Mr. BIBB said, that if the House were now called upon for the first
time to pass an ordinance for the government of the Territories of
the United States, he should attach very little importance to the
decision of the present question. But he considered it not now an
abstract question of expediency, but as one of great moment, from the
circumstances with which it was connected. He denied the right of the
House to pass the bill; and if they had not the right, it was surely
unnecessary to argue the question on the ground of policy. It would be
recollected that the Mississippi Territory was formerly the property
of the State of Georgia, and ceded by that State to the United States
on certain conditions, _one of which was that the ordinance for the
government of the Territory Northwest of the Ohio should be the basis
of the government of the Mississippi Territory_.[2] If this, said
he, be one of the conditions of a compact between the United States
and Georgia, surely the United States have no right to infringe it
without the consent of Georgia; and I, as one of her Representatives,
formally protest against the passage of this bill. It may be said that
Georgia is very little interested in the abstract question, whether the
Governor should or should not have the power of prorogation; but, if a
right exists to alter one part of the ordinance without the consent of
Georgia, it certainly implies a power to alter it in every part.
Mr. POINDEXTER said he would state the reasons for which he had
introduced the bill, and which would, he hoped, insure it the sanction
of the committee. I will, in the first place, said Mr. P., advert to
that part of the ordinance which is proposed to be amended by the
bill under consideration. In the ordinance for the government of the
Northwestern Territory will be found this article: "The Governor shall
have power to prorogue and dissolve the General Assembly, when, in
his opinion, it shall be expedient." The bill proposes to take away
this power, as being arbitrary and oppressive in the extreme, and
incompatible with the Constitution of the United States. This ordinance
was passed previous to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and if
it had been the subject of consideration subsequent to its adoption,
this provision had never been inserted, giving to Governors of
Territories a power paramount to any power possessed by the President
of the United States. Take away this power and a Governor will still
have left the power of negativing all acts, so that none can pass
without his assent; and, being the agent of the General Government, he
would give consent to no law incompatible with the interests of the
United States.
It has been said that the ordinance cannot be altered without the
common consent of the parties to it, and that the State of Georgia
must be called upon to give its assent before the Congress can alter
it. There are two parts of this ordinance; the first contains the form
of government, and the second several articles of compact which are
declared unalterable but with common consent. After reciting the form
of government, the ordinance says:
"The following articles shall be considered as articles of
compact between the original States and the people of the
States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable,
unless by common consent, to wit."
[Here follow six articles.] The ordinance declares that which follows
the declaration to be unalterable, but by common consent; it follows
of consequence that that which precedes the declaration is alterable.
Independent of this reasoning, which cannot be refuted, at every
session since we have been a Territory, there have been laws passed
altering the ordinance in some shape or other. For example, the
ordinance requires two judges to hold a court; and, in a variety
of instances, Congress has legislated with respect to the form of
government of the Territory. I had supposed that the articles of
agreement between the United States and Georgia had become obsolete,
with respect to the imagined necessity of the consent of Georgia to
legislation on the subject of the Territory. It was urged at the last
session with all the eloquence which the gentlemen from Georgia are in
so great a degree possessed, and disregarded; for it was decided by
both Houses that the United States had a right to rule the Territory
without the consent of Georgia.
The Constitution of the United States says that Congress shall "have
power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United
States." Can an agreement arising from the exercise of this power,
supersede the right of exercising the power expressly delegated by the
constitution itself? Certainly not.
On the ground of policy I presume that there is no gentleman who will
contend that the power of which I wish to deprive the Governors, ought
to be retained. The gentleman from Georgia himself says, that if he
were about to frame an original ordinance, he would not think of such
a power. As the opinion of Judge Tucker has been referred to on one
subject, I will refer to it on the subject of prerogative. Let it be
recollected, that the power to prorogue and dissolve is one of the
highest prerogatives of the King of England: that it crept into the
governments of his colonies, and thence into this ordinance, previous
to the adoption of the constitution. It now remains for the United
States to say, whether they will copy after Great Britain, and because
it is a high prerogative, give the Governors of the Territories of
the United States the same powers as she gives to her Territorial
Governors. I trust it will be expunged.
"The title 'prerogative,' it is presumed, was annihilated in
America with the Kingly Government." "This definition (of
prerogative) is enough to make a citizen of the United States
shudder at the recollection that he was born under a government
in which such doctrines were received as catholic," &c.
This is the opinion of Judge Tucker. Is not this sufficient to induce
us to take away from Governors this prerogative? Is not this feature
modelled after the feature in the Government of England? Certainly;
and that it is transferred from her Colonial Government, I can show by
the present ordinance for the government of Canada, [to which Mr. P.
referred.] It is the same principle, and we have copied it.
I will not object to retain this power, if any gentleman can show any
advantage to be gained by it. I will suppose an extreme case; that any
of the Territories designed to commit treason, and the Legislature were
to pass an act giving it their sanction; (and they have shown less
treasonable disposition than some of the elder States, if we may judge
from occurrences of a few years past)--could not the Governor put his
negative on this law? There could be no such law without his consent.
It is therefore entirely unnecessary, in any possible case, to give the
Governor the arbitrary power of dissolving the Legislature.
There is a special reason which has operated upon my mind as forcibly
as the general reason in favor of the bill on the table. In the
Territory which I have the honor to represent, we have been nearly
twelve months without any Legislature. The Governor thought proper
to dissolve the Assembly without any reason given, for the ordinance
does not bind him to assign reasons for his acts. Within a few days, a
new Council has been chosen, which may again be dissolved as soon as
it meets, and the Territory again left without a Legislature, and no
reason assigned for the procedure. Is it possible that this Government
will sanction such arbitrary practices? If it does, it will be the
first case since the Revolution in which such a procedure has been
sanctioned. I beg leave to refer gentlemen to the glorious year 1776.
I beg them to revert to that instrument, in which all the sins of our
political father, George III., were delineated, and they will find that
one of the charges against him was that he permitted his Governors to
dissolve the Legislatures from time to time. Are we prepared to ingraft
these arbitrary principles into our constitution, and cherish them
when practised in so arbitrary a manner? Instead of this ordinance
being passed with deliberation, it must have passed originally _sub
silentio_, and been adopted for all the new Territories without any
discussion at all; for, if the principle had been investigated,
it would never have been enacted into a law. In the Declaration
of Independence it is stated that "he (George III.) has dissolved
Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness,
his invasions on the rights of the people." Here we see that, at that
day, we complained of the arbitrary exercise of power, and I hope that,
at this day, we shall give it a death-blow. If any gentleman wishes
to retain it, let him show a single possible case in which it can
properly be exercised--never, but to gratify the ambition or caprice
of an individual. The people elect Representatives and send them to
legislate; if they do not please the Governor, he can say, "gentlemen,
go to your homes--I dissolve you." Can there be any necessity for this?
But I will not detain the House longer, except to express a hope that
the committee will not rise, unless it be to report the bill.
Mr. TROUP said he would state, in as few words as he could, his
objections to the passage of the bill. It was only the day before
yesterday that this bill had been introduced into the House, proposing
to alter one part of the ordinance. To-day, a petition came from
another territory to alter another part of it. Before they adjourned,
it was ten thousand to one that not a remnant of the ordinance would be
left, with their good will.
I have before stated it as my opinion, said he, that the articles of
the ordinance are a compact between the people of the States and of the
territories, unalterable but with the consent of both parties. With the
permission of the House, I will read the opinion of Judge Tucker on
this subject:
"Congress, under the former confederation, passed an ordinance
July 13, 1787, for the government of the territory of the
United States northwest of the Ohio, which contained, among
other things, six articles, which were to be considered as
articles of compact between the original States and the people
and States of said territory, and to remain unalterable, except
by common consent. These articles appear to have been confirmed
by the sixth article of the constitution, which declares,
that all debts contracted and engagements entered into,
before the adoption of the constitution, shall be as valid
against the United States under the constitution as under the
Confederation."
In this case there are not only two but three parties to the
articles--the United States, the State of Georgia, and the people of
the Territories. You will recollect, as my colleague properly stated
to you, that the right of soil and jurisdiction of this territory
was originally in the people of Georgia. Of course Georgia had power
to prescribe for the territory what form of government she pleased,
provided it was republican. By the articles of cession, the right of
soil and jurisdiction was ceded to the people of the United States,
_on the express condition that the articles of the ordinance should
form the government of the Mississippi Territory, and that they should
not be governed otherwise_. The inference inevitably is, that the State
of Georgia would not have ceded but upon the express condition; and
this inference is the more inevitable, inasmuch as, in this clause,
Georgia has made an express exception to a particular article in the
ordinance;[3] from which, I say that Georgia intended that no other
alteration should be made.
What was the policy of the ordinance, and what the object of its
framers? Why, assuredly, to render the governments of the Territories
dependent on the Government of the United States. And how was it
to be effected? By making the Territorial Legislature in a great
degree dependent on the Governor, and him absolutely dependent on the
Federal Executive. The moment we make the Legislature of a Territory
independent of its Executive, we make it independent of the Federal
Government.
And again, as my colleague has correctly told you, if you have a right
to repeal one part of the ordinance, you have a right to repeal another
part, and so overturn the whole system at a blow. If so, what will be
the effect on the articles of cession and agreement between you and
Georgia? I will tell you. By the articles of cession you reserve to
yourself the right of disposing of the territory; you also agree to
pay Georgia one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars out of
the product of the first sales of the land. Suppose you transferred to
the independent Legislature of the Mississippi Territory the right to
dispose of this Territory, what security has Georgia for the payment
of her one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars? Moreover,
I feel every disposition to treat with respect the people of the
Mississippi Territory, and particularly as I perceive that they approve
of that course of our Government, in which I most heartily concur; yet
I must say that a large majority of the people have a landed interest
distinct from that of the Government of the United States. Take away
from the Governor his power to prorogue and dissolve, leave him the
veto, and there will soon be collision. The Legislature passes an act;
the Governor puts his veto on it. The Legislature stands out, and the
Governor will not yield, and eventually you may, perhaps, have to
decide the question of territorial property by the sword. Recollect,
that upward of six thousand people have gone over in the present year,
with every apparent intention to force a settlement against your
interest and that of Georgia. I am very glad that the military have
received orders to disperse them. I trust that they will be dispersed,
and that every man who stands forth in resistance will be put to the
sword.
But the gentleman from Mississippi Territory is certainly mistaken
as to one point. He seems to consider the Constitution of the United
States as giving to the people of the Territories the same rights as
the people of the States. _It is a mistaken idea, neither warranted
by the letter or spirit of the constitution._ For although the
constitution has declared that the people of one State are entitled to
all the rights and privileges of another, yet it has not declared that
the people of the Territories have the same rights as the people of the
States. In another part of the constitution it is, indeed, expressly
declared that Congress shall make all laws for the disposal of the
Territories; but there is a salvo, that all acts done and contracts
made previous to the adoption of the constitution, shall be as binding
as if done afterward. The articles of the ordinance were enacted
previously, and are consequently binding under the constitution. It
cannot be controverted, that they were wisely adopted, and have been
salutary in their operation. They were framed by the Congress of '87,
composed of men whose integrity was incorruptible, and judgment almost
infallible. These articles, from that time to this, have remained
unaltered, and carried the Territories through difficulties, almost
insuperable, to prosperity. And now, for the first or second time, an
alteration is proposed, the consequence of which cannot be foreseen,
without any evidence that it is either necessary or expedient.
The population of every new country must necessarily be composed of a
heterogeneous mixture of various tempers, characters, and interests.
In a population thus composed, it would be highly ridiculous to expect
that love of order and obedience to law would always predominate.
Therefore the old Congress wisely reserved to itself the right to
control them; to give the Governor power, when a Legislature became
disorderly, to dissolve them; and for the exercise of this power he is
accountable to the General Government.
The gentleman from Mississippi wishes us not to treat the Territories
as children, whose wild extravagances may require correcting by the
indulgent hand of their parents, but as the equals of the States,
without any other reason than that which he states to be the situation
of the people of his Territory. They will next wish us to admit them
into the Union before their population will authorize it; tell us that
that Territory does not grow fast enough, and we must demolish the
system for their convenience.
Mr. T. adverted to the representation made by Mr. POINDEXTER, of the
state of things now existing in the Mississippi Territory. If such were
the situation of the Territory, and Mr. T. said he sincerely regretted
it, he could put the gentleman in a way of settling the dispute in a
regular and constitutional way, and which would be the most prudent and
advisable. Certainly, in this dispute, one of the parties must be right
and the other wrong. They had nothing to do but prefer their complaints
before the proper authority, and, if they were there substantiated,
they would obtain redress of their wrongs. If, on the contrary, the
people were wrong and the Governor right, the wisdom of this part of
the ordinance would be proved beyond question.
Mr. POINDEXTER observed that the gentleman from Georgia had set out
with telling the House that if the Legislature were made independent
of the Governor, they could pass any law they pleased respecting land
titles. The gentleman could not have looked at the ordinance, for
there was an express provision that the Legislature should "never
interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States
in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find
necessary for securing the title in such soil," &c. Independent of
this, it is control sufficient if the Governor have a veto on the
laws. The gentleman has told you, said Mr. P., that these articles are
unalterable but with common consent. When up before, I read that part
which is unalterable. It is the articles of ordinance and not the form
of government; and to this Judge Tucker refers when he speaks of it.
The gentleman has said, that the situation of the people would not be
bettered by taking away the power, if the veto were left. In my opinion
it would be ameliorated. Let the Governor retain his veto, but let
them remain in session, and pass laws, that the General Government may
see whether such laws are worthy of rejection or of approbation. Now,
if the Governor discovers them about to pass a law or do an act he
does not like, he sends them home. Lop off a little of this Executive
power, and let the Legislature pass laws which he may negative, and the
General Government will have an opportunity of seeing that the Governor
will not consent to proper laws. Trust your Executive and distrust the
people, and you sap the foundation of the Government. Whatever leads
to the conclusion that the people are always wrong and the Executive
right, strikes at the root of republican institutions.
The gentleman has spoken of the wildness and extravagance of the
people of the Mississippi Territory. Does he recollect the invasion
of the Spaniards two years ago? That, at a few days' notice, at the
requisition of the Commander-in-chief, a detachment of two hundred and
fifty militia were sixty miles on their march? When an arch traitor
from the East designed to sever the Union, the people of the Territory,
without call, assembled near the city of Natchez, and arrested the
traitor. These proceedings cannot be exceeded even by the spirit or
prudence of the State of Georgia. I hope the indignation of this House
will be displayed at these insinuations against the motives of people
who have manifested the greatest patriotism. In respect to the late
measures of the General Government, no people feel them more severely
than the people of Mississippi, and no people better support them.
There may be symptoms of wildness and extravagance, but they show a
submission to the laws and measures of the Union.
The gentleman talks of tender parents. If he considers the State of
Georgia as one of our tender parents, I protest against it. Although
she be one of our parents, there has been no proposition ever made
on this floor, for the good of the Territory, which has not met the
opposition of that State. But these are subjects on which I will not
dwell.
The gentleman has stated that a number of people have gone over to the
Mississippi Territory to settle lands, against the express provisions
of the law. That, under the pretext of a purchase from an Indian,
named Double Head, people have gone over to settle lands, is true;
but from where? From Georgia. They are citizens of Georgia; people
nurtured by this tender parent into a state of manhood, and unwilling
to participate longer in the tender cares of the State of Georgia. They
have been, very properly, ordered to be driven off by military force,
because they have infringed a law of the United States. But these
things do not touch the present question. I now propose to take away a
power which has been, by mistake, incorporated into the constitution of
a free people.
Mr. BIB said that the State of Georgia had never undertaken to
legislate for the Mississippi Territory; but there was a compact
existing between the United States and Georgia, and he called upon the
United States to adhere to it. They dared not violate it, except they
could violate the most solemn compact--the constitution.
Mr. TROUP observed that it had been said this power of the Governor
was a badge of slavery copied from the British Constitution. That in
many things they had been copied too far, he agreed; but as to this
prerogative, it was no such badge of slavery, and was found not only
in the articles of the ordinance, but in the constitutions of various
States, qualified in a greater or less degree. Mr. T. quoted the
constitutions of New York and Massachusetts, both which States had been
considered republican. Massachusetts, to be sure, was a little wavering
now, but he hoped she had not quite gone over to the enemy yet. These
constitutions gave a qualified prerogative to the Governor of the State.
The committee now rose--58 to 36.
Mr. TROUP moved that the further consideration of the bill be postponed
indefinitely--[equivalent to rejection.]
Mr. POINDEXTER calling for the yeas and nays on the motion, it was
decided--yeas 57, nays 52, as follows:
YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., Ezekiel Bacon,
David Bard, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Blake,
junior, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown, Joseph Calhoun, John
Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport,
jun., William Ely, William Findlay, Francis Gardner, Charles
Goldsborough, Edwin Gray, John Heister, William Hoge, Richard
S. Jackson, Robert Jenkins, Walter Jones, James Kelly, William
Kirkpatrick, John Lambert, Joseph Lewis, jun., Robert Marion,
William McCreery, William Milnor, Nicholas R. Moore, Jonathan
O. Mosely, Gurdon S. Mumford, Wilson C. Nicholas, Timothy
Pitkin, junior, John Porter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph,
Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, John Russell, Dennis Smelt,
Henry Southard, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Peter Swart,
Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, John Taylor, George M.
Troup, Jabez Upham, James I. Van Allen, Daniel C. Verplanck,
Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, and Nathan Wilson.
NAYS.--Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell,
William Butler, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, John Culpeper,
John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, Daniel M. Durell,
James Elliot, John W. Eppes, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin,
Thomas Gholson, jun., Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, John
Harris, William Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin
Howard, Daniel Isley, Richard M. Johnson, Nathaniel Macon,
Daniel Montgomery, junior, John Montgomery, Jeremiah Morrow,
John Morrow, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton,
John Pugh, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee,
Jacob Richards, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw,
James Sloan, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith,
Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, John Thompson,
Archibald Van Home, Jesse Wharton, Isaac Wilbour, and Alexander
Wilson.
So the bill was postponed indefinitely.
MONDAY, November 21.
Another member, to wit, JOHN BOYLE, from Kentucky, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.
_Naturalized British Subjects._
Mr. HOWARD presented a petition of sundry inhabitants of the State
of Kentucky, stating that the King of Great Britain having, by his
proclamation of the sixteenth of October, one thousand eight hundred
and seven, claimed the allegiance of all persons who may have been born
in his dominions, and were not inhabitants of the United States of
America at the period of their Revolution, and disregarding the laws
of naturalization in other countries, hath authorized the impressment
into his service of his pretended subjects, and treated as traitors
such as may have taken up arms against him in the service of their
adopted country; the petitioners being, at the present time, precluded
from the privilege of following commercial pursuits on the high seas in
safety, therefore pray that such measures be adopted by Congress as may
effectually resist the unjust assumption of power claimed and exercised
by a foreign nation; and pledging themselves to support with their
lives and fortunes whatever steps may be taken, or acts passed, by the
General Government, for the welfare of the Union.--Referred to Mr.
HOWARD, Mr. JOHN MORROW, and Mr. HARRIS, to examine the matter thereof,
and report their opinion thereupon to the House.
_Miranda's Expedition._
Mr. LOVE, from the committee to whom was referred, on the sixteenth
instant, the petition of thirty-six citizens of the United States now
confined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery,
made a report thereon; which was read, and ordered to be referred to a
Committee of the whole House to-morrow.
The report is as follows:
That it appears, from the statement of the petitioners, that,
in February, 1806, they sailed from New York on board the
Leander, a ship owned by Samuel G. Ogden, the command of which
was, after getting to sea, assumed by General Miranda.
That, from New York, the said ship sailed to Jacmel, where
the said Miranda procured two schooners, on board which the
petitioners were placed, which, together with the Leander,
sailed, under the command of Miranda, about the last of March,
in the same year, for the northern parts of South America, and
arrived on the coast of Terra Firma in the latter part of April
following.
That, upon their arrival on the said coast, the two schooners,
on board which the petitioners were embarked, were captured by
two Spanish armed vessels; the ship Leander, with Miranda on
board, having made her escape.
That the petitioners, together with ten others, were convicted
by a Spanish tribunal, at Porto Cabello, of the crime of
piracy, from the circumstances of suspicion which attached to
their situation, and not from any act of that kind committed
on the high seas; that the ten others above mentioned were
sentenced to death, and the petitioners some to eight, others
to ten years' slavery, which they now are suffering; some
chained together, others closely confined under heavy irons and
a guard, destined to other places and to similar punishment.
The petitioners state that they were entrapped into the service
of the said Miranda, on the said expedition, by assurances made
at the time of their engagements, that they were to be employed
in the service of the United States, and under the authority
of the Government. For the truth of their statement, and a
confirmation of the charges they make against certain persons
of having thus deceived and betrayed them into an involuntary
co-operation in the design of fitting out an armament against
a nation in amity with the United States, they refer to the
testimony of several persons, said to be inhabitants of the
city of New York, and to have had proposals made to them
similar to those by which the petitioners were induced to
engage on board the Leander.
The petitioners also state that no opportunity was offered
them of escaping from the service of the said Miranda and his
associates; that they were restrained under the most rigorous
discipline, and at Jacmel, the only place where an opportunity
of escape might have been probable, they were strictly guarded
to prevent it. For the truth of this they refer to certain
captains of vessels then at Jacmel belonging to the ports of
Philadelphia and Baltimore.
The committee further report that the foregoing statements of
the petitioners are unaccompanied by any competent testimony
in support of them, and, at the same time, are uncontradicted
by any opposing circumstances; they are of opinion that a very
strong probability of the petitioners not having been guilty
of the crime of wilfully engaging in the unlawful expedition
of Miranda attends their application: first, because the
petitioners have made a detailed statement of facts relative
to the deception practised on them, referring to such species
of evidence as to render their contradiction easy, if not
founded in truth, and thus lessen their claim on their country,
and diminish their hopes of liberation: second, because it is
presumed they were proven to the Spanish tribunal before which
they were convicted to have been offenders in a secondary
degree, those who were proven to have been more heinously
guilty having been sentenced to suffer death.
The committee, however, are of opinion that, should the
petitioners have been guilty of a crime against the United
States by a voluntary or otherwise culpable infraction of its
laws, the dictates of humanity no less than the principles
of justice, ought to influence the Legislature of the United
States to adopt the proper means of restoring them to their
country, in order that they may expiate the offence by a
punishment suited to but not transcending the magnitude of
their crime.
The committee, therefore, beg leave to submit the following
resolution for the consideration of the House.
_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means
in his power to obtain from the Viceroy of Grenada, in
South America, or other proper authority, the liberation
of thirty-six American citizens, condemned on a charge of
piracy, and now held in slavery in the vaults of St. Clara, in
Carthagena, and that the sum of ---- dollars be appropriated
for that purpose.
TUESDAY, November 22.
Two other members, to wit: from New York, PHILIP VAN CORTLANDT, and
from South Carolina, RICHARD WYNN, appeared, and took their seats in
the House.
_Additional Revenue Cutters._
Mr. NEWTON called for the order of the day on the bill authorizing the
President to employ twelve additional revenue cutters.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole,
Mr. NEWTON rose to state that the Committee of Commerce and
Manufactures had understood, from the proper authorities, there was a
necessity for the proper execution of the revenue laws, that the force
under the direction of the Treasury Department should be considerably
increased.
Mr. DANA inquired whether any written information touching the
necessity there might be for twelve revenue cutters had been received
by the committee--any letter from the Secretary of the Treasury? He
thought it was necessary, if so, that it should be submitted to the
House.
Mr. NEWTON replied that there had been no written communication from
the proper Department to the committee. They had not thought it
essential, having also understood that the Secretary of the Treasury
was particularly occupied. However, he had taken the shortest method,
by waiting upon the Secretary himself, and had received the information
before alluded to. He had understood that the probable expense of each
cutter would be about $10,000, or $120,000 for the whole, each cutter
to carry about twenty men.
Mr. QUINCY thought that the correct mode of proceeding would require
other than mere verbal information. Respect for themselves should
induce gentlemen not to act without official communication upon the
subject. They could not, upon any other conditions, agree to so great
an augmentation of the force under the direction of the Treasury
Department. There had, heretofore, been but ten cutters employed.
There were never more than ten when commerce was at its height and the
revenue flourishing. But now, the House was called upon to vote twelve
additional cutters, when we are without revenue, without commerce, and
there is no information of an official nature before the House upon
which it might act.
Mr. NEWTON could not see that it was of any consequence to the House,
whether there had been a written communication to it upon the subject,
so that the information came through the proper organ, from the proper
authority. It was necessary, in times of difficulty like the present,
to act with spirit and promptitude. The laws should be executed with
the greatest strictness; and it was always wise to take time by the
forelock.
Mr. BLACKLEDGE said that the expense of building the cutters would be
defrayed by the detection of goods attempted to be smuggled. There had
already been many condemnations. They were taking place every day. And
it was to support the laws that these cutters had been called for.
On the motion of Mr. NEWTON, that the committee rise and report the
bill, it was carried--yeas 47, nays 46.
THURSDAY, November 24.
Another member, to wit, BARENT GARDENIER, from New York, appeared, and
took his seat in the House.
MONDAY, November 28.
Another member, to wit, MATTHEW LYON, from Kentucky, appeared, and took
his seat in the House.
_Foreign Relations._
On the motion of Mr. CAMPBELL, the House resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole, on the report of the committee on the subject
of our foreign relations.
The first resolution, in the following words, having been read:
_Resolved_, That the United States cannot, without a sacrifice
of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late
edicts of Great Britain and France:
Mr. CAMPBELL opened the debate. He said that ill health had hitherto
prevented and might hereafter prevent him from giving that attention
to the subject which the all-important crisis would seem to require;
it was, however, his duty to bring the subject before the House. The
committee having in their report presented to the House the view in
which they had considered the subject referred to them, and the reasons
generally which induced them to present these resolutions to the
House, he said it was not his intention at this time to enter into a
discussion of their merits. Those reasons had been deemed sufficient
by the committee to justify them in presenting these resolutions to
the House; and as the objections to this, if any there were, could not
be foreseen, he would not attempt to anticipate them. According to
the view which he himself had taken of the first resolution, it could
require no discussion, it was too clear to require demonstration, and
too self-evident to need proof of its propriety. It might indeed seem
to require an apology from the committee for presenting a proposition
which every American must long since have determined for himself.
When the question had been first presented to his consideration, it
had appeared to him that it was totally superfluous, and to be doing
little more than announcing to the world that the United States were
still independent; but on further consideration, it had been deemed by
the select committee of some importance that in the present critical
situation of the United States, they should fix on some point at which
all would meet. After a perusal of the documents laid before the House
at the opening of the session, Mr. C. said it had been supposed that
no one would hesitate in declaring his indignation at the flagrant
violations and encroachments on our rights by the belligerent powers,
while it had been supposed that some difference of opinion might
exist as to the mode of resistance. After it was once determined
that they would not submit, that they would repel aggression, it
had been supposed that they might, with greater probability of
unanimity, discuss the course proper to be pursued. With a view to
this the committee had presented this resolution to the House. It was
expected that all would unite in it and prove to the world that the
Representatives of every portion of the American people were determined
to maintain their rights, for the belligerent powers really seemed to
suppose that the American people had forgotten them, and had therefore
assumed the right of prescribing the course of conduct which we should
pursue. To submit to regulations of foreign powers, which limited the
conduct of the American people, and prescribed the rules by which they
were to be governed, which pointed out the very ports to which they
should or should not go, which fixed the tribute or tax which they
should pay, would be not only to abandon their dignity and honor, but
to surrender, shamefully surrender our independence. Mr. C. said he
would not take up the time of the committee in showing that the Orders
of Council of Great Britain and the Decrees of France, were, on the
part of those nations, an assumption of power to give laws to this
country, in direct violation of our neutral rights, and an encroachment
on our sovereignty. This would require no argument. The real question
is, said he, shall we govern ourselves or be controlled by the will
of others; shall we become tributary or not, shall we submit or be
independent? And to the committee he cheerfully left the decision of
this question.
Mr. MUMFORD next addressed the Committee of the Whole. He observed,
that although he had the honor of being one of the Committee of Foreign
Relations, who framed the report under consideration, he dissented from
that report in some respects. We had now arrived at a momentous crisis
in the affairs of our country, and he hoped the House would deliberate
with that firmness and moderation which became the Representatives of
the free and independent people they had the honor to represent on
this all interesting concern. However they might differ on smaller
points of minor importance, yet when the best interest of the country
was at stake, he hoped they would unite in some mode to secure our
rights and promote the interests of the United States. The proposition
which he had the honor to move a few days ago, was consonant in some
degree to the instructions offered by our Ministers to Great Britain
and France, offering to remove the embargo in relation to either
that should rescind their obnoxious decrees. Neither of them having
receded, Mr. M. said he would continue the embargo in relation to them
both. Nay, further, he would inflict the severest penalties on any
one who should receive a license or voluntarily pay tribute to either
of them. He considered them both alike. He wished to see the country
placed in a complete posture of defence; but he could not see any good
reason why we should not trade with those nations who were willing to
receive us on friendly terms, and to trade with us on the principles of
reciprocity and mutual interests. This would not compromit the honor of
the nation. Even admitting that it might possibly lead to war, which he
doubted, he was convinced that the citizens of this country would rise
_en masse_ in support of that commerce which neither France nor England
had any right to interdict. He did presume, with all the zeal of some
gentlemen for irritating measures, it was not seriously contemplated
to declare war against all mankind; he was for having at least a few
friends in case of need. What was our situation now? The President of
the United States had told them, after speaking of France and England,
that "our relations with the other powers of Europe had undergone no
material change since the last session." This being the case, our
commerce was open with them all except France and Great Britain and
their dependencies.
Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Chairman, I am not, in general, a friend to abstract
legislation. Ostentatious declaration of general principles is so
often the resort of weakness and of ignorance, it is so frequently the
subterfuge of men who are willing to amuse, or who mean to delude the
people, that it is with great reluctance I yield to such a course my
sanction.
If, however, a formal denunciation of a determination to perform
one of the most common and undeniable of national duties, be deemed
by a majority of this House essential to their character, or to the
attainment of public confidence, I am willing to admit that the one now
offered is as unexceptionable as any it would be likely to propose.
In this view, however, I lay wholly out of sight the report of the
committee by which it is accompanied and introduced. The course
advocated in that report is, in my opinion, loathsome; the spirit
it breathes disgraceful; the temper it is likely to inspire neither
calculated to regain the rights we have lost, nor to preserve those
which remain to us. It is an established maxim, that in adopting a
resolution offered by a committee in this House, no member is pledged
to support the reasoning, or made sponsor for the facts which they have
seen fit to insert in it. I exercise, therefore, a common right, when
I subscribe to the resolution, not on the principles of the committee,
but on those which obviously result from its terms, and are the plain
meaning of its expressions.
I agree to this resolution, because, in my apprehension, it offers a
solemn pledge to this nation--a pledge not to be mistaken, and not to
be evaded--that the present system of public measures shall be totally
abandoned. Adopt it, and there is an end of the policy of deserting
our rights, under pretence of maintaining them. Adopt it, and we can
no longer yield, at the beck of haughty belligerents, the right of
navigating the ocean, that choice inheritance bequeathed to us by our
fathers. Adopt it, and there is a termination of that base and abject
submission, by which this country has for these eleven months been
disgraced, and brought to the brink of ruin.
That the natural import and necessary implication of the terms of this
resolution are such as I have suggested, will be apparent from a very
transient consideration. What do its terms necessarily include? They
contain an assertion and a pledge. The assertion is, that the edicts
of Great Britain and France are contrary to our rights, honor, and
independence. The pledge is, that we will not submit to them.
Concerning the assertion contained in this resolution I would say
nothing, were it not that I fear those who have so long been in the
habit of looking at the orders and decrees of foreign powers as the
measure of the rights of our own citizens, and been accustomed, in
direct subserviency to them, of prohibiting commerce altogether, might
apprehend that there was some lurking danger in such an assertion.
They may be assured there can be nothing more harmless. Neither Great
Britain nor France ever pretended that those edicts were consistent
with American rights; on the contrary, both these nations ground those
edicts on the principle of imperious necessity, which admits the
injustice done at the very instant of executing the act of oppression.
No gentleman need to have any difficulty in screwing his courage up to
this assertion. Neither of the belligerents will contradict it. Mr.
Turreau and Mr. Erskine will both of them countersign the declaration
to-morrow.
With respect to the pledge contained in this resolution, understood
according to its true import, it is a glorious one. It opens new
prospects. It promises a change in the disposition of this House. It is
a solemn assurance to the nation that it will no longer submit to these
edicts. It remains for us, therefore, to consider what submission is,
and what the pledge not to submit implies.
One man submits to the order, decree, or edict of another, when he does
that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands; or when he
omits to do that thing which such order, decree, or edict prohibits.
This, then, is submission. It is to take the will of another as the
measure of our rights. It is to yield to his power--to go where he
directs, or to refrain from going where he forbids us.
If this be submission, then the pledge not to submit implies the
reverse of all this. It is a solemn declaration that we will not do
that thing which such order, decree, or edict commands, or that we will
do what it prohibits. This, then, is freedom. This is honor. This is
independence. It consists in taking the nature of things, and not the
will of another, as the measure of our rights. What God and Nature has
offered us we will enjoy, in despite of the commands, regardless of the
menaces of iniquitous power.
Let us apply these correct and undeniable principles to the edicts of
Great Britain and France, and the consequent abandonment of the ocean
by the American Government. The decrees of France prohibit us from
trading with Great Britain. The orders of Great Britain prohibit us
from trading with France. And what do we? Why, in direct subserviency
to the edicts of each, we prohibit our citizens from trading with
either. We do more; as if unqualified submission was not humiliating
enough, we descend to an act of supererogation in servility; we abandon
trade altogether; we not only refrain from that particular trade
which their respective edicts prescribe, but, lest the ingenuity of
our merchants should enable them to evade their operations, to make
submission doubly sure, the American Government virtually re-enact
the edicts of the belligerents, and abandon all the trade which,
notwithstanding the practical effects of their edicts, remain to us.
The same conclusion will result, if we consider our embargo in relation
to the objects of this belligerent policy. France, by her edicts, would
compress Great Britain by destroying her commerce and cutting off her
supplies. All the continent of Europe, in the hand of Bonaparte, is
made subservient to this policy. The embargo law of the United States,
in its operation, is a union with this continental coalition against
British commerce, at the very moment most auspicious to its success.
Can any thing be more in direct subserviency to the views of the French
Emperor? If we consider the orders of Great Britain, the result will
be the same. I proceed at present on the supposition of a perfect
impartiality in our Administration towards both belligerents, so far as
relates to the embargo law. Great Britain had two objects in issuing
her orders. First, to excite discontent in the people of the continent,
by depriving them of their accustomed colonial supplies. Second, to
secure to herself that commerce of which she deprived neutrals. Our
embargo co-operates with the British views in both respects. By our
dereliction of the ocean, the continent is much more deprived of the
advantages of commerce than it would be possible for the British navy
to effect, and by removing our competition, all the commerce of the
continent which can be forced is wholly left to be reaped by Great
Britain. The language of each sovereign is in direct conformity to
these ideas. Napoleon tells the American Minister, virtually, that
we are very good Americans; that, although he will not allow the
property he has in his hands to escape him, nor desist from burning
and capturing our vessels on every occasion, yet that he is, thus far,
satisfied with our co-operation. And what is the language of George
the Third, when our Minister presents to his consideration the embargo
laws? Is it _Le Roi s'avisera_? The King will reflect upon them. No;
it is the pure language of royal approbation, _Le Roi le veut_. The
King wills it. Were you colonies he could expect no more. His subjects
as inevitably get that commerce which you abandon as the water will
certainly run into the only channel which remains after all the others
are obstructed. In whatever point of view we consider these embargo
laws in relation to these edicts and decrees, we shall find them
co-operating with each belligerent in its policy. In this way, I grant,
our conduct may be impartial; but what has become of our American
rights to navigate the ocean? They are abandoned, in strict conformity
to the decrees of both belligerents. This resolution declares that we
shall no longer submit to such degrading humiliations. Little as I
relish, I will take it, as the harbinger of a new day--the pledge of a
new system of measures.
WEDNESDAY, November 30.
_Foreign Relations._
Mr. RICHARD M. JOHNSON.--I am more than astonished to see this House
inundated by every mail with publications, from the East, declaring
that we have no cause of complaint against Great Britain; that we
should rescind the proclamation of interdict against British armed
vessels; that we should repeal the non-importation law; that the
embargo should be taken off as to Great Britain; that we should go
to war with France; that punctilio prevents a settlement of our
differences with Great Britain; inviting the people to violate and
disregard the embargo, to put the laws and the constitution at
defiance, and rise in rebellion.
These considerations induced me to examine this matter, and to prove
to every honest American, what we all believe in this place, that
the object of one power, is to destroy our neutrality and involve
us in the convulsing wars of Europe; and the object of the other,
a monopoly of our commerce, and the destruction of our freedom and
independence. Let evidence as conclusive as holy writ put the enemies
of this insulted country to shame. We are informed by our Minister
in London, (Mr. Monroe,) in a communication dated August, 1807, that
a war party of powerful combination and influence existed in Great
Britain, who wanted to extend their ravages to this country; that we
could not make calculations upon the justice of Great Britain; that
in her many assumptions of power and principle she would yield but
from the absolute necessity. Who is this war party? The British navy,
to whom we have opened our ports, and extended all the hospitalities
of a generous nation; while in the enjoyment of which that very navy
waged war against our unoffending citizens. The ship owners, the
East and West India merchants, and what cause have they for war? The
enterprising citizens of the United States have been their rivals and
superiors in a lawful and profitable commerce; and, lastly, political
characters of high consideration. These compose this war party. In
January, 1804, in an official communication of Mr. Madison, Mr.
Monroe is charged with the suppression of impressment as his primary
object; 2d, the definition of blockade; 3d, the reduction of the
list of contraband; 4th, the enlargement of our trade with hostile
colonies. The negotiation opens, and what is done? With industry and
exertion our Minister was unable to bring the British Cabinet to any
amicable arrangement. Lords Hawkesbury, Harrowby, Mulgrave, and Mr.
Fox, succeeded each other, and every attempt to negotiate was in vain.
Each of them brings expressions of good will and good disposition
towards the United States, and a wish for amicable arrangement. But
these professions and dispositions evaporate in invitations to the
country and the city--in promises and procrastinations. To-day we
are amused with a conversation at the foreign office, which animates
with a lively hope--to-morrow hope is swallowed up in despair--and
the third day announces some new injury. Affairs on the continent now
call the attention of the British Ministry, and with every disposition
of good will there must be a pause. In this amicable pause business
required that our Minister should go to Old Spain; but upon his return
to England, what astonishment seized his mind at the sad spectacle
the changing scenes presented. Under the old rule of '56, and other
interpolations upon public law, our merchant vessels are swept from the
bosom of the ocean without notice, by British cruisers, and carried
into British ports for condemnation. But why this change? A coalition
had been formed in the North against France. British gold effected it.
Russia and Austria had combined against France, and here the hopes of
England rested.
But we all know her hopes were blasted. This is the reason why the
blow was aimed, and your commerce sacrificed. The remonstrances of our
Minister could not keep pace with new aggressions. This temporizing
policy of England, and the destruction of our commerce, buried party
spirit in America for the moment, and produced an indignant protest
against her conduct from the great commercial cities in the Union,
in which their lives and their property were pledged to support the
Government in measures of just retaliation. And on this occasion the
merchants of Boston requested the President to send a special Envoy to
England, to give a greater solemnity to our claims of indemnity and
future security. The cause of the merchants became a common cause,
and the non-importation law was enacted, and Mr. Pinkney sent as a
special Minister, agreeably to request. Let the commercial interest
cease to complain. It is for them principally that we now suffer.
These deeply-inflicted wounds upon the commerce of America, ingulfed
for a moment the consideration of the primary object of Mr. Monroe's
mission--the impressment of seamen--and it would seem, that when our
Minister pressed one great subject of complaint, some greater outrage
was committed to draw our attention from the former injury. Thus the
unavailing exertions of our Minister for upwards of two years at the
Court of St. James, eventuated in an extraordinary mission, and the
non-importation law; a measure of retaliation, and which rendered us
less dependent upon a foreign Government for such articles as can be
manufactured at home. To bring further evidence of British hostility,
let us attend a little to the Administration of Mr. Fox. He came into
office about the 1st of February. On the 31st of May, information
was received in London of the extra mission of Mr. Pinkney. Mr.
Monroe, therefore, had an opportunity of about four months with Mr.
Fox to settle our differences, without any interruption, not even
the ideal one which has been suggested, as giving a temporary stay
to the negotiation, viz: the waiting the arrival of Mr. Pinkney. The
United States had a right to expect something like justice from this
able Minister, because he entertained a sincere desire to conciliate
the friendship of this nation by acts of justice. But in this just
expectation we were disappointed. The hostility of other members of the
Cabinet with whom he was associated, was the real cause of difficulty,
joined perhaps with his sudden indisposition and death. Mr. FOX
acknowledged our right to the colonial trade; he promised to stop the
capture and condemnation of our merchant vessels; but when pressed to
answer our complaints in writing, he promised, but broke that promise,
and ultimately refused to give any orders with respect to the capture
and condemnation of our vessels. Thus the golden apple was presented to
our grasp, and then snatched forever from our sight.
Now let the committee attend to the chapter of negotiation, which
produced the rejected treaty. First, the subject of blockade is
proposed, and a definition demanded. We denied the doctrine of paper
breastworks, spurious and illegitimate blockades, to be executed in
every sea by the British Navy, of which our neutral rights were the
victims. Such as the blockade of the coast of Europe from the Elbe to
Brest, of the Elbe, the Weiser and Ems. The whole coast of Old Spain,
of the Dardanelles, and Smyrna, and of Curaçoa. Upon this subject,
Great Britain would yield nothing.
2. No duty can be laid upon American exports, but Great Britain imposes
a duty of four per cent. upon her exports to the United States, under
the name of a convoy duty; by which duty the citizens of the United
States pay to Great Britain an annual amount of $1,300,000; but upon
this unfriendly discrimination she will yield nothing.