vince gentlemen of it. Gentlemen say that the fact of the existence of the Orders in Council was known here, when they are compelled to confess the President intimated nothing of it in his Message. Produce the National Intelligencer; produce the passage so often alluded to in relation to these orders; and what conclusion is to be drawn from it? Why, sir, that some speculation might have been hazarded on the subject, something in the way of conjecture. Do gentlemen believe that the late President of the United States had a peculiar diffidence in the National Intelligencer? Had he any peculiar diffidence in that paper, of all the papers in the world, that, when he sent the proclamation, cut out of a British newspaper, he would not have sent us a file of the National Intelligencer, or that article from it which they say went to establish the existence of the Orders in Council? Had he any cause for peculiar diffidence in the National Intelligencer, that he would not send us an extract from that paper while he sent us extracts from others-even British papers? Or, are gentlemen prepared to say that the conductors of that gazette have more certain information on the subject of our foreign concerns than is possessed by the President of the United States himself? I hope not, sir. The fact of the Orders in Council being known in this country by our Government, they might have been known by the British Minister; but their being known by our Government and by us, and the embargo growing out of them, is the point at issue. A gentleman told me the other day, "you forget that though they were not known, the probability of them was known." This is a new discovery; what kind of knowledge is this same knowledge of probability, sir? Their probability might have been conjecture; but did that imply a knowledge that such orders had issued, or would issue? And can you assume that fact without throwing on the late President of the United States a degree of odium which, in my opinion, he is not fairly entitled to? I think it is treating him unjustly and cruelly to suppose that they were known. For, in supposing it, you presuppose that he has failed in his duty in communicating it in that Message which recommended the embargo. The Orders in Council were not known in this city or in this House when the President of the United States recommended that embargo. I protest upon my honor that they were not known to me; nor did I hear them mentioned on that day. As to their having been known in New York, you might as well say that they were known in Quebec or Halifax, or even London itself. What does the fact of their having been known in New York prove but that they were known in New York? Could that knowledge at New York be a rule of conduct for us? If the Orders in Council were known at the time that the President recommended the embargo, let the proofs be produced; and though I should not be willing to vote either approbation or disapprobation on this subject, I should be at a loss how to refuse a vote of disapprobation on the conduct of the late President of the United MAY, 1809. States for neglecting to apprize us of their existence. But he did his duty. He knew not of any Orders in Council, and mentioned none; the embargo grew out of the state of affairs which existed when we were in perfect ignorance of the Orders in Council, out of the correspondence from Paris, in relation to the Berlin decree, and the British proclamation respecting seamen. Sir, in speaking of the amendment moved by the worthy gentleman from Massachusetts, whom I see in his place, and my reluctance to vote for it, my meaning may have been misunderstood, and probably because it was not very correctly expressed. When we speak of the Government of the United States, what do we mean? Do we mean the President of the United States and his Secretaries, or the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary, but more especially the Executive and Legislature? Now, when I spoke of the disposition of the Government of the United States, I had particularly in my eye the manifestation of a spirit in the other House of Congress, and in this also, which demonstrated most conclusively to my mind that notwithstanding our celebrated vote of "and France"-bringing up France in the rear like a needless Alexandrine, like the latter part of a wounded snake, dragging its slow length along-that there did, under all this smoke of hostility to both belligerents, exist a cool, deliberate disposition to go to war with one only; and I take motions made in the other branch of the Legislature, and motions and speeches made on this floor, and on record, as a proof of such disposition. I infer the disposition of Government not merely from declarations of the President of the United States himself, but from the semi-official oracular sayings of gentlemen supposed to be, and in fact known to be, in his confidence. I did hear, and I confess I heard it with some pleasure, that there existed a difference of opinion on this subject in the Cabinet at the late session of Congress; and that the late President of the United States (God bless him for it!) on that question was with us, and would not be driven into a war with England; and that the leaders of the war party were deplorably chagrined and disappointed by it. So, when I speak of the Government of the United States, I wish not to be understood as alluding to any disposition which the late President of the United States had to go to war with Great Britain. But, sir, I do think, after hearing the report of the late Committee of Foreign Relations, declaring that there were but two alternatives, embargo or war, and seeing all the members but two vote to this effect, that war with one of these nations was submission, and submission the most base and abject, too, to the other; and then hearing gentlemen declare they were for war with one of those nations, the conclusion is irresistible that they were for making that abject submission to the other nation, or that it was mere hollow hypocrisy for covering the design of going to war with one of those belligerents, and succumbing to the other. I should be childish not to believe that there did exist a disposition such as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. JACKSON) intimates did not exist in what he calls the Government of the United States. H. of R. ing, they would have dragged this country into a war with Great Britain, which certainly would One other subject I must touch before I sit have closed the door to the present happy arrangedown. The change in the relations of the Uni- ment. Their war-speeches were printed by subted States is ascribed to the non-intercourse law. scription and bound up; and I venture to say that Against that law I most certainly voted. If the some fifty years hence they will form a curiosity merit of that change is to be ascribed to the non-in literature; they stand on recond against their intercourse law, be it so. I have no objection. authors. Now, to be sure, sir, those persons who But who were the advocates of that poor misera- undertook to stop their wild career were comble measure? Our worthy chairman of the Com- posed of heterogeneous materials-even those who mittee of Ways and Means (Mr. EPPES) por- have been designated (I know not why) as ultratrayed in hideous colors the horrible features of federalists and citra-federalists, if any such there that law; and another gentleman from the same be, united on this vote. There were minority State (Mr. JACKSON) made motion after motion men, caucus men, protesters-in fact, sir, all partill a very late hour in the night to defeat the ties, Catholics, Protestants, Seceders, and all, law, whilst I sat still voting in its favor until the were united in the effort to prevent the leaders of last stage; and I voted against it eventually, not both Houses from plunging the nation into a war because I felt any opposition to the law on the with one power, and knuckling to the othergrounds which those gentlemen did, but because from rivetting the chains of French influence, I believed if we had not got rid of the embargo perhaps of French alliance, upon us. Thank God on those terms, that we should have got rid of it that their designs were proclaimed to the nation, on better. Mine was a sort of negative opposi- that the President did not give his consent, which tion to the law; theirs positive and unqualified; would have made us kick the beam. Yes, sir, they said it was absolute disgrace. Now, there- federalists, minority men, protesters and all fore, sir, if the change in our foreign relations is would have kicked the beam if it had ever emato be ascribed to that law, I wish the advocates nated from the Cabinet that the President was of it to rise up and assert their share in it in the for war. It was as much as old Nestor, with presence of the House. The fact is, that nobody trusty Sthenelus by his side, and all the train would advocate it; that though it was carried by could do, to arrest thsoe fiery hotheaded steeds a majority of two to one, those who finally voted who were hurrying the state-carriage down the for it condemned it, and all parties seemed ashamed precipice of French alliance. Suppose that we of it; and that, prior to the late restoration of had given them the reins, where should we have good understanding, all the high-toned men and been, and what doing, at this time, sir? We should high-toned presses in this country denounced the have been here, indeed-discussing abstract propmajority of this House for passing that law, as ositions, as they are called? No, sir, we should having utterly disgraced themselves. If, there- have been voting supplies; we should have gone fore, any credit be due to the non-intercourse law, in full committee of supply and of ways and I do not wish it to be run away with by those who means, and come out of it almost as soon as we were enemies to the measure. I voted against the did out of the Committee on the state of the law because I thought we could have got rid of Union on the President's Message; for our whole the embargo on better terms. Are those to have arcana of raising money appears to consist in the credit of it who said that, if their opinion was borrowing; loans, loans, loans, are the alpha and followed, they were for immediate war, and with omega, the sum and substance of our system of Great Britain; but who, finding their friends political economy; and the worthy gentleman who could not be screwed up to the war-pitch, had presides at the head of the Committee of Ways and made a sort of compromise of their wishes, and Means would now have been calling for loans with agreed to accept this stupid unmeaning non- all his might. We should have been marching intercourse law by way of appearing to be doing troops to Canada, passing acts for the relief of something? No, sir. Are those to have the merit sufferers in the bombardment of New York, disof the reconciliation who moved to issue letters cussing whether the owners of slaves stolen from of marque and reprisal-a scheme which, thank the seaboard should be compensated by the GeneGod, I had some share in defeating? Are those ral Government or not. This is the situation in to have the merit of the good consequences which which we should have been in fact, instead of are alleged to have flowed from the non-intercourse being in the situation in which we now are-the law? Certainly not. I really think, sir, that if merit of which, if any there be, is not due to those there be any merit anywhere, it belongs to those who arrogate it to themselves, but to the late men who prevented a powerful and energetic President of the United States and that majority, party in this and the other House of Congress- however discordant the materials composing it, a party, too, standing high in Executive confi- who defeated the cabal in the two Houses of dence-from dragging the Executive, against his Congress, that was determined to plunge us into will, and this House, and this nation, into a war a war; who restrained what have been called with Great Britain. It is those men who deserve (and it is no nomenclature of mine) the Invincibles; the credit; and I, for one, although a desultory who curbed what has been called (and I am not kind of partisan, acting on my own impulse, the sponsor) the Family Compact. claim my share; for if the great leaders could have been gratified, according to their own show Before I sit down, sir, permit me to state expressly and unequivocally, and I deem it more 6 MAY, 1809. When Mr. RANDOLPH concluded, a motion was made by Mr. SMILIE to adjourn, and carriedyeas 70. TUESDAY, May 30. Mr. LEWIS presented a memorial of manufacturers of hats, in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the like effect with a memorial of the manufacturers of hats in Fredericktown, State of Maryland, presented to the House on the twenty-fifth instant. especially my duty to state it because the gentleman is not present, that in the course of that discussion and the votes on the subject, the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Relations (Mr. G. W. CAMPBELL) did act, as I conceived, à consistent and open part; that after declaring that we could not go to war without going to a A motion was made by Mr. RANDOLPH, to exwar with both France and England, that we could punge from the journal of the proceedings of yes not go to war with one without the most abject terday, so much of that part of the Speaker's submission to the other; he was not willing, if I decision as is contained in the following words: understood him aright, to make that submission "As the hour which the House had usually ap by going to war with that other. Other gentle-propriated for the presentation of petitions and men, perhaps, to whom my attention was not so communications had not elapsed; and that he much called, not being placed in so conspicuoushad some communications to lay before the House a station in the House as that gentleman, may 'from some of the Executive Departments:" have done the same. There was another gentle- And the question being taken thereupon, it was man in the House, in respect to whom I feel it determined in the negative. incumbent on me to say something. He was one of those who have been marked and branded, and are suspected of being minority men. I allude particularly to a worthy friend of mine, now no longer a member of this House, (Mr. D. R. WILLIAMS.) than whom, I believe, there is not a more honest man breathing, who was not only a minority man, but, worse than all that, "one of the protesters," and whose speech was very much relied on as the best speech made in favor of the war party. Sir, you recollect that that gentleman declared his disposition, together with my friend who sits before me, of clinging to the embargo, and that was the great point of difference between us; and as to the gentleman who sits before me, (Mr. MACON,) it is only the third point in which I have had the misfortune to differ with him since I came into public life. When they, therefore, advocated this warlike doctrine, it was under the belief that nothing was left, if the embargo was raised, but submission or war; and they preferred the embargo to war, but they preferred war to submission. It was particularly the doctrine of the gentleman from South Carolina who is no longer a member of this House, and to whom, these observations, loose and unsatisfactory as they may be, are more especially applied. But there is no other point of contact, as far as within my knowledge, but his partiality to the embargo, and his disposition to go to war, if it were raised, between him and those who, thank God, defeated the war purposes. On the subject of a desire to excite a war spirit, I think it necessary to state that motions and speeches were not only made with that tendency, but with that avowed disposition in both Houses of Congress. And I repeat it, to whatever source the present situation of the country is to be ascribed, it is not to those who were termed thorough-going men in this House in the last Congress, nor to those of the same description in the Senate, though they have been checked, to be sure, by an opposition of the strangest kind; but, it is unimportant of what materials it was composed, since it had the effect of saving the nation from war with one of the belligerents, and of producing the present state of things, which gentlemen themselves tell us was the consequence of our having avoided war. The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Governor of the State of Virginia, enclosing the certificate of the election of John Dawson, to serve as one of the Representatives of that State in the Eleventh Congress of the United States; which were referred to the Committee of Elections. Mr. MORROW, from the Committee on the Public Lands, presented a bill supplementary to an act, entitled "An act making appropriations for carrying into effect a treaty between the United States and the Chickasaw tribe of Indians, and to establish a Land Office in the Mississippi Territory; which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow. Mr. JOHN G. JACKSON, from the committee appointed on so much of the Message from the President of the United States as respects our foreign relations, presented a bill to repeal the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, and to revive and amend the act, entitled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes;" which was read twice and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Friday next. Mr. SAY presented a petition of the sugar refiners in the city of Philadelphia, of the like tenor and to the same effect with a petition of the sugar refiners of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, presented on the twenty-seventh instant. Mr. SAY also presented a memorial of the manufacturers of hats in the city and county of Philadelphia, to the like effect with the petitions from the manufacturers of hats before stated. Mr. McKIм presented a memorial of the manufacturers of cotton goods in the city of Baltimore, State of Maryland, praying that an additional duty may be imposed on the importation from any foreign port or place of articles manufactured from cotton. MAY, 1809. Third Census-American Seamen. Mr. MUMFORD presented two memorials of the manufacturers of hats in the city of New York, to the like effect with the memorials from the manufacturers of hats before stated. Mr. JOHN PORTER presented a petition of sundry manufacturers and bottlers of malt liquors, in the city of Philadelphia, whose names are thereunto subscribed, praying that black glass bottles may be imported free of duty; and that so much of a law which prohibits the importation of certain goods, wares, and merchandise, and which prevents the introduction of malt liquors from foreign countries, may be continued in force, or that an additional duty may be imposed upon the importation thereof. Ordered, That the said memorials and petitions be severally referred to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures. H. OF R. marshals had not time to make the proper enumeration in as accurate and faithful manner as it ought to have been done. On the third census of the people of the United States would depend not merely the gross numbers of this House, but the relative weight of the Southern and Western, and, in fact, of the Middle and Eastern States, for perhaps none were increasing with greater rapidity than the two great Middle States of New York and Pennsylvania. He thought it proper that provision should be made at this session for taking the third census. Such a provision could not accelerate the time, but would enable the officers of the United States to take proper means to insure the excellence of the work. He, therefore, moved— "That provision ought to be made by law for taking the third census of the inhabitants of the United Statse." A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have appointed Mr. GILES, proposition introduced. He said it was important Mr. LYON expressed his pleasure at seeing this Mr. FRANKLIN, and Mr. HILLHOUSE, a commit- that the people of the United States should be tee on their part, jointly, with the committee pointed on the part of this House, to inquire what represented according to their numbers. The business it is requisite should be done at the pres-tained more than 100,000 souls. The State of district which he had the honor to represent con ent session. ap Mr. WITHERSPOON presented a petition of John Ervine, on behalf of himself, James Gregg, and Roger Roberts, of the State of South Carolina, praying to be paid the amount of his account as principal assessor, and of the accounts of the said Gregg and Roberts, as assistant assessors, under the act laying and collecting a direct tax' within the United States, for the county of Liberty, in the said State of South Carolina. The petition was read and referred to the Committee of Claims. Mr. GOLD presented the petition of Mrs. Hamilton, widow of the late General Alexander Hamilton of New York, stating that her husband was a Colonel during the Revolutionary war, and as such entitled to half pay; but that from his delicate situation as a member of Congress he had relinquished his claim, the amount of which the petitioner prays may be allowed to her. Mr. GOLD moved a reference to the Committee of Claims. Mr. GHOLSON moved to refer the petition, together with one which he conceived to be similar, to a select committee. On this motion a debate of near two hours, upon the subject of claims generally, took place, in which Messrs. GHOLSON, GOLD, MACON, SOUTHARD, LYON, TALLMADGE, NELSON, QUINCY, SMILIE, GARDENIER, and RANDOLPH, partook. The petition was eventually referred to the Committee of Claims by a small majority. THIRD CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES. Mr. RANDOLPH said that it was now precisely ten years since he had the honor of being a member of this House. The first session of the sixth Congress was held at Philadelphia in December, $99; and at that session a law was passed for taking the second census of the inhabitants of the United States. It had been then allowed on all hands that that law was delayed so long, that the Ohio had by this time a population of 200,000 souls, and had but one Representative; the State of Tennessee had perhaps doubled its population. It behooved Congress to set about the business as soon as they could. Mr. W. ÁLSTON conceived that it was necessary that the census should be taken in every part of the Union as nearly at the same time as possible. Were the law now to be passed, it might be taken in some parts of the United States between now and January next, and in other parts in not less than three years. He hoped, he said, that the House would not be thus troubled with unnecessary business. If the passage of the law were deferred for a session or two, the different parts would be more equally represented, though an immediate census might be favorable to his part of the country, because he was convinced that it was losing ground in the general scale of population of the United States. On the suggestion of Mr. QUINCY, with the consent of Mr. RANDOLPH, the motion was ordered to lie on the table-yeas 101. AMERICAN SEAMEN. Mr. DANA said that he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a subject which could not but be interesting to the Councils of the nation. It related to American seamen. He wished to propose a resolution, the object of which was to designate American seamen, and to insure to them the benefits properly appertaining to that character. It was a proposition which could not impede any object which the Administration could have in view, or embarrass any negotiation with foreign Powers. He was the more desirous to bring up this subject, because it was extremely difficult to ascertain the number of foreign seamen in the service of the United States. In answer to an inquiry made at the last session, with a view to ascertain the number of foreign seamen H. OF R. Vote of Approbation. MAY, 1809. nor violate the laws or treaties of the United States, or the rules of public law by them acknowledged, but will observe the instructions which may be given by the President of the United States for preventing all such violations, and that due satisfaction shall be made for all damages and injuries, if any should be committed in contravention thereof. who had been naturalized, an answer had been known to be actually blockaded, nor carry articles conreceived, which, although he knew much deceptraband of war to the dominions of a belligerent Power, tion had been practised, astonished him. He said it might be presumed that there were on board American shipping, between ten and twenty thousand seamen, who were not natives of America. In the course of twelve years, the whole number of persons naturalized according to the laws of the United States, and registered as seamen, did not amount to four hundred and fifty! It might be set down for fact, Mr. D. said, that under our existing laws not less than ten thousand certificates of protection are annually afloat, which are obtained by false swearing. To this fraud he wished to put an end. At present vessels might claim the privilege of carrying the American flag, without a single American mariner on board, a permission contrary to the usage of all civilized nations. For the security and encouragement of our seamen, therefore, he proposed the following resolution: Resolved, That, for the benefit of the seamen of the United States, it is proper to make provision, that registered ships or vessels shall not be entitled to the privilege of ships or vessels of the United States, unless a certain proportion of mariners on board the same shall be citizens of the United States. On the suggestion of Mr. BURWELL, with the consent of Mr. DANA, the resolution was ordered to lie on the table. ARMED TRADE. Mr. DANA said he wished to propose another resolution, the object of which contemplated a provision for arming the commerce of the United States, not as against any particular Power, but it was an attempt to draw a line of discrimination between armaments for defence and armaments for attack, between the principle of resistance to aggression of foreign nations, and the principle of reprisal; in fact, an attempt at experiment, whether we could not transfer to the water that system which exists on the land, for a practical demonstration of which he would refer to gentlemen from the Western country, where he understood that the citizens, individually or combined, armed for their defence against predatory incursions or attack. This was a species of arming distinct from arming for attack or plunder. The resolution which he held in his hand was similar to one proposed at a late day last session; it was however directed against one principle, and that was the principle of blockade by proclamation. It completely contravened the principle of the French decrees as to British ports, and the principle of the British Orders in Council. The resolution was as follows: Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision, by law, to allow merchant vessels of the United States to be armed for defence in voyages to ports of Europe, the West Indies, and Atlantic coast of America, and, accordingly, to furnish the documentary evidence, which may be proper in any such case to manifest the defensive character of the armanent allowed; and at the same time by law to require securities for the vessels respectively, that they will not proceed to any port It was referred to a Committee of the Whole, on Friday next, on motion of Mr. DANA. VOTE OF APPROBATION. The unfinished business of yesterday was resumed, ayes 63. Mr. J. G. JACKSON withdrew his motion for indefinite postponement, and Mr. NELSON renewed it. Mr. JOHNSON said that at this extra session he had fondly hoped he should have had it in his power to be a silent member, but he regretted that duty compelled him to address the Speaker at this late hour of the day, when all must be fatigued, and upon a subject that had involved a discussion unpleasant, unprofitable, and even mischievous. The Executive in his communication to us, said Mr. J., has avoided detail upon the subject of the expected negotiation in the late settlement of our differences, and we should avoid it as much as possible. But this motion has been introduced for the laudable purpose of discovering the difference of opinion in this place upon the late transaction respecting our foreign relations with Great Britain, by the settlement of the affair of the Chesapeake, and the renewal of commercial intercourse. The gentleman from Virginia believes there are men in this House who disapprove the conduct of the President. I disbelieve it, because I have no evidence of it. I have heard in this body, and out of doors, universal approbation. The prospect of peace has been hailed as a political jubilee. No difference does exist upon the subject. But, sir, there is a diversity of sentiment or expectation how the promised negotiation with Great Britain will ultimate. Some are more, and others less sanguine. And, when we consult the volume of experience, and recollect the many important subjects of settlement, it is not wonderful if we should have our fears and our hopes on the subject in different degrees. Let us hope for good, but be prepared for evil, that a reverse of the present prospect may not change excessive joy into deep mourning. The mover of this resolution has attempted to draw a line of distinction between the late and the present Administration in respect to our foreign relations. The two Administrations, so far as Mr. Madison has progressed, are the same in principle, and the same in conduct, animated by the same spirit of moderation, firmness, and justice towards other nations. But the mover of this motion says the propositions under the two Administrations were different, and that the late adjustment is more advantageous to Great Britain. The propositions made by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison were the same. In the first instance |