CAPTAIN LANDAIS.

A bill for the relief of Peter Landais was read a first, second, and

third time, and passed. The petitioner claimed prize money due him in

1799; his claim was upward of $12,000.

Mr. SMITH, who reported the bill, stated that he believed the petitioner

at present wished but a part of the sum due him; and he would thank any

gentleman to name a sum with which to fill the blank.

Mr. NICHOLSON gave a very affecting statement of the petitioner’s

situation, and moved to fill the blank with $6,000. It was so filled

without a dissentient voice.

WEDNESDAY, March 5.

_Chesapeake and Delaware Canal._

Mr. GREGG, from the committee to whom was referred, on the twenty-eighth

of January last, the petition of the President and Directors of the

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, made the following report:

That it appears a company has been incorporated by the

respective States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, for

the purpose of forming a navigable canal over the isthmus,

which separates the bays of Chesapeake and Delaware: that in

pursuance of the several acts of incorporation, passed by the

said States, respectively, a large number of subscriptions

were made by divers citizens of the United States, and a board

of president and directors were duly elected for carrying the

project into effect.

That the said president and directors, in pursuance of their

appointment, have procured skilful engineers, to explore and

survey the ground across the aforesaid isthmus, and have

fixed on a route or position for the canal, calculated, as

they conceive, in every respect to secure the great and

important purpose of an uninterrupted navigation, and have

made considerable progress in the work. They find, however,

that to accomplish it, a greater portion of fortitude and

perseverance, and more ample resources will be necessary,

than the individuals who are embarked in it can be supposed

to possess. The importance of the undertaking and the immense

national advantages which may ultimately result from it, they

hope will be sufficient inducements to prevail on Congress to

grant them such assistance as will enable them to complete the

business agreeably to their original plan.

The committee cannot hesitate a moment in deciding on the

importance and extensive utility of connecting the waters of

the Chesapeake and Delaware by a navigable canal. To adopt a

phrase familiarized by use, they consider the project as an

opening wedge for an extensive inland navigation, which would

at all times be of an immense advantage to the commercial,

as well as to the agricultural and manufacturing part of the

community. But in the event of a war, its advantages would be

incalculable. The reasoning of the petitioners is conclusive

on this point. If arguments are necessary, their petition

furnishes an ample supply to prove, that no system of internal

improvement which has yet been proposed in this country,

holds out the prospect of such important national advantages,

as naturally result from a successful termination of their

undertaking.

Did the finances of the country admit of it, the committee

would feel a perfect freedom in recommending to the House the

propriety, in their opinion, of extending to the petitioners

such aid as the difficulty and importance of their enterprise

would be thought to justify. But it is a question, whether,

at this moment, the state of the treasury would admit of

any pecuniary assistance being granted. The amount of the

public debt, yet to be extinguished, the embarrassed state of

our commerce, and the critical situation of the country in

relation to foreign Governments, might perhaps be considered

as insurmountable objections against applying any public money

to internal improvements, at this particular time. Under an

impression arising from these circumstances, the committee

recommend the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That it would not be expedient, at this time, to

grant any pecuniary assistance to the President and Directors

of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company.

The report was referred to a Committee of the Whole on Monday.

_Importations from Great Britain._

The House then, on the motion of Mr. GREGG, resolved itself into a

Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union--ayes 72.

Mr. GREGG moved that the committee should take into consideration a

resolution, offered by him, on the 29th of January, for a non-importation

of British goods.

The committee having agreed to take up the resolution, and it having been

read from the Chair, in the following words:

“Whereas Great Britain impresses citizens of the United States,

and compels them to serve on board her ships of war, and also

seizes and condemns vessels belonging to citizens of the United

States, and their cargoes, being the _bona fide_ property of

American citizens, not contraband of war, and not proceeding to

places besieged or blockaded, under the pretext of their being

engaged in time of war in a trade with her enemies, which was

not allowed in time of peace;

“And whereas the Government of the United States has repeatedly

remonstrated to the British Government against these injuries,

and demanded satisfaction therefor, but without effect:

Therefore,

“_Resolved_, That, until equitable and satisfactory

arrangements on these points shall be made between the two

Governments, it is expedient that, from and after the ---- day

of ---- next, no goods, wares, or merchandise, of the growth,

product or manufacture of Great Britain, or of any of the

colonies or dependencies thereof, ought to be imported into the

United States; provided, however, that whenever arrangements

deemed satisfactory by the President of the United States shall

take place, it shall be lawful for him by proclamation to fix a

day on which the prohibition aforesaid shall cease.”

Mr. J. CLAY inquired whether it would not be in order to call up a

resolution offered by him on the same subject.

The CHAIRMAN said it was not in order, after the committee had determined

to consider the resolution just read.

Mr. GREGG then rose, and said: Mr. Chairman, I cannot but congratulate

the committee on our having at length taken up the business to which

I believe the people of this country universally expected we would

have turned our attention on the first moment of assembling in our

legislative capacity. Before we left our homes, we had learned, through

the channel of newspapers, that outrages of a most atrocious kind had

been committed on the persons and property of American citizens, by

some of the belligerent nations of Europe. This intelligence has been

officially confirmed by sundry communications which we have received from

the President of the United States. From these sources we have derived

the information that irruptions have been made into our territory, on

its southern frontier, by subjects of Spain, and that depredations to

a very considerable extent have been committed on our commerce by the

cruisers of that nation. The manly spirit with which these irruptions

were resisted by the officers of our Government appears, for the present,

to have checked the further progress of that evil; and it seems that the

system of depredation has been discontinued, in pursuance of instructions

issued by the Minister of State and of Marine to the Director General of

the Fleet. These orders were issued on the 3d day of September, 1805, and

are understood to have been produced by the remonstrances of our Minister

at that Court. From these favorable symptoms, a presumption naturally and

necessarily arises that an amicable adjustment of the points in dispute

between that Government and ours is not to be despaired of. Should we,

however, be deceived in this calculation--should similar aggressions be

repeated--we are not destitute of means to obtain redress; and on such an

event taking place, I presume we would not hesitate in resorting to the

complete exercise of these means.

I wish the prospect of an accommodation of our differences with Great

Britain were equally bright and flattering. But the systematic hostility

of that Government towards our commerce, and its obstinate perseverance

in the impressment of our seamen, notwithstanding the repeated

remonstrances of our ministers, leave no room to expect an accommodation

until we resort to such measures as will make her feel our importance to

her as the purchasers and consumers of her manufactures, and the great

injury she will sustain through a total privation of our friendship.

In searching for materials to substantiate the facts stated in the

preamble to the resolution, it is only necessary to refer to the history

of the conduct of the British Government towards us for a very short

period. By turning a few pages of that history we will find that a

large number of our fellow-citizens have been forcibly taken from their

homes--for his ship is a seaman’s home--have been put on board British

ships of war and compelled to fight her battles against a power between

whom and her own Government there exists no difference. The general

notoriety of this truth precludes the necessity of a reference to any

particular document to prove the correctness of the statement. Was such

a reference necessary, I might point to a report from the Department

of State, made at the last session of Congress. In that report we find

that, at that time, fifteen hundred and thirty-eight persons, claiming

to be American citizens, had been able to extend their application for

relief to their own Government; and though Great Britain claimed some of

these as her subjects, agreeably to her doctrine of _non-expatriation_,

the great mass was acknowledged to be Americans, for whose detention no

other cause could be assigned but because she stood in need of their

service. And is it not a fair presumption that this number was but a

small proportion of those who were actually impressed? Changed from ship

to ship, and the vessels in which they are frequently changing their

station, and guarded with the most scrupulous attention, it is almost

impossible for them to find any opportunity of applying to their own

Government or any of its officers for relief.

This open, this flagrant violation of our rights as men, and as

citizens of an independent nation, certainly demands the interposition

of Government. To what cause are we to ascribe the neglect with which

these unfortunate men have been treated? A few years ago, when some of

our people had the misfortune to be made prisoners by the Algerines,

and at a later period, when some others fell into the hands of the

Tripolitans, the feelings of the Government and of the whole country

were alive. All voices united in requiring the energy of the Government

to be exerted, and its purse to be opened, so that no means to obtain

the liberty of the captives might be left untried. Success has crowned

these endeavors, and those who were unfortunately slaves are now enjoying

their freedom. In what respect, I would ask, does the situation of those

who have been impressed from on board their own vessels, and who are

forcibly detained on board British ships of war, differ from that of the

Algerine and Tripolitan prisoners? So far as respects the Government, the

infringements of its rights are greater in the former than in the latter

case. The situation of the individual is no better. A wound inflicted

by a British cat-of-nine-tails is not less severely felt than if it had

proceeded from the lash of an Algerine. The patient submission with which

we have so long endured this flagrant outrage on the feelings of humanity

and on the honor of our country, must have excited the astonishment of

the whole world; but it must also have impressed them very forcibly

with an idea of the moderation of our Government, and of its strong

predilection for peace. I trust, however, we will now show them that

there is a point beyond which we will not suffer; that even although we

may not think it advisable to make reprisals, we will at least withdraw

our friendly intercourse from that Government, whose whole system of

conduct towards us has been that of distress and degradation; and that,

as the business is now taken up, it will be pursued with zeal and ardor,

until relief is extended to this unhappy class of sufferers, and security

obtained against similar aggressions on their persons in future, by such

arrangements as ought to be deemed satisfactory.

In relation to the capture and condemnation of our vessels, contrary

to what we consider, and to what I verily believe to be the law of

nations, I shall not detain the committee with many observations. I have

no intention of entering into a discussion of the abstract question,

whether a trade is justifiable in war which is not open in time of peace.

I will only observe, that on the principles of reason and justice, and

from such authors as I have had an opportunity of consulting, the right

for which we contend does appear to me to be clearly established. In

some late publications, this question has received a very luminous and

ample discussion, and the right insisted on by us has been placed on

such ground, and supported by reasoning so clear, so cogent, and so

conclusive, that Great Britain, with all her boasted talents, will find

it extremely difficult to find answers for them.

But even admitting the British doctrine to be correct, what, I would ask,

has been the conduct of that Government under it? Has it been that of

a nation actuated by motives of liberality and friendship? Has it been

that of a civilized and polished nation? Has it been such as justice and

the fair and honorable conduct of our Government has given us a right to

expect? No person, I think, is prepared to answer in the affirmative.

It does not appear that the principle was practised on during the last,

nor for some time after the commencement of the present war. I will not

undertake absolutely to say that they relinquished it, but the trade

which it now prohibits was permitted to be carried on to a great extent

without any interruption from their cruisers. Numbers, allured by the

prospect of gain, were induced to engage in the profitable business, and

supposing themselves safe under the protection of law, had their vessels

and effects seized to a large amount. The capture and condemnation of

their property was to them the first promulgation of the law. Ignorance

of what it was impossible for them to know, was imputed to them as

a crime, and an honorable dependence on the justice of a Government

professing to be friendly, was prosecuted with penalty and forfeiture.

But even independent of our just cause of complaint arising from this

principle, apparently new, thus unjustly brought into operation, how

has that Government conducted in relation to captures, in which, after

the most minute investigation, all the ingenuity of her courts have not

been able to discover any principle to warrant the condemnation? The

perplexing difficulties, the vexatious delays, and the enormous expense

attending the prosecution of a claim through every stage of its progress,

place an almost insurmountable barrier in the way of obtaining justice.

In fact, all her commercial maxims, and the whole system of her conduct,

discover a manifest intention, a fixed determination, to consummate the

ruin of the commerce of this country.

From this very brief view of the conduct of the British Government

towards us, and I have confined it merely to the points stated in the

preamble to the resolution; every candid, every unprejudiced person,

I think, must acknowledge, that we are arrived at a crisis; that we

have reached a period at which the honor, the interest, and the public

sentiment of the country, so far as it has been expressed, call loudly

on us to make a stand. The evil we have already suffered is great, and

it is progressing. Like a cancerous complaint, it is penetrating still

deeper towards our vitals. While we yield year after year, Great Britain

advances step by step; yet a little longer and our commerce will be

annihilated, and our independence subverted.

Here the great difficulty presents itself. What are the proper steps to

be taken? what measures that we can adopt will be most likely to effect

the object we have in view, and in its operation produce the smallest

inconvenience to ourselves? I, sir, have reflected much on this subject.

I have considered, so far as I was capable, the bearing which every

measure which I have heard proposed would have on it. The result of

my reflections is, that, under all the circumstances of the case, the

resolution, which is now the subject of immediate discussion, ought to

be adopted. What is the resolution? what does it say? It addresses Great

Britain in this mild and moderate, though manly and firm language: You

have insulted the dignity of our country by impressing our seamen, and

compelling them to fight your battles against a power with whom we are at

peace. You have plundered us of much property by that predatory war which

you authorize to be carried on against our commerce. To these injuries,

insults, and oppression, we will submit no longer. We do not, however,

wish to destroy that friendly intercourse that ought to subsist between

nations, connected by the ties of common interest, to which several

considerations seem to give peculiar strength. The citizens of our

country and the subjects of yours, from the long habit of supplying their

mutual wants, no doubt feel a wish to preserve their intercourse without

interruption. To prevent such interruption, and secure against future

aggressions, we are now desirous of entering into such arrangements as

ought to be deemed satisfactory by both parties. But if you persist

in your hostile measures, if you absolutely refuse acceding to any

propositions of compromise, we must slacken those bonds of friendship by

which we have been connected, you must not expect hereafter to find us in

your market, purchasing your manufactures to so large an amount. What

will the people of this country say of this proposition? Will they not be

ready to exclaim, that it is too mild for the present state of things?

What will be the opinion of foreign Governments respecting it? Will they

not say that we have extended the principle of moderation too far? What

must be its impression on Great Britain herself? Sir, if she is not lost

to every sense of national justice, she must acknowledge its equity and

fairness. But I would inquire particularly what would be its operation

on the people of that country? If carried into effect, I believe it

will strike dismay throughout the Empire. Its operation will be felt by

every description of people, but more especially by the commercial and

manufacturing part of the community. The influence of these two classes

is well known in that country. They are the main pillars of its support.

They are the sources of its wealth. Their representations, therefore, are

always attended to. And what language must they speak on this occasion?

It must be evident that a regard to their own interest will lead them

to remonstrate loudly against that system which will produce an annual

defalcation in the sale of their manufactures, of thirty millions of

dollars. This is their vulnerable part. By attacking them in their

warehouses and workshops we can reach their vitals, and thus raise a set

of advocates in our favor, whose remonstrance may produce an abandonment

of those unjust principles and practices which have produced the solemn

crisis.

Mr. J. CLAY.--By the resolution before us we are prohibited from

importing from Great Britain any articles, however necessary or

convenient they may be; while, at the same time, we are permitted to

carry any articles to her market. The effect will be, that while our

productions are accumulating in the hands of the British manufacturers

and merchants, they will have no means of paying for them; and of

consequence debts to a very large amount will become due from British

merchants to American citizens. Even at the present day, I have great

doubts whether there are not greater sums due by the merchants of Great

Britain to the citizens of the United States than there are recoverable

debts due by American citizens to them. If so, what will become of the

second expedient proposed to be resorted to by my colleague, that of

sequestration? The balance of injury, instead of being in our favor,

will be against us. If my colleague had looked over the report of the

Secretary of the Treasury, and had attended to the amount of American

property afloat, he would have seen that there is not less than one

hundred millions of dollars worth of American property at the mercy of

the cruisers of Britain. I believe that the naked vessels, independent

of the products they carry, amount in value to more than thirty millions

of dollars. It will be seen that the commerce of the United States in

exports and imports amounts to one hundred and fifty millions, of

which it is fair to calculate that one-third is constantly exposed on

the ocean. Of this amount about forty millions is carried on between

the United States and the power to whom it is proposed to cut off

intercourse. With this fact staring us in the face, would it be politic

to expose so much property to the retaliation of the British Ministry?

When the gentleman spoke of the amount of British depredations, he ought

to have stated the amount of those recently committed. I believe I am not

very wrong in stating the whole amount of American property detained by

British cruisers as not exceeding six millions of dollars. On balancing,

therefore, their interests, ought the United States to resort to measures

of hostility; to measures which, in the opinion of every man, will

justify retaliation?

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD.--The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who has last spoken,

regrets that this subject has been taken up so soon, but I regret it

has not been taken up at an earlier period. Although, after I found

certain information called for, I moved for other documents, calculated

to shed further light on the subject, yet I then said, and I am still

convinced that this information could not influence my decision on the

subject under consideration. The documents called for are, however, now

before us, and it appears that the balance of trade between the United

States and Great Britain is from eleven to twelve millions against us.

This difference we are obliged to make up by remittances in cash or

bills from other countries; when, if we did not purchase of her more

than we sell to her, we should not owe this annual balance, and the

amount would surely be returned to the United States, very probably

in cash, as a balance in our favor from other European nations. The

trade, therefore, with Great Britain, so far as relates to the balance,

is disadvantageous to us. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CLAY)

thinks that this resolution will materially injure us, while it will

inflict little injury on Great Britain. But there can be no doubt the

measure it contemplates will injure Great Britain vastly more than it

will injure us. Great Britain has, without any cause whatever, condemned

our vessels engaged in the carriage of colonial productions, the _bona

fide_ property of American citizens. The gentleman has acknowledged that

these captures may amount to six millions of dollars. I do not know the

amount, but if the adjudications continue, I believe it will soon exceed

that sum. But if the amount did not exceed one million, we are bound in

duty to protect our merchants. The gentleman, in his remarks, goes on the

calculation that Great Britain will go to war with us if we adopt this

resolution. But I have no such idea. If, however, I held that opinion,

I should not on that account withhold my approbation from it. Because I

believe if a war should take place, the United States will have a great

advantage over Great Britain. We should be able, in that event, to fit

out a great number of privateers, and we should make two captures to

their one. If a war should take place, which I do not hesitate to say I

should greatly deprecate, we should take twice as much of their property

as they would take of ours. But we are not, by the adoption of this

resolution, about to enter into war with Great Britain. No such thing is

in the contemplation of any gentleman. We are merely about to prohibit

the importation of British goods in consequence of her having seized our

vessels engaged in carrying on a lawful commerce, and in consequence of

her seizure of American citizens protected by the American flag.

In November, 1793, Great Britain adopted a similar principle with regard

to the colonial trade, except that the orders issued at that time went

further than the present principle. In consequence of these orders four

or five hundred of our vessels were seized. Every one knows the conduct

of the American Government at that time. A treaty was finally made in

which Great Britain promised to pay for the aggressions committed by

her vessels on neutral rights. But nearly ten years elapsed before our

merchants received compensation for their losses. This principle slept

till 1801. Great Britain did not find it convenient to call it again

into existence before that time. It then appears by a correspondence

between Mr. King, then our Minister at the Court of Great Britain,

and Lord Hawkesbury, that she attempted to renew it at this time. Mr.

King, however, remonstrated; and he finally received a note from Lord

Hawkesbury who had referred the subject to the Attorney-General of

Great Britain, admitting that the seizure, under this principle, was

not warrantable. The opinion is this: that the neutral has a right to

carry on a commerce with the enemies’ colonies. That the continuity of

the voyage is broken when the return cargo is landed in the neutral

country, and has paid duties there, and that the goods can afterwards

be safely transported to any belligerent country in Europe, in the same

bottom on which they were originally imported, or on any other neutral

bottom whatever. This appears to have settled the question, and numerous

decisions in England both before and since that time have confirmed the

principle as a correct one.

As to the impressment of our seamen, that too is a subject of most

serious complaint. We have called for a document on this point, which

unfortunately is not yet on our tables. It is so extensive, and the

information drawn from such various sources, that the Secretary of State

has not yet been able to present it. We have, however, understood, that

the number of our impressed seamen amounts to above 3,000. During the

last war Great Britain impressed upwards of 2,000 of our seamen, of

which she restored 1,200, proved to be American, and 800 remained in

her possession at the peace. In the short period of two years she has

impressed 3,000 seamen. I believe that we are bound, by all peaceable

means, to obtain the liberation of these men. Lately, one of our

frigates was shipwrecked off Tripoli, and 300 men taken captives. We

immediately passed a new appropriation bill, and sent out several

additional frigates. The affair has terminated honorably to our country,

and our seamen are released. Will we not now do as much for 3,000 seamen,

as we then did for 300, which are but a tenth part?

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I am extremely afraid, sir, that so far as it may

depend on my acquaintance with details connected with the subject, I

have very little right to address you, for in truth, I have not yet seen

the documents from the Treasury, which were called for some time ago, to

direct the judgment of this House in the decision of the question now

before you; and, indeed, after what I have this day heard, I no longer

require that document or any other document--indeed, I do not know that I

ever should have required it--to vote on the resolution of the gentleman

from Pennsylvania. If I had entertained any doubts, they would have been

removed by the style in which the friends of the resolution have this

morning discussed it. I am perfectly aware, that on entering upon this

subject, we go into it manacled, handcuffed, and tongue-tied; gentlemen

know that our lips are sealed on subjects of momentous foreign relations,

which are indissolubly linked with the present question, and which

would serve to throw a great light on it in every respect relevant to

it. I will, however, endeavor to hobble over the subject, as well as my

fettered limbs and palsied tongue will enable me to do it.

I am not surprised to hear this resolution discussed by its friends as

a war measure. They say (it is true) that it is not a war measure; but

they defend it on principles which would justify none but war measures,

and seem pleased with the idea that it may prove the forerunner of war.

If war is necessary--if we have reached this point--let us have war. But

while I have life, I will never consent to these incipient war measures,

which, in their commencement, breathe nothing but peace, though they

plunge at last into war. It has been well observed by the gentleman

from Pennsylvania behind me (Mr. J. CLAY), that the situation of this

nation in 1793 was in every respect different from that in which it

finds itself in 1806. Let me ask, too, if the situation of England is

not since materially changed? Gentlemen who, it would appear from their

language, have not got beyond the horn-book of politics, talk of our

ability to cope with the British navy, and tell us of the war of our

Revolution. What was the situation of Great Britain then? She was then

contending for the empire of the British channel, barely able to maintain

a doubtful equality with her enemies, over whom she never gained the

superiority until Rodney’s victory of the twelfth of April. What is her

present situation? The combined fleets of France, Spain, and Holland,

are dissipated, they no longer exist. I am not surprised to hear men

advocate these wild opinions, to see them goaded on by a spirit of

mercantile avarice, straining their feeble strength to excite the nation

to war, when they have reached this stage of infatuation, that we are

an over-match for Great Britain on the ocean. It is mere waste of time

to reason with such persons. They do not deserve any thing like serious

refutation. The proper arguments for such statesmen are a straight

waistcoat, a dark room, water gruel, and depletion.

It has always appeared to me that there are three points to be

considered, and maturely considered, before we can be prepared to vote

for the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania: First. Our ability

to contend with Great Britain for the question in dispute: Secondly. The

policy of such a contest: Thirdly. In case both these shall be settled

affirmatively, the manner in which we can, with the greatest effect,

react upon and annoy our adversary.

Now the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. CROWNINSHIELD) has settled

at a single sweep, to use one of his favorite expressions, not only

that we are capable of contending with Great Britain on the ocean, but

that we are actually her superior. Whence does the gentleman deduce

this inference? Because, truly, at that time when Great Britain was

not mistress of the ocean, when a North was her prime minister, a

Sandwich the first lord of her admiralty, when she was governed by a

counting-house administration, privateers of this country trespassed

on her commerce! So, too, did the cruisers of Dunkirk; at that day

Suffrein held the mastery of the Indian seas. But what is the case now?

Do gentlemen remember the capture of Cornwallis on land, because De

Grasse maintained the dominion of the ocean? To my mind no position is

more clear, than that if we go to war with Great Britain, Charleston

and Boston, the Chesapeake and the Hudson, will be invested by British

squadrons. Will you call on the Count de Grasse to relieve them, or shall

we apply to Admiral Gravina, or Admiral Villeneuve to raise the blockade?

But you have not only a prospect of gathering glory, and what seems to

the gentleman from Massachusetts much dearer, profit, by privateering,

but you will be able to make a conquest of Canada and Nova Scotia.

Indeed! Then, sir, we shall catch a Tartar. I confess, however, I have no

desire to see the Senators and Representatives of the Canadian French,

or of the tories and refugees of Nova Scotia, sitting on this floor or

that of the other House--to see them becoming members of the Union,

and participating equally in our political rights. And on what other

principle would the gentleman from Massachusetts be for incorporating

those provinces with us? Or on what other principle could it be done

under the constitution? If the gentleman has no other bounty to offer us

for going to war, than the incorporation of Canada and Nova Scotia with

the United States, I am for remaining at peace.

What is the question in dispute? The carrying trade. What part of

it? The fair, the honest, and the useful trade that is engaged in

carrying our own productions to foreign markets, and bringing back their

productions in exchange? No, sir. It is that carrying trade which covers

enemy’s property, and carries the coffee, the sugar, and other West India

products, to the mother country. No, sir, if this great agricultural

nation is to be governed by Salem and Boston, New York and Philadelphia,

and Baltimore and Norfolk and Charleston, let gentlemen come out and say

so; and let a committee of public safety be appointed from those towns to

carry on the Government. I, for one, will not mortgage my property and my

liberty, to carry on this trade. The nation said so seven years ago--I

said so then, and I say so now. It is not for the honest carrying trade

of America, but for this mushroom, this fungus of war--for a trade which,

as soon as the nations of Europe are at peace, will no longer exist,--it

is for this that the spirit of avaricious traffic would plunge us into

war.

I am forcibly struck on this occasion by the recollection of a remark

made by one of the ablest (if not the honestest) Ministers that England

ever produced. I mean Sir Robert Walpole, who said that the country

gentlemen (poor meek souls!) came up every year to be sheared--that they

lay mute and patient whilst their fleeces were taking off--but that if he

touched a single bristle of the commercial interest, the whole stye was

in an uproar. It was indeed shearing the hog--“great cry and little wool.”

But we are asked, are we willing to bend the neck to England; to submit

to her outrages? No, sir, I answer, that it will be time enough for us

to vindicate the violation of our flag on the ocean, when they shall

have told us what they have done in resentment of the violation of the

actual territory of the United States by Spain--the true territory of

the United States, not your new-fangled country over the Mississippi,

but the good old United States--part of Georgia, of the old thirteen

States--where citizens have been taken, not from our ships, but from our

actual territory. When gentlemen have taken the padlock from our mouths,

I shall be ready to tell them what I will do, relative to our dispute

with Britain, on the law of nations, on contraband, and such stuff.

I have another objection to this course of proceeding. Great Britain,

when she sees it, will say the American people have great cause of

dissatisfaction with Spain. She will see by the documents furnished by

the President, that Spain has outraged our Territory, pirated upon our

commerce, and imprisoned our citizens; and she will inquire what we have

done? It is true, she will receive no answer, but she must know what we

have not done. She will see that we have not repelled these outrages, nor

made any addition to our army and navy--nor even classed the militia. No,

sir, not one of your militia generals in politics has marshalled a single

brigade.

Although I have said it would be time enough to answer the question which

gentlemen have put to me when they shall have answered mine, yet as I

do not like long prorogations I will give them an answer now. I will

never consent to go to war for that which I cannot protect. I deem it no

sacrifice of dignity to say to the Leviathan of the deep--we are unable

to contend with you in your own element, but if you come within our

actual limits we will shed our last drop of blood in their defence. In

such an event I would feel, not reason, and obey an impulse which never

has, which never can deceive me.

France is at war with England--suppose her power on the continent of

Europe no greater than it is on the ocean. How would she make her enemy

feel it? There would be a perfect non-conductor between them. So with

the United States and England--she scarcely presents to us a vulnerable

point. Her commerce is now carried on for the most part in fleets--where

in single ships they are stout and well armed--very different from the

state of her trade during the American war, when her merchantmen became

the prey of paltry privateers. Great Britain has been too long at war

with the three most powerful maritime nations of Europe not to have

learnt how to protect her trade. She can afford convoy to it all--she

has eight hundred ships in commission, the navies of her enemies are

annihilated. Thus this war has presented the new and curious political

spectacle of a regular annual increase (and to an immense amount) of her

imports and exports, and tonnage and revenue, and all the insignia of

accumulating wealth, whilst in every former war, without exception, these

have suffered a greater or less diminution. And wherefore? Because she

has driven France, Spain, and Holland from the ocean. Their marine is

no more. I verily believe that ten English ships-of-the-line would not

decline a meeting with the combined fleets of those nations. I forewarn

the gentleman from Massachusetts and his constituents of Salem, that all

their golden hopes are vain. I forewarn them of the exposure of their

trade beyond the Cape of Good Hope (or now doubling it) to capture and

confiscation--of their unprotected seaport towns, exposed to contribution

or bombardment. Are we to be legislated into war by a set of men, who in

six weeks after its commencement may be compelled to take refuge with us

up in the country? And for what? A mere fungus--a mushroom production of

war in Europe, which will disappear with the first return of peace--an

unfair trade. For is there a man so credulous as to believe that we

possess a capital not only equal to what may be called our own proper

trade, but large enough also to transmit to the respective parent states

the vast and wealthy products of the French, Spanish and Dutch colonies?

It is beyond the belief of any rational being. But this is not my only

objection to entering upon this naval warfare; I am averse to a naval war

with any nation whatever. I was opposed to the naval war of the last

Administration, and I am as ready to oppose a naval war of the present

Administration, should they meditate such a measure. What! shall this

great mammoth of the American forest leave his native element and plunge

into the water in a mad contest with the shark? Let him beware that his

proboscis is not bitten off in the engagement. Let him stay on shore, and

not be excited by the muscles and periwinkles on the strand, or political

bears, in a boat to venture on the perils of the deep. Gentlemen say,

will you not protect your violated rights? and I say, why take to water,

where you can neither fight nor swim? Look at France--see her vessels

stealing from port to port on her own coast--and remember that she is the

first military power of the earth, and as a naval people second only to

England. Take away the British navy, and France to-morrow is the tyrant

of the ocean.

This brings me to the second point. How far is it politic in the United

States to throw their weight into the scale of France at this moment,

from whatever motive--to aid the views of her gigantic ambition--to make

her mistress of the sea and land--to jeopardize the liberties of mankind?

Sir, you may help to crush Great Britain, you may assist in breaking

down her naval dominion, but you cannot succeed to it. The iron sceptre

of the ocean will pass into his hands who wears the iron crown of the

land. You may then expect a new code of maritime law. Where will you look

for redress? I can tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that there is

nothing in his rule of three that will save us, even although he should

outdo himself, and exceed the financial ingenuity which he so memorably

displayed on a recent occasion. No, sir, let the battle of Actium be

once fought, and the whole line of seacoast will be at the mercy of the

conqueror. The Atlantic, deep and wide as it is, will prove just as

good a barrier against his ambition, if directed against you, as the

Mediterranean to the power of the Cæsars. Do I mean (when I say so) to

crouch to the invader? No! I will meet him at the water’s edge, and fight

every inch of ground from thence to the mountains--from the mountains

to the Mississippi. But after tamely submitting to an outrage on your

domicil, will you bully and look big at an insult on your flag three

thousand miles off?

But, sir, I have yet a more cogent reason against going to war, for the

honor of the flag in the narrow seas, or any other maritime punctilio.

It springs from my attachment to the Government under which I live. I

declare, in the face of day, that this Government was not instituted

for the purposes of offensive war. No! It was framed (to use its own

language) “for the common defence and the general welfare,” which are

inconsistent with offensive war.[35] I call that offensive war, which

goes out of our jurisdiction and limits for the attainment or protection

of objects not within those limits, and that jurisdiction. As in 1798 I

was opposed to this species of warfare, because I believed it would raze

the constitution to its very foundation--so, in 1806, I am opposed to it,

and on the same grounds. No sooner do you put the constitution to this

use--to a test which it is by no means calculated to endure--than its

incompetency becomes manifest, apparent to all. I fear if you go into a

foreign war, for a circuitous, unfair carrying trade, you will come out

without your constitution. Have not you contractors enough yet in this

House? Or, do you want to be overrun and devoured by commissaries, and

all the vermin of contract? I fear, sir, that what are called “the energy

men” will rise up again--men who will burn the parchment. We shall be

told that our Government is too free; or, as they would say, weak and

inefficient. Much virtue, sir, in terms! That we must give the President

power to call forth the resources of the nation. That is, to filch the

last shilling from our pockets--to drain the last drop of blood from

our veins. I am against giving this power to any man, be he who he may.

The American people must either withhold this power, or resign their

liberties. There is no other alternative. Nothing but the most imperious

necessity will justify such a grant. And is there a powerful enemy at

our doors? You may begin with a First Consul. From that chrysalis state

he soon becomes an Emperor. You have your choice. It depends upon your

election whether you will be a free, happy, and united people at home, or

the light of your Executive Majesty shall beam across the Atlantic in one

general blaze of the public liberty.

For my part, I will never go to war but in self-defence. I have no

desire for conquests--no ambition to possess Nova Scotia. I hold the

liberties of this people at a higher rate. Much more am I indisposed to

war, when, among the first means for carrying it on, I see gentlemen

propose the confiscation of debts due by Government to individuals. Does

a _bona fide_ creditor know who holds his paper? Dare any honest man

ask himself the question? ’Tis hard to say whether such principles are

more detestably dishonest, than they are weak and foolish. What, sir,

will you go about with proposals for opening a loan in one hand, and

a sponge for the national debt in the other? If, on a late occasion,

you could not borrow at a less rate of interest than eight per cent.,

when the Government avowed that they would pay to the last shilling

of the public ability, at what price do you expect to raise money with

an avowal of these nefarious opinions? God help you, if these are

your ways and means for carrying on war! if your finances are in the

hands of such a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Because a man can take

an observation, and keep a log-book and a reckoning; can navigate a

cock-boat to the West Indies, or the East, shall he aspire to navigate

the great vessel of State--to stand at the helm of public councils? _Ne

sutor ultra crepidam._ What are you going to war for? For the carrying

trade? Already you possess seven-eighths of it. What is the object in

dispute? The fair, honest trade, that exchanges the product of our soil

for foreign articles for home consumption? Not at all. You are called

upon to sacrifice this necessary branch of your navigation, and the

great agricultural interest--whose handmaid it is--to jeopardize your

best interests for a circuitous commerce, for the fraudulent protection

of belligerent property under your neutral flag. Will you be goaded, by

the dreaming calculations of insatiate avarice, to stake your all for

the protection of this trade? I do not speak of the probable effects

of war on the price of our produce. Severely as we must feel, we may

scuffle through it. I speak of its reaction on the constitution. You

may go to war for this excrescence of the carrying trade, and make

peace at the expense of the constitution. Your Executive will lord it

over you, and you must make the best terms with the conqueror that

you can. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GREGG) tells you

that he is for acting in this, as in all things, uninfluenced by the

opinion of any minister whatever--foreign, or, I presume, domestic.

On this point I am willing to meet the gentleman--am unwilling to be

dictated to by any minister, at home or abroad. Is he willing to act

on the same independent footing? I have before protested, and I again

protest against secret, irresponsible, overruling influence. The first

question I asked when I saw the gentleman’s resolution, was, “Is this

a measure of the Cabinet?” Not of an open declared Cabinet; but, of an

invisible, inscrutable, unconstitutional Cabinet, without responsibility,

unknown to the constitution. I speak of back-stairs’ influence--of men

who bring messages to this House, which, although they do not appear

on the Journals, govern its decisions. Sir, the first question that I

asked on the subject of British relations, was, What is the opinion

of the Cabinet? What measures will they recommend to Congress?--(well

knowing that whatever measures we might take, they must execute them,

and therefore, that we should have their opinion on the subject.) My

answer was, (and from a Cabinet Minister too,) “_There is no longer

any Cabinet._” Subsequent circumstances, sir, have given me a personal

knowledge of the fact. It needs no commentary.

But the gentleman has told you that we ought to go to war, if for nothing

else, for the fur trade. Now, sir, the people on whose support he seems

to calculate, follow, let me tell him, a better business, and let me add,

that whilst men are happy at home reaping their own fields--the fruits of

their labor and industry--there is little danger of their being induced

to go sixteen or seventeen hundred miles in pursuit of beavers, raccoons,

or opossums, much less of going to war for the privilege. They are better

employed where they are. This trade, sir, may be important to Britain,

to nations who have exhausted every resource of industry at home, bowed

down by taxation and wretchedness. Let them, in God’s name, if they

please, follow the fur trade. They may, for me, catch every beaver in

North America. Yes, sir, our people have a better occupation--a safe,

profitable, honorable employment. While they should be engaged in distant

regions in hunting the beaver, they dread lest those whose natural prey

they are should begin to hunt them, should pillage their property, and

assassinate their constitution. Instead of these wild schemes, pay off

your debt, instead of prating about its confiscation. Do not, I beseech

you, expose at once your knavery and your folly. You have more lands than

you know what to do with; you have lately paid fifteen millions for yet

more. Go and work them, and cease to alarm the people with the cry of

wolf, until they become deaf to your voice, or at least laugh at you.

Mr. Chairman, if I felt less regard for what I deem the best interests of

this nation than for my own reputation, I should not, on this day, have

offered to address you, but would have waited to come out, bedecked with

flowers and bouquets of rhetoric, in a set speech. But, sir, I dreaded

lest a tone might be given to the mind of the committee--they will pardon

me, but I did fear, from all that I could see or hear, that they might be

prejudiced by its advocates, (under pretence of protecting our commerce,)

in favor of this ridiculous and preposterous project; I rose, sir, for

one, to plead guilty; to declare in the face of day that I will not go to

war for this carrying trade. I will agree to pass for an idiot if this is

not the public sentiment, and you will find it to your cost, begin the

war when you will.

Gentlemen talk of 1793. They might as well go back to the Trojan war.

What was your situation then? Then every heart beat high with sympathy

for France, for _republican France_! I am not prepared to say, with my

friend from Pennsylvania, that we were all ready to draw our swords in

her cause, but I affirm that we were prepared to have gone great lengths.

I am not ashamed to pay this compliment to the hearts of the American

people, even at the expense of their understandings. It was a noble and

generous sentiment, which nations like individuals are never the worse

for having felt. They were, I repeat it, ready to make great sacrifices

for France. And why ready? Because she was fighting the battles of the

human race against the combined enemies of their liberty; because she

was performing the part which Great Britain now, in fact, sustains,

forming the only bulwark against universal dominion. Knock away her navy,

and where are you? Under the naval despotism of France, unchecked and

unqualified by any antagonizing military power; at best but a change of

masters. The tyrant of the ocean, and the tyrant of the land, is one and

the same, lord of all, and who shall say him nay, or wherefore doest thou

this thing? Give to the tiger the properties of the shark, and there

is no longer safety for the beasts of the forest or the fishes of the

sea. Where was this high anti-Britannic spirit of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania, when his vote would have put an end to the British treaty,

that pestilent source of evil to this country? and at a time, too, when

it was not less the interest than the sentiment of this people to pull

down Great Britain and exalt France. Then, when the gentleman might

have acted with effect, he could not screw his courage to the sticking

place. Then England was combined in what has proven a feeble, inefficient

coalition, but which gave just cause of alarm to every friend of freedom.

Now the liberties of the human race are threatened by a single power,

more formidable than the coalesced world, to whose utmost ambition, vast

as it is, the naval force of Great Britain forms the only obstacle.

I am perfectly sensible and ashamed of the trespass I am making on the

patience of the committee; but as I know not whether it will be in my

power to trouble them again on this subject, I must beg leave to continue

my crude and desultory observations. I am not ashamed to confess that

they are so. At the commencement of this session, we received a printed

Message from the President of the United States, breathing a great deal

of national honor, and indignation at the outrages we had endured,

particularly from Spain. She was specially named and pointed at. She

had pirated upon your commerce, imprisoned your citizens, violated

your actual territory; invaded the very limits solemnly established

between the two nations by the Treaty of San Lorenzo. Some of the State

Legislatures (among others the very State on which the gentleman from

Pennsylvania relies for support) sent forward resolutions pledging

their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, in support of any

measures you might take in vindication of your injured rights. Well,

sir, what have you done? You have had resolutions laid upon your table,

gone to some expense of printing and stationery--mere pen, ink, and

paper, that’s all. Like true political quacks, you deal only in handbills

and nostrums. Sir, I blush to see the record of our proceedings; they

resemble nothing but the advertisements of patent medicines. Here you

have “the worm-destroying lozenges,” there “Church’s cough drops;” and,

to crown the whole, “Sloan’s vegetable specific,” an infallible remedy

for all nervous disorders and vertigoes of brain-sick politicians; each

man earnestly adjuring you to give his medicine only a fair trial. If,

indeed, these wonder-working nostrums could perform but one-half of what

they promise, there is little danger of our dying a political death, at

this time at least. But, sir, in politics as in physics, the doctor is

ofttimes the most dangerous disease; and this I take to be our case at

present.

But, sir, why do I talk of Spain? “There are no longer Pyrenees!” There

exists no such nation, no such being as a Spanish King, or Minister.

It is a mere juggle, played off for the benefit of those who put the

mechanism into motion. You know, sir, that you have no differences with

Spain; that she is the passive tool of a superior power, to whom, at this

moment, you are crouching. Are your differences, indeed, with Spain?

And where are you going to send your political panacea, resolutions and

handbills excepted, your sole arcanum of Government, your king cure all?

To Madrid? No--you are not such quacks as not to know where the shoe

pinches--to Paris. You know, at least, where the disease lies, and there

you apply your remedy. When the nation anxiously demands the result of

your deliberations, you hang your head and blush to tell. You are afraid

to tell. Your mouth is hermetically sealed. Your honor has received a

wound which must not take air. Gentlemen dare not come forward and avow

their work, much less defend it in the presence of the nation. Give them

all they ask, that Spain exists--and what then? After shrinking from

the Spanish jackall, do you presume to bully the British lion? But here

the secret comes out. Britain is your rival in trade, and governed as

you are by counting-house politician; you would sacrifice the paramount

interests of the country, to wound that rival. For Spain and France you

are carriers, and from good customers every indignity is to be endured.

And what is the nature of this trade? Is it that carrying trade which

sends abroad the flour, tobacco, cotton, beef, pork, fish, and lumber

of this country, and brings back in return foreign articles necessary

for our existence or comfort? No, sir, it is a trade carried on--the

Lord knows where, or by whom; now doubling Cape Horn, now the Cape of

Good Hope. I do not say that there is no profit in it--for it would not

then be pursued--but it is a trade that tends to assimilate our manners

and Government to those of the most corrupt countries of Europe. Yes,

sir, and when a question of great national magnitude presents itself to

you, it causes those who now prate about national honor and spirit to

pocket any insult; to consider it as a mere matter of debit and credit; a

business of profit and loss, and nothing else.

The first thing that struck my mind, when this resolution was laid on

the table, was _unde derivatur_? A question always put to us at school.

Whence comes it? Is this only the putative father of the bantling he is

taxed to maintain, or, indeed, the actual parent, the real progenitor

of the child? Or, is it the production of the Cabinet? But, I knew you

had no Cabinet, no system. I had seen despatches relating to vital

measures laid before you the day after your final decision on those

measures, four weeks after they were received; not only their contents,

but their very existence, all that time unsuspected and unknown to men

whom the people fondly believe assist with their wisdom and experience

at every important deliberation. Do you believe that this system, or

rather this no-system, will do? I am free to answer it will not, it

cannot last. I am not so afraid of the fair, open, constitutional,

responsible influence of Government, but I shrink intuitively from this

left-handed, invisible, irresponsible influence, which defies the touch,

but pervades and decides every thing. Let the Executive come forward to

the Legislature; let us see while we feel it. If we cannot rely on its

wisdom, is it any disparagement to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to say

that I cannot rely upon him? No, sir, he has mistaken his talent. He is

not the Palinurus on whose skill the nation, at this trying moment, can

repose their confidence. I will have nothing to do with his paper, much

less will I endorse it, and make myself responsible for its goodness. I

will not put my name to it. I assert that there is no Cabinet, no system,

no plan; that which I believe in one place, I shall never hesitate to

say in another. This is no time, no place, for mincing our steps. The

people have a right to know; they shall know the state of their affairs;

at least, as far as I am at liberty to communicate them. I speak from

personal knowledge. Ten days ago there had been no consultation; there

existed no opinion in your Executive department; at least, none that was

avowed. On the contrary, there was an express disavowal of any opinion

whatsoever, on the great subject before you; and I have good reason for

saying that none has been formed since. Some time ago, a book was laid

on our tables, which, like some other bantlings, did not bear the name

of its father. Here I was taught to expect a solution of all doubts, an

end to all our difficulties. If, sir, I were the foe--as I trust I am

the friend of this nation--I would exclaim, “Oh, that mine enemy would

write a book!” At the very outset, in the very first page, I believe,

there is a complete abandonment of the principle in dispute. Has any

gentleman got the work? [It was handed by one of the members.] The first

position taken is the broad principle of the unlimited freedom of trade

between nations at peace, which the writer endeavors to extend to the

trade between a neutral and a belligerent power, accompanied, however,

by this acknowledgment: “But, inasmuch as the trade of a neutral with

a belligerent nation, might, in certain special cases, affect the

safety of its antagonist, usage, founded on the principle of necessity,

has admitted a few exceptions to the general rule.” Whence comes the

doctrine of contraband, blockade, and enemy’s property? Now, sir, for

what does that celebrated pamphlet, “War in Disguise”--which is said to

have been written under the eye of the British Prime Minister--contend,

but this “principle of necessity?” And this is abandoned by this

pamphleteer at the very threshold of the discussion. But, as if this

were not enough, he goes on to assign as a reason for not referring to

the authority of the ancients, “that the great change which has taken

place in the state of manners, in the maxims of war, and in the course

of commerce, make it pretty certain” (what degree of certainty is this?)

“that either nothing will be found relating to the question, or nothing

sufficiently applicable to deserve attention in deciding it.” Here, sir,

is an apology of the writer for not disclosing the whole extent of his

learning, (which might have overwhelmed the reader,) is the admission

that a change of circumstances, (“in the course of commerce,”) has made

(and, therefore, will now justify) a total change of the law of nations.

What more could the most inveterate advocate of English usurpation

demand? What else can they require to establish all, and even more

than they contend for? Sir, there is a class of men--we know them very

well--who, if you only permit them to lay the foundation, will build you

up, step by step, and brick by brick, very neat and showy, if not tenable

arguments. To detect them, it is only necessary to watch their premises,

where you will often find the point at issue surrendered, as in this case

it is.

Again: Is the _mare liberum_ any where asserted in this book, that free

ships make free goods? No, sir; the right of search is acknowledged; that

enemy’s property is lawful prize, is sealed and delivered. And, after

abandoning these principles, what becomes of the doctrine that a mere

shifting of the goods from one ship to another, the touching at another

port, changes the property? Sir, give up this principle, and there is an

end to the question. You lie at the mercy of the conscience of a Court of

Admiralty. Is Spanish sugar, or French coffee, made American property, by

the mere change of the cargo, or even by the landing and payment of the

duties? Does this operation effect a change of property? And when those

duties are drawn back, and the sugar and coffee re-exported, are they

not (as enemy’s property) liable to seizure upon the principles of the

“Examination of the British doctrine,” &c.? And, is there not the best

reason to believe, that this operation is performed in many, if not in

most cases, to give a neutral aspect and color to the merchandise?

I am prepared, sir, to be represented as willing to surrender important

rights of this nation to a foreign Government. I have been told that

this sentiment is already whispered in the dark, by time-servers and

sycophants. But, if your Clerk dared to print them, I would appeal to

your Journals. I would call for the reading of them, but that I know

they are not for profane eyes to look upon. I confess that I am more

ready to surrender to a naval power a square league of ocean, than to a

territorial one, a square inch of land within our limits; and I am ready

to meet the friends of the resolution on this ground at any time.

Let them take off the injunction of secrecy. They dare not. They are

ashamed and afraid to do it. They may give winks and nods, and pretend

to be wise, but they dare not come out and tell the nation what they

have done. Gentlemen may take notice if they please, but I will never,

from any motive short of self-defence, enter upon war. I will never be

instrumental to the ambitious schemes of Buonaparte, nor put into his

hands what will enable him to wield the world, and on the very principle

that I wished success to the French arms in 1793. And wherefore? Because

the case is changed. Great Britain can never again see the year 1760.

Her continental influence is gone for ever. Let who will be uppermost

on the continent of Europe, she must find more than a counterpoise for

her strength. Her race is run. She can only be formidable as a maritime

power; and, even as such, perhaps not long. Are you going to justify the

acts of the last Administration, for which they have been deprived of the

Government at our instance? Are you going back to the ground of 1798-’9?

I ask any man who now advocates a rupture with England to assign a single

reason for his opinion, that would not have justified a French war in

1798? If injury and insult abroad would have justified it, we had them

in abundance then. But what did the Republicans say at that day? That,

under the cover of a war with France, the Executive would be armed with a

patronage and power which might enable it to master our liberties. They

deprecated foreign war and navies, and standing armies, and loans, and

taxes. The delirium passed away--the good sense of the people triumphed,

and our differences were accommodated without a war. And what is there

in the situation of England that invites to war with her? It is true she

does not deal so largely in perfectibility, but she supplies you with a

much more useful commodity--with coarse woollens. With less profession,

indeed, she occupies the place of France in 1793. She is the sole bulwark

of the human race against universal dominion; no thanks to her for it.

In protecting her own existence, she ensures theirs. I care not who

stands in this situation, whether England or Buonaparte. I practise

the doctrines now that I professed in 1798. Gentlemen may hunt up the

journals if they please; I voted against all such projects under the

Administration of John Adams, and I will continue to do so under that

of Thomas Jefferson. Are you not contented with being free and happy at

home? Or will you surrender these blessings that your merchants may tread

on Turkish and Persian carpets, and burn the perfumes of the East in

their vaulted rooms? Gentlemen say it is but an annual million lost, and

even if it were five times that amount, what is it compared with your

neutral rights? Sir, let me tell them a hundred millions will be but a

drop in the bucket, if once they launch without rudder or compass into

this ocean of foreign warfare. Whom do they want to attack? England. They

hope it is a popular thing, and talk about Bunker’s Hill, and the gallant

feats of our Revolution. But is Bunker’s Hill to be the theatre of war?

No, sir, you have selected the ocean, and the object of attack is that

very navy which prevented the combined fleets of France and Spain from

levying contribution upon you in your own seas; that very navy which, in

the famous war of 1798, stood between you and danger. Whilst the fleets

of the enemy were pent up in Toulon, or pinioned in Brest, we performed

wonders to be sure; but, sir, if England had drawn off, France would

have told you quite a different tale. You would have struck no medals.

This is not the sort of conflict that you are to count upon, if you go

to war with Great Britain. _Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat._ And

are you mad enough to take up the cudgels that have been struck from

the nerveless hands of the three great maritime powers of Europe? Shall

the planter mortgage his little crop, and jeopardize the constitution

in support of commercial monopoly, in the vain hope of satisfying the

insatiable greediness of trade? Administer the constitution upon its

own principles; for the general welfare, and not for the benefit of

any particular class of men. Do you meditate war for the possession of

Baton Rouge or Mobile, places which your own laws declare to be within

your limits? Is it even for the fair trade that exchanges your surplus

products for such foreign articles as you require? No, sir, it is for a

circuitous trade--an ignis fatuus. And against whom? A nation from whom

you have any thing to fear?--I speak as to our liberties. No, sir, with

a nation from whom you have nothing, or next to nothing, to fear; to the

aggrandizement of one against which you have every thing to dread. I

look to their ability and interest, not to their disposition. When you

rely on that the case is desperate. Is it to be inferred from all this

that I would yield to Great Britain? No. I would act towards her now,

as I was disposed to do towards France, in 1798-’9; treat with her, and

for the same reason, on the same principles. Do I say I would treat with

her? At this moment you have a negotiation pending with her Government.

With her you have not tried negotiation and failed, totally failed, as

you have done with Spain, or rather France; and, wherefore, under such

circumstances, this hostile spirit to the one, and this--I will not say

what--to the other?

But a great deal is said about the laws of nations. What is national

law but national power guided by national interest? You yourselves

acknowledge and practise upon this principle where you can, or where

you dare--with the Indian tribes for instance. I might give another and

more forcible illustration. Will the learned lumber of your libraries

add a ship to your fleet, or a shilling to your revenue? Will it pay or

maintain a single soldier? And will you preach and prate of violations of

your neutral rights, when you tamely and meanly submit to the violation

of your territory? Will you collar the stealer of your sheep, and let

him escape that has invaded the repose of your fireside--has insulted

your wife and children under your own roof? This is the heroism of truck

and traffic--the public spirit of sordid avarice. Great Britain violates

your flag on the high seas. What is her situation? Contending, not for

the dismantling of Dunkirk, for Quebec, or Pondicherry, but for London

and Westminster--for life; her enemy violating at will the territories

of other nations, acquiring thereby a colossal power that threatens the

very existence of her rival. But she has one vulnerable point to the

arms of her adversary, which she covers with the ensigns of neutrality;

she draws the neutral flag over the heel of Achilles. And can you ask

that adversary to respect it at the expense of her existence? and in

favor of whom? An enemy that respects no neutral territory of Europe,

and not even your own. I repeat that the insults of Spain towards this

nation have been at the instigation of France; that there is no longer

any Spain. Well, sir, because the French Government does not put this

in the Moniteur, you choose to shut your eyes to it. None so blind as

those who will not see. You shut your own eyes, and to blind those of

other people, you go into conclave, and slink out again and say, “a

great affair of State!”--_C’est une grande affaire d’Etat!_ It seems

that your sensibility is entirely confined to the extremities. You may

be pulled by the nose and ears, and never feel it, but let your strong

box be attacked, and you are all nerve--“Let us go to war!” Sir, if they

called upon me only for my little _peculium_ to carry it on, perhaps I

might give it; but my rights and liberties are involved in the grant,

and I will never surrender them while I have life. The gentleman from

Massachusetts (Mr. CROWNINSHIELD) is for sponging the debt. I can never

consent to it; I will never bring the ways and means of fraudulent

bankruptcy into your committee of supply. Confiscation and swindling

shall never be found among my estimates to meet the current expenditure

of peace or war. No, sir, I have said with the doors closed, and I say

so when the doors are open, “pay the public debt;” get rid of that dead

weight upon your Government--that cramp upon all your measures--and then

you may put the world at defiance. So long as it hangs upon you, you

must have revenue, and to have revenue you must have commerce--commerce,

peace. And shall these nefarious schemes be advised for lightening the

public burdens; will you resort to these low and pitiful shifts; dare

even to mention these dishonest artifices to eke out your expenses, when

the public treasure is lavished on Turks and infidels, on singing boys

and dancing girls, to furnish the means of bestiality to an African

barbarian?

Gentlemen say that Great Britain will count upon our divisions. How?

What does she know of them? Can they ever expect greater unanimity

than prevailed at the last Presidential election? No, sir, it is the

gentleman’s own conscience that squeaks. But if she cannot calculate upon

your divisions, at least she may reckon upon your pusillanimity. She may

well despise the resentment that cannot be excited to honorable battle on

its own ground; the mere effusion of mercantile cupidity. Gentlemen talk

of repealing the British Treaty. The gentleman from Pennsylvania should

have thought of that, before he voted to carry it into effect. And what

is all this for? A point which Great Britain will not abandon to Russia,

you expect her to yield to you--Russia! indisputably the second power of

continental Europe; with not less than half a million of hardy troops;

with sixty sail-of-the-line, thirty millions of subjects, and a territory

more extensive even than our own--Russia, sir, the storehouse of the

British Navy, whom it is not more the policy and the interest than the

sentiment of that Government to soothe and to conciliate--her sole hope

of a diversion on the continent, and her only efficient ally. What this

formidable power cannot obtain with fleets and armies, you will command

by writ--with pothooks and hangers. I am for no such policy. True honor

is always the same. Before you enter into a contest, public or private,

be sure you have fortitude enough to go through with it. If you mean war,

say so, and prepare for it. Look on the other side; behold the respect in

which France holds neutral rights on land; observe her conduct in regard

to the Franconian estates of the King of Prussia. I say nothing of the

petty powers--of the Elector of Baden, or of the Swiss--I speak of a

first-rate Monarchy of Europe, and at a moment, too, when its neutrality

was the object of all others nearest to the heart of the French Emperor.

If you make him monarch of the ocean, you may bid adieu to it for ever.

You may take your leave, sir, of navigation--even of the Mississippi.

What is the situation of New Orleans if attacked to-morrow? Filled with a

discontented and repining people, whose language, manners, and religion,

all incline them to the invader--a dissatisfied people, who despise the

miserable Governor you have set over them--whose honest prejudices and

basest passions alike take part against you. I draw my information from

no dubious source; but from a native American, an enlightened member of

that odious and imbecile Government. You have official information that

the town and its dependencies are utterly defenceless and untenable. A

firm belief that (apprised of this) Government would do something to put

the place in a state of security, alone has kept the American portion

of that community quiet. You have held that post, you now hold it, by

the tenure of the naval predominance of England, and yet you are for a

British naval war.

There are now but two great commercial nations--Great Britain is one,

and the United States the other. When you consider the many points of

contact between our interests, you may be surprised that there has been

so little collision. Sir, to the other belligerent nations of Europe

your navigation is a convenience, I might say, a necessary. If you do

not carry for them they must starve, at least for the luxuries of life,

which custom has rendered almost indispensable; and if you cannot act

with some degree of spirit towards those who are dependent upon you as

carriers, do you reckon to browbeat a jealous rival, who, the moment

she lets slip the dogs of war, sweeps you at a blow from the ocean. And

_cui bono_? for whose benefit? The planter? Nothing like it. The fair,

honest, real American merchant? No, sir, for renegadoes; to-day American,

to-morrow Danes. Go to war when you will, the property, now covered by

the American, will then pass under the Danish, or some other neutral

flag. Gentlemen say that one English ship is worth three of ours; we

shall therefore have the advantage in privateering. Did they ever know a

nation to get rich by privateering? This is stuff, sir, for the nursery.

Remember that your products are bulky, as has been stated; that they

require a vast tonnage to transport them abroad, and that but two nations

possess that tonnage. Take these carriers out of the market. What is the

result? The manufactures of England, which (to use a finishing touch of

the gentlemen’s rhetoric) have received the finishing stroke of art, lie

in a small comparative compass. The neutral trade can carry them. Your

produce rots in the warehouse. You go to Eustatia or St. Thomas, and

get a striped blanket for a joe, if you can raise one. Double freight,

charges, and commission. Who receives the profit? The carrier. Who pays

it? The consumer. All your produce that finds its way to England, must

bear the same accumulated charges--with this difference, that _there_ the

burden falls on the home price. I appeal to the experience of the late

war, which has been so often cited. What then was the price of produce,

and of broadcloth?

But you are told England will not make war; that she has her hands full.

Holland calculated in the same way in 1781. How did it turn out? You

stand now in the place of Holland, then without her navy, and unaided

by the preponderating fleets of France and Spain, to say nothing of the

Baltic Powers. Do you want to take up the cudgels where these great

maritime States have been forced to drop them? to meet Great Britain

on the ocean, and drive her off its face? If you are so far gone as

this, every capital measure of your policy has hitherto been wrong. You

should have nurtured the old, and devised new systems of taxation, and

have cherished your navy. Begin this business when you may, land-taxes,

stamp-acts, window-taxes, hearth-money, excise, in all its modifications

of vexation and oppression, must precede or follow after. But, sir, as

French is the fashion of the day, I may be asked for my _projet_. I can

readily tell gentlemen what I will not do. I will not propitiate any

foreign nation with money. I will not launch into a naval war with Great

Britain, although I am ready to meet her at the Cowpens or on Bunker’s

Hill--and for this plain reason, we are a great land animal, and our

business is on shore. I will send her money, sir, on no pretext whatever,

much less on pretence of buying Labrador, or Botany Bay, when my real

object was to secure limits, which she formally acknowledged at the peace

of 1783. I go further: I would (if any thing) have laid an embargo. This

would have got our own property home, and our adversary’s into our power.

If there is any wisdom left among us, the first step towards hostility

will always be an embargo. In six months all your mercantile megrims

would vanish. As to us, although it would cut deep, we can stand it.

Without such a precaution, go to war when you will, you go to the wall.

As to debts, strike the balance to-morrow, and England is I believe in

our debt.

I hope, sir, to be excused for proceeding in this desultory course. I

flatter myself I shall not have occasion again to trouble you. I know

not that I shall be able, certainly not willing, unless provoked in

self-defence. I ask your attention to the character of the inhabitants

of that Southern country, on whom gentlemen rely for support of their

measure. Who and what are they? A simple, agricultural people, accustomed

to travel in peace to market with the produce of their labor. Who takes

it from us? Another people, devoted to manufactures--our sole source of

supply. I have seen some stuff in the newspapers about manufactures in

Saxony, and about a man who is no longer the chief of a dominant faction.

The greatest man whom I ever knew--the immortal author of the letters

of Curtius--has remarked the proneness of cunning people to wrap up and

disguise in well-selected phrases, doctrines too deformed and detestable

to bear exposure in naked words; by a judicious choice of epithets to

draw the attention from the lurking principle beneath, and perpetuate

delusion. But a little while ago, and any man might have been proud to

have been considered as the head of the Republican party. Now, it seems,

it is reproachful to be deemed the chief of a dominant faction. Mark the

magic of words. Head--_chief_. Republican party--_dominant faction_.

But as to the Saxon manufactures. What became of their Dresden china?

Why the Prussian bayonets have broken all the pots, and you are content

with Worcestershire or Staffordshire ware. There are some other fine

manufactures on the continent, but no supply, except perhaps of linens,

the article we can best dispense with. A few individuals, sir, may have a

coat of Louvier’s cloth, or a service of Sevres china; but there is too

little, and that little too dear, to furnish the nation. You must depend

on the fur trade in earnest, and wear buffalo hides and bear skins.

Can any man who understands Europe pretend to say that a particular

foreign policy is now right because it would have been expedient twenty,

or even ten years ago, without abandoning all regard for common sense?

Sir, it is the Statesman’s province to be guided by circumstances; to

anticipate, to foresee them; to give them a course and a direction;

to mould them to his purpose. It is the business of a counting-house

clerk to peer into the day-book and ledger, to see no further than the

spectacles on his nose, to feel not beyond the pen behind his ear? to

chatter in coffee-houses, and be the oracle of clubs. From 1783 to 1793,

and even later, (I don’t stickle for dates,) France had a formidable

marine--so had Holland--so had Spain. The two first possessed of thriving

manufactures and a flourishing commerce. Great Britain, tremblingly alive

to her manufacturing interests and carrying trade, would have felt to the

heart any measure calculated to favor her rivals in these pursuits. She

would have yielded then to her fears and her jealousy alone. What is the

case now? She lays an export duty on her manufactures, and there ends the

question. If Georgia shall (from whatever cause) so completely monopolize

the culture of cotton as to be able to lay an export duty of three per

cent. upon it, besides taxing its cultivators, in every other shape, that

human or infernal ingenuity can devise, is Pennsylvania likely to rival

her and take away the trade?

But, sir, it seems that we, who are opposed to this resolution, are men

of no nerve, who trembled in the days of the British treaty--cowards (I

presume) in the reign of terror? Is this true? Hunt up the Journals; and

let our actions tell. We pursue our old unshaken course. We care not for

the nations of Europe, but make foreign relations bend to our political

principles and subserve our country’s interest. We have no wish to see

another Actium, or Pharsalia, or the lieutenants of a modern Alexander

playing at piquet, or all-fours, for the empire of the world. It is

poor comfort to us to be told that France has too decided a taste for

luxurious things to meddle with us; that Egypt is her object, or the

coast of Barbary, and, at the worst, we shall be the last devoured. We

are enamored with neither nation; we would play their own game upon them,

use them for our interest and convenience. But with all my abhorrence of

the British Government, I should not hesitate between Westminster Hall

and a Middlesex jury, on the one hand, and the wood of Vincennes and a

file of grenadiers, on the other. That jury-trial, which walked with

Horne Tooke and Hardy through the flames of ministerial persecution, is,

I confess, more to my taste than the trial of the Duke d’Enghein.

Mr. Chairman, I am sensible of having detained the committee longer than

I ought; certainly much longer than I intended. I am equally sensible

of their politeness, and not less so, sir, of your patient attention.

It is your own indulgence, sir, badly requited indeed, to which you owe

this persecution. I might offer another apology for these undigested,

desultory remarks--my never having seen the Treasury documents. Until I

came into the House this morning, I had been stretched on a sick bed.

But when I behold the affairs of this nation, instead of being where I

hoped, and the people believed, they were, in the hands of responsible

men, committed to Tom, Dick and Harry, to the refuse of the retail trade

of politics, I do feel, I cannot help feeling, the most deep and serious

concern. If the Executive Government would step forward and say, “such

is our plan, such is our opinion, and such are our reasons in support

of it,” I would meet it fairly, would openly oppose, or pledge myself

to support it. But, without compass or polar star, I will not launch

into an ocean of unexplored measures, which stand condemned by all the

information to which I have access. The Constitution of the United States

declares it to be the province and the duty of the President “to give

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

and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge

expedient and necessary.” Has he done it? I know, sir, that we may say,

and do say, that we are independent, (would it were true;) as free to

give a direction to the Executive as to receive it from him. But do

what you will, foreign relations, every measure short of war, and even

the course of hostilities, depend upon him. He stands at the helm, and

must guide the vessel of State. You give him money to buy Florida, and

he purchases Louisiana. You may furnish means; the application of those

means rests with him. Let not the master and mate go below when the

ship is in distress, and throw the responsibility upon the cook and the

cabin-boy. I said so when your doors were shut; I scorn to say less now

that they are open. Gentlemen may say what they please. They may put an

insignificant individual to the ban of the Republic--I shall not alter

my course. I blush with indignation at the misrepresentations which

have gone forth in the public prints of our proceedings, public and

private. Are the people of the United States, the real sovereigns of the

country, unworthy of knowing what, there is too much reason to believe,

has been communicated to the privileged spies of foreign governments?

I think our citizens just as well entitled to know what has passed as

the Marquis Yrujo, who has bearded your President to his face, insulted

your Government within its own peculiar jurisdiction, and outraged all

decency. Do you mistake this diplomatic puppet for an automaton? He has

orders for all he does. Take his instructions from his pocket to-morrow,

they are signed “Charles Maurice Talleyrand.” Let the nation know what

they have to depend upon. Be true to them, and (trust me) they will prove

true to themselves and to you. The people are honest--now at home at

their ploughs, not dreaming of what you are about. But the spirit of

inquiry, that has too long slept, will be, must be awakened. Let them

begin to think--not to say such things are proper because they have been

done--of what has been done, and wherefore, and all will be right.

The committee then rose, and the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, March 6.

_Non-Importation of British Goods._

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

the Union on Mr. GREGG’s resolution.

Mr. N. WILLIAMS.--The subject now under consideration calls for a display

of all the knowledge and experience of commercial men and statesmen. And

although I do not profess to be of either class, yet if I should chance

to bestow a mite of information upon a subject of such vast importance to

this country, it will no doubt be favorably received by this honorable

committee.

The resolution now under discussion has for its principal object the

protection of the active commerce of our country; it therefore becomes

us perhaps, before we enter into the merits of the measure proposed, to

inquire whether commerce is of itself so important to us, as to demand

our protection. This first inquiry might seem unnecessary, and even

extraordinary, had we not witnessed so recently, upon this floor, the

very light and trivial manner in which the commerce of this country has

been treated, and had we not heard the very strange opinion, that it

ought to be left to take care of itself.

It is possible that the agricultural class, which embraces a very great

and respectable part of the population of our country, will look for

some evidence of the benefits to be derived to them from the protected

enterprise of our merchants. Those benefits, however, are so obvious to

an attentive observer, that very little need be urged to render them

apparent. It has been justly said that agriculture and commerce are

handmaids to each other. Indeed, their interests are strongly and durably

interwoven. Commerce has a direct tendency to raise the price of the

product of the farmer’s labor, by seeking in every part of the world

the best markets for our articles of export, and by bringing back and

scattering through the country that circulating medium which cherishes

industry, and sweetens the toils of the laborer. If we had not an active

commerce among our citizens, it is evident that foreign merchants and

nations only would be enriched by the profits of our agriculture, would

convert us into mere diggers of the soil for their benefit, and would

thereby gain the means of insulting and degrading us more abundantly. The

price of our produce will lessen in the proportion that we curtail the

means of transporting it to the best foreign markets, and the means will

assuredly be curtailed if we withdraw our protection from the enterprise

of our citizens upon the ocean. Declare to foreign nations that the

active commerce of this country meets no longer the fostering care of

Government, and you will soon hear of their ten-fold insolence upon the

seas; and our vessels, frowned from the enjoyment of their rights there,

will find an asylum in our harbors only, where they will be left to rot.

The produce of our country must share a similar fate, unless we consent

to dispose of it to foreign merchants and speculators, at any price they

may please to offer for it. But what is not less important, if we have a

regard for morals and happiness, a horrid picture here presents itself;

that moment you stagnate the vent of your grain, an extensive inland

country will be inundated with whiskey and the destructive vices which

flow from the free use of it.

Although important, this is far from being the most important view which

may be taken of this subject. It is a conceded point that our Government

must by some means or other have revenue. The greatest statesmen and

patriots of this country have united, I believe, in considering commerce

as our most fruitful source of revenue and riches. It presents a mode of

fiscal exaction, the most in union with the spirit and feelings as well

as the interests of the American people--that of indirect taxation. By

this mode the consumers of articles of foreign growth and manufacture,

contribute freely and copiously to the support of our Government, and to

that fund which is destined to the payment of the national debt, and this

too without feeling in a great degree the weight of the contribution. But

the moment, sir, we give up this source of revenue, or expose it to the

cupidity and rapacity of foreign powers, a resort to modes of taxation

less congenial with the spirit of freedom must be inevitable. Let those

who are for giving up this, look about and see what other sources of

revenue our country can furnish. Experience, that mother of wisdom, has

already instructed us, that excise laws are too odious in many parts of

our country to be borne; indeed this source of revenue would at best be

trifling. Personal property is of a nature too occult and too liable to

shift and change to become a safe and permanent source of revenue. The

sale of the public lands, relied on by some, is an expedient which on

many accounts will be slow and inefficient; but if the sentiment prevails

of leaving commerce to take care of itself, and my notions are correct

that such a measure will paralyze the industry of the farmer, it may very

justly be doubted, whether our wild lands will meet with a ready market.

What then, I would ask, remains, but a land tax, to supply a fund to meet

the necessary calls of our Government; a tax so odious in many parts of

our country, as to be one of the powerful causes of the overthrow of

one administration, and if again resorted to, may possibly produce the

destruction of another.

Should considerations like these, thoroughly pursued, prove insufficient

to convince gentlemen that the commerce of this country is worthy to be

shielded by her protecting arm, I may despair of doing it, perhaps, by

any further arguments within my power to adduce. But it is certainly

deserving the remembrance of this honorable body, that our Government,

by the course it has taken, has long since pledged itself to support

the rights and interests of our merchants upon the ocean. Aside of

the immense revenues drawn from their enterprise and industry, we may

consider the measures alone, adopted by our Government, to protect and

guarantee their interests, by compacts with foreign nations and armaments

for their defence, as having the direct effect of luring them to embark

their property upon the seas with the most implicit security, and with

almost a certain assurance that this protection should be continued. In

short, I do not see how it can be denied that these privileges are as

much entitled to the protection of Government, as those, equally, though

not more sacred, which are enjoyed by our fellow-citizens upon land.

To relinquish any of them would be taking a step towards a dastardly

abandonment of our independence as a nation--and would be announcing to

every people on earth, that we have become so tame and submissive, that

we are willing to be converted into simple tools and instruments for

their use and profit, and to desert the defence of our own sacred rights.

Whatever course policy or wisdom might have dictated to this nation _à

priori_ respecting commerce, it is evidently too late now to retrace our

steps; nay, we cannot do it, short of treachery towards the mercantile

interest, and without rendering ourselves a subject of derision and

contempt to all Europe. If we shrink on the present occasion from that

bold and energetic course which the times seem to call for, what a

respectable figure we shall cut in history! This will be our story:--“The

American nation, finding her commerce in the Mediterranean pestered by

the petty barbarous powers surrounding that sea, blustered and talked

manfully like Bobadil in the play. Now this hero was invincible, or he

would not have talked so valiantly. ‘Twenty more--kill them! Twenty

more--kill them too!’ But the moment their rights upon the ocean were

assailed by a nation at once respected and powerful, they meanly shrunk

from the contest, and in vain did their admired Executive endeavor to

rally the representatives of the people, in support of the firm and

dignified measures which he recommended.”

If therefore it is clear, as I trust it is, that commerce is the great

supporter of agriculture--that it is at the same time the most rational

and most prolific source of revenue and riches to our country, and if,

in addition to this, Government has pledged itself to a vast body of

respectable citizens, in every part of the United States, to protect

their property legally employed in commerce--to say that this commerce

shall now be left to take care of itself--of all the insulting mockeries

ever offered to this nation, this appears to me the most insulting. But

with many, and I do not suffer myself to doubt, with a great majority

of this committee, this question may be considered as at rest. Commerce

is worthy of our protection. Our natural situation, and the laudable

enterprise of our citizens, which leads them into every sea and to every

land, have made it ours, and we cannot abandon it without being guilty of

the most palpable folly.

Mr. MASTERS.--I shall not deny that Great Britain has insulted us

by impressing our seamen, neither shall I deny that that nation has

committed wanton aggressions and depredations on our commerce, and that

commerce ought to be protected. That the resolution under consideration

is the best course to be pursued for the interest of this nation, I shall

contend against.

Restraints and prohibitions between nations have always arisen from two

circumstances--the first, to promote their home industry or manufactures.

The liberal price of wages, joined with the plenty and cheapness of land,

which induces the laborer to quit his employer and become planter or

farmer himself, who rewards with the same liberality which induces his

laborers to leave their employment for the same reasons as the first:

therefore, it is impossible for manufactures to flourish in this country

in our present situation.