T

JANUARY, 1810.

American Navigation Act.

H. of R.

brought here, except in the manner prescribed in of war, and then we shall reap a real advantage it, and either of them may at any time, by with- from the course which this nation has so honordrawing their unjust edicts, prevent the operation ably pursued, and which it is still her interest to of the bill as to the nation withdrawing. And pursue, I mean impartial neutrality. While Eureally it seems a little strange, that no one has rope continues in her present state no considattempted to amend the bill, so as to make it oper-eration, unless we are actually attacked, ought to ate impartially, accordingly to his opinion; when induce us to go into the war, either on the side it has been objected by some, that it would oper- of England or France. They have both been ate partially against England, and by others, that anxious that we should engage in it on their side, it will operate partially against France. The and would no doubt make fair promises to pertruth is, sir, that a fair examination of it will con- suade us to engage; but when once engaged, you vince any man, that the system will operate as would be considered as bound to them at least equally on both nations as any that can be devised, for the war, and their fair promises all forgot. in their present situation; and in determining Those who complain so much of our present sitwhat we ought to do, we ought not for a moment uation, and those who speak so often and so much to forget the power which one has on the land, and about war, for they both oppose the bill, ought to the power which the other has on the sea, nor cast their eyes on the nations of Europe who ought we to expect that France will regard the have been plunged into the war, either to better freedom of the sea, when she does not regard the their condition or vindicate what they supposed freedom of the land; nor ought we to expect that to be the honor of their Government, and comGreat Britain will regard the freedom of the pare our situation with that of the nation which land when she does not regard the freedom of they may think has suffered least, and they will the seas. In examining our foreign relations, find cause to rejoice that their lot has been cast especially with respect to a Legislative act, we to live under a Government and in a nation, ought always to have in view the situation of both of which has had discretion enough to keep the two belligerents: without this it will be diffi- out of the war which has nearly ruined all that cult indeed to preserve our neutrality and peace, engaged in it. and those who think it unwise to preserve these any longer, will undoubtedly vote against the bill. But, before they do this, I hope they will look at the Governments which have at one time or other taken part in the wars and struggles of Europe for the last twenty years. Many of the Governments are destroyed; no matter whether Republics or Monarchies, all shared the same fate, and new Governments have sprung up in their places without a single Republic among them. I ask gentlemen to tell me, what must have been the condition of the people during all these wars and all these revolutions? To those who talk so much about war, I address myself; and it is a little strange, that notwithstanding we have so many war speeches, we have no war motions.

The United States are now the only neutral nation in the civilized world-to them is committed the sacred trust of preserving neutral rights, and to no nation are they more valuable. And to those who talk so much about war, permit me, sir, to inquire, whether they can seriously believe we shall be so likely to do this by war, against those who do not respect them either on land or water, as by other means; if they do seriously believe that we can compel France and England in any reasonable time to do this, I am willing to confess they have rather more faith on this point than I have. But, if we cannot easily compel England and France to observe our neutral rights, does it follow that we should not keep up a protest against the violations of them? to me it seems not; but, on the contrary, that it is our duty to do so; that whenever the time shall arrive, when the Governments of civilized nations shall incline to respect the public law and morality, that then there may be a standard to appeal to; and then, if not before, we shall find the advantage of the plan now proposed over that

I should like to be informed, whether the gentlemen who talk so much about war have turned their attention to the existing state of commerce ? Have they ascertained the number of sailors now in foreign ports and on the high seas? Have they calculated the value of the ships and cargoes now out of the limits of the United States, so that they can inform the House of the number of seamen and the amount of capital, which may be jeopardized by the adoption of war measures? Have they, as a preparatory measure, advised that messengers should be immediately sent to Europe, and to the ports of Asia frequented by our merchant ships, to inform our countrymen of their danger, and advise them to return home as soon as possible? Have they even thought of an embargo, to prevent the sailors, the ships, and cargoes, now at home, from leaving the country? And whatever may be said at this day about an embargo, I agree to the truth of an observation, made by a gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. TAYLOR,) that no Administration, which acts wisely, ever will go to war without first laying one to get the sailors, vessels, and capital, which may be in foreign countries, at home, before a declaration of war shall be made. We have been told that we could take the Canadas; this is not doubted, but, while we are taking them, Great Britain may take as many of our vessels and as much property now without our limits as would be four times their real value-without considering the unfortunate situation of the seaman who is made a prisoner, probably before he knows that the country is in war. Considerations like these seem to have no weight; no matter what consequences result, we must have energetic measures; war pell-mell, to get clear of this bill, which is said to be downright submission. This seems to me, especially in the present state of our affairs, to

H. OF R.

American Navigation Act.

JANUARY, 1810.

All that they have contended for, according to my understanding, is this, that in the present state of Europe, and of the United States, they have not been able to discover a better system, a system that would operate less on ourselves, and at the same time have some operation on England and France. My colleague said a great deal about war and energy. I have already encircumstances of the nation, would be injurious; I will only add that, by declaring it at this moment. you would put it in the power of Great Britain to take probably one hundred millions of our property, and twenty or thirty thousand of our sailors.

be a new sort of submission. Is it submission, openly to tell the two most powerful nations in the world, you shall not come here? No, it is not. The very prohibition is an act of sovereignty; while one declares it to be submission to France, another declares it to be submission to England; though both agree that it is submission, they disagree as to the Power to which it submits. Nay, sir, it has been said, that this is entirely a mer-deavored to show, that war, under the existing cantile question, and that farmers and planters ought to have nothing to do with it. Then farmers and planters ought not to pay any part of the expense which may grow out of the present state of our affairs. The fact, however, is, that the nation is made up of planters, farmers, merchants, mechanics, and professional men, and all have an interest in the question; and it surely affects the pecuniary interest of the planter and farmer, more than it does that of the others. Double freight does not affect the merchant. He makes his profit, and the agricultural people pay it for every expense attending his trade, he lays an additional advance on his goods, and the agricultural people make all good to him. Besides, sir, the President in his first Message told the House, that he had authorized our Minister at London to inform the British Government that another Minister would be received here, undoubtedly with a view to adjust our differences by negotiation. What would be thought of our Government, if, after making this communication to a foreign Power, we were to do that which some gentlemen have told us we ought do-make open and manly war? Nay, sir, suppose Great Britain should send another Minister, and instead of his finding the Administration ready to receive him, and to treat with him as he expected, he is met by a declaration of war, and told to return home? This would not be like the dismissing the late Minister for indecent expressions in his letters. To me it seems there would be nothing candid, nothing honorable in transacting our national affairs in this way; it would be a departure from the principles which have always governed the nation.

There is nothing in the bill which prevents the Legislature from adopting any other measure the bill may pass, and the House may hereafter adopt such energetic measures as may be thought advisable.

A gentleman from New York (Mr. Roor) lately told us, that which we had been told before, that the bill was resistance to France and submission to England, He has completely proved that Napoleon had submitted to England, as he did that we were about to do it. He told us that Napoleon by his folly was aiding England to carry her Orders in Council into effect. If then to carry her Orders in Council into execution be submission, Napoleon has submitted; but neither his folly nor the bill on the table are submission. My colleague, (Mr. SAWYER,) who is for very strong measures, seems to think that the friends of the bill consider it a certain cure for every complaint to which the body politic may be subject. None of them have yet said so much for it.

I have not seen the force of the observation of my colleague, as applied to the question now be fore the House, that Great Britain enforces her orders on the ocean by her navy. He cannot am sure, suppose that our little navy, with all their bravery, could enforce our laws on the ocean, if opposed by all the maritime strength of the world; and the navy of Great Britain is able to do this. It is done by physical force and not by words; and when we talk about maritime war, we ought to compare the means we have with the end to be obtained. He thinks this the proper time to make war on Great Britain, because she is on her last prop and almost ready to fall. If it be so, there is no occasion for us to give aid to kick her down. Let Bonaparte have the sole credit and honor of putting her down. I understood my colleague to say, that the friends of the bill were desirous of having a war with Great Britain, but were afraid to declare it. This, sur, is not the case with me. I am not afraid to de clare my sentiments upon any question, either of war or peace. I am not desirous of war with any nation on earth, nor will I consent in the present state of the world to enter the war which has so long ravaged Europe, either on the side of France or England. But whenever the National Government shall declare war, I shall be found as ready to adopt the necessary measures to carry it on successfully as any man in this House of in this nation. Again, he told us that this is the very time to make the attack, because all the nations of Europe are leagued against her-this is no reason with me, because I am most decidedly against joining any European league, or having an alliance with any European Power. I am opposed to joining the fate of this happy country to that of any nation in the world; nor do I wish to have a Minister at the Congress, which Napo leon is to call to settle the maritime rights and se cure the freedom of the sea. I have no faith that it will be done by him. Give him power on the water, and he will do as he has done on the land. Give Great Britain power on the land, and she will do as she has done on the water. But, above all. this weak bill produced the second Message of the President of the United States. If that Message has any bearing on the question, according to my weak understanding, it is most decidedly in favor of the bill; indeed it is not easy to conceive how the President with propriety could have said more

654
657

Page. Clay, Henry-continued.