H. OF R.]

French Decrees.

[JUNE, 1813.

calling on the Executive, if at all, for informa- | that they might be construed injuriously to the tion through whom this decree had been first Executive. Why not ask for the information received. The French Minister had declared desired in respectful terms? Was the House that the decree had been transmitted through likely to arrive at its object in this way sooner two channels. Was not the inquiry, then, ma- than by a decorous and respectful course? He terial through which, if either, it had been re- saw no propriety in the particular terms of the ceived? Mr. W. said he would not go the resolution, especially when the information whole length which the gentleman from South desired might be as easily obtained by pursuCarolina had gone, in saying that suspicion had ing a different course. He was as anxious as attached to the Government on this head. He the gentleman who moved the resolutions to lay would say for his part he entertained none. before the nation every particle of information The particularity of the call arose from the na- in relation to the decree dated the 28th of April, ture of the information wished; and if there 1811. So far as he was informed, the conduct was novelty in the form, it was because a simi- of France in relation to that matter, was as he lar case had never arisen. had frequently believed it to be, insincere, base, and abominable. He wished that every man in the nation might see and detest it.

Mr. CALHOUN said he was glad the gentleman had at last come to the point. The gentleman from New Hampshire, adverting to the correspondence of Mr. Barlow, says that the French decree had been alleged to have been transmitted through two sources to our Government. The first of these resolves inquires through whom and in what manner this decree had been communicated. The second and third resolutions embrace the object avowed by the gentleman, viz: an inquiry whether the decree in question had been received through either of the two channels designated by the Duke of Bassano. Why, then, after being thus precise in two separate resolutions, was the President, in addition to these specific inquiries, called upon to inform the House through whom and in what manner the decree had been received by him? Was not this language (wholly unnecessary with the object which the gentleman avowed) calculated to bring up a third idea, not avowed by the mover, that the decree might have been received through some other channel than either of those through which the Duke of Bassano had declared to Mr. Barlow that he had forwarded it? If inquiry was meant only as to the two modes of communication indicated in the correspondence, the terms of the first resolve were unnecessary as well as indecorous; if otherwise, there were no facts on which to rest suspicion or ground inquiry.

Mr. C. concluded by moving to strike out the resolution the words "by whom and in what manner."

Mr. SHEFFEY said the honorable member from Kentucky might as well vote against the inquiry altogether, as substitute the motion which he had read. It was, no doubt, well known to that gentleman, that a resolution, in the very terms perhaps which he had read, had been adopted at the last session, the result of which we have seen. The same answer might be expected to the resolve read by the gentleman, if it was adopted in preference to those now under consideration.

Mr. MCKEE said he had no knowledge of the adoption, at the last session, of a resolution similar to that which he had moved. If such a one could be shown on the Journals, he would withdraw his motion.

Mr. SHEFFEY then quoted the Journal of the 1st of March last, containing a resolution, moved by Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH, calling for a authenticated copy of the decree, purporting to be a revocation of the decrees of Berlin and Milan, and also for information as to the time and manner of its communication, &c.

I believe it will be found, continued Mr. S., that this motion, then adopted, substantially embraces the requisition contained in the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky. That resolution required a copy of the decree in question, together with information of the time and manner of its communication, and also any correspondence or facts related thereto. I ask the gentleman whether he recollects the result of Mr. MCKEE rose for the purpose of proposing this inquiry? Did we get any information as to an amendment which, he said, would supersede the time and manner of promulgating that dethe one proposed by the gentleman from South cree? We had communicated to us, without Carolina. His object was to strike out the any explanation or declaration on the part of whole of the resolutions, and in lieu thereof in- the Executive, several extracts of letters from sert a resolution, which he read, calling upon Mr. Barlow to the Secretary of State, in one of the President generally for information on this which he expressly said, that the Duke of Bashead. He said he was persuaded there was no sano did state that the repealing decree had gentleman in the House desirous to detain from been communicated to our Government through the public eye any information which he had two channels, at as early a date as May, 1811. any reason to believe calculated at all to en- What follows? Either the assertion of the lighten the public mind, or mature the opinions Duke of Bassano is true or it is not true. of gentlemen of the House in relation to our Whether it be or be not, is a matter highly imporconcerns with foreign nations. But there cer- tant to this nation, to the people, to their Reptainly was something due to the Chief Magis-resentatives, to whom is committed the admintrate of the nation. It was impossible for any istration and superintendence of their affairs; man to read the resolutions without perceiving not only so far as the constitution has commit

JUNE, 1813.]

French Decrees.

[H. OF R.

ted a legislative duty to this House, but also so | only risen to express this idea, and to state his far as it is its duty to see that the powers con- surprise to hear every attempt made on every fided to other departments of the Government occasion to shield the British Government from are honestly and fairly executed. If the Presi- blame, and to impute it to our own Governdent in 1811 was possessed of this decree, as has ment. been asserted by the French Minister, I hesitate Mr. CALHOUN said he had hoped that there not to pronounce, under the high responsibility would have been no division of opinion on this of my situation as a member of the Grand In- subject-that there would have been no objecquest of the Nation, that the conduct of the tion to such a modification of this resolution as President deserves not only the scrutiny but the had been proposed by him. He would state reprehension of the nation; for such informa- the circumstance which he thought ought tion would show that the nation has been in- to govern gentlemen in paying some little devolved in war without the least necessity. It is ference to the feelings and wishes of those on manifest that if this decree was known to our this side of the House. What were the facts Government in 1811, and had been known to on which the resolutions were grounded? A the people, and used in the manner it ought to few days before the end of the last session of have been, the Orders in Council, the great Congress, on motion of a gentleman from Marycause of the war, would have been done away; land, a resolution was adopted calling on the and, if they had, would any man say that we President for certain information relative to our should have been plunged into the disastrous relations with France. The President, on the and ruinous war in which we are now engaged? next day but one, that is, on the last day of the It is undeniable, if the Orders in Council had session, made a communication, which, among been repealed, that we should not have been other things, stated a conversation which had engaged in the present war. I conceive that taken place between Mr. Barlow, our late the resolutions ought to be specific, to remain as Minister to France, and the Duke of Bassano, they are. If we want any information at all, it relative to the repeal of the French decrees. is that designated in the words moved to be ex- Mr. Barlow expressed his surprise when the punged by the gentleman from South Carolina. decree of 28th April, 1811, was produced, that It may turn out, and I hope it will, that the it had been so long concealed. The Duke of French assertion in this respect was, as French Bassano replied, that it had been communicated assertions generally are, false, and to have been to our Minister in France,* and the French only an attempt further to inveigle us. I hope Minister in this country, at the time it was that will turn out to be the case; in some de-issued. It is fair to acknowledge that that gree I am confident such will prove to be the fact. Although I do not agree with the President of the United States in his present policy, charity and my own opinion of his personal character forbid me from believing that the President could have had this decree in his possession for more than two years, and that merely to preserve the consistency of his proclamation of November, 1810, he should have suppressed it. I will not believe it; I will, until it shall prove to be otherwise, believe the French assertion to be false.

Mr. Fisk rose but to say a word or two in reply to the gentleman from Virginia. I could wish, said Mr. F., when questions of a public nature are brought before the House, with the express view of giving information, that the statements on which they are founded might be correct. I deny entirely the conclusion just drawn, that if the Executive was in possession of this information, and had communicated it, it would have prevented the war. Is it not known to the nation that the British Minister, Mr. Foster, after quibbling for months, was at length brought by Mr. Monroe to a definite answer, that if the French decrees were repealed, the Orders in Council would not be revoked? And, are we now to be told, if that decree of repeal had been produced, it would have prevented the war? I presume it will be found that the decree was not in possession of our Government; but, if it had been, its promulgation would not have prevented the war. Mr. F. said he had

order must have been ante-dated, or concealed by the French Government, or communicated to the Executive, and by them concealed. Whatever form of inquiry gentlemen might think proper to adopt, by which to prove that the decree was ante-dated or concealed, Mr. C. was willing should be adopted. The House ought not, however, in the present stage of this business, to presume that the repealing decree had been communicated to the Executive and by him concealed. He would not attribute such motives to the gentleman from New Hampshire-he was too honorable to be actuated by them. No man who looks into his own heart and finds purity there, will be liable to misrepresent the motives of others. The resolution, as hastily read, would nevertheless convey the idea to which he had just alluded. He wished the gentleman from New Hampshire, then, would consent to expunge these words; and he asked it the more confidently, as the gentleman himself had shown that those words were mere surplusage, because the object which he professed to have in view was embraced in two distinct resolutions which follow the first. If, when the President should make a reply to the resolutions thus amended, there should be any circumstance leading to a suspicion of concealment, it would be competent to any gentleman to move an additional explanatory resolution; and Mr. C. distinctly pledged him

* Mr. Jonathan Russell, the then Chargé d'Affaires.

H. OF R.]

French Decrees.

self for one, should any ambiguity appear in the reply, that he would join gentlemen in voting for further inquiry. But he had the firmest belief that nothing was withheld that was necessary to be known, and that all would be satisfactorily cleared up.

[JUNE, 1813. repeal of the French decrees, that is to say, for thirty-five days after the official communication to the British Government, of the French decree, bearing date the 28th April, 1811-no repeal of the Orders in Council took place. What process was going on in Britain in that interval? During these days a most laborious inquiry was in progress in the House of Commons, into the effects, beneficial or otherwise, produced on the commercial interest of Britain by her Orders in Council of 1807 and 1809; during all which time the British Ministry not only approbated and supported them, but took higher ground in relation to them than they had ever done before. They entirely gave up the pretended retaliatory character of the Orders in Council; they were bound to give it up. Men of common sense could no longer have defended them on that ground. The question was, in terms, whether or not our commerce, that is neutral

ish monopoly. And how, finally, were the Orders in Council repealed? After it had been made clear as the light of the sun in heaven, that they were injurious to British commerce. Will the gentleman from Virginia now say that England would have repealed her Orders in Council, as to us, if she had been convinced that France had in the same manner revoked or modified her decrees? The gentleman dare not say it. No, sir, he dare not, because I shall prove him guilty of falsity if he does. His known integrity and candor are too great to permit him to say it. He dare not say, then, that if the French decree of repeal had been known, the British orders would have been repealed and the war thus prevented.

Before he sat down he would advert to one thing. The gentleman from New Hampshire, in moving these resolves, said (according to the report of his speech in the National Intelligencer) to this effect: that the question at issue between the Governments of America and Great Britain, on which the declaration of war turned, was, whether the French decrees were or were not repealed. And the gentleman from Virginia had to-day spoken to the same effect. Mr. C. said he would not, on the present occasion, go to the trouble of dilating at large on that point; but he would observe that the gentleman had presumed to do for us in this case what would be considered very extraordinary to have been done in a suit at law. He, the de-commerce, should be made subservient to Britfendant in the action, had drawn the declaration for the plaintiff, and pointed out the issue. This was as unfair in a political as it would be in a legal contest. Mr. C. said he had always distinctly contended for the right to consider the injuries done to us by each belligerent on their own ground. This had been his course, because a different one would have been as unworthy a nation, as it would have been unworthy of an individual. What! said he, shall we make the right of obtaining redress from England dependent on the justice of France? He, for his part, would take a higher, a different ground. He saw what had led the gentleman into error-he had mistaken the means of redress for the injury to be redressed. This country had, indeed, in its great efforts to preserve peace and neutrality, endeavored to get one of the belligerents to repeal its offensive edicts, in order to induce the other to do the same. Our Government (said Mr. C.) did descend one step in passing the act of 1810, under which France did (or, as the gentlemen over the way would say, pretended to) repeal her decrees of Berlin and Milan. Britain did refuse to proceed pari passu with France in this repeal. I will now place this question at rest forever; this fact shall hereafter forever be without contradiction. England did say to this country, even if France did repeal her decrees in relation to us she would not repeal her Orders in Council. This she did say by the solemn declaration of the Prince Regent, dated 21st April, 1812. No gentleman dare hereafter reiterate the statement that if France had bona fide repealed her decrees, as regards America, England would have followed her example. Most indubitably gentlemen who so highly appreciate British faith will not discredit the evidence I produce. By some unaccountable means they have heretofore contrived to throw a cloud over it, to keep it out of sight. A further evidence in proof of my assertion is, that when there was no longer a shade of doubt hanging over the

[Mr. STOCKTON here spoke to order. He wished to know whether personal threats were admissible on the floor-whether any gentleman could be permitted to say that another dare not say any particular thing.

The SPEAKER said he did not understand the gentleman as having used a personal threat.]

Mr. CALHOUN continued. He wished it to be distinctly understood, that he had no personal meaning in what he said. He merely had said that the gentleman dare not, as a man of veracity, assert a fact otherwise than that fact is. He was sorry the gentleman from New Jersey, much more that the gentleman from Virginia, himself, should misunderstand him. I will be more particular, said Mr. C. I assert that two and two make four; and I say no gentleman dare to contradict it. I say so on conviction of the certainty of the fact. Sir, although warın in my country's cause, nothing shall ever induce me unnecessarily to wound the feelings of any gentleman in this House, more especially of the gentleman from Virginia, with whom I have never been so unfortunate as to come in collision. I may be warm, sir; I have a right to be so. I was one of the advocates of the present war. I considered the interests and rights of the nation compromitted in the question, and I

was bound to vote for it. I am therefore mortified to see it placed on ground on which it ought not to stand. I am mortified to hear the misstatements which prevail on this subject. The cause of my country is that in whose behalf I am now warm, and ever hope to be so. It is a cause on the truth and justice of which I would stake my all-though on its ultimate success I cannot, for that is yet in the womb of time.

[H. OF R

everywhere and daily acquiring strength; that it was to have been expected that such an opportunity would have been earnestly sought and eagerly embraced, to vindicate the honor of Administration, by refuting one of the most insulting and outrageous imputations of falsehood, fraud, and imposture, ever submitted to by one independent power from another. That it was to have been expected the guardians of the national honor would have displayed a quick and lively sensibility to whatever affected the character of the country; and that their own share of responsibility, a just sense of what was due to themselves, would have suggested to gentlemen on the other side the necessity of some exculpatory course, some voluntary proceeding, to wipe away the stain cast upon their characters by the presumptious tool of a foreign despot. Should the resolutions be rejected, the public is bound to believe, the people inevitably will believe, either that the important document which we ask to be laid before the nation was suppressed, for the most corrupt purposes, or that, rather than risk the displeasure of France, by exculpating the Executive and itself, this House prefers to sanction, nay, recommend, a negative vote, a continued concealment of evidence, a suppression of a declaration exposing the "courtly insincerity," the duplicity, and falsehood, of France.

I have condescended sir, to view this question for a moment on the ground of the relative conduct of France and Great Britain. Not that I believe the Government ought to descend, in the pursuit of a magnanimous policy, to a scholastic view, which nation has done us the first or the greatest injury. Such considerations would never enter into the view of a statesman. The question is, how we can best redress the wrongs of the country. I have ever regretted that the injuries of the belligerents should for a moment have been viewed in their retaliatory character, notwithstanding the excellence of the motive a love of peace, and a desire to maintain it. I would have taken a higher ground; and the Government, finding all their pacific efforts were in vain, were compelled at length to appeal to the last resort. An opposite view of this question appears to me ridiculous, if I dare mingle ridicule with a question of such seriousness. Is it not absurd to contend that we ought to suffer ourselves to be beaten to death, whilst en- Mr. H. said that he wished to dismiss from gaged in abstract philosophic inquiries who gave the discussion all the rubbish and trumpery us the first blow? In the whole of this contest which might be raked together in the Departof restrictions, I shall ever deem the conduct of ment of State, and brought to bear upon this France to have been improper. I stand here question; he wished to discard all extraneous only as the assertor of American rights, the vin- matter with which it might be attempted to endicator of the American cause. I will not pre-cumber the question, in order to direct the atsume that the President had received the decree tention of the people from the true subject of inin question and concealed it—and the only mod-quiry. Let us, said he, simplify the question, ification I ask of these resolutions is, to divest them of that imputation, which they appear to convey. Thus modified, I shall cheerfully vote for them, to afford to gentlemen in opposition the most liberal opportunity of obtaining all the information they can wish.

and present it in a form calculated to meet the apprehension of every man, not having an unaccountable obliquity of vision, or tortured by a distressing density of intellect. And how stands the question? Simply and plainly thus: Shall the Chief Magistrate of this nation rest Mr. HANSON said the part of the resolution under the foul imputation of having done a deed which the gentleman from South Carolina re- at the bare mention of which honor blushesgarded as so exceptionable, conveying, as he sup- the cheek of charity must mantle-a deed which, posed, an insinuation against the President high-in a better age, would have brought a monarch Îy disrespectful and unwarrantable, was the very part he most wished to retain. Those words expunged, the pith, the essence of the resolution was extracted, and nothing would remain to be acted on. It would be equivalent to a rejection of all the resolutions, because the first resolution was the pivot upon which the rest turned-take it away, the key-stone of the arch was removed and the whole fabric must necessarily fall.

Mr H. could not but express his surprise that any opposition should be made, by the friends of the Administration, to the resolutions under consideration; that it was indeed to have been expected that an early opportunity would be sought by the gentlemen themselves to remove from the public mind injurious and well-founded suspicions against the Executive, spread

to the block? Or will the National Legislature afford that Chief Magistrate an opportunity (which opportunity, to be sure, might have been taken) to acquit himself by his own mere denial of the charges, and thus inculpate his imperial accuser, who has officially promulged, I trust, an unqualified untruth, vitally affecting the honor of Government? This plain proposition presented to the minds of gentlemen, could they doubt or hesitate in their decision? Forced, driven to the alternative of flying in the face of imperial ire, and the unavoidable degradation of submitting to an allegation of treachery to this people by their rulers, it was but reasonable to expect a prompt decision in favor of the call for information. As much as gentlemen might excel in the art of "making the worse appear