Mr. RANDOLPH moved to amend it, so as to record the precise state of
the two ballots for a Speaker, with a view to a correct understanding
of the case, if it should ever be drawn into precedent hereafter.
After a discussion of nearly two hours on the subject of the
decision of yesterday, and the analogy betwixt it and the case of
the Presidential election of 1801, Mr. RANDOLPH'S motion was agreed
to--ayes 70.
_President's Message._
The Message of the President of the United States was received,
agreeably to the intimation given by the President yesterday to the
committee appointed to wait on him. The Message having been read,
was referred to a Committee of the whole House on the State of the
Union, and 5,000 copies ordered to be printed of the Message, with the
documents accompanying it. [See Senate proceedings of this date, _ante_
page 117, for this Message.]
THURSDAY, May 25.
_Swedish and Portuguese Vessels._
Mr. NEWTON offered a resolution to instruct the Committee of Commerce
and Manufactures to inquire into and report on the expediency of
permitting vessels of those nations with whom intercourse was
permitted, to take cargoes, &c. He stated to the House that at present
vessels of Sweden and Portugal, with whom intercourse is permitted,
could not load and depart; and on this subject a letter was read
from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Committee of Commerce and
Manufactures.
Mr. BURWELL said there was another subject connected with the
resolution, which ought to be taken into consideration. The
proclamation of the President declares that on the 10th of June
next, the operation of the non-intercourse law, as relates to Great
Britain, shall cease. It went into operation on the 20th of this
month. Of course there were many vessels on the coast which could not
get in before the 20th of May. He submitted it to the Chairman of
the Committee, whether it would not be proper at once to do away all
restriction, because the policy of its existence had ceased in relation
to Great Britain from the restoration of harmony with her; and if the
goods on our coast were not permitted to be regularly landed, they
might be smuggled in, and injure the revenue. He thought it would be
proper to inquire into the expediency of doing away at once, by law,
all interdiction of commerce.
Mr. NEWTON said he had no objection to act on the subject mentioned
by his colleague, but he did not conceive it to be connected with the
present motion.
Mr. NEWTON'S motion having been agreed to, he immediately reported
"a bill respecting the ships or vessels owned by citizens of foreign
nations with whom commercial intercourse is permitted."--Twice read,
and referred to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.
_Non-Intercourse Act._
Mr. LIVERMORE said that he did not distinctly hear all that fell from
the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BURWELL,) but, from what he had
heard, he apprehended that it was on a subject of great importance.
There were many vessels on the coast, which, were they to enter our
harbors, would fall within the description of the 4th, 5th, and 6th
sections of the non-intercourse act. From the happy commencement of the
settlement of our differences with Great Britain, he did not believe
it was the design of any gentleman that the non-intercourse should be
enforced in this particular. He therefore offered a resolution for
suspending the act, as follows:
_Resolved_, That it is expedient that the operation of so
much of the act, entitled "An act to interdict the commercial
intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and
France, and their dependencies," as inhibits the importation of
goods from Great Britain and its dependencies, be suspended
until the tenth day of June next.
FRIDAY, May 26.
Another member, to wit, ROBERT WEAKLEY, from Tennessee, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat.
_Vote of Approbation._
Mr. RANDOLPH said that for the last eight years or thereabouts an
alteration had taken place in the manner of doing business at the
commencement of each session of Congress. He said he recollected when
the first Congress under the administration of Mr. Jefferson had met
at this place, instead of Congress being opened as heretofore by the
President in person and by a speech, a note in these words had been
received by the Speaker, enclosing a Message from the President:
"DECEMBER 8, 1801.
"SIR: The circumstances under which we find ourselves at this
place rendering inconvenient the mode heretofore practised, of
making by personal address the first communications between
the Legislative and Executive branches, I have adopted that
by Message, as used on all subsequent occasions through the
session. In doing this I have had a principal regard to the
convenience of the Legislature, to the economy of their time,
to their relief from the embarrassment of immediate answers on
subjects not yet fully before them, and to the benefits thence
resulting to the public affairs. Trusting that a procedure
founded in these motives will meet their approbation, I beg
leave through you, sir, to communicate the enclosed Message."
&c.
It is unnecessary, I believe, (said Mr. R.,) to state that the hint
contained in the Message that no answer was to be expected, was
taken by the House; and from that day no answers have been given to
the Message of the President at the opening of Congress. It would
ill become me, sir, who so highly approved then, and who so highly
approve now the change introduced by communicating to the two Houses
by message instead of by speech, to say any thing that might imply a
disapprobation of it. I like it, sir. To tell the truth, the style
of communicating by speech was more in the style of the opening of
the British Parliament by the king. I therefore like the mode of
communication by message. But I am not so clear, though we were then
half-right, that we were wholly right; though on this subject I do not
mean to give a definite opinion. No man can turn over the journals of
the first six Congresses of the United States without being sickened,
fairly sickened, with the adulation often replied by the Houses of
Congress to the President's communication. But nevertheless the answer
to an address, although that answer might finally contain the most
exceptionable passages, was in fact the greatest opportunity which the
opposition to the measures of the administration had of canvassing and
sifting its measures; and, in my mind, whatever goes to take away this
opportunity, goes so far to narrow down the rights of the minority or
opposition, commonly so called, and in fact to enlarge the rights of
the majority and the administration party so called; and I beg leave
not to be understood as speaking of the state of parties at this time,
but of that which has always existed. This opportunity of discussion of
the answer to an address, however exceptionable the address might be
when it had received the last seasoning for the Presidential palate,
did afford the best opportunity to take a review of the measures of
the administration, to canvass them fully and fairly, without there
being any question raised whether the gentlemen were in order or not;
and I believe the time spent in canvassing the answer to a speech was
at least as well spent as a great deal that we have expended since we
discontinued the practice. I do not say that any answer is proper or
ought to be given; but I do believe that when this House goes into a
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, it is for purposes
a little more elevated than to dissect the Message of the President
of the United States, or to strip it up and transfer it to select
and standing committees. If that be the whole object of going into a
Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, I can see no reason
for having any such committee, nor why the Message should not be taken
in the first instance, dissected by the knife of the operator most in
the fashion of the day, and referred to different committees. And it
has a tendency to cast a sort of ridicule on our proceedings, when this
august assembly resolves itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, and resolves that the Message shall be referred
to such and such committees; and would induce shallow observers to
believe that in fact there is little or no use for such a committee.
But whatever may be my opinion on the subject of opening the two Houses
by message, I do think that there are occasions, and that this is one,
on which it behooves this assembly to express its opinion on the state
of public affairs. I will not recall to your recollection, sir, because
perhaps, and most probably it passed over your mind without making
any impression, that some time during the last session of Congress, I
stated that if the gentleman in whose hand the reins of Government were
about to be placed did not even tolerably perform the task assigned
to him, some allowance ought to be made for the state in which he
found the nation. And, sir, when I see the situation of the country
so materially changed for the better, am I and is this House to sit
still and regard it but as newspaper talk of the day, and express no
opinion on it? And what is our opinion? It is either in approbation or
disapprobation of the conduct of the Executive. In my opinion it is
due to the Executive that he have an expression of sentiment on this
subject. In the part of the country in which I live, dinners have been
given, feasts have been held, and the song and toast have passed round
in commemoration of the event: and is this House to be insensible,
and to leave the President of the United States in ignorance or doubt
whether his conduct has or has not received the sanction of their
approbation? Or is he to get that information from inofficial sources?
I hope not. I hope he will get it from ourselves. I therefore move you--
"That the promptitude and frankness with which the President
of the United States has met the overtures of the Government
of Great Britain, towards the restoration of harmony and free
commercial intercourse between the two nations, meets the
approbation of this House."
Mr. FINDLAY said that this proposition contemplated a novelty in the
legislative proceeding of this country. Where would it end if the House
were now to make a solemn resolution approving of the conduct of the
President? The answer returned to the speech of the King in monarchical
Governments committed the House making it to all that was contained
in it. The practice in this country had been long considered an evil;
indeed, he thought he could show by the journals one instance in which
the discussion of a single section in an answer occupied the House
fourteen or fifteen days. It was a practice, too, which introduced at
the very opening of the session all that irritation that commonly arose
in the course of a session. Mr. F. said he supposed there was not a
member in the House but did approve of the President's exercise of the
authority vested in him. He presumed that they approved equally also
of the same offer heretofore made to the Court of London. If the House
were to approbate the conduct of one President, they must approbate
that of others; and the conduct of the different administrations under
the constitution might be brought into view. Mr. F. was totally against
this motion, or any other of the kind.
Mr. DANA said that at the present time he should certainly not be for
adopting the resolution. The adopting it at this time would certainly
not comport with the object professed by the mover, which he had
understood to be, to present a question on which there might be a
general view of the conduct of the Executive in relation to the object
in question. If the object was to bring up the question in a regular
form, that gentlemen might express themselves fully in relation to
our affairs, it was very proper that this subject should be discussed
in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. For himself,
Mr. D. said that he thought the mode of answering speeches might do
very well in such a Government as this, and whatever might be said of
economy of time, by an attention to the actual expense, it would be
found that in fact very little time was lost by it. At the last session
of Congress a committee had reported a resolution to which there was
but two dissentients; the discussion occupied nearly three weeks. All
agreed as to the result, but gentlemen combated each other's arguments.
And undoubtedly, Mr. D. said, the rapidity with which the Message was
shot through a Committee of the Whole, was rather a farcical piece of
business--and, indeed, it was not without some little surprise that,
when he had come to the House this morning, he found the whole subject
disposed of.
Mr. W. ALSTON said, that when a resolution like the one proposed was
presented to him, the substance of which met his approbation, if he
was compelled to vote directly upon it, he would rather vote for it
than against it. But if it were the object to bring before the House
a discussion upon the Message of the President, and to return an
answer to his Excellency's most gracious Message, he should certainly
be opposed to it. If ever there had been one particular part of the
conduct of the former administration which had met the approbation of
the Republicans of this country generally, it was the discontinuance of
this practice. The result of the alteration was, that although more was
done during the sessions of the Republican Congresses, they terminated
them three or four weeks sooner than ever had been done before. As to
the opportunity which the answers afforded for debate, could any one
say that sufficient latitude had not been taken in debate? Had not
gentlemen even called others by name, and introduced every subject on
any question? Mr. A. said he was pleased with what had been done, and
he could not vote that he was not pleased; but he was certainly opposed
to entering into a full discussion, at the opening of each session, of
every thing which was to come under the consideration of the House.
If they were to take up this resolution, they might as well take some
abstract act of Mr. Adams's, he being still living, and discuss his
political life. WASHINGTON, at least he hoped, having departed from us,
would be permitted to rest in peace.
Mr. BACON said that with other gentlemen, he could not but regret
that this proposition had been brought forward. If he were brought
to vote upon it, he need not tell the House that he should cordially
vote for it; but it was really one of the last observations which he
had expected to have heard from any gentleman that we wanted field for
debate. He had thought that the grievance was the other way; that the
cause of complaint was, that they consumed too much time in debate. He
said he should certainly vote for the resolution, were it brought to
a direct vote; but, for the purpose of placing before the House the
view of the subject which he entertained, he should take the liberty
to move an amendment to it, and then move to refer it to a Committee
of the Whole. The amendment was in these words, proposed to be added
to the motion:--"And furnishes an additional proof of the spirit of
accommodation on the part of the Government of the United States, which
has at no time been intermitted."
Mr. J. G. JACKSON moved that the whole subject be postponed
indefinitely.
Mr. RANDOLPH said that as an indefinite postponement was considered as
tantamount to a rejection--for it prevents a renewal of the subject
during the session, and a rejection does nothing more, as the House
had heretofore had a woful experience in the case of certain very
pertinacious petitioners; and, as he was afraid, they would again
have from a certain body of petitioners, who, he presumed, had not
entirely given up their hopes of quartering themselves on the public
property--an indefinite postponement, then, being equivalent to a
rejection, he certainly was opposed to the rejection of his own motion.
He could not have believed that this motion would have been rejected
by the House, though he said he had certainly calculated on its being
opposed by those who condemned the promptitude and frankness with
which the President had proceeded to restore, as far as depended on
him, the intercourse between the two nations. It is this part of the
conduct of the President of the United States, said Mr. R., on which
I mean to give an opinion--"By the President of the United States,
a proclamation"--and in that proclamation, in my opinion, he has
deserved well of his country. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
(Mr. FINDLAY,) if he is near enough to hear me in this vast room,
when have I proposed bringing in review the whole measures of former
administration; when have I proposed an answer to an address to the
two Houses? I have proposed no such thing, sir, although my motion is
nearly tantamount to it; because it so happens that the only act of
which we have any knowledge, except the laying up the gunboats in dry
dock, which I also most cordially approbate, is this very thing. Now,
I have not the slightest objection, if the gentleman chooses, that the
honorable and worthy gentleman from Massachusetts should insist on a
_venire_ on the conduct of any former President of the United States,
but I beg myself to be excused from serving on it. As an unqualified
juror, I choose to except myself; for, really, as to one of those
Presidents, his career does not yet seem to be finished. It would
seem as if he meditated another batch of midnight judges, and another
midnight retreat from the Capital. I do, therefore, except to myself
as a juror as to him or any other President. _De mortuis nil nisi
bonum._ Agreed, sir. Let the good that men do live after them, and the
evil be interred in their graves. But, I would ask the gentleman from
Connecticut, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, also, if this be one
of their abstract propositions? How abstract, I pray you? Or, if it
be one of those unmeaning propositions, the discussion of which could
answer no good to this House? It would be idle in us now to be trying
Mr. Adams on the merits of the sedition law, the eight per cent. loans,
or any other such act. It would answer no purpose; and it would be
equally idle and futile to pass any opinion on the merits or demerits
of the first four or last four years of the late administration, for
this plain reason, the question bolts upon you, _cui bono_? What
earthly good can result from it? But is that the case in relation to
the Executive, on whose future dispositions rest the best interests of
this nation? Is that a mere idle discussion? And is it come to this? Is
this House so sunk in the Executive opinion, (I trust not, sir; I abhor
the idea,) that its approbation of a great course of national policy is
to pass for nothing; is it to have no influence on the conduct of the
Executive of the United States? This, sir, is taking higher doctrine
than was ever advanced by those who wished to see the President open
Parliament by a speech from the throne. It is taking higher ground than
the Minister of that country from which the precedent was derived.
The weight of the House of Commons is felt too sensibly there for
their inclinations not to be sounded by motions from their Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and their members of opposition, in relation to
the great course of foreign affairs. And, sir, shall we now be told
that it is a mere matter of moonshine, a thing of no moment, whether
this House really does approve the conduct of the Administration of
the Government of the United States, or disapproves it? Praise, in
my opinion, properly and not prodigally bestowed, is one of the best
resources of a nation. Why is this House called upon, and I am sorry
to say it is, too often, and too lightly, to give its sanction to the
conduct of individuals in the public service, if its approbation is
estimated so trivially? No, sir; this is a great question which I have
presented to you, and gentlemen may hamper it with as many amendments
as they please; they cannot keep the question out of sight. Some may be
_against_ it because they are _for_ it; some because it does harm, and
some because it does no good. The question cannot be kept out of sight;
it has been presented to the American people and they have decided it,
decide you how you may.
With respect to the gentleman's amendment, I need not tell him,
I presume, that I shall vote most pointedly against it, because,
in my opinion, it does not contain the truth. The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. BACON) will be among the last of the members
of this House to attribute to me an improper sentiment in regard
to him, when I say that it does not contain the truth. If the
gentleman from Massachusetts chooses, in imitation of another Eastern
nation--not those who tried their Kings after they were entombed,
but those who consigned to one common grave the living and the dead;
if he be willing to attach the sound, healthy body of the present
Administration--healthy so far, and, I trust, fortifying itself against
contagions--to the dead corpse of the last, let him. He shall not have
my assistance in doing it; nor have I the least desire to draw a marked
distinction between the two Administrations. The gentleman will hardly
suspect that I am seeking favor at court. My object is plain. It is
to say to the President that, in issuing that proclamation, he has
acted wisely, and we approve of it. I know, sir, that there are men
who condemn the conduct of the President in issuing the proclamation;
and why? They say he was precipitate. Where was the necessity, they
will tell you, of declaring that the Orders in Council will _have been_
withdrawn? This is the language of objection. There _is_ a difference
of opinion subsisting in this country on these two points. There _are_
men who condemn this proclamation, and men who condemn the construction
given by the Executive to the non-intercourse law. I approve both. I
wish the President of the United States to have the approving sentiment
of this House, and to have that approbation as a guide to his future
conduct; and I put it to the gentleman from Massachusetts whether it
be fair to mingle it with the old, stale, refuse stuff of the embargo?
No, sir; let him not put his new wine into old bottles. There _is_ a
difference of opinion in this country. The President of the United
States stands condemned by men in this nation, and, as I believe,
in this House, for having issued that proclamation, and put that
construction on the non-intercourse law. I wish to see by how many he
is thus condemned. I do not wish to see the question shirked--to see
it blinked. If there be a majority of the House, as I believe there
is, in favor of the conduct of the President, I wish him to have that
approbation expressed as a guide to his future, and a support to his
present conduct. It is due to him. Sir, have I moved you a nauseous,
sickening resolution, stuffed with adulation? Nothing like it; but, a
resolution that the promptitude and frankness with which the President
of the United States has met the overtures of the British Government
towards a restoration of the ancient state of things between the two
countries--the state prior to the memorable non-importation act of
1806--meets the approbation of this House. Either it does, or it does
not. If it does, let us say so. If it does not, let us say so. If
gentlemen think this House never ought to express an opinion, but leave
the President to grope in the dark as to our views, or get them through
inofficial channels, I presume the previous question will be taken, or
motion made that the resolution lie upon the table. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania says, shall we go back, and approve of what he conceives
to be similar conduct of the late President of the United States in
relation to the embargo? I hope not, sir. But if a majority of this
House choose to do so, let them. I shall say no. But, why mingle two
subjects together, on which there does exist--and I am afraid it
will leak out on this very vote of indefinite postponement--so very
material a difference of opinion in different parts of the House? For
example: I do not think of the offer about the embargo as the gentlemen
from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania think; and I think it probable
that those two gentlemen do not think of this proclamation and the
construction given to the non-intercourse law, as I think. And why
should we make a sort of hotch-potch of two subjects, on which we do
not think alike, for the purpose of getting us all united against
both? It is an old adage, and a very homely one, perhaps too much so
for the delicate ears of this assembly, that if you put one addled egg
into a pudding, you may add fresh ones, _ad infinitum_, but you can
never sweeten it. And, sir, I defy the gentleman from Massachusetts,
with all his political cookery, by pouring out of the jar of our
present situation into the old mess, to sweeten it.
In the year 1806, we passed that miserable old non-importation act,
which last session we repealed; and really, sir, we got rid of it with
an adroitness which pleased me exceedingly. Never was an obnoxious
measure more handsomely smothered by its avowed friends. Gentlemen said
it was merged in the non-intercourse act, and therefore, as a matter
of indifference, they would repeal it; and when the non-intercourse
act shall expire by its own limitation, at the end of this session, or
be suspended by the President's proclamation, as it is in relation to
Great Britain, there is an end of both; and thus, the old measure, the
old, original sin to which we owe our first difficulties, was as much
gotten rid of as if a majority of this House had declared it an unwise
measure, and therefore repealed it. I do recollect to have heard one
gentleman (Mr. EPPES) say, that unless the section repealing this law
were stricken out, he should be compelled to vote against the bill.
He conjured the House to cling to the old non-importation act as the
last vestige and symbol of resistance to British oppression; but the
House was deaf to his call, and the non-importation act was plunged
beneath the wave, never, I trust, to rise again. When, therefore, the
late President of the United States made an offer to Great Britain to
suspend the embargo as to her, provided she would withdraw her Orders
in Council, I will suppose that she had accepted that offer. In what
situation would she have stood in relation to the United States? Her
fine cloths, her leather, her watches, her this and her that, would
have been prohibited admittance into this country under the old
non-importation act of 1806, which would have been in force. That
act, in point of fact, had no operation on her adversary. Her ships
would have been prohibited the use of our waters, while the ships of
war of her enemy were admitted. Did that make no difference? That,
sir, would have been the situation of the two countries, provided
she had accepted the offer to suspend the embargo as to herself--the
old non-importation act in operation, her ships of war excluded, and
her rival's admitted. I pray you, was not that the condition of the
country when Mr. Rose arrived? Was there not some difficulty, under
the proclamation, in the admission of the Statira frigate, bearing
that Minister into our waters? And were not French ships of war then,
and have they not since been riding quietly at Annapolis, Norfolk,
and elsewhere? Has not, in fact, the gallant Captain Decatur taken
our own seamen out of one of them? And yet, sir, the offer at that
time made by us has been identified with the negotiation between Mr.
Secretary Smith and Mr. Erskine. What then was her situation? The
non-importation act in force, _her_ ships _excluded_ and those of
France _admitted_, and nothing in force in relation to France except
the embargo. What is now the situation of affairs? Trade with her is
restored to the same situation, in point of fact, in which it stood
when Congress met here in 1805 and 1806--at the memorable first session
of the ninth Congress, which generated the old non-importation act
of 1806. Her ships of war are admitted into our waters, her trade
is freed from embarrassment, while the ships of her adversary are
excluded and the trade between us and her adversary forbidden by law.
While, therefore, I am ready and willing to approve the conduct of the
present Administration, it is not because I conceive that they have
effected any thing so very difficult--that they have obtained any such
mighty concession--but, because they have done their duty. Yes, sir;
we all recollect that the objections made to the treaty negotiated by
Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pinkney, on two great leading accounts: 1st. That
it contained no express provision against the impressment of seamen.
Is there any provision now made? No, sir. The next objection to the
treaty was the note attached to it by Lords Holland and Auckland.
What, sir, did gentlemen on this floor say was the purport of this
note? That its object was to put us in a state of amity in respect to
Great Britain, at the expense of the risk of collision with France.
On account of this note, the treaty and the treaty-makers have been
politically damned. And yet, we are now, in point of fact, in that very
situation, in relation to the two nations, in which it was said that
the British Commissioners, by the note, aimed to place us, and which
was a sufficient reason, according to the arguments of gentlemen, for
rejecting the treaty. The note was a sort of lien, gentlemen said,
that would put us in a state of hostility with regard to France, and
amity with regard to England. We refused to give our bond, for such
it was represented (however unjustly) to be, to be sure, sir; but
we have paid the money. We have done the very thing which gentlemen
say the note aimed to induce us to do. We have put ourselves in a
situation endangering collision with France, and almost insuring amity
with England. We have destroyed the old non-importation act. The
non-intercourse act is suspended as to her. Trade is again free. There
is nothing now to prohibit her ships, whether for commerce or war, from
coming into our waters, whilst our trade with France is completely cut
off, and _her_ ships excluded from our waters. I cannot too often call
the attention of the House to this fact, on which I am compelled to
dwell and dilate to get rid of this merciless motion, which kills while
it professes to cure. When Mr. Rose came into this country, French
ships of war were freely admitted; English ships were excluded.
As "the physician, in spite of himself," says in one of Moliere's best
comedies, _on a changé tout cela_--the thing is wholly reversed. We
are likely to be on good terms with England, maugre the best exertions
of some of our politicians. Trade with Great Britain is unshackled,
her ships are admitted, trade with France is forbidden; and French
ships excluded, as far as it can be done by paper. Now, in the name of
common sense, what more could Mr. Canning himself want, than to produce
this very striking and sudden change in the relations between the two
countries? For a long time previous, it was the ships of England that
were excluded, while those of her adversaries were admitted. And we
know that we could not have touched her in a more jealous point than
in her navy. Things are now reversed--we have dexterously shuffled the
non-importation act out of the pack, renewed trade with her, admitted
her ships, and excluded those of France. And what, I ask this House,
has the British Minister given us in requital for this change of our
position in relation to him and his rival belligerent? The revocation
of the Orders in Council--this is the mighty boon. For, with respect to
his offer in relation to satisfaction for the attack on the Chesapeake,
he made that offer to Mr. Monroe spontaneously, on the spur of the
occasion, and there is not a doubt in my mind but that we had nothing
to do but to receive it at that time, provided the instructions of our
Minister had permitted him to receive it; but, perchance, sir, if he
had received it, we might have been at this day discussing his message,
and not the message of another President. All that Mr. Canning has
given this country is a reiteration of his offer to make reparation
for the affair of the Chesapeake, and his withdrawal of the Orders
in Council; and to what did they amount? So soon as you, by your own
law, cut off your trade with France, he agrees to revoke the orders
interfering with it. Mr. Canning might as well have withdrawn blank
paper. They had nothing left to operate upon. The body upon which they
were to operate was destroyed by our own act, to wit, the trade of
France. And, sir, while I compliment the present state of things, and
the conduct on the part of our Government which has led to it, I cannot
say that we have greatly overreached Mr. Canning in this bargain, in
making an exchange of the old non-importation act with the admission
of English, and exclusion of French ships and trade, for the Orders
in Council. Mr. Canning obtained as good a bargain out of us as he
could have expected to obtain; and those gentlemen who speak of his
having heretofore had it in his power to have done the same, did not
take into calculation the material difference between the situation
in which we now stand, and the situation in which we before stood--to
say nothing at all of Great Britain's having taken a stand against the
embargo, having declared that she had nothing to offer in exchange for
it; that we might keep it as long as we pleased. If she had accepted
our offer, as I before stated, the old non-importation law would have
been in operation, her ships of war would have been excluded, whilst
those of France were admitted. Now, the non-importation act is not in
force, her ships are permitted to enter our waters, and those of France
excluded. And what has this sarcastic Minister of Great Britain given
us in exchange? The Orders in Council, which had completely ceased to
operate by the cutting off of the trade between us and France. Let
me state this argument in a shape most favorable to ourselves, and
least so to the British Government. I speak as to argument; for, as to
friendship between nations, there is no friendship in trade. We ought
to get the best bargain out of them that we could, and it was the duty
of their Minister to get the best out of us. Let us throw out of view
the exclusion of French ships and French commerce. Is the removal of
the non-importation act, and the admission of British vessels, nothing?
What has Mr. Canning given you in return? The Orders in Council--and
what were they worth to him? Not a straw.
Mr. HOLLAND said he had no doubt that the President had done his duty
in the case referred to in the proposition under consideration; and
as he had entertained no doubt but the President would, on this and
every other occasion, do his duty, he said he felt no excessive joy on
the occasion. It was only an ordinary act of duty well performed, and
therefore he was not willing to distinguish it from those numerous acts
which he trusted would be, as they had heretofore been performed, by
the Executive. Were he the author of the proposition, he should have
many scruples as to the propriety of offering such a one. Were the
precedent to be set by the passage of this resolution, the House might
hereafter witness a struggle on the floor to determine who should be
first to come forward with a proposition expressive of approbation.
The human mind might be so operated upon that the Executive might feel
himself under an obligation to promote the person bringing forward such
a motion. I, said Mr. H., would be one of the last to introduce such a
motion were I a friend to the President; and if I were not a friend to
the President, I would not bring it forward, lest it should be thought
that I was courting favor in his eyes. But why, sir, should this House
give an expression of approbation of the President? Because, we are
told, it may be a guide to him hereafter. Let this House be careful how
it acts, and attend to its own duties. The President does not stand in
need of this kind of support. I never will step forward as a member
of this House, to excite him to his duty by a vote of this kind. I
believe he possesses an attachment to his duty sufficient to induce him
to perform it. I believe that the voice of the people of the United
States is such, in relation to the present and late President, that
they believe they were well disposed to do their duty, and that they
have done their duty; but it does not follow that we ought to express
our approbation as to any particular act. The gentleman himself says
that the President has only done his duty. Is it not surprising, then,
that we are called upon to give him the approbation of this House? What
would be inferred from this procedure? Why, that it is so seldom our
Presidents have done their duty, that, in the very first instance in
which they have done it, the House of Representatives had discovered
and applauded it. If the gentleman thinks so, I wholly disagree with
him. If our officers do their duty properly, they will receive the
thanks of the nation; and where is the propriety of singling out for
approbation or disapprobation this particular act? I see none. It is
asked, will you leave the President of the United States to grope in
the dark, and not let him know whether he has received our approbation
or not? And is the President to judge from the thanks of the House
that he has done his duty? How is he to know that they have expressed
their sense of his conduct from proper motives? Would he not be right
to suspect those who vote for, and more especially those who bring
forward such a proposition, of improper motives? He would be left still
worse to grope in the dark. It has been said that former Presidents
have been deceived in consequence of votes of approbation; and the
same would again occur. On every ground I am opposed to the passing
such resolutions on principle, and shall therefore vote for indefinite
postponement. It was indefinitely postponed.
SATURDAY, May 27.
_Sedition Law._
Mr. STANFORD said he had risen to offer a resolution, which he wanted
to have offered immediately after that which had been offered by the
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) and adopted by the House, on
the subject of prosecutions for libel at common law; but not being
able to get the floor, he would now beg leave to move his by way of
instruction to the same committee. That committee, Mr. S. said, had
been charged with an inquiry into what prosecutions for libel at common
law had been instituted in the courts of the United States, which he
hoped the committee would duly make, and lay before the House. Thus the
House would see what system of persecution, if any, had been resorted
to, and cherished by the late Administration or its friends, in any
part of the United States; and he equally hoped some remedy might
be devised at this time, the beginning of a new Administration, to
obviate any like occurrence in future. But, said Mr. S., let it not be
that any thing be done partially. While we are about to bring to our
view all the cases of prosecution for libel under the common law, we
are not likely to know any thing about prosecutions for libel which
had occurred under the sedition law, and that too under a different
Administration. We have not authorized any such inquiry. That abuses
have occurred under both, is but too probable, and I think it will
be liberal, as it is just and fair, to make the inquiry more general
on the subject. If any citizen has been oppressed or injured by such
prosecutions, let it be known, and let justice be done him; even now,
if with propriety any way can be devised to do so. Inquiry, however, is
all that is asked for the present.
It may be perceived, said Mr. S., and if not, I wish it should be
understood when I speak of justice being done, that I speak with
rather peculiar reference to a gentleman of this House, who has been
a principal sufferer under the well-known sedition law. I think it
never too late to do justice, under whatever circumstances or motives
of policy it may have been withheld for a time. I trust no gentleman
will, upon this occasion, suspect me of a design to excite any party
feelings. It certainly is not my wish, whatever may be the effect.
The resolution I am about to offer is not so framed, nor would it
necessarily involve the question of the constitutionality of the law.
I feel persuaded, therefore, that the different gentlemen of the House
may, from a spirit of liberality and fair concession, indulge the
inquiry asked for.
But, sir, said he, since the other inquiry has been gone into, it
cannot be unfair to say that the majority of the House owe it to
themselves to extend the inquiry, as well to cases of prosecution
under the sedition law, as to those under the common law; and I shall
be permitted to say also, they owe it as well to the feelings and
sufferings of the gentleman to whom I have alluded. Whatever may be the
aspect of political opinions and parties now, it is known to you, sir,
and a few others on this floor, that to him much is due for the present
ascendency of the majority; perhaps to no one more, to the extent of
his sphere of action and influence. In the famous contested election
for President in this House, eight or nine years ago, he gave the vote
of a State, which sufficed to decide the contest; and more especially
so, if the blank votes of the State of Maryland could have rendered
that vote doubtful. But, however such considerations may or may not
avail, nothing is more clear to me than that the inquiry should be
indulged on the most liberal principles.
_Resolved_, That the committee, appointed to inquire into what
prosecutions for libels at common law have been instituted
before the courts of the United States, be instructed to
inquire what prosecutions for libels have been instituted
before the courts of the United States under the second section
of the act entitled "An act in addition to an act, entitled 'An
act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United
States,'" passed the 14th day of July, 1798, and the expediency
of remunerating the sufferers under such prosecutions.
Mr. SAWYER moved to amend the resolution by adding, at the end of it,
the words "and that the committee also inquire whether any and what
private compensation has been made to such suffering persons."
Mr. MACON said he did not know how the committee could go about
to make such an inquiry as that contemplated by the amendment. The
gentleman must be well satisfied that the Government could not
rightfully inquire into transactions between individuals.
Mr. DANA said that he had no particular objection to meet this inquiry.
As to the disclosure of facts as to the reimbursement by individual
contribution, it might be amusing, if this House had authority to
make it. He said he should like to know who contributed to the relief
of James Thompson Callender, when he was prosecuted; but he had some
doubt whether it was proper to enter into any inquiry or whether it
was proper to pass the resolution pointing to the remuneration of
sufferers under the sedition law. He should have supposed that it
might be proper to leave it at large for the committee to report. He
said he had certainly no objection to inquire, though he conceived
that prosecutions at common law and under the sedition law were
essentially different; because, supposing the Congress of the United
States to pass such a law, the courts of the United States might take
cognizance of it; but, without such a law, it did not belong to the
judiciary to extend its care to the protection of the Government from
slander. Such was the decision of Judge Chase, (said Mr. D.,) who
decided that the court had no jurisdiction at common law in suits for
libel; and the Supreme Court of the United States never did decide
the question. The strong contrast is this: that while there was a
description of men who said that no prosecution could be had at common
law for libel, nor under the statute which modified the common law
so as to allow the truth to be given in evidence--who, while they
excited indignation against this statute, should afterwards undertake
to institute prosecutions at common law where there was no limitation
in favor of the defendant. There is this difference in the cases: that
we find practice precisely different from professions. I do not say
that the heads of departments were instrumental in instituting these
prosecutions; but it marks some of the subordinate men who were active
in making professions. I am very willing that the proposed inquiry
should be made; but I cannot see the propriety of our undertaking to
give any opinion as to remunerating those who suffered.
Mr. STANFORD said:--Mr. Speaker, I would ask if my colleague's motion
of amendment can be in order? It is no concern of this House, or of
the Government, what private contributions may have been made to the
gentleman from Kentucky; and, if it was, the inquiry is impossible.
[The SPEAKER said, not being able to enter into the views of the mover
of the amendment, he considered the motion in order.] Then, said Mr.
S., if my colleague is anxious to know what he could not otherwise
know, I will tell him I had contributed a small sum to the gentleman
from Kentucky, as a sufferer in what was then considered a common
cause; but, upon his return to his seat in the House, he could not
brook the idea of such a contribution, and returned the amount to
myself I know, and to others I believe. My colleague would do well
to tell us how much he contributed. It was well known contributions
were made in a quarter not far from him; and if he did not, I am
well persuaded it was not for the want of sympathy on his part, or
extreme zeal in the democratic cause; for I am confident I have seen
as much or more seditious matter from under his pen, than I ever saw
from under that of the gentleman from Kentucky. Be that, however, as
it may, I am for one willing, if no constitutional difficulty can be
shown, to remunerate the sufferers--at least to take such money out
of the treasury, and restore it to its original, rightful owners; and
if it cannot be consistently done, why the inquiry can do no harm.
But, indeed, we have great examples in the case before us. Did not
the late President, when he came into place, refuse to let such money
come into the treasury in the case of the worthless Callender? As
the proper authority, he thrust it from him as unworthy the coffers
of his country; and did not his doing so meet general approbation? I
confess it met mine most cordially, and I believe it did that of my
colleague also. Have we not, moreover, the best recorded proof that the
present President holds similar opinions on this subject? His splendid
opposition to the sedition law is the proof to which I allude, and is,
in my mind, conclusive on this subject. But if it were not, where is
the impropriety of an inquiry? The House will be better able to decide
when the whole matter shall come fairly before them.
Mr. QUINCY said this appeared to be a proposition to aid a single
individual; and, by the amendment, gentlemen who had aided that
individual were anxious to prevent him from gaining more than he had
paid. It was a kind of application to the House to repay to those
persons who relieved the sufferers under the sedition act, the sums
which they had paid. If this were the object, Mr. Q. suggested whether
it would not be proper for them to come forward and lay their claim in
the ordinary form before the House.
Mr. SAWYER said he was, as he always had been, willing to contribute
his mite to the relief of the sufferers; but he did not wish to see
them remunerated from the public treasury.
Mr. LYON.--I have for some time been in suspense whether I ought, or
ought not to make any observations on the subject before the House;
delicacy on the one hand bids me be silent, while a duty I owe to
myself, to my family, and to the nation, requires (that since my
particular case has been alluded to) the members of this House and the
public should be made acquainted with many of the circumstances of
that case, which have either never come to their knowledge, or have
long been buried up among the consumed heap of political occurrences,
disputations and publications of these days. Besides, sir, I have
it in my power to throw much light on the subject of the inquiry
wished for, by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. SAWYER,) who
has proposed the amendment under consideration, and I will assure the
gentleman that I shall not be backward in doing so. It is true, sir,
that I was unjustly condemned to pay a fine of one thousand dollars and
to suffer an ignominious imprisonment of four months in a loathsome
dungeon--the common receptacle of felons, runaway negroes, or the
vilest malefactors--and this when I was the Representative of the
people of Vermont in this House of Congress. It cannot be said there
was no other room in the prison, there were rooms enough; yes, sir, one
of my judges during my imprisonment, found another room in the same
jail to be imprisoned for debt in, until he gave bonds for the liberty
of the yard. To heighten the picture exhibited by official tyranny, and
to add to the cruel vexation of this transaction, I was carried out
of the county in which I lived, fifty miles from my family, kept six
weeks without fire in the months of October and November, nearly the
whole of which time the northwest wind had free admittance into the
dungeon, through the same aperture that admitted the light of heaven
into that dreary cell. And let it be asked, in these days of the mild
reign of republicanism, for what crime was all this extraordinary, this
ignominious punishment inflicted?
I hold a copy of the indictment in my hand, which includes the charge
against me. I will not trouble the House with a recital of the
technical jargon and tedious repetition of words, of course, which
constitute the bulk of such instruments. No, sir, but I will read the
identical words of the charge, which says, that on the 20th of June,
1798, Matthew Lyon wrote a letter to Alden Spooner of Windsor, Vermont,
in which he said, "as to the Executive, when I shall see the efforts
of that power bent on the promotion of the comfort, the happiness, and
accommodation of the people, that Executive shall have my zealous and
uniform support. But whenever I shall, on the part of the Executive,
see every consideration of the public welfare swallowed up in a
continual grasp for power, in an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp,
foolish adulation, and selfish avarice--when I shall behold men of real
merit daily turned out of office for no other cause but independence of
sentiment--when I shall see men of firmness, merit, years, abilities,
and experience, discarded in their application for offices for fear
they possess that independence; and men of meanness preferred for the
ease with which they take up and advocate opinions the consequence of
which they know but little of--when I shall see the sacred name of
religion employed as a state engine to make mankind hate and persecute
one another, I shall not be their humble advocate."
This is the whole of my crime, and what do those words amount to. Who
is here that hears these words, but what approves the sentiment they
contain? What do I say in these words, other, or more, or less, than
that when the Executive is doing right, I will support him--when doing
wrong I will not be his humble advocate? This ought to be the creed
of every member who enters these walls. Was there to be an oath or
abjuration added to the constitutional oath to be taken by the members
of this House, can any person who hears me, devise a better, or one
more proper? Could any person who really thought Mr. Adams quite clear
from all those improprieties, as merely possible from the nature of
man, mentioned in my letter, have thought of my libelling the President
by this declaration? I presume not, sir. Yet this, my crime, received
one of the condemnations which you are called upon by this motion to
constitute an inquiry into--an inquiry I cannot persuade myself will be
refused. The letter, sir, was an answer to a violent invective against
me, published in the same paper a short time before, in which besides
a number of other charges against me, it was imputed to me as a crime
that I acted in opposition to the Executive.
I did not begin the altercation. A person who was a friend to the
Adams Administration, in the act of libelling me, (one of the
constituted authorities,) ushered the Executive into his performance.
My character, ever dearer to me than life, was concerned. I deigned
to answer him, after expostulating with him on my right as one of the
constituted authorities of the nation to exercise my own judgment in
my official conduct, and showing that my merely differing with the
Executive proved no more than that the Executive differed with me. I
incidentally proceeded in the words for which I was indicted, the very
words I just now read. I was charged with neither more nor less as
coming from my pen. As if to outrage every principle of law and every
sentiment of decency and propriety, this indictment, founded on the
sedition law passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, charges me with
having in Philadelphia on the 20th of June prior, written a letter
to Alden Spooner of Vermont, which contained those words I have been
reciting. My letter was produced in court and carried the Philadelphia
post-mark of some day in the same June, I do not recollect which day;
Judge Patterson himself admitted this fact, and that it was out of my
power and control in the June before the sedition law was passed. Thus
the indictment, which was the foundation of the barbarous treatment I
received, carried on its front its own condemnation; but this defect
was remedied by the ingenuity of the party judge, who dexterously
mingled his assertions that the crime was cognizable under the common
law, with his admonitions to a pliant jury not to be deterred from
finding a verdict where the man who wrote was a member of Congress, and
knew the sedition law was about to be passed, and probably hurried his
letter to evade the law.
It may be said, sir, that I was charged in the indictment with
publishing a copy of a letter, from an American diplomatic character
in France, to a member of Congress, commonly called the Barlow letter.
I was so, and there was a third count in the indictment for aiding
and abetting in the publication of said letter. The words selected
as seditious were as follow: "The misunderstanding between the two
governments has become extremely alarming: confidence is completely
destroyed; mistrust, jealousy, and a wrong attribution of motives, are
so apparent as to require the utmost caution in every word and action
that are to come from your Executive; I mean if your object is to avoid
hostilities. Had this truth been understood with you before the recall
of Monroe, before the coming and the second coming of Pinkney, had it
guided the pens that wrote the bullying speech of your President, and
the stupid answer of your Senate, in November last, I should probably
have had no occasion to address you this letter; but when we found him
borrowing the language of Edmund Burke, and telling the world that
although he should succeed in treating with the French, there was no
dependence to be placed on their engagements; that their religion or
morality was at an end, and they had turned pirates and plunderers;
and it would be necessary to be perpetually armed against them, though
you were at peace, we wondered that the answer of both Houses had not
been an order to send him to a madhouse! Instead of this, the Senate
have echoed his speech with more servility than ever George the Third
experienced from either house of Parliament." No proof appeared on the
trial of my printing, or aiding or abetting in printing, or circulating
a printed copy of this famous letter. I had read the copy of the letter
in company, but the advocates of the sedition law would never admit
that such reading was punishable by that law. The printer who printed
the letter, swore that he had been anxious to get the letter from me,
and that I had refused to suffer it to be printed, and repelled every
attempt to persuade me to the printing; that he had obtained the copy
of the letter in my absence. The fact was, that my wife was persuaded
by a gentleman who is now a member of this House, that the Republican
cause and my election (which was pending) would be injured if the
letter was not published; and, as I understood, she gave it to him, the
letter was printed, and that gentleman had some of the copies before
I came home. I suppressed the remainder of the edition. The judge,
finding no proof to support this part of the charge, directed the jury
to find a verdict of guilty generally, as there could be no doubt of my
being guilty on the first count. I had acknowledged my having written
the letter to Alden Spooner. They did so. I will not detain the House
by going into a detail of the manner in which that jury was packed.
After all the care and management in the original selection, there
was one man on it whose honesty my persecutors feared; and, to get him
off, a wretch falsely swore that the summoned juryman had expressed
to him something like an opinion that I could not be found guilty.
I will not here dwell upon the judge's denial to me of a challenge
upon the jury--as great a crime as any Judge Chase was charged with.
I look for an investigation of this business when all the features
of it shall come fairly to public view. Should that investigation be
refused at this time, I shall not fail to look for it at some future
time. I can never forgive the unjust stigma that has been placed on
my character; and should justice be refused me during my whole life,
I will leave it with my children and theirs to seek it. When my
enemies wounded my feelings, robbed me of my property, and affected
temporarily my reputation, I consoled myself that my friends would
soon be in power, and they would make every thing right. My wounded
honor would be consoled; the wound would be healed--a share at least
of the property of which I had been deprived, would be reimbursed.
How cruelly have I been thus far disappointed! Generous men, at the
time I suffered, said it is enough for you to bear the mortification
of the temporary insult--we will share with you the loss of property.
Under this impression much money was collected, the greater part of
which went to relieve oppressed Republican printers--it has all been
charged to me. I never asked, nor would I have received a cent of this
gratuity, could I have avoided it without insulting the benevolent
views of the good man (Gen. Stevens Thompson Mason, deceased) who set
the subscription on foot. That good man gave me a list of those to
whom he considered me beholden, and the amount; while the thing was
fresh in every one's mind I made a compliment, which he considered
ample, and more than ample, to every one of those on that list that was
within my reach; to those few that remain on that list uncompensated,
I feel beholden and much indebted. As the thing has grown old, and as
I have come in contact with those gentlemen, I have felt myself in an
embarrassed, awkward situation, from which I wished to be relieved by
being able to say to them, the public have restored your money--here
it is--it is yours, not mine. Judging other men to have feelings like
myself, I am at a loss how to get rid of the obligation I feel, in any
other way than the restoration of their money when it comes in a way
they cannot refuse it. From this source my anxiety for the restoration
of the money unjustly taken from me, arises more than any other; and
on every review of the subject, I am bound to say that I have been
more cruelly treated by the neglect of a duty to which my friends had
pledged themselves, when they declared me innocent and patriotic,
than by enemies who thought me guilty, and found me goading them in
their progress toward the destruction of the liberty and republicanism
of this country. As if to make their cruelty more insupportable,
insult is added to the injury, by daily insinuations that I am bound
by gratitude to stand by those who call themselves Republicans, in
all their projects, right or wrong. Before I was elected a member of
Congress from the State of Kentucky, I sent to a member of this House,
who had promised me to bring it forward, a petition to be laid before
the House of Representatives for redress in this case. He returned the
petition to my son in a letter, which I have in my hand--in which he
says, "I am sorry and ashamed that I have not presented the petition.
I have not wrote to your father, and confess I am ashamed; pray you,
the first time you write to Colonel Lyon, do endeavor to make an excuse
for me." Such I believe was the impression of most of those I had acted
with in the reign of terror, as we called it; but that impression has
been wearing off, it seems, while my feelings have been every day
increasing in their poignancy at their neglect of a duty, to which they
had solemnly pledged themselves, while they were struggling with their
adversaries for pre-eminence and power. Happily the awful silence which
surrounded this extraordinary business has been broken. I consider this
a prelude to investigation and a correct issue; and, let the event of
the vote now about to be taken be what it may, I shall not despair.
I shall at this time say no more on this subject than to declare
I wish not to have my case singled out for reparation. I wish the
investigation general; the provision for remuneration general, to all
who suffered under the lash of that unconstitutional sedition law.
Mr. SAWYER'S amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. ROSS rose to propose another amendment to the resolution. It was a
fact, he said, well known in almost every part of the United States,
that the people in the district from which he had just been returned,
had suffered as much in the cause of democracy as that of any other;
that they had presented as firm a barrier to Federal oppression, and
perhaps had as just claims as any other people in the United States
to remuneration for losses in the cause. It was well known that at
the time that high-handed measures were taken in this country, an
insurrection had taken place in Pennsylvania, commonly known by the
name of the Hot-water Insurrection; that it occurred in consequence
of the oppression of the law for the collection of a direct tax.
Many persons who had opposed the law, under the idea of its being
unconstitutional, were prosecuted, punished, and some of them, in
consequence of those prosecutions and the sentence resulting from them,
expired in prison. To some who remained after the aspect of the affairs
of the country was changed, mercy was extended by the United States;
but to those whose prosecutions and convictions were of an earlier
date, lenity was not extended; they were compelled to pay their fines
before they could be relieved from imprisonment. Mr. R. declared his
object in rising to be, to move to amend the resolution in such a
way as to instruct the committee to inquire whether any, and if any,
what compensation and remuneration should be made to the persons who
suffered and were punished in consequence of an act to lay and collect
a direct tax in the United States.
Mr. DANA said the gentleman's amendment contemplated remunerating those
who suffered by their opposition to a statute. He would propose an
amendment to inquire into the propriety of remunerating those who had
suffered by their submission (not by their opposition) to the several
acts respecting the embargo, certainly so much more meritorious conduct
than that of opposition. As respected the whole of this subject,
he said he was very free to declare that as regarded those who had
been prosecuted at common law in the State of Connecticut, who had
certainly been at very considerable expense, their defence perhaps
having cost them several thousand dollars, yet, on the principle of
correct legislation, he had not the least idea of remunerating them.
Where shall we stop, said Mr. D., if we tread back on the steps of each
other? We shall have opportunity enough for censure in reviewing our
conduct. Perhaps it might be as well to draw the veil of oblivion over
past transactions, and learn from experience to err no more.
Mr. JOHNSON said, that however much the act laying a direct tax was
disapproved, and arose from measures which were improper, yet he had
never deemed it an unconstitutional law, as he had the sedition law. He
should therefore vote against the amendment and for the resolution.
Mr. GARDENIER suggested to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since
he had brought the subject before the House, the propriety of going
the whole length of his principle. To my mind it is very clear, said
he, that if those who oppose the law are to be remunerated, for what
it cost them in consequence of prosecution, you must go only on
the principle that the direct tax never ought to have been laid at
all. If the law was right, it was improper to oppose it. If it was
improper, perhaps according to modern democracy, it might be proper
to oppose it by force. That, to my mind, is a very dangerous doctrine
for legislators to broach; it is a doctrine to which I myself can
never agree, for it is making Government a nullity. The suggestion
which I wish to make is this: that if those men who suffered in the
Hot-water Insurrection are to be remunerated, it is no more than fair
that those should be remunerated who have quietly paid this tax. They
were at least respectful to the laws. The committee therefore ought
to be instructed to inquire into the propriety of repaying to the
several contributors in the various States the direct tax, collected
from them, unless there be something so admirable, so lovely, so
worthy of encouragement in insurrection, that those concerned in it
have peculiar claims to encouragement by Government. If that be the
case, the gentleman stopped at the proper point. If there was nothing
in insurrection, however, which the Legislature would feel it proper
to cherish, the gentleman should either go the whole length of his
principle or not touch it at all.
Mr. ROSS said he had not undertaken to state any principle at all.
His object was to refer the subject to a committee to decide upon. He
had not said that he considered the original resolution to contain a
correct principle; it was a point left for the committee to consider
and for the House to determine on. But if it was a correct principle
that those who suffered under the sedition law should be remunerated,
he said he had no hesitation in saying that his constituents, who had
suffered as materially and as much as any for the democratic interest
in this country, should be placed on the same ground as those who
were asking for the favor of the House for no better reason; and when
the gentleman calls upon me, said Mr. R., to go the whole length of
a principle which he states, it is calling upon me to do that which
is consequent on a principle which I have not assumed. The gentleman
from Kentucky conceives that there is a difference between the cases
alluded to in my amendment and the cases arising under the sedition
law. Where is the difference, sir? In both cases they were laws of the
United States: in both cases the judges of the courts of the United
States were authorized to proceed. In neither of the cases did they
decide the law unconstitutional. If, then, persons were punished by
the sedition law in its full operation, carried into effect by the
constituted authorities, where, I ask, is the distinction between that
and any other law? To all the purposes of legality, that law is as much
legal as that under which the direct tax was instituted. Whether the
law under which a direct tax was collected, was constitutional or not,
has it not as equally received the disapprobation of the Republicans
of the United States as the sedition law? If then it was the object of
the democratic party to rid the country of such a law as much as of the
sedition law, I ask whether those who suffered under each law have not
equal claims? There can be no legal claim upon the House under either
law; but we know that it was the hardy yeomanry who presented a firm
phalanx to the irresistible torrent of injurious laws of the Federal
Administration, and who gave the present party the ascendency, and many
of them have not, as the gentleman from Kentucky has been, compensated
for their suffering by a long continuance in an honorable and lucrative
office which he enjoys by the confidence of his constituents.
Mr. POTTER declared himself at a loss to know whether the House was
sitting here as a branch of the Legislature to pass laws, or as a body
to remunerate those concerned in the violation of them. The House sit
here to make laws and not to encourage those who resisted them; but if
they determined to give premiums for the violations of laws, they had
better depart home at once.
Mr. RHEA wished the House to get rid of this motion and the amendment
as speedily as possible. If the House were to go on as it had commenced
the session, the whole time of the House would be spent about nothing,
discussing propositions which could not possibly produce good to the
nation. He therefore moved to postpone the whole subject indefinitely.
Mr. MACON said he had been in hopes when this motion had been made,
that it would be one of the happy days of the House; that the question
proposed would occupy the whole day in debate, and that all would
agree in it at last. As to comparing this case with that of the direct
tax, it was notorious that the discussion on the sedition law and the
public opinion also took a very different turn from that which it
took on any other law. The whole discussion (said Mr. M.) as well as
I recollect, turned upon the constitutionality of the law. Then, if
it is still believed that the law was unconstitutional, I leave it to
gentlemen to say whether it can be viewed in the same light as a law,
the constitutionality of which is not disputed. In the one case, trials
took place for speaking and writing; in the other case for opposing
the execution of a law. I wish this question to be settled for this
reason: In all governments where liberty and freedom have existed,
parties also have had existence. Thinking honestly produces parties.
That those gentlemen who were in power when the sedition law was
passed, should step a little too far, was not so much to be wondered
at as that those who came after them should do so; because they were
making the first experiment of the instrument. I then believed, and
do still believe, that the law was unconstitutional. Taking up this
question, the original resolution of my colleague is that remuneration
should be made to those people who suffered under it; but seeing that
the question with respect to the constitutionality of the law had
always been matter of dispute, it proposes that a committee shall
inquire into the subject. The House is no farther committed by passing
this resolution, than to consent to the inquiry being made. I submit
it to the candor and reflection of gentlemen of all parties, whether
this thing, in a national point of view, can produce any evil--on
the contrary, may it not produce good? All that has been said about
the direct tax laws can have no other effect than to draw off the
attention of the House from the true question before them. The question
on this law, in my mind, is a different one from any other law which
has been passed. I feel no hesitation in acknowledging that it is my
opinion that all the sufferers ought to be remunerated, both those
who suffered under the sedition law, and those who suffered under
the common law. It is the business of all parties to settle amicably
as they can any subject of contention between persons of different
political persuasions. If this first resolution should be referred
to a committee, and they report that the law was unconstitutional,
I will venture to pronounce that no majority will ever again make a
law of that kind. If, sir, the sufferers under the sedition law did
suffer contrary to the constitution, ought not their expenses to be
reimbursed? On the subject of contribution, I know that that party to
which I was attached, did contribute, and did consider it an honorable
cause. I was willing (and there are gentlemen in this House who know
it) to open my purse when a man of a very different political creed
from myself, Peter Porcupine, was oppressed. I care not of what party a
man be, that is oppressed. I can prove that the party opposed to me in
politics have also subscribed. It is all no more than the subscriptions
for printing speeches which are occasionally made in the House, in
which gentlemen of all parties unite. Suppose that the whole fine in
any particular case had been paid by individual subscription, what has
the Government to do with that? Will it be contended, because an old
soldier who received a pension also received individual contributions,
that the pension should be taken from him, or that the Government is
thereby acquitted of what it owed him? Surely not; the Government
has nothing to do with transactions between individuals. As to the
particular gentleman brought into this discussion, I believe that every
man that contributed any thing towards paying the fine levied on him,
was remunerated to his satisfaction. I have thought proper to state
these opinions of mine, and to avow myself in favor of reimbursing the
sufferers. But before I sit down, I must say that my opinion of modern
democracy is very different from that of the gentleman from New York.
I consider it as neither leading to insurrection, rebellion, nor any
such thing. I believe that the true principle of every modern democrat,
is, that the law constitutionally made is supreme, and is to be obeyed;
that it has nothing to do with riots, rebellion, and insurrection.
I know very well, and shall not deny it, that there are times when
insurrection is a holy thing, but it is not peculiarly attributable
to democracy. With us, election puts every thing to rights; and on
them every man of pure democratic principles depends. It is doubtful
whether the question of the constitutionality of the sedition law can
be settled in a more easy way, and in a mode less liable to irritation,
than that proposed by my colleague. If the committee report as I wish,
it is well; if not, it settles the question forever; and it is surely
desirable that the question should be settled. However gentlemen may
differ, as to the principle proposed to be investigated, they might
with propriety vote for the inquiry, as it is the ordinary course of
every day. I do not consider this as proposing to give a premium to
violators of the laws. I know that much depends in this world on names;
and that if you give any man or thing a bad name, whether merited or
not, it is difficult to get rid of it. I hope the House will not be
deterred from this inquiry by any name attempted to be given to it.
It is proper that this question should be settled; and if considered
now, it will be settled by a body which did not partake of the heats
of those times, and when, to say the least of it, there is a little
division in the great parties of the nation; and it seems to me that
the gentleman who moved it has been fortunate in the selection of his
time. Eight years have elapsed, a new President is just inducted, and
the question is now brought up for our decision. I am sorry that any
member of this House should make a motion with no other view but for
procrastination. I do not believe that my colleague who made this
motion is more in the habit of procrastinating the public business
than other members of the House; and I was in hopes that there would
have been no dissentient voice to his motion. He only asks of you to
let the inquiry be made. He does not ask a single member of the House
to commit himself upon the question, but merely asks that a committee
may be permitted to inquire into it; and this, it seems to me, is
no extraordinary request. I hope that the resolution, without being
trammelled with any extraneous matter, will be passed.
Mr. KEY said he should vote for indefinite postponement of the
resolution. What good purpose could its adoption answer, unless the
House had the power to take money from the Treasury of the United
States for the purpose of remunerating any person who had suffered?
Had Congress that power? He apprehended not. He could see no such
power amongst those delegated to Congress. The gentleman from North
Carolina admitted the House were under no obligation to remunerate the
sufferers; and if the gentleman would turn to the rules laid down for
the definition of the powers of Congress, he would see that there was
no authority to draw money from the Treasury for this purpose. Under
that view of the constitution, Mr. K. said he must vote for indefinite
postponement.
Mr. MACON asked under what clause of the constitution Captain Murray
and others had been remunerated? Under what clause money paid into the
Treasury had been returned in various instances? The right to take,
gave the right to return that which was taken. In many instances this
principle had been practised on. There was no law to authorize the
punishment of a man for robbing the mail; but it was derived from the
power of establishing post roads. The power of refunding money was one
which had been often exercised.
Mr. GARDENIER was in favor of an inquiry. It was not only proper
that an inquiry should be made, but it was the bounden duty of the
House to make it. A member of the House in his place had stated facts
which if true undoubtedly entitled him to their interference. Our
duty (said Mr. G.) is imperative. The case of the gentleman does not
rest upon the question whether the sedition law was constitutional or
unconstitutional, but upon the fact that he was not a proper object for
the exercise of that law. For, if the statement made be correct, he was
punished for uttering a creed which would not be improper for every
member of the House; and I will say that subsequent events have shown
the sincerity with which the gentleman did make it; that he had kept
his promise most religiously; that it was not applicable to those men,
or that time, any more than to the present, but was a creed on which
he practised before and ever since, so far as his political course is
known to me. It is a case in which the privileges of the members of
this House are materially concerned. If under the sedition law for a
letter written by a member of this House to his constituents, giving
his view of public measures, he has been punished, it concerns the
safety of this House that complete and perfect remuneration should
be made. It is as important that every member should be permitted to
speak freely to his constituents, as that he should without restraint
address the Chair of the House. It was a case, therefore, which never
ought to have been the subject of a judicial investigation, much less
considered as a crime. The gentleman at the time followed the dictates
of his conscience. To his conscience and his God alone should he be
responsible. Sir, should we refuse an inquiry into this case, when we
know that the fine of James Thompson Callender, for one of the most
atrocious libels ever written in the United States, was remitted? When
we know that it was remitted by the President of the United States,
after the money had been received by the proper receiving officer
of the United States, when it had passed out of the hands of James
Thompson Callender into the hands of the officer of Government, and
was, to all intents and purposes, in the Treasury of the United States,
because there is no such thing as a treasury in which money is actually
deposited--for a libel, too, in which the great Father of his Country
was treated with a shameless indignity, which could not but have gone
to the heart of every man? When the President of the United States was
in that libel called a hoary-headed incendiary, should that fine be
returned, and shall a gentleman in this House be fined and imprisoned
for that which was not even improper? Shall we not restore to him that
which others have been suffered to retain, and for which we have not
brought to question him who restored it after it was in possession
of the receiving officer of the United States--in fact, after it was
in the Treasury? Let us not be guilty of this inconsistency. If the
sedition law has gone to the tomb of the Capulets, and I believe it
has, I am not one who wishes to bear up against the people's voice;
the Government is theirs, and when they speak we obey. If under that
law the Government has received money for an act which really, if the
statement of the gentleman be true, could scarcely be considered an
offence within the purview of that law, will you not give it back
to him? Either give back the money in the case, or take measures to
recover that money which was given back in the other. I am not for
making fish of one and flesh of another. Whilst on this subject I will
declare that I never did consider the sedition law as unconstitutional.
Congress were competent to pass it. But, that parties will sometimes
in the ardor of their course exceed the limits of discretion, and do
violence to the milder feeling of the community in which they live,
has been proved in the Adams Administration, and in that which has
lately disappeared; and when they have cooled down, it is but rendering
justice to the sense of the country to acknowledge their errors. No,
sir, I am satisfied that all prosecutions for libels on the Government
should be at least very hesitatingly sustained. You cannot draw a
precise line by which you shall limit the right of investigation. The
two things are so blended together that you cannot separate them. You
must either make the Government supreme or the people supreme. I am
for the latter. As Dr. Johnson makes Lord Chesterfield say, liberty
and licentiousness are blended like the colors in the rainbow; it is
impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. Licentiousness
is a speck on the eye of the political body, which you can never touch
without injuring the eye itself. I hope and trust that with this
investigation will be connected an inquiry into the prosecutions at
common law in Connecticut. I have seen in the State of New York, but
not under the present Administration, a defendant coming into court,
begging only to be permitted to prove that what he had said was true;
I have seen also an Attorney-General rise to prevent it: I have seen
the truth smothered on the trial by men who were as clamorous against
the sedition law as any loud-mouthed patriot in the country. I have
seen them bringing almost to the block the victim who may only wish to
prove the truth of what he said--which was denied him. I mention this
to show that where parties are contending against each other, where
there is a majority on one hand and a minority on the other, that which
appears on paper proper for the protection of the Government, turns out
to be for the oppression of the minority. In the nature of parties it
cannot be otherwise. Therefore, in my opinion, the Government of the
United States cannot render a greater service than by declaring it will
not be accessary to any diminution of the rights of the citizen; that
free investigation shall in all cases be permitted. Mr. G. made some
further observations on the particular case of Mr. LYON, and concluded
by expressing his hope that the resolution would pass.
The question that the resolution be postponed indefinitely, was decided
by yeas and nays--yeas 69, nays 50.
MONDAY, May 29.
Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, ORCHARD COOK; and
from Pennsylvania, BENJAMIN SAY and JOHN SMILIE, appeared, produced
their credentials, were qualified, and took their seats.
WEDNESDAY, May 31.
JULIAN POYDRAS appeared, produced his credentials, was qualified, and
took his seat, as the Delegate for the Territory of Orleans.
Mr. MCKIM presented a petition of thirty-five American citizens
confined at Carthagena, in South America, under sentence of slavery,
stating that, through means of falsehood and deception, they were
induced to engage in the unlawful expedition of Miranda, fitted out
from the city of New York, in the year one thousand eight hundred and
six, and that they were captured by the Spaniards, and condemned to
slavery, and praying that Congress will take their distressing case
into consideration, and effect their release and return to their native
country.--Referred to Mr. MCKIM, Mr. SAY, Mr. EMOTT, Mr. ROANE, and Mr.
COCHRAN, to examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their
opinion thereupon, to the House.
MONDAY, June 5.
Two other members, to wit: EZEKIEL WHITMAN, from Massachusetts,
and RICHARD WYNN, from South Carolina, appeared, produced their
credentials, were qualified, and took their seats in the House.
A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having
been informed of the death of the Honorable FRANCIS MALBONE, one of the
Senators from the State of Rhode Island, have directed the same to be
communicated to this House.
On motion of Mr. POTTER,
_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House will attend the funeral of
FRANCIS MALBONE, Esquire, late a member of the Senate of the United
States.
_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House do wear mourning on the left
arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect for the
memory of the deceased.
TUESDAY, June 6.
Another member, to wit, WILSON C. NICHOLAS, from Virginia, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.
WEDNESDAY, June 7.
Another member, to wit, ERASTUS ROOT, from New York, appeared, produced
his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.
FRIDAY, June 9.
Another member, to wit, NICHOLAS VAN DYKE, from Delaware, appeared,
produced his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in the House.
MONDAY, June 12.
_Mississippi Territory._
The SPEAKER presented a petition enclosed to him from a number of
inhabitants of the district east of Pearl river, in the Mississippi
Territory, praying for the division of the Territory.
Mr. POINDEXTER moved that the petition lie on the table. It would
perhaps be disrespectful to the petitioners to reject it, although its
contents would merit that course. There were three parties who must,
by the ordinance for the government of the Territory, consent before
the Territory of the Mississippi could be divided. One party was the
Mississippi Territory, the other the State of Georgia, and the third
the United States. Neither of these parties had consented. There was,
therefore, an absolute interdiction to all legislation on the subject;
and the House could, with as much propriety, refer a petition from a
State to be exempt from general taxation, or to recede from the Union,
as to refer this petition.
Mr. BURWELL said he felt himself bound to oppose the motion for its
lying on the table. If the request was wholly improper, the report of a
committee to that effect would settle the question at once.
Mr. BIBB was in favor of the motion; though, had a motion been made to
reject it, he should have voted against it.
Mr. MACON was in favor of a reference of the petition. No harm could
arise from an inquiry into it.
Mr. TROUP admitted the correctness of the remarks of the delegate from
the Territory, but wished the petition to be referred to a committee
for the purpose of an inquiry as well into the amount of population in
that country as into its quality; whether it was lawful or unlawful.
There were certain facts connected with this subject, perhaps not
generally known to the House. In the course of last year, he had
understood that a great many persons, amounting to perhaps three or
four thousand, had crossed the Tennessee river, and fixed themselves
on its banks, not only contrary to law, but the impression was that
they had set out in defiance of the law, and had even gone so far as to
organize themselves into military associations for the purpose.
Mr. POINDEXTER observed that there had been a settlement contrary to
the existing law on Tennessee near about a year ago; but that they were
ordered to be driven off by the military force, except they would take
permission to reside as tenants at will. Some had done so, and some had
been driven off.
Mr. TROUP said he knew that orders had been given to remove them,
but of their removal and dispersion he had not heard. He said he had
further understood that there were, in the county of Madison alone,
two or three thousand intruders, and many of them settled on Indian
lands, whose owners they excited to hostilities. There was another
fact, of which the House might keep possession. Among these intruders
was one of the name of Harrison, he believed, who claimed under what
was called the Tennessee Yazoo claims, and who settled on the land
with his retainers, and deliberately began to apportion it among them.
Whether he had been dispossessed, Mr. T. said he did not know. It
was absolutely necessary to ascertain the situation of that country,
and therefore he should vote for the reference of the petition to a
committee.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table--67 to 27.
TUESDAY, June 13.
_Miranda's Exhibition._
The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following resolution,
reported by the committee appointed to consider the petition of
thirty-six citizens concerned in Miranda's expedition, and now confined
in the vaults of Carthagena, South America:
"_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to adopt the most immediate and efficacious means
in his power to obtain the liberation of the prisoners, if it
shall appear to his satisfaction that they were involuntarily
drawn into the unlawful enterprise in which they were engaged;
and that ---- dollars be appropriated for that purpose."
Mr. MCKIM observed, that he believed nothing further would be necessary
for the attainment of this object than an application by the Government
of the United States; he then moved to fill the blank in the resolution
with such a sum ($3,500) as would defray the expense of sending a
vessel there and clothing the prisoners previous to their return.
Mr. RANDOLPH said he believed there would be no better time than on
this motion to express the disapprobation which he felt of the report;
for he was unwilling in his representative capacity, to give one cent
of the public money for bringing back into the bosom of the body
politic these unfortunate but guilty men. He knew how invidious a task
it was to appear to lean to the side of inhumanity; he knew how very
natural it was for the mind of man to relent after the commission of a
crime, and to see nothing in a culprit but his misfortunes, forgetting
his guilt; but there were occasions, and he took this to be one, where
to lean apparently to the side of humanity is an act of as great
injustice and cruelty to society as the Legislature can commit. What
were the House about to do? To make an appropriation of money for an
extraordinary purpose of foreign intercourse. Was not the President
of the United States already invested with power to negotiate with
the Spanish Government on this, as well as with any other Government
on any subject? Was the President of the United States presumed to
have turned a deaf ear to the cries of our suffering countrymen in
captivity in a foreign nation? Mr. R. said this was not like a question
of redeeming our countrymen from slavery in Barbary or Tripoli; but it
was a question whether this Government would lend its countenance to
that class of men who were concerned in the expeditions of Miranda and
Aaron Burr. He for one said, that he would not consent to it; and that
those persons who, above the dull pursuits of civil life, had enlisted
under these leaders, might take for him, however he might feel for
their situation as men, the lot which they themselves had selected. He
said he considered them as voluntarily expatriated from this country,
and among the articles of commerce and manufacture, which it might be
contemplated to encourage by bounty and premiums, he confessed for one,
that the importation of such citizens as these was not an article of
traffic which would meet with any encouragement from him. So far from
being afraid of any ill consequences resulting from the sparseness of
our population, he was afraid that our population, (and experience has
tested the fact,) sparse as it was in number, in quality was redundant.
We have been told, said Mr. R., and I believe it, that but the other
day the Foreign Office in Great Britain cast its eyes on Colonel Burr,
and that they either did commit him--I understand that he was committed
and stood so for some time, and was only released on condition of
quitting the country--that they either did commit or threaten to
imprison that unfortunate man. I want to know, sir, if he had stood
so committed, in what respect his case, in a political point of view,
would have stood contradistinguished from that of these petitioners?
I can see no difference but such as, in my mind, would have operated
to his advantage. There is an equality of guilt, but on his part a
superiority of intellectual character which would have rendered him, if
there is to be an accession to the State by bringing back to its bosom
those who have voluntarily thrown themselves out of the protection of
the country, a more valuable acquisition, or rather a less valuable
loss, than these unfortunate men.
It appears to me, sir, that in passing this resolution we shall hold
up a premium to vice; for, if this proposition be agreed to, when some
new Miranda or Burr comes forward with his project, he will tell his
conspirators that they will have nothing more to do, should the matter
turn out adversely, than to put up a face and tell Congress that they
were involuntarily drawn into it. An extraordinary mode, to be sure, of
volunteering to go against their will. These _involuntary_ volunteers
will be told they will have nothing to do but throw the whole weight
of the blame on the original mover of the expedition, and Congress
will tax their fellow-creatures--who, poor souls, had not enlarged
and liberal minds, and were content with the dull pursuits of civil
life--for redeeming them, clothing them, and bringing them back again
to society. I wish the committee to take the thing into consideration.
As men and Christians our conduct is to be governed by one rule; as
representatives of the people other considerations are proper. There
is, in the proposed interference, no justice; there may be much mercy,
but it is a mercy which carries cruelty, if not deliberate, the most
pernicious of all possible species of cruelty, along with it. Suppose
these men had been arrested and tried in this country, what would have
been their lot? It is difficult for me to say. I am no lawyer; but I
suppose, under the mild institutions in some of our States, they would
have been condemned to hard labor for life. In what do they differ, to
their advantage from other felons? In nothing. Who would step forward
to rescue them from that punishment due to their crime if convicted by
our own courts? Nobody. Everybody would have said that they deserved
it. Now, on the contrary, having escaped the hand of justice in this
country, and fallen into the grasp of the strong hand of power in
another country, we are not contented to let them reap what they have
sown; we are not contented to leave them in the hands of justice. I
believe that there exists a proper disposition in the Executive to
interfere, where American citizens are wrongfully treated abroad.
And, shall we come forward and open the public purse, and assume on
ourselves the responsibility of that act which the President refuses
to do, and thus share among us the imputation, such as it may be,
which society chooses to cast upon us in consequence of it, instead of
letting it fall singly and individually upon him, in case he chooses
to incur it? No, sir. I have no disposition to pass this resolution to
take the responsibility upon myself. In short, I should have been glad,
if instead of telling us that these men are unfortunate and miserable,
(for who are so unfortunate and miserable as the truly guilty?) that
the members of that committee, or the respectable chairman himself, had
come forward and shown the claim of these petitioners to the peculiar
patronage of the country. So far from any disposition to bring them
back, I would allow a drawback or bounty on the exportation of every
man of similar principles.
Mr. EMOTT said, that as he had been a member of the committee whose
report was now under consideration, he felt the propriety of making a
few observations to show the expediency of adopting the resolution. In
order to obtain the release of these miserable and deluded men, it was
necessary that the Government should interfere, because the Spanish
Government never would release them till such application was made. The
only money necessary to be paid was not to the Spanish Government, but
to defray the expense of bringing back the prisoners. It was not to buy
their liberty, but to employ a person to go there to request it.
It had been said that the President had power to attempt the release of
these persons without any resolution of the House. Mr. E. said he would
not enter into that consideration. He knew, if the President had the
power, that he had not chosen to exercise it; and if the House could
find from the statement of the situation of these men that they ought
to be relieved, they should not refrain from expressing their opinion,
merely because the President had the power and would not exercise it.
It might be necessary, Mr. E. said, to call to the minds of the
committee the situation of these men. They were persons employed by
Miranda, in his expedition, who, he undertook to say, did not know that
they were going on any expedition contrary to the laws of the country.
When taken, they had been tried by the Spaniards on a charge of piracy,
and condemned to lie in a dungeon for a term of years. They prayed the
Congress for its interposition in their behalf.
It had been said that these men knowingly engaged in this expedition.
Mr. E. said he believed that they did not; but, admitting, for a
moment, that this was the case; that they did know the pursuit on
which they were entering, they should not, for that reason alone, be
suffered to lie in prison. Let it be understood, said Mr. E., that this
expedition, whatever it was, was carried on, in the face of day, in the
city of New York, and that equipments of the vessels and enlistments
were made without interruption in the face of day. And would these
persons believe that they were going on an unlawful expedition? They
might have enlisted from the best motives; and, supposing that they had
enlisted under the knowledge that they were going on an expedition, yet
seeing that it was carried on in open day without interruption from the
Government, he much doubted whether these poor men ought to be suffered
to lie in prison.
But, putting motives aside, these men declare that they did not
understand the nature of the service for which they were engaged; and
this statement the committee who made the report had brought themselves
to believe. Let it be recollected that these unfortunate individuals
were lying in prison; and, although they had, by some means, forwarded
a petition here, they could not attend in person to urge their claim
to relief by proofs presented to the House. The persons who procured
these men to go on this expedition certainly would not be very willing
to come forward and give testimony; because, by so doing, they might
criminate themselves and render themselves liable to the operation
of the laws of their country. Considering that these persons were
removed thousands of miles from us, that they were unfriended, and
that the persons who alone could prove that their intent was innocent,
would not come forward for fear of criminating themselves, he thought
these men were entitled to commiseration, and he believed that it
was in his power to show two or three circumstances which would
convince the House that they had no knowledge of the nature of this
expedition. The first circumstance was the extreme improbability
that these men would have engaged in this expedition, if the nature
of it had been explained. Had Mr. Smith or General Miranda gone to
these men and said, "we are going on an expedition against the laws
of the country, and, if taken, you will be punished under the laws
of one country or the other," it is extremely improbable that they
would have engaged. It is not likely that Miranda or Mr. Smith avowed
their purposes, and told them that they were going on an expedition
hostile in its nature, and against the laws of the country, because its
object was to revolutionize a nation in amity with the United States.
It is impossible that these men should have known the nature of the
expedition, when it was not known to the Government here, however
public. This circumstance, to me, is conclusive, to show that these
young men did not know it. There might have been persons who did; if
you please, Mr. Ogden, who furnished the ship, or others, but it is
impossible to believe, that these men, who were mere soldiers for
carrying on the expedition, knew the nature of it. I am convinced that
these persons, all privates--for the officers were executed--did not
know why they did enlist, or that the corps was for the purpose to
which it was actually designed.
I have said, and perhaps every person here knows, that the whole of the
business was carried on in the face of day. Here were General Miranda
and Mr. Smith coming to the seat of Government, and back to New York,
procuring clothes, enlisting men. Can it be conceived that all this
could have been carried on, if General Miranda had not meant to conceal
it from the Government? But it is in my power to furnish something more
than mere conjecture on this subject. The committee will recollect that
a greater part of this transaction took place at New York. There the
men were to rendezvous, there the vessel was furnished, and to that
State most of the young men who are now in South America did belong.
In that State this matter was the subject of judicial investigation.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Ogden were indicted. I will read a part of the
evidence given on the trial, which will satisfy any one, at least it
has satisfied me, that these men had no hand in it. Mr. Fink, who was
produced as evidence on the part of the Government to convict Mr.
Smith, was the person who was intrusted with enlistments.
On the same trial there was one of the persons who has actually
enlisted who deposed that the same information which Peter Rose
received was given to others. This man also was a private in the
expedition, and swears that the person who employed him told him that
he was to be employed in the service of the Government; that he was to
be carried to Washington by water and thence to New Orleans. The men
who now petition Congress are persons who are placed precisely in the
same situation. We find, in the course of the trial, that the person
employed to enlist the men, declares that the person employing him
refused to tell him for what purpose they were to be enlisted, and, of
course, he could not inform those whom he enlisted.
Mr. E. said he had already remarked the extreme difficulty under
which these persons labored, that they were at a distance of several
thousand miles from this country, incarcerated, and friendless. He had
satisfied his mind that they had engaged in this business unknowingly
and unwillingly--and, what was now asked of the Government? That they
should expend large sums of money for the purpose of buying them out?
No. All that the Spanish Government wanted, he undertook to say, was,
that a request should be made by the Government of this country for
those men; and all the money required for this service, was money
enough to send an agent there and facilitate his return.
Nothing had been said by him, Mr. E. remarked, of the peculiar
sufferings of these men; but there were representations enough, to
show that they were chained naked in a dungeon, without clothing, and
without wood. Some had died and others must die. He hoped, therefore,
for the reasons which he had given, that the committee would be
satisfied that these men were not guilty of crime. If not guilty, he
hoped there could be no doubt that they were a proper subject for the
interference of the Government.
Mr. BACON observed that the conclusion which the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) had drawn, rested upon the idea that the men
were guilty. If they were guilty, they certainly should not receive the
benefit of the interposition of the Government of the United States.
They had no claim on the United States when considered as criminals,
or as men who had voluntarily engaged in this service. The report
of the committee did not state this to be the case. I acknowledge,
said Mr. B., that they are guilty in some respects, having innocently
transgressed the laws. If they are guilty in the eye of justice, I
contend they ought not to have relief. The report of the committee
states, that, under a persuasion that the facts set forth by the
petitioners were true, they were induced to submit this resolution.
The committee had evidence, which they deemed competent, to prove that
these men were not guilty men. In what respect, then, are they to be
compared to Aaron Burr? No man will say that he did not proceed on his
expedition with his eyes open, or that he could plead ignorance. The
fact in relation to these men appears to be that they were inveigled;
that their offence was involuntary, not as respected engaging in
what they thought the service of the United States, but as to going
abroad, for against their consent they were forced into the service.
Therefore, with great truth, it might be said that they were scourged
to the service. If this was the fact, as the committee appear to have
believed, I ask, in what their case differs from that of men taken
captives by the Algerines? Those men taken by the Algerines are engaged
in lawful commerce; these poor men are engaged in an unlawful act, but
not knowing it to be unlawful, and believing it to be correct, they
are as innocent, in fact, as those who act innocently. The gentleman
says, suppose they were to return to their country, would they not be
punished? If the facts, as they state them, are correct, as I believe
them to be, I do not believe that they would be punished. The law does
not punish a man because he does not act, but for the _quo animo_ with
which he does it.
Mr. TAYLOR said if he could view this subject in the light in which
it had been viewed by most of its advocates, and particularly by the
gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. PEARSON,) he should think it
was the duty of this Government to make exertion for the release of
these people; but even then he should inquire whether any exertion in
their favor would not rather do them an injury than a service; for it
would be recollected that every gentleman who had spoken seemed to
consider the mercy which was asked to depend upon and to be bestowed
by the United States. Were I a Spaniard, and attended the debate in
this House, I should think that gentlemen in favor of the resolution
contemplated an infraction of the rights of the nation before whose
courts, and by whose laws, these men were condemned. These fine appeals
to mercy and humanity would apply well before the power possessing the
right to bestow mercy, but are not applicable to the feelings proper
to be exercised on this occasion by this House. I say that it is one
of the attributes of Government to punish those who have infringed or
broken the laws of the country. These people have been condemned by a
Spanish tribunal; it is by that Government alone that mercy is to be
shown; and an exertion by this House in attempting to bestow mercy upon
these people is an infringement of that right. I challenge gentlemen
to show me an instance in the annals of diplomacy of a like nature
with this proposition. I recollect one instance, but I have heard no
gentleman propose to go so far. Oliver Cromwell, when a member of the
British Commonwealth, was imprisoned by the inquisition, ordered his
admirals to draw up before the harbor and demand his release. This
is the only case I have met with in the course of my reading, of an
attempt by one nation to relieve criminals condemned by another nation
under its own laws. If this view be a just one, it certainly becomes
a matter of great delicacy. If this Government had never been by the
most secret whisper implicated (unjustly, as I firmly believe) in
this transaction, still it would have been a subject of the greatest
delicacy for the Government of the United States to interfere. What
will the Government of Spain, Junta, King, or Governors of Spanish
provinces to whom you apply, say to you on this subject? Why they will
say--"We have long suspected, we have heard from your own quarter,
that you were implicated in this expedition; you now give us proof;
you have come forward in an unprecedented manner and interfered in a
case with which you have no business, a case which is fully embraced
by the sovereignty which we ourselves exercise over our own courts."
Will it not at once be inferred that these assertions throughout the
United States had been true, and that this Government was implicated
or concerned, or, to use the words of yesterday, that this Government
had connived at such an expedition? You will but render the sufferings
of these people more rigorous. It is not to be conceived, although the
gentleman from Massachusetts and others have acquitted the Government
of participation, that the Spanish Government will do so also. Why,
even in our cool and calm situation, you see that suspicion of the
connivance of the Administration is not yet quite done away--and do you
suppose, sir, that the Spaniards, against whom repeated expeditions
have been made, at a distance from those sources whence conviction
might flash upon their minds, will form the same opinion of the subject
that we do? Fear forms a bias on their mind; and we form a conviction
on the side on which we feel interested.
Gentlemen, in order to induce us to grant pardon to these men, which
we have no power to do, have told us that they are innocent; because,
forsooth, they themselves have said so. I recollect, sir, once in a
conversation with a most eminent barrister in the State in which I
live, who had often performed the duty of counsellor and advocate in
our State, he informed me that in a practice of thirty years, in the
course of which he had been concerned in the cases of many culprits, on
many, nay, on all occasions, he put this plain question to his client:
"I am your counsel; it is necessary for me, in order to make the best
possible defence of your cause, to make the best statement in your
favor, to know whether you are guilty or not." He declared that he had
never yet met with a man who acknowledged that he was guilty. I believe
that this disposition to appear innocent, is inherent in human nature.
It is natural for these men to say that they are not guilty; they
said so to the court before whom they were tried. Why were they not
liberated? Why was not that mercy which is so pathetically called for
bestowed on them by that tribunal before whom the case was examined?
If they are the immaculate and almost sainted victims which they are
described to be, why did not the court which heard the testimony on
both sides of the question bestow that clemency asked of us? I should
presume, that when all the circumstances came out before the court,
they were not favorable to the petitioners; and it is a respect due
from this Government to the acts of that Government that such a
construction should be put upon this matter. If we are to distrust the
acts of the Spaniard, because, as we are told, he is vindictive and
cruel, he might justly say that we have not done to others as we would
be done by.