Mr. R. WILLIAMS moved a recommitment of the bill. He said his objections
did not lie so much against the provisions respecting aliens, as to the
power proposed to be given to the PRESIDENT of issuing proclamations,
which are to be binding on the Judges and other officers with respect to
our own citizens. He would wish to designate every offence, and its
adequate punishment, as far as it could be done. In order to effect this
he made his motion.
Mr. SEWALL said, so much discussion took place on this subject
yesterday, that he did not expect any more to-day. The gentleman from
North Carolina seemed not to object to the powers given to the PRESIDENT
by the first and second sections of the bill, but he did not wish him to
have any officers to execute his powers. If the PRESIDENT could carry
the law into effect with his own hand, he might do so, but he objected
to his having any aid from his officers or the people at large. He did
not believe this kind of reasoning could have any effect in this House.
If the PRESIDENT is authorized to issue orders, he must be authorized to
require the aid of proper persons to execute them.
Mr. GALLATIN called for the yeas and nays upon this question, which,
being agreed to, he hoped this bill would be recommitted. He had no
doubt that the committee, by paying due attention to the subject,
instead of this general and vague bill, might report such rules and
regulations as would be proper to be adopted on this occasion. He
recollected seeing a bill from the Senate on this subject, in which
something of this kind was done; and though he did by no means approve
of that bill, yet it showed that the thing was not impossible. The
objection made against a recommittal of this bill, was, that it was
necessary to do something to provide means for securing and removing
alien enemies, which did not apply as an argument against the
recommitment of the bill. It was a good reason why a bill should be
passed, but no reason why it should pass in its present form. The
present bill, Mr. G. said, was grounded upon the principle that the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES shall have the power to do by
proclamation what ought only to be done by law.
In the first place, the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT is to determine
the period when foreigners not naturalized shall be liable to be
apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. Mr. G.
understood what was meant by apprehending alien enemies, and securing
them, but he did not understand the word "restraining;" it was vague, he
said, in its nature, and he did not know that it was a legal phrase. The
committee could themselves explain it. By the bill from the Senate, it
was intended to confine them within the place where they reside; perhaps
this was their idea. The bill goes further: they are not only liable to
be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed, but "to be subject,
with their goods and effects, to a just retaliation of any unusual
severities, restraints, and confiscations, which shall be suffered by
the citizens of the United States resident within the territory of the
hostile nation or Government, and inflicted by their authority."
Mr. G. wished to have explained what was meant by "unusual severities."
They must mean something more than confiscations--than apprehending,
restraining, or removing--because they are specifically provided for. He
wished, therefore, to know what these unusual severities were which,
upon our own ideas of Government, we could retaliate? If any other
severities besides those which are here enumerated were to be inflicted
upon our citizens in France, he thought it would be disgraceful to that
country, and he could not believe that either propriety or justice would
warrant us committing a disgraceful act against the citizens of another
nation, because that nation had committed a disgraceful act upon our
citizens in their country.
[Mr. SEWALL rose to explain, but the SPEAKER said, the rule which
declares no member shall speak more than once to a question would not
permit him.]
Mr. G. did not know whether these words "unusual severities" were not
intended to be held _in terrorem_ over the conduct of France. If so, he
did not think it a very creditable proceeding. But he believed that part
of the bill perfectly useless, for two reasons: First, it is extremely
doubtful whether the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES could
constitutionally exercise those "unusual severities," which this bill
says he may exercise; and with respect to confiscation, it was explained
by a subsequent part of the bill to be only a sequestration till the
next meeting of Congress, and he therefore conceived this part of the
bill to be of no use, except to train our code of law in a manner
expressly contrary to the spirit of our constitution, which expressly
declares no "cruel or unusual punishments" shall be inflicted.
But, supposing the words only held out _in terrorem_, he wished to know
how they would apply, whether it was to make a part of our permanent
law, whether it is suited for the present time only. If it were not to
make a part of our permanent system--and he thought no gentleman would
say it ought--then it must be on account of our present situation. As to
our present situation, in relation to any thing which may befall our
citizens in France, he would say the words are useless, and this for a
plain reason; for, out of the natives of France in this country,
ninety-nine out of an hundred are of that description of persons whom
the French call emigrants, and it is therefore perfectly immaterial to
the French nation how they are treated; so that the bill could operate
only on a dozen or two of persons of a different description who may be
in this country.
In the next place, with respect to confiscations, which by the next
clause are so limited as to become sequestrations, it would be wrong to
give this power to the PRESIDENT. An article is inserted in the British
Treaty expressly to declare that sequestrations are impolitic and unjust
in every case, and providing against them. He admitted that it might be
necessary to resort to them on some occasions, because he believed there
might be cases where sequestration would be necessary, by way of
indemnification; but what he insisted on was, that it ought to be done
by law, and not by the PRESIDENT. On a former occasion, when the
question of sequestration was before Congress, the power was not
proposed to be left at large with the PRESIDENT, but was to be regulated
by law.
There was another circumstance which showed how easy a thing it would be
to pass a law themselves, instead of leaving every regulation relative
to this subject with the PRESIDENT. About the middle of the second
section it is said, "where no treaty exists, a reasonable time shall be
allowed, which shall be ascertained and declared by the PRESIDENT, or by
the Congress of the United States." This was a kind of double
legislation which was new to him. He wished to know what difficulty
there would have been in defining the time here referred to in this
bill? It appeared to him the right and proper time to do it. From the
moment that the resolution came before the House, he was ready to
acknowledge that the power of regulating this business was in the power
of Government, as it was a power possessed by every nation, which it had
a right to exercise for its own security; but it ought to be exercised
according to law. In some countries, indeed, this power is vested in the
Executive. In France, he believed, it was wholly so, and in England in a
great degree; but in this country he trusted that this House would be of
opinion that Congress is the proper body to regulate so important a
measure.
But the evil, Mr. G. said, did not stop here, it extended to all the
citizens of the United States. The object of the last section provides
that justices, judges, marshals, sheriffs, and the people at large shall
perform a duty which is undefined. But the gentleman from Massachusetts
says this is right, because the power given to the Executive by this
bill is also undefined. This is the foundation of all the objection made
to this bill; it is to the want of legislation in it, which leaves not
only alien enemies, but citizens of the United States, to the will of
the PRESIDENT.
But he would go farther, and say it is impossible to define the duties
of our own citizens, though the two first sections of the bill should be
left at large as they are. By the present bill, the duties of justices,
&c., are to be regulated by the Proclamation of the PRESIDENT. He could
conceive that the House might take into consideration the nature of the
powers vested in the PRESIDENT, and inquire what will be the duties
required to be performed by the several officers of the Government to
carry into effect those powers. Those powers are to apprehend, restrain,
secure, and remove alien enemies, and to sequester their property. As to
the removal of aliens, he could not see what justices and judges had to
do with it; but if they had any thing to do with it, Congress ought to
say what. They might say what should be the duties of judges or
justices, or of Executive officers in the several cases which may be
likely to occur, instead of leaving the thing wholly at large.
The last part of the 3d section, he said, was as objectionable as any
other. It defines the crime in two words, "harboring and concealing,"
and the penalty, if found guilty of this vague and uncertain charge, is
imprisonment not exceeding seven years, and a fine not exceeding one
thousand dollars. So that if a person be found guilty of harboring and
concealing an alien enemy, however trifling the expense may be, his
punishment will be left wholly to the discretion of the court. The only
power of the jury will be to decide on the fact; and if a citizen has
harbored for one night, however undesignedly, an alien enemy, he must be
found guilty, leaving it altogether to the court to judge of the
criminality of the act, and to affix the degree of punishment. He
thought this part of the law ought to be better defined. It ought to
distinguish between cases of misdemeanor and those which might arise
from ignorance, and in which no offence at all might exist. He hoped,
therefore, the bill would be recommitted.
The question on recommitting the bill was put and carried--46 to 44. The
yeas and nays were as follow,
YEAS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemuel Benton, Thomas
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Stephen Bullock,
Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William Charles Cole
Claiborne, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson,
George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, John Fowler, Albert
Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg, William Barry
Grove, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew
Locke, Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New,
Josiah Parker, John Read, William Smith, Richard Sprigg,
jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram Trigg, John
Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham
Venable, and Robert Williams.
NAYS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
A. Bayard, David Brooks, Christopher G. Champlin, John
Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William Craik, Samuel
W. Dana, John Dennis, William Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel
Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, Robert Goodloe Harper,
Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James
H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, William
Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis,
James Schureman, Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, George
Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, Thomas
Tillinghast, John E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John
Williams.
Mr. SEWALL, Mr. DANA, Mr. IMLAY, Mr. S. SMITH, Mr. JOSIAH PARKER, Mr.
BROOKS, and Mr. RUTLEDGE, composed the committee.
FRIDAY, May 25.
_Instructions to Armed Vessels._
Mr. SEWALL, from the Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the
Defence of the Country, to whom was referred Mr. SITGREAVES' resolutions
for instructing the commanders of our public and private armed vessels,
and also the bill from the Senate for the further protection of the
commerce and coast of the United States, reported it as the opinion of
that committee that the bill from the Senate ought to be agreed to by
the House.
The report was twice read, and ordered to be committed to a Committee of
the Whole.
On the SPEAKER'S asking for what day this bill should be made the order,
Monday, to-morrow, and to-day, were named.
The question was first taken on Monday, and negatived--43 to 37.
The question was then put upon to-morrow.
Mr. GALLATIN hoped this bill would be made the order for to-morrow, as
the bill had only been printed this morning, and the report but this
moment made. It would be a very extraordinary proceeding to make this
very important bill the order for this day.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, this was a very extraordinary case. When we learn
every day that our vessels are taken by the French cruisers, without any
cause whatever, it is necessary to act with decision. This day had been
spent on a very trifling business compared with this, and he hoped the
House would sit until this bill was gone through.
Mr. MCDOWELL hoped this bill would be made the order for to-morrow, as
it had only been laid upon the table this morning, and few gentlemen had
yet turned their attention to it. Besides, the usual hour of adjournment
is arrived, and he hoped gentlemen would not insist upon hurrying so
important a bill through the House in this manner. The gentleman from
New York remarked that the House had been engaged in trifling business
all the day; but, he observed that gentleman sat very contentedly under
the discussion, though he now seems so desirous of expediting this
business.
Mr. SEWALL was impressed with the necessity of passing this bill as soon
as possible. If the committee had thought they might with propriety have
taken time to deliberate upon this subject, they would not have made
this report, but have taken into consideration the resolution which had
been referred to them with this bill; but finding it necessary that our
armed vessels should receive their instructions immediately, that they
may go out and take the vessels on the coast, or drive them off, they
made this report, intending hereafter to report farther upon the
subject. But the present measures they thought necessary, from the
peculiarity of our present situation; the dangers attending which the
people without seemed to be fully persuaded of. And as this subject had
been fully discussed on the resolutions which had been before the House,
he hoped the bill would be immediately taken up; as he wished to provide
without delay for the defence of our coast as far as our force would
permit.
Mr. MACON said, it was very extraordinary indeed, that gentlemen should
wish to hurry this bill through the House in the way proposed. It
appeared as if they were afraid of any thing coming from our
Commissioners before they got the country in war. Being now the usual
hour of adjournment, it could not be expected that if the House went
into this bill, that any debate could take place. Indeed, gentlemen
seemed to wish to prevent debate as much as possible; a few days ago,
they had got a rule passed that no person should speak more than once to
any question, and now by moving to go into a Committee of the Whole, at
the hour of adjournment, they wish to prevent them from speaking once,
and that upon a bill which will certainly place the country in a state
of war. He thought a regard to decency ought to prevent gentlemen from
pushing this motion.
Mr. LYON called upon gentlemen to consider the importance of this bill.
He considered it as a declaration of war as it now stands, and he hoped
time would be given to consider whether some amendment could not be
introduced into it, so as to prevent its being so considered. At
present, he believed, it was directly in the face of the laws of
nations. He was desirous of avoiding war if possible. His constituents
also wished it. He had received at least two hundred letters requesting
him to do all in his power to prevent it. Indeed, he was afraid of the
consequences of war; he was afraid it might produce even a dissolution
of the present Government.
Mr. BRENT was proceeding to express his astonishment at the conduct of
gentlemen in wishing to press so important a subject upon the House,
while members were impatient to adjourn, when,
Mr. SEWALL rose and withdrew His motion, and the bill was made the order
of the day for to-morrow.
SATURDAY, May 26.
_Protection of Commerce._
Mr. SEWALL called for the order of the day on the bill from the Senate
for the more effectual protection of the commerce and coasts of the
United States; and the House accordingly resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole on the said bill, Mr. DENT in the chair. The bill
having been read,[34]
Mr. MACON rose and observed, that he wished to amend both the bill and
the preamble to it, and desired the Chairman to say which it would be in
order to move first. The Chairman having answered that it would be most
regular first to amend the bill, and then the preamble could be made
conformable to it, Mr. MACON moved to strike out the word "such," in the
enacting clause (the effect of which was to make the instructions given
to the commanders of our vessels general against all cruisers, as well
as against the French.) His reason for making the motion was, that if
this bill must pass, it might be general against all nations who commit
depredations upon our commerce, for it was a fact well known that France
is not the only nation which does this. It was his opinion, that before
any measure of this kind was taken, we ought to know the result of our
mission in France; for, however slender our expectations of an
accommodation may be, still those expectations ought not to be
abandoned, until we are certain our Commissioners have left Paris,
without being able to accomplish their mission.
Mr. M. believed it could not be doubted by any one, that, if we had
thought a state of war preferable to the state in which we had been
placed for some time back, we had had sufficient provocation from more
than one nation to have declared war long ago. Indeed he looked upon
this bill as a declaration of war in substance; he saw that this was the
situation to which measures were progressing, but he could not have
expected that gentlemen would have proposed a measure of this kind
whilst our Commissioners were yet in Paris. It was his opinion, however,
that, disagreeable as our present situation may be, it is much
preferable to a state of war; for, notwithstanding all the losses which
our merchants have sustained, our trade and our revenue are continually
increasing.
In the part of the country from whence he came, Mr. M. said, the price
of produce is now higher than it has been for some time past. But, in
the case of war, it would fall, of course.
Notwithstanding all the evils which he was sensible must attend on a
state of war, when he found our Commissioners had left France, and no
hope of accommodation remained, he should not hesitate to join gentlemen
in any measures which shall be necessary to meet a state of war.
Mr. MCDOWELL said, the gentleman from South Carolina had dwelt much upon
the inconsistency of the present motion. He himself could not see any in
it. He had insinuated that the mover and seconder of it must be blinded
by prejudice and governed by passion; that, instead of going to war with
one nation, it would be going to war with three, and that before we
remonstrate with them, or request them to desist from their practices;
that we have been attempting to get redress from France for eighteen
months past without effect, but that no attempt has been made to
negotiate with England or Spain on the subject of their depredations. In
this the gentleman from South Carolina was certainly mistaken. He knew
we had lately concluded a treaty with England, which had been constantly
violated; and what faith, Mr. McD. asked, could be placed in a nation
which one day makes a treaty, and the next violates it? The same remark
would apply to Spain, so far as they have depredated upon our commerce.
Mr. McD. said, he had all along declared himself opposed to war, or to
any measures which would lead to it, and he still held the same opinion.
He had no prejudice against or in favor of any nation whatever, except
so far as their conduct towards this country was friendly or otherwise;
and he could see no reason for giving instructions to the commanders of
our vessels to seize and bring in the vessels of one country which may
commit depredations upon our commerce, and not those of another. He was
himself opposed to the bill altogether; but, if it must pass, he wished
to make it contain as little mischief as possible, and he thought by
striking out the word "such," and by that means making it general,
France could not take the same offence at it; as the bill now stood, it
was tantamount to a declaration of war.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS was in hopes, when the gentleman from North Carolina
first made his motion, that the opposition which he had heretofore shown
was done away, and that the bill was only objected to because it was not
general; but now it appears that gentlemen are opposed to the bill
altogether. He had hoped when gentlemen had reflected upon what had
taken place, even within our own jurisdiction, that there would not have
been a single dissenting voice in the committee. Gentlemen allege that
this measure will lead to war; but he would ask whether other neutral
nations had not taken measures fully as strong as this, without
producing war? For his part, he supposed it might have been better if
this country had gone into this system of defending our commerce. He was
opposed to it for a considerable time. He was in hopes of a
reconciliation taking place; but he had been deceived from time to time,
and, instead of any appearance of accommodation, every day brought
information which convinced him that, except we meant to submit
altogether, we must defend ourselves.
This being the case, he asked gentlemen which they would choose? Whether
they would suffer themselves to come under the power of the French
nation, or repel force by force? He did not believe any gentleman would
say we ought not to embrace the latter.
At a time when the enemy's vessels are within our own jurisdiction, are
we to withhold the necessary instructions to the commanders of our
vessels? He hoped not. Not that he would go hastily into war; but have
we not, he asked, been in war for a long time?--a war on one side, and
total submission on the other. Yet the House are now called upon to
postpone the consideration of this question, lest it should produce war.
The only way to prevent a war, he believed, was to be prepared to meet
it. If spirited measures had been taken during the extraordinary session
of Congress, he believed it might have prevented the loss of property to
the amount of twenty millions of dollars, and the necessity of a war.
But Congress had gone on, from time to time, saying, we will wait for
this, that, and the other, and it will, in all probability, prevent war.
This conduct had produced the greatest difficulties, and yet gentlemen
wish to go further in the same course. The enemy's vessels, he
understood, are within the Capes, and he supposed gentlemen would wait
till they came up to the city, before they would take any means to
oppose them. He believed it was high time to say, "We will not submit,"
and to prepare to repel the repeated aggressions of our enemy.
Mr. SHEPARD observed, that much had been said on this bill, and on the
resolutions on the same subject, which were referred to the same
committee. Members differed in opinion very materially as to the proper
mode of conducting our affairs at this important crisis; but he could
see no reason for deferring vigorous measures any longer, as he did not
see the least ground of hope for a reconciliation; it was, therefore,
idle to dispute about it.
But gentlemen decline taking this measure, because they are apprehensive
it will irritate the French nation. Mr. S. believed this country could
do nothing to alter the conduct of the French nation towards us, except
it were by giving them money. There could be no doubt, he said, but the
French meant to subjugate this Government, and to lay the United States
under contribution. Every newspaper told them this; yet some gentlemen
seem opposed to every thing intended to resist their doings, or even to
tell them they have done wrong. For his part, he believed that nation
had been boiling over with madness for two years past, and that they are
totally void of every virtue.
They have told us, said Mr. S., in plain terms, they mean to subjugate
us. They say they have a strong party in this country, and that they
understand diplomatic agency as well as any other nation. This he
believed, as he saw they had effectually used that power in subduing
every country in Europe that they had any thing to do with, except
Great Britain, and he feared they would succeed against her. No man, he
said, disliked war more than him; but, he believed, the best way of
preserving ourselves from it, was to take measures to oppose a power
which has so unjustly treated us. We ought not, he said, to trifle any
longer, but take new ground. The more insults we submit to, the more we
shall have. He could not suppose gentlemen would be willing to wait till
all our vessels are taken and our Government overcome, before they will
make resistance. If we meant to preserve our independence, he believed
resistance ought now to be made. It is time, said he, to tell the French
nation, "we will not submit any longer." This was the way we gained our
independence, and this must be the way by which we must keep it. He
hoped, therefore, the bill would pass as it stands.
Mr. OTIS said, though he had sufficient confidence in the committee to
induce him to believe that the present motion cannot succeed, yet he
could not forbear to expostulate with gentlemen on the impropriety of
any measures which should have a tendency to give unnecessary offence to
other nations, besides that against which we are called upon to act. To
increase our foes would only be to aggravate our misfortunes. Mr. O.
hoped and believed this country would be able to defend itself singly
and alone; but, supposing, as gentlemen agree to be true, that we are on
the eve of a war, would it not be highly impolitic to irritate a power
whose assistance we may find very acceptable in the course of a few
months against a common enemy? He hoped it would never be necessary to
seek for this assistance, though it is possible, if we are driven into
war with our old friends, that we may willingly avail ourselves of the
aid of our old enemies; for, though we had suffered injuries from more
nations than one, yet he agreed with our Envoys in the sentiment that,
if France should attack us, we must seek the best means of defence; and
may find it more prudent to forgive than to provoke, by harsh measures,
a nation which may aid in our defence.
Mr. O. said, if, after injuries had been committed against us by Great
Britain and Spain, of the same nature with those which have been heaped
upon us by France, and those nations, like her, had refused to hear us,
or to do us justice, he would support the same measures against them and
vindicate our national character and honor. But though he should by no
means attempt to extenuate the conduct of Great Britain or Spain, he
believed he might say that the depredations committed by those powers
subsequent to their treaties, have been under color, at least, of the
laws of nations. But the difference in the degrees of these
depredations, in comparison with those of the French Republic, cannot be
better ascertained than by the rates of insurance paid as a security
against them respectively.
Insurance may be effected against the Spanish and British for five per
cent., whilst it cannot be procured against the French for less than
twenty-five or thirty per cent. And though the British cruisers do, in
some cases, take our vessels, in others they afford them protection.
Indeed, he believed, the number of our vessels rescued from the fangs of
the French, and restored to us by the British, greatly exceed in value
the amount of those which have been taken from us by them since their
treaty. They have saved to Philadelphia about a half a million of
dollars. With respect to Spain, he believed her disposition towards us
to be friendly, and that an injury offered by them to us was done at the
instigation of another country. Again, we have received, under the late
treaty with Great Britain, £100,000 sterling for damages sustained by
her depredations, and from Spain $300,000 have been awarded on the same
account. So that no comparison could possibly be made between the
treatment we experienced from France and those countries. She makes no
treaties--she pays no compensations.
Mr. KITTERA rose to observe, that one of the articles in our treaties
with Great Britain and Spain, stipulates that no reprisals shall be
authorized by either country until application shall be made to the
other, which he thought would be a sufficient reason for negativing the
amendment. He believed it would be proper to adopt an additional rule to
those already established for the government of the House, viz: that
when French privateers come within our own ports and take our vessels, a
long debate shall not take place upon a bill to instruct the commanders
of our vessels to make reprisals.
Mr. GALLATIN, in reply to the last observation of Mr. KITTERA, said
that, if his assertion was true, that the French privateers were
committing depredations within our own ports, or any where within our
jurisdiction, it was no reason why this bill should pass immediately;
for, without the bill, the PRESIDENT had full power to apply the armed
vessels, or any other force at his disposal, in repelling the outrage.
As to the amendment, he would not pretend to say that it was very
essential; but, he supposed, the reason for moving it was this: It was
asserted that this bill was not a declaration of war, but only a kind of
special reprisal authorized by the law of nations; it was, therefore,
thought it would be proper to make it a general regulation. If it was
intended to be a declaration of war, it would be extremely wrong to make
two enemies instead of one. If it was to be passed with that intention,
it would be wrong to adopt the amendment; but he supposed it was
introduced on the ground assumed by the supporters of the bill, that the
measures proposed might be entered into without violating the laws of
nations, and consistently with a state of peace.
The question was put and negatived, there being only 22 for it.