Thompson, Uri Tracy, George M. Troup, Nicholas Absent on this vote, forty-three members, viz: Of whom those in italic are absent from the city, on leave, except Mr. DENNING, who has not taken his seat. JUNE, 1809. and although there might be in the cargo goods forfeited for violation of the ordinary revenue laws, yet the injunction would be peremptory on him to remit the whole cargo. Mr. MILNOR's motion was negatived. The bill was then ordered to a third reading to-morrow, without a division. TUESDAY, June 27. A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill, entitled “An act in addition to the Act to regulate the laying out and making a road from Cumberland, in the State of Maryland, to the State of Ohio," to which they desire the concurrence of this House. Mr. GOLD suggested an amendment to the bill in the part providing for the recovery and distriA bill from the Senate, for freeing from postbution of such fines as "have been" incurred age all letters from Thomas Jefferson, was twice under the sections of the non-intercourse act re-read. [The act of last session only freed from vived and amended. He moved to amend it by postage letters to Thomas Jefferson.] making it read "may be," instead of "have been." At present, he conceived the bill to contain, in this respect, an ex post facto provision, inasmuch as it directed the recovery of fines and penalties, the suits on which must abate on the expiration of the law under which they were commenced. Mr. SHEFFEY objected to the amendment. He said that laws, when made, ought to be observed, and that the usual mode of coercing obedience to our revenue laws was by fines and penalties on the violators; and, although the law under which a penalty is incurred, expires before the recovery of the penalty, yet still the offender is liable to the punishment of his offence; that the suits for penalties should not expire with a law inflicting them. Mr. GOLD contended that it was impossible to recover penalties incurred under one law by ano ther law, or to recover them after the law under which they were incurred had expired, unless their subsequent recovery was provided for under the law which inflicted them. The penalty must stand or fall with the act under which it was incurred. This was an ex post facto provision; for it was a principle, that a judgment could not be obtained for a penalty after the act expired under which it had accrued. Mr. GOLD's amendment was negatived, six or seven gentlemen only rising in the affirmative on it. Mr. MILNOR suggested an amendment to that part of the law remitting from forfeiture all vessels which have come into the United States between the 20th of May and the 10th of June. He wished to add after the word "vessels" the words "and their cargoes." Mr. J. G. JACKSON said he had no objection to the amendment, though he believed the whole section might be dispensed with, inasmuch as he understood that the Secretary of the Treasury, under the power given him by former laws, had already remitted all the penalties. Mr. W. ALSTON objected to the amendment, inasmuch as it would take away the discretion now reposed in the Secretary of the Treasury; Mr. MACON opposed the bill, on the ground that the privilege of receiving letters free was sufficient, having himself an objection to the whole privilege, on principle; and Messrs. DANA, J. G. JACKSON, LIVERMORE, TAYLOR, and MONTGOMERY, supported the bill, because that it was proper which had been heretofore granted to George to give to Thomas Jefferson the same privilege Washington and John Adams. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was subsequently read a third time, and passed. EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEYS. Mr. RANDOLPH, from the committee appointed to inquire into the expenditures of public money, &c., made the following report: 66 Report, in part, of the committee appointed to inquire and report whether moneys drawn from the Treasury since the 4th of March, 1801, had been faithfully applied to the object for which they were appropriated, and whether the same have been regularly accounted for: "Your committee beg leave to lay before your honorable House such information as they have obtained of public moneys, which, from the pressure of time from the several departments touching the application and business, they have not found leisure thoroughly to investigate, but which they deemed would prove acceptable to the House of Representatives. It will be perceived that the respective communications from the War and Navy Departments are of an unsatisfactory nature, differing in character from those required by the committee. A representation to this effect has been made to the heads of these departments respectively, and they have been notified that the information sought by the committee is essential to the prosecution of the inquiry with which the committee have been charged by the House of Representatives. Expectation is held out that it will be prepared by, or during the course of the next session. The documents accompanying the report having been partly read, a motion was made that they lie on the table, and carried-46 to 40; and the report and documents were ordered to be printed. JUNE, 1809. NON-INTERCOURSE. Non-Intercourse. The bill to revive and amend certain parts of the act "interdicting commercial intercourse between the United States and Great Britain and France, and their dependencies, and for other purposes," was read the third time. Mr. PICKMAN hoped that he should be excused for making a few observations at this stage of the bill, not having before partaken of the debate. He said he felt a strong objection to the bill, because it admitted French vessels into our ports and harbors. Gentlemen had asked why a discrimination should be made. He answered, that the reasons for this conduct were to his mind very plain. He had considered the outrage on the Chesapeake as a gross violation of our rights and of the law of nations, and he believed no one had felt more indignation at it than he did. But that was now atoned for. I consider (said Mr. P.) that the Orders in Council are repealed; that Great Britain has stipulated to send an envoy with instructions to negotiate for a settlement of all differences. I consider these things as done, because I consider the faith of the British nation as solemnly pledged to do them; for, if it had not been, the United States would not have been justified in taking the attitude which we have taken. It has been said, that since the arrangement here has taken place, Great Britain has modified her Orders in Council in a most exceptionable manner. I admit that this modification was posterior in point of date to the arrangement here; that is to say, that the proclamation of the President of the United States was issued on the 19th, and that the orders were modified on the 29th of April; yet, in strict propriety, the new orders may be said to have issued before the arrangement, because it was before it was known. Viewing the subject in this light, I do not believe that the modification of the Orders in Council did proceed from the arrangement here; and I now declare that if such modification as has been made is to be considered as rescinding the orders, according to the stipulation made with Mr. Erskine, I should consider it a mere mockery. I do, however, consider it in a very different light, and have no doubt that the Government of Great Britain will adopt such modification of their orders as they have stipulated to do. These are my ideas, and on this ground I did and do still believe that we ought to have made a discrimination, because I consider one nation to have complied with the conditions of the non-intercourse act, whilst the other has not varied its position. It will be recollected by the House that when the question was yesterday propounded, whether we should exclude the vessels of both belligerents, I voted in favor of it; and I confess that I prefer the exclusion to the admission of both. I know that the admission is more favorable than the exclusion; but, when I consider that the honor of the nation has been endangered by them, I will not prostitute it to either. I do consider it contrary to the honor of my country to admit the armed vessels of either belligerent, when sailing under orders or decrees justifying them in captur11th CoN. 1st SESS.-15 H. OF R. ing every American vessel sailing on the ocean. And the observation appears to me to be of great weight, that there is a great inconsistency and impropriety in refusing admission to their merchants, and admitting the entrance of armed vessels. Considering the peculiar state of our relalations with France, I think it proper that we should know how France will receive the intelligence of our accommodation with England before we change our situation in relation to her. I have other objections to the bill, the principal of which is the introduction of the word "dependency," or retaining it in the bill which it is intended to re-enact. Gentlemen are not sensible of the very great embarrassments which the most intelligent merchants have had to undergo to avoid the violation of our laws. A vessel sails to a port which at the time of her sailing is not a dependency of France. When she arrives, the French Emperor has possession; and the port then being a dependency, the vessel incurs the penalty of the law. It is true that, under such circumstances, the Secretary of the Treasury will remit the penalty. But why subject a vessel to this violation of your laws, when it is inconsistent with good policy? It is utterly impossible to carry into effect a regulation prohibiting trade with France. It is known that our vessels going to Barbadoes have brought and will bring back French goods. They do not know whether the articles they carry are of French growth or not, yet, at the same time, there can be no doubt that a considerable portion of those articles are of French production; and, if so, the property is liable to condemnation. I am not in favor of passing a law which presents such strong temptations to a violation of it. I have a high opinion of our merchants. It is owing to their honor and punctuality that your revenue has been so great as it is; but if once you encourage the practice of smuggling, or introduce such strong temptations to it, your revenue will cease to come into the Treasury with such certainty as it has. I shall not trouble the House with any further observations, though I have other insuperable objections to the bill. I should be happy to agree with the majority in favor of the bill; but, viewing it as I do, viewing the admission of French ships into our waters as inconsistent with the course laid down for our conduct by the non-intercourse law, viewing it as inconsistent with the honor and dignity of the nation to admit any armed vessels into our waters whilst the country to which they belong has orders and decrees in force against us, I must vote against the bill. Mr. MACON said he was against admitting the armed vessels of either belligerent into our waters. He would place our foreign relations precisely in the state in which the President had left them, saying neither yea or nay on the subject of their armed vessels, leaving it where it had been left by both the parties to the late arrangement. He should have been glad that the same disposition had been manifested towards us by France as by Great Britain; but because there had not he would do nothing towards her to prevent it. Some gentlemen had conceived that an indiscriminate admission would be more advantageous to France than to Great Britain. Mr. M. said he did not agree with gentlemen in this; for Great Britain had Canada and her West India islands, to which she was in the habit of sending out vessels; whilst France, having no possessions on the American coast, had no occasion for our hospitality. Mr. M. said he sincerely hoped that we should now act, as we had heretofore done, so as to give to neither of the belligerents cause to charge us with partiality. He was decidedly of opinion that we ought to leave both nations in the same state as they were left by the President's proclamation. He had no doubt that Great Britain would send a Minister to negotiate. But what was left, as to her, for the surrender or repeal of which she had any anxiety? Nothing. As to France, she would have no shipping at sea, so long as the war lasted in Europe, unless an event took place which he hoped would not. You give France a right to enter your waters, said be, and take away any inducement she might have had to rescind her decrees. I believe the passage of the bill will extend the difficulties of the nation. I know it is not a very pleasant thing to be opposed to the evident sentiment of a majority of the House; but it is the bounden duty of those who think as I do to vote, as I shall, against the bill. JUNE, 1809. the merit of the late negotiation, if it attach any where. But I am not willing to carry on the copartnership. I will not now say we. I, who voted for the motion going to give power to the Presi dent of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal against that nation which persevered in its edicts after the other had withdrawn them, am not willing, on the passage of this bill, to say we, as by it you admit instead of continuing the exclusion against, armed vessels, where, instead of a recession, injuries have rather been added. When gentlemen are asked why they have admitted French vessels, in our present situ ation in relation to France, after the temper displayed and the votes given at the last session on the subject, their's must be a feeling in which I would not participate, and therefore I will not say we. Mr. DANA observed that, by the Journals of the Senate, it appeared that this bill had been unanimously passed by that body. This unanimous vote of the Senate might be regarded as a consid eration to operate very strongly on the minds of members of the House, as respected the propriety of adopting the present bill; it certainly must have weight in favor of a measure, when it was found that men differing widely in political opinions joined in voting for it. I, said Mr. D., have myself very strongly felt the force of this consideration. But you know, sir, that the rules of proceeding and order established in this House do not Mr. TAYLOR said it appeared to be desired on admit of our urging in debate the conduct of the all hands that nothing should be done by the Senate of the United States as a motive for deHouse to embarrass the negotiation; and he pre- ciding the opinion of this House. Why is it out sumed that the majority, in the different stages of of order? Because the excellence of our Constithis bill, bad been actuated by that wish. 1, said tution is, that the Legislature shall consist of two Mr. T., I could see the present measure in the light Houses, each of which shall act on its own ideas in which its friends appear to view it, I certainly of propriety. If it is not proper to mention the should be in favor it. But, when it is recollected conduct of the Senate in debate, it is not proper that your legislative acts have been held out to to suffer it to overthrow our opinions. In this your fellow-citizens and to foreign nations, prom-view I feel myself bound, with all due deference ising a perseverance in our restrictive measures against such nation as shall continue to oppress our commerce by her unlawful edicts, I consider our faith as pledged to the nation, that, according to the recession of one belligerent, or perseverance of the other, we were to shape our course. The gentleman from Virginia aimed a side blow at those who, in the discussion of this sub ject, had spoken of the ground which we have taken. On the effects supposed to be produced by the non-intercourse, I had a right to say we. The sense of the House was taken distinctly as to a repeal of the embargo, on the first report of the │| Committee of Foreign Relations. It was then that the principle was decided, and it was that act which was taken hold of across the Atlantic, and made the ground of the instructions which came out by Mr. Oakley to the British Envoy here, and on which the arrangement did take place. Now, though the gentleman seems unwilling that any part of the House should say we, I vindicate the claim which I have to use it. In fact, I would claim for the mover of the original proposition to this House for the interdiction of armed vessels, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. MACON,) to the Senate, to examine this subject for myself. I cannot but feel the weight of that vote; but I cannot forget that the bill respecting the writ of habeas corpus was once passed in that House, and rejected unanimously in this, without being permitted to be read a second time. On examining this bill, sir, I do not find that its various provisions appear to constitute one whole, to conform with any system of policy, or to be consistent with the principles of any man in this country. It is certainly not the course which I would have chosen; it is not consistent with the course marked out at the last session of Congress. I was certainly not in favor of the embargo; Idisapproved of that system; and when Isaw the non-intercourse system, I considered that as retaining the embargo principle, but not with so much precision. I consider this bill to be receding from a weak position. If the embargo was a decisive measure, it ought to have been taken more completely at the outset than it was. But it failed. The non-intercourse was abandoning one part and retaining another of the system. This bill was abandoning a part of the non-intercourse system and retaining a part. When I look at it, I see nothing in it at which any portion of American citizens can rejoice or be proud of; nothing of a firm, dignified, matured, sound, consistent policy, to be maintained on general principles against all the world. Am I then required to vote for a measure of this kind? If, with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. QUINCY) I could suppose that voting for a system which I did not like would destroy it, I should vote for it. For, if I understand him, he dislikes the whole, and therefore will vote for this part of it. The whole would die at the end of this session; but to show his anxiety for its death he must keep it alive till the next session of Congress. I was very much pleased with a great part of his remarks; I approbated his premises, but his conclusions appeared to be directly the reverse of the proper result. But as he is a gentleman of strong powers of mind, he may well be able to draw a conclusion which I cannot. H. OF R. we are to examine whether this bill comports with the arrangement made with Great Britain. But, as to that, I beg leave to be deemed as not considering myself pledged by that arrangement merely. As to myself, as an American, I am by no means gratified that we should contend with one nation because another does us justice. A stipulation of that kind I should consider as degrading to my country. In my remarks therefore, I disclaim owing anything for any boon which Great Britain may have given us, because I do not consider it as a boon that they have ceased to injure us. But in the face of the world such declarations have been formally made by the Congress of the United States. The fact is known to ourselves, to our countrymen, to such portions of the foreign world as may take an interest in our concerns. And in comparing this bill with those declarations, will it be possible to conceive that we are consistent? Gentlemen have alluded to the declarations of When you had differences with both the belligthe Emperor of France in relation to his decrees. erents, what was your language? You talked as When Bonaparte talks of the freedom of the seas, though you would throw the gauntlet to the globe, does he mean the same idea which we attach to as though you would stretch out your arm and these words when we use them? When he talks smite the world. When an adjustment is made of the principles of maritime law, does he mean with one of those Powers, what is your language? the same as we? On the subject of maritime Really, sir, the difficulty under which the Govlaw, has be not stated things which before were ernment formerly labored was said to be this: unheard of? Certainly, sir. On the contrary, I that if we went to war with both nations.-[Mr. have always understood the claims of the United D. quoted a part of the report of the Committee States as a neutral nation to be, not to assert new of Foreign Relations of last session on this subpretensions, but to assert such claims as they may ject.] I consider this part of the report, said he, think reasonable with respect to principle, and as proceeding upon assumptions which are errosuch as have been formerly admitted in practice. neous, and founded upon grounds untenable and With respect to the bill before you, there has inaccurate. But as to this report, which appeared been one argument used, and an imposing one to receive the approbation of a majority of the certainly, provided that it appeared completely members of the House, it seems to be clear from founded in fact. It is said this bill is considered it, that were it not that you were so equally as comporting with the views of the Executive wronged by both belligerents, and that both perGovernment of the country; and that the Exe-sisted, you certainly would have engaged in war cutive has acted so well in conducting the pre- with one; but that, as a treble war was rather a liminary arrangement for removing certain obsta- difficult plan, it was best to continue the restriccles to negotiation, that on the whole we ought tive system. to assist his Administration. On this subject, sir, What is the declaration made to the British I have to observe that we are utterly without offi- Minister at this place, by our Secretary of State, cial evidence on this point. We have no evidence on this subject? Is it pretended to enter into any whatever, of an official nature, that this bill com- stipulations with Great Britain as to our conduct? ports with the Executive views. If we have, it No, sir. it is that our measures are adopted on the is to me unknown. We have not, during the principle that the Government would assert the present session, had any report in detail from the rights of our country against any Power on the Committee of Foreign Relations. If that com- globe, without any reference to pledges. On this mittee had made a report, stating facts and rea- point I would call the attention of the House to soning as the basis of the bill, I might consider a sentence which is the most extraordinary surely that committee as having consulted the Executive that ever was put together. And, unless it be a of the country, and as having adopted its disposi- dash of the pen, like that of the brush of the tion as the basis of its proceedings. But, as we painter who painted at one dash a perfect horse, have no such thing. are we to suppose that there it must have been the elaborate labor of twentyare certain gentlemen in the House who are or- four hours; in either case not detracting from the gans of communication of the Executive wishes? skill of the author of it. The sentence is as folHave we any other evidence of the disposition of lows: "As it appears at the same time, that, in the Executive in relation to this bill than that making this offer, His Britannic Majesty derives certain gentlemen are in favor of it? If, on this a motive from the equality, now existing, in the subject, the opinion of the Executive should pro-relations of the United States, with the two belperly decide our judgment, ought we not to haveligerent Powers, the President owes it to the had some official exposition of the views of the occasion, and to himself, to let it be understood, Government? As we have no such information, 'that this equality is a result, incident to a state H. OF R. Non-Intercourse. JUNE, 1809. ' of things, growing out of distinct considerations.' If it be asked, what other system would be If any mortal, from the depth of his knowledge, proper, I acknowledge it to be a question of diffi can specifically tell what this means, he may pass culty. But, for myself, I think I would say that for an oracle. It proceeds upon this idea: that in I would prefer an armed neutrality; not such a making our arrangements at the last session we one as distinguished the confederacy in the Baltic, did not mean, as respects saying that whatever not one to assert new pretensions; but one temnation insulted us we would resent it, to please perate in its claims, specific in its object. And I Great Britain alone, but equally to please any could really wish that in the present state of the other nation whatever. If the saying this was an world we should turn our attention to a system of annunciation by our Government to the British policy which shall be founded on general princiGovernment, that in making this arrangement we ples, and at least say what are the rights which are not making any stipulation in respect to France, as neutrals we claim, and what the pretensions to but you and the world may know that whoever which as neutrals we will submit; and if our leinvades our rights shall meet with resistance, ad-gislation were of that character, we never should equate to the crisis, if the Government can find means to accomplish it. If the paragraph be thus considered, we may respect the declaration itself, and admire the skill with which it is so worded as to convey nothing offensive in the expression. In this view, I am willing to admit it, because it conduces to the reputation of the Government and of the Secretary of State, who in this business appears to have conducted with the frankness of a man of talents, and the manner of a practical man of sense. I consider this bill as not corresponding with the resolutions of last session, as not corresponding with the general sentiment in regard to the non-intercourse law when it passed; nor with the general sentiment fairly to be collected from the correspondence of our officers with the British Minister. be embarrassed as we are. We pass a law that if edicts of the belligerents be revoked or modified, trade shall be renewed. Now the edicts then in existence might be revoked, and others substituted, and the law would be complied with. The whole system has been constituted too much in reference to particular cases. Independently of these general views, I have another objection to the bill: that the persons who are in favor of this bill cannot, I presume, tell its meaning. Let me not be understood as meaning that they cannot tell what they believe it means; but the question is, whether a majority of them can agree as to its particular meaning. The bill proposes to continue in force the third section of the non-intercourse act. What will be the effect of it? It will go to exclude from the If then this bill be not consistent with the dec-waters of the United States vessels owned in whole larations of gentlemen and of the Government or in part by the citizens of either belligerent itself, I must ask of myself whether it be con- nation. I was highly delighted the other day on sistent with my own opinion? And there, I can- this subject to hear a distinction taken (by Mr. not hesitate. For myself, I do not approve this RHEA) between vessels sailing under the flag of system of commercial restriction. The non-im- the United States, and vessels carrying it. I was portation act was the commencement of a system, pleased with it, because it had all the charm of feeble as it affected other nations, powerful to dis- novelty about it. A merchant vessel was said to tress ourselves. In this system there is a radical sail under, and a public vessel to carry the flag of error, by adopting a policy which acknowledged the United States; and this was stated as a disour allegiance prior to the Declaration of Inde- tinction generally known. Whatever maritime pendence, when we were merely infants, and writer has laid it down, cannot be much knownwhen refraining from intercourse was an expres- indeed I should think it rather difficult for a vession of the dissatisfaction of a child; when re-sel to sail under a flag which it did not carry. A monstrances at the foot of the throne were pre- vessel which carries a flag must sail under it at sented, very properly accompanied with profes- some time or other. I should doubt whether the sions of allegiance and humble supplications of gentleman's position be correct; because flag is mercy. And therefore I say, that to adopt these a figurative term. For, in speaking of maritime regulations is to adopt measures of infantine weak-law and the usages of nations, no gentleman will ness, and implies premature old age; that if this say when we mention a flag that we mean the be our system of resistance to foreign insult or piece of bunting carried at the masthead. It is injury, second childhood has come upon us at the public manifestation of the national character once. And, sir, when I hear gentlemen quote of the vessel that we mean; and this word is a the measures of Congress prior to the Declaration mere figure of speech for all such manifestations. of Independence in 1776, I am convinced that, I must therefore consider that public ships sail would they but read through the page of history under the flag of a nation; and that really if it of that day, they would have scouted such au- was proposed to the commander of a vessel to thority for these measures; for they were univer-press one of his seamen, he would point to the sally attended with supplications before the throne of Majesty. And if we mean that the Ministers of the United States shall only throw themselves at the foot of the thrones of the French Emperor and British King, it may be proper to adopt these measures. Otherwise, they are unworthy of a great and independent nation. flag over their heads and, say that was their protection. The waters of the United States are interdicted to any vessel sailing under the flag of Great Britain and France, or owned in whole or in part by any subject or citizen of either. The words are so broad as to comprehend all vessels, whether public or private. |