H. of R.

Foreign Aggressions.

MARCH, 1806.

by an appropriate denomination; they are called the chambers. A particular statement of them was returned to the High Court of Admiralty in the year 1604.

In modern times, it has not been usual for England to remain neutral during maritime wars in Europe. But in the seventeenth century there was a period of such neutrality; when various reports were made to the King in Council, with respect to alleged violations of the immunities of having roads, or chambers. They are to be found in the works of Sir Lionel Jenkins. I will not detain you at this time by reading those reports; as the law of the English admiralty on this subject is distinctly stated in a charge given at the admiralty sessions, by Sir Lionel Jenkins, who was Judge of the High Court of Admiralty. I will read those parts of the charge to which I refer. After speaking of the claim to the honors of the flag upon the four seas, he says:

specific measure be assumed for the extent of territorial protection in all cases. In a case where the coast is prominent, where the passage into the harbor is free from obstructions or hazard, and where the harbor is so situated that a vessel may be in port instantly on quitting the open space of the main ocean, the distance of a marine league from the shore may afford ample immunity to the navigation of such neutral port. But the case is materially different where the entrance of a harbor is rendered difficult or hazardous, in consequence of bars or shoals or other causes, where the principle of safety requires vessels enployed in the trade of the port to remain for any time in a road or place of anchorage at a greater distance than a league from the shore, and to wait for the wind or tide, or pilot, or daylight, or clear weather-in any such case, if the marine league is to be the uniform measure of territorial protection, the principle would be sacrificed to the particular rule; whereas every rule of this kind ought to be sub "The next thing is the right of sanctuary and safe servient to the principle. Another distinction is conduct, which the King hath, time out of mind, exerto be made with respect to ports and harbors sit-cised, not only in its harbors and ports, but especially uate in curvatures or recesses of the coasts, more than a league from the open space of the main ocean; any specific distance from shore, if made the uniform measure of protection, will not allow to them the degree of mariume security which they might fairly claim in comparison with others. In principle, sir, the rule of a marine league or any other precise measure, is applicable to coasts not curved, or to the prominent portions of coast. Places of anchorage, such as I have mentioned, whether called roads or roadsteads, or however de- under foreign commissions from any of the parties now "You are therefore to inquire if any men of war, nominated, are to be regarded as appendages of in war, do lie hovering near any of His Majesty's ports, particular ports, and as such are within the pro-havens, or harbors, or skulking within any of those places tective jurisdiction of the country to which they belong.

In considering, therefore, the protective jurisdiction of a neutral Power, as a privilege which may rightfully be claimed for securing the interests of its commerce and revenue, the principle admits an extension to various distances from shore, according to the nature of the coasts, as diversified by shoals, bars, curvatures, recesses, headlands, or small islands.

This, in effect, agrees with the opinions of writers on public law, in relation to the neutral immunities of havens, roads, gulfs, or bays.

In support of the sentiments now suggested on this subject, I do not rely merely on the abstract principle of right, or the opinions of writers on public law. In national usage, it is already established, "that in places where the land, by its curve, forms a bay or gulf, we must suppose a line to 'be drawn from one point of the enclosing land to 'the other, or along the small islands which extend beyond the headlands of the bay, and that the 'whole of this bay or gulf is to be considered as 'territorial sea," The principle has been clearly recognised in the practice of the predominant maritime Power in Europe. It has been repeatedly acted upon in England. Two centuries have passed since it was unquestionably holden as a rule of conduct in that country. The tracts of sea within the recesses of the coasts are distinguished

in his chambers, that is in those tracts of sea which are between some of the most eminent promontories or points of land, a straight imaginary line being drawn between them; for instance, between Flamborough Head and the Sporn, between the North Foreland and the South Foreland, between Portland and the Start, between the Land's End and Milford; these chambers being so reputed time out of mind, and so returned in the year 1604, about seventy years ago, by jurors upon their oath, to the court of admiralty.

called the King's chambers, in order to surprise merchant ships belonging to the King's friends and allies, and to snap them as they are coming or going out of our ports. You are to present such, if you know any; and the King's Majesty is to be informed of it out of the records and presentments of this court; that they may be seized and arrested, if they be driven or do come in, or else may be fetched in by His Majesty's ships, and punished, as wilful violators of the treaties His Majesty hath with his neighbors, and as malicious disturbers of our trade."

This authority is full and decisive. Possibly it may be questioned, as being of ancient date. How is the case in modern times? To prove, sir, that the same principle prevails, and is practically recognised as a rule of public law within the present century, I may appeal to the authority of a person distinguished for judicial talent and eloquence, and celebrated by his countrymen as the oracle of maritime law in Europe: it is the authority of Sir William Scott, the present Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Great Britain. The principle was brought into view in a case before him in the year 1801. The case arose on a capture made by a detachment from a British squadron employed in the blockade of Amsterdam. The vessel was proceeded against for breach of blockade. It was claimed as having been taken within the territorial protection of Prussia, then a neutral Power; and the claim was given under authority

On this subject, I wish to be distinctly understood. Immunity from hostilities may be claimed to the distance of a marine league from shore, in any case, however bold or prominent the coast. To this the district courts have cognizance of complaints. Beyond this, it is at our option to extend protection along the coasts of the United States, over the roads or places of anchorage, and over the tracts of sea within the principal headlands. Mr. KELLY said, it had been remarked that the This is a privilege appertaining to our territorial principles of the bill were well understood by all Sovereignty. It may be exercised without infrin- the members of the House. He could only anging the rights of any belligerent Power: it is ev-swer for himself, that he was not well acquainted idently for the benefit of the United States.

What is the bill for? What is its object? It Resolved, That the committee to whom was referred so much of the Message of the President of the Uni- only enables Congress hereafter to pass a law; it ted States as relates to aggressions committed on our only declares that, on the event of certain things coasts by foreign armed vessels, to the defence of our happening, Congress will pass a law. But will ports and harbors, the building of seventy-four-gun ships, this oblige Congress to pass a law? Do your and preventing the exportation of arms and ammuni- seven volumes of laws furnish a single instance tion," be instructed to inquire into the expediency of pro- of Congress declaring that they will hereafter viding by law for the further safeguard of merchant ves-pass a law?

H. OF R.

Yazoo Claims.

MARCH, 1806.

the subject, and the only opinion he had formed had been on prejudice. Such opinion as he did entertain was hostile to the Yazoo claims; but he was against precipitate measures. He, therefore, moved to postpone the further consideration of the bill to Monday.

The SPEAKER declared this motion not in order.

Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH said, he must then request to be excused from voting.

Again: The first section declares that, "a law shall not be passed, except in case of a sufficient legal release of all claims to the United States." Now, there may be infants, feme coverts, and persons insane, who cannot make such release. How, then, is it possible for this provision of the law to be carried into effect? Shall the rights of these persons remain unprovided for? I see, said Mr. C., no other view in the passage of this bill than this. Those who have framed it are afraid to face the question; they are ashamed to meet it. This Mr. J. RANDOLPH.-I hope the bill will be reis nothing more than an entering wedge, to jected. I have a very great respect for a full and strengthen the force of the claims, by getting the fair discussion of every question brought before Government to pledge itself to certain acts. this Assembly. But this is the third, and I do These men will then soon tell you, they have not know that I should be wrong in saying it is been called upon to record their claims; that their the fourth session since this business has been agents have been obliged to attend your Depart-pending before Congress. I believe that the rements, to receive propositions of compromise. Let port of the Commissioners has been printed twice, this act pass, and you will add an ounce, a penny-if not three times, for the information of memweight, to the weight of that testimony by which they ultimately expect to establish their claim. The bill in itself amounts to nothing. But pass it even in this harmless form, they will come forward at the next session, and say you are pledged to do something. There can be no other view, in this bill, and it is a view which, I think, it becomes the honor and dignity of this House decisively to reject.

Mr. SLOAN said, he did not rise to say anything as to the merits of this bill. He rose merely to observe, that a bill, in all respects similar, had been on their tables for twenty days. He was, therefore, opposed to the postponement.

Mr. GREGG said, the gentleman from Virginia had stated, in some measure, the reasons which would induce him to vote for the rejection of the bill. The bill must be considered as holding out some encouragement to these people. He had always thought it best to meet the question at once; for which purpose he had, at an early period of the session, brought forward a resolution, which he had, however, been so unfortunate as never to have gotten up. He hoped this bill would be rejected; and, if the bill were taken up, that it would be on the resolution. This was a bill, not making any provision, but only telling these people to bring forward their claim.

Mr. Cook hoped the question would not be taken on the rejection of the bill at this time. Those gentlemen who have not heretofore held seats in the House, are not adequate so instantaneously to judge of its merits. For himself he had formed no decided opinion. He was willing to give his vote as the light received from an investigation of the subject should lead him. He was against precipitating a decision, which would not be treating the other branch with proper

bers. This bill, we are told, has been laying twenty days on our tables. But, had it come before the House but twenty minutes ago, when we advert to the history of the business, I am willing and anxious to give it a positive and prompt rejection. My memory is unfortunately bad. I do not, therefore, recollect when this subject, so well denominated the Yazoo subject, was first brought into this House. I know, however, it was several sessions ago, and I recollect that it was attended with some peculiar circumstances. Irecollect that, important as the subject was, the discussion was smothered at the outset; and when I take into consideration that suppression of the discussion, with other facts in my own knowledge, there is the strongest prima facie evidence that it was designedly smothered.* But it may be said that the

former occasion, abundantly repelled. We shall treat This unfounded insinuation has been already, on a it on this occasion, as we did then, by a republication of the facts then offered, in full confidence that the public opinion will be just and unprejudiced. The following is the statement which was then given:

"At the last session of Congress the Georgia claims were taken into consideration by the House of Representatives on the 7th day of February. At that time the editor reported the debates, and was at his seat. The discussion which took place was extremely desultory and unimportant, principally involving details, and excluding any interesting principle. The two next days, he was absent from the House. His absence was occasioned by a severe indisposition, the effect, probably, of excessive occupation. This was to him, at the time, cause of but little regret, as his impression was that the discussion, in its progress, would be equally uninteresting. He had not the least idea that it was intended to contest the principles of compromise he was mistaken. It so happened that, on these two proposed in the report of the Commissioners. In this last day of the debate, he attended; but the speeches days, those principles were warmly contested. On the delivered being altogether replicatory to those previously pronounced, he did not report them. Understanding, a few days after, that it was the wish of sev The Clerk read the rule. eral members that the most prominent parts of the de-Mr. GOLDSBOROUGH said he was precisely inbate should be given to the public, he declared his wilthe situation of the gentleman from Pennsylva-lingness to publish them, provided that speeches made nia, (Mr. KELLY.) He had never investigated on both sides could be obtained, that the report, although

decorum.

Mr. SPALDING called for the reading of that rule of the House, which prohibits a member from voting on a question in which he is personally interested.

MARCH, 1806.

Yazoo Claims.

H. OF R

suppression of that discussion ought to render it have heard of this thing two years ago, and it has more proper to discuss the bill before you. On come to pass. No prophets so true, as those who the contrary, the act of suppression, three or four have the means to bring things to pass. The years ago, drew the attention of the public to the Man of the Mountain is the truest prophet that subject, and caused the report of the Commission-ever lived. He had only to prophecy, to insure ers to be republished, I believe, in every newspa- the perdition of any man. per in America.

What is the bill on which this House is called to act or not to act? If the gentleman will but use half the intelligence he manifests on other occasions, instead of asking to be excused from giving a vote, he will vote for an instantaneous rejection of this bill. The facts are simply these: That in 1794 and 1795, a project was set on foot to debauch and corrupt the Legislature of Georgia, and to obtain for the projectors a tract of country more extensive than any State in this Union, and more fertile than most of them; that this project succeeded; that the Legislature of Georgia was bribed; that for a mess of pottage, to be eaten by themselves, they transferred the birthright of their countrymen. These facts are in proof to the House; and instead of a postponement, gentlemen who want information have only to call for the reading of the records on your table. The sum stipulated to be paid for the country in question, embracing at the least forty millions of acres, was $500,000. This law excited, as it ought to have excited, in the people of Georgia one general sentiment of indignation. But the corruption had pervaded and flooded and overflowed every department of the Government. Grants were made out, and the grantees held the parchment in their hands. The people of Georgia resolved to resort to first principles. It will be recollected that the corrupt law was passed in 1795. In the subsequent Spring the grand juries of the several counties made an unanimous protest against its passage; the succeeding Legislature repealed it, burnt the parchment, and exposed its authors. And what are we now about to do? Will we, after following an illustrious patriot to his grave, sully the fairest page in his history by giving a sanction to this measure? The people will say you are mere mummers, actors that put on false garments for a particular occasion, and the moment after return to your original insignificance. The law was burnt-it was expunged from the records of the State, and the rescinding act incorporated in a subsequent constitution made by the people. But the grantees under the first act-under the corrupt acthad their post-horses and runners ready, who flew "So far from there having been the least indisposi to the East and the West, the North and the tion on the part of the editor to give publicity to every South, and made sale of their grants. To whom word said on the Georgia claims, it has been, and still did they sell? To persons apprized of the origiis, to him, cause of regret, that the above circumstan-nal invalidity of the act. But if they did not, ces occasioned the non-appearance of the first debate. He has no interests, no prejudices, or biasses, on the subject, other than those which flow from a regard to the public good.

Now, what will be the consequence of this business, after having received the attention of one branch of the Legislature, and after having been slurred over by the other? I believe it would require no prophet to pronounce on the event. I have heard of a certain machine, which always gains and never loses a machine, which plain wagoners call a shuffling stick. Every step it gets up hill is sure, although the horse be restive, or the wagon be loaded too heavily, or the driver be incapable-still it cannot go back again.

I am for the rejection of the bill for another reason. This bill may be called the Omega, the last letter of the political alphabet; but, with me, it is the Alpha; it is the head of the divisions among the republican party; it is the secret and covert cause of the whole. This is the subject | which has been shoved off from day to day, merely that we might get something from the other House, where its friends were more numerous. Yes, a union has been formed between Cape Ann and Marblehead, and the Rio del Norte, a union of the East with the West, which makes gentlemen more touchy and jealous of one acre of this territory than of all the real land of the United States. This has been seen, and the nation is sold. I say, quo ad hos or illos, the nation is sold. We imperfect, might be impartial, He went further, and actually applied to a member who had taken a conspicuous part in the debate for a sketch of his remarks, which he declined giving.

"At a subsequent period of the session, the debate was resumed on Mr. J. Randolph's resolutions. The whole of this debate was given in the National Intelligencer, at great length. On recurring to a file of that paper, it will be seen, that this debate occupies forty columns; that the speeches in favor of the claims fill about eleven, while those against the claims fill about twenty-three columns; that, of the latter, the speeches of Mr. J. Randolph made about eight columns, the speech of Mr. Rodney about five, and that of Mr. Thomas M. Randolph about nine columns; and that of the former the only speeches of considerable length are those of Mr. Lyon, occupying about six columns, and of Mr. Eustis, occupying about two columns.

"These are the facts attending this affair. They are stated to remove error, and to show that, in this instance, as in every other, the editor has been guided by principles of strict impartiality and justice. If he knows himself, he would disdain to conduct a public print upon any other principles."-Editor of National Intelligencer.

does that change the question? Who are the Legislature of Georgia? The delegates of the people of Georgia. Who were the sovereigns of the several States before the Revolution? The representatives of the Crown. I will ask you then if one of these men had proceeded to give away the country, whether the Court of King's Bench would not have set aside the grant? They would. Subsequently to this, the United States received from the State of Georgia a grant of