WASHINGTON, _June 1, 1812_.
A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the said message be
referred to the Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union:
And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 37, nays 85.
On motion of Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, the Message was referred to a
committee appointed on that part of the President's Message which
relates to our foreign relations.
TUESDAY, June 2.
The House met, and adjourned till to-morrow.
WEDNESDAY, June 3.
_Report on Foreign Relations._
Mr. CALHOUN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was
referred the Message of the President of the United States of the first
instant, made a report, stating at large the causes and reasons of a
war with Great Britain, which was read as follows:
"That, after the experience which the United States have had
of the great injustice of the British Government towards them,
exemplified by so many acts of violence and oppression, it
will be more difficult to justify to the impartial world their
impatient forbearance, than the measures to which it has become
necessary to resort, to avenge the wrongs, and vindicate the
rights and honor of the nation. Your committee are happy to
observe, on a dispassionate view of the conduct of the United
States, that they see in it no cause for censure.
"If a long forbearance under injuries ought ever to be
considered a virtue in any nation, it is one which peculiarly
becomes the United States. No people ever had stronger motives
to cherish peace; none have ever cherished it with greater
sincerity and zeal.
"But the period has now arrived, when the United States must
support their character and station among the nations of the
earth, or submit to the most shameful degradation. Forbearance
has ceased to be a virtue. War on the one side, and peace on
the other, is a situation as ruinous as it is disgraceful.
The mad ambition, the lust of power, and commercial avarice
of Great Britain, arrogating to herself the complete dominion
of the ocean, and exercising over it an unbounded and lawless
tyranny, have left to neutral nations an alternative only
between the base surrender of their rights, and a manly
vindication of them. Happily for the United States, their
destiny, under the aid of Heaven, is in their own hands. The
crisis is formidable only by their love of peace. As soon as it
becomes a duty to relinquish that situation, danger disappears.
They have suffered no wrongs, they have received no insults,
however great, for which they cannot obtain redress.
"More than seven years have elapsed since the commencement of
this system of hostile aggression by the British Government,
on the rights and interests of the United States. The manner
of its commencement was not less hostile than the spirit with
which it has been prosecuted. The United States have invariably
done every thing in their power to preserve the relations of
friendship with Great Britain. Of this disposition they gave
a distinguished proof at the moment when they were made the
victims of an opposite policy. The wrongs of the last war had
not been forgotten at the commencement of the present one. They
warned us of dangers, against which it was sought to provide.
As early as the year 1804, the Minister of the United States
at London was instructed to invite the British Government to
enter into a negotiation on all the points on which a collision
might arise between the two countries, in the course of the
war, and to propose to it an arrangement of their claims on
fair and reasonable conditions. The invitation was accepted.
A negotiation had commenced, and was depending, and nothing
had occurred to excite a doubt that it would not terminate to
the satisfaction of both the parties. It was at this time, and
under these circumstances, that an attack was made by surprise,
on an important branch of the American commerce, which affected
every part of the United States, and involved many of their
citizens in ruin.
"The commerce on which this attack was so unexpectedly made,
was that between the United States and the colonies of France,
Spain, and other enemies of Great Britain. A commerce just in
itself; sanctioned by the example of Great Britain, in regard
to the trade with her own colonies; sanctioned by a solemn act
between the two Governments in the last war; and sanctioned by
the practice of the British Government in the present war: more
than two years having then elapsed, without any interference
with it.
"The injustice of this attack could only be equalled by the
absurdity of the pretext alleged for it. It was pretended by
the British Government that, in case of war, her enemy had no
right to modify its colonial regulations, so as to mitigate
the calamities of war to the inhabitants of its colonies. This
pretension, peculiar to Great Britain, is utterly incompatible
with the rights of sovereignty in every independent State. If
we recur to the well-established, and universally admitted law
of nations, we shall find no sanction to it in that venerable
code. The sovereignty of every State is co-extensive with its
dominions, and cannot be abrogated, or curtailed in its rights,
as to any part, except by conquest. Neutral nations have a
right to trade to every port of either belligerents, which
is not legally blockaded, and in all articles which are not
contraband of war. Such is the absurdity of this pretension,
that your committee are aware, especially after the able
manner in which it has been heretofore refuted and exposed,
that they would offer an insult to the understanding of the
House, if they enlarged on it; and if any thing could add
to the high sense of injustice of the British Government in
this transaction, it would be the contrast which her conduct
exhibits in regard to this trade, and in regard to a similar
trade by neutrals, with her own colonies. It is known to the
world, that Great Britain regulates her own trade, in war
and in peace, at home and in her colonies, as she finds for
her interest; that in war she relaxes the restraints of her
colonial system in favor of the colonies, and that it never was
suggested that she had not a right to do it, or that a neutral,
in taking advantage of the relaxation, violated a belligerent
right of her enemy. But with Great Britain every thing is
lawful. It is only in trade with her enemies, that the United
States can do wrong: with them, all trade is unlawful.
"In the year 1793, an attack was made by the British Government
on the same branch of our neutral trade, which had nearly
involved the two countries in war. That difference, however,
was amicably accommodated. The pretension was withdrawn, and
reparation made to the United States for the losses which they
had suffered by it. It was fair to infer from that arrangement,
that the commerce was deemed by the British Government lawful,
and that it would not be again disturbed.
"Had the British Government been resolved to contest this trade
with neutrals, it was due to the character of the British
nation, that the decision should be known to the Government of
the United States. The existence of a negotiation which had
been invited by our Government, for the purpose of preventing
differences, by an amicable arrangement of their respective
pretensions, gave a strong claim for the notification, while
it afforded the fairest opportunity for it. But, a very
different policy animated the then Cabinet of England. Generous
sentiments were unknown to it. The liberal confidence and
friendly overtures of the United States were taken advantage
of to ensnare them. Steady to its purpose, and inflexibly
hostile to this country, the British Government calmly looked
forward to that moment when it might give the most deadly wound
to our interest. A trade, just in itself, which was secured
by so many strong and sacred pledges, was considered safe.
Our citizens, with their usual industry and enterprise, had
embarked in it a vast proportion of their shipping and of their
capital, which were at sea under no other protection than the
law of nations, and the confidence which they reposed in the
justice and friendship of the British nation. At this period,
the unexpected blow was given. Many of our vessels were seized,
carried into port, and condemned by a tribunal, which, while it
professes to respect the law of nations, obeys the mandate of
its own Government in opposition to all law. Hundreds of other
vessels were driven from the ocean, and the trade itself in a
great measure suppressed.
"The effect produced by this attack on the lawful commerce
of the United States, was as might have been expected from
a virtuous, independent, and highly-injured people. But
one sentiment pervaded the whole American nation. No local
interests were regarded, no sordid motives felt. Without
looking to the parts which suffered most, the invasion of our
rights was considered a common cause, and from one extremity
of our Union to the other, was heard the voice of a united
people, calling on their Government to avenge their wrongs, and
vindicate the rights and honor of the country.
"From this period, the British Government has gone on in a
continued encroachment on the rights and interests of the
United States, disregarding in its course, in many instances,
obligations which have heretofore been held sacred by civilized
nations.
"In May, 1806, the whole coast of the continent, from the Elbe
to Brest, inclusive, was declared to be in a state of blockade.
By this act, the well-established principles of the law of
nations, principles which have served for ages as guides, and
fixed the boundary between the rights of belligerents and
neutrals, were violated. By the law of nations, as recognized
by Great Britain herself, no blockade is lawful, unless it be
sustained by the application of an adequate force; and that
an adequate force was applied to this blockade, in its full
extent, ought not to be pretended. Whether Great Britain was
able to maintain legally so extensive a blockade, considering
the war in which she is engaged, requiring such extensive naval
operations, is a question which is not necessary at this time
to examine. It is sufficient to be known, that such force
was not applied, and this is evident, from the terms of the
blockade itself, by which, comparatively, an inconsiderable
portion of the coast only was declared to be in a state of
strict and rigorous blockade. The objection to the measure
is not diminished by that circumstance. If the force was not
applied, the blockade was unlawful, from whatever cause the
failure might proceed. The belligerent who institutes the
blockade, cannot absolve itself from the obligation to apply
the force, under any pretext whatever. For a belligerent to
relax a blockade which it could not maintain, with a view
to absolve itself from the obligation to maintain it, would
be a refinement in injustice, not less insulting to the
understanding, than repugnant to the law of nations. To claim
merit for the mitigation of evil which the party either had not
the power, or found it inconvenient to inflict, would be a new
mode of encroaching on neutral rights. Your committee think it
just to remark, that this act of the British Government does
not appear to have been adopted in the sense in which it has
been since construed. On consideration of all the circumstances
attending the measure, and particularly the character of the
distinguished statesman who announced it, we are persuaded that
it was conceived in a spirit of conciliation, and intended to
lead to an accomodation of all differences between the United
States and Great Britain. His death disappointed that hope, and
the act has since become subservient to other purposes. It has
been made, by his successors, a pretext for that vast system
of usurpation, which has so long oppressed and harassed our
commerce.
"The next act of the British Government which claims our
attention, is the Order of Council of January 7, 1807, by
which neutral powers are prohibited trading from one port to
another of France, or her allies, or any other country with
which Great Britain might not freely trade. By this order,
the pretensions of England, heretofore disclaimed by every
other power, to prohibit neutrals disposing of parts of their
cargoes at different ports of the same enemy, is revived, and
with vast accumulation of injury. Every enemy, however great
the number, or distant from each other, is considered one, and
the like trade, even with powers at peace with England, who,
from motives of policy, had excluded or restrained her commerce
was also prohibited. In this act, the British Government
evidently disclaimed all regard for neutral rights. Aware that
the measures authorized by it could find no pretext in any
belligerent right, none was urged. To prohibit the sale of our
produce, consisting of innocent articles, in any port of a
belligerent, not blockaded; to consider every belligerent as
one, and subject neutrals to the same restraints with all as if
there was but one, were bold encroachments. But to restrain,
or in any manner interfere with our commerce with neutral
nations, with whom Great Britain was at peace, and against whom
she had no justifiable cause of war, for the sole reason that
they restrained or excluded from their ports her commerce, was
utterly incompatible with the pacific relations subsisting
between the two countries.
"We proceed to bring into view the British Order in Council
of November 11, 1807, which superseded every other order, and
consummated that system of hostility on the commerce of the
United States, which has been since so steadily pursued. By
this order all France and her allies, and every other country
at war with Great Britain, or with which she was not at war,
from which the British flag was excluded, and all the colonies
of her enemies, were subject to the same restrictions as if
they were actually blockaded in the most strict and rigorous
manner; and all trade in articles, the produce and manufacture
of the said countries and colonies, and the vessels engaged in
it, were subjected to capture and condemnation as lawful prize.
To this order certain exceptions were made, which we forbear to
notice, because they were not adopted from a regard to neutral
rights, but were dictated by policy, to promote the commerce
of England, and so far as they related to neutral powers, were
said to emanate from the clemency of the British Government.
"It would be superfluous in your committee to state, that, by
this order, the British Government declared direct and positive
war against the United States. The dominion of the ocean was
completely usurped by it, all commerce forbidden, and every
flag driven from it, or subjected to capture and condemnation,
which did not subserve the policy of the British Government,
by paying it a tribute, and sailing under its sanction. From
this period, the United States have incurred the heaviest
losses, and most mortifying humiliations. They have borne the
calamities of war without retorting them on its authors.
"So far your committee has presented to the view of the House
the aggressions which have been committed, under the authority
of the British Government, on the commerce of the United
States. We will now proceed to other wrongs, which have been
still more severely felt. Among these is the impressment of
our seamen, a practice which has been unceasingly maintained
by Great Britain in the wars to which she has been a party
since our Revolution. Your committee cannot convey in adequate
terms the deep sense which they entertain of the injustice
and oppression of this proceeding. Under the pretext of
impressing British seaman, our fellow-citizens are seized in
British ports, on the high seas, and in every other quarter to
which the British power extends; are taken on board British
men-of-war, and compelled to serve there as British subjects.
In this mode our citizens are wantonly snatched from their
country and their families; deprived of their liberty, and
doomed to an ignominious and slavish bondage; compelled to
fight the battles of a foreign country, and often to perish
in them. Our flag has given them no protection; it has been
unceasingly violated, and our vessels exposed to dangers by
the loss of the men taken from them. Your committee need not
remark that, while this practice is continued, it is impossible
for the United States to consider themselves an independent
nation. Every new case is a new proof of their degradation.
Its continuance is the more unjustifiable, because the United
States have repeatedly proposed to the British Government an
arrangement which would secure to it the control of its own
people. An exemption of the citizens of the United States from
this degrading oppression, and their flag from violation, is
all that they have sought.
"This lawless waste of our trade, and equally unlawful
imprisonment of our seamen, have been much aggravated by the
insults and indignities attending them. Under the pretext
of blockading the harbors of France and her allies, British
squadrons have been stationed on our own coast, to watch
and annoy our own trade. To give effect to the blockade of
European ports, the ports and harbors of the United States
have been blockaded. In executing these orders of the British
Government, or in obeying the spirit which was known to animate
it, the commanders of these squadrons have encroached on our
jurisdiction, seized our vessels, and carried into effect
impressments within our limits, and done other acts of great
injustice, violence, and oppression. The United States have
seen, with mingled indignation and surprise, that these acts,
instead of procuring to the perpetrators the punishment due to
unauthorized crimes, have not failed to recommend them to the
favor of their Government.
"Whether the British Government has contributed by active
measures to excite against us the hostility of the savage
tribes on our frontiers, your committee are not disposed to
occupy much time in investigating. Certain indications of
general notoriety may supply the place of authentic documents,
though these have not been wanting to establish the fact
in some instances. It is known that symptoms of British
hostility towards the United States have never failed to
produce corresponding symptoms among those tribes. It is also
well known that, on all such occasions, abundant supplies
of the ordinary munitions of war have been afforded by the
agents of British commercial companies, and even from British
garrisons, wherewith they were enabled to commence that system
of savage warfare on our frontiers, which has been at all
times indiscriminate in its effect, on all ages, sexes, and
conditions, and so revolting to humanity.
"Your committee would be much gratified if they could close
here the detail of British wrongs; but it is their duty to
recite another act of still greater malignity than any of those
which have been already brought to your view. The attempt to
dismember our Union, and overthrow our excellent constitution,
by a secret mission, the object of which was to foment
discontents and excite insurrection against the constituted
authorities and laws of the nation, as lately disclosed by
the agent employed in it, affords full proof that there is no
bound to the hostility of the British Government towards the
United States; no act, however unjustifiable, which it would
not commit to accomplish their ruin. This attempt excites
the greater horror, from the consideration that it was made
while the United States and Great Britain were at peace, and
an amicable negotiation was depending between them for the
accommodation of their differences, through public Ministers,
regularly authorized for the purpose.
"The United States have beheld, with unexampled forbearance,
this continued series of hostile encroachments on their rights
and interests, in the hope that, yielding to the force of
friendly remonstrances, often repeated, the British Government
might adopt a more just policy towards them; but that hope no
longer exists. They have, also, weighed impartially the reasons
which have been urged by the British Government in vindication
of those encroachments, and found in them neither justification
nor apology.
"The British Government has alleged, in vindication of the
Orders in Council, that they were resorted to as a retaliation
on France for similar aggressions committed by her on our
neutral trade with the British dominions. But how has this plea
been supported? The dates of British and French aggressions are
well known to the world. Their origin and progress have been
marked with too wide and destructive a waste of the property
of our fellow-citizens to have been forgotten. The decree of
Berlin, of November 21st, 1806, was the first aggression of
France in the present war. Eighteen months had then elapsed
after the attack made by Great Britain on our neutral trade
with the colonies of France and her allies, and six months
from the date of the proclamation of May, 1806. Even on the
7th of January, 1807, the date of the first British Order
in Council, so short a term had elapsed after the Berlin
decree, that it was hardly possible that the intelligence of
it should have reached the United States. A retaliation which
is to produce its effect, by operating on a neutral power,
ought not to be resorted to till the neutral had justified it
by a culpable acquiescence in the unlawful act of the other
belligerent. It ought to be delayed until after sufficient
time had been allowed to the neutral to remonstrate against
the measures complained of, to receive an answer, and to
act on it, which had not been done in the present instance.
And, when the order of November 11th was issued, it is well
known that a Minister of France had declared to the Minister
Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, that it was
not intended that the decree of Berlin should apply to the
United States. It is equally well known, that no American
vessel had then been condemned under it, or seizure been
made, with which the British Government was acquainted. The
facts prove incontestably, that the measures of France,
however unjustifiable in themselves, were nothing more than a
pretext for those of England. And of the insufficiency of that
pretext, ample proof has already been afforded by the British
Government itself, and in the most impressive form. Although
it was declared that the Orders in Council were retaliatory on
France for her decrees, it was also declared, and in the orders
themselves, that, owing to the superiority of the British navy,
by which the fleets of France and her allies were confined
within their own ports, the French decrees were considered only
as empty threats.
"It is no justification of the wrongs of one power, that the
like were committed by another; nor ought the fact, if true, to
have been urged by either, as it could afford no proof of its
love of justice, of its magnanimity, or even of its courage.
It is more worthy the Government of a great nation to relieve
than to assail the injured. Nor can a repetition of the wrongs
by another power repair the violated rights or wounded honor
of the injured party. An utter inability alone to resist
could justify a quiet surrender of our rights, and degrading
submission to the will of others. To that condition the United
States are not reduced, nor do they fear it. That they ever
consented to discuss with either power the misconduct of the
other, is a proof of their love of peace, of their moderation,
and of the hope which they still indulged, that friendly
appeals to just and generous sentiments would not be made to
them in vain. But the motive was mistaken, if their forbearance
was imputed either to the want of a just sensibility to their
wrongs, or a determination, if suitable redress was not
obtained, to resent them. The time has now arrived when this
system of reasoning must cease. It would be insulting to repeat
it. It would be degrading to hear it. The United States must
act as an independent nation, and assert their rights, and
avenge their wrongs, according to their own estimate of them,
with the party who commits them, holding it responsible for its
misdeeds, unmitigated by those of another.
"For the difference made between Great Britain and France, by
the application of the non-importation act against England
only, the motive has been already too often explained, and
is too well known to require further illustration. In the
commercial restrictions to which the United States resorted as
an evidence of their sensibility, and a mild retaliation of
their wrongs, they invariably placed both powers on the same
footing, holding out to each, in respect to itself, the same
accommodation, in case it accepted the condition offered, and,
in respect to the other, the same restraint if it refused.
Had the British Government confirmed the arrangements which
was entered into with the British Minister in 1809, and
France maintained her decrees, with France would the United
States have had to resist, with the firmness belonging to
their character, the continued violation of their rights. The
committee do not hesitate to declare, that France has greatly
injured the United States, and that satisfactory reparation
has not yet been made for many of those injuries. But that
is a concern which the United States will look to and settle
for themselves. The high character of the American people is
a sufficient pledge to the world that they will not fail to
settle it, on conditions which they have a right to claim.
"More recently, the true policy of the British Government
towards the United States, has been completely unfolded. It has
been publicly declared by those in power, that the Orders in
Council should not be repealed until the French Government had
revoked all its internal restraints on the British commerce;
and that the trade of the United States with France and her
allies, should be prohibited, until Great Britain was also
allowed to trade with them. By this declaration, it appears
that, to satisfy the pretensions of the British Government,
the United States must join Great Britain in the war with
France, and prosecute the war until France should be subdued;
for without her subjugation, it were in vain to presume on
such a concession. The hostility of the British Government to
these States has been still further disclosed. It has been made
manifest that the United States are considered by it as the
commercial rival of Great Britain, and that their prosperity
and growth are incompatible with her welfare. When all these
circumstances are taken into consideration, it is impossible
for your committee to doubt the motives which have governed the
British Ministry in all its measures towards the United States
since the year 1805. Equally it is impossible to doubt, longer,
the course which the United States ought to pursue towards
Great Britain.
"From this review of the multiplied wrongs of the British
Government since the commencement of the present war, it must
be evident to the impartial world, that the contest which is
now forced on the United States, is radically a contest for
their sovereignty and independence. Your committee will not
enlarge on any of the injuries, however great, which have had a
transitory effect. They wish to call the attention of the House
to those of a permanent nature only, which intrench so deeply
on our most important rights, and wound so extensively and
vitally our best interests, as could not fail to deprive the
United States of the principal advantages of their Revolution,
if submitted to. The control of our commerce by Great Britain,
in regulating, at pleasure, and expelling it almost from the
ocean; the oppressive manner in which these regulations have
been carried into effect, by seizing and confiscating such of
our vessels, with their cargoes, as were said to have violated
her edicts, often without previous warning of their danger;
the impressment of our citizens from on board our own vessels
on the high seas, and elsewhere, and holding them in bondage
till it suited the convenience of their oppressors to deliver
them up; are encroachments of that high and dangerous tendency,
which could not fail to produce that pernicious effect; nor
would these be the only consequences that would result from it.
The British Government might, for a while, be satisfied with
the ascendency thus gained over us, but its pretensions would
soon increase. The proof which so complete and disgraceful a
submission to its authority would afford of our degeneracy,
could not fail to inspire confidence, that there was no limit
to which its usurpations, and our degradation, might not be
carried.
"Your committee, believing that the free-born sons of America
are worthy to enjoy the liberty which their fathers purchased
at the price of so much blood and treasure, and seeing in the
measures adopted by Great Britain, a course commenced and
persisted in, which must lead to a loss of national character
and independence, feel no hesitation in advising resistance by
force; in which the Americans of the present day will prove to
the enemy and to the world, that we have not only inherited
that liberty which our fathers gave us, but also the will and
power to maintain it. Relying on the patriotism of the nation,
and confidently trusting that the Lord of Hosts will go with us
to battle in the righteous cause, and crown our efforts with
success, your committee recommend an immediate appeal to arms."
On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the doors were then closed, and the House
sat with doors closed the remainder of the day's sitting.
A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH that the proceedings upon
the said Message of the President be had and conducted with open
doors; and the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 45, nays 77.
On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the said report was ordered to lie on the
table.
_Declaration of War._
On a motion made, and leave given, Mr. CALHOUN, from the same
committee, presented a bill declaring war between Great Britain and her
dependencies and the United States and their territories; which was
read the first time; and opposition being made thereto by Mr. RANDOLPH,
the question was taken in the form prescribed by the rules and orders
of the House, to wit: "Shall the bill be rejected?" And determined in
the negative--yeas, 45, nays, 76.
The bill was then read the second time, and committed to a Committee of
the Whole to-day.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
said bill; and, after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the
Chair, and Mr. BASSETT reported that the committee had had the said
bill under consideration, and made some progress therein, and had
directed him to ask leave to sit again.
_Ordered_, That the Committee of the whole House have leave to sit
again on the said bill.
And then the House adjourned until to-morrow morning eleven o'clock.
THURSDAY, June 4.
A motion was made by Mr. MILNOR that the doors of the House be now
opened; and was determined in the negative.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill declaring War between Great Britain and her Dependencies and
the United States and their Territories; and after some time spent
therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. BASSETT reported that
the committee had had the said bill under consideration, and made no
amendment thereto.
A motion was then made by Mr. QUINCY to amend the said bill, by adding
thereto a new section, as follows:
"SEC. ----. _And be it further enacted_, That, from and after
the passage of this act, 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,' passed the first day of May, one thousand
eight hundred and ten; and, also, the act, entitled 'An act
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,"' passed the second day of March, one thousand eight
hundred and eleven; and, also, the act, entitled 'An act laying
an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of
the United States for a limited time,' passed the fourth day of
April, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, be, and the same
hereby are, repealed."
A motion was thereupon made by Mr. NELSON, that the bill and the
proposed amendment be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House:
And the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative.
The question was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. QUINCY;
and determined in the negative--yeas 42, nays 82.
No other amendment being proposed to the said bill, the question was
taken that it be engrossed, and read the third time; and passed in the
affirmative--yeas 78, nays 45, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson
Archer, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William
Blackledge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William Butler,
John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran,
John Clopton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Roger Davis,
John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle,
William Findlay, James Fisk, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn,
Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John
A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson,
Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefevre,
Peter Little, Wm. Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, Thomas
Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim, Samuel
L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson,
Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens,
William Piper, James Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, William M.
Richardson, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan
Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam
Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong,
John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert
Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Robert Wright,
and Richard Wynn,.
NAYS.--John Baker, Josiah Bartlett, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam
Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus
Champion, Martin Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport,
jr., William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold,
Charles Goldsborough, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip
B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., George C. Maxwell,
Archibald McBryde, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Jonathan O.
Mosely, Thomas Newton, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr.,
Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, William Reed,
Henry Ridgely, William Rodman, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart,
Lewis B. Sturges, George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin
Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton,
Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.
_Ordered_, That the said bill be read the third time to-day.
The said bill was engrossed, and read the third time accordingly, and
the question stated that the same do pass: Whereupon, a motion was
made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the farther consideration of the said bill
be postponed until the first Monday in October next; and the question
thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 42, nays
81.
A motion was then made by Mr. STOW, that the farther consideration of
the said bill be postponed until to-morrow; and the question thereon
being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 48, nays 78.
A motion was then made by Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, that the House do now
adjourn; and the question thereon being taken, it was determined in the
negative--yeas 43, nays 82.
The question was then taken, that the said bill do pass; and resolved
in the affirmative--yeas 79, nays 49, as follows:
YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,
Daniel Avery, David Bard, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,
William Blackledge, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, William
Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Langdon Cheves, James
Cochran, John Clopton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford, Roger
Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle,
William Findlay, James Fisk, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn,
Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Boiling Hall, Obed Hall, John
A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson,
Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph Lefevre,
Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon,
Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel McKee, Alexander McKim,
James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas
Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James
Pleasants, jr., Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson, Samuel
Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan Roberts, Ebenezer
Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel
Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong,
John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert
Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, Robert Wright,
and Richard Wynn.
NAYS.--John Baker, Josiah Bartlett, Harmanus Bleecker, Adam
Boyd, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus
Champion, Martin Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport,
jr., William Ely, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Chas.
Goldsborough, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip B. Key,
Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., George C. Maxwell, Archibald
McBryde, Arunah Metcalf, James Milnor, Samuel L. Mitchill,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Thomas Newbold, Joseph Pearson, Timothy
Pitkin, jr., Elisha R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph,
William Reed, Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Thomas Sammons,
Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges,
George Sullivan, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Peleg
Tallman, Uri Tracy, Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton,
Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.
_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act declaring War between Great
Britain and her Dependencies, and the United States and their
Territories."
Mr. MACON and Mr. FINDLAY were appointed a committee to carry the
bill entitled "An act declaring War between Great Britain and her
Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories," to the
Senate, and to inform them that the House of Representatives have
passed the same, in confidence, and to request their concurrence
therein.
THURSDAY, June 18.
_Bill Declaring War._
A confidential message was received from the Senate, by a committee
of that body appointed for the purpose, consisting of Mr. ANDERSON
and Mr. VARNUM, notifying the House that the Senate have passed the
bill, entitled "An act declaring War between Great Britain and her
Dependencies, and the United States and their Territories," with
amendments; in which they desire the concurrence of the House.
The House proceeded to consider the said amendments; when a motion was
made by Mr. SHEFFEY, that the said bill and amendments be postponed
indefinitely.
A motion was then made by Mr. MILNOR, that the said bill and amendments
do lie on the table; and the question thereon being taken, it passed in
the affirmative--yeas 71, nays 46.
The House resumed the consideration of the amendments of the Senate to
the aforesaid bill; when the question recurred on the motion of Mr.
SHEFFEY, and, being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 44,
nays 85, as follows:
YEAS.--John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus Bleecker, James
Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion, Martin
Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr., William Ely,
James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough,
Edwin Gray, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr., Philip B. Key,
Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., Archibald McBryde, James Milnor,
Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph Pearson, Timothy Pitkin, jr., Elisha
R. Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, William Reed, Henry
M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford,
Philip Stuart, Silas Stow, Lewis B. Sturges, George Sullivan,
Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Uri Tracy, Pierre Van
Cortlandt, jr., Laban Wheaton, Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.
NAYS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,
Daniel Avery, David Bard, Josiah Bartlett, Burwell Bassett,
William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Adam Boyd, Robert Brown,
William A. Burwell, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis
Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John Clopton, Lewis
Condict, William Crawford, Richard Cutts, Roger Davis, John
Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle, William
Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson
Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed
Hall, John A. Harper, Aylett Hawes, John M. Hyneman, Richard
M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner Lacock, Joseph
Lefevre, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel
Macon, George C. Maxwell, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Samuel
McKee, Alexander McKim, Arunah Metcalf, James Morgan, Jeremiah
Morrow, Hugh Nelson, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen
Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William Piper, James Pleasants, jr.,
Benjamin Pond, William M. Richardson, Samuel Ringgold, John
Rhea, John Roane, Nathaniel Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer
Seaver, John Sevier, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, John Smilie,
George Smith, John Smith, Wm. Strong, John Taliaferro, George
M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill, David R.
Williams, William Widgery, Robert Wright, and Richard Wynn.
A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the said bill and amendments
be postponed until the first Monday in October next. And the question
thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas 49, nays
80.
A motion was then made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the said bill and
amendments be postponed until the first Monday in July next. And the
question thereon being taken, it was determined in the negative--yeas
51, nays 79.
The said amendments were then concurred in by the House. And Mr. MACON
and Mr. FINDLAY were appointed a committee to inform the Senate of the
concurrence of the House in the said amendments.
Mr. CRAWFORD, from the Joint Committee for Enrolled Bills, reported
that the committee had examined the said bill, and had found the same
to be truly enrolled; when the Speaker signed the said bill, and the
Committee of Enrollment were ordered to take it to the Senate, for the
signature of their President.
Shortly after, Mr. CRAWFORD, from the same committee, reported that the
committee had presented the said bill to the President of the United
States, for his approbation, and that they were instructed by the
President to inform the two Houses that he had approved and signed the
same.
On motion of Mr. CALHOUN, the injunction of secrecy was removed from
so much of the journals as relates to the President's Message of the
1st instant, with the proceedings thereon. And then the House adjourned
until to-morrow morning, 11 o'clock.
FRIDAY, June 19.
_Occupation of Florida._
On motion of Mr. TROUP,
_Resolved_, That the committee to whom was referred so much of the
President's Message, at the commencement of the session, as relates
to the Spanish American colonies, be instructed to inquire into the
expediency of authorizing the President of the United States to occupy
East and West Florida without delay.
And then the doors were opened.
MONDAY, June 22.
On motion made, and leave given, Mr. MITCHILL, from the committee
appointed on that part of the President's Message, at the commencement
of the session, which relates to Spanish American colonies, presented a
bill authorizing the President of the United States to take possession
of a tract of country lying south of the Mississippi Territory, of the
State Georgia, and for other purposes; which was read the first time.
When a question was taken whether the subject matter of the said bill
required secrecy; and passed in the affirmative--yeas 71, nays 44.
The said bill was then read the second time, and committed to a
Committee of the Whole to-morrow; and the doors were then opened.
THURSDAY, June 25.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill
authorizing the President to take possession of a tract of country
lying south of the Mississippi Territory, of the State of Georgia, and
for other purposes; and, after some time spent therein, the Speaker
resumed the chair, and Mr. LEWIS reported that the committee had had
the said bill under consideration, and made an amendment thereto;
which he delivered in at the Clerk's table, where it was again read,
and concurred in by the House. The question was then taken that the
said bill be engrossed, and read the third time; and passed in the
affirmative--yeas 70, nays 48, as follows:
YEAS.--William Anderson, Stevenson Archer, Burwell Bassett,
William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, Robert Brown, William
Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis Carr, Matthew Clay, James
Cochran, John Clopton, Lewis Condict, William Crawford,
Richard Cutts, Roger Davis, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel
Dinsmoor, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Thomas
Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L. Green, Felix Grundy,
Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper, John M. Hyneman,
Richard M. Johnson, Joseph Kent, William R. King, Abner
Lacock, Peter Little, Aaron Lyle, Nathaniel Macon, George C.
Maxwell, Thomas Moore, William McCoy, Alexander McKim, Samuel
L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh Nelson,
Anthony New, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens,
William Piper, Samuel Ringgold, John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan
Roberts, Ebenezer Sage, Ebenezer Seaver, John Sevier, Samuel
Shaw, John Smilie, George Smith, John Smith, William Strong,
John Taliaferro, George M. Troup, Charles Turner, jr., Robert
Whitehill, David R. Williams, William Widgery, and Robert
Wright.
NAYS.--Ezekiel Bacon, John Baker, Abijah Bigelow, Harmanus
Bleecker, James Breckenridge, Elijah Brigham, William A.
Burwell, Epaphroditus Champpion, Langdon Cheves, Martin
Chittenden, Thomas B. Cooke, John Davenport, jr., William Ely,
James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas R. Gold, Charles Goldsborough,
Edwin Gray, Aylett Hawes, Jacob Hufty, Richard Jackson, jr.,
Philip B. Key, Lyman Law, Joseph Lewis, jr., William Lowndes,
Archibald McBryde, Jas. Milnor, Jonathan O. Mosely, Joseph
Pearson, Timothy Pitkin jr., James Pleasants, jr., Elisha R.
Potter, Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, William M. Richardson,
Henry M. Ridgely, William Rodman, Thomas Sammons, Adam Seybert,
Daniel Sheffey, Richard Stanford, Philip Stuart, Lewis B.
Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Pierre Van Cortlandt, jr., Laban
Wheaton, Leonard White, and Thomas Wilson.
_Ordered_, That the said bill be read the third time to-day.
The said bill was engrossed, and read the third time accordingly: When
a motion was made by Mr. RIDGELY, that the same be postponed until
Monday next; and the question being taken, it was determined in the
negative.
The question was then taken that the said bill do pass; and resolved in
the affirmative.
_Ordered_, That the title be, "An act authorizing the President to
take possession of a tract of country lying south of the Mississippi
Territory and of the State of Georgia, and for other purposes."
Mr. MITCHILL and Mr. TROUP were appointed a committee to carry the said
bill to the Senate, and inform them that this House have passed the
same, in confidence, and request their concurrence therein; and the
doors were then opened.
FRIDAY, June 26.
A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH, that the injunction of secrecy
imposed by this House on the bill, entitled "An act authorizing the
President to take possession of a tract of country lying south of
the Mississippi Territory and of the State of Georgia, and for other
purposes," together with the injunction of secrecy imposed upon the
proceedings of the said bill, be taken off: and, on the question that
the House do now proceed to the consideration of the said motion, it
was determined in the negative.
A motion was then made by Mr. RIDGELY, that the House do come to the
following resolution:
_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested, if, in his opinion, it be compatible with the
public interest, to lay before this House, confidentially or
otherwise, full information of all the proceedings that have
been had under and by virtue of the act of Congress, entitled
"An act to enable the President of the United States, under
certain contingencies, to take possession of the country lying
east of the river Perdido, and south of the State of Georgia
and the Mississippi Territory, and for other purposes;" and
also copies of all instructions that may have been issued by
the Executive branch of this Government under the said act.
And on the question that the House do now proceed to the consideration
of the said resolution, it passed in the affirmative--yeas 78, nays 38.
The question was then taken that the said resolution do pass; and
resolved in the affirmative--yeas 58, nays 51.
WEDNESDAY, July 1.
Mr. RIDGELY, from the committee appointed, on the 26th ultimo, to
present a resolution to the President of the United States, reported
that the committee had performed that service, and that the President
answered, that a due attention should be paid to the subject.
_Occupation of Florida._
A Message was then received from the President of the United States, by
Mr. Coles, his Secretary, who delivered in the same, and withdrew.
The Message was read, and is as follows:
_To the House of Representatives of the United States:_
In compliance with the resolution of the House of
Representatives, of the twenty-sixth of June, I transmit the
information contained in the documents herewith enclosed.