The case in most other countries is very different, where the price

of labor is low, and the rent and the profit consume the wages of the

laborer, and the higher order of people oppress the inferior, which I

hope never to see in this country.

It may rationally be calculated that some of the Eastern and Middle

States will eventually become manufacturing States; some of those States

are nearly filled with people, and many individuals have large capitals

employed in foreign commerce, to the amount in many instances of two and

three hundred thousand dollars each. When peace takes place in Europe,

and things come down to their natural standard, and they can no longer

employ that capital to advantage in commercial speculations, they will

withdraw the same from that employment; they must make use of those

capitals somewhere; they cannot invest them to any advantage in our

public funds, bank stock or other corporations, beyond a certain extent;

they therefore, by the aid of water-works and machinery, will naturally

employ those capitals in manufactures, and I trust the time is not many

years distant. That is not now the case, and can have no bearing on the

present question; indeed, it is hardly contended that the resolution is

brought forward for that purpose; it must therefore be brought forward

for some other purpose.

The other circumstance which gives rise to prohibitions between nations,

arises from the violence of national animosity, which generally ends

in war. This circumstance has brought this resolution into existence;

the preamble speaks warlike language, and the whole taken together is

a prelude to war with a nation who has two hundred ships-of-the-line,

four hundred frigates, besides gun-brigs and other armed vessels, whose

revenue is between forty and fifty millions sterling, who can go to war

with us without any additional expense to themselves, who will sweep the

ocean of American commerce, amounting to nearly one hundred millions of

dollars. What then will be the situation of your carrying trade? What

then will be the situation of your commerce and your country?

But the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. CROWNINSHIELD) has

told us “if we go to war, we can do Great Britain the most injury.” The

navigation of their merchant vessels is principally carried on under

convoy. Some individuals may fit out a few privateers and capture now

and then a vessel, and put some prize money in their private pockets; it

cannot be of any advantage to the nation, which will groan under poverty

and distress.

It appears to me a matter of great deliberation how far we ought to

adopt the present resolution, by prohibiting the importation of British

manufactures. In every country it ever was, and always must be, the

interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want, of

those who sell it cheapest. We cannot procure the same articles so cheap

elsewhere; even should the measure not involve us in a war, prohibitions

and revenge naturally dictate retaliation, and nations seldom fail to

do it. The honorable mover of the resolution (Mr. GREGG) asks us “how

it is to be inferred, we cannot abide by and execute this system?” It

is to be inferred from retaliation, and observation of nations who have

preceded us. When France, in 1667, laid discriminating duties on Holland,

the Dutch retaliated by the prohibition of French wines, brandies,

and the like: a war followed, and the peace of Nimeguen regulated

their commercial disputes. About that time the English prohibited

the importation of lace manufactured in Flanders; the Government of

that country, which was then under the dominion of Spain, immediately

retaliated and prohibited all importation of English woollens. Soon

after this, the French and English mutually began their heavy duties and

prohibitions, and have ever since been in commercial disputes, quarrels,

and hostilities; and we, with our eyes open, are now going into the same

system. The same honorable gentleman has also said it would attack Great

Britain in her vitals, in her manufactories and warehouses. It seems

a bad method of compensating injuries done to us, to do another worse

injury to ourselves, which I believe will be the case by adopting the

present resolution; it will have a natural tendency to retaliation and

revenge.

Mr. SMILIE.--I am in favor, Mr. Chairman, of the resolution under

consideration; and lest it should be supposed that I am an enthusiast in

respect to commerce, and deserve to be classed among that desperate order

of men called merchants, according to the representation which we have

had yesterday from the gentleman from Virginia, I beg leave to make a few

remarks on the abstract question, whether commerce ought to be considered

as beneficial in its relation to the United States. I have long thought

that there was an essential difference between what is, in the common

language of the world, a splendid, and great, and a happy people. I have

been led to think that the situation of the people of the United States,

separated from the rest of the world by an ocean of three thousand miles,

possessing an immense region of land, having full employment for all her

people in the cultivation of the earth--having, from the variety of her

climate and the difference of her soil, the means of supplying herself,

not only with all the necessaries of life in abundance, but with many of

its comforts, and even some of its luxuries--from these considerations, I

have been led to think it had been happier if the American people, when

they became an independent nation, had found themselves without commerce,

and had still remained so. Thus circumstanced, they would certainly

have avoided those dangers which flow from the weakness of an extended

trade, and those luxuries which have hitherto proved so fatal to morals,

happiness, and liberty. In my opinion, we should have been a happier

people without commerce. Among the considerations which have induced me

to believe that this would have been a happy state, is, that we should

have enjoyed a perfect state of safety. We should not have been under

the necessity of conflicting with foreign nations; because commerce,

and commerce alone, can produce those conflicts. I have expressed this

opinion, to show that I have not been led by any particular attachment

to commerce, to take that part which I have declared I would do on the

present occasion. But what was the situation of the American people when

they first found themselves a nation? And what are the duties imposed

upon us by the compact we entered into? As to any abstract opinions we

may entertain on this subject, they ought to have no influence here upon

us. I stand _here_ on other ground, and dare not resist the dictates of

duty. I was astonished yesterday to hear it mentioned by the gentleman

from Virginia, (Mr. J. RANDOLPH,) and boldly asserted, referring to

the constitution, that the American Government was under no obligation

to protect any property of its citizens one foot from the shore. I was

astonished at this declaration, because I could see to what it went. I

saw, if this was the opinion of the Southern States, where it would end.

The situation of this people, when they became a nation, was this: the

Eastern States might properly be said to be a commercial people, as they

lived by commerce; the Middle States were partly commercial and partly

agricultural; the Southern States, properly speaking, were agricultural.

This opposition of character must have created great difficulty in

forming the constitution, and, in truth, this and other points threw

great obstacles in the way of its formation. But a spirit of concession

overcame all difficulties. Is it, however, to be believed, that the

Eastern States, properly commercial, or the Middle, partaking equally of

the commercial and agricultural character, would have united with the

Southern States, if they had been told that commerce was to receive no

protection? No, sir, it cannot be believed. But I take higher ground--the

compact itself, referred to by the gentleman from Virginia. Let us

examine the powers vested in Congress under this compact, and decide

whether commerce was, or was not intended to be protected. If there was

nothing specific in these powers, the first page would show the intention

of its framers. “We, the people of the United States, in order to form

a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity,

provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare,” &c. If

we go on to the tenth page, we shall there find the power given to

Congress, “to provide and maintain a navy.” Is the protection of commerce

contemplated here, or is it not? In other parts of the instrument, we

perceive the power to regulate commerce vested in Congress. Will any man

pretend to say that the power of establishing a navy can be exercised

independent of commerce? Every man of common sense knows that a navy

cannot even exist without it.

Having sufficiently established the right of commerce to protection

under the constitution, I come now to consider the resolution under

consideration. We find our rights invaded by foreign nations, and an

attack made by one nation on our carrying trade, which, in my opinion,

cannot be warranted by the law of nations. I shall not condescend to

argue this point. I believe it to be a lawful trade, let whoever may deny

it. I have taken some pains to make myself acquainted with the subject,

by reading several treatises upon it; and, notwithstanding the contempt

with which a certain book was yesterday treated by the gentleman from

Virginia, I will venture to predict that, when the mortal part of that

gentleman and myself shall be in ashes, the author of that work will

be considered a great man. Nor do I judge in this exclusively from my

own opinion, but from the opinions of men of distinguished talents,

from different and distant parts of the Union, who all concur in saying

that the writer has conclusively established the principle he contends

for. Indeed, I could not have believed, had I not heard it, that a

Representative of the American people, in the face of the Legislature,

would have relinquished so precious a principle! But there was a curious

feature in all the luminous discoveries yesterday disclosed to us by

the gentleman from Virginia, in which he strictly observed the rule of

the rhetorician--where a point could not be justified, to get over it as

well as he could. On the impressment of our seamen he said nothing. He

knew that the American feelings would not bear it. When I think of what

is called the carrying trade, I consider it a small evil compared to

this. It has been compared to Algerine slavery, but it is worse. What is

this impressment? Your citizens are seized by the hand of violence, and

if they refuse to fight the battles of those who thus lay violent hands

upon them, you see them hanging at the yard-arm. In the first place, they

are obliged to expose their persons to murder, in fighting the battles

of a nation to which they owe no allegiance. They are obliged to commit

murder, for it is murder to take away the life of a man who has given us

no offence, at the same time that they expose their own persons to the

commission of murder. This is the true point of light in which I have

always considered this horrid and barbarous act, for which, indeed, I

cannot find language sufficiently strong to express the indignation I

feel. This is the situation of our country. Our commerce depredated upon

in every sea, our citizens dragged from their homes, and despoiled of all

they hold dear. We are told we are not to mind these things--that the

nation who commits the outrages is a powerful nation. But really, as an

American, I cannot feel the force of this observation.

The gentleman from Virginia yesterday assumed it as a principle, and the

whole of his argument turned on it, that this is a war measure, and that

its friends are for going to war. Were I satisfied with the truth of this

remark, I should change my mind with regard to the resolution. But is it

a war measure? I believe the same duties and obligations exist between

nations, as between individuals in a state of nature. If my neighbor

treats me with injustice, I have a right to decline all intercourse with

him, without giving him a right to knock me down. If we deem it our

interest not to trade with a particular nation, have we not a right to

say so?--a nation with whom we have no commercial treaty, and towards

whom, therefore, in regard to trade, we have a right to act as we please?

If a commercial treaty existed between us, it would be our duty to

observe it; but, without one, we have an undoubted right to say whether

we have or have not a use for her productions. If, then, this be a peace

measure, why treat it as a war measure? But it is said that it will lead

to war. Britain is said to be a great nation, high spirited, and proud,

and therefore we must not take this step for fear of the consequences.

Trace this argument--see where it leads us. It leads us to this: that,

with a powerful nation we must on no account whatever quarrel, though

she may commit ever so many aggressions on our right. No, we must not,

let her go whatever length she may, until, on this same principle, we

shall be called upon to surrender our independence, because we have to

deal with a powerful nation! If we do not make a stand now against her

aggressions, when or where shall we do it? But one alternative will

remain--to bend our necks, to crouch beneath the tyrant, to submit

without murmur to her insolence and injustice.

FRIDAY, March 7.

_Importations from Great Britain._

The House again resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state

of the Union--Mr. GREGG’s resolution still under consideration.

Mr. SLOAN.--I do not rise to deny, but to acknowledge myself one of

those horn-book politicians, alluded to by a gentleman from Virginia,

and to assure this committee that I do not envy or begrudge that member

either his superior genius, talents, or learning; and further to ask on

behalf of myself, and others of this class, the favor of being permitted

to deliver our sentiments on this, and other important subjects, in

such language as we are capable of, until our constituents may have an

opportunity of electing other members, of superior learning and talents,

and farther advanced in political knowledge. This is a favor I hope

will not be denied, otherwise a great number of American citizens, the

remainder of this and the ensuing session, must go unrepresented.

In answer to the assertion that our late conduct respecting Spain was

such as we dare not mention; that we dare not take off the injunction of

secrecy; that we are ashamed to let the nation know the secret--permit me

to assure that gentleman, and this committee, that I feel neither shame,

nor compunction of heart, for the part that I acted in that business,

not doubting that, when the injunction is taken off, and the public

acquainted with the whole transaction, the real friends of the peace

and interest of the United States will fully approve the conduct of the

majority, (with whom I had the pleasure to act,) and which, were I, by

side-glances and insinuations, to endeavor to impress the public mind

with a belief that a majority of their Representatives had acted in a

manner they were ashamed of, I conceive my constituents would thenceforth

consider me unworthy of their confidence, and, consequently, of a seat on

this floor.

We are told that we have no Cabinet. Is it necessary? is it recognized by

the constitution? No! The President’s powers are defined, and have, for

five years, been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the people.

I have heard of British Cabinets, British Ministers, and British Privy

Councils. Of their conduct I formed a very bad opinion, before the member

alluded to was out of his nurse’s arms, and have seen no cause to change

that opinion. It is therefore pleasing to me to hear that we have no such

institution.

Mr. Chairman, however great my gratitude to the member for his paternal

care over the children in politics on this floor, which roused him from

his sick bed to give his superior opinion upon this subject before our

weak and feeble minds had been misled by Tom, Dick, and Harry, or some

other arrogant chap that might have some knowledge of steering a ship

at sea, but totally ignorant in navigating our vessel of State, I say,

notwithstanding I gave all the attention in my power to his eloquent

speech of two hours and forty-eight minutes, there were divers parts

which my weak brain could not comprehend, and which I beg leave to lay

before this committee for the purpose of receiving further information.

1. I cannot comprehend how our demanding the release of our impressed

seamen, and restitution for unjust captures of our vessels, can be

construed as throwing our weight in the scale of France, for the purpose

of supporting a set of men who do not support the public weal of the

United States.

2. Nor can I possibly discover that Great Britain stands precisely in the

same situation that republican France did in ’93. For information on this

subject, let me ask, was it not British gold and British intrigue that

then formed the coalition against republican France? And is it not the

same that has formed the present coalition against monarchical France?

Have the armies of France, in either case, advanced beyond their own

territory, previous to the raising and advancing towards them of powerful

armies for the express purpose of subjugating them, and dividing their

property among the coalesced powers? If the accounts received are true,

they have not.

Before I sit down, let me ask the members of this committee, (especially

you in whose ears the expiring groans of your brethren in arms--of your

beloved fellow-citizens--yet vibrate; slain by the murderous hands of

the mercenaries of Great Britain, or more barbarously deprived of life

by famine or pestilence,) can you, while that same monarch reigns, and

who, instead of diminishing, has added to the long and black catalogue

of crimes set forth in our Declaration of Independence, which induced

you to risk your lives in opposition to his tyranny; can you with

complacency, or any degree of approbation, sit and hear that Government

who continues her tyranny and injustice to these United States--witness

the capture of our vessels and impressment of our seamen--held up by a

member on this floor, as the only barrier we have against the tyranny of

that nation who in our struggle assisted us with vessels of war, arms,

ammunition, men, and money; whose soldiers fought by your side, and

bled to support American liberty and independence, and whose Government

continues friendly towards us? I hope not; I believe you cannot; your

hearts must turn indignant from such language. For my own part I am free

to declare, that, since I have had the honor of a seat on this floor,

I have heard nothing that has so hurt my feelings. I have borne them

in silence. I am happy in obtaining a few moments in my plain unlearned

way to express them, that this committee and all the United States may

know that I retain the same abhorrence against British tyranny that I

did in the Revolutionary war, and also the same love for the liberty and

independence of the United States.

Mr. FINDLAY said he had been long in the habit of observing, that, when a

subject was discussed which occasioned numerous arguments, the question

was often lost sight of. In the heat of debate, instead of the subject

before them, the preceding argument became the text to him that replied,

and his to the next who took the floor, and so on, in succession, until

some member succeeded in calling the attention of the members to the

original subject. Though the present question had but a few days engaged

the attention of the Committee of the Whole, yet, in his opinion, several

of the speakers on the floor had lost sight of it, further than he had

formerly observed in so short a time. He would attempt to draw the

attention of the committee from these desultory excursions, which settle

no point in debate, and often have no visible connection with it, to the

important question they were called upon to decide; and in doing so, he

would take no notice of any thing that had been offered as argument,

which was not necessarily connected with the question. He would neither

be the advocate nor apologist for any one nation of Europe, nor treat any

other nation with irritating contempt. Language of the kind that has been

used within two days past in this House ought not to be admitted, unless

we were employed in discussing a manifesto to support a declaration of

war, and even for that purpose it is inconsistent with national dignity.

He said, the subject before the House was a resolution, referred to the

Committee of the whole House on the state of the Union, to prohibit all

importation of goods the produce or the manufacture of Britain, or any of

the British dominions; not to prevent Britain or her dependencies from

receiving supplies of provisions, raw materials, &c., from us. It does

not go to prohibit exportation; but even this should not be done without

a very sufficient cause. Two causes are assigned in the preamble to the

resolution; first, the impressment of our seamen; second, commercial

aggressions.

Mr. F. asked, Was it ever known, in the history of independent nations,

that any one nation impressed the citizens or subjects of another nation

into their fleets, to fight against a nation friendly to that from which

they had been impressed, and to receive no wages or emoluments unless

they would enlist; which few of them ever do, except under the lash

of the boatswain, which is applied if they appear reluctant to do the

meanest drudgery, and who must of necessity hate the nation for which

they fought? No, sir, this cannot be shown. The British Government has

long been in the habit of impressing their own subjects for seamen. In

France, we have been lately told in this House, conscripts are forced

to the army. Perhaps the conscripts are the same that we have been

accustomed to call the classes of militia in this country; but it is

of their own citizens. Impressments to the navy are a very different

thing. It is such an exercise of tyranny that it is hoped will never be

exercised in this country. Yet, still, except in the case of our seamen,

it is their own subjects: they do not impress Swedes, Danes, or Prussians.

A man impressed is condemned to a slavery of the worst kind. Slavery, for

a limited time, is a suitable punishment for crimes; but the sentence

with us, and in all nations, civilized or savage, is decided by known

and responsible judges to be the breach of some law. But by whom is the

sentence of condemnation to slavery passed on our citizens, sailing under

the protection of our own flag, chargeable with no crime? Not by a court

of justice in any form; not even by an officer of high responsibility;

but by some young subaltern of a man-of-war, which is universally

admitted to resort to the most arbitrary species of government existing.

No other crime is alleged to justify the condemnation, but that he

speaks the English language, or has become an American citizen, and no

other judge but a lieutenant or midshipman selected for this exertion of

tyranny.

We have not long since expressed a just abhorrence of slavery, by a

very unanimous vote of this House; we have expressed a very commendable

sympathy for the untutored sons of Africa, of a different color from

ourselves, stolen or forced from their families and all that is dear to

them; and shall we make no exertions to protect our own citizens from a

worse kind of slavery? If the planters of South Carolina, or any other

State where slaves are employed, should forcibly take any of our sons

from the plough, or other lawful and necessary occupation, and set them

to work with other slaves in raising cotton or rice, the outrage would

be horrid, indeed, but not equal to the impressment of our citizens. The

slave to the planter must labor, but he is not obliged to kill those who

have given him no provocation, or to be killed himself, and he may be

found and redeemed. Money redeemed our captives from the Barbary coast,

and we felt for them, and advanced the price.

There is, sir, another point of view presented in the impressment of

our seamen which ought to address our attention. It is admitted that

several thousand of our impressed citizens are employed on board the

British men-of-war, fighting against France. These, it is believed,

are sufficient to man five ships-of-the-line. If by our silence we

connive at this, or by our wilful neglect of such peaceable means as are

within our power to prevent it, may not this be charged as a breach of

neutrality--may it not be justly called war in disguise? But I forbear.

Commercial aggressions, such as capturing our merchant ships laden with

cargoes of colonial produce, purchased in return for the produce of

our own country and the property of our own citizens, and condemning,

contrary to the laws and usages of nations, as approved and practised

even by the British courts until August last, and openly in her

decisions substituting the instructions of the court in the place of the

law of nations, contrary to her own former practice, by which, it is

acknowledged by the opposers of the resolution, the British courts have

already condemned at least six millions of dollars, of the property of

our citizens, on new principles, which not being known to the owners, it

was impossible to provide against the events. Though these aggressions

have hitherto been principally committed on cargoes of colonial produce,

where only we can find a market for the produce of the Middle and Eastern

States, yet the principles are equally applicable to much of our East

India trade, and to the trade with France, Spain, and Holland, from

which we derive most of the favorable balance of trade, which enables us

to discharge the unfavorable balance of trade with Great Britain; and

she can so apply them without giving notice of her intention at a time

when she knows we have the greatest amount of property on the ocean. We

cannot admit the plea of necessity, as suggested in a well known British

pamphlet, and advocated without reserve by the gentleman from Virginia.

To admit this would justify every possible aggression of the power at war

against neutral nations. We make no war in disguise against Britain; we

favor her as much as in our neutral station and commercial situation we

can do. We bear with aggressions from her that would not be offered nor

borne with from any other nation. The profits accruing from a favorable

commercial balance with other nations is cheerfully thrown into her

lap, and if we do not continue to do so it is her own fault. Justice

and policy require that she should do so. Britain pretends no cause of

complaint against us. We have readily removed such as she ever had. By

pleading necessity, the aggression on her part seems to be acknowledged.

Let her remove the cause.

Mr. EARLY.--Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, in submitting to the

committee those observations which I am about to make, to confine myself

entirely to the merits of the question under consideration.

Upon this, as upon another recent occasion, our attention has been

summoned at the outset of the discussion to what gentlemen choose to

call the spirit of the nation. We are told, that this spirit had been

awakened by the events which led to the introduction of the resolution

upon the table, and had called upon us in a loud voice, to adopt

energetic measures for the vindication of our national honor, and for

the protection of our national rights. The facts, sir, are incorrectly

represented. The people of this nation, identified with the Government

of the nation, will at all times stand ready to support that Government

with the energies of the nation, when a proper occasion shall present

itself. Governed by persons of their own immediate choice, they will

confidently repose in such persons the determination of that question.

Does it follow, that because they have pledged to us the support of the

national energies, if in our judgment they are become necessary, that

therefore we are called upon to take a course which may render them

necessary? It is true that the apprehensions of the public have been

excited lest a period had arrived in which it would be necessary to put

to risk the national peace. Yes, sir, it is too true that alarm has been

spread through every quarter of the Union. But by what means, and from

what sources? It has been by the incorrect views of the nature and state

of the interests at stake, with which our public prints have teemed. It

has been by magnifying representations of the injuries really sustained

on the one part, and on the other, by imposing calculations as to the

sacrifices demanded to effect redress. These incorrect views of the

subject are believed to have been the offspring of mercantile influence.

It is from this source, by these means, and through these channels, that

the public apprehension has been roused upon this occasion. But it is our

duty to unmask the influence which has produced the evil, and to let the

nation know the true state of the question now to be decided. To let them

understand what the injuries are which we are called upon to redress,

and the nature and extent of the interests which we are called upon to

sacrifice in effecting it.

But, Mr. Chairman, the impressment of American seamen by British

cruisers, is held out as one of the objects of redress in the

contemplated measure. This, sir, is a grievance which no man will

attempt to deny or palliate. It is an evil calling so imperiously for

redress, that almost any sacrifice ought to be made, provided it would

answer the purpose. But do gentlemen, can they seriously believe that

this resolution will produce the desired effect? Can it be for a moment

supposed, that a measure at best weak and inefficient--a measure which

in its operation must press with fourfold weight upon ourselves, will

produce any serious diversion in our favor, by increasing the number of

objects, of which you intend to compel the surrender on the part of your

adversary? My fear is that it would only make bad worse, and that instead

of 1,500 seamen impressed on board British ships of war, we should have

as many thousand made captives, and compelled to fight against their own

country.

The resolution under consideration proposes an insurance upon terms

vastly disadvantageous. The premium and the risk are out of all

proportion. What, sir, is the premium? The sum of $800,000, the amount

of revenue estimated to accrue from the carrying trade. What is the

risk? The almost certain sacrifice of the agricultural interest of the

nation--the almost certain event of a war, and the consequent risk of the

destruction of the constitution and liberties of this nation. For one

I cannot underwrite such a policy. I will not pledge my constituents to

insure upon such terms.

But we are asked, must the carrying trade be surrendered? In return we

ask, must the agricultural interest of the country be sacrificed to

preserve it? Must we plunge into a war to preserve it? Must we put to

risk the constitution and liberties of the nation to preserve it?

Mr. Chairman, this nation is at peace. We are happy in the enjoyment of

our rights at home. We are prosperous beyond the example of any other

people in the world. We enjoy the fruits of our own industry, abundantly

supplied with all the comforts of life, and increasing rapidly in wealth

by good markets for our produce. The merchants receive a profit upon

their trade, coextensive with the highest wishes of rational men, and

when confined to fair neutral commerce, pursue their occupations with

security. Is this a state of things which should be put to the risk of

chance for such a boon as the carrying trade? Is this a state of things

which should be jeopardized for the profit of a few merchants in a few

mercantile towns?

Mr. ELMER.--Mr. Chairman, I will rise to make a few observations on the

subject now under consideration, but I will not detain the committee

more than a few minutes. The resolution on your table is denounced

by gentlemen as a war measure, but I cannot discern its tendency to

that point. It is acknowledged on all hands that we have received from

Great Britain repeated and grievous injuries. The whole American people

are alarmed, and their feelings excited by the reiterated acts of

oppression and insult. A gentleman from Georgia has told you that our

constituents have not dictated any measures; it is true, they have not

dictated, but they have complained, and they look up to the collected

wisdom of Congress to devise a remedy for the evils under which they

are laboring. This is the business upon which we are in part assembled,

and it is the most important to which our attention will be called; we

should therefore engage in it with all that seriousness and impartiality

which its importance demands. Every member should divest himself of all

national and party prejudice when he decides on a question in which the

interest of his country is so deeply concerned. And can we, as men and as

patriots, tamely submit to have our seamen impressed, and forced to fight

the battles of a foreign nation, and to have our commerce embarrassed,

interrupted, and perplexed, and the property of our citizens engaged

therein condemned and made the property of the unjust captors? I trust

not.

SATURDAY, March 8.

_Importation of British Goods._

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

state of the Union, on Mr. GREGG’s resolution.

Mr. ELLIOT.--To replace the present question upon the ground which it

originally occupied, to examine it with a view to its real merits, and

its merits alone, however hopeless might be the task, would certainly

be a very useful one. It has indeed been considered as indicative of a

species of madness to attempt to stem a torrent which is known to be

irresistible; but it is said that there is sometimes method in madness,

and there is always honor in a gallant death in a good cause. It is in

vain to conceal the fact that this resolution is devoted to destruction;

but its supporters owe something to their own feelings, and they owe much

more to their country. It will probably be admitted, Mr. Chairman, on

both sides of the House--for it will not be pretended that there are more

than two sides upon the present occasion, whatever confusion of parties

may sometimes appear to exist upon this floor--that a more interesting

crisis of our national concerns than the present, in reference to

foreign relations, has not existed since the adoption of the present

constitution. Some of the best interests of our country are at stake.

But it is not believed by all that our constitution and liberties are

involved in any possible issue of this question. Before we even had a

constitution, while the elements of our political system were almost

without form, and void, the liberties of this people were safe in their

own hands, and triumphant over the power of that nation whose vengeance,

it is said, we shall provoke by the adoption of this resolution. Our

constitution and liberties are safe. The scene is not so awful, but it

is impressive. I repeat it, sir, we owe much to our country. The friends

of the resolution are prepared for the fate that awaits it; but they

have taken their ground from reflection, and they cannot, they will not

abandon it against conviction, until overpowered, as indubitably they

will be, in the contest.

Two classes of arguments are marshalled in opposition to the motion, one

of which is addressed to our hopes, and the other to our fears. To our

hopes--of what? Of honorable and successful negotiation, if this measure

be abandoned. Great Britain will do us justice if we ask it once more.

On what is this hope founded? Let us not go too far back. It was said in

ancient times to be dangerous, and doubtless it is dangerous still, to

rake open the ashes of a flame not yet extinguished. Do our hopes repose

upon events of recent date? Upon the long-continued impressment into

her naval service of many of our useful citizens, citizens entitled to

the same rights with ourselves, except that they are not delegated to

represent the people within these walls? An outrage which no nation but

Great Britain practises, and to which no nation but America submits. Upon

the constant interpolation of new principles, destructive of our neutral

rights, into the venerable code of the laws of nature and nations, or

rather the systematic perversion and prostration, to our serious injury,

of some of the most sacred principles of those laws. We can soon dismiss

this branch of the subject. Coolly and deliberately systematic, severe

and unbending, has the injurious conduct of Great Britain toward us long

been. Unconnected with strong measures on our part we can discern no

reasonable ground for hopes so flattering. Prospects so delusive have

no charms for the supporters of the resolution. We repose no confidence

upon the justice and liberality of Great Britain, further than as those

virtues may correspond with her interest. To that we wish to make an

appeal. With myself it has long been a settled opinion, that she would go

to war with us whenever it should be her interest to do so. We wish for

peace, we raise our voices for negotiation, but for negotiation sustained

by measures of an energetic and commanding character.

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS.--Mr. Chairman, I feel the necessity of apologizing to

the committee for that portion of their time which I shall occupy; not

presuming to offer reasons to others why this resolution should not be

adopted, I beg their indulgence, while I do that which presents itself at

the time as a duty, to declare what are my reasons for voting against it;

the deep stake my constituents hold in the measure is my apology.

Such is the magnitude of the subject under discussion, spreading itself

over a prodigious extent, running to the heart of some of our most

valuable institutions, subverting unmeasurably the plighted faith of the

Government, and overturning the foundations of a considerable portion

of our revenue, that I feel myself inadequate to trace its influence

over even a ramification of that vast interest it lays hold of, much

less do I pretend to a view of the whole ground; but, imperfect as that

comprehension is, it takes in much more than sufficient to fill me with

fear and trembling for its consequences.

We have heard, during the last three days of the present discussion,

a great deal said about the spirit of the nation, and that it demands

energetic measures. Sir, I ask the gentlemen who urge this as an

argument, if there had been as much pains taken to apprise the nation

of its true position with Great Britain as there has been to alarm

it, whether its anxiety would not have been, at least by this time,

quieted? If gentlemen, standing in such a responsible situation to their

constituents, as they do upon this floor, had, instead of urging war

measures, spoke out the plain language of truth, that at the date of Mr.

Monroe’s last despatches, Lord Mulgrave had acceded to his request to

enter upon an examination of the dispute between the two Governments,

whether they would now venture to represent the spirit of the nation as

excited in every part of the continent? I presume not. But whence do

they learn that this spirit is so excited? It is true we have received

spirited resolutions from two towns in Virginia, and a few well-written

memorials from a few merchants at a few of the seaport towns refuting

the British doctrine; but what else do they say? At Baltimore they

believe “redress for the past may be found in amicable explanations.”

From Philadelphia you are called upon for a naval force for the West

India station. Why? To defend their trade in St. Domingo, I suppose,

for that appears to be the pith of the memorial. The merchants of New

York pledge themselves to support “all measures _adapted_,” reserving to

themselves the right to judge--not such measures as may be adopted by

Congress. From Boston “a special mission” is recommended. The inhabitants

of the town of Salem tell you “they wish to take no part in the contests

which now convulse the world.” Where else than from these documents do

gentlemen find the spirit of the nation? Certainly not from the Cabinet,

nor from the Executive, for if it were good authority to talk about

what we hear out of this House, they have no such wishes. Is it fair

then to force the passage of this resolution by attributing that to the

nation which perhaps it does not feel; which it certainly would not, if

it were fully apprised of its situation abroad, and which the memorials

on your table do not speak? Does the resolution provide for “amicable

explanations,” for a “special mission,” for a squadron on the West India

station? No such thing, sir.

In arguing this subject it is material to ascertain what is the true

cause of our present dispute with Great Britain, and to what extent it

goes. I say cause of dispute, because it strikes me that, had not the

present difficulty arisen, her insults offered in the impressment of

our seamen, were in train for amicable adjustment, and will be arranged

when the present uneasiness shall be quieted. It cannot be unknown to

gentlemen that an investigation of that subject was nearly completed, and

in fact would have been, but for the hasty departure of our then Minister

from the Court of St. James.

It is taken for granted that the present aggravations originated in

her attempts to cramp, say destroy, if gentlemen like it better, our

carrying trade. This is the grand pivot on which the whole machinery of

national honor, and dignity, and wrongs, and insults, is made to turn.

Yes, sir, this carrying trade which Spain and Portugal once shared, but

could not retain; which Holland attempted to monopolize; which Van Tromp

and De Ruyter fought for, but which she was obliged to relinquish; this

carrying trade is the bone of contention for which the sweat, the blood,

the lives and fortunes of the American people are to be lavished in

maintaining. And what is this carrying trade? Is it any thing different

from a partial right, which but a very small part of the community can

enjoy, which but a small portion of that part do improve? Is it not a

right which is still problematical--whether the exercise is of real

national utility? There are many who believe it has been of no solid

advantage to Great Britain herself, notwithstanding she has possessed a

much greater share of it than any other nation. Certainly it has been

the cause of several long and ruinous wars to her, and if we look back a

little upon our own experience, we shall see it has been the germ from

which has sprung all our difficulties with that Government since the

commencement of a political hurricane--the French Revolution. Since that

period our commerce has become a rival of increasing strength with that

of Great Britain, and finding it to grow in this branch above competition

to the exclusion of hers, she has commenced a system to counteract it,

and has commenced it, I have no hesitation in saying, mildly, to what it

will progress, if we drive her to it. Gentlemen are surely not unmindful

of the untamable pride of that Ministry; they cannot forget that it is

formed of men who never do acts of aggression by halves, and who feel

no other restraints than those of power. National rights, injuries,

and insults, are not graduated on the scale of their policy. The only

inquiries with them are, Can we gain by the war? Is this the time to

strike the first blow with the most effect? I need not give an instance

of this fact. If Great Britain ever had waited for a just cause of war,

that is, when she wished for it, we might console ourselves with our

safety in agreeing to this resolution; but it is well known that she

never did, and in my opinion, with her present Minister, she never will.

The committee now rose, and had leave to sit again.

MONDAY, March 10.

_Importations from Great Britain._

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the

state of the Union, on Mr. GREGG’s resolution.

Mr. CLARK.--A sense of duty, prevailing over personal inclination,

compels me, Mr. Chairman, to offer a few remarks on the subject under

consideration. The measure now under discussion appears to me to involve

the best interests of our country; the prosperity, the happiness,

and the liberties of America tremble before it. In the hands of the

resolution are contained the issues of life and death, and it would be

criminal in me not to throw in my mite to rescue our common country

from the impending danger. The course which I shall take will differ in

some degree from that pursued by those who have spoken in opposition to

the resolution. I shall not attempt to draw any marked discrimination

between the varying interests of the country, or invidious distinctions

between the agricultural and commercial interests. I think they are so

essentially united, that one cannot fall to the ground without tumbling

the other headlong into ruins. I shall consider the subject relatively

to its general policy, and whether, on the principles of that general

policy or conditional compact, as has been contended by gentlemen, we are

bound to adopt the resolution. If I shall succeed in convincing a single

gentleman now in favor of the resolution, that we are not bound by the

constitution, and that it will be impolitic to adopt it, I shall consider

this amongst the happiest events of my life.

The great objects of our federal engagement, in forming the compact

under which we now live, were to establish justice, ensure domestic

tranquillity, and provide for the common defence and general welfare

of society. Under this constitution gentlemen call upon us, under the

pretext of promoting the general welfare, to adopt a resolution which

manifestly goes to the promotion of a minor interest. This compact, in

providing for the general welfare, must mean that of the whole, or at

any rate, of the larger portion of the community; it was never designed

to promote a subordinate interest at the sacrifice of the general

prosperity. Are we then bound by the constitutional compact to adopt this

resolution? I think not. Thus much as to the constitutionality of the

question.

I must consider this resolution as a war measure, and viewing the policy

and present situation of Great Britain, against which it is pointed,

I have no hesitation to say, that in my opinion, it will produce

instantaneous war. A maritime war, for such a one she will wage, will

not add one item to her present expenses; neither will it embarrass her

measures on the continent? It can have no such effect. She has eight

hundred ships on the ocean, flushed with victory and conquest, and a

part of her navy is at this moment triumphantly sailing almost in sight

of your shores, ready at any moment to seize, should that course appear

expedient to her, all our vessels navigating the ocean. It cannot affect

her continental operations. The war she will wage, will be altogether

maritime. Her navy cannot be essential against her continental enemies

in Europe. Already have their fleets been annihilated. The victories

off Trafalgar and in the West Indies, have cleared the ocean of almost

every sail, and there remains no employment for her navy but to depredate

your commerce; and she will do it, you may rely upon it. Those are but

indifferently acquainted with Great Britain and the genius of the first

Minister, who suppose all the power in their hands will not be made use

of. Gentlemen tell you this is not contemplated as a permanent system of

commercial arrangement, but a temporary expedient, which by its pressure

is to bring our rival to a sense of duty, and make her do us justice.

But this temporary measure will have on Britain all the effect of war.

Declare war to-morrow, and it can only affect her trade. Can you believe

that she will, with all her advantages, remain quiet? It is not her

character; she will not do it. I should think contemptuously of her if

she should. Will she suffer you to take war measures and not retaliate?

Will she be more afraid of you with your four thousand troops, dispersed

over the whole western country, and your thirteen armed vessels rotting

in the Eastern branch, than of that power whose conquering arm has

extended the limits of his sway beyond former comparison, and whose

ambition is bounded only by the habitable world?

Mr. EPPES.--After the discussion which has already taken place on this

subject, I shall not consider myself authorized to occupy much of the

time of the House. As, however, I have on some occasions ventured to

express my opinions on this floor, I cannot reconcile to my feelings a

silent vote on a question interesting to the people of the United States

generally, and particularly so, to that portion of country which I in

part represent.

Whatever difference of opinion may prevail within these walls as to

the course which ought to be adopted towards a nation which under the

pretence of right has commenced a system of warfare and pillage on our

commerce, I hope for the honor and interest of our country we shall

finally unite in something. If in a free country there is any principle

which ought universally to be admitted, to enforce which reasoning or

demonstration should be necessary, it is, that every class of citizens

is equally entitled to protection. To secure to man his personal rights,

and the fruits of his honest industry, are the two most important objects

of a free Government. The Government unwilling to use for that security

the means of which it is possessed, does not deserve the support of

freemen. Our constitution makes no discrimination between different

classes of citizens, nor can we in our legislative capacity. The citizen

whose capital is vested in a ship has an equal right to protection in

using for his benefit and happiness that ship, with the cultivator of the

soil in using his plough. To arrest by violence his ship, and confiscate

his property, is to the merchant the same injury as it would be to the

farmer to arrest his plough and destroy his crop. In each case the

citizen must look to the community for the removal of every obstruction

thrown by violence in the way of that perfect freedom in the use of

his property which constitutes its value. It is true, and no man will

deny the correctness of the principle, that every nation has a right to

abandon any particular commerce injurious to its interests or dangerous

to its safety. This is the natural right of all nations, and particularly

of free countries, where the general welfare of the community is the

supreme law. While, however, a commerce remains lawful, the citizen

embarks in it with the same right to expect protection as in any other

lawful occupation; for a Government to refuse it, is a violation of that

fundamental principle in free government; that protection on the part of

the Government is the basis of support on the part of the citizen. If

we are unable or unwilling to interpose in behalf of our citizens, when

their personal rights have been invaded--their property captured and

condemned under principles unknown to the law of nations--let us give up

the farce of pretending to self-government, and go back to the degraded

state of colonies.

The ground of difference between the United States and Great Britain is

too well known for me to dwell on this part of the subject. It has been

stated on this floor by a gentleman from Massachusetts, in terms clear,

forcible, and manly. The impressment and detention of our seamen is an

injury which has justly excited the indignation of the people of America

for the last ten years. Every attempt to arrest by negotiation this

serious injury has failed, and each year adds new victims to the roll of

impressed seamen. The recent captures of American property to the amount

of six millions of dollars, under doctrines new and manifestly unjust, is

a serious injury to the individuals and to the community. And although I

have no doubt, as has been eloquently stated on this floor, that American

merchants have in some instances disgraced that character by covering

the property of the enemies of Great Britain, I am equally certain that

the injuries done to _bona fide_ American merchants, trading fairly on

American capital, are sufficiently numerous to justify and demand the

interposition of this Government.

While, however, I have no doubt as to the right of the citizen on the

one hand to demand protection, and of the duty of the Government on

the other to extend it to him, I am willing to acknowledge all the

difficulties of our present situation. I consider it no disgrace to this

infant nation to say we are not able to meet on the ocean a nation--a

match on that element for all the world combined. I hope the period will

never arrive when the substance of the citizen here shall be squandered

on a navy competent to meet on the ocean the navy of Great Britain.

Separated from the rest of the world, at too great a distance to fear

invasion, possessing a country abounding with productions valuable to the

different nations of Europe with whom we have commercial relations--if

we are not able to meet on the ocean Great Britain or any other European

power, we can say to them all, Respect in your intercourse with us the

principles of justice, or we hold no intercourse with you; if you will

not traffic with us on principles that are fair, we will neither receive

your manufactures, nor send to you our productions. We are now for the

first time about to test this principle so important to a nation jealous

of fleets and armies. Of the various measures of the kind which may

be resorted to--high discriminating duties--a prohibition of certain

enumerated articles, a general prohibition, and as a dernier resort a

suspension of all intercourse, are the remedies within our reach. It

is a mere question of convenience and expediency to which of these we

shall resort. I should prefer for myself, as a first step, the mildest.

It is not, in my opinion, the interest of this nation to dissolve at a

single blow its commercial connection with Great Britain. The commerce,

if carried on, on principles that are fair, is mutually advantageous

to the two countries. In Great Britain we find the best market for our

most valuable productions, and with us she finds the best market for her

manufactures. To prohibit, at a single blow, imports to the amount of

thirty-five millions of dollars, however injurious it might be to the

manufacturers of Great Britain, would certainly be a serious injury to

our own citizens. I cannot but hope that a milder measure will cause the

British Government to respect our rights and pursue a course manifestly

dictated by a regard to its own interest. If, however, Great Britain is

so lost to her own interest as to persevere in a system of injustice

calculated to deprive her of the best market for her manufactures--a

market daily increasing, with the increasing population of this infant

country--let us on our part proceed with that caution and moderation,

which shall evince that the course we are determined to pursue is founded

on principle, and will never be abandoned until our wrongs are redressed.

I am willing to adopt for the present a prohibition of enumerated

articles; if that shall fail, to pass hereafter a total prohibition, and

finally, to put forth our whole strength, and say, we hold no future

intercourse with you; but dissolve for ever all commercial relations

with a nation, which takes for its national law the base principle of

necessity, and makes itself the exclusive judge of that necessity.

Mr. NICHOLSON said he had been desirous for some days to offer to the

committee his opinions on the subject now under consideration; but as

other gentlemen had manifested a similar disposition, he had yielded the

floor to them. It was now his intention to offer such remarks as appeared

to him pertinent.

The resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG,) in his

opinion, was objectionable in all its parts. There was no point of

light in which he could view it, in which objections did not present

themselves. He read and commented on the preamble; the style of which

he said he did not like, because, instead of a spirit of amity and

conciliation, it breathed little less than defiance. While we profess

to speak the language of peace, we declare to Great Britain, that

unless she will meet us at that precise point which we think proper to

mark, we will, in the words of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, stab

her in the vitals. While we declare that we approach her as friends,

yet our style is that of an enemy. The olive branch that is held out

conceals a dagger in its boughs. This threatening manner he said was

not calculated to preserve peace in private life, and how could it be

expected to succeed between nations? Did gentlemen imagine that Great

Britain, even surrounded as she was by her enemies, was yet so tame as

to submit to threats? Was the character of her first Minister so little

known, as to induce a belief that he would tremble at the rod held over

him? No, sir, they are not sunk so low; and if we really wish for an

amicable adjustment of our differences, we ought to proceed as friends

and not as enemies. A mere commercial regulation, he said, might not,

perhaps, produce war; it was the threat held out in the preamble, and the

hostility manifested on the floor of the House of Representatives, that

were calculated to wound the national pride of Britain, and, therefore,

to excite enmity between the two countries. What does the preamble say?

We have marked a point from which we will not recede, and to which

we demand that you shall come; if you do not, we strike at your most

essential interests; in the language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania,

we will stab you in your vitals. Is this the way to conciliate? Is

this your method of opening a negotiation? Believe me, sir, instead

of presenting the olive branch, we carry a firebrand that will kindle

a flame which we may find it difficult to extinguish. Great Britain

will feel all this--she will at once ask, is it fair, is it manly, is

it honorable to threaten me now, when I am contending for all that is

dear to me? Will you insult me in my distress, and while you sustain my

enemy on one hand, with the other endeavor to unnerve the arm which you

acknowledge is raised in defence of its own existence?

If the subsequent parts of the resolution were unobjectionable, the

preamble itself would determine me against the whole. To preserve peace,

let us proceed to our object in a peaceable manner. If, indeed, gentlemen

are for war, then they are right in advocating this measure.

The resolution, he said, embraced two points: the one related to the

carrying trade; the other to the impressment of American seamen. The

latter had always been a source of great anxiety to him. No man in

America had deplored the evil more than he did, and none should be more

ready to apply the remedy, when an effectual remedy could be devised.

To him, however, it was a matter of no little surprise, that gentlemen

had so long slept upon a subject, on which they now appeared to manifest

so much zeal. He himself twice proposed measures with a view to obtain

redress, but he had not been able to carry them through the House.

Gentlemen, who now zealously volunteered their services, rendered him

no assistance then. At the last session he had introduced a bill on

the subject, and such were the variety of objections to it, that it

was committed and recommitted several times. Difficulties presented

themselves from all quarters; alterations and amendments innumerable were

adopted, until finally it was shuffled through the House, in so imperfect

a state that it was not worth the time which had been spent on it. Strong

measures were not then the order of the day, nor would they be now, if

the impressment of American seamen was the only ground of complaint.

Great Britain has pursued this practice for ten or twelve years past,

but these patriotic merchants, who are now so clamorous, presented you

with no memorials on the subject. No, sir. It is the carrying trade

alone, which has covered your tables with the memorials of the merchants,

because their interests are affected, and it is out of this that the

resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has grown. Although I do

not admit the correctness of the principle assumed by Great Britain, in

relation to the carrying trade, yet I am willing to acknowledge that with

me it is an object of secondary importance only, when compared with the

other violations of our flag, in the impressment of our seamen.

I have thus endeavored to show with what success the committee must

determine, that, by adopting this resolution, we hazard a war; that

the course of commerce will be materially, suddenly, and, therefore,

injuriously changed; that inasmuch as we cannot procure from other

countries many important articles with which Britain supplies us, the

revenue will be much diminished; and that the value of our own products

will be lessened to an incalculable amount. Having been a considerable

time on the floor, I feel extremely exhausted, and will, therefore,

close my remarks, although it was my wish to have said much more on this

subject; particularly to point out the different effects to be produced

by the adoption of the measure now under discussion, and that which was

submitted by myself. To my own proposition, however, I am not exclusively

attached. I have thought and do still think it the best which has been

proposed. This I trust will be the opinion of the House. Believing the

conduct of Great Britain towards this country not to be justified, I am

willing to unite in such measures as may induce her to do us justice. But

I will not go to the extent proposed in this resolution, because I am

persuaded it will operate much more injuriously upon ourselves, than upon

those whom we intend to affect by it.

Mr. MACON.--Mr. Chairman, I feel myself bound by the call which has

been made by three gentlemen from Pennsylvania, (Messrs. GREGG, SMILIE,

and FINDLAY,) with whom I have long been in the habit of friendship, a

friendship on my part sincere, to state the reasons which will govern my

conduct on this occasion; whether they may be satisfactory to others or

not, they are perfectly so to me. That a difference of opinion subsists

between the members with regard to the measures best adapted to the

present crisis of our affairs, is evident from the number of resolutions

on your table. An attempt has been made to liken this resolution to one

agreed to in 1793; but are they alike? I think not. That was general, and

operated alike on every part of the Union, while this, in my opinion, is

special, and will only operate on one part of the Union; and this partial

operation will be severely felt by that section of the country which I

in part represent. Besides this clear difference in the two resolutions,

will not all the three gentlemen agree that there is a great and striking

difference in our affairs with Great Britain--in 1793 and now? Her

motives may be as unfriendly now as then; but I speak of facts known to

all, not of motives; she then held the western posts, she then detained

an immense property belonging to the Southern people, both in violation

of the treaty of peace. She then instigated the Indians to war on the

frontiers, and then, as at this time, impressed our sailors and captured

our vessels; besides, the United States had not then relinquished the

principle, that free ships should make free goods. In relinquishing this

principle, they, in a great measure lost sight of the carrying trade,

by peaceable means; but, if gentlemen wish to turn to Europe, they will

find that, in 1793, the treaties of Pavia and Pilnitz were in force. Let

the facts which I have stated be compared with those of the present day,

and all must confess that there is a very considerable difference. I

have said this much to show that there is no analogy in the facts of the

present time and those of 1793, and that there is no change of opinion in

me. If, however, I am mistaken, it is an honest mistake.

This nation, in my opinion, must take her choice of two alternatives: to

be happy and contented without war, and without internal taxes; or to be

warlike and glorious, abounding with what is called honor and dignity,

or in other words taxes and blood. If it be the first, the people will

continue to enjoy that which they have hitherto enjoyed--more privileges

than have fallen to the lot of any nation with whose history we are

acquainted; they will, as they have done, live plentifully on their

farms, and such as choose, will carry on a fair trade, by exchanging

our surplus productions for such foreign articles as we may want. If we

take the other ground we shall, I fear, pursue the same career, which

has nearly, or quite ruined all the other nations of the globe. Look

at the people of England, legally free, but half their time fighting

for the honor and dignity of the Crown, and the carrying trade, and see

whether they have gained any thing by all their battles for the nation

except taxes, and these they have in the greatest abundance. Look also

at France, before the Revolution, and we shall see a people possessing

a fertile country and fine climate, having the honor to fight, and be

taxed as much as they could bear, for the glory and dignity of the _grand

monarque_. Let us turn from these two great nations, and view Switzerland

during the same period; though not powerful like the others, we shall

see the people free and happy without wars, contented at home, because

they had enough to live comfortably on, and not overtaxed. The history of

these three nations ought to convince us that public force and liberty

cannot dwell in the same country.

I mean not to impute improper motives to any one, nor to examine the

Journal after changes, though I am perfectly willing to have it thumbed

over, from the day I took a seat in the House to the present, after my

name; and if, on examination, it shall appear that I have changed my

political principles, or have not uniformly adhered to them, I am willing

to bear the name of a political hypocrite. I have formerly been, on very

great questions, in very small minorities; on a most important question,

in a minority not sufficient to command the yeas and nays. I will say no

more on this subject; nothing can be more disagreeable than to talk about

one’s self, and nothing could justify it but the call which has been

made; perhaps I have already said too much on it, but it was impossible

to say less.

The dispute with Great Britain is most unquestionably for the carrying

trade; a trade which is less beneficial to the nation than any other, and

a trade which has produced most of our disputes with foreign nations, and

it is the only trade that requires expensive protection. Will any one

contend that this trade is half as important as the coasting trade? This

cannot and will not be contended, for every one knows that the coasting

is the best trade. It not only exchanges the products of one part of

the nation for those of another, but it also tends, by making us better

acquainted with each other, to connect us more intimately, and to make

every part harmonize for the public good. The trade which I consider

the next best for a nation to carry on, is the direct trade for home

consumption, by which the surplus produce of one country is exchanged

for that of another; and in this as in every branch of trade, this great

rule will be adhered to--buy cheap and sell dear if you can. With the

coasting and direct trade agriculture is more nearly connected than with

any other. But a nation may be agricultural without being commercial. The

Swiss cantons and Milan were of this description, and it may be remarked

that Milan is the most populous country in Europe. China is said to be of

the same character; but, as little is known of that country, I shall not

quote it to establish a fact which is clearly established by the other

two. A country may also be commercial without being highly agricultural,

as was the case with Venice and some other European powers. But let us

pursue that system which our own experience has proved to be the best for

the United States; for, since the adoption of the present constitution,

and before this day, we have had trying times. It will be remembered,

that during the French Revolution, we had complaints against France. Her

government issued orders of which we justly complained; one of them, I

believe, declared all the productions and manufactures in Great Britain

to be contraband of war; this, if executed, would have nearly cut off

all communication with a nation with whom we carried on the greatest

trade. What did we then do? We sent ministers to France, with two of

whom she refused to have any intercourse, but pretended to be willing

to negotiate with the other. All the ministers finally returned home,

and we took half-way measures against her, which are the worst of all

measures, and which produced a sort of half war, which I believe injured

us more than her--for besides the actual expense, which may be estimated

at not less than $10,000,000, it nearly ruined the agricultural people by

reducing the price of produce; flour it reduced from twelve and fourteen

dollars per barrel to six; and tobacco, from ten and twelve dollars per

hundred to three; and it had no doubt the same effect on other articles

of exportation. And how were we relieved from these evils? We again

sent ministers, who were received, and they made a treaty. Besides what

has been before stated of the conduct of Great Britain, it will not be

forgotten that she declared all France in a state of blockade, and this

order would have cut off all commercial intercourse with her, who then

wanted much of our produce. To Great Britain, also, a minister was sent,

and he made a treaty. I am now desirous that the same steps should be

pursued before we adopt decisive measures. We once laid an embargo, of

which we tired. This shows the necessity of acting cautiously, and of

taking no measures which we cannot adhere to. All the gentlemen who

have supported the resolution now under consideration, have expressed

doubts whether it would produce greater effects on Britain or ourselves.

This is surely doubting its policy, and if its policy be doubted by its

friends, what ought to be the result of our inquiries, especially when

it is believed that its adoption will materially injure one part of the

country, and that part entirely agricultural? Does the public good, about

which we have heard so much, require that a measure which its friends

seem to think of doubtful policy, ought to be adopted, when none can

doubt but it will injure, if not sacrifice, the real interest of a part

of the community? Examine the report of the Secretary of the Treasury,

and it will, at one glance, show from what quarter the great export is

made to Great Britain; cut off the import, and you will lessen the price

of the export, if it shall be exported. But we are told that we are

bound to protect commerce, meaning, I suppose, that this resolution must

be adopted. Then if we are really bound, and there is no discretion,

nothing of expediency, there is no occasion for this investigation. But

gentlemen well know, that on every question, discretion may and will be

exercised. But have we really done nothing for commerce and navigation?

On this subject I can confidently appeal to those most interested.

What, since the adoption of the present constitution, has made this the

second commercial nation in the world? Before that we had but little

claim to the character of a commercial people. Have not the protecting

duties on the tonnage of foreign vessels, and on goods imported in them,

produced the effect? They have secured to our vessels the carrying our

own productions, which encourages navigation in proportion to their bulk.

Let gentlemen inquire the number of cargoes which tobacco and cotton

alone furnish the American vessels. Besides this encouragement given to

navigation, has not a law been passed to favor the fisheries, and thereby

to form sailors for the use of the merchant service? It may be right

here to observe that I neither approved nor voted for that law, but no

attempt has ever been made to repeal it. This is the encouragement by

which, during a time of peace, we have become the second commercial

nation in the world, and this too in the short space of time since

the adoption of the present constitution--say, if you please, since

the 3d of March, 1789. One consequence, a little curious, is produced

by this encouragement, which is this: When Europe is at peace, the

protecting duties prevent any competition by foreign vessels to carry

our productions, and when at war, so many of our vessels carry for the

belligerent nations, that freight is nearly as high with us as it is

with them, so that what the agricultural people pay in time of peace to

encourage, they lose the benefit of when Europe is at war, and when it is

most wanted.

Among the arguments urged to show the effect of this measure on Great

Britain, one is that it will ensure us a powerful aid in that country;

that the British merchants and manufacturers, whose interests will be

seriously affected, will give you all their assistance. This argument has

been completely answered by a gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. EARLY.) But

if gentlemen really calculate to make friends on the other side of the

water, it seems to me that a different plan would produce more effect.

Cut off all intercourse between them and us, and adhere to the plan long

enough, and you will find the merchants and manufacturers of England

joined by all the inhabitants of the West Indies, to have the intercourse

opened. The Assembly of Jamaica have acknowledged that they cannot get

supplies in plenty except from the United States; but this plan would

operate as much on beef, pork, fish, and flour, as on tobacco or cotton.

But this would be too strong for them, while they are desirous to adopt

a measure which will have the same effect on cotton and tobacco. What

is this but a sacrifice of a part of the agricultural interests of the

country to what they believe will be a protection for the carrying trade?

I should like it quite as well if the attempt was not to be made solely

at the risk of one part of the Union. The evil is felt in one part, but

the remedy is to be applied in another. Adopt general measures, which

will operate equally in every part of the country, and if the shoe is to

pinch, let it pinch all alike, and all will then be willing to have it

off as soon as possible.

I am willing to acknowledge that a dollar got by this carrying trade,

and made the property of the nation, is just as good as a dollar got

any other way, even by the cultivation of land. But does it follow from

thence that you are to make more sacrifices to get the dollar in that way

than it is worth? I think not. The adoption of the resolution, besides

its unjust and partial operation, will considerably affect the revenue,

and no ways and means are proposed to meet any deficiency. On the present

question we risk a revenue of ten millions of dollars raised on the

consumption of foreign articles in the Union, to gain--what? (I speak

only of revenue) an additional sum of $850,000, which additional sum

you will lose as soon as you depart from your neutrality. It is asked

again and again, if we have not a right to the trade about which so much

has been said? If the doctrine that free ships should make free goods

had obtained, there could be no doubt on the question; but I mean not

to examine the right but the effect of the resolution; nor do I mean to

deny that the trade is of some use to the nation. Merchants would not

so anxiously pursue it, if they made no profit by it; and their profit

adds to the national stock, and may affect the price of native articles

offered for sale. I am also willing to acknowledge that a cargo of flour

or any other native production sent to the West Indies, and there fairly

exchanged for sugar, and the sugar brought home, that the sugar is as

much ours as the produce of our own soil, and this sugar so obtained we

have a right to carry to those that may want it. But the question before

the committee is not a question of right, but of expediency. Is the

protection which will be given to this carrying trade, by the adoption

of the resolution, of that sort and of such certainty, as to justify the

adoption of a measure, which will operate excessively hard on one part

of the Union? The right of deposit at New Orleans before we purchased

the country, was certainly as well established as our right to carry

coffee and sugar to France and Spain, or any where else--it was a right

acknowledged by treaty. But when the deposit was refused, what did we do?

we took pacific measures, and succeeded. We heard then much about honor

and dignity, and that it was our duty to enforce our right by arms; but

notwithstanding all this, we adopted no measure like the present; we then

acted for the general welfare. Does it follow, because I am opposed to

the resolution, that I am unwilling for our citizens to own vessels? It

does not. I am willing they may have as many as they please, and do as

they please with them, so that they do not involve the nation in war by

them. On this subject the interests of the husbandman in New Hampshire

and Georgia are the same.

The gentleman who introduced the resolution expressed a wish that no

party or geographical feelings should be brought into the debate. If

there was no cause for geographical feelings, why then wish, or why

anticipate them? Let the report of the Secretary of the Treasury be

examined, and it will be seen that there is cause for this feeling;

indeed, the statement, made from that document by a gentleman from

Georgia (Mr. EARLY) must have convinced all of the partial operation

of the resolution. On the first page of the report it appears, that

the annual exports to Great Britain and her dependencies are estimated

at about $15,690,000, of which sum, tobacco and cotton alone make

$8,860,000; it also appears, that we exported to the dominions of

Great Britain in Europe, for each of the three years ending on 30th

September:--in 1802, the sum of $12,066,521; and that cotton, tobacco,

rice, pitch, tar and rosin, made of that sum $8,485,762; in 1803, the sum

of $16,459,264, and that the same articles made of that sum, $11,912,493;

in 1804, the sum of $11,787,659, and that the same articles made of

that sum, $9,443,807. These articles are selected, because they are

the produce of one section of the Union. The same part of the country

produces the following articles in common with other parts of the nation,

but the proportion of each is not known:--flour, wheat, beef, pork,

staves, heading, boards, plank, scantling, timber, flaxseed, skins,

wax, hams, bacon, turpentine, spirits, lard, and Indian meal, and I may

add, pickled fish; some of these articles are carried to the Middle and

perhaps to the Eastern States, and are there exported, or consumed; and,

if consumed, enable them to export more of their own productions.

It has also been said, that if we adopt the resolution, and cannot get

what we want from Great Britain, we will manufacture for ourselves. This

sounds well on this floor, but I very much doubt the practicability of

making this nation manufacture for itself, while we have land enough for

every industrious citizen to become a landholder, and a cultivator of

the soil. Connecticut and Massachusetts have tried the experiment, and

both without success, and both on articles in which it was most likely

to succeed; if these States, with their population, could not succeed,

what chance of success is there in other States? The practicability

ought to be satisfactorily shown before we enter on the plan. It may, as

has been said, prevent our wives from wearing silk gowns, and ourselves

from wearing broadcloth; whether it will produce this effect is quite

uncertain; fashion is as great a tyrant as any we have to contend with;

it will, I fear, be difficult to destroy its influence by legislating.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SMILIE) and myself, plain as we are,

are both obliged in some degree to yield to it; we can no more contend

with it, than we can fly to Europe.

I come now to that part of the subject where every man must feel the

injury done to his fellow-citizens; I mean the impressment of our seamen.

Is there a father who does not feel this? No; not one in the nation; and

that man who shall devise a certain remedy for this evil, will deserve

the thanks of his country; he will, indeed, be its greatest benefactor;

he, like the impressed sailor, will have a place in the tenderest part

of the hearts of his countrymen. If a plan to prevent this injury was

only made known, the very knowledge of the plan would put an end to the

injury. But can gentlemen seriously believe that the adoption of the

resolution will produce this effect? The means are not adequate to the

end, I conceive; at least, it remains to be shown that they are. I will,

without hesitation, state what I believe to be the best remedy for the

evil. It is this: to agree with Great Britain that neither country shall

employ the sailors of the other; and to agree, also, on the proof that

shall be required on both sides; we might expect that Great Britain would

adhere to an agreement of this kind, because it would be her interest

to do so, and on her interest alone, I should rely. In considering this

subject, we must look at things as they really are, and not as we would

wish them to be. The British Government exercise the right, or rather the

power, of impressing their sailors; and, I believe, in time of war, of

prohibiting their going into foreign service. Under these circumstances,

it may be advisable for us not to employ them, notwithstanding we may do

it with their consent, especially if it would prevent their impressing

our countrymen. If the merchants really be the friends of the American

sailors, they would willingly agree to such a regulation. If they would

not be willing, is it not clear they would employ British sailors at

the risk of having ours impressed? On this subject it might not be

improper to state that I have been informed, in some parts of the world,

certificates of persons being American citizens are sold, and that

the market has been well supplied. I have also been informed that a

British officer in Philadelphia actually procured one for the purpose

of enabling him to go home. This favored Great Britain. I have given

this information, to show that others, besides citizens, may obtain

certificates. Impressments, I fear, can only be prevented by negotiation;

indeed, I have heard that the two Governments have been engaged on this

interesting subject. I hope it will be resumed, and that it will end in

securing to our countrymen their safety on the ocean.

We are told that the nation calls for strong measures, that the President

has recommended them, and that men of the greatest talents think them

requisite. This may be true, but as I have neither seen nor heard of

this call of the nation, and as I do not know the opinions of others,

I shall certainly pursue my own. The first Message of the President to

Congress, most unquestionably pointed as strong towards Spain as it did

to Great Britain; and, hitherto, but little has been said about the usage

we received from her. But the recommendation of the President alone, is

not always a good reason for legislating, I apprehend, because every

President has recommended subjects for the consideration of Congress,

on which no act was ever passed. If ever the liberties of this nation

are destroyed by strong measures, it will be when the recommendation

of the President shall alone be deemed good cause for their adoption.

At present, we have choice of all the resolutions on the table,

notwithstanding all that has been said in favor of the one now under

consideration. No doubt can be entertained, but the mover of each thinks

his own the best. From the number, it would seem there was no difficulty

in finding remedies for the injuries we have received.

Again: we must adopt this resolution, or we shall be degraded. This is

no new phrase to me; I have formerly heard it so often, and on so many

occasions, that I have become a sort of a skeptic on it. We shall not be

degraded by living in peace with all the world. We shall not be degraded

by not following the example of the European nations, by rushing into

war, on every opportunity that may offer. War is nothing but another name

for blood and taxes; we shall not be degraded, being free and happy at

home; but we shall be degraded, if we fail in paying the national debt,

or if we refuse to observe treaties constitutionally made. This will be

the worst kind of degradation, because it will proceed from a want of

morality. In order to induce us to adopt the resolution, we are seriously

told that the revenue is derived from commerce. This I deny, and say that

it is derived from the whole labor of the community. Stop the laborer in

his field, and the revenue is gone. Commerce is useful, it is the means

by which our productions are exchanged for the productions of other

countries.

It has been said that the land tax overthrew one Administration; adopt

this measure, and you may possibly overthrow another. I doubt whether the

gentleman who made the assertion is altogether correct in point of fact;

it may have aided, but other laws were passed, which undoubtedly had more

effect, and were more obnoxious in the part of the country where I live.

I mean the attempt to raise an army without an actual war; an army of

officers, almost without soldiers; the Alien and Sedition laws. It was

also said, we were pledged to protect this carrying trade. This reminds

me of what I once heard said before, which is this: that we were pledged

to pay the salaries of certain judges, after the law was repealed under

which they were appointed. I believe we are as much pledged in one case

as in the other, and not more; I know of nothing binding in this country,

except the constitution and the laws. A majority of both Houses of

Congress may pass a law to give the carrying trade what protection they

please, and that law will be binding. We are also called on to become the

champions of the laws of nations, as if all nations would at once agree

with us what these laws really are, and as if a majority of them adhered

to their principles; when we know that scarcely a nation in Europe pays

any regard to them; and that they will, at different times, entertain

different opinions on the same subject. Have not most of them formerly

declared, that free ships should make free goods, and have not some of

the same nations since given up the principle? Before we undertake this

business, would it not be prudent to endeavor to ascertain the opinions

of other nations, whose interest may be most like our own? I wish no

alliance with any of them; but, if all the nations of Europe should be

willing to yield the principle which we are desirous to maintain, no man

will be mad enough to say we ought to contend for it. There is certainly

a great difference of opinion as to the nature of the measure. Some think

it a war measure; others that it may lead to war, and others again,

consider it entirely pacific. Without attempting now to inquire which

of the three opinions is most correct, it is sufficient for me, that I

believe it will not produce the effect intended, and that its operation

on the United States will be partial. If, however, it should be adopted,

and produce war, that war we must support with all our strength; and if

it produce a good effect, I, for one, will rejoice as much as any man in

this House. A great many appeals have been made to the spirit of 1776;

that spirit was not only the spirit of liberty, but also of magnanimity

and justice; all the measures then taken operated equally on every part

of the Union.

It is said, this is the right time to settle all our disputes with

Great Britain, because she is now hard pushed. If we wish to make a

treaty that may be lasting, we ought not to take any unjust advantage

of her situation; if we do, whenever she shall be free from her present

embarrassments, she will be discontented and restless under it, and never

satisfied until she gets clear of it. The true rule for us, is to take no

advantage, and in all cases to act justly.

I agree in opinion with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SMILIE,)

that war destroys the morals of the people. Hence I was greatly surprised

when he followed this correct sentiment with an assertion that he would

rather have war than loss of national honor. This thing called national

honor has ruined more than half the people in the world, and has almost

banished liberty and happiness from Europe. Destroy the morals of the

people, and we may play over such a game of war as has been played in

France; nothing less than to perpetuate the liberty and happiness of the

nation ought to induce us to go to war.

It is a little remarkable that the United States have, since the adoption

of the present constitution, become the second commercial power in the

world; when, if we believe the public prints, she has lost capital

enough to have ruined the most wealthy nation in Europe. Million after

million is lost, and yet her prosperity is unrivalled, either in ancient

or modern times. I know full well that, according to the opinions of

the writers on the laws of nations, we have just cause of war against

Great Britain. I also know as well, that we have heretofore had as good

a cause of war against both Great Britain and France. We then preferred

peace--the result has been prosperity. What destroyed the prosperity

and liberty of Venice, of Genoa, and of Holland? Wars, and wars, too,

generally undertaken to protect the carrying trade.

TUESDAY, March 11.

_Importation of British Goods._

Mr. MACON.--Much has been said about the spirit of the nation, and

that we are far behind it--meaning, I suppose, those who oppose the

resolution. As to my part, I know not how the spirit of the nation has

been ascertained. There is no manifestation of it on the table. It is,

however, true, that two towns have sent resolutions pledging their lives

and fortunes to support whatever measures Congress may adopt. There are,

also, several memorials from the merchants and insurance companies; but

if gentlemen take these for the manifestation of the national spirit,

they are, I think, mistaken. The national spirit is to be found nowhere

but among those who are to fight your battles. These people may, for

aught I know, be of that number. They may have been before Tripoli, and

they may now be ready to enter into the army or navy. Addresses, we well

know, will not fight battles, nor fill regiments. We have seen, in former

days, the Speaker’s table loaded with addresses from almost every part

of the Union, pledging, also, their lives and fortunes to support any

measures that the then Administration might adopt. What was done? Among

other acts, one was passed to raise twelve regiments of infantry. There

was no difficulty in getting officers--unless, indeed, it was to make

the selection out of the great number who applied--but how was it about

privates? Instead of getting enough for the twelve regiments, scarcely

enough for four could be enlisted. At that time, too, we heard a great

deal about the spirit of the nation, and saw a something of the spirit

then talked of, in a corps called the ---- Blues. Those who then spoke

of the spirit of the nation were deceived. They took the vaporings of

the towns and the noise of the addressers to be really the spirit of the

nation. But, be assured, sir, that whenever the spirit of this nation

shall move, every individual, in every department of the government, will

move too.

The ocean must be considered a common and undivided property, to which

each nation has a right; hence the difficulty of affording the same

security and protection there as on land, where each knows the spot where

his dominion ends and his neighbor’s begins. It is vain, therefore, the

real situation of the United States being considered, to expect from her

that perfect protection on the ocean which she can afford within her

territorial limits. I believe this cannot be done, even to that part of

the ocean from whence we get our exports. Other nations also frequent the

same place, for the same purpose. This, like the rest, is joint property.

Not so with our land, no nation pretends to claim a right to cultivate

that.

The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. ELLIOT) has told us, that by adopting

the resolution we shall encourage other European nations to manufacture

for us. It is, I conceive, quite enough for the agricultural part of

the community to pay their money to encourage the manufactures of this

country. It is as much as I am willing to do. But what certainty have we,

if we adopt the resolution, and give the proposed encouragement, that any

of them will leave their present occupation, be that what it may, to take

our advice? Each one of them may think that their interest is as well

understood at home as we can possibly understand it.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BIDWELL) stated the case of our

prisoners at Tripoli, as a case in point. He is, I think, mistaken.

We were at open war with that power, when the frigate Philadelphia

unfortunately struck on the rocks in the harbor of Tripoli. The result

is known. The enemy got possession of the vessel, and the crew were made

prisoners of war. There then existed a state of actual war between the

United States and the Tripolitans. In the present case we have just cause

of complaints against Britain, and are endeavoring to have them settled

by negotiation. I will state a case which seems to me to compare better

with the situation of our unfortunate countrymen who may be now impressed

on board the British ships of war. It is the case of Captain O’Brian and

his crew, who were captured by the Algerines, and remained with them so

long, that I believe the captain, in the latter part of the time, dated

all his letters to his friends by the year of his captivity. I have

understood they suffered as much as any people could bear. We had then, I

believe, no addresses, no resolutions, nor memorials from the merchants

and insurance companies. But this case may not be thought to apply to

that part of our complaints which relate to the capture of our vessels,

carrying coffee and sugar to France and Spain, by the British armed

ships. I will state one which I think has some; it is the case of Scott,

of South Carolina, which has been decided in this House. He claimed pay

for property taken by the Indians at a time when no open and declared

war existed. He got nothing from the national Government. The United

States in a treaty gave the property up to the Indians. I believe, at the

time it was taken, some hostilities had been committed. Permit me here

to observe, that no agent was appointed by the Government to endeavor

to recover this property, and that I well recollect, when the claim was

under debate, that it was stated by a member of the House that one of

the Indian agents had got the treaty, at his desire, so formed, as to

relinquish a claim for the property.