of a
geographical division of sentiment and interest existing among the
people. His constituents and himself were disposed to regard the
inhabitants of the Southern States as brothers, whose features were cast
in the same mould, and who had waded through the same troubled waters to
the shore of liberty and independence. He hoped that gentlemen would, in
their turn, think the other part of the Union entitled to some
consideration.
The Address of the PRESIDENT disclosed, for the contemplation of the
committee, a narrative of facts, and of the existing causes of
controversy between the French Republic and ourselves; the overtures for
reconciliation, which were to be repeated by attempts to negotiate, and
the measures of defence that might be proper, in case negotiation should
fail. The injuries sustained by us were of a high and atrocious nature,
consisting in the capture of our vessels, depredations upon the property
and persons of our citizens, the indignity offered to our Minister; but
what was more aggravating than the rest, was, the professed
determination not to receive our Minister until the complaints of the
French should be redressed, without explanation and without
exception--until we should violate treaties, repeal laws, and do what
the constitution would not authorize, vacate solemn judgments of our
courts of law. These injuries should not be concealed. He did not wish,
however, to indulge in unnecessary expressions of indignation, but to
state in plain and unequivocal terms the remonstrances of injured
friendship. If any man doubted of the pernicious effects of the measures
of the French nation, and of the actual state of our commerce, let him
inquire of the ruined and unfortunate merchant, harassed with
persecutions on account of the revenue, which he so long and patiently
toiled to support. If any doubted of its effects upon agriculture, let
him inquire of the farmer whose produce is falling and will be exposed
to perish in his barns. Where, said he, are your sailors? Listen to the
passing gale of the ocean, and you will hear their groans issuing from
French prison-ships. Such were the injuries, and such the requisitions
of the French nation; and he defied the ingenuity of any gentleman to
draw a comparison between the Directory and the British Parliament, in
favor of the former; and insisted that the demands of Charles Delacroix
were upon a parallel with those of Lord North. He enlarged upon the
analogy of the circumstances attending the pretensions of the British
Government to bind us, when we were colonies, and of the French to
subjugate us, now we are free and independent States. He thought it
expedient to cultivate the same spirit of union, and to use the same
firm and decided language. He regretted that questions should be
agitated upon this occasion, which had been formerly the cause of party
spirit and dissensions; and did not believe that the immortal men who
framed the noted instrument which dissolved the charm of allegiance and
shivered the fetters of tyranny, condescended to differ about verbal
criticisms and nice expressions, through fear of giving offence; nor
that it was incumbent upon the members of the committee to repress the
assertion of their rights, or smother a just and dignified expression of
their susceptibility of insult, because the French had been once our
friends, or because the commencement of their revolution was a struggle
for liberty. There was a time when he was animated with enthusiasm in
favor of the French Revolution, and he cherished it, while civil liberty
appeared to be the object; but he now considered that Revolution as
completely achieved, and that the war was continued, not for liberty,
but for conquest and aggrandizement, to which he did not believe it the
interest of this country to contribute.
WEDNESDAY, May 24.
WILLIAM SMITH, from Pinckney district, South Carolina; SAMUEL SMITH,
from Maryland; JOHN ALLEN, from Connecticut; and WILLIAM FINDLAY, from
Pennsylvania, appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and
took their seats.
_Answer to President's Speech._
The House again went into Committee of the Whole on the Answer to the
PRESIDENT's Speech, and Mr. NICHOLAS' amendment being under
consideration,
Mr. SWANWICK opened the debate. He lamented the loss of time which was
generally experienced at the opening of every session in debating the
Answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT, when, perhaps, business of the
first moment called for immediate attention. It was much to be wished
that committees appointed for this purpose would confine themselves to
the instructions which were given to them on the occasion, which were in
general terms, viz: "to prepare a respectful Address, assuring the
PRESIDENT that the House will take into their serious consideration the
various important matters recommended to their attention." If Answers
were drawn in general terms, conformably to these instructions, he
thought very many of the embarrassments which they now experienced would
be avoided, and every member would be left at liberty to pursue such
measures as appeared to them right, when they came before him in the
ordinary course of business unclogged by any creed which he might have
been called to assent to before he had an opportunity of considering the
subjects it contained. It also often occasioned much warmth in debate,
and served to divide the House into two parties on the very threshold of
their business. This could not possibly have any good effect, but the
contrary; he should therefore be happy to see the practice simplified or
abolished altogether.
The effect at present has been, that no sooner had the committee
appointed to draft an Address made a report, than the gentleman from
Virginia proposed a substitute, which, according to his idea, was more
proper. A warm debate had taken place, and he believed that either might
be adopted without effect, as they were merely a form of words leading
to no conclusion. Suppose a majority of _one_ was obtained on the
report, what end would be produced? None; for it might be that the very
persons who voted on this general question, might vote against
particular subjects when they came under consideration; as every one
would recollect the difficulties which had been experienced in getting
three frigates built, and this difficulty, he doubted not, would again
occur. Since, however, these two forms of an Answer were before them,
and they were called upon to say which they would adopt, it might be
proper to go into some consideration of the subject.
The difference between the two productions seemed to be, that the one
reported seemed to express great indignity on account of the injuries
received from the French Republic, and a determination to repel them;
that produced by the gentleman from Virginia was of a more conciliatory
tone, recommending to the PRESIDENT to begin his negotiations with
placing the French Republic on the same ground with the other
belligerent powers; so that the difference was simply as it respected a
few words.
What were the arguments in favor of the warm tone? They were told it
would have a great effect on the French Republic, because if a spirited
Answer were given to the PRESIDENT's communication, signifying (as his
colleague Mr. SITGREAVES had strongly expressed it) that we were
determined to _die in the last ditch_, it would strike them with terror.
If he thought this effect could be really produced, it might be some
inducement for him to agree to it.
Mr. S. remarked, that they were told by Mr. Pinckney, in his letter to
the Secretary of State, that it was probable that two events had
contributed to his dismissal from the French Republic, viz: one, the
victories of Bonaparte in Italy, the other, the Addresses of the Senate
and House of Representatives in answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT at
the last session. With respect to the Answers alluded to, no opinion
could be formed from this assertion, because, though that of the House
of Representatives was tolerably moderate, yet that of the Senate was as
warm as any thing could be produced. He read extracts from both, and
compared them with each other, giving the credit which, in his opinion,
was due to the most moderate.
The first and most necessary step to be taken was, to put all the
belligerent powers upon the same footing, which could not be an offence
to any. But it was said that to recommend this measure to the Executive,
was to dictate to him; that it was carrying humility on the front of the
Minister who should be employed. What! said Mr. S., would it be to carry
humility in his front to say, "I come to place you on the same footing
with the most favored nation?" It certainly could not; since it was the
language of right reason, of justice.
As to dictating to the Executive, could it be called dictating when we
merely express our opinion and advice to him, on points which he has
himself laid before us; and, in order to deliberate on which we were
thus unusually called together? Very low and debasing, indeed, must be
the situation of this House, if they were to be muzzled and prevented
from laying their sentiments before the Chief Magistrate of the Union!
When treaties are made, we are told they are laws over which we have no
power. If we dare not speak on the subject before they are made, is this
House reduced merely to the odious task of laying taxes, without being
allowed to exercise its sense on any other public measures connected
with them? Why does the PRESIDENT communicate these things to us, if we
are not allowed to express any sentiments about them? Why do the people
elect their representatives all over this widely extended empire, if,
when they are convened, they are not allowed the privilege of expressing
their opinions on the dearest interests of their constituents? But it is
stated that this will create division among the branches of the
Government, who ought always to act and think alike. Were this the case,
there was no use to divide the Government, as our constitution does,
into three branches; they might all have been left in one, and then no
accident of this kind would have happened; but the fact is, this very
division of the branches was devised in order that they might operate as
checks on each other. The people thought it better that a division of
this kind should prevent acting at all, than that we should act hastily
and unadvisedly. Thus when a law, after mature deliberation, passes this
House as wise and good, the Senate were not obliged on this account to
see it in the same light; they judge for themselves, and, if they see
cause, reject it, and no complaint takes place on our part because they
do so. In another Government, indeed that of England, all the branches
have been contrived into the most perfect union, Kings, Lords, and
Commons, all agree, but has the Government been the better for this?
Happy had it been for that nation, had this not been the case. Many an
unwise measure they have gone into, might then, fortunately for the
nation, have been totally prevented.
But it has been said we ought to express the highest indignation at the
conduct of France. Let us examine for a moment on what this is founded.
Three grounds have been mentioned; the dismission of our Minister, the
spoliations on our ships, and the interference with our Government, in
attempting to divide the people from it. As to the first, the dismission
of our Minister, said Mr. S., nobody can feel more sensibly than I do,
this indignity; but it only leads me to regret, as I have often already
expressed my regrets, at our sending so many diplomatic gentlemen to
Europe. Wretched will be our case, if we are embroiled whenever these
gentlemen shall be refused, or uncivilly treated. All history is full of
instances of wars, founded on such points of etiquette as these, and
they admonish us against employing embassies, as much as possible, to
avoid these dangers from our foreign connections. But it seems, the
Directory, by Mr. Pinckney's letter, at the same time sent away thirteen
other foreign Ministers; yet we do not hear that these nations went to
war on this account. One of them was Sweden, a very powerful maritime
nation, possessed of a considerable fleet; her Minister was dismissed;
she contented herself with sending away the French Minister also, and
here the dispute ended. But, surely allowance ought also to be made for
the present revolutionary state of France. If all things do not proceed
there with the order they ought, it is perhaps because of their present
warlike and revolutionary position, which cannot but mend every day, and
should induce us to make some allowance for them.
Mr. LIVINGSTON said that, having listened to the gentlemen who had
preceded him with the most respectful attention, and heard their ardent
expressions of patriotism and the lively sense which they entertained of
the true dignity of our Government, he should not attempt to follow them
into a field which had been exhausted, but would leave it to the
consideration of the committee and his country to determine upon his
sentiments and the measures which he should suggest whether he was not
equally disposed with others to promote the peace and honor, the
happiness and security of his country and Government; he would leave it
for his measures to speak for him; he would not be led away by any idle
or extraneous vanity from objects so solemn and important; he should
speak freely as became an American at a crisis so very pressing. First,
then, he should notice the Address that was before the committee, and
the amendment which had been proposed to be made to it; he was sorry to
observe the manner in which they had been discussed. It had been
considered, on one side, that to adopt any language in reply to the
Address but that which has been laid before the committee in the report,
would amount to a surrender of all our rights, privileges, and
independence, as a nation, to France; on the other, it has been held
that the differences between us and France are distorted, and that we
should at least not shut up every avenue to negotiation by an obstinate
and blind assertion of our own infallibility. If he believed with those
of the former opinion, that we should in any shape incur the stigma of
degrading ourselves, or if he suspected even that we should sacrifice
one right of our country or Government by an adoption of the amendment
proposed, or he thought we should not endanger our national character
and safety by the adoption of the report, he should most certainly
reject the amendment and adopt the report; or if he believed, with the
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. OTIS,) that the demands of France now
were any wise analogous to those of Great Britain on a former occasion,
sooner than consent to a dereliction of independence and national
character he would not stop short of the language of that report; but as
he could not force his judgment to so outrageous a misconstruction, as
he saw on the contrary numerous reasons to entertain a very different
opinion, he would not consent to incur the perils and the errors in
which that report would involve us; he could not consent to so hasty, so
precipitate, and inconsiderate a step.
The question properly before the House at this time is, whether we shall
continue to express so perfect a reliance on all the acts of our own
Government; whether we shall say obstinately to France that there is no
possible case in which our judgment could have been misled or mistaken
in our conduct towards her; and, by determining to adhere to our former
conduct, preclude every possibility to an amicable adjustment; or leave
a reasonable opportunity open for an effectual discussion and adjustment
of differences, wherever they may subsist.
The scope of the Speech of the PRESIDENT to both Houses, it must be
confessed, goes to bind us to the former conduct; and it is too evident
that the report, in strict coincidence with the sentiments of several,
but not all its supporters, bears that same dangerous tendency. From
which line of conduct are we to expect the most beneficent issue, to
treat with a complaining power by a determination to show that its
complaints are groundless, or by examining the complaints and the
evidence in amicable negotiation and deciding afterwards? Let us examine
the complaints of France, and then determine whether they are all so
frivolous as to excite irritation at the mere mention of them; unless we
are so convinced, unless we are thoroughly satisfied that they are so,
we cannot vote the Answer as it is reported. Should we discover in such
an examination that some of our measures have been founded at least in
mistake, would it then be proper to adopt the language of the Address?
But should we persist under such a possibility of mistake, what do we
risk? an evil much more fatal than the worst that could follow the most
sober resolution which we can now adopt; we risk the alternative of
abandoning it after a war in which we may be sufferers, and after we may
have retarded the increasing prosperity of our country half an age. We
have an example before us in a nation that was eager to snatch at a
remote pretext for an assumed interference in her Government; we have
seen that nation, among the most powerful and haughty in Europe, the
most vain of her dignity, (real or unreal,) the most apt to interfere in
the government of others; we have seen her enter into a war, and we have
seen her driven to the lowest state of humiliation; we have seen her
obliged to pursue the most abject means of solicitation to obtain a
peace from that very nation whom she had irritated to a war; and we saw
her more humiliated still, by the rejection of those propositions which
she had made to obtain peace. Have we a better prospect than that
nation? Are our means equal to hers? Are we, indeed, ready to embark in
a war--with France, too--and present such a lesson to the world as
America at war with France, after France has defeated the efforts of all
the world? He again asked, have we the means? Let gentlemen who are
willing to plunge us into that dilemma make the reply; but let not
gentlemen indulge in so hateful a picture. But, although we have no
means, he was still against surrendering the honor of our country;
fortunately, no such sacrifice is demanded, no such measure is
necessary; and were we ten times more destitute even than we are, he
should never submit to our national degradation, were there a power so
insolent as to expect it.
It was, he knew, a very ungracious, and often an unpopular task, to
display the errors of our own Government; there was a national vanity, a
vain and unmeaning pride, which sought to be bolstered up by frippery of
words and acts of dissimulation. He knew that this empty and pernicious
vanity often assumed the post and place of the true dignity of a
country, and blinked contumely on him that was disposed to prefer the
plain, frank, open path of integrity and truth. He would choose between
these opposite passions of a nation, and preferring his duty to
unmerited reproach, he would neither repress the sentiments of his mind,
nor foster those which he conceived to be pregnant with ruin; he would
glory more in promoting the justice of his country than in conducting
her to the most brilliant triumphs in an unjust cause; he would,
therefore, calmly examine whether France had just cause of complaint;
and whether she had or not a just cause, he would assert that France
might, without exciting indignation, think herself injured; that she
might, was a sufficient reason with him for preferring the amendment, as
it left an opening for rather amicable discussion and accommodation,
rather than the report which had the opposite character.
THURSDAY, May 25.
Mr. GILES rose.--He said that he had always been against this form of
giving Answers, since the time the practice first began; it was derived
from the British House of Commons, which was a bad source for
precedents. In that House, however, the Speech and the Answer were both
known to be the work of the Minister, and treated with great freedom.
Mr. G. thought that it would be better to direct the Committee of Rules
and Orders of the House, to make one standing Answer, which would serve
regularly for all Speeches. This would be an improper time for such a
regulation, but though we could not now get rid of a bad habit, it was
not necessary to vindicate it. He said, that Mr. LIVINGSTON had
yesterday taken part of the ground which he intended to take. The
question before the House amounted to this: shall we recommend it to the
PRESIDENT to place all nations on a level as to commerce, and to remove
the inequalities between them? To assist him in deciding this point, he
would refer to facts and dates; and, as he did not wish to represent
things in false colors, he would be glad to be corrected, if he should
happen to go wrong. He would begin at the 1st of February, 1793, when
England dismissed the French Minister, and the Republic, in consequence,
declared war against her. On the 22d of April following, the PRESIDENT
declared this country to be in a state of neutrality, and warned the
citizens to observe it. At this time, about the 10th May, M. Genet
landed and raised a considerable alarm by commencing an improper
correspondence with our citizens. Government from that time took a wrong
impression, and acted under the idea of a dangerous French influence in
this country. All this was a mistake. Genet was universally reprobated,
unless by a few disorderly people, and Government from that trial should
have learned to trust us. In consequence of the disturbance that Genet
made, many societies entered into resolutions to support government.
Even the pulpit reviled Genet. If execration, disappointment, and
contempt, could fill up the measure of punishment, he had it. From the
arrival of Genet to that of Fauchet, some sentiments were kept alive,
and some phrases that he would review. The _Friends of Order_ and the
_Disorganizers_ were two of them. Then we had the reign of _moderation_,
but of so frantic a kind, for the short time which it lasted, as to
exercise the greatest of despotism over opinion. This _order_,
_moderation_, and _disorganization_, were all gone and no more said
about them. Among Mr. G.'s constituents, when notice came of the Western
insurrection, they were all ready to march in support of Government;
instead of calling themselves the friends of order, they proved that
they were so. The country remained from this time in a tranquil state
till the arrival of Mr. Jay's Treaty. On the 5th of December, 1793, a
Message was received from the PRESIDENT, speaking of France in the most
friendly terms. In spite of Genet's quarrel there was no
misunderstanding with the Republic, and Mr. G. quoted this circumstance
to prove that there was no serious difference till the arrival of Mr.
Jay's Treaty. Mr. G. said that he would review what was in the mean time
passing in Europe. During the summer of 1793, Britain made no less than
six treaties with different nations, and one stipulation in each of them
was that the contracting parties should stop all provisions going to
France, and force all other nations to do so. The first of these
treaties was made with Russia, on the 20th of March, 1793: the second
was with Spain; the third with Prussia; the fourth with the Emperor; the
fifth with Portugal; and the last with the King of the two Sicilies. It
was said that France preceded Britain in the order for stopping
provisions; Britain did not publicly issue such orders until the 16th of
June, 1793; but Britain had, in reality, adopted the practice long
before. The French orders fluctuated; but, at one time, the United
States were exempted from stoppage, when others were stopped. He then
noticed the stoppage of provisions to the West Indies; the Orders of the
6th of November, 1793, and the 8th of January, 1794. In the very short
interval between these two dates, France had gone on so fast that
Britain found it better to ameliorate the condition of neutral States.
During this time, England also made a truce for Portugal with Algiers,
and this truce has cost us fifteen hundred thousand dollars, besides
what it may cost hereafter. Timber had been promised to be cut for the
Algerines, of a kind which this country could not furnish in due
quality. Some of it was to be brought so far as from the north-west
branch of the Susquehanna. He would pass over Lord Dorchester's speech
to the Indians, and the British soldiers and savages joining the
tomahawk against our Western frontiers. He mentioned these things,
merely to keep them in view. There was something, he said, which he
could never think of without surprise. This was a conversation between
Lord Grenville and Mr. Pinckney. It was related in a letter, dated the
9th of January, 1794, from Mr. Pinckney. It took notice of Lord
Grenville telling Mr. Pinckney the desire which the British Government
had of maintaining harmony with the United States, and their readiness
to support the Government of this country against a dangerous Jacobin
faction who wanted to overturn it. Mr. G. said, that this betrayed more
interference on the part of Britain than there ever had been on the part
of France. From this time our Government had taken a leaning towards
Britain. French influence was only a sentiment which we felt for the
sake of liberty, but which was sometimes conjured up as a chimera to
serve certain purposes. The United States had a real interest in
cherishing the sentiment, which never could be dangerous.
As for British influence, it was a matter much more substantial. That
people speak the same language with us, are scattered from one end of
the continent to the other, intermarry with us, and have a very great
commercial intercourse. Lord Grenville's proposition had led to Mr.
Jay's Treaty. As to France trying to engage us in the war, any other
nation in the world would be glad to do so. France had addressed the
people of America, and was resisted: Britain had addressed our
Government; and Mr. G. feared that the latter had not made so firm a
stand. While Congress were taking proper measures to check the
depredations, Mr. Jay, to the astonishment of mankind, was named
Ambassador to England. The Treaty was signed on the 19th of November,
1794. The instructions, Mr. G. had never seen, but if we may judge from
the Treaty itself, they were extremely full. For the making of such a
Treaty he had never heard a reason, nor had he ever been able to learn
one good consequence likely to accrue from it. It had been called an
instrument of peace, and its first effect was, that we were summoned to
fight with France, Spain, and Holland. One of the articles was that free
ships do not make free goods. This was highly injurious both to France
and the United States; it implied a breach of the law of nations,
because, before you can search for an enemy's goods you must stop
neutral ships. This regulation could only be understood as operating
against France. If we could not help the practice going on, we should at
least have suffered it to stand as it was, without any countenance. All
the principal articles of export from the United States were declared
contraband, except tobacco, and, indeed, that might be included under
the general title of provisions, as people would sometimes be in want of
a chew. He spoke of this provision clause as infamous. He referred to
Count Bernstoff, Minister of Denmark, who had kept his country in a more
honorable situation than perhaps any other in Europe had done during the
present war. Mr. G. read the refusal of Count Bernstoff to comply with
the British requisition to that effect. During the armed neutrality, the
United States had owned that free bottoms should make free goods. Was
there any reason since to alter our opinion? He would be glad to hear
gentlemen answer if there was any. He had always said that the provision
article was unjust to France, and yet on account of the British Treaty
we are to plunge into a war before we know whether we are in the right
or in the wrong. Gentlemen who had promoted the British Treaty now came
forward to support it, but it would now be more manly to declare at once
that we cannot do so. In Citizen Adet's complaints, many articles were
unjust and trifling, but this was always the case in productions of that
sort. Mr. G. then referred to the speech of Barras: he said that Britain
still went on robbing and impressing American seamen. Mr. HARPER had
yesterday said that the impressments were few; but how were we to be
certain of that? The men are not allowed to write to us, and Mr.
Pinckney informs us that vast numbers of them are in French jails. He
had always wondered at our having so few communications on this head
from the Executive. A law had passed in this House and in the Senate
upon this subject, without any information from that quarter. Gentlemen
had allowed that it would be just enough to grant an equality of
privileges to every foreign nation; but, Mr. HARPER had objected, that
if this were granted to France, she would still continue to demand. When
she makes an unjust claim, said Mr. G., we should stop; he would not be
for going any further. The French had not acted on vague claims; they
take neutral and contraband articles; they take the ships, and when they
find our seamen on board of British vessels, they threaten to treat
them as pirates, and will not allow them to prove that they were
impressed.
TUESDAY, May 30.
JOHN FOWLER, from Kentucky, appeared, produced his credentials, was
qualified, and took his seat.
_Answer to President's Speech._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
Address reported in Answer to the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; when
Mr. COIT said he thought that part of the 5th paragraph which related to
the Executive Directory would be less exceptionable, and equally convey
their disapprobation of such sentiments, if it were expressed more
generally, and without any allusion to M. Barras. He proposed,
therefore, to strike out from "at," in the 4th line of the 5th
paragraph, to "United States," in the 6th line, and to insert "any
sentiments tending to derogate from that confidence; such sentiments,
wherever entertained, serve to evince an imperfect knowledge of the real
opinion of our constituents."
Mr. W. SMITH objected to the amendment of the gentleman from
Connecticut, (Mr. COIT,) because it was hypothetical. He wished, as the
fact was clearly established, to have a direct reference to the Speech
of Barras, in their indignation at the sentiments. As the matter had
appeared of sufficient importance to find a place in the PRESIDENT's
Speech, he thought it was also worthy of their notice. He insisted upon
its being an attempt to divide the people of this country from their
Government, by speaking insultingly of the latter, and flattering the
former. He did not exactly know what was meant by the "suggestion of our
former tyrants," but he supposed it meant bribery, and that by
"perfidious people," General Washington was included.
Mr. W. SMITH said, that by the Government, the Executive only was meant.
He was convinced of this from the manner in which he had seen the word
used in the French Government paper, entitled the _Redacteur_.
Mr. COIT believed, that whatever M. Barras had said, it was not worth
their attention. We might defy France or Frenchmen to say worse of us
than they themselves said. He did not himself know how far the Speech of
Barras was an act of Government; for, said he, when we directed our
Speaker to reprimand Randal and Whitney, the words he used upon the
occasion were not an act of the House. On another occasion, when the
House were about to receive the French flag, they could not call what
was said by the Speaker on that occasion, an act of the House.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, if Mr. Pinckney's letter was an authentic paper, the
Speech of Barras was likewise so; and if so, it was doubtless an
indignity to Government. He did not think with the gentleman from
Massachusetts, (Mr. FREEMAN,) that it was "childish gasconade." He
believed it was intended as an insult to the Government of this country.
As to the gratitude which had been said to belong to the French nation,
for their assistance in the war, he thought their services were amply
repaid by the separation of this country from Great Britain. Besides, he
added, the French never came to the assistance of this country until
they saw we were likely to be successful in our struggle.
Mr. GORDON said there could be no doubt of the authenticity of Barras'
Speech, since it stood upon the same ground as the rest of the
documents. It was a flagrant insult upon Government, in his opinion, and
warranted all that had been said upon it, as it was doubtless an attempt
to separate the people from the Government.
Mr. THATCHER said the question was, whether or not any notice should be
taken of the insulting Speech of Barras. When, said he, the French flag
was presented to this House, we were told we were not to stop to reason,
but to express forthwith our feelings of affection. But now, when the
most unexampled insult is offered us, such as one man would not receive
from another, we are not to notice it at all, lest it should offend the
French Republic. He knew of only one reason for passing it over in
silence, and that, it was true, had some weight with him. That Barras
spoke as the organ of the French nation, there could be no doubt; but he
had his doubts whether he knew himself what he said. The Speech had
strong marks of _delirium_, and he could not help believing that, when
he delivered it, he was either _drunk_ or _mad_. If the world went on
for six thousand years to come, they would never again behold such a
production.
Mr. MCDOWELL was in favor of the amendment. He did not think himself
bound, as had been insinuated by the gentleman from South Carolina, to
echo all the sentiments in the PRESIDENT's Speech. He wished to have an
opinion of his own. He agreed that Barras' Speech was an indignity to
the United States. He felt it, and would express it: but he did not
think this the proper time. He denied the justness of the construction
put upon the Speech by the gentleman from South Carolina. He supposed by
"perfidious persons," was meant the persons in this country, generally
called the "British faction." He differed in opinion also with that
gentleman on the subject of dividing the people and Government, and
could not allow that the phrase "good people" was intended as an insult.
He allowed it was going too far to say that we owed our liberty to
France; but being in some respect true, it took off from the offence. He
was sorry to see on one side of the House constant attempts made to
excite the resentment of the people of this country against France. It
was not necessary at present to raise such feelings. They were not about
to unsheath the sword, and to say, "We conquer or die." What gentlemen
could not effect by reason, they seemed inclined to effect in a
different way. He did not think this fair conduct.
Mr. VENABLE supported the amendment. He did not think any of the
objections made against it had much weight in them. He thought the mode
of expressing our sense of the indignity shown to this country by the
Speech in question, was judiciously chosen by the gentleman from
Connecticut. It was most consistent with dignity. It was not wise in
them to take notice of every harsh expression which might be used
against this country in any foreign nation; for, if such were our
conduct, foreign nations would have good ground of complaint against us,
and on that floor the account would be settled. Nor did he think it very
becoming or dignified in gentlemen in that House so to express
themselves as to excite frequent risibility; nor was it very honorable
to that Assembly. [Alluding to the gentleman from Massachusetts.]
Mr. SITGREAVES had no doubt of the Speech of Barras being an official
paper, and that its object was to divide the people from the Government.
If he proved this, he trusted the language of the report would be
preserved. It would be allowed that Barras was the mouth of the
Directory, and that the sentiments which he speaks, are not his own, but
what were beforehand agreed upon. It was doubtless, therefore, a solemn
official act. With respect to the observation of the gentleman from
Virginia, that what he said respecting our Government was not applicable
to the Executive, but to the people at large, he believed he was wholly
mistaken, as the word Government, in the French language, constantly
meant Executive, as was abundantly clear from the way in which it was
used in Mr. Adet's notes. [He quoted a number of passages to prove his
assertion.] It was generally used for the Executive in contradistinction
to Congress, or any other of the constituted authorities. If it were
clearly intended to convey an insult upon our Executive, (and there
could be no doubt of it,) even the mover of the amendment could not
think it unbecoming in that House to express themselves in the words of
the Address.
Mr. GALLATIN said, whatever might be the insult intended by the Speech
of the Executive Directory, he thought it best to notice it in general
terms as it was the sentiment which was objectionable and not the
Government of France. But as so much had been said about Government and
people, he would say, that an insult offered to the people could not be
less offensive than one offered to the Government. He supposed they
alluded to the British Treaty, which was as much the instrument of
Congress as of the Executive, and of the people as either, since they
very generally petitioned in favor of it. He then took notice of the
perversions which the gentleman from South Carolina had put upon the
words of Barras, and denied that there was the least ground for them,
and said that the _Gazette of the United States_ might as well be
called a Government paper of this country, as the _Redacteur_, that of
France. If, said Mr. G., it be our intention to declare war at once,
then there might be some propriety in taking hold of every word which
would bear to be construed into an insult, but if we wished for peace,
it was unwise to do so. Besides, he said, this Speech was not
communicated in an official manner, nor could it be so communicated. It
was sent by Mr. Pinckney in a newspaper, from which the copy sent to
them was translated, but the translation was not even authenticated, as
usual. He did not dispute the fact, but it was a thing which they were
not bound to notice; indeed, an error with respect to a name appeared on
the face of the paper; and being delivered to Mr. Monroe, who was no
longer Minister, it could not be officially communicated. He therefore
thought it was not worth their notice.
Mr. OTIS thought it right to pay respect to what was recommended by the
PRESIDENT. The question was whether they should notice the insult
generally, or in reference to the Directory. He was in favor of the
first; but as this was the only opportunity given in the Address of
expressing their opinion of the conduct of the French Government, he
wished the Address to stand as reported.
Mr. O. remarked upon Barras' Speech. He did not know what was meant by
granting peace. When parties were at war, one granted the other peace;
or sometimes a stronger power suffered a weaker to be at peace. He
supposed the French meant it in the latter sense towards this country.
On condition that we respect her sovereignty! What was meant here? If it
was sovereignty over their own nation, we had nothing to do with it; if
it was any other, it must be the sovereignty they had over us. He
concluded by remarking, that if there were any members in that House
upon whom any imputation could rest of their being unduly attached to
the French cause, he thought it a good opportunity to come forward and
convince the world that the charges were unjust.
Mr. LIVINGSTON took notice of what had fallen from the gentleman last
up, and showed the folly of adopting an irritating tone; as, if we
charged a foreign government with making use of one disrespectful
expression, they would have no difficulty in retorting the complaint, as
in the course of that debate, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
HARPER) had called the King of Spain the humble vassal of France, and
had not been sparing of his epithets to other powers; and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. THATCHER) had termed Barras drunk or mad. He
also noticed the constructions put upon the words "granting peace," and
"sovereignty," as very extravagant. The Speech, he allowed, was bad
enough, but he saw no reason for torturing it in this manner.
Mr. GILES said the gentleman from Massachusetts had called upon persons
who might lie under imputation of being friends to France, to come
forward, and show the imputation false. He informed that gentleman that
he did not feel his reputation hurt by any imputation which he or any
other person might throw upon him. He would rather the gentleman would
convince them they were wrong, than call them names.
Mr. OTIS explained. He declared he meant only to say that they had been
unjustly charged with those imputations, and that such a conduct would
show it.
Mr. W. SMITH again urged the propriety of retaining the words in the
Address as reported, as the amendment proposed had no reference to the
PRESIDENT's Speech, as that referred to an official act; whereas the
amendment had no relation to France, but would apply to the people of
China, or the people of this country, as well as to those of France. He
believed the discussion had been of some use, because it was now on all
sides acknowledged that the Speech of Barras was an insult, which was
not allowed at the beginning of the debate. He could only say that
gentlemen died hard; to use the expression of his friend from
Pennsylvania, (Mr. SITGREAVES,) they seem determined to _die in the last
ditch_. The objections to the words of the present Address, were like
the objections of _Thomas Paine_ to the writings of Moses. He denied
that there was any similarity between expressions used in debate in that
House, and expressions used by an Executive authority. No notice, he
said, ought to be taken of what fell from members in that House, whilst
they were allowed to be in order; and if foreign Ministers attended to
hear their debates, and heard things which they did not like, they ought
not to take exceptions at it, since they came there uninvited, and it
was their duty to say what appeared to them right at the time.
The question was put on the amendment, when there appeared 49 votes for
it, and 49 against it. The Chairman declared it carried in the
affirmative.
WEDNESDAY, May 31.
_Answer to the President's Speech._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
Answer to the PRESIDENT's Speech, Mr. DAYTON's amendment being under
consideration.
Mr. HARTLEY was persuaded there was but one wish in the House with
respect to peace, notwithstanding insinuations to the contrary; but he
could not agree with the proposed amendment, as he wished the
negotiation to be left wholly to the PRESIDENT. The treaty entered into
with France provided for their being placed on the same footing with
other nations, and wished that right to be recognized by negotiation,
and he doubted not the PRESIDENT would do it; for as he must see that
peace was the desire of all, he would take such steps as would be best
calculated to lead to it. He was against encroachments on the Executive,
as, if they once begun, there was no knowing where they could stop. He
thought there was no danger of war; it would be a disagreeable thing
for men who fought in the Revolutionary war, to be obliged to unsheathe
their swords against France; but he trusted before they rose, means
would be taken for putting the country into a state of defence.
The question was then taken on the Address as amended, and resolved in
the affirmative--yeas 62, nays 36, as follows:
YEAS--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Abraham Baldwin, David
Bard, James A. Bayard, Theophilus Bradbury, David Brooks,
John Chapman, Christopher G. Champlin, James Cochran,
Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana, James
Davenport, John Dennis, George Dent, George Ege, Thomas
Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman,
Nathaniel Freeman, jr., Albert Gallatin, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William
B. Grove, John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B.
Harrison, Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes,
Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera,
Samuel Lyman, James Machir, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan,
John Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Elisha R. Potter, John
Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman, Samuel Sewall,
William Shepard, Thompson J. Skinner, Thomas Sinnickson,
Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel Smith, William
Smith, (of Charleston,) George Thatcher, Richard Thomas,
Mark Thomson, Abram Trigg, John E. Van Allen, Peleg
Wadsworth, and John Williams.
NAYS--Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Samuel J.
Cabell, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton,
Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, William
Findlay, John Fowler, William B. Giles, James Gillespie,
Andrew Gregg, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Edward
Livingston, Matthew Locke, Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon,
Blair M'Clenachan, Joseph McDowell, Anthony New, Josiah
Parker, Samuel Sitgreaves, William Smith (of Pinckney
District), Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas
Sumter, John Swanwick, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.
_Resolved_, That Mr. SPEAKER, attended by the House, do present the said
Address; and that Mr. VENABLE, Mr. KITTERA, and Mr. NATHANIEL FREEMAN,
Jr., be a committee to wait on the President, to know when and where it
will be convenient for him to receive the same.
And then the House adjourned.
SATURDAY, June 3.
A report was received from the Commissioners of the Federal City, which
was ordered to be printed.
_Answer to the President's Speech._
Mr. VENABLE, from the committee appointed to wait on the PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES, to know when and where it will be convenient for him
to receive the Address of this House, in answer to his Speech to both
Houses of Congress, reported that the committee had, according to order,
waited on the PRESIDENT, who signified to them that it would be
convenient to him to receive the said Address, at twelve o'clock this
day, at his own house.
Mr. LYON said he yesterday voted against the appointment of a committee
to wait upon the PRESIDENT to know when and where he would receive their
Address, because he believed the PRESIDENT should always be ready to
receive important communications. He wished to make a motion, which was,
"that such members as do not choose to attend upon the PRESIDENT to
present the Answer to his Speech, shall be excused." He wished to be
understood. He thought the motion a reasonable one, because it proposed
to leave them at liberty to do as they pleased. And by the rules he saw,
he was obliged to attend, except sick, or leave of absence was obtained;
now, as he hoped not to be sick, he wished to put himself out of the
power of the Sergeant-at-Arms, if he did not attend. He had been told he
might stay behind without being noticed; but this was not enough for
him, as he was a timid man, and the House had the law on their side, as
he recollected something of a reprimand which had been given to Mr.
WHITNEY. [The SPEAKER reminded him it was out of order to censure the
proceedings of the House on any former occasion.] He said he stood
corrected, and proceeded.
He had spoken, he said, to both sides of the House (_as they were
called_) on the subject. One side dissuaded him from his motion, and
laughed at it; the other side did not wish to join him in it, because it
would look like disrespect to the person lately elected, who was not a
man of their choice; but he trusted our magnanimous PRESIDENT would,
with the enlightened yeomanry of America, despise such a boyish piece of
business. This, he said, was no new subject with him, he had long heard
the folly of the wise made a matter of wonder in this respect. It was
said this was not the time to abolish the custom; but this was the cant
used against every kind of reform. No better time could ever arrive, he
said, than this, which was the threshold of a new Presidency, at a time
when the man elected to the office was beloved and revered by his
fellow-citizens; he was as yet unused to vain adulation; he had spent a
great part of his life amongst a people whose love of a plainness of
manner forbids all pageantry; he would be glad to see the custom done
away. Were he acting in his own personal character, he perhaps might
conform to the idle usage, but acting as he was for eighty thousand
people, every father of a family in his district would condemn him for
such an act.
Mr. BLOUNT said he had seconded the motion of the gentleman from
Vermont, in order to give him an opportunity of stating his reasons for
making it, and not from any desire to rescind the rule.
Mr. DANA observed that the House would not wish to do violence to the
gentleman's feelings. It was true some of the most respectable men in
the United States had waited upon the PRESIDENT in a similar way, yet,
if the gentleman thought it would not comport with his own dignity to do
it, he hoped he would be excused.
The motion was put, and carried unanimously.
The SPEAKER informed the House the hour was arrived at which the
PRESIDENT had appointed to receive them.
Mr. MACON moved that the House do now adjourn. He should wait upon the
PRESIDENT; but it seemed to be understood that members were obliged to
go. He thought, however the power of the House might extend to bringing
a member into the House, there was no power to carry him out.
The motion was negatived without a division.
The House then withdrew, and waited upon the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES with the following Address:
_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 it is the earnest wish of our hearts that peace
may be maintained with the French Republic, and with all
the world, yet we will 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 any sentiments tending to
derogate from that confidence. Such sentiments, wherever
entertained, served to evince an imperfect knowledge of the
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.
Sensibly as we feel the wound which has been inflicted by
the transactions disclosed in your communications, yet we
think with you, that neither the honor nor the interest of
the United States forbid the repetition of advances for
preserving peace. We, therefore, receive with the utmost
satisfaction your information that a fresh attempt at
negotiation will be instituted; and we cherish the hope
that a mutual spirit of conciliation, and a disposition on
the part of France to compensate for any injuries which may
have been committed upon our neutral rights; and, on the
part of the United States, to place France on grounds
similar to those of other countries in their relation and
connection with us, if any inequalities shall be found to
exist, will produce an accommodation compatible with the
engagements, rights, duties and honor of the United States.
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 their 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.
To which the PRESIDENT returned the following answer:
_Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of
Representatives_:
I receive with great satisfaction your candid approbation
of the convention of Congress; and thank you for your
assurances that the interesting subjects recommended to
your consideration shall receive the attention which their
importance demands; and that your co-operation may be
expected in those measures which may appear necessary for
our security or peace.
The declaration of the Representatives of this nation, of
their satisfaction at my promotion to the first office in
the Government, and of their confidence in my sincere
endeavors to discharge the various duties of it, with
advantage to our common country, have excited my most
grateful sensibility.
I pray you, gentlemen, to believe, and to communicate such
assurance to our constituents, that no event which I can
foresee to be attainable by any exertions in the discharge
of my duties, can afford me so much cordial satisfaction as
to conduct a negotiation with the French Republic, to a
removal of prejudices, a correction of errors, a
dissipation of umbrages, an accommodation of all
differences, and a restoration of harmony and affection,
to the mutual satisfaction of both nations. And whenever
the legitimate organs of intercourse shall be restored, and
the real sentiments of the two Governments can be candidly
communicated to each other, although strongly impressed
with the necessity of collecting ourselves into a manly
posture of defence, I nevertheless entertain an encouraging
confidence that a mutual spirit of conciliation, a
disposition to compensate injuries, and accommodate each
other in all our relations and connections, will produce an
agreement to a treaty consistent with the engagements,
rights, duties, and honor of both nations.