FEBRUARY 24, 1813.

The Message and accompanying documents were referred to the Committee

on Foreign Relations.

_Extra Session._

The House went into Committee of the Whole on the bill to alter

the time of the next meeting of Congress--a motion being under

consideration to fix on the fourth Monday in October.

Mr. GRUNDY spoke in reply to some observations of Mr. JOHNSON (on

yesterday) in favor of that day. Mr. G. was decidedly in favor of

meeting in May; he believed it necessary to the support of public

credit that the House should meet in May. Had not the Committee of

Ways and Means first taught him that an early session was necessary

with that view, if revenue should not, as it would not, be provided

at this session, he should not have been found advocating an extra

session. The House had been told by their financial committee, that it

was indispensably necessary forthwith to provide a revenue; and that a

paper system, without a foundation of permanent revenue, would involve

the nation in disgrace or irretrievable ruin. Mr. G. quoted various

reports of the Committee of Ways and Means to show that they had made

such statements. With these facts staring him in the face, how could

he do otherwise than urge an early session? If it was indispensably

necessary a day or two ago to provide a revenue, what had since

occurred obviating that necessity? Nothing. War had been declared,

and it was the duty of those who declared it to provide the ways and

means of carrying it on. Mr. G. protested against the idea which had

been advanced of giving enormous interest for loans, and against

accumulating a large debt, almost without the knowledge of the people

on whom it would be saddled, and expressed his determination, as far as

lay in his power, to go on and provide the ways and means.

SATURDAY, February 27.

_Power of Retaliation._

The bill giving to the President of the United States the power of

retaliation in certain cases therein mentioned, was read a third time.

A motion was made by Mr. QUINCY to adjourn--lost, 56 to 16.

The bill was then passed by the following vote:

YEAS.--Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Stevenson Archer,

David Bard, William Barnett, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb,

William Blackledge, William Butler, John C. Calhoun, Francis

Carr, Langdon Cheves, James Cochran, John Clopton, Richard

Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, Samuel Dinsmoor, Elias Earle,

Meshack Franklin, Thomas Gholson, Peterson Goodwyn, Isaiah L.

Green, Felix Grundy, Bolling Hall, Obed Hall, John A. Harper,

John M. Hyneman, Richard M. Johnson, William Kennedy, William

R. King, Peter Little, William Lowndes, Thomas Moor, William

McCoy, Samuel L. Mitchill, James Morgan, Jeremiah Morrow, Hugh

Nelson, Thomas Newton, Stephen Ormsby, Israel Pickens, William

Piper, James Pleasants, jr., John Rhea, John Roane, Jonathan

Roberts, Thomas B. Robertson, Adam Seybert, Samuel Shaw, George

Smith, John Taliaferro, Charles Turner, jr., Robert Whitehill,

David R. Williams, and Robert Wright.

NAYS.--Abijah Bigelow, Elijah Brigham, Epaphroditus Champion,

Martin Chittenden, James Emott, Asa Fitch, Thomas P. Grosvenor,

Lyman Law, Jos. Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Elisha R.

Potter, Josiah Quincy, William Reed, William Rodman, Daniel

Sheffey, Richard Stanford, and Leonard White.[35]

MONDAY, March 1.

_Foreign Licenses._

An engrossed bill to prohibit the use of licenses or passes, issued

under the authority of any foreign Government, was read the third time.

And on the question, "Shall this bill pass?" it passed in the

affirmative--yeas 59, nays 32.

_Relations with France._

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, after observing on the propriety of the House having

all the information on foreign affairs which was accessible; and

remarking, also, that they were much in the dark in respect to our

relations with France, moved the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

requested to cause to be laid before this House the French

decree, purporting to be a repeal of the Berlin decrees,

referred to in his Message of the 4th of November last;

together with such information as he may possess concerning

the time and manner of promulgating the same; and, also, any

correspondence or information touching the relations of the

United States with France, in the office of the Department of

State, not heretofore communicated, which, in the opinion of

the President, it is not incompatible with the public interest

to communicate.

And on the question to agree to the same, it passed in the

affirmative--yeas 102, nays 4.

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH and Mr. KENNEDY were appointed a committee to present

the said resolution to the President.

On motion, the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, March 2.

_Non-Exportations in Foreign Bottoms._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the

bill prohibiting the exportation of certain articles therein specified,

in foreign vessels.

Mr. CLAY spoke at considerable length in favor of this bill, as forming

a complete system, connected with one which passed the House the other

day, prohibiting the use of foreign licenses on board vessels of the

United States, suited to the present relations of the United States,

and to the proper action on the enemy.

Mr. ROBERTSON spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman, I do not often trespass

on the patience of the House, but I request their attention whilst I

state a few of the reasons which compel me to oppose the bill now under

consideration.

I am the more disposed to do this, because my opposition arises from

considerations in a great measure peculiar to myself, and because I

differ with gentlemen in the correctness of whose opinions I usually

concur. Without, then, considering the principles it involves, I reject

this bill, because it is not in fact what it professes to be; it is

not a restrictive measure; its provisions may operate prejudicially

on ourselves, but cannot affect the enemy. In one of two general

systems, I might go along with gentlemen. Let us have non-importation,

non-intercourse, and embargo--thus the restrictive system may have its

full bearing; let us refuse to purchase manufactures of the British;

let us refuse to furnish them with provisions, then we may be consoled

for the privations which we ourselves must experience, by reflecting on

the great evils which we inflict on the enemy.

I can but smile at the patriotism of honorable gentlemen, who affect

to starve the English by refusing to buy their manufactures, whilst

they inundate the army, the navy, the colonies of that nation, with

a profusion of all the necessaries and luxuries of life--they will

starve a few miserable manufacturers, whilst they industriously feed

their armed men. With the most glaring and barefaced inconsistency,

they object to admitting into our markets any the minutest article of

British manufacture, that the inhabitants may perish for the want of

means to purchase bread; whilst bread is exported with a hope that it

should, indeed a perfect certainty that it will be consumed by this

same people. I cannot concur in these half-way measures. I voted for a

repeal of the non-importation act. I hoped that commerce, sufficiently

hazardous and fettered by the present state of the world, would cease

to be shackled by ourselves. I hoped, that now the sword was drawn,

we should carry on war in the usual and accustomed manner--that the

Government would be aided by the receipt of revenue arising from

duties and imposts--that the people would be thus partially relieved

from taxes--that the nation would be strengthened and inspired by an

accession of wealth, now more than ever necessary.

But whatever, sir, might be my opinion of this bill, viewed as a

restrictive measure; for other considerations it meets with my decided

disapprobation. We prohibit neutrals from clearing out from our ports

with the productions of our country, whilst our own vessels are left

free to do so. We deny to them that commerce, which as a neutral

we formerly enjoyed. Heretofore we complained of the injustice of

belligerents, and now that we are engaged in war, and that too for

_neutral rights and free trade_, we are about to practise similar

abuses. Aware that some apology would be deemed necessary, we call it

a municipal regulation; it may be so--and perhaps we are borne out by

strict law; but we attempt a justification on the ground of cutting

off our enemy from supplies, of which he stands in need, and which,

notwithstanding his perilous situation, he dares to hope to receive

through a train of insolent artifices, derogatory to the integrity of

the Union, and disgraceful to those with whom they shall prevail.

Now, sir, if the measure proposed could in any way counteract his

views--if it went the full length of preventing him from procuring the

various articles which his necessities require, I confess it would

be inflicting a punishment, which not only the laws of war would

authorize, but which the unprecedented baseness of his late attempt

most loudly calls for; but no such effect will be produced. For what

is there to prevent our vessels from transporting the products of the

United States to Amelia, Pensacola, St. Bartholomews, there to be

deposited, and thence carried in neutral or British bottoms to Jamaica,

the Bahamas, or wheresoever else they may be wanted? And again, if,

notwithstanding the hostile attitude in which we stand in relation

to each other England is compelled to encourage a trade by license,

will not her necessities equally induce her to connive at exportation?

Can it be doubted, that her armed vessels would not be instructed to

allow our provisions to pass unmolested, when, by pursuing a contrary

conduct, she would be starving her own colonies? And is it not clear

that a traffic, which the war prevents from being direct, would

continue to be carried on, as it is at present, through intermediate

ports?

Mr. Chairman, the present scheme seems to me to be merely calculated to

produce vexation and embarrassment at home; to operate with peculiar

hardship on neutral rights, without inflicting on the enemy any injury

commensurate with these evils. Sir, if gentlemen wish to reap the full

effect of a restrictive system, that system must be rigid and complete.

Let our ports be sealed; let there be neither egress nor ingress;

let us neither buy nor sell, and let us prepare to bear the positive

burdens of active war. No section of our widely-extended Union could

then complain of _peculiar_ oppression. The plan would present itself

to us, recommended, at least, by the generality of its operation; by

the impartiality of its character. But, if this cannot be done, if

the shipping interests of some of the States, and the manufacturing

establishments of others, must be encouraged, and if others still must

sell their wheat and flour, let us pursue the opposite course; let

us sweep restrictive measures by the board; thus should we enjoy all

the advantages which would result to the Government from imposts, all

the benefits that would accrue to individuals from exports. In either

of these modes of proceeding I might concur; but I cannot consent to

the plan now submitted, nor acquiesce in the wisdom or policy of our

existing regulations. They are not promotive of the general welfare,

but, on the contrary, are ruinous to the interests of that portion

of the Union whose interest it is peculiarly my duty to protect.

Yet, I cannot help observing that, however under their oppressive

operation commerce languishes, and Southern agriculture is completely

annihilated, they are tolerated by the Eastern States, because they

promote their domestic manufactures, and impoverish and embarrass the

Government; and they are advocated and supported by the Middle States,

because they consider, or affect to consider them, as very patriotic;

because they inflict privations, which, by-the-by, they do not feel;

and, finally, because, nevertheless, they are enabled to sell off, at

excellent prices, the productions of their farms. Thus, sir, a feast

is spread before us; but it is served up, however splendidly and

abundantly, in shallow dishes; and, while the foxes of the Eastern and

Middle States lap up the soup with great dexterity, the storks of the

Mississippi, Mobile, and Altamaha, look on, perhaps with admiration,

but certainly with no satisfaction whatever. While, sir, the spleen of

hostility towards the Government is gratified, while the manufacturing

establishments of the East are promoted, while the middle section of

the Union disposes of, at high prices, the abundant harvest of their

fields, what becomes of the commerce of our country? What fate befalls

the agriculture of the South? Our cotton rots on the stalk. From this

proscription of foreign manufactures, the grower of the raw material is

irretrievably ruined. Possibly he may sell an inconsiderable portion

of his crop, for contemptible prices, to domestic manufacturers, while

he is compelled to buy, at enormous rates, the articles which his

wants require. If he wishes to sell, he finds no competition among

purchasers. Does he find it necessary to purchase, he suffers equally

from the want of competition among those who sell.

A debate of considerable length took place, in which Mr. CALHOUN

supported the bill, though opposed to the amendment made on motion of

Mr. QUINCY in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. GROSVENOR spoke as follows:

Mr. Speaker: When I had the honor to address you, on a measure which

has finally passed this House, I stated, at some length, my reasons for

believing that the Government had no serious intention to pass the bill

now before you. But, sir, from a furious zeal, this day manifested in a

certain quarter, to drive the measure through this House, I fear I was

mistaken. I therefore deem it an indispensable duty, in the name of

the commercial and agricultural districts which I represent, to enter

my solemn protest against this new project of the Government.

I shall not enter into any argument, to show the impolicy, the

injustice, and the danger of such a measure, considered as a measure

of non-exportation. The task has been most ably and successfully

performed by an honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. LOWNDES;)

he has shown, that connected with the maritime power of the enemy, and

with other bills already passed this House, this measure has all the

blasting qualities, without even the few equivocal benefits of a broad

restrictive system; and he has demonstrated the irreparable mischiefs

which must result from such weak and mongrel measures. His reasoning

has not been met--it cannot be refuted--I will not weaken its effect on

the House, by attempting to enforce it.

My principal object in rising, was to examine the grounds upon which

the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,) who

last addressed you, has rested his justification of the measure.

He has assured us, that it is not at all intended as a part of any

new system; that its object is in no respect a prohibition of free

and fair exportation. Sir, whatever gentlemen may intend, it is too

palpable for denial, that this measure is, in truth, a restrictive

and an anti-commercial measure, and in conjunction with the license

bill already passed, must operate (as far as such weak and unnatural

measures can operate) as a broad and iron system of non-exportation.

But, sir, what are the intention and the objects of the bill according

to the view of that honorable gentleman: "To avenge insult"--"to

retaliate on the enemy his attempts to destroy us"--"to carry to his

own lips his own poisoned chalice." And where are these insults, these

injuries, these vital attempts of the enemy to be found? Henry's

celebrated mission, after rioting for a time on the spoils of the

Treasury, has found the tomb of the Capulets. And although its ghost

seems to haunt the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, yet sure

I am, that a thing of air would not have inspired him with all those

bitter feelings which he has poured forth upon the enemy.

No, sir, it is the last Message of the President which contains all

this dreadful matter. In that Message came before us an Order in

Council by the Prince Regent, and a letter from a British Secretary,

to a West India Governor. Sir, by that order, certain West India ports

are opened to the importation of articles which they wish to purchase,

and to the exportation of produce which they wish to sell. This is no

new practice; in every European war, the belligerent mother country has

never failed to open some of her colonies to neutral commerce. By this

order nothing more is done, and so far from any insult or injury to us

in the body of the order, our nation is not even named.

The honorable gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) has

pertinently asked, to what extent you would carry your new principles

of honor and retaliation. The enemy spares the commerce of the East,

and destroys that of the South; you must equalize them by destroying

the former. You cannot stop here. If the enemy _blockades_ the South,

you must _embargo_ New England. If he burns Charleston and Norfolk,

you must burn New York and Boston. In fine, any thing spared in one

section of the Union by the enemy, which he has the power to destroy,

and not spared in another, must be destroyed by our Government, by way

of equalizing the burdens of the war.

The gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,) to whom I have so

often alluded, was disposed highly to compliment the people of the

Northern States. He declared his full confidence in their fidelity,

patriotism, and honor, and he believes that they will not only spurn

with contempt the attempt to seduce them, but will hail the present

measure as just, honorable, and wise. Sir, the patriotism of that

people is undoubtedly as warm and as disinterested as that of any

people on this globe; and if, indeed, this were an attack on their

honor, they would need no such law as this to teach them their duty,

or to compel them to perform it. But, sir, I do not believe that

their patriotism will feel insulted. They will hardly be satisfied by

flattery and compliment for this attack upon their commerce. I would

not be surprised if they should answer the honorable gentleman somewhat

in this manner: "Hands off, Mr. CALHOUN, if it please you; we do not

dislike your compliments; indeed, we are pleased with the notes of

this new tune from the South. We will do any thing in reason to oblige

you; but really, sir, to be complimented out of our commerce; to be

flattered into poverty; to be cowed into service, is a little more than

the rules of civility demand."

It has been avowed on this floor, [by Mr. Speaker CLAY,] that this bill

is only one part of a contemplated system of rigid non-exportation.

Have gentlemen reflected on the disastrous consequences of such a

system at the present time? The district which I have the honor to

represent, is a portion of an extensive tract of mercantile and

agricultural country, extending up the Hudson River far into the

interior of New York. The merchants and farmers of that country did

believe, that when you appealed to arms, your restrictive system was

at rest forever. They had a right so to believe, from the declarations

of gentlemen on this floor, and from the unequivocal conduct of

Government. Under this belief, during the present winter the merchants

have constantly purchased produce at high and advanced prices. In the

numerous villages scattered on either side of the Hudson River, and

over immense tracts far to the west of it, the stores are groaning

with the productions of their soil. Sir, when the Spring opens, they

will find all their prospects blasted, and bankruptcy staring in

their faces. Through the whole frozen interior of the North and East,

the condition of the merchants and farmers is similar, and similar

disastrous consequences will be realized.

We are involved in war with a nation powerful in her resources, clothed

in complete armor, and to whom, from long habit, a state of warfare has

become almost a national condition. We need all our resources and all

our energies to save this war from a disgraceful conclusion. What then

but madness can dictate a policy tending to dry up our resources and

paralyze our energies. Wounded by the spear of war, what but downright

political quackery could prescribe those "restrictive" nostrums, to

restore the nation to health and vigor? Are the old chimerical notions

of _starving_ the enemy, yet floating in the brains of gentlemen? In

despite of experience, do they yet believe that our blessed country

_alone_ can produce food for the world? Are the countries of the Baltic

and Caspian Seas no longer cultivated? Has the Nile ceased to fructify

the fields of Egypt? Have Sicily and the Barbary coasts returned to a

barren state of nature? Has France herself agreed to bury her surplus

breadstuffs in the earth? Or has England lost that ascendency on the

ocean, and forgot all those commercial arts, by which she was wont to

procure supplies from all those countries? Seven years of restrictions

have in vain been tried. Your enemy has laughed you to scorn, and your

own people have cursed the policy that crushed their prosperity. There

is no doubt that, as at the time you laid the embargo, the closing of

your ports now, might produce a temporary inconvenience to the enemy;

but the measure would finally and permanently recoil on our merchants,

and even farmers. These men have, therefore, a deep and vital interest

in this question. Twice already they have been sacrificed to test the

efficacy of our "restrictive energies."

Do you intend again to stretch them on the rack, again to cover the

country with sackcloth and ashes? Is another brood of "restrictive"

harpies, more unseemly and more hungry than their predecessors, to be

let loose among them? And is this bill a pioneer to the new swarms of

"continental" locusts?

Mr. Speaker, I shudder when I behold that anti-commercial demon, which

for seven years has been glutted with the mangled limbs of commerce,

still hovering about this bill. The deluded people did believe that,

when "you let slip the dogs of war," the monster had fallen, never

again to trample down their rights, or devour the remnant of their

prosperity. They were mistaken. He has risen invigorated from the blow;

like the horse leech, he continues to cry, "give, give!" He never will

be satisfied while the farmers of the North and the East are prosperous

and powerful, or while the ships of an independent merchant float

safely and successfully on the ocean. Sir, I do trust in Heaven, that

the people of this Union will not sleep forever--I do trust, that

the time is not far distant when the rulers of this nation shall be

compelled again to travel in the paths of peace, commerce, and honor. I

do trust that this new system, fraught as it is with new destruction,

will meet an effectual overthrow. On this floor, I have no hope of such

an event. The current of influence is here too strong to be resisted.

But if the God of nations "doth seek our rulers, and hath given our

Senators wisdom," it must find its grave in the other branches of the

Government.

Mr. QUINCY opposed the bill, and after some remarks from Mr. BLACKLEDGE

in reply to him, the question on concurring with the Committee of

the Whole in their amendment was taken, to wit: to strike out from

the fifth line of the first section, the words, "and every," and to

insert "wheat, flour, rice, cotton, tobacco, indigo, tar, pitch, or

turpentine, or any other article, the growth, produce, or manufacture

of the United States:." And passed in the affirmative--yeas 69, nays 29.

_Constitution and Java._

The House took up for consideration the resolution from the Senate

requesting the President of the United States to present to Captain

William Bainbridge a gold medal, with suitable inscriptions, and to

the officers of the frigate Constitution silver medals, in testimony

of the high sense entertained by Congress of their gallantry and skill

in achieving the capture and destruction of the British frigate Java;

which was read three times, and passed.

_Bounty to Privateers._

The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill allowing a

bounty to privateers; but the committee being unable to progress for

want of a quorum, it rose and reported the fact to the House; and

the bill and report were ordered to lie on the table, and the House

adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, March 3.

_Navy Yards._

On motion of Mr. REED,

_Resolved_, That the Secretary of the Navy be, and he is hereby,

directed to report to this House, at the next session of Congress, a

statement of the number of Navy Yards belonging to, and occupied for

the use of the United States; the accommodations provided in each, with

the number of officers and men attached to each, with their rank and

pay; also, the quantity and species of timber provided in each. Also, a

statement of the expenditures made in each yard during the years 1811

and 1812; the number of vessels required during that time, with the

species, quantity, and cost of repairs on each vessel, and the manner

in which such repairs have been made, whether by contract or otherwise,

and the terms. Also, the amount of timber provided under the law

making an annual appropriation of two hundred thousand dollars, with a

statement of the contracts made under said act, and the terms thereof:

Also, the number of officers in the naval service of the United States,

their rank, pay, and employ.

_Encouragement to Privateers._

The bill allowing a bounty to privateers was passed through a Committee

of the Whole, and ordered to lie on the table, under the impression

that it could not be acted on at the present session.

EVENING SITTING, _5 o'clock_.

_Thanks to the Speaker._

On motion of Mr. SAWYER,

_Resolved unanimously_, That the thanks of this House be presented to

HENRY CLAY, in testimony of their approbation of his conduct in the

discharge of the arduous duties assigned him while in the Chair.

Whereupon, the Hon. SPEAKER rose and made the following observations:

"I thank you, gentlemen, for the testimony you have just

so kindly delivered in approbation of my conduct in the

Chair. Amidst the momentous subjects of deliberation which

undoubtedly distinguish the 12th Congress as the most memorable

in the annals of America, it has been a source of animating

consolation to me, that I have never failed to experience the

liberal support of gentlemen in all quarters of the House. If

in the moment of ardent debate, when all have been struggling

to maintain the best interests of our beloved country as they

have appeared to us respectively, causes of irritation have

occurred, let us consign them to oblivion, and let us in the

painful separation which is about to ensue, perhaps forever,

cherish and cultivate a recollection only of the many agreeable

hours we have spent together. Allow me, gentlemen, to express

the fervent wish that one and all of you may enjoy all possible

individual happiness, and that in the return to your several

homes you may have pleasant journeys."

_Closing Business._

On motion of Mr. DAWSON, a committee was appointed, jointly with a

committee to be appointed by the Senate, to wait upon the President of

the United States, and inform him that the two Houses are now ready to

adjourn, and desire to know whether he has any further communication to

make to them during the present session.

Messrs. DAWSON and GROSVENOR were appointed the committee on the part

of the House.

The Senate agree to the resolution for the appointment of a joint

committee to wait on the President of the United States, and notify

him of the proposed recess of Congress, and have appointed a committee

on their part.

For some time a quorum was not present.

Bills from the Senate were waiting. A call of the House was had, and it

appeared that sixty-four members only were present.

After receiving from the President all the bills which had passed, and

being informed by the committee that he had no further communications

to make, the House adjourned _sine die_.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 4 (of 16) · 第 303 / 377 题