Читать книгу Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.) - United States. Congress - Страница 54

Mr. Lewis presented a petition of the President and Directors of the Washington Bridge Company, praying a revision and amendment of an act passed at the last session of Congress, entitled "An act authorizing the erection of a bridge over the river Potomac within the District of Columbia." – Referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Jeremiah Morrow, from the Committee on the Public Lands, presented a bill to revive and continue the authority of the Commissioners of Kaskaskia; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole on Monday next.

An engrossed bill to authorize the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters was read a third time: Whereupon, a motion was made by Mr. Durell that the said bill be recommitted to the Committee of Commerce and Manufactures, farther to consider and report thereon to the House: it passed in the negative.

The main question was then taken, that the said bill do pass, and resolved in the affirmative – yeas 90, nays 26, as follows:

Yeas. – Evan Alexander, Lemuel J. Alston, Willis Alston, jun., Ezekiel Bacon, David Bard, Joseph Barker, Burwell Bassett, William W. Bibb, William Blackledge, John Blake, jun., Thomas Blount, Adam Boyd, John Boyle, Robert Brown, William Butler, Joseph Calhoun, George W. Campbell, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, Josiah Deane, Joseph Desha, Daniel M. Durell, William Findlay, James Fisk, Meshack Franklin, Francis Gardner, Thomas Gholson, jun., Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Isaiah L. Green, John Harris, John Heister, William Helms, James Holland, David Holmes, Benjamin Howard, Reuben Humphreys, Daniel Ilsley, Richard M. Johnson, James Kelly, Thomas Kenan, Philip B. Key, William Kirkpatrick, John Lambert, Edward Lloyd, John Love, Robert Marion, William McCreery, William Milnor, Daniel Montgomery, jun., John Montgomery, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, John Morrow, Gurdon S. Mumford, Roger Nelson, Thomas Newbold, Thomas Newton, Wilson C. Nicholas, John Porter, John Rea of Pennsylvania, John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, Matthias Richards, Samuel Riker, Benjamin Say, Ebenezer Seaver, Samuel Shaw, Dennis Smelt, John Smilie, Jedediah K. Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Richard Stanford, Clement Storer, Peter Swart, John Taylor, John Thompson, George M. Troup, James I. Van Allen, Archibald Van Horne, Daniel C. Verplanck, Jesse Wharton, Robert Whitehill, Isaac Wilbour, Alexander Wilson, and Richard Wynn.

Nays. – John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, John Culpeper, John Davenport, jun., James Elliot, William Ely, Barent Gardenier, William Hoge, Richard Jackson, Robert Jenkins, Joseph Lewis, jun., Edward St. Loe Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, Josiah Masters, Jonathan O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, jun., John Russell, James Sloan, William Stedman, Lewis B. Sturges, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin Tallmadge, Jabez Upham, Philip Van Cortlandt, David R. Williams, and Nathan Wilson.

Resolved, That the title be, "An act to authorize the President to employ an additional number of revenue cutters."

A message from the Senate informed the House that the Senate have passed a bill, entitled "An act farther to amend the judicial system of the United States;" to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

Foreign Affairs

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business depending yesterday at the time of adjournment – the report of the committee still under consideration.

Mr. D. R. Williams said: It has become very fashionable to apologize to you, sir, for every trespass which a gentleman contemplates making on the patience of the House, and I do not know but in ordinary cases it may be very proper; but the present question is certainly such a one as exempts every gentleman from the necessity of making any apology whatever. I shall offer none, and for the additional reason, that I have given to every member who has spoken the utmost of my attention.

Upon this question, which presents itself in every point of view too clear to admit of a single doubt; equally unsusceptible of sophistical perversion or misrepresentation; a question which involves a political truism, and which is undenied; a debate has grown out of it, embracing the whole foreign relations of this country. I shall not attempt to follow the gentlemen in the course which they have pursued, but will confine my observations to a justification of the embargo, and to the proof, that the orders and decrees of the belligerents, and not the embargo, as was said by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Key,) have produced the present embarrassments. Bad as our situation was at the close of the last session, it has now become infinitely worse. The offer to suspend the embargo laws, for a suspension of the Orders in Council, made in a sincere spirit of conciliation, has been contemptuously rejected, those orders justified, and an extension of their operation threatened: this is a state of things insufferable. At a crisis of this sort, the importance of which every gentleman acknowledges, I deem it proper that every man who feels an ardent love of country should come forward to save that country, to rescue his sinking parent from the jaws of pollution. The effort should be, who shall render our common country the most good; who will be foremost in the ranks; we should not shrink behind the irresponsible stand of doing nothing, ready to raise ourselves upon the mistakes of others; perhaps, the virtuous misfortunes of our political brothers. I am willing to take my share of the responsibility of asserting the wisdom of the original imposition of the embargo, and the correctness of its present and future continuance. Gentlemen have been frequently called upon, while they make vehement declamation against the embargo, to say what they wish in its stead; they declare the utmost hostility to the measure, and yet they offer no substitute. Can they for one moment forget, that upon this question as upon every other national subject, we must all hang together or be hung separate! It inevitably follows from the organization of our Government, that this is the fact.

I consider the original imposition of the embargo, as wise in a precautionary point of view; and notwithstanding all that has been said, and eloquently said, by the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Key,) I believe it was called for by the most imperious public necessity. Every one must know, that had it not been for the embargo, millions of property, and (what is worse) thousands of our seamen, must have fallen a sacrifice to the cupidity of belligerent cruisers. No need of calculations on this subject – I shall not stop to enter into one. I appeal to the common sense of the nation and of this House, whether or not the orders and decrees were calculated to have swept from the ocean all our floating property and seamen. But, no, say gentlemen, the seamen are not saved; and here we are amused with the old story, new vamped, of the fishermen running away. The seamen gone, sir! This is a libel on their generous and patriotic natures. Where are they gone? Every man who ventures such an allegation, is bound to prove it; because it is, if true, susceptible of proof. Surely, sir, the assertion, or even proof, that British or other foreign seamen have left your service, does not establish that American seamen have deserted their country. The British seamen gone! I am glad of it, sir. I wish there had never been one in our service; and if there is an American tar who would, in the hour of peril, desert his country, that he would go also. The thing is impossible sir; every vessel which has sailed from the United States since the imposition of the embargo, has passed under such a peculiar review before the officers of the revenue, that had any number of American seamen shipped themselves, proofs of their departure might, and certainly would, have been had. Read the intelligence from Nova Scotia; it informs us that none but English sailors have arrived there. I call upon gentlemen then to show how, where, and when, an American seaman has left his country, except in the pursuit of his ordinary vocation.

If the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) will apply to his political – I beg pardon – to his mercantile barometer, the insurance offices, he would find that, after the operation of the Orders in Council was known, insurance could not have been effected at Baltimore to the Continent of Europe for 80 per cent., and not at London, on American property, for 90 guineas per cent. The proof of this is before me. Does not this prove that so much danger existed on the ocean that it was next to impossible to pass without seizure and condemnation? And surely he will not contend that this advance of premium was caused by the embargo? If the embargo then has saved any thing to the country – and that it has there can be no doubt – exactly in the proportion that it has saved property and seamen to you, it has lessened the ability of the enemy to make war upon you, and what is primarily important, lessened the temptation to war. The rich plunder of your inoffensive and enlarged commerce, must inevitably have gone to swell the coffers which are to support the sinews of war against you. The reaction thus caused by the embargo, is in your favor, precisely to the amount of property and men which it has saved to you from your enemies.

But we are told that the enterprising merchant is deprived of an opportunity – of what? Of ruining himself and sacrificing the industry of others. Has any capitalist said he would venture out in the present tempest which blackens the ocean? No, sir, they are your dashing merchants; speculators, who, having nothing to lose and every thing to gain, would launch headlong on the ocean, regardless of consequences. No commerce can be now carried on, other than that which is subservient to the Orders in Council. I appeal to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Jackson) – no man is better informed on this subject – would he venture his property on the ocean in a trade contravening those orders? I would ask him further, would Brown and Ives, merchants, as remarkable for their prudence as for their enterprise, and for their capital as either; would they send their vessels to the Continent of Europe? I believe their opinion would corroborate the opinion of Mr. Gray.

The mercantile distresses have been described, with every possible exaggeration, as insufferable. The real distress, sir, is quite sufficient, without any undue coloring. I regret extremely, indeed, sir, from my heart and soul, I lament that the embargo should be considered as falling heavier on the merchant than on the planter. If I know my own heart I would share with them to the last loaf. But compare their situation now with what it would have been if their whole property had been swept away. Compare their present situation with that which must have been the necessary consequence of the seizure of all the floating, registered tonnage of the United States, and which would have happened, but for the embargo. Their vessels are now in safety; if the embargo had not been laid they would have lost both vessel and cargo. They must have either imposed an embargo on themselves, or exposed their capital to total destruction.

Another reason why I approve of the embargo, and which, really to my mind, is a very consolatory reason, is, it has at least preserved us thus far from bloodshed. I am one of those who believe the miseries of this life are sufficiently numerous and pressing without increasing either their number or pungency by the calamities inseparable from war. If we had put the question to every man in the nation, the head of a family, whether we should go to war or lay an embargo, (the only choice we had,) nineteen out of twenty would have voted for the embargo. I believe, sir, the people of the United States confiding their honor and national character to your guardianship, would this day decide the same question in the same way. The people have nothing to gain by war, nothing by bloodshed; but they have every thing to lose. From this reason results another, equally satisfactory; we are still free from an alliance with either of the belligerents. Upon a loss of peace inevitably follows an alliance with one of those two powers. I would rather stake the nation on a war with both, than ally with either. No, sir, I never will consent to rush into the polluted, detestable, distempered embraces of the whore of England, nor truckle at the footstool of the Gallic Emperor.

But the embargo has failed, it has been triumphantly asserted on one side of the House, and echoed along the vaulted dome from the other. If it has, it is no cause of triumph; no, indeed, sir; but it is a cause of melancholy feelings to every true patriot, to every man who does not rejoice in the wrongs of his country. Why has the measure failed of expected success? The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) used an argument incomprehensible to me, as an argument in his favor; on my side it is indeed invincible. He has established it was the evasion of the laws which prevented their being effectual. He tells you that certain evaders of the laws have so risen up in opposition to them, that the President of the United States was obliged to issue his proclamation in April last; that this proclamation told the British Cabinet the people had rebelled against the embargo – but I will pass over the subject; it imposes silence on me, because it must speak daggers to the hearts of some men.

My friend from Virginia (Mr. Randolph) urged one argument against the embargo, which, to be sure, is a most serious one. He asked if we were prepared to violate the public faith? I hope not, sir. I beg to be excused for asking him (for I know he scorns submission as much as any man) if submission will pay the public debt? To that gentleman's acute and comprehensive mind, the deleterious consequences of the present system of the belligerents to our interests, must be glowing, self-evident. He will see that their present measures carry destruction to the most valuable interests, and are subversive of the most sacred rights of the people; and if they are submitted to, every thing dear to an American must be afflicted with the slow, lingering, but certain approaches of consumption. I had rather go off at once. I have no opinion of a lingering death. Rather than the nation should be made to take this yoke, if so superlative a curse can be in store for us, may the hand of Heaven first annihilate that which cannot be nurtured into honor. I had much rather all should perish in one glorious conflict, than submit to this, so vile a system.

But we are told, that the embargo itself is submission. Indeed, sir! Then, with all my heart, I would tear it from the statute book, and leave a black page where it stood. Is the embargo submission? By whom is it so called? By gentlemen who are for active offence? Do these gentlemen come forward and tell you that that the embargo is submission? No such thing, sir. My memory deceives me, if any man who voted for the embargo thinks it submission. They are the original opponents of the embargo who call it submission, and who, while they charge you with the intention, are by every act and deed practising it themselves. It is incorrect, sir. Every gentleman who has spoken, and who has told you that the embargo is submission, has acknowledged the truth of the resolution under consideration; it has not been denied by a single individual. Suppose then we were to change its phraseology, and make it the preamble to a resolution for repealing the embargo, it will then read: "whereas the United States cannot without a sacrifice of their rights, honor, and independence, submit to the late edicts of Great Britain." Therefore resolved, that the embargo be repealed, and commerce with Great Britain permitted. Do these two declarations hang together, sir? That, because we cannot submit to the edicts of the belligerents, we will therefore open a free trade with them? The first part of the proposition is true, no man has denied it; the addition which I have made to it then, is the discordant part, and proves the embargo is not submission. I wish to know of gentlemen, whether trading with the belligerents, under their present restrictions on commerce, would not be submission? Certainly, sir. Is then a refraining from so doing, submission? In a word, is resistance submission? Was the embargo principle considered submission in the days of the stamp act? Did the nation call it submission when it was enacted under General Washington? Was it so considered by the Republicans, when resorted to for redress against the primary violations in 1793? Or was it ever contended that had not the embargo been raised, the terms of Jay's treaty would have been worse? Do gentlemen of the "old school" undertake to say that the Father of their country submitted then to George III.? I hope not, sir. If the embargo was not submission under George Washington, it is not under Thomas Jefferson. Again, I ask, were the principles of the embargo submission in 1774-'5-'6? But it has been replied, it is not meet that the remedies of that day should be applied to the present case. Why not, sir? The disease was the same; and lest gentlemen have forgotten what it was, I will tell them how the old Congress described it: "You exercised unbounded sovereignty over the sea, you named the ports and nations to which alone our merchandise should be carried, and with whom alone we should trade." Draw the parallel, sir, and if the remedy of that period will not suit the present crisis, let us look out for others. I will not stop here; I am willing to go further; I would carry fire and sword into the enemy's quarters; but I would first exhaust every means to preserve peace.

You will excuse me, sir, for giving an opinion in this place, which, perhaps, some gentlemen may think does not result from the subject immediately before us. I will tell you what description of people in the United States are most anxious that the embargo should not be repealed. It is a new sect, sir, sprung up among us – ultra-federalists. They are the persons, in my belief, who are most desirous the embargo should be continued. They see that upon its removal a war with Great Britain follows. An alliance with her is the object nearest their hearts – not a resistance of the wrongs and insults practised by her. If this embargo be submission, if non-intercourse be submission, if a prompt preparation for war be submission, I ask them what is it to sit still and do nothing? Do you mean to submit? Come out and tell the nation whether you will or will not resist the Orders in Council – let us know it – it is desirable that we should know it – it will conduce to the public weal.

I, for one, sir, will vote to continue the embargo, because I do still consider it a coercive measure – as the most deadly weapon we can use against Great Britain. I am induced to consider it so, when I take a view of what is the nature of our products – what is the nature of her exports and imports – what is the nature of her wants, and what her capacity and means of supply. Look at the West Indies, where the embargo has a decided ascendency over every other measure you can adopt. You will find that her colonial and navigation system has, in that quarter, never been maintained since the Revolution. Perhaps I ought, in presuming to speak further about the West Indies, to apologize to the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. Key,) not indeed for his very courtly conduct, because if a man is ignorant, he does not like to be told of it. The gentleman will be pleased to pardon me, if I blunder on in my ignorant way, and talk a little more of that part of the world. [Mr. Key explained that he had not intended any reference to the gentleman from South Carolina in his remarks.] I am extremely obliged to the gentleman for his explanation. Entertaining great respect for his talents, I am happy to find, upon such authority, the charge is neither applicable nor intended. The colonial system has been always regarded as essential to all the vital interests of Great Britain. Every relaxation of that system has excited murmurs and great discontent in the mother country, and yet they have been constantly produced by the wants of the colonies. Would they have been permitted in favor of the United States, could those wants be supplied from any other quarter? I must contend, then, that their profitable existence depends upon an intercourse with the United States, notwithstanding every thing which has been said to the contrary. I do not mean to involve the idea of absolute starvation; much less to insinuate that the embargo is so coercive as to humble Great Britain at our feet; far from it – but I do say, from the nature of their products, their profitable existence depends upon us. There are not contained within the whole British empire at this time, whatever they may have been previous to the American Revolution, supplies for the home and colonial consumption. Will gentlemen tell us from whence they are to procure the principal articles of provisions and lumber? I might rest the argument in safety on these articles alone; these are essential, and of our produce. All the evasions of the embargo have been made with a view to that supply; enforce it, and from whence will they procure the article of lumber? It bears a higher price and is more scarce in Great Britain, even in ordinary times, than in the West Indies. The opinion that Nova Scotia and Canada were adequate to that supply, has been long since abandoned. The articles of their produce require a constant supply of our materials, some of them cannot be procured from any other part of the world; of the lumber received, we have heretofore furnished ninety-nine parts out of one hundred. But we are told they can raise corn. Who denies it? I will grant to gentlemen all they ask on that point, and add, too, that their corn is actually more valuable per bushel than that of this country; but when their labor and industry is directed to that object, what becomes of their cotton, sugar, and coffee cultivation? What becomes of the immense revenues derived from those sources? Gentlemen must not forget that at least one-third of her revenue accruing from commerce, is derived from the West India trade alone. I do not know that I should be wrong, if I were to say from coffee and sugar only. If you drive them to the cultivation of corn for subsistence, they must necessarily abandon the cultivation of their most valuable staples. And do gentlemen believe Great Britain is willing to sacrifice all these considerations to a refusal to do you justice? We do not require justice, for all we ask of her is to abstain from plundering us. We say to her "hands off;" we wish not to come into collision with you; let us alone. These sacrifices will not be much longer hazarded, unless indeed she is deluded into a belief that she has sufficient influence, in this country, to excite disaffection and insurrection, and thereby remove the cause of pressure.

Another objection with me to removing the embargo is, it will betray a timid, wavering, indecisive policy. If you will study the sentiments contained in Mr. Canning's note, you will find they afford a lesson of instruction which you ought to learn and practise upon: "To this universal combination His Majesty has opposed a temperate, but a determined retaliation upon the enemy; trusting that a firm resistance would defeat their project; but knowing that the smallest concession would infallibly encourage a perseverance in it." I beg the House to draw instruction from this otherwise detestable paper – it preaches a doctrine to which I hope we shall become proselytes. A steady perseverance in our measures will assist us almost as much as the strength of them.

I conceive the supplies necessary for the maintenance of the war with Spain and Portugal will fairly come into the calculation. It has become the duty and interest of Great Britain to maintain the cause of Spain and Portugal – she has made it so. Where will those supplies be drawn from? Does she produce them at home? Certainly not; for it cannot be forgotten that the average importation of flour alone at Liverpool is ninety thousand barrels annually. The Baltic is closed against her. The demand must be great; for Spain and Portugal in times of peace have regularly imported grain for their own consumption. And here I will observe, there is no attribute in my nature which induces me to take sides with those who contend for a choice of masters. So far as they are fighting for the right of self-government, God send them speed; but at this peculiar crisis I think it extremely important that our sympathies should not be enlisted on the side of either of the contending parties. I would, therefore, from Spain and Portugal withhold our supplies, because through them we coerce Great Britain.

But that pressure which Great Britain feels most, is most alive to, is at home. The last crop is short, and injured in harvesting; wheat is fourteen shillings the bushel, and rising. Her millions of poor must be supplied with bread, and what has become almost equally important, she must furnish employment for her laborers and manufacturers. Where can the necessary supply of cotton be procured? For, thank God! while we are making a sacrifice of that article, it goes to the injury of Great Britain who oppresses us, and whose present importation is not equal to one-half her ordinary consumption. If the manufacturer is to be thrown out of employ, till that raw material which is now the hypothesis of the day, is produced from Africa, the ministry who are the cause of it will not long rule the destinies of that nation. No, sir, I am not alarmed about supplies of cotton from Africa. Nor am I to be frightened out of the embargo by a fear of being supplanted in the market, from that quarter; they must be but little read indeed in political economy, who can dread a competition with barbarians, in the cultivation of the earth.

Another strong inducement with this House to continue and enforce the embargo is, that while it presses those who injure us, it preserves the nation in peace. I see no other honorable course in which peace can be maintained. Take whatever other project has been hinted at, and war inevitably results. While we can procrastinate the miseries of war, I am for procrastinating; we thereby gain the additional advantage of waiting the events in Europe. The true interests of this country can be found only in peace. Among many other important considerations, remember, that moment you go to war, you may bid adieu to every prospect of discharging the national debt. The present war of all others should be avoided; being without an object, no man can conjecture its termination; for as was most correctly observed by my friend, (Mr. Macon,) the belligerents fight everybody but one another. Every object for which the war was originally begun and continued to 1806, has since that time become extinct. The rupture in the negotiations of that day was made not on points affecting directly the British interest, but grew out of the indirect concern she felt in maintaining those urged by Russia, which Power, having since declared war against Great Britain, has obliterated the then only existing object of the war. Embark in it when you please, it will not procure you indemnity for the past; and your security for the future must ultimately depend on the same promises, which you can obtain by peaceable means. I have no disposition, sir, to hazard the interest of my country in a conflict so undefined, so interminable!

But, say gentlemen, it is certainly not submission to trade to those ports which the edicts of the belligerents have not prohibited us from trading with. Granted – I will not enter into a calculation on the subject, as to how much importance the trade would be of to us. The chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has told you it would be contemptible in amount; but, sir, I say this, because I consider it expedient to continue the embargo, to withhold our supplies from those who need them, I will not permit you to go to those countries. Repeal the embargo in part! No, sir. Give merchants one single spot anywhere out of the jurisdiction of your own country, as large as the square of this House, and they would carry away the whole of our surplus produce. Give them a little island on which to place the fulcrum of their lever, and Archimedes-like, they will move your whole trade. Let them go to Demarara, to Gottenburg, or any other burg, and it is to the whole world. But the trade to Spain and Portugal has been held up as highly profitable to the merchants of the United States. The gentlemen who venture this opinion have not, perhaps, considered the subject with all the attention it is entitled to. It appears to me to be demonstrable from the documents, and the knowledge of circumstances which we possess, that Great Britain, with the extension of plunder the Orders in Council warranted, is not satisfied. She was not content that she had laid a snare whereby she intercepted our whole commerce to Europe. She then permitted us (no doubt from extreme moderation) to trade with the French colonies, taking care, at the same time, to force a direction of that trade in a channel which could not fail to yield a tributary supply to her exchequer. She has now interdicted, by orders secretly issued, that commerce also. The language of Cochrane's proclamation cannot be misunderstood. What a harvest he would have reaped from the robbery of your merchantmen, had the embargo been raised, as was expected by the British Cabinet, at the commencement of the session. The Orders in Council would have taken all your property going to continental Europe, and those of the Admiralty would have swept the West India traders. I believe the idea of enjoying a free trade to Spain and Portugal is altogether illusory. Mr. Canning has told us, not in totidem verbis, but certainly in effect, that we should be permitted to trade with those countries, only under the Orders in Council. In answer to the proposition made by Mr. Pinkney to suspend the embargo as to Great Britain, for a suspension of the Orders in Council as to the United States, the British Minister replied in the most peremptory manner possible. Here let me observe, that had that suspension been agreed to, the embargo would have co-operated with the Orders in Council against France. It would have been even much more efficacious than those orders, inasmuch as our own regulations would have interdicted all commerce with France. The professed object of the Orders in Council, retaliation on the enemy, cannot therefore be real – they originated, as they have been executed, in a spirit of deadly hostility against us. That the operation of those orders would be extended to Spain and Portugal, should the embargo be repealed in part, I infer from this positive assertion of the British Secretary: "It is not improbable, indeed, that some alterations may be made in the Orders in Council, as they are at present framed; alterations calculated not to abate their spirit or impair their principle, but to adapt them more exactly to the different state of things which has fortunately grown up in Europe, and to combine all practicable relief to neutrals with a more severe pressure upon the enemy." Here is not only a denial of suspension, but a threat that alterations will be made, (no doubt in tender mercy to us,) not to abate their spirit, but to adapt their operation more extensively to our ruin. What is the state of things alluded to? Let every gentleman who seeks after truth, candidly inquire for himself, what is the state of things which Mr. Canning considers has so fortunately grown up in Europe. Can it be any thing but the revolutions in Spain and Portugal? If the Orders in Council are not to be impaired, but their operation rendered more applicable to the present state of things, a fortiori, you are to be cut off from the South of Europe, in the same manner as you are from France and her dependencies. And are you ready to repeal the embargo under such a threat as this? This note, sir, is sarcastic to the last degree; in it I read insult added to the atrocious injuries my country has received; there is but one part of it which can be looked at with patience, and that is the valuable admonition I have read.

Some gentlemen have gone into a discussion of the propriety of encouraging manufactures in this country. I heard with regret the observations of the gentleman from Virginia on this subject. I will be excused by him for offering my protest against those sentiments. I am for no high protecting duties in favor of any description of men in this country. Extending to him the equal protection of the law, I am for keeping the manufacturer on the same footing with the agriculturist. Under such a system, they will increase precisely in that proportion which will essentially advance the public good. So far as your revenue system has protected the interests of your merchants, I am sincerely rejoiced; but I can consent to no additional imposition of duty, by way of bounty to one description of persons, at the expense of another, equally meritorious. I deplore most sincerely the situation into which the unprecedented state of the world has thrown the merchant. A gentleman from Massachusetts has said, they feel all the sensibility for the mercantile interest, which we feel for a certain species of property in the Southern States. This appeal is understood, and I well remember, that some of their representatives were among the first who felt for our distressing situation, while discussing the bill to prohibit the importation of slaves. I feel all the sympathy for that interest now, which was felt for us then; but I ask if it is not sound policy to encourage the patriotism of our merchants to support still longer the sacrifices, which the public exigencies call for, with spirit and resolution? If they should suffer most from our present situation, it is for their immediate advantage that we are contending. I must be allowed in continuation to say, that, although I do not profess to be one of the exclusive protectors of commerce, I am as willing to defend certain rights of the merchant, as the rights of the planter. Thus far I will go; I will assist in directing the physical strength of the nation to the protection of that commerce which properly grows out of the produce of the soil; but no further. Nor am I therefore disposed to limit the scene of his enterprise. Go up to Mocha, through the Dardanelles, into the South seas. Search for gums, skins, and gold, where and when you please; but take care, it shall be at your own risk. If you get into broils and quarrels, do not call upon me, to leave my plough in the field, where I am toiling for the bread my children must eat, or starve, to fight your battles.

It has been generally circulated throughout the Eastern States, in extracts of letters, said to be from members of Congress, (and which I am certainly sorry for, because it has excited jealousies, which I wish to see allayed,) that the Southern States are inimical to commerce. So far as South Carolina is concerned in the general implication, I do pronounce this a gross slander, an abominable falsehood, be the authors who they may. The State of South Carolina is now making a most magnanimous sacrifice for commercial rights.

Will gentlemen be surprised when I tell them, South Carolina is interested, by the suspension of our trade, in the article of cotton alone, to an amount greater than the whole revenue of the United States? We do make a sacrifice, sir; I wish it could be consummated. I should rejoice to see this day all our surplus cotton, rice, flour and tobacco burnt. Much better would it be to destroy it ourselves, than to pay a tribute on it to any foreign power. Such a national offering, caused by the cupidity and oppression of Great Britain, would convince her she could not humble the spirit of freemen. From the nature of her products, the people of South Carolina can have no interest unconnected and at variance with commerce. They feel for the pressure on Boston, as much as for that on Charleston, and they have given proofs of that feeling. Upon a mere calculation of dollars and cents – I do from my soul abhor such a calculation where national rights are concerned – if South Carolina could thus stoop to calculate, she would see that she has no interest in this question – upon a calculation of dollars and cents, which, I repeat, I protest against, it is perfectly immaterial to her whether her cotton, rice, and tobacco, go to Europe in English or American vessels. No, sir, she spurned a system which would export her produce at the expense of the American merchant, who ought to be her carrier. When a motion was made last winter for that kind of embargo which the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) was in favor of; for he says he gave his advice to do that very thing, which if adopted would cut up the navigation interest most completely, (an embargo on our ships and vessels only;) South Carolina could have put money in her pocket, (another favorite idea with the gentleman,) by selling her produce to foreigners at enormous prices; her representatives here unanimously voted against the proposition; and her Legislature, with a magnanimity I wish to see imitated throughout the United States, applauded that vote – they too said they would unanimously support the embargo, at the expense of their lives and fortunes. She did not want an embargo on our ships, and not on produce. No, sir; she knows we are linked together by one common chain – break it where you will, it dissolves the tie of union. She feels, sir, a stroke inflicted on Massachusetts, with the same spirit of resistance that she would one on Georgia. The Legislature, the representatives of a people with whom the love of country is indigenous, told you unanimously, that they would support the measures of the General Government. Thank God, that I am the Representative of such a State, and that its representatives would not accept of a commerce, even at the advice of a gentleman from Maryland, which would profit themselves at the expense of their Eastern brethren. Feeling these sentiments, I cannot but say, in contradiction to what fell from the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Gholson,) I should deplore that state of things which offers to the merchant the lamentable alternative, beggary or the plough. I would say to the merchant, in the sincerity of my heart, bear this pressure with manly fortitude; if the embargo fails of expected benefit, we will avenge your cause. I do say so, and believe the nation will maintain the assertion.

It is with reluctance I feel compelled, before I resume my seat, to make a few observations in reply to what fell from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Key) yesterday. The gentleman commenced his address by contradicting the statements made by a gentleman from Massachusetts, and my worthy friends from Virginia and Georgia, (Messrs. Randolph and Troup.) He told you their districts could not feel the embargo most, as it was in his the sufferings were most severe. I shall not waste the time of the House by an inquiry into the truth of this assertion; nor, sir, will I enter into a competition of this sort. I aim at a distinction far more glorious. The State I represent in part, bears the embargo the best. This it is my pride to boast of. There, sir, there are no murmurs, no discontent at the exertions of Government to preserve the rights of the nation. And as long as respect for the honor, and a hope of the salvation of the country exists, so long will they bear it, press as hard as it may.

The gentleman told you, in speaking of the Maryland elections, that the film is removed from the eyes of the people, and that in discerning their true interests, they saw it was the embargo, and not the Orders in Council, which oppresses them. He must feel confident indeed in the knowledge that he is two years in advance of his constituents, or he would not have ventured such an assertion. [Mr. Key explained that he had said the film was removed, and the people saw that their distress arose more from the embargo than from the Orders in Council.] Mr. Williams continued: I have no intention to misrepresent the gentleman, but I understood him to say that the Orders in Council did not affect the continental market, but the Berlin decree; that the embargo caused all the pressure at home; that the Orders in Council had no part in producing that measure, and therefore I infer as his opinion, that the Orders in Council have not injured us. [Mr. Key said that the few observations which he had made on this subject, were in reply to the gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. G. W. Campbell,) that the people should be no longer deluded. In answer to this Mr. K. said he had observed that the people were not deluded – that the film was removed from their eyes, and that he then had gone on to show that the depression of produce arose from the embargo. But that he never had meant to say that the Berlin decree and Orders in Council were not injurious, because they lopped off a large portion of our commerce.]

I understood the gentleman to say (observed Mr. W.) that it was very strange we would not trust our merchants upon the subject of the embargo, who were the best judges. I wish to represent the gentleman's sentiments correctly, and shall not consider him impolite, if I have misstated him, should he again stop me. Why, sir, is it strange? Are the merchants the guardians of the public honor? This I conceive to be the peculiar province of Congress, because to it alone has the constitution confided the power to declare war. Will the gentleman trust the merchants with the guardianship of his own honor? No, sir, he chooses to protect it himself. And would he advise the nation to pursue a course disgraceful, and to which he would not expose himself? I will not trust the merchants in this case, nor any other class of men; not being responsible for the national character, they will trade anywhere, without regard to principle. So true is this, Dessalines felt no uneasiness when informed of the law prohibiting all intercourse with St. Domingo; he replied, "hang up a bag of coffee in hell, and the American merchant will go after it." I am not sure that, in the evasions of the embargo, some of them have not already approached near its verge: certain I am, that, in a fair commerce, such is the enterprise and perseverance of their character, they will drive their trade as far as it can be driven. No, sir, I will not trust the merchant now, because he would do the very thing which the gentleman seems to wish, trade under the Orders in Council.

The embargo should be removed, because, says the gentleman, it has operated as a bounty to the British trade. I should be disposed to doubt this, if for no other reason than a knowledge of who advocates its removal. Before the embargo was laid, agricultural labor in the British West India islands, particularly on sugar estates, could scarcely support itself. I refer the gentleman to the documents printed by order of Parliament, and the memorials of the agent of Jamaica. He will find that the planters are in a distressed situation, not from their failure in the cultivation of the soil, but from the enormous duties on their produce in the mother country. Are the extravagant prices of articles of the first necessity, superadded to their former embarrassments, to operate as a bounty on their trade? I should be extremely gratified if the gentleman will inform us what would have been the amount of bounty on the trade, if evasions of the embargo had not taken place. If the price of flour has been sixty dollars per barrel, and other articles in proportion, what would have been the price had there been no evasions of the law? They could not have been procured at all: and yet we are told the embargo is a bounty on British trade! When the gentleman was, I had like to have said, justifying the Orders in Council, he should have favored us with a vindication of the smuggling proclamation also. Such a degree of corruption and of immorality never before, in any one paper, disgraced a civilized nation. The citizens of a country, at peace and in amity, enticed to evade their own laws! Is such an act calculated to induce the belief that the embargo operates as a bounty on British trade?

I shall not enter upon another question stirred by the gentleman, the constitutionality of the embargo law; the subject has become so stale, that even he could scarcely make it interesting. It has been laid asleep – a solemn adjudication has taken place and put it at rest. But the gentleman will excuse me for observing he made a most unfortunate allusion in the course of his argument. He said it was strange that, not having the power delegated to us to tax exports, we should undertake to prohibit them. The Orders in Council, which if the gentleman did not justify, he was certainly very tender of, do exercise that very power of taxing our exports, which by the constitution we are prohibited, and that too when they are destined to a government equally sovereign and independent with that of Great Britain.

We have been referred by the gentleman to the history of the Revolution, and after a kind of encomium on the resources of Great Britain, the triumphs of her navy and her present imperious attitude, he demanded to know if we can expect she will yield to us now, when during the Revolution she maintained a war against the whole world, at the same time that she kept us at bay seven years and succeeded with every nation but her own sons – will she truckle at our feet now? The gentleman knows we do not seek to make her truckle at our feet; we wish her no injury; we ask of her no boon whatever; we only entreat her to let us alone; to abstain from wanton, unprovoked acts of oppression. What is the object of this language? Is it to tell us she never will redress our wrongs; or is it to divert us from a prosecution of our rights? The contest was very different with her at that time from what it is now. She then contended against the dismemberment of her Empire. Will the gentleman say she values the principles of the Orders in Council, as she did the sovereignty of her colonies? What will the gentleman discover, by examining the history of the period he referred to? England, at that time, when France, Spain, Holland, and the United States, were opposed to her, when the armed neutrality in the north of Europe assailed her, when all these brought the principle of embargo to bear upon her, was nearer ruin than she ever was before or since. I refer him to Playfair's tables for the year 1781; there he will find the very principle proven, for which we are now contending. Does Great Britain now prize the plunder of your merchantmen, the impressment of your seamen, insult to your national flag, as much as she did the sovereignty of the soil? Certainly not; and yet she must, precisely the same, or she will not hold out now as she did then. When I recollect that her necessary annual expenditure is greater than the gross rent of all the landed property in her kingdom; that the armed neutrality affected her so materially, that the same principle is brought into operation again; that by withholding our custom, our supplies, our raw materials, we must necessarily destroy a large portion of her revenue, I cannot but hope she will see her own interest in redressing our injuries. This is all we contend for, allow the experiment to be made; if not, at least propose some better remedy.

But said the gentleman, at the close of the Revolutionary war we alone triumphed over the arms of Great Britain; defeat befell all the rest of the world. I will not contest that point with him, as he is old enough to speak from experience.

We were informed by the gentleman, that it was the Berlin decree, and not the Orders in Council, had destroyed our trade to the Continent of Europe. Here too we are directly at points. The gentleman has not made himself master of his case, or has totally mistaken his evidence. I hold a document in my hand which, perhaps, the gentleman may object to, as coming from the opposition party in Great Britain; it is the depositions of sundry merchants of great wealth and respectability, taken before the British House of Lords, on the subject of the Orders in Council. Here Mr. W. read from the depositions the following questions and answers:

"If the American embargo were removed, and the Orders in Council still continued in force, in that case would the witness resume his shipments?

"To a very small amount.

"For what reason?

"Because I do conceive, that there would be such great impediments, indeed a total annihilation of trade from the United States of America to the Continent of Europe, that I could not expect to receive any returns for the goods I sent out; and another reason would be my apprehension that a war between the United States and this country would be the consequence of those Orders in Council.

"What is the reason that the Orders in Council prevent the witness sending our cotton goods in ships in ballast?

"I believe I stated my apprehension that they might produce a war between the two countries; another reason was, I could not expect to get remittances, and a total annihilation of the trade between the United States of America and the Continent of Europe, from whence a great part of my remittances must be derived.

"If the American embargo in general were taken off, and the Orders in Council to be continued, would his trade in that case revive?

"I certainly should feel no inducement to export goods to America while the orders continued.

"Why not?

"I should apprehend that hostilities between this country and America would be the consequence of continuing the Orders in Council.

"Would the Orders in Council have any other effect as to discouraging the trade?

"They would have considerable effect in regard to our remittances.

"In what manner?

"By bringing all the produce of America to this country, they must occasion such a vast glut in the market, that the produce would be worth little or nothing.

"In what degree would it affect the dealers in those commodities brought to this country, as to their remittances to this country?

"The consequence I apprehend would be, that great parts of the bills must go back protested; because the produce, for which the bills are drawn, would sell for scarcely the value of the freight and charges.

"Does the witness conceive, from his knowledge of the American trade, that if the whole of the American produce, which according to an average of years had been carried to the Continent of Europe, and to Great Britain, was now to be imported into Great Britain alone, and the Orders in Council to continue; whether it would be possible to export from Great Britain to the continent, so much of the American produce as should prevent a glut of the American produce remaining in the market?

"I think it would be impossible.

"Have you lately written to your correspondents in America respecting shipments of American produce to this country?

"I have.

"To what effect have you so written?

"I have written that in case of submission to these Orders of Council, in case such a thing should take place, to suspend all operations.

"Did you give this advice to your American correspondents, upon the supposition that America would acquiesce in the Orders in Council?

"Certainly not, I stated it as a thing by no means likely; but, as there is nothing impossible in this world, that if it were so, not to move; that in case they were acquiesced in, not to attempt any business."

Considering (continued Mr. W.) these are the sentiments (delivered under the sacred obligation of an oath) of that very description of men who the gentleman believes are the best judges and ought to be trusted, I am warranted in saying, they prove his position wholly unfounded. The gentleman's project last year was to lay the embargo on our ships and vessels, and to dispose of our produce, the effect of which would have been destruction to our own vessels, constant encouragement to those of Great Britain. I beg him to remember, that if two or three years hence, he should not stand as high with the American merchants as he could wish, it may be fairly attributed to this friendly protection of their immediate interests, which he would have extended to them.

The gentleman was equally unfortunate in saying, the destruction of St. Domingo had caused such a demand for sugar, that the cultivation of cotton in the British West India islands had been abandoned; he is not well versed on the subject, the fact not being as he has stated it. However great an impetus the destruction of St. Domingo may have given to the cultivation of sugar and coffee, in the British West Indies, it certainly had no effect in any way on that of cotton, the quantity of that article formerly exported from thence being too small to have any influence whatever. Our cotton will never be supplanted from that quarter. Could the sugar estates be converted to cotton plantations, so depressed has been their situation, that conversion would have been long since effected. Nor, sir, is it true that the cultivation of cotton in the British West India islands has been abandoned; on the contrary, it has been regular though slow in its increase, compared with that of coffee. Crops of that kind are frequently precarious, owing to a natural enemy of the plant in those islands, and therefore the cultivation has not kept pace with the demand.

I heard the gentleman with pain and mortification, I repeat it, with pain and mortification I heard him declare that nations like individuals should pocket their honor for money. The act is base in an individual, in a nation infinitely worse. The gentleman was corrected by his colleague (Mr. Nelson) on this subject. He evidently, to my apprehension, expressed an opinion, that money was to be preferred to honor. He told us that honor in arbitrary governments was identified with the monarch, who went to war for his mistress; that in republics honor consisted in the opportunities afforded to acquire wealth, and by way of illustration said, we pocketed our honor for money in paying tribute to the Barbary Powers, for the security of a paltry trade. Does the gentleman mean to assimilate a tribute exacted by Great Britain with that paid to Algiers? Or does he mean to be understood as advising us, because we purchase peace with barbarians, involving no honorable consideration, to barter for a pecuniary reward, with Great Britain, our rights, our honor, and our independence? Detestable as this inference is, it results from his arguments. Repeal the embargo, throw open your trade to Great Britain; you can put money in your pocket by it. I want no substitute. Sir, if my tongue was in the thunder's mouth, then with a passion would I shake the world and cry out treason! This abandonment of our rights, this sacrifice of our independence, I most solemnly abjure. Astonished indeed am I, that a gentleman so eloquent, so well qualified to uphold the honor and dignity of his country, should so abandon them! Is it possible such doctrine should be advocated on the floor of Congress? Has it come to this? Was it for this the martyrs of the Revolution died? Is this great continent and the free millions who inhabit it, again to become appendages of the British Crown? Shall it again be held, in its orbit by the attractive, the corruptive influence of the petty island of Great Britain? No. Sooner may you expect the sun with all the planetary system will rush from their shining spheres, to gravitate round a pebble. Remember, sir, it is no longer a contest singly about the carrying trade, or the impressment of seamen, or the insult to the national flag, but all united with the rights and attributes of sovereignty, even to the violation of the good old United States. You stand on the verge of destruction, one step, one movement backwards will stamp your character with indelible disgrace. You must now determine whether you will maintain the high station among nations, to which the virtues, the spirit of the people have elevated you, or sink into tributary vassalage and colonization. By all your rights, your duties, your awful responsibility, I charge you "choose ye this day whom ye will serve; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Mr. Culpeper spoke in opposition to the report.

Mr. Cook moved to adjourn. Mr. J. G. Jackson called for the yeas and nays on the motion; but a sufficient number did not rise to justify the taking them. Motion to adjourn negatived. Mr. Cook renewed the motion, observing that he had some remarks to make, which might occupy the House some time. – Carried, 54 to 50, and the House adjourned.