I have endeavored to confine my observations to the resolution now

under consideration, and to answer some of the arguments urged in its

support; though I confess, that, while examining this, I have also paid

some attention to the others on the table. I wish gentlemen, before they

vote, would seriously consider whether this is the best. I think it is

not. When we reflect on the happiness we enjoy, the prosperity of the

nation, the growth of the villages, towns, and cities, the improving

state of agriculture, the number of turnpike roads, bridges, and canals,

which are undertaken in many parts of the Union, and that one improper

act may alter for a time this happy state, and retard every improvement,

we ought to be cautious before we change the ground on which we stand.

Complaints have been made of delay on this important subject; they are,

in my opinion, without foundation. It required serious deliberation

and no time has been lost. It is always far better to decide rightly

than quickly. It is immaterial to other nations what estimate we form

of our own strength--there are two rules by which they will judge: the

number of men and the state of the treasury. Indeed, it seems of late

to have become a maxim in war, that the longest purse is the longest

sword. It is true that we have a single million in the treasury to spare;

it is equally true that resolutions are before us, which, if adopted,

will require at least that sum to carry them into execution. In this

situation, ought we to take measures which may endanger the revenue

without providing ways and means to meet any deficiency? We talk of war

with an almost empty treasury; no two things can be less connected,

except that they are both bad. I have stated that which appeared to me to

be the best plan to secure our seamen from impressment; but the man who

shall actually produce the plan which shall have the effect, will deserve

the gratitude of the nation.

In this time of difficulty we are all embarked in the same ship; my

ardent prayer is, that whatever shall be done, may promote the interest

and happiness of all.

Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL.--Mr. Chairman, I rise to submit to the committee

some of the reasons that will govern my vote on the measure now under

discussion. In doing this, it is not my intention to go over the various

grounds taken in this debate, or to answer the several arguments that

have been advanced, in support of principles to which I am opposed. My

object will be to lay before the committee such a view of the subject

as I conceive best calculated to ascertain the true ground on which we

stand, and the measures which, in the present crisis of our affairs, it

would be advisable to adopt.

I am not disposed, Mr. Chairman, to pursue measures that will crimson

the American fields with the blood of her citizens, any more than

other gentlemen who have spoken on this subject; nor am I willing that

thousands of innocent persons should suffer distress and ruin, for the

benefit of a few individuals--a few merchants; which, it has been stated,

will be the effect of the measure before you; neither, sir, will I ever

give my vote for any measure that shall appear to me calculated to

sacrifice the agricultural interest of this nation to that of commerce,

or have a tendency to enhance the latter at the expense of the former;

and so far as the resolution before you appears to me likely to produce

this effect, I shall oppose it. The people whom I have the honor to

represent are chiefly agriculturists, and it will always be my wish and

my pride, to support their interests, and to cherish and promote the

agricultural interest of this country in general, so far as it may be

in my power. But I am not, at the same time, prepared to see the nation

suffer, without resistance, every indignity with which Great Britain

may choose to treat her, and submit patiently to every aggression and

outrage her cruisers, under her authority, may choose to commit on our

citizens and our commerce. I conceive it our duty to take such measures

as will prove to the world a determination on our part to resist injuries

and maintain our rights. In regard to the commercial relations of this

country with foreign powers, I deem it proper on this occasion to declare

it as my opinion, which I have always entertained, that it would have

been better for the American people, if Government had never given

protection to commerce, out of sight of our own territory, or beyond the

reach of our cannon from our shores. It would have been well for us, if

the American flag had never floated on the ocean, under the authority of

Government, to waft to this country the luxuries and vices of European

nations that effeminate and corrupt our people, to excite the jealousies

and cupidity of those powers whose existence, in a great degree, depends

on commerce, and to court, as it were, their aggressions, and embroil

us in their unjust and bloody contests. If we had guarded against those

pending evils by leaving commerce to seek her own protection, except

within the limits of our own jurisdiction, we should have had a fair

prospect of continuing to flourish a free, independent, and happy nation,

much longer than I fear will be our destiny to do, if we continue to

become more and more entangled in European politics and intrigues--to

be subject to feel the effects of European convulsions, and national

contests, in consequence of being deeply engaged in commercial relations

with European powers. If we had adopted this policy, foreign nations

would have vied with each other for our commerce and our friendship, and

would convey the surplus productions of our country from our storehouses,

and furnish us in return with those articles and manufactures of their

countries, which our necessities or convenience might require; and we

might then behold the collisions of the great powers on the continent of

Europe, and their jarring interests contending for superiority, without

endangering our peace or our happiness, and with no other inconvenience

than the regret we might feel for the miseries and sufferings of that

portion of the human family, with whom, however, we had no immediate

connections.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have assumed the character of a commercial nation,

abroad as well as at home. Our Government has, in some degree, pledged

the nation to protect commerce, and under this impression our citizens

have embarked largely in trade, and made considerable progress therein.

The enterprising spirit of our merchants has raised this nation to rank,

in regard to commerce, the second in the world, and from this source

also, our revenue is chiefly derived. Under these circumstances, I am

not prepared to say this is the propitious moment to retrace our steps,

and without even giving notice of our intention to do so, abandon our

merchants and their property to the rapacity of a foreign nation. I

conceive, on the contrary, it is our duty to afford them such protection

as the resources of our country, and the prospects we have heretofore

held out, would authorize them to expect.

In examining this subject, the first important inquiry that presents

itself, is, in regard to the grounds of complaint which have occasioned

the resolution before you to be proposed. There are two. First, the

impressment of our seamen; and second, the unjust, and, as we believe,

unauthorized aggressions committed on our commerce by the cruisers of

Great Britain. If you look at the documents on your table, you will

see that our seamen have been impressed by that nation for years past,

without the color of right, and in a manner, which it is not pretended,

on this floor, is authorized by justice, or sanctioned by the laws or

usages of nations. They have been treated in the most inhuman manner,

if information is to be relied upon; compelled to perform the hardest

duty in her ships of war, and forced against their will to fight her

enemies, who were at the same time on terms of friendship with us. They

have been taken from sea to sea, and from place to place--from one

country or island to another; shifted from ship to ship, and often sent

to distant parts of the world, so as to place them beyond the research

of their friends or their country, and put it out of the power of either

to reclaim them, by producing the proofs required of their citizenship

to obtain their liberation. It has been stated that Great Britain has

always been willing to deliver up such impressed seamen as were proved

to be _bona fide_ American citizens. But this is a fallacious pretext on

her part, from which little or no benefit can arise to us. She impresses

our people, without inquiring in regard to their citizenship, or paying

the least regard to their protections. Their friends knew not where to

find them, the Government cannot ascertain where they are, and years

sometimes pass before it is known whither they have been carried. It

has, therefore, in most cases, been found impossible to procure their

release, and restore them to their friends and their country; and there

are at this moment, unjustly detained by that nation, between two and

three thousand of our seamen; who have been impressed without any other

pretext, than that they spoke the English language, or resembled, in

their persons, the inhabitants of the British empire. Our Government has,

in vain, remonstrated, time after time, on this subject to the Court of

St. James. No satisfactory arrangements could be obtained, nor is there

any fair ground to expect a change in the conduct of that Government in

this respect. Complaints have been made and repeated in every quarter

of the Union on this subject. The outrages committed on our citizens

have made an impression on the public mind, that demands on our part the

adoption of some decisive measure to correct the growing evil. It has,

indeed, been said by some gentlemen on this floor, that there exists the

prospect of the fair adjustment of our differences with Great Britain on

this subject. I would ask those gentlemen, upon what information this

opinion is founded? For myself, Mr. Chairman, I know of no just ground to

authorize such expectation. The documents on your table do not justify a

belief, that there is at this time the least prospect of adjustment. They

inform us, there was once such a prospect, but that it has long since

vanished; and so far as we can collect information from those documents,

as well as from other sources, there is not to be found in the conduct

of the British Ministers, the slightest foundation for a belief that

they are disposed to relinquish the ground they have taken, unless it

is rendered necessary by some effective measures on our part. I would

then put it to gentlemen to say, if we are not at this time to take any

step whatever, towards vindicating our violated rights, when will be the

proper time for us to act? Have we not patiently endured those injuries

long enough? And if not, how much longer must we tamely submit to them?

What time can be more favorable than the present to resist them? Will it

be when Great Britain has got into her possession a greater number of

our seamen? When, instead of near three thousand, she will have gotten

six, eight, or ten thousand? Will it then be a more proper time to make

a stand--to call upon her by some efficient measure to do us justice--to

treat us as an independent nation, or to tell her, that we will at least

cease to treat her as a friend? I presume not, sir. I cannot conceive it

proper that we should wait for such an event, before we make a stand in

defence of our rights. On the contrary, it is my opinion, there can be

no time more likely than the present, to render effectual any measures

we may adopt. The present state of the war in Europe, which sufficiently

occupies the great powers in that quarter, if properly considered, and

its probable results, in regard to us, duly weighed, ought, it appears

to me, to convince any man of reflection that this is the most favorable

moment to insist on finally adjusting our differences on this subject

with Great Britain. The right of our seamen to protection, while they

sail under our flag is undeniable. It is a perfect right, as much so

as the right to be protected within our houses, or in our carriages

on the highway. You ought, therefore, never to abandon it, on any

pretence whatever; nay, sir, you cannot abandon it, in justice to your

citizens, unless, indeed, you are willing to surrender your independence

as a nation. The ocean is a highway for all nations, over which no

one power has exclusive jurisdiction. If you resign this right now to

Great Britain, what reason have you to believe she will not push her

demands further, and urge you to resign another, that may be still more

important? It is high time that this business was brought to a final

close, for if your seamen are to be seized wherever they are found on the

ocean, you had better strip your ships of every sail they carry, confine

your citizens within the limits of your own jurisdiction, to fight your

own battles, should it become necessary, rather than see them exposed

against their will, in fighting the battles of a foreign nation.

The second ground of complaint is the aggressions committed on our

commerce, contrary to the law of nations, and in violation of every

principle of justice. Great Britain assumes to herself the right to

interdict to neutral nations a commercial intercourse with the colonies

of her enemies, except under such modifications as she has been pleased

to prescribe. She justifies the capture of your vessels on the ground of

their being engaged in a commerce, during the war, that was not open to

them in time of peace. If this principle be once admitted as correct,

and carried to the full extent of which it is capable, it will be found,

in its consequences, almost wholly to destroy, not only the commerce of

this country as a neutral, but that of every neutral nation in the world.

You are told you must not in time of war exceed your accustomed traffic

in time of peace. What is the consequence? War, in a great degree,

destroys the trade which you were accustomed to enjoy in time of peace,

as a great part of it becomes contraband of war; and this new principle

shuts up all the avenues of commerce that were opened, in consequence

of, or even during the war. What commerce, then, let me ask, will be

left to the neutral? None, sir, that will deserve the name of commerce.

But the reasons advanced in support of this principle, will go still

further to show its destructive consequences. One of the reasons given

why you must not carry on this trade, is, because it is beneficial to the

enemies of Great Britain, as you thereby furnish them with provisions

and other articles of merchandise, which relieve them from the pressure

of the war, and prevent her from deriving all the benefits she otherwise

would do, from her superiority at sea. If there is any solidity in this

reasoning it will go the whole length to prohibit you from carrying the

productions of your own farms to any nation the enemy of Great Britain.

Your provisions, bread stuffs, beef, and pork, are surely as useful

for carrying on war as the produce of the West India islands. She has

hitherto, it is true, applied this reasoning only to the productions of

the colonies, but it will equally apply to those of your own country.

Hence, the injustice and absurdity of the principle must appear evident

to every discerning and unprejudiced mind. But she has already, in

carrying into effect her new principle, gone further than merely to

prohibit neutrals from carrying colonial produce directly to the ports of

her enemies. She has laid the groundwork to prevent you from carrying to

those ports your own productions. Your vessels are seized and condemned

for being engaged in conveying to her enemies colonial produce, which

has been fairly purchased and paid for by your citizens, brought to this

country, and, according to your revenue laws, made a part of the common

stock of the nation. If there is a shade of difference in principle

between this case and that in which the produce of your own farms should

be captured on its way to the same enemy’s ports, it is as flimsy as can

be conceived to exist. When your people have purchased the productions of

other countries, and fairly paid for them; brought them into your own,

and complied with your municipal regulations respecting them, they become

neutralized, and as much a part of the common stock of the nation as if

they had been raised on your own farms; and the same principle that would

inhibit you from carrying these to the ports of a belligerent, would,

by parity of reasoning, prevent you from carrying to the same ports the

productions of your own farms.

But, Mr. Chairman, let us for a moment inquire whence Great Britain

derives the right, according to any known principle of law or justice,

to seize and condemn colonial produce, the property of a neutral, in

consequence of its being destined for the ports of the parent State,

her enemy? Strangers can acquire no rights against each other, in

consequence of the domestic regulations relative to commerce, which

a power independent of them may choose to establish. Suppose France,

by law, in time of peace, should prohibit the importation of colonial

produce to her ports, on the continent, except in her own vessels, Great

Britain could have no right to capture an American vessel engaged in such

trade. France alone could rightfully seize and condemn such vessel for

the infraction of her laws; but no other power could have such right.

Suppose such prohibitions removed by France during a war, and the trade

declared lawful, could Great Britain thereby acquire a right to capture

such vessels for being engaged in a trade now declared lawful, which she

could not do when it was unlawful? Certainly she would not. Such doctrine

would be contrary to the plainest dictates of reason and common sense.

She had no right to capture such vessel while the prohibition continued,

and she could not certainly acquire the right by such prohibition being

removed. The intervention of war cannot alter the case, for the rights

of neutrals, except as to contraband, remain the same in time of war

as they were during peace. I must therefore consider this principle

assumed by Great Britain as a flagrant violation of the law of nations,

contrary to every principle of justice, and such as ought not to be

sanctioned by this or any other independent nation. If you tamely

submit in this instance, she will assuredly push her aggressions still

further; encroach on your rights, step by step, as her convenience and

interest may require, until she has effectually destroyed your commerce,

and monopolized to herself the whole of its profits. That part of our

commerce that becomes immediately subject to the operation of this new

principle, has been stated as very unimportant, and under the name of

the carrying trade, has been ridiculed as not meriting the notice of

Government. A very few remarks however will, I apprehend, show that it is

not so insignificant as has been represented. In our trade with Great

Britain, there is a balance in her favor of nearly twelve millions of

dollars. This balance must be paid out of the proceeds of the exports

of the United States to other countries. Many of those countries that

consume a great portion of our produce, cannot give us specie in return.

Our merchants must, therefore, in all such cases, return the produce and

manufactures of such countries instead of specie; and, as the quantity

of foreign produce and goods thus received exceeds the amount necessary

to supply the demands for consumption in this country, it becomes

important that this surplus should be carried to other markets, where

there is a demand for it, and where specie can be obtained in return.

This has heretofore been done by our merchants, by first importing such

foreign produce into our own country, and then re-exporting the same

for a market; and by means of this trade alone have they been enabled

to discharge the balance against us in our trade with Great Britain.

The annual value of imports into the United States amounts to about

seventy-five millions of dollars; of this, twenty-eight millions are

re-exported to all parts of the world, and of that amount, eighteen

millions go to the dominions of Holland, France, Spain, and Italy--the

greater part of which is subject to capture by the new principle of the

law of nations acted upon by Great Britain. This is the carrying trade,

sir, which gentlemen have considered so unimportant as not to merit the

attention of Government. Instead of estimating this trade at $850,000,

as gentlemen have done, being the net revenue derived therefrom, (and

which is not considered as paid by citizens of the United States,) it may

fairly be estimated at nearly eighteen millions, or about one-fourth of

the whole of your imports, nearly in the proportion of eighteen million

to seventy-five. For if your merchants are not permitted to re-export

the surplus foreign produce to those markets where there is a demand for

it, it will remain on their hands and rot in their storehouses. This

would also sink the price of your own produce, as there could not be a

sufficient demand for it, because your merchants would not receive in

return foreign produce. Your trade must, therefore, be diminished nearly

in the proportion before stated. I ask gentlemen if this trade is cut

off, how your merchants are to get specie to meet the balance in favor of

Great Britain of twelve millions of dollars? If this cannot be done, your

imports must diminish in proportion as the means of remittance fail, and

your revenue must also feel the shock, and suffer in the same proportion

as your importations are lessened. This is a view of the subject which I

presume deserves at least the serious consideration of gentlemen, and I

beg of them to pause before they agree to relinquish, without a struggle,

this portion of our national rights--for, if you submit in this instance

to the interdiction imposed by Great Britain of carrying colonial produce

to the ports of her enemies, she will assuredly advance her pretensions,

as already stated, still further, and insist on the right to prohibit you

from supplying them with your own; and it may fairly be asked, on the

ground she has taken, where is the difference between sending colonial

produce to her enemies and sending your own produce? The quantum of

injury to her, and of benefit to them, will be the same; and she will

have nearly the same right to prohibit in the one case as in the other.

This shows the necessity of taking some decisive step that will convince

Great Britain that we are determined not to submit to these aggressions;

that will tell her, in firm and manly language, thus far you may go, but

not farther. On this subject, also, our Government has remonstrated to

that of Great Britain without effect. No satisfactory arrangements could

be obtained, and there is no greater prospect of an amicable adjustment

of our differences with that nation at this moment than there was a

year ago, nor have I any idea that we shall find ourselves in a better

situation in this respect, one, two, or three years hence, if we tamely

acquiesce, than we now are. There is, therefore, no ground for delay; we

can derive no benefit from it; this is the time we ought to act, the most

propitious that is likely to present itself.

But, it is insisted, this measure will produce war; I consider it

entirely in the nature of a commercial regulation, and such as cannot,

as already stated, give any just cause of war. But, it is asked, will

Great Britain inquire whether it is, or is not, just cause of war? Will

she not consider it so, because it is against her interest? If gentlemen

will have it that Great Britain has abandoned every principle of justice,

it is vain to expect she will, on any occasion, be governed by reason,

or motives of propriety, in her conduct toward us; if she is totally

regardless of common right, and governed by her interests alone, she

waits only a more favorable opportunity to give our commerce a more

deadly blow; and it is, therefore, high time to withdraw ourselves from

all connections with her. But, I am not prepared to go this length; I

cannot believe a great nation, who holds a dignified rank among the

powers of the earth, would expose herself to the indignation and derision

of the world, by abandoning all respect for justice and public right. I

must believe she still retains some regard for her national honor; and,

if not for her honor, she does for her interest: all that she could say,

with any color of justice, would be, that she has the right to adopt

other regulations on her part to counteract yours. Let us inquire into

the effect of such regulations. She may say, your produce shall not go

to her colonies, her islands, or any of her dominions. If she takes

this measure, she will prepare the most effectual scourge for her own

subjects. She will reduce the inhabitants of those islands not only to

a state of starvation, but force them at length, in all probability,

into insurrection. We have already witnessed the complaints of those

people to the mother country. We have seen the picture they have drawn of

their sufferings and distress, and their declarations that they cannot

exist without the produce of the United States. How, then, shall Britain

retaliate? She cannot do it effectually without injuring herself more

than she will you. Hence, I am clearly of opinion, the adoption of proper

measures on our part--of measures similar to that before you--would be

likely to produce the desired effect in the conduct of Great Britain

toward us.

It has, Mr. Chairman, been observed by a gentleman from New York, (Mr.

MASTERS,) that national animosity produced the resolution before you.

I regret that such an idea should be expressed on this floor. I know

of no such animosity, but I believe, on the contrary, if a national

partiality exists in this country, it is in favor of Great Britain; not

that I believe such partiality criminal; but Great Britain being the

parent country, speaking the same language with ourselves, and so many

of her subjects becoming citizens of this country, there is naturally

felt a degree of attachment towards the people of that nation. If these

feelings do not go too far, they are laudable; but in regard to a

national animosity to Great Britain, I do not believe it exists in this

country, at least to any considerable extent. If gentlemen mean that this

animosity exists against tyranny, I hope it will eternally exist, so long

as its cause exists.

But, Mr. Chairman, I hope we shall not cherish animosity against France,

any more than against Great Britain. Nor do I wish us to cherish

partiality for either. There was, I believe, sir, a time when the people

of this country felt a generous impulse in favor of the French nation.

The flame of liberty that issued from the bosom of America, during the

Revolution, had kindled up anew in France, and promised for awhile to

illuminate the whole world. The American people rejoiced at the prospect,

and felt a generous sentiment of enthusiasm towards those who appeared

to be advocating the cause of liberty and the freedom of man. But I am

not prepared to say, that their flame has continued to burn, or that the

expectations it created have been realized; but I may, I presume, say,

there is no ground to believe that this nation entertains a criminal

animosity against or partiality for either Great Britain or France. The

same gentleman has observed, what I admit is too true, that Great Britain

governs the commerce of the world. This, however, is the strongest

reason that could be advanced, against a tame submission to every act of

aggression which that Government may choose to commit on your commerce,

unless, indeed, you are willing to acknowledge a national pusillanimity,

and an inability to resist injury. If we are unable to oppose Great

Britain on the ocean, and she will persist in her unjust violation of our

rights, let us withdraw from all connections with her--confine ourselves

within the limits of our territory, and live independent of her luxuries

and her commerce, on the productions and manufactures of our own country.

To conclude my remarks on this subject, I will briefly repeat, that I am

decidedly of opinion, the conduct of Great Britain is such, in impressing

our seamen, and capturing merchant vessels, on the ground of their being

engaged in a trade with her enemies, not open to them in time of peace,

is manifestly unjust and unauthorized by the laws of nations. I conceive

we have an undoubted right, without giving just cause of war, to regulate

our own commerce, and to say from what nations we will, or will not,

import articles of consumption; and what description, and under what

circumstances. I also believe it our duty at this time to adopt some

decisive measure on the subject, that will evince to Great Britain our

determination to resist aggression, and to maintain our rights. I would,

sir, prefer a measure in which we could, and would persevere, unless it

should be found our interest to change it--a measure that would be least

likely to paralyze our revenue or affect the agricultural interest. With

this view, I would prefer, in the first instance, imposing additional or

discriminating duties on certain specified articles, imported from Great

Britain; such as would give the preference to other European markets.

Or, if more agreeable to the majority of this House, I would concur in

interdicting the importation of such articles. And if this should not

prove effectual, I would take still stronger ground. I would prohibit

the importation of all merchandise, the growth or manufacture of the

British dominions. And, should it become necessary, I would cut off all

intercourse with that nation; which would effectually starve her West

India islands, and compel her to come to just terms, or abandon her

colonies to distress and ruin. These measures I am willing to take, and

support in succession, as the occasion may require; and in doing so I

shall act under the conscientious and perfect conviction that they are

for the good of the nation; that they are necessary to vindicate the

injured rights and insulted honor of my country; and that country will, I

am confident, in this, justify my conduct.

Mr. JACKSON.--My conviction of the importance of this subject will plead

my apology for the trespass I shall make on the time of the committee. I

purpose to take a rapid review of the points in discussion between this

country and Great Britain, and to touch lightly upon the arguments of

gentlemen, who have contended that it is better to surrender them than to

assume an attitude of resistance, or to adopt measures perfectly pacific

for the purpose of producing a relaxation of the arbitrary systematic

attacks upon our neutral rights; for, with one or two exceptions, the

objections adduced go to sanction the opinion that the commerce in

question ought to be abandoned; and that this Government ought not to

do any thing to protect it. The measure presented to the consideration

of this committee is calculated to produce a redress of the grievances

complained of with so much justice. First, the capture of our vessels

sailing on the high seas, in strict observance and obedience to the law

of nations; and, secondly, the impressment of our seamen, _bona fide_

citizens, protected by the flag of the nation. While we are discussing

the proposition of resorting to a remedy to redress these evils, we

are met by gentlemen who deny that it is right to do any thing. First,

because the Executive has not recommended any particular measure; and,

secondly, because the trade under consideration is fraudulent, and the

citizens impressed are the subjects of Great Britain.

With regard to the first allegation, that the Executive has not

recommended any specific measure, was it not objected under a former

Administration that the Executive interfered improperly in legislative

measures? Congress possesses the constitutional power of declaring war,

and should the Executive recommend a declaration of war to us, I presume

we should hear much of the Executive attempting an undue and indecent

influence over our legislative powers; for, judging by the past, I

have no doubt that whenever such a recommendation shall be made by the

Executive, it will be opposed by the same persons who now call for his

recommendation, and express dissatisfaction at his withholding it.

But it is asserted this trade is fraudulent, and it is dishonorable to

protect it. So much has been said and written on this subject, that it is

altogether useless to combat the arguments urged on this floor; for it is

not because a celebrated pamphlet, without an author, has been written

on the subject on this side of the water, vindicating the fairness and

legality of the trade, or as gentlemen will have it, surrendering the

question at the threshold, or because another equally celebrated has

been written on the other, declaring it “War in Disguise,” that we will

consent to be concluded on the question, as they are all free game, and

ought to pass for nothing unless their arguments carry conviction to

the mind. The question resolves itself into the consideration whether

this trade is fraudulent or not. Can we exchange our productions with

the colonies of the belligerent nations--bring here theirs, and carry

any surplus beyond our wants to other nations? I conceive that we can;

common sense sanctions the opinion. Gentlemen, however, say we cannot.

That the property is not changed, but still belongs to the original

owner of it, and that our neutral flag fraudulently covers the enemy’s

property. But gentlemen deal in a mere coinage of the fancy when they

say so. I demand their proofs; they will not accept our opinions; and I

with equal propriety reject theirs. How will they show that this is not

our property? It is said that a want of capital is a proof of it; but,

on investigation, it will be found, that the American capital is fully

adequate to the carrying on this trade. Do not we find our merchants

engaged in the trade to the East Indies, which requires a capital of

three and four hundred thousand dollars, and if the trade to the West

India islands be equally profitable, is it not to be presumed that

they will likewise engage in it? If this property does not pass by the

transfer, as we contend it does, it may be maintained that a horse sold

in the open market will be subject to an execution subsequently issued

against its previous owner; nay, even that the executor of such owner

may sue for and recover it. But this argument shakes every principle

involved in commerce to its foundation; its origin is traffic, which

induces one man to exchange the surplus beyond what is necessary to him,

for that which is necessary, and was the surplus of another; and if the

property is not changed by this traffic, nothing is safe, every thing is

afloat, and no man knows to whom any property belongs which may happen

to be in his possession. Such a doctrine must destroy all commerce at a

single blow. But, say gentlemen, Great Britain indulges us in pursuing

the honest carrying trade. I disclaim the position. How can she be said

to indulge us with a right sanctioned by the law of nations; a right

inherent in every independent nation? I contend that the trade to which

I have just alluded, is as just and honest as any other trade of this

country afloat on the ocean.

Great Britain not only imposes on our trade the restriction which

interdicts our carrying the products of the colonies of her enemies to

the mother country, after incorporating them with our own stock, but she

disallows all trade with her enemies in time of war not permitted in time

of peace. The gentleman from Virginia argues this is correct. He says

Great Britain has a preponderance on the ocean, and inquires whether we

have a right to check it by supplying her enemy with any thing necessary

to relieve his wants. This is going farther than “War in Disguise;” than

the time-serving Sir William Scott, who sometimes recollects that he is

called on to expound the law of nations as a judge, and at others only to

register the orders of the King and Council; or any other man in England.

Does not this strike at the root of the whole trade of our country? There

is no nation at war that is not more or less supported by our products;

they drive from us the means of subsistence, and the carriage of them,

it seems, is to be prohibited because Great Britain has a preponderance

on the ocean, and can starve out her enemies if we are not permitted to

carry to them. Great Britain says you shall not carry on a trade in time

of war not permitted in time of peace. She seizes our vessels; inverts

the natural principle of evidence; throws the _onus probandi_ of showing

that this trade then prosecuted was carried on in time of peace, on the

owner of the property, and thus our whole trade afloat is exposed to

hazard and vexatious interruptions. But, in defiance of this rule set

up by herself, Great Britain opens in war her own islands, whose trade

is shut up in time of peace. Test then her principle by her practice.

It will not be contended that she connives at a fraudulent trade, or

justifies it as lawful with herself, when she declares the same trade

relatively to her enemies illicit and subject to condemnation. If then

she is not governed by narrow and unjust views, she cannot contend that

that is right when it respects herself, which is wrong in relation to

another. She has yielded that question by opening her ports in war which

were shut in peace, and has made, even if there existed a previous

doubt, this trade lawful. But, not confined to going this length, she

carries on that trade herself which she denies to us; thus adding

another to the numerous outrages committed upon us. If we acquiesce in

this doctrine, advocated by Great Britain, sanctioned by her admiralty

courts, and enforced by her cruisers, I ask if we shall not violate that

honest neutrality which compels us to treat all nations alike? The great

principle of a neutral nation, as defined by the law of nations, is, to

treat the belligerents with equal impartiality, and not to favor one at

the expense of another. By acquiescing in the doctrine that renders this

part of our trade liable to capture, we make ourselves a party on the

side of one of the nations engaged in war.

This colonial trade is not only lawful, but it is beneficial to the

merchant and also the farmer. Gentlemen have attempted to draw a

distinction between the mercantile and the farming interests. I shall by

and by expose the fallacy of their reasoning; but, at this time, I will

confine my remarks to proving that this trade is not only beneficial

to the merchant but likewise to the farmer. The colonies from which

this trade is derived are fed exclusively from this country--to them we

carry our provisions and receive in return their productions. It is not

our interest to receive money, if they had it, because we should lose

the profit on the return cargo. If we were not at liberty to purchase

beyond the consumption of our country, the extent of our exports would

be diminished in the same ratio, for not having money to pay for our

provisions they could not purchase them. The consequence would be that

the trade would fall into retail hands, and the loss would reverberate

on the farmer, the demand for his productions would be diminished, and

they would rot in our warehouses. This shows that the farmer is as deeply

interested in the trade as the merchant.

WEDNESDAY, March 12.

_Importations from Great Britain._

Mr. JACKSON.--I admitted, in its fullest latitude, the aversion of the

American people to go to war for light and transient causes. They will

sedulously foster peace; they will bear and forbear much; viewing war as

the scourge of the human race, every honorable exertion will be made by

them to avert it; but there is a point of degradation and insult beyond

endurance which no nation can advance to without feeling the vengeance

of United America. We have tested this truth by experience. Look to the

Revolution, sir, when the noble spirit of the times braved the terrors of

treason, misery, and death, rather than tamely submit to the accumulated

wrongs that were heaped upon us. I have too much respect for my country

to believe that any attempt to rob us of a single right which we then

secured by one of the noblest struggles recorded in the annals of the

world, would be tamely surrendered. But it is said the spirit of the

nation has been roused by the impositions of the newspapers, influenced

by the rapacity of the merchants. No, sir; it is by seeing its rights and

the rights of its citizens trampled on--prostrated by a lawless banditti

on the ocean, respecting no law but their own interest--acknowledging no

rights between them and the tyranny of the seas. Is the capture of our

seamen, and vessels, and cargoes on the ocean, an imposition? No, sir;

it is a fatal reality, witnessed by the miseries and bankruptcies of

thousands; and when an honest burst of indignation is re-echoed from the

remotest corners of the Union, we are gravely told that we must make a

distinction between commerce and agriculture, which it is alleged exists

in fact, and cannot be lost sight of. Let us examine this doctrine.

The merchant purchases the produce of the farmer, his beef, and pork,

and every surplus which he has, and traverses every sea in search of a

market for it; the price abroad produces competition at home; the profits

to the merchant being always nearly the same, and by this competition

the farmer receives a premium proportionate to the demand abroad; but

take away this rivalship at home by abandoning your merchants to the

depredations of every freebooter--for, if you once pronounce that they

are to be abandoned, every sea and shore will be infested by them--and

you compel him to quit the ocean, to employ his capital on land, and

our farmers will be obliged to take whatever price foreigners coming

into our ports may choose to give, and to purchase the productions of

other countries from them at whatever price they may choose to ask.

The interests of agriculture and commerce are, therefore, intimately

connected: but another expedient is resorted to. It is said a distinction

is to be kept up between the Northern and Southern interests, and this

measure will operate on the South alone. Sir, we ought to know nothing of

local interests or geographical divisions, when the rights of an American

citizen are invaded; we ought only to know it and feel it as Americans.

Did the North use other language when the navigation of the Mississippi

was destroyed by withholding the right of deposit at New Orleans?

No, sir, with honorable feelings, their only solicitude was how they

should most effectually restore and preserve it. Let us then act with

sentiments of the same noble liberality when the pressure of wrongs is

most immediately felt by them, but which must and will operate upon us

also, for no measure can affect the rights of this nation that will not

sensibly injure every part of the Union. If our commerce is disturbed, if

our rights on the sea are cut off one by one, and such is the tendency

of the present measures of Britain, what will become of our cotton and

tobacco? Will they not rot on our hands, or be sold at the price of those

who may be pleased to come and purchase them? If commerce languish,

agriculture will languish likewise, for one is the handmaid of the other.

But, say gentlemen, the value of the trade interrupted by the piratical

conduct of Britain, is not worth contending for, is not worth the risk of

the present measure, or the hazard of war. I hope, however, we shall not

estimate national wrongs by pounds, shillings, and pence. I hope that,

when our rights are invaded, we will all be united, not in calculating

the cost, but in adopting measures to insure redress. But gentlemen say

these aggressions will only last during the war. Sir, the war in Europe,

for the last fifteen years, has been almost unintermitted. Were you to

hold this language to an individual, and say to him, you are denied free

ingress or egress to or from your own mansion, and console him by adding,

you can bear with your wrongs, they will last only during your lifetime;

he would spurn you from him with indignation. Look at the state of the

European world, at its situation for twenty years past, and say what

chance have you of peace? I hope our rights will not be thus permitted to

be trampled on with impunity, under such a pretext. I hope to see some

systematic measures adopted to meet Great Britain, who appears to have

formed a deliberate plan to inflict all the injury in her power on this

people, whom she looks upon as her most dangerous rival. This step, which

she has taken, is a link in the great chain of vassalage, a colossal

stride towards effecting that plan which has for its object the dominion

of the seas. If we yield one right, as well established as the right to

breathe the vital air, it is weak in us to imagine Great Britain will

stop here. This would be as contrary to her genius as the genius of this

Government is to war.

I consider the aggressions which Britain has made upon our trade alone,

a sufficient stimulus to induce us to do something. But when I refer to

the three thousand seamen she holds in miserable bondage, I consider

the destruction of this trade as but a drop in the ocean compared with

them. But, on this subject, horrid as it is, I find some gentlemen are

the apologists of Britain! One gentleman observes that, inasmuch as

her own subjects are in our employ, she has a right to take from us an

equal number. But there is no analogy between the cases. The act of her

subjects in entering into our service is voluntary, while our citizens

are kept in her service by violence. Some of our own citizens reside in

Britain, and yet we never dreamed of complaining, because she has not

banished them from her bosom. No man in his senses can say that Britain

is justified in keeping our citizens in slavery, on the ground that we

employ her subjects in our service.

If a man has a protection, she says it is fraudulent and tears it to

pieces; and if he has not a protection, she declares that conclusive

proof that he is not an American citizen. It is very much to be regretted

that the law requiring those protections ever passed; and that we had not

asserted the right to protect every man sailing under our flag, except

the enemies of a belligerent nation. Three thousand of our citizens

now groan under this abject slavery! This number have presented their

claims to your Government. Besides which, many more are carried from

sea to sea, and from one country to another, without being ever able

to make their cases known to you. In vain do they endeavor to forward

their complaints--an inexorable tyranny denies them the indulgence. It

is fair then to infer that the whole number is twice that I have stated,

and it really appears to me as if our sensibility were lost in the

magnitude of the injury. If there were but a single case of this species

of oppression presented to us, it would be more affecting and effective.

Draw the picture of a single victim, the only son of aged parents,

their staff, the prop of their age, their pride and only support; he

toils and labors to obtain a venture, with the pleasing prospect of

quadrupling his little capital--they follow him, when ready to leave

them, with tears and blessings to the water side, where he embarks; and

in a few hours the lessening sail is lost to their view on the bosom

of the wide-expanded ocean. They return to their cottage and implore

a beneficent God to protect their darling; they count the days of his

absence, and when, according to the usual course of events, the period

of his return is drawing to a close, each hour awakens new fears and

new solicitude. By and by the vessel anchors in its port--they fly to

embrace him--but, alas! he is not there--he was, off the harbor’s mouth,

robbed of his all, impressed by the British, and carried into worse than

Algerine slavery--for with those he would only be compelled to work for

his master, whilst these make him work, and fight, under a lash more

cruel than the barbarian bastinado, and a despotism more unrelenting

than the slave driver’s exercise. Their golden dreams are vanished with

the recital. The soul shrinks back upon itself; they cast a long and

wishful look upon the ocean, and with tottering steps reach their once

peaceful, happy home--but no peace, nor happiness, welcomes their return.

Hope lingers for awhile, and cheers their drooping spirits--it directs

their appeal to the Government, which the old man fought and bled in

the field to establish, upon the basis of universal justice, and whose

principles he impressed on the mind of his child. Year after year it is

deaf to their cries; it sits down and calculates the cost of asserting

its rights, with the nicety of a ledger-keeper, and decides in favor of

a pusillanimous acquiescence, because the balance of dollars and cents

is struck in its favor. Poverty approaches with rapid strides--their last

dollar is laid out to procure the means of subsistence; too proud to

beg, and too infirm to labor, they know not how to avert their fate; the

little plans they have formed without the means of execution, fly like

meteors before them--nature is making a mighty struggle with adversity,

when it is announced that their boy fell beneath the thousand lashes

which were inflicted on him for attempting his escape; and Death, kindly

interposing his friendly arm, grants a respite from their miseries!

Does not such a case demand our attention? It is not at all comparable

to that of many others. Add to the scene which I have feebly portrayed,

the distraction of a tender wife, manacled and confined in the cold

damp cells of a lunatic hospital--her children bound out by the parish,

and all their prospects of life nipped in the bud, occasioned by the

impressment of the husband and the father--and then tell me do we violate

the principles of the constitution, which declares that it is made to

provide for the common defence and general welfare, by vindicating those

measures which are well calculated to procure redress? This were indeed

to play such fantastic tricks before high heaven, as make even angels

weep! Shall we, in the Tripoline war, to rescue from bondage three

hundred Americans, perform, through the agency of some of our citizens,

acts of perseverance, address, and heroism, unsurpassed in the annals of

ancient or modern times, at the sacrifice of the lives of many brave men,

who, with some of those that survived the conflict, will be enrolled by

a grateful country upon the list of the favorite sons of the American

nation--when as many thousands are groaning under the cruel oppression of

Great Britain, and crying to us for succor, without exciting or producing

one manly exertion!

THURSDAY, March 13.

_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. LEIB.--From the course which has been pursued for several days, I am

induced to move that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

be discharged from the further consideration of this resolution, and that

of the gentleman from New Jersey. Without entering into the merits of the

resolution, I will confine myself to stating the reasons on which I make

this motion. I did expect, when this subject first came under discussion,

to have heard something respecting its merits; that a comparison would

have been drawn between the advantages and disadvantages likely to

ensue to the United States from its adoption, instead of which I found

my colleague sailing round the coast without examining its tendency or

bearing. He told us it was pacific, and, in the same breath, said it

struck a dagger into the vitals of Great Britain. If, Mr. Speaker, I were

to strike a dagger at you, would you not consider it a hostile act?

And yet this measure is said to be pacific, and it is represented as

having no tendency to war. When this measure was first proposed, I was in

favor of it; I was impelled by my feelings against Great Britain, whose

injuries I sensibly felt. But I have since listened to the arguments

adduced in its favor by my colleagues. What are they? Did they speak of

its profits and loss; did they show that it would be advantageous to this

country? Instead of this they talked of national honor. But, on this

subject, I agree with the poet:

“Act well your part, there all the honor lies.”

I am not disposed to be a duellist for national honor. I am disposed

to view this as a question of profit and loss; and if the loss will be

greater than the gain, to reject it; and it is because I think that the

United States will incur more loss than profit by it, that I wish to get

rid of it. I believe it will have a warlike aspect, and therefore I am

against it. I have no idea of fighting all the world. I hope, from the

course which this discussion has taken, and from the conviction which it

has produced of the inability of the United States to carry this measure

into effect, that we will enter on the discussion of some other measure

more likely to be effectual. I am willing to get rid of this resolution

in the easiest way, and I therefore move you to discharge the committee

from its further consideration.

The yeas and nays were then taken on discharging the Committee of the

Whole from the further consideration of Mr. GREGG’s resolution, and

were--yeas 24, nays 101.

The question was then taken on discharging the committee from Mr. SLOAN’s

resolution, by yeas and nays--yeas 26, nays 98.

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state

of the Union.

The Chairman put the question on considering Mr. GREGG’s resolution, on

which the committee divided--yeas 47, nays 70.

Mr. J. CLAY moved to consider the resolution offered by himself, and that

of his friend from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON.)

FRIDAY, March 14.

_Importations from Great Britain._

Mr. MUMFORD said: Mr. Chairman, it is with great diffidence I rise to

speak on this question. I am a merchant, unaccustomed to speak in a

public body. But, sir, when I see the dearest interests of my country

unjustly attacked by a foreign nation, I must beg the indulgence of this

committee while I express my sentiments on the serious aspect of our

foreign relations. Sir, I do not wish to extenuate the conduct of any

nation. I have no predilection for one foreign nation more than another.

I shall endeavor to speak the language of an independent American.

Sir, I had indulged the hope that the ninth Congress of the United States

had assembled to deliberate on the momentous affairs of their country

as Americans; but, sir, it gives me pain, and I regret extremely, to see

gentlemen so far forget the interest of their own country in defending

the pretended rights of others. That there should be a difference

of opinion respecting our own regulations, was to be expected, but

when your lawful commerce is attacked by what the honorable gentleman

from Virginia so emphatically terms “the Leviathan of the Ocean,” and

attacked, too, contrary to their own acknowledged principles, as laid

down in the correspondence between your late worthy Minister, Mr. King,

and the British Minister, Lord Hawkesbury, I beg leave to call on the

Clerk to read that part of the Boston memorial which relates to that

correspondence. [The Clerk read the article.]

I shall now commence my observations on our unfortunate fellow-citizens

in British bondage; and in answer to the honorable gentleman from

Maryland, whom I very much respect, I do frankly acknowledge that amongst

all the petitions presented to you by the merchants of the United

States, there is not one word about our impressed seamen, Salem and

another port excepted. But, sir, I beg leave to inform this committee,

and that honorable gentleman, that before we enter our vessels at the

custom-house, we are called upon to witness the recording of this tale

of human woe before a notary public, stating all the seamen impressed

during the voyage. This is immediately transmitted to the Secretary of

State, for the correctness of which I refer you to the documents from

that department now on your table. Sir, is it decorous, is it candid, is

it liberal, is it respectful to the committee to impute such unworthy

motives to the merchants as we have heard expressed on this floor?

They are men, sir; and I believe candor will allow them their share of

sensibility, and that they sympathize for suffering humanity as much as

a planter, a farmer, a lawyer, or any class of the community. Sir, I

feel as much as any man for the sufferings of this meritorious class of

citizens, having been an eye-witness to the barbarous treatment inflicted

by the officers of the British Government on one of them. He was lashed

to a scaffold on the gunwale of a boat, and whipped from ship to ship,

until he had received five hundred lashes. What was the consequence? He

expired the next morning. What was his crime? He had been impressed into

their cruel bondage, and had endeavored to regain his liberty! We are

asked, what is the remedy for this outrage? There is but one, sir. Demand

satisfaction for the past, and in future make your flag protect your

citizens, at least on the high seas, the common high road of all nations.

Your merchants can insure their property against this “Leviathan of the

Ocean;” but there is no alternative for the poor sailor, he is inevitably

doomed to cruel slavery.

I now come to speak of foreign nations. We are told that the American

merchants cover Spanish property. This may be the case. I believe it;

but it is to a very limited amount. The Spanish merchants have little

capital at present to dispose of. Their Government owes them considerable

sums of money, and the paper currency of that Government is at such a

discount (I believe from 40 to 50 per cent.) that they are not able to

extend their commerce, if they were ever so much disposed to do so.

Respecting the French merchants, a great proportion of them in France

are bankrupts, in consequence of heavy taxes, contributions, forced

loans, and all the impositions of imperial ingenuity. That country

depends not on commerce for her revenue; she collects one hundred and

twenty millions of dollars per annum, of which twelve millions only are

levied upon commerce, being but ten per cent, on the whole revenue. Their

merchants have it not in their power to extend their business for want of

a capital, which is a fact that will be acknowledged by all commercial

men. They are by no means the favorites of the Emperor; he grants them no

indulgences, of which the late transactions at the national bank are a

sufficient evidence.

Respecting Holland, every person conversant in business knows the

cautious calculation of the Dutch merchants; they trade very little

on their own account in time of war, but are constantly soliciting

the American merchants to make consignments of property to sell on

commission. And yet we are told in that oracle, the celebrated pamphlet,

“War in Disguise,” that France, Spain, and Holland carry on the war

against Great Britain with property covered by Americans! Will any

rational man believe them?

I now come to Great Britain, sir; not one word has been said about

property covered for her. She is immaculate; she is innocent; she can

do no wrong. I have good authority for this last expression. The King

says so, and others repeat it. Sir, immediately upon the coalition being

formed on the continent of Europe, she seized upon your unsuspecting

commerce, and surprised it with new principles and new doctrines in her

Courts of Admiralty, which operated with her ships of war in the same

manner as though they had actually received orders from the Lords of the

Admiralty (how insidious! but they understand _decoy_) to capture and

bring in all American vessels bound to enemies’ ports; and if by chance

any of them escape their fangs, after a mock trial, they are compelled

to pay enormous charges, from five hundred to six hundred guineas, and

sometimes more. This operates as a premium to carry in all your vessels,

knowing beforehand they will have nothing to pay; for, although you gain

your cause, you must pay the costs. This, sir, discourages your cautious

and best merchants, and they are thus compelled to abandon and decline

pursuing a lucrative and lawful traffic.

If there be any property covered for Great Britain, I have every reason

to believe, from facts I will state to the committee, that it appertains

almost exclusively to some British merchants, lately adopted citizens of

the United States, for they take good care to keep all their business

in their own hands. They are the honest merchants who own the honest

vessels we have heard so much about, and they are engaged in exporting

cotton, tobacco, and other produce of our country. Why should they have

the preference? it will be asked. I will not tell you what I do not

know, (as has been said in this committee,) but I will tell you what I

do know. Sir, the real American merchants cannot enter into competition

with them. They have their particular friends in England, who are

interested, and will of course give them the preference. By a variety of

ways they obtain all the freights, to the exclusion of your vessels. Sir,

we are often compelled to take in ballast alongside of those very ships

who have full freights engaged. Thus, sir, the real American merchant

is the dupe of these honest adopted British citizens. These are your

slippery-eel merchants, so justly denominated by the honorable gentleman

from Virginia, whose acme of mind I much admire. They were indeed, sir,

so slippery in some of your districts, that it was found necessary to

pass a law excluding all of them who resided in foreign countries from

owning any ship or vessel belonging to the United States; for a number

of them, after having made fortunes out of your neutrality, had slipped

off to Great Britain to spend the money and the remainder of their days.

And in order that we might not compromit our neutrality in this deceptive

business, our National Legislature has been careful to pass a law in the

first session of the eighth Congress, dated 27th March, 1804, to correct

the abuse, which has in some measure put a check to it; and yet we are

emphatically told that it is only coffee, sugar, and East India goods

that are guilty of the sin of interfering with British merchants, those

monopolizers of the commerce of the whole world.

I mention these facts, sir, to vindicate the character of the real

American merchants; it will stand the test with that of any other nation

in the world. Sir, look at your revenue system, examine all the records

of your district courts, see how very few fines and forfeitures they

have incurred, and then compare them with any class of citizens you

please, and you will, I am confident, Mr. Chairman, exculpate them from

such disingenuous reflections as have been animadverted upon in this

committee. Sir, they make it a point of honor to discourage smuggling,

knowing the whole revenue of their country to depend upon that fidelity

which they have never ceased to inculcate. I cannot but persuade myself

that, on mature reflection, gentlemen will not withhold from that class

of the community the protection guaranteed to them by the constitution of

their country. It is a fact well known to this committee that the Federal

Constitution, under which we now hold our seats in this House, grew out

of the great inconveniences we then experienced in our commercial affairs

with foreign nations. Surely they are not outlawed. I trust not, sir. I

hope better treatment from the hands of my country.

I now come to the true history and the cause of the aggressions of Great

Britain. It is very difficult to trace her in all her ramifications of

fraud on your neutrality and of injustice on your commerce. Sir, when

the present continental coalition was concluded, the “lords of the

ocean,” with that colossus the East India Company, the merchants trading

from London to the continent of Europe, the West India merchants, and

some of our honest adopted citizens from Great Britain, all agreed with

common consent to be in the fashion; and they formed a coalition against

your commerce, and ordered a book to be written, in which they took a

conspicuous part, called “War in Disguise.” This was truly on their part

_war in disguise_, and the first act of hostility they commenced upon

your unsuspecting commerce; and I hope they may ultimately meet the fate

of all other coalitions, at least as far as respects our country. They

had ordered, as all coalitions do, a large supply of ammunition; one

hundred thousand copies of this instrument of death to your commerce were

distributed, at sixpence each, to all parts of the British dominions,

in order that your property might be plundered for the use of the naval

commanders, who could no longer find any other property on the ocean.

This book says, “they must retire on a handsome competency at the close

of the war,” no matter from whom it is taken.

Next comes the East India Company, that colossus of mercantile avarice,

whose monopoly draws into its vortex all the demand for East India

produce in Europe. Your lawful commerce to those markets interfered with

them, and was considered incompatible with this monopoly, and must be

doomed to destruction.

Next come the merchants trading from London to the continent of Europe.

They attend the public auctions, purchase your condemned vessels and

their cargoes, procure a license from their Government, and send the same

cargo on their own account to the very market your own citizens intended

it for.

I now come to some of those honest adopted British merchants; and in

order to elucidate that subject, I will beg leave to read a copy of a

letter from one of the first houses of respectability in London, said to

be in the confidence of the Minister:

“This Government has granted licenses to neutral vessels,

who take in a proportion of their cargoes in Great Britain,

to proceed to the Spanish colonies to the south of the line,

provided the returned cargoes are to be brought to this

country; and I have now several expeditions of this nature

under my direction for the account of houses on the continent,

who prefer subjecting themselves to the conditions Ministers

have imposed for the toleration of that trade, to the risk

of detention and its consequences, even in the event of

restitution.”

This is no fiction, sir, it is a fact. It cuts your commerce like

a two-edged sword, involves your neutrality, and prevents your own

merchants from going to the same market, the profit on which ultimately

centres in Great Britain. There are at this moment British agents in

two of your commercial cities, and I suppose more in other parts of the

United States as well as in Europe, for they swarm on the industry of

all nations. They are acting in concert to carry on this licensed trade

with the Spanish colonies, their enemies jeopardizing your neutrality,

to the manifest injury of the real American merchants. This is a very

valuable branch of commerce, as you may readily suppose from the price

that sagacious calculating nation sets upon it. What is the result of

all this? Why, sir, if it were not for the interference of this very

Government, so much extolled at the expense of your own, we should enjoy

the benefit ourselves. They themselves license vessels to carry on a

commerce, which if pursued by your citizens, without their permission, is

sure to be plundered. Thus, sir, that Government assails your commerce

at home, and condemns it abroad, on the most vexatious and unwarrantable

pretensions.

Sir, I beg leave to call the attention of the committee to an important

fact. Examine your treaty with Spain, your treaty with France, your

treaty with Holland, your treaties with some of the Northern Powers,

what do they say? “Free ships make free goods.” What does Great Britain

say? “You shall give up the goods of my enemies;” and you accede to it.

Is this reciprocal? Is it just? Is it not a humiliating concession? Is

this cause of war? What says that oracle, that celebrated pamphlet, on

this occasion? Not a word, sir; it is as silent as the grave. Who now

has the greatest cause of complaint, Great Britain or her enemies? Her

motto is “Universal domination over the seas”--the common highway of

all nations--and, unless you assert your rights, you will be swept into

the general vortex. We are told that this is a war measure. If it be

true, and commercial regulations are of that nature, we are at war with

Great Britain at this very moment, for she imposes four per cent, on her

exports to our country. You cannot impose any on your exports to that

country; it is unconstitutional.

Mr. CHANDLER.--Mr. Chairman, unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, it

is with extreme diffidence that I rise to make a few observations on the

measures now under consideration; but the subject is so important, that I

am unwilling to give a silent vote.

It appears to be acknowledged by all the gentlemen who have spoken before

me, that we have just cause of complaint against Great Britain; that she

has impressed our seamen and compelled them to serve on board her ships

of war, to the number of several thousand; that she holds them in the

most degrading servitude, and compels them to fight her battles against a

nation with whom we are at peace, and that she has seized and condemned,

contrary to the laws of nations, and usage, our ships and property to a

very large amount. This fact, Mr. Chairman, is so evident and notorious,

that it would be trifling with the time of this committee, were I to

attempt to introduce new evidence to prove it.

This point being conceded, it then remains to be determined whether we

will tamely submit to these wanton aggressions upon our rights as an

independent and a neutral nation, or have recourse to measures of some

kind calculated to obtain redress for the past and security for the

future. The first, Mr. Chairman, ought to be put out of the question.

To submit, without opposition to so wanton and so flagrant violation of

our rights, would render us unworthy the name of Americans. For what

did we contend with this same Great Britain in 1775 and the succeeding

years? When we were few in numbers, and at first without arms, without

ammunition, without money, or other established resources, and without

allies? Sir, a Warren, a McClary, a Montgomery, a Mercer, and a host

of heroes, fought, and bled, and died--for what? For the rights, the

liberties, the freedom, and independence of our country. And shall we,

Mr. Chairman, without one effort, surrender those dear-bought rights and

privileges, the price of which was the best blood of our countrymen? No,

sir, we shall not, we will not do it; our faces would be covered with

shame, and disgrace as well as injury descend to our children. But, sir,

this committee will not consent to a surrender of those rights, which

they are constituted to guard and protect. They will, I presume, at least

a great majority of them, be disposed to take measures sufficiently

strong to compel that haughty nation to do us justice.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, the only difference in opinion with most of

us is, what measures will be most likely to have the desired effect,

with the least injury to ourselves. For my own part I was in favor of

the resolution laid on the table by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I

allude to the one which has been several days under discussion. I was in

favor of it, because I believe it would be the most effectual; and no

man I think can doubt our right to adopt such a measure, it being only a

commercial regulation, such as every independent nation may rightfully

make whenever her interest or convenience require it. It would, in my

opinion, be most likely to effect our object, because it would most

deeply touch that tender point, their interest; and it is their interest

which governs them. If we forsake their workshops and warehouses, it

will materially affect their manufactures and trade. Indeed, to use the

language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, it will reach the vitals

of her commerce; and if it were to go to the vitals of their nation,

the fault is not ours; they are the aggressors, we act on the defensive

only. If, sir, that nation has two millions of people employed in the

cloth manufacture alone, as was stated by a gentleman from Maryland,

(which number, however, I think too large,) she must at least have four

millions in the whole employed in manufactures of all kinds. We take from

her of these manufactures to the amount of thirty millions annually--a

market for which she cannot find elsewhere. Interdict the importation of

her goods, and what is the consequence? She cannot pay, and therefore

cannot employ her workmen. She will not find her account in manufacturing

goods annually to the amount of thirty millions of dollars more than

she can find a market for; therefore her workmen, at least one million

of them, will be out of employment. How are they to subsist? How can

they get their bread? Other means they have not; they cannot find any

other occupation; and, if they could, they are not fitted for them.

This derangement of business must be severely felt; their merchants and

manufacturers will, I believe, be persuasive advocates for us. They will

feel the evil, and will powerfully press the Government to do us justice.

The Minister will be convinced of the danger. He will be careful not

to suffer our custom to be diverted from England; for he knows if the

channel of our trade is once turned, it will not easily, if ever, be

restored. He will pause before he finally drives his best customer to

the necessity of leaving him; for he cannot be ignorant that our trade,

consisting of the exportation of raw materials, and the importation of

wrought manufactures, will be courted by other nations, who will soon

find it for their interest to accommodate us with a supply of our demands

on satisfactory terms. I consider, Mr. Chairman, that our commerce is and

will be so available to the nations of Europe, as to furnish us the means

of commanding respect and procuring justice by commercial regulations. I

have no fear that Great Britain will venture on a war with us; but if,

from a predetermination to quarrel with us at all events, she should make

a commercial regulation, or any other of our measures, a pretext for

hostilities, notwithstanding all that has been said on the floor of this

House by certain gentlemen, to disparage the troops or militia of our

own country, and of our weakness, inferiority, and inability to defend

ourselves, and to prove the invincible power of Great Britain, yet I

trust she would still find us Americans.

Mr. J. RANDOLPH.--I should have been better pleased if the gentleman who

has so eloquently painted the wrongs which we have received from Britain

had, instead of telling us of the disease, pointed out the remedy. The

gentleman a few days ago offered himself as a collateral security for the

facts stated by the President and our illustrious Minister at the Court

of London. Did the gentleman believe that what we could not take from

them, we should accept from him? That our commerce has been pirated upon

and our seamen impressed we all knew before. But where is the remedy?

Gentlemen say they are for taking commanding ground, that will ensure

respect. Where is it? Let them give in their project. Is this the remedy,

or is this the time? Gentlemen tell us we ought not to stop short of

indemnity for the past and security for the future. Are they then for

going to war with Britain on the same ground which Mr. Pitt took with the

French Republic? Do they expect success in their project? And is peace to

be destroyed, and the interests of this people compromitted, until what

they please to call indemnity and security shall be obtained? Are they

for going to war with Spain and France, and making a similar convention

with them that we some time since made with Britain for spoliations

committed on our commerce, and then by a kind of legerdemain draw from

our own pockets wherewith to pay for those very spoliations? Is this the

indemnity they expect to obtain? I want none of it. I almost dread to

see a convention with any power across the Atlantic, with a stipulation

to pay money, as I fear its only tendency would be to deprive us of that

we have left. Make any sort of convention you please, and something will

scarcely fail to fall out between the cup and the lip, by which you will

have to pay the debts due to you by others. By some sort of legerdemain,

the money of your _bona fide_ citizens will get into the pockets of your

diplomatists or their creatures on this and the other side of the water,

into the hands of bureau men, of counting-house politicians. But I find

gentlemen undertake to say, because I am indisposed to go to war, I am

the advocate and apologist of Great Britain; and because I quote the able

pamphleteer, who stands forth the godfather of the doctrines contained

in it, I abjure them; and so far from costing me six cents, they cost

me one hundred and fifty; and I consider that a better bargain than the

other pamphlet, which did not cost me a sous. Am I to be considered

as the apologist of Britain, because the defence of this country has

been committed to weak advocates, or because its cause has been weakly

defended or treacherously abandoned? No; I am the advocate of the

circumstances of the times--of the constitution of this people--of common

sense--of expediency. What does the gentleman from New York tell you? I

admire the resentment he feels for the wrongs committed on our country,

and I entertain a respect for him. He tells you every thing I have told

you--that American merchants are employed in covering enemy’s property.

No, he draws a distinction between native and adopted merchants, and says

that he considers the latter as the root of the evil. I agree that this

trade is carried on by foreigners naturalized among us. But the gentleman

says the other nations of Europe treat us on the principle that free

ships make free goods; while Great Britain treats us on the opposite

principle, and contends for the principle of contraband of war, and the

liability of enemy’s property to seizure. Why is there this difference?

Because those who treat on the principle of the _mare liberum_ find it

their interest to treat on this principle. But do they who have the

mastery of the ocean consider it as their interest? And yet the gentleman

arraigns one country for being governed by her own interest, while he

applauds another for being governed by the same feelings.

But the gentleman says the Federal Constitution grew out of commerce.

Indeed! I have always understood it grew out of the feeble and lax state

of our Federation. I have no doubt the regulation of commerce, and the

hope of obtaining an adequate revenue, aided its formation. But will

the gentleman undertake to say the constitution was made to give us the

mastery of the seas? If so, I will be glad to see how he makes it out.

Will he say the finger of Heaven points to war?

Mr. J. CLAY said he was sorry the committee were determined to press this

subject. He believed a delay of four or five days would be important; he

therefore moved that the committee should rise.

Mr. ALSTON said, it would certainly be unnecessary for the committee to

rise, with a view to decide upon the resolution offered by the gentleman

from Pennsylvania, (Mr. GREGG.) The committee having refused in the first

instance to take up this resolution, and having acted upon that which had

been submitted by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. NICHOLSON,) was a

sufficient evidence of the sense of this House as to its final adoption

or rejection. The newspapers emanating from this place to all parts of

the United States would convey the sense of the House as fully upon the

resolution as though a final vote should have been taken; and should the

resolution offered by the gentleman from Maryland be now decided upon,

and agreed to, every one would be satisfied that the one offered by the

gentleman from Pennsylvania would not be adopted.

Mr. A. said it was time--high time--that this House had come to some

determination upon this important subject. It was time that the public

mind was put to rest. It was time that the American people were informed

of the extent that we intended to go, and of the steps we intended to

take towards Great Britain, in order to meet the aggressions committed by

that Government upon the commerce of our country. He verily did believe

the resolution submitted by the gentleman from Maryland, the merits

of which it was in order upon the present motion to discuss, better

calculated to have the desired effect upon that Government on whom it

was intended to operate, than any other plan or project which had been

submitted or talked of, inasmuch as it was only a commercial regulation

or restriction, acknowledged by all Governments in the world to be

perfectly within the control of every independent nation. Some gentlemen

had thought it not sufficiently strong--that something more efficient

should be adopted. For his part, he did believe it much stronger, as to

the effect it would have in bringing Great Britain to terms of amicable

adjustment, than that which had been submitted by the gentleman from

Pennsylvania, and which was now sleeping on the table. This, Mr. A.

said, was that kind of commercial regulation that carried with it the

appearance of a determination to persevere in it; and, in his humble

opinion, it was well calculated to distress that nation who had so long

persisted in a regular system of aggression towards us. On the contrary,

that which had been submitted by the gentleman from Pennsylvania was

such a one as Great Britain would plainly discover we ourselves did not

mean to persevere in, because it would readily be seen, that, while it

distressed her, it would be equally injurious to us. Another reason

suggested itself why he would prefer the resolution now under discussion.

It seemed to be understood, on all sides, let which should be adopted,

or whatever course should be pursued, that no system was to go into

operation immediately--that full time was to be given for an attempt

at friendly negotiation. It was intended as an expression of public

sentiment. It was, therefore, of great importance to this nation, that

the sentiment expressed should be with as much unanimity as possible.

It was evident to all that the resolution offered by the gentleman from

Pennsylvania, from the violent opposition it had met with, could not,

if carried at all, be carried by that majority that the one now under

discussion could. If, therefore, he in the first instance had been in

favor, he should, after the discussion which had already taken place,

think himself, for the sake of harmony alone, perfectly justified in

abandoning it. The resolution now under discussion, which was offered by

the gentleman from Maryland, could not be objected to, as the other had

been, on the ground of its being in any manner whatever calculated to

produce war, if adopted in the full extent in which it was submitted. The

object of the present resolution is a prohibition of certain articles,

the growth and manufacture of Great Britain and her dependencies, from

being imported into the United States; most of which articles, Mr.

A. said, he was advised by those better acquainted than himself with

mercantile transactions, could be obtained from other countries; and

those which could not be obtained, we could either do very well without,

or raise within ourselves. What effect, then, would this measure have

upon Great Britain? No person would deny that it would lessen in her

own country the value of her manufactures. Whilst our citizens at home

were perfectly content, the voice of the artisan, the manufacturer, and

the laborer in Great Britain, would be raised against the aggressions

committed by their own Government, which caused us, and in fact compelled

us, in self-defence, to enter into the regulation proposed.

MONDAY, March 17.

_Importations from Great Britain._

The motion for the committee to rise having been rejected, the question

was taken on the resolution originally proposed by Mr. NICHOLSON, when

the committee rose, and the House concurred in its adoption--yeas 87,

nays 35, as follows:

YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson,

David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger,

Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas

Blount, Robert Brown, John Boyle, William Butler, George W.

Campbell, John Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark,

Joseph Clay, Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., Frederick

Conrad, Jacob Crowninshield, Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, William

Dickson, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John W.

Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson

Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaac L. Green, Silas

Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G.

Jackson, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, Matthew

Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion, Josiah

Masters, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow,

John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H.

Nicholson, Gideon Olin, John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea

of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John

Russell, Peter Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman,

James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry

Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Joseph B.

Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill, Robert Whitehill,

Eliphalet Wickes, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan

Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, Joseph Winston, and

Thomas Wynns.

NAYS.--Silas Betton, Phanuel Bishop, James M. Broom, John

Campbell, Levi Casey, Martin Chittenden, Leonard Covington,

Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Elias Earle, Caleb Ellis,

William Ely, James M. Garnett, Charles Goldsborough, Seth

Hastings, David Hough, James Kelly, Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan

O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Roger Nelson, Timothy Pitkin,

jr., Josiah Quincy, Thomas Sanford, John Cotton Smith, Thomas

Spalding, Richard Stanford, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges,

Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Samuel Tenney, Philip R.

Thompson, Daniel C. Verplanck, and Peleg Wadsworth.

Mr. EARLY moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee of Ways

and Means to bring in a bill.

WEDNESDAY, March 19.

_Death of Senator Jackson, of Georgia._

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate, having been

informed that the honorable JAMES JACKSON, Esq., one of the Senators from

the State of Georgia, died yesterday, have appointed a committee to take

order for superintending his funeral.

The House then proceeded to consider the said message: Whereupon,

_Resolved, unanimously_, That this House will attend the funeral of JAMES

JACKSON, Esq., late a member of the Senate of the United States.

_Resolved, unanimously_, That the members of this House do wear mourning

on the left arm for the space of one month, in testimony of their respect

for the memory of that distinguished revolutionary patriot.[36]

_Canal at the Rapids of the Ohio._

Mr. BOYLE, from a committee appointed, on the tenth ultimo, on the

memorial of the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, made a report

thereon; which was read, and referred to the Committee of the Whole,

to whom was committed, on the fifth instant, the report of a select

committee on the petition of the President and Directors of the

Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company. The report is as follows:

That, of the practicability of opening the proposed canal, and

of its preference to one contemplated on the opposite side of

the river, as well on account of the greater facility of its

accomplishment, as of the superior advantages that would result

to the navigation of the river, when accomplished, may, in the

opinion of the committee, be correctly estimated by reference

to a draft of part of the river, and notes explanatory thereof,

which accompany the memorial. Of the immense utility of the

proposed canal no one can doubt who reflects for a moment

upon the vast extent of fertile country which is watered by

the Ohio and its tributary streams, and upon the incalculable

amount of produce which must, of course, necessarily find its

way to market by descending that river and encountering the

danger and difficulties of passing its rapids. But, besides

the general advantages which would result from the completion

of the proposed canal, it is, in the opinion of the committee,

particularly interesting to the United States, inasmuch as it

would greatly enhance the value of the public lands north-west

of the Ohio. There can be but little doubt that, by the

additional value it would give to the public lands, the United

States would be more than remunerated for the aid which the

Legislature of Kentucky have solicited.

From these considerations the committee would not hesitate

to recommend a donation or subscription of shares to the

amount contemplated by the law of the Legislature of Kentucky

incorporating the Ohio Canal Company, if they believed the

state of the public finances was such as to justify it. But,

from the applications already made for aid in opening canals,

it is probable that, if the United States enter upon expenses

of this kind, those expenses cannot be inconsiderable; and, as

the revenue of the United States is already pledged, almost

to the full amount, for purposes, though not more useful, yet

more urgent, the committee are induced to submit the following

resolution.

_Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to grant, at present, the

aid solicited by the Legislature of Kentucky, in opening a

canal to avoid the rapids of the Ohio.

FRIDAY, March 21.

_Potomac Bridge._

An engrossed bill to authorize the erection of a bridge over the river

Potomac, in the District of Columbia, was read the third time; and

on the question that the said bill do pass, it was resolved in the

affirmative--yeas 61, nays 52.

About 2 o’clock Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS said he had a motion to make, which

required the galleries to be cleared. They were accordingly cleared.

WEDNESDAY, March 26.

_Importation of British Goods._

The bill to prohibit the importation of certain British goods, wares, and

merchandise, was read the third time.

The yeas and nays were called for on its passage.

The question to recommit the bill having been disagreed to, it

passed--yeas 93, nays 32, as follows:

YEAS.--Evan Alexander, Willis Alston, jr., Isaac Anderson,

David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, George M. Bedinger,

Barnabas Bidwell, William Blackledge, John Blake, jr., Thomas

Blount, Robert Brown, William Butler, George W. Campbell, John

Chandler, John Claiborne, Christopher Clark, Joseph Clay,

Matthew Clay, George Clinton, jr., John Clopton, Frederick

Conrad, Orchard Cook, Leonard Covington, Jacob Crowninshield,

Richard Cutts, Ezra Darby, John Dawson, William Dickson,

Elias Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, Ebenezer Elmer, John

W. Eppes, William Findlay, James Fisk, John Fowler, Peterson

Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Isaiah L. Green, Silas

Halsey, John Hamilton, William Helms, David Holmes, John G.

Jackson, Walter Jones, Thomas Kenan, Nehemiah Knight, Matthew

Lyon, Duncan McFarland, Patrick Magruder, Robert Marion,

Josiah Masters, William McCreery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas

Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger

Nelson, Thomas Newton, jr., Joseph H. Nicholson, Gideon Olin,

John Pugh, Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania,

John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, John Russell, Peter

Sailly, Thomas Sammons, Martin G. Schuneman, Ebenezer Seaver,

James Sloan, John Smilie, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry

Southard, Joseph Stanton, David Thomas, Uri Tracy, Philip Van

Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill,

Robert Whitehill, David R. Williams, Marmaduke Williams, Nathan

Williams, Alexander Wilson, Richard Wynn, and Joseph Winston.

NAYS.--Silas Betton, James M. Broom, John Campbell, Martin

Chittenden, Samuel W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., Caleb Ellis,

William Ely, James M. Garnett, Seth Hastings, David Hough,

Joseph Lewis, jr., Jonathan O. Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, Timothy

Pitkin, jr., Josiah Quincy, John Randolph, Thomas Sanford,

John Cotton Smith, Thomas Spalding, Richard Stanford, William

Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge,

Samuel Tenney, Philip R. Thompson, Thomas W. Thompson, Abram

Trigg, Killian K. Van Rensselaer, Daniel C. Verplanck, and

Peleg Wadsworth.

THURSDAY, March 27.

_Introduction of Slaves into Territories._

Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS, from the committee appointed on the seventh ultimo,

presented a bill to prohibit the introduction of slaves into the

Mississippi Territory, and the Territory of Orleans; which was read

twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Saturday next.

FRIDAY, March 28.

_Plurality of Offices._

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

resolutions submitted some time since by Mr. J. RANDOLPH.

_Resolved_, That a contractor under the Government of the

United States is an officer within the purview and meaning of

the constitution, and, as such, is incapable of holding a seat

in the House.

_Resolved_, That the union of a plurality of offices in the

person of a single individual, but more especially of the

military with the civil authority, is repugnant to the spirit

of the Constitution of the United States, and tends to the

introducing of an arbitrary government.

_Resolved_, That provisions ought to be made, by law, to render

any officer in the army or navy of the United States, incapable

of holding any civil office under the United States.

The question was taken on these resolutions without debate.

The first was agreed to--ayes 54, noes 37.