Mr. WHEATON said he conceived this section to involve an infraction of
the constitution. Any person who had contracted a debt had certainly
given a pledge, not only of his property, but of his body to his
creditor. It is the creditor's right to take his body in default of
payment, and the creditor was by this section, in the case of those
enlisting in the army, completely taken out of his hands. Ample
encouragement, Mr. W. said, might be given to enlistments without
infringing the constitution. He had no objection to privilege the
soldier from arrest after enlistment, but he could not consent to the
passage of a law, having an _ex post facto_ operation, which went to
exempt him from obligations previously contracted. He therefore moved
to strike out the words "before or" from the second section above
recited.
Mr. BACON spoke in support of this provision. It was necessary to guard
against fraud. He said, in the village in which he lived, such frauds
had been committed, by the creation of fictitious debts, under which
a person enlisting had procured himself to be arrested. After this
arrest, on giving bail, he was set at large. Whilst going at liberty,
his commander had attempted to take him; but a writ of _habeas corpus_
having been taken out, it had been determined by the courts that a
man was the property of his bail until the suit was determined. And
that determination, Mr. B. said, would never take place so long as
the United States had an occasion for the man's services; because, by
the same collusion which commenced it, the suit may be continued from
term to term of court, until the term of enlistment has expired. He
had merely stated facts. He had known an instance of an officer being
obliged to move his whole corps over the line to avoid these petty
depredations on their ranks; and he would venture to say that the
officers would much rather face the enemy in the field, than the host
of legal depredators in Massachusetts, on those enlisted for the public
service. The principle of this provision was not novel, he said, for it
existed already.
The motion to strike out the section was then negatived by a large
majority.
The third section was then read.
Mr. STOW rose and said, that the respect he felt for the House, seemed
to forbid that he should propose to them any thing not fully matured:
but, that at the same time the objections to one section of the bill
under consideration, appeared to him so many and so important, that he
could not refrain from urging them, though as he feared in somewhat of
an irregular and desultory way. In excuse he said, he had supposed the
present bill agreeable to the one reported in the Senate, and had not
observed the difference till that moment. His objections were to the
3d section, and which he should close by moving that it be stricken
out. He arranged his objections principally under three heads: 1st. Its
tendency to violate the public morals. 2d. Interference with public
economy--and 3d, its violation of the spirit of the Constitution of the
United States.
He remarked, that proper instruction and discipline of youth lay at
the bottom of all that was valuable in this life, and perhaps of the
life to come. That it was of great importance in every Government,
but above all that it was infinitely so in ours, where the people
were real sovereigns, and where the Government would be ill or well
administered, according as the youths were bred in temperance, virtue,
and obedience. This section of the bill goes to cut up those qualities
by the roots. It says to the uneasy boy in his teens, you may enlist
and throw off all parental authority; you may enlist and defraud the
parent or master, who has maintained you in your helpless state, of his
just reward. The strongest ties of affection and gratitude, you may,
by enlisting, dissolve in a moment. Nay, more, we say deliberately and
solemnly--we will pay this promoted villain $300 for his iniquity! For
such is the amount of the bounty and wages for three years. Who, sir,
will be most likely to avail himself of this privilege, or rather of
this course? Not the sober, faithful minor, who might be trusted in a
camp with some degree of safety, but the fickle, turbulent restless
youth, the one of all others who wants the salutary restraint of a
parent or guardian. This is the person whom you are about to allow to
plunge himself into all the dissipations, into all the seductions, and
into all the vices of a camp!
But, sir, said he, it is inhuman, as well as immoral. Humanity calls
upon you to take care of and educate the miserable offspring of the
poor. Who will take them; who will provide for their infancy, if at
the moment they are able to make any remuneration for this humane,
this tender care, you offer them $300 to turn ingrate? But, sir, not
only the public morals, but the public economy require that you should
not enlist minors without the consent of their parents, guardians, or
masters. What does public economy require, but that every one should
serve the Republic in that capacity in which he can be most useful?
And, sir, let me add that patriotism requires the same thing. If the
blacksmith or the farmer is most useful in his calling, there is as
much patriotism in attending to the anvil and the farm, as to the
bayonet and the sword. Men of mature age, by accepting the terms you
offer, or not, determine where they can be most useful; but does not
every principle of economy forbid that you should go into the private
family, the workshops, and the manufactory, regardless of the opinion
of the father and superintendent, and seduce the young man from
learning some useful and honorable employment, and in lieu thereof,
at that tender, at that doubtful period of human life, you plunge
him into all the immoralities of a camp, and turn him a vagabond on
society. No, sir, true economy requires that children should be well
educated, well governed, and faithfully bred to some honest calling.
The very principle, notwithstanding all the talk of patriotism, is
recognized in the price you offer for soldiers, as well by the former
law, as by the present bill. You offered by the former law, five
dollars per month, by the present bill eight dollars. That is, you
say to the world, that by being a soldier, you render to your country
services worth five or eight dollars. Now, sir, for five or eight
dollars per month is it prudent, is it economical, to dissolve the
all-important relation of governor and governed in respect to youth?
To break up your infant manufactories, and to deprive poor children at
once of a useful employment, and a home? But, sir, perhaps it will be
said that necessity, the safety of the Republic, requires this. When
the legions of Britain were upon our shores, when we were struggling
for our very existence, the necessity was not then thought sufficiently
imperious to warrant such a principle. Can it then be said, that with
treble the population, and in an offensive war, necessity requires the
dangerous innovation? Certainly not. Again, the law, then and now,
allows the soldier to be arrested for a debt amounting to two dollars;
and will you say, that the debt in which there can be no deception
incurred, for the most necessary of all things, food, clothing, and
instruction for infancy, shall be disregarded? I trust, sir, that a
principle so unreasonable will never prevail. But, lastly, said Mr.
S., I do contend that the clause is contrary to the spirit, if not the
letter, of the constitution. That constitution provides that private
property shall not be taken without reasonable compensation. The
property which a parent has in the services of his son, of a guardian
in the services of his ward, and a master in the services of his
servant, though differing widely in degree, is as real and oftentimes
more important than the farmer has in his personal estates, or the
planter in his slave. It also impairs the force of contract, which is
strictly interdicted to the States, and _a fortiori_ not to be done
to the General Government. For these and for many other reasons which
might be added, Mr. S. moved to strike out the third section of the
bill.
Mr. MILNOR said that if he understood the third section of the bill
under consideration, it allows recruiting officers to enlist minors
above the age of eighteen years, without regard to their situation as
apprentices to tradesmen, or living under the care and guardianship
of their parents; and its object was to hold out to young minds a
temptation to desert the useful course destined for them by their
friends, for the purpose of becoming soldiers. Now, said Mr. M.,
whatever may be the necessity of war, on some occasions, and however
necessary some might think that in which we are now engaged, which
was a question he should not now meddle with, he was desirous that
its operations should be so conducted, as to do as little injury as
possible to our fellow-citizens; and, as the leading principle in the
conduct of all politicians should be a regard to the public good,
he hoped for a general concurrence in this sentiment; that, for his
own part, he wished the war to be felt as little as possible in the
families and occupations of the people. We are not, said he, to be
organized into a military Government. However necessary some may deem
this war, all will desire a short one. Thank God, no Napoleon has yet
risen up amongst us to change our free institutions into a military
despotism. Encourage, if you please, a military spirit, that we may be
ready for the national defence, when necessary; but let it be done in
the spirit of the constitution, by means of a well-regulated militia;
let your citizens and your farmers surrender their apprentices and
children to be trained and instructed in military tactics, at stated
times, that, when arrived at the state of manhood, they may be ready
for their country's service. But what is here proposed? To go into the
workshop of the industrious mechanic, or into a parent's dwelling, and
entice away by the lure of money and military glory, the apprentice
and the child. No matter what moneys may have been expended in his
education, or how great has been parental exertion to advance the
future prospects of the child, any recruiting officer, or even a common
soldier, profligate in his principles, and inured to vicious habits, is
by this bill encouraged to seduce him from his duty.
Mr. TROUP said the objections to this provision were lame in their
nature; he only wished they were half as sound as they were novel.
It was the result of the experience of men older than themselves in
military concerns, that this very description of population, between
eighteen and twenty-one, constituted the strength and vigor of every
war. What was the fact as respected France? So just was this principle
in the contemplation of France, that her whole army is made up of
these young men; and yet an attempt is made to deter us from using
them by a flimsy pretext, that to employ them would be violating the
obligations of a contract and the principles of morality. If our
feelings and sympathies be suffered to influence us in favor of the
individual who voluntarily enlists, the reasons are much stronger in
favor of discharging one-half of those already in your ranks, than the
description just spoken of. There is scarcely any man over the age of
twenty-one years, between whom and other individuals there is not some
strong obligatory moral tie, which we ought not to sever if we could
conveniently avoid it. Look at the case of a husband deserting his wife
and children, or of a man, above twenty-one, deserting his aged parent,
dependent on him for subsistence. Are not these cases equally strong?
The doctrine of the gentlemen, whether on the score of morality or
expediency, will apply to cases above as well as below the age of
twenty-one.
Mr. GOLD premised, that he did not rise to enter into the general
policy of the war; nor could he deny it to be the duty of those who
have declared the war, to provide an army to carry it on. But he added,
it is better for the army to be augmented by very liberal bounties and
wages, than that important principles should be violated and an inroad
made upon the great relations and interests of society. Are gentlemen
aware how extensive is the province of master and apprentice? How
wide-spread the relation in the community? A sensation will be produced
which gentlemen seem not to have anticipated. The respective States
have, with studious care, legislated upon and regulated the various
duties and obligations of masters and apprentices. Under those laws,
a clear obligation is created upon the apprentice to serve till of
age; and in some States, to compensate for absence or desertion during
the stipulated apprenticeship; for a faithful performance, the parent
or guardian becomes responsible; and for non-performance, liable for
damages to the master. Can the authors of this bill imagine that those
solemn obligations contained in indentures of apprenticeship, will
dissolve and vanish under the charm of the bill? Can the fundamental
principles of the constitution, rendering contracts sacred, be thus
uprooted and destroyed? Can this bill deprive the master of his
action, secured to him by the laws of the State, against the master or
guardian for absence or desertion of the apprentice? Here is a most
serious bearing upon the laws of the States, regulating this important
relation. But gentlemen allege _necessity_; the army must be filled up;
officers are imposed on by fraudulent minors, who receive the bounty,
and then claim a release upon the plea of non-age. In answer, let
gentlemen beware how they yield to this fancied plea of necessity. All
history attests the danger of yielding essential principles to State
necessities; to temporary pressure and impulses; such precedents become
infinitely mischievous in society. No fancied benefit can compensate
for the evil of such examples. How easy is it to remove much of the
complaints by providing that the minor, who shall impose upon the
recruiting officer, shall refund the bounty he received before he shall
receive his discharge. Such a provision would be just, and not violate
general principles.
Mr. LITTLE.--In removing one evil, Mr. Chairman, let us beware that we
do not substitute a greater. The object of the section proposed to be
stricken out of the bill on your table, and now under consideration,
is to fill up the ranks of your army. From every attention I have been
able to bestow on this subject, which, permit me to say, I am anxiously
desirous, as much so, I trust, as any gentleman in this committee, to
see realized, will, if returned in its present shape, in my humble
opinion, be productive of much evil, and perhaps of little good. You
receive into the army, by voluntary enlistment, that description of our
fellow-citizens, at a time of life to them the most interesting and
auspicious as respects their future pursuits and welfare. I have always
been given to understand that the camp is but illy calculated in those
stations which they only can fill in the army, either to improve their
understandings or perfect them in such habits as are calculated to
acquire a respectable subsistence, or fit them for the domestic duties
of their future lives. In the course of nature, they, it may be truly
said, constitute the future strength and glory of every country. The
laws of this land render every act of theirs illegitimate. Abstract
from the consideration of a soldier, for which they are only rendered
fit from their corporeal powers, everything with them is premature; if
forced into existence, like the flower or fruit unseasonably raised in
a hot-bed, wears the external qualities, but, in fragrance and taste,
is unnatural and insipid.
Sir, have we not some reason to doubt the constitutionality of this
section. In its operation, it evidently will vitiate contracts, which
ought always to be held sacred, solemnly and voluntarily entered
into by the parent or guardian with the matter of an apprentice,
reciprocally beneficial, founded on the most laudable and praiseworthy
principles, on the faithful performance of which materially depends the
future welfare of the youth, to which I believe may reasonably be added
the comforts and good order of society. Do we not know, Mr. Chairman,
that, at that period of their lives and servitude, in which you make
them liable, if this section is retained, to be drawn from the service
of their masters, that then, and only then, are they enabled and become
qualified to make some remuneration for the pains and attention paid
to their improvement and instruction by the worthy and industrious
mechanic or manufacturer; and will you, by this unpropitious act,
endanger the future happiness of the former, and withhold that just
reward due to the industry of the latter? You annihilate this contract,
which ought to be held, if possible, inviolate by the Government. Every
principle of justice and sound policy dictates its rigid fulfilment.
Are we not aware, sir, of the immense sums now invested and actively
employed in the different manufactories distributed over our extensive
country? Do we not know that the manual labor of them is conducted
principally by such who now are, or will in time, come within the
provision of this section of your bill? Have this Government, and
the people of this country, no interest in the prosperity of these
manufactories? I have been always taught, and for one do religiously
believe, on their materials virtually depends the completion of our
independence as a nation. Let me entreat you to reflect before you
hazard this dangerous experiment, lest, in the adoption of this
hitherto novel principle, and in its operation, you may endanger the
safety, or, at least, the prosperity of our Republic, by giving its
manufactories a vital stab.
Sundry other amendments were proposed in the committee, after the bill
was reported to the House, and negatived. The bill was then ordered to
be engrossed for a third reading.
SATURDAY, November 21.
_Pay of the Army._
An engrossed bill "concerning the pay of the non-commissioned officers,
musicians, privates, and others of the Army, and for other purposes,"
was read the third time.
Mr. QUINCY.--Mr. Speaker, I am sensible that I owe an apology for
addressing you at so early a period of the session, and so soon
after taking my seat, if not to the House at least to my particular
constituents. It is well known to them, at least to very many of
them, for I have taken no pains to conceal the intention, that I came
to this session of Congress with a settled determination to take no
part in the deliberation of the House. I had adopted this resolution,
not so much from a sense of self-respect, as of public duty. Seven
years' experience in the business of this House, has convinced me that
from this side of the House all argument is hopeless; that whatever
a majority has determined to do, it will do in spite of any moral
suggestion, or any illustration made in this quarter. Whether it be
from the nature of man, or whether it be from the particular provisions
of our constitution, I know not, but the experience of my political
life has perfectly convinced me of this fact, that the will of the
Cabinet is the law of the land. Under these impressions, I have felt it
my duty not to deceive my constituents; and had, therefore, resolved by
no act or expression of mine, in any way, to countenance the belief,
that any representation I could make on this floor could be useful to
them, or that I could serve them any farther than by a silent vote.
Even now, sir, it is not my intention to enter into this discussion.
I shall present you my thoughts rather by way of protest than of
argument. And I shall not trouble myself afterwards with any cavils
that may be made; neither by whom, nor in what manner.
I should not have deviated from the resolution of which I have spoken,
were it not for what appears to me the atrocity of the principle, and
the magnitude of the mischief contained in the provisions of this
bill. When I speak of the principle as atrocious, I beg distinctly
to be understood as not impeaching the motives of any gentlemen, or
representing them as advocating an atrocious principle. I speak only of
the manner in which the object presents itself to my moral view.
It is the principle contained in the third section of the bill of
which I speak. That section provides, that "every person above the
age of eighteen years, who shall be enlisted by any officer, shall be
held in the service of the United States during the period of such
enlistment; any thing in any act to the contrary notwithstanding." The
nature of this provision is apparent, its tendency is not denied. It is
to seduce minors of all descriptions, be they wards, apprentices, or
children, from the service of their guardians, masters, and parents. On
this principle, I rest my objection to the bill. I meddle not with the
nature of the war. Nor is it because I am hostile to this war, both in
its principle and its conduct, that I at present make any objection to
the provisions of the bill. I say nothing against its waste of public
money. If eight dollars a month for the private be not enough, take
sixteen dollars. If that be not enough take twenty. Economy is not my
difficulty. Nor do I think much of that objection of which my honorable
friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. MILNOR) seemed to think a great deal;
the liberation of debtors from their obligations. So far as relates
to the present argument, without any objection from me, you may take
what temptations you please, and apply them to the ordinary haunts for
enlistment--clear the jails--exhaust the brothel--make a desert of
the tippling shop--lay what snares you please for overgrown vice, for
lunacy, which is of full age, and idiocy out of its time.
But here stop. Touch not private right--regard the sacred ties of
guardian and master--corrupt not our youth--listen to the necessities
of our mechanics and manufacturers--have compassion for the tears of
parents.
In order to give a clear view of my subject, I shall consider it under
three aspects--its absurdity--its inequality--its immorality.
In remarking on the absurdity of this principle it is necessary to
recur to that part of the Message of the President of the United States
at the opening of the present session of Congress, which introduced the
objects proposed in this bill to the consideration of the House; and
to observe the strange and left-handed conclusions it contains. The
paragraph to which I allude is the following:
"With a view to that vigorous prosecution of the war, to
which our national faculties are adequate, the attention of
Congress will be particularly drawn to the insufficiency of
existing provisions for filling up the Military Establishment.
Such is the happy condition of our country, arising from the
facility of subsistence and the high wages for every species
of occupation, that, notwithstanding the augmented inducements
provided at the last session, a partial success only has
attended the recruiting service. The deficiency has been
necessarily supplied during the campaign, by other than regular
troops, with all the inconveniences and expense incident to
them. The remedy lies in establishing more favorably for the
private soldier, the proportion between his recompense and the
term of enlistment. And it is a subject which cannot too soon
or too seriously be taken into consideration."
Mr. Speaker--What a picture of felicity has the President of the United
States here drawn in describing the situation of the yeomanry of this
country! Their condition happy--subsistence easy--wages high--full
employ. To such favored beings what would be the suggestions of love,
truly parental? Surely that so much happiness should not be put at
hazard. That innocence should not be tempted to scenes of guilt. That
the prospering ploughshare should not be exchanged for the sword. Such
would be the lessons of parental love. And such will always be the
lessons which the President of the United States will teach in such a
state of things, whenever a father of his country is at the head of the
nation. Alas! Mr. Speaker, how different is this Message! The burden of
the thought is, how to decoy the happy yeomen from home, from peace,
and prosperity, to scenes of blood--how to bait the man-trap; what
inducements shall be held forth to avarice, which neither virtue nor
habit, nor wise influences, can resist. But this is not the whole. Our
children are to be seduced from their parents. Apprentices are invited
to abandon their masters. A legislative sanction is offered to perfidy
and treachery. Bounty and wages to filial disobedience. Such are the
moral means by which a war, not of defence or of necessity, but of
pride and ambition, should be prosecuted. Fit means to such an end.
The absurdity of this bill consists in this: in supposing these
provisions to be the remedy for the evil, of which the President
complains. The difficulty is, that men cannot be enlisted. The remedy
proposed is, more money--and legislative liberty to corrupt our
youth. And how is this proved to be a remedy? Why it has been told
us, on the other side of the House, that this is the thing they do in
France. That the age between eighteen and twenty-one is the best age
to make soldiers. That it is the most favorite age, in Bonaparte's
conscription. Well, sir, what then? Are we in France? Is Napoleon our
king? Or is he the President of the United States? The style in which
this example has been urged on the House, recalls to my recollection
very strongly a caricature print which was much circulated in the early
period of our Revolutionary war. The picture represented America as
a hale youth, about eighteen or twenty-one, with a huge purse in his
pocket. Lord North, with a pistol at his breast, was saying "deliver
your money." George the Third, pointing at the young man, and, speaking
to Lord North, said, "I give you that man's money for my use." Behind
the whole group was a Frenchman capering, rubbing his hands for joy,
and exclaiming, "Be Gar! just so in France!" Now, Mr. Speaker, I have
no manner of doubt, that the day that this act passes, and the whole
class of our Northern youth is made subject to the bribes of your
recruiting officers, that there will be thousands of Frenchmen in these
United States, rubbing their hands for joy, and exclaiming, "Be Gar!
just so in France." Sir, the great mistake of this whole project lies
in this: that French maxims are applied to American States. Now it
ought never to be lost sight of by the legislators of this country,
that the people of it are not and never can be Frenchmen--and, on the
contrary, that they are, and can never be any thing else than freemen.
The true source of the absurdity of this bill, is a mistake in the
nature of the evil. The President of the United States tells us that
the Administration have not sufficient men for their armies. The reason
is, he adds, the want of pecuniary motive. In this lies the error. It
is not pecuniary motive that is wanting to fill your armies. It is
moral motive in which you are deficient. Sir, whatever difference of
opinion may exist among the happy and wise yeomanry of New England,
in relation to the principle and necessity of this war, there is very
little, or at least much less diversity of sentiment, concerning the
invasion of Canada, as a means of prosecuting it. They do not want
Canada as an object of ambition; they do not want it as an object of
plunder. They see no imaginable connection between the conquest of
that province and the attainment of those commercial rights which
were the pretended objects of the war. On the contrary, they see, and
very plainly too, that if our Cabinet be gratified in the object of
its ambition, and Canada become a conquered province, that an apology
is immediately given for extending and maintaining in that country
a large military force; under pretence of preserving the conquered
territories--really, with a view to overawe adjoining States. With this
view of that project the yeomanry of New England want that moral motive
which will alone, in that country, fill your armies with men worthy
enlisting. They have no desire to be the tools of the ambition of any
man, or any set of men. Schemes and conquest have no charms for them.
Abandon your projects of invasion; throw your shield over the seaboard
and the frontier; awe into silence the Indians in your territory;
fortify your cities; take the shackles from your commerce; give us
ships and seamen; and show the people of that country a wise object of
warfare; and there will be no want of men, money, or spirit.
I proceed to my second objection, which was to the inequality of the
operation of the provisions of this bill. It is never to be forgotten,
in the conduct of the Government of these United States, that it is a
political association of independent sovereignties, greatly differing
in respect of wealth, resource, enterprise, extent of territory, and
preparation of arms. It ought, also, never to be forgotten, that the
proportion of physical force which nature has given does not lie within
precisely the same line of division with the proportion of political
influence which the constitution has provided. Now, sir, wise men,
conducting a political association thus constructed, ought always to
have mainly in view, not to disgust any of the great sections of the
country, either in regard to their interests, their habits, or their
prejudices. Particularly ought they to be cautious not to burden any
of the great sections in a way peculiarly odious to them, and in
which the residue of the States cannot be partakers, or at least only
in a very small degree. I think this principle of political action is
incontrovertible. Now, sir, of all the distinctions which exist in
these United States, that which results from the character of the labor
in different parts of the country, is the most obvious and critical.
In the Southern States, all the laborious industry of the country is
conducted by slaves; in the Northern States it is conducted by the
yeomanry, their apprentices, or children. The truth is, that the only
real property, in the labor of others, which exists in the Northern
States, is that which is possessed in that of minors--the very class of
which, at its most valuable period, this law proposes to divest them.
The planter of the South can look round upon his fifty, his hundred,
and his thousand of human beings, and say, These are my property. The
farmer of the North has only one or two _ewe lambs_--his children--of
which he can say, and say with pride, like the Roman matron, "These
are my ornaments." Yet these, this bill proposes to take from him, or
(what is the same thing) proposes to corrupt them--to bribe them out of
his service; and that, too, at the very age when the desire of freedom
is the most active, and the splendor of false glory the most enticing.
Yet, your slaves are safe; there is no project for their manumission in
the bill. The husbandman of the North, the mechanic, the manufacturer,
shall have the property he holds in the minors subject to him put to
hazard. Your property in the labor of others is safe. Where is the
justice--where the equality--of such a provision?
It is very well known in our country--indeed it is obvious, from the
very nature of the thing--that the exact period of life at which
the temptation of this law begins to operate upon the minor, is the
moment when his services begin to be the most useful to the parent or
master. Until the age of 18, the boy has hardly paid to the parent
or master the cost of his clothing and education. Between the age of
18 and 20, is just the period of profit to the father and master. It
is also the period at which, from the approximation towards manhood,
service begins to grow irksome, and the desire of liberty powerful.
The passions are then, also, in their most ungoverned sway; and the
judgment, not yet ripe, can easily be infatuated and corrupted by the
vain dreams of military glory. At this period, your law appears with
its instruments of seduction. It offers freedom to the minor's desire
of liberty--plunder to his avarice--glory to his weakness. In short,
it offers bounty and wages for disobedience to his natural or social
obligations. This is a true view of this law. That it will have that
full operation which its advocates hope and expect--that it will fill
your armies with runaways from their masters and fathers--I do not
believe; but, that it will have a very great operation, I know. The
temptation to some of our youth will be irresistible. With my consent,
they shall never be exposed to it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope what I am now about to say will not be construed
into a threat. It is not uttered in that spirit; but only to evince the
strength of my convictions concerning the effect of the provisions of
this law on the hopes of New England, particularly of Massachusetts.
But pass it, and if the Legislatures of the injured States do not come
down upon your recruiting officers with the old laws against kidnapping
and man-stealing, they are false to themselves, their posterity, and
their country.
Mr. FISK expressed the astonishment he felt at the observation which
had fallen from the gentleman last up. He certainly agreed with the
gentleman in one thing: that those who are in pursuit of a favorite
object frequently overleap the bounds of reason and decorum in
support of it. Now, it had been a favorite object with that gentleman
to shield the British Government from blame; and it was an object
which he certainly pursued with the greatest ardor and anxiety. In
the address of that gentleman's political friends, in Congress, to
their constituents, subsequent to the declaration of war, it had been
deceptively said, that a disposition existed in the British Government
to make an arrangement on the subject of impressment. Now, sir, that
the ground is taken from under them, we hear that the object of the war
is an unrighteous one, and we are guilty of waging it. Is it indeed
guilty to defend our country? said Mr. F. The gentleman would overawe
the Indians. Sir, the most innocent party in the war against us is the
savage himself. How comes he in the ranks against us, with his tomahawk
and scalping knife? Why is he impelled to shed our blood? Why has the
gentleman shielded British instigation of their outrages?
Again, sir, has the gentleman no feeling for the sufferings, no ear
for the groans of our suffering seamen? Has he no sympathy for those
relations of life, from which the seamen is torn away, and for that
moral sentiment which is violated in that outrage--and are we _guilty_
because we seek to shield our citizens from it? Are we guilty because
we resist the British scalping knife? Recall the year '98 to your
recollection, sir, and the pompous display of energy at that day, and
the armies raised--to fight whom?--a few miserable Frenchmen whom they
could catch at sea. War was then a mere amusement. Why, that we are now
at war with the nation who has been seizing our property, capturing
our citizens, and carrying them into slavery--why are our means for
carrying on war to be limited?
As to the provision of this bill so much objected to, was it esteemed
such a violation of all right and principle in the commencement of
the Revolution to take children of sixteen years of age from their
parents? That was a period when the youth of the country were invited
to the field. I was one who accepted the invitation, and I have never
regretted it. But, says the gentleman, will you take the child from the
parent? Sir, which excites the most tears--a child leaving his parent
to defend his country, or a parent torn from his family and his country
to fight for a foreign power? The truth is, that most of those who
object to this bill would destroy all the means of carrying on the war,
if they could. It was not thought immoral in the war of the Revolution
to take youths of this age, nor were they the least efficient part of
our army.
Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said, if it was possible for him to keep down those
feelings of indignation which pressed upon his mind, in what he had now
to offer, he would speak with due respect to the orders of the House,
and not infringe its privileges. He wished, indeed, he had not occasion
to speak; but, sir, said he, it is my misfortune to be the Chairman
of the Military Committee, more, Mr. Speaker, by your partiality than
by any merit of mine. I am compelled to rise. I have been stigmatized
by the gentleman (Mr. QUINCY) as the introducer into this House of
an atrocious principle. If such language comports with our rules of
order, I must submit, seeing it is uttered where he is protected;
but, sir, I must pronounce it a libel on myself, and throw it back on
him who uttered it, as a foul, atrocious libel on the committee. Sir,
I came here not disposed to use such language; nothing but extreme
injury should extort it from me. I wish that the gentleman had kept
the resolve he informed us he had formed; as he could not do so, I
would that he had been good enough to spare me from the acrimony of
his remarks. Atrocity! The advocate of an atrocious principle! Let the
gentleman recur to those who originated this principle; let him go back
to the day of the Revolution, and damn the memory of the patriots of
those times, the fruit of whose labors he so ill deserves to enjoy. The
provisions of those days authorized the enlistment of all over the age
of sixteen years. Nor does the statement which the gentleman from New
York made alter the case, for if there be an increase of population
since the Revolution, there appears to be a correspondent deterioration
of patriotism. The gentleman from Massachusetts admits that a necessity
may exist to justify the course proposed by the bill. Well, sir, was
there ever a crisis calling on a people for vigorous exertions more
awful than that which impends over us now? Now, when a vile spirit of
party has gone abroad and distracted the Union? Now, that the State
which the gentleman represents is almost in arms against us? And, in
such a state of things are we to be told that we are espousing an
atrocious principle, because we are seeking for the means to defend
our country? The will of the President is the law of the land, says
the gentleman. How can he expect his arguments to be attended to,
when the first word he utters after taking his seat is to insult and
abuse every one opposed to him in opinion. I beg your pardon, Mr.
Speaker, I ask that of the House, for the language I am compelled to
use; but so long as I am a man, so help me God, when I am told I am
actuated by an atrocious principle, I will throw it back in the teeth
of the assertor as an atrocious falsehood. Look back on the principle
adopted by the friends of that gentleman--I wish I could say who were
his friends--I do not call the honest federalist, who is willing to
support his country's rights, his friend--even in England, the nation
from which he talks of receiving his religion and morality, and I
might add, his ideas of _our_ rights--even in that country they do not
prevent enlistment of minors--that is, they are not discharged on the
ground of minority. I have said before, sir, that we had examples in
our own Government, drawn not to be sure from the purest times, but
which more than covered the whole case. A law was passed in 1798 which
authorized the enlistment not only, of minors but every description
of persons whom the President of the United States thought proper to
have enlisted--which authorized him to send his recruiting sergeants
into every family and take those who suited him best. This was the
principle of his friends. Does the gentleman say that it was atrocious
in 1798 to defend ourselves against the French? But it has become so
now, seeing the defence we seek is against the English. The gentleman
has said we act on an absurd principle; that we have mistaken the means
of carrying on the war to effect: we want the moral means. By this I
presume he would be understood that the people are opposed to the war,
particularly to our land operations. There seems then to be no moral
objection to the war on the ocean. And, sir, if it be not immoral to
support the war on the ocean, on what possible principle can it be
immoral, in the same cause, to support it on the land? The war on both
elements is for the same object; not as the gentleman says, to rob and
plunder in Canada, but, according to the motto of the gallant Captain
Porter, for "free trade and sailors' rights."
Mr. PITKIN remarked that the power given to a recruiting officer
to enlist minors was a new principle. It had not been acted upon
before, or since the Revolution--this is a new mode of raising an
army; were gentlemen prepared to adopt this new principle? Although
by the resolves of the Congress of 1776, minors could be enlisted,
yet apprentices were exempted--and if any were enlisted, yet, on
proper application, they were discharged, unless it could be shown
the enlistment was with the consent of their masters or guardians.
By the law of '98, the President certainly could direct relative
to the age and size of a recruit--yet to whom did he apply? Not
to apprentices--not to wards--and then if an officer enlisted an
apprentice without the consent of his master, he could be taken away
from him by the writ of _habeas corpus_ and the officer held liable
for damages. The eleventh section of the law for raising an additional
military force contained a similar provision, and it was also necessary
the consent of the master or guardian should be in writing.
Mr. P. did not intend to meddle at all with the policy of war--he
should confine himself to the consideration of the most important
principle contained in the third section of the bill. The effect of
this bill goes to infringe all the State laws. They all provide for the
relations which exist between a master and his apprentice--a guardian
and his ward; if the apprentice runs away he can be procured and
brought back; and some of the States provide, that when the apprentice
comes again into the possession of his master, that he shall serve
not only the time lost, but an extra time, to remunerate his master
by these services for the losses he has sustained. If you take away
his apprentice you deprive him of his property--this is a loss to
the master, or he must recover where the services are due; that is,
of the parent or guardian, who are one of the contracting parties
to the indentures--and where is the remedy? Will not the officer be
also liable to the State laws? Does not the constitution say, no laws
shall be passed abrogating contracts? This bill will in its operation
sanction the violation of contracts, or it means nothing--it sanctions
the right to take away the property of guardians, parents or masters,
without providing any compensation for the same. I repeat, you are
introducing a new principle in the mode of administering Government.
The pressure is also beyond comparison unequal on the Northern States.
Do gentlemen plead the necessity of the case? Does a necessity exist
superior to the laws? Are we to understand that the _salus populi_
shall rule without control? If not, then what is meant by this grant to
take the property of your constituents, and leave them no remedy for
the injury? The honorable gentleman from South Carolina has referred to
the practice of other nations. Great Britain herself never incorporated
apprentices into her armies.
Mr. WILLIAMS admitted that apprentices were exempt--but minors were not.
Mr. PITKIN agreed but even when minors are enlisted without the consent
of their guardians or masters, they can be released by the writ of
_habeas corpus_. I believe that, in 1756, Great Britain passed an act
which was designed to extend to only the colonies; it allowed indented
servants to be enlisted into the army--but this act made provision for
the master, if the compensation was claimed within so many months after
enlistment, and the necessary facts were proved before any two justices
of the peace. Whether this act was ever carried into effect I do not
know--but I do know that compensation was provided for the property
taken from the master in the person of, his servant.
Mr. TROUP.--If a stranger in the gallery had listened to the member
from Massachusetts, he would have supposed that the provision of the
bill against which the gentleman's anathemas were most vehemently
levelled, authorized the recruiting sergeant to enter the house of the
citizen, drag from it the young man, and transport him, loaded with
chains, (as is said to be the practice of one nation of Europe,) to the
armies. Who would have supposed that the provisions merely authorized
the recruiting sergeant to accept the voluntary service of the young
man, between eighteen and twenty-one? The service due to the country,
prior in point of time, paramount in obligation, must yield, says
the gentleman, to the service due to the master, the parent, or the
guardian. If, sir, in the days of Rome's greatness, if in the proud
days of Grecian glory, the man could have been found base and hardy
enough to withhold the young men from the public service, to turn them
from the path of honor, or to restrain them from the field of fame,
he would have been hurled from the Tarpeian Rock or consigned to the
Cave of Trophonius. The young man is preferred here, not because he
is preferred in France, but because his physical constitution and
his moral temperament peculiarly qualify him for the arduous duties
of the field and camp; bodily vigor and activity, ardor, enterprise,
impetuosity; without family, and therefore without the cares which
family involve. No wife, no helpless children. Without care, but for
his country. Without fear, but for her dishonor. He is most eminently
qualified for the duties of the camp and the field; all experience has
proved it.
Mr. MACON said it appeared the House was now in a situation in which
it had frequently been heretofore; that is, they take up a very
small subject and make a very great one of it. The only question for
discussion appeared to him to be, whether or not they would enlist into
the Army young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. He was
very sorry that, at this early period of the session, a discussion
had been introduced into the House, which had at all times better be
let alone, that of foreign influence. He did not mean to discuss it;
but, if gentlemen were anxious for it, he was perfectly willing to
set aside a day for the consideration of the subject, and go about it
methodically. He regretted very much that the feature to which he had
alluded had been inserted in the bill; because he had been in hopes
that, on the question of raising the pay of the Army, they would, one
and all, have manifested a disposition to support the rights of the
country. In the hope that they would yet come to an agreement on the
subject; that they could give some vote of unanimity in relation to
the war, he should move for a recommitment of the bill, with a view to
amend it by striking out the third section. It appeared to him that,
until a man had acquired political rights, he ought not to be called
on to defend his country. The gentleman from South Carolina says the
principle of this section already exists in our militia laws. I admit
it; and hence, I have always, when our militia laws have been under
consideration, moved to strike out "eighteen" and insert "twenty-one."
I hope, if we do not take recruits under twenty-one, we will alter the
militia laws also, and let the country rely for its defence on those
who manage its concerns. He hoped the House would consent to recommit
the bill, and, in some one vote, show something like unanimity.
Mr. RANDOLPH rose to speak at the same moment with Mr. MACON, but,
being first seen by the SPEAKER, obtained the floor.
Mr. R. said that he was extremely happy, as he did not notice his
friend from North Carolina, at the time of his rising--in which case he
should certainly have given way to him according to custom--that he had
caught the Speaker's eye first. I was about to rise, said Mr. R., for
the purpose of making a similar motion; and there are considerations on
which it is unnecessary for me to dwell, and towards which I will not
even hint, that render it at least as agreeable to me that the motion
for recommitment should come from that respectable and weighty quarter,
rather than from myself. I shall vote for it upon the same grounds
which would have induced me ultimately to vote against the bill;
because it contains provisions, I might say principles, unsusceptible
of modification, and, in my judgment, hostile to all those principles
which I have hitherto entertained, and to which it is impossible for me
to give the sanction of my support. I shall not vote against the bill,
for some of the reasons urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts on
my right, (Mr. QUINCY,) with more of eloquence than temperance, and
answered in a style not dissimilar by my worthy friend on my left, (Mr.
WILLIAMS.) They both reminded me of a stroke of perhaps the only comic
poet this country has produced:
"The more they injured their side,
The more argument they applied."
The gentleman from Massachusetts touched a chord, which, he ought to
have known, was that which would insure the passage of this bill; which
would excite a temper that would indispose the House to listen to the
still small voice of conscience and of reason. I, sir, shall vote
for the recommitment of this bill, and for reasons which I am almost
ashamed to urge; which I hope to be excused for adducing. They have
nothing to do with the question of impressment, of maritime war, of the
invasion of Canada, of Indian warfare; but, sir, they are principles
which, from length of time, I am sorry to say, have grown so obsolete,
like some of the older statutes of those countries of more ancient date
than ourselves, that, though I am not ashamed of them, I am almost
ashamed to mention them--they are those professed by the Republican
party in the year 1798, which I had the honor of attempting, at least,
to support in those days--the principles, as reduced to record, of
the present Chief Magistrate of our country in those days. In truth,
it has been insinuated, if not asserted, with much more of candor than
of logical address, that the principles of the bill are those of the
former friends of the gentleman from Massachusetts on my left, from
which, I suppose, that gentleman has, in some way or other, deserted.
This goes to prove, as far as the authority of the gentleman from
Vermont and of my worthy friend from South Carolina has influence, that
a long course of opposition has instilled into the gentleman something
of the principles which did not belong to his friends while in power;
that he is a deserter from his party, and consequently that I have
remained a faithful sentinel at my post. I did not expect to hear it
said, sir, that this bill was not to be opposed because a similar bill
had been passed in what used to be called the Reign of Terror. In other
words, I did not expect to hear it stated that the principles of the
Administration of the predecessor of Jefferson, which, I suppose, he
would now be as ready to recant as any man in the nation, justified
the bill; that it ought to be passed, because it was fashioned in
conformity to such doctrines. It is now, sir, I think, some thirteen
or fourteen years ago, since a similar question was agitated on the
floor of this House, and it was my lot to be compelled to sustain the
same side of the question which I sustain to-day--for I will not use
the qualified term, _attempt_ to sustain, against one of the proudest
names in this country--against the man who now presides, I will not say
with what splendor of abilities, at the head of the judicial department
of our Government.[30] The House will readily agree that, plain must
have been that question which could have been supported with such
unequal odds; that strong must have been that side of the argument
against such an advocate. It was one of those occasions on which the
gentleman who then presided in the House declared "he never witnessed
a more unpromising debate:" it was so--for it was one of those which
tended to put that gentleman and his friends into the situation which
so many of them--I will not say all--for there are some illustrious
examples to the contrary--into the situation which many of them have
since occupied. It was an assertion of the great fundamental principles
of our Government against arbitrary, high-toned courtly notions. The
party then in power had been nearly as long in office as the party
now in power, and looked at the question pending before them, with a
very different eye, while they wielded the sceptre, than that with
which they look at the question now, when the sceptre is applied to
their backs. I am sorry to say that I fear that the converse of the
proposition is, in a great degree, true, and that those principles
which I then supported, and which were the ground of the revolution of
political sentiment in 1801 which thereafter ensued, have fallen, as
it were, in abeyance; that, in fact, we have forgotten our oracle.
I have said, on a former occasion, and if I were Philip, I would
employ a man to say it every day, that the people of this country,
if ever they lose their liberties, will do it by sacrificing some
great principle of free government to temporary passion. There are
certain great principles, which if they be not held inviolate at all
seasons, our liberty is gone. If we give them up, it is perfectly
immaterial what is the character of our Sovereign; whether he be King
or President, elective or hereditary--it is perfectly immaterial what
is his character--we shall be slaves--it is not an elective government
which will preserve us.
But I am afraid I have fallen somewhat into error, by wandering from
the course I proposed. On the occasion to which I have alluded, I
maintained that the provision of a bill then pending, similar to
that I now object to, was arbitrary, unconstitutional and unjust,
because it was in the nature of an _ex post facto_ law. It _is_ of the
nature of an _ex post facto_ law--it is more--it tends to exalt the
military authority over the civil--it is this or it is nothing. If
the section pronounce an ambiguous voice, to be construed according
to expediency, then is there so much greater reason to recommit the
bill, to reduce it to some shape which shall render it intelligible
to the meanest capacity. It goes to alter the nature of a remedy--to
impair the obligation of a contract. A man has contracted a debt, and
his creditors arrest him. He enlists. He enlists through the grates
of a prison, or within the limits of prison bounds. The contract
between this man and the creditor is varied by the law, because the
remedy of the creditor is changed. Let us not have a descant on the
cruelty of imprisonment for debt, and the expediency of introducing
other provisions on that subject. That is not the question. It is on a
law for exempting a particular class of men from those penalties and
provisions which attach to all other classes of society. The military
of all classes in society, that class which we are about to exempt
from the general provisions attaching to other classes, is that of
which the people of this country have been led by all our writers, by
all our authorities, to entertain the most watchful and justly founded
jealousy. It is on principles somewhat analogous to these, or rather
the same, much better enforced, that an opposition was maintained to
a law, not dissimilar in its provisions from this, in the winter of
1799-1800.
In the fury and tempest of his passion, my friend from South Carolina
seemed to overlook, what I thought he would be one of the last to
forget, that we live in a limited Government, possessing restricted
powers, which we cannot exceed. Has the constitution, with the most
jealous scrutiny, defined the privileges of a member of this House,
not permitting us to define our own, and made our principal privilege
an exemption from arrest; and do we clothe ourselves with a power of
exempting from arrest, _ad libitum_, a whole class of society--of
creating a privileged order? We are, indeed, a privileged order, but
we are privileged by the constitution. I ask the gentleman from South
Carolina whence he derives the power of creating a privileged order,
and, shall this assumption of power be attempted in favor of the
military, of all other classes? In my opinion, sir, the section to
which I have had reference is freighted with most fatal consequences.
I will suppose a case. Suppose a man had a writ served upon him, and
he afterwards enlists; that an escape warrant is taken out against
him, and a contest ensues between the recruiting sergeant and the
civil officer for this man, and that the civil authority supports its
officer by calling out the force at its disposal. What would be the
upshot? What is it to lead to? I need not state the consequences.
These principles, sir, were urged thirteen years ago; they are urged
now, in the same place, and on the same occasion. I cannot consent,
in deference to any gentlemen, however great their zeal, to admit
that I merely urged them at that time, from party views, to put down
one description of persons in order to get into their warm berths. I
cannot consent to such an admission, and, therefore, cannot give my
support to any bill which contains such provisions. I have said this
will be an _ex post facto_ law. It is so; it operates not only after
the right has accrued to the creditor to sue out his writ, but after
it is in a course of execution. Let me put another case. Suppose that
Congress were to pass a law that every malefactor under the sentence
of death, who enlisted in the Army, should not have the sentence of
the law executed on his body. Have you not as good a right to do that
as to pass this law? Would you consent to see a scuffle at the gallows
between the civil authority and the military for the body of that
wretch?
I will put another case, sir. A son, who is the only support of a
widowed and aged mother, in some moment of hilarity, perhaps of
intoxication, led astray by the phantom Glory, enlists in the army
of the United States. I speak of one who is a minor. Although I know
that freemen of this country cannot be property in the sense in which
a slave is property, yet, I do allow that the mother has a property
in the time of that child; that he is under an obligation from which
no human law can absolve him--an obligation imposed upon him by the
maternal throes that issued him into life--by the nourishment drawn
from the parent's breast--by the cherishing hand which fostered him
through imbecility and infancy. You have not a right to take him--I
hope, then, sir, that no question will be made of your power.
I put another case, said Mr. R. Although an apprentice and a minor
are not property in the sense in which a slave is property, there
is a class of men, unluckily, in certain parts of our country (in
Philadelphia, for instance--I mean that class called "redemptioners,")
who were sold but yesterday in the markets of that city. Is the
gentleman who represents that district (Mr. SEYBERT) willing that
they shall absolve themselves from their contract by enlisting in the
Army? If he is, I am. A redemptioner sold in Philadelphia for a term
of years, bought in the market as fairly as any other commodity--(I
say fairly, because bought with his own consent, and as he believes,
for his own advantage)--such a person, if tempted to enlist, will,
unquestionably, prefer the pay and emolument of the soldier in your
Army to his present situation. With regard to apprentices, I very
much fear, sir, that those who enlist will, for the greater part, be
of that description for whom their masters have advertised six cents
reward, and forewarned all persons from harboring them. I remember,
when a small boy, to have seen a series of prints by Hogarth, called
"The Progress of Industry and Idleness." The gradations were not more
regular than natural. The one ends with wealth, honor, and an eligible
matrimonial connection with the daughter of his master, with whom he
had been admitted into partnership; the other is brought up by the
gibbet. Their names were Thomas Idle and William Goodchild. I believe,
sir, that more of the Thomas Idles than of any other will enlist under
this law, and I sincerely hope they will; for I very much fear that
even William Goodchild, after he has gone through the discipline of a
camp for five years, will be utterly unfit for any other species of
employment. This is not all. There are other considerations, which I
forbear to touch--which, I should have supposed, would have brought
themselves home to the bosom of every gentleman in this House. Personal
indisposition has prevented my attendance in this House, and I did not
hear of this bill until last night. It was then mentioned to me by
one who is fast in the old faith, and has often brought the House to
a recollection of good old principles; and I did hope that they would
this day have received more strenuous aid from that quarter than they
have. I hope the House will refuse to pass the bill, if it were only
to show that there is some one act of the Administration of 1799-1800,
which the present possessors of power have not copied from their
statute book. There remains only this, and the eight per cent. stock
loan--and we are saved from the latter only by the infractions of that
law, which we imperiously refused at the last session to repeal. It is
the infractions of this law which has poured money into our coffers,
and saved us from the disgrace of an eight per cent. loan. There is
another part of this bill which strikes me as being inexpedient; but,
as I do not wish to blend considerations of expediency with those of
great and vital principles, I shall waive any thing on that head.
The question was then taken on the motion to recommit the bill, and
lost. For recommitment 42, against it 62.
The question was then taken that the said bill do pass; and resolved
in the affirmative--yeas 64, nays 37.
MONDAY, November 23.
_Proposed new State._
On motion of Mr. POINDEXTER, the House resolved itself into a Committee
of the Whole, on the bill to authorize the people of Mississippi
Territory to form a constitution and State Government, and for the
admission of the same into the Union.
Mr. RICHARDSON moved to strike out the first section of the bill.
This motion was supported by Mr. PITKIN, principally on the ground
of the inexpediency on general principle, of giving to a Territory
embracing a population of only twenty or thirty thousand souls, a
representation in the Senate equal to that possessed by other States,
some of which contained a million of inhabitants. Another objection
was, that the bill proposed to incorporate within a State the town and
citadel of Mobile, now in possession of a foreign power; and thus make
it the duty of a State to expel from its territory a force which the
President had not thought fit to remove.
The motion was opposed by Mr. POINDEXTER, who contended that the
population of the Territory was much greater than was represented; and
even if it were not what it is, that a precedent was to be found in
the incorporation of Ohio and of Louisiana. He represented in glowing
terms, the anxiety of the people of the Territory to be enabled to
bear their share of the expense as well as the dangers of the present
war in support of our just rights; in which cause they had already
employed twelve hundred militia, which the gentleman could not say
of the populous State he represented; and if that were not enough,
they were ready to put a bayonet into the hands of every man in the
Territory capable of bearing arms. As to the occupancy of Mobile by
the Spaniards, it was not a valid objection; but if it were, he said
he hoped it would soon be invalidated; he trusted that the spirit of
the country would aid the disposition of the Executive to repel every
foreign enemy from our territories.
The motion to strike out the first section was negatived, yeas 24.
After some amendment to the bill, the committee rose and reported it to
the House.
Mr. PITKIN renewed the motion to strike out the first section of the
bill; which was negatived by a large majority.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.
TUESDAY, November, 24.
_Mississippi Territory._
An engrossed bill to enable the people of the Mississippi Territory to
form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such
State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, was
read the third time; and, on the question that the same do pass, it
passed in the affirmative--yeas 63, nays 39.
WEDNESDAY, November 25.
_Constitution and Guerriere._
Mr. BASSETT communicated to the House the following documents:
NAVY DEPARTMENT, _Nov. 21, 1812_.
SIR: In order to enable the committee to form a satisfactory
opinion as to the compensation to be provided for the officers
and crew of the frigate Constitution, for the capture and
subsequent destruction of the British frigate the Guerriere, I
have the honor to state to you that the Constitution rated 44,
and mounted 55 guns; that the Guerriere rated 38 and mounted
54 guns. The Guerriere, although entirely dismasted, and in
other respects much crippled, could have been brought into
port without incurring any other risk than that of recapture;
but Captain Hull conceived that if he had manned the Guerriere
for the purpose of sending her into port, he would have so
far reduced the crew of the Constitution that he might have
subjected both vessels to capture. He presumed that, under
all circumstances, it would be better for him to destroy
the Guerriere, and preserve the force of the Constitution
unimpaired, and his having done so unquestionably proceeded
from the most patriotic considerations.
The Guerriere was a frigate of the first class in the
British navy; and, no doubt, when the engagement between the
Constitution and her commenced, she was completely fitted in
all respects for the most serious service. The cost of such a
ship, independently of her stores, could not have been less
than two hundred thousand dollars, and her stores were worth,
in all probability, fifty thousand dollars at least; besides,
she had on board a number of prize goods, the value of which
cannot be ascertained; but was probably equal to fifty thousand
dollars more. So that the whole value of the Guerriere, her
stores and prize goods, at the time the action commenced, may
fairly be estimated at three hundred thousand dollars.
Had Captain Hull have incurred the risk before mentioned, and
succeeded in getting the Guerriere into port, the officers
and crew of the Constitution, considering the Guerriere as
her equal, would have been entitled to the whole of the
Guerriere, her stores and prize goods. Sooner, however, than
run the risk of losing the Constitution, he determined to
destroy the whole. The question then arises, what, under these
circumstances, ought the officers and crew to be allowed? For
my own part, I have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion
that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars would not be too
liberal a provision, or too great an encouragement for the
great gallantry, skill, and sacrifice of interest displayed on
this occasion; and I am persuaded that, if such a provision
were made, the difficulties of manning our frigates, at present
experienced, would vanish.
It may further be remarked, that Captain Hull, while on the
cruise, on which he captured and destroyed the Guerriere, burnt
two enemy's vessels, viz: the brig Lady Warren and the brig
Adeora, and obliged the enemy to burn the brig Dolphin, with
a cargo of hemp and Russia goods, and to abandon an English
barque laden with timber: for no part of which have the
officers or crew of the Constitution received any compensation.
I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient
servant,