Mr. WRIGHT.--Believing, as I do, that the Constitution of the United
States is not perfect, and as provision is made in the body of the
instrument for amending its imperfections in the manner therein
prescribed, I feel it an imperious duty to propose an amendment to
it. Here let me remark, that its adoption was opposed by the patriots
of America, at the time of its ratification, because of omissions
important to liberty. It had not guarded against an establishment of
religion; it had not secured the right of the people to keep and bear
arms; it had not guarded against soldiers being quartered in our houses
in time of peace, without our consent, it had not guarded against
warrants being issued without oath; it had not guarded against a man's
being put to answer without previous indictment; it had not secured the
criminal in the trial by jury; it had not secured the trial by jury in
cases of common law, and these omissions as due guards to the liberty
of the citizens stand recorded in these amendments almost coeval with
the instrument. The terms Federal and anti-Federal had their origin in
the zeal of the respective parties at that time; the one insisting on
its adoption with all these imperfections on its head, while the other
insisted on these amendments; and it has always appeared to me, that on
the adoption of the amendments that those who were called anti-Federals
were really the Federals, the constitution being perfected by the
adoption of these amendments. The foregoing amendments test its
original imperfection, and I trust will lead this House to a temperate
examination of the amendment I now propose to submit.
The amendment, sir, is to place the judiciary of the United States on
the same foundation that the British judiciary are placed by their
laws; by enabling the President, on the joint address of the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States, to remove a judge.
In England the judges held their commissions during the pleasure of the
Crown, till the time of Charles the First, when the Parliament imposed
upon the King the necessity of granting them during good behavior;
till then the Crown, as the fountain of justice, held the uncontrolled
direction of the commissions of the judges. At the same time, sir,
the High Commission Court and Star Chamber were abolished. In the
thirteenth year of William the Third, the judges, by statute, were to
hold their commissions during good behavior, and by the same statute
they may be removed by the joint address of both Houses of Parliament;
and here let me remark, that under that tenure and responsibility,
the British judiciary have attained a celebrity in history for their
judicial integrity and correctness highly honorable to them, and which
this amendment, I fondly hope, in time, may correctly attach to the
judiciary of the United States. There are a variety of cases where the
exercise of this power may be necessary for the safety of the people,
which ought to be the supreme law. This power, I trust, will never
be abused by the American Congress. I do not recollect a case under
the British Government, where for fifty years it has been exercised,
and I trust we shall not ascribe to ourselves an indisposition to
the correct discharge of those functions which have been correctly
exercised or rather not exercised at all for fifty years by the
British Government. If in England, where the Crown is hereditary, the
Lords hereditary and for life, and the Commons for seven years, this
tenure and responsibility has been found necessary, I trust in this
Government, where the President is for four years, the Senate for six,
and the House of Representatives for two years, this judicial tenure
and responsibility will be thought expedient, and that this amendment
will be adopted by Congress, particularly as it is but a preliminary
decision--as it must be submitted to the States, and cannot go into
operation but by the consent of three-fourths of the United States.
I have therefore thought fit to submit this resolution, and hope the
reasons assigned will induce you to believe that I think it of such
importance to the nation as to entitle it to your attention.
Mr. W. then submitted the following resolutions:
_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds
of both Houses concurring_, That the following section
be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States,
which, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths
of the States, shall be valid and binding as a part of the
Constitution of the United States:
_Resolved_, That the judges, both of the Supreme and Inferior
Courts, may be removed from office on the joint address of the
Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.
The House refused to consider the motion--45 to 38.
WEDNESDAY, January 30.
_Jared Shattuck's Claim._
The House resolved itself into a committee of the Whole on the report
of the Committee of Claims on the petition of Jared Shattuck--59 to 29.
The report is favorable to the claimant--a bill for the relief of this
person having in two former sessions passed this House, but not been
acceded to in the Senate.
Mr. MONTGOMERY, in a speech of some length, opposed the claim, and
moved that the committee rise, with a view to printing the papers
relating to the claim, which he conceived was not fully understood.
This motion was debated, and lost--56 to 43.
The report was also debated, and agreed to--57 to 39.
The committee then rose and reported their agreement to the report.
THURSDAY, January 31.
Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, ORCHARD COOK, appeared, and
took his seat.
_Mississippi Territory._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the report
of the select committee in favor of admitting the Mississippi Territory
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States.
A desultory debate of two or three hours took place on the resolution.
Messrs. POINDEXTER, JOHNSON, GHOLSON, MCKIM, SHEFFEY, HOLLAND, and
WRIGHT, spoke in favor of the resolution, and Messrs. BACON, PITKIN,
QUINCY, BIGELOW, and BLAISDELL, against it. The arguments in favor
of its passage were, among others, that the territory could, when
possessing a population of 60,000, claim admission as a right; that it
now contained probably 45,000, and would, more than probably, before
a Representative could be elected under the new constitution, contain
full 60,000 souls; that, after admitting Orleans to the rank of a
State, with a minor population, at the present session, it would be the
height of injustice to refuse the same privilege to Mississippi, which
had been so much longer a part of the united territory, and against the
admission of which into the Union none of the constitutional objections
had weight which had been urged against the admission of Orleans. The
opponents of the resolution argued that some respect was due to the
feelings, however grounded, of the eastern States, in relation to the
creation of new States on the western waters; that the admission of one
State during a session was sufficient; if two were admitted into the
Union, in the course of three months, the people of the eastern States
would be justly alarmed at the diminution of their relative weight in
the scale of the Union; that, since it was acknowledged the new State
could not be represented before the thirteenth Congress, there could
be no occasion for pressing this subject so urgently at this time.
Why not, it was asked, wait for the actual census of the territory?
The very solicitude which was manifested to get this subject through
Congress, it was said, showed there was something wrong, and was a
strong argument against the adoption of the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to in Committee of the Whole--ayes 62.
The committee rose, and reported their agreement to the resolution.
The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the
Whole in their agreement to the said resolution, and resolved in the
affirmative--yeas 68, nays 47.
FRIDAY, February 1.
_Commercial Intercourse._
The House went into Committee of the Whole on the following bill
reported by the Committee of Foreign Relations:
A bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act concerning
the commercial intercourse between the United States and
Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for
other purposes."
_Be it enacted, &c._, That no vessel _owned wholly by a citizen
or citizens of the United States, which shall have departed
from a British port prior to the second day of February, one
thousand eight hundred and eleven, and no merchandise owned
wholly by a citizen or citizens of the United States, imported
in such vessel_, shall be liable to seizure or forfeiture,
on account of any infraction or presumed infraction of the
provisions of the act to which this act is a supplement.
Mr. EMOTT moved to amend the same by striking out the words in
_italic_, and to insert in their place, "or merchandise." The bill, as
amended, would read as follows:
"That no vessel or merchandise shall be liable to seizure
or forfeiture on account of any infraction, or presumed
infraction, of the provisions of the act to which this act is a
supplement."
Mr. EMOTT.--Mr. Chairman: As the bill which is now on your table is
calculated to relieve our merchants in part from the restrictive system
which has again been attempted to be put in operation, I so far approve
of it; but as it does not appear to me to go far enough, I rise for
the purpose of moving an amendment, which, if adopted, will once more
give us a clear deck; and while I am up, the committee will permit me,
as concisely as the nature of the subject will admit, to assign the
reasons which induce me to propose the amendment.
By the law of the first of May last, the President was authorized,
in case either of the great belligerents, before the third of March,
revoked her anti-neutral edicts, to proclaim the same, and if the other
did not in three months also revoke, a non-intercourse with her was to
follow. On the second day of November, the President had proclaimed, as
a fact, that France had made the necessary revocation; and it follows,
if he was correct as to the fact, that on the second day of this month,
the non-intercourse went into operation against Great Britain.
As many formerly, and more latterly, have doubted as to the fact thus
proclaimed, it becomes, sir, a duty which we owe to ourselves and to
the people, to inquire into its existence; for if it be true that no
such repeal, as was contemplated by the law, has taken place; if,
indeed, the President has been deceived, or was mistaken, we cannot
too soon make it known, and relieve the country from the vexation and
embarrassment which must result from the present state of things.
If, sir, additional motives were necessary, we may find them in the
bills which have this morning been introduced into the House by the
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, at the instance of the
Secretary of the Treasury, one of which goes to lay large additional
duties, and the other to authorize a loan. The reasons assigned by the
Secretary for this new and heavy tax on our citizens are, that as the
greater part of our duties on imports are collected on goods coming
from Great Britain and her colonies, and as those duties will cease
with the revival of the non-importation, it becomes necessary, in order
to prevent a defalcation in the revenue, to tax the production of other
countries much beyond the present rate. On this presumed defalcation,
too, in some degree depends the proposition for a loan, or, if a loan
be necessary, the amount of it. In this point of view, it becomes
highly important to ascertain whether the non-intercourse has gone into
operation; for if it has not, I trust we shall not proceed to give form
and shape to the recommendation of the Secretary, that we shall not
burden the country with new taxes, or subject it to large loans.
In the commencement of this inquiry, Mr. Chairman, we naturally ask
ourselves, what edicts are to be revoked, and how are they to be
revoked? It is not material to extend this inquiry to Great Britain,
as we know of no revocation on her part, and, under all circumstances,
we have not, I fear, much reason to believe that there will be such
revocation. But it may be well to notice here something which has the
appearance of inconsistency, on the part of our Executive, towards that
Government.
The non-intercourse law of March, 1809, contains a provision, that,
"in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her
edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the
United States," the President shall declare the same by proclamation,
and the non-intercourse was then to cease as to the nation revoking.
It was under this law, and in consequence of the power so given to the
President, that the celebrated, though ill-fated arrangement, was made
between the Executive and the British Minister, Mr. Erskine. Now, sir,
by referring to this arrangement, you will find, that on April 18, Mr.
Erskine proposed to Secretary Smith the revocation of the orders in
council of January and November, 1807, as a compliance on the part of
Great Britain with the terms of the act of March; and our Secretary,
on the same day, declaring that the withdrawing of such orders would
be deemed satisfactory by the President, the arrangement was completed
on the 19th, and a proclamation accordingly issued on the ground, and
assuming the fact, that the British edicts had ceased to violate our
neutral commerce, and again opening the intercourse between the two
countries after the 10th of June.
This arrangement, and the short and hasty correspondence connected
with it, you will recollect, sir, were presented to Congress with the
Message, at the opening of the summer session of 1809, and we then
passed a law, the object of which was to ratify and to carry into
effect the arrangement. Here, then, we have an explicit opinion from
both the Executive and the Legislature, that the only British orders
which came within the spirit and intent of the law of March, were
those of January and November 1807, and that, when those orders were
revoked, the edicts of Great Britain ceased to violate the commerce of
the United States.
I pray you now, Mr. Chairman, to turn with me to the law of May last;
you will there find the precise phraseology of the act of March: "In
case either Great Britain or France shall so revoke or modify her
edicts, as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce
of the United States," the President is to make known the fact by
proclamation. The authority given to the President is in both cases
the same, and it was to have been presumed that it would have been
exercised on the same terms. But, sir, it will be found, on referring
to the papers, that, under the act of May, the Executive made a further
requisition. The revocation of the orders in council of January and
November was not to satisfy us, but the blockade of the year preceding
was to be also annulled.
In the letter from Secretary Smith to our Minister at London, of the
5th of July, 1810, and which enclosed a copy of the law of May, it is
said, "that in explaining the extent of the repeal which is required
on the British side, Mr. Pinkney will let it be distinctly understood,
that it must necessarily include an annulment of the blockade of 1806;"
and our minister accordingly, in his letter to Lord Wellesley, of the
21st of September, tells him it is his duty to state "that an annulment
of the blockade of May, 1806, is considered by the President to be
as indispensable, in the view of the act, as the revocation of the
British orders in council." Nay, so far has the President gone in this
particular as to give the French Government a pledge that this will be
required on the part of Great Britain. In the letter from Secretary
Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, 1810, the latter is
authorized, if it should be found necessary, to "let it be understood
that a repeal of the illegal blockades of a date prior to the Berlin
decree, namely, that of May, 1806, will be included in the condition
required of Great Britain."
It is not my intention at this time, to enter into a discussion on the
subject of blockades, nor am I to be understood as giving countenance
to the system of paper blockades, whether that system proceeds from
or is attempted to be enforced by England or by France; but, sir, I
have gone into this examination to show that the President has acted
differently under two laws which ought to have the same practical
construction, because the terms used in them were alike; that under
the law of May, 1810, he added a condition to a settlement with Great
Britain, which he did not require under the law of March, 1809; and why
this difference?
Will it be said, that when the arrangement was made with Mr. Erskine
the President had no knowledge of the blockading orders of May,
1806? Not so, sir. By recurring to a report made by Mr. Madison, as
Secretary of State, in December, 1808, of belligerent decrees and
orders affecting neutral commerce, you will find this very blockade;
and certainly what he knew as Secretary in December, he must have known
as President in the April following. Shall I be told the President had
discovered that the blockade had been "avowed to be comprehended in,
and identified with, the orders in council?" I fear this will not be a
satisfactory answer. For, in this case, if the orders in council are
rescinded, the connection between them and the blockade will then stand
as it was supposed by the Executive to stand when the arrangement was
entered into.
Persons, Mr. Chairman, more prone to jealousy than myself, and who
are disposed to find fault with the late Executive projects, may
perhaps point to that passage in the letter from Secretary Smith
to Mr. Pinkney, of the 22d of May, 1810, in which it is said, that
the President has read, with surprise and regret, the reply of Lord
Wellesley to the note requiring explanations with respect to the
blockade of France, which "evinces an inflexible determination to
persevere in the system of blockade," as affording a reason for
this added condition: they may say that it was thrust in when our
Administration were satisfied that it would not be acceded to by the
British, and for the purpose of preventing an accommodation with, and
keeping up the irritation against, that nation. But while, for myself,
I disclaim this inference, I must confess that I am at a loss to assign
a sufficient motive for the difference in the two cases.
As to France, sir, what were the edicts to be revoked, and how revoked?
I shall have occasion, before I sit down, to notice the Berlin and
Milan decrees. But were there not other decrees?
We have before us the Rambouillet decree, with a date of the 23d
of March, 1810, which declares that "all vessels navigating under
the flag of the United States, or possessed in whole or in part by a
citizen or subject of that power, which, counting from the 20th of
May, 1809, have entered, or shall enter into the ports of our Empire,
of our colonies, or of the countries occupied by our arms, shall be
seized, and the product of the sales shall be deposited in the surplus
fund." Thus embracing almost the whole of continental Europe; for,
with the exception of the Russian ports on the Baltic, and two or
three places in the European peninsula, every port frequented by the
Americans belonged either to the Empire of France, to the colonies of
that Empire, or to countries occupied by the forces of the Empire. The
seizures under this decree were consequently great and distressing to
our merchants.
This decree purports to be an act of reprisal on this country, and for
what cause? Not for any act of hostility by us; not for any seizures or
confiscations of French vessels or French property under the authority,
or within the limits of this Government. No, sir, a pretence of this
kind appeared too absurd to be inserted even in a French decree. It
is true that General Armstrong, in his letter to Secretary Smith,
of the 10th of September, 1810, communicates a verbal explanation
which accompanied the last letter of the French Minister: "If you
confiscate French property under the law of non-intercourse, they will
confiscate your property under their decree of Rambouillet." Ay, sir,
and they have given a practical explanation that they would confiscate
our property under the decree, although we did not confiscate their
property under the non-intercourse law. Look at the decree itself,
and you will find the motive, or rather the pretext for this act of
reprisal. It is grounded on the passing of the act of the 1st of March,
1809, and it is grounded on that alone.
Thus, because we deemed it advisable to pass a law which we supposed
was a mere municipal regulation, inasmuch as it related to our own
citizens, or our own territories; a law, which, according to its
letter, applied equally to both belligerents, and which was not to
commence its operation until the 20th of May, contained in itself a
notice sufficient to prevent any injury to French subjects; for this
cause, and for this alone, the Emperor adopts, as an act of reprisal,
a decree which subjects to seizure and confiscation, not only American
property which should reach the continent after notice of the decree,
or even after its date, but property which arrived there at any time
for the preceding twelve months. I will not stop to inquire what would
and what ought to have been the feelings of the Administration and of
the country, if such an outrage had been committed by England for such
a cause. But, sir, if the French Government is allowed to have in the
act of March an excuse for reprisal, we had better discontinue making
laws altogether; for it is difficult to find in our statute book a law
less hostile to France, or more within the right of an independent
Government to enact.
To see the true character of this decree, we must approach it a little
nearer; and with the letters of the Duke of Cadore in my hand--those
letters, sir, which have occasioned our present embarrassments--I am
strangely deceived if this proceeding of the French Government does
not appear to partake of the nature of an offence which, as respects
individuals, is called swindling. It is a taking of property under
false pretences.
Allow me now, Mr. Chairman, to present you with another view of this
decree. The Duke of Cadore, in his letter of the 5th of August, 1810,
says: "Now Congress retrace their steps; they revoke the act of the
1st of March; the ports of America are opened to French commerce, and
France is no longer interdicted to the Americans." And in his letter
of the 7th of September, he uses these expressions: "His Majesty has
always wished to favor the commerce of the United States. It was not
without reluctance that he used reprisals towards the Americans, while
he saw that Congress had ordered the confiscation of all French
vessels which might arrive in the United States."
"As soon as His Majesty was informed of this hostile act, he felt that
the honor of France, involved in this point, could not be cleansed but
by a declaration of war." Now "the American vessels which shall arrive
in France, will not be subject to confiscation, because the act of
Congress, which had served as a motive to our reprisals, is repealed."
From this exposition of the views of the French Government, handed to
us by the Minister of Exterior Relations, we perceive that he places
the Rambouillet decree entirely to the account of the non-intercourse
law of March; and from the course of reasoning used by him, it seems to
be admitted that the decree, and the seizures under it, could not be
justified, but while the obnoxious law was in force.
But we here again meet with another of the mistakes of this most just
Government, which is so jealous of its honor and so friendly to our
commerce. The fact happens to be that the law never was repealed. By
its own limitation it expired with the then session of Congress, and,
of course, went out of existence on the 28th of June, 1809. Thus this
poor law, which is now brought up in judgment against us, had quietly
descended to the tomb of the Capulets almost a year before the Emperor
and King thought it consistent with his interest, or for the honor of
his empire, to commence his measures of retaliation. The limitation
clause could not have escaped the attention of His Majesty when he
read the law; and, I trust, we yet have pride enough to believe that
he knows there is an American Congress, and notices the periods of our
meeting and departure, if he is careless about our proceedings. When,
therefore, Napoleon issued the plundering decree of Rambouillet, he
knew that the law on which he placed his justification had long since
expired. But he knew a further fact, that the law never did affect
French vessels. The British navy kept them at home, and we excluded
English vessels only. Such was the practical and the only practical
operation of our law.
I am aware that the apologists of the Emperor will point to the act
of the 1st of June, 1809, as reviving or continuing certain sections
of the law of March. Let me not be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I do
not mean to insinuate that the Emperor has apologists in this House,
in this ark of independence and liberty of a great people; but, in
whatever place this suggestion shall be offered, it may be answered
that the French Government have not noticed the last law in their
decree, or in any of their official papers. And it may be further
remarked that the law of June, like that of March, was limited to
the end of the next session of Congress, and, of course, ceased its
operation on the 1st of May, 1810. As the decree issued on the 14th of
May, and the seizures under it were after that time, it would seem, to
a man of common understanding, who believes the transactions between
nations are, or ought to be, regulated by the rules of honest, plain
dealing, that the Emperor, when he had knowledge of the fact, would
have loosened his hold on our property. And yet we find that, when we
approach him on this subject, he laughs us to scorn.
The object which I had in view, in this examination of the Rambouillet
decree, was, to mark its true character, to show that this decree
emphatically outraged our neutral rights, and that, if it was submitted
to by this country, our code of national rights will be found hereafter
in the same books with those of the kingdoms which belong to the
Confederation of the Rhine. Our merchants are induced to adventure
to France by a prospect of large profits, and by promises of great
security if their vessels have not been "denationalized." They take
there many a valuable cargo, until the amount of property becomes
an object of imperial attention, and then it is seized upon by an
irresistible and unrelenting hand, without notice, and upon pretexts
void of any foundation. Can a decree, or order, or edict, be pointed
out in the long history of our wrongs and our sufferings, which is more
strongly marked with injustice, or which more strongly "violates our
neutral commerce?"
I will not detain the committee by entering into a particular
examination of the French decrees, which, in the commencement of the
last year, authorized the seizure of such a number of American vessels
at St. Sebastians, at Naples, and in the North of Europe. It would lead
me too far into the views and conduct of the French Government towards
this country, for the purposes of this discussion. But, sir, in this
volume of documents, I see, with emotions which I am sure are in unison
with those of the American people, the famous note, signed "Champagny,
Duke de Cadore," of the 4th of February last, written to justify those
seizures, and, as he says, "that the President may the better know
the friendly intentions of France towards the United States, and her
favorable dispositions to American commerce;" in which we are told
that we are "without just political views, without honor, and without
energy." And are we so sunk in the estimation of the mighty conqueror,
that he thinks it necessary and proper to use this as his official
language towards us? Surely, sir, he mistakes the character and the
spirit of this people if he believes they are to be broken down, or
brought into his views, by insults or threats. As our Government had,
a few months before, discharged and disgraced a British Minister for
a supposed insult by an insinuation, it was to have been expected
that, on this occasion, equal spirit would be shown. But to such as
formed corresponding expectations, what will be their feelings when
they find that the only Executive notice of the note is found in the
letter of Mr. Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of June last, in
which the Secretary says, that, "as the John Adams is daily expected,
and as your farther communications by her will better enable me to
adapt to the actual state of our affairs with the French Government,
the observations proper to be made in relation to the seizure of our
property, and to the letter of the Duke of Cadore, of the 14th of
February; it is, by the President, deemed expedient not to make, at
this time, any such animadversions."
Let us now see, Mr. Chairman, whether these decrees have been "so
revoked or modified as that they ceased to violate the neutral commerce
of the United States."
These decrees have two distinct operations, the seizure of our
property, and the subsequent sale of that property; and, without
attempting to prove a proposition which appears self-evident, I shall
take it for granted that, if it was an infringement of our rights
to seize the property, it is equally an infringement of our rights
to proceed to the confiscation and sale of such property. Nay, sir,
if we allow to the French Government the plea of retaliation, the
infringement of our rights will commence with the confiscation and
sale of our vessels after the cause of retaliation has been removed by
us, and known so to be by the Emperor. A revocation or modification
of these decrees, so that they should cease to violate our fair
commerce, therefore, would look as well to an indemnity for the past
as a security for the future; it necessarily includes a restoration of
the property already taken, as well as an engagement against future
captures. This appears to have been, at one time, the opinion of our
Administration; for you will find, by recurring to the letter from
Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the 5th of June, 1810, which
enclosed a copy of the law of May, the determination of our Executive
is thus made known: "If, however, the arrangement contemplated by the
law should be acceptable to the French Government, you will understand
it to be the purpose of the President not to proceed in giving it
effect, in case the late seizure of the property of the citizens of
the United States has been followed by an absolute confiscation, and
restoration be finally refused." And in the letter from Mr. Smith
to General Armstrong, of the 5th of July, this determination is
expressed with added strength: "As has been heretofore stated to you,
a satisfactory provision for restoring the property lately surprised
and seized by the order, or at the instance of the French Government,
must be combined with a repeal of the French edicts, with a view
to a non-intercourse with Great Britain; such a provision being an
indispensable evidence of the just purpose of France towards the United
States."
Without asking for the evidence which the President had as to the
repeal or modification of these decrees, I now put it to the committee
whether every member of it is not perfectly convinced that if any
modification, or suspension, or repeal, has taken place, it goes
no farther than to restrain future seizures, leaving the property
already seized to take the course of confiscation and sale? Do we not
know, that, in the months of October and November, our vessels and
merchandise have been brought under the hammer in pursuance of those
decrees; and have we not lately seen, in our public journals, a list
of some eighteen or twenty ships advertised by the French Government
for sale at Bayonne, on the 5th of December? Nay, sir, the Executive
was informed, before he issued his proclamation, by the letter from the
Duke of Cadore to General Armstrong, of the 12th of September, 1810,
that, "as to the merchandise confiscated, it having been confiscated
as a measure of reprisal, the principles of reprisal must be the law
in that affair." Words cannot be found which would more satisfactorily
"evince an inflexible determination" to retain the property. As the
principles of reprisal are to be the law, it follows that a restoration
of the property depends on the discretion of the Emperor, and is not
to be claimed by us as a matter of right, but of favor. And what have
we to propose, according to the principles of reprisal, to obtain the
restoration? Is it, that we have suffered the non-intercourse law to
expire? Why, sir, this had taken place long before the letter of the
Duke of Cadore. Is it a restoration of French property seized under
the law of non-intercourse? This cannot take place; because, in truth,
there was no such seizure.
We will now examine whether there has been such a revocation of
the Berlin and Milan decrees as warranted the proclamation. And
here let me remark that, when the President acted under this law,
he was not exercising the treaty-making power. He was the mere
agent of the Legislature, and as such agent, he was confined and
limited by his letter of attorney, the law. He had not, therefore,
as has been asserted, a discretion, nor had he any thing to do with
considerations of comity or courtesy. He was to ascertain when there
was an actual and practical revocation, and then make known the fact;
the consequences were left with the legislature. Indeed, sir, this
power to give publicity to a fact might have been committed to one
of the Secretaries, or to a clerk in the offices, and if it had, we
should have smiled at the suggestion that its exercise depended on
considerations of courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, when the proclamation first appeared, my impression was,
and such, too, I understood to be the general impression, that the
President had some document unknown to the American people. The letter
of the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, was already before the
public, but it was not credited that on this letter the proclamation
had been issued. Since we have received the Message the subject is at
rest. It is now known and acknowledged that the President had not,
and to this moment has not, any other evidence of a revocation. Now,
sir, in this letter, I see neither the form nor the substance of a
revocation.
What is the understanding of the French courts and officers, on this
subject. I have already presented you with that part of the letter of
the Duke of Cadore, of the 5th of August, in which he says, that since
Congress have retraced their steps, by revoking the act of the first
of March, "France is no longer interdicted to the Americans." Now, if
this letter is in the form of a decree, it revokes or modifies the
Rambouillet decree equally with those of Berlin and Milan, inasmuch,
as long as the former continued in force, France was interdicted to
the Americans. And yet we find, in a letter of the Duke of Cadore, of
the 7th day of September, our Minister inquiring, "Has the decree of
His Majesty of the 22d day of March last been recalled?" And General
Armstrong, in his letter to Mr. Smith of the 10th of September,
remarks, that this inquiry "may appear to have been useless, after the
declaration, that American ships which will hereafter arrive in the
ports of France shall not be subject to confiscation; but understanding
from the Council of Prizes, that until some act be taken which had the
effect of recalling, by name, the decree of the 23d of March, they must
consider it both as existing and operative, and of course binding upon
them," and he had presented the subject again.
Here, then, we have the opinion of the French court, most known and
most important to us, the Court of Prizes, that the letter of the Duke
of Cadore is not in the form of a decree, and has not the force and
effect of a decree. In addition to this, we have the act of seizure
of the brig New Orleans Packet, by the director of the customs at
Bordeaux, in December last, under the Berlin and Milan decrees. As the
letter of the Duke of Cadore had been published in France prior to this
period, no one will believe that if it was in form of an edict of the
Empire, the seizure would have been made.
But if the contents of this letter had been embodied in a formal act,
would it have amounted to such a revocation or modification of the
Berlin and Milan decrees, as that they ceased to violate our neutral
commerce?
I remark first, that the revocation, if it be one, was a future and not
a present revocation. "The decrees of Berlin and Milan are revoked,
and, after the first of November, they will cease to have effect." Now,
sir, although there is an affected obscurity in this sentence, the
intent is most obvious. As long as a law continues in operation, so
long it must be unrepealed, and as these decrees were to have effect
until the 1st of November, it follows, that on no construction can they
be considered as revoked until that period. Indeed, on this point the
Duke of Cadore is quite explicit in his letter to General Armstrong
of the 7th of September, in which he tells him, that American vessels
arriving in France before the first of November, although not liable to
confiscation, "will be subjected to all the effects of the Berlin and
Milan decrees."
But, again: the revocation, if any, was not only future, but it was
also conditional; "it being understood, that in consequence of this
declaration, the English shall revoke their Orders in Council and
renounce the new principles of blockade which they have wished to
establish, or that the United States, conformably to the act you
have just communicated, shall cause their rights to be respected by
the English." A condition--a qualification--a restriction. Is it
not obvious, from the very terms of the letter, that it contains a
condition that the repeal is a qualified one? The words "it being
understood," are not only expressive of this, but they are singularly
appropriate. If, however, we were inclined to doubt, we must be
satisfied by the letter of the Duke of Cadore to General Armstrong,
of September 7th, in which it is said, that the Emperor "repeals his
decrees of Berlin and Milan, under the conditions pointed out in my
letter to you of the 5th of August."
Our Ministers, General Armstrong and Mr. Pinkney, appear to have
puzzled themselves much about this condition, to discover whether it
was a condition precedent, or a condition subsequent. To me, sir, the
idea of a condition subsequent to a repeal, is rather novel; but it
may nevertheless be just. In common understanding, it is believed,
that when a law is repealed it is extinct, and if it be so, then its
appendage, the condition, would seem to be at an end of course. But in
the view which I am about to take of this subject, it is not necessary
to settle this point, as it must be conceded, that whether we call the
condition a condition precedent, or a condition subsequent, the same
consequence will follow: if the condition is not complied with, the
decrees must be in force still. Now, sir, it appears to me that the
conditions, attached to this pretended or proposed repeal, are of a
nature which have not, and will not be complied with.
First, sir, as to the conditions on the part of England: "The English
shall revoke their Orders in Council, and renounce the new principles
of blockade which they have wished to establish." With respect to
the Orders in Council, I have nothing to say either as to their
justice or their policy. Heaven knows they have been to us, from the
moment of their inception, sore evils; the causes of great vexation,
embarrassment, and losses; and I hope the period is not far distant
when we shall be no longer disturbed by them. But, sir, I wish to
call your particular attention to the other branch of the condition,
that relating to blockades. We have been so long in the practice, and
justly in the practice, of complaining of paper blockades, that at the
first blush we are induced to believe the condition relates to them,
and to them alone. Are these the blockades which are intended? Let the
Emperor and King answer for himself. In the official note from Count
Champagny to General Armstrong, of the 22d of August, 1809, we have
this declaration: "A place is not truly blockaded until it is invested
by land and by sea; it is blockaded to prevent it from receiving the
succors which might retard its surrender. It is only then that the
right of preventing neutral vessels from entering it exists." But we
have it under the hand and seal of the Emperor himself, what he means
by the "new principles of blockade." In the Berlin decree there is an
enumeration of real or pretended interpolations, on the part of Great
Britain, in the law of nations; among which we discover these: "that
England does not admit the right of nations as universally acknowledged
by all civilized people; that she extends to ports not fortified, to
harbors and mouths of rivers, the right of blockade, which, according
to reason and the usage of civilized nations, is applicable only to
strong or fortified ports." And it is declared that "the decree shall
be considered as the fundamental law of the Empire, until England has
acknowledged that the rights of war are the same on land as at sea--and
until the right of blockade be restrained to fortified places actually
invested by competent forces."
There can be no misunderstanding on this subject. The Emperor offers
to give up his Berlin and Milan decrees, if the British will renounce
their new system of blockade; and in these very decrees he explains
what he means by this new system; that, besides paper blockades, it is
the attempt to blockade the mouths of rivers and harbors, and ports
not fortified. Now, sir, I will admit, if we could prevail on Great
Britain and France thus to limit the right of blockade, it would add
much to our security at home; for as we have no fortified places,
although we may have places with fortifications, it would follow that
we should never be subject to a blockade. But is it true that according
to the usages of nations this is a novel system, or one now, for the
first time, put in use by the British? Or is it believed, that a
nation like England, whose effective force for offence and defence is
a maritime force, can or ought to subscribe to a system of blockade
which confines its exercise and right to "fortified places actually
invested?" What would be the effect of such a system in the present
war? France has surely not to apprehend an invasion from England; and
if any of the commercial places on her extensive coasts are fortified,
the fortifications may be dismantled or destroyed with great safety.
As soon as this is done they become "harbors and ports not fortified,"
and have no longer to apprehend any inconvenience from the pressure of
a naval force. Is it not obvious that England will not comply with her
part of the condition, and that the Emperor never expected that she
would?
As to the conditions on the part of this country--"The United States,
conformably to the act you have just communicated, shall cause their
rights to be respected." What rights, Mr. Chairman? The right of not
being vexed or endangered by paper blockades? Yes, sir, and more;
the right of not being interrupted in a commercial intercourse with
cities situated on rivers, as Antwerp for instance; or to carry on a
free trade with all the continental ports and harbors not fortified,
although the whole British navy may be cruising at the mouth of the
river, or in sight of the port. But we have a further declaration
of neutral rights which the French Emperor says he will allow when
France has a marine proportioned to the extent of her coasts and her
population, and which, so long as the British shall continue to be
masters of the sea, he insists we shall claim and exercise. Thus, in
the note from Count Champagny to General Armstrong, of the 22d of
August, 1809, "France admits the principle that the flag covers the
merchandise. A merchant vessel, sailing with all the necessary papers
from its Government, is a floating colony. To do violence to such a
vessel by _visits_, by _searches_, and by other acts of an arbitrary
authority, is to violate the territory of a colony. This is to infringe
on the independence of its Government." In other words, the flag is to
protect the property, and search is not to be permitted. I pray you,
sir, to bear in mind, that since the formation of this Government,
and under every Administration, the right of blockading, by an actual
present and efficient force, ports and places not fortified; the right
of search, and the principle, that enemy property is not protected by
the character of the vessel, has been recognized or conceded.
But how are we to cause these rights to be respected? By putting in
force the non-importation law? Suppose the British should not believe
themselves excessively injured by this measure; that, in fact, it
operated to their advantage, and we are suffered to bring on premature
decay and old age, by this political quackery. Would this satisfy
the Emperor? No, sir. He would soon tell us that we had not caused
our rights to be respected. It is idle to believe that he will deem
the non-importation a compliance with his condition; nor, to me,
does his language convey this idea. We are to oppose, or declare
ourselves against the British, and in the spirit of our law and of
his declaration, we are to cause our rights to be respected, not by
self-destroying measures, but by actual force and open hostility,
if the English nation will not, without it, subscribe to the terms
which have been presented to it. Recollect the history of our embargo
and former non-intercourse, the propositions made under them by our
Government to the French Government, and how these propositions were
received, and you will be satisfied of the nature and extent of the
present condition.
And now, let me ask, whether we are prepared for these conditions?
Whether we believe in all the rights which the French Emperor
condescends to claim for us from the British, although he will not
admit them himself? And whether we are prepared to go to war for
them? To me the conditions, both on the part of this country and
Great Britain, appear inadmissible. At all events, I think that the
President, before he acted on a proposition so loose and general, which
admits of so much doubt, and can, by fair construction, be carried to
such extravagant lengths, ought to have asked and received explanations
and particulars.
But it may be said that the letter of the Duke of Cadore, if not itself
a decree, is evidence that there is a rescinding decree. To my mind,
Mr. Chairman, it has internal marks to the contrary; but, without
troubling the committee with any further comments on the letter, I
observe, that viewing it as a mere matter of evidence, it may be
fortified or explained by other evidence. I have already read to you
parts of the letters from Secretary Smith to General Armstrong, of the
5th of June and the 5th of July, which declare the determination of
the President not to carry the non-intercourse law into effect against
England, unless France not only revoked her decrees, but restored our
sequestered property. We are to presume that our Minister made known
this determination to the French Court, as it was his duty so to do.
Now, with this declaration before him, is it to be credited that the
Emperor would revoke his decrees, when he was given to understand that
the revocation would lead to no result on our part, inasmuch as he did
not release our property? Is it not obvious, from this circumstance
alone, that the letter is a mere proposition in answer to the one made
by our Government, expressive of the views, and stating the terms on
which the Emperor would revoke?
Again, sir, we have the letter of Mr. Russell to Secretary Smith, of
the 11th of December, 1810, informing our Government that the brig New
Orleans Packet had been seized at Bordeaux a few days before, under
the Berlin and Milan decrees, by the director of the customs. And
we have had communicated to us, by the President, the note from Mr.
Russell to the Duke of Cadore, of the 10th of December, stating this
seizure to have been made under the decrees, and giving an additional
fact, that the case of this vessel was the first which had occurred
after the first of November, to which the decrees could be applied.
As this seizure was made under the decrees, it shows the impression
in France to be, that they still are existing and in force; and the
evidence is the stronger, as coming from the custom-house of one of
the principal trading towns, where surely the revocation must have
been officially known, if it had taken place. I am aware it is said
that Mr. Russell must have been misinformed as to the cause of the
seizure, or that the custom-house officer mistook his duty. But as to
both of these suggestions, I will only remind you of the silence of
the French Government. The remonstrance of Mr. Russell was handed to
the French Minister on the 10th of December, and the vessel which bore
the despatches, brought Paris accounts to the 27th of December, and
did not leave France until the 1st of January. If Mr. Russell had any
explanation or answer from the French Government it would have been
communicated to us; but he had none. The silence of the French Minister
is equal to an express affirmance of the act of the custom-house
officer, and is an admission that the decrees have not been revoked.
SATURDAY, Feb. 9.
_Commercial Intercourse._
On motion of Mr. EPPES all the orders of the day were laid on the
table, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on
the bill supplementary to the act concerning commercial intercourse, &c.
Mr. EMOTT'S motion being under consideration, to amend the bill so as
to repeal the law of May last, &c., Mr. RHEA made a motion superseding
that, viz: to strike out the whole of the bill.
Mr. EPPES said, that when, on a former day, this bill, designed only
for the relief of our own citizens, was under discussion, subjects not
at all connected with its merits were brought into view. A gentleman
from New York (Mr. EMOTT) presented to the House on that occasion his
view of our foreign relations, and exercised all his ingenuity to show,
as it is but too often the practice here, that the Government of the
United States is exclusively wrong, and the Government of Great Britain
exclusively right. It seems that in this enlightened age new duties
are assigned to a Representative. Under the pressure of every injury
which foreign influence can inflict, a Representative is considered as
discharging his duty, if, with a fine-spun web, he can present, under
a suspicious aspect, either the motives or the acts of the Executive
branch of his Government. No nation, ancient or modern, unless in the
last stage of corruption, can be produced where, as in the United
States, periods of difficulty have been seized by the Representatives,
and the weight of their talents exclusively employed for increasing
the public embarrassments. The speech of the gentleman from New York,
however well he may have covered it under mildness of manner and a
fine-spun argument, is designed to convey to the people an idea, that
the Executive has manifested partiality towards France in the late
arrangement. The gentleman tells us, that while the Minister of one
foreign nation was denounced here for an implied insult, the letter of
the Duc de Cadore to Mr. Armstrong is passed over almost in silence;
that the Secretary of State, in a letter to General Armstrong, tells
him that the President thinks it unnecessary to make any remarks on
it. The gentleman ought to have gone further, and stated the whole
fact: that the letter of General Armstrong in answer to the Duc de
Cadore was approved by the President; that, by the approval, he adopts
as his own the language and sentiments of that letter. The letter of
General Armstrong, by the approval of the President, has become the
act of his Government. For the sentiments contained in that letter
the American Government is responsible, and not General Armstrong.
The firm, manly, and eloquent reply of General Armstrong to the Duc
de Cadore stands precisely on the same footing as if it had been
originally written under the directions of the Government. General
Armstrong did not wait for instructions. He repelled, in a style
comporting with the dignity of his station, the charges of the Duc
de Cadore. The President, through the Secretary of State, approves
his letter, adopts it as his own, and says he has nothing to add.
Well, indeed, sir, might he say so, because the Minister had already
said, in a style as pleasing to his country as to his Government, all
that the occasion demanded. But, sir, the gentleman from New York
cannot agree with his colleague in considering the President of the
United States correct in issuing his proclamation. Why, sir, does the
gentleman disapprove of the President's proclamation? Because, says
the gentleman, the letter of the Duc de Cadore, of August, was not
a repeal of the Berlin and Milan decrees. It is a mere promise that
on a certain day they shall be withdrawn. When, sir, the President
received the declaration of Mr. Erskine, the British Minister, that,
on a particular day, the Orders in Council would be withdrawn, and
issued a proclamation founded solely on that declaration, his conduct
was warmly approved by men of all parties. The gentleman from New York
joined in the burst of applause heaped on that Executive act. Was the
letter of Mr. Erskine a repeal of the British orders? Unfortunately,
we know practically it was not. Was it such a repeal as the gentleman
contends ought to have taken place of the Berlin and Milan decrees,
viz: under the sign manual of the Emperor? No, sir, it was just such
a letter as that of the Duc de Cadore. In both cases the word of the
Minister was taken as a pledge, and, on examining the two letters, so
far as they may be considered a pledge, the words are nearly the same.
I approved of the arrangement with Mr. Erskine; so did the gentleman
from New York. I cannot see any difference in the ground taken by the
Executive, except that one arrangement was with Great Britain, and the
other with France. The one affected the interests of Great Britain; the
other affects the interests of France. The gentleman from New York,
more nice in distinctions than myself, may, perhaps, satisfy himself
and the people that these two cases are marked by lines so strong as
to render the conduct of the Executive in the one case an object of
applause and approbation for himself and his friends, and in the other
of suspicion and censure. It is not, however, my intention to pursue
the gentleman through his argument. There is one part of it which I
consider it a duty to pass in review, inasmuch as it is calculated
to give to the public an erroneous view of the grounds taken by the
Executive in the recent negotiation with Great Britain. The gentleman
says, the President has not only required of Great Britain to withdraw
her orders, but her blockades also. This, he says, she cannot and
never will yield. This declaration is made, too, in the presence of
the agent of Great Britain, who must have heard with delight the
American Executive held up to suspicion, and an American Representative
declare, on the floor of Congress, that demands were made on Great
Britain, not sanctioned by the law of the last session. In order, sir,
to support this declaration, the gentleman gives a view of the demands
of the Executive on Great Britain totally incorrect and contradicted by
every part of the correspondence before us. The gentleman tells you,
that we have demanded of Great Britain not a withdrawal of the Orders
in Council only, as contemplated by the law of last session, but of
her "novel blockades." To establish the demands of the Executive, he
turns, not to the correspondence, but to the Berlin or Milan decrees,
and takes for our demand on Great Britain the definition of blockade
given by the French Emperor. The gentleman is entirely mistaken as to
the demand made of Great Britain by the Executive. The revocation of
but one blockade, viz: that of May, 1806, is included in the demand of
the Executive. The features of this blockade render it different from
all other blockades. It is, in fact, from its character, more like the
Order in Council, a permanent regulation in commerce, than a blockade.
I will, however, first show from the correspondence, that the President
did not, under the act of the last session, require the revocation by
Great Britain of any blockade except that of May, 1806; and then, that
from the peculiar features of that blockade, it must have been included
in the demand made under the act of the last session. In the Message of
the President, at the commencement of the session, pages 4th and 5th,
we find the demand stated in the following terms:
"Under the modification of the original orders of November,
1807, into the orders of April, 1809, there is, indeed,
scarcely a nominal distinction between the orders and the
blockades. One of these illegitimate blockades, bearing
date in May, 1806, having been expressly avowed to be still
unrescinded, and to be, in effect, comprehended in the Orders
in Council, was too distinctly brought within the purview of
the act of Congress, not to be comprehended in the explanation
of the requisites to a compliance with it. The British
Government was accordingly apprised by our Minister near
it, that such was the light in which the subject was to be
regarded."
This is the language of the President. In pages 38 and 39 of the
correspondence, we find the declaration of Mr. Smith, our Secretary of
State, to General Armstrong, in the following words:
"If the non-intercourse law, in any of its modifications, was
objectionable to the Emperor of the French, that law no longer
exists.
"If he be ready, as has been declared in the letter of the Duke
of Cadore, of February 14, to do justice to the United States,
in the case of a pledge on their part not to submit to the
British edicts, the opportunity for making good the declaration
is now afforded. Instead of submission, the President is
ready, by renewing the non-intercourse against Great Britain,
to oppose to her Orders in Council a measure which is of a
character that ought to satisfy any reasonable expectation. If
it should be necessary for you to meet the question, whether
the non-intercourse will be renewed against Great Britain, in
case she should not comprehend, in the repeal of her edicts,
her blockades which are not consistent with the law of nations,
you may, should it be found necessary, let it be understood,
that a repeal of the illegal blockades of a date prior to the
Berlin decree, namely, that of May, 1806, will be included
in the condition required of Great Britain; that particular
blockade having been avowed to be comprehended in, and, of
course, identified with the Orders in Council. With respect to
blockades, of a subsequent date or not, against France, you
will press the reasonableness of leaving them, together with
future blockades not warranted by public law, to be proceeded
against by the United States in the manner they may choose to
adopt."
In pages 45 and 46, we have the declaration of General Armstrong and
the Duke de Cadore. Mr. E. then read the following:
_From General Armstrong to Mr. Pinkney._
PARIS, _January_ 25, 1810.
"SIR: A letter from Mr. Secretary Smith, of the first of
December last, made it my duty to inquire of His Excellency the
Duke of Cadore, what were the conditions on which his Majesty
the Emperor would annul his decree, commonly called the Berlin
decree; and whether, if Great Britain revoked her blockades,
of a date anterior to that decree, his Majesty would consent
to revoke the said decree? To these questions I have this day
received the following answer, which I hasten to convey to you
by a special messenger:
ANSWER.--"The only conditions required for the revocation,
by his Majesty the Emperor, of the decree of Berlin, will
be a previous revocation, by the British Government, of her
blockades of France, or a part of France, (such as that from
the Elbe to Brest, &c.,) of a date anterior to that of the
aforesaid decree."
In page 47, we have the statement of Lord Wellesley to Mr. Pinkney:
"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note
of the fifteenth ultimo, wherein you request to be informed
whether any, and if any, what blockades of France, instituted
by Great Britain during the present war, before the first day
of January, 1807, are understood by his Majesty's government
to be in force? I have now the honor to acquaint you, that
the coast, rivers, and ports, from the river Elbe to Brest,
both inclusive, were notified to be under the restrictions of
blockade, with certain modifications, on the 16th of May, 1806;
and that these restrictions were afterwards comprehended in the
Order of Council of the 7th of January, 1807, which order is
still in force."
In page 71 of the correspondence, Lord Wellesley declares, in a letter
to Mr. Pinkney:
"The blockade, notified by Great Britain in May, 1806, has
never been formally withdrawn. It cannot, therefore, be
accurately stated, that the restrictions which it established
rest altogether on the Order of Council of the 7th of
January, 1807; they are comprehended under the more extensive
restrictions of that order. No other blockade of the ports of
France was instituted by Great Britain, between the 16th of
May, 1806, and the 7th of January, 1807, excepting the blockade
of Venice, instituted on the 27th of July, 1806, which is still
in force."
From this, sir, it appears that if we are to credit the President,
the Secretary of State, General Armstrong, the Duc de Cadore, and
the British Minister, Lord Wellesley, the demand was confined to the
blockade of 1806. Was this blockade such a violation of the neutral
rights of the United States as to come decidedly within the act of the
last session? Let us examine its features. This blockade is a compound
one, presenting three distinct characters:
1. It obstructs a trade from one port to another of the same
enemy--France for example. This trade has been denied latterly though
not formerly, by Great Britain, to be free to neutrals. The United
States assert the neutral right to it.
2. It obstructs a trade from the port of one enemy to the port of
another--from a French to a Dutch port, for example. This is a
principle not before asserted by Great Britain. The present Cabinet of
Great Britain contended against its conformity to the law of nations,
in opposition to their predecessors, who attempted to justify the
orders of January, 1807, on that principle.
3. It obstructs the direct trade of neutrals from their own country
to any part of the coast from the Elbe to Brest--a coast not less
than a thousand miles. For this part of the blockade there can be no
defence which is not applicable to the Orders in Council. This blockade
has been continued for four or five years. No force, either adequate
or inadequate, has been stationed for carrying it into effect. No
new notification has been given. It is, in fact, like the Orders in
Council, a permanent regulation of commerce, and has nothing of the
character of a blockade, except the mere name. This blockade consists
in great part of the same prohibition with the orders of January,
1807, in which it is said to be comprehended; that is, against a trade
along the belligerent coast. If the orders be unlawful, therefore, the
blockade must be so; and if the orders be repealed as a violation of
neutral trade, in compliance with the act of Congress, the obligation
to repeal the blockade, as a like violation, cannot be contested. This
blockade of May, 1806, is in violation of the principles laid down
by all authors on the subject of blockade. It is in violation of the
principles laid down in all the treaties which attempted to define
a blockade. It is in violation of the principles contended for by
every Administration under the American Government, from the period
of WASHINGTON to the present time. The correspondence under General
WASHINGTON'S Administration, between the Secretary of State and Mr.
Hammond, may be referred to for the principles asserted under that
Administration. In the correspondence before us we have the principles
as laid down by General Marshall and Mr. King. To these I will refer.
Mr. E. then read the following extracts of letters from Mr. King and
Mr. Marshall:
_From Mr. King._
"Seven or eight of our vessels, laden with valuable cargoes,
have been lately captured, and are still detained for
adjudication; these vessels were met in their voyages to and
from the Dutch ports, declared to be blockaded. Several notes
have passed between Lord Grenville and me upon this subject,
with the view, on my part, of establishing a more limited and
reasonable interpretation of the law of blockade, than is
attempted to be enforced by the English Government. Nearly one
hundred Danish, Russian, and other neutral ships have, within
a few months, been, in like manner, intercepted, going to and
returning from the United Provinces. Many of them, as well as
some of ours, arrived in the Texel in the course of the last
winter; the severity of which obliged the English fleet to
return to their ports, leaving a few frigates only to make
short cruises off the Texel, as the season would allow.
"My object has been to prove that, in this situation of the
investing fleet, there can be no effective blockade, which, in
my opinion, cannot be said to exist without a competent force,
stationed and present at or near the entrance of the blockaded
port."
_Extract of a letter from Mr. King to Lord Grenville,
dated_
LONDON, _May_ 23, 1799.
"It seems scarcely necessary to observe, that the presence
of a competent force is essential to constitute a blockade;
and although it is usual for the belligerent to give notice
to neutral nations when he institutes a blockade, it is not
customary to give any notice of its discontinuance; and that
consequently the presence of the blockading force is the
natural criterion by which the neutral is enabled to ascertain
the existence of the blockade, in like manner as the actual
investment of a besieged place is the only evidence by which
we decide whether the siege is continued or raised. A siege
may be commenced, raised, recommenced and raised again, but
its existence at any precise time must always depend upon the
fact of the presence of an investing army. This interpretation
of the law of blockade is of peculiar importance to nations
situated at a great distance from each other, and between whom
a considerable length of time is necessary to send and receive
information."
_Extract of a letter from Mr. Marshall, Secretary of State, to
Mr. King, dated_