OCT. 21, 1803.

Mr. HUGER hoped the reading of the treaty and conventions would be

dispensed with, and that they would be printed for the use of the members.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped they would be read.

The reading of course was proceeded with, which being finished,

Mr. RANDOLPH moved a reference of the Message, and of the documents

accompanying it, to the whole House on Monday; which motion was agreed to

without a division.

Mr. RANDOLPH begged leave to submit a resolution, arising out of the

Message, which he hoped would be considered at that time, for the purpose

of referring it to the same committee to whom had been just referred the

Message:

_Resolved_, That provision ought to be made for carrying into

effect the treaty and convention concluded at Paris on the

30th April, 1803, between the United States of America and the

French Republic.

Referred to the same committee, without a division.

MONDAY, October 24.

_The Louisiana Treaty._

Mr. GRISWOLD moved the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

requested to cause to be laid before this House a copy of the

treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the first

of October, one thousand eight hundred, together with a copy

of the deed of cession from Spain, executed in pursuance of

the same treaty, conveying Louisiana to France, (if any such

deed exists;) also copies of such correspondence between the

Government of the United States and the Government or Minister

of Spain, (if any such correspondence has taken place,) as

will show the assent or dissent of Spain to the purchase of

Louisiana by the United States; together with copies of such

other documents as may be in the Department of State, or any

other Department of this Government, tending to ascertain

whether the United States have, in fact, acquired any title to

the province of Louisiana by the treaties with France of the

thirtieth of April, one thousand eight hundred and three.

Mr. GRISWOLD said that, by adverting to the Message of the President

respecting the treaty and conventions lately concluded between the United

States and the French Government, he found that the President, speaking

on the subject, observes: “As permanent arrangements for this object

require time and deliberation, it is for your consideration whether you

will not forthwith make such temporary provisions for the preservation,

in the meanwhile, of order and tranquillity in the country, as the case

may require.” He recommends to the immediate attention of Congress the

passage of some temporary laws. This being the case, and the subject

being about to be brought before the House, it became important that

they should know distinctly what they had obtained by the treaty; and

whether there were any territory belonging to the United States to take

possession of, or any new subjects to govern. Inasmuch as if no new

territory or subjects were acquired, it was perfectly idle to pass even

temporary laws for the occupation of the one, or the government of the

other.

In the treaty lately concluded with France, the treaty between France

and Spain is referred to; only a part of it is copied. The treaty

referred to must be a public treaty. In the nature of things it must

be the title-deed for the province of Louisiana. The Government must

have a copy of it. As there is but a part recited, it is evidently

imperfect. It becomes therefore necessary to be furnished with the whole,

in order to ascertain the conditions relative to the Duke of Parma; it

also becomes necessary to get the deed of cession; for the promise to

cede is no cession. This deed of cession, Mr. G. also presumed, was in

the possession of Government. It was also important to know under what

circumstances Louisiana is to be taken possession of, and whether with

the consent of Spain, as she is still possessed of it. If it is to be

taken possession of with her consent, the possession will be peaceable

and one kind of provision will be necessary; but if it is to be taken

possession of in opposition to Spain, a different provision may be

necessary. From these considerations he thought it proper in the House to

call upon the Executive for information on this point. Other important

documents may, perhaps, likewise be in the hands of the President.

Mr. RANDOLPH hoped the resolution would not be agreed to. He was well

apprized of the aspect which it was in the power of ingenuity to give to

a refusal, on the part of that House, to require any information which

gentlemen might think fit to demand of the Executive, however remotely

connected with subjects before them. But the dread of imputations

which he knew to be groundless should never induce him to swerve from

that line of conduct which his most sober judgment approved. Did he

indeed conceive that the nation, or the House, entertained a doubt

of our having acquired new territory and people to govern; could he

for a moment believe that even a minority, respectable as to numbers,

required any other evidence of this fact than the extract from the treaty

which had just been read, he would readily concur with the gentleman

from Connecticut in asking of the Executive, whether indeed we had

a new accession of territory and of citizens, or, as that gentleman

had been pleased to express himself, subjects to govern. He hoped the

gentleman would excuse a small variation from his own phraseology,

since, notwithstanding the predilection which some Governments and some

gentlemen manifested for this form, Mr. R. asked for himself the use of

such as were more familiar to American ears and American constitutions.

The Executive has laid before this House an instrument, which he tells

us has been duly ratified, conveying to the United States the country

known under the appellation of Louisiana. The first article affirms the

right of France, to the sovereignty of this territory, to be derived

under the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, which it quotes. The third article

makes provision for the future government, by the United States, of its

inhabitants; and the fourth provides the manner in which this territory

and these inhabitants are to be transferred by France to us. There

has been negotiated a convention, between us and the French Republic,

stating, in the most unequivocal terms, that there does exist on her part

a right to the country in question, which is supported by the strongest

possible evidence, and pledging herself to put us in possession of that

right, so soon as we shall have performed those stipulations, on our

part, in consideration of which France has conveyed to us her sovereignty

over this country and people. From the nature of our Government, these

stipulations can only be fulfilled by laws to the passing of which the

Legislature alone is competent. And when these laws are about to be

passed, endeavors are made to impede, or frustrate, the measure, by

setting on foot inquiries which mean nothing, or are unconnected with

the subject, and this is done by those who have always contended that

there was no discretion vested in this House by the constitution, as to

carrying treaties into effect. If, sir, gentlemen believe that we must

eventually do that which rests with us, towards effecting this object,

to what purpose is this inquiry? Mr. R. begged the House not to impute

to him any disposition to countenance this monstrous doctrine, whose

advocates now found it so difficult to practise. On the contrary, he

held in the highest veneration the principle established in the case of

the British Treaty, and the men by whom it was established, that, in all

matters requiring legislative aid, it was the right and duty of this

House to deliberate, and upon such deliberation, to afford, or refuse,

that aid, as in their judgments the public good might require. And he

held it to be equally the right of the House to demand such information

from the Executive, as to them appeared necessary to enable them to form

a sound conclusion on subjects submitted, by that department, to their

consideration. But those who then contended that this House possessed no

discretion on the subject, that they were bound implicitly to conform

to the stipulations, however odious and extravagant, into which the

treaty-making power might have plunged the nation--those who then said

that we cannot deliberate, are now instituting inquiries to serve as the

basis of deliberation--(for if we are not to deliberate upon the result,

why institute any inquiry at all?)--inquiries, which are in their very

nature deliberation itself. But whilst he arraigned the consistency of

other gentlemen, Mr. R. said that it behoved him to assert his own.

Information on subjects of the nature of that which they were then

discussing, might be required for two objects: to enable the House to

determine whether it were expedient to approve a measure which on the

face of it carried proof of its impolicy; or to punish ministers who may

have departed from their instructions--who may have betrayed the interest

confided by the nation to their care.

To illustrate this remark, let us advert to the case of the Treaty

of London, generally known as Mr. Jay’s treaty. That instrument had

excited the public abhorrence. The objections to carrying it into

effect were believed insuperable. This sentiment pervaded the House of

Representatives, and when they demanded information from the Executive,

they virtually held this language: “Sir, we detest your treaty--we feel

an almost invincible repugnance to giving it our sanction--but if, by

the exhibition of any information in possession of the Executive, we can

be convinced that the interests of the United States have been supported

to the utmost extent;--that, wretched as this instrument is, the terms

are as good as were attainable; and that, bad as those terms are, it is

politic under existing circumstances to accept them, we will, however

reluctantly, pass the laws for carrying it into effect. The present

case, if he understood any thing of the general sentiment, was, happily,

of a different nature. The treaty which they were then called upon to

sanction, had been hailed by the acclamations of the nation. It was not

difficult to foresee, from the opinions manifested in every quarter,

that it would receive the cordial approbation of a triumphant majority

of that House. If such be the general opinion--if we are not barely

satisfied with the terms of this treaty, but lost in astonishment at the

all-important benefits which we have so cheaply acquired, to what purpose

do we ask information respecting the detail of the negotiation? Has any

one ventured to hint disapprobation of the conduct of the ministers who

have effected this negotiation? Has any one insinuated that our interests

have been betrayed? If, then, we are satisfied as to the terms of this

treaty, and with the conduct of our ministers abroad, let us pass the

laws necessary for carrying it into effect. To refuse--to delay, upon

the plea now offered, is to jeopardize the best interests of the Union.

Shall we take exception to our own title? Shall we refuse the offered

possession? Shall this refusal proceed from those who so lately affirmed

that we ought to pursue this very object at every national hazard? I

should rather suppose the eagerness of gentlemen would be ready to

outstrip the forms of law in making themselves masters of this country,

than that, now, when it is offered to our grasp, they should display an

unwillingness, or at least an indifference, for that which so lately was

all-important to them. After the message which the President has sent us,

to demand, if indeed we have acquired any new subjects, as the gentleman

expresses it, which renders the exercise of our legislative functions

necessary, would be nothing less than a mockery of him, of this solemn

business, and of ourselves. Cautionary provisions may be introduced into

the laws for securing us against every hazard, although, from the nature

of our stipulations, we are exposed to none. We retain in our own hands

the consideration money, even after we have possession.”

Mr. R. expressed himself averse to demand the Spanish correspondence.

The reasons must be obvious to all. The possession of Louisiana by us,

will necessarily give rise to negotiations between the United States and

Spain, relative to its boundaries. These have probably commenced, and are

now pending. He hoped, therefore, the House would go into committee on

the Message of the President, and after resolving to pass the requisite

laws, if further information shall be wanting in relation to the mode of

taking possession, or any other object of detail, the Executive might be

called upon to furnish it.

Mr. GODDARD did not intend to enter upon a long discussion of the

resolution; but it seemed to him that the reasons of the gentleman from

Virginia for opposing it were very erroneous. On what ground was the

opposition made? Altogether on the ground that Spain had actually made

the cession to France. Mr. G. apprehended no such impression had been

made on the House by the information before them. In the first article of

the treaty they learned what the title of France was. The treaty says,

“Whereas, by the article the 3d of the treaty concluded at St.

Ildefonso, the 9th Vendemiaire, an 9, (1st October, 1800,)

between the First Consul of the French Republic and His

Catholic Majesty, it was agreed as follows:

“His Catholic Majesty promises and engages, on his part, to

cede to the French Republic, six months after the full and

entire execution of the conditions and stipulations therein

relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the colony

or province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has

in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed

it; and such as it should be after the treaties subsequently

entered into between Spain and other States.

“And whereas, in pursuance of the treaty, and particularly of

the third article, the French Republic has an incontestable

title to the domain and to the possession of the said

territory; the First Consul of the French Republic, desiring

to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship,

doth hereby cede to the said United States, in the name of the

French Republic, for ever and in full sovereignty, the said

territory, with all its rights and appurtenances, as fully and

in the same manner as they have been acquired by the French

Republic in virtue of the above-mentioned treaty, concluded

with his Catholic Majesty.”

Mr. GODDARD asked whether the conclusion followed that France had an

incontestable title to Louisiana? There was no such evidence. If in

virtue of this treaty we purchase a promise on the part of His Catholic

Majesty to cede, and not an incontestable title, he would ask if the

promise constituted a title? France only says, we cede all our title.

This, and this only, is the language of the instrument. If this is

the case, is it not proper to inquire whether there are other acts

by which Spain has ceded Louisiana to France? Such acts may exist.

Certain stipulations were made by France to Spain, on which the cession

depended. Do we not then wish to know whether these stipulations have

been fulfilled and whether they are binding, or whether Spain has waived

them? Are there in existence any documents to that effect? It has been

hinted that such documents exist in the newspapers; but are we, in an

affair of this magnitude, to be referred to the dictum of a newspaper? He

apprehended that this was a novel mode of legislation.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, if the gentleman from Connecticut would confine his

motion to the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, he should be ready to acquiesce in

it, though he did not believe that instrument would throw any new light

on the subject.

Mr. GREGG said his wish was that the resolution should be divided, and

that the Treaty of St. Ildefonso only should be requested. It had been

conceded that it might be of some use in ascertaining the limits of

the cession. To the other members of the resolution he was opposed. He

therefore moved a division of the question.

Mr. GRISWOLD remarked that it would be more orderly to move the striking

out of the last paragraph.

Mr. THATCHER said, gentlemen objecting to this resolution had taken

different grounds. Some oppose it as inconsistent with the sentiments

that prevailed in the case of the British Treaty; others, because it is

premature, and others, because it is unnecessary. He did not expect the

first objection from any member on that floor; much less did he expect

it from the quarter in which it originated. The advocates of the motion

were charged with inconsistency. He was not a member of the House at

the time of the British Treaty, but, on referring to the Journal, it

would be perceived that the object of gentlemen who then called for

papers was to go into the merits of the British Treaty. It would not be

denied that the ground then taken by gentlemen on the other side was,

that the House had a right to examine the merits of the treaty, and to

the assertion of that right it was that the President answered. We now

say that it is not necessary for us to act in our legislative capacity,

intending, if it shall appear to be necessary, not to withhold acting.

Mr. T. therefore conceived that they exhibited no inconsistency, as they

did not purpose at this time to go into the merits of the treaty, and as

they acknowledged the treaty, if constitutionally made, to be binding.

But they wanted information on subjects of legislation.

Mr. NICHOLSON was extremely glad to find that gentlemen on the other

side of the House had at length abandoned the ground which they had

taken some years ago. He was rejoiced that they were now willing to

acknowledge, what they had heretofore most strenuously denied, that the

House of Representatives had a constitutional right, not only to call for

papers, but to use their discretion in carrying any treaty into effect.

That it must now be their impression was evident, or their conduct was

surely unaccountable. Why else do they call for papers, why inquire into

our title to the province of Louisiana? If the doctrine of a former day

was still to be adhered to, why urge this inquiry? If gentlemen are

consistent with themselves, if they have not forgot the lessons which

they inculcated upon the ratification of the British Treaty, this House

has no right to call for papers, no right to make inquiry, no right to

deliberate, but must carry this treaty into effect, be it good or bad;

must vote for all the necessary measures, whether they are calculated

to promote the interests of the United States or not. The doctrines

of old times, however, are now given up, the ground formerly taken is

abandoned. We shall no longer hear that the Executive is omnipotent, and

that the representatives of the people are bound to vote, blindfolded,

for carrying into effect all treaties which the President and the Senate

may think proper to make and ratify. He thanked the gentlemen for the

admission, and hoped that the country would profit by it hereafter.

He was happy to say that this was not now, nor ever was, the doctrine

of himself and his friends. They meant to deliberate, they meant to use

their discretion in voting away the treasure of the nation. He agreed

with gentlemen, that if a majority of the House entertained any doubt as

to the validity of the title we have acquired, they ought to call for

papers; and he had no doubt, if there was any dissatisfaction, they would

call. He himself should have no objection to vote for the resolution if

it was confined to proper objects, not indeed to satisfy himself, for he

was already fully satisfied, but to satisfy other gentlemen; to satisfy

the American people, that the insinuations thrown out about the title,

are totally without foundation. The resolution in its present shape,

however, was highly improper; it looked to extrinsic circumstances,

and contemplated an inquiry into subjects totally unconnected with the

treaty with France. What, said Mr. N., has Spain to do in this business?

Gentlemen ask if she has acquiesced in our purchase, and call for her

correspondence with our Government. What is the acquiescence of Spain to

us? If the House is satisfied, from the information laid on the table,

that Spain had ceded Louisiana to France, and that France had since

ceded it to the United States, what more do they require? Are we not an

independent nation? Have we not a right to make treaties for ourselves

without asking leave of Spain? What is it to us whether she acquiesces or

not? She is no party to the treaty of cession, she has no claim to the

ceded territory. Are we to pause till Spain thinks proper to consent, or

are we to inquire, whether, like a cross child, she has thrown away her

rattle, and cries for it afterwards?

With regard to the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, Mr. N. said, he should

have no objection to its being laid before the House, if it was in the

possession of the Executive. In all probability, however, this was not

the case, as it was known to be a secret treaty on other subjects of

great importance between France and Spain. As to the deed of cession

spoken of, he really did not understand what was meant, for he imagined

it was not expected a formal deed of bargain and sale had been executed

between two civilized nations, who negotiated by means of ambassadors. If

there were any other papers which could give gentlemen more information,

he had no objection, either, that these should be laid before them.

Not indeed for his own satisfaction, but for that of those who were

not already satisfied, if there were any of that description. One very

important paper, he knew from high authority, was certainly in existence,

and possibly might be in the power of the Executive. This was a formal

order, under the royal signature of Spain, commanding the Spanish

officers at Orleans to deliver the province to the French Prefect, which

he considered equal, perhaps superior to any deed of cession; for it was

equal to an express recognition on the part of Spain, that France had

performed all the conditions referred to in the Treaty of St. Ildefonso.

It was an acknowledgment that Spain had no further claims upon Louisiana,

and would show that any interference on her part ought to have no

influence on the American Government.

Mr. MITCHELL said he rose to express his sentiments against the whole

body of the resolution under debate. But his disinclination to adopt it

did not arise from any doubt of the right which the House possessed to

call upon the Executive for information. He had no hesitation to ask the

President for papers whenever it was necessary to obtain them. And it was

equally clear to him that whenever that dignified officer was properly

applied to, he would comply cheerfully with the request of Congress,

or of either branch of it. He owned that in some cases it would be the

duty of the House to pursue this mode of inquiry, and equally would it

be the duty of the head of the Executive Department to give his aid and

countenance.

In the present stage of the proceedings respecting the treaty and

conventions with France concerning Louisiana, he deemed it improper to

embarrass the business by an unseasonable call upon the Executive for

papers. The President had already communicated various information on

this subject, in his Message on the first day of the session. Additional

information was given in his Message of the 21st, wherein he told the

House that the ratification and exchanges had been made. This was

accompanied with instruments of cession and covenant concluded at Paris

between our ministers and the agents of the French Republic. All this

information we had already on our tables. This the President had put

the House in possession of from his own sense of duty. This obligation

was imposed on him by the constitution, which declares that he shall,

from time to time, give to Congress information of the state of the

Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall

judge necessary and expedient. Mr. M. said he had a firm belief that

the President had complied with this constitutional injunction. He

had communicated such intelligence as he had received; and if he was

possessed of any thing else needful for the deliberation of the House,

he was willing to think the Chief Magistrate of the Union would have

spontaneously imparted it.

The question was taken on agreeing to the first member of the resolution,

as follows:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

requested to cause to be laid before this House a copy of the

treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the 1st of

October, 1800.

The House divided--ayes 59, noes 59. The SPEAKER declaring himself in the

affirmative, the motion was carried.

Mr. RODNEY suggested an alteration in the second member of the

resolution, so as to read “instrument,” instead of “deed.”

Mr. GRISWOLD had no objection to the modification.

The second member, so modified, was read as follows:

“Together with a copy of the instrument of cession from Spain,

executed in pursuance of the same treaty conveying Louisiana to

France, (if any such instrument exists.)”

Mr. HUGER confessed his impressions to be favorable to the treaty, though

the arguments urged that day, certainly possessed great weight. He was

rather of opinion that no such instrument as that referred to in the

resolution existed. But if it did exist, its publication would certainly

be satisfactory to the people and the House. He declared himself ready to

vote for carrying the treaty into effect.

Mr. NICHOLSON did not know whether his remarks had been correctly

understood. He did not know whether the document he alluded to could

strictly be called the instrument of cession. He had drawn an amendment

to this part of the resolution, which he would propose, if in order, to

wit:

“Or other instrument showing that the Spanish Government had

ordered the province of Louisiana to be delivered to France.”

The SPEAKER said, the House having agreed to insert the word

“instrument,” it was not in order to receive a substitute.

Mr. HUGER moved to reconsider the vote of the House in favor of the

insertion of the word “instrument.”

Motion lost--ayes 24.

The question was then taken on the second member, as above stated, and

lost--ayes 34.

The question was then taken on the third member, viz:

“Also, copies of such correspondence between the Government

of the United States and the Government or Minister of Spain,

(if any such correspondence has taken place,) as will show the

assent or dissent of Spain to the purchase of Louisiana by the

United States:”

And lost--ayes 34.

The question was then taken on the last member of the motion, and lost,

without a division, viz:

“Together with copies of such other documents as may be in

the Department of State, or any other department of this

Government, tending to ascertain whether the United States

have, in fact, acquired any title to the province of Louisiana

by the treaties with France of the 30th of April, 1803.”

The question recurring on the whole of the resolution, as amended,

Mr. NICHOLSON moved to amend the second member by adding to the end

thereof;

“Together with a copy of any instrument in possession of the

Executive, showing that the Spanish Government has ordered the

province of Louisiana to be delivered to the Commissary or

other agent of the French Government.”

Agreed to--ayes 64.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays on the whole of the original

motion, amended as follows:

“_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be

requested to cause to be laid before the House a copy of

the treaty between the French Republic and Spain, of the

1st October, 1800, together with a copy of any instrument

in possession of the Executive, showing that the Spanish

Government has ordered the province of Louisiana to be

delivered to the Commissary or other agent of the French

Government:”

And lost--yeas 57, nays 59.

_Amendment to the Constitution._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the report of

a select committee on propositions of amendment to the constitution.

The report was read, as follows:

_Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of

both Houses concurring_, That the following article be proposed

to the Legislatures of the different States as an amendment to

the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by

three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid to all

intents and purposes as a part of the said constitution, viz:

“In all future elections of President and Vice President, the

Electors shall name in their ballots the person voted for as

President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice

President, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of

the same State with themselves. The person having a majority of

all the Electors for President shall be the President; and if

there shall be no such majority, the President shall be chosen

from the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list

for President, by the House of Representatives, in the manner

directed by the constitution. The person having the greatest

number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President,

and in case of an equal number of votes for two or more persons

for Vice President, they being the highest on the list, the

Senate shall choose the Vice President from those having such

equal number, in the manner directed by the constitution.”

Mr. DAWSON observed, that at the time of the adoption of the

constitution, that part of it which related to the election of a

President and Vice President had been objected to; and evils likely to

occur had been foreseen by some gentlemen at that day. Experience had

shown that they were not mistaken. Every gentleman in that House knew

the situation in which the country had been placed by the controverted

election of a Chief Magistrate; it was one which he trusted never would

return. It had been a subject much reflected on by the people, and by

the State Legislatures, several of which had declared their approbation

of the principle contained in the resolution reported by the committee.

The House had two years since ratified a similar amendment by a

constitutional majority of two-thirds. At that time no objections were

made to the principle of the amendment. All the objection then made was

on account of the lateness of the day and thinness of the House. Mr. D.

considered it unnecessary to make any further remarks at that time, as he

could not anticipate any objections that might be urged. He moved that

the Committee should rise and report the resolution without amendment.

Mr. J. CLAY, though in favor of the principle of the amendment, was

of opinion that, as to some of its parts, it required alteration. He

therefore moved:

“But if no person have such majority, then the House of

Representatives shall immediately proceed to choose by ballot

from the two persons having the greatest number of votes,

one of them for President; or if there be three or more

persons having an equal number of votes, then the House of

Representatives shall in like manner, from the persons having

such equality of votes, choose the President; or if there be

one person having a greater number of votes--not being a

majority of the whole number of Electors appointed--than any

other person, and two or more persons who have an equal number

of votes one with the other, then the House of Representatives

shall in like manner, from among such persons having the

greater number of votes and such other persons having an

equality of votes, choose the President.”

Mr. VAN CORTLANDT thought the amendment liable to objection.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL was in favor of the principle contained in the

amendment. He considered it to be the duty of this House, in introducing

an amendment to the constitution on this point, to secure to the people

the benefits of choosing the President, so as to prevent a contravention

of their will as expressed by Electors chosen by them; resorting to

legislative interposition only in extraordinary cases: and when this

should be rendered necessary, so guarding the exercise of legislative

power, that those only should be capable of legislative election who

possessed a strong evidence of enjoying the confidence of the people.

This was the true spirit and principle of the constitution, whose object

was, through the several organs of the Government, faithfully to express

the public opinion. For this reason he was in favor of the proposed

amendment. By it we shall make a less innovation on the spirit of the

constitution than by rejecting it, and adopting the report of the select

committee. There were obvious reasons why the persons from whom a choice

may be made should be fewer in case of a designation of the office than

heretofore. At present the whole number of electoral votes is one hundred

and seventy-six. As the constitution now stands, four candidates might

have an equal number of votes, or three might have a majority, viz: one

hundred and seventeen each. According to the proposed amendment, but one

can have a majority, and if two persons should be equal and highest, it

is not probable that the third candidate will have many votes.

Mr. GRISWOLD said it was very difficult to ascertain the precise import

of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania by barely

hearing it read from the Chair. In the meaning therefore which he

gave it, he might perhaps be mistaken. If not mistaken, it involved a

principle and implied a change, which he had never before heard suggested

on that floor, or in the part of the country from which he came. It

is well known to every member, that under the constitution as it at

present stands, the votes given for a President in this House are by

States, and not according to the majority of the members of the whole

body. The amendment, as reported by the select committee, preserves this

original feature of the constitution by prescribing that the election

shall be proceeded with as pointed out by the constitution. But the

present amendment varies this mode, according to which it is to be made

without respect to States. Of course a majority of the members are to

decide. He submitted it to gentlemen whether they were willing in this

way to sacrifice the interests and rights of the smaller States. If

this be the intention of gentlemen, we ought to have time to deliberate

on the subject before it is pressed to a decision. The gentleman from

Pennsylvania will explain whether this is his intention.

Mr. J. CLAY begged leave explicitly to state, for the satisfaction of the

gentleman from Connecticut, that it was not his intention to change that

part of the constitution which prescribed that the votes should be by

States; and if it would induce the gentleman to vote for the resolution

he had moved, he would add the words of the constitution, viz:

“But in choosing the President the votes shall be taken by

States, the representation from each State having one vote; a

quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members

from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States

shall be necessary to a choice.”

These words were accordingly added.

Mr. DAWSON observed that this proposition had been submitted to the

select committee, who had considered it more objectionable than that

reported. Their object was to innovate as little as possible on the

constitution. A great part of it referred to cases so extremely remote

as were not likely to happen. The only material change it made was to

reduce the number of persons from whom a choice should be made from three

to two. At present the election for a President and Vice President was

made from the five highest on the list. As, according to the proposed

amendment, a designation of the persons voted for as President and

Vice President was to be made, it was considered that by giving the

three highest to the House of Representatives, from which to choose a

President, and the two highest to the Senate, from which to choose a Vice

President, the spirit of the constitution would not be changed. He hoped

therefore the report of the committee would be agreed to. He believed

it comprehended all cases which were probable; and he further believed

that if they spent a month they would not devise an amendment that would

provide for all possible cases that may happen.

Mr. CLOPTON said he rose to express his approbation of the amendment

offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CLAY.) He said that

indeed the amendment could not but be acceptable to him, inasmuch as it

corresponded with the ideas he had the honor to express to the committee

on this subject the other day. He begged leave now to make a few remarks

in addition to those which he had then stated. He said, if any thing

is to be lamented as a defect in the fundamental principles of our

Government, that defect perhaps consists in a departure from the plain

and simple modes of immediate election by the people as to some of the

branches of the Government. He did not mean however now to discuss, nor

did he know that he ever should discuss, this point. The Constitution of

the United States having established a different principle in respect to

the election of the several departments of the Government, except that

branch of the Legislature which this House composes; and the object of

the proposed amendment to the constitution not being the transmutation of

a fundamental principle, but merely an alteration in the mode heretofore

directed of electing one branch of the Government according to the

principle already established, his business and his object was to state

to this committee those ideas which occurred to him on this occasion as

suited to the subject as it now stands before the committee.

Mr. C. said that most seriously considering the principles of the

Government in such a point of view as he had the honor to state to

the committee, he was irresistibly impressed with the opinion that a

legislative election of President or Vice President, whenever resorted

to, should be restrained to the smallest number above a unit, or to those

persons who have equal electoral votes. He considered it as a position

clearly and unquestionably true, that if the field of election, when

not decided by the voice of the people themselves, should be left too

wide, more chances will there always be for the introduction of abuses

in determining on a choice, if those whose province it shall be to

decide, should be actuated by a spirit adverse to the public sentiment.

Results ungrateful to the public feeling might indeed become sources of

discontent truly to be lamented. The demon of discord might be called

forth, and stalking over our land, might unfortunately produce a state

of things very different from that peaceful, tranquil state, which would

follow a decision more conformable to the will of the people. Such a

decision he believed would be ensured were the election to be confined

to those two persons only who had received the most ample testimony

of the public confidence, or to those who had been stamped with equal

testimonials of that confidence.

Mr. SMILIE would wish one principle altered in the report of the select

committee, viz: that which confined the election of the President to the

three highest persons voted for. It was impossible for human wisdom to

provide for all cases that might occur. Their time was not well spent

in providing for cases extremely remote. He had but one object in view,

the designation of office; and the more simple the proposition, the more

likely they were to obtain this object. It should be recollected that the

constitution was the act of the people, and ought not to be altered till

inconveniences actually arise under it. He believed, though particular

parts might be defective in theory, they ought not to be changed till

practical inconveniences had been experienced. No such inconvenience had

yet been felt from choosing the President from the five highest on the

list. Is it, then, prudent to embarrass the great principle, in which

they generally concurred, with incidental propositions, when there was no

necessity for them? This amendment was to obtain the assent of thirteen

legislative bodies before it would be binding. The simpler, then, the

proposition, the more likely it was to succeed. His idea, therefore, was

to leave the constitution as it now stood, so far as it related to a

choice being made from the five highest, and only so far to change it as

related to a designation of the office.

Mr. SANFORD said the great object of the amendment ought to be to prevent

persons voted for as Vice President from becoming President. If the

amendment effected this, it was sufficient. All other innovation upon the

constitution was improper; and no danger could arise from extending the

right of the House of Representatives to making a choice from the five

highest.

Mr. RODNEY said that in the select committee he had been in favor of

the number stated in the constitution. He was not for innovating on the

constitution one tittle more than was absolutely necessary. As to the

mere designation of office, the people looked for and expected it; and

if that were obtained, they would be satisfied. He well knew that if

amendments to this simple proposition were multiplied, objections to the

whole would also be increased. Having been originally in favor of five,

and thinking the inconveniences apprehended by some gentlemen not likely

to occur, he should vote in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from

Maryland, principally for the reason assigned by the gentleman from

Connecticut, that it would allow to the smaller States a larger scope of

choice.

Mr. ELLIOT hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland would not

prevail; and coming, as he did himself, from a small State, he trusted

the House would pardon him for assigning his reasons for that hope. He

felt as much confidence in the House of Representatives as the gentleman

from Connecticut; but he was of opinion that their discretion ought

to be limited. The amendment will give the House of Representatives

the unqualified power of electing from the whole number on the list of

persons voted for as President, and on that ground he opposed it. It

was said to be a question of larger and smaller States, and those who

represent the smaller States were called upon to check the usurpation of

the larger States. Our system was undoubtedly federative, and there might

be danger of a usurpation of the large States if the small ones were not

protected by the constitution. His wish was that they might be so guarded.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL said he, too, represented a small State, and was

anxious to preserve the rights of the small States. But in a great

constitutional question, while these rights were not lost sight of,

principle ought also to be regarded. This he conceived to be his duty,

whatever effect it might have upon the State he represented. For this

reason he considered it proper to express his opinions on the present

occasion. It was a vital principle to preserve the constitution as pure

as possible. This rendered it necessary to show that the proposition of

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CLAY) came nearer to the principle

of the constitution than that offered by the gentleman from Maryland.

He had already observed that, there being at present no designation,

four was the smallest possible number from which a choice could be made:

to this number but one was added, making, altogether, five. In future

elections there will be one hundred and seventy-six Electors, and if

there be a designation of office, but one person can have a majority. To

confine the choice to two persons will, therefore, in principle, approach

as near as possible to the original principle of the constitution.

Mr. C. was in favor of preserving that part of the constitution which

directed the election to be made by States, wishing as little innovation

as possible on the principles of the constitution. He did not, however,

conceive a mere change of words dangerous, but the establishment of a

principle that deprived the people of the power of electing those who

possessed the largest share of their confidence. He was decidedly in

favor of whatever had this effect, as according with the true spirit of

the constitution; and he was, therefore, opposed to the amendment of the

gentleman from Maryland. His own opinion, too, was that it was best to

express in one article whatever related to the election of President and

Vice President, than refer to the constitution; by which the provisions

on that subject would be rendered much clearer.

The question was then taken on Mr. NICHOLSON’s amendment, and lost--ayes,

29, noes 77.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he came to the House under the impression that another

subject would have occupied their attention on account of its primary

importance, not meaning, however, to disparage the importance of an

amendment to the constitution. But on a subject which must be discussed

in a few days, if at all, it was improper that time should be lost. The

proposed amendment to the constitution was not, he believed, so extremely

pressing as to require immediate attention. The subject to which Mr. R.

had expected the attention of the House would have been first directed,

was the Treaty with France. Hoping that the committee would have decided

on the amendment at an early hour, he had refrained from any motion. But

perceiving that a decision was not likely soon to be made, he would move

that the committee should rise, for the purpose of taking up the treaty

respecting Louisiana.

Mr. DAWSON opposed the rising of the committee.

The question was taken on Mr. RANDOLPH’s motion, and carried--yeas 60,

nays 55. When the committee rose.

And on motion, the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, October 25.

_Louisiana Treaty._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Message

from the President of the United States, of the twenty-first instant,

enclosing a treaty and conventions entered into and ratified by the

United States and the French Republic; to which Committee of the whole

House was also referred a motion for carrying the same into effect.

Mr. G. GRISWOLD said he had hoped that some gentleman, in favor of the

resolution under consideration, would have risen to assign his reasons

in favor of it. But no gentleman friendly to its adoption having risen,

and feeling himself embarrassed, he would take the liberty of suggesting

his doubts as to the propriety of the resolution. He hoped the committee

would have the candor to believe that, in stating those doubts which hung

upon his mind, his object was not to delay the progress of the measures

contemplated, but to gain information.

In reflecting, for the short time during which the subject had been

before him, he had not been able to pursue it in all its bearings, nor

to solve all the difficulties it presented. He had first asked himself

where was to be found the constitutional power of the Government to

incorporate the territory, with the inhabitants thereof, in the Union

of the United States, with the privileges of citizens of the United

States--is there any such power? And if there is, where is it lodged?

In giving his opinion on the constitutional right of making treaties,

he would say that it was vested in the President and Senate, and that a

treaty made by them on a subject constitutionally in their treaty-making

power, was valid without the assent of this House. This House had, to

be sure, the physical power of refusing the necessary means to carry

treaties into effect; but this power was essentially different from that

conferred by the constitution. But if the treaty-making power should be

exceeded, if it should be undertaken to make it operate upon subjects not

constitutionally vested, he had a right to say that it was his duty not

to carry it into effect. Even should its provisions be highly beneficial,

it was no less their constitutional duty to resist it. He would not

undertake to say that his mind was perfectly fixed, but he entertained

doubts--serious doubts; and he hoped gentlemen would candidly give them

answers.

Mr. RANDOLPH rose for the purpose of satisfying, so far as was in his

power, the doubts expressed by the gentleman from New York (Mr. G.

GRISWOLD). He had listened with great pleasure to the candid exposition

which the gentleman had given of his objections, and from the temper

which he had manifested, Mr. R. relied on being able to satisfy some

of his scruples on this subject. The objections which have been urged

to the motion before the committee, resolved themselves into arguments

against the constitutionality, and arguments against the expediency of

the treaty proposed to be carried into effect. As it would be needless

to repel objections of this last kind, unless those of the first

description could be satisfactorily answered, he should first reply to

the observations which had been made on the constitutional doctrine.

He understood the gentleman from New York as denying that there existed

in the United States, as such, a capacity to acquire territory; that,

by the constitution, they were restricted to the limits which existed

at the time of its adoption. If this position be correct, it undeniably

follows that those limits must have been accurately defined and generally

known at the time when the Government took effect. Either they have been

particularly described in the constitutional compact, or are referred to

as settled beyond dispute, and universally acknowledged. But this was not

the fact, in either case. The constitution not only did not describe any

particular boundary, beyond which the United States could not extend,

but our boundary was unsettled on our north-eastern, southern, and

north-western frontier, at the time of its adoption. But perhaps we shall

be told, that, although our limits were in dispute with our English and

Spanish neighbors, still there were certain boundaries specified in the

Treaty of Paris, of 1783, which were the actual boundaries of the United

States. It was, however, a well attested fact--one of which we possessed

official information from the Executive--that the limits assigned us by

that treaty were incapable of being established. A line running west,

from the Lake of the Woods, not touching the Mississippi at all--it

followed that the United States were without limits beyond the source

of the Mississippi. It will not be denied, that, among the powers which

the Government possesses under the constitution, there exists that of

settling disputes concerning our limits with the neighboring nations.

This power was not only necessary in relation to the disputed boundaries

on the side of Canada and Florida, but was indispensable to a government

over a country of indefinite extent. The existence of this power will

not be denied: it has been exercised in ascertaining our north-eastern

and southern frontier, and it involves in it the power of extending the

limits of the Confederacy. Let us suppose that the Commissioners, under

the Treaty of London, had determined the river St. John or St. Lawrence

to be the _true_ St. Croix--would not that part of the province of New

Brunswick or Quebec which lies on this side of those rivers at this time

have been a part of the United States? Suppose the northern boundary of

Florida had been fixed, under the Treaty of San Lorenzo, to extend from

the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf; would not all the country north of this

line and east of the Mississippi--part of the very country conveyed by

the treaty lately negotiated, and which gentlemen conceived we could not

constitutionally hold--would not that country, at this time, compose a

part of the United States? That the constitution should tie us down to

particular limits, without expressing those limits; that we should be

restrained to the then boundaries of the United States, when it is in

proof to the committee that no such bounds existed, or do now exist, was

altogether incomprehensible and inadmissible. For, if the constitution

meant the practical limits of the United States, the extent of country

which we then _possessed_--our recent acquisitions, on the side of

Canada and the Natchez, could not be defended. But, sir, said Mr. R.,

my position is not only maintainable by the reason of the constitution,

but by the practice under it. Congress have expressed, in their own

acts, a solemn recognition of the principle, that the United States, in

their federative capacity, may acquire, and have acquired, territory.

It will be recollected, that adverse claims once existed between the

United States and the State of Georgia, in relation to a certain tract

of country between the northern boundary of the Spanish possessions and

what we contended was the southern limit of Georgia--the United States

asserting that the country in question was the property of the United

States, in their confederate capacity, and the State of Georgia claiming

it as hers. Although I have always advocated the claim of that State,

it never was on the principle of an incapacity in the United States to

acquire territory, or any other which affects the question now before

us. It is true, sir, we appointed commissioners to settle the matter

in dispute, amicably, with Georgia; but in the mean time we assumed

the jurisdiction, erected a government over the country, and thereby

established the principle that the United States, as such, could acquire

territory; the country in question, as we contended, never having been

included within the limits of any particular States, and being ceded to

the Confederacy by the Treaty of 1783. But perhaps it may be answered,

that this acquisition, being made anterior to the date of the present

constitution, cannot affect any limitation or restriction, which it may

have provided in relation to this subject; and that to prove that the

old confederation could acquire territory, is not to prove the same

capacity in the present system of Government. To this I reply, that the

constitution contains no such expressed limitation, nor can any be fairly

inferred from it: and that if the old confederation--a mere government of

States--a loosely connected league--all of whose powers, with many more,

are possessed by the present Federal Government--if this mere alliance of

States could rightfully acquire territory in their allied capacity, much

more is the existing Government competent to make such an acquisition. To

me the inference is irresistible.

But the gentleman does not rest himself on this ground alone. He does not

embark his whole treasure in a single bottom. Granting that the United

States are not destitute of capacity to acquire territory, he denies

that this acquisition has been made in a regular way--Congress, says

he, alone is competent to such an act. In this transaction he scents

at a distance Executive encroachment, and we are called upon to assert

our rights, and to repel it. If any usurpation of the privileges of

Congress, or of this House, be made to appear, I pledge myself to that

gentleman to join him in resisting it. But let us inquire into the fact.

No gentleman will deny the right of the President to initiate business

here, by message, recommending particular subjects to our attention. If

the Government of the United States possess the constitutional power

to acquire territory from foreign States, the Executive, as the organ

by which we communicate with such States, must be the prime agent in

negotiating such an acquisition. Conceding, then, that the power of

confirming this act, and annexing to the United States the territory thus

acquired, ultimately rests with Congress, where has been the invasion

of the privileges of that body? Does not the President of the United

States submit this subject to Congress for their sanction? Does he not

recognize the principle, which I trust we will never give up, that no

treaty is binding until we pass the laws for executing it--that the

powers conferred by the constitution on Congress cannot be modified, or

abridged, by any treaty whatever--that the subjects of which they have

cognizance cannot be taken, in any way, out of their jurisdiction? In

this procedure nothing is to be seen but a respect, on the part of the

Executive, for our rights; a recognition of a discretion on our part

to accord or refuse our sanction. Where, then, is the violation of our

rights? As to the initiative, in a matter like this, it necessarily

devolved on the Executive.

Mr. R. said, that he would not dilate upon the importance of the

navigation of the Mississippi, which had been the theme of every tongue,

which we now possessed unfettered by the equal claim of the nation

holding the west bank, a fruitful source of quarrel; but he would call

the attention of the committee to a report which had been made at the

last session and to which publicity had lately been given.

I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that in a performance so replete with

information, a single error should be discovered, especially as it does

not affect the soundness of its conclusion. As long ago as the year 1673,

the inhabitants of the French province of Canada explored the country on

the Mississippi. A few years afterwards (1685) La Salle, with emigrants

from old France, made a settlement on the Bay of St. Bernard, and at

the close of the 17th century, previous to the existence of Pensacola,

another French settlement was made by the Governor, D’Ibberville, at

Mobile, and on the Isle Dauphin, or Massacre, at the mouth of that bay.

In 1712, a short time previous to the peace of Utrecht, Louis XIV.

described the extent of the colony of Louisiana (by the settlements) in

his grant of its exclusive commerce to Crozat. Three years subsequent

to this, the Spanish establishment at Pensacola was formed, as well

as the settlement of the Adais on the river Mexicana. After various

conflicting efforts, on both sides, the bay and river Perdido was

established, (from the peace of 1719,) as the boundary between the

French province of Louisiana on the one side and the Spanish province

of Florida on the other: this river being nearly equi-distant between

Mobile and Pensacola. Near the close of the war between England and

France, rendered memorable for the unexampled success with which it was

conducted by that unrivalled statesman, the great Lord Chatham, Spain

became a party on the side of France. The loss of the Havana, and other

important dependencies, was the immediate consequence. In 1762, France,

by a secret treaty of cotemporaneous date with the preliminary Treaty of

Peace, relinquished Louisiana to Spain, as an indemnity for her losses,

sustained by advocating the cause of France. By the definitive Treaty of

1763, France ceded to England all that part of Louisiana which lies east

of the Mississippi, except the island of New Orleans--the rest of the

province to Spain. It is to be observed that although France ostensibly

ceded this country to England, virtually the cession was on the part of

Spain; because France was no longer interested in the business, but as

the friend of Spain, (having previously relinquished the whole to her,)

and because in 1783 restitution was made by England, not to France, but

to Spain, England having acquired this portion of Louisiana, together

with the Spanish province of Florida, annexed to the former that part

of Florida which lies west of the Apalachicola and east of the Perdido;

thereby forming the province of West Florida.

It is only in English geography, and during this period, from 1763 to

1783, that such a country as West Florida is known. For Spain, having

acquired both the Floridas in 1783, re-annexed to Louisiana the country

west of the Perdido subject to the government of New Orleans, and

established the ancient boundaries of Florida; the country between the

Perdido and Apalachicola being subject to the Governor of St. Augustine.

By the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, Spain cedes to France “the province

of Louisiana with the same extent that it now has in the hands of

Spain:” viz: to the Perdido, “and that it had when France possessed it

to the Perdido--and such as it should be after treaties subsequently

entered into between Spain and other powers;” that is, saving to the

United States the country given up by the Treaty of San Lorenzo. We

have succeeded to all the right of France. If the navigation of the

Mississippi alone were of sufficient importance to justify war, surely

the possession of every drop of water which runs into it--the exclusion

of European nations from its banks, who would have with us the same

causes of quarrel, did we possess New Orleans only, which we have had

with the former possessors of that key of the river; the entire command

of the Mobile and its widely extended branches, scarcely inferior in

consequence to the Mississippi itself--watering the finest country and

affording the best navigation in the United States--surely these would be

acknowledged to be inestimably valuable.

Mr. PURVIANCE.--I am clearly and decidedly in favor of the resolution on

your table, premising the appropriations for carrying the treaty between

France and this country into effect; and I sincerely regret, that in

doing so, I shall act adversely to the general sentiment of the gentlemen

with whom it is my pleasure and my pride to confess I have hitherto

politically officiated.

It is true I am, and always have been, opposed to the general tenor of

the present Administration. It has not appeared to me to possess that

bold commanding aspect--that erect and resolute front--which ought to be

assumed by the Executive of a free people, when claiming satisfaction

for a wrong sustained. It has not shown that strong, muscular, athletic

shape, which is calculated to intimidate aggression, or which is enabled

to resist it; nor do I think that it has manifested that firm, dignified,

manly tone of virtue and of spirit, which, resting on the love of a free

people, and conscious of their strength, can ask for the prompt, direct,

and unequivocal satisfaction to which it is entitled, and, being denied,

can take it. It has not appeared like the veteran chief, ready to gird

his loins in defence of his country’s rights; but, if I may be allowed to

use the _magna componere parvis_, it has, to my mind, somewhat resembled

a militia subaltern, who, in time of war, directed his men not to fire on

the enemy, lest the enemy might fire again.

Under such an Administration, I have thought that it would be better

to have the ceded territory on any terms than not to have it at all.

If we have not the spirit or the means of doing ourselves justice,

would it not be better that we bribe those who might be in a situation

to molest us, and thus put it out of their power to do us any injury,

which we cannot or which we will not avenge? There are but two ways

of maintaining our national independence--men and money. Since we did

not use the first, we must have recourse to the last. One of these two

we should be compelled to resort to if France gained possession of

Louisiana, and we had better resort to it now. I deny that they have

as yet gained possession: they have not received a delivery of the

four redoubts which garrison and command the country, nor have they a

single armed soldier there, except those which are particularly attached

to the equipage of the Colonial Prefect. If, sir, we were obliged to

resort to the necessity of purchasing their friendship, after they had

procured an establishment, it would not be confined to one instance of

humiliation and acknowledgment on our part, or one instance of insult

only on theirs. If we purchase this friendship once, we should be

compelled to make annual contributions to their avarice, and be annually

subjected to their insolence. Repeated concessions would only produce a

repetition of injury, and, at last, when we had completely compromitted

our national dignity, and offered up our last cent as an oblation to

Gallic rapacity, we would then be further from conciliation than ever.

The spirit of universal domination, instead of being allayed by those

measures which had been intended for its abatement, would rage with

redoubled fury. Elated by those sacrifices which had been intended to

appease it, it would still grow more fierce; it would soon stride across

the Mississippi, and every encroachment which conquest or cunning could

effect might be expected. The tomahawk of the savage and the knife of the

negro would confederate in the league, and there would be no interval of

peace, until we should either be able to drive them from their location

altogether, or else offer up our sovereignty as a homage of our respect,

and permit the name of our country to be blotted out of the list of

nations for ever.

I confess there are many gentlemen of that nation for whom I entertain

the sincerest esteem; but although I love some of them as friends, they

will pardon me when I say that I do not like all of them as neighbors.

Blood, havoc, and devastation, have for some years past encircled their

proximity, and circumstances equally disastrous and equally improbable

have already taken place. Do we want any evidences of this? We can find

them in Switzerland, in Italy, in Egypt, in Hanover, in France itself.

We have seen the ancient throne of the Capets tumbled from its base; we

have seen the tide of succession which had flowed on uninterruptedly for

ages dammed up for ever; we have seen the sources of the life blood royal

drained dry. And by whom? By the pert younglings of the day.

“An eagle towering in his pride of flight

Was, by a mousing owl, hawkt at and killed.”

We have afterwards seen these puny upstarts, when their hands had been

reddened in the slaughter pens of Paris, kicked from their seats, and a

Corsican soldier embellished with the majesty of the Bourbons. We have

seen one half of the Old World subjected to his dominion, and the other

half alarmed at his power. And is it thought, sir, that America alone,

with an army scarcely sufficient to defend our garrisons, with a navy

scarcely sufficient to punish a Bashaw, with a treasury incommensurate to

our engagements, and an Executive unwilling to strain our energies--is

it, I say sir, for America alone, under these circumstances, singly to

withstand that gigantic nation, fighting on her own ground, fed from

her own granaries, and furnished from her own arsenals? The time once

was, indeed, when we could have redressed our own wrongs, and had an

opportunity of doing so; but that necessity and that opportunity, I take

it sir, have now both passed away.

Yes, thank God! We have now a treaty, signed by themselves, in which

they have voluntarily passed away the only means of annoyance which they

possessed. But I do not thank the honorable gentleman who is at the

head of our Executive. At the time this negotiation was commenced there

could not be the smallest hope of its being carried into effect. The

French Consul had obtained it perhaps for the express purpose of carrying

into effect his favorite scheme of universal domination; it might give

him the chance of injuring the British, controlling the Spaniards, and

dismembering America. Compared with these objects a handful of bank stock

was of no more consequence to him than a handful of sand. His fleet and

army were ready to sail, and his colonial prefect had already arrived.

But, mark! The King of Great Britain, who at this crisis I take to have

been by far the most able negotiator we had, declares war. The scene is

now changed. That which France had refused to our intercessions, she was

now compelled to grant from mere necessity. A state of warfare took place

about the last of March, and the treaty was signed soon afterwards. As

long as I retain the small stock of understanding which it has pleased

God to give me, I shall never be induced to believe, that it was owing

in the smallest degree to the efficacy of diplomatic representation. The

mind of that great man (Buonaparte) is not made of such soft materials

as to receive an impress from the collision of every gentle hand.

Stern, collected, and inflexible, he laughs to scorn the toying arts of

persuasion; his soul is a stupendous rock, which the rushing of mighty

waters cannot shake from its place. No, sir; had it not been for this

happy coincidence of circumstances, the personal solicitations of our

ministers would have been regarded with as listless an ear as if they had

been whispered across the ocean.

Mr. ELLIOT.--Mr. Chairman, although in the short time since I have

had the honor of a seat on this floor, I have several times risen in

debate, that circumstance scarcely diminishes my diffidence at the

present moment. Uneducated in the schools, and unpractised in the arts,

of parliamentary eloquence, it is with no inconsiderable degree of

diffidence that I rise upon the present occasion. There are occasions,

however, where even the eye of timidity should sparkle with confidence;

and there are questions in the discussion of which the finger should

be removed from the lip of silence herself. And such is every occasion

and every question involving the existence, the infraction, or even the

correct and just construction of that constitution which is the palladium

of our privileges, and the temple of our glory. If I might be permitted

to borrow a metaphorical expression from one of the most celebrated

commanders of antiquity, who declared that he intended to spread all

his sails on the ocean of war, I would say that it is with fear and

trembling I presume to launch my little feeble bark on the vast ocean of

eloquence and literature (_pointing to the federal members_) by which I

am surrounded. If, however, the remark be just, that it is even sweet and

glorious to die for one’s country, surely the humbler sacrifice of native

diffidence may with propriety be expected and exacted from a juvenile

American Representative.

Whatever minuter shades or minor differences of opinion may exist

among the American people, there is one point in which we shall all

meet with cordial unanimity. We all unite in an ardent devotion to the

constitution. He who is not devoted to it is unworthy of the honorable

name of an American. I lament that it is necessary to speak particularly

of myself; but duty, not only to myself, but to my constituents, a

numerous and respectable section of the American people, demands it.

It may be objected to me, and with truth, that there was a time when I

professed sentiments hostile to some of the most important provisions in

the constitution. It was not, however, at the time when the constitution

was submitted to the people. I was then in infancy and obscurity,

deprived of the means, and even of the hopes of education. I had yet read

much and reflected more. My ardent and excursive eye had wandered rapidly

over the wide field of ancient history; I thought I beheld my country,

like the Roman Republic in the age of Cato, the sport of every wind and

of every wave. As far as I understood the constitution, I admired it and

wished for its adoption. But when an elegant anonymous writer predicted,

as the consequence of its adoption, that “liberty would be but a name,

to adorn the short historic page of the halcyon days of America,” I

trembled and shuddered for the possible consequences. If in the plenitude

of juvenile self-sufficiency (and who has not been young?) I have since

fancied that I could form a more perfect constitution, that dream of the

imagination has long been past. I have long been sincerely and ardently

attached to the constitution.

The treaty before us is of an immense consequence, and my attention was

early turned to the subject. From the moment of my election, I have

devoted many studious and laborious hours to the subjects connected with

it, and I have anticipated all the objections against it; none of those

presented this day by the gentleman from New York, who opened the debate,

or by the gentlemen who followed him on the same side, have struck my

mind as novel. The question of the constitutionality of the treaty first

presents itself. It is said to be unconstitutional, because it enlarges

the territory of the United States. To reduce the arguments of gentlemen

on this head to syllogistic form, they would not strike the mind with

great force. The constitution is silent on the subject of the acquisition

of territory. By the treaty we acquire territory; therefore the treaty

is unconstitutional. It has been well remarked by an eminent civilian,

that those are not the most correct and conclusive reasoners who are

very expert at their _quicquids_, their _atquis_, and their _ergos_;

but those, who, from correct premises, by just reasoning, deduce correct

conclusions. This question is not to be determined from a mere view of

the constitution itself, although it may be considered as admitted that

it does not prohibit, in express terms, the acquisition of territory. It

is a rule of law, that in order to ascertain the import of a contract,

the evident intention of the parties, at the time of forming it, is

principally to be regarded. This rule will apply, as it respects the

present question, to our constitution, of which it may be said, as the

great Dr. Johnson said of the science of the law, that it is the last

result of human wisdom acting upon human experience. The constitution

is a compact between the American people for certain great objects

expressed in the preamble, [Mr. E. here read the preamble,] in language

to which eloquence and learning can add no force or weight. Previous to

the formation of this constitution there existed certain principles of

the law of nature and nations, consecrated by time and experience, in

conformity to which the constitution was formed. The question before

us, I have always believed, must be decided upon the laws of nations

alone; and under this impression I have examined the works of the most

celebrated authors on that subject.

I recollect a time, sir, when a foreign minister in this country, at

a moment when genius, fancy, and ardent patriotism, were lords of the

ascendant over learning, wisdom, and experience, spoke of the law of

nations and its principles as mere worm eaten authorities, and aphorisms

of Vattel and others. I also recollect that the illustrious man who is

now President of the United States was then Secretary of State, and that

he delivered the unanimous sentiments of the American people when, in

his reply to that minister, he observed that something more than mere

sarcasms of that kind was necessary to disprove those authorities and

principles; and that, until they were disproved, the American nation

would hold itself bound by them. This is the man, sir, who has been so

injuriously calumniated within these walls this morning, and upon whom

such a torrent of bitter eloquence has been poured by the gentleman from

North Carolina (Mr. PURVIANCE;) a gentleman who is himself a model of

eloquence, uniting all the excellencies of Cicero and Demosthenes, and

all other orators, ancient and modern.

The American people, in forming their constitution, had an eye to that

law of nations, which is deducible by natural reason and established by

common consent, to regulate the intercourse and concerns of nations.

With a view to this law the treaty-making power was constituted, and by

virtue of this law, the Government and the people of the United States,

in common with all other nations, possess the power and right of making

acquisitions of territory by conquest, cession, or purchase. Indeed the

gentlemen who deny us the right of acquiring by purchase, would probably

allow us to keep the territory, were it obtained by conquest.

Colonies, or provinces, are a part of the eminent domain of the nation

possessing them, and of course are national property; colonial territory

may be transferred from one nation to another by purchase; this purchase

can be effected by treaty alone, as nations do not, like individuals,

execute deeds, and cause them to be recorded in public offices; that

department of the Government of the nation purchasing, which possesses

the treaty-making power generally, is competent to make treaties for that

purpose. These positions are established by the laws of nations, and are

applicable to the case before us. [Here Mr. E. read a variety of extracts

from Vattel to establish these positions, and observed that they were

corroborated by Grotius, Puffendorf, and other eminent writers on the law

of nature and nations, whose works he had consulted.]

A mere recapitulation, and that not a tedious one, of these principles

and authorities, will now answer the present purpose. Colonies have

always been considered as national property, although the law or practice

of nations, in this instance, may not conform to the law of nature.

Greece treated her colonies with peculiar indulgence: Rome considered

any privileges which hers were suffered to possess, as mere matters

of grace, not of right. The one was a natural and tender parent, the

other a cruel stepmother. Yet I have no recollection that the Grecian

colonies in Asia Minor, Italy, or even at Ionia, were represented in the

Amphyctionic Council, the General Assembly of the States of Greece. The

claim of the British Colonies, which now constitute the United States,

to be represented in that body by which they were taxed, though just in

itself, was novel and unwarranted by the practice of nations. Thank God

the claim was successful, and in consequence of it, we are now here as

the representatives of the American people, deliberating upon their most

important interests. It is unnecessary to reiterate the other positions;

they are undeniable in themselves, and their applicability to the present

case will hardly be disputed. If the treaty be extremely pernicious, or

has not been made by sufficient authority, or has been made for unjust

purposes, it is void by the laws of nations.

The expediency of the treaty is another question, and an important one.

I once hoped that the interests of our country would never require an

extension of its limits, and I regret even that that necessity now

exists. Evils and dangers may be apprehended from this source, and great

evils and dangers may possibly result. But the regions of possibility

are illimitable; those of probability are marked by certain well-defined

boundaries, obvious to all men of reason and reflection, and, in the

language of the poet,

“As broad and obvious to the passing clown,

As to the letter’d sage’s curious eye.”

If we cannot find, in the peculiar principles of our form of government,

and in the virtue and intelligence of our citizens, a sufficient security

against the dangers from a widely extended territory, in vain shall we

seek it elsewhere. There is no magical quality in a degree of latitude

or longitude, a river or a mountain. And it has been well remarked, that

every danger from this quarter might have been apprehended before the

acquisition of this territory. The Roman Empire, or that of Alexander in

the zenith of its glory, was scarcely capable of containing a greater

population than the territory of the United States; and men conversant

with history do not wonder at the transient existence and rapid ruin

of those empires. I repeat it, Mr. Chairman, we must look for our

security in principles and circumstances inapplicable to the ancient

nations. With the present question of expediency, I confess, sir, are

naturally intermingled many considerations, infinitely interesting

to the future peace, prosperity, felicity, and glory of our beloved

country. The physical strength of a nation depends upon an aggregation

of circumstances, amongst which, compactness of population, as well as

territory, may be reckoned; our population may become too scattered; but

this too is only a possible event. These possible evils ought not to be

put in competition with the certain advantage which we derive from the

acquisition.

But a gentleman tells us that the Administration hold out to us an Eden

of the western world, a land flowing with milk and honey, while they have

obtained nothing but a dreary and barren wilderness. Perhaps, if the

gentleman be correct, the acquisition is scarcely the less important.

To demonstrate the advantages of this purchase, it is not necessary to

describe Louisiana as an Elysian region--to describe it as Homer does

the Fortunate Islands, a region, on whose auspicious climate even winter

smiles, where no bleak wind blows from its mountains, and no gale is felt

but the zephyr, diffusing health and pleasure. But from geographical

information, defective as it is, and from reasonable analogies, we may

conclude that, with the exception of some considerable tracts, it is a

country fertile and salubrious. Geography points us to China, Persia,

India, Arabia Felix, and Japan, countries situated in corresponding

latitudes, which, though always overshadowed by the horrid gloom of

despotism, are always productive, and teach us by analogy that Louisiana,

in natural fertility, is probably equal to those beautiful oriental

regions.

The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. PURVIANCE) says, he shall vote

for carrying the treaty into effect, because the possession of the

territory is important, and the Administration not having, as it ought

to have done, made use of men to obtain it, he will consent to make use

of money. He has applied many curious epithets to the Administration.

He wishes for an Administration _athletic_ and _muscular_, meaning, I

suppose, like the wrestlers in the Grecian circus, or the gladiators

in that of Rome. When I came within these walls, sir, I ardently hoped

that the voice of party would be silent during the discussion of this

subject, and I did not expect to hear the Administration attacked in

the language of vulgarity, malignity, and factious fury. When it is

thus assailed, shall its defenders be silent? During the last session

of Congress, an extraordinary degree of agitation was produced in the

public mind by an egregious violation of our rights by an officer of the

Spanish Government. Neither the people nor the Government were deficient

in that spirit which the gentleman extols, but they were not governed by

false ideas of national honor, and they were acquainted with the law of

nations; they knew that we had no right to make the _denunciatio belli_

precede the _repetitio rerum_--a declaration of war precede a demand for

justice.

Mr. SANFORD did not rise to make a display of his talents. Those who

had confided to him the representation of their interests could have no

such expectations, as they had unfortunately selected a plain Western

farmer. He was sorry to see so much time wasted. He begged the House

would recollect the time within which it was necessary to pass laws

for carrying the treaty into effect. Much has been said of a breach of

the constitution; but has any man shown it? The constitution does not

prohibit the powers exercised on this occasion; and not having prohibited

them, they must be considered as possessed by Government. In his opinion,

it was necessary to carry the treaty into immediate effect. This done,

other measures would require attention which would afford an ample

harvest for the talents and eloquence of gentlemen with which, on any

other occasion, he would be highly pleased.

Mr. THATCHER was sorry to be obliged, at this late hour, to state his

reasons for voting against the resolution; but he should not discharge

his duty to his constituents, were he to refrain from expressing his

ideas. These reasons he should state as briefly as possible. This

resolution is general, and contemplates two objects; it calls for the

occupation and government of Louisiana, and for an appropriation of

fifteen millions of dollars. He had hoped that, on a question of such

national importance, they would have been allowed the papers necessary

for its elucidation. But gentlemen have denied us this privilege. As the

question, whether the treaty should be carried into effect, is a great

constitutional question, I shall, in my remarks, confine myself to the

constitutional objections against the treaty. Two objections have been

made arising from the 3d and 7th articles of the treaty.

The third provides that “the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be

incorporated in the union of the United States, and admitted as soon as

possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to

the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens

of the United States; and in the mean time they shall be maintained and

protected in the free, enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the

religion which they profess.”

I conceive, said Mr. T., that the only sound doctrine is, not that which

has been stated by the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. SANFORD,) that

whatever power is not prohibited by the constitution is agreeable to it,

but that such powers as are not given are still held by the States or the

people. No arguments have been addressed to prove that the constitution

delegates such a power. The gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. ELLIOT,) who has

gratified us with so long and flowery a speech, and who has ransacked

Vattel, and various other eminent authors on the laws of nations, has

proved that where the United States have a right to make a treaty, a

treaty may be made. But these authorities do not apply unless he prove

that the constitution gives the powers exercised in the present instance.

The confederation under which we now live is a partnership of States, and

it is not competent to it to admit a new partner but with the consent

of all the partners. If such power exist, it does not reside in the

President and Senate. The constitution says new States may be admitted by

Congress. If this article of the constitution authorizes the exercise of

power under the treaty, it must reside with the Legislature, and not with

the President and Senate.

The gentleman from Virginia says, the principle contained in the third

article of the treaty has been already recognized by Congress, and has

instanced our treaties with Spain and Great Britain respecting the

adjustment of our limits. By adverting to these treaties, it will be seen

that there was then no pretence that we had acquired new territory. They

only establish our lines agreeably to the Treaty of Peace. Certainly

then the facts are not similar, and there exists no analogy of reasoning

between the two cases. The gentleman from Virginia asks whether we could

not purchase the right of deposit at New Orleans? But the argument

meant to be conveyed in this question does not apply. We had the right

before this treaty was formed; nor did we, in consequence of that right,

undertake to admit the people of New Orleans into the Union.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.--Mr. Chairman: I rise, sir, to correct the gentleman

from North Carolina in one particular; he has stated that the First

Consul of France signed the treaty ceding Louisiana to the United States

after the declaration of war by Great Britain against France. I believe

he is mistaken, sir, for the Louisiana treaties were signed the 30th

April, and Great Britain issued a declaration of war against France on

the 17th of May. If I am right, the gentleman might have spared himself

the trouble of detracting from the merits of the Executive on this great

occasion.

Now I am up, I beg leave to state to the committee some of the reasons

why I shall give my vote in favor of the treaties.

A resolution is on the table which recommends that provision ought to

be made to carry into effect the late treaties with France, which cede

Louisiana to the United States. Feeling as I do that we have acquired

this country at a cheap price, that it is a necessary barrier in the

Southern and Western quarters of the Union, that it offers immense

advantages to us as an agricultural and commercial nation, I am highly

in favor of the acquisition, and I shall most cordially give my vote in

approbation of the resolution.

What, sir, shall we let slip this golden opportunity of acquiring New

Orleans and the whole of Louisiana for the trifling sum of fifteen

millions of dollars, when one-quarter part of the purchase money will

be paid to our own citizens, the remainder in public stock, which we

are not obliged to redeem under fifteen years? I trust, sir, we shall

not omit to seize the only means now left to us for getting a peaceable

possession of the finest country in the world. The bargain is a good one,

and considering it merely in that light, we ought not to relinquish it. I

have no doubt that the country acquired is richly worth fifty millions of

dollars, and it is my opinion that we ought not to hesitate a moment in

passing the resolution on the table.

We have now an opening for a free trade to New Orleans and Louisiana,

which we never had before, and I hope we shall embrace it. Let us ratify

the treaties, with all their provisions, and we shall see that in less

than three years we have gained the greatest advantages in our commerce.

I wish we may immediately proceed to adopt the resolution before the

committee.

Mr. MITCHILL rose and said, he entreated the indulgence of the committee

for rising at so late a stage of the debate, when seven hours have

already been employed in the sitting of the day. And the reason of his

request was, that such extraordinary doctrines have been advanced against

carrying into effect the treaty with France which cedes Louisiana to our

nation, and such repeated allusions have been made to the sentiments

which he submitted to the House during the debate of yesterday, that he

felt himself called upon to attempt a reply, and therein to show that the

grounds taken by the gentlemen of the opposition are neither strong nor

tenable. Although the subject is ample and copious, he should endeavor to

condense his remarks, to so moderate a compass, as not to trespass long

upon the patience of the committee.

My colleague, said Mr. M., who opened the debate this morning, (Mr. G.

GRISWOLD,) displayed in his speech the objections raised against the

resolution on the table, so fully, that he almost exhausted the subject.

For, in listening attentively to the reasoning of the gentleman from

Virginia, who followed him, (Mr. J. LEWIS,) and of the other gentleman

from Virginia, who spoke next, (Mr. GRIFFIN,) he could not discern that

any new or additional matter of much consequence had been urged. Nor did

he discover much more than a repetition in substance of his colleague’s

reasoning, in what had been urged by the gentleman from Mass., (Mr.

THATCHER,) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GRISWOLD;) though

the statement of their objections had received a form and coloring

diversified according to the skill and ingenuity of each.

The gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, who resist the provisions necessary to the

completion of this treaty, do so because they say it has been ratified

by the President and Senate in open violation of the constitution of

the United States, and is, therefore, no treaty, but a nullity, an

instrument void _ab initio_, not a part of the supreme law of the land,

and consequently not binding upon Congress or the nation. They draw this

bold and extraordinary conclusion from the style and meaning of the

3d and 7th articles of the treaty. The former of these, they say, is

unconstitutional, because it proposes to annex a new territory, with its

inhabitants, to our present dominion; the latter, because it abolishes

for a term of years the discriminating duties of tonnage and impost

within the ceded territory, giving a preference there to France and

Spain, and leaving those duties unaltered in all the ports of the Union.

By the third article, it is agreed that the inhabitants of the ceded

territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States

as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal

constitution, and be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights,

advantages, and immunities of the citizens of the United States; and

in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free

enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess.

On expounding this article, my colleague has declared that the President

and Senate have no power to acquire new territory by treaty, and he

argues that our people are to be for ever confined to their present

limits. This is an assertion directly contrary to the powers inherent

in independent nations, and contradictory to the frequent and allowed

exercise of that power in our own nation. We are constantly in the

practice of receiving territory by cession from the red men of the

West, the aborigines of our country. The very treaty mentioned in the

President’s Message, with the Kaskaskias Indians, whereby we have

acquired a large extent of land, would, according to this doctrine,

be unconstitutional; and so would all the treaties which add to the

size of our statute book, with the numerous tribes of the natives on

our frontiers. According to this construction, all our negotiations

so happily concluded with those people, whom we ever have uniformly

acknowledged as the sovereigns of the soil, are nugatory, and to be

holden for naught. He said, he was perfectly aware of the answer which

would be made, that we held all our national domain, under Great Britain,

by virtue of the treaty concluded at Paris in 1783. What, after all, was

the amount of that cession by England? Certainly not a conveyance of a

country which never was theirs, but rightfully belonged to the Indian

natives; for it was, in its true construction, merely a _quit claim_ of

the pretensions or title of the land which the English had obtained by

conquest and treaty from the French. By that negotiation, the United

States obtained a bare relinquishment of the claims and possessions of

those two powerful nations. But the paramount title of the original

inhabitants was not affected by this. However contemptuously the rights

of these rude and feeble tribes had been regarded by the Europeans,

their descendants in these States had considered them with recognition

and respect. Until the Indians sold their lands for an equivalent, the

humane and just principles of the American Government acknowledged

them to be the only legitimate owners. And the sovereignty acquired by

treaty or purchase to our Government was derived from the title which

the natives transferred to them as grantees in a fair bargain and sale.

Such, Mr. M. argued, were the rules of true construction, and these rules

admitted and acted upon by the Federal Government; and yet, according

to the novel doctrine of this day, every treaty with the natives for

parcels of their country, although hitherto deemed lawful, would be an

unconstitutional act. According to this notion, every treaty for lands,

held with the aborigines since the organization of the Government, was

a violation of the constitution. And thus this invaluable instrument,

this bulwark of our liberties, had been violated perhaps twenty times

or more, since we began to buy the surplusage of their hunting grounds.

The Indian tribes are as much aliens as any other foreign nations. Their

lands are as much foreign dominion as the soil of France or Spain. Yet we

have gone on to annex the territories which they sold us, to our present

territory, from the time we acquired independence, and no mortal, until

this debate arose, Mr. Chairman, has so much as thought that thereby a

breach of the constitution was made. My colleague is surely entitled to

great credit for his perspicuity in finding out that all our great and

wise predecessors in administering this Government have been plunderers

and constitution-breakers. But, sir, the just judgment on this subject

is, that the Presidents and Senate of the United States have heretofore

acted constitutionally in acquiring by purchase foreign dominions from

the alien Indians. And by a parity of reasoning, they have acted not

only constitutionally, but eminently for the interest of the country, in

buying Louisiana from the white men, its present sovereigns.

But, independent of correct principles and steady precedent in favor of

the acquirement of new territory, it may be worth while to mention a

few of the strange consequences which flow from the doctrine which the

gentlemen of the other side of the House contend for. According to their

reasoning, if by any force of the currents of the ocean, or any conflicts

of the winds and the waves, a new surface of earth should emerge from

the neighborhood of Cape Hatteras, it would be unconstitutional to take

possession of it. Yet it appears to me, sir, very like an absurdity to

say the United States would break their bond of union by erecting a

light-house on it. Suppose that, by volcanic action, islands should be

suddenly elevated from the bottom of the neighboring Atlantic, as they

have repeatedly risen from the depths of the Mediterranean, would it be

unconstitutional to take possession of them? So far from it, there would

on the other hand be a duty in the Government to assume the dominion of

all adjacent islands. Again; suppose for a moment that our present limits

were full of people, would it be unconstitutional to purchase additional

territory for them to settle upon? Must the hive always contain its

present numbers, and no swarm ever go forth? At this rate we should,

before a great lapse of time, arrive at a _plenum_ of inhabitants, and

if no new settlement could be obtained for them, the Chinese custom of

infanticide must be tolerated to get rid of those tender little beings

for whom food enough could not be procured, to rear them to manhood. And

thus, when this _maximum_ of population shall have arrived, there would

be no constitutional power to purchase and possess any of the waste lands

on this or the other side of the Mississippi, for them to spread and

thrive upon. A doctrine against which, he confessed, his understanding

revolted.

Our Government having in this manner the right of acquiring additional

territory, had very often exercised that right by actual purchases and

by possessions and settlements afterwards. The whole of the recent State

of Ohio and of the Indiana Territory was obtained and peopled in this

manner. And in the settlement of limits both on the side of Florida

and Nova Scotia, the principle had again and again been acted upon;

and, strange to tell, nobody, until this eventful time, had possessed

acuteness enough to find out the error.

But the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chairman, (Mr. GRISWOLD,)

contends that even if we had a right to purchase soil, we have no

business with the inhabitants. His words, however, are very select; for

he said, and often repeated it, that the treaty-making power did not

extend to the admission of foreign nations into this confederacy. To this

it may be replied that the President and Senate have not attempted to

admit foreign nations into our confederacy. They have bought a tract of

land, out of their regard to the good of our people and their welfare.

And this land, Congress are called upon to pay for. Unfortunately for the

bargain, this region contains civilized and Christian inhabitants; and

their existence there, it is alleged, nullifies the treaty. The gentleman

construed the Constitution of the United States very differently from the

manner in which Mr. M. himself did. By the third section of the third

article of that instrument, it is declared, that Congress shall have

power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting

the territory and other property of the United States, and nothing

therein contained shall be construed so as to prejudice any claim of the

United States, or of any particular State.

In the case of Louisiana no injury is done either to the nation or

to any State belonging to that great body politic. There was nothing

compulsory upon the inhabitants of Louisiana to make them stay and submit

to our Government. But if they chose to remain, it had been most kindly

and wisely provided, that until they should be admitted to the rights,

advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, they shall

be maintained and protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, property,

and the religion which they profess. What would the gentleman propose

that we shall do with them? Send them away to the Spanish provinces, or

turn them loose in the wilderness? No, sir, it is our purpose to pursue a

much more dignified system of measures. It is intended, first, to extend

to this newly acquired people the blessings of law and social order. To

protect them from rapacity, violence, and anarchy. To make them secure

in their lives, limbs, and property, reputation, and civil privileges.

To make them safe in the rights of conscience. In this way they are to

be trained up in a knowledge of our own laws and institutions. They

are thus to serve an apprenticeship to liberty; they are to be taught

the lessons of freedom; and by degrees they are to be raised to the

enjoyment and practice of independence. All this is to be done as soon

as possible; that is, as soon as the nature of the case will permit; and

according to the principles of the federal constitution. Strange! that

proceedings declared on the face of them to be constitutional, should

be inveighed against as violations of the constitution! Secondly, after

they shall have been a sufficient length of time in this probationary

condition, they shall, as soon as the principles of the constitution

permit, and conformably thereto, be declared citizens of the United

States. Congress will judge of the time, manner, and expediency of this.

The act we are now about to perform will not confer on them this elevated

character. They will thereby gain no admission into this House, nor into

the other House of Congress. There will be no alien influence thereby

introduced into our councils. By degrees, however, they will pass on

from the childhood of republicanism, through the improving period of

youth, and arrive at the mature experience of manhood. And then, they may

be admitted to the full privileges which their merit and station will

entitle them to.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH said that a sense of duty alone could have induced

him to rise at that late hour. He wished to call the attention of the

committee to a stipulation in the Treaty of London. [Here Mr. R. read

an extract from the third article of that treaty, whereby the United

States are pledged not to impose on imports in British vessels from

their territories in America, adjacent to the United States, any higher

duties than would be paid upon such imports, if brought into our Atlantic

ports in American bottoms.] In this case, he said, gentlemen could not

avail themselves of the distinction taken by his friend from Maryland

(Mr. NICHOLSON) between a Territory and a State, even if they were so

disposed--since the ports in question were ports of a State. The ports

of New York, on the Lakes, were as much ports of that State, as the city

of New York itself; they had their custom-house officers, were governed

by the same regulations as other ports,--duties were exacted at them;

and yet, under the article of the British Treaty which had been just

read, British bottoms could and did enter them subject to no higher

duties than were paid by American bottoms in the Atlantic ports. Mr.

R. said that he did not mean to affirm that this exemption made by the

Treaty of London was constitutional, so long as a distinction prevailed

between American and British bottoms in other ports. He had never given

a vote to carry that treaty into effect--but he hoped the gentlemen from

Connecticut--both of whom he believed had done so; one of whom, at least,

he knew had been a conspicuous advocate of that treaty--he hoped that

gentleman (Mr. GRISWOLD) would inform the committee how he got over the

constitutional objection to this article of the Treaty of London, which

he had endeavored to urge against that under discussion. How could the

gentleman, with the opinion which he now holds, agree to admit British

bottoms into certain ports, on the same terms on which American bottoms

were admitted into American ports, generally? thereby making that very

difference,--giving that very preference to those particular ports of

certain States, which he tells us cannot constitutionally be given to the

port of New Orleans--although that port is not within any State, and,

if his (Mr. GRISWOLD’s) doctrine be correct, not even within the United

States!

The gentleman from Connecticut professed a wish that this important

discussion should be conducted with moderation and candor. In this

sentiment he concurred. He was therefore altogether unprepared, after

this preamble, to hear the gentleman from Connecticut represent the

treaty in question as conceding the most valuable commercial privileges

to France and Spain, and thereby sapping the very foundation of our own

carrying trade. In the spirit of candor the stipulations in question

would be viewed, not as conceding advantages in trade to those nations,

but as securing them to ourselves. The article in question did indeed

profess to grant, for a limited time, to French and Spanish vessels,

laden with the products of their respective countries, admission into

the ports of the ceded territory, on equal terms with our own ships.

But, although nominally an advantage has been conceded to these nations,

substantially their situation was changed for the worse, and the benefit

in fact conferred on us. For what were our rights in these ports, and

what were theirs, setting aside the treaty? The treaty then had rendered

our situation more eligible and theirs less so. How then could gentlemen

declare that it was calculated to injure our carrying trade? when by it

our trade was put on the footing of absolute security, while that of

France and Spain was admitted under considerable restrictions, enjoying

in but one particular, and for twelve years only, an equality with ours.

Their trade, before on so superior a footing, had descended from its

pre-eminence in privilege, and given way to ours; and yet gentlemen warn

us of the destruction of our carrying trade, and commercial prosperity,

from the very source which has enlarged and secured both. The enemies

of the treaty, therefore, are the advocates of the trade of France and

Spain, and the enemies so far of our own; since, by retaining things in

their present posture, they would continue to those nations the superior

advantages which they now enjoy in the ports of Louisiana, they would

continue the restrictions which heretofore have fettered our commerce

to that country, and they would refuse to put our trade on a footing

superior to that of France and Spain.

On the subject of expediency, the gentleman had undervalued the country

west of the Mississippi, and had declared that he considered the barren

province of Florida as more important to us. Mr. R. asked if the country

west of the Mississippi were not valuable, according to the gentleman’s

own statement, since it afforded the means of acquiring Florida, which

he prized so highly, from Spain? He had no doubt of the readiness of

that power to relinquish Florida, in itself a dead expense to her--only

valuable as an out-work to her other possessions, and now insulated by

those of the United States--for a very small portion of the country which

we claimed in virtue of the treaty under discussion.

He denied the correctness of the doctrine advanced by the same gentleman,

that the stipulation entered into by France, in time of war, to raise the

Duke of Parma to the throne of Etruria, bound her to obtain a recognition

of that King from every power of Europe. All which concerned us in

that treaty had been recited in ours with France. By the Treaty of St.

Ildefonso His Catholic Majesty stipulates “to redeliver (_retroceder_)

to the French Republic, six months after the full and entire execution

of the conditions and stipulations herein relative to His Royal Highness

the Duke of Parma, the colony or province of Louisiana.” What these

stipulations were is certainly known only to the parties themselves,

for they never were officially made public, although we are at no loss

to conjecture them. Nor are we at all concerned whether France has or

has not complied with them. Because in a treaty executed at Madrid, six

months after, in March, 1801, they show that they consider the former

treaty as having passed the title to the country to France. The fifth

article is as follows:

“This treaty being in pursuance of that already concluded

between the First Consul and His Catholic Majesty, by which

the King delivers to France possession of Louisiana, the

contracting parties agree to carry into effect the said

treaty,” &c.

Spain, therefore, being satisfied as to the stipulations entered into by

France in the Treaty of San Ildefonso, declares herself in the second

treaty ready to redeliver the country to her whenever she was ready to

receive it, and Mr. R. said, he had it from high authority that the royal

mandate to that effect was in the hands of the Minister of the French

Republic near the United States, and would be forwarded to the existing

Government of Louisiana so soon as the treaty should be confirmed on our

part.

Having departed considerably from the particular point on which he wished

to be satisfied by the gentleman from Connecticut, who had spoken first,

(Mr. GRISWOLD,) he would again recall the attention of that gentleman

to the third article of the Treaty of London, and request that he would

reconcile its provisions to the doctrine which he had advanced on the

seventh article of the treaty then before the committee.

The committee now rose. Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair, and Mr. DAWSON

reported that the committee had, according to order, had the said

message, treaty, conventions, and motion, under consideration, and come

to several resolutions thereupon; which he delivered in at the Clerk’s

table, where the same were read, as follows:

1. _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made for carrying

into effect the treaty and conventions concluded at Paris on

the thirtieth of April, one thousand eight hundred and three,

between the United States of America and the French Republic.

2. _Resolved_, That so much of the Message of the President,

of the twenty-first instant, as relates to the establishment

of a Provisional Government over the territory acquired by the

United States, in virtue of the treaty and conventions lately

negotiated with the French Republic, be referred to a select

committee; and that they report by bill, or otherwise.

3. _Resolved_, that so much of the aforesaid conventions as

relates to the payment, by the United States, of sixty millions

of francs to the French Republic, and to the payment, by the

United States, of debts due by France to citizens of the United

States, be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means.

The House proceeded to consider the said resolutions at the Clerk’s

table: Whereupon the first resolution being again read, was, on the

question put thereupon, agreed to by the House--yeas 90, nays 25, as

follows: