Mr. BRENT said he voted against the amendment offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina, because he apprehended its effects would be to
involve us in war with two countries instead of one. The amendment of
the gentleman from North Carolina was to strike out the word _such_ in
the bill, in which instance the commanders of our armed vessels would
have been directed by the PRESIDENT to seize and take the vessels of any
nations that shall have committed, or are found hovering on our coast
for the purpose of committing, depredations on the commerce of the
United States. As the bill now stands, it will only apply to French
depredations; if amended as proposed, it would have applied to Great
Britain, or any other country whose subjects or citizens are unlawfully
spoliating our commerce--as he believed that the laws of nations and the
stipulations of treaties had been violated in relation to us, not only
by the French, but the British also, he considered the tendency of this
amendment might be to involve us in war with Great Britain, and he did
not wish to increase the number of foes with whom we were to engage in
hostility. That he was accurate in his opinion that the armed vessels of
Great Britain were at this time in the practice of violating our neutral
rights, seemed to be acknowledged by others, and particularly by the
member from Massachusetts, (Mr. OTIS,) who had opposed the amendment,
with a suggestion that in the event of an open rupture with France, it
might be expedient for us to call in the aid of England, and, supposing
the amendment might have a tendency to create irritation between that
country and this, it was improper that at this crisis it should be
adopted. This reasoning of the gentleman from Massachusetts could only
be derived from an admission that Great Britain did not at this time
respect our neutral rights; for, as the amendment only authorized the
seizure of vessels spoliating our lawful commerce, there could be no
danger that such a regulation would involve us in war, or produce a
coolness with Great Britain, without a previous acknowledgment that her
armed vessels were illegally depredating our commerce, and consequently
would be affected by the general provision of the amendment, which,
instead of confining our reprisals to French, extended it to vessels of
all nations thus acting illegally in relation to ours.
Though, Mr. BRENT said, he was not, under any circumstances, like the
gentleman from Massachusetts, for embarking our destiny with that of
Great Britain in her present contest with France; though he should
consider such an event as one of the most deplorable which could befall
the United States, yet he was willing and even studious to preserve
peace with Great Britain, notwithstanding the many injuries we had
received from that quarter; on the same principle, from the same desire
to preserve the tranquillity of His country, he was opposed to the bill
itself. He considered this bill as perhaps determining the question,
whether or not there should remain a possibility of reconciling our
differences with the French Republic. He considered this bill as
probably dispelling every ray of hope which yet remained of a
reconciliation taking place, and he hoped gentlemen would pause a moment
before they adopted a measure so serious and awful. He did not see that
we were at present exposed to any greater danger, or our commerce to any
great extent to ravages more considerable than we had experienced for
some time past.
He acknowledged that our commerce had received great and repeated
injuries from France; that it had long felt their injuries and still
continued to suffer; yet, under all these circumstances, a disposition
has been constantly evinced, and he believed was still sincerely
cherished by the great mass of our people, that recourse should not be
had to the last fatal resort, till every mode of amicable negotiation
had been attempted, and every rational hope of a peaceable adjustment of
our complaints was exhausted. From these impressions, and at a period
when our commerce was suffering their unjust depredations, we had sent
Commissioners to the French nation; and was it proper, until we were
certainly advised that our Commissioners had left France, or that every
hope of their effecting the object of their mission was to be abandoned,
to precipitate a measure, the probable effect of which would be to
destroy all prospect of reconciliation, even if, at the present moment,
our Commissioners should be engaged in a treaty? Mr. B. said, that
neither the despatches which we had received from our Commissioners, nor
any other intelligence from abroad, that he was acquainted with,
compelled a belief that every possibility of negotiation was past; on
the contrary, it was perhaps strictly within the bounds of probability,
that, when the Government of France discovered an inflexible disposition
on our part not to accede to terms dishonorable or disadvantageous,
others of a less exceptionable nature would be, and perhaps before this
have been, proposed. But, in every event, what is now a matter of
conjecture, a few weeks will reduce to certainty; a few weeks must bring
us certain and decisive accounts from Europe, and he was for postponing
all deliberation respecting the very delicate subject under
consideration till this intelligence arrived. At present, he believed it
would be premature and inexpedient to adopt the proposed measures, and
should therefore refuse to give them his assent.
The question on the bill going to a third reading, was taken by yeas and
nays, and stood--51 to 39.
The bill having been determined to be read a third time, the usual
question was put by the SPEAKER, "For what day shall it be made the
order?" Monday and to-day were answered.
Mr. GALLATIN hoped Monday would be the day. He did not see the necessity
for passing the bill to-day. But it was said, the House ought not to
exercise their discretion upon this subject, because French privateers
are within our Capes. To this, he replied, that if there was any
invasion of our jurisdiction, and depredations committed within it, the
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES had power to repel them without this law.
He knew he had it, because the power is expressly given to him in the
law respecting the revenue cutters; and he knew the power had been used
by him when a vessel, taken by a privateer within our jurisdiction, had
been restored to the owner by the PRESIDENT. He agreed with the
gentleman from Delaware, that the PRESIDENT had not power to employ an
armed force to make reprisals of vessels within our jurisdiction which
may have taken vessels belonging to the United States.
Besides, he understood that the Senate were not in session to-day, and
therefore the bill, if passed to-day, could not go any sooner to the
Senate than if it passed on Monday. If, therefore, it could not hasten
the final passage of the bill by going to the Senate to-day, he wished
to know what other reason could be given for so hasty a proceeding? He
saw none. He saw one reason for not passing it. Every hour might be
expected to bring despatches from our Ministers. It was known that a
vessel had arrived from France which is said to have brought accounts up
to the 8th of April. Perhaps she may bring information that would
produce unanimity of opinion as to the propriety of passing this bill.
Mr. J. PARKER said, as it could make no difference whether this bill
passed to-day or on Monday, he should be in favor of Monday, as it is
possible the vessel which had been mentioned might bring some advices
from our Envoys, though he expected nothing more favorable from that
quarter than had been already received. As it was said a French
privateer was within our boundary, it was probable she might commit some
depredation which might be heard of before Monday, which would convince
every one of the necessity of passing this bill.
Mr. OTIS saw no reason for delaying the passage of this bill till
Monday, arising from the possibility of the vessel, which was said to
have arrived from France, having brought any news; because, if
information should be received from our Commissioners which would give a
different aspect to our affairs, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
could refrain from giving these instructions. If this bill was passed
to-day, it might be reported to the Senate on Monday morning; but if it
was postponed till Monday, gentlemen might come with fresh motions and
speeches, and produce a further delay.
Mr. DAVIS hoped the passage of this bill would not be insisted upon
to-day. This subject had but very lately been referred to a select
committee, and they had made an expeditious report. He had just given
his vote in favor of the bill's passing to a third reading; but if,
contrary to the usage of the House, he should be called upon to vote on
the passage of the bill to-day, he should vote against it.
Mr. VARNUM said, since the bill would become a law as soon if passed on
Monday, as to-day, he could not see why the motion was objected to. This
question, Mr. V. said, was of the greatest importance, as it went to
plunging the country into a war from which it might not be extricated
for many years to come. Yet gentlemen act as if they were afraid
intelligence should be received before this bill becomes a law, which
shall make it unnecessary. Indeed, it appeared to him, that there are
certain gentlemen in the House who are determined to have a war with
France, at any rate.
Mr. V. said, it had been complained that an allusion had been made to
the coffee-house books of this city, respecting certain information from
France; he did not think that was more out of order, than what was heard
one day about French privateers having landed men on the coast--another,
about their being in our harbors, and taking our vessels from thence.
All which stories, he had no doubt, were raised to influence the votes
of members of this House. The public would doubtless see them in this
light.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, as the gentleman last up appeared to have some
doubt as to the fact of a French privateer's being within the bay of
Delaware, he would read the information lately given by a Captain Canby,
on oath, at the office of the Secretary of State. [This certificate has
appeared in the papers: it speaks of having seen a French privateer four
miles within the bay.] He would add, that with respect to the vessel
arrived from Bordeaux to-day, she brings information that our
Commissioners were yet in Paris, but not received by the Directory. She
left Bordeaux the 8th April, so that the hope of receiving any favorable
news by her could not be indulged. Mr. S. observed, that this bill was
intended to meet a case of emergency, and it was proper to get it passed
as soon as possible. If he saw it passed to-day, he should be sure there
could be no difficulty about it next week; but, if it was postponed till
Monday, he should be afraid of further time being spent upon it. The
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. DAVIS) had already said, it would not be
proper to pass this bill while our Envoys are in Paris; therefore,
though the question were postponed till Monday, his vote could not be
expected. He, therefore, saw no reason for the delay.
The question on the bill's being read a third time on Monday, was put
and negatived, 49 to 41. The question on reading it a third time to-day,
was then put and carried.
The bill was accordingly read the third time and passed by yeas 50, nays
40, as follows:
YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Bailey Bartlett, James
A. Bayard, David Brooks, Stephen Bullock, Christopher G.
Champlin, John Chapman, James Cochran, Joshua Coit, William
Craik, Samuel W. Dana, John Dennis, George Dent, William
Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster,
Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn, Chauncey Goodrich, Roger
Griswold, William Barry Grove, Robert Goodloe Harper,
Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James
H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Samuel Lyman, James Machir,
William Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison
G. Otis, Josiah Parker, John Read, 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.
NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Lemue Benton, Thos.
Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Thomas
Claiborne, William Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton,
Thomas T. Davis, John Dawson, Lucas Elmendorph, John
Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew Gregg,
John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N. Havens,
Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke,
Matthew Lyon, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph
McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New, William Smith,
Richard Sprigg, jr., Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Abram
Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum,
Abraham Venable, and Robert Williams.
MONDAY, May 28.
_Marine Corps._
Mr. SEWALL called for the order of the day on the report of the
Committee for the Protection of Commerce and the Defence of the Country,
proposing an arrangement, in one corps, of the marines, who are or shall
be engaged in the service of the United States, and by annexing them to
the existing Military Establishment, to consist of a major and suitable
commissioned and non-commissioned officers, 500 privates, and the
necessary musicians.
Mr. GALLATIN wished the committee who made this report, would inform the
House how many men would be wanted on board the several armed vessels of
the United States.
Mr. J. PARKER said the United States have three frigates, twelve ships,
and ten galleys. The two 44 gun frigates will require fifty marines
each; one of 36 will need 48 men; two vessels of 22 guns each, will want
25 each; two vessels of 20 guns will require the same number; eight
vessels of 16 guns each will need 20 men each; and ten galleys each 10
men, making in the whole 518, exclusive of sergeants and music. There
will be no additional expense attending the change except the pay of a
major, and it would be much more convenient to be thus organized, than
to remain as at present.
Mr. VARNUM wished to know whether these men could ever be together so as
to enable the commanding officer of a battalion to discipline the corps.
He believed they would be separate in the different vessels, and that
there would be no means of bringing them together for the purpose.
Besides, those marines who have engaged in the service, have engaged to
serve on board ship, and not on land, so that this law would have a
retrospective effect on those men, now, to say they should serve both on
sea and land.
Mr. SEWALL could not say that these marines could be brought together to
be disciplined; but the major would superintend the whole, hear
complaints, and attend to the recruiting service. He would also have to
attend to the fortifications, and take a great deal of trouble from the
War office. The men would also sometimes be on shore, and without some
officer is appointed, they would be solely under the care of the
lieutenant. He believed, upon the whole, much advantage and economy
would be derived from it.
The question being put upon the report, it was agreed to--54 votes being
for it.
The committee then rose, and the House agreed to the report, after a few
observations from Mr. GALLATIN, hoping that, when the bill was brought
in, this corps of marines would not be made a permanent part of the
Military Establishment; but only have the same duration with the laws
for equipping and keeping in employment the armed vessels.
FRIDAY, June 1.
_Intercourse with France._
The bill for suspending the commercial intercourse between the United
States and the French Republic, was read the third time; and, after the
blanks were filled,
Mr. GALLATIN inquired, whether there was not a mistake in the third
section of the bill in that part which related to foreigners. The bill,
as it stands, would affect vessels belonging to foreigners residing
here. He proposed a change in the phraseology.
Mr. SEWALL had no objection to the alteration, and he supposed it might
be made by general consent, without recommitting the bill.
Consent was granted, and the alteration made.