The fourth section of the bill to suspend this intercourse being under
consideration,
Mr. NICHOLAS said, there are some words in this section [in italics]
which he did not understand, and if he could not get an explanation of
them in any other way, he would move to strike them out. They are not in
the former law; and they are very extensive. They go to this, that a man
in authority in one of these islands, be his authority as limited as it
may, may make an agreement on the subject of intercourse different from
what he is authorized to do by the Republic of France, and, in that
case, the island is to be open for our commerce. He wished for some
information on this subject.
Mr. S. SMITH understood, that the reason why these words had been
introduced into the bill was, in order to meet the case of
Hispaniola.[38] It was well known that a new agent had succeeded
Hedouville there; that he has published a proclamation, stating, that
notwithstanding the decree of the French Republic, which directs the
seizure of all American vessels and their cargoes, whenever there shall
be found on board an article of British manufacture, he was authorized
to suspend that decree so far as relates to vessels coming to that
island. And, Mr. S. said, if any agent in the West Indies could give
assurances that no capture should take place from the island of which
he is Governor, then the PRESIDENT shall be authorized to open our
commerce with that Island. It was on this ground that he had given his
consent to this clause of the bill.
Mr. NICHOLAS said, if the clause were intended to meet the case to which
the gentleman had alluded, the agent had his powers from the French
Government, and whatever he did must be considered as done by that
Government, until his power shall be revoked; but as the clause stood,
it would authorize the PRESIDENT to treat with usurpers; not merely with
persons in power, but with any persons having momentary possession of a
place, and he could not agree to such a principle. Why, asked Mr. N.,
was this law originally passed? Was it not an order to bring France to
terms by distressing her islands? Suppose France should say to one of
her agents in the West Indies, "You shall be authorized to make a
stipulation with the United States to take off the suspension of
intercourse with respect to your Island." Would not this be to
acknowledge that there our regulation pinched her? And would not the
opening of intercourse with such a place, by relieving the distresses of
France, defeat the original intention of the law? [Mr. HARPER asked if
there was any question before the committee?] Mr. N. said he would make
one by moving to strike out this section. A clause of this kind, Mr. N.
said, held out an invitation to agents to abandon their country, and to
set up Governments of their own. If it were to operate only in a partial
manner, for the relief of such of the French islands as are so far
distressed as that the Government should be willing to restrain her
depredations, so far as related to those particular places, where will
be the efficiency of the law afterwards? It will only prove a burden
upon our own citizens, without injuring France. If we are to have a free
trade with the West Indies, why deprive tobacco planters of going
immediately to the country where the article is consumed, instead of
going through Spain, and by other circuitous routes? But the other
aspect of the bill, Mr. N. said, was the most extraordinary and
exceptionable he ever saw. It authorized the PRESIDENT to treat with
persons "claiming authority." This provision may produce consequences
the most fatal. Suppose any of the islands make a separate negotiation
with this country; what will be the effect of our having thus enticed
them to disobey their Government? Will this Government not be chargeable
with having assisted in detaching such a colony from its Government? And
if so, could any thing afford a more lasting cause for war than an act
of this kind? If there be any disposition in the French Government to
treat, (which, however, the Secretary of State denies,) a conduct of
this kind would effectually root it out, and there could be no
treaty--no peace between the two countries--for years to come. If
gentlemen, therefore, can give no better explanation of this clause
than has already been given, he hoped it would be stricken out.
Mr. OTIS did not believe that a more unjustifiable jealousy ever entered
the heated imagination of the gentleman from Virginia, than that which
occupies it at this moment. He seems to think that this section of the
bill is intended only to encourage usurpation and rebellion, whereas a
slight attention should convince him, that when any one of the French
islands or dependencies revolt and declare for independence, neither the
law passed the last session nor this bill will apply to such a case. In
such an event, there is nothing in the existing laws to prevent our
carrying on a free trade with such revolted island. If attention be paid
to the first section of the bill, it will be seen to apply only to such
places as are under the acknowledged government of France; and the
moment a place is no longer under her government, both the existing law
and this section become null with respect to that place, and a new
relation would be created which would be regulated under the law of
nations. If a rebellion of this kind should break out, it would become a
question to what extent we ought to carry on commerce with the
rebellious place; and we should then be governed by existing
circumstances. If we should be at war with France, we should doubtless,
said Mr. O., avail ourselves of the trade to its full extent, without
respect to her wishes; but if an accommodation of differences should be
effected, and the mother country should prohibit all trade with the
revolters, it is not presumable that this Government would sanction any
commerce that would provoke a war, or protect adventurers from the
seizure and confiscation of their property.
But it is not enough, observed Mr. O., to say that this section does not
relate to rebellious colonies; it is merely a provision to meet such
conditions as the agents of the Executive Directory are entitled to
make, consistently with their allegiance to their own country--such at
least as they constantly undertake to propose. Without assuming to
define the powers of these agents, it was very clear that they have
undertaken to dispense with the decrees and laws of the Republic,
whenever the exigencies of their Governments have, in their opinion,
made it necessary or convenient.
At St. Domingo and at Guadaloupe, the agents seem to exercise an
unlimited control over the trade and maritime concerns of those islands.
He presumed they had a discretionary right given to them to relax or
suspend many of the decrees of the mother country, with respect to the
territory they are appointed to govern. The uniform conduct of Santhonax
and Polverel, and of all the Commissioners at St. Domingo, show this to
be the case; and at Guadaloupe, Victor Hugues has proved himself to be
nothing less than a despot. If this bill passed, these Commissioners may
open the commerce with this country, even though an open war should
exist between this nation and France. Nay, Mr. O. said, he had a
proclamation of Hedouville, the late agent at Cape Francois, in his
hand, which shows that he had determined to adopt this line of conduct.
[Mr. O. read the proclamation which states that neutral ships and
cargoes, that provisions and dry goods, shall be admitted into St.
Domingo in American bottoms, that they shall not be seized when destined
for French ports, but pass unmolested by French cruisers even if war
should break out between the mother country and the United States.]
Now, said Mr. O., the interests of this country, and of our mercantile
citizens in particular, require us to place ourselves in a situation to
meet these advances. Can there be any difficulty in giving to the
PRESIDENT a power with respect to the trade with a part of the French
dominions, which he at present possesses over the whole? Gentlemen have
said that an agent has arrived from a usurper in St. Domingo. Mr. O.
said he did not know the fact. He did not know of any usurper in St.
Domingo. He believed General Toussaint had succeeded Hedouville in the
government of that island; that he had, in imitation of his superiors,
sent him off in the same way as in the mother country are sent off those
who may be obnoxious to the designs of the reigning and the strongest
party. But it does not follow that these measures of General Toussaint
will not be ratified by the French Government. The same General had
heretofore sent off the commissioner Santhonax. He was not, however, for
this cause declared to have forfeited his allegiance, but pains were
taken to appease and reconcile him, and Santhonax came back. He was
afterwards succeeded by Hedouville, who is, in his turn, sent on a
voyage to France. But, said Mr. O., shall we now begin to examine into
the legality of the powers of persons in authority, either in France or
in her West India possessions? Have we not uniformly adhered to the
principle that those who exercise power _de facto_ are the only persons
that we are bound to recognize? From the first dawn of the Revolution,
we have, said he, never questioned the legitimacy of the power exercised
in France; to us it seemed indifferent whether Jacobins or Girondists
were at the helm of affairs; whether it was a reign of terror or of
moderation. We have constantly sung hosannas and offered adorations to
the great Republic, one and indivisible, without considering by whose
hands the power was exercised. It is now too late to change this system.
We have no way of knowing, said Mr. O., whether the agents of the
Directory act in conformity to the will of their masters or not, until
the Government declares them out of their allegiance. It will then be
soon enough for us to determine the posture which good faith and policy
require us to take.
But, the gentleman from Virginia says, we ought not to treat with
individuals under any circumstances; but it appears probable that the
French Republic may permit her agents to carry on this commerce, and to
give us satisfactory assurances of safety and protection without a
treaty; and such an arrangement would be advantageous to that Republic.
We find, indeed, said Mr. O., from the papers on the table, that one of
the complaints of that Government is founded on this suspension of
intercourse, and therefore to restore the trade in part is to diminish
the cause of complaint. With respect to the remark of the gentleman from
Virginia, that it was the object of the original act, by distressing
France, to bring her to terms, he differed in opinion from him. It was
merely a defensive measure. Our trade became so insecure, that it was
necessary to do--what? conquer France? No; but to prevent the ruin which
threatened our citizens, by prohibiting all intercourse with that
country and its dependencies; and whenever an end is put to those
aggressions and depredations, the suspension may be removed.
This, said Mr. O., is not a novel practice. At the commencement of the
late war, the citizens of the Bahamas were excepted from the general
regulations and orders prescribed to our privateers. It is very possible
to be at war with a nation, and yet at peace with a certain portion of
its territory. We find, by the papers on our table, that France says her
privateers have transgressed their authority, and that they have now
determined that no commissions shall be issued, except by their agents.
Let us be prepared to meet them, if they will act accordingly; and if
their agents in the Colonies restrain privateering, and depredations
within their respective jurisdictions, let us avail ourselves of their
good dispositions without any nice inquiries.
Mr. O. had said, that this law had no allusion to any country in
rebellion; but he could conceive it possible that St. Domingo may
declare itself independent, and become so, in spite of the opposition of
France, or the wishes of this country. Far be it from me, continued Mr.
O., to contend that it is desirable for the interest of the United
States that such an event should happen; such a doctrine at this moment
would be unseasonable and improper; but, if it does take place, he might
say, without offence, it would be good policy to be upon the best terms
with the persons in authority there; if not, the inhabitants of that
island may become pirates upon our trade, and do us more mischief than
we formerly suffered from the Barbary Powers. To prevent which, let us
feed and clothe them, and deprive them of inducements to quit their
island.
Mr. HARPER did not know that he could give an explanation of this
section which would be satisfactory to the gentleman from Virginia; but
he would state what was the intention of the bill, and what he thought
would be its effects. He conceived that the section now under
consideration is in strict conformity with the bill heretofore passed.
The object of that bill was twofold; first, to save our commerce from
that speculative and hazardous enterprise which the high profits made
by successful voyages enticed the merchant to go into, which was a
species of gambling by which some made large fortunes, and others
sustained heavy losses. This trade was something of the nature of
faro-banks, or lotteries, which all good Governments have thought proper
to prohibit. The Government of this country thought it wise to
interfere, and say to the merchants: "You shall not run these great
risks; for though a few of you make great gain by the trade, the loss
upon the whole is much greater than the gain." This was one object. The
other was, to deter the French nation, and those exercising authority
under it, from committing depredations upon our commerce, and thus
procure protection to our trade. By what means was this to be
accomplished? By withholding from the French those articles of prime
necessity which they were accustomed to receive through the medium of
commerce, to produce an effect which they should feel.
Let us examine, said Mr. H., whether this section is in conformity to
these two objects. There could be no doubt with respect to the first,
because if you can prevail upon those who heretofore encouraged
privateering, to forbear to make further depredations, our commerce will
unquestionably be rendered safe. The reason, therefore, for laying the
restriction, is thus removed; and he saw no reason why it should be
continued.
Mr. GALLATIN said, one of the objects of this bill when it passed at the
last session, was to prevent depredations upon our commerce; but a
majority of the House who voted for it, did so with a view of compelling
France, by the loss of our trade to her islands, to come to reasonable
terms of settlement with the United States. It was then said by some
gentlemen, that it was not improbable that the trade to the West Indies
was even more advantageous to the United States than to France, valuable
as it was to her; and that, therefore, it would not produce the effect
predicted. This was his opinion, and he therefore voted against the
bill. But, though he voted against this measure, and some others, which,
he thought at the time premature, yet a majority of Congress having, by
adopting them, placed the nation in its present situation, whatever his
opinion might then have been, and whatever it might now be, as to the
probability of an end being put to our differences with France, he
should think it bad policy, under present circumstances, to recede from
the ground then taken, since such a conduct could betray nothing but
weakness, and tend to defeat the object which all doubtless have in
view, whatever might be the different opinions of obtaining it, an
honorable peace. Though this law, therefore, was limited to the present
session, he was ready to vote for a continuance of it; but the section
now under consideration goes entirely upon new ground, and entirely
different to any either taken or avowed at the last session.
The law now in existence, said Mr. G., has a section something similar
to this, though widely different in substance. It is to this effect;
that if, before the next session of Congress, the Government of France,
and all persons under its authority, shall disavow and be found to
refrain from depredations upon our commerce, then it shall be lawful for
the PRESIDENT to suspend the operation of this law. Not to any part, but
with the whole. By that law, we said, "We are not yet at war with you,
we will adopt such measures as we think necessary for our present
situation. We will suspend commerce with you as a nation; but if you, as
a nation, shall disavow and refrain from depredations, we have given the
PRESIDENT power to renew our commercial intercourse with you."
But what, said Mr. G., is the language of this section? It is this. [He
read the section as above.] It is, that if any part of the nation, or
any commanding officer, or person claiming authority, in any one port,
or island, shall take those steps which we consider necessary for that
nation to take, it shall be lawful for the PRESIDENT to remit and
discontinue the restraints, prohibitions, &c. Instead of taking a
general national ground, it provides for the negotiation of an
individual, on his private account, who may either exercise, or claim to
exercise, authority in any island, &c.
We are not, said Mr. G., at war, and an act of this kind is an act
which, if it can be justified at all, can only be made use of in a state
of war. It is only in such a state that we are authorized to declare,
that we will act a different part with certain parts of a country at
war, from what we meant to act with the whole; that we will negotiate,
treat, make specific regulations with private individuals, provided they
shall do--what? Disavow what the French Republic does not disavow. The
present act makes it necessary for the disavowal to come from the
Government; but this section says, "that although the French Government
shall not disavow or restrain her depredations, &c., yet if an
individual shall do it, we will open a trade with this individual." This
would be to encourage insurrections. It is establishing a doctrine which
is reprobated almost every day on this floor--that it is right to divide
a people from their Government.
Mr. G. conceived, therefore, that the question comes to this: Is it
proper to give power to the PRESIDENT, under our present circumstances,
to stipulate with certain agents, that in case they will disobey their
Government, by declaring themselves independent, or by throwing
themselves into other hands, we will renew our commercial intercourse
with you? No man, said Mr. G., will deny that a trade of this kind would
be advantageous to the United States; he believed it to be one of the
most lucrative branches of our commerce; but it was nevertheless thought
proper, at the last session, to suspend it, in order, as then supposed,
to effect a greater good. Therefore, this commerce being advantageous
to the United States, is not a sufficient reason why this measure should
be taken, if it be wrong in itself, and may produce greater mischiefs
than the trade can do us good.
What, said Mr. G., are the inconveniences which would arise from a
measure of this kind? It must be allowed, in the first place, that it
would give the lie to all our former declarations of abhorrence against
the attempts of other countries to divide the people of a nation from
their Government; for we here, said he, assume the ground that it is
proper to negotiate and stipulate with a part of the people, with a
certain district of a country, with any person who shall choose to say
that he claims the right of governing in any place. We abandon the
general ground of treating with a foreign Government, and determine to
treat with any individual who may either have, or claim to have,
authority. Mr. G. believed a principle of this kind at all times
improper; and it would be peculiarly improper in us to act upon it, with
respect to a nation, against which we have so many grounds of complaint
of this kind. He had already stated, that it could only be justified in
a state of war, if then, to hold out encouragement to insurrection and
rebellion to the colonies of another country.
Mr. G. believed he might go so far as to say that this section was not
inserted to meet the case spoken of by the gentleman from Maryland; but
for the admission of one which had been a subject of discussion in the
newspapers for some time past. He meant what was generally understood by
the mission of Toussaint, a black General, of St. Domingo. It had been
asserted, from the moment of the arrival of a supposed agent, that he
came here with the late Consul of the United States at that port; that
he brought despatches from Toussaint to our Government. Further than
this, we have seen, in some of the newspapers printed at the eastward,
that this mission is likely to have some effect. We have seen it there
stated, "that the President is neither rash nor diffident, and that good
effects may be expected to flow from this mission." So far, on the
authority of the public newspapers, and none of these assertions have
been denied.
Should I be doing right, said Mr. G., to say that I believe that this
section of the bill is an effect of that negotiation? It is true I only
deduce this from probability, but the probability is strong. Mr. G. said
he knew that the independence of St. Domingo had been a favorite theme
with gentlemen, and they had made an appeal upon it to the avarice of
the people of the United States, that, in case of war, this independence
would be of advantage to the United States, and that, during a time of
peace, the minds of the people ought to be prepared for this event. But
gentlemen seem to think that the public mind is not yet ready for this
change, or they do not choose to avow the object of this mission. Which,
he could not tell; but he would advise those gentlemen who have
received information on this subject to communicate it. Mr. G. said he
should be happy to know the subject of the despatches of General
Toussaint. What is his offer to our Government? Whether his ideas go to
independence or not? Whether he is in any way connected with the British
Government, or not? Whether the sudden and extraordinary evacuation of
St. Domingo by General Maitland was to promote something of this kind,
or to support the force of General Toussaint? He should wish to know
what is the disposition of the Executive with respect to this business,
so far as it shall have come to the knowledge of any of these gentlemen.
He would also be glad to know the disposition of this agent, or the
nature of his object, at least so much of it as may have escaped at any
_petit soupér_ or _dinér_, at which these gentlemen may have been
parties? If any such information could be obtained, it might tend to
throw some light upon the subject. If he should be mistaken in his views
of it, it would be wholly owing to his being deprived of that
information, which he believed either the Executive, or some of the
members on this floor possess.
Mr. G. believed the object of this section is to give encouragement to
the black General in his present views. A single sentiment had dropped
from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) in the course of the
debate, which had given rise to part of what he had said on this
subject, and which led him to believe that he had some information which
he ought to communicate. He said, "if St. Domingo should finally be
independent, it was proper to cultivate a good understanding with that
island at present, and not refuse"--what? "to hold out certain
encouragement to them in such an event." When? Now; so that we are not
only to cultivate a good understanding with St. Domingo, if it should
become independent, but in the expectation of it, and before it takes
place, it is proper to cultivate a good understanding with that island,
by holding out the encouragement proposed by this bill. This was nothing
less than to confess that this section is inserted in the bill to
encourage Toussaint to declare the island independent. Nay, his views,
if he is a man of sense, must go further; he must not only secure a
temporary trade, but he would also desire to know whether it be the wish
of this country that St. Domingo should become independent; because he
should suppose that if the Government of the United States was opposed
to such an event, a temporary trade would not be a sufficient inducement
to him to throw off his present allegiance.
To me, however, said Mr. G., if it be the intention of the General to
declare it, the independence of St. Domingo is a very problematical
event. It would certainly be the interest of Great Britain to oppose an
attempt of this kind; since it could not be her interest to have a black
Government there. But supposing the event possible, he should consider
it as extremely injurious to the interests of the United States. Suppose
that island, with its present population, under present circumstances,
should become an independent State. What is this population? It is known
to consist, almost altogether, of slaves just emancipated, of men who
received their first education under the lash of the whip, and who have
been initiated to liberty only by that series of rapine, pillage, and
massacre, that have laid waste and deluged that island in blood; of men,
who, if left to themselves, if altogether independent, are by no means
likely to apply themselves to the peaceable cultivation of the country,
but will try to continue to live, as heretofore, by plunder and
depredations. No man, said Mr. G., wishes more than I do to see an
abolition of slavery, when it can be properly effected; but no man would
be more unwilling than I to constitute a whole nation of freed slaves,
who had arrived to the age of thirty years, and thus to throw so many
wild tigers on society.[39] If the population of St. Domingo can remain
free in that island, he had no objection; but, however free, he did not
wish to have them independent, and he would rather see them under a
government that would be likely to keep them where they are, and prevent
them from committing depredations out of the island. But if they were
left to govern themselves, they might become more troublesome to us, in
our commerce to the West Indies, than the Algerines ever were in the
Mediterranean; they might also become dangerous neighbors to the
Southern States, and an asylum for renegadoes from those parts.
This being the case, Mr. G. said, he must deprecate every encouragement
which may be held out to produce such an event. Did not gentlemen
recollect what an alarm was sounded last year, with respect to the
probability of an invasion of the Southern States from the West Indies;
an alarm upon which some of the strongest measures of the last session
were grounded? Mr. G. could not help hoping, there would be a general
wish not to take any measure which may embody so dangerous a description
of men in our neighborhood, whose object may be plunder, and who might
visit the States of South Carolina and Georgia, and spread their views
among the negro people there, and excite dangerous insurrections among
them. He did not wish, therefore, to see this black population
independent; and that the interest will be wholly black is clear. The
General is black, and his agent here is married to a black woman in this
city. Mr. G. did not mean by this to throw any reflection upon the
General. He believed he had behaved well to Americans. His remarks were
general, and were only intended to show that it would be with a black
population we must treat.
WEDNESDAY, January 23.
Mr. S. SMITH said, that if he thought with the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, that the clause under consideration was connected with the
mission from Toussaint, and the separation of Hispaniola from France, or
with an intention of dividing the people of that island from their
Government, he should also be opposed to it; but believing, as he did,
that it would be productive of none but good effects to this country, he
was in favor of retaining the clause.[40]
It might be well, Mr. S. said, to take a view of the relation which had
subsisted between France and her colonies for some years back. Early in
the Revolution, Santhonax and Polverel were sent as Commissioners to
Hispaniola, for the purpose of governing the island, and to carry into
effect the decree of the French Government for liberating the slaves.
They conducted themselves in a friendly manner towards America, but
destructively to the northern part of Hispaniola, and particularly
towards Cape Francois. The disastrous contest which took place between
the whites and blacks, to the destruction of the former, is well known.
From the abuse of their power, these Commissioners were recalled.
Polverel had not sufficient courage to appear before the French
Government, and put an end to his existence. Santhonax went to France,
and was sent out again to the island. Still he was favorable to this
country, until the decree of France declared that their vessels of war
should treat neutral vessels in the same manner as neutral powers
suffered Great Britain to treat them. Santhonax then issued his decree
of December, 1797, and American vessels were taken and carried into
Hispaniola indiscriminately, and unsuspectingly, not under the authority
of France, but under the authority of this agent. Not content with this
abuse of his power, Santhonax sent Deforneaux, the Commissioner of
Guadaloupe, to the south side of Hispaniola, to carry his plans into
effect there; but Rigaud, a man of color, and an honest man, who had
gained the esteem of the people, who was in power there, frustrated the
attempt. Deforneaux attempted to escape, but was taken and sent to
France. We see, therefore, that Santhonax made no scruple to set aside
the decrees of France; and in this manner has Rigaud ever done,
repealing and preventing the execution of the decrees of France,
whenever he disliked them. And was Rigaud punished by France for thus
exercising his power or not? No; he was made Commander-in-chief of the
south side of the island for having sent off Deforneaux. Hedouville
succeeded Santhonax in the Government, and brought with him the power
to execute or not, as he judged proper, the decree of the Directory
directing the capture of neutral vessels with British manufactures on
board. He determined that this decree should not be carried into effect
against vessels bound to Hispaniola. Did he carry his purpose into
effect? So far as his (Mr. S.'s) information went, he did.
Here, then, we see Hedouville setting aside the decrees of France; and
Rigaud has not only prevented American vessels from being condemned, but
has thrown the captains of privateers into prison for daring to bring in
American vessels, and has caused such as have been carried into
Jacquemel, on account of not having a _rôle d'equipage_, to be delivered
up immediately. Victor Hugues, upon the recall of Mr. Adet, ordered that
all vessels carrying on trade to what he called rebel ports, should be
brought in and made legal prizes of. This was another separate
authority. He afterwards issued orders for the condemnation of vessels
coming into Guadaloupe with a supercargo, who should either be an Irish
or a Scotchman, though they had every necessary paper on board to show
that they were bound to that port, and vessels were condemned for this
alone; and this is not seen in any of the decrees of France. Mr. S.
understood this clause as intended to meet cases of this kind; and, so
far from this being offensive to France, it must be quite the reverse.
Under this law, said Mr. S., the PRESIDENT will be enabled to say to
these special agents, "if you will suspend your decrees with respect to
your islands our trade shall be opened to you," and by this means give
to our citizens a commerce which is a mine of gold to them. Such a
conduct, he thought, must appear to every one perfectly reasonable.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania says that the independence of Hispaniola
would be dangerous to the Southern States. But does this bill, said Mr.
S., contemplate any such thing? Does it not say that the agents must be
under the Government of France? If the island were to declare itself
independent, we could not, said he, prevent our merchants from trading
with it; or if it should be in a state of rebellion, they would trade
with it at all risks, without coming under this act. This bill seems,
instead of encouraging the independence of the island, to place an
obstacle in the way of it. It promises to the commanding officer the
trade of this country, so long as he remains attached to France, and
forbears to depredate upon our commerce; but the moment he declares
himself independent, that promise is no longer binding.
Certain words in this clause are complained of; and Mr. S. owned he did
not like them himself. He meant the words, "shall clearly disavow;" and,
if this motion should not prevail, he would move to strike them out. He
should be satisfied if the islands refrained from depredating upon our
trade, without making any disavowal. Mr. S. said he could by no means
bring his mind to believe that this clause could give encouragement to
the people of Hispaniola to rebel against their country. Toussaint, said
he, is not the only Governor of that island. Rigaud, who, as he had
already stated, is a man of color and a man of excellent character, who
has great hold of the affections of the people, and whose attachments
are also strong to the French Government, has also a considerable share
of authority; and Toussaint, in his opinion, would not on this account
dare to declare the island independent.
But suppose, said Mr. S., this independence were to take place, would
all the danger to this country actually take place which has been
stated? In his opinion the reverse would be true. Refuse to these people
our commerce, and the provisions of which they stand in need, and you
compel them to become pirates and dangerous neighbors to the Southern
States; but, so long as you supply them, they will turn their attention
to the cultivation of their plantations. If, on the contrary, they once
get a taste for plunder, they will never settle to labor.
Mr. S. observed that it was the other day said that truth was the
characteristic of the Federal party. It might be so, though he had found
it otherwise; but the characteristics of party, he observed, always is
detraction, suspicion, and jealousy, whether it be called this or that.
On the present occasion he found jealousy and doubts had intruded on the
minds of gentlemen who would, at other times, see very differently. He
did not mean to throw any censure upon them on this account, because
they doubtless believe themselves right. This party spirit, said Mr. S.,
is every where to be found. The gentleman from Connecticut had the other
day said that he (Mr. S.) had constantly voted against every measure of
defence, yet if he would have read the journals, he would have found the
reverse the fact. [The Chairman doubted whether this was connected with
the question.][41] Mr. S. concluded by saying that the more gentlemen
think on the subject, the more they will be convinced the bill is not
pregnant with the mischiefs which they apprehend.
Mr. NICHOLAS said it would be difficult to ascertain precisely where
truth is to be found; whether in the extremes of party or in a middle
course. The gentleman from Maryland says party men are always in the
wrong; therefore he supposed that gentleman to be of opinion that those
who vibrate between two parties are always in the right. In considering
this question, he should do it according to his best judgment. If his
mind should be so operated upon by party spirit as not to see the truth,
it would be his misfortune.
He believed, as he had already stated, that this bill, as it now stands,
will authorize the PRESIDENT to negotiate with the subordinate agents
of a Government against the will of that Government, and thereby promote
a separation between the agent and his Government, by holding out a
temptation to do certain acts not warranted by the Government. The House
had been told, by two gentlemen from Massachusetts, that this cannot be
the operation of the law, because it has no relation to a revolted
colony; that when a revolt once takes place, the trade will open of
itself, as the territory will no longer be under the authority of
France. He wished to inquire into the truth of this doctrine, which one
gentleman has asserted and another has endeavored to prove. Mr. N. asked
if Toussaint should to-morrow declare himself independent, would the
PRESIDENT be authorized to direct the collector of the customs to
consider St. Domingo as no longer coming under the present law? In his
own opinion, he could not, because it would be contrary to the practice
of any other Government; and, if done, would give the lie to all the
professions made by us on subjects of this kind. When the separation
merely commences; when we know nothing of the means which the revolters
possess, but because some person chooses to declare a place independent,
shall our Government interfere and acknowledge such a place independent?
He asked whether any gentlemen in this House, who are so frequently
called disorganizers, had ever broached a doctrine like this? He knew
very well, without the authority of _Vattel_, which the gentleman from
Massachusetts had introduced, that any nation is at liberty to take part
in a rebellion; but it is a good cause of war. When a revolution is
effected, then the country revolting becomes independent, and any nation
may treat with it according to its will. But, if you take part with the
revolters, you place yourselves on the same ground with them in respect
to the Government revolted against. And, said he, in case we give any
assistance to any island belonging to France, in its revolt against that
Government, we place ourselves in a state of war.
Mr. N. believed gentlemen are wrong in their construction of the present
law, when they say if Toussaint were to declare himself independent
to-morrow, that the Executive might immediately consider him so, and
direct trade to be carried on with that island as heretofore. He
believed the PRESIDENT would not do it, and that the present clause of
this bill is founded upon the certainty that he would not. If this is
the case, the same objection is in full force against the wording of
this section. The gentleman from Massachusetts, first up, seems to
acknowledge that this law is to have this operation. He, says, St.
Domingo may become independent, and that therefore it is highly proper
we should let them know what dependence they may have upon us; to let
them know that they may expect all the advantages of independence. Is
not this, said Mr. N., an acknowledgment of the effect which this law
will have? That the moment they throw off the French yoke, they will
receive all the assistance from this country which a free commerce can
give them? Mr. N. thought the gentleman himself inflicted the deepest
wound on this bill, for gentlemen cannot say that such an assurance is
not a temptation to commit the act.
Mr. N. could readily believe that the trade of St. Domingo is very
valuable to this country, and the assertion of the gentleman from
Maryland, that it is a "mine of gold," had confirmed that opinion; and
he was really afraid that that gentleman's representing a commercial
part of the country, and being himself deeply engaged in commerce, the
importance of this trade may have too much weight in deciding a question
of this kind, and be a means of disregarding the evils which may arise
from it; but Mr. N. was of opinion, that a solid peace would be far more
beneficial to commerce generally, than any temporary advantage of this
kind. Besides, the principle upon which such advantages would be built,
is something similar to that which would actuate a man to fall upon the
property of his neighbor, because he is richer than himself.
But does not the same gentleman tell the House that the powers in St.
Domingo are pretty equally balanced between General Toussaint and
Rigaud, and that, therefore, if Toussaint attempted to establish the
independence of the island, there could be no certainty of his success?
Why, then, said Mr. N., should we go into a measure which might produce
war between the two countries, when the advantage to be derived from it
is so very doubtful? And he thought the danger from the proceeding was
heightened by the circumstance which gentlemen have mentioned of there
being so very large a body of people in arms there; for, since the
powers are so nicely balanced, is it not probable that the government
party, in case of a struggle, would have the advantage? And would it not
be the height of madness for us to run the risk of having the large
force of that island turned against us, in consequence of our improper
interference between the colony and its government?
Mr. N. said, he could not overlook some considerations connected with
this subject, which he thought of great importance. It is well known,
(and he begged gentlemen who have the same desire to preserve the
country in peace that he had, to pause at the suggestion,) that there
are many gentlemen in this House who have been long in favor of coming
to an open declaration of war against France; and he had every reason to
believe that the same disposition yet exists in these gentlemen; but the
same opportunity of making this declaration does not now exist. The
public mind is not now so well prepared for entering upon a war as it
was some time ago, because they believe things wear a better appearance.
If then, said Mr. N., the same disposition exists for war; if these
gentlemen think they or their country will be benefited by war, they
may be very willing that France should declare it; and if it be possible
that a wish of this sort may exist, it affords a full solution to the
meaning of this bill.
But we are told, said Mr. N., that we ought not to excite the animosity
of the people of St. Domingo. Is our present situation calculated to
produce this effect? Certainly not, since they are necessarily involved
with the mother country; and to take the part proposed, he had already
shown might be attended with the most direful consequences. He thought
this country ought not to wish for the independence of St. Domingo in
another point of view. However we may wish to see the naval power of
France put down, so that they may not have it in their power, if they
have the wish, to invade this country, it is highly important to us that
the naval power of Europe should be divided. He did not think that it
could be for the interest of this country that Great Britain should have
a navy which should keep the world in awe, and subject it to her views;
and if we assist in destroying the colonies of France, we shall be the
means of throwing them and their naval power into the hands of Great
Britain. He did not know that it mattered much to us whether St. Domingo
was a colony of France or England, only as it would add to the naval
strength of England. He hoped, therefore, the motion for striking out
would prevail.
Mr. PINCKNEY observed, that so much had already been said on this
subject, and the general principles of the bill had been so ably
defended, that it would be unnecessary to make more than one or two
remarks in reply to the gentleman from Virginia. That gentleman had gone
altogether upon the idea of this bill being of so obnoxious a nature to
the Government of France, that it must be considered by that government
as a cause of war. He thought it had already been shown, that the
gentleman was altogether mistaken; and, very unhappily for his position,
our own experience was sufficient to determine whether it has ever been
considered as a cause of war for neutral countries to trade with
colonies revolting from a mother country. We know, said he, very well
how neutral nations conducted towards us in our revolt from the
Government of Great Britain. Mr. P. believed it was never understood
that any nation with whom we traded was, in consequence, involved in war
with Great Britain. The fact was otherwise. It was never so looked upon
by that country, and gentlemen will admit that that Government was at
least hightoned enough. All that Great Britain did was to seize the
vessels whenever she could lay hold of them; and this is the risk which
the gentleman from Maryland mentioned our traders would run in carrying
commerce into any place in a state of revolution. It is well known that
we endeavored, during the whole course of our war, to draw foreign
commerce to this country, which was found necessary in order to enable
us to carry on the war. Agents were employed for this purpose, and we
saw no moral turpitude in this. And during the time that Holland was
separated from the dominion of Spain, was war declared in consequence of
any nation trading with Holland? The case was so different, he
recollected that Holland declared, that she would seize all vessels
going to Spain, though that had heretofore been considered as the mother
country. This was reversing the case.
With respect to the three points stated generally by the Secretary of
State, they are not said to go to the point for which the gentleman from
Virginia has taken them. With regard to the _douceur_ of £50,000, Mr. P.
would say, that if we believe this attempt to have been made to extort
this sum of money from our Envoys, for corrupt purposes, (and
notwithstanding all that has been said on the subject, he did believe
that X and Y were the agents of the French Government in that
transaction, and which has, indeed, been acknowledged by Y, Mr. Bellamy,
of Hamburg, who declares he has never written or said any thing to our
Envoys, but by the direction of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs,) no
reliance ought to be placed upon any of their declarations; for after
such an act, it may be supposed they will say one thing at one time and
another at another; and no reliance could be had upon any thing which
comes from so corrupt a source.
Mr. P. said he would not trouble the committee longer, except in one
point, and that was as to the consequences which might flow from a
declaration of independence on the part of St. Domingo. He should
endeavor to answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to the
consequences which it might produce to the Southern States. It was a
subject to which he had paid all the attention in his power. He did, on
all questions, endeavor as much as possible to divest himself of any
thing like party spirit; but in this case, where he had himself so much
at stake, in which his native country and every thing dear to him was
concerned, his sincerity could not be doubted. Mr. P. did not himself
believe that this bill would have the least tendency to procure the
independence of St. Domingo; but as some gentlemen think it is probable
that this may be the result, and as no one could say with certainty what
the effect of any measure would be, he had considered the subject, and
was clearly of opinion, that should the independence of that island take
place, the event would be more advantageous to the Southern States, than
if it remained under the dominion of France, considering the disposition
which France has evinced towards us, (and of which he saw no prospects
of a change,) and the present conduct of the inhabitants of St. Domingo.
Nothing which we can do, said Mr. P., can bring back the internal state
of that island to the state it was formerly in. Considering the
inhabitants, then, in the light of freemen, whether will it be better
for us, in the Southern States, to have to deal with them, as such, or
under the direction of the French Government, unreasonable and
arbitrary as we have found it? He had no hesitation in saying, that, it
would be more for the safety of the Southern States, to have that island
independent, than under the Government of France, either in time of
peace or war. If our dispute with France should not be accommodated, and
they keep possession of St. Domingo, they could invade this country only
from that quarter. There is there a large body of troops, and their
unofficial agents told our Envoys, that in case we did not submit to
their conditions, we might expect an attack from that quarter. It would
certainly lessen the danger from that island, were it to be separated
from France; but remaining in the hands of France, and supported by the
powerful navy of France, notwithstanding all the vigor we have shown on
the ocean, we might be very much annoyed from thence.
If these people in St. Domingo find that we withhold from them supplies
which are necessary for their subsistence, said Mr. P., though they are
friendly disposed towards us, they will look elsewhere for support; they
must either turn their attention to cultivating their land, look to
Great Britain, or become freebooters. Which situation is it most for the
interest of the United States that they should be in? Surely the
peaceful cultivation of the ground; and to induce them to take this
course, it will be our interest to supply them with what they have
occasion for, lest they should get the habit of freebooters, and make
our commerce the object of their plunder. He hoped, therefore, the
motion for striking out would not prevail.
Mr. MACON had no doubt the gentleman from South Carolina had paid
particular attention to this subject. It was to be expected that every
gentleman from the Southern States would pay attention to it. In one
respect, he was precisely in the same situation with the gentleman from
South Carolina. He lived in a country that would be affected by any
event, such as had been mentioned, and all his connections were there.
It was the same with all other gentlemen from the Southern States. He
differed in opinion, however, when the gentlemen said that we should
have less to apprehend from St. Domingo, in case it should become
independent, than whilst it remained a part of the French Republic. He
believed the state of society to be such in that country, as not to
admit of self-government. In case they separate from France, he should
apprehend that the consequence will be, that instead of being ruled by
one of the European powers, they would become the tools of them all, in
turn, and we should probably have the same game played off upon us from
thence, that we have heretofore had played upon us by means of the
Indians.
Mr. M. said, that although the part of the bill moved to be stricken
out, does not go directly to say that it has reference to St. Domingo,
it is a little extraordinary that no other case will fit it. There could
be no doubt, if the island became independent, we should have a right to
trade to it; but he believed it would puzzle gentlemen to find an
instance of a Legislature passing a law in order to fit a case which
might happen. As he thought it improper, he hoped it would be stricken
out.
Mr. GOODRICH said this amendment went to change the principle of the
bill. The bill goes upon the idea that when any island in the West
Indies shall cease to make depredations upon our commerce, our trade
shall be opened with them, without regarding by what authority or force
the change was effected. The matter is not placed upon the ground of any
treaty whatever; for, said Mr. G., we can neither increase nor diminish
the power of the PRESIDENT in this respect. A great deal of mist has
been thrown on this subject. The effect of this amendment will be, that
the person restraining from depredations upon our commerce must act
under the authority of the French Republic; on the contrary, the friends
of this bill wish not to examine by what authority the thing is done,
provided that it be done. We have a right to say that our vessels shall
go to any port we please; but, according to the doctrine of the
amendment supposing the island of St. Domingo was conquered, we could
not send our commerce there, nor could we send it to a place in
rebellion; so that our commerce was to be affected by every change of
circumstances which might take place. He hoped the committee would
recognize no principle which shall say we have not a right to send our
commerce wherever we please, whether the places to which our vessels go
are in war, peace, or rebellion.
Mr. GALLATIN was astonished to hear the gentleman from Connecticut say
that this is merely a commercial question. Let us, said he, examine the
effect of this amendment. We are told that the provisions of this bill
do not extend to any colony which may be conquered; for instance, to St.
Martin's, St. Lucia, or any other colonies which have been conquered.
Let us see, then, how it will apply if this amendment is rejected, and
whether the question is commercial or political. Let us inquire, said
he, what is the case provided for, if the amendment is rejected, and
which is unprovided for if it is adopted, and it will then appear what
ground is covered by the opposers of this amendment. If rejected, it
will result, that all persons who may claim or exercise any command in
any island, &c., although they have not that command under the
Government of France, and who shall refrain from privateering, shall be
entitled to a free trade with this country. The only case is a case of
insurrection and rebellion. Suppose, said Mr. G., I should agree with
the gentleman from Connecticut, that if once a rebellion takes place, or
any colony shall declare itself independent, (but, by the by, the
doctrine is not countenanced by the law of nations,) that we may trade
there as we please. Does it result that we have a right to pass a law
beforehand to contemplate such an event? If we do, it will be speaking
publicly, thus: "If any persons shall, in any island, port, or place,
belonging to the French Republic, raise an insurrection, and declare
themselves independent, and shall be found to refrain from committing
depredations upon our commerce, we will open a free trade with them."
And yet the gentleman from Connecticut calls this a mere commercial
question.
The committee have been told of a number of cases which he had been
astonished to hear--cases which happened in our war. Gentlemen who have
mentioned these have not attended to any of the facts of the war. Mr. G.
referred to the case of the treaty made in Holland, which has already
been explained in a former debate. Mr. G. said, gentlemen might put what
construction they pleased upon this section; but certainly publicly to
tell the French colonies that if they will rebel against their
Government, and restrain from depredating upon us, we will treat with
them, is to invite them to do it. A declaration of war has always been
the consequence of such a conduct in other countries; and he supposed
gentlemen are not ready for a declaration of war, though they tell us
there is no change in our affairs for the better; that negotiation is at
an end; that no idea can be entertained of the sincerity of any
professions of the French; and not being ready to bring in a declaration
of war, they are not surely ready to make it, or provoke it; and if not,
why assume a principle that may have this effect? He hoped the amendment
would be agreed to.
The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.
THURSDAY, January 24.
_Death of Mr. Tazewell._
A message was received from the Senate, informing the House that HENRY
TAZEWELL, Esq., one of their body, died this morning, and that they had
directed orders to be taken respecting his funeral.
Afterwards, on motion of Mr. DENT, the House came to the following
resolution:
_Resolved_, That this House will attend the funeral of HENRY TAZEWELL,
Esq., late a member of the Senate of the United States, on to-morrow, at
half past four o'clock.[42]
_Intercourse with France._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the
bill further to suspend the commercial intercourse between the United
States and France, and the dependencies thereof, and for other purposes.
Mr. SPAIGHT'S amendment being under consideration,
Mr. HARTLEY said the general policy of this bill had been considered at
the last session; and he had no doubt, that when any parts of the
French dominions cease to depredate upon our commerce, we might, with
propriety, open our intercourse with them. If, for instance, the Isle of
France had fitted out privateers, and depredated upon our commerce, and
chose to forbear to do so in future, and leave our passage to the Indian
seas clear, it would be a good reason for opening our commerce with that
place. The case of St. Domingo is still stronger, and has, as has been
shown, the power of doing as much mischief, should we refuse to furnish
them with the necessary supplies. If they call in their privateers,
therefore, it would certainly be right to open our intercourse with that
valuable island, especially since they appear to be abandoned by France,
who has withdrawn all her troops from the island.
After some other observations, Mr. H. concluded with hoping the
amendment would not be agreed to, as it would only tend to embarrass the
bill, by making it necessary to ascertain the legality of the governing
authority of the places with which we might open our intercourse.
Mr. BRACE was opposed to this amendment, as it came round to the same
point with that which the gentleman from Pennsylvania had proposed. It
struck him that, in the course of the debate, gentlemen have forgot the
ground on which we stand. Our treaties with the French Government have
been declared void, on account of the conduct of that Government. We
have proceeded further, and suspended all commercial intercourse with
France and her dependencies. It would be well to consider what kind of
connection now exists between the United States and France, and whether
a measure of the kind proposed can injure our present prospect of peace.
By the arguments of some gentlemen it would seem that we are under some
obligation or contract to that Government; whereas, we ought to consider
ourselves, with respect to it, in no other light than we consider
ourselves with respect to the governments of the world with which we
have no connection. We have, therefore, no object to pursue, but what,
in a dignified national view, it is our duty and our interest to pursue.
This separation having been effected by the wrong acts of the French
Government, she can have no claim upon us; we have taken our stand upon
such ground as can always be justified, whenever a spirit of justice
shall return. There is no man, said Mr. B., in the House, who does not
wish for peace, whenever it can be obtained on a solid foundation. But
it was well observed yesterday by his colleague, (Mr. GOODRICH,) that
this question is wholly a commercial one. This declaration gave offence
to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He was surprised that any one could
suppose this to be the case. Mr. B. said he was equally surprised at the
arguments of that gentleman. What connection had we with the French
Government? or what connection had we with, any other, besides
commercial? He had heard much clamor out of doors about other
connections--about treaties offensive and defensive. He hoped no such
connexion ever would exist between this country and any nation whatever.
Mr. SPAIGHT said, he wished to have given the reasons which induced him
to make this amendment yesterday, but a motion being made for the
committee to rise, prevented him. Having been a member of the committee
who formed this bill, and having given his consent to it, he trusted it
would not be believed that he brought forward this motion to defeat the
bill; his object was to make it more palatable to many gentlemen, who,
if an amendment something like the present was not adopted, would vote
against the bill. The gentlemen from Massachusetts and Connecticut have
said, that if this amendment is adopted, it will destroy some of the
most important principles of the bill. He believed they had mistaken the
effect of the amendment. They state that it will be necessary for the
PRESIDENT to inquire whether the commander of any island with which he
was about to open our intercourse, had his authority from the French
Government? On the contrary, it appeared to Mr. S. that, so long as the
citizens of any island acknowledged France as the mother country,
whatever authority may exist there, the place must be under the
Government of France. If an open rebellion took place, it would alter
the case entirely. And if conquered by any of the belligerent powers, it
would not then come under the bill; so that, in either case, the
amendment could have no bad effect. The principal motive with him for
moving the amendment was, in order to take away the objection made to it
by many gentlemen, that the bill is calculated to produce the
independence of St. Domingo; for he himself had no such view, nor did he
think any other member of the committee, who reported the bill, had. He
believed, if the wants of these people are supplied from this country,
it will be better that they should remain under the Government of
France; but, if we refuse to supply them with provisions, they may act
as freebooters, or do still worse--throw themselves into the hands of
Great Britain, in order to procure supplies. These reasons had induced
him to make the amendment, and he should be glad to see it adopted.
Mr. CHAMPLIN could see no difference between this and the former
amendment, which had been negatived. The design of this section is, to
authorize the PRESIDENT to open the intercourse with any of the islands
and the United States, whenever he shall deem it consistent with the
honor and dignity of this country, without inquiring whether such place
is under the French Government. Frequent decrees are passed in France,
said Mr. C., for revoking the commissions of these officers, which are
not enforced; and yet, if this amendment is passed, such a person could
not be treated with, and it would always be difficult to ascertain
whether an officer acted under the French Government or not. If the
islands choose to cease from their depredations, he would openly trade
with them; for the intercourse was originally suspended, not with a view
of starving the islands, but to prevent depredations being committed
upon our commerce. He was astonished to find that nothing could come
before this House, but gentlemen are ready to object to it on account of
the effect it may have on France. For his part, if the measure be
beneficial to this country, he cared not what effect it might have upon
France. It was said this provision would have a tendency to provoke
insurrection, or the independence of the island; on the contrary, he
believed, if this law does not pass, they will throw themselves into the
hands of Great Britain, or become plunderers of our property. He hoped
to see the intercourse opened, not only with St. Domingo, but with the
Isle of France.
Mr. HARPER said, when this amendment was first made, he considered it as
making no considerable change in the section, and was, therefore,
inclined to vote for it; but the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
VARNUM,) of whose discernment he had a very high opinion, having said
that he considered it as making a very considerable change in the
section, and declaring that he would, on that account, vote for it, he
was induced to take a further view of it, and he found, upon
reconsideration, that it would, indeed, make a very material change in
the section, and because he found this would be the case, he must vote
against it.
Mr. GALLATIN said, it appeared to him that this amendment goes no
further than to prevent any stipulations with persons who have usurped
the power of a country. It was yesterday stated by the gentleman from
Massachusetts, and repeated to-day by the gentleman from North Carolina,
that it did not extend to cases where men's commissions are doubtful. If
a man has once held a commission as an agent in any French colony, he
may be recognized as their agent, so long as he has not been publicly
declared to be otherwise. His exercising the power will be sufficient
proof that he has it; and, unless this principle is admitted, it must be
evident that the bill is intended to operate in favor of revolters.
There is a great difference, said Mr. G., between this amendment and the
one which had been moved by the gentleman from Virginia, the gentleman
from New York, or that which he had himself moved. It was the opinion of
the gentleman from Virginia, and it was his also, that the PRESIDENT
ought not to be authorized to open a trade with St. Domingo, unless the
constituted authorities of France had disavowed their former
aggressions, and refrained from them; they did not think it right to
permit a trade with particular parts of the possessions of France,
considering that the measure was originally taken to distress the French
Government, and bring it to terms; but this section gives the power of
opening a partial intercourse with St. Domingo, though the Government
of France should not disavow any of her former illegal acts; and the
present amendment only proposes to except cases of insurgency. Nor could
he see what possible objection can be made to it, except that it will
prevent a lure from being held out to promote the independence of St.
Domingo; for in nothing else does the amendment differ from the bill as
it now stands.
If we are to hold out this lure, said Mr. G., it must be because we have
the right, and it is our interest to do it. When he asserted we have not
the right to do it, he would remark upon the word "right." Gentlemen say
we have a right to do this, because we are an independent nation. No
doubt. But when he said we have not a right to do it, he meant that we
could not do it without infracting the law of nations, or those rules
which we have declared ought to govern every nation. And though the
gentleman from Connecticut has said that there is no connection of a
political nature between us and France, and therefore considers this as
merely a commercial regulation, Mr. G. said, he has mistaken his
meaning, by making use of the word "connection" instead of _relation_.
We have no connection, either commercial or political, with France; but
we stand, as a nation, in a political and commercial relation with
France and other nations. There is no connection between us, but there
is the same relation, both political and commercial, that there is
between all other nations. And, said Mr. G., it is, doubtless, an
infraction on the law of nations to offer any lure, or promote the
independence of a colony. We certainly have a right to give assistance,
in case of a rebellion, by running the risk of becoming a party in the
war, but not without infracting the law of nations; still less could we
do it without breaking that morality in politics, the breach of which we
have so often complained of. We may suppose the Government of France
radically wrong, and the people exercising it corrupt, but neither would
justify the overturning, or holding out any encouragement to others to
overturn, the Government of any part of her dependencies. A conduct of
this kind could only be justified in time of war.
In this country, in our speeches, at least, we have gone further, and
said that, even in case of war, it would not be right to sow the seeds
of insurrection; for, on what other grounds could we account for the
philippics which have been pronounced on this floor against France, for
her conduct not only against countries with whom she was at peace, but
also against those with whom she was at war. This was the case with
respect to all the charges made against France with respect to Holland,
or the Milanese (now Cisalpine Republic) with whom she was at war when
the attempts condemned were made. But we have said, war is at best an
unfortunate state, and it is not right to heighten its evils by exciting
insurrections and commotions. If this principle is right, and Mr. G.
believed it correct in most cases, it is clear that we shall not be
justified in promoting insurrections, even in war, much less in this
state which is a state of hostility, but not of war.
Notwithstanding the respect which he paid to the opinion of the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. PINCKNEY) he could not be persuaded
that the independence of St. Domingo could be a desirable object.
To-day, it had been avowed, in what fell from his colleague, (Mr.
HARTLEY,) that this was the ground upon which the clause was founded,
all the French force being withdrawn. He gave credit to the candor of
his colleague for the declaration, and it was in this point of view
which he had always considered it, because he had stated that, no doubt,
an agent from that quarter had come with propositions to our government.
Mr. G. repeated some of his former reasons against the policy of
promoting the independence of St. Domingo. He heard the gentleman from
Rhode Island, with regret, repeat one of those illiberal ideas that had
been so frequently introduced here, by saying that gentlemen seemed
opposed to this measure, because it would be injurious to France.
Mr. PINCKNEY wished to make a single observation upon what fell from the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. In order to defeat all that has been said
about this section holding out a lure for the establishment of the
independence of St. Domingo, it need only be said, that it is confined
to the colonies which are under the jurisdiction of France. The language
of this clause is, "so long as you continue dependent, we will treat
with you."
Mr. NICHOLAS explained.
Mr. SPRAGUE observed that the gentleman from Pennsylvania insisted upon
it, that, without this amendment, this bill would hold out a lure to
insurrections in St. Domingo, and that if gentlemen did not wish to
encourage these, they must agree to the amendment. What is this
encouragement? It is, "if you will forbear committing depredations,
which we have heretofore experienced from you, we will open our trade
with you." Then, according to the gentleman's reasoning, acts of
hostility against the commerce of this country, are favorable to France;
or rather, ceasing to commit them is an act of rebellion against the
mother country; and, to hold out a lure on our part, to stop these
depredations, is so contrary to the views of France, as to give a high
offence to that country.
Mr. MCDOWELL remarked, that gentlemen opposed to this amendment, all
agree that the section, as it stands, holds out no lure to insurrection
in the French West India islands; if not, why should they object to this
amendment, which is only calculated to make certain what is at present
doubtful to some members. He wished gentlemen to consider what might be
the consequence of authorizing the PRESIDENT to treat with unauthorized
persons. Gentlemen have stated, and he supposed truly, that the trade
of this island of St. Domingo is a gold mine to the merchants of this
country; and he was afraid that the richness of this trade had too much
attraction to be resisted by those concerned in it, though it might be
dearly purchased by the nation at large. He differed widely in opinion
from the gentleman from South Carolina, with respect to the effect which
the independence of that island would have upon this country; he
believed it was by no means a desirable event to this country.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS did not intend to have said any thing on this subject,
as it is principally a commercial concern, of which he knew but little;
but he also conceived that the agricultural interest is connected with
it. Gentlemen are afraid more is meant by this bill than meets the eye;
they are afraid to take a worm or a fly, lest a hook should be concealed
in them. Instead of war, he thought this bill calculated to promote
peace. It is admitted, on all hands, said Mr. W., that Hispaniola cannot
support itself. How must they, then, get support? Either we must supply
them, or they must depend upon neutral islands, or the people must bend
their whole force upon our commerce. What, said he, is most prudent to
do? He thought the regulation proposed by this bill the best that could
be hit upon. But the gentleman from Virginia said we are obliged to send
our tobacco through Spain to France; is this, said he, an advantage to
the people of this country? It may be presumed, Mr. W. said, that the
President will go no further in this business than the interest of the
country requires. This jealousy of the PRESIDENT has a bad effect;
because from a want of confidence in this officer, he will be unable to
do any thing for us. He hoped the amendment would not be agreed to.
It was negatived--49 to 41.
MONDAY, January 28.
_Intercourse with France._
The bill further suspending our commercial intercourse with France and
her dependencies, and for other purposes, having been read the third
time,
Mr. ALLEN moved for a recommitment of the bill in order to have expunged
a proviso introduced by the member from Tennessee, excluding the port of
New Orleans from its operation. He stated his reason to be, that he did
not believe that was likely to be a rendezvous for French privateers;
but that, if it should be, it ought to be liable to the same
restrictions with other ports; and, if it was not likely to become a
harbor of privateers, to insert a proviso of this kind, was to show a
distrust that the PRESIDENT would not exercise the power given to him
for the interest of the United States.
This motion was seconded by Mr. OTIS, and opposed by Messrs. VENABLE,
NICHOLAS, S. SMITH, W. CLAIBORNE, and HARPER. It was negatived, the
yeas and nays being taken--74 to 18.
The question on the passing of the bill was then taken, and stood, yeas
55, nays 37, as follows:
YEAS.--John Allen, George Baer, jun., Bailey Bartlett,
James A. Bayard, Jonathan Brace, David Brooks, Stephen
Bullock, Christopher G. Champlin, John Chapman, James
Cochran, William Craik, John Dennis, George Dent, William
Edmond, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan
Freeman, Nathaniel Freeman, jun., 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,
Harrison G. Otis, Isaac Parker, Josiah Parker, Thomas
Pinckney, John Reed, John Rutledge, jun., James Schureman,
Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel
Smith, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Peleg Sprague, George
Thatcher, Mark Thompson, Thomas Tillinghast, John E. Van
Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, Robert Waln, John Williams, and
Robert Williams.
NAYS.--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thos. Blount, Richard
Brent, Robert Brown, Samuel J. Cabell, Thomas Claiborne,
William C. C. Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Thomas
T. Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Eggleston, Lucas Elmendorph,
William Findlay, Albert Gallatin, James Gillespie, Andrew
Gregg, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
Havens, Joseph Heister, David Holmes, Walter Jones, Edward
Livingston, Matthew Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Anthony New,
John Nicholas, Thompson J. Skinner, William Smith, Richard
Sprigg, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, Philip Van Cortlandt,
Joseph B. Varnum, and Abraham Venable.
_French Affairs._
The following Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
_Gentlemen of the Senate, and Gentlemen of the House of
Representatives:_
An edict of the Executive Directory of the French Republic
of the twenty-ninth of October, 1798, inclosed in a letter
from our Minister Plenipotentiary in London, of the
sixteenth of November, is of so much importance that it
cannot be too soon communicated to you and to the public.