Читать книгу Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.) - United States. Congress - Страница 106

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 P.) that the Orders in Council are repealed; that Great Britain has stipulated to send on an envoy with instructions to negotiate for a settlement of all differences.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.

Mr. Macon said he was against admitting the armed vessels of either belligerents 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 he, 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.

Mr. Taylor said it appeared to be desired on all hands that nothing should be done by the House to embarrass the negotiation; and he presumed that the majority, in the different stages of this bill, had been actuated by that wish. If, said Mr. T., I could see the present measure in the light in which its friends appear to view it, I certainly should be in favor of it. But, when it is recollected that your legislative acts have been held out to your fellow-citizens and to foreign nations, promising 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 subject, 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,) the merit of the late negotiation, if it attach anywhere. 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 President 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 situation in relation to France, after the temper displayed and the votes given at the last session on the subject, theirs 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 consideration 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 admit of our urging in debate the conduct of the Senate of the United States as a motive for deciding the opinion of this House. Why is it out of order? Because the excellence of our constitution is, that the Legislature shall consist of two Houses, each of which shall act on its own ideas of propriety. If it is not proper to mention the conduct of the Senate in debate, it is not proper to suffer it to overthrow our opinions. In this view I feel myself bound, with all due deference 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; I disapproved of that system; and when I saw 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.

Gentlemen have alluded to the declarations of the Emperor of France in relation to his decrees. When Bonaparte talks of the freedom of the seas, does he mean the same idea which we attach to these words when we use them? When he talks of the principles of maritime law, does he mean the same as we? On the subject of maritime law, has he not stated things which before were unheard of? Certainly, sir. On the contrary, I have always understood the claims of the United States as a neutral nation to be, not to assert new pretensions, but to assert such claims as they may think reasonable with respect to principle, and such as have been formerly admitted in practice.

With respect to the bill before you, there has been one argument used, and an imposing one certainly, provided that it appeared completely founded in fact. It is said this bill is considered as comporting with the views of the Executive Government of the country; and that the Executive has acted so well in conducting the preliminary arrangement for removing certain obstacles to negotiation, that on the whole we ought to assist his administration. On this subject, sir, I have to observe that we are utterly without official evidence on this point. We have no evidence whatever, of an official nature, that this bill comports with the Executive views. If we have, it is to me unknown. We have not, during the present session, had any report in detail from the Committee of Foreign Relations. If that committee had made a report, stating facts and reasoning as the basis of the bill, I might consider that committee as having consulted the Executive of the country, and as having adopted its disposition as the basis of its proceedings. But, as we have no such thing, are we to suppose that there are certain gentlemen in the House who are organs of communication of the Executive wishes? Have we any other evidence of the disposition of the Executive in relation to this bill than that certain gentlemen are in favor of it? If, on this subject, the opinion of the Executive should properly decide our judgment, ought we not to have had some official exposition of the views of the Government? As we have no such information, 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 any thing 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? When you had differences with both the belligerents, what was your language? You talked as though you would throw the gauntlet to the globe, as though you would stretch out your arm and smite the world. When an adjustment is made with one of those powers, what is your language? Really, sir, the difficulty under which the Government formerly labored was said to be this: that if we went to war with both nations. – [Mr. D. quoted a part of the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations of last session on this subject.] I consider this part of the report, said he, as proceeding upon assumptions which are erroneous, and founded upon grounds untenable and inaccurate. But as to this report, which appeared to receive the approbation of a majority of the members of the House, it seems to be clear from it, that were it not that you were so equally wronged by both belligerents, and that both persisted, you certainly would have engaged in war with one; but that, as a treble war was rather a difficult plan, it was best to continue the restrictive system.

What is the declaration made to the British Minister at this place, by our Secretary of State, on this subject? Is it pretended to enter into any stipulations with Great Britain as to our conduct? No, sir; it is that our measures are adopted on the principle that the Government would assert the rights of our country against any power on the globe, without any reference to pledges. On this point I would call the attention of the House to a sentence which is the most extraordinary surely that ever was put together. And, unless it be a dash of the pen, like that of the brush of the painter who painted at one dash a perfect horse, it must have been the elaborate labor of twenty-four hours; in either case not detracting from the skill of the author of it. The sentence is as follows: "As it appears at the same time, that, in making this offer, His Britannic Majesty derives a motive from the equality, now existing, in the relations of the United States, with the two belligerent powers, the President owes it to the occasion, and to himself, to let it be understood, that this equality is a result, incident to a state of things, growing out of distinct considerations." If any mortal, from the depth of his knowledge, can specifically tell what this means, he may pass for an oracle. It proceeds upon this idea: that in making our arrangements at the last session we did not mean, as respects saying that whatever nation insulted us we would resent it, to please Great Britain alone, but equally to please any other nation whatever. If the saying this was an annunciation by our Government to the British Government, that in making this arrangement we are not making any stipulation in respect to France, but you and the world may know that whoever invades our rights shall meet with resistance, adequate 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.

If it be asked, what other system would be proper, I acknowledge it to be a question of difficulty. But, for myself, I think I would say that I would prefer an armed neutrality; not such a one as distinguished the confederacy in the Baltic, not one to assert new pretensions; but one temperate in its claims, specific in its object. And I could really wish that in the present state of the world we should turn our attention to a system of policy which shall be founded on general principles, and at least say what are the rights which as neutrals we claim, and what the pretensions to which as neutrals we will submit; and if our legislation were of that character, we never should 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.

But I have one further objection to this bill, viz: that by it you do permit trade with French trading vessels, thus. There is no prohibition to the furnishing supplies to French vessels. The French vessels, going to sea, go armed and under the authority of their Government; and coming into the ports of this country may be supplied with any thing they wish without an infraction of the letter of the law. Let any public armed vessel come into the waters of the United States, and they may purchase whatever they please. There is no law to prohibit it, nor any authority placed in the Government of the United States to prevent them from purchasing. The state of the case now is, that your vessels shall not be cleared out to carry any thing to France, but your boats and every thing that sails may be employed to carry provisions to French armed ships in your harbors, and they may be completely loaded. If this be the intention of gentlemen, I have nothing further to say; if it be not their intention, they will have in this case, as they have had in others, a very great experience of the disadvantages of undertaking to chop up law.

From these general views of the subject, sir, I am opposed to the passage of the law.

Messrs. Pitkin and Quincy stated their reasons for voting against the bill.

And on the question, "Shall the bill pass?" it was decided in the affirmative – yeas 72, nays 15, as follows:

Yeas. – Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jr., William Anderson, Ezekiel Bacon, William W. Bibb, Adam Boyd, John Brown, Robert Brown, William A. Burwell, Joseph Calhoun, John Campbell, Howell Cobb, James Cochran, Orchard Cook, James Cox, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Joseph Desha, James Emott, J. W. Eppes, William Findlay, Jonathan Fisk, Gideon Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jr., Peterson Goodwyn, Thomas R. Gold, Daniel Heister, William Helms, Jacob Hufty, Robert Jenkins, Richard M. Johnson, William Kennedy, Herman Knickerbacker, Robert Le Roy Livingston, John Love, Matthew Lyon, Aaron Lyle, Robert Marion, Vincent Matthews, Samuel McKee, William Milnor, John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Newton, Joseph Pearson, John Porter, Peter B. Porter, Josiah Quincy, John Rea, of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Matthias Richards, John Roane, Ebenezer Sage, Thomas Sammons, Daniel Sheffey, John Smilie, George Smith, Samuel Smith, Henry Southard, John Stanley, James Stephenson, Jacob Swoope, John Thompson, Uri Tracy, Nicholas Van Dyke, Archibald Van Horne, Robert Weakley, Laban Wheaton, Robert Whitehill, Ezekiel Whitman, Robert Witherspoon, and Richard Wynn.

Nays. – Daniel Blaisdell, John C. Chamberlain, S. W. Dana, John Davenport, jr., William Ely, William Hale, Nathaniel A. Haven, James Holland, Jonathan H. Hubbard, Edward St. Loe Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, Timothy Pitkin, jr., John Ross, Richard Stanford, and John Taylor.

Absent, 54 members.