We should place the President of the United States in a very unpleasant

situation indeed by requiring him to demand these men, if we would not

also be willing to go to war for them. As our navy is now afloat I

would propose as an amendment to the project, if gentlemen are serious

in their determination to rescue these men, that our fleet shall sail

before Carthagena and compel the Spanish Governor or Junta to give them

up. This is the only mode of interfering with a matter of this kind,

which is sanctioned by precedent, as I have before stated.

It would seem, sir, as if the passing scenes of this world were

entirely forgotten. The British Government has been suspected of

having connived at this expedition as well as the Government of the

United States. They have received Miranda into their bosom; and on the

examination on the trial of Sir Home Popham, it did appear that he had

received orders to sail for a particular port of that continent to

create a diversion of an attack expected to be made in another part

of it. But what have the British Government done on the subject? Have

they not considered it a delicate one? Have they not in their conduct

given us the most sound and wholesome advice on the subject? Although

I believe these men were employed to answer a purpose all-important

to her, yet she has not extended towards these sufferers in her own

cause that clemency which is asked at our hands. These men who were

suffering in her employ, demonstrably acting in furtherance of her

interest, have not met with the clemency of the Government; and the

case is more strong when it is recollected that since the capture of

these men, although previously at war with Spain, Great Britain was

not only at peace but in alliance with that nation. With all these

favorable circumstances, when but a hint from the British Ministry in

favor of these people might have released them, yet being so delicate a

subject that it has not been touched by them, shall we, who have been

crusading and exerting every nerve for the releasement of our seamen,

and with all our efforts have been unsuccessful, shall we start on a

fresh crusade for these men, when the efforts of the Government in the

other cause, in so noble, so just, and so humane a cause, have as yet

proved unavailing? Shall we engage in a contest for these people, who

are acknowledged justly to be in the power and under the sentence of

the courts of another nation, whilst the honest American tar, guiltless

of harm, is writhing under the lash of every boatswain on board a

man-of-war? If you will go on and reform the whole world, begin with

one grievance first; to use a homely phrase, do not put too many irons

in the fire.

Sir, if the Spanish nation has any feeling for its sovereignty, it

would spurn your request. Only suppose that nation to possess the

same feelings which actuate every breast in this House; which actuate

the American people. Suppose the claim of Mr. Burr to citizenship in

Britain, on the ground of once a subject always a subject, had been

recognized by the British Government. Suppose that he was suffering in

chains in some of your prisons, and because they had heard that Mr.

Burr might have been innocent, the British Government had asked his

release, would not the people of America have spurned the request as

an indignity to the nation? And may we not suppose that these proud

Spaniards, as they are called, may have feelings of a like nature? I

believe, sir, that the course proposed would only add rigor to their

sufferings, weight to their chains.

Mr. LIVERMORE asked if the committee which made this report had not

before it evidence that certain British subjects concerned in Miranda's

expedition had been liberated on the application of some officers of

that nation? If they had it would be a fair answer to the eloquent

speech of the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he did not think that the information asked for by

the gentleman was at all material to this case. It was a matter of no

consequence at all, as respected the statement made by the gentleman

from South Carolina on (he had no doubt) very good grounds. What,

said Mr. R., has been the situation of Great Britain in relation to

Spain? Great Britain, at the time the expedition was undertaken, was

an enemy of Spain--was at actual war with Spain--and therefore in a

subject of Great Britain it might have been highly meritorious to annoy

Spain, either at home or in her colonies to the utmost extent in his

power, without any direct authority from his Government. Subsequently

to that time, however, Great Britain has become the ally of Spain in

consequence of the revolution; and at that time Great Britain obtained

from persons exercising the authority of government in Spain the

release of these prisoners, which it is perfectly natural Spain should

then have granted. But suppose, instead of that change having taken

place in the relations between Great Britain and Spain, Bonaparte had

quietly succeeded in putting King Joseph on the throne of Spain and

the Indies, and applications had then been made; or suppose that the

application had been deferred until now, and the power of the House

of Bonaparte was as complete over the colonies in South America as we

have every reason to believe it is over the European possessions of

the mother country, would the British subjects in that case have been

released? It is an unfortunate circumstance that no question can be

agitated in this House and tried upon its own merits; that every thing

which is, has been, or may be, is to be lugged in on the question

before us, to the total exclusion of the merits of the case, and in

this way, instead of a session of three and six months for doing the

business of the nation, if every question is to be tried in the manner

in which it appears to me this has been, we may sit to all eternity and

never get through it.

I lay no claim to greater precision than other men; but really I

cannot perceive what kind of relation, what kind of connection exists

between most of what I have heard on this subject, and the true merits

of the case. Gentlemen get up and abuse the Spanish Government and

people, and what then? Why, it appears all this is preliminary to

our making an humble request of this Government and people that they

shall grant us a particular boon. To be sure, sir, all this time we

do plaster ourselves unmercifully--we lay it on with a trowel--and

gentlemen seem to think that if we sufficiently plaster ourselves,

our President, and people, and be-devil every other Government and

people, it is sufficient to illuminate every question. And this is the

style in which we speak to Governments perfectly independent of us!--A

very wise mean, to be sure, of inducing them to grant the pardon of

these people as a favor to us. Sir, it would be a strange spectacle,

to be sure, when this Minister that is to be, this sort of anomalous

messenger whom you are going to send, I know not exactly to whom;

whether to the Junta, or persons exercising the power of government in

the provinces, or to the Government in Europe; when this Minister goes

to Carthagena or elsewhere, if he should carry to the Viceroy along

with his credentials a file of papers containing the debates on this

question. Why, sir, like Sir Francis Wronghead, we appear all to have

turned round. My honorable friend, the gentleman from South Carolina,

(Mr. TAYLOR,) spoke of the crimes of these men. Gentlemen on the other

side, who wish them to be pardoned, tell you of nothing but of their

innocence, and the injustice of those who condemn them and now have

them under punishment. Two more such advocates as have appeared in

favor of this proposition would damn the best cause ever brought before

any House or any court in Christendom. The gentleman from New York,

(Mr. EMOTT,) who spoke yesterday, certainly very pertinently, and very

handsomely, tells the House that in this case no other money than that

of the United States, will be received; that with a sort of Castilian

fastidiousness, those persons acting for the Government of Spain will

not touch any money which shall not be offered in the quality of

public money. I believe no such thing; and moreover, I wish it to be

distinctly understood that the question of money is not the question

with me; and that to suppose it necessary for the Government of the

United States to interfere for the purpose of raising so pitiful a sum

as $3,500 for the relief of these unfortunate men, whose situation I

most seriously deplore, is a libel upon the charity of this country. I

believe, notwithstanding the public impression on this subject against

the petitioners, that the money could be raised in half an hour in any

town in the United States. I believe it might be raised in that time

in the city of Washington. It is not a question of the amount of money

wanted; it is, whether the Government of the United States shall lend

its countenance to persons situated as these unfortunate people are?

Sir, had we at that time been at war with Spain, as Great Britain,

something might be said in favor of these persons. But we were not at

war with Spain, and these men knew it; and I believe they knew at least

as well as I know, that when a man is recruited for _public service_,

as they say they thought to be their case, he is immediately taken

before a justice of the peace and sworn. This part of the ceremony,

however, is not stated to have taken place. To be sure, sir, the

gentleman from New York (Mr. EMOTT) said, I believe, every thing that

could be said in favor of those unfortunate people, and really almost

convinced me that we ought to make this interference; but unfortunately

for him and for his cause, other advocates rose up in its favor and

placed the subject in a situation not only as respects the majority of

this House, but as respects that Government with whom intercession is

to be made, which will completely foreclose any attempt at relieving

the sufferers. It is not possible that the majority of this House, or

that the Spanish Government, can be affected in any other manner than

with disgust and indignation at such stuff. The gentleman from New York

told us that these were ardent young men, who were anxious to go to

Caraccas for the purpose, I think, of correcting the despotism which

existed in that country; or otherwise, political Quixotes. This, I take

it, will operate little in their favor with the Spanish Government,

however it may in ours. I confess I feel very little sympathy for

those who, overlooking their own country, and the abuses in their own

Government, go in search of political adversaries abroad--go a tilting

against political despotisms for the relief, I suppose, of distressed

damsels compelled to live under them.

The question was now taken, and the votes being affirmative 62,

negative 61, the SPEAKER voted in the negative--the votes then being

equal, the question was lost.

MONDAY, June 19.

_The Batture at New Orleans._

The House proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr. MACON,

on the sixteenth instant, in the words following, to wit:

"_Resolved_, That so much of the message of the President of

the United States of the seventh of March, one thousand eight

hundred and eight, as relates to the batture in the suburbs

of St. Mary's, adjoining New Orleans, and the documents

accompanying it, together with the petitions of Edward

Livingston, and the petitions of the citizens of New Orleans

on the same subject, and the documents which accompanied the

same, be referred to the Attorney-General of the United States,

and that he be instructed to receive and collect such other

testimony as may be necessary to ascertain the title of the

United States to the before-mentioned batture, and that he

be directed to report to this House, at the next session of

Congress, his opinion as to the validity of the claim of the

United States to the said batture."

Mr. BURWELL thought that this was not the proper course to pursue;

but that the course recommended at the last session was the one, viz:

to give the petitioners the right of appeal from the decision of the

Orleans court to the Supreme Court, or to give the United States

the same right, should the decision be against them. He could see

no advantage in the procrastination now proposed, nor any injury to

the United States or the city of New Orleans, in the course which he

advocated. He doubted, although the letter of the law of 1807 might

cover this case, whether it was ever intended that that law should

operate as this had done. My intention, said he, in voting for it, was

that it should apply exclusively to the Western lands, commonly called

the Yazoo lands, and such other lands as were occupied by hundreds who

might be formidable from their numbers. To undertake jurisdiction on

questions of property is taking upon ourselves the functions of another

department of the Judiciary. The case involves important points of

law--and let me ask, whether the gentlemen in this House are so well

read in law as to be able to decide such an important point as this? It

does appear to me that on all the questions of private property arising

in the United States, where the question of right is not to be brought

before this House, we ought to consult the convenience of the parties

by promoting dispatch. On the question whether this property belong to

the United States or to the petitioners I am completely ignorant. Nor

would I have it inferred that I believe the petitioner to have a right

to the property; I take it that the claim of the United States must

be good, or the inhabitants of Orleans would not be so zealous in the

support of it.

Mr. POYDRAS asked for the reading of a letter which he had received

from the Governor of Orleans Territory, which was accordingly read. The

letter states, that if it were possible that the committee to whom Mr.

Livingston's claim was referred could now visit New Orleans, they would

be convinced that the batture, now covered with water, was in fact the

bed of the river, and, therefore, could not be private property. Mr. P.

stated the history of this piece of alluvion at some length, and the

circumstances under which it had always been deemed public property.

Mr. SHEFFEY said that before passing this resolution, gentlemen ought

to ascertain what the Attorney-General could do in this case. He

could not compel the attendance of witnesses, or collect testimony of

circumstances which occurred a hundred years ago; and unless he could

do this, it was impossible he could examine the title, for testimony

as to facts was essential to enable him to form a correct opinion.

What influence could the opinion of the Attorney-General have? Was

the right of the citizen to fall prostrate before such an _ex parte_

opinion or statement as that might be? If it was not to have influence,

why thus evade a decision on the prayer of the petitioner? If it was

to have any influence, it must be a pernicious one, because founded on

_ex parte_ testimony. Would the House go into the merits of the case

on this opinion, when obtained without affording an opportunity to the

party interested to prove that the law was not correctly expounded nor

the facts correctly stated? Surely not. If they did not, if they heard

opinions on both sides, they converted this House into a judiciary

tribunal. Was this body calculated for that branch of Government?

No; this, Mr. S. said, is a Government of departments, each of which

ought to be kept separate. What, sir! is this a question of right

between the United States and an individual, and we are about to take

it into our own hands, to wrest it from the constitutional authority,

and decide it ourselves? I hope we shall not; and, therefore, I am

against this proposition. What does the Attorney-General state in his

report? Aware of the impropriety of his deciding, he tells you--what?

That the usual course, where the rights of the United States have been

involved, has been to appoint commissioners to hear and decide. Here

the Attorney-General tells you it is not proper for him to decide. And

I should never wish to see the case in which the Attorney-General's

opinion is to give authority for dispossessing an individual of his

property; for if it can be done in one case it may be in every case.

Any individual may be driven from his property by military force,

and then his title be decided by an ill-shapen, one-sided statement

and opinion of the Attorney-General. Against such a decision I do

protest. Is it because you have power on your side, sir, that you will

not submit to a judicial decision of this question? If there be a

controversy about a right, there ought to be a judicial decision.

I, sir, have been unable to see how an individual having property, in

which he was put in possession in 1804 or '5 by a judicial decision,

could be disposed of it by the act of 1807, the operation of which was

limited to acts done hereafter, that is, after the passing of that act

in 1807. That law too speaks of "lands ceded to the United States."

Was the batture ceded to the United States? I say not, because it was

private property before the United States possessed the sovereignty of

the country. By the treaty of 1803 with the Government of the United

States, the rights and property of the inhabitants of Louisiana was

secured to them. What then is the inference from this state of the

case? That the United States got possession illegally, in defiance of

judicial authority. I am sorry to see that the judicial authority has

been set at defiance, and the Presidential mandate carried into effect

at the point of the bayonet, right or wrong. This was the case. Those

who were put in possession were ousted by military force. Let me not be

understood as throwing odium on the Executive; far from it. I believe

the Executive acted conscientiously, but upon an _ex parte_ statement.

The President was never told that the case had been judicially

investigated. Those facts were taken for granted, on the other hand,

which did not exist, and those which formed the foundation of the true

merits of the case, were withheld.

Mr. POYDRAS spoke at some length in reply to Mr. SHEFFEY, and in

defence of the title of the United States. The batture had many years

ago been considered as public property, and no one who examined the

circumstances of the case could for a moment doubt it. He said that it

had never been claimed as private property until after it came into the

possession of the United States. He hoped the rights of the public and

of the people of New Orleans would not be trampled upon to grant the

petitioner his prayer.

Mr. MACON said that he was himself in favor of giving the right of

the United States to the property to the people or corporation of New

Orleans, and letting them and the individual contest it. There was

nothing new, however, in the reference of a subject to the Head of a

Department, whose opinion would have no more weight than reason, and

so far only ought it to have weight. Mr. M. said he had no more desire

to interfere with the judiciary than either of the gentlemen who had

spoken. If provision was made for trying this case, must it not be

extended to all others? In order to do justice, it must be done to all.

Had not a special court been refused in relation to a property of much

greater value than this? Before Congress made a special court for a

certain case, they ought to look at the consequences. It was departing

from the general system of the nation to appoint a court for a special

case. Perhaps there was something in this case which differed from

other cases: but he doubted whether it would warrant the appointment

of a special court. Mr. M. said he saw no other way of treating this

subject but by letting it go before the courts already organized. If

the right was in the petitioner, be the consequences what it might, the

city of New Orleans had no right to take it away from him.

Mr. TROUP observed that this case was probably one which would fall

under the old maxim, _nullum tempus occurrit regi_ or _reipublicæ_.

It appeared to him that there was a constitutional difficulty in this

case, which did not appear to have suggested itself to the mind of

any gentleman. First, has the United States a claim, either real or

disputed, to this territory? Whether disputed or otherwise, provided

the claim be asserted on its part, the question is, has the Congress

of the United States a power to decide the validity of that claim? And

if it has, is it proper so to decide it? What is the subject-matter in

dispute? Public property; and what species? Landed. Then the question

results, has Congress a right, in order to determine its title, to

refer it to any tribunal whatever? I contend not; the right to public

property was originally in the people of this country; they could never

be divested of their great public right to the landed property of the

nation, but by their express consent. They did give that right to the

Congress of the United States, in declaring that it should have power

to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning

public territory. Would it have had that power, if this right had

not been expressly delegated? I know that, under the old Articles of

Confederation, Congress did undertake to legislate as to property; but

it was always questionable whether they had a right to do so--and this

was not the only point on which Congress did exercise powers which were

brought into question. The right to determine claims to public property

is not only guarantied exclusively to Congress by the constitution, but

the practice has been invariably pursuant to it; it was so in 1807.

The Government not only asserted its right in the first instance, but

asserted its power to enforce the right at the point of the bayonet.

If the public have always been in possession of a certain property,

the man who enters on it without their consent is a trespasser on that

property. Upon this view of the subject, there is a constitutional

difficulty on which the House should decide, before it entertains a

motion for delegating a power to decide this question to any tribunal

or commission whatever.

Mr. BOYD said, admitting all the gentleman had said to be true, his

observations did not apply to this case. He had spoken of the right

to public property. The question now was, whether this was public

property or not; if it were certainly public property, on which ground

the gentleman rested his argument, there could be no question on the

subject. It was asked only before they decided between the individual

and the United States on the right to land, not confessedly public

property, but claimed as such, that fair investigation should be had.

Mr. B. disclaimed the power of deciding judicially upon the subject; it

was a right which he had never thought of this House claiming. A delay

of justice was a denial of it. The individual petitioning had been in

possession of the property; it had been taken from him by force, and

he now asked a trial of his title before a competent court--and this

opportunity, Mr. B. said, he ought to have as speedily as possible.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he should vote against that report. He said it was

no part of his intention to deliver any opinion on the merits of the

claim, although he had devoted not a little of his time to the study of

that question, for two reasons: first, that it would be a prejudicated

opinion, inasmuch as that was not the question which the House were

called upon to decide, even if it were competent to decide it. I am

extremely sorry, said he that the law of 1807 has been brought into

view of this House by my friends from North Carolina and Georgia, and

for this reason: that that law has no bearing at all on the present

question. Its object was wholly different from that to which it has

been misapplied. What, sir, was the object of that law? To defend

against a conspiracy, I may properly term it--against the lawless

violence of confederated associations, a vast property. How has it

been applied? Not to a great public property, but to a speck of land,

to which, as I understand it, a single individual, or at most three

or four, put in a claim. Such an application as that of the law in

question was never intended by the Legislature; and, if applied to such

a property as the batture, and to the case of a single individual,

may be applied to the property of every man in society. What is the

doctrine of my friend from Georgia? That the public are always supposed

to be in possession of the national domain. True, sir, and it is also

true that those who enter upon it and endeavor to appropriate it to

themselves, are trespassers, and as such, may be resisted by force. But

that is not the case in the present question--very far from it--for the

public never had been in possession of the property in question.

Without attempting to enter into the merits of the real title to the

land in question, let us take it on the ground of the right of the

citizen. A citizen comes before this House, and complains that he

is dispossessed of his common right by arbitrary power. If, after a

cause has been heard by a court, and a citizen put in possession of

a property, by a decree of that court, he is dispossessed of it by

military violence, where, if not before this House, is he to prefer

his claim for redress? There is no court before which he can go,

because the court which is the last resort in this case has already

unavailingly given its decision. There is no court of appeal, no

superior tribunal, and if there were, and a decree of the Supreme

Court obtained in his favor on the appeal, what is any decree to avail

against armed men--against muskets and bayonets? But this is not the

only reason why I am sorry that the act of 1807 has been brought in to

apply to this case. It is because, if this House can be once prevailed

upon to consider this case as analogous to the Yazoo case, many most

injurious consequences must follow therefrom. The first is, that that

odious and supremely infamous claim will be put upon a ground which

it is by no means entitled to occupy; and I entreat my friend from

Georgia, and those whose minds are unalterably made up on the Yazoo

question, not to give their enemies such a prize as they must have

on us, if we agree to confound the Yazoo claim with that before the

House. There is no sort of analogy between them. On the other hand,

sir, supposing the right to be in the United States, I beg gentlemen

not to create so forcible an interest against the rights of the United

States as will infallibly be embodied against it if we confound the

two. I have no idea of giving the Yazoo men such a handle. Again, let

us suppose, if we can suppose it, that the right is in the petitioner;

may it not, supposing a great majority of the House to be against the

Yazoo claim--we do not know how they are disposed--may it not create an

unjust bias against the petitioner? So that in whatever aspect we view

it, it is not only impolitic, but, what is worse, extremely unjust to

attempt to identify the two cases. And, sir, it is a matter of curious

speculation, that while the act of 1807 has been brought into operation

in the case of a solitary individual and a little speck of property to

which it was not intended to apply, even supposing the case in question

to to have arisen subsequently to the passage of that act; that,

although it has been misapplied in this case, it has not been applied

to the case to which it was intended to apply, and for which it was

enacted; for, if I understood my friend from Georgia a few days ago,

some hundreds or thousands of intruders have set themselves down on

the public lands, and the public force has never been employed against

them. On the contrary, the artillery of Government has been brought

into play against a single individual. It was, indeed, said that these

intruders had agreed to remain as tenants at will; but, let them remain

till they are sufficiently strong, and they will give you another

chapter in the history of Wyoming; for, after they are sufficiently

strong to hold territory, although the arm of Government has been

applied successfully to oust a single individual put in possession by a

decree of a court, you will find it nerveless to expel these men.

With regard to the doctrine _nullum tempus occurrit reipublicæ_, it is

a dangerous doctrine, if carried to the extent to which I apprehend my

friend from Georgia would carry it. I venture to say that the abuse

of that doctrine in the celebrated case of Sir John Lowther and the

Duke of Portland, which created one general sentiment of indignation

in the British nation--an attempt under that maxim to deprive a

subject, hostile to the Court, of property of which he had been long

in possession, for the purpose of transferring it to a minion of the

Court--that case, with all its aggravated enormities, does not come

up to the case before the House; and I speak without reference to the

question whether the petitioner has a right or not to the property in

this case. The question of right is not before the House, and that

question, decide which way you will, can have no sort of weight in

the vote which the House ought to give. The question is this: Having

been long in possession of a piece of land, the title deeds destroyed,

records burnt, and possession the only title you have to show, an

attempt is made to dispossess you of the property; a decree of court

confirms your right; if the individual, under these circumstances, can

be turned out of possession by main force and strength, and that, too,

military force, there is an end in the right to property of every man

in the country. Sir, I have been astonished, and grieved and mortified,

to see so little sensation created in this nation by the procedure in

question. It strikes at the root of every thing dear to freemen. There

is an end of their rights.

What, then, is this case? An individual comes before us, and says, that

after having been put in possession of a piece of land, (I speak not of

the validity of his title; it is not concerned in this question,) he

was dispossessed by military force of this property. These two facts I

do not understand any member of this House to deny. And what does he

claim? He claims of you, as the guardians of the rights of every man in

society, _justice_. And where do you send him? To the Attorney-General.

I will suppose that in the Lowther and Portland case, the Duke of

Portland had been referred to the Attorney-General. Would the English

nation have endured it? No, sir. Much less would they have endured,

military as the nation is becoming by the introduction of large

standing armies, that he should have been dispossessed of his property

by an armed military force, at the fiat of the Crown. The question

is, what should be done? Sir, what should not be done is perfectly

clear. It ought not to be done that the petitioner should be sent to

the Attorney-General, who has already given an opinion on his claim,

though that is very immaterial, which opinion it seems we cannot find.

If I understand any thing of this Government, however, it ought to be

on record, and this return of _non est inventus_ ought not to have

been received. All that we have to do, it appears to me, is to make a

provision, in the nature of a declaratory law, not amending the act of

1807, but, declaring what the law is; and we ought to quiet the rights,

and the mind too, of every man in society, by declaring that, by the

act of 1807, it was not intended to authorize the President of the

United States to interpose the bayonet between the courts of justice

and the individual. This power never has been given, never was intended

to be given.

Mr. GOLD said that this was one of the most important subjects that

had ever been brought before the House. He did not mean to enter into

the merits of the case. The gentleman from Virginia had very clearly

expressed all those sentiments which every man must feel on hearing

the history of this case; and as regarded the ground taken, of _nullum

tempus occurrit_, the gentleman had repelled it very properly--and

indeed in that country whence the maxim had been derived, whenever it

was attempted to be put in force against ancient possessions, it had

been executed with great difficulty. It is in the very teeth of _Magna

Charta_, which says that a freeman shall not be dispossessed of his

freehold without a better right is ascertained. There are a variety of

forms by which the right is guarded. If I, said Mr. G., understood the

gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. TROUP,) he considers it a sacrifice of

the rights of the United States to permit a decision on its property to

pass into the hands of third persons. Even in England the prerogative

is not carried so far. The Crown has frequently consented that the

right of Government should pass into the hands of third persons, viz:

of commissioners, for the purpose of investigation.

I will not trouble the House with lengthy remarks on this subject. I

can hardly advert to it without feeling all that has been much more

eloquently expressed by the gentleman from Virginia than it is in my

power to express it. Let gentlemen look around and see if they can find

a precedent for this transaction. And when we consider it, every man's

feelings must be operated upon too strongly to permit him to argue. The

course suggested by the gentleman from Virginia must prevail, or we no

longer live under a Government of laws, and those principles on which

it is founded are destroyed. The man ousted must be put in possession,

must be restored to the possession of the property which the hand of

violence has wrested from him; and I hope that a proposition to this

effect in a proper shape will be presented.

Mr. GHOLSON said he thought it would better become the character of

this assembly to discuss every subject with calmness and deliberation,

and on its own merits, than to endeavor to influence the decision by

an appeal to the passions. It was important that such a course should

be pursued, whether with reference to a great political principle

or to the interest of the individual whose rights were said to have

been wantonly prostrated at the Executive will. I (said Mr. G.) have

been early taught, and the doctrine has grown with my years, that the

right of property is not one of the least consideration in a free

constitution. It is of a nature so sacredly inviolable that, when

clearly ascertained, I would never encroach upon it by any means but

through the regular constituted authority. It would have been under

this impression that, had I been a member of the Legislature when the

law of 1807 was introduced into the statute book, I should have been

opposed to it. But receiving all the sanctions of a law, and as such

containing a rule of conduct in certain specified cases, what was

the Executive to do? Was he to set at defiance the law of the land?

A doctrine like this can never be contended for. It seems, however,

that to satisfy gentlemen the President should have refused to carry

this law into execution, which I acknowledge does usurp judicial

authority.--[Mr. RANDOLPH said that his ground was that the President

had not executed the law. If a law were ever so unconstitutional, the

President having signed it, it would become his duty to carry it into

effect. But he denied that he had carried it into effect.] Upon that

point, continued Mr. G., my colleague and I are at issue. I rise not to

discuss the merits of the claim, which I have no disposition to do. I

rise to defend the late President of the United States, to endeavor,

to the extent of my feeble powers, to place this question in a proper

point of view. If the President of the United States has gone beyond

the letter of the law, which itself tends to encroach on the rights

of the citizen, I would be the last person to justify him in thus

trespassing on the dearest rights of a freeman. But it is very easy

to show that he has not exceeded the express provisions of the law in

question.

The act of 1807 contains two clauses having a bearing on the subject;

the first ascertaining the character of the persons to be ousted,

and the second providing the means of ousting them. The President is

authorized to exercise this power, either where property was previously

in possession, in which case he is to give notice, or where it was

subsequently entered on, in which case he is not required to give

notice. It is easy to show that this is one of the cases contemplated

by that act. It is well known that the feudal law did exist in

Louisiana, previous to its acquisition by the United States, and that

by that law alluvion does accrue to the Crown. Now, if the feudal law

did exist, and by that law alluvion did accrue to the Crown of France,

does it not follow that the same right did accrue to the United States

by the deed of cession from France, who owned the territory? If the

claimant was in possession when this act passed, it became the duty of

the President of the United States to give him three months' notice

previous to his removal; if not, no such notice was necessary. On this

point I need only refer to the fact that it was not so early as the

passage of the act, indeed not till the 23d of May, that the claimants

came into possession. They were quieted in possession, so far as the

rights of the United States were not concerned, on the 23d of May, 1807.

The decision of the corporation court of New Orleans is relied on as

giving a title to the petitioner. That that decision did at all affect,

in the remotest possible degree, the right of the United States, is

a position which no man acquainted with the principles of law will

contend for. The decision cannot affect the right of the United States,

because it was not contested or defended before that court.

It is said that the feudal law does not exist in France. From time

immemorial it has existed all over Europe. That it exists at this time

in this country there can be no doubt. The right to lands is allodial,

but is inherent in the Government. Is it denied that the Government can

take property from an individual, making him compensation therefor?

If the right to land be indefeasible, could the Government run a

road through it? It certainly could not. I wish it to be distinctly

understood that I do not attempt to say where the real right to the

property in question does reside. But I do say, that, according to the

treaty of cession, it did become the Government of the United States to

exercise the power which the President under the law of 1807 did make

use of.

If there has been any violation of right, it was in the passage of

the law under which the President acted. It was such a one as, under

present persuasion, I could not have voted for, even to remove a Yazoo

purchaser. I would even give to such a one his right to a fair trial.

I would not have agreed to pass it, for a reason given a day or two

ago, that the right to trial by jury is inalienable; it is a right

which descends to us with our other birth-rights; it is one without

which liberty is but a name. It was an unfortunate circumstance that

such a law did pass. But if the Legislature thought proper to enact

such a law, let them not, in the name of the great God, throw the blame

on their instrument, on the President, who was innocent of fault, and

bound to carry the statute into effect. There is undoubted proof that

the President only acted in pursuance of the statute. The retroactive

part of the statute is the most horrible feature in it.

But it is said that this is an extreme case, that this small spot was

selected as the object of Executive vengeance. I am informed that in

almost every instance of intrusion on the public lands, settlement was

made by individual claimants. I would rather give up fifty times the

value of land of the United States than to encroach against law on that

of any individual. It was not the execution of the law which encroached

on the rights of the citizen, but the law itself. I would ask, how can

it be contended to the contrary? Who was in possession of the land when

the law passed? It had been used as public property, and had every

requisite to that character; and as such, when any one took possession

of it, the President would not have done his duty under the act of

1807, had he not caused them to be removed.

MONDAY, June 26.

_Non-Intercourse._

On motion of Mr. SMILIE, the House resumed the consideration of the

report of the Committee of the Whole, on the bill from the Senate,

to revive and amend certain parts of the act interdicting commercial

intercourse.

Mr. DANA said the amendment moved to the amendment of the gentleman

from Virginia (Mr. SHEFFEY) went to give a construction to the bill

which would operate as a complete exclusion of the vessels of both

powers until a satisfactory adjustment of all existing differences

shall have taken place. What, said Mr. D., is the situation in which

we are now placed? On what principle is it that British ships were

first excluded and on which their exclusion was confirmed by the

non-intercourse law? They were originally excluded by the proclamation

of the President of the United States in consequence of the attack

on the Chesapeake. The President of the United States now in office

has declared his acceptance of the proffered terms of satisfaction

for that outrage. And, after that, is it proposed that we shall

continue the measure of hostility when the cause alone which led to

it is completely done away? I should suppose that in the very act of

adjustment, which took place between the British Minister and the

American Secretary, it is implied that we should do nothing further

on this subject. The President of the United States has accepted the

satisfaction offered; he has declared those terms, when performed, to

be satisfactory. And are gentlemen considering the restoration of the

seamen taken from the Chesapeake as a reason why we should continue the

interdict? If we examine this subject fairly, the great principle of

reparation was disavowed of the claim to search our armed vessels, and

a homage to our rights. That matter must be deemed to be settled, if

the President of the United States had authority to settle it. If the

President had not power to settle it, this furnishes strong evidence

that the vote of approbation of his conduct was a proper proposition.

As to the interdiction by the non-intercourse act, I apprehend that

was founded on the violation of our neutral rights by the belligerent

powers, the President of the United States being authorized to renew

trade whenever the edicts violating our lawful commerce should be

revoked. Whether or not the President has done right in accepting the

assurance instead of the fact, gentlemen have considered it unnecessary

for them to express any opinion upon it. If there be no edict affecting

our lawful commerce in force by one belligerent, the interdict is at

an end in point of fact in relation to that one. The question of the

affair of the Chesapeake is settled, if the President had power to

settle it; and as to the other cause of interdiction, the President has

declared that the British orders will have been revoked on the 10th

of June. Has the President acted correctly or not? If he has acted

correctly in taking the assurance for the fact, the very principle of

the non-intercourse is at an end as respects one of the belligerents,

and there can be no ground for the exclusion of British armed vessels.

Mr. TAYLOR said he thought the gentleman from Connecticut used the

word hostility in relation to this measure of including British armed

vessels from the United States. Now, I believe, sir, said Mr. T., that

if we go to the opinions entertained, not by the President of the

United States, but entertained and expressed in the very foundation

of the arrangement which was made, it will be found that the very

hostility intended to be produced by the President's proclamation

ceased at the moment when we passed the non-intercourse act in which

we excluded the vessels of both the belligerents. The hostility was

in the admission of the armed vessels of one, and excluding those of

the other. It ceased by the non-intercourse law, and so satisfactory

was this law of the last session, that it was the very foundation on

which the overture was made which ended so much to the satisfaction

of this nation. So that, in fact, when we perpetuate the order of

things produced by that act, we do not perpetuate the state of things

produced by the interdictory proclamation of the late President. It was

matter of satisfaction to the British Government, as expressed by their

Minister here, that the quality of hostility in the exclusion of her

vessels was taken away by the non-intercourse law. Have we promised,

in the negotiation which has taken place, that we will commit an act

of hostility against France for the boon which we have received from

the hand of Great Britain? No, sir; and yet, if we take the definition

of Mr. Canning, as to excluding the vessels of one belligerent and

receiving those of the other, according to the mode proposed by the

amendment, without the sentence moved to be admitted to it, it will in

fact be agreeing to go to war with France. According to the opinion

of Britain, promulgated not only to this Government but to the world

according to the demonstration made by the British Government, you

will undertake a measure of active hostility against France; for what?

For any great boon that this Government has received from the hands of

Great Britain? No, sir. If all the promises were fulfilled to their

full extent, we should then receive but justice at her hands. It was

acknowledged, too, in the discussion which took place, that any nation,

particularly a neutral nation, has a right to exclude the armed vessels

of both belligerents; but that, on the contrary, the state now proposed

to be produced, the exclusion of one and admission of the other, is an

act of hostility of the party excluded. As I would not be compelled by

the utmost ill usage by either belligerent to take part with the other

against that one, neither will I take a consent or refusal from one or

the other to do us justice as a motive for alliance, or a war which

shall compromit our neutrality. I now speak of both, for both have used

us as ill as was in their power. As kicks and cuffs have not compelled

us to take part with them, neither shall caresses or fawning, for we

will mete out an equal measure of justice to both. I consider the state

of things produced by the non-intercourse as totally distinct from that

produced by the proclamation of our late illustrious President.

Mr. FISK.--It was my intention not to have troubled the House with

any remarks on the bill now under consideration. I could readily have

reconciled it to my feelings to have given a silent vote in favor of

the bill, had not so many and various objections been made against

it. But as it seems to be objectionable, and susceptible of so many

amendments, in the opinion of so many gentlemen, the House will indulge

me, while I offer the reasons which will govern my vote.

This bill for which we were convened, has, during the time we have

been here, received as yet but a small portion of our attention; and

it is so important that upon its passage, and the principles it shall

embrace, may depend the destinies of our country. It deserves our

immediate and most serious attention. I hope it may be coolly and

dispassionately examined, and treated according to its real importance.

Its principles have been carefully and scrupulously investigated by

the committee who reported it, or a bill similar in its provisions, of

which committee I had the honor to be a member.

The language is plain; public ships are not interdicted. There is

but one question to be decided in disposing of this bill, and that

is respecting public ships; for I believe all will agree to renew

the non-intercourse act as respects France. The question is, what

regulation shall we make respecting public ships, and one of three

courses is to be pursued? Shall we exclude both, admit both, or

discriminate?

There are many who would be willing to exclude the armed ships of every

foreign power from our harbors and waters. And considering what we have

suffered by admitting them, it may be well questioned whether it would

not be the best policy of this nation to interdict them by a permanent

law. Yet many gentlemen object to this, as being inexpedient at this

period. It is said, and it is the principal argument urged against it,

that it might embarrass our impending negotiations with Great Britain

to interdict her public ships by this act. As I feel as much disposed

for an amicable adjustment of our differences with that nation as

any member of this House, and would be as unwilling to embarrass the

negotiation, I would not insist on this interdiction.

It is also said that England has made reparation, or agreed to make

reparation, for the aggression which caused the interdiction of her

public ships, and that as the cause no longer exists the interdiction

should cease. _Be it so_; and may we never have fresh cause to renew it!

But, say gentlemen, we must not now recede from the ground we have

taken with respect to France, we must discriminate. Let us for a moment

view the ground we have taken--not only as relates to France, but

England also.

We are not at war with either of the belligerents. Our Ministers

at their respective Courts are endeavoring to negotiate, and by

negotiation to obtain redress for the injuries of which we complain,

and whatever precautionary measures we might adopt would not be deemed

a violation of our neutral character, so long as those measures were

equally applicable to both the belligerents. We could not be deemed to

have taken part with either to the prejudice of the other, while no

other was benefited by our measures. While British public ships were

interdicted, and our embargo existed, an offer was made to both the

belligerents to resume our trade--the same equal terms were tendered to

both. The nation refusing is left without a cause of complaint against

us, for resuming our trade with the nation accepting the offer.

Before either nation does accept, America changes her position. The

embargo is abandoned, and a general interdiction of the public ships

of England and France, and a non-intercourse with these nations and

their dependencies, is substituted. By this non-intercourse act, the

particular interdiction is merged in a general regulation. This was

to exist until the end of the next session of Congress only. This was

virtually saying, that the proclamation interdicting British public

vessels from our waters for a particular aggression shall be revoked;

and a general municipal regulation, over which the President shall have

no control, shall be substituted in its stead. It was then, in order to

preserve our neutral character, necessary that this rule should embrace

both the belligerents. It may be said, and has indeed been frequently

said, that the reason of extending this restriction to France, was

her having burnt our vessels and imprisoned our seamen. But never, at

least in the history of diplomacy, have cause and effect been more

distant and unconnected. France, on the high seas, burns our vessels,

and in her own territories imprisons our seamen. We, at the distance

of three thousand miles, interdict our ports and waters to her public

ships, which do not or dare not come within five hundred leagues of

the line of our interdicted territory, and this is to retaliate for

the aggression. Can this interdiction be defended on this ground? It

cannot. There must have existed some other reason. It was to preserve

our relations with the belligerents in that state that should be

consistent with our professions of neutrality.

Had the interdiction been confined to British vessels by this law,

what would Great Britain have said to this discrimination? In vain

might we have told her that we meant to preserve our neutral character,

and not to take a part with her enemies in the war against her. Our

acts would have been directly opposed to our professions. With this

discriminating, permanent, municipal law, could we expect Great Britain

to treat with us as a neutral? If we did, we should be disappointed.

If, then, it be inexpedient to make this discrimination against

Great Britain, how is it less so, when directed against France? We

are to admit British and exclude the French. And, are we to endeavor

to negotiate, as neutrals, with France, upon this ground, with any

reasonable prospect of success? It is desirable that the commercial

intercourse between this country and France should be restored. Peace

and free trade is the interest and the object of America. While we

throw wide open the door of negotiation to England, why should we shut

it against France? While we facilitate negotiations with the British,

why should we embarrass and prevent the same with the French? I wish

to leave the Executive and treaty-making powers of our Government free

and unshackled, to enter on negotiation with both these Governments,

under every advantage of success which we can give. On what ground can

this discrimination be defended? You adopt this measure. Our Minister

at Paris is requested to explain it. Is there any advocate for this

discrimination in this House, who can conceive the grounds upon which

our Minister or our Government are to justify this measure with our

relations of neutrality? It cannot be defended. I am not for yielding

to either nation, but, let our conduct be consistent, impartial, and

defensible. If then, we are to be involved in a war with either, the

resources of the country and the hearts of our citizens will support

the Government, and we need not be afraid of the world. But those men,

or that Administration that will, upon a mere useless, punctilious

point of etiquette, commit the peace and happiness of this country to

the ravages of war, will meet the indignation, and feel the vengeance

of the intelligent citizens of the country. This temerity would meet

its merited punishment. The people of America can see, and will judge

for themselves; they can readily discern the difference between shadow

and substance; they are neither to be deceived or trifled with,

especially on subjects of such immense moment to their liberties and

happiness.

Mr. BURWELL said he deemed it in some degree his duty to make some

remarks on the bill before the House. He intended to vote against

both the amendments proposed to the bill. I think (said Mr. B.) that

if my colleague who moved the first amendment, (Mr. SHEFFEY,) had

taken that view of this subject which might have been presented to his

mind, he would not have found such error in the course proposed to be

pursued. He seems to have taken another ground, when by the clearest

demonstration it might have been shown that the system proposed is

one of impartiality to the belligerent powers of Europe. It will be

recollected by gentlemen of this House, that at the time the exclusion

of French armed ships took place, it was upon the express ground that

the British Government objected to come to an accommodation with us,

because we excluded her vessels and nominally admitted those of her

enemy. On that ground I venture to say that the exclusion took place;

because, at the time that it took place, it was considered a measure

absolutely favoring Great Britain, yet not injuring France by a nominal

prohibition of the entrance of her vessels. It was stated that there

was not perhaps in the course of a year a single French public armed

vessel in the harbors of the United States. Have we any French frigates

now in our seas? None. Is there any probability that there will be any?

No, sir; for France having now lost her West India Islands, if her

vessels are freely admitted, it is probable that there would not, in

the course of five years, be a single French vessel within our waters.

As the exclusion would be perfectly nominal, I would not adopt any

thing to prevent a settlement of our differences with France. I am not

now sanguine in my belief that we shall settle our differences with

her; for every one acquainted with that Government knows, I fear, that

it is not to be diverted from its object by any arrangement we may

make. But I would do away every possible justification that could be

urged by France for not meeting our overtures for peace. This conduct

would produce at home more union among our citizens; and, when our

rights are attacked without a pretence for their infraction, there

can be but one sentiment in the nation. I have always determined to

admit British vessels as far as my vote would go; and should the

House determine to exclude French vessels I should still vote for the

admission of English vessels, because their former exclusion has been

so artfully managed by the British Government, and the doctrine has

been so admitted by the presses in this country, as to give rise to the

most unjustifiable conduct ever pursued by one nation towards another.

As to the idea advanced by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr.

TAYLOR,) that, if we do admit them to take possession of our waters,

they will take advantage of the privilege to our injury in negotiation,

it has no force with me, for this plain reason; that, although the

exclusion of them from our waters was not carried into execution by

physical force, yet they did not enter our waters, which they might

have done, in defiance of the proclamation. And why did they not?

Because, I presume, they had no desire to rouse the indignation of this

nation by an open violation of the laws of the land.

If, sir, you wish to gain the advantage of union at home, take away

every pretext for the violation of your rights. Let me ask if it be not

better to admit them? By so doing you give up a principle which does

not benefit you, and receive an accession of physical strength by union

at home. I do not say that every one will be satisfied, because I have

no doubt England has agents in the country, but so few in number as to

be unworthy of notice. If Great Britain, on the other hand, attacks us

when we have taken away every possible ground of collision and violates

her promise, the people in every part of the country will be satisfied

that her deliberate object is to destroy our commerce. We should have

no more of those party divisions which have distracted us for some

months past.

It cannot be said that we are bound by any part of the negotiation to

admit English vessels. I have seen nothing of the kind, if it exist;

and I call upon gentlemen to point it out. Why do it, then? It may

be considered a concession; and certainly manifests that disposition

which we feel to settle all the points of difference in agitation

betwixt us. And here I beg leave to say that, according to the most

explicit declarations of the British Minister, you would not give the

smallest umbrage by pursuing that course. On this subject Mr. B. quoted

a speech of Mr. Stevens in the British Parliament. If we were to be

governed by reference to expressions which existed in that country of

our partiality to France, it did appear to him that this speech was

entitled to weight, because it justified the course proposed by the

bill, and stated a position which the British Government admitted

was all that could be required from a neutral State. From this speech

it appeared that placing the two belligerents on an equal footing

was all that was required. Did not this bill completely come up to

their wishes? Did it not interdict all trade with France under the

most severe and heavy penalties? Mr. B. said he did not wish it to be

understood that he would shape his conduct by the wishes of the British

Ministry; but, as it had been said that the bill was somewhat hostile

to that country, he had quoted the speech of a ministerial member to

show that no such inference could be drawn. The same person, in his

speech, also states, said Mr. B., that the reason why our offer in

August last was not accepted, was, that, if it had been accepted, such

was the situation of the law, that a commerce might always be carried

on with the enemy; that, through the ports in Europe, her enemy might

be as efficiently supplied as if the embargo did not exist in relation

to him. But, sir, what is now the state of things? If it is possible

to operate on France by commercial restrictions, let me ask if this

bill will not accomplish that object? Let me ask if an American vessel

under it can go to any port of France? It not only cuts off direct

intercourse, but prohibits the importation of the products of France;

and any attempt to carry on a circuitous commerce must be ineffectual,

inasmuch as the produce will be liable to seizure when it comes into

the ports of the United States.

If, according to the ideas of the British Government itself, this

state of things be a sufficient resistance to France, let me ask of

gentlemen how they can infer a partiality to France? What more can you

do? If you exclude the armed vessels of France, though it may display

a disposition to injure her, I defy any gentleman to show that it

can, in the smallest degree, coerce or affect her. Let me call the

attention of gentlemen to the present situation of Europe. If accounts

lately received are to be credited, we may calculate on the universal

control of the French Emperor over the ports of Europe. Is it to our

advantage to be excluded from the trade of the continent? Is it not

known that all the surplus product of the agriculture of this country

finds its vent on the Continent of Europe? Is it not known that, of

the whole of our tobacco, seven out of eight parts are consumed on

the continent? That of our cotton, at least one-half finds its market

there? Does not flour find a great proportion of its consumption on

the continent? This cannot be denied. Then, let me ask of gentlemen,

whether it be so much to our advantage to exclude this trade; and, if

not, why we should take a step which can do France no injury, but which

may, and probably would, be made a pretext for cutting off so valuable

a part of our trade? With respect to partiality to France, let me call

upon the gentleman from Virginia, or any other, to show if, from the

conduct of the United States, and such thing can be inferred. Look at

our relative situation. Have we opened our ports to her traders? Have

we renewed commercial intercourse with her? Let me ask, which have we

placed in the best situation, France or England? Every gentleman must

answer--England. Whilst she gets all our commerce, her enemy is wholly

excluded from any participation in it.

Another argument has been used against discrimination, viz: that France

has no public armed ships. If this is the case, gentlemen need not

be alarmed; for, if they cannot come here, we need not be afraid of

their resentment, because we will not admit them. But we know that

her cruisers can steal out of their ports, go into foreign seas,

and destroy our trade in spite of the ships of Great Britain. If an

American vessel has British property on board, or has been spoken by a

British cruiser, a French public armed vessel is bound to make prize

of her. This being the case, let us for a moment consider the subject

as respects ourselves. Our feelings ought to be for ourselves and our

country. Here is a nation having public ships, having a right to come

into your ports. Does it comport with our honor and dignity to admit

into our ports and harbors the very vessels destroying our commerce?

Not to go into an inquiry what has been the fact heretofore, but what

may be now--if you pass a law that a French frigate may come into your

waters and partake of your hospitalities, where is the obligation

that it may not take advantage of the opportunity to make its prey

more sure by watching it in port and then going out and entrapping

it? If, from the intoxication of the man who rules the destinies of

the nations of Europe, he does not feel disposed to treat with us on

terms of reciprocity, that circumstance should have no effect on our

measures. But the question on that point is no doubt already settled;

time sufficient has been allowed for the vessel to go and receive an

answer to the instruction sent to our Minister. I certainly would so

far respect myself as to fulfil what I conceive to be good faith toward

both, without respect to the wish or dictation of either.

As to the amount of produce sent to the continent, it cannot be great.

Some few may have adventured there on desperate voyages; but that there

is much property in jeopardy, I cannot believe, for France is known to

be, in respect to mercantile property, the lion's den, easy of access,

but impossible to return. Those, therefore, who have risked their

property must have been extremely rash.

If the French Government would do us justice, I should be glad; if

not, we must abide by the consequences. We must not do improper things

because they will not do us justice. It is proper that we should

assert what we conceive to be our rights. I believe, however, that the

question of peace with France will not turn on this bill. I believe the

point to be already settled. If it be not, and the exclusion of French

armed vessels would be an impediment to it, the same objection would

be valid against the whole bill.

Mr. HOLLAND asked the indulgence of the House whilst he stated a few

reasons why he should vote for the amendment under consideration.

It had been asked whether it was consistent with the honor of this

nation to admit French ships within our waters. Mr. H. said he would

answer, that, as things now stood, he did not consider it consistent

with our honor and dignity so to do; and the reason why was, that

that Government had done sundry injurious acts towards this nation

for which it had not made reparation, nor even intimated an intention

of doing so. He therefore answered that it was inconsistent to admit

the vessels of France within our waters. It was in consequence of

injuries which they had done, according to my conception, that I voted

for their exclusion. I was not influenced to vote for the prohibition

of the ships of France from coming into our waters by any desire to

produce an equality in our relations with the belligerents. It was no

impression of that kind that influenced my vote; and yet I voted that

French ships of war should not come into our waters. It was not the

opinions of editors of newspapers, or the clamors of individuals, that

influenced my vote, and I hope they never will. I think that every

gentleman, on taking his seat in this House, should consider himself

beyond suspicion. The only question for consideration of the members of

this House, when a measure is presented to them, is the expediency of

it; and on that ground alone I voted for the exclusion of French ships

or of British ships. I was chiefly influenced to vote for the exclusion

of British armed ships by the variety of acts committed in our waters,

and the great disposition which she had shown to commit the most wanton

acts of treachery. I can say for myself that my conduct was only

partially influenced by the acts of British officers within our waters;

I had in view a variety of other acts committed against the rights of

the people of this country. Supposing the affair of the Chesapeake to

have been authorized, I never wish to see the British ships of war

within our waters, till they recede from the right of impressment.

I wish the British Government to know that it was the determination

of the major part of the citizens of the United States to resist her

till she surrendered that right. I think it was a sacrifice of the

dignity of the United States to receive British vessels so long as they

committed those acts. It was therefore that I voted to exclude them.

It is said, by the gentleman last up, that we are at peace with Great

Britain. Does it follow, from that, that they are entitled to all the

rights of hospitality that one nation could possibly show to another?

Certainly not. We ought yet to hold up some indication that we are

not perfectly reconciled to them. When they abandon the outrageous

principles which govern that nation with respect to neutrals; when

they abandon the practice of impressment; when they make restitution

for spoliations of our trade; we will hold the hand of fellowship to

them. It is not enough for me to hear the British Minister say that

an Envoy Extraordinary is to come out and settle all differences. I

have heard something like this long ago. I heard that a Minister was

to be sent out to make reparation for the affair of the Chesapeake.

We have experience on this subject. Have we forgot that every thing

which accompanied that mission was evidence that the British Government

was not sincere, and that it did not intend to accommodate? When I

see an abandonment by Great Britain of the principles destructive

to neutrality, I can consent to admit that nation to the rights of

hospitality.

Mr. JOHNSON observed, that, to say any thing on this subject, after

the time which had been already consumed, and the speeches which had

been made, was contrary to a rule which he had laid down for his own

conduct. But his excuse would be found in the introduction into the

House of a proposition, which, it was said, proposed to place us on a

neutral ground. Nothing, said Mr. J., is dearer to me than neutrality

as to our foreign relations; but, the bill submitted to the House by

the committee of which I had the honor to constitute one, and which is

the same with that now before us, so far from being in hostility to

Great Britain, and partiality to France, I contend, is a concession to

Great Britain, at the same time that I admit that it is not hostility

to France. The admission of the belligerent vessels into our waters, so

far from being hostility to Great Britain, is concession. I bottom the

remark upon the fact, that, at this moment, as many and as heavy causes

of complaint exist unsettled between this Government and Great Britain,

as between this Government and that of France. If then, the same causes

exist to exclude from our waters the vessels of both, I ask whether

the admission of both will not be an actual benefit and concession to

Great Britain, and a nominal benefit to France? And, still, it is to

go forth to the nation that we are about to commit an act which will

sink the nation, from the elevated situation in which it is now placed

by our former measures! I hope that we shall continue to convince the

world that the United States of America are incapable of other than

neutral conduct. Is it a fact, that greater injuries exist from France

than from Great Britain? What injuries have been received from France?

Have they been committed within our waters? Has our hospitality been

violated and our officers insulted in our very ports by the vessels

of France? or is her hostility merely commercial? It is of the latter

description. Is it not admitted that we may lawfully exclude or admit

the vessels of both belligerents? If you admit the vessels of one

nation with whom you have cause of difference, and exclude those of

another nation with whom you have only the same cause of difference, I

ask whether you do not commit the dignity of the nation, and jeopardize

its peace?

I will put this question to gentlemen: what has Britain done which

would require a discrimination as to her public vessels? She has

rescinded her Orders in Council. And what have we done in return? Have

we done nothing? Has Great Britain held out the hand of friendship, and

have we refused to meet her? Has she withdrawn her Orders in Council,

and have we insisted on a continuance of our commercial restrictions?

I have understood that she has done nothing but rescinded her Orders

in Council, and we have renewed intercourse with her therefore. I am

more astonished at the proposal to discriminate, when we see that, at

this moment, orders are in existence blockading countries to which

your merchants have, long ago, taken out clearances, in violation of

stipulations which Britain had proposed to us. When she has violated

our rights, I am more astonished that gentlemen should wish to go

beyond this letter of the law. And, let the consequence be what it may,

it would result to the benefit of this nation that we should not be

influenced by idle fears of imaginary dangers. My better judgment tells

me we should exclude the armed vessels of both nations; but the general

sentiment appears to be against it. It is asked of us, why admit the

vessels of France, whilst injuries which she has done us are unatoned

for? And, I ask, sir, why, then, admit the vessels of England standing

in the same relation to us? I only make these remarks as going to show

that we ought to be strictly neutral. If, sir, you wish to take part

in the broils of Europe, embody your men, and send them over to the

disposal of England at once, and let her send them to Spain or Austria.

But, if you would remain neutral, either admit or exclude the armed

vessels, as you would armies, of both belligerents.

I had thought, sir, not only from the acts of our Government, but from

conversing with gentlemen, that we hailed the present as an auspicious

moment, as a political jubilee; I had thought that we had been on the

verge of war with the two most powerful nations of the earth, but

that our situation was changed, and that, at the same moment we now

offer the only asylum to the victims of European wars. And are you now

about again to jeopardize the peace of this nation, without any cause

whatever?

The exclusion of French and British armed vessels at the last session,

may be taken on this ground. It was a defensive war, not only for the

injuries we had received, but in expectation of actual hostility. Has

it occurred? No, sir. Would you have excluded British vessels since

1793, for taking the vessels engaged in your lawful trade, and for

impressing your seamen? You did not do it; and it was not for that

alone that you did it at the last session, but for other causes, which

have nearly or quite disappeared.

I have done, sir. I shall not vote for any proposition which makes a

difference between France and Great Britain; not that I am afraid of

the conscripts of Napoleon, or the navy of George III. But I cannot

consent to adopt a course which will again obscure with clouds our

political horizon.

Mr. SMILIE said, that if he now took up five minutes of the time of

the House, he could not excuse it to himself; and he should not have

risen, but to explain the reasons for the course which he should take.

As to the amendment, to that he could never agree. The question which

the Legislature often had to decide, was not what was best, but what is

practicable. Now, he thought it a happy circumstance that parties in

the other House had united on this subject. However we may differ as

to local affairs, said he, I think it good policy, if it can be done

without a sacrifice of principle, to meet in concert on measures of

external relations. What may be the effect, if you introduce either of

these two principles into this bill? We know that, if this bill does

not go to the Senate till to-morrow, if amended, a single member of the

Senate can, according to their rules, prevent the bill from passing

altogether. My opinion is, that it is our duty to pass the bill in its

present form. If any material alteration be made in the bill, I believe

it will not pass. If it does not, all that has taken place between this

country and Great Britain is at an end. And I hope that this reason

will induce gentlemen to permit the question to be taken.

Mr. J. G. JACKSON said he had intended, before the day had so far

progressed, to have explained to the House the motives by which he

was actuated in relation to the bill. He said he would still take

the liberty of stating to the few members present, (the House being

very thin,) why he offered the amendment to the amendment. It will

be recollected, said Mr. J., that the other day I stated that a

construction had been given to the law contemplated to be re-enacted

by the bill on the table, which, notwithstanding the renewal of

intercourse, excluded armed vessels from our waters; and, for the

purpose of doing away completely that construction, I moved an

amendment which, gentlemen conceiving it unnecessary, I withdrew. If

gentlemen are correct in the opinion which they advanced, and which

induced me to withdraw that motion, they cannot, consistently, vote for

the amendment of my colleague providing an exception to a provision

which the bill does not contain. Where is the necessity of a proviso if

the law does not bear such a construction? Is the Executive to infer

from the proviso that something exists in the law which the friends

of the proviso declare does not exist? The amendment proposed by my

colleague provides for the admission of the armed vessels of those

nations with whom commercial intercourse _shall_ have been (not _has_

been) permitted. Are you, by this phraseology, about to devolve upon

the President a discretionary power, holding the scale of national

honor in one hand, and the injury and atonement in the other, to decide

which nation shall be thus favored, when it is conceded on all hands

that the admission of the armed vessels of one nation and the exclusion

of those of the other, is an act _ipso facto_ of hostility?

Gentlemen have observed that there ought to be an exclusion of French

and admission of English armed ships, and that any other course would

be an acquiescence in the views of "_sister_ France," and hostility

to England. This language, sir, does not help the cause which the

gentleman advocates. What must be the effect of such insinuations?

They must excite feelings which, I am happy to say, have not been

displayed on this floor during the session. Might it not be retorted,

as a natural consequence, that gentlemen who wish to admit British

and exclude French ships, and thus serve the interest of England, are

desirous of subserving the views of _mother_ Britain? The attachment to

_sister_ France on the one hand, is about as great as the attachment

to _mother_ Britain on the other. I believe it has been emphatically

declared to the nation that we would not go to war for existing

differences. If, however, gentlemen, since the last session, have so

materially altered their ideas of the policy proper in relation to one

belligerent, let us go to war openly; I am not for using the stiletto,

or for stabbing in the dark.

The interdict of British armed vessels from entering our ports was not

on account of the affair of the Chesapeake only. It is unnecessary

now to repeat the cause which led to it. If gentlemen will turn to

the letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Rose, they will find the causes

detailed. Since that time other injuries have been committed; and

it has been justly observed that the burning the Impetueux was an

insult to the sovereignty of this nation scarcely less than the affair

of the Chesapeake. If we permit hostility from one belligerent to

another within our territory, we become party to the war, as we do,

by admitting the enemy even to pass through our territory to attack

another nation. It is in vain to say that a nation preserves a neutral

attitude, when it permits one of the belligerents repeatedly to violate

its sovereignty. If there be as much injury unatoned on the part of

Britain as on the part of France, then a discrimination will be a

departure from the ground which we took last session, that both should

be excluded. And the President had no power over that part of the law.

Inasmuch as we know that Great Britain has the command of the ocean,

and that a French ship of war cannot, without a miracle, escape across

the Atlantic, we, in fact, by the operation of the bill as it came from

the Senate, admit English and exclude French ships.

We throw open our ports and admit the thousand ships of Britain,

without opening our eyes to the consequences which have heretofore

resulted from so doing. And shall we now refuse admission to the

vessels of France? It is indeed difficult to say what led to their

exclusion; for it has been with truth observed that the non-intercourse

bill had not an advocate in the House. It was something like throwing

all our discordant opinions into one crucible, and after fusion,

extracting what was expected to be gold, but which all called dross.

When gentlemen speak of their zeal to maintain the ground taken last

winter, I beg of them to recollect their own speeches, from which it

will be found that the bill was so obnoxious to them that they would

not even extend its operation to the next winter, and that it was with

difficulty that it was extended to the end of the present session.

Gentlemen ask, has there not been a satisfactory adjustment of our

differences with Great Britain? I deny it. What is the expression

of the British Envoy on which gentlemen rely, and on which they are

about to sit down quietly under the vine and fig tree? "In the mean

time, with a view to contribute to the attainment of so desirable an

object, His Majesty would be willing to withdraw his orders," &c. In

the mean time, still persisting in the principle of taxing our exports,

a right denied even to us by the constitution. It is to be hung up

_in terrorem_, to be let loose upon us hereafter, if we shall not do

every thing which is required of us. There is a marked cautious style

of language in this letter, which shows that Great Britain in fact has

promised nothing. She does not say that she will repeal or revoke her

orders, but that in the mean time she will withdraw them; and, sir,

in the mean time she has withdrawn them, and substituted other orders

or proclamations equally obnoxious. This is reason sufficient for not

going beyond the letter of the agreement; which however I will consent

to do, by admitting instead of excluding British armed vessels.

When Mr. J. G. JACKSON concluded, Mr. SHEFFEY, in order to obtain a

direct question on his own amendment, adopted Mr. JACKSON'S rider to

it, as a part of his own motion, and called for a division of the

question, taking it first on his own amendment as first moved.

Some doubt arising whether it was correct thus to act, according to

the rules of the House, Mr. MACON produced a precedent in which he had

himself done the same in the case of a motion for the repeal of the

second section of the sedition act, nine or ten years ago.

Mr. TAYLOR said that, as the House had decided that they would not

discriminate between the admission of British and French public

vessels, he wished to try the question on the exclusion of both. He

made a motion having in view that object; which was decided without

debate, fifteen for it, one hundred against it, being a majority of

eighty-five against the exclusion, at this time, of the public vessels

of both belligerents.

Mr. MONTGOMERY observed that the decision of the courts of the United

States had been that, after a law had expired, they had dismissed

all suits pending for the recovery of penalties incurred under the

act. He conceived that this bill should have a saving clause, that

penalties and forfeitures incurred under it, should be recoverable and

distributable after the act itself had expired. He therefore moved an

amendment to that effect.

TUESDAY, June 27.

_Non-Intercourse._

The bill to revive and amend certain parts of the act "interdicting

commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and

France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," was read the

third time.

Mr. PICKMAN hoped that he should be excused for making a few

observations at this stage of the bill, not having before partaken of

the debate. He said he felt a strong objection to the bill, because it

admitted French vessels into our ports and harbors. Gentlemen had asked

why a discrimination should be made. He answered, that the reasons for

this conduct were to his mind very plain. He had considered the outrage

on the Chesapeake as a gross violation of our rights and of the law of

nations, and he believed no one had felt more indignation at it than

he did. But that was now atoned for. I consider (said Mr. P.) that the

Orders in Council are repealed; that Great Britain has stipulated to

send on an envoy with instructions to negotiate for a settlement of all

differences. I consider these things as done, because I consider the

faith of the British nation as solemnly pledged to do them; for, if it

had not been, the United States would not have been justified in taking

the attitude which we have taken.

It has been said, that since the arrangement here has taken

place, Great Britain has modified her Orders in Council in a most

exceptionable manner. I admit that this modification was posterior

in point of date to the arrangement here; that is to say, that the

proclamation of the President of the United States was issued on the

19th, and that the orders were modified on the 29th of April; yet, in

strict propriety, the new orders may be said to have issued before the

arrangement, because it was before it was known. Viewing the subject

in this light, I do not believe that the modification of the Orders in

Council did proceed from the arrangement here; and I now declare that

if such modification as has been made is to be considered as rescinding

the orders, according to the stipulation made with Mr. Erskine, I

should consider it a mere mockery. I do, however, consider it in a very

different light, and have no doubt that the Government of Great Britain

will adopt such modification of their orders as they have stipulated to

do. These are my ideas, and on this ground I did and do still believe

that we ought to have made a discrimination, because I consider one

nation to have complied with the conditions of the non-intercourse act,

whilst the other has not varied its position.

Mr. MACON said he was against admitting the armed vessels of either

belligerents into our waters. He would place our foreign relations

precisely in the state in which the President had left them, saying

neither yea or nay on the subject of their armed vessels, leaving it

where it had been left by both the parties to the late arrangement. He

should have been glad that the same disposition had been manifested

towards us by France as by Great Britain; but because there had not

he would do nothing towards her to prevent it. Some gentlemen had

conceived that an indiscriminate admission would be more advantageous

to France than to Great Britain. Mr. M. said he did not agree with

gentlemen in this; for Great Britain had Canada and her West India

Islands, to which she was in the habit of sending out vessels; whilst

France, having no possessions on the American coast, had no occasion

for our hospitality.

Mr. M. said he sincerely hoped that we should now act, as we had

heretofore done, so as to give to neither of the belligerents cause

to charge us with partiality. He was decidedly of opinion that we

ought to leave both nations in the same state as they were left by

the President's proclamation. He had no doubt that Great Britain

would send a Minister to negotiate. But what was left, as to her, for

the surrender or repeal of which she had any anxiety? Nothing. As to

France, she would have no shipping at sea, so long as the war lasted

in Europe, unless an event took place which he hoped would not. You

give France a right to enter your waters, said he, and take away any

inducement she might have had to rescind her decrees. I believe the

passage of the bill will extend the difficulties of the nation. I know

it is not a very pleasant thing to be opposed to the evident sentiment

of a majority of the House; but it is the bounden duty of those who

think as I do to vote, as I shall, against the bill.

Mr. TAYLOR said it appeared to be desired on all hands that nothing

should be done by the House to embarrass the negotiation; and he

presumed that the majority, in the different stages of this bill,

had been actuated by that wish. If, said Mr. T., I could see the

present measure in the light in which its friends appear to view it, I

certainly should be in favor of it. But, when it is recollected that

your legislative acts have been held out to your fellow-citizens and to

foreign nations, promising a perseverance in our restrictive measures

against such nation as shall continue to oppress our commerce by her

unlawful edicts, I consider our faith as pledged to the nation, that,

according to the recession of one belligerent, or perseverance of the

other, we were to shape our course.

The gentleman from Virginia aimed a side blow at those who, in the

discussion of this subject, had spoken of the ground which we have

taken. On the effects supposed to be produced by the non-intercourse,

I had a right to say _we_. The sense of the House was taken distinctly

as to a repeal of the embargo, on the first report of the Committee of

Foreign Relations. It was then that the principle was decided, and it

was that act which was taken hold of across the Atlantic, and made the

ground of the instructions which came out by Mr. Oakley to the British

Envoy here, and on which the arrangement did take place. Now, though

the gentleman seems unwilling that any part of the House should say

_we_, I vindicate the claim which I have to use it. In fact, I would

claim for the mover of the original proposition to this House for the

interdiction of armed vessels, the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr.

MACON,) the merit of the late negotiation, if it attach anywhere. But I

am not willing to carry on the copartnership. I will not now say _we_.

I, who voted for the motion going to give power to the President of

the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal against that

nation which persevered in its edicts after the other had withdrawn

them, am not willing, on the passage of this bill, to say _we_, as by

it you admit instead of continuing the exclusion against armed vessels,

where, instead of a recession, injuries have rather been added. When

gentlemen are asked why they have admitted French vessels, in our

present situation in relation to France, after the temper displayed and

the votes given at the last session on the subject, theirs must be a

feeling in which I would not participate, and therefore I will not say

"_we_."

Mr. DANA observed that, by the Journals of the Senate, it appeared that

this bill had been unanimously passed by that body. This unanimous

vote of the Senate might be regarded as a consideration to operate

very strongly on the minds of members of the House, as respected the

propriety of adopting the present bill; it certainly must have weight

in favor of a measure, when it was found that men differing widely in

political opinions joined in voting for it. I, said Mr. D., have myself

very strongly felt the force of this consideration. But you know, sir,

that the rules of proceeding and order established in this House do not

admit of our urging in debate the conduct of the Senate of the United

States as a motive for deciding the opinion of this House. Why is it

out of order? Because the excellence of our constitution is, that the

Legislature shall consist of two Houses, each of which shall act on

its own ideas of propriety. If it is not proper to mention the conduct

of the Senate in debate, it is not proper to suffer it to overthrow

our opinions. In this view I feel myself bound, with all due deference

to the Senate, to examine this subject for myself. I cannot but feel

the weight of that vote; but I cannot forget that the bill respecting

the writ of habeas corpus was once passed in that House, and rejected

unanimously in this, without being permitted to be read a second time.

On examining this bill, sir, I do not find that its various provisions

appear to constitute one whole, to conform with any system of policy,

or to be consistent with the principles of any man in this country.

It is certainly not the course which I would have chosen; it is not

consistent with the course marked out at the last session of Congress.

I was certainly not in favor of the embargo; I disapproved of that

system; and when I saw the non-intercourse system, I considered that

as retaining the embargo principle, but not with so much precision. I

consider this bill to be receding from a weak position. If the embargo

was a decisive measure, it ought to have been taken more completely

at the outset than it was. But it failed. The non-intercourse was

abandoning one part and retaining another of the system. This bill

was abandoning a part of the non-intercourse system and retaining a

part. When I look at it, I see nothing in it at which any portion

of American citizens can rejoice or be proud of; nothing of a firm,

dignified, matured, sound, consistent policy, to be maintained on

general principles against all the world. Am I then required to vote

for a measure of this kind? If, with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.

QUINCY) I could suppose that voting for a system which I did not like

would destroy it, I should vote for it. For, if I understand him, he

dislikes the whole, and therefore will vote for this part of it. The

whole would die at the end of this session; but to show his anxiety for

its death he must keep it alive till the next session of Congress. I

was very much pleased with a great part of his remarks; I approbated

his premises, but his conclusions appeared to be directly the reverse

of the proper result. But as he is a gentleman of strong powers of

mind, he may well be able to draw a conclusion which I cannot.

Gentlemen have alluded to the declarations of the Emperor of France in

relation to his decrees. When Bonaparte talks of the freedom of the

seas, does he mean the same idea which we attach to these words when

we use them? When he talks of the principles of maritime law, does he

mean the same as we? On the subject of maritime law, has he not stated

things which before were unheard of? Certainly, sir. On the contrary,

I have always understood the claims of the United States as a neutral

nation to be, not to assert new pretensions, but to assert such claims

as they may think reasonable with respect to principle, and such as

have been formerly admitted in practice.

With respect to the bill before you, there has been one argument used,

and an imposing one certainly, provided that it appeared completely

founded in fact. It is said this bill is considered as comporting with

the views of the Executive Government of the country; and that the

Executive has acted so well in conducting the preliminary arrangement

for removing certain obstacles to negotiation, that on the whole we

ought to assist his administration. On this subject, sir, I have to

observe that we are utterly without official evidence on this point.

We have no evidence whatever, of an official nature, that this bill

comports with the Executive views. If we have, it is to me unknown. We

have not, during the present session, had any report in detail from the

Committee of Foreign Relations. If that committee had made a report,

stating facts and reasoning as the basis of the bill, I might consider

that committee as having consulted the Executive of the country, and as

having adopted its disposition as the basis of its proceedings. But,

as we have no such thing, are we to suppose that there are certain

gentlemen in the House who are organs of communication of the Executive

wishes? Have we any other evidence of the disposition of the Executive

in relation to this bill than that certain gentlemen are in favor of

it? If, on this subject, the opinion of the Executive should properly

decide our judgment, ought we not to have had some official exposition

of the views of the Government? As we have no such information, we

are to examine whether this bill comports with the arrangement made

with Great Britain. But, as to that, I beg leave to be deemed as not

considering myself pledged by that arrangement merely. As to myself, as

an American, I am by no means gratified that we should contend with one

nation because another does us justice. A stipulation of that kind I

should consider as degrading to my country.

In my remarks therefore, I disclaim owing any thing for any boon which

Great Britain may have given us, because I do not consider it as a boon

that they have ceased to injure us. But in the face of the world such

declarations have been formally made by the Congress of the United

States. The fact is known to ourselves, to our countrymen, to such

portions of the foreign world as may take an interest in our concerns.

And in comparing this bill with those declarations, will it be possible

to conceive that we are consistent? When you had differences with both

the belligerents, what was your language? You talked as though you

would throw the gauntlet to the globe, as though you would stretch out

your arm and smite the world. When an adjustment is made with one of

those powers, what is your language? Really, sir, the difficulty under

which the Government formerly labored was said to be this: that if we

went to war with both nations.--[Mr. D. quoted a part of the report of

the Committee of Foreign Relations of last session on this subject.]

I consider this part of the report, said he, as proceeding upon

assumptions which are erroneous, and founded upon grounds untenable

and inaccurate. But as to this report, which appeared to receive the

approbation of a majority of the members of the House, it seems to

be clear from it, that were it not that you were so equally wronged

by both belligerents, and that both persisted, you certainly would

have engaged in war with one; but that, as a treble war was rather a

difficult plan, it was best to continue the restrictive system.

What is the declaration made to the British Minister at this place,

by our Secretary of State, on this subject? Is it pretended to enter

into any stipulations with Great Britain as to our conduct? No, sir; it

is that our measures are adopted on the principle that the Government

would assert the rights of our country against any power on the globe,

without any reference to pledges. On this point I would call the

attention of the House to a sentence which is the most extraordinary

surely that ever was put together. And, unless it be a dash of the

pen, like that of the brush of the painter who painted at one dash a

perfect horse, it must have been the elaborate labor of twenty-four

hours; in either case not detracting from the skill of the author of

it. The sentence is as follows: "As it appears at the same time, that,

in making this offer, His Britannic Majesty derives a motive from the

equality, now existing, in the relations of the United States, with

the two belligerent powers, the President owes it to the occasion, and

to himself, to let it be understood, that this equality is a result,

incident to a state of things, growing out of distinct considerations."

If any mortal, from the depth of his knowledge, can specifically tell

what this means, he may pass for an oracle. It proceeds upon this idea:

that in making our arrangements at the last session we did not mean, as

respects saying that whatever nation insulted us we would resent it,

to please Great Britain alone, but equally to please any other nation

whatever. If the saying this was an annunciation by our Government to

the British Government, that in making this arrangement we are not

making any stipulation in respect to France, but you and the world

may know that whoever invades our rights shall meet with resistance,

adequate to the crisis, if the Government can find means to accomplish

it. If the paragraph be thus considered, we may respect the declaration

itself, and admire the skill with which it is so worded as to convey

nothing offensive in the expression. In this view, I am willing to

admit it, because it conduces to the reputation of the Government

and of the Secretary of State, who in this business appears to have

conducted with the frankness of a man of talents, and the manner of a

practical man of sense. I consider this bill as not corresponding with

the resolutions of last session, as not corresponding with the general

sentiment in regard to the non-intercourse law when it passed; nor with

the general sentiment fairly to be collected from the correspondence of

our officers with the British Minister.

If it be asked, what other system would be proper, I acknowledge it to

be a question of difficulty. But, for myself, I think I would say that

I would prefer an armed neutrality; not such a one as distinguished

the confederacy in the Baltic, not one to assert new pretensions;

but one temperate in its claims, specific in its object. And I could

really wish that in the present state of the world we should turn our

attention to a system of policy which shall be founded on general

principles, and at least say what are the rights which as neutrals we

claim, and what the pretensions to which as neutrals we will submit;

and if our legislation were of that character, we never should be

embarrassed as we are. We pass a law that if edicts of the belligerents

be revoked or modified, trade shall be renewed. Now, the edicts then in

existence might be revoked, and others substituted, and the law would

be complied with. The whole system has been constituted too much in

reference to particular cases.

But I have one further objection to this bill, viz: that by it you do

permit trade with French trading vessels, thus. There is no prohibition

to the furnishing supplies to French vessels. The French vessels,

going to sea, go armed and under the authority of their Government;

and coming into the ports of this country may be supplied with any

thing they wish without an infraction of the letter of the law. Let

any public armed vessel come into the waters of the United States, and

they may purchase whatever they please. There is no law to prohibit

it, nor any authority placed in the Government of the United States to

prevent them from purchasing. The state of the case now is, that your

vessels shall not be cleared out to carry any thing to France, but your

boats and every thing that sails may be employed to carry provisions to

French armed ships in your harbors, and they may be completely loaded.

If this be the intention of gentlemen, I have nothing further to say;

if it be not their intention, they will have in this case, as they

have had in others, a very great experience of the disadvantages of

undertaking to chop up law.

From these general views of the subject, sir, I am opposed to the

passage of the law.

Messrs. PITKIN and QUINCY stated their reasons for voting against the

bill.

And on the question, "Shall the bill pass?" it was decided in the

affirmative--yeas 72, nays 15, as follows:

YEAS.--Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson,

Ezekiel Bacon, William W. Bibb, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert

Brown, William A. Burwell, Joseph Calhoun, John Campbell,

Howell Cobb, James Cochran, Orchard Cook, James Cox, Richard

Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, James Emott, J. W. Eppes,

William Findlay, Jonathan Fisk, Gideon Gardner, Thomas Gholson,

jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Thomas R. Gold, Daniel Heister, William

Helms, Jacob Hufty, Robert Jenkins, Richard M. Johnson, William

Kennedy, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston,

John Love, Matthew Lyon, Aaron Lyle, Robert Marion, Vincent

Matthews, Samuel McKee, William Milnor, John Montgomery,

Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Newton, Joseph Pearson, John Porter,

Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, John Rea, of Pennsylvania,

John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, John Roane, Ebenezer

Sage, Thomas Sammons, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, George

Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, John Stanley, James

Stephenson, Jacob Swoope, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Nicholas

Van Dyke, Archibald Van Horne, Robert Weakley, Laban Wheaton,

Robert Whitehill, Ezekiel Whitman, Robert Witherspoon, and

Richard Wynn.

NAYS.--Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain, S. W. Dana, John

Davenport, jr., William Ely, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven,

James Holland, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Edward St. Loe Livermore,

Nathaniel Macon, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Ross, Richard

Stanford, and John Taylor.

Absent, 54 members.

WEDNESDAY, June 28.

_Emigrants from Cuba._

On motion of Mr. MARION, the House resolved itself into a Committee of

the Whole on the bill for the remission of certain fines and penalties.

[This bill provides for the remission of penalties incurred by the

captains and owners of vessels which have been compelled to take on

board emigrants from Cuba, with their slaves, the landing of the latter

in the United States having, under present laws, forfeited the vessels

and cargoes and fined the persons concerned.]

Mr. MARION observed that he had, a day or two ago, presented petitions

from persons bringing in slaves, amongst which were some documents,

one of which was the opinion of the district court of South Carolina,

by which it appeared that, if the bill passed in the present shape, no

relief would be afforded by it; for, it had not appeared on the trial

that the _slaves_ were forcibly expelled from the island, though the

_owners_ were. He therefore moved an amendment to include slaves owned

by persons who were expelled from the island.--Motion agreed to without

opposition.

Mr. M. then moved to add a proviso: "_And provided, also_, that such

slaves shall have been brought in at the same time as their owners,

respectively."--Agreed to.

Mr. ROSS observed that a former act on the subject of the importation

of slaves said, that it should not be lawful to bring into the United

States any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intention to sell

the same or hold them as slaves. The present case appeared to him to

be one in direct violation of that law. Under the act of 1807, it had

become the duty of the court to examine whether it was the intention of

the parties to infringe or violate the laws. After a fair examination

by a court, under a desire to relieve those interested, and a failure

of every attempt to show that they were compelled to take on board

these slaves, was the House about to sit in judgment and reverse the

decision? Mr. R. said that provision was also made in the bill as to

slaves that may hereafter arrive in the United States, giving a power

to the President of the United States, at his discretion, to set aside

the law. What reason could there be for enacting this law, if the

principles of the law of 1807 were correct? If it was intended, by a

side blow, to repeal that law, he had rather see it done at once; and

not, whilst in appearance we had such a law, to give the President a

dispensing power over it. It was said that the persons concerned in

bringing them in were distressed. How distressed? Only because they

could not prove they were compelled to bring them into the country.

Mr. R. said he did not wish to irritate the feelings of gentlemen from

any portion of the Union, but he was sorry to see a bill introduced to

unsettle what he conceived to be a valuable provision, enacted some

sessions ago.

Mr. NEWTON said he felt as much repugnance as the gentleman from

Pennsylvania to touch that law; but, if the gentleman would consider

that this was a case of a peculiar nature, attended with singular

circumstances, he would withdraw his objection. And he verily

believed, that had the Legislature foreseen what had taken place,

they would certainly have inserted a provision to meet the case which

had occurred. Let it be recollected, said he, that the unfortunate

Frenchmen driven on our coast, were some time ago driven from

St. Domingo, and were obliged to take shelter at Cuba. Since the

commencement of the war in Spain, Cuba has almost witnessed the same

scenes as St. Domingo. These people were forced to leave the island

in distress, and take what portion of property they could collect.

They could not go to France, because no vessels of that country were

permitted to touch at the island of Cuba, neither could they go to

the French islands in the West Indies. There was no country open to

them but America. The American captains, then, were forced to take

the French on board, and with them, a few body servants; and, under

the former law, these vessels are seized, and liable to forfeiture,

our merchants to suffer the loss of vessel and cargo, and the poor

emigrants to lose all their little property. Let it be recollected

that the law of 1807 does not interfere with the State rights on the

subject. This bill only goes so far as to remit all fines and penalties

incurred by the captains of vessels, and release the property which

would otherwise be condemned, and relieve the perfectly innocent

merchants who would otherwise suffer. Let us say to these unfortunates,

as Dido to Æneas, when he was exiled from Troy: "I have suffered

misfortune myself, and therefore know how to extend the hand of relief

to others."

Mr. MARION said that if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. ROSS)

thought that he had a wish or intention to increase the number of

slaves, he was much mistaken. The laws of South Carolina prohibited the

bringing these slaves, or any other, into the State; yet they had been

brought there, and the persons bringing them there must give security

that they would have them carried out of the State. Now, by the

non-intercourse law, the State was prevented from sending them away;

they would, of course, remain here till the law permitted them to be

sent off, for they could go nowhere but to France and her dependencies,

France being at war with all the rest of the world. Mr. M. said that

there were several captains now in jail under sentence of court for

having brought those people into the country; he submitted to the House

whether, under the circumstances of the case, the captains had not good

reason to suppose that they would not be subject to the penalty of the

law. The law prohibiting the importation of slaves was of a highly

penal nature, and different from all other laws of that nature, having

no clause in it giving a power of remission of penalties; and this bill

was guarded in such a manner that no evil could arise.

Mr. MACON said it was certainly true that the Southern country wanted

no more slaves. The sole object of the bill was to get them away.

However desirous the people might be to hold that property, there could

be no fear of their wanting them from the West Indies.

Mr. MONTGOMERY said it was peculiarly necessary to pass this bill to

get rid of the immense number of slaves brought into New Orleans;

for every one must know that they were not wanted there. They were

too numerous to continue there, and this bill was intended to make

provision for their exportation.

Mr. NEWTON produced a letter from the collector of New Orleans on this

subject.

Mr. TAYLOR said it never could have been the intention or spirit of

the law of 1807 to increase our population in free blacks. It was

not to set free the people of this description that the law had been

passed, but to prevent them from being brought here at all. For even

in Pennsylvania he had no doubt the gentleman would be content to have

no further population of this sort. Mr. T. said that he knew that

in the Southern States there was an extreme aversion to receiving

an additional free black population. The intent of this bill, so

far from being in hostility to the law quoted by the gentleman from

Pennsylvania, was in furtherance of it. It was to remove them out of

the country.

Mr. ROSS said that it was strange that the House should have a bill

before it contemplating the removal of a certain description of persons

out of the country, when nothing of the kind appeared on the face of

it. If that was its intention, there should be a condition that the

persons bringing in these slaves should carry them out again.

Mr. NEWTON observed that unless this law passed, the inevitable

consequence must be that the negroes must remain here. He did not want

them, they brought principles which it was known would not promote our

interest or happiness.

The committee then rose and reported the bill.

Mr. NEWTON moved a new section for the relief of Foster and Girard, of

New York, whose ship had been forfeited under the law prohibiting the

importation of slaves.--Agreed to.

And the bill was ordered to a third reading, and subsequently passed

without opposition.

_Evening Session._

Mr. ROOT reported that the committee had waited on the President

according to order, who was pleased to say that he had no further

communications to make.

About nine o'clock, all the bills having been enrolled and signed,

a motion was made to adjourn, and carried; and the SPEAKER, after

wishing the members of the House a pleasant journey home, and a happy

meeting with their friends, adjourned the House to the fourth Monday in

November next.